Archive for Monday, June 30, 2008
Area bicyclists confused by deadly accident
The accident that claimed the life of Lt. David Dillon on Saturday occured on a stretch of road generally considered safe.
June 30, 2008
Advertisement
A car-bicycle accident, which killed a Douglas County Sheriff's deputy over the weekend, happened on a road popular among bicyclists, a local bicycle enthusiast said.
Lt. David Dillon, 44, died after being struck by a vehicle while riding his bike in the 1900 section of North 1400 Road, just one mile west of Eudora. Dillon was struck from behind by a 2003 Oldsmobile driven by Kyle Van Meter, a 20-year-old Eudora man, the Kansas Highway Patrol said. The accident happened just before 8 a.m. Saturday.
Dan Hughes, Sunflower Outdoor & Bike Shop owner, said many cyclists frequently travel the rural county road between Lawrence and Eudora.
"It's a straight stretch of road, there's no hills on it, there's no curves," said Hughes, who also uses the road often. "It would seem to me to be a pretty safe road to ride on."
KHP investigators aren't aware of any obstructions that caused the accident, said Trooper Edna Buttler. She said troopers don't believe excessive speed, drugs or alcohol were factors in the crash.
Officers are awaiting toxicology reports and phone records before completing their investigation, and more information about the circumstances of the accident could be available next week, Buttler said.
The fatal accident has hit the local bicycle community hard, said Hughes and Paul Corcoran, Lawrence Bicycle Club secretary.
"We feel like it was another one of us that was taken down," Corcoran said.
"It's just a sobering reminder that cars are heavy and big, and generally when a car and a bicyclist interact, the cyclist is going to be the loser, no matter what the situation is," Hughes said.
While bicycle enthusiasts have a hard time understanding how an accident could happen where it did, they said it has given area bicyclists another reason to be careful on the road. They're also hopeful motorists will do the same.
Funeral services for Dillon, a 25-year veteran of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, will be at 10 a.m. Wednesday at Grace Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Lawrence. Dillon was jail operations deputy for the Sheriff's Office.
30 June 2008
at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nurse (Anonymous) says…
My deepest sympathy goes out to the family of Sgt. Dillon. I watch bicyclists ride a very dangerous stretch of road to Baldwin City. Many times these cyclists “group up” and do not ride in single file. It is aggravating as they seem to feel that they do not have to abide by the rules of the road. I don't always feel like the motorists are to blame. We need to all heed the rules and act like responsible adults whether we are driving a car or riding a bike.
30 June 2008
at 4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
I am sure that the consensus among bicyclist that they own the road, and are not bound by any limits, restrictions, instructions or what-have-you didn't have any thing to do with it.
30 June 2008
at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Cyclists can legally ride two abreast. Cyclist have as much right to a road as any other vehicle. Does a car or truck driver own the road anymore than a cyclists?
Patience is all that is required. Why not wait until it is safe to pass? If a combine,tractor,slow moving car or whatever were on the road wouldn't drivers have to wait for an opportunity to pass safely? Is waiting a short period of time really that big a deal?
Getting hit from behind at 8AM with no obstruction of view says some sort of negligence was involved. Most road cyclists are dressed rather colorful that I see.
30 June 2008
at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
This is a tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers go out to the family.
Bicycles on roads with a 50 or 55 mph speed limit create an inherently dangerous condition due to the difference in speed. That's why major roads have a minimum speed that amounts to approximately 30 mph less than the maximum. Bicycles don't normally go 35 mph.
30 June 2008
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jg (Anonymous) says…
So even if the guy was a cop, riding alone on a flat straight road, the anti bike folks start ranting. Interesting to me that simply riding a bike means that he had it comin' to some folks.
30 June 2008
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
No they don't. There is nothing inherently dangerous in a bicycle or a buggy using the road. On the other hand there is something inherently dangerous about failing to keep a careful lookout when driving a 2000 lbs hunk of metal at 55 mph or failing to keep that piece of metal under safe control.
30 June 2008
at 4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
76trombones (Anonymous) says…
The road between Lawernce and Eudora is not really a safe place for bikes, even though it is used heavily among the local bike clubs. Looking at the footage … http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jun… ..
you can see how the road drops off on both sides of the pavement. The speed limit is 55 mph. Throw in a mix of farm machinery and sooner or later something bad is going to happen. I can only hope that the county will consider upgrading this road when it is due for maintanance. It wouldn't hurt to put a little extra asphalt on the other side of the the white line and give bikes a safe place to ride .. R.I.P. Sgt. Dillion
30 June 2008
at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
“Bicycles don't normally go 35 mph.”
