Bob Mionske NAILS it!

[BumbleBeeDave]

Mionske lays out, in calm and reasoned and well-researched prose, what most of us on this forum already know. Good for him!

Print this out and send it to your local police chief. Send it to your local newspaper. but don't delude yourself they will pay attention unless you keep bothering them. It's just like MADD and drunk driving. Until cyclists organize and make a pain in the @ss of themselves, nothing is going to change.

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13637.0.html

The article is too long for me to post it all here. The forum software won't let me. But be sure to go and read the whole thing. It's damning . . .

BBD

==================================

Legally Speaking - with Bob Mionske: A fatal bias?
By Robert Mionske JD
Filed: November 8, 2007

Dear Bob,
Thank you for penning the column. I read with interest your notes on cycling deaths notes on cycling deaths . You raise an interesting point: many cycling deaths result in no criminal legal accountability. I think we all know cyclist who have died on the road. In every instance that you bring up had there been a vehicle involved instead of a cyclist I am sure charges would have been filed as a result of material damage. A question I have, is there a statistic or information on what percentage of cycling deaths result in criminal charges (or any for that matter) being filed? And as a follow up questions is there an organization that pursues this matter on behalf of cycling in general. Until cyclists are taken seriously, deaths will continue to happen and those in power (i.e. law enforcement, transportation planners, insurance companies, etc.) will continue the status quo of ignoring cyclist as not only a valid form of transportation and recreation, but as human beings. The current catch-all clause is "it was an accident," but an accident is not being hit by a vehicle. There is a difference.
K. S.
Winter Park, Colorado

Following last weeks column, I received a number of emails from readers regarding other cyclist deaths that I hadn't mentioned in that column. The responses from my readers really do bring home the point that many of us know cyclists who have died on the road. But there's another type of response I want to discuss in this column-the response from law enforcement and the media. In Bicycling & the Law, I discuss the institutional biases against cyclists, including law enforcement and media biases. Following the recent cyclist fatalities, we have seen firsthand some textbook examples of those biases. I will be discussing some of those cases in this column, but first, you asked if there are statistics on the percentage of cycling deaths resulting in criminal charges-not that I'm aware of, but I invite any readers who may be aware of such statistics to bring them to my attention. You also asked if there is an organization that pursues this matter on behalf of cycling in general. Again, not to my knowledge, although I am currently working to create a public interest cyclist's rights organization.

Now let's take a look at some of these recent textbook incidents of anti-cyclist bias.

Lloyd Clarke, 43, was a member of the Cumberland Valley Cycling Club as would be expected of an avid cyclist, Lloyd typically logged over 150 miles per week on his bike. After putting in the years of hard work to earn his Ph.D. from the Systems Engineering Department at the University of Pennsylvania, Lloyd held a faculty position at the Georgia Institute of Technology, before pursuing a career in private industry-a career that eventually brought him to Incline Village, Nevada, where he was working on temporary assignment for his company. On September 20, Lloyd went for a ride on a borrowed bike. He never returned. As he was riding along Country Club Drive, a motor vehicle approaching from the opposite direction turned directly into Lloyd's path, killing him instantly. The driver, a 17 year old, was not cited. In fact, not only was the driver not cited, but the police department went out of its way to paint Lloyd as being "at fault." As the local media reported,

A 17-year-old Incline Village man who hit and killed a cyclist early Thursday evening most likely isn't at fault, police officials said Friday. According to the Washoe County Sheriff's office, Lloyd W. Clarke, a 43-year-old Maryland native, was riding down hill on Country Club Drive at a high rate of speed when a pick up truck driven by the 17 year old pulled into the intersection of Country Club and Village Boulevard. Clarke was unable to stop, and he struck the side of the truck.

We all ride, so we all know about the infamous "left hook"-as you're riding straight through an intersection, a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction turns left across your path, violating your right-of-way, often causing a collision. The left hook accounts for nearly 6% of collisions between bicycles and cars. And yet, if you hold a bias against cyclists, the possibility that an inexperienced driver turned into the cyclist's path so suddenly that the cyclist was unable to stop isn't even taken into consideration. The only possible explanation that restores some semblance of sense to law enforcement's auto-centric paradigm is that the cyclist "must have been speeding." And if the cyclist is an out-of-towner, and the driver is a local, it makes even more sense to blame the cyclist. In Lloyd's case, the police went into contortions in their efforts to exonerate the driver and blame the cyclist:

# "He [the 17 year old driver] was real cooperative, and we don't expect to have any issues with him," said Brooke Keast, public information officer with Washoe County Sheriff's Department. "It looked like the cyclist was going too fast. It's so hilly up there that sometimes you might not be able to stop."

# "Tentatively, it looks like the cyclist was exceeding the speed limit," [Captain Steve] Kelly said. "If you know that part of town, you know it's pretty steep there. If speed was the main contributing factor the juvenile most likely isn't to blame."

# "One thing I will say - the fact of the matter is, if we find he was exceeding the speed limit in a low-light situation, how do you expect the driver to see him?" Kelly said. "It was dark. It was probably hard for the driver to see him, he had no lights on the bicycle and he probably was not familiar with the area. Now obviously, I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to disregard the law. We don't have a final finding yet, but those are possible reasons why."

Captain Kelly even "stressed it was an unfortunate accident in which no one should be blamed." Note, however, that Captain Kelly was placing blame-on the cyclist. A Nevada Highway Patrol trooper went one step further, blaming all cyclists:

Chuck Allen, a trooper for the Nevada Highway Patrol, shared similar thoughts with Kelly. "Mostly you see bikes riding the wrong way, not stopping at stop signs - they fail to abide by laws motorists abide by," Allen said. "I think there might be a vision put there that cyclists feel exempt from traffic laws."

While cyclists should observe the law, this was not a case about a cyclist riding the wrong way, or failing to stop at a stop sign-it was a case about a driver violating a cyclist's right of way.

Of course, the media reported the police account.

Which is unfortunate, because if the media had conducted any sort of independent investigation, they would have noted that:

# The accident occurred before sunset, and not in the "low light" conditions the police offered as an alibi for the driver.

# The driver's line of sight visibility was excellent.

# The road grade was about 8 or 9 percent, and Lloyd had a reputation as a skilled cyclist who didn't take risks, and who was experienced at riding much steeper grades.

# Lloyd had the right-of-way at the intersection.

# "Left hooks" account for nearly 6% of all automobile-on-bicycle collisions.

[benb]

Yah great Column.. I'm tempted to buy his book now.

[torquer]

And both my eyeglass prescription is up to date and there's no problem with my monitor.

Probably because I've been a victim of in a "no-foul" accident myself. (My right of way, oncoming driver makes left as I am in the intersection.) And a few months later, coming across the aftermath what appeared to be a similar accident at the same location, a driver answered my question of what happened with the explaination: "the cyclist was going too fast!" ***?

Get on a bike, either for your own benefit (exercise) or for everyone else's (road congestion, pollution etc.) and become a second class citizen. I don't condone it, but I fully understand how that guy in Canada earlier this week went postal and stabbed the driver who had cut him off. Maybe his defense should be "the driver came out of nowhere!"

[OperaLover]

is that we need to educate and correct the misconceptions about bicycle riders and our place on the roads coexisting with cars One way to do this is for all of us to be better about obeying the local traffic laws. I am a daily commuter and I see too many cyclists runs red lights, ignore traffic laws and fail to demonstrate common courtesy on the road. That creates a real negative perception that will not change until we do something about it. Cyclists must act within the lawfully and with respect to others. Until that happens we will be considered second class out on the roads, and the police will give us little or no credence when an accident happens. It's not right, but that's the reality in many places.

What happened to that cyclist in Colorado is a tragedy, regardless of whose fault it was. Here in Seattle we have had our share of deaths, and last week someone was shot twice with a BB gun!

Let's be careful out there!

ATMO!

[BumbleBeeDave]

is that we need to educate and correct the misconceptions about bicycle riders and our place on the roads coexisting with cars One way to do this is for all of us to be better about obeying the local traffic laws. I am a daily commuter and I see too many cyclists runs red lights, ignore traffic laws and fail to demonstrate common courtesy on the road. That creates a real negative perception that will not change until we do something about it. Cyclists must act within the lawfully and with respect to others. Until that happens we will be considered second class out on the roads, and the police will give us little or no credence when an accident happens. It's not right, but that's the reality in many places.

What happened to that cyclist in Colorado is a tragedy, regardless of whose fault it was. Here in Seattle we have had our share of deaths, and last week someone was shot twice with a BB gun!

Let's be careful out there!

ATMO!

So it's our fault we get things thrown at us, run off the road, yelled at, flipped off, and even killed?

Great reasoning. Not.

They are two entirely different issues. The local constabulary is simply not going to sit up and take notice and suddenly say to themselves, "Gee, I haven't seen a cyclist disobey any traffic law in 6 months or so. I think next time one of them gets flattened like a pancake by some soccer mom eating a donut with one hand and talking on her cell with the other while she drives, I'll actually write her a ticket!"

Nope. 'Fraid not.

What is going to get them to sit up and take notice is when the chief tells them they better respect cyclists and treat them with respect and integrates that mindset into the training of new officers because the last two cyclists who got run over and ignored won a $5 million civil rights judgment against the department and cost the taxpayers a bundle. And I hope that's exactly what happens in Portland.

Being doormats on two wheels is entirely apart from getting all cyclists to obey all traffic laws, because that's never going to happen any more than all motorists will obey all traffic laws. They're two different issues.

BBD

[toaster]

This latest column is much easier to read than most of his other rather long and overly legal-speak stuff. This one really hits hard. I wonder how a police chief would feel about his own kid getting killled by an unyielding driver?

[cadence231]

Thanks for the post Dave.

The discrimination of the cyclist goes all the way back to the draisine. I have the book Bicycle by David V. Herlihy in which shows this persistant bias against the cyclist throughout the "bicycle's" history. Human beings are weirdos.

[mcteague]

I was hit by a car this Summer. I came to a 4 way stop and did a track stand while waiting for the oncomging car, who was there slightly ahead or me, to get through the intersection. As he passed me I moved forward. As soon as I started through I saw a car coming down the hill to my right but he was slowing down. Unfortunately, he never stopped and ran right into me thowing me into his windshield, smashing it. The police arrived and soon after an ambulance. I was shaken up a bit but told the police I did stop but also mentioned the track stand, which I'm sure they did not fully understand even though I explained it. I made sure they knew I did stop forward motion at the stop sign and the car most definately did not.

Well, weeks later I got the police report and they said I ran the stop sign and the driver stopped. That is what the driver said and they believed him. I have since been through this intersection many times and I noticed that where I stop could not even be seen by cars on the right unless they stopped at the line. Somehow it made more sense that I road right in front of a moving car. Why this seems more likely than a car rolling through a stop sign I do not know. Guess the cops never see that happening.

So, I hired lawyer as the driver's insurance company won't pay a dime.

Tim McTeague

[RonW87]

This is what happened to me. Car hit me from behind. Bystander happened to have a camera and caught this. I just bent my fender back, no problem. Driver's damage was more expensive...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/1955514149_a5ee46fc6b_m.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2160/1955514185_4d611dd607_m.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/1955514203_522d0d7088_m.jpg

ps. Bike stolen two weeks ago.

[BumbleBeeDave]

This is what happened to me. Car hit me from behind. Bystander happened to have a camera and caught this. I just bent my fender back, no problem. Driver's damage was more expensive...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/1955514149_a5ee46fc6b_m.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2160/1955514185_4d611dd607_m.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/1955514203_522d0d7088_m.jpg

ps. Bike stolen two weeks ago.

There was no other damage than your mud guard? Man, you were L-U-C-K-Y!

Unfortunately, I'll bet this kind of outcome is rare . . . little damage to the bike, extensive damage to the car to teach the driver a lesson, bystander with a camera, no injury to you. I'm betting the driver had up to $1,000 of repairs. Do a Google on repair costs--it's unreal how much "minor" damage like this costs to repair. I almost always carry my compact digital camera with me on rides now. Partly to get pretty pics, partly in case I get into a "situation" like this . . .

BBD

[toaster]

If a motorist thinks a bicycle's speed is the reason he didn't see the bicycle or mis-judged the speed and turned into the bicycle can he still use that reason for a motorcycle?

Dumb motorists ignore pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles because they don't actually look for any movement but rather a very subjective choice of looking only for movement of autos and trucks.

Then, when they (at least a big portion of "them") see the bicyclist violate rules of the road they prefer to have little respect for them as punishment. Or, at least this attitude has been revealed to me by non-cycling people in friendly, and not so friendly, debates.

Recently, I rolled through a stop sign on my bike making a right turn with no traffic left or right of me and the guy riding my tail in a pickup knows I going to roll the stop so he follows me through while staying less than 10 feet on my a**. Just because I can do this and stay in the shoulder must give him justification to do the same even though he uses the entire lane. ***!

[OperaLover]

So it's our fault we get things thrown at us, run off the road, yelled at, flipped off, and even killed?

Great reasoning. Not.

They are two entirely different issues. The local constabulary is simply not going to sit up and take notice and suddenly say to themselves, "Gee, I haven't seen a cyclist disobey any traffic law in 6 months or so. I think next time one of them gets flattened like a pancake by some soccer mom eating a donut with one hand and talking on her cell with the other while she drives, I'll actually write her a ticket!"

Nope. 'Fraid not.

What is going to get them to sit up and take notice is when the chief tells them they better respect cyclists and treat them with respect and integrates that mindset into the training of new officers because the last two cyclists who got run over and ignored won a $5 million civil rights judgment against the department and cost the taxpayers a bundle. And I hope that's exactly what happens in Portland.

Being doormats on two wheels is entirely apart from getting all cyclists to obey all traffic laws, because that's never going to happen any more than all motorists will obey all traffic laws. They're two different issues.

BBD

Sorry you don't get it. My comment had to do with the perception of dirvers with cyclists. Is okay to have stuff thrown at you and be abused; of course not! Do we have to be victims; of course not! Unfortunately we all get painted with the same brush; when bicyclists consistently break the law that behavior affect all of our credibility. When an acccident happens, that lack of credibility can affect perceptions. Face it we are the minority and we still have to overcome the prejudice that most our car centric society has against us.

Unfortunately, the law breaking minority is making it difficult for all of us. All I'm saying is that until we as cyclists work together to show respect to drivers then we are not going to get it in return. That means that we need to act appropriately. When everyone is stopped at a redlight and the cyclist decides to run it because the traffic happens to be clear does not engender respect. It makes people angry (including myself) and less supportive of cyclists out on the road. I spend a lot of time defending commuting as viable transportation alternative to people who think everyone out there on a bicycle is a law breaking menace who run red lights, weaves through traffic and blocks the roads with slow speeds. Some of us are, but most of us are not.


If you cause an accident and injury whether it be between cars or bicyles, or caused by the car or (maybe this is sacreledge) by the bicyclist, the offending party you should be accountable.

[Tom]

That is exactly what the ex-mayor of Dorptown (who just got stomped running for country legislator by a ratio of about 2.5 to 1) said after he ran a stop sign going about 30 miles an hour early one morning... I heard his car coming, knew there was no way it could stop... so I chased him to his house and confronted him.

I don't think he quite knew what to do with the weirdly dressed guy on the bike roaring at him from the foot of his driveway.

It makes for a few awkward moments these days as I head out for my morning ride and he comes around delivering the newspaper.

[BumbleBeeDave]

That is exactly what the ex-mayor of Dorptown (who just got stomped running for country legislator by a ratio of about 2.5 to 1) said after he ran a stop sign going about 30 miles an hour early one morning... I heard his car coming, knew there was no way it could stop... so I chased him to his house and confronted him.

I don't think he quite knew what to do with the weirdly dressed guy on the bike roaring at him from the foot of his driveway.

It makes for a few awkward moments these days as I head out for my morning ride and he comes around delivering the newspaper.

If I'd know he was giving you a hard time in the morning I would have voted for him so he could get in the county leg and wouldn't have to deliver newspapers any more! ;)

True ex-mayor story . . . some years ago when he was mayor, we had water restrictions in place--it was a dry summer. No lawn sprinklers, no car washing, etc. so one of my staff photographers is cruising through the neighborhood and guess who has the sprinkler going? Yup, "Big Al" himself. My guy stops to shoot photos and the mayor's wife come hurtling out of the back yard to turn off the water. He showed me the pics. It was hilarious . . . Never knew she could move that fast! :D

BBD

[flydhest]

Opera Lover,

The problem with your logic is that cars regularly and routinely violate traffic laws. That fact does not make them suspect when things go awry. I apologize if this sounds rude, because I sincerely don't mean it that way, but I think you are naive to believe in any way that if we could get 99% of cyclists to obey the law, then we would be safer. While I think Mr. Mionske could well be guilty of bias himself, in favor of bicyclists, his article rings very true to my own experiences. In most (but luckily not all) cases, the pervailing attitude of drivers and the police has been to act as if the driver has a right to the road and the cyclist is somehow just excercising a privilege (s)he's lucky to have. This is true even as cars around us have been violating laws.

If cars don't obey laws (and each and every of my commutes shows me that they don't), why should we believe that by cyclists obeying laws, drivers will be respectful?

[BumbleBeeDave]

Opera Lover,

The problem with your logic is that cars regularly and routinely violate traffic laws. That fact does not make them suspect when things go awry. I apologize if this sounds rude, because I sincerely don't mean it that way, but I think you are naive to believe in any way that if we could get 99% of cyclists to obey the law, then we would be safer. While I think Mr. Mionske could well be guilty of bias himself, in favor of bicyclists, his article rings very true to my own experiences. In most (but luckily not all) cases, the pervailing attitude of drivers and the police has been to act as if the driver has a right to the road and the cyclist is somehow just excercising a privilege (s)he's lucky to have. This is true even as cars around us have been violating laws.

If cars don't obey laws (and each and every of my commutes shows me that they don't), why should we believe that by cyclists obeying laws, drivers will be respectful?

I think you said it better than I did. Unfortunately, history is full of ethnic, religious, or other groups fighting institutional bias against them, and they rarely get noticed or get results by asking quietly and politely for equal treatment. In cycling, IMBA finally recognized this a few years ago and established a legal fund so as to be able to play hardball in certain key cases of land access or other disputes.

In the case of government entities, too often the only thing that finally gets any results is a big, fat lawsuit. Mionske makes a very good, reasoned, and researched case that the Portland police authorities routinely practice bias against cyclists in a way that deprives cyclists of their legislated equal right to safe use of public roads. I think a good case could even be made to put this in a civil rights context and make a federal case out of it.

I hope Mionske sues their @sses off and wins. It would establish a nice precedent that could be use elsewhere across the country in the too many places where exactly the same bias exists.

BBD

[ss-jimbo]

But we don't just need to protect cyclists. A driver who kills ANYONE else by breaking a traffic law (failing to yield, speeding, etc) should lose their license. It shouldn't matter whether the victim is on a bike, on foot, or in another motor vehicle. Even when drivers are found to be at fault, they usually get a few points on their license. Big deal.

I feel that there should be legislation in all states revoking the license for those who kill others, and suspending for those who seriously injure others. If the playing field is level, then the cyclists will be protected as well.

Jimbo

[bzbvh5]

Opera Lover,

If cars don't obey laws (and each and every of my commutes shows me that they don't), why should we believe that by cyclists obeying laws, drivers will be respectful?

Things I've seen in the last month:
1. Rider with no helmet goes through red light without so much as slowing down. This is an experiencned rider. He owns a Cannondale Six 13 and a Colnago C50. He rides like this all the time.
2. Group ride at a stop sign either one of the front riders yells "cop" and everyone stops or no one stops.
3. Group ride at a stop light where the light changes from green to red and only the front riders had the green, the back riders keep going so they won't be dropped. I guess getting killed is better than getting dropped.
Ok enough testimonials

The point I would like to make is: When I drive, I feel a little antagonistic to inconsiderate cyclists. None of us are in contention for the TDF Yellow Jersey though a lot of us ride like we are. Obey the laws. Some drivers don't like us on the streets as it is, let's not give them a reason to dislike us more.

Try this - your eyes will be opened. Go to the lake or park you ride at and walk instead of ride. If you want to you can take your dog, cat, kids, spouse or whatever with you. Notice the number of near misses of cyclist riding by you or other groups. Think of how they could have handled it differently. I took my dog for a walk to White Rock Lake in Dallas and it was an eye opening experience. I don't ride there the same way as I used to. I use much more caution.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . my overriding impression is that a driver who kills someone who is in another car is already much more likely to face harsher punishment than a driver who flattens a pedestrian or cyclist. How many times have we heard the negligent driver haul out the same excuse for hitting a pedestrian or cyclist: "I didn't see him." They can't get away with that excuse as easily if it was another car they "didn't see."

I wish there were some statistics available to tell us more accurately if this anecdotal impression is correct or not. I think it all comes back eventually to the perception in this country that driving is a right, not a privelege.

But in any case I stick to my original viewpoint--governmental authorities in this country are not going to make roads safer for cylists until something or someone forces them to take action to do so. That is not going to happen in many places until cyclists are around in such numbers and with enough organization to become a politically viable force. People like Mionske taking the conventionally effective steps of hardball legal action are the ones who are really going to start to make it happen.

BBD

[DukeHorn]

I'm all for punishing bad drivers, but something has to be done about the bad cyclists too. And I mean "bad" in the sense of experienced cyclists with a sense of entitlement.

What I commonly see:

a) same commuter on Central Expressway in Mountain View, rides a very nice Cervelo, very fit, consistently blows through two sets of red lights while cars are queued up. Yeah, nothing like starting the day watching traffic laws being broken. Of course, all the commuters on very inexpensive (sub 1k) bikes are obeying the traffic laws. What does that suggest?

b) large group rides with the tail end gunning through a red light at an intersection while I'm stopped at the light on my bike (when it was yellow). Of course, will they listen if I say anything? I highly doubt it since I'm on a non-racing titanium bike not wearing a full kit.......

Anyway, I'm all for more tickets to be given out to keep it safer it out there.

[flydhest]

True enough. My only point is that you should count how many violations of the law you see cars doing. Cars are every bit (in my view more so) as inconsiderate of the law as cyclists. I see speeding, cell phone use, rolling through stop signs, all illegal in DC. Is this litany of abuses perpetrated by cyclists supposed to mean that cyclists should not be afforded rights? In that case, neither should drivers, given their track record.

I don't see what the helmet has to do with it, unless there is a helmet law.



Things I've seen in the last month:
1. Rider with no helmet goes through red light without so much as slowing down. This is an experiencned rider. He owns a Cannondale Six 13 and a Colnago C50. He rides like this all the time.
2. Group ride at a stop sign either one of the front riders yells "cop" and everyone stops or no one stops.
3. Group ride at a stop light where the light changes from green to red and only the front riders had the green, the back riders keep going so they won't be dropped. I guess getting killed is better than getting dropped.
Ok enough testimonials

The point I would like to make is: When I drive, I feel a little antagonistic to inconsiderate cyclists. None of us are in contention for the TDF Yellow Jersey though a lot of us ride like we are. Obey the laws. Some drivers don't like us on the streets as it is, let's not give them a reason to dislike us more.

Try this - your eyes will be opened. Go to the lake or park you ride at and walk instead of ride. If you want to you can take your dog, cat, kids, spouse or whatever with you. Notice the number of near misses of cyclist riding by you or other groups. Think of how they could have handled it differently. I took my dog for a walk to White Rock Lake in Dallas and it was an eye opening experience. I don't ride there the same way as I used to. I use much more caution.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . that cyclists like that aren't doing any of us any favors. They are fully kitted out and obviously serious about riding--they should know the traffic laws and can' very well claim ignorance. That's different from the guy in jeans riding the beater the wrong way without a helmet down Main Street. Chances are he just doesn't know any better.

Given the right circumstances, I might chase Mr. Cervelo down and ask him if he realizes what kind of bad PR he's giving the rest of us. Of course, he might tell me to F*** off, but he also might think about it before he does it next time.

But saying that we should all earn respect by all obeying all traffic laws all the time is a logical fallacy. Sure, it should be that way, but we all know it won't happen any more than all car drivers are magically going to start giving us the respect and room on the road that the law already says they should.

BBD

[Climb01742]

there are a-hole drivers. and there are a-hole cyclists. i don't see how one justifies or relates to the other.

i absolutely agree that a-hole cyclists make riding tougher for all of us, but...

the scale of consequences is vastly different. an a-hole cyclist maybe scares someone. a-hole drivers kill people.

the weight of menace on the roads is profoundly derived from drivers.

[flydhest]

there are a-hole drivers. and there are a-hole cyclists. i don't see how one justifies or relates to the other.

i absolutely agree that a-hole cyclists make riding tougher for all of us, but...

the scale of consequences is vastly different. an a-hole cyclist maybe scares someone. a-hole drivers kill people.

the weight of menace on the roads is profoundly derived from drivers.

climb,
I agree, the only way in which one relates to the other, in my view, is because of the argument put forward that the problem with driver/cyclist interactions is that cyclists don't obey the law. That in order for any change to happen, cyclists should change. I was only pointing out that that line of argumentation is flawed because drivers violate laws with impunity.

The problem, from my perspective, is now who is breaking the law (everyone is) but who is endangering whom.

[Climb01742]

climb,
I agree, the only way in which one relates to the other, in my view, is because of the argument put forward that the problem with driver/cyclist interactions is that cyclists don't obey the law. That in order for any change to happen, cyclists should change. I was only pointing out that that line of argumentation is flawed because drivers violate laws with impunity.

The problem, from my perspective, is now who is breaking the law (everyone is) but who is endangering whom.

fly, you're spot-on. my post was responding, as was yours, to the argument that the fault, dear brutus, lies with cyclists.

[dave thompson]

The so called "fault" with cyclists breaking the law or somehow causing autos an inconvenience is that they are highly visable, whereas autos are 'anonomous'. One doesn't curse a Chevy for running a red light or driving slowly but because a cyclist does it, we often all get painted with the broad brush, hence we are considered the bad guys. IMO, most auto drivers don't realize/understand/remember that cyclist (in most cases) have to follow the same traffic rules and are entitled to their share of the road. Therefore when two cyclists are riding abreast (for instance) they are cursed for impeding traffic.

[Blue Jays]

What a tragic story. Condolences to the surviving friends and family. :(

It definitely supports the notion of active safety measures, perhaps clipping one more 12-gram Knog Frog or similar LED to a helmet will gain the attention of a left-turning motorist. This is the potential accident that leaves a rider with their heart in their throat. They can be borderline blinding, so the intensity of a Planet Bike SuperFlash has to add a few seconds of extra visibility to drivers approaching from behind.

[Kevan]

(maybe this is worthy of a separate thread)

I've told my wife, in the event anything happens to me cycling-related to go into my Serotta account and advise you folks of the situation. I don't think, but for our own kind, many spouses, friends or family members are all that familiar with the specifics that potentially can harm us, what was supposed to protect us, and what can serve as evidence.

If I was riding alone and became incapacitated due to accident, I would want her to fight my good fight and get as much information necessary to let the truth be known.

Maybe a thread should be dedicated to this subject, where a checklist is ultimately created that we can give our loved ones in the event of an accident.

Cheery thought, eh?

[Blue Jays]

Kevan, your practical suggestion does have a morbid side and at the same time it ABSOLUTELY would allow scores of unknown cyclists to benefit due to the memory of a fallen fellow cyclist.
Otherwise it would be like, "Hey, I wonder where <insert screen name here> went? Haven't heard from him/her in a month."

[mtkatrev]

As much as it sounds like there is disagreement on this post I think there are two things that we agree on : a motor vehicle that injures a bicyclist due to negligence should receive punishment; Obeying the laws as a cyclist can't hurt our image or respect in the eyes of motor vehicle operators.

I have been a recreational rider for over 20 years and, I'll sound like every parent and grandparent I've heard in the past, I'm disappointed with the decline in integrity that has permeated the cycling sport. In the 80's when I started riding if I stopped for any reason every biker that passed me asked if I was "ok" and if I needed anything. It was so prevalent it became annoying enough that I would not want to stop. It was rare that a cyclist would run a red light or break other laws. Now it's more "every man for himself" (exceptions, of course). I get frustrated at bikers who will cruise through a stop sign with cars watching, or look both ways before sending the group through a red light. And, it may be all in my imagination, but I believe that it sends the signal that bikers do not follow the same laws as cars and therefore, need to watch out for themselves the same as a kid chasing a ball across the street. It won't solve the problem, but if it makes a difference, why not?

Motorcycles have a hard time being noticed and they have headlights in the daytime. Pedestrians are feared in most states because of the stiff penalties associated with hitting a pedestrian - but they are slow and almost always in 45 degrees of our forward view. Cyclists are fast and hard to spot. I think a drivers instinct is to first sweep their view for a vehicle that is visible at a glance and then, if there's time, to look for less visible others (less visible equates to less threatening). I make sure to look very closely because I ride a bike and understand what it's like from the other side. Most drivers have never ridden a bike along side a busy road and therefore, don't have that understanding.

Bottom line is we need to (strongly) enforce the laws that are in place to protect everyone (Not that it compares to a death, but I'm sure killing someone on a bike is no picnic either) and we need to be extremely defensive riders because we're never going to get through to all drivers to look more closely and drive less distracted.

[nicrump]

we have the right. but we assume the risk.

[vaxn8r]

Car-centricity. This is never going to change because we don't treat driving as a privilege but as a right. Even drivers who drive without licensure, drivers with multiple DUI's, vehicular manslaugher (or accidental death) there really is no punishment enough to deter poor driving behavior. All because we value driving more than we value the lives of people. Fact.