BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
165

WDVE/Sean McDowell

on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/dverocks/posts/10151142726109190


sean mcdowell geezuz, this oughtta be good...i am so sick of bicyclists demanding "respect"....i'm on Grant St. Sun. AM, downtown, heading back to the Parkway West, left hand lane...there's a chick on a bicycle, right hand lane next to me, taking up the ENTIRE right hand lane, as bicyclists frequently do...so i'm giving her the "4 feet on the left" blah, blah, blah" "respect" thing....the light at Grant and 5th is RED, she goes RIGHT THRU it! the next light is Grant and 4th, also RED, she goes RIGHT THRU that! So you bicylists want "respect", but you play by your own rules?? WTF!! I don't want to judge all bicyclists by one's behavior, but WAY too many of you bicyclists are idiots on the road...Enuff is enuff, man...too many of you bicyclists don't deserve my respect...


orionz06
2012-09-09 20:50:08

Disgusting.


salty
2012-09-09 21:05:12

It would help if cyclists did give at least some semblance of the Idaho rules to things that are red. I was waiting out the light on eastbound Blvd of the Allies at Grant on Friday, on my way to OTB, when some girl went flying past me on a full red. I mean, c'mon, that's not an intersection to screw around with. People coming down Grant, heading for the Parkway on-ramp, they're flying. Yeah, there might be some reds where you can get away with a rolling stop, but a corner that big, that busy, to blow through it at speed (past a stopped cyclist), yeah, I can see where the 'DVE dude can be coming from.


That does not excuse the 'DVE dude from saying asinine things on the air, though!


stuinmccandless
2012-09-09 21:15:32

Hm, I made a post on the DVE page offering to ride along with Mr. McDowell to compile a list of traffic violations he commits, but it disappeared.


His comments amount to the usual tired old self-righteous crap but some of the responses are absolutely disgusting. Seriously, Ken Anthony - "RUN THEM ALL OVER, LET GOD SORT THEM OUT".


salty
2012-09-09 21:29:40

Todd, your post is on there.


boostuv
2012-09-09 21:36:49

it showed up in my "mini-feed:"



rubberfactory
2012-09-09 21:37:17

I saw it here first, then went over to Fb, where it was in the scrolling column on the right. (I guess the name for that is the mini-feed?) I clicked on that, it popped up, I clicked "Like", but could not see the original story.


Even clicking on the link above, I cannot see the original post in Fb. I guess I would have to "Like" the WDVE page itself.


stuinmccandless
2012-09-09 21:53:59

Yeah I am going to sit at Negley and hampton one day with my camera and record all of the drivers being perfect. I also need to find an intersection with a traffic light and do the same thing. I would also like to have some sort of radar gun in front of my house, which is in a school zone (normally 25mph otherwise) and just watch the number of people who roll the stop sign at the beginning of the block, speed up to 40mph past my house/the school, then roll the next stop sign at the end of the block. I would also be interested to compare the number of cyclists who do the same (roll stop signs). I am guessing that drivers are worse, as demonstrated from YouTube videos of the same thing. I also want to ride down a typical two way street and count the number of cars parked in the wrong direction, which I understand is illegal and just lazy. And then record people pulling illegal u-turns. Then record all of the people who fly down federal street and do not yield to pedestrians outside of my office trying to cross in the clearly marked sidewalk with the clearly marked signs to yield to peds. Then I want to drive my car up One Wild place and record the person behind me driving up my ass as I drive 25mph (it is a park), which ALWAYS happens.


Maybe if someone just makes the general statement "if someone does something stupid and dangerous, I won't feel badly about an injury to that person (and hopeully involving no one else) that results from their stupid actions," I would agree. But to wish to harm someone else because you saw something you didn't like, that is just stupid and kinda gives the idea that the person saying that is a psychopath. I don't like crying babies but I don't tell the parents that Everyone should just run their babies over to shut them up.


stefb
2012-09-09 22:03:50

Typical Clarks fans. Now I need to call Clear Channel and PAT tomorrow to bitch about their employees doing stupid shit. Ironic enough one call will be about a bus forcing me to find out how well my brakes on my car work and then having the driver yell and swear at me because he was near the end of his shift.


orionz06
2012-09-09 22:12:01

Agh. Wish I hadn't read this. My blood pressure is now 230429390 times higher than it was five minutes ago. I hate everything.


2012-09-09 22:31:46

"You people" type statements reveal so much before people even finish saying them. THis guy probably deserves his fan base.


pseudacris
2012-09-09 22:41:29

the mob mentality of close-minded hatred and anti-cycling bigotry has perplexed my mind profoundly.


i've done up and gone broken.


2012-09-09 22:41:32

It's very stupid, just like "I'm not racist, but.... [insert racist comment]".


stefb
2012-09-09 22:47:07

An idea - for the next week or so call the station really regularly and request that they play Queen's "Bicycle Race."


mboyd
2012-09-09 23:00:01

Todd: you didn't post as a comment on the post, but directly on their wall, so it's on the right-hand side, under "Recent Posts by Others on 102.5 WDVE".


epanastrophe
2012-09-09 23:04:35

@mboyd : better option is to call the station management & tell them you, your family, friends, and associates will no longer support the station or any of their advertisers because of the public actions of a member of their on-air staff.


2012-09-09 23:14:35

Who are the Steelers players known to ride bikes? Perhaps they could be convinced to weigh in since WDVE capitalizes on the team brand so much.


pseudacris
2012-09-09 23:26:53

Yeah, I posted on their wall/profile/timeline/whatever-its-called-now deliberately... I do see it now (and some other similar posts, nice), but I had to manually select "posts by others".


Antonio Brown is the Steeler who did the "ride to work" video, and I've heard Mike Tomlin rides as well.


salty
2012-09-09 23:33:07

Ugh now I'm arguing about things that aren't even bike-related, just to egg people on. I need to get away from the internet for an hour or so, or else I might start quoting song lyrics in that thread, haha


rubberfactory
2012-09-09 23:43:03

It would be interesting to see a new safe-cycling / driving awareness psa with Brown / Tomlin. Makes you wonder how fast some of the stronger anti-cycling hatred would change if one of their hallowed sports figures we're to get injured by a vehicle.


2012-09-10 00:02:02

All I see is "derp derp derp"


stefb
2012-09-10 00:04:34

I saw someone expressing her frustration with cyclists in the McDonald area because . . . they don't ride on trails.


Get to the back of the bus, cyclists.


In other news, there has been a rash of fatal automobile accidents in that area, including a head on accident involving excessive speed that killed 3 on Joffre-Bulger Road in May. Strange that people seem more concerned about a few people inconveniencing them for a few minutes.


fjordan
2012-09-10 00:22:05

If one more inbred tard tells me to ride my bike in the park im gonna snap. I used to try to be nice then i just tried to make it home. Now its just "dont hit them" over and over again!


dbacklover
2012-09-10 00:53:33

I threw my my hat into the filthy WDVE ring as well, although I feel a little dirty about responding.


dbacklover: every time I hear someone scream "Get off the #&%@ing road," or "Ride on the trail," I find myself tempted to scream "Stop inbreeding." I suppress the urge out of self-preservation and a sense of loyalty to the local cycling community. We're already perceived as elitists, as is.


fjordan
2012-09-10 01:11:40

Every once in a while, someone posts a comment that seems to sum up the real reason some people hate us so much. The presumably unintentional irony is merely an added bonus:


I find many cyclists to have entitlement issues! My husband cycled for many years and can not stand the way some of these people operate these days. Really? Do you have that big of a death wish? And remember.... SINGLE FILE... Not a cluster of a dozen blocking the whole damn road out where we live. Not to mention tormenting my dogs that are restrained (fence or on a run) on my property as you pass by. Stay the hell off of my country road and stick to your bike path. It could get ugly !!!!


