DX-MAN

Time for another cynical DX rant.

"Auto-centrism" is the main cause of the appalling lack of resolution, which seems even worse in FL than in NYC.

Our roadways are heavily subsidized, despite all the crowing about "I pay road taxes, you don't, get on the sidewalk".
Gasoline is HUGELY subsidized, being otherwise a loss leader for the entire energy industry; unleaded's 'cousin', aviation fuel, is about the only thing related to a bigger loss leader -- anybody catch the story a month or two ago about the airlines have NEVER been profitable on their own?
Why shouldn't negligent driving be 'subsidized' by lack of enforcement? After all, "I'M DRIVING HERE!"

I get so frustrated, and it's made all the worse by all the training, makes me wanna go out & re-institute "sweep & clear"..........

NYgreyrider

It's not naive at all. You have provided links to pro bike organizations, that are looking for data to prove their theory. Not hard to do. In the bicycle law article they use exactly one case each to prove a type of bias. Well then I guess I proved in my last post an anti cop bias in law enforcement because I provided one example of when an officer was killed on the side of the road and the driver was only given a moving violation. What I want to see is real data that suggest there is a nation wide discrimination against injured cyclist versus injured motorist. None of which has been provided. The SF article is even worse because they set up a tip line for bicyclist only! What does that prove? If they really wanted to demonstrate a bias they would have set the tip line up for anyone involved in an accident and then compare the treatment of motorist to cyclist. To me it sounds like SFPD has a few officers who just don't like to do accident investigations period. I lived in a town in Illinois where the police didn't do accident reports unless someone was hospitalized. Otherwise they felt the case was civil in nature and would be investigated and settled through the insurance companies. The individuals involved would exchange information and fill out their own reports. The police were there to make sure it remained civil and make sure the road was cleared. Who do you think that policy effected more negatively Motorist or Cyclist. I guess now I can assume a bias against motorist, at least in that town.

Call me naive but I believe the bias against cyclist is more myth than fact. There are literally hundreds of car accidents each day in America and serious charges are brought in very few of them. Accidents involving cyclist, or motorcyclist for that matter, are much fewer in nature but because they often lead to greater injury or because they make more sensational news stories you'll see more coverage and therefore when the results of the investigation are in turn not what you want you feel outraged and wronged as a cyclist. Truth be told most motor vehicle accidents will end the same way. Don't worry motorcyclist feel there is a bias against them as well. I bet I can find some URLS to prove it too. Of course all written by motorcyclist.

I'm sorry but when I get on my bike and go for a ride I don't feel like I have instantly become a member of a persecuted minority group and that law enforcement now feels I'm a lesser human being. In fact unless I'm on a group ride I don't feel like I am part of any group just because I'm on a bicycle. If I decide to go out and do fifty miles that day I don't feel like I am now the same as the guy hitting the mountain trail, the person out enjoying a slow ride on the bike path, or the guy commuting to work. I certainly have no connection to the guy using a bike because he's lost his license and can't legally drive. In fact I don't care how many miles I put on my bike in a given year I don't refer to myself as a cyclist, just as when I am out running I don't consider myself a runner, or when I'm on my 120 mile commute to work don't I consider myself a JAM or whatever other ridiculous term is used on this forum. And I certainly have no connection to the guy that was out on SR 5 today and decided to cut across four lanes of heavy traffic and then start ridding up the wrong side of the road. You see just because someone is on a bike doesn't guarantee that they are doing the right thing or that if they do get involved in an accident they weren't at fault. Just because you can provide a case where the cops found the cyclist at fault doesn't mean you have found a case of police bias, you may simply have found a case where the cyclist was at fault.

PS anything Bob Mionske writes is a waste of paper. You can't even use it as toilet paper as it is already filled with ****

DavidW56

^ Again, good post, if lengthy. I'm surmising you had an education that emphasized rigorous analytical thinking.

I agree with the sentiment that the act of engaging in a given activity doesn't make you part of a larger group dedicated to that activity exclusively. I ride a bike, but that doesn't make me a cyclist, anymore than my making homemade wine makes me a vintner, or baking a rhubarb pie makes me a pastry chef.

I also don't understand the hostility towards motorists on this forum. (And what does JAM mean, anyway?) I drive a car or van most of the time I'm going places. I commuted by bike for a few years when my job was a reasonable distance from home; but now my job is a good hour and fifteen minutes away by bike in Detroit, and frankly, I like getting to work in 20 minutes by car.

genec

You would expect me to provide links to anti-bike organizations that would find such bias? And yes I only provided three links, there are many more out there. You may also be correct that the police often fail to do a complete job investigating motorist to motorist collisions too. Then what we really have is a situation in which the police are simply failing to do their appointed jobs altogether. And since I am merely a responder on an internet chat room, I cannot provide you with copious amounts of data either way. BTW no doubt the feelings expressed on this site are largely due to the fact that it is considered a bicycle site; no doubt if one were to visit a baseball site, one might find opinions expressed leaning positively toward baseball.

One only has to wonder, if you feel such animosity about cycling, why you are here in the first place.

BTW as an exercise in futility I did a quick search on the subject of "police bias against cyclists," and found some 1,600,000 responses, I did a similar search of "police bias against motorists" only to find a mere 1,410,000 responses... could it possibly be that motorists feel that police treat them better... especially in light of the greater number of motorists their more likely interaction with police. Of course this is pure speculation on my part and no doubt to be considered more of the same of which you considered of Bob Mionske's writings.

unterhausen

you are extrapolating from the hostility cyclists feel towards dangerous, aggressive, or abusive drivers to the whole group. I also drive plenty, and most of the drivers on the road are just fine. There is a relatively small minority of motorists that act out towards cyclists (and other motorists, but this is a cycling forum), the offenses seem like they are never-ending. If you don't observe that, I would guess you don't ride as much as other people do or you have a higher tolerance towards abusive and life-threatening events.

DavidW56

^ The former is true -- I don't ride as much as others on this forum, and so I haven't seen any abusive behavior by motorists towards me or other cyclists -- just bad driving, not overt hostility. There have been horns honked at me, and there have been many who cut me off, but I attribute that to incompetence -- mostly theirs, but I suspect I haven't been visible enough in the past.

There will be forum members who will respond to this, saying "If you just ride enough, it'll happen." Perhaps it will. And I hope to not be there when it does.

But what does JAM stand for?

P.S. Almost forgot -- when I commuted 40 miles one-way to work, in some of the most aggressive traffic in the metro area, THAT'S when I heard a few hateful insults hurled at me from hostile drivers. And I was in a car!

CB HI

JAM - Jack Ass Motorist = the 1% of motorist that intentionally or recklessly endanger/harass cyclist.

NYgreyrider

I didn't know an us (cyclist) vs them (motorist, cops, world) mantality was required to join this site.
I don't have any animosity toward cycling. I do it for exercise. Its not my living nor my lifestyle. I don't feel like when I get on my bike that I suddenly become part of some persecuted minority nor do I feel like I suddenly have some bond with every single person that is riding a bike that day and we all belong to some brotherhood of cyclist that need to attended critical mass meetings and scour the Internet looking for evidence that the world in general and the police specifically are out to get us.



As far as Bob goes he's an attonery and writes articles for bicycling magazine, hardly a neutral party. Bottom line he's chaseing the dollar. He'll write wherever it takes to win a case and sell magazines. It's his job to take a snap shot of an event and make it sound like it's a pattern of behavior in order to win his case. He's an ambulance chaser that just happens to specialize in biking. I give him no more credit than the local expert in DWI or the guy shooting his commercials on a home video that promises to get you the big disability settlement. If you are going to serve a small segment of society your going to cater to them and feed off of their insecurities and cospiercy therioes. Which is what you have here. A giant conspiracy that nobody cares what happens to cyclist. Not the motorist. Not the cops or the DA. Not the public at large, who when they aren't driving their gas guzzling SUVs over cyclist might just happen to be out riding their own bike. Nobody cares that is but Bob. Bob is here to help.

Digital_Cowboy

No, it's because I've read too many articles about motorists hitting cyclists and not getting charged with any crime/violations. Such as what happened down here in St. Petersburg a few years ago in which a woman not only struck a cyclist from behind while both were traveling eastbound on Gandy Blvd but killing him. There still have been no charges in that case.

Yes, I realize that most if not all labs have some sort of a backlog in processing evidence. But that doesn't make it right or that we should or have to accept it.

I agree that all too often D.A.'s and/or Prosecutors offices rush to take cases to court. But in a case such as the one in this thread. Given that at the very least the driver is guilty of failing to maintain control of her car she should have at the very least been charged with that with the police/D.A.'s/Prosecutors office reserving the right to file other and/or more serious charges at a later date.

As I just said above, if a motorist (or cyclist, pedestrian, etc.) have committed a crime they should be charged with whatever charges are relevant, while reserving the right to file more charges at a later date.

I guess that you have somehow missed all of the articles that have been posted here that clearly show that crashes between motor vehicles/bicycle more often then not (unless there is some other factor involved such as drug/alcohol use, distracted driving) do not result in charges being filed against the driver.

A semi-good example of this is the case in my signature. Yes, I know that Carlos has been charged, and charged with a number of crimes, but he has yet to stand trial for his crime(s). So just how long are we suppose to wait to see justice done?

Digital_Cowboy

If you truly feel that way, then why the are you here in the first place? This is a BICYCLE forum, so yes it is going to be "biased" towards cyclists. Just as if one goes to an automobile forum the bias is going to be for automobiles.

Uh, please provide verified evidence to support your opinion of Mr. Mionske.

Digital_Cowboy

As I asked NYGreyRider if you truly believe that, then what are you doing here? This is a BICYCLE forum, so it is going to be "biased" towards bicycling and cyclists.

Digital_Cowboy

+100

as you've said most motorists know how to share the road with all road users. But sadly there is a small minority that don't seem to know how to do this. And again, as you've said at the end of the day those negative encounters are small, but sadly those are the ones that tend to stick in peoples minds. Particularly when the motorists in question do so intentionally.

Digital_Cowboy

There are members here who put in anywhere between a hundred miles to two-hundred plus miles a week on their bikes. And as such they're going to have more encounters both negative as well as a positive then someone who only rides around the neighborhood or who puts their bike on/in their car and drives to the local park and ride around the park.

Digital_Cowboy

I hate to say it, but it does seem that way. Fortunately there are plenty of cyclists who do feel a "kinship" with other cyclists. IF that wasn't the case then how do you explain the existence of not only national bicycling organizations such as the League of American Bicyclists, or local, and state organizations such as the Florida Bicycle Association?

Could it be because those who have joined those organizations know that the only way to improve things is by banding together?

How do you explain things like that rookie cop in NYC who not only body slammed a cyclist during a CM ride to the ground but lied about it in his official reports? There have also been if I'm not mistaken cases where other law enforcement officials have induced those under them to also perjurer themselves in various reports.

There is also the thread here about the case up there in NYC of how the police were more then willing to put the blame on an automobile/bicycle crash on the cyclist. They didn't even collect evidence that shows that the drivers story wasn't true. And then for whatever reason they DID take pictures of the cyclists mother and her lawyer for their records/file, why? Why, did they need to include a picture of the mother and her lawyer in the report on her child's death?

I guess you haven't read or seen the stories in the news that sadly tend to bear this out.

NYgreyrider

I come here in the first place because outside of advocacy and safety there is a whole forum that doesn't feel like the world is out to get them. I enjoy riding and don't feel the need to let that one hobby of mine paint the whole way I look at the world. I can understand that the reason they don't write the moving violation in this case is for the same reason they don't write it when a motorist kills another motorist, or motorcyclist or pedestrian or cop or anything else. If you write that ticket, then you'll have to prosecute that ticket while still investigating the accident. What would be the point of that? A person is not going to jail or losing their license over a moving violation. And even if they do lose their license that probably won't stop them from driving. Nothing is solved now that won't be solved waiting for the case to be completed later. Nothing that is other than spending time and money on prosecuting a moving violation when there could be felony charges later. Or I guess you can count that instant gratification and sense of swift justice that comes with issuing a ticket on a moving violation to someone who just killed somebody else. Nothing like a $300 fine and points on a license to even out killing someone. Don't like the back log in crime labs. The alternative is to increase the size of the lab. Not a lot of people jumping up and down for the government to spend more money these days. Not happy with the speed in which someone goes to court? That is not always the cops fault, a lot of that has to do with pre trial legal wrestling between the defense and the DA. None of these things effect only cyclists. Its one thing to come on here as a cyclist and want to bring attention to bad police work at an accident scene or your unhappiness with the legal system and the laws pertaining to deaths caused by vehicles but you seem to take it a step forward and believe these thing only happen to cyclist. It happens to everybody. I am able to see this because I don't consider myself only a cyclist.

As far as my opinion of Bob goes what about it needs to be proved? A: He's a "cycling" lawyer. B: He writes articles for Bicycle magazine. C: He does both for the money and the publicity. D.He does both to enhance the other and in doing so specifically looks to further his reputation within the cycling community by being pro cyclist. E: I don't hold him in any higher regard then any other niche lawyer who advertises on local TV and therefore I'm not going to simply believe there is a nation wide bias against cycling because Bob says so. If you have a different opinion of Bob I really don't care. I given more thought to him today than the rest of my lifetime combined.

Digital_Cowboy

Okay, if you feel that way, then why are you here in A&S?

You do know, understand that you wouldn't be able to enjoy that "one hobby" if it weren't for other cyclists who do feel a kinship with cyclists, right? If it wasn't for those people who do feel a kinship for other cyclists we wouldn't have the rail-to-trail system, we wouldn't have laws passed requiring 3', 4' or other safe passing laws on the books. We wouldn't have (even if some are actually more dangerous then not having them) bike lanes.

[QUOTE=NYgreyrider;13801117]I can understand that the reason they don't write the moving violation in this case is for the same reason they don't write it when a motorist kills another motorist, or motorcyclist or pedestrian or cop or anything else. If you write that ticket, then you'll have to prosecute that ticket while still investigating the accident. What would be the point of that? A person is not going to jail or losing their license over a moving violation. And even if they do lose their license that probably won't stop them from driving. Nothing is solved now that won't be solved waiting for the case to be completed later. Nothing that is other than spending time and money on prosecuting a moving violation when there could be felony charges later.

Just how long are people suppose to wait for justice? And what about all of the various cases where as has been clearly shown that the motorist is at fault that no charges are ever brought against the driver? As in the case I've told you about in which a person who was riding their bike on Gandy Blvd was struck by a motorist from behind and to the best of my knowledge there still haven't been any charges pressed against the driver.

So please tell us just how long are we suppose to wait for justice?

Again, just how long are "we" suppose to wait for justice? How many articles and news stories do you have to read/see before you are willing to accept that at least here in the USA that there IS a bias against cyclists. And yes, I understand that these things happen not just to cyclists, but to just about every group. It's just that as others have pointed out that this IS a forum for and about bicycles/bicycling so why is it surprising to you that we would concentrate on those cases pertaining to cyclists?

And again if you do not consider yourself to be a "cyclist" then why are you here, and why are you posting here in A&S?

You are the one who said some not only pretty disparaging but one might also say hostile remarks about him. Presumably you have never met the man, so why the hostility towards him? And again given that you do not consider yourself to be a cyclist then why are you here, and if you do not like what is posted in A&S then what are you doing here in A&S?

genec

There is a bias against cyclists... and here is how it works. A cyclist and motorist collide and the cyclist dies. The only witness to the event is the motorist... naturally the motorist is going to tell their side of the story... typically something like "the cyclist came out of nowhere, I never saw him." Police take this down, nod in agreement, console the motorist, case is closed.

Yes the exact same thing can happen in motorist-motorist collisions where one of the motorists dies, the difference is the police are likely also motorists, can relate to the whole event, may still console the motorist.

The difference is that when motorists and cyclists collide, the motorist rarely (if ever) loses... hence there is a built in bias in any cyclist-motorist collision that favors the survivor, the motorist. The other witness is dead.

Chris516

While you directed this to DC, I happen to agree with him. I have seen too many instances on the road, to have a happy demeanor about the interactions between cyclists and motorists.

Last night, I was unfortunately riding in the dark, on the return leg of my ride, when I crossed the entrance to the up-county campus of the county community college. I had the ROW but, a student making a left-turn to enter the campus, must have had night blindness or was just a moron outright. Because I had lights galore. Yet the student never took their foot off the gas pedal, almost hitting me.

I don't see why I(or DC) should be all smiles when, the ignorance and/or belligerence of motorists'(like what happened to me last night) is clear cut, and the local atmosphere is an air of motorists' hostility towards cyclists'. When the traffic code says we have a right to be on the road. Yet local LEO's choose to abridge that right, by persecuting cyclists' at every turn, and never enforcing the state's 'safe passing' law.

