BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
254

reader comments on the media coverage of the 4' passing law

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/new-law-protects-bicyclists-629500/


Reader comments on the story are terrifying. "run 'em down"


sarah_q
2012-04-02 12:19:13

Clicked, then decided against reading, because I don't want to be angry for the next few hours.


kgavala
2012-04-02 12:33:57

yeah. I wanted to reply but didn't particularly want to use my facebook profile to do so.


dmtroyer
2012-04-02 12:34:36

The page is not responding at the moment but it's wild that people will still post obscene bullshit with their Facebook accounts.


rsprake
2012-04-02 13:04:51

what's funny is that the same people who post obscene bs with their facebook accounts are the same people who don't understand privacy settings and who friend their employers then get pissy over the consequences.


ejwme
2012-04-02 13:09:44

I'd keep a list of the idiots. Take screen prints if necessary. Store away someplace. Heaven help us if one of them mows down one of us in the future, we can point right to this as evidence.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-02 13:27:49

Why not instead create a blog that shows screenshots of these idiots commenting.


orionz06
2012-04-02 13:48:45

Looks like erok is on the case


salty
2012-04-02 14:16:38

Well we're part of the Castle Doctrine constituency, so we can repell insanity with irrationality.


sloaps
2012-04-02 14:20:25

"repel insanity with irrationality"...


one must practice insanity to succeed among madmen.


ejwme
2012-04-02 14:36:13

Practice makes perfect.


reddan
2012-04-02 14:42:24

Not sure why I started commenting but now I am annoyed at myself for doing it.


rsprake
2012-04-02 16:08:20

I mean, this guy says while drivers and cyclists both break laws, cyclists whine more.



How about cyclists not blocking traffic for block in the center of the lane, or showing some concern for pedestrians, or obeying the traffic laws they like to talk about so much, or not cursing/threatening/abusing pedestrians and vehicles alike? Sadly, the above behavior is an everyday occurence in Pittsburgh. I cant the count the times I've been tempted to stick out my arm and knock some jerk over as he whizzes inches by me. One fool even hit me as I walking the sidewalk. Many cyclists are spiled, rude children.


Who's the one whining?


rsprake
2012-04-02 16:18:08

If anyone is interested in having a more human face to face chat with the aforementioned guy, Michael David, he definitely works the checkout desk at the Carnegie Library Downtown Branch.


dmtroyer
2012-04-02 16:34:22

Looks like that dude who threatened to run down human beings and works for the rand corporation, took down his post. i'm regretting not taking a screen shot. can you go back and get that?


erok
2012-04-02 16:49:51

I particularly like this lady's logic:


Bicyclists are welcome and have their place, too! However, highways were made for cars and trucks and motor traffic, not bicycles. If you want to accommodate bikes, put more bike lanes in, then. Why should a motorist have to risk his or her life on a two-lane road to have to move into the opposing lane to avoid a bicyclist? And how in the world are drivers supposed to suddenly "wait and pass?" That's asking for the car behind you to ram into you. Again, bike lanes would solve this.


In other words...


Why should a motorist have to be 30 seconds late to work to keep from killing someone else? That's so un-American.


It's not as though we could just, like, slow down and stop following each other so damn close to avoid having to "suddenly" slow down to avoid smashing the slower vehicle in front of us. That would be crazy! LOLZ!


And yes, bike lanes are totally the solution. Because drivers will definitely be cautious enough to do things like slow down and wait to avoid right hooking cyclists. Of course. That doesn't even remotely contradict my previous statements. I clearly thought this argument through very carefully.


2012-04-02 17:20:16

Erok, I took screenshots.


rsprake
2012-04-02 17:25:02

Oh you guys. I've been able to resist going down that rabbit hole. I'm having a lovely day and not necesarily inclined to get involved with knuckleheads internetially. But there's this tug.


edmonds59
2012-04-02 17:42:15

I replied to Lawrence Ell's post, but then deleted my response because I'm a coward.


jamesk
2012-04-02 17:45:17

@edmonds59 - If I can figure out how to pronounce "internetially" (with my best 'burgh-ese accent) I am definitely going to steal this and use in my everyday conversation.


sew
2012-04-02 17:50:06

in-ter-NET-ee-u-lee,

n-nat.


edmonds59
2012-04-02 18:37:31

would it be short sighted to get that xkcd tattooed on me somewhere? like the top/back of my hand?


dmtroyer
2012-04-02 18:57:35

Quiz for the day:


Which suit of armor most entitles people to make violent comments with impunity?


a) a 3k steel box on 4 wheels?

b) thousands of internet servers connected by wires and virtually all across the globe

c) 30lbs of steel framing on 2 wheels tucked between your legs?


pseudacris
2012-04-02 19:14:16

I have a quote from Rand guy but I didn't capture his name. I posted this in a comment on my husband's FB when he linked to the P-G article.


"Trespassers in the automobiles domain, they do not pay gasoline taxes and therefore have no right to be on the road, some of them even believe they are going fast enough to not be an obstruction. Run them down to prove them wrong."


the rest of my comment had a little arrow pointing to the quote and I called the guy a not-very-nice name.


sarah_q
2012-04-02 19:20:14

@Pseudacris: How about d)Interpretation of the First Amendment to prohibit regulation of most hate speech.


Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.


The "fighting words" exception sounds like it should apply, but, sadly:


Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.


reddan
2012-04-02 19:27:00

Gotta love confirmation bias. "All" the cyclists are cowboys... not the small percentage that attract my attention.


I could just as easily say "All" drivers drive like they have blindfolds on, and be equally wrong.


Anyway, tweeted and facebook'd rsprake's pics.


myddrin
2012-04-02 19:29:35

In preparation for the ridiculous letters to the editor that are bound to show up over the next few days, I just sent mine in:



I am absolutely disgusted by some of the comments on the recent story about the 4ft passing law passed in PA (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/new-law-protects-bicyclists-629500/). Everyone needs to take a step back and really consider what this law is about--it is a law designed to protect the SAFETY and LIVES of human beings in exchange for extremely minor inconveniences of people who otherwise would act dangerously.


Several comments (including some from individuals whose Facebook profiles identify themselves are professionals in some large Pittsburgh corporations that surely do not share the same ideals, http://www.flickr.com/photos/eightdotthree/7039317805/) on the web article promoted the violent use of an automobile to kill or maim individuals riding a bicycles purely for because they are riding a bicycle. As a society, are we really at a point where it is socially acceptable to threaten extreme violence towards another individual purely based on nothing else but have a irrational dislike towards the form of transportation they choose to use?


As someone who often rides a bicycle for sport, pleasure, and transportation (also often drives a car and rides a motorcycle) and follows the rules of the road, I completely how frustrating it can be to see some people riding bikes with no respect for the law, if not to an entirely different level. However, the frustration of a someone riding a bike illegally doesn't come close to being a detriment to the collective safety and economic well being of society as someone operating a motor vehicle illegally.


It should also be noted that gas taxes and vehicle registration does not pay for roads--there really is no rational argument for not responsibly and safely sharing the roads with other users. No one deserves to have their life taken away on the road.




ndromb
2012-04-02 19:45:19

The Rand Corp guy posted again, same post. Methinks the post gazette deleted his earlier post. I've googled his name every which way and believe he is using a fake name/account, is a troll, etc. Here's his latest post:


Henry Gascoyne-Cecil · Scourge of the Interns at RAND Corporation

Trespassers in the automobiles domain, they do not pay gasoline taxes and therefore have no right to be on the road, some of them even believe they are going fast enough to not be an obstruction. Run them down to prove them wrong.


2012-04-02 19:46:35

Damn excellent letter Nick D, I could not improve upon that. I hope it gets published.


edmonds59
2012-04-02 19:56:10

Strongly think Mr Gascoyne-Cecil is leading you on a wild goose chase here. I doubt the nut behind the post has anything to do with the Rand Corporation, except maybe in his own head.


jonawebb
2012-04-02 20:21:30

Channel 4 just aired a really informative story and interviewed one of the docs who were hit last fall. Sadly, the tone of the story was "cops aren't gonna do anything about it, but at least it is law now"


stefb
2012-04-02 22:08:59

Also, on channel 4 ...They pulled out a tape measure to show how long 4' is away from the bike. I THINK they were measuring from the tire and not from the edge of the handlebar.


igo
2012-04-02 22:35:56

The comments seem to be as expected to me.


I have always felt as a culture the one thing we identify/feel strongly about is teams.


And in this article it is team bike versus team car which in my opinion ( threats to life aside)is no different than the Steelers versus Browns or lycra clad versus skinny jeans.


Sure it is a law and it has potential to save a life.

But why does it need to be a law when common sense should have always been enough?

And knowing that common sense is not enough, do you feel safer now?


I certainly don't.


My reason being that cyclists are still widely viewed as out for recreation and not commuting.

(Which should make no difference)

But the self-absorbed will always be there rev'ing their engines until we reach bike utopia.


Which can only be obtained by giving me tributes of beer of course.


It will be a long wait.


2012-04-02 23:45:05

I hate that some of this coverage is interpreting the as-far-right-as-practicable part as things like "if bicyclists are traveling below the speed of traffic... they're now required to stay as close as they can to the right-hand edge of the roadway, unless they're passing a vehicle or turning left." (from that first link Pseudacris posted)


I'm afraid of the encouragement that that gives to drivers who already think of us as scofflaws... I know it doesn't keep me from taking the lane when I need to, but drivers won't know that, and I'm not sure cops will either (not that I think they're going to crack down on that any more than they enforce other traffic laws here)


I know that's been discussed before, but some of the news coverage today just made me worry a little more.


2012-04-03 00:30:19

Overall I don't think the comments are nearly as bad as most bicycling stories - there are a lot of cyclists posting.


I tried to resist commenting and failed, but at least I kept it short and sweet. Now as long as I don't go back I'll be fine.


salty
2012-04-03 00:44:17

When I looked earlier there were only about 5 comments and three of them were threatening -- two outright "mow em down". It's gotten better since more cyclists have posted. But even one or two "mow em down" comments scare me. These people are driving on the same road as my family and I are cycling. Totally uncool. I don't like asshole drivers but I wouldn't intentionally try to kill them to get them off the road.


sarah_q
2012-04-03 01:04:30

The Washington Observer-Reporter has a similar article. Sadly, but not surprisingly, the comments are uniformly hostile.


http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/story11/03-31-2012-bike-safety-story


None of those leaving comments specifically threaten cyclists, but they manage to invoke the usual list of cliches and factual errors.


This has to be one of my favorites:


"This is crazy : 4/1/2012

Bicyclists already act like they own the road. They could care less about cars or the inconvenience they cause. They should be passing laws to protect motorists against the bicyclists! We now have a world-class trail system in Western PA so they should be riding on them and not on highways!!!!"


Although this one takes the cake. Invoking the tractor-tipping scene from Cars is an . . . interesting tactic. I wonder if he's trying to be ironic?


Bikes belong on paths and in parks! : 3/31/2012

Last time I checked, these bicycles don't have electric or gasoline engines. Get them off the road! These bicyclists abuse their status on the roads and slow traffic and create dangerous situations. Fit people exercise anyway. They don't need bikes on roads to do it, so there is one less excuse. The lazy overweight 33% of the county won't change a bit if there are no bikes on roads. Let's use some math here: If there were enough bikes on the roads that it mattered, Penn Dot would be putting in new lanes and roads for just bicycles because Tax *payers* would want it. Tax receivers set at home anyway. Get the bikes off the road and keep everyone safer. I'm tired of waiting in downtown Waynesburg because some bicyclist is on Greene St while it is already rush hour and slow. Or better yet, some 20 year old riding up Murtha Dr. to Walmart around the corners unsafely, and cars coming each way, so everyone is slowed to a very slow crawl. You can't beep around them or they intentionally get startled and fall over (like the Cars movie tractors) and then try to sue you and have you arrested. I've personally had 3 of these bicyclist danger makers ticketed because of the wreckless riding.

No Bikes Mike


fjordan
2012-04-03 03:16:53

Is Don Orkoskey on the boards? His argument and posts were very well written.


boostuv
2012-04-03 03:22:12

I foresee a short-term increase of negative interactions with some gasholes from this before driver education actually soaks in and becomes meaningful. Roll with helmet cams, people.


quizbot
2012-04-03 04:06:27

This comment was pretty funny:


"Another safety improvement would be a law that requires anyone with a point on their driving record to replace the driver side airbag with a spear."


pseudacris
2012-04-03 04:09:09

@quizbot,


it probably feels that way after looking at all those comments but realistically there are probably events other than this article that are potentially more harmful (eg people driving drunk and tired after their favorite sports team loses, or people driving home totally stressed out about their work and family lives, or any holiday around here involving booze) --- if that's any comfort?


pseudacris
2012-04-03 04:12:07

"Another safety improvement would be a law that requires anyone with a point on their driving record to replace the driver side airbag with a spear."


There was a program discussing motorists, safety advances and risk compensation a number of years ago. Engineers were initially baffled as to why traffic fatalities hadn't plummeted as quickly as they should have given the sweeping improvements in road design and automobile safety. They quickly deduced that while these improvements led to some reduction in fatalities, motorists partially negated the advances in safety by driving more aggressively. One engineer suggested that we could dramatically improve automotive safety by randomly replacing airbags with spikes.


I assume he was being facetious, but I can see the logic in the idea.


fjordan
2012-04-03 04:22:17

I'm tired of waiting in downtown Waynesburg because some bicyclist is on Greene St while it is already rush hour and slow.


Waynesburg has a rush hour?


rsprake
2012-04-03 13:18:01

http://www.wtae.com/news/30816506/detail.html


they posted a story. including a foot point of view video that claims to "See Downtown Pittsburgh Traffic From A Bicycle's Point Of View... "


also this:



erok
2012-04-03 13:49:36

Hope the guy that got hit is OK.


A clear admission of guilt by the driver, wonder if it will count for anything.


salty
2012-04-03 14:09:03

Who cares what a bunch of suburban trash think

about people on bikes? i think the suburbs

should be illegal. Great we can both have

irrational opinions.


SERIOUS QUESTION RE 4' LAW:

Does this eliminate the "as far right as

practicable, two abreast" law?!?!?!


steevo
2012-04-03 14:09:29

pretty sure that's still in there.


erok
2012-04-03 14:15:50


Scott is not aging well.


rsprake
2012-04-03 14:20:04

But the self-absorbed will always be there rev'ing their engines until we reach bike utopia.


Which can only be obtained by giving me tributes of beer of course.


It will be a long wait.


indeed, beer is only for team me.


hiddenvariable
2012-04-03 14:38:55

RE the cyclist hit in friendship:

"The driver of the truck told KDKA-TV that when he looked up, the bike was right in front of him."


Sounds like a txt'er to me...


Hope the cyclist is getting good care.


pseudacris
2012-04-03 15:06:08

So, if he"looked up" and only then saw the bike, he must have been "looking down" previously.


What was he looking down at instead of looking at the road: his flip-flops, his cell phone?


Smoking. Gun.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-04-03 15:14:27

not that I agree with them, but I recall brad's words (hopefully correctly):


"(Some) people are assholes. Some of them ride bikes."


Found this, figured it fit in here appropriately: http://grist.org/biking/the-a-biker-problem-why-its-hard-to-share-the-road/


I don't look at comments on articles anymore. Or for that matter read most letters to the editor. I just can't. Either it's only there to sell page hits or papers, or it's truly representative of the community. In the first case I don't care, and in the second case I'd rather be ignorant.


ejwme
2012-04-03 15:15:28

what is up with the legislature in arizona?


erok
2012-04-03 17:13:34

"what's up with arizona?" (fixed it for you)


ejwme
2012-04-03 17:17:01

Ha ha.


One of the negative commenters says on her Facebook wall,


Instead of distinguishing everyone as Muslim-, African -, etc. - American why can't we just call each other friend and give each other a hand when in need?


Why can't she do that while she's in her car?


rsprake
2012-04-03 18:09:42

Tempted to respond.


"What about those drivers who "impede traffic flow" by deciding to use their cars? Traffic is not caused by bicyclers."


rsprake
2012-04-03 19:52:40

I like that. I'm tempted to respond with it.


rubberfactory
2012-04-03 19:58:35

MSW - "Several times a week I see bikers run red light, ride in the middle of the road when there is ample space on the side, etc."


Add "re: traffic enforcement, several times an HOUR I see automobiles significantly exceed the speed limit, run yellow and red lights, cut off other vehicles, make dangerous passes, and generally disrupt traffic flow. So yes, let's get some traffic enforcement on both sides". There.


edmonds59
2012-04-03 20:00:56

I tried to say something similar there, but couldn't word it as well as you did.


rubberfactory
2012-04-03 20:04:39

@ edmunds Several times and HOUR


Damn dude. Where do you ride? On the Blvd of the Allies and Fith Ave, on my way to work, I see those violations several times a minute.


mick
2012-04-03 21:00:07

I think you meant "several times a second."


Add rolling through stop signs, which is especially ironic to me since it's the single most common complaint leveled against cyclists and yet approximately 99.999999999% of cars do it, but of course that doesn't count.


salty
2012-04-03 22:09:08

The cars SLOW DOWN for stop signs, the bicycles do not.


Of course, the cars don't quite slow down to bike speed, but it's the thought that counts, yes?


mick
2012-04-03 22:21:19

exactly.


salty
2012-04-03 22:31:12

Bravo Jon Schmitz!


mick
2012-04-04 00:20:05

I love it, strong, logical, unapologetic, with just a pinch of snide. Delicious!


edmonds59
2012-04-04 00:47:41



sloaps
2012-04-04 11:35:11

Comment on the blog post.



I don't drive myself, or bike. I walk, carpool, or take public transportation. As a pedestrian, I've come much closer to being harmed by a bicyclist than I have by someone in a car. Seriously.


Where does he live?


rsprake
2012-04-04 13:12:28

I think we may have someone being less than honest... either with us or themselves.


I've been hit by a cyclist twice... once as a kid and they were going 8-10mph and once as an adult by my very own sister who HAD to be going 20 if not 25mph down a big hill outside Cardiff.


In both cases: no injuries not even road rash.(Oh, it hurt...don't get me wrong. I believe in both cases my response was "M*********in' OW!")


I've not been hit by a car. BUT, I know several people who have been. Least serious injury was a broken leg and road rash.


Most serious was death. He was 7, on a bike, leaving his grandparents and headed home.


Or spend some time with people with traumatic brain injuries. See how many were hit by cars vs hit by bikes... it is enlightening.


myddrin
2012-04-04 13:21:42

I agree with the steel building vs anthill sentiment. But, as with all things, I think we should be careful with words like always or never. I understand this doesn't mean much statistically but two people were killed by cyclists in Philadelphia within the span of a week in 2009.


dmtroyer
2012-04-04 13:31:03

that thing in philly was like a piano falling out of a window, twice. i'm guessing more people died last year in philly from botulism or lack of air conditioning


erok
2012-04-04 13:59:30

@erok I understand, I was merely trying to point out it is not an absolute and we do carry a lot of responsibility as people who bike.


dmtroyer
2012-04-04 14:05:14

@dmtroyer you are right, there is a lot of responsibility and that there is a lot of generalization going on.


On my way in this morning, I was thinking: I'd love to see an actual study of road behavior, specifically looking at ticket-able actions by drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Basically use some traffic cams and a group of volunteers to actually look at "this many cars drove past atwood and forbes, and this many did something illegal"


I have a feeling that the we'd see about the same percentage of drivers/cyclists running stop signs, for example.


