The CardBoard
Buddy Teevans bike crash - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Buddy Teevans bike crash (/thread-24174.html)

Pages: 1 2

Buddy Teevans bike crash - BrevinsBest - 04-19-2023

Former Stanford coach seriously injured in bike accident. Reading the articles, it looks like he made a poor decision to cross a busy highway at night. Regardless of what you think of him as a coach, he is by all accounts, an incredibly nice and caring person.

https://theathletic.com/4426901/2023/04/18/dartmouth-buddy-teevens-bike-accident/
https://www.vnews.com/buddy-teevens-update-50453157

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - Spiny_Norman - 04-19-2023

Teevens' wife has posted a public statement and update on the Dartmouth Sports website. He lost his right leg and also appears to have suffered a spinal cord injury.

https://dartmouthsports.com/news/2023/4/18/show-your-support-for-coach-teevens-during-his-recovery-230320.aspx

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - cardcrimson - 04-19-2023

Man, such a shame. Wish him the best. First Dante, and now Buddy, both on bikes.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - burger - 04-19-2023

(04-19-2023, 09:46 AM)BrevinsBest Wrote:  Former Stanford coach seriously injured in bike accident. Reading the articles, it looks like he made a poor decision to cross a busy highway at night. Regardless of what you think of him as a coach, he is by all accounts, an incredibly nice and caring person.



https://theathletic.com/4426901/2023/04/18/dartmouth-buddy-teevens-bike-accident/

https://www.vnews.com/buddy-teevens-update-50453157

Just an FYI, it's not unusual for initial reports about bike "accidents" to be 100% wrong.  I don't have any additional information for Buddy's case, but there have been a number of well-publicized incidents where the police found the biker to be at fault initially, and it was later revealed that the driver was at fault.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - Langdude - 04-19-2023

Gosh. What a bummer. It seems that Buddy had really found his lane and some contentment (and some football success) since his return to Dartmouth following his brief time at Stanford. I am hoping that he will receive the resources he needs for healing and, eventually, mobility. And, if it is what he wants, I hope that Dartmouth will give him what he needs to continue coaching, and trust that they will.

-m.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - Chupacabra - 04-19-2023

Weirdly, there seems to be a ton of prejudice against bicyclists when it comes to accidents. And as someone who used his bike as his main transportation around SF for about 4 years, it is very frustrating. While some on bikes do ride in an unsafe manner, this is by far in the minority and nowhere nearly as big of a problem as unsafe drivers. On roads without a bike lane a bicycle has the same rights that a car or truck has, though most drivers seem to resent this.

When riding a bicycle you're engaging in transportation that is incredibly healthy for yourself and for the environment. This should be heartily encouraged, not resisted. Riding a bike as transportation, if possible, is one of the best acts a person can possibly engage in.

There is no excuse for a driver to "not see" a bike on the roadway. This is a tragic event for Teevens and a reminder to all of us who use such a wonderful transportation tool that we have to be vigilant about our safety and assume at all times that any car is indifferent at best to our presence. I hammer something into my son's head every time we go out for a ride: in any confrontation between a bike and a car, a car always wins and fault doesn't factor at all into your safety. Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance.

Really, really sad day for Buddy and I'm keeping him in my thoughts.

(04-19-2023, 10:58 AM)burger Wrote:  
(04-19-2023, 09:46 AM)BrevinsBest Wrote:  Former Stanford coach seriously injured in bike accident. Reading the articles, it looks like he made a poor decision to cross a busy highway at night. Regardless of what you think of him as a coach, he is by all accounts, an incredibly nice and caring person.



https://theathletic.com/4426901/2023/04/18/dartmouth-buddy-teevens-bike-accident/

https://www.vnews.com/buddy-teevens-update-50453157

Just an FYI, it's not unusual for initial reports about bike "accidents" to be 100% wrong.  I don't have any additional information for Buddy's case, but there have been a number of well-publicized incidents where the police found the biker to be at fault initially, and it was later revealed that the driver was at fault.


RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - Mick - 04-19-2023

Buddy talked with me for about 45 minutes shortly after he took the position. He was very excited about it. I really liked the guy, very caring and genuine, and he'd found his role at Dartmouth. He was doing very well there.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - cardcrimson - 04-19-2023

(04-19-2023, 12:58 PM)Chupacabra Wrote:  I hammer something into my son's head every time we go out for a ride: in any confrontation between a bike and a car, a car always wins and fault doesn't factor at all into your safety. Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance.

Great lessons for your son. I can't tell you how many times I've seen kids (and occasionally adults) pedaling down the bike lane in the wrong direction and against traffic. Tough to see them when you're making a right turn and watching the on coming traffic looking for an opening. Not a fan when cyclists run red lights and stop signs because it's too hard to put a foot down. Riding three abreast, with one in the bike lane is a peeve, as well. Now get off my lawn.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - TonyLima - 04-19-2023

(04-19-2023, 02:00 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  
(04-19-2023, 12:58 PM)Chupacabra Wrote:  I hammer something into my son's head every time we go out for a ride: in any confrontation between a bike and a car, a car always wins and fault doesn't factor at all into your safety. Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance.

Great lessons for your son. I can't tell you how many times I've seen kids (and occasionally adults) pedaling down the bike lane in the wrong direction and against traffic. Tough to see them when you're making a right turn and watching the on coming traffic looking for an opening. Not a fan when cyclists run red lights and stop signs because it's too hard to put a foot down. Riding three abreast, with one in the bike lane is a peeve, as well. Now get off my lawn.

What they both said.  Many years ago I was a distance biker.  I made it a point to never, ever trust cars, pedestrians, or other cyclists. And this was before the age of cell phones.  Today, I'd go pretty far out of my way to avoid busy streets.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - qwerty49 - 04-19-2023

(04-19-2023, 03:54 PM)TonyLima Wrote:  
(04-19-2023, 02:00 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  
(04-19-2023, 12:58 PM)Chupacabra Wrote:  I hammer something into my son's head every time we go out for a ride: in any confrontation between a bike and a car, a car always wins and fault doesn't factor at all into your safety. Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance.

Great lessons for your son. I can't tell you how many times I've seen kids (and occasionally adults) pedaling down the bike lane in the wrong direction and against traffic. Tough to see them when you're making a right turn and watching the on coming traffic looking for an opening. Not a fan when cyclists run red lights and stop signs because it's too hard to put a foot down. Riding three abreast, with one in the bike lane is a peeve, as well. Now get off my lawn.

What they both said.  Many years ago I was a distance biker.  I made it a point to never, ever trust cars, pedestrians, or other cyclists. And this was before the age of cell phones.  Today, I'd go pretty far out of my way to avoid busy streets.

Far too many times I've been fully stopped at an intersection, in the right lane with my blinker on, ready to turn, and end up shaking my head at a cyclist whizzing by me on the right without stopping for the light.  There is a point where that bike is in your blind spot and not visible.  And jeez, if cyclists have the same "rights" as drivers, they should also be accountable for the same laws.

Just this afternoon on my way home traffic was slowing on one of our side streets that leads downhill with a freeway on-ramp on the right.  It's a sticky intersection and no fun even when there's no traffic; it's not a full stop.  Two bikers barrelled down the hill on the right sidewalk from behind us and zipped right across the on-ramp -- continuing downhill without even glancing over their left shoulders to see if someone was turning onto the freeway!  Like you say, a bicycle is NOT going to win a collision with a car -- and it doesn't matter who is at fault.

Sorry for the rant but this is one of my triggers.

All the best for Buddy's recovery.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - oldalum - 04-19-2023

(04-19-2023, 07:15 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  Far too many times I've been fully stopped at an intersection, in the right lane with my blinker on, ready to turn, and end up shaking my head at a cyclist whizzing by me on the right without stopping for the light.  
I move over to the right until there's no room for a bicycle to squeeze by. Safer for everyone. According to the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition:
"A right-turning car is supposed to move into the bike lane before the intersection — anywhere from 200 to 50 feet before — first signaling the lane merge, then merging right to the curb lane, and finally making the actual turn once it’s deemed safe (CVC 21717)."

