Comments on: Cyclist Struck Along North Decatur Road Back on November 2nd

By: Ridgelandistan

Ridgelandistan — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:58:21 +0000

Based on the description of the accident and my knowledge of that location, I disagree that the auto driver bears any responsibility for this accident. There is no reasonable expectation that a vehicle (bicycle) would cross the entrance to the lot from a restricted /closed area. This is also one reason that cycling on sidewalks is illegal in Georgia.

Full disclosure: I commute by bike about 1,500 miles a year but I also worship my car.

By: Caesar's Dad

Caesar's Dad — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 04:02:21 +0000

Well, GDOT funded it…slow reason #1
GA Power had to bury their utilities, which they don’t enjoy…slow #2
The other guys (ATT, Comcast, etc) had to bury too. Slow #3.
DeKalb County implements….Slow #4.
Then a contractor has to actually build the thing; faster than the others, but Slow #5.

Based on the typical pace of a GDOT project, seems right on track. The McDonough Street streetscape is TE funded (I think), so it will be at least a year or two before that starts.

Ah, GDOT, what a smooth process you have there.

By: cubalibre

cubalibre — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:32:28 +0000

“…the cyclist was in a closed traffic lane that was marked off with construction barrels. As the vehicle [I'm assuming this means the bicycle?] moved onto the sidewalk, the driver turned her car to enter Fishburne parking deck…”

OK, what am I missing? The cyclist is in a lane where s/he was not supposed to be, and the driver of the vehicle, who had no reason to suspect that someone would be using a CLOSED LANE, hits the cyclist– but it’s somehow BOTH their fault? How can that be? I mean, obviously, the cyclist stands to have gotten the worst of it (being less protected), but how would the driver have known that someone would come in from a lane where no one was supposed to be? I’m not an “almighty car at all costs” apologist, but under the facts that are given here, I don’t see how the driver is at fault. This seems to have been caused by the cyclist’s choosing to be where s/he had no permission to be, rather than a driver’s inattention…not hatin’, just sayin’.

By: smalltowngal

smalltowngal — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:04:14 +0000

I also have to drive and with the narrowing of the main roads through Decatur I realize that it is taking much longer. … Are we trying to keep people out that don’t arrive by some “green” method?
——-
No, we are trying to get vehicles to slow down and drive more safely. As a community, we are choosing a trade-off: less time efficiency for motorized through-traffic in exchange for making it safer and more feasible to walk or ride a bike. (It also makes it safer for motorists.) I don’t see how that discourages people from coming to Decatur–it just makes it difficult to go barreling through as fast as they can. That’s a good thing, IMO.

If we know it’s going to take longer than it used to, to get across town, the thing to do is leave a little sooner.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:45:16 +0000

I am not a car worshipper nor am I an apologist. I try to be clear eyed in my views. One of the reasons I bought my house is because of it’s proximity to downtown Decatur and Oakhurst village. We walk all the time and love doing so.

I also have to drive and with the narrowing of the main roads through Decatur I realize that it is taking much longer. Church St. should bring people into our city and Commerce should allow them to scoot around the worst of the backups. Both roads are being narrowed Calm traffic on smaller streets and add bike lanes, don’t subtract car lanes. Are we trying to keep people out that don’t arrive by some “green” method?