Neither do combines,tractors,road graders or some senior citizens behind the wheel.
30 June 2008
at 4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
think he's lt. Dillan. God bless his family and friends, and the folks at Grace EPC.
this is truly a tragedy.
***
of course you can bring out the anecdotes of bikers riding dangerously, has nothing to do with this story.
they are not relevant to this. I'm sure this Sheriff's lt. knew well the laws and respected them.
how can the troopers not suspect alcohol or drugs, but there are not the tox findings yet…did somebody do a field sobriety test of the driver, and he passed?
if that's the case, then what explains his hitting the man on the bike?
30 June 2008
at 4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
average (Anonymous) says…
7:45 AM, the sun is due East. That's all there is to it. It could happen to any of us, but take the lesson.
If you've got glare in your windshield… slow down. Please. Don't drive beyond your headlights at night, don't drive beyond your field of vision in the day.
If you don't want to worry about cyclists, joggers, school buses, farm machinery, turning traffic, etc, there is a freeway less than half a mile away.
30 June 2008
at 4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lsense (Anonymous) says…
merrill (Anonymous) says:
“Cyclists can legally ride two abreast. Cyclist have as much right to a road as any other vehicle. Does a car or truck driver own the road anymore than a cyclists?”
First let me say that I am very sorry to hear about this. I'm sure that it could have been prevented if the driver was paying attention, and I'm guessing the accident was caused by exactly that if no drugs/alcohol/speed were involved.
Now to answer your question, Merrill. Yes, and cars and trucks are regulated by a thing called the speed limit. On highways there is a minimum speed limit. There is also an implicit minimum in town. That is exactly why it should be up to the bicyclists to pay closer attention to the cars around them while they are riding abreast, and they should be the ones to move out of the way since they are not traveling the same speed as is required on the road.
As far as your patience comment goes, I don't completely agree with you. In this situation they claim there were no obstructions, or hills, etc. So, this doesn't apply to what happened here, but it may be kind of hard to stop when you're going 55 MPH and you crest a hill/pass a curve/etc. and you come upon a cyclist going 15 MPH. You cannot compare a *huge* tractor driving 30-40 MPH to a cyclist. The tractors really can't get off the road either. So, is it too much to ask that cyclists pay more attention, and switch back to single file if they hear/see/etc. a car coming up behind them? I don't think so, especially given that they are not obeying the speed limit (see below).
I've seen cyclists ride 3+ abreast *many* times. And, I've had several times where I've come up on them riding like this, and they refuse to move back to single file (one time on the very North section of Kasold where it is 45 MPH). And, you wonder where comments like “they thing they own the road” come from. It comes from situations exactly as this.
As I'm typing this, I see that solomon has hit on pretty much the same point as I.
The bottom line is that if cyclists insist on riding on roads where there is no shoulder, and insist on being treated as if they were another vehicle, then they should abide by *all* traffic laws (and yes, there are plenty of automobile drivers that don't do this, and inattentiveness is probably what caused this accident). Since they cannot pedal that fast, then they need to stay off roads where there is no shoulder.
I'm not familiar with this particular stretch of road, but I'm assuming that there was not a shoulder, or that the cyclist was not riding in the shoulder. Either way, the driver's actions are not excusable, and at the very least they should have their license stripped away and spend some time in jail.
30 June 2008
at 4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“On highways there is a minimum speed limit. There is also an implicit minimum in town.”
No there's not.
“I've seen cyclists ride 3+ abreast *many* times.”
Then they are in violation of the state traffic ordinances.
By the way, I am pretty sure the municipal ordinance has a rule against riding two abreast. Too busy at the moment to confirm.
“'I'm not familiar with this particular stretch of road, but I'm assuming that there was not a shoulder,…”
That's true - or at least not much of one.
“…or that the cyclist was not riding in the shoulder.”
Why would they? A nice well-maintained shoulder looks like a nice bike lane, but a road bike and a crappy shoulder makes for a quick blow-out and/or accident. By law, a cyclist is supposed to ride as far to the right (or left in certain circumstances) of the driving lane as is reasonably safe - not on the shoulder.