I can't help but shake my head my head at the contradictory accusation of entitlement, followed by the speaker's attempt to claim ownership of "her road."


If we strip away the claims about taxes, licensing, and questionable behavior, I think we'll see a major source of resentment encapsulated in this post: the perception of personal ownership of a public space.


fjordan
2012-09-10 01:43:19

I like calling them Clarks fans. For some reason it really bothers them to be called fans of a band they like.


orionz06
2012-09-10 01:48:38

HA orionz - I have always hated the Clarks. Just not my cup of tea. Donny Iris, big fan. Clarks? not so much.


This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I don't facebook. All those cooky things people used to mutter under their breath in frustration, now get typed up and posted like electronic graffiti cluttering the interwebs and whipping everybody up into a stressed out frenzy.


Most drivers are fine, even the people randomly typing up BS on FB. They're just suffering from that standard disconnect between the brain and keyboard that is required to log on (it happens when you "accept the terms and conditions").


ejwme
2012-09-10 02:34:04

I like the Clarks but can't stand how they are held up on a pedestal for writing the same song over and over and playing the same set list over and over. They WalMart'ed local music on some ways.


orionz06
2012-09-10 02:37:25

they've been playing the same song since '86


2012-09-10 02:51:38

Oh, should I? Should I?

Eh, would just be more attention for this dinosaur.


edmonds59
2012-09-10 02:54:46

between this and the genius insisting that colin must have done SOMETHING to cause his attack over on the pg comments i'm in one hell of a bad mood.


cburch
2012-09-10 05:14:13

I think I woke up to your angry typing in the middle of the night...


stefb
2012-09-10 09:47:22

Looks like DVE took down McDowell's post. Took them long enough.


alucas
2012-09-10 16:30:59

Now all they need to do is get.some music made this millennium. ;)


2012-09-10 16:39:09

Would be nice if that came with a "Sorry guys, while we appreciate the ability of our employees to have their own opinions we wish for them to not use our outlets to express all of them."


orionz06
2012-09-10 16:39:28

Sean McDowell has always been a reach out to the inbred anyhow.


"Hey, Ma-an! How about some cold brewskies!"


mick
2012-09-10 18:11:50

I threw my hat on this again, since I'm sincerely appalled and upset at what that joke-of-a-disc joker posted against cyclists. Maybe it is wrong from my part to "stir the pot" again, but I really don't think it should be as easy as "deleting" the post off their page to get off the hook about what what written and commented in there.


So I posted the following on the WDVE-FB page:





"You might have deleted Sean McDowell's uneducated and hateful rant disguised as "freedom of speech" against cyclists from FB, but me, along with the rest of the cycling community of Pittsburgh and beyond, still know what he said and how insensitive it was. I hope that WDVE, Mr McDowell, and your sponsors can correct and make now this opportunity a learning lesson in understanding and education to both cyclists & drivers.


"...sean mcdowell geezuz, this oughtta be good...i am so sick of bicyclists demanding "respect"....i'm on Grant St. Sun. AM, downtown, heading back to the Parkway West, left hand lane...there's a chick on a bicycle, right hand lane next to me, taking up the ENTIRE right hand lane, as bicyclists frequently do...so i'm giving her the "4 feet on the left" blah, blah, blah" "respect" thing....the light at Grant and 5th is RED, she goes RIGHT THRU it! the next light is Grant and 4th, also RED, she goes RIGHT THRU that! So you bicylists want "respect", but you play by your own rules?? WTF!! I don't want to judge all bicyclists by one's behavior, but WAY too many of you bicyclists are idiots on the road...Enuff is enuff, man...too many of you bicyclists don't deserve my respect..."


bikeygirl
2012-09-10 18:19:39

WDVE should really issue an official statement denouncing the use of their name in advocating violence towards cyclists.


[edit] and i mean this extends to their fan base's use of their fb pages


pseudacris
2012-09-10 18:25:27

Yeah, I didn't think taking the post completely down was the best outcome. It eliminated the possibility of continued dialogue, and b) prevented disinterested bystanders from really seeing what kind of bile bikers are up against.

But eh, that's Clear Channel.

BTW bikeygirl, did you get a PM I sent you last week?


edmonds59
2012-09-10 18:51:36

Hey Edmonds!


No -didnt get any messages!


EDIT

My Bikey-email address is: bikeygirlpgh **at** gmail.com


bikeygirl
2012-09-10 18:58:54

Cool, thx. Something on the way.


edmonds59
2012-09-10 19:04:59

ean mcdowell geezuz, this oughtta be good...i am so sick of motorists demanding "respect"....i'm on Grant St. Sun. AM, downtown, heading back to the Parkway West, left hand lane...there's a chick in a car, right hand lane next to me, taking up the ENTIRE right hand lane, as cars frequently do...so i'm giving her the "4 feet on the left" blah, blah, blah" "respect" thing....the light at Grant and 5th is RED, she goes RIGHT THRU it! the next light is Grant and 4th, also RED, she goes RIGHT THRU that! So you motorists want "respect", but you play by your own rules?? WTF!! I don't want to judge all motorists by one's behavior, but WAY too many of you motorists are idiots on the road...Enuff is enuff, man...too many of you motorits don't deserve my respect...


It's funny how well that works every friggin time.


roadkillen
2012-09-10 21:19:15

You know, McDowell seems like a jerk, but this is the one time where replacing bike with car actually doesn't work. Running red lights in the middle of a cycle (not just going through late after a yellow) is something that cars almost never do, which is why it pisses people off so much. It's seen as a serious taboo, and when bikes do it, it's viewed as showing total disregard for the rules of the road in a way that other rule-breaking isn't. It's not necessarily a rational reaction from drivers, but it's extremely common, and if we want to improve the image of bikes in this city, we should stop doing it (or at least don't do it in front of cars). Are those 20-30 seconds saved really worth all the aggravation it causes?


willb
2012-09-10 22:01:37

... deleted... Didn't mean to be so confrontational.


rsprake
2012-09-11 00:07:22

@WillB

Sometimes you gain more than the 20 or 30 seconds. Sometimes it's an open road vs a cluster f*ck of traffic.


mick
2012-09-11 00:44:52

I ride down grant all the time (my church is on grant and I bike there whenever the weather permits), and honestly, I take the lane always and if there is NO (as in NOT ANY) cross-traffic I run every red on grant (ESPECIALLY IF IM HEADING TOWARD 2nd ave). Why? Because if/when I don't, cars either tailgate 14 inches off of my back wheel while on the horn, or try to force me off the road onto the (extremely busy, business district) sidewalk. The 15-50 foot buffer zone from the headstart is worth pissing off drivers (only when there is NO cross-traffic).


2012-09-11 00:59:00

After the incidents in Cleveland, Houston, Raleigh, NC, and Sacramento some years ago, Clear Channel would presumably be quite reticent to court more negative publicity. Several people specifically indicated that they would no longer support WDVE or it's sponsors, so it's no surprise that the thread vanished. They've had some hard times lately with the economy after all, the poor dears.


I wonder how many conspiracy theories about cyclists suppressing free speech are percolating in the narrow minds of Sean McDowell's supporters tonight.


fjordan
2012-09-11 01:17:21

Sean McDowell supporters have minds?


Who knew?


mick
2012-09-11 01:56:13

A friend of mine who wrote to Clear Channel about the incident got a response from management that they took the post down, were taking it seriously, and were going to sit down with McDowell to discuss the incident.


Not so bad.


that-guy
2012-09-11 02:55:50

This Sean McDowell?
















quizbot
2012-09-11 05:27:47

Not surprisingly, none with a bicycle.


stuinmccandless
2012-09-11 07:21:34

To go against the grain for a minute...


Maybe there's a different tack to be taken with a guy like Sean McDowell?


I get how he feels about the douchebag cyclists. I feel the same way every time I drive through the city. Ninjas, red-light-runners, lane jumpters, etc. They're there, they're not going away, and unfortunately, they're one of the main faces of cycling in Pittsburgh even when they're in the minority. And every time I see them (pretty much every time I drive in the city), they royally tick me off.


We can get mad that people like Sean McDowell fire off about the idiots and fire back at him, or we can take our time to think about it and respond as the real cyclists who've gotten a shitload of bike lanes painted the last three years and have gotten the mayor to fight with a city councilor about who was the first to put in a bike corral.


My vote is for the latter. We're all here because we believe in bicycle advocacy. Antagonism is counter-productive to our goals. His words piss me off, for sure, but I sort of understand his sentiment. Getting pissed at him isn't going to help us or our cause.


Every angry message from a cyclist that McDowell reads will simply reinforce the image of the angry, entitled cyclist he has in his head. Reinforcing that image is the worst thing we can do (and every angry response to his words has done nothing but that).


We need to respond with a *positive* image of cyclists, one that challenges McDowell's take on the status quo. We need to find a way to convince him that his impression from the scofflaws is not the correct one. Angry replies and threats against his advertisers is *NOT* the way to do this.


We need to *engage* him, to show him what the Pittsburgh cyclist is all about, and we need to do it in a neutral, non-confrontational manner. I'm not sure how to do that, though, so I'm posing the question back to the board.


How do we engage someone like McDowell, in a positive manner? How do we undo (as best we can, at this point) the bad will that's been generated from our responses to his post?


Thoughts?


mattre
2012-09-11 08:02:23

McDowell is a generally good dude, the type most of us wish more people were, he just did something really stupid with tons of people watching. He got called on it, it got pulled, and he probably won't do that again, be it bikes or anything else. That's a good thing. My guess is if we reached out to him and gave him a chance to redeem himself he might bite. Hell, at least get on the phone with him and say that we (those who are good cyclists) also dislike those people and do not like the hatred of them being taken out on us as we ride to work. Pitch it to him like the woes of the working man just trying to get by.


orionz06
2012-09-11 11:29:00

I wonder if he, or anyone else, knows about Idaho Rules: A cyclist can treat a stop sign as a yield sign, a red light as a stop sign. If we had that in PA, and adhered to it, a lot of the anger would go away (I think).


Even I will pull an "Idaho" from time to time. Case in point: 4th Ave at Cherry Way, two one-way streets, neither with a huge amount of traffic, fairly low speed. On a bike, if you get a red here, and are first in line, either direction, you can see pretty well what's coming. Come to a complete stop, verify nothing's there, then go. Not to be done in a car, mind you, as there's a lot of pedestrian traffic, but on a bike, (if this was Idaho) it'd be OK.


stuinmccandless
2012-09-11 11:34:48

What about secondary awareness of the actual impact of registration fees to the PA roads?


orionz06
2012-09-11 11:50:41

I actually didn't think McDowell's own comments were terribly offensive. He saw someone run red lights, not justifiable. It was the commenters who got really shitty. That is the key problem with someone in a visible public position such as him making the sort of comment he did, and giving the aholes a window to take it too far. I think that is the point that should be made to him - look at what a simple un-considered observation opens up.

I suggest we see if he will have Scott Bricker on his show, esp if Clear Channel would like some positive "penance". Scott is the most level headed and sensible voice of cycling in the land. I would want him to speak for me.


edmonds59
2012-09-11 13:04:15

Scott would probably do better than me, I'd bring my own [BLEEP] button, just incase theirs broke during the broadcast. ;)


2012-09-11 13:12:25

mattre,

I couldn't agree more. For some reason, people would rather take a more militant approach to garnering support. Too much reality TV, I guess.


ericf
2012-09-11 17:47:31

having BPGH (Scott) on a clearchannel radio show, any clearchannel radio station, would be awesome. They own the channels that a huge number of people listen to.


As for Mr. McDowell personally, I don't believe even he has that same opinion 100% of the time, very few people, when they sit down outside of a car, face to face with a calm person who cycles often and can discuss some of the issues at hand, will persist in denying them the respect accorded to most humans by each other.


The problem is the "Facelessness" of Facebook, and instantaneous in-the-moment ability to communicate one's off the cuff, flippant, or heated ideas.


The guy is capable, as most humans are, of rational, measured thought and communication. It's just not as visible as FB.


Even on here, while many of us know each other IRL, this is still a very public forum and we too post things that upon reflection are not as thoroughly thought through as we are capable of.


We are not our online personas. Neither are the people whose online personas get our goats. The trick is to keep all the online personas off the roads.


ejwme
2012-09-11 17:56:04

FWIW, what Sean McDowell said wasn't nearly as offensive as what some of the commenters said.


My main objection to the whole spiel about cyclists breaking the law is that it's just a pretext used to justify whatever other anti-cycling remarks you want to make. They don't follow the laws, therefore they don't belong on the road, they don't deserve cycling infrastructure, they don't deserve to live if you're extreme enough. If drivers were the perfect angels they pretend to be then maybe they would have a point (well, not that last thing, obviously), but drivers break the law constantly. It's just an astounding level of hypocrisy, especially since drivers' actions have far worse consequences.


salty
2012-09-11 19:09:41

he did post a "statement" on facebook...


"sean mcdowell i had no idea my comments about "arrogant idiot bicyclists" would piss so many people off, like, seriously piss so many people off...for the record, i respect everyone on the road, even oblivious bicyclists...and i would never want to see someone get hurt..."


2012-09-11 19:20:35

too little, too late.


and it also reeks of being fabricated by "company" lawyers.


2012-09-11 19:31:33

Mark Madden (WXDX 105.9) is ranting against bicyclist right now. Same old, same old (run lights, blah blah blah) Tame by comparison...and because it was spoken, it is now gone.


sew
2012-09-11 19:34:29

thank you kelw, I'm really glad to see that. Statements like that provide a lot of reasonable hope.


ejwme
2012-09-11 19:36:09


Mark Madden could use a bicycle in his life...


rsprake
2012-09-11 19:50:26

Wow, so the "comments" after McDowell's apology are full of ignorant, self-righteous drivers/f'ers.... I'm trying to stay in a "zen state" so I'm staying away....


ugggg!!!!!


bikeygirl
2012-09-11 19:54:43

It's looking more and more like comments sections on news sites and Facebook posts are becoming just as much of a "battlefield" for us as the roads are (at least in terms of changing people's attitudes).


