Tag Archive for Los Angeles

Is an accident just an accident?

April 23, 2009 / / 2 comments

There’s an interesting debate going on over at Streetsblog.

As I noted the other day, Damien Newton has written about a new ghost bike at Fountain and La Brea — a memorial to two women who died when one of the cars involved in a typical traffic accident careened into the women as they stepped off the curb, killing them both.

Just another tragic accident.

After all, no one intentionally did anything to endanger these women. They were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, when things when out of control with unintended consequences. And yet, they’re still dead.

As Damien put it:

Of course, neither driver was charged in the crash because of a little-known, but oft-cited, part of the vehicle code that clearly states, “Unless a driver is drunk, runs away from the crash or does something else horrific but telegenic action; said driver can kill as many pedestrians as he or she desires.”  I guess causing a chain reaction of crashes that kills two elderly women, and injured a third pedestrian, wasn’t quite exciting enough.

A few people took exception to that. David Galvin, for instance:

Right. Because the drivers of both of these vehicles really desired to kill two people that day. How do you know that? Because they were driving cars. Murderous monsters. Do drivers of the blue line “desire” to kill someone when that happens?… The incident mentioned in the post was tragic. And yes it resulted from either wrecklessness OR a momentary lapse in judgement OR a mistake. And yes, it cost the lives of two people. But there IS such a thing as an accident.

Which got me wondering, is there really such a thing as an accident? Or to put it another way, is it possible to have a collision without at least one of the drivers — or yes, cyclists or pedestrians — violating the law in some way?

I’m not sure it is.

Invariably, one or more of the people involved is speeding, tailgating, or fails to yield the right-of-way. Or simply isn’t paying enough attention.

I’ve been wracking my brain — or what’s left of it, anyway — and can only come up with two ways an accident could occur with no one being at fault.

The first is when someone or something, such as an animal or a child, darts out into the roadway without warning, forcing drivers to react; of course, this requires the inability to understand the consequences of their actions, otherwise they would be at fault. The other is when a mechanical, road or weather condition eliminates the ability to control the vehicle, such as a steering or brake failure, or hitting a patch of glare ice (though the latter seldom happens here in L.A.).

Of course, it’s not always the vehicles involved that are responsible. Some drivers — like the jackasses who drive city streets at 80 mph, weaving in and out of traffic — cause far more collisions than they seem to have themselves.

And yes, that goes for some cyclists, as well.

But we live in a society that has accepted collisions as a natural, and seemingly inevitable, consequence of mobility. We call them accidents, implying that no one is really at fault. We don’t have enough police officers to fully investigate them or effectively enforce the laws. We have an overburdened court system that discourages filing charges in anything but the most egregious cases. And we have an insurance system that ensures that drivers seldom suffer the financial consequences, either.

And so people die, and it’s no one’s fault.

Damien wrote a great response to the comments — one I highly recommend reading. But this seems to sum it up:

The same logic applies here. People should be paying more attention to the road when approaching a crosswalk, not having momentary lapses. If there’s some external reason (hepped up on caffeine, distraught that his girlfriend dumped him, tired from a day of exams) they shouldn’t be driving in the first place. Cars are deadly when not utilized safely and we should treat them as such and the people driving them should be responsible for their actions.

If a car hits another car, the occupants have over a ton of steel to protect them, along with assorted seat belts, air bags and head restraints. Cyclists and pedestrians, on the other hand, have little or nothing to protect them. And the consequences of someone’s inattention, inability to control their vehicle, or unwillingness to obey the law can be quite different.

Or as another blogger I’ve been reading lately recently wrote:

…when a driver screws up and hits a cyclist, the cyclist gets injured or dies, but when a cyclist screws up and hits a car, the cyclist gets injured or dies.

Update: A man was struck by an out-of-control car today on Lincoln Blvd. in Playa del Rey, apparently while seated on a sidewalk bus bench.