30 June 2008
at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lsense (Anonymous) says…
Baille (Anonymous) says:
'”On highways there is a minimum speed limit. There is also an implicit minimum in town.”
No there's not.'
OK. Why don't you go drive down Kasold, Iowa, etc. at 5 MPH and see if a police officer pulls you over. Make sure to post back and let us know how that goes.
30 June 2008
at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lsense (Anonymous) says…
Baille (Anonymous) says:
'”:or that the cyclist was not riding in the shoulder.”
Why would they? A nice well-maintained shoulder looks like a nice bike lane, but a road bike and a crappy shoulder makes for a quick blow-out and/or accident. By law, a cyclist is supposed to ride as far to the right (or left in certain circumstances) of the driving lane as is reasonably safe - not on the shoulder.'
As I've already explained, there is a minimum speed limit on highways. If you can't drive it (or obviously pedal it), then you have no business on the road.
30 June 2008
at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
wysiwyg69 (Anonymous) says…
merrill,,,,, if the bikers have the same right to the roads as motor vehicles then show me just one of them that pays property taxes and tag fees on their bikes !
30 June 2008
at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
KSA 8-1561
(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
(b) Whenever the secretary of transportation or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any highway or part of a highway impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the secretary or any such local authority may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law and that limit shall be effective when posted upon appropriate fixed or variable signs.
30 June 2008
at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
K.S.A. 8-1590. Riding on bicycles or mopeds; riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except under any of the following situations when: (1) Overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; (2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or (3) reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving bicycles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or narrow width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand edge of the roadway.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near to the left side of the roadway as practicable.
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
(d) Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway. (This has been interpreted by case law to mean a path exclusively for bikes - otherwise a cyclist can choose to ride on teh sidewalk or the road.)
(e) For purposes of this section, “narrow width lane” means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane.
30 June 2008
at 5 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“As I've already explained, there is a minimum speed limit on highways.”
Unless such a minimum speed is posted pursuant to statute, no there is not. You can explain how clouds are made of ice cream, but that don't make it so.
30 June 2008
at 5 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“merrill,,,,, if the bikers have the same right to the roads as motor vehicles then show me just one of them that pays property taxes and tag fees on their bikes !”
Winner of the June 30, 2008, Red Herring Award.
30 June 2008
at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
There is no “implicit minimum speed limit.” There is a law about driving too slow, but there is no minimum limit set. It changes with the circumstances. For instance, if I was driving 5 mph down Kasold in a fog then the officer would have no business to cite me.
30 June 2008
at 5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supercowbellninja (Anonymous) says…
wtf kind of argument is Isense making? Because a bike can't reasonably go 35 mph or faster then they should get off the roads?
And ride where?
Share the road, show some patience and let he who is without driving sins cast the first stone. I'd bet that Isense does not have a perfect driving record, just like the rest of us.
We should all be aware of other bicycles on the road this time of year, even moreso since I'd gather more are taking to the roads with high gas prices.
We should all be getting some much-needed perspective from this tragedy, not trying to place blame on a group of people by spouting traffic ordinances.
30 June 2008
at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says…
These two sections (see below) seem to conflict. If your are riding two abreast, the person on the left isn't riding as close as practiable. Of course it doens't specifically say you can ride two abreast, just that you can't ride more than two abreast.
Did a lawyer write this code?
–––––––––––—
a) Every person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable
(c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast.
30 June 2008
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says…
I remember some bicyclist told me that bicycles have certain legal rights due to the fact that they have been around longer than cars.
So I don't know about default minimum speeds, there might be certain waivers, too.
Still there are certainly tickets for offences like obstructing traffic, if that is in fact the case.
30 June 2008
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
“If your are riding two abreast, the person on the left isn't riding as close as practicable.
Sure they are, but no one said our legislators write well. In any case, absent a city code, the hypothetical riders are lawful in riding two abreast because they aren't riding more than two abreast and they are as close to the right as practicable because they left rider can't occupy the space taken by the right rider.
In essence, one can ride two abreast both riders need to stay as far to the right as is reasonably safe.
30 June 2008
at 5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Jerry, that ticket would come for violating this traffic law:
“No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.”
Note the law specifically, explicitly applies to motor vehicles, which are defined earlier in the section.
30 June 2008
at 5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lsense (Anonymous) says…
supercowbellninja (Anonymous) says:
“wtf kind of argument is Isense making? Because a bike can't reasonably go 35 mph or faster then they should get off the roads?”
First off, I'm not talking about roads where the speed limit is 30 MPH (no, you didn't say that, but that's what is implied). I'm talking about cyclists on roads where the speed limit if 45 MPH or higher. Obviously you have less time to react if you're driving 55 MPH as compared to 35 MPH. And I have nothing against people that are trying to get around in town because they don't have a car, are trying to save money on gas, etc. My comments are directed towards those [enthusiasts] who feel the need to ride on roads with no shoulder and where the speed limit is 55 MPH. And I've yet to see these types riding anywhere near as far right as they can go on the roads described.
30 June 2008
at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hootman31 (Anonymous) says…
Only a cyclist would consider a 2-lane 55-mile-an-hour ks state highway, with no shoulders, to be SAFE?
Old state 10 hwy is not flat, it is not straight, and it is not safe, even in a vehicle.
How can a road that you can't pass on, without fear of a head-on-collision be safe? This is a very dangerous road due to the limited visibility, slight curves, slight hills, and it is 55 MPH.
Non different from rural Haskell St., rural Louisiana St, rural road to Baldwin; or any of the other popular frequented bike paths in rural Lawrence.
This was a very tragic, inconceivable, undo-able, catastrophe that should not be turned into a sounding board for bicycle enthusiasts!
30 June 2008
at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
waddles4 (Anonymous) says…
IT IS legal for cyclists to ride 2 abreast but it is also legal for motorists to drive 55 mph on that road. However, if there are hazardous road conditions you wouldnt drive 55 mph you would adjust your speed accordingly. I think cyclists should do the same. If they are heading into the sun they should realize being motorists themselves that there is a possibility of glare on the motorists and they should adjust by riding further to the side of the road or in a single line. This is a safety issue. I also agree that the county, knowing that this road is heavily used for cyclists, could install a bike lane. This is a heavily traveled road for both motorists and cyclists.
30 June 2008
at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Really? The gentleman in question was a cyclist and his judgment is being called into question by some. This seems like the perfect opportunity to not only defend his judgment but also to discuss the laws that make up the rules of the road, safe cycling practices, and the need for all users of our public road system to be aware and considerate of each other at all times.
30 June 2008
at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Sorry, Waddles. My 5:25 was in response to hootman31 at 5:21.
30 June 2008
at 5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
misslawrence (Anonymous) says…
My heart goes out to the entire Dillon Family…they are a true meaning of “family”…I am still in disbelief that this tragedy has occurred…Lt. Dillon was a very caring,sympathetic and prosperous man, no matter what you did….he never held that against you…I know he will be definitely,greatly missed…My prayers to all…….
was the driver taken into questioning or anything? I just don't see how this could happen 8am on sunday morning….and this is as far as it went.
30 June 2008
at 5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…
Isense
“And I've yet to see these types riding anywhere near as far right as they can go on the roads described.”
Oh my, you are so full of bullshiite that I can smell you from here.
Also, I like how Baille completely trashed your argument, yet you still blather on with your nonsense.
You are going to feel really bad if what I have heard happened in this incident comes to light. There is a reason they are looking into his phone (also texting) records.
Oh and by the way, I drive every morning at 7:45. The sun is plenty up in the sky by that time to allow very good visibility.
30 June 2008
at 6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnlyTheOne (Anonymous) says…
I got tired of reading some of this trash. So let me remind you that bicyclists are responsible for following all the rules of the road as are automobiles. And one rule of the road that I've seen many (and I do mean many) drivers ignore is that the bicyclist has the right to the FULL width of the lane! Therein lies a lot of problems between automobile riders ('cause let's face it folks - durn few of you still “drive” you “ride” while texting on the telephone, listening to the CD or MP3 or even watching a video while you grab a bite to eat or a drink).
I get perturbed at some bicyclists also but I get perturbed by at least the same percentage of auto riders.
30 June 2008
at 6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Seems this road is a frequent choice of cyclists as some drivers on this thread also imply.
Then it should be pretty much second nature to be watching for cyclists on this roadway no matter what. It's a given they are out there so beware.
Why be angry about cyclists?
After all cyclists in and around Lawrence,Kansas is not unusual to say the least.
The driver simply could not have been paying attention. One bike does not occupy the road.
30 June 2008
at 6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
76trombones (Anonymous) says…
Just to clarify the glare of the sun issue ..
According to a Kansas Highway Patrol accident report, Dillon was riding west on the road when a 20-year-old Eudora man driving a 2003 Oldsmobile struck him from behind, causing Dillon to fall into the north ditch of the road…
The sun was behind them both .. no issues with visibility.
nuff said …
30 June 2008
at 6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tumbilweed (Anonymous) says…
once again the bloggers just turn it into one big argument….can anyone tell me the merits of blogging PLEASE
30 June 2008
at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lsense (Anonymous) says…
monkeyspunk, give it a rest, tool. And given your response, you must be one of the idiots without common sense riding in the middle of the lane on the highways. But hey, there's no law against it, so might as well do it. Don't pay attention to common sense, that would tell you that it might not be such a good idea.
30 June 2008
at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says…
It sounds like if he got hit from behind probably the driver of the car was going fast enough that he didn't see him in time.
I wonder where this was in relation to that bridge there over the river.
30 June 2008
at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lsense (Anonymous) says…
monkeyspunk, also, I could care less what Baille posts. Just because an ordinance is written one way doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed.
30 June 2008
at 6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
boltzmann (Anonymous) says…
wysiwyg69 (Anonymous) says:
“merrill,,,,, if the bikers have the same right to the roads as motor vehicles then show me just one of them that pays property taxes and tag fees on their bikes !”
It is this type of ignorant statement that really makes me angry. The roads are not financed completely by property taxes, tag fees and gas taxes, a considerable amount of money from income taxes, sales taxes and residential property taxes, which are paid certainly by a large number of bike owners. Also, most adult bicycle owners do own a car and pay property taxes and reg fees on those as well.
Again the level of hostility on this board and in this town towards bicyclists is downright pathological and quite pathetic. Someone was killed on a public road, riding in a legal manner by someone who at best wasn't paying attention to the road and all that many people on this board can do is blame the victim here. How do you people live with yourselves?
30 June 2008
at 6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
Seems too many posters here, especially the bike haters are missing one point. He was riding west, not into the sun, therefore that was not a factor. He was struck from behind, that spells out driver negligence, carelessness, etc. The automobile driver was at fault. Period, end of story. File appropriate charges, but don't blame the bike rider.
30 June 2008
at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…
This is absolutely terrible.
It is always tragicwhen drivers are inattentive to others on the road, but this was broad daylight, open road, so preventable. I have often suggested that road to others and enjoy biking it myself. I was just planning a ride from Johnson County to Lawrence and including that in the route.
I would recommend that everyone familiarize themselves with the traffic codes and right of way. It goes way beyond the driver license exam questions.
The traffic code has specifics for bicycles' rights. For example, you may NOT ride two abreast on bicycles. (Chapter 17, amendment 17—114) Cyclists DO have the right to the whole roadway— even with bike lanes, you can ride on the road if the bike lane is full of debris or gravel and unsafe, as they often are. However, no driver may obstruct traffic with slow speed, whether in a car or on a bike.
Kansas STO for cities:
http://www.lkm.org/publications/sto-u…
Lawrence city code:
http://www.lawrenceks.org/city_code/
Lawrence's state code with local ordinance amendments:
http://web.ci.lawrence.ks.us/legal_se…
These laws are important to know. Knowing the rights and responsibilities of drivers and cyclists prevents accidents on both sides.
30 June 2008
at 6:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KSA_21_3503 (Anonymous) says…
Unfortunate event. I wish bicyclists would just stay on the bike paths, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Even though it is perfectly legal for them to ride on the road, it isn't safe. They move slowly and are difficult to see.
If they were biking for transportation, that would be one thing. But since they are doing this for recreation, I don't think they have as good of an argument for unnecessarily congesting rights-of-way and creating hazards for not only themselves but drivers who may swerve to avoid them.
Just because it is legal doesn't make it a good idea.
30 June 2008
at 7:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thebcman (Anonymous) says…
Interesting they are awaiting phone records as well as toxicology reports.
Maybe they think the driver was texting or distracted by his cell phone while driving?
30 June 2008
at 7:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Those are city codes, Emily. This happened outside the city limits and the state laws would apply. Cyclists and drivers need to know both sets of laws.
As for Indecent Liberties With a Child, road bikes don't work on sidewalks, and I wish cars would just stick to the primary roads. I mean if they were driving out of pure necessity that would be one thing, but unnecessarily congesting the roadways, spewing toxic fumes, and creating hazards when they swerve to avoid other users of the road puts us all at risk.
Just because it is legal…
30 June 2008
at 7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Emily the bike lane is on the roadway. The only bike lanes we have within the definition are the marked paths along some of our streets that are reserved exclusively for cyclists. Unfortunately, they tend to be short and randomly placed.
The big wide sidewalks, e.g. along Clinton Parkway, are multi-use paths and cyclists are not required to use them.
30 June 2008
at 7:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hootman31 (Anonymous) says…
According to a report on the channel 5 news (so unconfirmed), the KHP was called in to investigate.
OLD-10 was still closed shortly before noon on Saturday, due to on going investigation. (FACT)
1900 Block would be about 1/2 way between river and Peach Orchard RD. Guessing a mile from both.
Just where the road has an ever so slight curve (a bow) to the south, which would obscure anything on the right shoulder. (i.e it ain't straight), and
(i.e. if there was a car sitting on the shoulder, and you where going 55 MPH, you may not see the car until after you pass it, due to it blending in to the backdrop of trees/barn/driveway.
The Sheriff's dept runs radar on this road, and you don't see them until you get right up on them, cuz every thing blends into the landscape, as the road is elevated. (i.e. you have no real depth perception on this road and this is reinforced by the previous comments that it is straight and flat, which it is far from!).
Very, Very dangerous road, which I never pass on even if behind someone doing 45, and that is in an Escalade!
30 June 2008
at 7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Solomon (Anonymous) says…
merrill (Anonymous) says:
“Bicycles don't normally go 35 mph.”
Neither do combines,tractors,road graders or some senior citizens behind the wheel.
They also create a dangerous condition on a highway where the speed limit is significantly higher than their speed. By the way, most road graders and some combines and tractors display hazard lights to help alert motorists to slow moving vehicles. Senior citizens who drive no more than 35 on open roads with 55 mph limits should probably loose their licenses.
Baille said earlier that bicyclists did not present a hazard on 55mph roads. He placed the responsibility on the motorists. Why, I would ask, do interstates have a 45 mph minimum? It's because the difference in speed creates a hazard; just like a driver driving 55 coming up on someone riding a bike at 8 or 10 mph. It's simply not a good situation.
30 June 2008
at 7:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Interstates have a minimum primarily to keep traffic flowing, IMO. But minimums can bet set by local government if there has been a valid study showing that such is necessary for safety. Personally, I don't recall having ever seen such a thing.
The fact remains that anytime a vehicle driver is not on an interstate where bikes, buggies, and pedestrians are prohibited the driver must be ready for bikes, buggies, and pedestrians. I think road safety is everyone's responsibility, but vehicles pose the greatest danger and therefore their users must be more careful.
30 June 2008
at 7:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
verity (Anonymous) says…
This is a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the family, friends, and sheriff's department.
Also to the driver of the car. Whatever the cause, he will live with this the rest of his life and I'm sure he wishes he could have a do over.
I personally feel that we should have more bike lanes and bike paths, so that cars and bikes are not sharing the same roadway. It is just inherently dangerous no matter how careful one is.
30 June 2008
at 7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
verity (Anonymous) says…
And Baille is right, since vehicles pose the greatest danger, their users should be more careful.
30 June 2008
at 7:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KSA_21_3503 (Anonymous) says…
“road bikes don't work on sidewalks”
Yeah right. Lying doesn't help your case.
30 June 2008
at 7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
maddog1960 (Anonymous) says…
I feel sorry for both, the officer killed and the driver of the vehicle. If I remember right the wind was terrible that morning. I ride a motorcycle and I can't tell you the number of times the wind has forced us into another lane. Lets none of us be so judgmental until we know the full story. I can't imagine how hard it would be to live with the fact that I killed someone when something like the wind could be a factor. Let's keep both families in our thoughts.