It would be nice to have some actual data about this, rather than a bunch of anecdotes. Especially since humans seem to be wired to be much more likely to notice the transgressions of 'the other' than those of their own group.


myddrin
2012-04-04 14:14:03

Anecdotally I stopped at a corner in my neighborhood and recorded the drivers roll through the stop sign for about two minutes. No one stopped legally. That's why I find it all so absurd. I don't where these people live that they see so many cyclists break the law but all the drivers they encounter on a day to day basis are not?


rsprake
2012-04-04 14:18:36

Drive the speed limit over any bridge, you will be passed. People drive 45+ on the Rankin and Homestead Grays bridges and the speed limit is 25 mph!


rsprake
2012-04-04 14:29:16

it all comes down to the fact that we annoy them. not only because we're "in their way," but they don't like who we are. you see the terms that are used.


erok
2012-04-04 14:32:40

we're all sanctimonious jerks, on some misguided journey to save the world, of course.


honestly, when i evangelize about biking, i do it because i think it's hella awesome and presume everyone else would like it too. but people have their ideas, and often feel judged, like you're trying to point out their flaws. until they start doing it too, and they get it.


hiddenvariable
2012-04-04 15:36:46

i was having breakfast at harris' one morning and got a table where i was looking directly at the stop sign on ellsworth @ maryland. i sat there for about an hour and i think i counted two cars that stopped in the absence of a conflict that forced them to stop (although even then people will "creep" instead of stop if they can manage it). two was also the number of cars that blew straight through it without even touching their brakes (!). everyone else "rolled" it at various speeds.


the record for yielding to peds was also abysmal, maybe 50/50 at best.


salty
2012-04-04 15:45:53

I have to admit that when biking I sometimes roll through stop signs if there's no cross traffic. But I always make a point of slowing down to the average speed that cars roll through the same stop sign.


Sometimes, that means I'm speeding up...


jamesk
2012-04-04 16:16:12

@ erok they don't like who we are


Buncha times I've talked at parties ato epeople whose situationa aremn'

t differnt from mine (Live east end, work at a university opr hospital) and had them respond to a description of how I live with


"I'd like to go without a car, but you can't live like that."


Always that syntax. "YOU can't live..."


Usually they repeat it after I point out that I do live like that.


"But you CAN'T live like that!"


right.


mick
2012-04-04 17:23:22

This would be a secondary reason to have a helmet cam: Just sit somewhere for an hour, camera pointed at a corner, and record what myddrin, rsprake and salty suggested: Collect some real data, and take counts on law adherence by mode. If an accident happened during that time, one party would be pleased as punch, too.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-04 18:30:01

"we annoy them"


This is true, but it's important to understand why people are annoyed. Some people are just jerks who don't want to share the road with bikes, and I'm not sure there's much you can do about them other that to advocated for enforcement of traffic laws. But there are also a lot of people who are annoyed by the fact that so many bike riders ignore the rules of the road. This is where we usually get into a discussion of how cars break the law too, and it's much more dangerous when they do it, but that's not the point. Drivers aren't mad at bike riders because they think we're dangerous, it's because they think we're rude. When bikes filter forward in traffic, people perceive that as cutting in line (and also maybe a bit dangerous); when bikes go through stop signs out of turn, people think it's cheating; when bikes ride through red lights, it seems unfair, because cars have to wait, so why shouldn't bikes have to also? Some of these complaints are legitimate and some aren't, but the aren't about safety, so responding by talking about safety or "cars break the law too" isn't addressing the right question. Bikes tend to break the law in very specific ways that piss people off. Case in point: this morning I was stopped at Butler and 40th and another bike rolled up next to me (past me actually), said "good morning" and then rode straight through the red light. You basically never see a car do that. It wasn't really that dangerous, but it sends the clear message: "I don't think the rules apply to me," and that's why people get mad. Honestly, if we could get every single bike rider to stop this one behavior, I bet we'd be half way to fixing bike-car relations.


willb
2012-04-04 18:58:33

@WillB Honestly, if we could get every single bike rider to stop this one behavior, I bet we'd be half way to fixing bike-car relations.


Doubt it.


We would also sometimes leave bike riders dangerously in the middle of busy intersections. Not worth it.


mick
2012-04-04 19:11:19

Bikes are clearly the problem,


Another severe accident in the strip district. Excessive speed was clearly involved. #pittsburgh


I walk passed this spot a few times a week and certainly ride my bike passed it daily now. Glad I wasn't there when this happened.


rsprake
2012-04-04 19:14:17

I think the "perception of fairness" issue is probably a lot of the problem, but that problem is due to a lack of understanding of the risks/outcomes.


If people understood better that the laws of the road are to keep everybody alive, and not just to make sure that everybody gets a fair chance at making it quickly to their destination, it would be a moot point. But people see "yield" or "merge" as "you get to have your turn too" not "blindly continuing will get you killed."


It's "right of way" but not because of fairness, but because people need some method of assuring that nobody will get killed. Loss of sight of that is what generates the anger, frustration, and road rage.


So I think the approaches are compatible. We bike as "fairly" as is safe, and remind them of their ability to kill us with a poorly timed sneeze.


ejwme
2012-04-04 19:40:09

+1 on WillB's literate and well-reasoned post.


I think a related issue is that we don't have the cycling density in this country for us to have to adopt a common sense of what the "real rules" are. If we had as many cyclists as they do in the Netherlands you can bet that traffic laws would be respected much more (as well as enforced, and there would be segregated facilities for cyclists) -- but the laws would also make more sense. Right now, we have laws that are really designed for cars, or at best motorcycles, and we adapt them as makes sense to us. And it works, because there just aren't that many of us.

Easing through stop signs makes sense to me, too (and is the law in Iowa). Treating stop lights the same way drivers (are supposed to) treat stop signs doesn't, but they are testing a change in the law in Paris to do just this.


jonawebb
2012-04-04 19:50:26

@rsprake - it was probably a bike that forced them to hit that building. i had no idea what a widespread problem that was until i read all the comments on the original article. i think if you do the research you'll find 98% of all car accidents are actually caused by bikes.


salty
2012-04-04 20:08:48

@dmtroyer - wow.


A bus driver for Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority maneuvered across the two northbound lanes of the bridge to block the car from exiting the bridge, and the driver of another car pulled up to prevent him from backing up.


salty
2012-04-04 20:10:47

that bus driver deserves a parade, or that bridge should be named after him.


sloaps
2012-04-04 20:17:38

More infuriating comments.


rsprake
2012-04-04 20:34:14

That bikes so routinely and more/less safely travel through red lights and stop signs indicates the law needs to be changed.


1974: You could not turn right at a red light after full stop.

1991: You could not legally travel > 55 mph on most expressways.

2002: All motorcyclists had to wear helmets. (OK, not the best example.)


Sometimes the law is in error. Let's get like Idaho and Paris, and the argument goes away.


Not that blowing through a red at full speed is a good idea, but neither Idaho nor Paris allow this. Just this: Red light = stop sign; stop sign = yield sign.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-04 21:25:40

I hit a pedestrian once. I thought that I

maybe killed him. I was going like 18 up the shoulder on freeport and the bus driver didnt

put his flashers on or pull over. Dude jumped

out of the bus and I hit him like full on.

I seriously thought he was dead.


steevo
2012-04-04 21:40:41

I would like to see a news segment that demonstrates all the different facets of the "as far to the right as practicable" thing.


My commute demonstrates nearly every circumstance where the middle of the lane, or the middle of the left lane, or even the middle lane (downtown) is the safest place to be. Maybe one day, people will just "get it".


Dreamtime over though


rubberfactory
2012-04-04 22:33:22

But there are also a lot of people who are annoyed by the fact that so many bike riders ignore the rules of the road.


I think that they dislike us no matter how we act. the fact that they can point to that just gives them something concrete to vent about.


erok
2012-04-04 23:15:10

FWIW, I thought WillB made a valuable point, and it kind of got lost in the posts that followed. Cyclists are not infallible.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-04-04 23:37:44

@rsprake: I saw part of that accident happen. I work at The Midwife Center which is a half-block away. I had just walked past that corner, looking for a lost earring when - BAM - I heard a crash behind me. I turned around and saw that sedan sail into the building.


I was about 10 seconds away from being involved in that accident, as was another pedestrian. It made me pretty upset thinking about it, especially since I've already been hit by a car once. Ugh!


rachel_ding
2012-04-05 00:03:45

+1 WillB.


vannever
2012-04-05 00:30:41

And the winner of "first car to obviously violate the 4 ft. law against me" award is... a city cop! Definitely a K-9 unit, I heard the dog barking right in my ear - car #361K or something like that. That gives me great hope about the enforcement of this law!


salty
2012-04-05 01:27:57

I still think that all motorists should have to ride a bike and be passed by an SUV going 45 in a 25 zone (after said SUV has revved engine) within 1 foot while there are potholes, broken glass, and people opening their doors on you to the right and pedestrians who stare right at you then step in front of you to cross. Oh, and the SUV doesn't move over at all even though there is another travel lane to the left without anyone in it, nor are there any cars in the two travel lanes on the other side of the double yellow. the road has to have potholes the entire length like on penn avenue or negley in sections. Then the SUV driver must yell "get off the road, faggot" at you and throw a bottle of handcream at you. Perhaps even the driver should lay on the horn also as he starts to pass.


stefb
2012-04-05 09:30:07

I had a pleasant ride yesterday up Josephine and 18th. Josephine is a biggie, because the westbound lane to 18th is narrow and most of my close encounters are on that stretch ..


sloaps
2012-04-05 11:26:39

Uggh, more cyclistsrunningredlights b.s. In spite of Will B's excellent and well reasoned post, to be honest, I'm sick of these people. And I do rigorously stop for red lights. But it's still bullshit. These assholes are just scratching for a rational reason to dump on something they don't like.

My feeling at the moment is, to loosely paraphrase the old "people ride bikes, some are jerks", people are assholes, some aren't. Or maybe it's just, people are assholes.


edmonds59
2012-04-05 13:37:55

Ha ha. So many gems.



Also, bicyclists are allowed to ride on sidewalks outside of business districts. Those are commonly occupied by pedestrians, and there's no minimum passing width required there, although those on bikes must yield to those on foot.


Bikes must yield to those on foot. There is no such law for cars passing a bicyclist.



Know what else would be nice? Witnessing a bicyclist get a ticket for running a red light -- as a motorist would -- just one time.


You know what else would be nice? If I once saw a driver get a ticket for doing the same. I saw three drivers run red lights this morning.



Then there's this "right hook" business. It's now illegal to turn right in front of a bicyclist traveling to your right and proceeding straight. Here's another approach. Perhaps bicyclists should be the ones to proceed with caution at any intersection.


Really?



Why should drivers take on penalties when the rules of bicycling are so murky? If you drove around with your headlights out, you'd get pulled over. No reflective lights? No problem.


Really? Where do they get this information from? I've drive around for months with a dead headlight and see numerous vehicles a night without a brake or head light. It has it's own Urban Dictionary definition!


rsprake
2012-04-05 13:45:10

There is an incredible amount of ignorance packed into that article...


salty
2012-04-05 13:46:14

She lives inside a bubble.


rsprake
2012-04-05 13:56:02

I wrote her an email:


Dear Madam,


I was deeply disturbed by your column titled "Whole lane buffer for cyclists? Sheesh!". I am a person who bikes daily to work, rain or shine, all year long. I observe all vehicular traffic laws. Trust me, I am no threat to anyone in an automobile. I regret that a small minority of my fellow people who bike choose not to follow vehicular traffic laws. Just as I regret that so many of my fellow automobile drivers in Pittsburgh choose not to observe vehicular traffic law and our police choose not to enforce said laws. Driving an automobile is a huge responsibility which our society has trivialized to the point of accepting death by automobile as a way of life on a grand scale.


While I recognize your one or two nods towards bicycle infrastructure, I feel your article will more greatly serve to breed intolerance towards and dehumanizing of people who bike. This is a serious business and people's lives are at stake.


Thank you and have a great weekend. Go bucs!


dmtroyer
2012-04-05 14:00:23

Email and voicemail has been left for the author. No luck finding their boss via the phone tree/operator annoyance.


Glad I wore my boots today.


wojty
2012-04-05 14:03:55

@rsprake: She works for the Tribune-Review. They are the Fox News of Pittsburgh. I'm not sure why conservatives/Republicans as a party have defined themselves as opponents of cyclists, but they have done it clearly and repeatedly. Vote accordingly.


asobi
2012-04-05 14:10:57

Very nice dmtroyer.


edmonds59
2012-04-05 14:23:38

The Tribune Review has a long history of attacking cyclists. This gem appeared a decade ago: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_82631.html


It would appear that little has changed since 2002.


Her attitude toward right hooks is particularly chilling, but it reflects a common conviction that cyclists should always yield to motorists, including those entering the main lane of travel.


fjordan
2012-04-05 14:28:53

I don't often post on the boards here, but this article in the Trib really got to me! The letter I wrote to the editor was a little lengthy but hopefully it got my message across.


Dear Ms. Vanaski,


As a law student and an avid cyclist, I found your article in the Tribune-Review deeply disturbing. The tone of your article showed an attitude which was at best, ambivalence towards the lives of your fellow citizens, and at worst, outright disbelief that we cyclist feel entitled to safe use of the road. Your article uses the same arguments which most anti-cycling people use: First, that all cyclists break the law when they want, and then cry foul when motorists do the same; and second, that cycling laws allow us to be vehicles or pedestrians whenever it suits us best.

I own a car and drive almost everyday so I see the issue from both perspectives. I see cars everyday who violate the same laws, that motorists complain of when bikes don’t abide. In Pittsburgh especially, I see a frightening amount of motorists treating the first three seconds of a red light as a mere suggestion, yet there is no one suggesting motorist aren’t entitled to safely traveling on the road. The cycling community is made up of a diverse group of people (not just lycra clad “Lance Armstrongs” as you would suggest). For us law abiding cyclists, the scoff-laws are twice as aggravating to see because they promote the unfair treatment the whole community often gets from cars on the road. The difference between a bike who violates the traffic laws, and car that does the same is that a 200 pound cyclist with no protection besides a plastic helmet is hardly a threat to the other vehicles on the road. A car doing the same is not only a hazard but a deadly weapon which can kill in an instant, and requires only a slight lapse in concentration to do so. Furthermore, you argue that cyclists wish to be treated as vehicles and pedestrians whenever they feel it suits them, but the fact of the matter is that we are a hybrid of the two. We are neither cars nor pedestrians on foot, and I believe the law should treat us that way, in both protection and accountability.

Most of us responsible cyclists understand that no driver wants to be stuck behind a bike for three miles while we leisurely peddle down the middle of the lane, however, we are entitled to our safety in our daily commute just as you are. Our riding style isn’t designed to annoy and slow drivers, it is so that we stay safe while we ride. We don’t expect you to love us or embrace the way we choose to get from A to B, but at the very least four feet for our safety is a small thing to ask in my opinion. Maybe you feel my life isn’t as important as the time you lost waiting to pass me safely but, I would respectfully disagree.


Respectfully,


Dominic

Duquesne Law Student


dom
2012-04-05 15:24:08

welcome dom!


yeah, that article got my blood boiling.


She called at 2 with a 3 pm deadline and didn't get thru, so none of us talked to her. not sure it would have mattered.


erok
2012-04-05 15:27:43

Nice letter.


rsprake
2012-04-05 15:28:13

Dom --

Awesome letter. Clearly the legal training is taking and I mean that in a very positive way.


myddrin
2012-04-05 16:21:39

Thanks for the complements. I got a pretty quick and respectful response from the editor, however her arguments are even more flawed than the article. She claims that she would support bicycle safety laws if bicycles were required to carry insurance, because sometimes they cause car on car collisions.


dom
2012-04-05 16:34:34

Pedestrians don't carry insurance and sometimes they cause car on car collisions.


Peoples dogs and cats don't carry insurance and sometimes they cause car on car collisions.


What a lousy argument.


Maybe if people slowed down and drove with caution, they wouldn't have to blame 3rd parties for their car on car collisions.


dwillen
2012-04-05 16:58:02

The sun should carry insurance, 'cuz,,, sometimes the sun kills people.


edmonds59
2012-04-05 17:02:17

That really is a lame argument that presumes that every cyclist doesn't carry insurance and that every driver does. As a three hour DUI checkpoint in Edgewood proved, drivers aren't always driving legally.



  • 8 D.U.I arrests

  • 1 Disorderly Conduct citation

  • 25 Citations for driving while suspended

  • 1 Citation for driving while D.U.I suspended

  • 6 Citations for driving without a license

  • 2 Citations for operating an unregistered vehicle

  • 5 Citations for operating a vehicle with expired inspection/emissions

  • 36 Vehicles impounded


rsprake
2012-04-05 17:11:00

Deer. Deer and groundhogs need insured.


pseudacris
2012-04-05 17:12:10

there's a lot of hypothetical things that can happen, it doesn't mean we need insurance for it.


erok
2012-04-05 17:32:29

Its funny dwillen, I made those exact three points in my response to her. Insuring bikes is not a plausible solution, and it is not a large problem either. Not being insured doesn't prevent anyone from suing you if you've caused an accident either.


My main issue though is that every time they try (or occasionally succeed) to pass a law protecting cyclists, every cries that some don't follow traffic laws. The two arguments don't mesh up for me. Some people don't follow the rules = no bike should be safe on the road


dom
2012-04-05 17:38:18

I yield to traffic all of the time. People don't usually use turn signals, so I slow to make sure cars aren't going to right hook me downtown. I stay as predictable as I can, but I usually ride a lot slower than normal in these situations.


stefb
2012-04-05 17:48:54

There, fixed:


She claims that she would support bicycle safety laws if bicycles were required to carry insurance, weigh 2000 pounds, and be powered by gasoline.


headloss
2012-04-05 17:52:02

I love how people concoct these situations where a bike might cause an accident - I'm not saying it never happens, but it's pretty rare. Meanwhile, every 5 seconds (literally!) someone in the US crashes a car, and every 15 minutes someone dies as a result.


salty
2012-04-05 17:55:36

What a bunch of bullshit. The worldview I see reflected in the Trib articles and the self-absorbed Facebook malcontents is "I don't want society to work for anybody who doesn't live like I do."


As for requiring cyclists to have insurance, it's a solution in search of a problem. Insurance is great for compensating accident victims when the damages exceed the wrongdoer's ability to pay. That doesn't happen much in this context. On the other hand, I'd bet that most drivers don't carry enough coverage to pay for a serious car-on-bike crash. I wouldn't know, but I doubt the 15k minimum coverage in PA will do much for a crash that requires an ambulance ride (or heli ride) and any sort of surgery.


jmccrea
2012-04-05 17:56:17

In 1987, we got a lot of blowback when the City of Pittsburgh implemented one of the first indoor smoking ordinances in PA. It took a while, but sanity prevailed, though we have holdouts to this day.


Willful ignorance dies a loud, slow death. In fact, the only way some of the blowback goes away is when those who hold those beliefs die.


Today, it would take a supreme idiot to light a cigarette on a bus or in a hospital waiting room.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-05 18:01:45

and now we're one of the last places that doesn't have a complete indoor ban. hmm go figure


erok
2012-04-05 18:22:50

On the other hand, I'd bet that most drivers don't carry enough coverage to pay for a serious car-on-bike crash.


Good point.


The medical coverage is only on the order of $5k, IIRC. The driver that hit me had minimum coverage. It barely covered an ambulance ride, let alone the ER visit, CAT scan, night in the hospital, cast, half a dozen ortho visits, X-rays, rehab, etc. I don't know what would have happened did I not have my own health insurance. Bankruptcy comes to my mind.


I'll pay for my bike insurance when the auto drivers have sufficient coverage to pay for their irresponsible behavior.


dwillen
2012-04-05 18:52:55

That's an interesting point Dan, I hadn't really thought about it before... But I bet if drivers were forced to carry truly adequate coverage then driving would become unaffordable. Instead, health insurance is forced to pick up the slack, which I'm sure helps to make that unaffordable. If you were to declare bankruptcy then I guess the hospital is left holding the tab, which I'm sure goes right back into insurance rates.


So, this all sounds like yet another subtle subsidy for driving...


salty
2012-04-05 19:01:04

You CAN'T get bicycle insurance - it does not exist.


+1 Salty, that's how the US health(less) system works.


marko82
2012-04-05 19:07:22

3 hours got:


25 Citations for driving while suspended

1 Citation for driving while D.U.I suspended

6 Citations for driving without a license


32 people with no license? I'd like to know how many cars were stopped in total.


eric
2012-04-05 19:53:43

Here was her response to my email:


Hi, David:


Because you're a Pirates fan, I'll take it easy on you, considering that life is already going to get a lot tougher for you this season. I'm kidding.

Seriously, though, thanks for your viewpoint. I'm not trying to breed intolerance. I don't mind sharing the road with bicyclists. And again, bike lanes would be ideal and safer, especially here in Pittsburgh. I do mind that bikers don't feel the same pressure to be safe. People who bike should bear equal responsibility on the road, not less. You can't deny that bicyclists enjoy the benefits of a law like this, yet can run a red light with practically no concern of police intervention. That's also dangerous. And then there's the fact that bicyclists don't even need to be insured, but are still considered a vehicle. What happens if a bicyclist causes an accident. That's on a motorist's insurance. So it's not about dehumanization. It's just about being fair. This law, while it has its heart in the right place, is not fair. Come on. Four feet? Two feet I understand. Giving bicyclists an entire lane? Oh come on now.

Take care, and be safe. (I hope you at least wear a helmet.)


dmtroyer
2012-04-05 20:27:03

In California, something like a third of crashes involving a fatality included at least one unlicensed or improperly licensed driver.


I like that they are just writing citations at these checkpoints. If not having a license didn't stop them, do you think a ticket will? Take the f-ing car away.


dwillen
2012-04-05 20:29:39

What planet do these people live on that they think four feet is "an entire lane"?


Some of these trucks have mirrors that stick out two feet. One of those to the back of your head would suck, helmet or not.


dwillen
2012-04-05 20:33:29

@dmtroyer: A couple things about her reply are infuriating.


If you run a red light in front of a cop, I don't care if you're in a car or on a bicycle, the law treats you the same way. If the police selectively enforce, that's the police's fault, not the cyclist's.


Liability insurance for a motorcycle that costs about $2000 is roughly $75/year. That's for a 300 pound vehicle that can reach speeds of roughly 100 mph. How much do you think insurance for a bicycle would cost, when it weighs about 30 pounds and can reach speeds of roughly 30 mph, downhill? The answer is it's not worth pricing out because no insurance company would be able to make a profit on it, and thus no insurance company offers it.


asobi
2012-04-05 20:38:54

@dmtroyer, her response is beyond infuriating. what an ignoramus


emilywools
2012-04-05 20:40:53

Did you respond dmtroyer?


You can't deny that bicyclists enjoy the benefits of a law like this, yet can run a red light with practically no concern of police intervention.


Again with this. In what world does she live in where drivers are being held accountable for every wrongdoing? All I have to do is look out my office window at 28th and Smallman to see that not one single driver comes to a complete and legal stop and the freaking police depot is nearby. Oh come on now...


rsprake
2012-04-05 20:41:31

I have this in my drafts...


I want to know where drivers obey the speed limit, come to a complete and legal stop at every stop sign, yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and don't run red lights. Just on my way to work this morning I saw three drivers run red lights. All I have to do is look out my office window to see that every driver who approaches the four way stop rolls through the intersection. Don't even get me started on the excessive speeding on the parkway or on any city street for that matter. This image (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7066/7045740465_38ff9ce5fc_b.jpg) was taken a block from my office on a 25 mph hour road yesterday. Do you think that the driver was dutifully obeying the speed limit when he crashed?


During a three hour DUI checkpoint in September, Edgewood police issued:

8 D.U.I arrests

1 Disorderly Conduct citation

25 Citations for driving while suspended

1 Citation for driving while D.U.I suspended

6 Citations for driving without a license

2 Citations for operating an unregistered vehicle

5 Citations for operating a vehicle with expired inspection/emissions

36 Vehicles impounded


Where is this place you live where apparently drivers are angels of the law?


PS, this is a classic right hook (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X70_eXSb8Q0.) Is it really the bicyclist's duty to approach an intersection with additional caution in this situation?


rsprake
2012-04-05 21:02:48

She absolutely does not understand the need to take the lane. She absolutely does not understand right hooking. I think she *doesn't want to* understand.


This woman needs to have her license revoked for 30 days and spend that time getting around on a bicycle. Let her put 100 miles or so underneath her in mixed traffic and see if she doesn't have a different view of things afterward.


I also hold her editors responsible, because she's hired to write this, and they're hired to publish it. This, of course, calls to mind this wonderful quote:


"Editor: a person employed by a newspaper, whose business it is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to see that the chaff is printed."

--Elbert Hubbard


stuinmccandless
2012-04-05 21:09:50

She says: "...bikers don't feel the same pressure to be safe."


And she's right.


We feel more pressure to be safe, because if we're not watching our own P's and Q's, as well as trying to anticipate what all of the motor vehicles around us may or may not do, we won't make it home in one piece.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-04-05 21:48:00

i truly wonder if she is confusing feet with meters. the entire tone of the article seems to think four feet is some huge distance, when in fact, it's basically just far enough to not knock you over.


also:


What a bunch of bullshit. The worldview I see reflected in the Trib articles and the self-absorbed Facebook malcontents is "I don't want society to work for anybody who doesn't live like I do."


this. while i laud all my fellow law-abiding cyclists for taking the safe way, it's not going to make any friends. it's a canard. no one really cares whether you follow the law. they just want you to not be different.


hiddenvariable
2012-04-05 21:52:22

America, the land of "how dare you inconvenience me but don't cry to me when I get in your way." She's clearly not a patient woman, which is a shame since most auto accidents are caused by impatient drivers. I can only speak for myself, but because I cycle, I've become a much better and more aware driver... it would really benefit her to get out a little more and expand her horizons.


I dedicate the following image to Trib...



headloss
2012-04-05 22:01:37

What is her email?


ndromb
2012-04-05 23:01:28

@Nick, it's at the bottom of the page sarah_q linked.


headloss
2012-04-05 23:17:42

I very seriously invite this woman to commute once or twice or come along on a flock ride. She cannot bitch about it until she is in the position of a cyclist.


stefb
2012-04-06 09:05:08

I was just reading up on bicycle insurance. There's an article at Velo News. But basically, while it isn't available in this country as a separate policy, you can add both theft and accident insurance for your bicycle to your homeowner's or renter's policy. Which doesn't really address the woman's problem -- she's just grasping for some difference between cars and bikes. But you can be insured.

BTW riding home last night I came to the end of the sidewalk down from the Eliza Furnace Trail parking lot and stopped at the light at Greenfield, waiting for it to change. A middle-aged lady driving by took the time to roll down her window and yell at me "that's a perfect example of bad biking." I'm like, what?


jonawebb
2012-04-06 12:48:51

^sorry, but I found the NPR story very lame. It didn’t cover any new ground and did a poor job of stating why bicyclists should or shouldn’t be following the traffic laws.


marko82
2012-04-06 14:17:32

yeah, Neil Conan seems happy to proliferate the "cyclists never follow traffic law" sentiment.


dmtroyer
2012-04-06 14:20:29

Tom Vanderbilt seems to be the only reasonable person in this conversation.


dmtroyer
2012-04-06 14:23:27

I disagree. It focuses on design and why the design of our streets is of paramount importance. More than one of them also discuss the gray area of why it's sometimes safer to break the rules as bicyclist than to follow them, and finally the whole idea behind why motorists (the "in-group") see bicyclists (the "out" group) as scofflaws when they break the law at the same rate or higher. It's one of the best radio discussions I've heard on this subject.


scott
2012-04-06 14:46:24

Still listening. I love the woman who wrote in to say that bicycles are the most dangerous thing in a city.


rsprake
2012-04-06 15:04:59

I was just presenting to a group from Oakland and a guy stood up and said the same thing. I couldn't help but start laughing, and then asked him "surely you're joking... more than gun crime, more than muggings, more than drugs, more than cars hitting pedestrians?" Then the entire room started laughing and he sat down and didn't say another word for the rest of the meeting.


scott
2012-04-06 15:07:50

Go Scott!


ndromb
2012-04-06 15:14:40

It's an absurd statement.


I thought the NPR piece was decent. Tom Vanderbilt and Bill Strickland did a pretty good job focusing on the need for better infrastructure and the absurdity of people thinking that cyclists are the only ones breaking traffic laws.


rsprake
2012-04-06 15:28:02

fjordan, that site won't let me at the paper without me giving my email address.


The paper doesn't come up in Google Scholar,nor on Pitt's library.


mick
2012-04-06 22:21:55

I just hit "No thanks" and up it came.

That looks like some good reading.


edmonds59
2012-04-06 22:30:00

Ditto. It's about an 8-page PDF.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-06 22:52:28

I tried about five times and couldn't get it...