But hey, it was just an accident.

 

Flying Pigeon gets a visit from a Pulitzer Prize winning writer. Alex tells the LACBC to stop twitter stalking his mom. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation supports cycling, so why can’t our own mayor? Texas cyclists put on suits and lobby their legislators. Seattle riders get more infrastructure. A mountain biker dies falling from an unofficial bike trail, and a UK driver fatally runs down a cyclist for damaging his mirror.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,

Los Angeles CD5: Things are getting interesting

April 22, 2009 / / 2 comments

Monday night, I attended a debate between the candidates in the May 19 general election for Los Angeles 5th Council District, Paul Koretz and David Vahedi.

Afterwards, I had hoped that I might be able to talk to someone from the Koretz campaign and encourage them to finally provide their comments about bicycling and transportation issues, like four of the six candidates in the primary election did, including Vahedi. Unfortunately, they left before I had a chance to catch anyone.

Instead, I was approached by Vahedi’s campaign manager. He asked if I had any questions for Vahedi, and offered to have him write another post for this blog.

Yeah, like I’m going to turn down an offer like that.

Then the next morning I received an email from someone with the Koretz campaign, who offered to respond to my earlier request for his comments.

So I gave it a little thought, and taking my cue from Damien Newton’s survey for the city attorney candidates, I emailed both campaigns a brief list of questions this morning:

1. A bicyclist was killed by an intoxicated hit-and-run driver Saturday night, the latest in a string of hit-and run incidents. What can be done on the city level to reduce the rate of both drunk driving and hit-and-runs? And what can be done to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians?

2. The Los Angeles City Council recently gave approval to the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights. Are you familiar with this document, and if so, do you support these rights as written? Are there any you disagree with, and why? And what would you consider the next steps to transform those rights from mere words into tangible action?

3. There is often a high level of tension between cyclists and drivers in Los Angeles as they compete for limited road space, as illustrated by last year’s incident in Mandeville Canyon. What can the city do to help reduce that tension, and encourage both sides to safely and courteously share the road?

4. What role, if any, do you see bicycles playing in city transportation policy and improving traffic flow within the city?

5. Are there any other issues you want to address, or any additional comments you’d like to make to the bicycling community?

We’ll have to see if they actually follow through, and what they’ll have to say. If they do, I’ll get it online as fast as I can. And if not, that should tell us something as we prepare to cast our ballots.

Either way, things are starting to get interesting around here.


Streetsblog reports on the appearance of a new ghost bike at Flower and La Brea. Congratulations are in order, as Gary graduates to CAT 4. Stephen Box explores the homeless encampment known as the Orange Line Bike Path. Alex provides a step-by-step plan for bicycle activism. West Seattle is becoming a hub for cycling; so, evidently, is Changwon. Finally, an Irish writer asks why it’s so hard to transition to two wheels, while another hangs up her helmet for good.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,

Yeah, but it was worth it

April 21, 2009 / / Comments Off on Yeah, but it was worth it

“Hello.”mb-pier-small

“Hi, where are you?”

“I’m at the pier in Manhattan Beach.”

“I thought you weren’t up to riding that far yet?”

“I didn’t think I was.”

“Yeah, but now you have to ride back…”


Gary notes that Santa Monica bike lanes are for meant bikes, not cars. Bicycle Fixation lists micro-manufacturers serving U.S. cyclists with Made in the U.S.A. products. Will observes the restoration of the graffiti-scared Ballona Creek Mural. Stephen Box attends a statewide safety summit hosted by the California Office of Traffic Safety, and fails to spot the L.A. contingent. And finally, Daily Kos endorses the Idaho Stop for every state (you have to scroll all the way down).

Category: General / Tags: , ,

Another drunk driving hit-and-run fatality; CD5 candidates duke it out tonight

April 20, 2009 / / Comments Off on Another drunk driving hit-and-run fatality; CD5 candidates duke it out tonight

Two seemingly unrelated items.

First, a cyclist was killed by a hit-and-run driver in Echo Park early Sunday morning. As of the time I’m writing this, no real information has been released.

All we know is that he was a 44 year old man, riding south on Glendale Blvd around 1:45 am, when he was struck by a driver and pinned against a car.

He could have been anyone; commuting after a late shift in a bar or restaurant, or riding home after a night out. He could have been making his way home after Saturday’s C.R.A.N.K. Mob, or just out for a late night ride.

In other words, it could have been any one of us.

Like the recent incident in Orange County, the driver appears to have been intoxicated. And like the driver in that incident, a suspect has been arrested, based on an eye witness who wrote down the license number.

Just another needless death, and another chapter in Southern California’s recent rash of high-profile hit-and-runs. Except this time, it wasn’t a famous athlete, or a beautiful young college student.

Just another dead cyclist, which means we’ll probably never hear another word about it.

With that in mind, I’m going to attend a debate between the candidates for Los Angeles 5th Council District tonight.

We know where David Vahedi stands on the subject of bicycling. Paul Koretz is, so far, has been another matter.

If I learn anything worth repeating, I’ll let you know. And if I get a chance to talk to Koretz or his campaign manager, I’ll invite him once again to contribute his comments about cycling and transportation issues.

Because we’re finally starting to make some progress here in L.A. And this election will go a long way in determining whether that progress continues.

Or whether more cyclists will have to die before we do something about it.


City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss — the council person Vahedi and Koretz are competing to replace — completes Streetsblog’s candidate survey. Green LA Girl comments on bicycling and mean bus drivers. A New York writer complains about the return of the bicycle menace. Ireland announces a new national Policy Framework to encourage cycling. An officer of the LACBC says both cyclists and motorists must obey the law, while a RAGBRAI rider says bicycle courtesy goes both ways. Evidently, baseball season brings out an extreme form of harassing cyclists. And finally, hit-and-runs against cyclists clearly aren’t just a SoCal problem these days.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,

It’s spring, and I’m head over heels

April 17, 2009 / / 3 comments

 

You can't really tell from my crappy, left-handed into-the-mirror photo, but that lump is about the size of a golf ball.

You can't really tell from my crappy, left-handed into-the-mirror photo, but that lump is about the size of a golf ball.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Me, I mean.

Between work, weather and other assorted issues and obligations, I hadn’t been able to get out on my bike for over a week.

But today dawned under a clear blue sky, at the gateway of what promises to be an extended warm spell. For once, my calendar was clear. And I was feeling good as I set out for a long, fast ride up the coast.

That lasted for about a mile and a half.

Before I even got out of my own neighborhood, I found myself at the end of a long line of cars, lead by perhaps the most indecisive driver I’ve ever encountered. He’d come to a dead stop in the middle of the traffic lane, forcing the drivers behind — and me — to jam on their brakes. Then he’d pulling over towards the curb, before jerking back into the traffic lane.

This was followed by a feint to the left, another to the right, and yet another full stop in the traffic lane. Finally, he put on his left turn signal, and I saw my chance. I slipped past the line of cars on the right, and was just about to blow past him and into the clear.

But at that exact moment, instead of turning left as his signal indicated, he swung hard to the right to make a U-turn — despite the line of cars behind him and oncoming traffic from the other direction. And despite my presence in the space he was about to occupy.

I grabbed my brake hard — exactly the wrong thing to do, since I only had one hand on the handlebars, and the only brake within reach was the one in front. Instantly, I got that eerie feeling of briefly defying gravity as my momentum carried me forward, while my rear wheel rose up off the ground to follow.

As I felt myself flip over the handlebars, I took my own advice for once by tucking my head down, pulling in my elbows and rounding my shoulders.

