|Here is one with a twist.||Miklos|
Apr 4, 2002 7:17 AM
|Fremont Bridge accident kills one, critically injures another
PORTLAND - One man is dead and another is in critical condition following an accident Wednesday night on the Fremont Bridge involving a car and a bicyclist.
The accident occurred just before 8 p.m. and was the result of road rage, according to witnesses.
Witnesses told police a man was driving erratically when he lost control of his car and hit a portion of the bridge.
At the same time a bicyclist -- on the bridge illegally -- was riding on the shoulder against traffic.
The car slammed into the bike sending the bicyclist through the car’s windshield, killing the driver of the car.
The accident closed the upper deck of the bridge for about two-and-half hours as police investigated the incident.
The bicyclist remains in critical condition at Emanuel Hospital.
|so, who is more at fault? (nm)||RideLots|
Apr 4, 2002 7:27 AM
|The cyclist||Dave Hickey|
Apr 4, 2002 7:33 AM
|I'd say the cyclist is more at fault. He was on the bridge illegally and he was riding on the wrong side of the road. I hope he recovers, but he got what was coming to him.|
|so, who is more at fault? (nm)||funknuggets|
Apr 4, 2002 7:36 AM
|Clearly, the erratic driver was at fault and ultimately paid with his life. The actions of the cyclist were not the cause of the accident. The erratic driver lost control and hit the cyclist, who potentially COULD be ticketed. But... in most states cars must yield to pedestrians and cyclists.
Inasmuch, The rider riding the wrong way shows that he was a moron and likely not a real cyclist.
|so, who is more at fault?||elviento|
Apr 4, 2002 7:56 AM
|As much as I'd like to agree with you on the last statement, I can't, because a cyclist is someone who rides a bicycle. There is no such thing as a real cyclist or fake cyclist. Like other groups of people, there are smart cyclists, there are stupid ones, there are careful ones, and there are careless ones. That's all.|
|so, who is more at fault? (nm)||MikeC|
Apr 4, 2002 8:47 AM
|Keep in mind that the cyclist, although doing so illegally, was on the SHOULDER of the road. Pedestrians are told to walk facing traffic so they can see and respond to the vehicles which are in closest proximity to them. While I hate to admit it, it was probably safer for a cyclist riding on the shoulder of a road where he wasn't supposed to be to do the same.
There have been times, like in a construction zone or in a torrential downpour, when I've crossed over and ridden on the shoulder facing traffic. I've even done it when riding with my kids on a fast road with good, WIDE shoulders (there's nothing like having a truck buzz a seven-year old at 60 mph!). I'd rather have the chance to see a vehicle myself than just relying on them seeing me in a poor-visibility situation.
Of course, if things look truly dangerous, even "real" cyclists should get off and walk.
|Good question Doug, but duh, the driver.||Leisure|
Apr 4, 2002 3:06 PM
|Sure the cyclist was riding there illegally and could get a ticket for such, but his being there had nothing to do with causing the accident. You can blame the cyclist for riding illegally and being irritating. You can't blame him for the choices the driver made. The motorist went out of his way to harass and threaten the cyclist; that's what road rage is. Anything that happens is the motorist's fault.|
|everybody gets what they deserve :) nm||mr_spin|
Apr 4, 2002 7:37 AM
|#%$holes get it worse then the stupid, thems the rules(nm)||ishmael|
Apr 4, 2002 7:55 AM
|What we have here, gentlemen, is a failure to think.||Slipstream|
Apr 4, 2002 8:05 AM
|To paraphrase from Cool Hand Luke.|
|I just did a Google search on the Fremont Bridge||Dave Hickey|
Apr 4, 2002 9:07 AM
|This cyclist should never have been on this bridge. Yes there was an idiot driver, but if the cyclist were not on the bridge illegally, there is no story.|
|matter of % in most states||elviento|
Apr 4, 2002 11:27 AM
|in most states, if the cyclist sues the estate of the driver (if he has an estate, hoho), he would be paid the actual damage multiplied by the driver's percentage of responsibility.|
Apr 4, 2002 3:01 PM
|But in some states, not sure about Oregon, if a party is found to be more than 50% at fault, he cannot collect.|
Apr 4, 2002 9:19 AM
|With the facts such as they are presented: The motorist is at fault due to unsafe speed for conditions. The cyclist would be an associated factor for riding against traffic and disobeying the sign that prohibits cyclist from riding on the bridge. Very unfortunate, but that's probably why they don't allow cyclist on the bridge in the first place. No one wins. The cyclist (if he lives) will need an attorney, and a good one...Also, if it was 8:00PM, it was dark, and I doubt the cyclist had the required lighting equipment.
(Cyclist are reguired to ride the same direction as traffic and as close as practicable to the right hand edge of the roadway.)
It's not a complicated case, the law is there, and it's clear cut and dry. Sad, I guess this is a situation of being in the wrong place at the wrong time..and a situation of you shouldn't have been there in the first place..
|One wreck - two Darwin Award winners (nm)||Jekyll|
Apr 4, 2002 9:31 AM