« Back to Archive

Cyclist down, 20160705, McKean St at Terminal Way?

from Facebook via Hart Johnson, Saw a cyclist was hit on McKean under Terminal Way tonight. I rode by shortly after it happened, 911 was already called, people were crying & the cyclist was laying on the sidewalk.
2016-07-05 20:54:12
Any word on this?
2016-07-06 10:25:41
Pasting our statement from Facebook here. Thanks to those of you who made us aware of this collision & for your patience as we worked to find out what happened. —–—–—–—–—–—– Yesterday we were informed of a collision in the South Side that occurred on the trail detour near the Riverwalk Corporate Center (Terminal Building). After many hours of seeking information, we've finally heard more: a distracted driver swerved into the oncoming lane and struck two people riding bicycles on McKean St toward S. 4th St in the South Side. The victims, a mother and her son, suffered serious injuries, but are thankfully in stable condition. McKean St is used by drivers who are trying to avoid E Carson St, and has long served as a detour for the South Side Trail, which forces trail users onto the street for a couple bumpy, industrial blocks, because the trail is not complete between the buildings and the train tracks. This incident raises the importance of continuing the trail behind the Riverwalk Corporate Center and the County Maintenance building. While the new owners of the buildings seem intent on installing the trail with the redevelopment, recently CSX installed a fence to prevent trail users from going behind the building onto railroad property. The City is in negotiations with CSX to allow the trail to be placed on the property, but there has been little movement. Officially, the trail detour is to walk bikes on the sidewalk, but one part of the sidewalk is closed due to the above crumbling bridge infrastructure and other parts are occupied by vehicles parked on the sidewalk. Regardless, just about everybody rides on the street for the two block detour. Mix that with a distracted or aggressive driver and you have a recipe for disaster. The trail needs to be connected. We've been waiting long enough. And while minor improvements could be made to the existing detour, they wouldn't have necessarily have curtailed an irresponsible driver. Clearly more needs to be done by our legislature and police and individuals to prevent this incredibly dangerous activity. We've reinforced the importance of creating a solution to all involved parties.
2016-07-07 20:00:12
Was the distracted driver charged?
2016-07-08 10:33:48
we are told that they will be issued a warrant for arrest once the charges get sorted out. i don't know if it happened yet
2016-07-08 14:17:22
@erok said "Officially, the trail detour is to walk bikes on the sidewalk" but I heard that the meaning of the "Walk Bicycles on Sidewalk" sign is On these sidewalks, bicycles may be walked, but not ridden.
2016-07-10 16:56:06
Paul, that's a good reminder - when "walk on sidewalk" signs went up a business district last year (I'm thinking Walnut) there was the same ambiguity - I read it to mean, don't ride your bike in the street, but when I asked about it (and I think BikePgh was the responder, fwiw) I was told: No, it means if you're on the sidewalk, you shouldn't be riding your bike you should be walking your bike". A clearer message would be: no riding bikes on sidewalk or no riding bikes on street
2016-07-10 22:31:48
Or "On sidewalk, walk bicycles". Only longer than the current sign by one comma. I too assumed the current signs meant "bicycles may not be ridden here but must be walked on the sidewalk". Googling "walk bicycles on sidewalk" shows several instances where cities put up "No bikes on sidewalk" or even "No bikes" signs (when they were merely trying to say "Don't ride bikes on the sidewalks"), and later tried to clarify their intent by replacing those signs with "Walk bikes on sidewalks". Which is better, I guess, just ambiguous.
2016-07-11 01:26:41
Modify the one sign to say "On sidewalk, walk bikes." Add a second sign, "Bikes may use full lane." No ambiguity at all.
2016-07-11 07:32:03