Sure enough, I flipped over the front wheel, landing on my shoulders and rolling forward to absorb the impact. Luckily, his U-turn had stopped traffic in both directions, so I was able to clip out of my pedals and get the hell out of the way before traffic started moving again.

And needless to say, words were exchanged; needless to say, the driver considered himself blameless in every possible way.

But the bottom line is, I have no one but myself to blame.

I was the one who trusted his turn signal, despite his previous actions. I was the one who failed to have both hands on the handlebars. And I was the one who grabbed only the front brake, despite decades of experience that should have taught me what happens you do.

Fortunately, I’m fine, more or less. I’ve got a jammed left wrist and lump the size of a golf ball on my left elbow, along with other assorted aches and pains. But both will heal with a few days rest and a lot of ice.

But one interesting thing came out of it.

After icing my elbow for an hour or so, I rode my bike down to the shop where I bought it to get everything straightened out again for next week. And while I was there, I struck up a conversation with another rider who was also having a little work done.

Turns out, he was someone I knew, if only from his blog.

So, I’ve got a few bumps and bruises, a freshly tuned bike and a new friend.

I’ve had worse days.


Gary writes a heartfelt explanation of why he won’t be cranking with the Mob this weekend. Caltrans can’t find enough shovel-ready bike projects to fund; maybe they aren’t looking hard enough. No Whip takes in bike night at the Hammer Museum. Velocouture explains the concept of a city bike. The San Gabriel paper offers advice for competitive training. Albuquerque get its first bike boulevard, while Bulgaria gets bike alleys. The UT student paper notes the importance of the upcoming city council election in making the city more bike friendly. Sound familiar?

Category: General / Tags: , , , ,

Today’s post, in which I examine two- and four-wheeled a**holism

April 15, 2009 / / 6 comments

Let’s go back to a topic I touched on last week.

You see, I’ve got a very simple rule of thumb:

When someone calls me a jerk, asshole or whatever other insult happens to pass their lips, I generally assume it’s the other person who actually has the problem.

If it happens again, though, I start to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, I might be doing something to inspire that. And if it happens a third time, I’m pretty convinced that I just may, in that particular case at least, be what the French would call le trou de cul.*

(Of course, the opposite holds true as well. If I keep encountering people I think are jerks, assholes, et al, it’s a pretty good indication that I’m at least partially to blame.)

Yet there are a significant number of drivers who remain quite convinced that every cyclist they encounter is a flaming rectal orifice.

For instance, I once took part in an online forum in which a number of people went to great lengths to point out the inherent rudeness of cyclists, as well as their willingness to teach us a lesson in vehicular Darwinism by running us off the road. Or worse.

Of course, these comments were met by a similar number of cyclists who argued the counterpoint with equal vehemence, and varying degrees of civility.

But one comment in particular stuck with me.

This person said he couldn’t begin to count the many times that riders had cursed, gestured or spit at him, or actually struck his car with their hands or bike locks. And took that as proof that cyclists are rude, vile and disgusting creatures, unworthy of life — let alone the few feet of roadway we insist on occupying.

So, invoking the above rule of thumb, I inquired just what it was he was doing behind the wheel that would make so many cyclists feel so ticked off. Then suggested that perhaps it wasn’t the cyclists who were actually the problem.

Needless to say, that was the last we heard from him. But clearly, he was not alone in his certainty that cyclists are responsible for all the evil in the world, or at least on the roadways. And that we all have a major attitude problem.

You can find similar comments on countless online discussions of bicycling. Yet in over 30 years as a licensed driver, I have never had a confrontation with an angry cyclist.

Never.

Maybe that’s because, as a cyclist, I make a point of driving safely and courteously around other riders. Or maybe just because I go out of my way not to be a jerk behind the wheel.

So if, as a driver, you find yourself having repeated conflicts with angry cyclists, it may be time to consider that perhaps they’re not the problem. And ask yourself what you’re doing, or failing to do, that could be causing, or at least contributing, to it.

Of course, that’s not to say that cyclists are entirely blameless.

Occasional conflicts are to be expected as we all learn to share the road and compete for the same increasingly limited piece of asphalt. But the key word there is occasional.

So if you find yourself having frequent conflicts with angry drivers, maybe it’s time to consider how you might be contributing to the problem. Because in any traffic confrontation, there’s usually at least one asshole involved.

And sometimes it’s me.

 

Damien Newton wants your input on Streetblog’s questionnaire for the Council District 5 candidates. A Salt Lake City writer applauds cyclists, even while resisting the occasional urge to turn them into hood ornaments. An economist applies game theory to four-way stops. Flying Pigeon suspects the thief who stole one of their bikes was an L.A. Sheriff. Another college newspaper takes on cyclists, and Oregon’s proposed Idaho Stop law. A group in Bend, Oregon suggests that bike safety is a two-way street, involving cyclists and drivers. And finally, last week’s discussion of a New Jersey newspaper editorial about their proposed three-foot law comes full circle, as one of their bloggers quotes yours truly.


*Courtesy of a truly indispensible pocket guide, The Little Book of Essential Foreign Swear Words, by Emma Burgess.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Three-foot passing zones — even a near miss can be deadly

April 10, 2009 / / One comment

If you’ve been reading this for awhile, you probably know that I’m a strong advocate of laws establishing a minimum three-foot distance for passing a cyclist.

It’s just common sense.

Just about anyone who has ever ridden a bike knows how dangerous it can be when a car passes too close. And just about anyone who has ever driven past a cyclist knows that it’s hard to judge just exactly how close is too close — and that riders often swerve to avoid obstacles a driver may not be aware of.

A three foot — or arm’s length — distance simply provides a reasonable margin of error to protect everyone’s safety.

It makes so much sense, in fact, that it is slowly becoming law across the nation. As of last year, eleven states had passed three-foot laws, while a number of states have either passed or are considering such laws this year.

What brings this up is today’s news.

A newspaper in New Jersey and a letter writer in Colorado go to great lengths to argue against three-foot laws under consideration in their states.

The New Jersey editorial questions why not have a two-foot distance for passing skinnier people, or whether someone will get a ticket for passing with just a 2’11” margin. And notes that drivers have enough to worry about without having to judge how closely they pass a cyclist.

Meanwhile, the Durango writer posits that some roads are just too narrow and curving to permit a three-foot margin without causing accidents — and that cyclists should be banned from some roads entirely.

Bullshit.

Virtually every state in the union already requires passing cyclists at a safe distance; all this law does in specify what a safe distance is.

Despite what the New Jersey paper says, no one will get a ticket for passing 1” closer than three feet, or two inches, or even three. No officer has the ability to judge distance that closely.

But they can tell when you’re too close. When that margin is far less than three feet, and close enough to interfere with the cyclist’s ability to ride safely.

Simply put, if you can’t safely pass a rider with a margin roughly of three feet, you can’t safely pass. So just slow down for a moment, and wait until you can.

In other words, drive safely. Just like common sense, and the law, requires.

Then there’s this, one day earlier, from the same newspaper.

A cyclist was killed when riding along a New Jersey street. Witnesses say he was struck by a passing school bus in a hit-and-run accident; yet all the evidence — including security camera footage and an examination of the bus — indicate that no collision occurred.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened.

If the bus passed so closely that witnesses on the scene swear it hit the cyclist, it was clearly too close — well within the proposed three-foot limit — causing the cyclist to lose control of his bike. Yet no charges will be filed.

To quote one of comments that followed the editorial:

How many drivers can gauge whether or not they are 3 feet away – all that really matters is that you do not hit the cyclist.

The death of an experienced cyclist — a 5,000 mile a year rider — clearly demonstrates the fallacy of that attitude.

But they still don’t get it. 

How many more cyclists have to die until they do?


Dave Zabriskie’s Yield to Life Foundation offers great tips for cyclists and motorists on how to share the road safely. Laguna Beach says it’s not safe to ride in their city, but bike lanes aren’t the answer. Stephen Box recently wrote about bus drivers who think they have the right to cut off cyclists; a 15-year old Oregon cyclist was killed in a similar incident — which might have been avoided if he’d stopped for the red light. One in five cyclists killed in New York had alcohol in their systems; only 3% were wearing helmets. The Hammer Museum is Westwood is sponsoring a bike night next week, complete with bike valet courtesy of the LACBC; the LA Weekly suggests that you wear a helmet and be careful on your way there. Finally, L.A.’s own hometown cycling travel writer gets political. You go, girl!

Category: General / Tags: , , , ,

Senate District 26: Rabbi Shifren says yes

April 8, 2009 / / Comments Off on Senate District 26: Rabbi Shifren says yes

As I noted in my last post, I emailed the candidates for California’s 26th Senate District this morning to ask them just two questions:

1. Would you support legislation revising California Government Code Section 831.4 to return some liability to government agencies for known hazards on off-road (Class 1) trails?

2. Would you support — or be willing to introduce — legislation to update the California Vehicle Code to improve to clarify the laws regarding bicycling and improve bicycle safety?

Within just a few hours, I received the following response from Rabbi Nachum Shifren:

Dear Ted

As I mentioned to you, I am a physical fitness devotee, and totally relate to the plight of bikers. WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO MAKE BIKING NOT ONLY MORE SAFE, BUT MORE EFFICIENT AND USER FRIENDLY.

My answer to both questions: a resounding YES.

Yours for freedom on the road,

Rabbi Shifren

Category: General / Tags: , , , ,

An open letter to the candidates for California Senate District 26

April 8, 2009 / / Comments Off on An open letter to the candidates for California Senate District 26

As you may recall, prior to the March 24 special primary election for the sate’s 26th Senate District, I asked all the candidates for their comments on bicycling and transportation issues, just as I did in the election for Los Angeles’ 5th Council District.

Three of the eight candidates responded; two of those — current Assembly Member Curren Price and Rabbi Nachum Shifren — qualified for the May 19th General election, along with Cindy Varela Henderson. You can see their responses by clicking on the link titled CD5/SD26 Candidate Statements at the top of this page.

This morning, I sent each of them the following email (slightly different for Henderson, since she didn’t respond before). Assuming they respond, I’ll post their answers as they come in.

Dear (Candidate)…,

Thank you for contributing your comments on bicycling and transportation for my website, BikingInLA.com; several bicyclists have said that these statements helped influence their votes the March 24 primary election.

I’d like to follow-up with two more questions, and will post your answers online in the weeks leading up to the May 19 runoff election.

First, would you support legislation revising California Government Code Section 831.4 to return some liability to government agencies for known hazards on off-road (Class 1) trails? As you may be aware, recent court rulings have absolved all public and private agencies of any responsibility to maintain Class1 trails in a safe manner, jeopardizing the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians; you can learn more by clicking here.

Second, would you support — or be willing to introduce — legislation to update the California Vehicle Code to improve to clarify the laws regarding bicycling and improve bicycle safety?

Several states, including Indiana, Massachusetts and Colorado, have already passed a Bike Safety Bill or are in the process of doing so; revising California’s laws could encourage greater participation in cycling, and as a result, help reduce traffic, while improving air quality and the health of the state’s citizens.

Possible revisions to the law include:

• Mandate a minimum distance of three feet when passing a cyclist, and clarify that drivers are allowed to briefly leave their lane in order to pass a bicycle safely;

• Ban harassment of cyclists, and require that such incidents be investigated as criminal acts;

• Extend to cyclists riding legally in a Class 2 bike lane the same level of protection afforded pedestrians in a crosswalk;

• Prohibit turning into or across the path of a moving cyclist;

• Prevent drivers from using “I just didn’t see him” as an excuse, as they are required to be alert and aware of all traffic and road conditions.

You can learn more about these issues, and other possible changes, by clicking here.

Your response can be as long or short as you like. As before, I will publish whatever you send — unedited and without comment — in the order that it’s received. All I ask is that you send your statement in the body of your email or as a Word attachment.

Thank you in advance for your response, and good luck in the upcoming election.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,

Bicyclists are ***holes. I am a bicyclist. Therefore…

April 6, 2009 / / 7 comments

I stumbled on this the other day.

Just another rant from an indignorant bike-riding driver who can’t understand why cyclists are such assholes. Not him, of course, or others like him who only ride on side streets or sidewalks.

But those other jerks. The ones who ride in street, acting like they actually had a right to be there, or have the audacity to move up to the front of the intersection at a red light. Or, God forbid, flip him off when he expresses his righteous indignation.

Riders like me, in other words. And possibly, like you — though I hope you have better control over your middle finger than I do sometimes.

Normally, I’d just click on another link, and move on to something else. But this one stuck with me, because he was complaining about exactly the same things I do every time I ride — the same things most bike safety experts tell us to do, precisely because they help us stay alive.

For instance, he can’t understand why cyclists insist on moving to the front of the intersection at a red light. Let alone why they get so upset when he tries to block their path with his car so they can’t.

Since he doesn’t ride his bike in traffic, maybe he doesn’t know that stopping behind a line of cars is one of the most dangerous things a rider can do.

That’s because the single most important thing any cyclist can do is make sure he or she is seen. And when you stop behind a line of cars — or often, even a single car — you’re completely hidden from oncoming traffic.

Which means that a driver waiting patiently to make a left turn may not know you’re there, and could turn directly into your bike once the car ahead of you clears his path.

It’s also likely that drivers on the cross street may not see you, either. And anyone coming up from behind probably won’t be looking a cyclist behind a line of cars, resulting a high likelihood of a crush crash that could smash your bike against the car in front.

Of course, you can easily avoid that simply by working your way to the front of the intersection where you can be seen by everyone. So by blocking cyclists from moving up, driver’s like him are willing to put the lives of their fellow human beings at risk.

Just because they don’t understand.

Then there’s his complaint about cyclists who ride in “the center of the lane…just because (they) can.” Except what he’s really complaining about is someone riding just three feet from the edge of the lane.

In other words, exactly where many experts would tell you to ride. Not in the gutter, with all the cracked pavement and broken glass. Not next to the parked cars, where you run the risk of being doored by a careless driver. But slightly into the lane, where cars can safely go around you when there’s a break in traffic.

Of course, I wasn’t there. Maybe the rider really was just an asshole. But I find it very hard to believe that traffic — through a park, no less — was so heavy that this driver did not have a single opportunity to pass for “a good three or four minutes.”

Obviously, this is just one guy, posting in another city over 6 months ago. Yet a simple Google search for the phrase “bicyclists are assholes” returns over 58,000 hits.

So the question becomes, how can we communicate to all these people that we’re not going out of our way to be rude just because we can, and there’s actually a good reason why we do the things we do.

Because they don’t read cycling blogs like this.

And they’re clearly not getting the message.


The new Flying Pigeon lands downtown; Bicycle Fixation drops in for a visit. Stephen Box reports Metro drivers think bikes must yield to big ass buses. The Anonymous Cyclist suggests that building your own wheels can be as relaxing as preparing for a tattoo. The old Freeloading Cyclists canard rears its ugly head once again. El Monte wants you to experience their Emerald Necklace — and discover riverbeds that aren’t lined with cement. Baton Rouge peddles pedaling paramedics. A lawyer discusses dangerous driving habits cyclists hate. Finally, it seems there’s real science behind rolling through stop signs.

Category: General / Tags: , , , , ,
« Older Entries   Recent Entries »
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee