Great post. If we can just get a motorist to take out someone on a bicycle, that should make everything right.

She wasn't wearing a walking helmet, was she?

"As the cyclists began to pass the woman, she stepped in front of them and was struck ..."

It's obvious this woman was taunting the cyclists.

Most pedestrians have been walking for years and follow all the rules of the path. This woman's actions were thoughtless and reflect poorly on the rest of the Pedestrian Community.

"If we can just get a motorist to take out someone on a bicycle, that should make everything right."
---

I thought that peds were worth two bicyclers? Did the ratio change on me?

I thought that peds were worth two bicyclers?

You're right, of course. I was thinking of a tandem, but forgot to mention that.

Just today I saw a bicyclist speed past cars stopped at a cross walk and just about take out the pedestrian crossing the street.

This is one of the reasons I hate to ride in congested areas on mixed use bike paths on nice days. According to my speedometer I easily be riding along at 25 MPH on level ground. If you are passing someone on foot at that speed, and they don't hear or see you coming, it takes one small move to cause an accident because there is no margin for error. So if I can't give someone a very wide berth as I'm passing, I slow way down. As a consequence I prefer to ride on road that has a designated bike lane when I know the paths will be crowded. Like every other place in the world, mixed pedestrian/bike paths are hazardous if people aren't using common sense. Cyclists have the primary responsibility on mixed use paths because they are in control of an instrument that can cause harm. In this case the bicyclist sounds like they were in the wrong because if he hadn't hit her he would have come close enough to cause her to go in cardiac arrest anyhow.

Jack, I'd like to urge you to reconsider the phrase "why some people root for the cars." When cars and bikes collide, people die. I've known people who lost loved ones/friends who were hit by cars, and it is a deep and devastating loss. I can understand why not everyone is a fan of bikes and cyclists--heck, I ride, and I get angry at their behavior. I just hope you'll reconsider suggesting that it's ok to "root for cars" when the outcome of that sort of thing invariably results in the death of a cyclist. Thanks.

"Though the number of pedestrian fatalities [involving cars] fell from 5,228 in 1998 to 4,378 in 2008, there were 69,000 reported pedestrian injuries in 2008."

I think the cars are doing pretty well on their own. Thanks for the sanctimony, though.

The collision and the death are both tragic. The pedestrian and the cyclists were sharing a multi-use path, both going the correct direction on the correct portion of the path. The passing cyclist had a duty to pass safely, and clearly failed to do that. Beyond that, no-one here knows anything about the circumstances from the linked article.

So, the pedestrian death toll is roughly cars 4,378 (per year), bikes 1. Let's get indignant about the bikes...

Sheesh.