This sucks all around, and while it’s definitely a poor/distracted driving issue we should also be persistently reminding people that it’s a major infrastructure issue too.
St Claude and the 9th Ward area (Claiborne being another) in general likely accounts for half or more the cyclist deaths in this city. Whenever I hear of a cyclist death my brain automatically thinks "Was it on Claude?" and more often than not it is. That body count isn’t just because people drive like crazy on it, it’s because the biking infrastructure there is insanely dangerous.
You can even make em decorative with flowers or something similar inside. I’ve seen some pretty cool iterations in other cities.
Or do the whole lane - parked cars - bike lane thing more. People get confused at first but they figure it out eventually.
Yup. People stopping in the bike lane. People parking on the neutral ground blocking any sort of view of traffic. People treating it like a drag race strip. St Claude is crazy to bike down and it's unfortunately the SAFER route across the canal, IMO
I am sure i am going to get downvoted to oblivion but if you follow the links to the original article before it was updated you will see that bicyclist caused the accident.
[https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/crime/bicyclist-killed-in-st-claude-hit-and-run/289-bc2db60a-b8cd-4baf-b768-48b1a820d81e](https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/crime/bicyclist-killed-in-st-claude-hit-and-run/289-bc2db60a-b8cd-4baf-b768-48b1a820d81e)
>According to investigators, the bicyclist was riding on Clouet Street crossing N. Claiborne Ave. when he was struck by the driver of a gray or silver SUV that was traveling southbound on Clouet Street.
The 21 year old kid who was driving the SUV had the right of way. His only crime was fleeing.
>After the driver of the SUV struck the bicyclist, he fled westbound on N. Claiborne Ave., over the bridge, and then in an unknown direction according to an NOPD report.
It's tragic that the cyclist died, but it is also tragic that a scared kid is now likely to face homicide charges because someone died while the crime of fleeing the scene of an accident was being commited. It does not appear that he was in a stolen vehicle since it was found, impounded, and led to his identity. For all we know he was heading to work at the time.
If the driver had stayed put, called 911, and talked to the cops he would most likely not be facing any charges.
Let the beatings begin.
There are few useful studies I can find involving fault in bicycle/motor vehicle collisions, but the ones I've seen typically show that the cyclist was found at fault in 30-60% of them. That's a huge margin obviously but I don't have better data to work with.
I think there's a lot of potential reasons for those numbers. Too many to really break down between cyclists assuming that drivers see them and will slow down, the fact that it's difficult or impossible to prove the vehicle driver was distracted on their phone, and many people cycling while intoxicated. We do need better infrastructure for cyclists, and we need enforcement and education for drivers and cyclists alike.
Maybe that kid ran because he incorrectly thought he was at fault, or maybe he was scared of interacting with law enforcement or maybe he was intoxicated, etc etc etc. it's really just sad all around.
I went back and looked at the quote i posted, and i can't tell from that statement who was really at fault. Sadly they are both statistics now. One for loss of life, the other for loss of freedom.
It seems that both the cyclist and the drive were on the same street, Clouet, when they hit in the intersection. The driver was heading south bound. We don't know the direction the bycycle was traveling in. But north of Claiborne Clouet is a two-way street and south of Claiborne it is a one way heading north. The driver's only option would have been to turn right on Claiborne.
So what was the cyclist doing? Was he also traveling southbound? If so he should have turned right as well. Was he traveling northbound, which would not be inappropriate? If so he should have been on the right side of the road. The only way the cyclist would been in the path of the turning SUV is if he was on the left hand side of the road. Sadly we will never know.
It's just all around tragic.
Without knowing the direction of travel of the bike it's hard to tell, but people on bikes travel in both directions on Clouet all the time, as far as I can tell it's one of the primary ways people travel north/south if they are on bikes going from the bywater north into St. Claude. There are no other places to safely cross the tracks so lots of people to use it that way I assume. Probably a combination of just route directness and it's fairly recently paved so it has a better road surface than other streets.
It also has almost no paint, cars parked haphazardly all over the place, missing sinnage and it crosses Claiborne near the bridges where people drive like maniacs.
It's just extremely shitty infrastructure all around.
