Advocacy & Safety - Bicyclists With Agendas - The Right to Safe Streets

The following letter was printed by the local weekly in response to last week's 'rogue of the week' editiorial, also reprinted below. IMO, this letter writer is way off the mark. Maybe I'm a 'bicyclist with an agenda', but last time I checked, they're all public roads, and we have a right to use them, and expect to be safe doing so, the same as all other road users expect.

SHARE THE LANE, SHARE THE BLAME

Dang, I hate to write this letter and reference your colleague Angela Valdez, but maybe it will serve a purpose.

You vilified Charles Myrick as Rogue of the Week [Aug. 3, 2005] for causing Angela to run into the side of his car with a sudden right turn off Northeast 15th Avenue at Prescott Street.

OK, here goes. As a Portland bicyclist who enjoys the "bike-ability" of our great town, I must ask, why the hell do my fellow cyclists insist on riding on the main streets when there are so many wonderful and vastly safer alternate routes which get you there just as fast?

The reason? BWA: Bicyclists With Agendas. Period. They have to force the issue of sharing a busy street.

What in heaven's name was Angela doing riding her bike down Northeast 15th Avenue, in the street, per your article, when she could have been blissfully making the same time a block east on Northeast 16th?

Look, what's done is done, but this is what I want to say to my fellow cyclists: Stay the hell off the main streets and embrace the alternatives. That means stay the hell off Hawthorne, stay the hell off Division, etc., etc., etc. Get over yourselves and get on the alternative routes the city has spent gazillions on to make safe for us.

I pray for Angela's speedy recovery and hope Mr. Myrick discovers his side mirror and the notion to glance over his right shoulder. Self-absorbed motorists? How about BWAs?

Frank DiMarco
Southeast 32nd Avenue
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6587


Rogue of the Week: SELF-ABSORBED MOTORISTS

With 10 pedestrians and cyclists killed by cars in Portland this year, we here at the Rogue Desk meant to step in earlier to comment on self-absorbed motorists. It is with some shame, then, that we admit it was not until one of our own was hit that we finally took notice.

Last Wednesday morning, WW reporter Angela Valdez was riding her bike south on Northeast 15th Avenue when 51-year-old Charles E. Myrick, going the same direction, passed her in his car. Myrick then took a right on Northeast Prescott, cutting Valdez off. She slammed into the side of his car and fell onto her back. An ambulance took her to the hospital, where doctors found she had a fractured spine and sacrum.

Valdez faces a long painful rehab but will survive. At the scene, Myrick denied responsibility, saying it was Valdez's fault for riding into his car. Portland Police Officer Todd Hussey, who responded to the accident, says another witness came forward and echoed Valdez's account-that it was Myrick's fault.

But as with most collisions, there will be no prosecution. "It doesn't rise to the level of a crime," says Hussey.

It's easy to single out Myrick-besides being an ex-con, he has had several tickets for speeding, as well as for failure to obey a traffic-control device, meaning a stop sign or stop light.

But he's far from the only motorist who has been involved in near-fatalities, near-misses and the like with Portland's pedestrians and pedalers. The latest fatality was a cyclist struck Monday night by a hit-and-run driver near Delta Park.

The Rogue Desk wishes it didn't take such a personal scare to get off the dime, but hopes this better-late-than-never message can help remind our driving readers not to space out behind the wheel.
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6574

OK what's fair is fair.

Just keep the motorists off the "vastly safer alternate routes" and there will be no problem.

Easy as pie, all motorists should just stay on the "main routes." Main route doesn't go where you want... tough, learn to live with it, after all, that's what you want cyclists to do.

Fair enough.

What's your agenda?

Mine is to get where I want to go, when I want to get there. Pretty much the same agenda everybody else has.

What's your agenda?

Mine is to get where I want to go, when I want to get there. Pretty much the same agenda everybody else has.


I can buy that... in theory.

I have one problem. North.

If I want to go North, Before I can get to the bucolic bliss of North Ludlow/Granby/Belchertown I must first negotiate RT 21 in Springfield, a 4 lane 35MPH (which is a joke, because every vehicle does a min of 45) without ANY shoulder whatsoever. No white line, storm drains sticking out 3 feet into my line, all sorts of gutter refuse... you get the idea.

I have now found a patchwork collection of sidewalks/sidestreets that get me through the gauntlet at a time penalty of about 10 mins - and ya know what? The pragmatic me, will use this newfound solution.

Maybe she had business on 15th street. Anyway, a rogue would be someone who is outside the law, but she is fully within her rights to ride her bike on any street she wants (unless the street is specifically prohibited to bikes.)

I can understand the sentiment, though. The reasons why I don't take the nice safe streets a few blocks over are these:
1. At the end of one is a dangerous underpass and I need to avoid it.
2. The other one has stop lights every 1/2 block and if I'm in the mood for cruising that is fine, but on my way to work I just want to get there.
3. The multitudes of other parallel routes have a lot more stop signs. I hate stop signs.

It appears that Portland's vast bike lane network has succeeded in making the city cyclist friendly. Kudos to the bike lane advocates for this great success story.

It sounds like Portland, Oregon has a long way to go if an at reckless motorist with a poor driving history can hit and almost kill someone without prosecution because their action does "rise to a level of a crime".

Does it really matter if the cyclist was traveling on a busy street vs. a "more bicycle friendly alternative", eventually if you are out there commuting - you end up on busy streets and need the cooperation of motorists and the integrity of the police and legal system to enforce your basic right not to be struck by a motorist who chooses to disregard the law.

Maybe after Frank gets run over by Mr. Myrick on a bike friendly street, he will develop an "attitude".

Cheers.

OK what's fair is fair.

Just keep the motorists off the "vastly safer alternate routes" and there will be no problem.

Easy as pie, all motorists should just stay on the "main routes." Main route doesn't go where you want... tough, learn to live with it, after all, that's what you want cyclists to do.

Fair enough.

That mostly sums up my thoughts on this. Jim-in-Kirkland fills in the rest.

I can buy that... in theory.

I have one problem. North.

If I want to go North, Before I can get to the bucolic bliss of North Ludlow/Granby/Belchertown I must first negotiate RT 21 in Springfield, a 4 lane 35MPH (which is a joke, because every vehicle does a min of 45) without ANY shoulder whatsoever. No white line, storm drains sticking out 3 feet into my line, all sorts of gutter refuse... you get the idea.

I have now found a patchwork collection of sidewalks/sidestreets that get me through the gauntlet at a time penalty of about 10 mins - and ya know what? The pragmatic me, will use this newfound solution.

It must be great to live in Portland or Western Massachusetts where motorist on less busy streets never right hook or left hook cyclist. Here in Hawaii, the motorist are just as likely to right hook a cyclist on a nice quite, suburb, residential street or especially the sidewalk (as you state you ride). 95% of the time they will not even use a turn signal while they do it.

Bikepacker67, you are so lucky to live in such an area. :rolleyes:

Portland, like many other (every other?) US city is afflicted by a candy-assed police force that won't DARE cite a white motorist who has threatened a non-motorized traveler with a rolling homicide weapon. Maybe it'll take a career drunk driver putting a Portland bike cop in the hospital for them to wake up. Funny thing, they're kind of trigger happy--it's just that they pick relatively harmless targets.

This driver's actions do not rise to the level of a crime? If the driver had done this to another car he would be sited. Making a right across another vehicle can't be legal- a reckless driving charge at minimum. Unfortunately, most people realize the stupidity of crossing another car and refrain from doing so only to preserve their own lives and property and a bicycle isn't nearly as threatening to a drivers survival.

It's cyclists like Frank that give us a bad name. Another case of CIC, cycling inferiority complex.

Frank is just a self-righteous troll, whose entire focus in life was to see his own name in print. Ignoring is the best option. Now that he's had his little moment in the spotlight (which should suffice for his failure to take his medication), I'm sure he'll be feeling a lot better about himself.

"But as with most collisions, there will be no prosecution. "It doesn't rise to the level of a crime," says Hussey."

so if i scratch a Toyota there is a level of crime. If I injury a cylist there's no crime.

Frank is just a self-righteous troll, whose entire focus in life was to see his own name in print. Ignoring is the best option. Now that he's had his little moment in the spotlight (which should suffice for his failure to take his medication), I'm sure he'll be feeling a lot better about himself.
Nicely said. If anything, Frank is the one with the agenda - and not much of an intelligent one at that.

It's bad enough that such a deplorable viewpoint is used by cagers to justify their arrogance. I can't believe a cyclist has also bought into it. There's nothing like a troll.

Roody already asked, what agenda?

It is a good question, especially if we go with the idea that the police involved are decent folks and doing their job (and a bit of Serge thrown in).

The incident did not rise to the level of a crime (or perhaps more correctly a winnable case with no police officer present). What does this say about where the rider was lanewise? Surely not towards the left part of the right lane aggressively taking the lane!

So what is the riders agenda? The rider has a legal right to take the lane, someone with an agenda about rights surely would have been doing just that! An agenda that riders have a right to ride the gutter on busy streets? Sounds pretty lame to me.

So the agenda argument fails pretty badly, unless of course one considers riding streets that go where you want to go an 'agenda'.

But run over some ducks and watch the feathers fly and the reward money pile in.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/14/BAG4KE7PUB1.DTL&hw=duck+killing&sn=002&sc=884



Portland, like many other (every other?) US city is afflicted by a candy-assed police force that won't DARE cite a white motorist who has threatened a non-motorized traveler with a rolling homicide weapon. Maybe it'll take a career drunk driver putting a Portland bike cop in the hospital for them to wake up. Funny thing, they're kind of trigger happy--it's just that they pick relatively harmless targets.

But run over some ducks and watch the feathers fly and the reward money pile in.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/14/BAG4KE7PUB1.DTL&hw=duck+killing&sn=002&sc=884


Car wash employees offered a reward Friday. So far, they've received calls from CNN, the "Today" show and outraged duck lovers throughout Northern California

How depressing is that?

On the Duck thing:

It was caught on video

The guy went out of his way to run over ducks, not once but several times

Sounds like he was on the property of the car wash.

Unlike the cyclist incidident this one is clear, it was a deliberate act. His goal was to kill.

Today ducks, tommorrow cyclists. I have no problem with people wanting this guy off the streets.

It must be great to live in Portland or Western Massachusetts where motorist on less busy streets never right hook or left hook cyclist. Here in Hawaii, the motorist are just as likely to right hook a cyclist on a nice quite, suburb, residential street or especially the sidewalk (as you state you ride). 95% of the time they will not even use a turn signal while they do it.


Isn't it nice how they check your turn signals every year in the bogus "$$$ safety inspection $$$", but don't expect you to actually use them on the road? I get the impression turn signals are going out of fashion across the nation.

it's just another example of the mentality that claims anything faster and bigger has more rights than something smaller and slower.

OK what's fair is fair.

Just keep the motorists off the "vastly safer alternate routes" and there will be no problem.

Easy as pie, all motorists should just stay on the "main routes." Main route doesn't go where you want... tough, learn to live with it, after all, that's what you want cyclists to do.

Fair enough.

that's well said genec. his entire argument can be blown by your simple post.

Right, I'm totally with you on that. That guy is scary and I'm sure if he has no inibitions about running over some ducks, cyclists will be next on his hit list.

But it's ironic that people get emotionally so worked up about ducks getting run over, but a cyclist who gets run over will be ignored for the most part, except for bikenuts.

There was also the poodle that got thrown into traffic during a road rage incident in SJ a few years ago prompting a huge reward.


On the Duck thing:

It was caught on video

The guy went out of his way to run over ducks, not once but several times

Sounds like he was on the property of the car wash.

Unlike the cyclist incidident this one is clear, it was a deliberate act. His goal was to kill.

Today ducks, tommorrow cyclists. I have no problem with people wanting this guy off the streets.

Here's a couple of follow-up letters to the editor:

PEDAL EXTREMITIES

I am so tired of bicyclists whining about unfriendly motorists, et al. ["Riding Herd," WW, Aug. 10, 2005]. Perhaps if we didn't see 99 percent of them continually doing stuff like blowing through stop signs and not waiting for traffic lights, we'd have a bit more sympathy. The arrogance and entitled attitude ("I'm helping the environmennnnnt") that comes across from this behavior, does nothing to foster positive relations. Don't even get me started on Critical Mass.

Literally, over a period of several years, I've yet to use up all 10 fingers in counting the number of times I've seen a bicyclist obey the traffic laws, which they are supposed to follow. It is so extremely rare that it really stands out, and I always want to compliment the very small percent who did.

Bicyclists can't have it both ways. As long as their attitude is one of blatant disregard, they are not going to gain the respect of motorists. And this comes from someone who is an anti-war protestin', recyclin', nonprofit workin', never-in-a-million-years-would-I-own-an-SUV, liberal female.

Rashas Weber
Southwest Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET AROUND?

I can tell that Frank DiMarco, self-described "Portland bicyclist" [Mailbox, WW, Aug. 10, 2005], has never attended the Bicycle Transportation Alliance's Bicyclist's Legal Clinics, or he'd know every cyclist has the right to the full travel lane if (a) she can go the speed of traffic, or (b) it is unsafe to stay to the side of the lane. Angela Valdez was probably following the letter of the law when she was hit by a motorist.

We disagree with Mr. DiMarco that cyclists should "get the hell off the main streets." We at the BTA believe that bicyclists should have equal access to all parts of our road system. Why should cyclists have to take a less-convenient route, while autos get to go from point A to point B in a (nearly) straight line? Also, many of the "alternative routes" Mr. DiMarco refers to don't have signals at major streets, so it can be difficult to go long distances.

Most cyclists will choose neighborhood streets because they like quiet streets, but cyclists who choose major routes have a good reason: They use the signals at major crossings, they are strong, speedy cyclists who want a direct route, or they simply need to get to a destination that's on that street. Don't forget that cyclists, just like motorists, need to get from any starting point to any ending point. Does Mr. DiMarco think cyclists shouldn't shop at businesses on Hawthorne or Belmont?

Our next free legal clinic will be held on Sept. 21, from 6 to 7:30 pm. Please call to RSVP and for directions (503-226-0676).

It doesn't need to be a civil war out there, folks. We're all just trying to get around. With a little bit of effort and empathy, we really can share the road.

Jessica Roberts
Bicycle Transportation Alliance
Southwest 12th Avenue

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6621

Here's a couple of follow-up letters to the editor:

PEDAL EXTREMITIES

I am so tired of bicyclists whining about unfriendly motorists, et al. ["Riding Herd," WW, Aug. 10, 2005]. Perhaps if we didn't see 99 percent of them continually doing stuff like blowing through stop signs and not waiting for traffic lights, we'd have a bit more sympathy. The arrogance and entitled attitude ("I'm helping the environmennnnnt") that comes across from this behavior, does nothing to foster positive relations.

Holy stereotypes, Batman! From reading this you'd get the impression that the smug author, who obviously counts herself as a complete saint on the road, actually believes (any) automobiles follow traffic laws. As if.

Um, she actually believes ALL motorists obey ALL the traffic laws ALL the time? IMO, the paper is doing the larger community a real disservice by publishing some of these letters, and they should know better. FYI, the Willamette Week is the local yuppie/boomer weekly (Gen Xrs have their own weekly), and the WW's journalism standards in general leave something to be desired. Plus they get a lot of advert dollars from the local bike shops so you'd think they'd know better.

yeah, it happens. A troll finds an anchor to broadcast from, and hoots loudly to attract others. Then they multiply. Then earnest good-intentioned types feed them. And it just goes from there.

my misanthropy beast really loves stuff like that.

people like that will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

It is one of the downside to having cities put in bike facilities on the already 'easy' (i.e. easy to put them in since the road is already wide and already easy to ride on since the road is already slow and less used) streets that neighborhood and some cycling activists ask for. It has the side effect of giving the perception that bicycles shouldn't be on the main streets where they are not. Its one of my frustrations that 25mph residential streets where I live have bike lanes and bike route signs, but get you nowhere usefull unless going for an evening ride with the family or riding around campus. So I do all my commuting on 45mph+ multilane arterials with narrow outside lanes that actually can get me across town, where 95% of other cyclist use the sidewalk on these streets. Guess where I get yelled at by irrate motorists the most to get off the road?

Al

But wait, there's more!

FOLLOW YOUR OWN DAMN BLISS

I missed the WW of Aug. 3 but did catch the Aug. 10 Mailbox letter from Frank DiMarco. I would like, therefore, to respond to his letter rather than what WW wrote. He says to Portland bicyclists, "Stay the hell off the main streets and embrace the alternatives." He suggests we ride "blissfully" on Northeast 16th Avenue making "the same time" as we could on Northeast 15th Avenue.

Well, I think it is a little presumptuous to tell other bicycle riders that they can "make the same time" on a side street with unmarked intersections not containing any throughway. Bike riders choose to ride on through streets for the same reasons motorists do: We don't want to have to face inevitable uncertainty at unmarked neighborhood intersections as we try to cross the city. So I guess I have to say in return, keep your bliss and travel as you like, but I will choose to use arterials for getting across the city.

I don't think I am more "self-absorbed" than the next Joe, but I do want to get around on a street where I have the right of way if I have a choice. So, sir, stay the hell out of my right to ride where I want; keep your bliss to yourself and let that be your reward. I view my bike as a way to use the streets to get around safely and efficiently in our city, and I don't accept your advice to push me off on to side streets when I can travel more safely and speedily on a through street.

Motorists need to learn how to drive around bicyclists and pedestrians; the streets, all of the streets, also belong to non-motorized users.

Ray Thomas
Southwest 2nd Avenue

SUICIDE BY CAR?

Tonight (Aug. 6), I was riding my scooter home and nearly had a wreck when five bicyclists ran a red light directly in front of me. Ironically, this was just hours after reading your Rogue of the Week article on "self-absorbed motorists" [Aug. 3, 2005]. I think it is a complete tragedy that 10 people have died as a result of car vs. bike or car vs. pedestrian accidents; however, I have a couple of comments to make.

Two of these 10 people were killed when they stepped out into traffic intentionally to commit suicide. One of these on Aug. 5 was immediately called suicide. Another in January that I witnessed, the media reported as "Pedestrian hit crossing I-5." However, police later determined it suicide. The drivers in these cases are, in fact, the victims.

Additionally, I live along the Southeast Clinton bike route and often ride my own bike around town. Daily I see cyclists totally ignoring all rules of the road: running red lights, jumping onto sidewalks in front of pedestrians, making illegal turns, apparently assuming that the traffic laws do not apply to them.

In fact, the Aug. 1 edition of The Oregonian reported that almost half of the pedestrian vs. motor vehicle crashes between 1985 and 2002 were actually the fault of the pedestrians.

So rather than creating more animosity between bicyclists and drivers, why don't we put a call out to all Oregonians to simply drive, ride and walk more safely. Be aware of what you are doing and pay attention to others. And I would ask the police department to hold accountable pedestrians and bicyclists who refuse to obey the laws of the road. Oh, and if you want to kill yourself, do it in the privacy of your own home.

Erin Staples
Southeast 49th Avenue
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6640

And from a local listserve:

posted on a forum pertaining to the wweak letter:

I got hit from behind by a SUV on Killingsworth this Sunday.

The first thing the motorist said when she came over to where I was
still lying dazed on the ground was, "you need to get out the road."

I calmly asked her to learn just one thing that day: "I have a right to
be here." She just kinda nodded. Latter she would tell me that she chose
to hit me rather than the oncoming car.

I can see "the arrogance and entitled attitude". How about capable? I
was hit from behind this time. Before it was when a driver made an
illegal left turn in front of me. Meanwhile as I run every stop sign and
traffic light I somehow have stayed alive and uninjured.

Less than a week ago, a driver honked and told me I was an ******* and
drove on. I caught up to him at the light

"Hi there, I heard you talking at me just now. Maybe now that we have a
moment you can explain why you are yelling at me.

"because you don't follow the rules of traffic."

"do you ever speed?"

"sometimes."

At this I just shrugged my shoulders and took off against traffic. He
continued to yell at me.

The point is, if I can do it safely* than why do you care?

* safely, I will define as: 5 years of breaking said traffic laws
without incident.

This double standard is the reason many bikers feel slighted. Motorists
who think they can dole out some hope of widespread acceptance as
legitimate transportation by saying "if you only follow the rules that I
do" are misguided at best.

I can understand why you are upset by seeing bikers disobey traffic
laws. Likely, you are stuck in traffic when that happens. If I was ever
stuck in traffic I would be upset too. Lucky for me, I only have to
worry about being the 10th biker/pedestrian killed in Portland this
year.

Interesting... I'd love to see if the original clown is going to bother responding...

My girlfriend, Laura, has been hit twice in the last year while riding her bike through Portland. Both times, a motorist passed her and then pulled in front of her. Both times she was in a bike lane.

In the first incident, as Laura was riding down Terwilliger from OHSU, a woman with a fridge in the passenger's seat passed her, and then quickly turned down a street to the right. Laura hit the side of her car at 20 mph, with no time to brake. Very miraculously, Laura was fine (the car was not - if only it always worked out that way). At first, the woman tried to complain that Laura was at fault, but then she drove her to the emergency room for X-rays.

In the second incident, Laura was travelling east in the bike lane on SE Hawthorne when a driver passed her and then tried to parallel park (without stopping and backing in) at the liquor store around 10th Ave. As the he turned into the cyclists travelling in the bike lane, Laura hit the curb and cracked two ribs and her scapula. The motorist complained that Laura didn't yield.

In both cases, the street was wide, Laura was in a bike lane, and she had reflective clothing and flashing lights. In both cases, Laura tried to report the incident to the police, but they expressed disinterest in recording an incident that was not a crime and in which nobody died. In both cases, the costs of the collision were covered under the driver's insurance.

It is my opinion that motorists fail to acknowledge the responsibility they take on when driving a car. This responsibility is probably better instilled in a European driver - getting a driver's license in Germany is like getting a pilot's license here; however, in Europe, public transportation often provides a good alternative to driving, so it's very obviously a privilege. True in Portland, not true in most US cities. Still, I believe that requirements for obtaining a driver's license should be tightened. I *also* believe that a sort of "defensive bicycling" class should be offered, and perhaps mandatory for cyclists in collisions where the bicyclist is in error.

It is also my opinion that motorists are not given much incentive to drive safely, especially around cyclists. There are two reasons.

First, drivers often experience a "close call" but then either fail to learn something from the experience (eg. not thinking "oh, failing to look while changing lanes is bad"), or quickly forget about the whole thing and remain just as likely to make the same mistake again.

The second reason that drivers lack incentive, particularly around cyclists, is that the way we treat accidents tends to minimize the significance of the event. When a car runs into another car, usually, the damage is strictly monetary. Both cars need to be repaired, and insurance will likely cover it. The exception, of course, is when people are driving at higher speeds. But even the careful highway driver will become careless at lower speeds, since the consequences of a collision are less. We even call them "accidents" instead of "collisions" - as though they "just happen".

Now, consider instead a motorist - cyclist collision. There is a imbalance of consequence here. For the motorist, this is just another one of those accidents where they aren't in danger of being personally hurt. Sure, it's self-centered reasoning, but it's human nature and done implicitly - most of us probably think this way and don't realize it. For the consequence-aware cyclist, this is gonna hurt. A lot. When a motorist hits a cyclist, the driver often doesn't seem to acknowledge or realize what a hazard their big fat car presents to the cyclist. Perhaps, consciously or subconciously, it never occured to them. The cyclist is on the ground, bleeding, and the motorist is fine. Then the insurance system steps in, and as far as the motorist is involved, the whole accident becomes a collection of numbers on paper: "we paid this much to compensate the cyclist". The driver's car is probably fine, and the driver is probably unhurt, so the personal involvement - that is, the driver's direct connection with tragedy that they just inflicted - ends as soon as they leave the scene. And because "accidents just happen" and unwanted memories are often short-lived, the motorist is able to, at some point, shrug it off and maybe even feel like they just got unlucky that day.

Until this imbalance of consequence is some how mitigated, drivers will continue to fail to see the effects of their actions until some additional effort (by the community) makes them aware, either by warning them ahead of time in the DMV and through other information avenues (on the TV, etc), or by reminding them afterwards - with harsher penalties that affect them personally for causing a motorist-cyclist collision.

That said, as cyclists, we could do more things to help ourselves stay safe:
wear a frickin' helmet. I know, it's not required. But consider: Laura is on her 3rd. Her life would be different had she not been wearing one.
be predictable. This includes not only obeying the law, but also taking steps to make sure motorists know what you are about to do.

I was enjoying a nice beer outside the Nightlight (a great place) on Clinton and 21st Ave the other day. As I watched the other cyclists ride by, 1 in 20 actually stopped at the 4 way stop. Often, there were cars already at the intersection, to which the cyclists should have yielded. These cyclists are wreckless and undermine the case that the rest of us are trying to make against wreckless drivers. If I just described you: stop! your actions are no more justifiable than those of the guy that ran over Angela Valdez.

That's a pretty frustrating thing to read about. I wish to god society would grow up already. Thank heavens at least I'm in a country where cyclists aren't reviled.

I just quit my job and will be leaving soon. I hate the thought of knowing that 90+ percent of the world's countries are effectively evil for cyclists.

The second reason that drivers lack incentive, particularly around cyclists, is that the way we treat accidents tends to minimize the significance of the event.

So true. It's just an annoyance to most people.

Angela's story, in her own words:

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6678

Plus a butt-load of new letters:

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6667

There is bike safety meeting in SE Portland today. I will be going.



Message 8: BIKE SAFETY MEETING FOR SOUTHEAST PORTLAND, 9/1

The Portland Office of Transportation is hosting a series of bike
safety workshops around the city. Southeast Uplift is hosting a repeat
presentation for Southeast Portland residents on Thursday, 9/1 at 7 PM
at SEUL (3534 SE Main Street).

Greg Raisman from the City will present detailed crash data for your
area, as well as talking about factors that can increase bicycle
safety in general. He will also be developing a set of projects for
your area to improve bike safety and then making sure those projects
get implemented.

"developing a set of projects" sounds like "we'll be taking input" so this could be very constructive.