Leader of bicycle group hit by car du...

Leader of bicycle group hit by car during ride in Oakdale

There are 140 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Aug 31, 2010, titled Leader of bicycle group hit by car during ride in Oakdale. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Dorian Grilley of Mahtomedi will undergo two surgeries on his shoulders. Dorian Grilley, executive director of Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, is recovering from injuries he suffered when the bicycle he was riding was struck by a car at the intersection of Hadley Avenue North and the Gateway State Trail in Oakdale.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
bRad

United States

#130 Sep 2, 2010
Magic wrote:
<quoted text>
"shall have all the rights and DUTIES applicable to a pedestrian"
That means you cannot ride a bike across a road in a crosswalk OR on a sidewalk. You must walk NOT RUN in a crosswalk. It would be disasterous to allow bikes to ride fast across a busy street even in a crosswalk, as this guy found out.
Clearly you've misinterpreted the law, because the woman was the one sighted for breaking the law not the cyclist.
Magic

Plymouth, MN

#131 Sep 2, 2010
bRad wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you've misinterpreted the law, because the woman was the one sighted for breaking the law not the cyclist.
Clearly COPs have never made a mistake, have they?
bRad

United States

#132 Sep 2, 2010
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/Unde...

"Minnesota law also grants cyclists all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian, when operating on a sidewalk. Minnesota Pedestrian law explains that pedestrians (and therefore cyclists) have the right-of-way at marked crosswalks and at intersections with no marked crosswalks. Before entering the crosswalk, pedestrians and cyclists must ensure that a road user has the ability to stop."

The cyclist could easily have entered the crosswalk before the woman even turned off of 36. Nobody on this board can say otherwise. The fact that the woman was sited points to her being at fault.
Magic

Plymouth, MN

#133 Sep 2, 2010
Pally wrote:
"The intersection is awkward, because a cyclist can in fact look both ways and have clearance, but a sudden right turn off of MN36 can suddenly put a car into one of the lanes of Hadley. Depending on the direction of travel, the cyclist may already be in the crosswalk when the car moves onto Hadley"
Wouldn't this make the intersection pretty awkward to the driver of the car too? I mean...can they even see the person on the bike when they are making their turn? Sounds like a stupid place for a bike trail if you ask me.
The car was headed NB on Hadley and the bike EB so there was not the turning off 36 action at work.

The car driver said she was going 10-15 MPH which allowed the biker to live. Is it possible the biker was screened from the drivers view by a SB car/truck on Hadley??

I agree having that crossing where it is dangerous because people don't expect another crossing so close to the 36 intersection and indeed many drivers are watching the stoplight and trying to make it across the intersection to FF or theators.

Seems to me it would be safer if the bike trail crossed at the 36 intersection like the 120/36 intersection. That way vehicles are either stopped by the light or allowed to go by the light.

A friend who is an avid biker says the 120/36 intersection was very easy to cross because there were long delays to allow the 36 traffic to pass because 36 is very busy. These long delays were great for bikes to get across 120 and would also allow bikes to cross Hadley safely.

Having said that, Gobernut WILL NEVER make a logical change like that. Instead Sen Wiger and Rep Lillie will lobby for a new $3,000,000 bike bridge over Hadley. Our tax dollars at waste..
Magic

Plymouth, MN

#134 Sep 2, 2010
bRad wrote:
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.u s/bicycles/UnderstandingtheLaw .asp
"Minnesota law also grants cyclists all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian, when operating on a sidewalk. Minnesota Pedestrian law explains that pedestrians (and therefore cyclists) have the right-of-way at marked crosswalks and at intersections with no marked crosswalks. Before entering the crosswalk, pedestrians and cyclists must ensure that a road user has the ability to stop."
The cyclist could easily have entered the crosswalk before the woman even turned off of 36. Nobody on this board can say otherwise. The fact that the woman was sited points to her being at fault.
The car driver didn't turn off 36 she was NB on Hadley not SB.

A smart biker/pedestrian makes eye contact with any driver of a motor vehicle making sure they see you before pulling out in front of them. This bikers failure to do that skrewed up the rest of his summer and maybe more than that.

Drive defensivly or skrew up your future, OH YA the driver of the car ends up in court, BFD.
AviationMetalSmi th

Brooklyn, NY

#135 Sep 2, 2010
Mr. Grilley was riding his bicycle on a Bicycle Path, not a road.
This story is proof that you can't trust the leaders of these bicycle groups to keep you safe.
If you want top take a "safe" bicycle ride, forget about your "right of way", pretend it doesn't exist. Yield to all motor vehicles. Start out with the intent of a slow, leisurely bike ride, don't try to go fast. Keep your head on a pivot, and get a rear view mirror. Be aware of all cars within 250 feet of your bike.
So I assume Mr. Grilley broke his collar bone?

Anyway, I looked for the location of the accident on Google maps, but couldn't find the bike path. I want to know if overgrown vegetation was a factor. Vegetation sometimes blocks line of sight vision. Cut it down.
Magic

Plymouth, MN

#136 Sep 2, 2010
I have driven a bike on that trail and it's a nice ride BUT you need to be carefull of ALL intersections!!

There are a couple of driveways and of course road crossings. Anyone of which can make you miserable for a long time.
AviationMetalSmi th

Brooklyn, NY

#137 Sep 2, 2010
PS- I found the location on Google maps -"Gateway Segment of the Williard Munger Trail", and street view shows the scene clear of vegetation.

Note that the traffic doesn't have a STOP sign, just a lime green pedestrian crossing sign.
Colin

Minneapolis, MN

#138 Sep 2, 2010
AviationMetalSmith wrote:
Note that the traffic doesn't have a STOP sign, just a lime green pedestrian crossing sign.
Which apparently means nothing to most drivers. MNDOT needs to put a STOP sign here for motor vehicle traffic. Anything less is ignored. At least a stop sign will slow people down to "California rolling stop" speed.(what is that nowadays? 15?)
bRad

United States

#139 Sep 2, 2010
I'm not saying that cyclists shouldn't drive defensively, but it's B.S. to try and put the blame on the cyclist for not driving defensively when it was this womans fault.

All drivers should drive defensively, are the drivers that are hit the victims because they didn't drive defensively enough?

No, it's still the driver that broke the law to blame. You can say the cyclist could have rode more defensively, but remember it was the car drivers fault.
Magic

Maple Plain, MN

#141 Sep 2, 2010
bRad wrote:
I'm not saying that cyclists shouldn't drive defensively, but it's B.S. to try and put the blame on the cyclist for not driving defensively when it was this womans fault.
All drivers should drive defensively, are the drivers that are hit the victims because they didn't drive defensively enough?
No, it's still the driver that broke the law to blame. You can say the cyclist could have rode more defensively, but remember it was the car drivers fault.
IMHO the one that will hurt the most as a result of a wreck should be the most carefull, at least that is the way I am. When on a bike I don't want to get into a wreck with anything bigger, period.

The driver in this wreck may have her vision of trail traffic screened by left turning traffic. There is a long turn lane right through the bike trail crossing. There may have been cars and maybe even large trucks waiting to turn left onto WB 36. If that were the case the left turners may have left room for trail traffic and the biker may have assumed all traffic was stopped and it wasn't. Yje driver may have been in the right lane driving through the green light on 36.

BAM!!!
bRad

United States

#142 Sep 2, 2010
Still her fault. Yes the cyclist could have done more to protect his safety, but that doesn't make it his fault.

It is reasons like this that in most cases I prefer to ride on actual rodes in traffic lanes. Trail crossings are dangerous, even those marked with cross walks. I'll slow down enough where I can stop if a car is on coming and won't have time to stop. I'll also force the issue of the crosswalk on motorists. I've been stuck at many trail crossing with crosswalks, and its not until I put my bike onto the actual rode that cars will stop. Of course I don't do this unless theirs enough time for the driver to stop, and I stare down the driver and point at the crosswalk while doing it.

P.S. just because a cyclist isn't carrying a pack doesn't mean he's not commuting. I know several bike commuters who have lockers at their jobs, they commute every couple of days and simply bring their close on the days they drive.

Since: Jul 10

Duluth, MN

#143 Sep 2, 2010
How pathetic is it how all these riders think theyre Greg Lemond. All wear these spandex, no regards for people in their cars. They think they own the road. Get a life people, stop thinking your Lance Armstrong. Its sad, Fed-Ex, UPS, Motorola doesnt sponsor your ride down the road so why are you wearing the gear? Just a bunch of losers. They dont stop at lights or stop signs, they think that since theyre on a bicycle and can get hurt easy we should all give them the right of way. Well nerds, not this guy. Watch out for my Cigarette butt when I pass you. Keep an eye out for cars or you will end up like this guy or road kill.
Magic

Prior Lake, MN

#144 Sep 2, 2010
bRad wrote:
Still her fault. Yes the cyclist could have done more to protect his safety, but that doesn't make it his fault.
It is reasons like this that in most cases I prefer to ride on actual rodes in traffic lanes. Trail crossings are dangerous, even those marked with cross walks. I'll slow down enough where I can stop if a car is on coming and won't have time to stop. I'll also force the issue of the crosswalk on motorists. I've been stuck at many trail crossing with crosswalks, and its not until I put my bike onto the actual rode that cars will stop. Of course I don't do this unless theirs enough time for the driver to stop, and I stare down the driver and point at the crosswalk while doing it.
P.S. just because a cyclist isn't carrying a pack doesn't mean he's not commuting. I know several bike commuters who have lockers at their jobs, they commute every couple of days and simply bring their close on the days they drive.
Fault don't matter when your in a box under 6 feet of dirt!
Magic

Plymouth, MN

#145 Sep 3, 2010
Get it?