Now it works. *Shrugs*


headloss
2012-04-06 22:54:05

Thanks Edmonds! It didn't work for me, until I clicked the "Don't ask again" button. Next time, it came up fine.


mick
2012-04-06 23:29:47

From Brooklyn Spoke on the false equivalence of car-bike comparisons (in a discussion of contra-flow bike lanes):


It rubs some people the wrong way that bikes should be allowed to do things cars aren’t allowed. Well, on every one-way street I know, pedestrians are still allowed to walk two-way; should we outlaw this exception, too? Streets are made one-way for reasons do to with motor vehicles — to keep traffic from cutting through a neighborhood, or because a street is too narrow for a pair of cars to pass. Those reasons don’t apply to pedestrians, and most of the time they don’t apply to bikes, either; so why not limit the restriction to where it’s needed? Based on the same logic, we sometimes apply restrictions to trucks that don’t apply to cars.

Peter Furth, a professor of transportation engineering at Northeastern University


vannever
2012-04-07 00:38:57

Sorry for the confusion. I forgot about the "Don't ask" button.


I think this article served as the basis for much of the discussion of in-group identity among motorists. Bob Mionske used social identity theory in an interesting analysis of anti-cycling sentiment a few years ago: http://www.bicyclelaw.com/articles/a.cfm/legally-speaking-summer-of-rage


fjordan
2012-04-07 01:53:26

Been following this discussion and feel it boils down to this. The automobile is unique in its ability to dramatically enable and enhance narcissistic tendencies in drivers. I know I wear an extra layer of stupid every time I drive my car. It takes a lot of riding (and walking) to even begin to shake that off. For those that rarely walk and never ride a bike there is little chance of ever having perspective on this.


dooftram
2012-04-07 02:56:43

+1 dooftram


chefjohn
2012-04-08 17:04:14

I've been following all the media and public response to this with interest and it has amazed me that very few people seem to share my view.


The argument should not be "x break laws so it is ok for y to do so" it should be "everyone should follow the laws, and those who do not should be punished".


By arguing the former, cyclists will never be able to get the buy in on the law from drivers.


santanto
2012-04-09 19:13:06

The 2 pieces linked by fjordan above nail everything. Social Identity Theory ie in group/out group behavior explains nearly all negative behavior toward cyclists.

Most interesting: "the implication is that drivers regard themselves as behaving cautiously around cyclists (or wish to present themselves as "good citizens") and yet feel that the social norm is to behave less cautiously. The perceived social norm, i.e. what they perceive as the accepted behaviour of most other drivers, velidates less courteous behaviour. In addition, a strong countervailing "social norm" was revealed whereby drivers seem acutely aware of an obligation not to delay other drivers."

So it will never help the cause to point out infinitely how many drivers constantly break laws, they are part of the driver group, so it's ok.


edmonds59
2012-04-09 19:38:46

@fjordan I forgot about the "Don't ask" button.


Don't ask, don't tell.


mick
2012-04-09 20:24:55

@santano while I agree that everyone should follow the law it does not mean that law should be the same for all participants. We view it everyday -- tax law is different companies and people, law is different for pedestrians and cars.


Taking a step back in regards of complaints in this thread -- I don't believe that people here trying use car breaking the law as an excuse to break law themselves but rather pointing that cars violate the law more than bicycles in both relative and absolute digits and nevertheless we here more complaints from car drivers.


2012-04-09 22:53:58

As I've pointed out elsewhere, there are multiple issues at play here: cyclists who don't follow rules *does not equal* motorists who endanger cyclists. It's really off topic.


I go back to what I said in my P-G post, that as a driver you accept that the postman and trash collector routinely and legitimately get in your way, and do so without complaint from you. All we ask is that drivers similarly accept that from cyclists.


Talking about stop signs and red lights is off topic to this discussion.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-09 23:38:07

To build on Mikhail and Stu's points, I think a lot of us aren't trying to justify transgressions by cyclists; rather. we're trying to illustrate the hypocrisy shown by motorists who consistently argue that cyclists should be banned from the roads because of their transgressions while turning a blind eye toward far worse violations of traffic codes by fellow drivers.


I do agree that it's foolish to argue that it's acceptable for cyclists to ignore traffic laws because motorists seem to do with impunity, just as it's specious for drivers to stress the former while ignoring the latter.


fjordan
2012-04-10 02:25:33

Do we have a thread about bicycles hitting buildings & trees & poles?


marko82
2012-04-10 03:26:13

@Stu: rhetorically there is a significant flaw with your analogy. First and most glaring, is that waste collectors and postmen are on the road because it is their job to be there. Most people respect that and will give them space (except when they crash into them such as on Negley several weeks ago... but let's overlook that for now).


Cyclists on the other hand, are considered recreational interlopers (if the "comments" to multiple cycling-related news stories are to be taken as an adequate reflection of the general population's attitude) on the roads. They are there because they think it is fun, regardless of the risk they put themselves at.


IMHO I think that trying to equate the cycling commuter, grocery-getter, errand-runner, or even exercise-getter with workers being paid to stand in the road and take-on that risk is a tough hill to climb.


Cyclists have a right to be on the road because state law says we do. That's good enough for me.


The down-side to that however, is the sticky "follow the rules" expectation... I'm afraid there is no avoiding that. It's always going to come back to that. And comparing cyclists adherence to motor vehicle's adherence to the laws is apples and oranges as well, because motor vehicle operators simply do not see cyclists on equal terms.


Regardless, the discussion will always boil down to the law: with equal rights come equal responsibilities. Human behavior is another thing altogether: inequality in perception, inequality in application.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-04-10 11:36:31

@Vannevar: Unfortunately perception is reality. And right now public perception is that all cyclists ARE the Scofflaw Cyclist. Of course it is absurd and inaccurate, but that is what people see when they see one of us "filter" or roll a stop sign. They barely know the laws, how can we expect them to respect that those moves are legally kosher.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-04-10 11:42:51

I think the arguments over laws, insurance, and licensing are red herrings. We are on the roads, and have the right to be there. We are not asking for anything more than not to be harassed or buzzed by drivers. It's not an unreasonable request.


jonawebb
2012-04-10 12:21:49

If there are rights -> there are responsibilities. One of the last ones is to follow rules. this burden is on cyclists as well on motorists. Tweaking the rule because someone thinks rules are bad on any side, IMHO, gives other side rights to do the same. If one decides that (s)he can tweak a rule why someone else cannot do the same?


Some states implemented rolling stop signs for bicyclists and motorcyclists just because they are different from cars.


2012-04-10 15:11:26

while i agree with everything you said, it's not always that simple when many rules for bikes are in a grey area (say riding on sidewalks for instance). that and often they aren't even known by those tasked with enforcing it, so it makes it easy to bend, further blurring what's allowed. you don't know how many times people have contacted me when a police officer tells them that they aren't allowed to ride on the road. also see the thread earlier about riding 2 abreast. the burden really shouldnt be on a few people in an office in lawrenceville to educate tax funded law enforcement unless we get some of that tax money to do the job that the state isn't doing


erok
2012-04-10 15:17:49

"@Vannevar: Unfortunately perception is reality. And right now public perception is that all cyclists ARE the Scofflaw Cyclist."


It's human nature to remember what is wrong and ignore what is right. When we are law abiding, we aren't there. Screw up once in a while and every witness will remember. I've run a light on a bicycle simply due to the light changing while I was negotiating cross traffic while a motorist waved me on... I didn't even realize that the scenario changed until it was too late and I was running the light. Anyone who witnessed it would have thought I was blatantly breaking a law with the exception of the one motorist that contributed to the scenario as it played out.


headloss
2012-04-10 16:43:54

Is the time stamp on that video real time, or video time? There is a car with flashing lights (cop, it appears) on the scene abour a minute after the cyclist is hit. That's pretty quick. But, it might be real time, as the cyclist seems to be trying to flag someone down right after he gets back up from his crash.


Not only was the bus driver a nice guy, but alert as well. The offending car and accident were behind him, and yet he took action immediately.


swalfoort
2012-04-10 17:50:40

Crap! It just sunk in. Fahy Bridge, Bethlehem. They just held a memorial ride for another EXPERIENCED cyclist who was killed on that bridge. Wasn't it an 80 year old woman who claimed the sun was in her eyes, or something? In any case, no charges filed in that one.


swalfoort
2012-04-10 17:52:15

The cop happened to be there by luck.


ndromb
2012-04-10 18:03:21

swalfoort, yes, same bridge.


edmonds59
2012-04-10 18:06:04

What's scary about that video is you can clearly see how closely everyone is following. One car goes around the cyclist and the next one is ready to floor it because the lane is now clear. That could be a dead deer, a car sized hole in the bridge or in this case a person riding a bike.


rsprake
2012-04-10 18:12:21

what's also amazing is that the left lane is completely free of cars, yet people were still following him that close.


erok
2012-04-10 18:54:16

@rsprake - exactly! It looks to me like the black car at 3:06:25 is the same one that eventually hits the cyclist. So, the sequence of events is, the guy starts to pass, gets impatient when the bus pulls in front of him, and decides to cut in front of the silver car and pass the bus on the right.


You can easily imagine the guy swearing at the bus driver for "cutting him off" and deciding "I'll show him" with an aggressive driving maneuver rather than stopping to consider there might actually be a reason the bus driver changed lanes.


salty
2012-04-10 19:14:15

the "trib lady" isn't worth our time/energy... she probably increased her readership 100x just by getting all of us fired up last time. She may not be a good reporter but apparently she knows how to instigate a fight. How about posting the article here, instead of linking to the page and giving Trib hits?


headloss
2012-04-13 12:25:32

le sigh. of course we're feisty when one writes an article that does everything short of incite violence against us.


dmtroyer
2012-04-13 12:29:23

also, registering/licensing bicycles seems like big government and a waste of taxpayer's money to me.


dmtroyer
2012-04-13 12:33:51

Of course what would really help is to do what they do in Europe, to actually educate youngsters about riding bicycles, not just once but constantly. But the mindset that's represented by the Trib is all about killing education, being vindictive, and drillbabydrillletsdriveeverywhere.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-13 12:35:01

i get the sense that she's never really thought about this before (most people haven't), and seems to be using the paper like a personal journal entry trying to work out a problem.


a simple google search will answer most of her questions, but they continue to publish articles by someone who has no knowledge in the subject. whatev. it'sn not new and it's not unique to bikes.


erok
2012-04-13 12:59:52

I kind of like the idea of licensing -- better chance of recovering a stolen bike, elimination of one argument drivers use to justify bad behavior towards cyclists, a dedicated funding stream for cycling improvements, even with the drawbacks (mainly, discouraging casual riders). But even without licensing, I don't think there's any justification for drivers pushing us off the road.


jonawebb
2012-04-13 13:19:09

when would you first need a license, a toddler can ride a big wheel down a quiet residential street.


sarah_q
2012-04-13 13:21:50

Hm-m-m, if you don't know -- in Sweden fines for Vehicle code violations are not fixed but rather are proportional to the income with minimum level. Should we require the same in the US if people want to license bicyclists with bicycle registration?


2012-04-13 13:31:33

@Mikhail, that's a good point. There are a fair number of people riding bikes for economic reasons.


If we were to go that route, I'd almost rather see a small symbolic tax on new bikes and gear. That way those on a budget can buy used and avoid the tax...


But ultimately, I think the "bike payers don't pay taxes" argument is bogus.


myddrin
2012-04-13 13:48:06

We should be receiving tax breaks for cycling.


Copenhagen Economics: Cars are a Net Loss, Bikes a Benefit


A study commissioned in 2010 by Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard, Mayor of Copenhagen found that driving cars offers up a $0.20 net loss for each mile driven.


But the major form of transportation in this city of 1.2 million is not the car, but the bicycle. This leads us to what is perhaps the more amazing fact from this study… bicycles offer a $0.35 net benefit to the economy per mile ridden.


quizbot
2012-04-13 13:58:23

If bicyclists need to get licensed then I advocate pedestrians should also get licensed since they have to cross the street, and many of them do so incorrectly/illegally.


Everyone should have a license for any transportation mode they use. Let's license everyone starting from the time they can walk.


In all seriousness, drivers should have to get licensed every year from age 16 to 25 10 years till they are 55 and then every 5 years till they're 80 and then every year from then on. That makes sure the most dangerous drivers, the young and the elderly constantly have to brush up on their skills.


scott
2012-04-13 14:40:18

i just want to point out that we ran a poll on this site with the following results.


Do you have a valid driver's license?


Yes (93%, 352 Votes)

No (6%, 23 Votes)

I'm not old enough (1%, 2 Votes)

Total Voters: 377


if the state of pa things that i can drive a car, i think i can handle a bicycle. It's redundant. not to mention that it would have to be nationwide otherwise, bye bye tourists on the GAP.


erok
2012-04-13 15:39:42

In all seriousness, drivers should have to get licensed every year from age 16 to 25 10 years till they are 55 and then every 5 years till they're 80 and then every year from then on. That makes sure the most dangerous drivers, the young and the elderly constantly have to brush up on their skills.


If I ran the world, it would also be a heck of a lot easier to have a license revoked once issued.


That reminds me, I have to renew mine this week....


myddrin
2012-04-13 15:45:52

Your employer can give you tax breaks now for cycling. $20/month, deducted from their income tax.


jonawebb
2012-04-13 15:50:35

I haven't had a lot of luck getting any employers to do that. I usually get a dumb stare from the HR person.


At most, one percent of employees commute by bike nationwide. I'd like to see data, but as a wild ass guess, there probably aren't more than one percent of employers nationwide that have or are willing to implement this tax break. What is the overlap there? A few hundred or a few thousand people nationwide? Is there any data for how many people participate in this?


Imagine if your employer had to jump through hoops and pay out of THEIR pocket to claim the tax break on your new Prius purchase?


At Pitt, I got tax discounts if I paid for car parking, but I had to pay $120/year (of my net pay, not gross) for a bike locker.


I just did my Massachusetts taxes. Here, you can deduct what you spent on transit passes, and deduct what you spent on electronic car tolls, but nowhere was there a place to deduct what I spent on bike commuting.


dwillen
2012-04-13 16:29:01

The "cyclists don't pay taxes" meme is easily dismissed, even if we assume there is any validity in the pay for use concept of public roads:


"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. Source: www.pacounties.org/…/TransportationFunding032807.pdf"


Licensing cyclists MIGHT remove one of the arguments used against us, but I see this as a classic example of the moving goalposts fallacy: if we get licenses, anti-cyclists will demand insurance. If we get insurance, they'll demand that we yield to them at intersections. Since they already seem quite content to claim we aren't paying our way, a view that is easily dismissed, I think it's fair to say that licenses won't quell the criticisms of people who will go to any length to see us banned from the roads.


fjordan
2012-04-13 20:16:34

Man, sentences like this make my blood pressure multiply by like a thousand: "I am not a fan of trailing a cyclist when there's, say, 3 feet of passing room." Well, lady, I guess you could say I'm not really that into potentially ending up under the wheels of your bajillion-pound vehicle when I'm just trying to get to work, but... uh... yeah, your thing sounds more important.


But now since I'm exhausted from being mad about these kinds of comments and articles for the past few weeks, I'm going to try being positive: it's nice to see that there's a Republican like Ron Miller on our side here. He pretty much gave this lady a diplomatic version of "I'm not really interested in even having this conversation with you because you are clearly trolling." It gives me a little bit of hope both for cyclists and for our political system.


2012-04-14 06:20:09

Since some people seem to have corresponded with Nafari Varanski, by chance did anyone invite her to ride along on something like a Flock ride? If someone wants to make that contact, I will provide a loaner bike. Maybe Bike Pgh could even provide her with a lovely helmet as a memento. I agree with Erok, this (well established debate) seems like all new ground to her. She seems like a reasonable person, this is not foaming at the mouth yellow journalism like some I have seen (I'm talking to you Dimitri Vassilaros). I like some of her other articles. I'll wager she is completely unaware of the existence of the MTCC as well.


edmonds59
2012-04-14 12:35:03

If you do that, she will have to get from her place of work to the bicycle. I'm guessing she works at the D.L. Clark Bldg (Trib HQ), walking distance from the subway to nowhere North Side station of the T, then ride for free to First Avenue, where she could meet up with you/us and ride the Jail Trail out to Oakland and Dippy and the ride. Alternatively, I can kick in bus fare for her to rack & ride a 61B-or-whatever from Tahn to Dippy.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-14 12:51:39

@edmonds59 - I agree, she does seem reasonable and has an audience, what a wonderful convert to make.


I was wondering about offering her an escort on BikeToWorkDay. And she doesn't have to reveal her address etc, she can pick a pseudo-place and we could ride "to work" as a group. Targeted evangelism for us, she gets another column or two out of it.


vannever
2012-04-14 14:25:56

And my point was that multi-modal can get you all kinds of places in this town. Rail to bus to bike, all without touching a car. That in itself is worth a column.


If she sees this page, it would also be worth pointing out to her that at least two of the people just on this one page of this one thread, so far, have been on the receiving end of a car-on-bike accident, one of them quite recently. We really don't bite, for all that.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-14 14:33:53

As one of those people Stu mentioned, I would be glad to "bike to work" with her. I almost wrote her an email along those lines last night, but I held off to wait for my inflated snark/anger level to decrease a little, haha.


2012-04-14 14:50:07

So if I'm licensed and registered, does that mean I can take the lane rather than give motorists more room? Hasn't anyone heard of the concept "least cost avoider"? Since when does spending money registering cyclists make more economic sense than just slowing down and giving them room?


chemicaldave
2012-04-14 16:04:39

I think taking her on a ride seems like a lovely idea. I will say I did not find her response to my email very reasonable.


dmtroyer
2012-04-14 16:27:02

Since the cyclist stands more of a chance of being seriously injured, why not share responsibility?


this is one of the most asinine things i've ever read. since murder victims stand more of a chance of being seriously injured [than their murderer], why not share responsibility?


hiddenvariable
2012-04-14 18:16:44

Yeah, she doesn't come across as "reasonable" to me. The difference between the tone of her articles and the "foaming at the mouth" stuff is just that she's passive-aggressive instead of being outright aggressive. She wants to SEEM like she is really reasonable and like she is doing SO much to accommodate us so that she can get away with expressing a viewpoint that is really pretty unreasonable and self-centered in its disregard for the safety of other humans.


That being said, I'm still glad to try to get her to see our side of things, but there's a lot of work to be done. This doesn't even mean she's necessarily a terrible person—maybe she's been subconsciously working so hard to justify her impatience with cyclists with her view of herself as a nice person that she has convinced herself that this really is a fair and compassionate viewpoint. It can be hard to undo those kinds of things when people have worked so hard to justify their cognitive dissonances, but if anything could convince her, it would be riding in Pittsburgh herself (...and getting passed a little too close a few times, although I hate to wish that upon anyone).


2012-04-14 18:48:36

^^^ +1 ^^^


headloss
2012-04-14 19:01:06

Ya know, thinking about it, I just had an idea about where a lot of the "irresponsible cyclist" misconception comes from...and it has nothing to do with cycling.


Let's assume, just for a moment, that the rate of automotive collisions (and fatalities) is internalized as truly being something outside of human control...a law of nature, or at the very least a case of "this is the way the world is." Given that bone-deep belief, I suppose those of us who go out into that situation with no protection do seem self-destructively reckless. Sort of like people who go skinny-dipping in piranha-infested waters...


Of course, there's no real comparison there; but, if you make the mental leap that someone may honestly believe that collisions on the road are just a part of life, it explains an awful lot of the lack of respect for the cyclist, and motorcyclist, and pedestrian, who "willfully go out without adequate protection and then whine when they get hurt."


