UniChris

Will admit I was initially tempted to dismiss the idea of already being on 119 out of hand, since a driver doing such would have had to cross the entering traffic from 63 to reach the shoulder.

Though on second thought, it does raise an interesting possibility - if someone did feel a need to pull over, and was driving along most looking in their mirror or over their shoulder for the merging traffic they'd have to cross, they might not be paying as much attention ahead as appropriate.

One of the big risks for cyclists is that while a car looms in peripheral vision, a cyclist doesn't.

mschwett 

another tragic death. looking at that stretch of road, it's hard to imagine a justifiable reason for the driver to impact a cyclist in the shoulder. even if she was turning into the fire training facility, that's awfully early to be in the shoulder - and it's long past the merge. dead straight and flat and perfect visibility.



also, you can always trust bikeforums to turn a discussion of something like this into a forum for bickering about cars, public transit, bikes, urban planning... hopefully this poor kid's family doesn't read it. i'm sure the helpful chart of automobile deaths a hundred years ago will make them feel better.

Roughstuff

Well that is because many of the folks at bikeforums are discussing SOLUTIONS and the pros and cons of alternative solutions, instead of just carping about "this or that" event.

The "helpful" chart is exactly that: it shows how much ACTIONS taken by government, manufacturers, and motorists of all kinds have greatly REDUCED the incidents of death on our highways for decades.

Like the global warmingists, feel free to ignore the data---if it makes you feel better.

UniChris

Your mistake is in looking only at deaths of motor vehicle occupants. Indeed, crumple zones, seat belt laws, air bags, etc - these have made being the occupant of a motor vehicle in a crash far more survivable so we see a decrease in occupant fatalities, especially historically.

What you neglect to notice is that deaths and serious injuries of non-occupants struck by motor vehicles have increased over the last decade rather than decreased.

Some of that is due to larger vehicles which a victim is more likely to end up underneath. Some is due to more aggressive bumpers which hit higher in more vital areas

And some is due to the increasing prevalence of driver distractions

On a road fast enough that any collision may be challenging for someone outside a car to survive, the focus is best on the human and layout factors that minimize the chance of collision.

homeless in ca.

Disagree. In my experience most people respect the rules. It's only a small minority that are reckless and create unnecessary danger with their selfish behavior.

Daniel4

But it IS about bad driving and road designs. This isn't an isolated incidence and it won't be the last. We've read about other professional cyclists being run over too.

Even in your post, you questioned the driver's decision to drive the way she did.

Tiger Woods has been in three serious self-collisions and all everybody talked about is his comeback as a champion golfer. Nobody mentions about what a lousy driver he was (or is) and that his driving was not out of the ordinary.

Back in the 1980s, shortly after the death of Rock Hudson, the US Congress set aside $221 million for AIDS research. It may have something to do with Liz Taylor too. Today, AIDS is a controllable disease.

In contrast, many celebrities have been seriously injured or killed in auto collisions. Most notably, Princess Diana, Grace Kelly, George Patton, Valerie Quennessen (of Conan the Barbarian).

However, the only people working towards improving driving or street designs are local advocacy groups. And every step of the way they get pushback as if bad driving and the level of collisions, injuries and death are totally a acceptable part of everyday life.

JoeyBike

I sold the road bike a few years ago. Mostly Rail-Trails and backstreets. Drunks PLUS smart phones just too much for me.

Thanks for asking. I'm happy with my cycling these days. Mostly relaxing! Except on my smart trainer. I'm winning the Tour de France (in my mind) on that thing!

If I die cycling it will be on the Wahoo trainer, guaranteed.

Shimagnolo

Do you still ride the "glorified furniture dolly"?

mconlonx

Soo... does that mean hi-viz clothing, specifically so drivers "see" you, may in fact be an aggravating factor, as drivers fixate on a cyclist in their rave-wear?

FBinNY 

It's an interesting question, and may depend on the specific circumstances. There's some concern that police strobes at night may factor in fixation, but no one is arguing that it's safer to turn them off.

For my part, the chances of being hit because I'm not seen are higher, so I'll continue trying not to blend in.

JoeyBike

Yes. I usually can get 30 minute session during lunch in/around City Park. Then the Tammany Trace Rail-Trail I'll hit that 15-30 miles on longboard and/or inline/quad skates. Since I own a car now I can shoot up there on a whim when the weather cooperates. Moving to Greenville, SC early next year. Already got a new ATB for that adventure.

Feel free to PM me anytime before the forum police bust us for private conversations .

Cheers!

tomato coupe

The first phase of safety improvements on this stretch of highway begins next week with the installation of 9 miles of rumble strips and signage. The larger aspects of the safety improvements begin in the spring.

JoeyBike

Most rumble strips I have encounters are very effective anti-cycling devices. So if you inhibit the ability to cycle on a roadway you certainly lower the chance of cyclists getting clobbered by motorists.

tomato coupe

I don't know why a narrow rumble strip on a highway with 10 foot-wide shoulders would discourage cycling. But, a rumble strip certainly can reduce the likelihood of a driver accidentally drifting onto the shoulder and hitting a cyclist.

Notso_fastLane

A lot of places, with no thought at all to bicycles, put ~18 inch rumble strips on 36 inch shoulders. I've seen places that basically put the rumble strips from the fog line all the way to the shoulder.

tomato coupe

That's not the case of the highway being discussed. The shoulder is very wide -- it will still be possible to ride 2-3 abreast on this shoulder and avoid the rumble strip.

