Another misinformed editorial

[noisebeam]

Al, I have no clue what standard is in use in most US states. In Ontario the status quo is that any lane with any movement or usage limitations gets a solid stripe. Bus lanes, HOV lanes, taxis lanes, bike lanes - they all get a solid lane stripe. In some cases - such as near schools - all lanes may have solid stripes. The only common exceptions are near intersection where a merger is allowed (e.g. for a right turn). Unfortunately there is some inconsistency here in Ottawa about bike lanes and right-turn mergers: I believe this dates back before the amalgamation in 2000 when the five large cities (and several small ones) got forcibly combined.

This is the convention here as well. A solid white stripe means don't cross, a dashed means you can merge with caution. I recall, but not clearly, when I took Drivers Ed. in Massachusetts as a kid that there was some distinction between a 6" vs. 8" vs. 10" solid white line, but maybe that was more of a fanciful misinterpretation of my teachers.

One often sees solid white lines dividing lanes near intersections, in narrow passages of freeways (like during construction). More bike lanes are having a dashed lane painted at intersections to encourage drivers to merg into them for right turns. But here is why I think continuous dashed line always may be right, because a (1) cyclist may at any time choose to merge out of the BL for many good reasons and (2) major intersection are getting the line dashed just before turns, but every driveway, small side street still doesn't.

Al

[patc]

This is the convention here as well. A solid white stripe means don't cross, a dashed means you can merge with caution. I recall, but not clearly, when I took Drivers Ed. in Massachusetts as a kid that there was some distinction between a 6" vs. 8" vs. 10" solid white line, but maybe that was more of a fanciful misinterpretation of my teachers.

We have continuity lines, which are thinner painted lines with longer spaces between them (dashed lane lines have roughly the same paint and space lengths). Continuity lines sometimes marke lanes through intersections - most commonly left turns - if the layout might cause vehicles to drift too much.


One often sees solid white lines dividing lanes near intersections, in narrow passages of freeways (like during construction). More bike lanes are having a dashed lane painted at intersections to encourage drivers to merg into them for right turns. But here is why I think continuous dashed line always may be right, because a (1) cyclist may at any time choose to merge out of the BL for many good reasons and (2) major intersection are getting the line dashed just before turns, but every driveway, small side street still doesn't.

My interpretation (have yet to see this clearly stated here) is that a solid white line states "don't assume you can pass this line". Maybe you can, maybe you can' t- you have to figure out why the line is solid. Its like a "no right turn" sign - there may be a note below it telling you it doesn't apply to you (e.g. "except bikes") but it makes you responsible for following the direction unless a specific allowance is made.

Should bike lanes be striped for their entire length? My vote is "no" at this point. First it would create confusion: special use lanes in Ontario are marked with a solid white line, a diamond, and a notice of the vehicle(s) allowed. An exception for bike lanes would just created confusion. Secondly the current setup works, so I see no need to make huge changes. Vehicles move in and out of special use lanes all the time- in particular buses leave transit lanes to turn, pass other buses, etc. It should pose no problem to someone familiar with our roads (and if it does, the problem is with driver education and licensing, not road design).

The only justification I see for dashing bike lanes comes from a belief that bike lanes are somehow different from other special use lanes. That is an opinion I see most often in VCers, the ones whose inferiority complex leads to feelings of "segregation". :rolleyes:

I don't pretend to have any special knowledge or universal truths. In Ontario, and specifically in Ottawa, the notion of bikes and bike-lanes as "segregation" could only come from ignorance of local conditions. I'm not saying the city or province are perfect, far from it! But conditions are generally good, attitudes are generally good, and there is a willingness on the part of the city to improve cycling (well, as much as any elected gov't ever has a willingness to actually do anything).

[genec]

To further comment on how cyclists are treated, and how motorists react to us... I read an editorial this morning regarding MADD. After 25 years of campaigning, the number of drunk drivers has been reduced by 44%. That is what a concentrated focused pubic campaign can do regarding motorists. (so don't bother telling me that motorists' habits can't be changed... )

Imagine Cycling Advocacy both training cyclists, AND leading the drive to inform motorists... a two prong approach... through the use of LBS based classes, and PSAs and local police co-operation.

Perhaps after 25 years, cyclists will then fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

Let's face it, it has been nearly 30 years since Forester presented his ideas in his book... and there sure hasn't been much if any improvement over that time... a better, stronger approach is needed.

[Brian Ratliff]

:beer:

I've largely gone off these forums due to this sort of pedantic quibbling, usage of weird acronyms that people in the real world don't understand, and this persistent VC brainfarting.

I took the time to check HH's sig line crap the other day, and I was reassured that they were just pointless links to a couple of Wikipedia entries (whooo!) and some cheesy website that looked like it was designed by a 15 year old in the mid-90's. :lol:

I can't understand how people can get so worked up discussing the difference between a bike lane, path, road, directional guidance manifestation, striped, solid, dashed lanes, and all the time ignoring the gigantic log that got stuck up there somehow.


:fight: Arghhh...

I don't know about anyone else, but I do this for entertainment on a slow work day. It's fun to quibble over little details, particularly to get the VC'ers all worked up over the little things. It keeps them engaged and out of the way while others do the real work. Besides, dealing with the log is so much harder... ;)

Incidentally, I reread parts of Forester's book, and it is less theoretical and more practical than what HH and other VC'ers are advocating here. The parts of the book where Forester talks about techniques is very good and very practical. The last chapter where he goes off on his riff about his "psychology" is a bit out there. His observations are correct, but his diagnosis and conspiracy theories are a bit off kilter.

Anyway, the point is that the chapters of his book where Forester is describing technique indicates that he has a vast reserve of practical experience, whereas some of the VC'ers here seem to have much less, and show it by their pedantic quibbling and endless arguments over sematics.

[genec]

...the current setup works, so I see no need to make huge changes. Vehicles move in and out of special use lanes all the time- in particular buses leave transit lanes to turn, pass other buses, etc. It should pose no problem to someone familiar with our roads (and if it does, the problem is with driver education and licensing, not road design).



They almost work... motorists are still not acknowledging cyclists in the BL. They fail to yeild right of way when turning and merging, they fail to check the BL for traffic, and they still speed up and attempt to "outrun" bikes... thus becoming part of the equation for right hooks.

BL almost work... a bit of education for both cyclists and motorists could make all the difference.

Remember for the most part BL have only been installed over about the last 30 years... and they have been modified in various ways to find workable solutions... anyone near my age has not had any driving education that included driving in and around BL. The census (http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html) shows that the greatest population by age group is in the 40-44 year old range. And the current driving written tests don't ask any questions about BL... why should a motorist have any interest in them.

Is it any wonder that motorists do not appear to understand what to do around Bike Lanes?

[noisebeam]

:fight: Arghhh...

It's fun to quibble over little details, particularly to get the VC'ers all worked up over the little things.
Agreed. I really don't like the refereeing that some try to do - espeically the kind that just complains about the debate without adding anything to it.

The details, the perception, the personal experience, the statistics, the studies, the interpretation, etc. area all important.

The bottom line for me is that over the months I have learned to be a safer cyclist, I have changed, have adapted and have cemented by ideas about the safest way for me to cycle and what changes to the environment may be effective to make cycling safer for me and others.

Some folks complain that the A&S forum is tiresome with its endless, repetetive debates, but I look at it as the only sub-forum where there are dynamics that still can effect me on a daily basis. Once you have your hardware down and it works best for you and know how to fix your bike, what else is there to say in the Mechanics or the Road Cycling forum, for example?

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Agreed. I really don't like the refereeing that some try to do - espeically the kind that just complains about the debate without adding anything to it.

The details, the perception, the personal experience, the statistics, the studies, the interpretation, etc. area all important.

The bottom line for me is that over the months I have learned to be a safer cyclist, I have changed, have adapted and have cemented by ideas about the safest way for me to cycle and what changes to the environment may be effective to make cycling safer for me and others.

Some folks complain that the A&S forum is tiresome with its endless, repetetive debates, but I look at it as the only sub-forum where there are dynamics that still can effect me on a daily basis. Once you have your hardware down and it works best for you and know how to fix your bike, what else is there to say in the Mechanics or the Road Cycling forum, for example?

Al

Good point. I have learned things as well. My current commute is the most challenging, both in length and in traffic conditions, I have ever had. I turn to the A&S forum for theory, and the Commuting forum for advice. All this debate lead to ideas. Ideas cannot form or evolve in a vacuum.

[Helmet Head]

If I were driving a car in the same situation... even quite slow, I would not encounter that same "attention." (try it... it is amusing... espcially amusing is the number of people that just continue to follow you even at very slow speeds... as if they cannot determine for themselves what to do)

This all comes back to the same point that I have been making: We are not treated as drivers of vehicles... We are simply tolerated as obstructions. Forester's equation never balances. "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."
There you go again, Gene, interpreting "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" as if it says, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of MODERN CARS". And I am going to keep calling you on it until you comprehend the difference, and stop repeating the same error.

