BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

gugh. I guess it's time to writer another letter.

The general public is stupid. Sadly, there are also morons in a position to publish crap like this, too.

Edit: sorry, that was a bit harsh. I am tired of crap like this, though. I would like to clarify that I find cyclists and people who post on this message board in general to be more intelligent and more resonable than the average person. I don't waste time on people who are close-minded turds who won't listen to reason.

Sad to say but the writer has a point. If they did indeed have no lights and no way to be seen what were they doing on 19? Intermittent street lights are not good enough.

Im going to have to agree with Orion on this one. For one why would you ride at night, on a fairly fast paced road, with no lights or reflective gear? Plain idiotic. 2. Theres no reason to be riding in the middle of both lanes.

I agree with Alf. Though the newspaper will do this to show all points of view. No matter how inane the writer's position or logic may be, the newspaper is at least showing us the who, what, when, where and why of alternative views on pedalcyclists.

I think it was Meow that said, "if you know neither yourself nor your enemy, then you will always endanger yourself."

while the writer of this letter seems more level-headed than most, they're still using a few bad examples as a way to put down all cyclists.

Regarding the PG and their selection of letters, it certainly shows a car bias, depending on what pool they selected from. We have no idea if they had 100 'motorist' and 'bicyclist' letters each this week, or just simply got 3 motorist ones and happened to choose the nicest of the three.

In regards to the actual letter, I don't really see how they are putting down all cyclists, or really hurting the community at all. They are calling for lights or reflective gear (a common goal, I would say) and also stated they really only had issue with them being in both lanes (I would too!). On a road like that, I would certainly hope to not find people like this in the paper the next day too. Who knows if the writer was genuine in that part.

On the 'take action' angle, I suppose it would make sense to start writing more letters in that are the exact same thing about motorists. Replace everything in that letter with motorist and car, and except some nonsensical bits about lack of reflective clothing, I think we have all seen situations like that.

"while the writer of this letter seems more level-headed than most, they're still using a few bad examples as a way to put down all cyclists."

You only interpret it that way. The comment from the writer was

"So, the next time, those who support bicycle riding on a road decide to bash car drivers, think again! There are careless bicycle riders out there also."

He is just merely pointing out that there are both careless drivers and cyclists, to which I agree. As a motorcyclist, driver, cyclist, and pedestrian, I consider myself to be pretty good and respectful to the other forms of transportation. That does not mean all people are. We preach sharing the road yet riding with no lights at dusk/night is far from making a good faith attempt to do so.

I'm just saying it's not worth writing a letter to the editor about. What if a pedestrian or bicyclist wrote a letter to the editor every time we saw a motorist break the law and try to make a sweeping generalization like "see, all you people who support building roads... people using them are breaking the law."

^this.

How many times have I seen a drunk driver at night who forgot to turn their lights on.

--> get all drivers off the road!

Sorry, I read it last night and posted this morning, so the details were a little blurry.

I dunno. Maybe there are two different aspects to this thread: 1) what she wrote, and 2) the PG's choice to publish her letter.

1) If you distill her letter, she's not saying anything that hasn't been expressed on this board and that I haven't thought myself: some cyclists do thinks that make the rest of us look bad.

2) It may expose some sort of bias by the PG to publish such letters, but they choose those letters to be provocative - like talk radio. It's opinion. The letters get people talking. Look at us, we're discussing it here. If I edited that page, I'd call that a successful choice.

With the idea that they publish letters to get people talking, they also publish responses to continue the talk. Why not put out a letter in response? Instead of calling out the driver or other drivers, why not as a cyclist call out the bad cyclists? Drivers are not ones to go and self-regulate, so to speak, but there is no reason we can't let other cyclists know that it is dumb as hell to be those guys. Perhaps they are not aware how hard it really was to see them. In the past, while driving, I did stop to mention something to someone who I encountered on a daily basis and mentioned their visibility. The very next day they fixed it with reflective straps and a light.

People just don't know what they don't know.

Maybe if the letter was communicated in a less accusatory fashion, it would be better received.

She states the cyclists are careless without knowing anything about their state of mind. They might have merely been ignorant of the danger they were in.

From my knowledge of Perry Highway, most of it has pretty good sight lines. I would imagine she should have been able to see them from at least a football field away.

She doesn't actually say how soon she saw them, just said "as far as my headlights went" Should she not be prepared to come across unexpected things outside of the range of her headlights?

I don't know what to make of her last little bit "So, the next time, those who support bicycle riding on a road decide to bash car drivers, think again! There are careless bicycle riders out there also." Firstly, I would caution against "bashing" car drivers regardless of whether or not there are "careless" cyclists. My knowledge of cyclists not following traffic rules was never in question. I would raise concerns about all those whose actions endanger life and safety.

i would encourage all of us to regularly write letters to the editor, because plenty of people do it ALL THE TIME about their pet issues, annoyances, etc.

The more they get, the more often they'd print them. Just make it a habit and get in there more often! Don't wait for a negative letter about bikes to write one.

try writing one like, i love seeing the boy on the tall bike! or, good job to the cyclists that i saw with the lights! or, so glad to see so many rule abiding cyclists! etc etc, emphasizing the good things you see all the time, rather than reacting to the bad letters the dumb paper prints. they know what they can print to get a reaction and that helps readership.

excited to use more trails so we have our own dedicated places! hooray bike parking is still free! etc etc

I'm writing a letter that holds contempt for everyone but me. I will state the I am the best car, van and truck driver, motorcycle, bicycle and transit rider, all around parker and walker, and all future projects should build infrastructure exclusively for me without using any of my taxes.

It's stupidity, the implicit message is "don't blame the cars when cyclists get run over". i'm not going to validate that crap. who knows what this idiot really saw, by her own admission she passed the cyclists going the other way so it's not like she got a good look. riding two abreast in the middle of two lanes isn't something i normally see cyclists doing - what were the circumstances? were they getting ready to turn left? were they going down a steep hill and maintaining the speed limit? what time of day was it anyways? did she embellish the story? we have absolutely no idea. we only have the word of a driver who apparently dislikes cyclists enough to write a letter to the editor about it.

and, even if her story is 100% accurate, so what? as others have aluded to, if i wrote a letter to the editor every time i saw a car doing something stupid they wouldn't have enough paper to print them all.

she's not saying anything that hasn't been expressed on this board

yes, she is. this: "So, the next time, those who support bicycle riding on a road decide to bash car drivers, think again!"

she has a point, but unfortunately, it's not the point she was trying to make. i think the letter is foolish because she apparently wants to absolve all sins of all drivers because (she claims) she saw two cyclists behaving badly. it's just more blame the victim bs.