Thank you
30 June 2008
at 8:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tommyboy (Anonymous) says…
We all own the roads, however it it the motorists who have to pay for tags and taxes in order to drive on the roads not bicyclists. We can't drive ATVs on the roads since they aren't tagged and they go considerably faster than a bicycle. It is very frustrating to have to come to an almost complete stop because there are bicyclists riding across the lane and they don't get into a single file when a car comes. It's like they want to see how far they can go before getting hurt.
I also drive the stretch of road where this accident occured twice a day and there is just enough of a dip to hide even a car. I can see where this bicycle could of been hidden just enough that a motorists wouldn't see them until it was to late. Espically considering the car was going a min. of 55 mph and the biker was traveling considerably less.
30 June 2008
at 8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LadyJ (Anonymous) says…
The place that scares me to see bicyclists is Highway 40 (I think that's the one) between 6th and Wakarusa and Stull Rd. It is all hills and no shoulder. I see them a lot on that road. You just have to drive behind them up the hill till you get over the top because it is too dangerous to pass them. Is there some reason they like that road? I'm mainly talking about the stretch after Highway 10 to Stull.
30 June 2008
at 8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
b3, if car drivers would pay attention to what they are doing, there would be no accidents. Apparently you are one of the idiots who hassle bike riders.
hootman31, think you really need to go back and think about location of accident. Don't think you have any idea of location. Whre exactly is “peach orchard Rd”?
30 June 2008
at 8:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
hootman31, driving west from Eudora on N 1400, at no point does road turn south. Just verified my memory with Google satellite view.
30 June 2008
at 8:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tumbilweed (Anonymous) says…
its a sidewalk not a sideride. if we rode bikes on the sidewalks eventually a pedestrian would get hit by a bike and then where would we be? should we ban BIKES now? i think we should realize that the automobiles we take so for granted are actually an overused luxury that has made us lazy and dependent on fossil fuels. wake up people
30 June 2008
at 8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KSA_21_3503 (Anonymous) says…
“if we rode bikes on the sidewalks eventually a pedestrian would get hit by a bike and then where would we be?”
I doubt anyone would be risking death from such a collision.
“its a sidewalk not a sideride.”
Patently stupid. Modern sidewalks were specifically designed for bicycle usage.
30 June 2008
at 9:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hootman31 (Anonymous) says…
Road doesn't turn south, there is a bow in the road to the south, or the road bows out toward the south. I am guessing the accident happened just west of 2000 RD in the 1900 Part, (i.e. just west of where the road bow's!).
Peach Orchard RD as it was known, is also 1900 RD, so again it happened just west of 2000 RD, and no activitey was visible from that intersection, (i.e. couldn't see past the hump/dip in the road, i.e. not flat!)
1400 RD was blocked off at 1900 RD and at the Wakarusa River leaving Eudora, and 2000 RD was blocked off at 1500 RD.
30 June 2008
at 9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
“However, if you were to, oh, I don't know, OPEN your eyes, you would see that the sidewalks in the areas where people ride bikes on the roads are new, wide, and very very smooth.”
Apparently you don't walk anywhere, either. Most of the sidewalks in this town are impassable for anyone not skilled in Alpine hiking. BTW, there's a huge difference between a modern road bike and the 40lb steel cruiser bikes from the 60s.
30 June 2008
at 9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
Oh yeah, Indecent Liberties, you caught me. i admit that it is technically possible to ride a road bike on the sidewalk. My God, now every point I have made must be called into question. What did you put in the glass pipe this evening that would make you think that you are making any sort of headway in this discussion?
” It is illegal to ride bikes on the sidewalks downtown anyway.”
Not technically, Oh technical Indecent Liberties. It is illegal in Lawrence to ride a bike within 100 ft of an entrance to a business, which just happens to include all the sidewalks downtown.
Where it is legal, I ride my bikes wherever seems best. My road bike usually on the road but sometimes on the multi-use paths around town. I ride my mountain bike on road or sidewalk, whichever I choose.
“However, if you were to, oh, I don't know, OPEN your eyes, you would see that the sidewalks in the areas where people ride bikes on the roads are new, wide, and very very smooth.”
Yeah cause clearly you know what you are talking about. Jesus. It is patently obvious you haven't been on a bike in and around Lawrence ever. There are some good multi-use sidewalks around town (23rd, west 6th), but most sidewalks stink for bikes and many are just plain dangerous to navigate on a road bike. The roads around the county -wait for it - have no sidewalks. Huh. Imagine that. Want to ride your bike to Topeka? No sidewalks. Gardner? No sidewalks.
Fact is the law says that I can ride on the sidewalk or the street - unless there is an exclusive bike path or a business entrance within 100 feet. However, I have a responsibility to be careful and cautious just like everyone else on the road. That is my agenda. Oh my god, you found me out. Guess I better be just open about it. Know the law. Respect other users of the road. And be cautious. Oh my god. The horror.
30 June 2008
at 9:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
I may have spoke too soon. Lawrence Municipal Code 17-702 says “It shall be unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle within any business district within the City or upon any sidewalk within a distance of 100 feet from any store or business place or place of assembly or where specifically prohibited by posted sign.”
However, I don't know what specifically constitutes a “business district.”
30 June 2008
at 9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
igby (Anonymous) says…
Remember that the Sun was in the east shortly after 8:00 a.m. and they were both headed east. The Sun could have been a factor if there was oncoming traffic.
30 June 2008
at 10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
As noted above and from the story yesterday:
“According to a Kansas Highway Patrol accident report, Dillon was riding west on the road when a 20-year-old Eudora man driving a 2003 Oldsmobile struck him from behind, causing Dillon to fall into the north ditch of the road.”
30 June 2008
at 10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
merrill (Anonymous) says: “Cyclists can legally ride two abreast. Cyclist have as much right to a road as any other vehicle. Does a car or truck driver own the road anymore than a cyclists?”
No but the truck driver does have a 2000 lbs advantage in the event either makes a mistake. The bicyclist may be in the “right” and still be just as dead. I guess for some cyclist making their point is worth the risk and being “dead right” is some comfort. Call me a coward, it just isn't worth dying over.
Oh by the way Richard, wasn't it your “Traffic Safety Commission” that implemented the policy of narrowing streets (like 19th Street) and adding bike lanes effectively using Lawrence bicyclists as moving “traffic calming devices?” Just how “safe” is that for bicyclists?
Baille (Anonymous) says: “Where it is legal, I ride my bikes wherever seems best. My road bike usually on the road but sometimes on the multi-use paths around town. I ride my mountain bike on road or sidewalk, whichever I choose.”
I also ride where ever I feel the safest. On busy streets with fast moving traffic (6th, 15th, Iowa, Wakarusa, Kasold, etc.) that is generally the sidewalk especially when the students are in town. On streets with slower traffic and busy sidewalks like Mass that is generally the street. As long as I am alive to get the citation I will gladly pay the fine.
30 June 2008
at 10:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alr (Anonymous) says…
To everyone who has responded to this tragedy:
It is great this has sparked such interest, however, I knew Dave personally and what he would want to come out of this is not the bickering, but just that everyone work together to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. Everyone who is on the road, cyclist and motorist, are all responsible for their own actions and need to take that seriously. Unfortunately, we all get lax in our carefulness when we are not involved in an incident for awhile and that is what causes these terrible events to take place.
Unfortunately, places like Eudora have no bike/walking paths, no bike lanes, and the sidewalks they do have (except in the new development areas) are broken to the point you can't even walk on them. I agree it would be wonderful to have these everywhere, but unfortunately…some places do not invest in such things.
My child is currently learning to drive and believe me, I am terrified at the actions WE ALL take while on the road.
I also ask that no judgements be passed until all the information is collected and a report is filed. Dave was an officer of the court and that's what he did. If you read some of the comments on the other sites about him, you will understand that he treated everyone with respect and dignity (no matter what they may have been accused of or charged with).
So please, life if too short (even if you live to be 100), so tell those you love how you feel today - don't wait and hope you can do it tomorrow.
PLEASE, drive, cycle, skateboard, walk, and just live safely. If nothing else, think of Dave next time you are on the road.
30 June 2008
at 11:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
weatherguy48 (Anonymous) says…
I give cyclists a car width and a half when I pass them, even if they are in the bike lanes on 19th or 15th or whatever other streets have them. I'm scared to that I'm gonna hit them.
If they are riding in the traffic lane, I just chill behind them. At the worst I'll get to my destination a few minutes later than expected, no biggy. Not worth risking a life. As I mention in many of my posts, I deliver pizza so I see a lot of cyclists on the road.
1 July 2008
at 12:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink