An Amusing Interchange

Alternate title: ChipSeal Has Too Much Time On His Hands!

The newsOK has a rather poor story highlighting a number of attacks on cyclists by bully-motorists. Naturally, the comments to the story is where the fireworks are! Once again, I couldn't help myself, and now I am subjecting both of my beloved readers to my illness. You may be excused if you wish.

My comments will be in blue and the commenter's will be in red.

GRANT said: Hmmm. 180 pound man on a 25 pound bike vs. a 180 pound man in a 3000 pound car. I wonder who wins that one? Sorry bikers. I don't condone the acts of borderline violence, but I also think you guys need to get off the road... especially when you ride as large, slow-moving packs that back up traffic. [Hmmm. We need to get off the road because when we are the majority of road users at a particular location, we define what “normal traffic” is, not motorists, like you are used to. Color me un-persuaded.]

I'm all about your right to ride and exercise and save gas and all, [Pay no attention to my previous comment where I opine that you ought to get off the road!]but I'm more afraid that I'm gonna kill one of you. I about nailed a guy riding on Broadway extension, going about 20 MPH, during rush hour! [So you are admitting that you are a poor driver, one who is likely to hit other vehicles in the road in front of you?]He was single-handedly making three lanes of traffic very dangerous, all because he wanted to be defiant and prove that he had a right to the road. Come on! [Who was making the conditions dangerous? Are you able to read minds? How do you know what motivated this cyclist to travel on the PUBLIC road?]

Give me a safe, bike only route that connects major hubs of the cities (using railroad or utility right of ways or roads with wide shoulders), and I'll join you. I'd love to ride SAFELY. [So would we. Perhaps it is folks with attitudes like yours that are making it dangerous.]I just can't believe that we keep talking about spending $8-10 million or more on light rail service (that will never be utilized fully and always lose money), and yet we don't think about spending a fraction of that on a bike route that connects Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, Tinker AFB, and Downtown. [We already have plenty of bike route connections between those cities; They are called PUBLIC roads, thank you very much!]

KRISTI said: This issue has been so irritating this summer. Bicycles should NOT be allowed on the road. [Bicycles are allowed by law. Call your state representative.] If you can't ride 3-wheelers, 4-wheelers, dune buggies, or golf carts on the road, why is it legal for a bicycle that can't even get up to a decent speed? [Because our right to travel by our own power ought not be limited just because automobiles have become more powerful. Our right-of-way is to be accommodated as would any other slow moving vehicle.] Not only are they dangerous for everyone involved, they also hold up traffic which makes tempers rise even more. Its just ridiculous. [It actually seems that it is the unwillingness of motorists to respect the right-of-way of bicyclists that is producing the dangerous conditions. Are cyclists throwing trash and objects at automobiles?

Cyclists ARE traffic according to state law. It is not cyclists that are producing rush hour gridlock. Automobiles, buses, and traffic lights are holding up a lot of traffic, bicyclists- well, not so much.]

If you absolutely must ride your bike, ride it in a park or on the sidewalk where it belongs and where the only person you can hurt is yourself. [Because everyone knows that bicycles are toys, and motor-cars are serious grown up toys. Kristy, what part of “public“, in public road, don‘t you understand?]

I live on a section line road and its very hilly. There are no sidewalks. The speed limit is 50 but unfortunately everyone drives faster on it, whether they should or not. [Damn those scofflaw motorists!] But if someone flies over the top of one of those hills and a bicycle is there, guess what? Someone's going to get hurt or possibly killed because the cyclists didn't have enough common sense to stay off the road. [Yep, it is those darn cyclists! It has nothing to do with the operators of the automobiles driving too fast for the conditions, failing to exercise due care, recklessly driving in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Naw, that ain’t it!]

I wish I knew what genius decided that not only are bicycles street legal but that they should have the right-of-way. [It would seem your idea is to have faster traffic have the right-of-way, and all the slower vehicles must yield to overtaking traffic. I bet I could drive a motor-car faster than you Kristy. Will you stay out of my way?] Earlywine Park in OKC has a nice walking track, and its marked so you know how far you've gone. Ride your bicycles there where your [sic] safe.

CHRISTOPHER said: Why would you ride your bike on a road without a wide enough shoulder? [Because it is not as safe, for many reasons. We have a right to the road, so it is really none of your business.] Be considerate to others and maybe you will not get attacked. [We are considerate, we are lawfully operating our vehicles on the public road. Are you justifying violence?]

I support people getting out and about but there is a line. Some people have to be places and you are upholding their progress. [Why is your trip on the public road of more importance than mine?] I often am the one found cussing behind a cyclist just because they want to enjoy the scenery. [How considerate of you.]

My job requires me to be somewhere quickly. Just to top a hill and see someone doing 10mph that I can not pass without putting them in danger puts me in a pickle. [If your job were so important that slower traffic needs to get out of your way, we would have equipped you with red lights and a siren. Since you are apparently not THAT important, may I suggest you manage your time better, leave earlier or use a different route.]

Recently in Edmond a cyclist almost got creamed by me. [You are a poor driver too?] Not on purpose. [You wish you could be a good driver but you just can’t seem to manage it?] Just the fact he was riding ignorantly. [Really? Do explain!] He was in the right lane in heavy traffic. [What lane should he have been in, if he were not’t so cussedly ignorant?] He was also in the middle of the lane. [So were you!] He also had a sidewalk he could of used. [Yes he could’ve, but THAT would have been an ignorant move! Dangerous too, about eight times more dangerous than riding where he did ride. It was probably illegal as well. I am not so sure it was the cyclist that was the ignorant one in that encounter. Isn’t the freedom of speech great! It makes it so much easier to spot the idiots among us!]

Point blank cyclist [sic] be considerate of others. Pick your path wisely for your safety. [Point blank Christopher, learn the rules of the road. Motorists have a duty to drive their automobiles with due care and in a safe manner. See to it that you are mindful of that.]

Grant I love your idea. That is truly actually an awesome one. One that would probably prove useful. That is also why they probably will never use it. LOL

TERRY said: Just the other morning I am driving down old 77 and two bikers [sic] are driving on the shoulder causing me to move to the left some. Unfortunately there were 3 cars driving the opposite direction. [Goodness! What ever could you do! I hope you applied your brakes and waited for a gap in traffic so that you were able to perform your primary duty of using due care.] Fortunately I did not run anybody off the road.

I have no problem with bikers [sic], I have problems when they use the road when there are sidewalks that can be used. [Why do you drive your automobile on the road, and avoid driving it on the sidewalk? The answer that that just popped into your mind is a reason why cyclists do not travel on the sidewalk.] These bikers [sic] need to use some common sense when they are riding.

People can exercise free speech but violence in any way is not right.

TIM said: Are you people serious? Terry, riding on sidewalks is ILLEGAL in Oklahoma City, Edmond, Norman and many other cities. Riding on the road is LEGAL. Taking the lane when needed is LEGAL. It has nothing to do with defiance, it has everything to do with using a bicycle as a legal, non-polluting healthy means of transportation.

Christopher, the cyclist you described was not riding ignorantly by taking the lane, he/she was riding safely. Why don't you folks try slowing down, paying attention and treat ALL road users with respect.

KRISTY comments again: Tim, are you serious? Or are you just trying to rile everyone up? [Tim is serious. You however, are about to display near criminal hubris.]

Surely you can see how dangerous it makes the roads when a bicycle is on it? [What makes you think it is the cyclists that are creating dangerous conditions?] Cyclists are lucky that people do pay attention or there would be a whole lot more deadly accidents. [So it is not cyclists causing the problems, it is the inattentive operators of automobiles! I see that you agree with Tim. So it must be you that is trying to “rile everyone up“!]

To be fair, it isn't only bicycles, but walkers and runners as well, although they usually do get over. [Is that on the hilly section line road that you said everyone is speeding on? It sounds to me that the reckless scofflaw motorists are the lucky ones! Lucky they are not in prison for manslaughter.]

Perhaps we should all start a petition to get the laws changed so that cyclists are allowed to ride on the sidewalks where it is safer, and not allowed on the roads. It makes so much more sense and everyone wins. [Ah, yes. I want to take away cyclist’s rights because they occasionally inconvenience me and force me to be a more careful driver. Just say it Kristy; “It’s all about me! I should always be able to drive at top speed!”]

TIM responds: Kristi, statistically it has been proven that due to obstacles, curb-cuts and intersections is is exponentially more dangerous to ride on a sidewalk than on a road. That is why it is illegal.

Now for a history lesson; were it not for the efforts of the League of American Wheelmen (now known as the League of American Bicyclists) you would not HAVE paved roads to drive on. [A wee bit over the top, Tim, but your heart’s in the right place. It is a bit unreasonable to imagine that not one motorist in 150 years would come up with the idea of paved roads. But from what I’ve read here, I am fairly sure the imaginative motorist would not be from Oklahoma!]

Bottom line, we have the right to be there, are subject to the same rules and bear the same responsibilities.

STACY chimes in with: No wonder there are tensions[.]

I don't like cyclists myself, they don't pay attention to the laws while riding, they exepect [sic] you to let them run an intersection[.] if [sic] you don't they get mad, [sic]

they [sic] have little side mirrors on their helmets, which is a waste [sic] because if they used them [sic] they could see the 10 cars stacked of [sic] behind them on [sic] get the #$@# over instead of insisting [sic] riding 2 and 3 wide on the roadway. [You have made a very confusing series of statements. On one hand, you are upset at the cyclists who break the laws. And then, astonishingly in the next breath, you are upset at cyclists who are obeying the law!]

Tim then says: And we don't like you either. So there.

While being snarky can be fun, I am trying to make a point. These folks are a very small minority of drivers. They have self-selected themselves and so cannot in any stretch of the imagination be considered a representative sample of any diverse population.

But they also do not hold their opinions in a social vacuum, either. Outside of those who acted out and physically attacked cyclists, these folks are the extreme edge of those who are hostile to cyclists. However, their positions reflect at least some of the community attitudes about traffic, the responsibility of motorists, civility on the highways, notions of right-of-way and impeding traffic.

I hope that some of my snarky comments really do point to a place that once was; Where lawfulness and civil behavior on the public way was expected of one another and common, and where I long for America to return to.

A difficulty that we face is that operating a motor vehicle today has become such an everyday common event that we have become callous to the terrible consequences of mishaps, and we have become cavalier about driving on the public way.

We have become a people who like to style ourselves as victims. We cannot countenance the idea that we may have some personal responsibility for the circumstances we find ourselves in.

We expect to be treated with grace and kindness, but feel no duty to extend such gifts to others. We are quick to take offense, but judge our own actions with gentler standards. We expect to receive the benefit of the doubt, but assume the worst motivations of others.

Hard times are upon us, perhaps it will be a catalyst for good. Bicycle advocates should watch for opportunities to shape the public's notions of what it means to be a good citizen in public spaces.

Hardware Fix for a Software Problem

A new study concludes that more than half of United States highway fatalities are related to bad roads.

"The group said its research concluded that roadway deficiencies contribute to more than 22,000 fatalities, with poor roads leading to 10 roadway-related crashes every minute (5.3 million a year) and contributing to 38% of non-fatal crash injuries."

So ask myself; "Self, what do they mean by "road deficiencies" and is that really the problem?"

"Miller added that PIRE’s [Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation] study identifies ways transportation officials can improve road conditions to save lives and reduce injuries. For example, he said immediate solutions for problem spots include: replacing non-forgiving poles with breakaway poles, using brighter and more durable pavement markings, adding rumble strips to shoulders, mounting more guardrails or safety barriers, and installing better signs with easier-to-read graphics.

The report also suggested more significant road improvements should be made, including adding or widening shoulders, improving roadway alignment, replacing or widening narrow bridges, reducing pavement edges and abrupt drop- offs, and clearing more space adjacent to roadways.

“Although behavioral factors are involved in most crashes, avoiding those crashes through driver improvement requires reaching millions of individuals and getting them to sustain best safety practices,” Miller pointed out. “It is far more practical to make the roadway environment more forgiving and protective.”

Once again deflecting the dreadful driving skills of American motorists. Changing the culture is too hard. Let's blame an inanimate object instead of the operator of the automobile. If only the highway were more "forgiving" and not so mean, we would be just fine. I am not responsible, I am a victim here! Sheesh!



All of the "fixes" proposed (Highlighted above) are attempts to allow drifting or out-of-control motor vehicles more room to recover. I find this appalling! Is it not a reflection of our societies tolerance of irresponsible behavior? Better to install break-away light poles than expect Americans to avoid steering their automobiles into them.

It is foolishness to think we can reduce the carnage by making safer roads while ignoring the attitude of society toward responsible public behavior. There is no shame in poor driving skills, and no scandal if you cause a wreck and property damage. Changing this cavalier attitude would be more effective than "fixing the roads".

Technology is doomed in an arms race with fools; There are so many of them and they are persistent and innovative!



Addendum: A sad commentary highlighting this sad state of incivility and accepted carnage can be found at Carbon Trace.

Right, Dead Right, and Being Dead to Rights

"You can ride your bike on the road, and you can be right, but you may be dead right."





Sound familiar? Google "bicycle, dead right" and you get 9,000 hits. It must sound profound to those who say it, but what does it mean?

In context, the idea is that while you have the right to do a thing, it is foolish to assert your right because of the perilous nature of doing so.

In every case I can think of, the one trying to discourage the assertion of one's rights had a vested interest in its deferral. In that way, it is simply a veiled threat by a coward too timid to reveal the dark thoughts of his heart.



I find it interesting, since we are talking about rights, who has rights on our public streets. The right to operate a motor vehicle on the public way is a contingent right, which can be thought of as a privilege. One is granted the right to steer one's automobile on a public street if one meets many requirements. You must be of certain age, physically sound, have financial means in case of mishap, and posses a license provided by the state. This permission to operate in the public way can be removed with due process.

Bicycle operators, on the other hand, have no requirements at all! Based on ancient notions of free travel on the public way under one's own power, this is one of the natural liberties of free men. (Sadly, this liberty has been encroached upon by the city of Anna and the state of Texas.)

So those with conditional rights want to bully others for their own convenience from exercising their natural rights. I dislike bullies.

If cyclists take the bait, and cower in fear, deferring their rights to keep the peace, what good are they? Is an unexercised right a right at all?

I do have the right to take the lane. I know it because I do it.

Exercising my rights is keeping them from becoming dead rights.

Cyclists See the World Differently

There are things cyclists know and are aware of that motorists just do not see.

We know which way the wind blows. We are annoyed when weather newscasts fail to note the expected direction and speed of the wind. (I like Weather Underground) When I step outside, I always note the wind right off. Even when riding in a automobile, I scan for flags and other tells that indicate wind direction. I even plan solo bicycle rides with eye to forcasted wind direction.

What do you think when you see a bridge? I know that the downhill trend is ending and when I cross the bridge, it will now become an uphill trend. Motorists often don't know when they are going up or down a hill unless it is really steep. Cyclists are much more aware of subtle terrain differences.

How often does a cyclist fall asleep while riding? 'Nuff said!

Cyclists seem to be better able to time a traffic light sequence. To preserve energy/momentum, we will coast up to a signal, hoping to avoid stopping. It is a very personal and immediate cost to return to cruising speed for a cyclist.

Motorists seem to have no clue as to how much raw energy it takes to accelerate to normal speed. They race around us at maximum acceleration (Full power, Scottie!) just to wait at the next light as we pull up behind them. (Scanners indicate no intelligent life forms, Capt. Kirk!) Evidence to me that gasoline prices are not yet dear. Gas pumps provide a remote and disassociated cost.

We have different perceptions of what makes a road "smooth" and "rough". An automobile will perceive a road as rough when their suspension bottoms out- a blemish in the road a cyclist may not notice. But cracked and uneven pavement that threatens to unseat a cyclist may not register for a motorist at normal speeds!

Cyclists are very much more familiar with "road kill" than motorists are. And we are more familiar with loose dogs. Motorists are only physically endangered by large animals of the size of deer or more. While hitting an animal is rare for cyclists due to out lower speeds, even hitting tiny animals can be catastrophic for a cyclist.

Cyclists see more wildlife than motorists. Even in urban settings I have seen coyotes when out early on my bike, but never when in a car. Same thing with bobcats and song birds.

Tell me dear reader, either one of you, what are ways cyclists see the world different than automobile operators?

Guest Blog: Keri Caffrey

Keri left a comment on Mr. Issakov's blog, and I wish to highlight her thoughts as a stand-alone blog entry. Thanks Keri! You can find more of this thoughtful content at her own blog here.

I agree completely with teaching motorcycling visibility techniques to bicyclists.

High-speed cyclists, especially, need to understand sight line visibility. And any time hills are involved, even the pokiest of us can become high-speed bicyclists.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, we must recognize that motorcycling produces about 16X the casualties per million hours as bicycling, and about 8X that of car driving. When you consider what a large percentage of bicyclists operate on the margins and in the ways most likely to expose them to risk, the statistics really prove how safe bicycling is.

Most people can get away with extremely high-risk behavior, like riding next to parked cars, riding against traffic and passing large vehicles on the right, for years without getting killed. What I've observed is that while people get away without injury, they experience frequent frustration, conflict, harassment (because they're unpredictable) and near-misses.

I've watched utterly incompetent, high-risk behavior daily for 6 years in the bike lane outside my office. I personally experienced numerous conflicts and near misses on that road before I understood how to outsmart the bike lane, and I was hit once.

Even since, I've had doors thrown open (as I was passing at a safe distance). That no one has been killed on that road yet, is a total mystery. It will happen some day. That is inevitable.

What is significant about this, is that people don't put 2+2 together and recognize why their cycling experience is a constant struggle. They don't get the mechanics of it. That, coupled with enculturation into submissive inferiority, causes the cry for bike lanes... more bike lanes... solutions to the problems with those bike lanes... barrier separated bike lanes...

It's a spiral of dependency, special-interest whining and us-vs.-them bickering that follows a culture built on bike lanes.

When the public policy choice is to coddle and capitulate rather than empower and educate, we will all pay endlessly in a spiral of unintended consequences!

It's easy for the koolaid-drinkers to claim coddling is the only way to increase mode share. But, to my knowledge, no city in America has ever really tried empowerment, education and access-oriented infrastructure.

SMIDSY

"Sorry Mate, I didn't see you!"

In Virginia Beach, this is now a positive defense for failure to do ones duty in the public way. Motorists are no longer expected to operate their vehicles in a manner that avoids hitting slower traffic in their lane.

Commonwealth's Attorney Harvey Bryant said members of his office and the Police Department's fatal crash team met Wednesday and determined there was insufficient evidence to file charges in the death of Daniel Wayne Hersh, the 54-year-old civil engineer and ex-SEAL killed on April 19.
Hersh, an avid cyclist on his Sunday morning ride, was apparently following traffic laws by pedaling east in the right travel lane - not the turn lane - on Shore Drive near Starfish Road in the early light shortly before 6 a.m., when a motorist struck him from behind. He was wearing a helmet and a bright yellow windbreaker with reflective strips, Bryant said. (Witnesses who came upon the wreck said his blinking tail-lights were still on. -ChipSeal)
"In terms of his safety equipment, there certainly was no fault on his part," he said.
The motorist told police she never saw Hersh, and authorities found no evidence to support potential charges to allege that she hit him willfully or through negligent or reckless driving, Bryant told reporters.
The woman was cooperative, and she realized she had hit a bicyclist only after she felt the impact, stopped and saw Hersh's body, according to Bryant.
Investigators took measurements, photographs and video of the scene, all of which supported the woman's statement that she was in her lane and abiding by the 45-mph speed limit.
There were no witnesses, but investigators determined the motorist had not been smoking, and she passed a breath test for alcohol on-scene.
She denied falling asleep, and her cell phone records showed no calls or text messages at the time of the crash.
The woman loaned her vehicle to police, who conducted a re-enactment video along the same stretch at the same time of day.
None of the efforts produced anything that "would lead to a criminal prosecution or would substantiate a criminal prosecution," the CA Bryant said.

The conclusion of the local authorities is that while unfortunate, this wreck was unavoidable. The motorist wasn't drunk, asleep, speeding or using a phone! She was following the letter of the law, how could she be expected to have a duty to use due care? kijdjdjhhf jhshyjsuw shirewr eirijfr ewirhiehrj ieriherhjrieuhyr hrie iehroeiyfuehrioeyh rhehwfhiouwehriehuiew iuhyerioewuhyruhr uweriouewh hjjf

How could it be her fault? It isn't reasonable to expect a motorist to observe a well lit cyclist in your path. It isn't the drivers fault that she was overdriving her headlights. The manufacturer didn't make them bright enough. The speed limit was too high! lodjndjhyhf dhuduejjfdujdjd fjfdhdsjf ejjfjheiweoqowrhjrejh rehieh jeijhrdool jfdoifiodhjndified idfijosrijhfkdjht ieurie nfuirehreoti iutoietfdi jjjdj

The only reasonable conclusion is that this "accident" could have been prevented by an infrastructure change, not an attitude adjustment. It was a technology failure, not the imprudent and reckless behavior of the motorist.

The notion that there is insufficient evidence to charge the motorist with anything is preposterous and an obvious falsehood.kudsfh jufdhie hdush uhyhy udusuhd hduishyh shdhush suhdijshhrjhsuufdhjh shireuir uyrhe8uhrh eyrueuih 8erheue hreiuie

The motorist violated the cyclist's right of way by (at a minimum) following too close. There is plenty of EVIDENCE of that!kjdsyffr dfuwjserj usi eirie iei reiirjh riieirrjr reirejijhrie riejrieujreijr rjeiujr eiriejre riejrier riureje erier reijrjei eiurei jrieuierie eiieirrujur

Failure to observe traffic. The "I didn't see him, officer" is a confession, not an alibi!jdhfksdfhhfhdd jfhjhdkshjjhfuj fjfjkedujiejrujf jufrjrj jujfhd dhdhe dhue uhfh rujjdjd fdufrrujurjeej hhufrej hjdsheihfd urrehreirhhfd hfdeuirr8uhe uhei ur 8erehr uierjh

I wonder, if this driver had been a male, or unattractive, would she have garnered as much sympathy from the authorities? Is this un-named perpetrator politically or socially connected? ljujuujus hhysts ufjdhdysys jdhgdtegdeyd hdydbdjdjdhdhd ujdhstytgdhd djhdhdyd ydhdyshdyd djfkj dhdhdjdhddh uddndhdjjj jjjjjj

I fear that the real reason law enforcement "can't find a reason to charge her" is that it is blatant vehicle-class discrimination. Auto-ism if you will. kinn ujdyh hygsk kufjj jdhsjjdkjhd jhhhjkkjdhfnfnfjdjdjhdl kujhdgd kjuuj ijdhy hyyhyhh hgysgh hdhdhh

While the general public's attitude toward cyclists has deteriorated as car-centrism has been on the rise, we had refuge in the law. We choose not to be alarmed when law enforcement officers (LEO) decline to issue tickets to motorists for violating a cyclists right of way. (Improper passes, right hooks) We are not upset when they decline to cite cyclists for breaking the law, thus treating cyclists like irresponsible children rather than legitimate road users. (Salmon behavior, night trips without lights) klonj juuh hdsju hy uhdgd hdjdhhhhdjdbhcj j jjj jjjj jjdjd djdkkd lljhyhdh hys juj jjhdg isjrhh dhjjs ksjjs jjuikk

There was a time when the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public road brought with it a sense of responsibility and ownership for the consequences of your actions. Hitting someone or something was a BIG deal. Reckless behavior was a serious breach of social norms. gejjskk ijdhhjj jjekik kiik kkij judhr hjdsjj yudjdhdh jhhyddbddhjfj kijhsyyh hydhdjd hdhdysj ggs jjikjhidksks

Something has changed, and it is now infecting LEOs, DAs and our courts. Bicyclist's liberty is being encroached upon. Killing a cyclist is not a crime anymore. Killing a cyclist is not an avoidable event anymore. The law is abandoning us and no longer providing a deterrent to recklessness. There is no expectation of motorists using due care! jeejj jje j skk skk keek kkksk kks ekek kk sksks krkr ksks fkrke skkkr ks skker k

The message being sent to motorists is; "It's a sad unavoidable situation. If there is any fault at all, it most certainly is not that of the motorist. Bicyclists have inferior rights to public roads. There can be no expectation that the laws will be applied to protect cyclists." i must put spaces here because this stupid program wo

SIGH. We would be better served by bicycle "advocates" if they would insist on the enforcement and prosecution of EXISTING law, rather than wasting resources and political capital on writing and passing redundant new laws. What is the point of new laws anyway, when they will be ignored also?