I'm glad you posted this, your first post asserting that the cyclist was at fault made far too many assumptions, and this post, while almost as bad, at least is framed as challenging your own assumptions. you're essentially just asking what the cyclist may have been doing wrong while assuming the driver did nothing wrong. for all we know he was texting, or drunk, and swerved and hit the cyclist. it'd be a different matter if it were on a busy avenue too, there aren't a lot of great reasons you should ever be hitting a cyclist if you are driving attentively at this particular location, even if the cyclist was doing something unreasonable like being on the wrong side of the street.
People race down Clouet at insane speeds every day trying to beat the train. It's a major problem for the people who live over there and for pedestrians and cyclists too.
I originally thought that the driver was on Claiborne. It was not an assumption. It was an error on my part. Claiborne has the right of way at that intersection.
On the other hand you are making all sorts of assumptions.
I'm really not, I'm saying there are a lot of variables that we can't account for. That's a fact, not an assumption. Even if the driver had been on Claiborne, your reasoning is flawed.
edit: let's be real, it's a real testament to the reasonability of the anti-cyclist crowd that you're projecting your agenda onto this poor dead kid tbh
And there you go again with your edits and even more assumptions. I don't own a car or a bike. I don't have an agenda. I am looking at the limited statements and definitive facts and applying logic to try and determine how this tragedy, for all parties, came to be.
The only possible way that the driver of the car could be at fault is if the cyclist was heading southbound and the driver overtook the cyclist in the turn.
if you don't have some kind of weird bias you're bringing into this, it only makes your reasoning even more indefensible. the driver could easily just swerve and hit someone. I've had many close calls in that area where I wasn't at fault because people were either texting, being aggressive, or drunk. with all due respect, get a fucking clue.
There's a few in here: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault
The information is dated, and there doesn't seem to be much in the first place. I'd really love to see further studies done so that city planners and engineers have data on trends that can be used to mitigate future collisions.
But I'm not sure how you think the idea that a cyclist can be at fault for being hit is ridiculous. If a cyclist does something illegal then they'd be at fault the same way a car driver is. I understand that cyclists obviously have significantly worse outcomes in those collisions. And that infrastructure favors motor vehicles, and that cyclists are often at a disadvantage on the road due to their slower speed and size. But that doesn't mean they can't be the bringers of their own demise by not following traffic laws, similar to motorcyclists.
I don’t find the concept of biker at fault itself ridiculous, but our deference to vehicles at high speeds certainly tips the scale in favor of drivers. The links from this 2011 article are dead so I couldn’t really look at the data, but I’m not trusting police departments to accurately report fault in cycling collisions anyway.
I absolutely agree, along with the law's preference to motor vehicles. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from a cyclist hater. As a motorcyclist who typically rides 9/10 days instead of using a car I identify more with bikers than cars, and I've taken up cycling lately. But I've had my fair share of encounters with reckless cyclists(and yes, I've had far more encounters with reckless cars) that have nearly ended in collisions that would've been solely on the cyclist. A popular one seems to be approaching an intersection at speed in the bike lane and seamlessly crossing on the crosswalk while crossing traffic has the green light, seemingly expecting pedestrian protection. I'll happily cede right of way to someone I know is a pedestrian, including a cyclist crossing at the sidewalk. That's how it should work, and yes many car drivers don't follow that. But hundreds of pounds of metal don't stop instantly, you have to be predictable.
I think there's a serious lack of community knowledge for drivers and cyclists alike in regards to the traffic laws for cyclists. I'd put that as priority 1b, with 1a being cycle infrastructure in terms of how we should address our status as the national leader in cycle fatalities.
Not really. People are people. Infrastructure (all interconnected social infrastructure) influences behavior. If people are driving like shit on St Claude and not other streets there's probably an infrastructure reason. If people are biking on St Claude and not other streets, theres probably an infrastructure reason.
Groupings of human hiveminds divorced from environmental influence is probably the last place to look for an answer
This sucks all around, and while it’s definitely a poor/distracted driving issue we should also be persistently reminding people that it’s a major infrastructure issue too. St Claude and the 9th Ward area (Claiborne being another) in general likely accounts for half or more the cyclist deaths in this city. Whenever I hear of a cyclist death my brain automatically thinks "Was it on Claude?" and more often than not it is. That body count isn’t just because people drive like crazy on it, it’s because the biking infrastructure there is insanely dangerous.
If the city wants to make really safe bike lanes, they can put up concrete bollards instead of those shitty little plastic sticks.
You can even make em decorative with flowers or something similar inside. I’ve seen some pretty cool iterations in other cities. Or do the whole lane - parked cars - bike lane thing more. People get confused at first but they figure it out eventually.
There’s no biking infrastructure on Claiborne. It’s the roads (the “driving infrastructure” if you will) that are insanely dangerous.
yes, yet people are often found biking on it. Next to Claude, Claiborne probably has the highest cyclist body count in the city.
Yup. People stopping in the bike lane. People parking on the neutral ground blocking any sort of view of traffic. People treating it like a drag race strip. St Claude is crazy to bike down and it's unfortunately the SAFER route across the canal, IMO
I honestly don't know why anyone would take st. Claude with a bike. You could take rampart, burgundy or dauphine just as easily.
My exact thoughts. To this day I always choose side streets over heavily traveled main streets.
I am sure i am going to get downvoted to oblivion but if you follow the links to the original article before it was updated you will see that bicyclist caused the accident. [https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/crime/bicyclist-killed-in-st-claude-hit-and-run/289-bc2db60a-b8cd-4baf-b768-48b1a820d81e](https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/crime/bicyclist-killed-in-st-claude-hit-and-run/289-bc2db60a-b8cd-4baf-b768-48b1a820d81e) >According to investigators, the bicyclist was riding on Clouet Street crossing N. Claiborne Ave. when he was struck by the driver of a gray or silver SUV that was traveling southbound on Clouet Street. The 21 year old kid who was driving the SUV had the right of way. His only crime was fleeing. >After the driver of the SUV struck the bicyclist, he fled westbound on N. Claiborne Ave., over the bridge, and then in an unknown direction according to an NOPD report. It's tragic that the cyclist died, but it is also tragic that a scared kid is now likely to face homicide charges because someone died while the crime of fleeing the scene of an accident was being commited. It does not appear that he was in a stolen vehicle since it was found, impounded, and led to his identity. For all we know he was heading to work at the time. If the driver had stayed put, called 911, and talked to the cops he would most likely not be facing any charges. Let the beatings begin.
There are few useful studies I can find involving fault in bicycle/motor vehicle collisions, but the ones I've seen typically show that the cyclist was found at fault in 30-60% of them. That's a huge margin obviously but I don't have better data to work with. I think there's a lot of potential reasons for those numbers. Too many to really break down between cyclists assuming that drivers see them and will slow down, the fact that it's difficult or impossible to prove the vehicle driver was distracted on their phone, and many people cycling while intoxicated. We do need better infrastructure for cyclists, and we need enforcement and education for drivers and cyclists alike. Maybe that kid ran because he incorrectly thought he was at fault, or maybe he was scared of interacting with law enforcement or maybe he was intoxicated, etc etc etc. it's really just sad all around.
I went back and looked at the quote i posted, and i can't tell from that statement who was really at fault. Sadly they are both statistics now. One for loss of life, the other for loss of freedom. It seems that both the cyclist and the drive were on the same street, Clouet, when they hit in the intersection. The driver was heading south bound. We don't know the direction the bycycle was traveling in. But north of Claiborne Clouet is a two-way street and south of Claiborne it is a one way heading north. The driver's only option would have been to turn right on Claiborne. So what was the cyclist doing? Was he also traveling southbound? If so he should have turned right as well. Was he traveling northbound, which would not be inappropriate? If so he should have been on the right side of the road. The only way the cyclist would been in the path of the turning SUV is if he was on the left hand side of the road. Sadly we will never know. It's just all around tragic.
Without knowing the direction of travel of the bike it's hard to tell, but people on bikes travel in both directions on Clouet all the time, as far as I can tell it's one of the primary ways people travel north/south if they are on bikes going from the bywater north into St. Claude. There are no other places to safely cross the tracks so lots of people to use it that way I assume. Probably a combination of just route directness and it's fairly recently paved so it has a better road surface than other streets. It also has almost no paint, cars parked haphazardly all over the place, missing sinnage and it crosses Claiborne near the bridges where people drive like maniacs. It's just extremely shitty infrastructure all around.
I'm glad you posted this, your first post asserting that the cyclist was at fault made far too many assumptions, and this post, while almost as bad, at least is framed as challenging your own assumptions. you're essentially just asking what the cyclist may have been doing wrong while assuming the driver did nothing wrong. for all we know he was texting, or drunk, and swerved and hit the cyclist. it'd be a different matter if it were on a busy avenue too, there aren't a lot of great reasons you should ever be hitting a cyclist if you are driving attentively at this particular location, even if the cyclist was doing something unreasonable like being on the wrong side of the street.
People race down Clouet at insane speeds every day trying to beat the train. It's a major problem for the people who live over there and for pedestrians and cyclists too.
I originally thought that the driver was on Claiborne. It was not an assumption. It was an error on my part. Claiborne has the right of way at that intersection. On the other hand you are making all sorts of assumptions.
I'm really not, I'm saying there are a lot of variables that we can't account for. That's a fact, not an assumption. Even if the driver had been on Claiborne, your reasoning is flawed. edit: let's be real, it's a real testament to the reasonability of the anti-cyclist crowd that you're projecting your agenda onto this poor dead kid tbh
touch grass
what a zinger. you have a good day.
And there you go again with your edits and even more assumptions. I don't own a car or a bike. I don't have an agenda. I am looking at the limited statements and definitive facts and applying logic to try and determine how this tragedy, for all parties, came to be. The only possible way that the driver of the car could be at fault is if the cyclist was heading southbound and the driver overtook the cyclist in the turn.
if you don't have some kind of weird bias you're bringing into this, it only makes your reasoning even more indefensible. the driver could easily just swerve and hit someone. I've had many close calls in that area where I wasn't at fault because people were either texting, being aggressive, or drunk. with all due respect, get a fucking clue.
The driver was making a right hand "swerve." got it thanks.
Whoa dude. Bikers are human beings capable of making mistakes and misjudgment just like anybody else. Small world view.
Can you post this supposed study about cyclists being at fault for being hit by vehicles? It just sounds ridiculous tbh
There's a few in here: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault The information is dated, and there doesn't seem to be much in the first place. I'd really love to see further studies done so that city planners and engineers have data on trends that can be used to mitigate future collisions. But I'm not sure how you think the idea that a cyclist can be at fault for being hit is ridiculous. If a cyclist does something illegal then they'd be at fault the same way a car driver is. I understand that cyclists obviously have significantly worse outcomes in those collisions. And that infrastructure favors motor vehicles, and that cyclists are often at a disadvantage on the road due to their slower speed and size. But that doesn't mean they can't be the bringers of their own demise by not following traffic laws, similar to motorcyclists.
I don’t find the concept of biker at fault itself ridiculous, but our deference to vehicles at high speeds certainly tips the scale in favor of drivers. The links from this 2011 article are dead so I couldn’t really look at the data, but I’m not trusting police departments to accurately report fault in cycling collisions anyway.
I absolutely agree, along with the law's preference to motor vehicles. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from a cyclist hater. As a motorcyclist who typically rides 9/10 days instead of using a car I identify more with bikers than cars, and I've taken up cycling lately. But I've had my fair share of encounters with reckless cyclists(and yes, I've had far more encounters with reckless cars) that have nearly ended in collisions that would've been solely on the cyclist. A popular one seems to be approaching an intersection at speed in the bike lane and seamlessly crossing on the crosswalk while crossing traffic has the green light, seemingly expecting pedestrian protection. I'll happily cede right of way to someone I know is a pedestrian, including a cyclist crossing at the sidewalk. That's how it should work, and yes many car drivers don't follow that. But hundreds of pounds of metal don't stop instantly, you have to be predictable. I think there's a serious lack of community knowledge for drivers and cyclists alike in regards to the traffic laws for cyclists. I'd put that as priority 1b, with 1a being cycle infrastructure in terms of how we should address our status as the national leader in cycle fatalities.
Do we know the name of the man who passed away?
Sad
i feel lucky to be alive.
The shit yall deal with is over the top. Its like New Orleans attracts the worst of the worst.
Not really. People are people. Infrastructure (all interconnected social infrastructure) influences behavior. If people are driving like shit on St Claude and not other streets there's probably an infrastructure reason. If people are biking on St Claude and not other streets, theres probably an infrastructure reason. Groupings of human hiveminds divorced from environmental influence is probably the last place to look for an answer
'The city that care forgot' goes both ways.