Posted by hayeskidd on April 17, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a concerned citizen, I don't understand why bicyclists and runners of the Ojai valley are allowed to use the highways, after all the county has spent THOUSANDS of dollars to provide them with the bike trails. This alone should insure and protect those who use the roads ways. We should not always be in fear of who may or may not vear of the roads ways and cause such accidents. Those who do not use the areas provided for them should be fined, the roads are to small for other activity.

Posted by steveb36701 on April 17, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This idiot, the bicyclist, should have his bike taken away permanently. 2 times within a year he gets seriously injured doing the same stupid thing; TURNING LEFT IN FRONT OF A CAR TRYING TO PASS HIM. What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by rebel123 on April 17, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hayeskidd: how do you propose getting from your house to the bike trail? And what if where you want to go is not along the bike trail? Your suggestion is ridiculous.

Posted by Relvd98 on April 17, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

steveb36701

Had he gotten his bike taken away, he'd get another one, that's no problem. Problem is him running in fron of motorist; and in the very early hours???

Posted by unclneal on April 17, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems that the problem here is that the cyclist may not have SIGNALED his turn and probably did not judge how far back the truck was before moving over to the left. Since none of us were there, we really don't know exactly what happened.
And to echo rebel123, the bike path is great as long as it takes you where you need to go. But there are plenty of other places that are not accessible by the bike path.
Cyclists AND motorists need to obey all traffic laws in the interest of SAFETY.

Posted by shaver_one on April 17, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did the cyclist signal? Was his bike properly illuminated? Was the cyclist paying attention?
No...I wasn't there. But...twice in one year?
Does the cyclist have a death wish?

Posted by bluefairy on April 17, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why are posters so quick to blame the cyclist for this accident? So what that it was twice in one year? That's an unlucky coincidence. Perhaps he doesn't have a car and his bicycle is his mode of transportation and that is why he isn't on the bike trails. Perhaps he works different hours than the normal 6-3/7-4/8-5/9-6 jobs out there. Let's not be so quick to judge.

As drivers of vehicles, it is our responsibility to ALWAYS be prepared for anything that can cause an accident like pedestrians darting out between parked cars and we are supposed to "share the road" with cyclists. Obviously these two accidents were caused by drivers attempting to pass him. I don't know the circumstances of the first accident but from this article, it states he turned into the vehicle that was trying to pass. Hand signals, proper lights on bicycles, proper riding attire may have prevented this accident.

We weren't there, we don't know what happened. This little article can't provide all the facts. Instead of assuming or passing blame, how about some wishes for a speedy recovery?

Posted by newsisimportant22 on April 17, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

genderella, right on! We don't know if this person already had a head injury before the accidents or was disabled and that may have contributed to the accidents. Sad that people are so quick to judge others. This is a tragedy no matter what happened. The driver will be traumatized forever and someone was seriously injured. Have some compassion.

Posted by Relvd98 on April 17, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Both of you, get a grip. We are not "judging", we are assuming. May we assume?

Posted by Ms_California on April 17, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, so answer me this.... two accidents in one year.. the exact same incident and locations (roughly) and again he turning into oncoming traffic and somehow this is the automobile driver's fault? OK.. sounds to me like they (the drivers) were in the wrong place at the right time.. And by reading this article the driver took evasive actions to AVOID hitting the bicyclist. So the driver must have noticed him up ahead on the roadside.

To me this guy is just oblivious to the traffic around him and doesn't feel that he needs to obey the traffic rules that apply to bike riders. Not only should he be cited for impeeding traffic, illegal lane changes and wreckless riding and jaywalking (riding) he should have to take a bicycle saftey course. What happened if the driver veared to miss him and hit another vehicle headon! I mean com'on people, let's give credit where credit is due here. Thank heavens this man doesn't drive a car!!! Oh good Lord!!!!

Posted by Dman on April 17, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bicycles should be banned from both highway 33 and 150. They are very dangerous roads without the added obstacle!! The most conscious and responsible driver can make a mistake. Have their life turned upside down because of some arrogant moron that thinks he’s standing his ground…

And this guy, he’s either hooked on lawsuits or stuck on stupid.