JoeyBike

Most times those rumble strips are placed right where the shoulder stays relatively clean due to wind kicked up by passing cars and trucks. I'd rather ride on the clean space just outside the fog line and watch my mirror than ride two feet outside the fog line beyond the rumble strips in the trash and road debris. Unless they clean the shoulder regularly those rumble strips are for MOTORIST safety, not bikes.

If you ride this section of road and YOU like it, then I am all for it. Otherwise, I'll take my chances without rumble strips.

tomato coupe

Again, this is about the highway where the poor kid was struck and killed. These shoulders are about 10 ft wide and very clean, so there will be plenty of room to ride after the rumble strips are installed.

JoeyBike

As I stated: If the shoulder stays CLEAN and cyclists like it, then I am in 100%.

If the situation is as you stated, then cyclists will also hear a vehicle cross the rumble strips behind them. Depending on how far behind them the vehicle wanders perhaps they can hit the ditch and avoid carnage.

Keep in mind that rumble strips wont wake anyone up from sleeping or sober them up. If they do wake up God only knows how they will react. Someone who is conscious and looking at their phone or digging under the seat might be able to react properly.

tomato coupe

I'm not looking for a debate on the pros and cons of rumble strips -- my post is just a followup to the death of a cyclist and what is being done to make that stretch of highway safer for other cyclists.

retswerb

Sober them up, no. But wake them up? Definitely. Why would you assume otherwise? Have you ever driven over one at speed?

JoeyBike

Just about every roadway in my state has rumble strips. There are still no shortages of little white crosses along the roadsides here.

Most people who fall asleep at the wheel have no idea what is happening if and when ruble strips wake them up. Split seconds count and generally, depending on the road width and some luck, time has run out by the time a sleeping person regains consciousness, figures out where the Hell they are, what they are doing, and what they NEED to do.

======================================

According to WiKi:
"Rumble strips (also known as sleeper lines or alert strips) are a road safety feature to alert inattentive drivers of potential danger, by causing a tactile vibration and audible rumbling transmitted through the wheels into the vehicle interior. A rumble strip is applied along the direction of travel following an edgeline or centerline, to alert drivers when they drift from their lane. Rumble strips may also be installed in a series across the direction of travel, to warn drivers of a stop or slowdown ahead, or of an approaching danger spot."

"In favorable circumstances, rumble strips are effective (and cost-effective) at reducing accidents due to inattention. The effectiveness of shoulder rumble strips is largely dependent on a wide and stable road shoulder for a recovery, but there are several other less obvious factors that engineers consider during design."

(I added the bold red underlines.)
"Largely dependent on a wide and stable shoulder for recovery". " ...effective at reducing accidents DUE TO INATTENTION."

======================================

Federal Highway Administration:
"...National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 641: Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips documented significant crash reductions for SRS and CLRS on rural, two-lane highways. SRS were found to provide a 36-percent reduction in ROR fatal and injury crashes while CLRS were found to provide a 44-percent reduction in head-on fatal and injury crashes.(7) However, researchers have found that rumble strips are not equally effective for all roadway geometries and traffic volumes. Additionally, rumble strips can be used to target drowsy or distracted driving..."

36% and 44% reduction in fatal and injury crashes means that 64% and 56% (more than half) of people launched into oncoming traffic, trees, bayous, or bridge railings anyway.

Either ^^they didn't wake up or they couldn't figure out what was going on when suddenly awakened.

For those who like numbers anyway. Many do not.
.
.
.

retswerb

You said "rumble strips wont wake anyone up from sleeping" and are now backing that up with statistics showing that rumble strips used to target drowsy or distracted driving caused a reduction of over 1/3 of fatal and injury accidents. "Didn't stop every single accident" is different from "didn't make a significant difference". 🤷

JoeyBike

Notice how they carefully used the word "DROWSY", not "sleeping". I presume (perhaps incorrectly) that the drowsy people had a good chance of recovering after hitting the rumble strips while the SLEEPING people flew off into outer space.

I play with my cell phone too late at night occasionally and tend to nod off while looking at the screen. Sometimes the phone slips from my hand and jars me back to life with the phone still in my hand. Other times I wake up hours later with the phone in my lap or on the floor. I'm guessing (again) that surviving a rumble strip encounter would be more likely in the first instance than the second.

I agree with you that for MOTORIST safety, rumble strips are significantly effective, and relatively inexpensive. While preventing some 30% of vehicles from leaving the travel lane the strips themselves can cause serious issues for cyclists including making some beautiful roadways impossible to cycle.

I stick by my claim that if CYCLISTS are happy with the strips on a particular roadway - GREAT! I love it. Otherwise, I am not a big fan of the strips AS A CYCLIST.

jon c. 

I have no problem with rumble strips at the fog line, which is largely what I encounter. I've only run across strips that cover much of the shoulder once or twice. Those are obviously a detriment to riders.

They tried a "new" rumble strip on one local road where they used a fairly deep trough every few feet. They were deep enough that required a bit of caution when crossing them. They made a lot more noise than conventional rumble strips when a car crossed them. Perhaps too much noise as they came back and filled them in after a few months.