Daniel4

https://www.sandiegomagazine.com/features/fight-for-protected-bike-lanes/article_888a6208-7fff-11ed-bb61-3b04e41208f4.html

"Despite Matt's blindingly bright lights he used for night riding, the driver said she never saw him."

Aside from the fact that the article calls for protected bike lanes everywhere, I wonder what happened to the driver who killed Matt Keenan. I bet she was released without charge. Update please.

mr_bill

Misdemeanor.

-mr. bill

FBinNY 

Not arguing against protected bike lanes, but this specific case doesn't make the best argument. They don't offer meaningful additional protection against drivers dumb, drunk, or uncaring enough to drive the wrong way on one ways, or on the wrong side of two way streets.

Some time back, someone (intentionally) drove up a divided bike land here in NYC and killed a few people.

As for the charge, I don't know the details, but at the least it should be negligent homicide regardless of what the driver thought. It's the OBLIGATION of drivers to KNOW what streets they're on. I say that as someone who has turned the wrong way on one ways is the past, but was able to react and correct before a collision. I have to wonder what that driver thought the bright white light in front of her was.

Troul 

I will not hold painted lines as a means to protect my life.
motorized vehicle operators are required to know what's reasonably in front of them & are required to maintain full control of there vehicle.
Infrastructure changes are needed to address a better solution for bicycle commuting.

Daniel4

If Keenan had been in a car and killed, you know the charges would be serious. But he wasn't.

As I had stated several times beforeIt seems to me that the only way that a driverwho is responsible for a collision to get charged and convicted is if he's

1) DUI;

2) hit-and-run;

3) drivingwithout a licence or with a suspendedlicence;

4) wanted or alreadyknownby the police; or

5) the victim was in a car.

genec

As long as there are drivers that are dumb drunk and uncaring, the only bike lanes that will be "safe" will have to be physically on a different plane than that which motorists use. Either elevated or underground.

Oulu Finland does a pretty decent job of having fully separate bike paths... far better than most anything you'd find in the States United.

But even a bike path separated by a chain link fence, a crash barrier and 10-12 feet of open land will not protect a cyclist from a drunk or sleeping driver. I saw a big hole in the fence at a San Diego bike path that is well separated from the road. While I did not see the event, it was obvious that a motorist had driven through the fence, up the path and then back out again. Awful difficult to protect against that sort of dumbazzery. (this was on the SR56 bike trail that parallels Ted Williams Parkway in the San Diego area... https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9516...m1!1e3!5m1!1e3 )

Troul 

The chances of a car going through all that is far less likely than being rammed while riding in the "protected by painted lines" bicycle lanes.

rydabent

The protected bike path right thru down town for cyclist here in Lincoln is great in my opinion. It saves time, and has its own lights where bike go first. Cars would have to jump the curb and a small median where meter poles are, to get to bikers.

IMO ours is a protected bike trail done right.