@Salty,

I think you are missing her point. I see so much anti-car complaints out there, all warranted, but zero comments about cyclists having their own issues. Take it as a kick in the ass to ensure you say something to the next person you see on a bike who is doing something stupid. The better we look the less of this stuff we see. Couple that with pro-bike letters that are not also anti-car and a lot can be done.

...but zero comments about cyclists having their own issues.

i'm sorry, what?

Poorly worded, lemme finish up at work and reword it when I get home.

I was hesitant even to read the letter, wasn't nearly as offensive as I might have feared.

Nonetheless, If I were prone to write a response letter, I would point out that many times, deer, 8 year old children, and fallen rocks and trees are not wearing lights or reflective gear, so, immense congratulations to this woman on operating her vehicle in the manner in which all car drivers ought to.

i think i got the point perfectly, thank you very much. my main issue with cars (or should i say drivers) is i don't want one of them to kill me. why is the behavior of other cyclists relevant? it's absolutely not.

Lots of media out there has cyclists and motorcycle riders painting drivers as evil for multiple reasons. One person decided to write in and say, "hey, these guys ain't perfect either". Why is there a need to get defensive as it seems most are? It is nothing more than proof that people still need educated on how to share the road.

Still agree 100% with what Orion is saying. The lady didn't write the letter in hopes of getting bikes off the road or out of a hatred for bikers. She just pointed out the extreme lack of respect these bikers had for other people on the road, a big argument many people on bikes are shouting of drivers.

From your post above:

"So, the next time, those who support bicycle riding on a road decide to bash car drivers, think again! There are careless bicycle riders out there also."

He is just merely pointing out that there are both careless drivers and cyclists, to which I agree.

I completely agree with your statement, "there are both careless drivers and cyclists". I completely disagree about that being a valid interpretation of the letter.

On top of that, those of you suggesting to write letters every time you see a car break the law, you're just creating an even bigger us vs. them mentality. Bikers and drivers alike both need to learn a lot about courtesy and respect for other people on the roadways.

One big difference is, drivers kill cyclists (and pedestrians, and themselves). The reverse is not true. If it was just about manners and being courteous then it would be a different discussion entirely.

Dear Editor:

While participating in a group bicycle ride last night, I witnessed another cyclist/participant violate multiple laws including going through stop signs and lights and passing motor vehicles stopped at lights (in one lane, on the left - and nearly causing an accident).

In spite of the explicit verbal instruction of the group ride organizers, this cyclist showed contempt not only for the laws but also disrespect to motor vehicle operators and fellow cyclists alike.

Conversely, at least on last night's ride, I witnessed many motor vehicle operators passing our group cautiously and with ample space (except for one motorcycle who was a bit near), and even many waiting to allow us to pass.

Now, I'm not perfect, and I don't expect perfection from others. But of the 40 or so riders of our group last night, it is a shame that for at least a few motor vehicle operators the scofflaw among us will be their lasting image.

Sincerely,

ALMKLM

Boostuv, I agree.

Sitting here acting all defensive, regardless of the writers intent, doesn't do a damned thing positive for anyone.

Salty...

What is the writers message then, since it seems that we are reading two very different letters here?

fwiw, if you're going to repeatedly accuse people of being "defensive" you might want to start by looking in a mirror.

cyclists should not do dumb/unsafe/illegal stuff. i have not and will not make any attempt to defend that.

using cyclist behavior as some sort of excuse for motorist behavior is ludicrous.

where is the positive message in that letter?

do you really believe this is "one person" speaking out against "lots of media ... painting drivers as evil"? i think it's skewed massively in the other direction. if this was an isolated thing it wouldn't bother me. the thing that bothers me is EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a news article about cyclists getting hit by cars, there are always comments along the lines of "I see cyclists breaking the law", with the clear (and sometimes explicit) implication being "therefore, they deserved it". i find that deeply offensive. maybe i'm reading too much into this particular letter, but then again the implication is right there in print - "if someone were to run them over, it's their own fault".

Who has excused a motorist for something here?

I believe the writer is one person who is fed up hearing about how bad motorists are by cyclists and they finally found a point they could make. If it is not made up it is a very good point.

As for cyclists getting hit and or killed, I have no issue seeing the cyclist being partially at fault if there is a chance they might actually be at fault. Why is the driver automatically to blame? There are tons of morons who are out riding bicycles doing stupid things in stupid places. Riding a bike without lights or anything to enhance visibility is one of them.

Not every cyclist is like you, me, or the other posters here in terms of making themselves visible and safe. Some tear off the reflectors (or paint over them), wear dark clothes, and ride wherever the hell they want, even at night, all without helmets and while listening to their ipods and texting.

@ ALMKLM I think letters like this are 10x more valuable and important towards helping people become more bike-friendly than letters "calling people out."

I will say, Nick is probably the only cyclist I've ever been around that is not afraid to call something as he sees it, regardless of who's doing it.

I'd be interested to hear why none of you spoke up at the last Flock when two of the riders aggressively, and recklessly, chased down a vehicle that passed them at a stop sign. You guys were so quick to point out the flaws of the driver yet those individuals rode in the opposite lane of traffic, harassed the driver of the vehicle and then everyone just kind of laughed and egged the behavior on. Hypocritical behavior that definitely did more harm than it did good in trying to create a bike-friendly community.

@orionz06: Who has excused a motorist for something here?

the woman who wrote the letter. she explicitly states that cyclists have lost their right to complain about drivers because there are two among their number whose behavior she considered reprehensible.

that's what i got out of the letter.

Can someone cite a local death or serious accident where the cyclist was the one riding like an idiot and caused it? There is a lot of chatter on here about how it supposedly happens, but not many real examples of it. All of the ones I can think of for the past few years (at least) were perfectly law abiding cyclists run down in near perfect weather conditions.

Group rides where someone starts correcting me on my riding... One of the many reasons I more or less avoid open invite rides like the plague. I'm all for reasonable riding, and I'm also all for riding alone or with handpicked friends that can match your pace, style and comfort level of riding.

jumping off from BradQ's point about motorists being at fault...

in addition to that, the operators of the much more dangerous vehicle ought to be held to a much higher standard of responsibility. the more likely you are to kill someone accidentally, the more careful you ought to be. how is this even arguable?

what actual problems have reckless cyclists caused? because there are several examples daily in the news of the actual problems reckless motorists have caused.

maybe it's just me, but the take home point that I got was that this person wrote a letter basically about nothing...it's the kind of story you might tell your spouse when you get home. How it warrants a LTE and a discussion bringing up multiple points that the writer never even touched on is kind of beyond me. But whatever, carry on.

I wonder if lawn and garden message boards have similarly huffy, indignant responses to Old Man Johnson's letter to the editor complaining about his neighbor's unkempt begonias.

Jeez, lighten up, Francises...

Can someone cite a local death or serious accident where the cyclist was the one riding like an idiot and caused it?

The thread on Ruihui Lin's death says "The news reported that the man on the bicycle rode off the sidewalk and into the path of the truck..."

The blog post about that one mentions that it was the "first fatal adult cycling crash in the City since drunk driver Eunice Bates struck and killed Bob Hemelrick on Second Ave in Hazelwood in January of 2004". The linked Post-Gazette story on that says that the crash was at 11:30 pm, and the cyclist "was not wearing a helmet, and his bicycle did not have headlights or rear reflectors".

These aren't instances where the cyclist caused the crash, but if the reports are accurate, the cyclist in each case made bad choices and contributed to the crashes.

Since those two deaths, we've seen two deaths where the cyclists seem to have done nothing wrong (Dr. Varacallo and Mr. Parker) and one that involved unsafe cyclist behavior but no car (the two Beaver County girls sharing a bike).

I thought the letter was more balanced than some of the ones they're printed. Take out the penultimate sentence and there's nothing left I'd disagree with.

the woman who wrote the letter. she explicitly states that cyclists have lost their right to complain about drivers because there are two among their number whose behavior she considered reprehensible.

that's what i got out of the letter.

Reminds me more of a those who live in glass houses situation.

Can someone cite a local death or serious accident where the cyclist was the one riding like an idiot and caused it? There is a lot of chatter on here about how it supposedly happens, but not many real examples of it. All of the ones I can think of for the past few years (at least) were perfectly law abiding cyclists run down in near perfect weather conditions.

I know of none, but I have witnessed many near-accidents while driving and riding.

jumping off from BradQ's point about motorists being at fault...

in addition to that, the operators of the much more dangerous vehicle ought to be held to a much higher standard of responsibility. the more likely you are to kill someone accidentally, the more careful you ought to be. how is this even arguable?

what actual problems have reckless cyclists caused? because there are several examples daily in the news of the actual problems reckless motorists have caused.

Agreed, but does that mean we let the cyclist off the hook? Sometimes Darwin ends up being right.

maybe it's just me, but the take home point that I got was that this person wrote a letter basically about nothing...it's the kind of story you might tell your spouse when you get home. How it warrants a LTE and a discussion bringing up multiple points that the writer never even touched on is kind of beyond me. But whatever, carry on.

Not so much about nothing, but about something that is known. There are shitty motorists and cyclists. In this instance someone saw two cyclists who, based on the provided information and lacking context, are shitty cyclists and not doing anything to help themselves.

I think we just need more pro-bicycle and bicycle-infrastructure letters to the editor instead of trading tit-for-tat with people like whoever wrote this one. We should be out front saying "this stuff is great!" and "we need more of this!" and "has anyone seen what they've done in _____, let's do that here!"

yah. positivity people. its a little silly to be arguing about this here.

go write a letter about how great something is!

Some choice comments on an article from another thread:

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jul/15/cyclists-irate-over-minimal-charge/

"the victim was doing something very risky, dangerous and selfish"

"Natural selection. There are LOTS of things in life that are legal, but really really stupid."

"They are demanding, arrogantly, the ability to ride a bicycle on roads that were made for high speeds for 3 ton cars and trucks"

"All you supposedly intelligent bicyclists take your recreational activities to a safer location"

"It is not against the law to run in front of targets at a gun range but that still doesn't make it a good idea"

"Bicycles should be banned from roads until they pay property, gasoline and other road taxes. Then only where the speed limit is <25 mph."

"I can't tell you how many times I've almost run one of them over, because they won't get out the road"

"The biker should be charged with stupidity."

"I dont care that you have the "right" to ride your little bike on the highways, the question is, do you have the common sense not to?"

"Cyclist don't follow the traffic laws yet insist on taking up lane space"

"If cyclist really cared about safety, they wouldn't ride their bicycles on roads with speed limits of greater than 25 mph."

"It's dumb and selfish to ride a tiny aluminum bicycle on a major highway amongst 2,000+ pound cars going 70mph"

AYHSMB

@Salty... I think we both would agree that the comments on that story are ridiculous and from morons.

see, isn't it much easier to just agree with me? i tell my wife that all the time... j/k and sorry if i got a bit bent out of shape; i think we're essentially agreeing more than not.

i agree the letter that started this thread was pretty benign as such things go. without the last paragraph it would have merely come off as patronizing. using "bad" cyclist behavior as justification for dismissing the concerns of cycling advocates about driver behavior just completely rubs me the wrong way.

I believe so, but as I said, cyclists do need to be held accountable at some point, preferably by us and not idiot in a 2 ton cage.

FWIW, normally if I see something like that I will turn around or stop and let the people know that I cannot see them. Driving off and writing a letter doesn't solve the problem.

"Agreed, but does that mean we let the cyclist off the hook? Sometimes Darwin ends up being right."

compared to

"Natural selection. There are LOTS of things in life that are legal, but really really stupid."

How similar are these statements? How often is somebody we don't know not following our safety standards written off as "Well, they had it coming to them, Darwinism"

Why should a death be shrugged off because somebody didn't take care to purchase a blinky? Why is the cyclist automatically at fault because they don't have one?

Doesn't the driver have some responsibility to see what's in front of their hood and act appropriately regardless of what time of day it is?

Thank you for informing people that you come across without lights. I think it's a lot more useful than complaining about it in a newspaper editorial the day after.

There are two parties in every accident, sometimes both are at fault and sometimes neither are really at fault. Never should someone get a pass because they are on a bicycle or walking.

@ Salty Wow, I think SC really needs to look at some of their laws after reading the accidents on that page. Hit from behind and killed by someone who drifted out of the lane, a guy was speeding and hit two motorcyclists at a red light and another girl hit someone from behind. All three got off with relatively no charges.

That observantcitizen guy on that Post and Courier web page sounds like a total fuck face.

There are two parties in every accident, sometimes both are at fault and sometimes neither are really at fault. Never should someone get a pass because they are on a bicycle or walking.

the problem with this line of thinking is that in these instances, it's only the cyclist or pedestrian that dies.

Not true. A cyclist or pedestrian acting unpredictably could, like a deer running out into the road, cause a driver to swerve, lose control, and crash leaving the cyclist/pedestrian untouched but hurting or killing the car's occupant(s). It's less likely, yes, but entirely possible.

it's entirely possible, but can you even think of a time when it's happened? usually it's more like this or this or this.

No I can't rattle off any examples. Doesn't mean it's not possible, nor has it never happened, and it does not mean that cyclists are 100% non-lethal.

i'm not claiming otherwise. the point is, cyclists are not the problem. sure, they do stupid things and have the capability of causing issues for folks just safely going about their business, but that's not what happens in reality. focusing efforts on theoretical problems when there's a great big real problem right in front of you is silly.

Ok... So no matter what the person on a bike is never at fault. I figured it out now.

That isn't what he said.

I am just cutting out the back and forth.

from the Google machine:

Cyclist causes fatal head-on crash

Johannesburg – Two men died on Saturday on the road between Lichtenburg and Coligny in the North-West when they swerved to avoid a drunk cyclist.

According to Adéle Myburgh, police spokesperson, the driver of a VW Golf going in the direction of Coligny died at the scene. His two passengers were severely injured.

The driver of an Opel Corsa, who was alone in his car on the way to Lichtenburg when he crashed into the Golf, died shortly after arriving at hospital.

Myburgh said witnesses saw a drunk man swerving back and forth in the middle of the road. The Golf and the Corsa tried to avoid an accident but crashed into each other head-on.

The police are still looking for the cyclist who fled the scene.

A charge of culpable homicide is being investigated.

And this:

Bicyclist causes accident

A bicyclist crossing West Muskegon Street caused an accident Sunday when it failed to yield to oncoming cars. According Cedar Springs Police, they were called to the scene where the White Pine Trail crosses West Muskegon at about 10:55 a.m. Sunday, June 26. A vehicle was reportedly headed west on Muskegon when a bicyclist rode across the road in front of them. They slammed on their brakes, causing a second car to hit the first one. The bicyclist fled the scene. Assisting at the scene was the Cedar Springs Fire Department and Rockford Ambulance. There were no injuries. There are stop signs on the White Pine Trail at all intersections, and police would like to remind bicyclists that they are required to obey all traffic laws.

(to orionz post 5 back)

No. But allowing ridiculous and untruthful memes or frames such as "cyclists break traffic laws" to perpetuate unchallenged is a losing strategy for our, I will say our, cause.

If the group "automobile drivers" feel threatened by charges that they are being "bashed" by cyclists, then "automobile drivers" are free to challenge those charges themselves, perhaps by not killing other vulnerable road users. As an "automobile driver" I have no interest in standing up for the absolutely shitty driving habits of the vast majority of drivers.

But wait, there's more:

Cyclist Blows Red Light, Causes Crash

A delivery man on a bike collided with an SUV on Sixth Avenue and Dean Street after running a red light.

(this one was in NYC, and has some photos, but I don't know how to cut and paste that, so here's the link:

http://parkslope.patch.com/articles/cyclist-blows-red-light-causes-crash#photo-5441730

And just yesterday in SF:

Bicyclist Critically Injured in Crash with Truck Driver in SoMa

A 25-year-old woman riding a bicycle was critically injured in a collision with a food delivery truck at the intersection of Mission and Fremont streets this morning. San Francisco police blamed the bicyclist because investigators determined she was making an illegal left turn onto Fremont, which is prohibited except for taxis and buses.

“All indications show that they both had the green light but this intersection is a no left turn, clearly marked, and she turned left in front of the truck, so that is the primary reason for the accident,” Lt. Troy Dangerfield told reporters. He said the bicyclist was traveling eastbound on Mission Street, and the truck driver was headed westbound around 8:04 a.m.

At the scene, the truck was parked in the crosswalk, and had a shattered windshield and large dent in the front. A white plastic bag kept in place by orange traffic cones covered a pool of blood and one of the victim’s brown shoes. The other shoe was strewn a few dozen feet across the intersection. The twisted white bicycle, which appeared to be a single speed, was taken away for evidence.

Dangerfield said he didn’t know anything about the truck driver, or how fast he was going at the time. He said commercial drivers involved in crashes are routinely tested for drugs and alcohol, but that didn’t appear to be a factor in the crash. The truck is owned by Sunrise Foods based in the East Bay city of Newark.

Police could not immediately identify the bicyclist, describing her only as an Asian woman in her 20s. The SFPD press office had initially said that she died, but retracted the statement to report that “the victim’s status is currently life threatening at the hospital.”

A camera at a nearby business apparently caught the crash on video and Dangerfield said it would be used in the investigation.

Those four stories were just from the first page of Google results.

I used the term: bicyclist caused accident

3000 lb killing machine or 30 lb killing machine. It's not the mode of transportation but the behavior of its operator.

But cyclists do break traffic laws AND do stupid things putting themselves at risk, like riding down 19 at night without any marking/lights/reflectors.

There have been threads recently where cops were ticketing hundreds of cyclists in single intersections. Proof enough?

I am not saying the automobile driver is not likely at fault. People can't drive to save their lives, hell, most people can't even walk around a grocery store without hitting something let alone jump into a car.

What I am saying is there is always a chance the cyclist, the one who will likely die, might just share some of the blame too. It sucks, but it is the truth.

I think the issue you guys are all "agreeing" over is the statistically skewed severity of consequences... the disagreement seems to be whether to apportion responsibility in a similarly statistically skewed manner or mete it out equally to all traffic participants as individual human beigns.

I see the merits of both approaches, but neither seem to be making it into our justice system/social norms, and neither will undo damage done by crashes, educate the public better, or induce the public at large to make more cautious and defensive traffic decisions.

@ALMKLM - i pulled mine from the current news of the post-gazette. i didn't have to go to south africa for an example or three.

I had to drive yesterday. I was in the car for maybe 30 minutes. I noticed hundreds of cars traveling over 50 mph in a 25 mph zone (down old browns hill road, and across high level bridge). I felt unsafe driving the speed limit - I would have been the only one. Even PAT busses were trucking along at 50+ mph. In front of me, there were maybe 2 dozen cars that blew through a right on red without slowing down. I would have been rear ended had I actually come to a complete stop. Driving down Greenfield I had a row of cars behind me, not a single one stopping for the many stop signs, and all wanting to go well over the speed limit had I not been in the way. I don't think I've violated one law on my bicycle all month. It was a lot easier than following the law for 30 minutes in a car, mostly because of all the other drivers around me; the culture of carelessness.

Everyone that drives must see this every single day, and most of them are participating. Why then, when they see a single bicycle roll through a stop sign, at the same speed that they roll through it themselves, do they feel the need to write in a letter to the editor saying saying bikes deserve no respect, infrastructure, justice, etc. because of this? It makes no sense.

Sure, cyclists break the law, but I bet if had some way to measure violations/auto and violations/bicycle, you'd get a lot higher number for the former. Same with accidents, sure you can google "bicyclist caused accident" and cherry pick some cases, but in general, cars are killing way more people than bikes are, and most of those people die because said cars are being operated in an unsafe manner.

"but that's not what happens in reality"

@HV: South Africa, Pittsburgh, Iowa, San Francisco. All real - and thanks to the Amazing Google Machine, just a click away.

Just because the likelihood of a bicycle causing a fatal accident is much lower does not mean we let them slide.

And perhaps the writer is one of the few people who do follow the laws. Ever think of that? Perhaps that is why she takes so much offense when cyclists bash drivers.

the disagreement seems to be whether to apportion responsibility in a similarly statistically skewed manner or mete it out equally to all traffic participants as individual human beigns.

sort of. my contention is that we should focus on changing the behavior that has the most significant, real consequences. it's all well and good to acknowledge that there are stupid people out there riding bikes, but using our resources to change their behavior is counterproductive. the results of their behavior is inconsequential in comparison to the results of poor driving habits, and the culture that ignores or even promotes those habits.

@Dwilen - agreed, and well said.

The only point I'm trying to make is that we can't as a community just get all righteous and indignant when a cyclist is injured or killed, and stand behind that "cars break laws, too" argument.

You're right, for whatever reason, drivers get all pissy when a cyclist rolls through a stop, but the difference is, when they see us do that, it further fuels their animosity, and in theory makes them more aggressive, and hence more dangerous.

I just feel we as a community need to own our behavior and work to correct it. We can't keep letting eachother off the hook just because "cars do it too," or "it was easier to do at the time," or whatever.

We need to be accountable that our actions may also have negative consequences, that there is a difference between "that cyclist ought not have been doing that" and "blame the victim."

And perhaps the writer is one of the few people who do follow the laws.

Praise to the traffic angels! The 1 in 10,000 that actually follows all the laws! How lucky we are to get a letter from her. I'm sorry if I've offended her. Miss, please consider my bashing directed to the other 9,999 assholes out there not following the law. Thanks.

I bet if had some way to measure violations/auto and violations/bicycle, you'd get a lot higher number for the former.

And the violations of the former, as a rule, would be much more dangerous.

I won't come out categorically that no cyclist, ever, should be cited for anything, anywhere. But when society and law enforcement look the other way to so many automotive infractions (or worse, wink and nod), I see bias and windshield vision in calling out or giving citations to cyclists who bend the law to suit their purposes while not doing the same for car drivers who do the same.

@ALMKLM, exactly.

I still find it to be pretty sad that most people seem to see the cyclists as infallible.

@ieverhart and dwillen: and so by that thinking we shouldn't bother following traffic laws, because cars do it, too, and the consequences are much worse?

That kind of relativism strikes me as the easy way out.

I agree we need to hold cyclists accountable. I see someone without lights, I say "hey, your lights are turned off!", when I see someone bombing the wrong way down a street, I say "hey, you're going the wrong way!". I helped start a group ride that has a focus on following traffic laws. I have very strong feelings about the issue.

I do not, however, use misbehavior as an excuse to offset the responsibility of automobile drivers (like the letter writer in question), or to not put a bike lane on Forbes (as the officer did this week), or as a reason why cyclists are getting injured and killed by automobiles (as the press and general public seem to), or as a reason why I should not give a cyclist space when I pass (which I gather is why most people buzz me), or as a reason to yell at/cuss at/harass/throw stuff at a cyclist.

but HV, acknowledging the faults of cyclists is one way of getting "heard" by motorists who otherwise see us as speedbumps.

"I commiserate with you. It is unacceptable for the objects of your ire to break laws with impunity. Now that you see I am on your side, perhaps you will be more open to the idea that modifying your own behavior could help increase safety for all road users?"

If giving them some undeserved high road allows them to more cautiously share the physical pavement with me, I'm all for it.

The problem is the results of cyclists' behavior may be physically inconsequential, but psychologically it is doing damage to the cause of cyclists and motorists safely sharing the road. In order to change the behavior that has the most significan, real consequences (that of motorists), we may have to say and do things that make very little sense to us as cyclists.

I'm feeling the need to add: I'm not excusing any motorist from breaking the law, or claiming that motorists shouldn't be held responsible for the consequences of mismanaging thousands of pounds of high speed steel in public around unprotected bystanders. I'm saying that it's a psychological war where we may need to occasionally sacrifice logic, reason, and pride for cyclists lives.

There's what people think, and there's what people do. I don't give a rat's patootie about the former unless it gets the latter where it needs to be. Yes, that's manipulative. Yes, I'm ok with that.

"I do not, however, use misbehavior as an excuse..."

@ dwillen: Agreed. Me neither. I guess where we differ is I would take it a step further - kind of like what ejwme is saying, and encourage the cycling community to be conscious of how our cycling behaviors are being perceived (particularly by motorists), and do the best we can to not give them any ammunition.

I don't think I said anything to the contrary.

This letter writer, Ms. Ammer, wrote "So, the next time, those who support bicycle riding on a road decide to bash car drivers, think again! There are careless bicycle riders out there also." So what of it? Sounds like she is stereotyping cyclists as careless, defending her car driving peers, and somehow suggesting we should not support bicycle riding on a road??

Here is another letter she wrote:

SUV stereotyping

Regarding the Feb. 18 letter "Driving Priorities": I would like to tell the letter writer that I can sympathize with his problem with bad drivers; I've encountered a few myself over the years. But I am sick of reading the jabs that are made against SUV drivers.

Why do people equate SUV drivers with bad driving, drinking Starbucks coffee and owning lots of expensive electronic devices? When there are bad road conditions, I often hear radio talk show hosts mention only the SUVs and how they think they can drive fast and pass the other cars. Well, I do not own a GPS or any other electronic devices for my SUV. And I don't drink coffee. I'm just an ordinary everyday person who enjoys her SUV and doesn't run people off the road.

So, please stop equating SUV drivers with bad drivers who like to play with their car toys and drink expensive coffee. I see bad drivers every day in every type of car. Enough with bashing SUV drivers.

LINETTE AMMER

Ross

Regarding the July 18th letter "Careless cyclists": I would like to tell the letter writer that I can sympathize with her problem with careless cyclists; I've encountered a few myself over the years. But I am sick of reading the jabs that are made against people who ride bikes.

Why do people equate bike riders with careless behavior, drinking PBR and owning lots of expensive lycra? When there is bad traffic, I often hear radio talk show hosts mention only the bikes and how they clog up the roads and run stop signs. Well, I do not own a pile of lycra jerseys or any racing kit for my bicycle. And I don't drink PBR. I'm just an ordinary everyday person who enjoys his bike and follows all the laws.

So, please stop equating bike riders with dangerous people who like to dress in tight clothing and drink PBR. I see bad road users every day using every type of transportation. Enough with bashing bike riders.

@orionz06 and ALMKLM - who said cyclists were infallible or that they shouldn't bother following the laws? where did they say it?

to sum up what i actually am saying: focusing on cyclists' behavior is foolish, given the relatively minimal consequences of cyclist misbehavior.

i will concede, though, the benefits of engaging in and encouraging proper behavior while bicycling in traffic. i suppose i might point out now that i always do my best to be a good representative of the community.

still, we as cyclists shouldn't spend our time admonishing each other. there are bigger fish to fry.

Again, she's spot-on with her (cry me a river) SUV-driver stereotyping. Come on, how often do people say "SUV driver" and leave it at that? No, they often include "cell phone using", "big mac eating" and often suggest some sort of political affiliation on top of that. And I see that shit on here, where people get huffy and indignant when cyclists are lumped together.

Can't we all just get along...

That is hilarious that you found the other letter. This woman definitely has a persecution issue.

I don't know who the 2 chaps were who this woman observed, don't know how to contact them, extremely unlikely that they have any idea that they represent the cycling community, or that they even perceive of the existence of a cycling community. All this responsibility being loaded on 2 clueless gits. So if the local cops were to give these geniuses tickets for riding without lights, etc., yay for the cops. Not my job to track them down and wag my finger at them. Hundreds of cyclists in Philly being given warnings for their riding, as education, excellent. For the most part I religiously avoid telling people what to do, that's why I'm not a cop.

Regardless, to the letter itself, it's tone carried less sincere concern that the 2 gits not get hit, and more whining persecution syndrome that motorists are being "bashed".

focusing on cyclists' behavior is foolish, given the relatively minimal consequences of cyclist misbehavior.

Minimal consequences?

Cause no cyclist has ever died from barreling through red lights/stop signs, wearing dark clothing, or not wearing a helmet?

Isn't that the EXACT kind of dialogue Bike-PGH should be having?

Or do we continue to throw our hands in the air, assume no responsibility, and bemoan those evil drivers of "3000 Pound Killing Machines™"

In support of Hidden Variable - sure, you can find a few deaths worldwide caused by bicyclists behaving badly. It happens.

There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people that die from auto accidents every day.

Bike-caused fatal accidents are up there with "young people that trip when they first get out of bed, fall, hit their heads, and die." (Which, I learned in Public Health Graduate School, you will see every day, if you look worldwide).

@orion And perhaps the writer is one of the few people who do follow the laws.

I wonder how common that is?

Minimal consequences?

relatively minimal consequences. you left out an important word. that cyclist you talk of is a drop in the bucket of havoc wreaked by 3000 Pound Killing Machines™ (or 3kPKMs™).

A couple of weeks ago I was riding by myself in the Western Suburbs, I was stopped at a red light at a major intersection, in the straight-going lane, when a middle aged white man in a pickup beside me in the right-turning lane made an exagerated effort to roll down his window and say "yur the furst biker i've evur seen stop at a red light, nyuk, nyuk!". What I WANTED to say was "roll up yur window and move along you stupid illiterate redneck fuck", but I held it back to just responding with a mildly sarcastic "really?". That was my part for representing the cycling community. I want congratulated.

When did this thread turn into 3rd Grade? Really, Edmonds? Charicature Paint-by-Numbers? That's what you are adding to the discussion?

That guy in the truck might not be the polished orator you are, but I think he was giving you a compliment. And all you can think to say is STFU?

That is what is wrong here. Edmonds knee-jerk reaction to a motorist who was actually trying to be supportive, if in an unartful way.

Good for you, and congratulations also for moderating your response down to mild sarcasm. Attaboy.

No, tone, it was not complimentary, it was same-old I'm tired of having to share the road with you nuts sarcastic bullshit. So, when motorists want to stop being perceived as arrogant reckless assholes they are going to need to police their own and stop that.

I am convinced now more than ever that sharing is a concept that is lost once people move beyond kindergarten, regardless of the vehicle they drive or how smart they sound.

This conversation is ridiculous.

Thanks for your contribution to it!

You're quite welcome.

Really though, I'm not sure how this is a ridiculous conversation. I think that the issue of perceived and real accountability of cyclists is a perfectly acceptable, and fairly urgent, discussion to have on a bike advocacy message board. Like I said before, I thought that increased responsibility for safe and careful riding was part of Bike-PGH's mission.

Noah, I agree... but I don't think that's all of the conversation taking place, or what's prompting the, ahem, more brief comments above.

The thing that I'm most interested in is the effect that motorists perception has on our safety, and how we can work with/on that to improve our condition as cyclists on the roads. Citing statistics and being right has taken us part of the way, I'm advocating cold and calculated manipulation to suppliment it.

Clearly we should just throw up our hands and turn into India:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM

(Where I've been told traffic fatalities are a regular occurrence)

Maybe I'm biased because I'm on a bicycle 99% of the time, but I've never been run off the road or in an accident with another bicycle.

I've been accidentally hit by one bus, one minivan, purposefully rammed by one truck, purposefully run off the road by one car.

I've never had a cyclist try and intimidate me or cycle aggressively towards me. Never had a cyclist throw stuff at me or tell me to get off the road.

So why should I focus my advocacy efforts on cyclists? So some car-conscience, class-conscience SUV-driving old lady can think we're all outstanding citizens?

A cyclist's behavior (or the behavior of their peers) should be irrelevant to the operator of a motor vehicle and vice-versa. I don't go giving the finger to SUV drivers (or anybody) because they have a bad reputation.

Likewise, drivers shouldn't be driving carelessly around cyclists (or anybody or thing) no matter what the fuck the cyclist or other person is doing.

Double post

Going back to the OP, I wonder if the dark ninja cyclists the writer noted are the same cyclists which caused Wayne Goodworth in Ross to write this letter, referenced in this thread.

Perry Highway has many different personalities. Varying speed limits, lane counts, lane widths, wide to non-existent shoulders, and occasional door zones -- the lot. Some places you can easily ride two cyclists abreast (thought I wouldn't try it at night), while in others a single cyclist should take the lane (again, not at night).

Without knowing exactly where these cyclists were, I cannot say they were entirely in the wrong or not. I do know that if you're going to ride it at night, you need to be very blinky, very reflecty, very visible in front (i.e., a light), and beyond reproach in your adherence to the rules. That's how I ride, anyway, and I'm on 19 in Ross nearly every day.

Pierce - there's a difference between "should" and "does". Perhaps our behavior shouldn't affect motorists, but it does. If it doesn't affect motorists' driving habits, it affects their perceptions of cyclists as valid participants in traffic.

While we can work to change that perception and turn the "shouldn't" into "doesn't", is there some way we can use it to our advantage in the mean time?

If my idiotic story above has any point, it is this: What is it that possessed the pickup truck driver to make the effort to roll down his window to make a sarcastic comment on my correct road behavior? What possessed that woman to make the effort to write that letter? I don't perceive it to be any sincere wish to improve traffic efficiency or road safety. It's just whiney wah-wah I'm being forced to accomodate other people that I don't want to. I just don't get at all. More importantly though, it's an attitude that spreads to individuals who may be neutral on the issue. So how do you stem that? You can't just passively say, ok, we'll try and do better, that's not going to cut it. I don't know.

@dwillen. You post, with very minor modifications, would make an excellent letter to the editor in responce to some of the crap they get about bike scufflaws.

I had to drive yesterday. I was in the car for maybe 30 minutes. I noticed hundreds of cars traveling over 50 mph in a 25 mph zone (down old browns hill road, and across high level bridge). I felt unsafe driving the speed limit - I would have been the only one. Even PAT busses were trucking along at 50+ mph. In front of me, there were maybe 2 dozen cars that blew through a right on red without slowing down. I would have been rear ended had I actually come to a complete stop. Driving down Greenfield I had a row of cars behind me, not a single one stopping for the many stop signs, and all wanting to go well over the speed limit had I not been in the way. I don't think I've violated one law on my bicycle all month. It was a lot easier than following the law for 30 minutes in a car, mostly because of all the other drivers around me; the culture of carelessness.

Everyone that drives must see this every single day, and most of them are participating. Why then, when they see a single bicycle roll through a stop sign, at the same speed that they roll through it themselves, do they feel the need to write in a letter to the editor

GREAT piece of writng!

@ stu Going back to the OP, I wonder if the dark ninja cyclists the writer noted are the same cyclists which caused Wayne Goodworth in Ross to write this letter

I saw no mention of specific cyclists in Mr Goodworth's letter. I have not encountered the cyclists he mentions that are "never stopping at red lights." I have heard no mention in the cyclist community of riders who never stop at red lights.

I do not believe the vehemence and venom of this sort of letter will ever be reduced by an incremental change in cyclist law abidance.

[Double post - no doubt I will think of something clever to put in here - about 65 minutes after my original post]

Dwillen, that was a great post summarizing things quite well. I agree with Mick that it easily could be a letter in and of itself.

It is interesting having a storefront at a busy, cyclist wise, intersection. (doughboy square, across from bikepgh) Especially one that appears* relatively safe to go through on red. It has afforded me an opportunity to see cyclist behavior, and driver reactions, more often than ever before.

I rarely (1 in 30, 40?) see a cyclist stop inbound on butler headed to forbes. There is tons of filtering forward and going through at 10-15mph. Which is inevitably followed by all sorts of hand gestures and the like from everyone in their cars stopped at the light. Few honk their horns or verbalize this, but I do see it daily just glancing out the front window.

There could be lots of effects from this, or maybe none at all. But the point is I never realized there was a reaction so often until having a third party perspective on the ordeal. I have, personally, changed my approach to intersections a good bit since then, going for the 'politically correct' approach in hopes of improving cyclist/car relations.

I don't know if it makes sense to create a whole new topic, but I do enjoy the debate of cyclist impressions/need to abide by laws versus cars and their need to do the same. Tying it to someone who we know very little about (LTE author) seems unfair for all parties though. We all have our opinions on what she meant, but we could all have a cup of coffee with her and be surprised.

* I say looks safe because many of these cyclists who blow through have no idea the green cycle for 34th coming from the river is about to go. I have seen many go blazing by while motorists have to slam on the breaks. From my eyes, terribly dangerous.

the debate of cyclist impressions/need to abide by laws versus cars and their need to do the same.

I would say that the two aren't mutually exclusive... that's part of sharing the road.

@dwillen -- Bravos to you on your post. I agree with Mick and wojty that it worthy of being a letter to the editor as written. Please consider doing so.

@wojty -- while I have never biked that intersection, I drive it on the occasions I when I am coming from the Strip District to head back home to Butler, and turn off 34th to get on Butler Street to head for 40th.

IIRC, sitting on the grade on the south side of 34th, its a blind corner to see onto Butler Street. You can't do it. Any cyclist who would blow through there without stopping (or at least slowing greatly) is nuts.

I don't believe cyclist behavior affects motorist behavior, it's just a convenient excuse used by drivers.

If you truly believe obeying the law would make things better, I encourage you to try this experiment: go driving in your car and obey all the traffic laws - especially the speed limit, but also come to a full stop at every stop sign. See how much "respect" you get from your fellow motorists. Or, don't follow the law, it doesn't really matter - well, actually, as Dan observed you see "less bad" behavior when you're an active participant in breaking the law. It has nothing to do with bicycles. I commuted by car an hour a day for a long time, and I see the same crap all over. The only difference is it's a much bigger threat to my personal welfare when I'm on a bicycle.

Yes, cyclists could stand to follow the laws better.

Yes, motorists could stand to follow the law better.

They're completely independent things.

They are completely independent things but...

Ok, so maybe this is a crap analogy, but that's my speciality. When trying to get a toddler to eat broccoli, isn't it easier if you and the other adults at the table are willing to eat broccoli? My cousin has four ridiculously adoreable and well adjusted broccoli eaters, though he can't stand it, he's been eating it with enthusiasm in front of them since they could chew. I'm not saying motorists are finicky toddlers. Maybe the example of an overweight chain smoking doctor suggesting that a patient lose a few pounds and give up chew would be a better analogy.

It's the concept of getting someone to do something they don't want to do, the psychology of persuasion. We're not quite a standard part of traffic in many areas yet, as such we are very visible. That visibility can be used to demonstrate that as a group we are a responsible and law abiding part of traffic, or that visibility can be used to demonstrate that we are dangerous scofflaws that not only impede traffic but should be banned from the road for everybody's safety.

It doesn't have to make sense. A convenient excuse by drivers can also be used as a convenient excuse by pandering politicians to pass laws that do NOT look after cyclists best interests.

I do not necessarily believe that obeying the law will make me safer in traffic by convincing those around me to do so, either. But I do believe that if cyclists start willy nilly biking around in traffic as though no laws applied to them, the backlash will NOT make things better. I do believe that if the majority of cyclists, or at least the majority of politically active cyclists, can stand up and honestly and verifiably say "I follow laws as a responsible part of traffic", it will deflate the excuses of the motorist majority and the likelyhood of disadvantageous legislation passing is less.

The sooner we are accepted as a valid and standard part of traffic, the safer we'll all be. I believe sucking it up and at least showing a willingness to stop at stop signs and wait my turn in traffic will help that (I also believe it is safer to do so, which is convenient for me mentally, one of those rare occasions when I do not have to choose between ideals).

it makes sense in some intuitive way, it's just that there's no evidence that being more acquiescent road users will win us any gains in safety or acceptance.

incidentally, i don't think anyone here is advocating breaking any laws all willy-nilly, and i imagine that the vast majority of bikers obey the laws the vast majority of the time (though i must admit, i have hit 40s in 35 zones a few times this week).

the cynical side of me says that those people who bitch about cyclists not obeying laws will always bitch about something, because they just don't want us there. the real solution is just get enough people biking that those people are the fringe.

I waited in town 1 1/2 hrs for a bus last night, so while waiting, saw dozens of bike riders toodling around town in various states of behavior and legality. If I had to guess, maybe 10% looked as if they MIGHT be aware of the existance of BikePgh. So, how do educate or even contact 90% of the riders riding around? I am certainly not going to scamper around wagging my finger saying "wear a helmet, get some lights, don't carry an enormous garbage bag full of something, etc....". I would rather see dozens of people riding around with marginally legal riding, than meager handfuls riding around to the letter of the law. More cylists is a factually proven means to improve overall safety.

My guess is that the drivers who take greatest issue with cyclists on the road would be hard pressed to distinguish a bicyclist who was following the law from one who wasn't.

And despite this I'll keep following the law and advocating for my fellow cyclists to do the same. Duh.

edmonds, I agree... I'm not advocating an absence of cycling over illegal cycling...

Just trying to explain why I don't think we can ignore either the motorists complaining about the scofflaws or the scofflaws themselves, as I think they both impact us as a group in a significant enough manner to warrant... attention.

I'd rather make an active decision about an issue than passively ignore it, even if my behavior or the end result is identical for both paths.

The only decisions in my life that I regret were passive ones I didn't realize I was making until I experienced their results. I'd rather avoid that in the future, and I think recognizing how our behavior affects others and ourselves beyond the moment of action is one way to do that.

It is too hot for any more philosophy from me.

ej, I should have prefaced that I thought your previous assessment was excellent. I ride according to the laws, except when it may affect my safety (I will for example briefly bail out onto a sidewalk if things get hairy, etc.), and regardless of how the other 90% may be riding. If other people see me riding according to the law and ride likewise, awesome. I will not finger-wag, though.

sigh, you and the Japanese... I used to be afraid of doing the wrong thing in Japan, because it's both insulting and nobody will correct foreigners (thereby creating my most dreaded international fear - the unintentional, unaware insult). After having been there, I found it very difficult to do the wrong thing in most situations, just following the herd will take care of it - the herd makes the correct actions plentiful and obvious, go with the flow.

There's less herd here, and it's less uniform, but it's improving More bikes!