JoeyBike

My co-worker's wife got rear-ended by a motorist who admitted she was looking at her smartphone - hooking up to a conference call - when the accident occurred. The cyclist got scuffed up enough to need a doctor visit and of course the bike sustained damage. The cyclist was riding down Magazine Street in New Orleans - a very popular street for cyclists (although I would NEVER do it) and took the lane to make a left turn. The next motorist behind her did not see her in time to stop.

I know how much you A&Sers hate "blaming the victim" as we should be able to ride our bikes on any legal street without getting steam-rolled, but cycling on Magazine street is just plain DUMB. You will either get doored, side-swiped, hit a pedestrian, hit by traffic exiting side streets/driveways, or just plain steam-rolled from behind. There are parallel streets that are quiet and zero traffic, although a stop sign at every corner.

The fact that Magazine street is very popular for cyclists highlights a point I make here often (probably TOO often). As cyclists, WE have to look out for OURSELVES. Don't do stupid things if it can be helped. There are no Guardian Angels. You know why I will NEVER get clobbered on Magazine Street? Because I will NEVER BE THERE. Sure it is the motorists fault by law 100%, but c'mon folks....why go through the agony of getting hit and perhaps seriously hurt when there are easy safer options? Be smart.

Here is a google street view or Magazine Street (speed limit is 25-30mph):

https://goo.gl/maps/F7tRy3mZfWR2

bikemig 

Magazine street is busy. I avoid busy streets like the plague. One of the good things about living in an old city like New Orleans (or any other older US city for that matter) is that you have a lot of secondary roads and you can nearly always plan out how to get somewhere while avoiding busy streets. That said the driver is still an ass for using the phone while driving.

kickstart

Its not "blame the victim" to consider avoiding trouble spots. Ignoring viable options for theoretical reasons is dumb. Ride as things actually are, not how you wish they would be.

JoeyBike

This requires taking riding a bicycle in traffic seriously and actually thinking (and being properly educated). Same thing motorists should be doing. We just have more skin in the game.

berner

We ought to stop referring to these incidents as accidents and find a different word. When engaging in risky behavior bad things are likely to happen, sooner rather than later. I'm going to give this some thought.

rydabent

The law should be changed so that if it can be proved the driver was on their cell phone the sentence should be doubled. There is no phone call that is worth the injury or death of a cyclist or pedestrian.

bikemig 

+ 1. I'm in favor of enhanced penalties for driving accidents that occur when the driver is using a cell phone. In fact, let's treat it like drunk driving.

indyfabz

So every cyclist who rides on that street suffers one of these fates? I find that hard to believe.

italktocats

besides it looking like a ghetto, is there a sign that says CYCLISTS STAY AWAY?

mr_bill

**********

https://vimeo.com/68671432
**********

-mr. bill

JoeyBike

The only reasonably safe way to cycle magazine street is at off hours and/or keep up with traffic like on a motorcycle. It would be easier and safer if the speed limit were reduced to 20mph IMO. Yes, every cyclist on magazine street is greatly magnifying the risks I mentioned and many of them get creamed.

My point here is WHY risk it. There are quiet side streets parallel to Magazine that are a joy to ride. This is because many cyclists don't THINK before they pedal. They just hop on and do whatever they feel like doing at the moment with zero regard for getting smacked. Don't get me wrong - lots of cyclists use those parallel neighborhood streets same as me. I see them. But insane numbers of cyclists still use Magazine St.

JoeyBike

You just made my case. Off hours, hit it HARD! How many cars passed me in that video?

Actually the safest place to be is on the center line - where you have the most space, can't get doored, and are at eye level with the drivers, peds cant jump out, etc.

Case in point, this video starts on Magazine 00:00 up to 02:55:

https://vimeo.com/1191478
Yes, you would have to be crazy OR trying to make a frightening video to want to ride Magazine Street.

ypsetihw

we have a similar situation here in buffalo. there is a major north south artery leading downtown (delaware ave) that is 4 lanes of crazy fast aggressive traffic at all hours. both streets parallel to delaware (elmwood and linwood) have bike lanes. elmwood is 2 lanes of shopping corridor and there are lots of bikes and slow traffic. linwood is a wide 1 way with dedicated bike lanes in both directions. every time I see someone cycling down delaware I want to slap them (and I'm a cyclist!).

go one block in either direction to get where you're going. stubbornness won't save you when you get rolled by angry soccer moms in rush hour traffic.

Miele Man

When someone dies because someone driving a motor vehicle was impaired or texting let's call it at least 2nd Degree murder since the perpetrator sarted the irresponsible behavior and thus didn't care that their actions might cause a loss of life. We need to get REALLY SERIOUS about these distracted drivers nd/or drivers under the influance of some substance. admitting that one didn't see a bicyclist on a clear straight stretch of road is tantamount to admitting they should NOT be allowed to drive.

there's enough education, ads, warnings about drinking and driving and/or texting and driving that people are aware of the hazards both produce. if they choose to ignore those warnings then they should not be allowed to drive. If they kill someone with their vehicle then charge them with 2nd degree murder and throw the book at them.

Condolences.