I think we need an organized "critical mass" type of presence online also.


From now on whenever I see a thread with dozens of "I saw a cyclist run a red light once" comments, I will simply post "I am a law-abiding cyclist" and hope many others do the same.


schmenjamin
2012-09-11 20:04:40

pbeaver, I wouldn't give the guy so little credit. time has passed, he's likely read some of what's been added and may even have discussed this with someone at the station/owners.


When not behind the wheel, when tempers have cooled, people are less likely to be adams' apples.


ejwme
2012-09-11 20:07:28

Damn you, bikeygirl! I should have resisted... but I couldn't resist. well, at least I tried to be a little more lighthearted this time around.


Can someone come and change my facebook password and refuse to tell it to me?


salty
2012-09-11 20:09:41

MORE AND ANOTHER THOUGHT:


(and this might open a can-of-worms in here)


Looking at the other side of the coin, I will say that while I still think it was wrong for Sean McDowell to rant about cyclists in a way that incited violence towards them, I will point out that this is a clear example of how --by the action of one/few-- the rest of the cycling community is and can be judged.


I admit that sometimes I get angry when I see fellow cyclists running red lights for no-reason, or weavin in & out of traffic, or making turns without signaling. It makes me feel powerless....


There was this time when I was stopped at a 4-way street/lights, and we were 3-cyclists all following the rules and waiting our turn/waiting for the light to turn green, when racing down comes this dude who runs the red light after waving around a crossing car that had just gone-by. I actually yelled at him "Don't be an asshole!!!" and made me feel embarrased for his behaviour, yet the car next to me, who was also at the stop light with me, said to me -thank you for not running the red light..... AND THAT right there made me feel better.


So, yeah.... I think that from our part as cyclists, while we can't do anything about what kind of careless/crazy/tired/or just pure sychopath gets behind the wheel, we can do our part by trying to abide the rules of the road as much as we can for the safety of ourselves and others.... and not us be the ninja/careless bike rider...


EDIT:

I do not claim to be safest-best cyclist ever, but I do-try to be...


bikeygirl
2012-09-11 20:33:53

SALTY!


I'm sorry you had to look. I went to look again too and broke my peace-mode and also posted what I hope was a positive/constructive FB post....


bikeygirl
2012-09-11 20:34:46

@BG, yours was a thoughtful, civilized, and well constructed comment.

Sadly, it will probly jsut be met with hate by an extremely vocal minority that gets off on acting superior. :(


@EJ, i dont think he should get too much credit for changing his public opinon.

Granted he may actually feel remorseful over the publc results of his "letting off some steam", but he also didnt realize that within a short timeframe his venting had completely snowballed into a mass spewing of hatred. Given the timeframe of the original incident, he could have seen what was happening on fb and after himself calming down a bit, atleast attempted to pursuade cooler heads to prevail.

The current appology post is more akin to a small child with thier parents making them confess to a neighbor that they were the ones that broke their window.


The scariest thing of all of this in my eyes isn't that someone voiced an opinon in a puplic forum, last time i checked, we encourage people to do that in this country.

The scary thing is the willingniss of the public to support the physical harm to citizens of thier own community based on antecedents, 3rd party stories, and "stuff they read online".


2012-09-11 20:51:03

Am I the only one that thinks the gas tax/registration argument is ridiculous? I think that the main proponents of this argument havent really thought it out. An electric car doesn't pay anything in gas tax and a hybrid might pay half of what I pay in gas tax a year but no one is making the argument they don't belong on the road.


boostuv
2012-09-12 12:05:14

What is the actual contribution to the roads from drivers, or rather what percentage of the required funds to build/maintain roads come from the use of cars?


orionz06
2012-09-12 13:33:49

@boostuv, the gas tax argument is a red herring anyway, because local roads (where bikes do the vast majority of their riding) are not funded by gas taxes or registration fees, but by local property and income taxes, which everyone pays in one way or another.


willb
2012-09-12 13:34:41

The highway trust fund has pilfered $30B from the general fund in the past few years, because the gas tax doesn't cover expenditures. I don't know about the state but I think willb is right about local roads.


It's just stupidity.


salty
2012-09-12 13:59:54

It's just stupidity.


No, it's willful fantasizing. Stupidity and ignorance can be addressed through means such as discussion, education, or at least appeals to authority. People making these arguments are not moved by any of the above, because they are not engaged in rational debate.


*Any* arguments that support the idea that "bikes don't have the right to be on the road" are red herrings. The law is clear, no matter how badly people wish to believe that their pet theories somehow invalidate it.


reddan
2012-09-12 14:11:54

Correct, but there can still be a response such as "gas tax covers 1% of all road costs."


orionz06
2012-09-12 14:13:30

@WillB - not entirely correct - municipalities do receive allocations for local road and street maintenance from the "Liquid Fuels Tax," which is one means by which the State maintains the cooperation of the local municipality. By that, I mean if a municipality does not follow PennDot requirements for road work or improvements - even on "local" roads, the state can withhold Liquid Fuels Tax revenue from the municipality.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-09-12 14:21:30

I don't thunk such a number is meaningful, since different types of roads have vastly different funding sources. City and local roads where cyclists spend most of their time are not paid for at all by gas tax (probably, I've never been able to find definitive data). Interstates, where bikes are not allowed (with a few exceptions), are paid for predominantly by gas tax, but as I noted above that isn't even true due to congress' refusal to raise the gas tax, its more acceptable to steal from the general fund instead.


I don't know Dan, I'd like to think that if some of those people were confronted by actual facts they might change their stance... but maybe I'm just, uh - let's say "optimistic".


salty
2012-09-12 14:23:56

Addressing the irrelevant argument lends validity to it, and shifts the focus away from the key point that the law already lays out cyclists' right to the road.


Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying it's a bad idea to have real data such as the sources of funding for local road construction and repair. I'm just saying that there's little point in presenting facts to toddlers engaged in magical thinking.


reddan
2012-09-12 14:27:39

@salty: google "liquid fuels trust fund, city of pittsburgh, 2012" that's where the money is: "Grants, state, federal"


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-09-12 14:43:05

Regardless the funding source, I agree with Dan: "*Any* arguments that support the idea that "bikes don't have the right to be on the road" are red herrings. The law is clear, no matter how badly people wish to believe that their pet theories somehow invalidate it."


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-09-12 14:54:15

Here's another source regarding funding: http://www.pacounties.org/GovernmentRelations/Documents/TransportationFunding032807.pdf


Municipalities spent $1.309 billion for road construction and maintenance in 2004 and, in contrast to mass transit, local governments shouldered 78 percent of this expense through local sources, including property and income taxes. State funding for local roads amounted to only $294 million.


That said, I share reddan's concern that the discussion over road funding is a means of shifting the focus away from the fact, which is that we have a legal right to be on most roads, to the theory that access to a shared resource is based on a pay-for-use model. According to this argument, travellers from other states and nations would have no right to use our transportation structures, nor we theirs.