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - Chupacabra - 04-19-2023

I wrote a way too long post about this before the Grizz game. The short story is that there are times when it's perfectly reasonable to roll through a stop sign. But 360° awareness is crucial because you're always going to lose the fight. Especially with a car but with anything else, really. You're the one with all the momentum delicately balanced inside of an inch.

Plenty of people might say you should stop completely at every stop sign but it's often totally fine to roll through if you're paying attention. It really does take a ton of effort if you're in a low gear to get your momentum going again from a full stop. You can disagree and that's ok. I'm not talking about situations where bikes blowing through, but when the street is wide open and it's clear that there's no danger. But you have to be vigilant every single time you make that choice. And calculate it every time with no assumptions. 

The crucial thing is awareness. I appreciate when cars are aware of me but you can never, ever make that assumption. Buddy Teevens had a tragic thing happen to him but there are much, much worse scenarios.

My personal peeve is when I see people riding at night without lights. I've even given lights to neighbors when I've seen them doing it.

So my plea to all drivers is to look at what happened to Teevens. It's terrible and avoidable. Next time you're annoyed by a bike, take a breath and think "I really wish they were riding safer," instead of, "what a damn jerk." Maybe even, at a stop sign where you see someone on their bike and it's your right of way, make eye contact and wave them through so they don't have to stop. They'll be really surprised and greatly appreciate the gesture. I do it and it makes me feel good to know that I've done someone a very small favor.

Remember, riding a bike is a virtuous thing. Riding bikes makes you healthier, saves fossil fuels, and reduces traffic/parking congestion.

And if you're riding your bike: be safe. Constant vigilance. Have (blinking) lights on your bike at night. Reflectors wherever possible. Wear a helmet. Make eye contact with drivers. It can be totally safe (and I'm confident that I am a totally safe bicyclist) if you're taking every precaution. It doesn't matter whose fault an accident is: you're never going to win against a car.

But ride a bike!

(04-19-2023, 07:15 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  
(04-19-2023, 03:54 PM)TonyLima Wrote:  
(04-19-2023, 02:00 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  
(04-19-2023, 12:58 PM)Chupacabra Wrote:  I hammer something into my son's head every time we go out for a ride: in any confrontation between a bike and a car, a car always wins and fault doesn't factor at all into your safety. Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance.

Great lessons for your son. I can't tell you how many times I've seen kids (and occasionally adults) pedaling down the bike lane in the wrong direction and against traffic. Tough to see them when you're making a right turn and watching the on coming traffic looking for an opening. Not a fan when cyclists run red lights and stop signs because it's too hard to put a foot down. Riding three abreast, with one in the bike lane is a peeve, as well. Now get off my lawn.

What they both said.  Many years ago I was a distance biker.  I made it a point to never, ever trust cars, pedestrians, or other cyclists. And this was before the age of cell phones.  Today, I'd go pretty far out of my way to avoid busy streets.

Far too many times I've been fully stopped at an intersection, in the right lane with my blinker on, ready to turn, and end up shaking my head at a cyclist whizzing by me on the right without stopping for the light.  There is a point where that bike is in your blind spot and not visible.  And jeez, if cyclists have the same "rights" as drivers, they should also be accountable for the same laws.

Just this afternoon on my way home traffic was slowing on one of our side streets that leads downhill with a freeway on-ramp on the right.  It's a sticky intersection and no fun even when there's no traffic; it's not a full stop.  Two bikers barrelled down the hill on the right sidewalk from behind us and zipped right across the on-ramp -- continuing downhill without even glancing over their left shoulders to see if someone was turning onto the freeway!  Like you say, a bicycle is NOT going to win a collision with a car -- and it doesn't matter who is at fault.

Sorry for the rant but this is one of my triggers.

All the best for Buddy's recovery.
This is the opposite of what I am talking about...in a busy intersection you have to be overly vigilant. And I've intentionally used that term a lot. One of the great things about riding in SF over time was that I really got to know the routes and what was safe and where I needed to be even more cautious. I'm getting there in Memphis, even though the climate limits my riding.

But it's always preferable to ride along quiet side streets or specifically dedicated bike thoroughfares instead of busy streets. The Wiggle in SF is great because it's not only flat but it takes you through the panhandle, where you don't have to worry about cars (though you do have to worry about other bikes and walkers not paying attention).

Downtown was obviously a little tougher but there are still route you can take. Market was actually pretty good and that was even before they closed it off to cars. The danger there was streetcar tracks.

Again, you can do it safely but you have to pay attention. I've typed waaaay to many words on this today but it is something I'm really passionate about and I'm sad that bikes seem to have gotten a bad rap in a lot of ways.

(04-19-2023, 07:15 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  Far too many times I've been fully stopped at an intersection, in the right lane with my blinker on, ready to turn, and end up shaking my head at a cyclist whizzing by me on the right without stopping for the light.  There is a point where that bike is in your blind spot and not visible.  And jeez, if cyclists have the same "rights" as drivers, they should also be accountable for the same laws.

Just this afternoon on my way home traffic was slowing on one of our side streets that leads downhill with a freeway on-ramp on the right.  It's a sticky intersection and no fun even when there's no traffic; it's not a full stop.  Two bikers barrelled down the hill on the right sidewalk from behind us and zipped right across the on-ramp -- continuing downhill without even glancing over their left shoulders to see if someone was turning onto the freeway!  Like you say, a bicycle is NOT going to win a collision with a car -- and it doesn't matter who is at fault.

Sorry for the rant but this is one of my triggers.

All the best for Buddy's recovery.


RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - Goose - 04-19-2023

(04-19-2023, 08:47 PM)Chupacabra Wrote:  I wrote a way too long post about this before the Grizz game. The short story is that there are times when it's perfectly reasonable to roll through a stop sign. But 360° awareness is crucial because you're always going to lose the fight. Especially with a car but with anything else, really. You're the one with all the momentum delicately balanced inside of an inch.
Totally agree
Quote:My personal peeve is when I see people riding at night without lights. I've even given lights to neighbors when I've seen them doing it.
Also totally agree. I would also add people riding without lights and wearing black/dark blue clothing. Pedestrians do the same thing. Oftentimes the bikes and pedestrians are not actually in the beam of the headlamps until very late in the game. The driver could be totally vigilant and still not see them in time. Very dangerous, and unfortunately common in the bay area.
Quote:Plenty of people might say you should stop completely at every stop sign but it's often totally fine to roll through if you're paying attention. It really does take a ton of effort if you're in a low gear to get your momentum going again from a full stop. You can disagree and that's ok. I'm not talking about situations where bikes blowing through, but when the street is wide open and it's clear that there's no danger. But you have to be vigilant every single time you make that choice. And calculate it every time with no assumptions.
Here I have a bit of a problem. Obviously there are lots of cases where it doesn't matter if you stop at the stop sign. That is also true if you are driving a car. Many times you can see the 4 way stop is clear except for your vehicle. The problem I have is that bikes are supposed to be treated the same as motor vehicles. If so, they should behave the same as a motor vehicle would. When that isn't the case, drivers tend to say "See, they don't follow the rules. They aren't like cars and we can't/shouldn't treat them as such". Yes, you may be perfectly safe, but it sends the message "I don't necessarily follow the rules, and I alone decide whether I will or won't.", and IMO that is problematic. If you wouldn't run the sign in your car, IMO you shouldn't on your bike either. I know it is a pain, but I think that is part of the drill.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - Chupacabra - 04-19-2023

I totally understand this sentiment. And I don't have too much hope in convincing others about it. This is actually what I wrote about 500 words on before heading downstairs to shooting the Grizz game. The best way I can explain it to those not on a bike is that slowing down to a cautious roll on a bike is effectively a stop. There are a few factors that make this the case. I hope I'm not getting too into it but this is one soapbox I'm glad to jump on.


In addition to these facts about bike riding, I doubt the majority of the people here would come to a full stop at every stop sign if driving along, say 32nd Avenue in SF. If someone is crossing the street? Of course. At Taraval or Noriega? Absolutely. But who is going to come to an absolute and complete stop at 32nd and Pacheco with no other traffic of any kind? Some people, certainly. But not many.

I haven't even included the inertia argument (Newton's 1st law!) here because the reason to do something isn't the reason it should be legal/acceptable.

There's an interesting article about this here if you're interested. Basically arguing that the "Idaho Stop" should be legal. The article cites that in Boise, where it's the law for bikes to treat stop signs as yield signs, they have fewer bike-related accidents than in similar California cities.

By the letter of the law (except in Idaho, Aspen, and Boulder) you are correct and I don't argue that. I think it's a perfectly reasonable belief to hold. But also consider that maybe they shouldn't be? A car is a 2 ton machine powered by a motor that can drive 100+mph. A bike is a 20lb machine powered by human legs and goes about 20mph. They're way, way, way different.

I am huuuuuge on bike safety (as I think I've established pretty clearly) and I'm very confident that this a perfectly safe and acceptable way to ride.

I'm not even trying to change any minds on that specifically (though that'd be great!), I'm just trying to explain it so that drivers understand why it's reasonable and maybe they could become a little more empathetic to riders.  I am actually not really trying to change that perspective. What I do hope to evangelize (ha) is that it's a reasonable perspective. So maybe a driver might read this and have a little more empathy to riders. We sure get an undue amount of scorn.

It's way later than I ever intended to be up writing any post here, much less bike safety. But after Teevens's accident we see its importance. So this is one of my soap boxes. Don't get me started on the value a great DT who can collapse the pocket from the inside, I may never get any sleep.

***EDIT***
I missed the part where you mention the message it sends, which is the real heart of what you're saying. So I totally apologize for missing the point (though not for typing the manifesto, I think that's important). I totally get what you're saying and agree it's a problem. I just wish more drivers were aware of this and thus more empathetic. It's silly to think of something like "bike awareness" as a priority considering all the issues we have in the world. So...I don't know??? I'll just continue to try to be the most vigilant and polite efficient rider I can be.

(04-19-2023, 09:11 PM)Goose Wrote:  Here I have a bit of a problem. Obviously there are lots of cases where it doesn't matter if you stop at the stop sign. That is also true if you are driving a car. Many times you can see the 4 way stop is clear except for your vehicle. The problem I have is that bikes are supposed to be treated the same as motor vehicles. If so, they should behave the same as a motor vehicle would. When that isn't the case, drivers tend to say "See, they don't follow the rules. They aren't like cars and we can't/shouldn't treat them as such". Yes, you may be perfectly safe, but it sends the message "I don't necessarily follow the rules, and I alone decide whether I will or won't.", and IMO that is problematic. If you wouldn't run the sign in your car, IMO you shouldn't on your bike either. I know it is a pain, but I think that is part of the drill.


RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - Canalejas - 04-20-2023

What really bugs me is seeing one or several cars (sometimes even police cruisers) parked in the bike lane on a road that I ride on frequently.  That forces me to either take a lane typically used by cars going as fast as 45mph or to ride on the sidewalk, and then potentially on the grass if there are pedestrians using the sidewalk. I've learned to look ahead at this stretch of road to try to time a sprint during a lull in motor traffic, but it still really sucks that the bike lane gets blocked.  

I know it's a pain to find parking, but I think that is part of the drill.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - M T - 04-20-2023

I'm curious what people think of this bike/auto situation in Menlo Park (Stanford uses a building 100 yards to the right of the image; A high school is immediately on the left)
Before: https://goo.gl/maps/rMCyZ7gYSHfjvycF7
The visible street is Middlefield. Ravenswood is the street that comes in from the right and ends at the intersection.

Consider a cyclist traveling in the bike lane that passes through the intersection, has a short bicycle lane, and then encounters a (normal) lane that comes in from the right. Call that lane "R-M".
The bicycle lane restarted a 100' or so further up, next to the curb.
Notice the yellow sign indicating a lane is added on the right with traffic already in it. The car (or bike) traffic in that R-M lane is continuing on, with no traffic light, stop sign, or yield sign (there is a crosswalk).

I would consider this to have been the rule for a cyclist wanting to enter the R-M lane:
"Entering traffic: When entering traffic, you must proceed with caution and yield to the traffic already occupying the lanes. "

I should add that cars in the right (R-M) lane often merge left as soon as possible into the left lane, to turn left at the next light.

In 2015-2016, they painted the bike lanes green. and added dashed green where cars & bicycles both go.
After: https://goo.gl/maps/VWZynyQFYESqVY5y9
Overhead view: https://goo.gl/maps/BKD5dHmx82dA6MeE8

Once they painted the broken green lane across the R-M lane, it seems that a cyclist might think they have the right-of-way and the car should yield for them, while a driver in the R-M lane would continue to think they have the right-of-way.

It seems to me to be a dangerous intersection because of the unclear right-of-way and the pretty significant amount of bike & car traffic, with cars continuing straight or moving left and bikes moving right.

If a cyclist is entering from Ravenswood (on the right) and heading toward the top of the image, and they follow the bike lanes, they have to cross the R-M lane twice (once right to left, and then left to right).

Potential solutions:
1. Put up a Yield sign for either the bikes or the cars. And hope that it is obeyed....

2. Redo the island. Extend it out (left) to cover what is currently the bike lane preventing bikes from continuing straight and having to merge into the R-M lane from the left. Widen the crosswalk (on the right of the island) area for perpendicular crossing of the R-M lane so that it has both a crosswalk and the dashed bike lane. Widen the R-M lane to add a bike lane next to the curb. Cyclists would need to turn right (after crossing the crosswalk that comes in from the left) and then left, but the danger of a entering from the left hand side of the lane would be removed. There is no change in how the bicycles cross the pedestrian crosswalk. The bicycles cross the R-M traffic perpendicularly as is the case at almost all intersections. The bicycle lane is adjacent to the pedestrian crosswalk as it crosses the lane (the driver/cyclist in the R-M lane has one area, not three, where others are crossing the lane). The cyclist coming from Middlefield and turning right on Ravenswood uses the R-M bike lane and never has to cross car traffic.

3. Remove the R-M lane. Widen the intersection so that a new lane is added at the intersection. Adjust the crosswalks and bike lanes accordingly. The traffic that would use it would have to turn right at the light. This would result in a backup on Ravenswood and would likely increase the risk to pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross Middlefield at that light. (The R-M lane floods in heavy rains, so the traffic sometimes has to turn right at the light currently.)

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - GK3 - 04-20-2023

(04-20-2023, 02:38 AM)M T Wrote:  I'm curious what people think of this bike/auto situation in Menlo Park (Stanford uses a building 100 yards to the right of  the image; A high school is immediately on the left)
Before:  https://goo.gl/maps/rMCyZ7gYSHfjvycF7
The visible street is Middlefield. Ravenswood is the street that comes in from the right and ends at the intersection.

Consider a cyclist traveling in the bike lane that passes through the intersection, has a short bicycle lane, and then encounters a (normal) lane that comes in from the right.  Call that lane "R-M".
The bicycle lane restarted a 100' or so further up, next to the curb.
Notice the yellow sign indicating a lane is added on the right with traffic already in it.  The car (or bike) traffic in that R-M lane is continuing on, with no traffic light, stop sign, or yield sign (there is a crosswalk).

I would consider this to have been the rule for a cyclist wanting to enter the R-M lane:
"Entering traffic: When entering traffic, you must proceed with caution and yield to the traffic already occupying the lanes. "

I should add that cars in the right (R-M) lane often merge left as soon as possible into the left lane, to turn left at the next light.

In 2015-2016, they painted the bike lanes green. and added dashed green where cars & bicycles both go.
After:  https://goo.gl/maps/VWZynyQFYESqVY5y9
Overhead view: https://goo.gl/maps/BKD5dHmx82dA6MeE8

Once they painted the broken green lane across the R-M lane, it seems that a cyclist might think they have the right-of-way and the car should yield for them, while a driver in the R-M lane would continue to think they have the right-of-way.

It seems to me to be a dangerous intersection because of the unclear right-of-way and the pretty significant amount of bike & car traffic, with cars continuing straight or moving left and bikes moving right.

If a cyclist is entering from Ravenswood (on the right) and heading toward the top of the image, and they follow the bike lanes, they have to cross the R-M lane twice (once right to left, and then left to right).

Potential solutions:
1. Put up a Yield sign for either the bikes or the cars.  And hope that it is obeyed....

2. Redo the island.  Extend it out (left) to cover what is currently the bike lane preventing bikes from continuing straight and having to merge into the R-M lane from the left.  Widen the crosswalk (on the right of the island) area for perpendicular crossing of the R-M lane so that it has both a crosswalk and the dashed bike lane.  Widen the R-M lane to add a bike lane next to the curb.  Cyclists would need to turn right (after crossing the crosswalk that comes in from the left) and then left, but the danger of a entering from the left hand side of the lane would be removed.  There is no change in how the bicycles cross the pedestrian crosswalk.  The bicycles cross the R-M traffic perpendicularly as is the case at almost all intersections.  The bicycle lane is adjacent to the pedestrian crosswalk as it crosses the lane (the driver/cyclist in the R-M lane has one area, not three, where others are crossing the lane).  The cyclist coming from Middlefield and turning right on Ravenswood uses the R-M bike lane and never has to cross car traffic.

3. Remove the R-M lane. Widen the intersection so that a new lane is added at the intersection. Adjust the crosswalks and bike lanes accordingly. The traffic that would use it would have to turn right at the light.  This would result in a backup on Ravenswood and would likely increase the risk to pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross Middlefield at that light.  (The R-M lane floods in heavy rains, so the traffic sometimes has to turn right at the light currently.)

As I see it we are in many  trying now to integrate bikes into a society where only cars used to exist in any quantity.  Many drivers get very irritated being forced to share their 4000 lb metal ride with that 20 lb piece aluminum next to them.  It is like trying to mix cats and dogs.  If you really want to ride and stay out of traffic, take your bike and go to Holland, more than 20,000 miles of traffic free bike lanes.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - skip75 - 04-20-2023

(04-19-2023, 10:32 PM)Chupacabra Wrote:  There's an interesting article about this here if you're interested. Basically arguing that the "Idaho Stop" should be legal. The article cites that in Boise, where it's the law for bikes to treat stop signs as yield signs, they have fewer bike-related accidents than in similar California cities.

The California legislature passed a similar law in 2021, but unfortunately (in my view) Gavin Newsome saw fit to veto it.  The Idaho law was passed in 1982. Since 2017, at least 8 other states have passed similar laws.  The California law was to be valid for a limited period (I think until 1928) at which time it would have been extended or rescinded.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - terry - 04-20-2023

Very sad news about Teevens. Sorry to hear it. I hope he recovers.

After returning to Dartmouth, Teevens found some success. He has been there for the last 18 years, ever since he left Stanford. It took him a while, but he eventually built a winning program. In his last 8 seasons, his teams went 59-21 with 3 Ivy championships.

RE: Buddy Teevans bike crash - M T - 04-20-2023

(04-20-2023, 04:49 AM)GK3 Wrote:  As I see it we are in many  trying now to integrate bikes into a society where only cars used to exist in any quantity.  Many drivers get very irritated being forced to share their 4000 lb metal ride with that 20 lb piece aluminum next to them.  It is like trying to mix cats and dogs.  If you really want to ride and stay out of traffic, take your bike and go to Holland, more than 20,000 miles of traffic free bike lanes.

Just like no bicyclist wants to be forced to share their path with someone pushing a stroller or walking 3 abreast.