Cheers

I-Like-To-Bike

Reminds me of the infamous John Forester's "Actual Sidepath Test" from his book Effective Cycling demonstrating the inherent danger of riding a bike path (by riding like a speed demon jackass on it.)
Extract from https://www.johnforester.com/LAW/Bike...ontroversy.htm :

"I know of only one valid test of a sidepath system, my own. Palo Alto instituted its mandatory sidepath system along my route to work, which I had used for several years with no problems and no incipient collisions. After I had been convicted of continuing to ride on the roadway, I was hounded by bikeway advocates saying that this system had been instituted for the safety of cyclists and that my ill opinion of it was unfounded. Therefore, I decided to ride that system using the same speeds and right-of-way that I had enjoyed on the roadway. After all, if the system was safer, then it would be safer at the same speeds as before. Seven times in five miles I faced incipient car-bike collisions that I was able to avoid only by the combination of expert understanding of traffic with expert bicycle handling skill. Few other cyclists would have avoided any one of these. The cyclist who had observed part of the test was white-faced and incapable of speech when she met me at the end. I tried once more, and in my atttempt to make a left turn the only course I could take that would not certainly involve me in a car-bike collision was to ride head-on in the reverse direction into an oncoming two-lane platoon of cars, riding the lane line and hoping that no motorists was in the process of changing lanes. I terminated the test because of its excessive dangers.

Since I had had no such incipient collisions in several hundred days of use of those roadways, and had seven in the first attempt to use the sidepaths, I concluded that the risk rate was at least 1,000 times greater on the sidepath than on the roadway. This test has been reported in all the various editions of Effective Cycling and Bicycle Transportation.

Bikeway advocates deride this test: "infamous ... simply ignored by non-vc types as a biased and unscientific anecdote against sidepaths that has little relevance to the real world as they see it." (Geary, Riley; public e-mail comments on the draft of this paper.)

How is this test biased and unscientific?

As to method, I rode the sidepath at the same speed and with the same expectation of right-of-way that I had used on the road. I could not overstate the severity of the test, because I was physically incapable of riding much faster; I could not be given greater right-of-way than I had on the roadway.

As to evaluation? When I wrote that it took both unusual traffic comprehension and unusual bicycle handling skills to avoid the eight incipient car-bike collisions, was I overstating the case? Considering that bikeway advocates complain that I have excessive skill, and that I terminated the test after so short a period, that speaks for the dangers of that test for the ordinary cyclist.

As to replicability? One test, properly done, is valid scientific evidence, but repeated tests are better. In this case, there has been only one test. You cannot arbitrarily throw out the data from the only test that exists because you don't like the results. The logical people to repeat this test are not people like me who won't repeat it because we won't risk our lives in what we believe to be an extremely dangerous test, but those who believe that urban sidepaths make cycling safe for beginners. They are the ones objecting to the results of the test, and none of them has tried repeating that test. They can't plead ignorance of my test, for it is "infamous" in their circles."

JoeyBike

One of your more interesting (and certainly lengthiest) posts I have ever seen. Nice!

I love this thought from your link: "...cycling on the road in accordance with the rules of the road ... requires mental skill, physical power, and psychic temperament close to the limits of human abilities..."

prathmann

Of course the words you chose to omit in this quote are rather significant: "Bikeway advocates oppose cycling on the road in accordance with the rules of the road by arguing that it requires mental skill, physical power, and psychic temperament close to the limits of human abilities." And the following part of Forester's article then addresses and refutes this argument by bikeway advocates.

JoeyBike

In the context of the actual article those words make a difference, but overall, not really. I am not a bikeway advocate, but I wholly believe that "cycling on the road in accordance with the rules of the road requires near superhuman skills". This is why I am a proponent of only obeying the rules that keep me safe (even though it seems counter-intuitive to the uninitiated), and ignoring the rules that make no sense - like waiting for a red light to release 25 late-for-work motorists right behind me when I could run the light and have the entire road to myself.

I appreciate your zeal for accuracy but stand by my abbreviated quote.

I-Like-To-Bike

Omitted for the good reason that it is only irrelevant Forester hyperbolic rhetoric, fabricating a false argument allegedly held by unnamed "bikeway advocates".

The point is that the risk/danger of cycling on a specific road, street, highway is not accurately measured by one obsessed cyclist evaluating his own extreme manner of riding on that stretch of pavement.

Chris0516

Isn't NO the nation's murder capitol right now?

Yes, We definitely have to look out for ourselves.

JoeyBike

NOLA is the murder capitol per capita but far behind larger cities in total numbers of murders. I believe Chicago has already surpassed our yearly murder total in the first quarter of 2016.

prathmann

It's perfectly fine if you made your original statement as being your own quote and opinion. Not so fine to cite it as if it accurately reflected the opinion in the linked site.

FBinNY 

Listening to the OP prattle on about the dangers of cycling on the road is like listening to a reformed drunk prattle on about the dangers of alcohol.

Certainly bicycling on public roads isn't absolutely safe, but it's a far cry from being dangerous if done with a reasonable amount of situational awareness, as proven by the millions of riders who do it routinely.

jon c. 

What are they doing with the neutral ground on Napoleon?

JoeyBike

I used proper editing punctuation. Anyone who wants to can go read the original piece.

Drainage improvements. Basically, they built an underground river. We call them canals. Uptown (north of St. Charles Ave. mostly) has had street and home flooding issues for decades. Finally, thanks in part to FEMA after Hurricane Katrina, the issue is being addressed.

Alcohol had it's dangers long before the drunk got reformed. But even before I cut back my cycling to the bare minimum I was fully aware of the inherent dangers and did my best to minimize them. Hence...no eulogy with my name on it in A&S. I just find it irritating when smokers deny the dangers of inhaling cigarette smoke into their lungs and cyclists go about their business without any regard for their safety as if cycling around inside Disneyland.