Posted by pfariseo on April 17, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I've had enough of this "Cyclists Rule" nonsense. This cyclist is an idiot in every way and deserves to be stripped of his fancy pants.

Posted by vcspinner on April 17, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suspect that, in Dman's opinion, an obstacle is defined as any vehicle that is slower than him.

Everybody get out of the way!

Posted by bluefairy on April 17, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can assume all you want - we all know what happens in when assumptions are incorrect.

As I stated in my earlier post, we don't know the facts. Simple as that.

This is a public forum so I won't go back and forth over who is right and who is wrong. We are all entitled to our own opinions and assumptions. Sorry that I'm not so quick to fault either party in this case.

Posted by Andrew_Smolik on April 17, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bike trails, bike paths, and sidewalks have proven to have significantly higher crash rates for bicyclists than vehicular roads, since the most common fall / crash types for bicyclists don't even involve automobiles; instead, they are caused by stationary obstacles, surface hazards, mechanical failure, or mere clumsiness, which are even more likely on a narrow way.

Furthermore, a bicyclist using such bike trails, bike paths, and sidewalks where they intersect vehicular roads and driveways are more likely to experience a “T-bone” collision with a vehicle than if the bicyclist were operating on the road in a proper vehicular manner.

Posted by Ms_California on April 17, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tell me how based on the information in this article it assumes that the driver of the vehicle is at fault here? I don't understand. I guess he should have known the bicyclist was planning on turning right in front of him?

Posted by Andrew_Smolik on April 17, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It sounds like this collision was also a “T-bone” or perpendicular one, probably the result of the bicyclist not properly *merging* left in preparation for the left turn but instead suddenly *cutting* left from the right shoulder. Such a collision scenario would have been just about the same if some bike path were intersecting the road at that location and a bicyclist — or even pedestrian — on such bike path (with a two-way stop sign) were trying to cross the road from right side to left side without yielding.

Posted by joefox on April 17, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I DO NOT LIKE MOST BICYCLIST!!!

1) they dont obey stop signs! (you might die from this)

2) they ride 2 or 3 wide along 150 & 33 (you will die from this too)

3) they ride to fast on the walking/bike trail and yell at people walking "move over" (you will definetly die from this if you hit my children)

If you fall in one or more of these I DONT LIKE YOU AT ALL! I will share the road with you but you must obey the rules!

So you SHARE THE ROAD! I am bigger DUH!

Posted by noahsapothecary on April 17, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As an Ojai resident, I daily witness bicyclists riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks, riding (not walking) their bikes in crosswalks and running red lights and stop signs. The violators are both casual cyclists and "pros" as defined by their flashy logo-laden togs.

For years I was a long-distance cyclist, member of LAW and worked as a volunteer for the Ohio Traffic Safety Committee educating the public about sharing the road. Motorists need to be aware, cyclists need to obey the law, but above all, cyclists need to remember who is going to lose in a confrontation with an auto.

The cyclist in this case has paid the price (twice it seems) for his error in judgement. The motorist has also paid a price. I wonder how long before he will be able to close his eyes without seeing that cyclist turning in front of him.

How 'bout we all slow down, stop driving distracted and obey the traffic laws?

B Dawson, Ojai

Posted by AS on April 17, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I ride a bike and the most common infraction I see is that even if you are in the bike lane keeping a good pace, a car will drive ahead of you and cut to the right into a driveway or another road. This cuts you off and worst of all, you can't see it coming. For some reason, drivers don't seem to realize this error.

Posted by Andrew_Smolik on April 17, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A big problem is when motorists fail properly to distinguish an effective cyclist from an ineffective cyclist. When bicycling, I find that some of the most annoying harassment (and obvious rubbernecking) by motorists occurs when patiently waiting in single file with traffic at a red light — such as in a left-turn lane with my left arm and two fingers extended outward to the left as much as possible as a left-turn signal, or in a through lane for proceeding straight ahead when a right-turn lane exists to my right. These motorists must believe that bicyclists should always be hugging the curb, but it is their encouraging of such improper lane positioning which contributes to T-bone collisions such as this one.

Posted by Andrew_Smolik on April 17, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The best defense against the “right hook” by a motorist upon a bicyclist is for the bicyclist to be wary of any motorist passing or about to overtake too slowly (i.e., nearly at the bicyclist's speed) and/or too closely — any motorist “sidegating” the bicyclist; it is a likely sign that the motorist is about to turn right. Watch for the motorist's brake lights in order to indicate slowing. Assertively move left behind or in front of such a motorist in order to avoid getting cut-off and/or to re-pass the slowing motorist. Pass only on the left; don't pass on the right except with extreme caution or with plenty of space.

Note that the Vehicle Code permits bicyclists to move left and/or out of the bike lane under various circumstances, including when approaching a location where a right turn is authorized, when passing, when moving at the normal and reasonable speed of traffic at the particular time and place, when preparing for a left turn, or when necessary for other miscellaneous safety reasons.

Posted by scott on April 17, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

if cyclist want road rights maybe its time to start taxing them like they do motorist for road up keep everytime we go to the pump until then deal with it. or start having them register(pay a fee) their bike if they want to ride on the roads?

Posted by vcspinner on April 17, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Scott, that dog won't hunt. Most roads are paid for from the general fund, and cyclists pay taxes like everyone else.

Posted by tellthetruth on April 17, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

joefox,
Is English your second language, or are you so angry that you loose the ability to use proper grammar? You need to calm down and stop threatening all bicylcists by telling them they will die if they are anywhere near you. Seriously, you need to seek some sort of anger management classes, as do most of these angry posters that hate bicylcists; you'd think they were molesters by the tone of your posts. Calm down people.

Posted by joefox on April 17, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tellthetruth,
English is MY ONLY language... as I said "I DO NOT LIKE MOST BICYLISTS" did you see the MOST I did not say ALL! I am not threatening bicylcists I am making a point. SHARE THE ROAD AND OBEY THE RULES!

Posted by lrgvanman on April 18, 2008 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Like joefox says and I agree; SHARE THE ROAD AND OBEY THE RULES! And I may add: STAY OFF THE PAINT LINE!

Posted by vcspinner on April 18, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I want to ride behind Irganvanman and see how he gets where he's going without touching a paint line.

Posted by scott on April 18, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

that dog does hunt and so do bumpers

Posted by Reese on April 18, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Posted by tellthetruth on April 17, 2008 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

joefox,
Is English your second language, or are you so angry that you loose the ability to use proper grammar? You need to calm down and stop threatening all bicylcists by telling them they will die if they are anywhere near you. Seriously, you need to seek some sort of anger management classes, as do most of these angry posters that hate bicylcists; you'd think they were molesters by the tone of your posts. Calm down people."

Your post might've been more effective if you had reread and spell checked your own grammar.

Posted by joefox on April 18, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

seems like I was very effective Mr.English teacher. ;)

Posted by Dman on April 18, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Notice the arrogance of cyclists that write in. People can’t voice their opinions without being accused of road rage or excessive anger.

I think taxing them registration fees is a brilliant idea. Keeping them off highway 33 & 150 is a better idea.

They are not allowed to ride on highway 101 for a good reason. I think that same reasoning should apply to dangerous twisting highways.

That’s right, an opinion that you don’t agree with. Waaa-wa-wa….

Posted by pfariseo on April 18, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

joefox has better English than most of the Englishmen I know. Tellthetruth needs to tell the truth. And I too pity the fool that knocks down one of my kids on the bike path because of their arrogance. Taxing them - excellent - I feel a petition coming and that is very do-able as any one that knows anything about special assessment taxes would realize.

Posted by Andrew_Smolik on April 18, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At least the largest chunk of a vehicle registration fee in California is proportional to depreciated value of vehicle... most bicycles would be valued at only a fraction of that of most motor vehicles.

