The Badger Herald

NEWS

Woman runs over cyclist at Spring, Mills

BRYAN FAUST/Herald photo

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Sundeep Malladi:

In-Depth: What's affected by budget cuts? (September 1, 2005)
In-Depth: Rising past the numbers (November 10, 2005)

by Sundeep Malladi

Monday, April 24, 2006

Mills Street residents were alarmed late Sunday evening by the sound of screeching tires when a car hit a man riding his bike near the intersection of Mills and Spring streets. After being hit by the first vehicle, the victim was thrown into the opposing lane and run over by another car.

The condition of the 19- to 22-year-old victim was unknown as of press time.

According to witnesses, the victim attempted to cross Mills Street, heading east on a city bike path.

"We were in our apartment. … We saw a male had been hit by a car coming from the north, and then he was lying in this other (opposite) lane," said UW sophomore Kelley Redding, who, along with others, called 911. "He must have flown into the other lane, and he was motionless."

Seconds later, he was run over by a red vehicle driven by an elderly woman heading north, who dragged the victim roughly 40 yards before onlookers were able to signal the driver to stop the car.

Witnesses said the rider was wearing all black and was difficult to see.

Nonetheless, Madison police and fire officers were praised for their rapid response. Madison police officer Laura Walker said eight squad cars responded immediately after receiving a call at 8:45 p.m.

The victim did not yield to a yield sign in the bike path, Walker added.

"It's fairly clear. … There is a yield sign there, and anyone who's taken any sort of drivers' course or bicycle-safety course would know that when you're entering into another roadway, you're the one required to yield," Walker said. "There is a yield sign there and the bike did not yield."

In fact, Walker, who responded to another bike accident earlier Sunday, said bike accidents in Madison were relatively common.

"[They occur] quite a bit. Nothing this horrific or this bad, but quite a bit," Walker said. "Madison is a college town and there's a lot of people on bikes — an exorbitant amount of people on bikes. You have cars on the road. Sometimes they collide."

However, Redding said both drivers and cyclists had to be more alert of each other.

"It didn't look like he had any kinds of lights on his bike or anything," Redding said. "As a driver, you have to watch out for bikes especially. Bikes are fast moving. … People just don't pay attention to the bikers."

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (April 24, 2006 @ 12:13pm):

Cyclists need to learn how to obey traffic laws. It would be valuable to all cyclists to read this article. They coast through stop and yield signs, run red lights, cut cars off and totally disregard pedestrians. I my self am a cyclist and am often amazed at how irreverently and dangerously we move though out the city. If you're supposed to stop or yield and you don't expect to get mashed, maybe that way you'll stop instead of getting mashed. Don't be arrogant on the streets cyclists and pedestrians, you may have the right of way but when it comes to a 2000 some lb moving object stubbornness will get you killed and no matter what happens you don't even get a chance for the last word--you just lose. Bike safe, bike friendly, obey the traffic laws and don't be rude or arrogant. 20 is to young to die.

Anonymous (April 24, 2006 @ 3:05pm):

"People just don't pay attention to the bikers."

Wearing all black and not obeying traffic rules might be more the cause here.

Anonymous (April 24, 2006 @ 4:21pm):

Forget the traffic laws, obey the law of total mass, car = more mass, bike and rider = low mass, which implies, even IF the biker has the right of way, he/she should be smart enough to be certain the auto driver is going to stop. In the end, the bike rider will lose every time.

Anonymous (April 24, 2006 @ 4:54pm):

Cyclists think they own the road. In reality, it's no different from the mindset of many pedestrians in Madison, as lots of pedestrians also dart out in front of cars and force you to slam on the brakes. The city of Madison could make a fortune if they enforced jaywalking laws.

And I won't even get into the subject of moped riders. Suffice to say if an accident involves a moped, in 99% of the cases it was the moped rider's fault.

Anonymous (April 24, 2006 @ 8:29pm):

This was poor journalism. A man, most likely a fellow student, was severely hurt, and most of your report is about how maybe he didn't yield enough? Have some compassion!

Anonymous (April 24, 2006 @ 10:42pm):

I am appalled by the Badger Herald's last-ditch effort for a front page story before going to press last night. In response to the obvious slant of this article (being that the cyclist was at fault) I would like to ask you, Sundeep Malladi, how could you report that a motorist hit and dragged a human being for "40 yards" without noticing until onlookers signaled the driver to stop, and maintain that the cyclist was at fault?

By the way, the victim (yes, I am reffering the the cyclist) was dragged 158 feet and 5 inches before the vehicle was signaled to stop, not a mere "40 yards" as you reported.

I am demanding that this reported distance be retracted and for a correction to be run in the Badger Herald this week.

The people in your front page "news" stories have loved ones that would drop everything they are doing to be your new fact checkers.

Anonymous (April 25, 2006 @ 1:28am):

Sundeep doesn't make any opinionated comment in this story. Anything regarding fault comes from the statements of a police officer on the scene. The jounalistic integrity here is fine.

Anonymous (April 25, 2006 @ 1:34am):

All due respect I prey for the kid that got hit and there loved ones.

However, this above comment is shamelessly self interested and it shows. The writer says, "By the way, the victim (yes, I am referring the cyclist) was dragged 158 feet and 5 inches before the vehicle was signaled to stop, not a mere "40 yards" as you reported."

The cyclist certainly, cannot, be considered a victim. That is just absurd. It can be debated that the "elderly" should be better screened before being licensed to drive, but that is neither the previous writers claim nor the question at issue.

Testimony of the officer(s) on the scene draw a clear picture of a negligent cyclist, any claims for their victim hood are absolutely extrinsic to the given evidence.

No doubt it is possible that the account here is not factual. In this case, the "Anonymous" writer should qualify how they know so much, indeed apparently more than the officer on the scene.
If this is true, then you would know as well as I that that is one heck of a clear yield sigh (I pass it daily), as well, the entire periphery as one emerges from the path onto the street is unobstructed. You would have to be either, having bike trouble, impaired or pushing your "rights," beyond the bounds of your mortality to miss that sign. You have one point in your bit though, that is, it was not the cyclist's fault that an elderly woman hit them while unconscious in the street and dragged them "158 feet and 5 inches." One easy way to avoid that is to obey the traffic laws. It is far less (like boat loads less) likely that one will end up unconscious on the pavement after blowing a yield sign and getting struck by a vehicle if, they had not blown the yield sigh.
The driver feels bad enough I'm sure, wouldn't you, and is probably second person to wish this kid didn't blow that yield sign.

Anonymous (April 25, 2006 @ 1:29pm):

I would just like to say that the article about the injured biker published on the 24th of April was one of the most insensitive pieces of writing I have ever read. Obviously the article does not say who the individual is, however if I were the victim or close to this man, I would be very upset by the lack of compassion shown to the situation. Authors of these articles get paid to submit well-written, and unbiased journalism. This article showed a lack in both, and therefore I question whether the author was trying to report news, or more so prove a point instead. Yes, this instance does provide an opportunity to talk about safety precautions that can and should be taken, but write a separate article that is not directly connected to the victim. The author of this article needs to take responsibility for their actions and provide a written apology to this individual and people close to him for the harsh, and obviously one-sided words.

Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 4:02pm):

"158 feet and 5 inches before the vehicle was signaled to stop, not a mere "40 yards" as you reported."

The writer of this article did not say EXACTLY 40 yards, the word used was "roughly".

And yes, the cyclist was at fault. The whole thing wouldn't have happened in the first place if he wore reflective clothing and yielded. If he didn't want to be dragged 158 feet, he shouldn't have worn black.

And I don't even believe it was the elderly woman's fault. 158 feet is a fairly short distance. At 30 mph (a reasonable estimate of speed of a car on a Madison street), a car is traveling at 44 feet per second. This means the cyclist was dragged for a mere 4 seconds at a relatively slow speed.

Late at night on a Sunday, there couldn't have been that many onlookers or witnesses to the accident, so it's perfectly plausible that it might take 4 seconds to stop your vehicle after hitting an unconscious body in the street.