SUV hits four cyclists on Colo. 93 near Eldorado Springs
Originally published 11:06 a.m., July 3, 2007
Updated 11:06 a.m., July 3, 2007
The driver of a Chevrolet sports utility vehicle has been arrested after police said he ran into four bicyclists riding single-file along Colo. 93 near Eldorado Springs this morning.
All four cyclists suffered minor injuries after they were struck at 7:20 a.m. heading southbound about a mile past Marshall Road, according to the Colorado State Patrol.
Investigators are looking into the possibility the driver was intoxicated because witnesses said he weaved to the right and hit the cyclists riding along the narrow shoulder, state patrol Sgt.Carol Nero said.
The driver's name has not yet been released.
The cyclists were taken to Boulder Community Hospital to be checked out.
Posted by RSTEVE on July 3, 2007 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do all of the pro vehicle, anti bicycle folks get it now?? You are driving a 3000 pound vehicle. Please just slow down for cyclists. We can all share the roads together with a little common sense. Oh I forgot cyclists don't belong on the roads...freedumb for all ??
Posted by gungagin on July 3, 2007 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't defend the person who hit four people on bikes. Obviously he was intoxicated or something.
I DO question those on bikes who do not stop for STOP signs or red lights,and those who straddle the double yellow line in the center of the road. Are bike riders above the traffic laws? Often I see people on bikes in the road AND on the sidewalks. What laws apply to those people?
Posted by oldgeezers on July 3, 2007 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SUV's are way over 3000 pounds, and both drivers and cyclists have to operate their respective conveyances responsibly. The roads have no room for jerks in either category.
Posted by Brewstro on July 3, 2007 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not defending some drunk driver but, since when did SHARE THE ROAD not apply to people on Bicycles? This says they were riding single file... Yeah right we all now that doesn't happen very often. The spandex army gets worse every year. I see bikes daily taking up an entire lane making people wait behind them or pass into oncoming traffic. And then they flip you off when you dont cross the middle line completely... BS!
Posted by Stephen on July 3, 2007 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Weaved to the right, to hit the riders...
Charge him with 4 counts of Attempted Murder!
Like saying somebody at a shooting range turned around and started shooting people. It would be called murder.
Posted by gmangus on July 3, 2007 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As an owner of an SUV and bicyclist myself, it is about personal responsibility. It wasn't the SUV that caused the accident it was the Driver. I try to be courteous toward other riders and drivers. Cyclists have to follow traffic laws and share the road with vehicles too.
Posted by jhollow on July 3, 2007 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bicycles are required to follow the same traffic laws that cars follow, with the added twist that the cyclists are required to stay at the far right of their lane. The only exception is for left-hand turns and for marked sections of steeper road where signs indicate cyclists should use the full lane (you can see one of these signs on Baseline where it descends from Chautauqua). Most cyclists follow these laws. There are some that don't, just as some drivers fail to observe speed limits and stop signs, and fail to signal turns and don't yield to the car on the left at stop signs.
The report indicates the injured cyclists were following the law (single file, along the shoulder, wearing helmets). Those using this accident in which the driver was clearly at fault to fault cyclists in general may want to consider putting their car keys away until the completion of an anger management course.
Posted by estonebr_lst on July 3, 2007 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To add to Jhollow's post and refute Brewstro's emotionally charged response, I believe it is also appropriate and LEGAL to take up the whole lane of traffic if the cyclist is going the speed of traffic, and or it is deemed unsafe for a car to pass. When I ride downtown Boulder, I often do take up the whole lane when riding with the flow of traffic as it is safer--and I am not holding anyone up. In boulder - consider baseline where stripes and signs designate cyclists to takeover the lane for safety and visibility.
Posted by cschomig on July 3, 2007 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I drove past this accident about 30 minutes after it happened. I'd like to add that it occurred on a particularly treacherous part of Hwy 93 where the roadway is a narrow, high-speed, two-lane stretch. It curves and ascends at a relatively steep incline southbound. Also, there is almost no shoulder at either side of the road. It's probably the most dangerous section of 93 for both bikers and drivers.
Posted by apm8945 on July 3, 2007 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wonder if the chalk bag full of marbles would have helped? Past posting by the pro-bike crowd have advocated to use that technique against drivers. Somehow, I don't think that would have made things better. And before jumping to conclusions and relying on the Camera to print "fact" - how about we hold off on lynching the driver for today and find out a little more. Or should we assume this was bike vs car road rage and the driver had intended to take em out. Or was too drunk at 7:20 a.m. on a Tuesday morning to care. Highway, morning traffic, narrow shoulder - lots of variables here. I highly doubt the cyclists were doing the 55 mph speed limit or that they were riding four abreast. So let's not pass judgment on the cyclists or driver just yet. The public court of opinion needs to learn some patience.
The attempted murder comment was cute. Tell you what - I'll pay for the bullet, but you have to go down to the jail and shoot the "suspect" on your own. Good luck.
Posted by Bing987 on July 3, 2007 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, you know what? Some people get out on the road in a 3000 pound tank and others sit on top of twenty pounds of aluminum.
When a clash happens between them, which one do you think loses the battle? Which vehicle driver is the smarter one?
Yeah, it's nice that there are laws about who has the right of way, but what good does that do when you are dead? Your elitist attitude won't be helping you at that point.
Posted by carbonmcm on July 3, 2007 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a cyclist, and you wouldn't catch me riding south on 93 past Eldorado Springs, that's a dangerous piece of road, might as well put a target on your back.
Posted by whinston on July 3, 2007 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for your post. You are correct that cyclists are required to abide by traffic laws which they often flout. One correction to your statement though: cyclists *are* allowed to ride on sidewalks but only if they ride at walking speed and yield to pedestrians.
Posted by dmc714 on July 3, 2007 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
this should be a wake up to all riders !!!!
ok dont ride on hwy 93!!
find a bike trail , if your a rider and want to "share the rode"
sorry there taking there own chances riding on a hwy like 93
stupid bike riders!
Posted by bobmobber on July 3, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is English your native language?
Posted by blacksho89 on July 3, 2007 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I drive and ride. I share the road either way.
I lost many friends on bloody 93 in high school, and there is NO WAY I would ever ride on that road, it's dangerous enough in a cage. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Ultimately, your safety is your own responsibility.
Posted by yamar73 on July 3, 2007 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like bringing a knife to a gunfight. We all saw the Indiana Jones movie, right?