The vast majority of arguments against cyclists appear to be thinly veiled attempts to justify the authors' beliefs that they have no obligation to obey laws they don't happen to agree with.


fjordan
2012-09-12 14:54:42

I agree 100% but invalidating it based on law alone doesn't seem to be enough.


1: Law says we can be there.

2: Your shitty argument is shitty, you are not paying for any of this.

3: Most of us own cars anyway, registration is moot.


orionz06
2012-09-12 15:00:03

I stand corrected. Although it's pretty hard to tell what the actual cost of road maintenance is by looking at the city budget - I suspect that the Liquid Fuels Tax fund does not cover all road costs. Still, it's clearly a substantial portion.


ETA - fjordan indicates that the bulk of road funding still comes from local sources, so given how little damage bikes do to roads, we can certainly claim to be paying our share, even if we shouldn't really have to make that argument in the first place, as reddan has pointed out.


willb
2012-09-12 15:01:00

A municipality in the State of VA tried to asses higher fines for traffic violations to out of state motorist. They were challenged in court and lost because they could not prove if the roads in the municipality were built & maintained with 100% local funding. The majority of roads and highways in this country are built and maintained with a combination of Federal, State, and Local funds.


greasefoot
2012-09-12 15:19:55

Right, I spent the past 15 minutes looking at city budgets and I don't see anywhere that road maintenance is specifically broken out. I did find an article claiming the city was spending 11.3M on paving this year vs 6.2M received from the liquid fuels trust fund, but the same article says the city only spent $5M in 2011. So, the gap is at least $5M this year - maybe more since it appears that 11.3M number is the paving budget and may not include other maintenance, snow clearing, equipment, etc.


http://www.pittsburghpa.gov/mayor/article?id=1384


Anyways, I think it's interesting to uncover how exactly the roads are funded, especially since it appears to be obfuscated as much as possible. It is irrelevant as far as whether bikes are allowed on the road, although personally I would sleep better knowing that I did pay my fair share... which I was briefly in doubt about, but on further review we certainly pay some portion via income and/or property taxes although the amount is unclear.


salty
2012-09-12 15:22:04

And furthermore, if a cyclist who commutes to work in town would start driving they would likely drive a small car getting around 25-30 mpg and maybe drive 10 miles a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year for a total of 2600 miles and using a total of 104 gallons paying for 104 gallons and paying a $0.12/gallon tax totaling $12.48.


7% sales tax would require a $178 purchase to equal the $12.48.


orionz06
2012-09-12 15:27:34

i try to steer clear of making arguments that consist mostly of "because it's the law." they fall apart once that fact goes away. one needs also to demonstrate that it should be the law.


consider, for example, the case of illegal immigrants. there are plenty of people who love to get all up in arms about illegal immigrants, and the bulk of their argument tends to be "because it's illegal!" but what if it wasn't? i suspect more than a few would find other reasons to hate.


so what if bicycling on public roads were made illegal? does that mean bikes shouldn't have a right to use the roads? i suspect most of us would not easily concede that point.


hiddenvariable
2012-09-12 16:04:05

Update: Sean wrote me a nice email. I'll be reaching out to him when I get a moment..


scott
2012-09-12 16:09:11

BikePGH/DVE fundraiser ride would be pretty awesome and might entice some folks to come out and learn even if they don't know they are. Sean can draw a crowd for sure and people take him at face value.


orionz06
2012-09-12 16:22:12

I'm not looking for an argument to fire back at the majority of those Facebook comments where logic has no reasoning ability. More looking to know for myself how gas taxes effect road funding.


boostuv
2012-09-12 16:46:30

thank you Scott for the update! I have high but I believe reasonable hopes for good things to come of this yet :D


ejwme
2012-09-12 17:43:32

@Scott -Glad to hear Sean is reaching out! Keep us posted! :)


bikeygirl
2012-09-12 19:44:17

This isn't the first time Sean said something awful about cyclists on the air. He needs an opportunity to pursue other career opportunities. Clear Channel needs to know this.


screbner
2012-09-13 11:12:58

Maybe Scott can also get him to reconsider his views on playing Blue Oyster Cult, Bachman Turner Overdrive and REO Speedwagon.


jmccrea
2012-09-13 11:51:52

in order for dve to change thier music they would need to figure out how to unweld the door and open thier 5-disc cd changer.


2012-09-13 13:56:34

In order for DVE to change their rotation they would need their customer base to want something different. They don't...


orionz06
2012-09-13 14:05:38

I don't agree with what Sean said, but I know the guy and he really is a good guy. I guess I am willing to cut him a break because of that. His comments do not reflect the person that I know, which is just a good, decent guy who is really very nice to everyone without any kind of attitude. Yeah, I know-his comments don't help the situation, but I am willing to cut him a break because I say and do stupid things too.


2012-09-13 14:43:44

If you know him personnally, why not ask him to come on the next Flock ride. Nothing is better at changing your perspective then, well...


marko82
2012-09-13 14:54:36

He just joined up, I mentioned coming along for a ride.


orionz06
2012-09-13 14:56:25

And maybe even the Flock audio trailer could expose the guy to some non-antique music, eh? Sean, ever hear of the Black Angels, Florence & the Machine, Kasabian, Lykke Li,...?


edmonds59
2012-09-13 15:31:08

By audio trailer you mean the big white thing that play 15 seconds of a song then 45 seconds of silence? 8-)


dbacklover
2012-09-13 15:35:40

You guys know it's my turn to pick the music on the next flock ride right?


marvelousm3
2012-09-13 15:39:54

Oops, just saw the other post!


Ha, ha! Yeah, that thing.


edmonds59
2012-09-13 15:40:01

I also think WDVE plays those same ten songs I already heard way too much when I was still young.


On the other hand, WDVE plays a higher proportion of local music than WYEP, the local supposedly non-profit, does.


That speaks very well of WDVE.


< rant mode = 'on' >

WYEP's programming is so shameful with respect to the great local music scene here that someone should plow the WYEP so-called "Community center" into the ground, then exile anyone who has had anything to do with their programming to some dreary far suburb of LA. (Which they, evidently, think Pittsburgh is)


At very least, everyone who has said "Where the music matters!!!" should be prosecuted for false advertising.




mick
2012-09-13 15:42:56

I grew up on WDVE, and have a friend who used to work there. I rarely listen anymore, but there's a lot of people who really love that station, what they play, and their on-air personalities - different strokes for different folks. Sean won't have a lot of flexibility in what he can play.


His apology on the other thread, and the fact that he's reached out to Scott, really says a lot to me. I think joining in on a ride would be awesome too, but I generally think that for just about everybody who can ride a bike. (And for those who can't yet it's just a matter of time...)


For the people still grudging - what would it take? He's demonstrated remorse and reached out to cyclists. Would you rather he were fired or quit than that he admit he made some ill-thought-through comments and attempts to atone for it?


Unemployment sucks. Outreach and learning rocks. Remember, he's got a huge audience. I'd rather welcome him into our awesome fold than hate on a perceived former hater (who, at least to me, doesn't appear to have actually been a hater at all).


But to do that we have to be welcoming and awesome.


ejwme
2012-09-13 16:09:07

Like I said, just a small mention on the air about some bike ride (for charity) could do a lot of good.


Might even draw out some fringe riders based on popularity.


orionz06
2012-09-13 16:15:26

@Mick: I agree about what DVE plays so I rarely listen to it as well. I switched to the X (the Rebel before that) but it's play list has been stuck in time too. I have satellite but I think my ADD kicks in and I can't find anything that I want to listen to.....I'm just musically lost at this point. :)


sew
2012-09-13 17:37:32

@ Mick, yeah, occasionally it will seem like YEP is more influenced by Nashville than anywhere else. Like, W. T. F. ?


edmonds59
2012-09-13 17:41:07

iPods ftw.


The only person I can complain to about my music options is myself, and that guy ain't listening to me anymore.


2012-09-13 17:57:10

I listen to WYEP at work every day when I get sick of all 15 songs that my phone has the capacity to hold...


rubberfactory
2012-09-14 00:25:04

listen to WPTS or WRCT.


salty
2012-09-14 04:30:44

WPTS introduced me to King Missile and helped me decide I don't like reggae. WRCT taught me that November is National Sex Toy Month, and that bad techno is really bad.


ejwme
2012-09-14 13:45:54

FWIW, I had exactly one show on WPTS and I don't remember anything else I played except "Detachable Penis".


salty
2012-09-14 21:37:44

Salty, you may have corrupted my young mind. Thank you! :D


ejwme
2012-09-15 00:35:23

I had a few shows on PTS, maybe once a week for half a semester in 86. Filled in for someone on RCT once or twice. Played punk and Dead. That's ok though.




quizbot
2012-09-15 04:24:12

Mind is blown.


stefb
2012-09-16 12:00:04

Sean interviewed me today for a show that will air on all 6 local Clear Channel stations in December. 4 of 6 will play it Sunday morning, December 23rd. I give myself a B+. I think I covered a lot of the things I wanted to. We'll see what happens after they edit it down.


I can say this, Sean feels truly bad about his fb rant and is a very nice guy in person. I'm hoping this is the start of what becomes a solid partnership with WDVE/Clear Channel over the next few years. They have a ton of listeners and if we want to reach the Pittsburgh driving public, this is a good way to do it.


scott
2012-11-28 19:07:59

That is great news, Scott.


2012-11-28 19:41:56

#1 thing here, and I do mean #1 is to get more people on bikes, especially traveler's come out (of the car).


Attitudes improve as more people bike (obviously) as they see the unique benefits and challenges. And friends/family of someone that does ride will be much more tolerant than a stranger to the idea.


Same thing as seen with any other group fighting for rights and respect.


2012-11-28 21:07:19

I don't agree with the notion that running a red on Grant on Sunday morning = idiot. There are clear lines of sight and there's probably not a lot happening Sunday morning. Would he be upset if somebody jay walked the same roads?


I don't understand this complete subservience to lights and signs in situations were we can clearly tell whether or not it is safe to cross the street. I guess that makes me a idiot.


I'm also not particularly concerned with some old white radio dude's respect. My MP3 player doesn't have a stance on how closely I follow traffic laws and plays music that's much better aligned with my tastes and doesn't have commercials.


sgtjonson
2012-11-28 21:35:04

I'm both looking forward to hearing the interview on sunday and excited that the topped thread brought the Black Flag/ Grateful Dead article to my attention! Punks is hippies!


beccameadow
2012-11-28 21:57:09

@Pierce And why cars should not run red in this case?


2012-11-28 22:45:36

I'm not a WDVE listener, but I'm really glad this is happening. I only wish it were being aired during drive time.


pseudacris
2012-11-28 22:51:27

Mikhail, there's a good reason bikes should be able to go and cars not, cars out in the intersection are a mortal danger to all, bikes only to themselves.


Bikes breaking this rule are more or less the same as jaywalking pedestrians... a normal thing that while technically illegal, really doesn't matter.


I still don't do it in most cases where I know I could in perfect safely, not owing to technical illegality or any feelings of guilt, but because I don't want to feed the road rage out there. Sigh.


2012-11-29 04:45:46

In this particular case, it would be a lot harder for cars to see the intersection without being in it. Cyclists are much further in front and so they don't have to be as far into the intersection.


sgtjonson
2012-11-29 14:29:12

@byogman and can you give them to me? You can use formulas -- I am mathematician and studied physics for 4 years also in college.


The problem with these reasoning is that when there is no one on intersection so no mortal danger in this particular case. The problem is that once someone could/would use his/her one judge when it safe and when it's not -- you cannot trust people to be always reasonable.


BTW bicyclist could mortal danger for pedestrians. And we know cases when pedestrians have been killed by bicyclists. So we should talk about probability of it happening.


2012-11-29 15:00:50

BTW I am pro for Idaho approach:

1. read as stop

2. stop as a yield


I am very aware about keeping momentum and how it helps reduce general time for cars sitting at stop and/or read. but Idaho approach still makes it bicyclists responsibility to follow law and if something happens bicyclists would hold accountable.


2012-11-29 15:11:16

Mikhail, perplexed reading your last two posts side by side. I was speaking in generalities, but I think awfully strong ones.


For the first, since you mention physics, hypothetical but reasonable back of the envelope mv^2/2 comparisons between bikes and cars is a good intuition check on their comparability. Mostly, um, no. Not the whole story but a strong intro chapter.


Also, since the bike doesn't give you an armored shell, people who enter intersections are placing their own safety at risk when they do the same to others. So while there will be yahoos, and I don't doubt that there have been a small number of real tragedies, I seriously doubt there have been the sort of number that make sense to make public policy over.


But it sounds at the end of the day like we both favor a very similar approach. I never was suggesting blowing through red lights at full speed was safe. So I'm not sure we're arguing about anything but word choice and tone?


2012-11-29 16:31:57

@byogman

"hypothetical but reasonable back of the envelope mv^2/2 comparisons between bikes and cars is a good intuition check on their comparability. Mostly, um, no. Not the whole story but a strong intro chapter."

An you understand why is not applicable in case when is no one on intersection? In addition -- this is kinetic energy. And you should worry about momentum for the most part -- just m*v.


"since the bike doesn't give you an armored shell, people who enter intersections are placing their own safety at risk when they do the same to others."

And there is no one on intersection so no danger.


I hate this fallacy in logic. It gives other side to do exactly the same.


BTW what is going to happen if car at speed 1 mph would push you and stop right away? I bet with probability 0.95 that you would not even fall. Now count car kinetic energy and your kinetic energy and compare (kind of useless compare). Do you still think that car at 1mph going through stop is dangerous? :)


So one more time -- why car should stop at red on intersection if there is no one there? What is a danger?


In my mind the danger is not that car have more momentum and/or energy saved. The danger is that driver starts to think that even when intersection is not empty (s)he could do it safely. And it exactly the moment when energy-momentum start to play their role -- probability of happening of something bad is now high. For a bicyclist (as a statistical unit)probability to harm pedestrian would rise with number of bicyclist.


Man, I hate to see when bicyclist flying through pedestrian crossing while people crossing a road. At this moment I am ready to use "2 by 4 inforcer".


2012-11-29 23:24:11

I'm again confused by these statements measured against your prior statements about Idaho rules. At the end you're still talking about those that blow through intersections on a bike even though I already indicated that to me they're idiots. I really think we're actually pretty close here.


I'm going to continue for now because I think there's some interesting stuff that comes of exploring, but I'm happy to stop at any point here, too and just continue the discussion offline. I get concerned about back and forths getting potentially heated and I apologize for being the first to call out by name.


So, going over your first two paragraphs and the point about nobody being in the intersection is lost on me. Of course it's true, let's say 99.9% of the time, but what we should care about is the .1% misjudgment where there is possible danger, no? Of course, the numbers may not be the same with cars and bikes, Pierce brought up a good point about visibility, but we'll ignore that for now. In the rare case, what are we looking at?


You say that momentum is what you should worry about for the most part but then mention the car at 1mph is not a danger in spite of having (compared to a bike) high momentum. Not sure where you were going with momentum, but let's concentrate on the latter case.


Sure a car at 1mph is not a big danger to others, this is contrived considering idling speed. Let's consider a slightly more reasonable 5mph. I submit that even at this highly cautious speed where a driver needs to keep their foot steadily on the break a car is still a pretty dangerous thing. Let's say we have a relatively light car and a relatively heavy cyclist. To make the numbers squaring friendly let's say that's a 16x ratio on weight. That means 16X more momentum and energy than a bicylist at the same speed, but also almost twice the energy more than 5x the momentum of the bicyclist going 15mph... you don't get the same energy till the bike is going 20mph or if you prefer momentum, you don't get there until the bike is going 80mph (I was not a physics major and certainly never studied collision dynamics, but this sort of number is part of my intuition about why momentum is the wrong measure here, also your 1mph example).


Now, consider that 15mph is really a pretty high speed for a bike to reach going just from one side of the intersection to the other. A heavy bicyclist has to work at it to create a level of danger that's still not at the level of about the most cautious plausible driver of a light car. So that tells me why these are different classes of conveyance and using the same rules doesn't make sense. I think, actually, returning to your statements about Idaho rules that we agree on all this, no?


If so, the remaining question is what to do in the presence of a rule set that doesn't fit. I don't buy the slippery slope argument, after all, how many pedestrians don't ever jaywalk? 5-10% maybe? And these are our drivers. So they're clearly capable of separating some modes of conveyance mentally and discerning that rules can be broken as a pedestrian that can't be as a driver.


I don't see confusion, I don't see significant direct danger, I see anger and danger from that. Anger that comes down to the rat race mentality and fact that bikes sometimes slow cars down, and that combined with the fact that in these stop and red light scenarios a bike may actually be able to get there faster occasionally. It just breads ill will. So I try to mostly avoid it. But in a calmer world, I would consistently just go ahead when clear. It would be nice for sure if the rule-book said that, too, but I wouldn't necessarily wait for that. There are a lot of broken laws out there.


2012-11-30 05:23:04

Started to write a big post but it looks like a scientic paper. So decided to search the Internet.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag4BVZR-9Z4IdHJHY0NzdDZhSFp1a3ZmQ3g5OGJxUVE shows kinetic energy calculated for some bodies and speeds. You can see that subsonic bullet kills with energy about 630J while trolly would not kill a humang being at speed of 1 mph even energy is morer than 3 times of bullet.


In short what is important is not kinetic energy by itself but preservation of momentum and then energy. It allows us to calculate how much and how fast of momentum (vector, not scalar!) has been chaged and how much energy has been transfered (scalar valuue). And from this we can measure Impulse and furhter force and time during which force has been applied.


This video basically shows everything. Pay close attention to elastic and non elastic collisions. In our case it's in between. Please notice that for non elastic collision conservation of kinetic energy is not working (the principle of conservation energy still woks but you should account heat dissipation, deformation, etc which are not kinetic type of energy).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdjxMw9bumI


Some standard problems to solve

http://class-fizika.narod.ru/9_class/18/1.GIF

http://class-fizika.narod.ru/9_class/18/2.GIF

http://class-fizika.narod.ru/9_class/18/5.GIF

http://class-fizika.narod.ru/9_class/18/3.GIF

http://class-fizika.narod.ru/9_class/18/4.GIF

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l2b.cfm -- look for check understanding and answers.


This is more advanced modeling of car-car collisions and car-human collisiosn:

http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2010/Bucharest/ECC/ECC-31.pdf

http://alexandria.tue.nl/B8345F4D-39AC-4D15-AB4B-927E0CFA4AC7/FinalDownload/DownloadId-D0A9D00BECA6DBB402717A3F73BF1DBE/B8345F4D-39AC-4D15-AB4B-927E0CFA4AC7/extra3/proefschrift/PRF12A/9613186.pdf

http://www.brachengineering.com/publications/SAE%202000-01-0898.pdf

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/449/2/45122.0001.001.pdf

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0333-O.pdf


2012-12-10 16:49:33

I will look at this more when I'm home and it's not a few minutes over lunch.


I was using kinetic energy as an intro argument. Obviously how much of that is actually dissipated and how suddenly are huge factors. And I certainly recognize that far less of a car's energy will dissipate in initial contact with a pedestrian than bike and rider's will.


But unlike the bike/pedestrian case which, due to somewhat matched weights, gives you mostly very little to worry about other than initial impact, you have a lot to keep worrying about with the car.


If you're assuming a relatively elastic collision the pedestrian goes FLYING presumably into more traffic. That's probably less realistic than assuming a relatively inelastic collision. In that case the driver better act fast or they'll very, very soon be running OVER that pedestrian crunching them under tire. Or I guess they could be scooping them up and flinging them head/torso first into a windshield next and from there who knows. Pretty frightening that that's the least bad fairly plausible outcome, at least to me it is.


This could be modeled over and over with a million different assumptions about these and more.


To me, it gets down to this. Show me numbers. I saw the case in San Francisco, as expected along with a lot of ranting about cyclists. Any time they got to any numbers it was of pedestrians and cyclists being killed by cars. In the absence of broader evidence, I treat it as a freak occurrence not worth making policy over.


Just my 2c on the subject.


2012-12-10 18:05:45

"Show me numbers." What kind of numbers? Spreadsheet shows quite a few of them.


And you missing my point -- I don't argue that human being in a car is safer. I argue that faulty logic cannot be used to prove it.


And still want to know why car at red light should stop even there is no one around. :P


2012-12-10 18:30:45

And still want to know why car at red light should stop even there is no one around. :P


Because it's the law! If we just start to disregard laws we quickly go down the slippey slope to to chaos.

I am kidding! 4 am no one in sight at a red light, I sure would be tempted to stop and proceed cautiously through a red light in my car, and would not think twice about doing so on my bike.


helen-s
2012-12-10 19:04:32

Mikhail, I will look at the spreadsheet at home, but the numbers I was referring to were of actual people, killed or at least very seriously hurt by a cyclist. Until someone shows me otherwise, I maintain there must be very, very few, otherwise they would get flogged rather constantly by anti-cyclists.


I'm not arguing that a human being in a car is safer and didn't think you were either!? I'm talking about the difference between a person on a bicycle vs. a person in a car and the danger they present to a person walking in an intersection.


I still don't see the fault in my logic and perhaps it's better to take this to PMs now since I think it's clear we're talking past each other.


Helen, my argument is that the slope isn't actually so slippery, I know what you have is tongue in cheek but it then the turn at the end and is giving just the "See, SEE! example" that will drag this on, and on, and on. Argh!!!! Anyways, it's hardly an intractable problem. The solution is to turn traffic signals into flasher mode at night when the intersections merit and many places do.


2012-12-10 20:03:25

And still want to know why car at red light should stop even there is no one around. :P


Some drivers aren't very observant. They're supposed to only go through an intersection when it's clear AND there's a green light. If you change that AND to OR, you're relying entirely on their ability to notice the pedestrian or cyclist on the cross street. Some will, some won't.


If we could trust drivers to always correctly determine when there's no one around, we could change the law to let them go through red lights in such cases. But we don't, and shouldn't.


steven
2012-12-10 20:23:50

@mikhail: the consequences of a driver in an automobile of misjudging an intersection as empty are much more dire (for the public, not the driver) than a cyclist making the same mistake. additionally, due to the relative speeds at which they travel, a driver in a car is less able to judge whether an intersection is, or is about to be, occupied, than a person riding a bicycle.


note that i am making this statement about public policy, not personal ethics. i do believe that "idaho stops" should be explored further in areas outside idaho, and i do not think the same rules should apply to automobiles. but if you carefully roll a stop sign or stop at a red light and then inch through it, at 4 am on a tuesday morning, i'm not really going to judge you.


hiddenvariable
2012-12-10 20:30:23

@steven Exactly. :)


And I think that if we got 20-30% of people commuting by bikes then we will face similar situation with bicyclists.


2012-12-10 21:26:07

@HV You think that car rolling through intersection at speed 2 mph (an not at 4 am) would cause a lot of damage? :)


2012-12-10 21:27:08

Mikhail, 1 mph, 2 mph, these are theoretically possible speeds that nobody, not even the most cautious actually drive.


What's important are realistic cases. And even when I went to the outer edge of what I thought a possibly realistic case favoring your argument was, the car still looked noticeably more dangerous to me.


Maybe you disagree. But the frequencies matter, too, and a bike would only infrequently be going that fast and cars would only infrequently be going that slow. I would expect the car to be faster than the bike typically, and then that's just compounding the danger that's already vastly worse from the vastly higher weight.


That leaves the slippery slope argument which I don't really buy because most drivers already jaywalk, but don't just go ahead at a red when things look clear.


2012-12-11 01:49:59

@byogman "That leaves the slippery slope argument which I don't really buy because most drivers already jaywalk, but don't just go ahead at a red when things look clear."


This is because to enforcement of the law not because drivers are so cautious. But even now most drivers roll through stop signs. Imagine if police starts to enforce stop signs for bicyclists...


"I would expect the car to be faster than the bike typically"

At red light? I don't argue in general -- I am still in context of rolling through intersection on red light when there is no one there.


2012-12-11 18:34:09

@mikhail - are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or do you believe automobiles proceeding through a red light poses no greater danger than bicyclists proceeding through a red light? it's pretty clear that they do. once you concede that people will behave dangerously and stretch the law (you have conceded this), it is obvious that a moving automobile presents more danger to other road users.


hiddenvariable
2012-12-11 18:58:52

Proceeding through a red light how would a car behave? Well, I suppose it's a question mark since people expect enforcement in cars.


But considering what I see when signal lights are blinking and it is legal for cars to treat as a stop and proceed, yes, I would say most cars go roughly as fast at the start of the "stop" and accelerate much faster through the intersection. Not a guest I want to invite to the party.


I would also say that while a larger minority of car drivers than cyclists do come to a complete stop at a stop sign, most already roll through the sign about as fast as I do, and again, accelerate much more quickly after the "stop".


It's not necessarily recklessness most of the time, it's that the perception of speed is just so low in those things, and idling speed gives a continuous push up that even cautious drivers simply don't notice. It's very easy for it to get very dangerous, and we need to keep a lid on it. Enforcement is key, as you said.


Bikes however!? Well what if we do put ourselves in intersections? It's far easier for us to weave through safely, and consequences fall generally about as much on us as any other parties so we have an additional STRONG incentive. People know this, that's why they don't follow in their cars, they just get angry because they're stuck in a dangerous lumbering beast and proceed to drive more aggressively afterward to "make up for lost time".


Imagine if that anger were directed in a constructive, not destructive way, like it once was before cars became dominant. See the TED talk referenced in this thread: http://bike-pgh.org/bbpress/topic/bicycle-culture-by-design. Traffic lights, which previously were rare became commonplace because CARS were killing lots of people. And they were hated for it.


And they still do kill a ton of people, we've just learned to ignore it! But unless traffic safety authorities start widely and systematically tracking pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists, I'm going to think of it as a freak occurrence not worth making policy over or even really guiding enforcement of existing rules over.


Certainly not worth enforcing the rules against those that crawl through an intersection. Some jag-off goes through at full speed, please do ticket him, but otherwise it just ain't worth it.


Without Idaho rules codified, and it's HARD to get rules changed officially, I prefer to at least have the option to use them in practice. It's one I don't often take at stoplights mind you due to road raging, but at stop signs, sure, when things are clear I roll slowly through, and in a better world with less road raging I consider proceeding from stoplights depending on the intersection and conditions.


Anyways, I think that's my last 2c on the subject.


2012-12-11 21:08:36

@HV "it's pretty clear that they do."


Could you provide some proof of this statement?


I am against bogus arguments and faulty logic.


2012-12-12 03:13:57

"It's far easier for us to weave through safely, and consequences fall generally about as much on us as any other parties so we have an additional STRONG incentive. "

Did you read thread that Steve started that cross guard complained about bicyclist flying through crossing when they must to stop?


2012-12-12 03:16:10

Hi Mikhail, I'm not going to address relative danger level presented by bikes vs. cars, I've presented all I can and still apparently haven't convinced you, so that's that I guess.


Weaving creates the wrong mental image, I'm sorry if I confused matters with it. Yes, I did read the blog post from the crossing guard... I'm sensitive to these issues as well because my daughter walks home from school in warmer months.


But I do think it's ok for a bike to proceed AT LOW SPEED and yielding to pedestrians, when the intersection is only relatively clear of pedestrians, not just when absolutely clear... unlike cars which clearly can't cut a narrow and safe path through.


I'm not an absolutist, laws have to be written as they do, in absolutes. I wish there were separate laws for bikes that acknowledged their differences, but in the here and now I still think there's room for common sense differences in enforcement, and there again, I don't see a way of convincing you.


2012-12-12 13:12:43

Mikhail, seeing how another thread devolved, I think we've done pretty well, but my last paragraph devolved a bit and I want to apologize publicly.


2012-12-12 16:39:19

This thread is fortunately the more typical example of long running arguments on this board.


cburch
2012-12-12 17:39:42

Listening to it now!


bikeygirl
2013-01-14 20:49:19

it's long!


erok
2013-01-14 20:56:34

that's what she said!


salty
2013-01-14 21:12:25

I don't understand the premise of the interview - is this a regular Sunday show that DVE hosts or a one-off with Mr. Bricker?


Were there any calls into the studio during the interview?


sloaps
2013-01-14 21:44:43

#rimshot


2013-01-14 21:45:25

Good job, Scott! & Thanks Sean McDowell for following through.


pseudacris
2013-01-14 22:06:11

its a sunday morning show that he does. if you listen to it, he explains the show a bit.


erok
2013-01-14 23:19:37