Bicyclists are, in fact, permitted on freeway (normally the shoulders) in California which have not been explicitly designated via resolution by Caltrans as prohibiting bicycles. (Other states such as Arizona are even less restrictive and permit bicycles on all rural freeways.) Over 1,000 of 4,000 miles of freeways in California are open to bicyclists, and bicycling on freeway shoulders has proven to be even safer than bicycling on surface streets. The freeway sections open to bicyclists are usually where no reasonable alternate route exists, such as on mountain passes, bridges, or similar bottlenecks. It says at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq... :

Q. Can I ride my bicycle on the freeway?

A. Of the more than 4,000 miles of freeways in California, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists. These open sections are usually in rural areas where there is no alternate route. California Vehicle Code Section 21960 says Caltrans and local agencies may prohibit bicyclists from traveling on freeways under their jurisdiction and that they must erect signs stating the prohibition. There are no signs permitting bicyclists on freeways. When a bicyclist is legally traveling on a freeway, he/she may be directed off the freeway at the next off-ramp by a sign that says "Bicycles Must Exit." The freeway will be posted at the next on-ramp with a sign that says "Bicycles Prohibited."

The two-mile stretch of the Hwy. 23 freeway between Olsen Rd. in Thousand Oaks and Tierra Rejada Rd. in Moorpark is a good example (where the shoulder is even designated as a bike lane). It is meant to be an alternative to the steep, curvy, narrow Moorpark Rd. Norwegian Grade.

Also see the California Association of Bicycling Organizations' position on bicyclist freeway access at http://www.cabobike.org/docs/freeway.pdf .

Note that some sections of Hwy. 101 are not officially freeway (technically meaning full access control, or that owners of abutting lands have no right of immediate access to the road), such as in the La Conchita area as I understand. In such areas, discrimination of bicyclists and pedestrians via road access prohibition would be illegal.

Posted by Arnold on April 18, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's okay, he got a rubber bicycle after the first time.

Posted by Andrew_Smolik on April 18, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I understand, the Hwy. 101 Conejo Grade freeway shoulder is also currently being considered for fully officially allowing bicyclist access between western Thousand Oaks (Newbury Park) and Camarillo. I myself had recently brought the matter to the attention of CABO, and CABO's Caltrans District 7 liaison has been in contact with the Caltrans District 7 (including Ventura County) bike / pedestrian coordinator.

It is quite unreasonable to expect bicyclists to use Potrero Rd. instead, which has excessively steep pitches, steep banking, and tight curves and is narrow and beat-up. Such a route is also well out of the way. Heading northeast from Newbury Park to Moorpark via the Norwegian Grade or Hwy. 23 before going back west on Santa Rosa Rd. to Camarillo is even more out of the way.

Posted by Arnold on April 18, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if the CHP checked the immigration status of Freddy Gonzalez. He may have been running from ICE when he hit the poor man who was already mentally and physically handicaped from the first accident. And every time he gets hit by a car, he gets even slower.

We should petition the federal government to begin helping these poor people with bicycle safety training and rehabilitation.

Of course, it would never happen with that Bush guy in office. He doesn't care about the poor that are forced to ride bicycles at 1 am in the morning.

Posted by pfariseo on April 18, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Possibly I've overlooked something here but I'm amazed that no one seems to be mentioning why this guy rides his bike in the wee (dark) hours of the morning on a dangerous highway. Death wish, methamphetamines, alcohol, stupidity (?)If any of my loved ones had this strange habit, I'd do something about it. That's what spouse's, friends and family are for.

Posted by pfariseo on April 18, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok Arnold finally mentioned the wee hours aspect of this before I posted. I knew Bush would find his way onto this sooner or later. He only falls off his bike on his ranch - apparently the only thing our fearful leader does in accordnace with the law is to stay off the Caldwell TX highways with his mounntain bike! Well, its something.

Posted by Arnold on April 18, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that pfariseo is trolling. She she doesn't care if some illegal killed a guy trying to make a living; riding his bicycle to and from LA every day to feed his family. It's these rich people in their fancy Volvo's that are making the roads unsafe for the poor. We should ban those fancy euro cars from American roads anyways.

Posted by pfariseo on April 18, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

actually, Pfariseo has more class than to start wondering if anyone is illegal or not - that's not the issue here, is it? Grow up and get a life ARNOLD - you can't even stay on topic.

Posted by Andrew_Smolik on April 18, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wby do you think *other* vehicle drivers drive in the middle of the night?

I drive my bicycle whenever the bleep during the day or night that I want-to, but I also always use multiple high-tech headlights (including a left sidelight on handlebars) and taillights such as Solidlights ( http://www.solidlights.co.uk/ ) and DiNotte ( http://www.dinottelighting.com/ ) among others. DiNotte even makes daytime running lights for bicycles, although I always use the same white head- and red taillights night or day. I normally keep them in solid mode during the night and flashing mode during the day, and some of them I can flash at will at specific motorists while in motion on the bike.

Posted by pfariseo on April 18, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

what kind of idiot compares bicycles to cars? That's the entire problem in a nutshell. I don't care what kind of 'special' lights one has. Shall we review vehicles vs cars 101 - cars weigh 2 tons + - bikes weigh how much?? Keep riding your bikes whenever the 'bleep' you want to but please stay off winding dark highways so that those of us in cars don't have to see your mangled bodies being airlifted to hospitals.

Posted by vcspinner on April 18, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pfariseo, I'm sure that over on the trucker's forum, they're wondering why cars would want to be on the road at all. Trucks weigh much, much more than cars, after all. No matter what kind of "special lights" those automobiles have, a truck will win in a collision.

And, in fact, many more people are killed or injured in truck/car accidents than in car/bike accidents.

Reminds me of the cartoon of the little fish about to be eaten by a bigger fish, which in turn is about to eaten by a giant one. Auto drivers, if that's your worldview, then I suggest you check your rear view mirror.

Posted by Andrew_Smolik on April 18, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone who thinks that being fatter and heavier gives him or her some automatic right to shove someone skinnier and lighter out of the line should have flunked kindergarten and been disciplined accordingly. Of course, the same goes for someone skinnier and lighter who thinks that he or she has some automatic right to cut in and out of the line.

Posted by Face on April 19, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Aren't there signs forbidding bicycles on the freeway? Used to be it was illegal for folks to walk and ride bikes on highways. Bicycles and vehicles going at high speeds on freeways don't mix as we can see.

Posted by Andrew_Smolik on April 19, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The particular onramps of freeways where bicyclists may enter should not have any sign prohibiting bicycles. In the case of the Hwy. 23 northbound onramp on the north side of Olsen Rd. in Thousand Oaks and southbound onramp on the south side of Tierra Rejada Rd. in Moorpark, it is apparent that the word “bicycles” is whited-out or covered-up on the sign which once had read “pedestrians, bicycles, motor-driven cycles prohibited” (at least when I had last used those onramps a few years ago). The freeway shoulders are designated as bike lanes on that section of Hwy. 23. There are then the “bicycles must exit” signs at the endpoints of that segment and then the “bicycles prohibited” signs just beyond those endpoints, as http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq... specifies.

I remember reading somewhere on the WWW that the Hwy. 23 segment was opened to bicyclists (or, actually, had its prohibition of bicyclists removed) in the early 1990's.

Despite the superstition and intimidation, rear-end collisions happen to be one of the least common type of collision between motor vehicle and bicycle, in contrast to “T-bone” collisions. One should not fear bicycling on a wide, paved freeway shoulder any more than bicycling on a wide, paved bicycle lane of a surface street. The freeway shoulder is likely even safer than the surface street due to the lack of intersections and driveways where T-bonings can occur. Merging across busy offramps and onramps would be the main risk, but it can be mitigated by exiting with the offramnp and then re-entering the freeway with the following onramp.

Posted by rbreton59 on April 21, 2008 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i didnt even read any posts past the fifth one, but this guy wants to kill himself, plain and simple........ put a bullet in your head you p----...........

Posted by rbreton59 on April 21, 2008 at 12:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and by the way, i grew up in Ojai, anyone up there knows how to ride the roads there.