About a month ago, I was on a local two-lane blacktop that in widens from one lane on each side, to two lanes in the northbound direction. Before I had reached the that point in the road, the motorist behind me not only chose to pass me, they did it extremely closely. The LEO on patrol saw the whole thing, but did nothing. LEO's don't care anymore than the general motoring(non-cycling) public does. Because close passes are committed all the time with impunity. Since they know LEO's won't do anything.

genec

What NYgreyrider is alluding to is that the same poor investigations take place whether it is a motorist-motorist collision or motorist-cyclist collision. That may well be true, I don't have enough evidence in the case of motorist-motorist collisions to agree or disagree... but I have put forth a theory that I feel does support a bias that I do believe exists.

The difference is that when motorists and cyclists collide, the motorist rarely (if ever) loses... hence there is a built in bias in any cyclist-motorist collision that favors the survivor, the motorist. The other witness is dead.

dynodonn 

That one word pretty much set the tone of your bicycling ideology. Cyclists who use a bicycle as transportation, such as myself, would see the world in a different view as someone who rides as a hobbyist, and probably due to higher exposure with motorists than someone who rides at their leisure.

NYgreyrider

[QUOTE=Digital_Cowboy;13802168]Okay, if you feel that way, then why are you here in A&S?

I'm in A&S because I usually go to the section titled today's post. Since my parents live in Fort Myers area I clicked on the link. I read the thread and posted. I din't realize I had to agree with you or have your permission in order to post here.

You do know, understand that you wouldn't be able to enjoy that "one hobby" if it weren't for other cyclists who do feel a kinship with cyclists, right? If it wasn't for those people who do feel a kinship for other cyclists we wouldn't have the rail-to-trail system, we wouldn't have laws passed requiring 3', 4' or other safe passing laws on the books. We wouldn't have (even if some are actually more dangerous then not having them) bike lanes.

Yes it is a hobby. I'm not getting paid for it. I had no idea I had so many people to thank for fighting to bring my hobby out of the depths of second class citizenry. I had no idea how hard it was to be born a cyclist in a motorist world. I have a "kinship" with the people I ride with I simply don't have a kinship with every person on a bike. They are not all on their bikes for the same reason I am and I don't feel that a single common denominator gives me a kinship.

NYgreyrider

I have seen all these stories but I also read news that doesn't just deal with cyclist and see that it happens everywhere to everyone. I don't expect to see those stories here on a bicycling forum but I'm not going to forget they exist while I'm here and go along with the crowd and say it only happens to cyclist. This is the same forum after all where there was a thread joking about how the cyclist broke the law and avoided the cop and then had everyone laughing about how he made the cop look stupid. Hopefully that cyclist never gets in an accident ridding like an idiot but god forbid he does are we all supposed to automatically assume he was right and the motorist was wrong? Am I suppose to feel a "kinship" with a clown like that or the other cyclist who found that amusing? Did that cyclist help my hobby that day?

Here is another sad news story I read about a cyclist. He and a buddy were out riding before work when a motorist over took his friend who was riding to the rear. The motorist believed that cyclist was the only one so he proceed to then drive onto the shoulder in preparation to make a right turn ahead. In doing so he struck and killed the lead cyclist. The police did a lengthy investigation. At first the motorist was not cited at the scene. Only at the completion of the investigation was the motorist cited with a moving violation. I'm sure in your mind you feel the police would have charged him that day if he killed another motorist and I bet you think they would have done a better job investigation if it wasn't a cyclist. read the article and decide: https://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s..._investig.html
same accident but introduces a new fact :https://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...as_killed.html.
That's right the cyclist was a cop. Which is really weird because he must have really hated himself. I guess cops hate cyclist so much they couldn't even over look the fact that is was one of their own and issue that driver that all important ticket right there.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, all too often motorists and LEO's alike take the position of "no harm, no foul." This past summer I had a motorist in a white diesel pickup rev his engine at me even though I was going the speed limit and there was no room for him to pass. Also more recently I had a motorist honk at me even though I was going the speed limit if not maybe a little more then the posted speed limit.

So sadly, despite what some here might thing those of us who choose (for whatever reason) to commute by bicycle do know that in fact there is a bias against cyclists.

dynodonn 

That motorist in white diesel sure gets around, or just moved to Florida. Probably not the same person since they only revved up their engine, and not a full throttle lunge with an accompanying horn blast.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, given that he only sees it as a "hobby" or a way to exercise he can't relate to those of us who choose to use it as our primary mode of transportation. But the irony is that as I've tried to point out to him that even those who only see cycling as exercise or as a "hobby" don't fully realize that they still have those who came before them to thank for the infrastructure that they have so that they can utilize their "hobby."