Prominent Local Bicyclist Struck By Hit And Run Dr

[SunnyKC]

Prominent Local Bicyclist Struck By Hit And Run Driver
posted July 21, 2009

A well-known local bicyclist suffered a broken leg and other injuries on Monday afternoon after being struck by a hit and run driver.

Van Townsend was with another rider in the vicinity of Raccoon Mountain and Highway 41, according to Ronald Driver, owner of River City Bicycles.

He said Mr. Townsend was taken to Erlanger Hospital after the crash around 2:30 p.m. He also has some scrapes and gashes.

Mr. Townsend is a former English professor and longtime track coach at Baylor School and is currently employed at River City Bicycles.

Mr. Driver said the driver of the vehicle immediately left the scene. He said police were able to collect the right side mirror and a portion of the front part of the vehicle at the scene.

He said, "It was a two lane road and they were going uphill. The driver should not have been anywhere near that close to them. There was no reason for him to be hit."

The said the bicyclists were side by side.

Mr. Driver said, "Van is a real up and coming member of the Chattanooga bicycle community and this is another blow to us - following the death of David Meek."

He added, "Everybody knows Van. He has never met a stranger."

Mr. Driver said Mr. Townsend is a former professional runner who turned to cycling after he was no longer able to run.

[snarkalicious]

WTF? Are drivers insane?

[Warkitty]

Yes they are, and they're aiming to kill us.


I'm sure this driver will also claim "I didn't see him"

I'm also sure we'll get responses here about how Van shouldn't have been on the road, how they shouldn't have been riding side by side, etc etc.

[Warkitty]

and yes, Van is also a friend of mine.

[daworm]

I don't know about him, but it is further evidence that I shouldn't be on the road. If the guys who are experienced at it can't keep from getting hit, I don't stand a chance.

[Kordax]

I've ridden that same stretch many times in the past & it's easy to avoid a bicyclist there. Considering the location, what'da'ya bet that the hit & run driver had meth-making stuff in the car & has a criminal record long & deep?

[ohwell]

I feel the driver, if found, should be charged with vehicular homicide. But, bikes are not licensed or insured for road use. To keep 6 foot away, on a lot of roads, is impossible. It places the motor vehicle on the wrong side of the double yellow line and in the path of an on coming vehicle. I have been on some back roads when going around a curve, its and automatic "Oh Shit."

[Warkitty]

Only need 3', not 6, and bikes are legally SUPPOSED to be on the roads.

[Justin Thyme]

Jul 22, 2009 6:14:07 GMT -5 ohwell said:

I feel the driver, if found, should be charged with vehicular homicide. But, bikes are not licensed or insured for road use. To keep 6 foot away, on a lot of roads, is impossible. It places the motor vehicle on the wrong side of the double yellow line and in the path of an on coming vehicle. I have been on some back roads when going around a curve, its and automatic "Oh Shit."

Since the cyclist is still living a manslaughter charge would not be appropriate but what does license and insurance have to do with whether or not a bicycle has a right to be on the road? And if a car is in front of you to get around it you are going to have to cross the double yellow line so what does that statement have to do with anything?

The fact is that a driver has the responsibility not to hit things with the vehicle being driven. It doesn't matter if you are coming around a curve, driving after sun down or anything. The only excuse you have for hitting something is if it comes into the road in such a manner that hitting it is physically unavoidable. Keep your speed down so that darkness or curves won't present you with one of your "Oh Shit" moments.

[Babs]

I would think that as many riders go up and down Signal Mt, and Moccasin Bend, or many other places, people would expect a bicycle rider in the road and act accordingly. Bikes do have the same rights as cars right down to turn signals and red lights and staying off sidewalks. Maybe the public needs some education on this matter. There have been too many recent incidents. On the other hand, I've seen many riders with no shirts, no helmets, and riding against traffic. However, they usually are very young or resemble the financially challenged.

[daworm]

While it may be legal, and cyclists may have the right to be on the road, and it may the right thing to do, the fact is that neither our roads nor our traffic patterns were designed with bicycle traffic in mind. Until and unless our traffic engineers factor bicycle traffic into their plans, and money and effort is expended on real bike lanes (not the meager 3' strips carved out of already too narrow roads), events like this will continue, and as cycling becomes more popular, increase. Sooner or later, a choice will have to be made. Some of the options are:

1. Spend a lot of money redesigning our roads
2. Disallow mixing of bicycles and cars, period
3. Disallow mixing of bicycles and cars where there is a significant speed differential (for example, no bikes on roads whose speed limit is over 30MPH, unless there is a designated bike lane)
4. Allow people to keep getting hit, whether by accident or malice

All the education of drivers in the world won't make much difference. Assholes like the guy that hit Mr. Townsend and then ran away will still be assholes. Accidents will still happen. The simple fact is, a 3,000 pound car going 45MPH and a 150 pound bicyclist going 15MPH is a dangerous combination, period. Even with equal weights, our Interstates have minimum speed limits because mixing of fast and slow traffic is dangerous.

[SunnyKC]

I hope they do find the guy..and I hope Mr Townsend will be OK..

[ohwell]

If you are driving a vehicle with a tag that expired in 2005, wouldn't you be stopped for improper tag and fined. If you were stopped and asked for proof of insurance, and you didn't have any, wouldn't you be fined. And then have to pay a lot for insurance to keep your license? Bikes are not licensed or insured for road use. Ask your agent.

[Tsavodiner]

Jul 22, 2009 12:52:46 GMT -5 Babs said:

I would think that as many riders go up and down Signal Mt, and Moccasin Bend, or many other places, people would expect a bicycle rider in the road and act accordingly. Bikes do have the same rights as cars right down to turn signals and red lights and staying off sidewalks. Maybe the public needs some education on this matter. There have been too many recent incidents. On the other hand, I've seen many riders with no shirts, no helmets, and riding against traffic. However, they usually are very young or resemble the financially challenged.

Well, we ARE giving bikes to the 'itinerant'. (ahem)

A photo in the Times yesterday gave me pause. Local photographer Dan Haley caught two young boys crossing the railroad tracks on Noah Reid Rd., a notoriously winding and narrow thoroughfare. Both, obviously under 16, weren't wearing helmets, and the younger one was doubling on the rear footpegs. Obvious violations of law, both of 'em.

And, for any cyclists here, you KNOW how easy it is to get fouled up crossing railroad tracks.

Point is, where the hell are the parents?! Teach 'em cycle safety early!

Warkitty, I hope your friend gets well, and I hope the THP relentlessly and mercilessly tracks the homicidal son of a bitch that did this to Him!

[Justin Thyme]

Jul 22, 2009 17:25:07 GMT -5 ohwell said:

If you are driving a vehicle with a tag that expired in 2005, wouldn't you be stopped for improper tag and fined. If you were stopped and asked for proof of insurance, and you didn't have any, wouldn't you be fined. And then have to pay a lot for insurance to keep your license? Bikes are not licensed or insured for road use. Ask your agent.

Why do you think cars are required to be licensed while bicycles aren't? Might it have something to do with the propensity for a car to cause damage that is far, far greater than the propensity of a bicycle to cause damage? The insurance laws are there for cars and not bicycles for the same reason.

The biggest difference is that the car is powered by an engine while the bicycle is human powered, just like walking. Would you suggest that we require you to license and insure your legs before walking on city streets? Of course not. That's why we don't require the licensing and insurance for bicycles.

Some states do require bicycles to be licensed. Some roads are made off limits for pedestrians and bicycles. The restrictions are there when needed.

[Longshot! [ Saint ]]

Ah. An insider tells me that next weeks issue of the Pulse newspaper is going to annoy a great many of you...heh.

(*Worm shall not be amongst them.)

[BlackFox]

Jul 22, 2009 14:08:05 GMT -5 daworm said:

3. Disallow mixing of bicycles and cars where there is a significant speed differential (for example, no bikes on roads whose speed limit is over 30MPH, unless there is a designated bike lane)

This sounds like a reasonable idea.

When you look at how speed limits are set it makes even more sense. Speed surveys are done to establish what is essentially the average speed by a certain percentage of drivers, and limit is established because most people disregard limits anyway and just drive a comfortable speed. This avoids large disparaties in speed, and makes the roads safer. Bicycles throw a serious wrench in the works.

[Justin Thyme]

Bicycles throw a serious wrench in the works.

It really depends upon your perspective. Some would say that cars are throwing the wrenches.

Bicycle riders need to determine whether or not to take the risks of riding on the road but car drivers, regardless of bikes being allowed on the road, need to understand that they are responsible for the complete control of their car. That means you make sure you can stop for any obstacle that is in the path of your car.

[Warkitty]

Again you say this, and you're still wrong. Speed limits are NOT set by taking the average current speed of drivers. If it were, residential streets wouldn't be 25mph. Speed limits are set not by What A Certain Percentage Drives Anyway but by the maximum safe speed a vehicle can travel on that road without risking life and limb of either other users of that road or the driver. That certain types of people ignore posted speed limits is NOT a driving factor in setting them, public safety IS.


Also, since some folks actually use their bikes to commute to work, restricting bicycles to only roads with 30mph and under would unnecessarily restrict that capability.

[BlackFox]

Jul 23, 2009 10:32:53 GMT -5 Warkitty said:

Again you say this, and you're still wrong. Speed limits are NOT set by taking the average current speed of drivers. If it were, residential streets wouldn't be 25mph. Speed limits are set not by What A Certain Percentage Drives Anyway but by the maximum safe speed a vehicle can travel on that road without risking life and limb of either other users of that road or the driver. That certain types of people ignore posted speed limits is NOT a driving factor in setting them, public safety IS.


Also, since some folks actually use their bikes to commute to work, restricting bicycles to only roads with 30mph and under would unnecessarily restrict that capability.

Uh, right and wrong. I'm sure that some roads have arbitrary speed limits like downtown or neighborhoods or interstates for that matter, but most roads speed limits are established by surveys in which the limits are established by determining the average speed of the 85th percentile of drivers. That way the speed freaks and the little old ladies are not included, but pedestrians and bicycles are also not included. I may be off some because this is not an area that I work in, but if I'm not mistaken, enforcement can not be done on a stretch of road unless it has had a survey done every few years. This is to ensure against "speed traps" and is mandated by the federal government.

[daworm]

Also, since some folks actually use their bikes to commute to work, restricting bicycles to only roads with 30mph and under would unnecessarily restrict that capability.

Unnecessarily? When it involves their safety? I live off of Hwy 58, and were I to work at Northgate, the only way I could legally or safely (relatively) ride to work would be to ride all the way downtown, probably on Amnicola, cross the river at Walnut, Veterans or Market Street bridge, and ride all the way back down Hixson Pike. Effectively impossible, and possibly more dangerous than trying to ride across the dam with 60+ MPH traffic (ten miles of Amnicola and then Hixson Pike vs 1 mile of 153 or CB Robinson in the morning is probably a wash as to which would get you killed quicker). So that argument doesn't hold much water with me. Some people will be able to, some people won't, its just which people that may change. If they have a problem with it, let them push for more money for (safe) bike lanes.

[Warkitty]

*sigh*


As I expected. A guy gets hit from behind on a straight, wide stretch of road with excellent visibility, the driver doesn't even slow down after, and there's the suggestion to ban bicycles from roads that aren't 25mph residential streets cuz by golly they're smaller and by golly no driver should be, you know, watching the road for smaller slower traffic and by golly it's just not safe so let's not allow it at all.

Maybe we should ban any use of any road except in an SUV.

(this is why I didn't bring up Van's wreck when I first heard about it, though unlike the 14yr old that didn't yield and got hit the other day, Van did nothing wrong. You dont' hear me yelling about the kid that didn't yield at the sign though.)

[daworm]

*sigh* right back at you...

Stop trying to paint me with a broad brush as somehow condoning the asshole who hit your friend. I do not, nor have I ever, and nothing I have written was intended to be, nor by any reasonable person could be, interpreted that way.

This particular incident, where I plainly and clearly stated, the driver of the car was completely and totally at fault, has nothing to do with my suggestion that in general, cars and bicycles are an unsafe combination, other that it triggered the discussion.

Let me make it perfectly clear, from what I've read of the incident, the asshole in question would have probably hit Mr. Townsend even if there was a 100 foot bike lane and Mr. Townsend was traveling at the same speed as the car. Assholes are assholes, and this guy was a prime example of one.

That does nothing to change my opinion that cars and bikes are an unsafe combination. Some people use this as an opportunity to imply that all drivers are like that asshole (read the article in today's TFP for an example), while I use this as an opportunity to note that even if all drivers were the polar opposite, and as careful and considerate as they possibly could be, that accidents will still happen and when an accident involves a car or truck and a bicycle, the results will not be pretty. I then went on to provide what I think, purely by my own opinion and not backed up by any research, might be a reasonable way to alleviate some of that danger.

I started to include something similar to the following in my previous post, because I was fairly sure you or someone like you would react exactly the way you have. I'd hoped better, but I see that was in vain. So here goes, in greatly expanded form...

You're problem, and seemingly the problem with most cyclists, is that you want everything and are willing to give up nothing. You're perfectly willing to admit that some cyclists do not follow the rules (but not your friends, noooo...), and quick to point out that some drivers do not follow the rules or are openly hostile to cyclists. But you refuse to admit that the combination of cars and bikes has inherent dangers that might involve cyclists giving up something, like which roads are considered safe for cycling. You want the motorists to wait behind you while you climb Signal Mountain at 10 MPH (because there's few places to pass by the legal 3' that doesn't involve crossing the center line), but you don't want to admit that it might just possibly be better off for all involved if there were no bikes climbing that mountain in the first place, at least until the roads can be widened and/or improved enough to allow it to be done safely. No, you won't even consider that as an option. Same for many other roads where high traffic, narrow lanes, and high speeds are obviously unsafe to mix bikes and cars. "Cyclists have the right to be on the road, any road, damn it, and we're gonna use 'em, to hell with common sense." Quite frankly, it makes you seem extremely arrogant and does nothing to encourage anyone to even consider your point of view.

Then, you avoid the points about safety entirely by trying to make me look like someone who either thinks that the asshole that hit Mr. Townsend was somehow justified, or that I somehow think that no bicycle should ever be allowed on any road, anywhere, anytime. Neither of which is true, but you don't seem to mind painting me with that brush. Not if it is your sacred cow I happen to be goring, anyway.

I would love to be able to ride on the public streets with a reasonable expectation that I could do so safely. I would love to have bike lanes, bike paths, and specific signage with clear instructions to riders and motorists at intersections, such as I have seen in several other communities*. I also understand that such things come with a price tag, and that especially now, that price tag might be more than our municipalities can bear. Some things, if not done right, should not be done at all, and I'm fairly certain that, for many streets in this area, this is one of them. Obviously, you do not. But rather than debate the point, you'd rather make me look like some sort of villain.

* Most of these places I have seen have been very new communities where larger cities have grown, and as a part of that growth, turning rural farmland into suburban neighborhoods, the roads were planned and designed with bicycles in mind from the start. The roads were wide to begin with, with room for bike lanes and even turning lanes specifically for bikes. Unfortunately, most of our streets were not designed that way, and there isn't room to add those features, and there is little anyone can do to change that.

[gridbug]

Given that reasoning and the sad sidewalk situation in this city, I guess we should outlaw being a pedestrian in a lot of Chattanooga and most of Suburbia and the County. For safety reasons one should not be allowed to walk along any road without a servicable sidewalk. Roads were made for CARS, not people.

And keep your cows out of the road, be they sacred or secular.

[Justin Thyme]

Since cars are harmful to the environment and a hazard to our safety I would suggest banning cars from the road instead of bicycles. Cars belch harmful pollutants into the air and the speed they can attain combined with their mass makes them deadly projectiles hurled around by mostly untrained operators in communities.

Since our economy has become dependent upon foreign oil the use of internal combustion engines as our primary source of propulsion is now a threat to our national security and this form of propulsion should be banned based on this threat.

Since our national obesity rate keeps rising adding to our health care costs causing a crisis that our government is currently looking at addressing by adding billions, no trillions of dollars of debt that our children and grand children and great grandchildren will be paying off it is imperative that human powered vehicles become the primary mode of transportation in this country.

[Warkitty]

I know perfectly well that there will be accidents and I willingly take that risk every time I get on a bike. I know there are assholes that would as soon run me down as look at me, and the same is true when I'm on a motorcycle or walking.

Since there has been a problem with widening the roads (budget being first and foremost reason), I guess we're never going to be able to set things up to be minimally safe for all, and hence no one should use the roads that isn't in a tank.

IF it helps any, Worm, you're not the only one in this discussion, and while some of the brush hit you I am well aware that you're not the villain. I am also however, aware that given the opportunity and money, all too many would argue against widening the streets to allow for safer cycling anyway as the construction would interfere with their immediate day. I also am sadly aware that even on streets that have room for cyclists, the wider shoulders merely wind up being used to park cars on them. I'm also well aware that when I've climbed any of our lovely mountain roads at my relatively pitiful bike speed, every car that's come up behind me has found a way to pass safely and quickly despite the argument that there's no way they could. Maybe because like any smart person on a slower, smaller vehicle, I take the earliest opportunity to pull to the side so they can get by (after all, there are sections like that on many of these roads where things widen out).

All I ask is that my bike not be banned from streets it's not already illegal to ride on and that people like the asshat that hit Van be found and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Oh, and that you not throw shit at me or honk from 6" away while passing.

[Tsavodiner]

I know perfectly well that there will be accidents and I willingly take that risk every time I get on a bike. I know there are assholes that would as soon run me down as look at me, and the same is true when I'm on a motorcycle or walking.

Depends on what you're wearing while I'm chasing you.....

[ohwell]

Bikes can cause serious damage. Cross the tracks at the wrong time, dead. Run over my dog, you will be sorry. My dog is licensed ! ! ! ! ! Hit a small child, wouldn't blame the parent for what they did. Run through my flower garden, you will be sued to pay the damage. Get the picture ? ?

[daworm]

I guess I just reacted to what seems to be the prevalent attitude, that somehow motorists are the enemy. Motorists were there first*, the roads were built with motorists in mind, and yet the motorists are the problem. Just because a small minority of people want to use the roadways for something they were never designed for, the majority of people have to accommodate them. It might even be the right thing to do (and I would agree, in the long run that it is), but if you try to force the issue overnight, you're bound to hit a lot of resistance. And that's what I see, a bunch of cyclists insisting that everyone else change to accommodate them, right this minute, without any discussion of whether it is the right thing to do or if now is the right time to do it. They are convinced they are right, and are unwilling to even listen to anyone else, or at least that's how it looks to me. And if anyone has the temerity to say, "Hey, hold on a minute here" they are either dismissed out of hand or worse made out to be a villain. Just because someone doesn't share your belief that more and more people ought to leave their cars in their garage and take to the streets on two wheels, doesn't make them stupid, it doesn't make them enemies, and perhaps most importantly, it doesn't make them wrong.

* I am aware that bicycles of one form or another have been around since the mid 1800's, and automobiles of any significance only since the early 1900's. That's not the sense of "being there first" I mean. Instead, I am speaking of the lifetime of most drivers, where cars were the primary users of the road, and kids marked being able to "ride on the street" as a rite of passage (albeit limited to the relatively safe confines of one's neighborhood). For these people, roads have always been for cars. Cyclists are the newcomers taking over their turf. If you think about it that way, it should be obvious why there is so much resistance (even if that's not a good reason, it is an understandable one).

[Justin Thyme]

Worm, I understand what you are talking about with drivers becoming frustrated with bicyclist. Really, I do but that doesn't excuse a driver from maintaining control of his car. I'm less into this argument for cyclist for the cyclist sake as I am for everyone's sake. Drivers need to understand that they are driving a deadly weapon and treat it as such instead of using it to be an asshole like the driver in this incident did or using it to vent frustration when the cyclist slows the driver down for a bit. Drivers can't take that attitude while driving or people die.