I'm just thinking aloud here...not sure if it even entirely makes sense, now that I've typed it out.


reddan
2012-04-14 19:45:27

Yep, it makes perfect sense.


(And it's a really, really sad thing that people think that way and that they accept the astronomical collision and fatality rates as something outside of human control.)


2012-04-14 20:14:23

@reddan


Dan, we know that you are "overly optimistic" person. :) I think that there is no mental leap -- collisions are just a part of the life. The leap is in understanding that this world is built by us (people) and not by nature or God. All highways/freeways/roads and rules are built by us. And therefor could be changed by us. I understand that we cannot change "the law of physics" and a bigger car generally speaking is safer. But how those cars operate/move/interact could be set differently. I think she is driven by selfishness. She does not want to change world in the that it's beneficial in long term but she has go give something up in short term. Or even not give up -- the traffic jam is a part of life also as this life it is today -- just let other people not to suffer the same pain as car drivers do. Somehow I don't see problems with drivers on roads where is almost no traffic.


2012-04-14 20:40:50

@reddan, It's also how us "normal" cyclist feel about those reckless recumbent guys with their feet out in front of themselves and all that.


You may be on to something though. I’ve talked with a few recreational riders lately on the SS trail (now that winter is over) that have the same visceral reaction to riding on-the-street. I will usually encounter these riders at the end of the trail by the Glenwood Bridge. They will ask if the trail goes any farther upstream. I’ll comment on how you can follow the RR tracks to Sandcastle and go through their lot or take the cloverleaf if the gate is closed. As soon as you start talking about going on the road they stop you almost mid-sentence with ‘oh I NEVER ride on the road, it’s just too dangerous.” If you comment on how it’s not that bad they look at you like your one of those guys who wrestles alligators or something. So maybe we are viewed as being inherently dangerous just be being there, regardless of how law abiding we are being.


@Mikhail, I’ve had drivers yell at me while going in the opposite direction, so for some their anger goes deeper than just slowing them up.


marko82
2012-04-14 20:50:40

@Marko - Not wrestling alligators, its fighting with a gorilla (Velominati, Rule 10.)


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-04-14 20:54:32

@dan I think you are correct, and would be a good reason as to why she completely disregarded everything in the email I sent her. I generally find it tragic that we have become so comfortable with death by automobile. heaven forbid we actually recognize a part of our lifestyle as having an adverse effect on our society much less work to minimize that effect.


dmtroyer
2012-04-15 00:25:14

Let us also not lose sight of the strong likelihood that she was told to write it that way, or it was edited to be that way, by her transit- and bike-hating editorial management. I, for one, will give her the benefit of the doubt that she probably is a decent person with an open mind. It's not entirely her fault that she works for a fish-wrapper newspaper.


stuinmccandless
2012-04-15 01:02:38

If I remember correctly, in part of Tom Vanderbilt's book he breaks down the traffic death statistics for a given year and compares them to the numbers of deaths in huge disasters like 9/11, and then he talks about the huge difference between the reactions to those fatalities. The entire nation mourns and then wants action after something like 9/11, as we should, but tens of thousands die in traffic accidents in the U.S. every year (over 30,000 in 2010), and the general public doesn't seem to take note of that massive loss of life as the (partially) preventable tragedy that it is. It's something we actually could have some control over, but instead we just accept it as part of life.


The human brain is a strange thing.


2012-04-15 01:11:53

We lost 58,000 men in VietNam and it almost tore the country apart. We lose half that much every year in automobiles and it's acceptable.


Ten 9-11's every year, and we allow the industry to advertise on TV. Here's a novel thought experiment: if we never had cars, but everything else was the same, and then cars were introduced blank-slate, would autos ever get approved by the Consumer Products Safety Commission if CPSC had the data we know today?


It's crazy nuts.


You see it on any newspaper's homepage; this is a screen shot of the P-G right now.



(and, tangentially, the three shot in Carnegie were in a car)


It reminds me of a scene in the Matrix; Morpheus has forbidden them to use the highways because they're a slaughterhouse.


vannever
2012-04-15 03:34:16

huh, transportation or population control.


b-s
2012-04-15 09:43:11

So while I was in PA school, most hospitals would use "MVA" in charts to stand for "motor vehicle accident", but have since then tried to push to change it to "MVC" instead, meaning "motor vehicle crash"..which I find interesting and more accurate.


stefb
2012-04-15 12:07:05

Alright, I may have been wrong about that Nafari Vananski. I read deeper into her "Text ban..." article. She starts out on the right track, but then it degrades into simple whining, bitching, and moaning about having to yield to a pedestrian (gasp!), and being held up momentarily by another driver who is talking to someone WHO ISN'T EVEN IN A CAR! (I'm not sure how I even had the fortitude to type that last bit, sigh). Same old entitled self absorbed bs as any other auto-centric git. Oh, well.

I've been hearing a lot about this "Hunger Games" movie, where some crazy retro-future society sends tweens out to fight to the death for entertainment value. What a bunch of whacky far fetched sci-fi hoopla, eh? Our society waits until they're 16 to send them out in metal projectiles, thousands to certainly die. Funny and ironic, no? Ha, ha (not actually laughing).


edmonds59
2012-04-15 12:15:01

Ten 9-11's every year, and we allow the industry to advertise on TV.


+1


rsprake
2012-04-15 17:30:33

stefb


bossanova


Private Message

Posted 5 hours ago


So while I was in PA school, most hospitals would use "MVA" in charts to stand for "motor vehicle accident", but have since then tried to push to change it to "MVC" instead, meaning "motor vehicle crash"..which I find interesting and more accurate.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425112/quotes?qt=qt0496543


rubberfactory
2012-04-15 18:18:51

I just got off the phone with the letters editor from the Post Gazette. She apologized for taking so long to call me about my letter and we had a short talk about the stuff people say and she shares our disgust.


It may be late, but I'm glad they will be publishing my letter.


ndromb
2012-04-19 00:18:55

Eliminate all bike lanes. She'll still miss yoga.


orionz06
2012-07-19 12:37:47

Ugh! So because she's not comfortable riding a bicycle in a bike lane and because she doesn't want to pay for parking in the SouthSide, we shouldn't have bike lanes?


OMG! I just put the trib media office and her yoga studio into Google Maps:


http://goo.gl/maps/vOZn


Bike path nearly the whole way there!


Maybe the congestion is caused by people like her who are taking short trips at rush hour when there's people who actually live outside of the city trying to get home


Additional frustration: I use Merchant St twice a week right now when I'm working at the Allegheny campus:


a) Merchant st doesn't have much traffic

b) One way it is down hill, so bicycles could easily go the speed of traffic

c) even uphill, how fast are people going Merchant?


sgtjonson
2012-07-19 12:51:26

She could solve her problem in the first 2 paragraphs of the article. Answer: Leave earlier and expect to pay for parking.


lou-m
2012-07-19 12:53:13

Offered to ride with her to that Yoga Studio


Also invited her to this Friday's Flock ride


sgtjonson
2012-07-19 13:08:55

Emailed her the map and got a reply:


"Why is it that bicyclists' answer to everything is to ride your bike? What if I don't want to? Does that make me a bad person or something??"


orionz06
2012-07-19 13:18:03

Ha, ha! If you don't want to bike, be stuck in traffic and search for parking, that's fine too.


edmonds59
2012-07-19 13:26:00

I am engaging in a half assed conversation with her, said the same thing.


Interesting point on the parking that is being removed. Today, in my VW GTI, I did not have enough room to safely maintain the road speed of 20mph with cars parked to my right and traffic to my left. Just not wide enough for the traffic the road sees. If cars can't use it to park why not make it something that is useful.


orionz06
2012-07-19 13:31:11

Ignore the troll.


rsprake
2012-07-19 13:55:47

Couldn't help but to send her an email. So short sighted:


Ms. Vanaski,


I think the entire issue is blown out of proportion. As a biker (not a hipster cyclist) and a driver I am always mindful of both sides of the issues whether riding my bike or driving my car. I think bike lanes are necessary in the city. In a city struggling to grow its young professional culture and entice promising talent, this is just one more way to get them here. Additionally, as a biker, I feel much safer in bike lanes, and please do not forget, a bike lane will not be as wide as the vehicles currently parking there (and with no hazard of doors opening).


As to why this is blown out of proportion. I would be surprised if even 100 cars fit in those spaces. At most, half park there every day. The benefit to the countless bikers and drivers in that area by removing the congestion of vehicles outweighs any detriment to those parkers and those folks rounding the block several times looking for a space.


Furthermore the City never intended to permit parking there, free or otherwise it just happened. I remember a time when people only parked there on the weekends. The resolution is cheap and easy, paint a bike lane, get rid of the cars and look like heroes to the youth culture. Also, don't forget, eliminate free parking so the City can collect more in parking fees. Bike lane or not, this is inevitable. The City was either going to charge for those spaces or eliminate them. The City had to eliminate them because the electronic meters that give receipts for your windows would be too dangerous to use in that area. People could not readily walk to one and back to their car without significant danger and potential liability for the city. Likewise, traditional meters would not fit.


Your article seems to blame bike advocates, without looking into the inherent dangers of the area as well as the City's agenda. I respect that you earn a living writing, but your reporting and information gathering skills leave much to be desired.


2012-07-19 16:03:44

+1 rsprake. Bleh. She's a concern troll who is just looking for things to complain about and who claims to know what is best for cyclists in the city when I'm willing to bet she's never ridden a bike on the road. She seems to really relish the attention she gets from these articles. I was going to write a long letter, but then I remembered there's no point in presenting a logical argument to someone who clearly doesn't play by the rules of logic at all.


2012-07-19 17:09:10

I believe she's agreed to attend the Flock ride this Friday


I think the best way for us to figure each other out is a nice, slow paced bike ride, which utilizes both roads and trails, peacefully


sgtjonson
2012-07-19 17:19:49

Whoa, really? How did you convince her to do that?


2012-07-19 17:27:22