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

#146 Sep 3, 2010
FrankL wrote:
As one who knows that intersection, the bike trail parallels a 4 lane highway and crosses about 50 feet in front of the stop light. It is a very poor design as you have room for two cars between the bike trail and the stop light with the rest of the cars waiting 3 abreast behind the line designating the bike trail. The cars are controlled by the stoplight, but the bikes have no traffic control.
Thank you. I know this intersection well, too, and had the same thought about the stoplights there. I wonder why Dorian didn't stop and look before crossing, or if he did see the car rolling up to the stop why didn't he wait until she passed? Bikes should NOT have the right of way there as it's kind of a tangle of traffic anyway. Until the bridge trail overpass is completed, bicyclists need to heed extra caution and take it upon themselves to wait for a break in traffic to cross at Hadley.
All that said, I feel for Dorian and hope that his surgeries go well and his recovery is smoothe. A very good friend of mine is a serious bicyclist (hi, M!) and I worry about her safety out there in traffic. The roads are getting more dangerous all the time with increasing congestion, poor infrastructure, distracted driving, and flashing billboards (possibly the worst idea ever in advertising) and in a car/bicycle collision it's never good for the one on the bike.
Master Biker

Plymouth, MN

#147 Sep 3, 2010
ZenBirdist wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. I know this intersection well, too, and had the same thought about the stoplights there. I wonder why Dorian didn't stop and look before crossing, or if he did see the car rolling up to the stop why didn't he wait until she passed? Bikes should NOT have the right of way there as it's kind of a tangle of traffic anyway. Until the bridge trail overpass is completed, bicyclists need to heed extra caution and take it upon themselves to wait for a break in traffic to cross at Hadley.
All that said, I feel for Dorian and hope that his surgeries go well and his recovery is smoothe. A very good friend of mine is a serious bicyclist (hi, M!) and I worry about her safety out there in traffic. The roads are getting more dangerous all the time with increasing congestion, poor infrastructure, distracted driving, and flashing billboards (possibly the worst idea ever in advertising) and in a car/bicycle collision it's never good for the one on the bike.
We have the RIGHT to drive across that road AND we have the RIGHT to ignore traffic.

The DIRTY cars MUST yield to us clean bikes.

DEAL WITH IT!!!

IF you hit us YOU will go to jail!!

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

#148 Sep 3, 2010
Master Biker wrote:
<quoted text>
We have the RIGHT to drive across that road AND we have the RIGHT to ignore traffic.
The DIRTY cars MUST yield to us clean bikes.
DEAL WITH IT!!!
IF you hit us YOU will go to jail!!
You absolutely DO have the right to ride on the roads and to cross at that particular intersection where Dorian was hit, I don't dispute that. I stated that *that* intersection doesn't seem a safe place to grant bicycles the right of way when there is a traffic light with crosswalks only feet away.

Does it really behoove you to ignore traffic? It sounds like you'd be willing to take a hit just to prove a point. Thank goodness my friend has more common sense on her bicycle than your post suggests you do on yours.

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

#149 Sep 3, 2010
Master Biker wrote:
<quoted text>
We have the RIGHT to drive across that road AND we have the RIGHT to ignore traffic.
The DIRTY cars MUST yield to us clean bikes.
DEAL WITH IT!!!
IF you hit us YOU will go to jail!!
Also, please refer to the wisdom of post #144.
Das_Boot

Saint Paul, MN

#150 Sep 3, 2010
Master Biker wrote:
<quoted text>
We have the RIGHT to drive across that road AND we have the RIGHT to ignore traffic.
The DIRTY cars MUST yield to us clean bikes.
DEAL WITH IT!!!
IF you hit us YOU will go to jail!!
Yeop, this guy is right... DEAD RIGHT...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 hr Earthling-1 34,402
grossest thing ever 3 hr space ace 1
Third Term for Obama ? 5 hr Tellitlikeitis 20
Don Trump is a rapist 5 hr Tellitlikeitis 13
Delete Hulk Hogan 7 hr space ace 2
van halen 1978 album 7 hr space ace 2
Brave Great White Hunter Mr Palmer 7 hr Ethical Hunter 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages