Town Square

Post a New Topic

Cyclist injured in accident on Woodside Road

Original post made on Nov 22, 2010

There was an accident involving a cyclist on Woodside Road near the intersection with Interstate 280 at about 6 a.m. Friday, Nov. 19, but contrary to earlier news reports, including a story on, it was not a case of hit-and-run, authorities said.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, November 22, 2010, 12:44 PM

Comments (17)

Posted by commuter
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 22, 2010 at 1:34 pm

Isn't it still hit and run when a driver makes an illegal maneuver that causes someone else to crash?

Posted by Scholar
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Nov 23, 2010 at 12:24 pm

Cyclists need to learn and practice emergency stops. Find a local biking class.

Posted by Donald
a resident of another community
on Nov 23, 2010 at 12:45 pm

"Accident" hardly seems like the correct word to describe this incident.

Posted by practice?????????
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on Nov 23, 2010 at 3:33 pm

Yeah, practice changing your velocity in a certain direction when a car makes a completely impossible mistake turning left where there are NO LEFT TURNS AND going UP the off ramp of a highway? What speed should cyclists use to practice this maneuver? Let's see you manage that abrupt acceleration or deceleration in your car. You couldn't. You would be dead. Your car has too much mass and therefore momentum. The bikes' brakes in this case were the cyclist's BONES to create enough friction to avoid being KILLED. The cyclist did the only thing possible to avoid dying. So, where are the witnesses?? Did anyone see a car getting onto 280 that morning in a most unusual way? Please come forward! Drivers wake up. Use your eyes! Follow the proper rules of the road.

Posted by Jutes
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Nov 23, 2010 at 4:26 pm

Maybe bicyclists should consider safer bike trails that keep them away from vehicles entering and exiting freeways and where motorist are accelerating or merging.i.e.,bike trail on Sand Hill Road is very dangerous near the 280 onramp.&many more cyclists are using bikes to commute. It is very green but risky no matter how defensibly they ride. Current biking trails may not get them to their destination but perhaps driving part of the way and riding bikes where it is safe could work until there is money to work on commute biking trails. Driver awareness is always mandatory but tragic accidents will continue to occur. Bicycles are not designed to handle the impact of a car or truck so why should they be sharing the same roads?

Posted by Driver
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm

[Post removed]

Posted by please no hate
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 24, 2010 at 1:30 pm

Every time I read people's comments regarding an incident involving a car/truck and a bicycle, I am saddened to see the hateful responses that some readers have. "Driver", do you really want to "mow down" all of the cyclists on the road? You do realize that that's murder, right? We're not talking about pests or rodents, we're talking about people! Do I cease to be a person when I'm on my bike? Not that I'm aware of. And while your taxes may help pay for the roads, so do mine. I do happen to own a car (though for a long time I didn't and rode my bike everywhere), that has little to do with where my tax money goes. Gas taxes and vehicle registration fees do not make up all of the money that pays for roads, they just help offset the damage that vehicles do to the roads.

To "Jutes": it is true that cycling is risky, but it really isn't that much riskier than driving your car. The same inattentive drivers who hit cyclists are likely to get into accidents with any vehicle. For instance, it's a small miracle that the vehicle in this story didn't collide with oncoming traffic on the off ramp, since they were driving the wrong way! So yes, cyclists must be careful, but so do drivers. It would be nice if there were more bike lanes (not just off-road unpaved trails), but until then we have to be extremely careful. I suspect that we'd all be much safer on the roads if the law against talking on handheld phones while driving were enforced better (I've had some near misses with such guilty drivers).

Posted by Donald
a resident of another community
on Nov 24, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Trails and paths are not always safer. Some studies show them to be 3 times more dangerous for bicyclists than being on the road, but it depends on how you define danger. You are less likely to die on a trail, but more likely to be injured. Trails are often narrow, poorly maintained, with bad sight lines, encroaching vegetation and clueless pedestrians with headphones. Then when you get to an intersection where you must interact with traffic again, drivers don't pay you any attention or look your way because they are only concerned with cars.

This was a case of outrageously illegal and dangerous behavior by a driver, and NOBODY is safe if we tolerate this. Blaming the victim is not productive and only serves to perpetuate terrible driving.

Posted by Jutes
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Nov 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm

In this crazy world we live in we must be proactive in protecting ourselves and not count on others to be on the look out for our safety. I personally would not ride a bike in heavy traffic among cars and trucks or push a baby in a stroller on a street with no sidewalks. Both are legal and we have a right to do it but the risks outweigh any benefits. Common sense dictates avoiding these risks if possible. And yes, I agree car and motorcycle drivers have to be cautious and aware of others but why take the risk of putting your safety in their hands when you can easily avoid the situation? There are so many ways how an accident can happen on the roadways. No person's or bicyclists' rights are being taken away by accepting this reality.

Posted by please no hate
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 24, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Jutes: I do agree with you on most of what you said - common sense does dictate avoiding as much risk as possible. One thing though: I don't count on others to be on the look out for my safety (as you say), however I do expect drivers to obey the law and not cause an accident (though I realize this expectation is not often met, at least when it comes to the rules of the road). So just to be clear: I don't expect drivers to give me special consideration in order to look out for my safety, but colliding with another vehicle (motor or bicycle) is quite the opposite of looking out for their safety.

Posted by Jutes
a resident of Woodside: other
on Nov 24, 2010 at 4:41 pm

I agree, it is an expectation that the majority will obey the law but even law abiding citizens make errors in judgment and unintentionally cause accidents which, I believe, represents the cause of most accidents. Any driver who intentionally collides into a car or bicyclist is a whole different matter.

Posted by pedestrian in traffic
a resident of another community
on Nov 24, 2010 at 6:10 pm

All should pay attention to the road. All means pedestrians, bikes, carriages, cars, trucks, etc, ALL. I've seen plenty of entitlement events on the road to know that there aren't any saints on it.
Having said that accidents are just accidents. It doesn't mean that anyone was distracted or doing something wrong or illegal.
I am sorry for the biker. No pick nick for him.
We don't know the circumstances of the accident on Woodside - all we know is what the biker said. And if is correct then an illegal maneuver caused his accident (was it on purpose ?) and he is the victim. Unhappily, the driver either didn't see, didn't want to stop or didn't feel responsible (for a panicked biker that used the brakes when there was no need?). We just don't know. Let's wait for the investigation.
I was the victim of a biker cycling the wrong direction through a red light ( for him ) no apologies from him for hitting me. Am I to conclude that all bikers are evil? No, only the irrational do and I am quite sane and have no "bike" agenda.

Bikers have to be super careful because they are fragile sharing the road and cannot be seen easily. Do you know anybody that can see at all times at 360ยบ degrees? So, when sharing the road don't expect the impossible. Even caring good drivers may not be able to see you. And mistakes we all make. right?

Posted by Healthy person, unlike Jutes
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 25, 2010 at 10:44 am

Cars should drive on trails designated for car use only. None of these exist today. We need to fund building special car only lanes of travel to get these damn cars and idiotic drivers off our cycling roads!

You people are hilarious.

Posted by Mike
a resident of another community
on Nov 26, 2010 at 8:05 am

Healthy, Bikes aren't allowed in I-280.

Posted by Mike
a resident of another community
on Nov 26, 2010 at 8:06 am

Isn't it pitch dark at 6am these days?

Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Nov 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm

"Isn't it pitch dark at 6am these days?"

Civil twilight began at 6:15 am on the 19th. Sunrise was a t 6:50 am.

Web Link

Posted by Citizen A
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Nov 27, 2010 at 1:59 pm

I agree with Jutes.

As a former long term bicyclist, I can attest that lots of bicyclists routinely disobey rules of the road. Most of the ones I knew who were the most serious offenders had some ego issue where they felt they had control of everything in life. Biking is fun..just stay away from routes that have higher danger and risk. Its just obvious.

Motorcyclists get hit by cars as well. But for some reason they dont get online and complain about cars. They know that the risk is higher but they dont complain like bicyclists do.

Also, basic 30 minutes a day of walking decreases most mortality risks. Extreme biking will get you nowhere near the benefit that a lot of bicyclists state. They just believe that they are getting it. Again ego fantasy.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Analysis/paralysis: The infamous ‘Palo Alto Process’ must go
By Diana Diamond | 6 comments | 2,030 views

Common Ground
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 1,538 views

The Time and Cost Savings of Avoiding a Long Commute
By Steve Levy | 5 comments | 1,466 views

Planting a Fall Garden?
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 893 views