Cyclist killed Friday on Sand Hill Road Crimes & Incidents, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on May 25, 2007 at 5:57 pm
A green 1995 four-door Volvo driven by a Woodside man in his 80s struck and killed a cyclist in his 50s at about 9:40 a.m. Friday, the California Highway Patrol reported. Both vehicles were eastbound on Sand Hill Road just west of Interstate 280.
Posted by John Nine, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 25, 2007 at 5:57 pm
How could this happen? The bicyclist is heading straight on Sand Hill Road. There is plenty of visibility so the car driver must have seen him from 100 yards away and just plowed right into him. What a tragedy. This is at least the third bicyclist recently killed from behind by a car in the Woodside area: Michelle Mazzei, Tom Maddox, and now this still not identified victim.
Posted by Phyllis Olrich, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 25, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Enough is enough. We must have tougher standards for drivers. Driving is a privilege, not a right. We've got the drunk, drugged, and disabled on the roads and our government isn't doing enough to protect us. I'm sick of it.
Posted by John, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 26, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Drivers must be more aware of cyclists. There should be an awareness campaign for drivers to pay attention and share the road. Police are presently stepping up an effort to stop all cyclists for traffic violations such as running stop signs, but this is missing the point. It is the drivers who must be more careful, not the cyclists--when is a cyclist going to kill someone by his mistake?
Last year, after I was nearly killed by a driver, I got into an arguement with her and asked her if she'd ever heard the phrase "share the road," explaining that it meant that roads were built for bikes and cars. Her response was, "well, not bikes." It is this attitude that leads to injuries and fatalities.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 26, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Share the road means drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Yes, I do agree that drivers have to be careful and watch for other road users, e.g. cyclists and pedestrians. But, cyclists must obey traffic signs. The police must cite them for not obeying stop signs. As a pedestrian, I have been "almost severely injured" by a cyclist who felt that a stop sign did not mean him.
I agree that cyclists want to share the road with cars, but that also means share the traffic rules and the potential for being ticketed too.
I also realise that pedestrians must share the road too and anyone who assumes that a driver or cyclist has seen him and steps out without looking or expected to have been seen needs to realise that they have to be careful too.
I would rather be careful and alive (or accident free) than in the right, but dead or severely injured.
Posted by Old car driver, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on May 27, 2007 at 2:13 pm
There is a second thread about this issue and I posted the following yesterday (this is more directed towards the Phyllis Olrich post above):
Before we crucify the driver of the car and proclaim the bike rider a martyr shouldn't we wait for the results of the police investigation. Who knows the biker may have been one of those "the rules of the road do not apply to me" bikers.
Posted by Dave, a resident of another community, on May 29, 2007 at 5:58 pm
This is one more example of why we need to test the elderly to see if they are fit to drive. I don't know how many times I have seen elderly drivers either in the bike lane or right on the line. California needs to start a comprehensive program, to test drivers over a certain age. I know this sounds a little cold hearted, but I don't think putting lives in jepardy is a valid option.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 29, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I am all for testing the elderly and their ability to drive
I am also for testing all cyclists on their ability to ride on the roads. I believe that bicycles are meant to be licensed, but it should be the riders that are licensed. This goes for a kindergartner riding bikes to school with parents, or cyclists in all their gear heading out for a day pursuing their hobby, to the commuter taking their bike to work.
The funding of this should be from the license fee. The tests could be arranged say monthly at school parking lots and families could all come at the same time to be tested and renew their licences.
Road users are road users and as long as we have rules and laws for them, it makes sense that all users are tested.
(Tongue in cheek, I know it won't happen but it's nice to dream)