Further, I disagree that you wouldn't get the same attention if you were driving a car slowly... you very well might. For example, I often drive my '85 Civic at the posted speed limit of 35 on Torrey Pines Road, and I get all kinds of behavior that you describe as "aggressive" around here, including honking, and even "why are you going so slow?" pestering from my beloved.

Now take a 1902 Stanley Steamer at 20 mph in the right lane of TP Rd - right where I got honked at - and start looking behind you like you're looking to see if it's clear to merge left, and see if you get honked at...

If we are "tolerated as obstructions", it's no different a "toleration as obstructions" than that which applies to antique car drivers, farm tractor drivers, antique car drivers, etc., etc., and a whole host of drivers of other types of VEHICLES.

And while you might hear antique car drivers comment on the intolerance and lack of respect that they encounter in traffic, very familiar to what we cyclists encounter from time to time, what you won't see is them talking about needing to educate motorists to understand that antique cars belong on the road too... That's because they know the trick - don't choose to let it bother you - a trick I hope you will learn soon, perhaps before the big half-century mark...

[Nicodemus]

:fight: Arghhh...

I don't know about anyone else, but I do this for entertainment on a slow work day. It's fun to quibble over little details, particularly to get the VC'ers all worked up over the little things. It keeps them engaged and out of the way while others do the real work. Besides, dealing with the log is so much harder... ;)

I get your point. I sometimes have to step back when I see annoying crap here as well. But I do find it tiresome sometimes, that's all.

[genec]

And while you might hear antique car drivers comment on the intolerance and lack of respect that they encounter in traffic, very familiar to what we cyclists encounter from time to time, what you won't see is them talking about needing to educate motorists to understand that antique cars belong on the road too... That's because they know the trick...

Uh yeah, they also know the trick of surrounding themselves with a 1/2 a ton of metal so that drivers don't try to cut so close that right hand mirrors nick them in the arms or heads.

Also again... you give an illustration of a situation that rarely occurs... before it was the rare movement of heavy construction equipment, now the equally rare movement of classic cars... nothing that relates to the day to day cycling of commuting cyclists.

As you had pointed out before... I find that most motorists leave me alone, or tolerate me, but even after years of riding the same routes, there are still those that come along and attempt to abuse me in some form or another... if, as you say "they will just get used to you..." then why does this still occur? And indeed it is a shock, simply by what happens... not so much by how often it happens.

I wonder too if these antique auto drivers ever have things thrown at them from passing cars?

Tell you what... forget me for now... don't even let me bother you (which, apparently I do). Go to some of the other forums and take a look... I am not the only one that has problems with lack of respect of "fellow road users." And frankly I just don't think that we deserve it...

Why should I have to "put up with it?"

I simply expect to be treated as the driver of any other vehicle.

[Helmet Head]

But you're not the driver of ANY other vehicle, you're essentially the driver of a SLOW vehicle, and if your exectations are to be treated like the driver of an Accord, you're bound to be disappointed and bothered.

Lower your expectations to a more realistic level... to be treated like the annoying and bothersome driver of a SLOW vehicle that you are, and I think you'll find life in traffic much more tolerable...

[james_swift]

They almost work... motorists are still not acknowledging cyclists in the BL. They fail to yeild right of way when turning and merging, they fail to check the BL for traffic, and they still speed up and attempt to "outrun" bikes... thus becoming part of the equation for right hooks.

BL almost work... a bit of education for both cyclists and motorists could make all the difference.

Remember for the most part BL have only been installed over about the last 30 years... and they have been modified in various ways to find workable solutions... anyone near my age has not had any driving education that included driving in and around BL. The census (http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html) shows that the greatest population by age group is in the 40-44 year old range. And the current driving written tests don't ask any questions about BL... why should a motorist have any interest in them.

Is it any wonder that motorists do not appear to understand what to do around Bike Lanes?

I'm sure it must've been said somewhere in this forum, but the way bike lanes are used around my city, you'd think that they were meant as UPS/Fedex/USPS/Milk truck/passenger loading/unloading zones...VERY dangerous riding around a Fedex truck parked in the bike lane with traffic to your left...especailly when that Fedex truck decides to take off just as you're trying to pass. :mad:

[genec]

But you're not the driver of ANY other vehicle, you're essentially the driver of a SLOW vehicle, and if your exectations are to be treated like the driver of an Accord, you're bound to be disappointed and bothered.

Lower your expectations to a more realistic level... to be treated like the annoying and bothersome driver of a SLOW vehicle that you are, and I think you'll find life in traffic much more tolerable...

Good response, but sometimes I am not the driver of a SLOW vehicle... and in those cases it really ticks me off when some other driver gets all bent out of shape simply by my presence. ("excuse me jerk, while I transport out of YOUR way of the stoplight that we are both waiting for... ")

Noisebeam gave a perfectly good example, where in bumper to bumper traffic, with no place else to go, some driver of a motor vehicle still did something wrong that would not have happened, were there any respect for drivers of human powered vehicles.

I believe your "honking grandma" was not delayed in any way by your actions... and yet...

I know, I know... "get over it..." Sigh.

I won't, it will still tick me off... But I'll drop it for now...

[noisebeam]

Noisebeam gave a perfectly good example, where in bumper to bumper traffic, with no place else to go, some driver of a motor vehicle still did something wrong that would not have happened, were there any respect for drivers of human powered vehicles.

Well I gathered from Serge's response to my other driver behavior problem it is because I wear an ANSI hi-vis T-shirt intead of a skin tight shiny euro team kit. That would have likely gotten me the respect so I wouldn't have been run into. ;)


LIME T-shirt? Oh now I understand... I'd try to run you down too! :)

Seriously, pick up a European team jersey at your LBS, and see if that gets you some respect out there...



Al

[genec]

Well I gathered from Serge's response to my other driver behavior problem it is because I wear an ANSI hi-vis T-shirt intead of a skin tight shiny euro team kit. That would have likely gotten me the respect so I wouldn't have been run into. ;)

Al

He doesn't like my Primal Wear Tie-dyed swirl jersey either...

The other day he took note of the other jersey I like to wear and said... "how come you are always wearing orange... "

My reply: "Duh! I wanna be seen! What, I'm a slave to fashion???"

I have a whole drawer full of orange long sleeve T shirts that I used to wear... now I am wear these new very comfortable coolmax, microfiber, high tech jerseys. Expensive, but man they feel sooooo good. :D

[noisebeam]

My reply: "Duh! I wanna be seen! What, I'm a slave to fashion???"

I like and will stick with my hi-vis wicking T. To me, along with my assertive riding and full carry bag, it conveys 'serious commuter' just going to/from work like every one around us vs. arrogant self absorbed roadie (which I can be on weekends, not starting a fight here) in training during rush hour I've on a number of occasions had drivers comment to me in postive ways about how my shirt was so bright they could see me so well. No one has ever said your shirt is so bright it makes me want to run you off the street. ;)

Al

[noisebeam]

Oh my oh my, here is his promised Friday followup:

(He's worse than a forum troll. And that is a discrace considering he is a paid newspaper editorialist. I plan on writing a well thought out, clear, non-emotional reponse this weekend.)

http://www.azcentral.com/community/se/columns/articles/0930durrenberger30.html

Cycling's lunatic brain trust can't comprehend 'safety'

Sept. 30, 2005 12:00 AM

Avirulent strain of malcontents has long infected the so-called cycling community (the colorful crowd that rides bicycles). These wacky people do not represent clear-thinking, law-abiding cyclists as a whole. Nonetheless, the few nuts among them that do exist are illustrious of our society's continued slide into abject stupidity.

Let's begin at the beginning. Last week in this venerable space was a snappy little column on automobile, bicycle and pedestrian safety (specifically, the general lack of it).

In part it read, "Allow me to assert that the arterial and neighborhood streets surrounding Arizona State University are comparatively dangerous and becoming more so. That fact has nothing to do with how the bulk of these streets were either engineered or built. To paraphrase late-night comedian David Letterman, the best design can't compensate for stupid human traffic tricks. The real root of the problem is too many thoughtless people (drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians) in too big a hurry in too small a space. It's a recipe for continued injury and death. Who will be next?"

Response to the column among a small, rabid cluster of cyclists was uniformly negative. As demonstrably dumb as they are, they have figured out how to send e-mail. They also have extremely thin skins. As such, they don't take criticism well. For example, one e-mail sent to me was titled, "Are You a Moron?"

Hindsight suggests that the following paragraph is what probably infuriated the likes of these foolish few. Referring to a car-bicycle accident where it was clearly stated that the automobile driver was at fault, a portion of my comments was as follows.

"My sympathies also extend to the driver who, like so many other drivers, is forced to navigate the maze of bicyclists who routinely converge on Arizona State University. They break every traffic law imaginable. Some run stop signs and traffic lights. Others ride on the wrong side of the street. The rest j-bike, regardless of risk."

Despite the fact that this and the prior paragraph are correct in every respect, the truth didn't go over very well.

One reader, suffering from delusion, wasted the better part of his morning sending me useless excerpts from Arizona Revised Statutes. Then, alluding to imaginary comments that never appeared in the column, he fell off the shallow end of sanity and wrote the following:

"Just because some pedestrian j-walks or some cyclist rolls a stop sign - which we all know is illegal - does not give you the right to run into them with your car. If you do run someone down, and it is proven that you failed to exercise due caution and you failed to make every effort to avoid the collision, you will be sued and with any luck found guilty by a court of law. Hopefully, you would then forfeit your car and all your worldly possessions to the prevailing party. Then, you might find yourself (gasp!) walking or riding a bike to get around and find out first-hand exactly how inconsiderate the majority of motorists like yourself are. Wouldn't that be just deserts?"

Another enraged cyclist amply demonstrated his lack of basic literacy. In their tiresome missive the word "article" was spelled "artical." The word "blame" was spelled "blaim." The word "quoting" was spelled "qouteing." On and on the misspellings went. They were not typographical errors, because many were repeated several times. The writer's lame use (or lack of use) of punctuation made matters worse.

Generally speaking, if you can't spell you probably can't read. This would explain the inability of the writer and several of his pedaling peers to correctly comprehend the point of the column. Safety.

Another delusional reader wrote the following in response to something that was never said, "You seem to think bikes do not belong on the roads. We have as much right to the roads as you do in your 2-ton chunk of metal."

Well, there you have it, a small sampling of the cycling community's lunatic brain trust, a small, overreactive cadre of mean-spirited people who, apparently, don't believe in safety.

Dan Durrenberger is a 32-year resident of the East Valley who lives in Tempe and works in Mesa. He can be reached at

[galen_52657]

Here is the followup:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/se/columns/articles/0930durrenberger30.html

He quotes me in the article:

Just because some pedestrian j-walks or some cyclist rolls a stop sign - which we all know is illegal - does not give you the right to run into them with your car. If you do run someone down, and it is proven that you failed to exercise due caution and you failed to make every effort to avoid the collision, you will be sued and with any luck found guilty by a court of law. Hopefully, you would then forfeit your car and all your worldly possessions to the prevailing party. Then, you might find yourself (gasp!) walking or riding a bike to get around and find out first-hand exactly how inconsiderate the majority of motorists like yourself are. Wouldn't that be just deserts?"

Guy is still out to lunch. He can't understand his own writing.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Well, there you have it, a small sampling of the cycling community's lunatic brain trust, a small, overreactive cadre of mean-spirited people who, apparently, don't believe in safety.


Very ironic, consdering that his concerns for bicycle & pedestrian safety were driven by his desire not to have to fill out paperwork after hitting them. HE doesn't care much about safety either, he just doesn't want to be inconvenienced.

Why do these bozos always act as if they won some kind of victory when they enrage an entire group of people?

[Brian Ratliff]

Why do these bozos always act as if they won some kind of victory when they enrage an entire group of people?

Why else to write into a paper and include your email address? The best way to show there is no love for a person's opinion is to collectively ignore it.

[Helmet Head]

I just reread both editorials and I honestly don't understand what everyone is so upset about it. He's right. He's saying the problem in this particular area is that among motorists, peds and cyclists, there are those that are unsafe. Big deal. He got criticized here for complaining about having to get a lawyer when one hits a cyclist or ped, but he was trying to point out that when the responsible motorist hits an irresponsible cyclist or ped, that the irresponsible one isn't the only one that suffers. He was just trying to address the potential argument that irreponsible cyclists and peds are only putting themselves at risk.

He's right, people who can't spell probably can't read either. Reread his first article, slowly and carefully. Put each word, sentence and paragraph into the intended context. Then think about it. He has a point. It's rather obvious; not profound at all. It can't hurt to remind folks to be safe, and the reasons to be safe... and that's all he's trying to do.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

A fuller treatment of this author:


Avirulent strain of malcontents has long infected the so-called cycling community (the colorful crowd that rides bicycles). These wacky people do not represent clear-thinking, law-abiding cyclists as a whole. Nonetheless, the few nuts among them that do exist are illustrious of our society's continued slide into abject stupidity.


It seems that this ‘writer’ starts off trying to paint all of his critics as being lunatics and lawbreakers. Let us see if the evidence holds up, shall we?


Let's begin at the beginning. Last week in this venerable space was a snappy little column on automobile, bicycle and pedestrian safety (specifically, the general lack of it).


Yes. This is the same article where our misanthropic article bemoaned the hard, oh, so hard life of hit-and-run drivers, because, among other things, pedestrians stand “right on the edge of the curb”. You read that right. If you don’t like the way he drives, get off the sidewalk.


In part it read, "Allow me to assert that the arterial and neighborhood streets surrounding Arizona State University are comparatively dangerous and becoming more so. That fact has nothing to do with how the bulk of these streets were either engineered or built. To paraphrase late-night comedian David Letterman, the best design can't compensate for stupid human traffic tricks. The real root of the problem is too many thoughtless people (drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians) in too big a hurry in too small a space. It's a recipe for continued injury and death. Who will be next?"


This situation is not unique to ASU. Plenty of campuses around the US have similar conditions, yet manage not to have tragedies. Why? Because whatever the crimes of misdemeanors of cyclists and pedestrians, they are not used as excuses for murder by automobile.


Response to the column among a small, rabid cluster of cyclists was uniformly negative. As demonstrably dumb as they are, they have figured out how to send e-mail.


The claim is that cyclists are ‘demonstrateably dumb’, our writer fails to make the case for this. He resorts to spelling flames and hand-waving dismissals of legitimate complaints.


They also have extremely thin skins.


That sound you hear is an irony meter pegging.


As such, they don't take criticism well. For example, one e-mail sent to me was titled, "Are You a Moron?"


Not an unreasonable question, given that the author sympathized with a hit-and-run driver, and complained about possible inconvenience to him (or other drivers) when they strike and kill a pedestrian or cyclist.


Hindsight suggests that the following paragraph is what probably infuriated the likes of these foolish few. Referring to a car-bicycle accident where it was clearly stated that the automobile driver was at fault, a portion of my comments was as follows.


Hindsight suggests that it was a lot more than that. Among other things there was the suggestion that it is wrong for pedestrians to stand on the edge of the curb, and that we should be sympathetic with drivers who strike those pedestrians who hit them. This appalling attitude towards pedestrians merely shows how greater his contempt for cyclists will be in the article.


"My sympathies also extend to the driver who, like so many other drivers, is forced to navigate the maze of bicyclists who routinely converge on Arizona State University. They break every traffic law imaginable. Some run stop signs and traffic lights. Others ride on the wrong side of the street. The rest j-bike, regardless of risk."

Despite the fact that this and the prior paragraph are correct in every respect, the truth didn't go over very well.


ASU is not unique in this situation, and however wrong these antics might be they are not an excuse for hit-and-run antics by drivers. I cannot shoot people in the head for jaywalking, but running over cyclists for running stop signs (an antic done by drivers to far greater risk) seems to be acceptable behavior.


One reader, suffering from delusion, wasted the better part of his morning sending me useless excerpts from Arizona Revised Statutes. Then, alluding to imaginary comments that never appeared in the column, he fell off the shallow end of sanity and wrote the following:


I note, that this author cannot cite any of these imaginary claims. The following quote from our galen is hardly insane.


"Just because some pedestrian j-walks or some cyclist rolls a stop sign - which we all know is illegal - does not give you the right to run into them with your car. If you do run someone down, and it is proven that you failed to exercise due caution and you failed to make every effort to avoid the collision, you will be sued and with any luck found guilty by a court of law. Hopefully, you would then forfeit your car and all your worldly possessions to the prevailing party. Then, you might find yourself (gasp!) walking or riding a bike to get around and find out first-hand exactly how inconsiderate the majority of motorists like yourself are. Wouldn't that be just deserts?"


There is nothing wrong with this comment. It is fully support by the bemoaning this author did in his first article. Is he really this dense?


Another enraged cyclist amply demonstrated his lack of basic literacy. In their tiresome missive the word "article" was spelled "artical." The word "blame" was spelled "blaim." The word "quoting" was spelled "qouteing." On and on the misspellings went. They were not typographical errors, because many were repeated several times. The writer's lame use (or lack of use) of punctuation made matters worse.


Interesting that this writer’s reply to this misspelling was to be entirely dismissive of the comments made. I am not thrilled with poor spelling habits (even though I make them all the time), but I do not use them to completely write off legitimate points. The writer is trying to hide his shoddy, misanthropic opinions behind a copy of elements of style.


Generally speaking, if you can't spell you probably can't read. This would explain the inability of the writer and several of his pedaling peers to correctly comprehend the point of the column. Safety.


The general point of the column was made poorly if this is the case. The point of the article, as actually written, was that drivers might be inconvenienced if they fail to pay attention and kill some pedestrian or cyclist. The writer bemoaned the fate of his fellow drivers should they fail to perform basic safety of their own. Token comments were made towards safety being the responsibility of all parties, but the article obviously had it sympathies with drivers and felt that it should be the pedestrians and cyclists who should be making the effort towards safety, and that we should feel sorry for the drivers who hit them.


Another delusional reader wrote the following in response to something that was never said, "You seem to think bikes do not belong on the roads. We have as much right to the roads as you do in your 2-ton chunk of metal."


No, obviously from the tone of the article the author feels that anyone who is on the road and not in a car has no right to be there. Allow me to quote, with added emphasis:


Meanwhile, problem pedestrians also persist. It's amazing how many people not only stand on the edge of the curb, but stand in the actual street, be it in the gutter or a bike lane, waiting for a light to change green so they can cross.

How often have you, as a driver, made a legal right-hand turn and come within inches of clipping one of these road hazards?


Note (again) the appalling attitude towards pedestrians who are daring to stand on the edge of the curb. Note how the author considers them to be ‘hazards’, not people. Consider also that any reasonable driver on the world should be able to safely make such a turn without even coming close to striking a pedestrian standing on the edge of the curb, or even in the street. Any driver who cannot make such a turn safely should turn in their license, but this writer would have us crying for his or her driving plights.


Well, there you have it, a small sampling of the cycling community's lunatic brain trust, a small, overreactive cadre of mean-spirited people who, apparently, don't believe in safety.


There you have it, several premises put forth by this losing excuse for an author are shown to be completely vacant. The writer tries, and fails to turn his previous article into something it was not. He attempts to paint cyclists as overreacting, when in fact the tone of the original article is from one who should turn in his membership with the human species. Cyclists do not try to hide their disgust at the appalling attitude of excusing killing because of misdemeanors, that is not an overreaction, not matter what this ‘writer’ may claim. The only mean-spirit is his.

[Helmet Head]

Just because some pedestrian j-walks or some cyclist rolls a stop sign - which we all know is illegal - does not give you the right to run into them with your car. If you do run someone down, and it is proven that you failed to exercise due caution ...
Please show me the words in either editorial where he said or implied that law breaking gives a motorist the right to run into the law breaker with his car, that he is free from having to use due caution?

I read his point to be that even if a motorist uses due caution he still might hit one of the irresponsible whackos, and it's a hassle when that happens. Not only is it awful have to go through the experience of injuring or killing another human being, but it can be an extensive hassle with getting car repairs and legal representation. In other words, cycling or walking irresponsibly in traffic is not like stupid behavior in other contexts where no one else is affected by the stupid behavior.

[noisebeam]

Its the tone that bugs me, the tone. If one really cared about cyclist & ped safety they would have that tone and would be editorializing on shared responsibilities and solutions to improve the situation. As it is now, drivers reading this probably loose points of respect for cyclist.

Al

[Helmet Head]

The point of the article, as actually written, was that drivers might be inconvenienced if they fail to pay attention and kill some pedestrian or cyclist.
I disagree, and perhaps this is where our difference lies. I thought the point of the article was that irresponsible/unsafe motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists are not only putting themselves at risk, but are also putting an undue burden on the responsible ones. In particular, even if a motorist is paying reasonable attention he can end up hitting an irresponsible cyclist or pedestrian. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

I just reread both editorials and I honestly don't understand what everyone is so upset about it. He's right. He's saying the problem in this particular area is that among motorists, peds and cyclists, there are those that are unsafe.

Again, nonsense. His sympathies lie well int he realm of the poor, beset-upon driver. Read the first article, where he considers pedestrians standing on the edge of the curb to be a road hazard for drivers. I could detect no irony in the comment, so I take it at face value.

His complaint? This:


How often have you, as a driver, made a legal right-hand turn and come within inches of clipping one of these road hazards?


Lets get one thing straight, HH: ANY HALF_WAY DECENT DRIVER IN THE WORLD SHOULD BE ABLE TO MANUEVER THEIR AUTOMOBILE AROUND PEDESTRIANS STANDING IN THE ROADWAY WITHOUT ENDANGERING THEM IN THE SLIGHTEST. Even the 'mostly incompetent' drivers should be able to make a right turn safely under these circumstances, so what does that make those who can't?

This is his attitude towards pedestrians standing on the curb, and you tell me his sympathies don't lie with sloppy, incompetent drivers? Don't make me spit!

Want more? Look at what he wrote early, he expresses sympathy for a driver who FLED THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT simply because cyclists break some laws here and there. Again: forgive the felony because someone else might have committed a misdemeanor. Don't get me wrong: the cyclist could very well have been at fault for causing the accident. But all that goes out the window when you flee the scene just because you can't spare the time.

The author also bemoans the fates of drivers who strike pedestrians & cyclists, not because someone might have been hurt, but because it is a waste of time for the driver to deal with the reports. That's jaw-droppingly misanthropic, and you didn't notice it as a problem?

Sheesh.

[Helmet Head]

Its the tone that bugs me, the tone.
Ah, well that would explain why I can't find an issue with the content. Also, I know that interpreting tone is very subjective and highly prone to misunderstanding, so I intentionally try to be tone deaf when I read. That's probably why I'm not bothered by the arrogant tone of writers like Forester and Ayn Rand. And this guy too. I ignore it.


If one really cared about cyclist & ped safety they would have that tone and would be editorializing on shared responsibilities and solutions to improve the situation.
I disagree. I think tone is a personality thing. I know lots of people who are deeply caring individuals, but on the surface, in person or in their writing, come off like they're not. Don Rickles comes to mind. I think we have to be careful to try not to interpret too much about what one cares about or not from our subjective interpretation of the "tone" of their words.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

I disagree, and perhaps this is where our difference lies. I thought the point of the article was that irresponsible/unsafe motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists are not only putting themselves at risk, but are also putting an undue burden on the responsible ones. In particular, even if a motorist is paying reasonable attention he can end up hitting an irresponsible cyclist or pedestrian. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You can disagree all you want, the evidence in his writing shows that you are wrong:


The prospect of running one over, while unfortunate for them, isn't my primary concern. It's the inconvenience it will cause me.

Let's say you accidentally slam into one of them. Obviously, you've got to stop and render aid. That will take time. Then once they show up with sirens blaring, you're going to have to explain to all manner of officialdom why some hapless fool is wedged under your right front tire. There will be forms to complete and accusations to refute. Again, more time wasted (and you did nothing wrong).


This, on top of what he considers to be 'unsafe behavior' (pedestrians standing on the sidewalk, fer crying into a bucket!) says enough to me. He doesn't really care about safety, or if he does, he is incredibly poor at making his point.

[Helmet Head]

The prospect of running one over, while unfortunate for them, isn't my primary concern. It's the inconvenience it will cause me.
Don't you see what he's doing? He's trying to gets peds and cyclists to understand why it's particularly important for them to be safe. What do you care whether his primary concern is the prospect of running over an irresponsible cyclist or pedestrian, or the inconvenience it will cause him? Either way, he's concerned, and, therefore, motivated to avoid it if possible.

And, frankly, standing on the edge of a sidewalk corner, or in the street at a corner where cars are turning right, which is what he's talking about, is probably not the safest choice. Point well taken.

Don't put me in a position to defend every word of his editorial. It's not perfect. But I don't see what the big issue is.

[Helmet Head]

Want more? Look at what he wrote early, he expresses sympathy for a driver who FLED THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT simply because cyclists break some laws here and there.
Where did you get that? If that comes from another editorial, okay. My comments and lack of understanding about the outrage comes from reading only the two editorials referenced in this thread.

I ask everyone who was outraged, please reread the first editorial again, but this time do your best to ignore tone and only pay attention to content. Then explain what your main two complaints about it is.

[galen_52657]

Please show me the words in either editorial where he said or implied that law breaking gives a motorist the right to run into the law breaker with his car, that he is free from having to use due caution?

I read his point to be that even if a motorist uses due caution he still might hit one of the irresponsible whackos, and it's a hassle when that happens. Not only is it awful have to go through the experience of injuring or killing another human being, but it can be an extensive hassle with getting car repairs and legal representation. In other words, cycling or walking irresponsibly in traffic is not like stupid behavior in other contexts where no one else is affected by the stupid behavior.

Helmet,

Here is my entire email conversation with this guy in order:

Dear Mr. Durrenberger

Reference your Stupid Human Traffic Tricks rant in
yesterday’s edition of The Arizona Republic.

First, you start out with the story of a personal
injury accident which presumably you or someone you
know witnessed. Yet, you or the witness did nothing
while the perpetrator drove off and left the victim
dazed and injured on the side of the road? In my
state, that would be a felony. I guess because the
victim was on a bicycle, they don’t really count in
Arizona?

Next you go on and on and on about too many bikes and
too many pedestrians and you complain about how much
time it would take should you run into somebody and
have to fill out all the forms.

Here is a little bit of advice for you to consider so
you don’t have to waste your precious time or have to
hire a lawyer and all that:

1. Slow down. You have already identified the hazards
of the area so drive accordingly.
2. Stop for people at crosswalks. How about…letting
them cross the road? (what a concept).
3. Just because some pedestrian J-walks or some
cyclist rolls a stop sign –which we all know is
illegal – does not give you the right to run into them
with your car. If you do run someone down, and it is
proven that you failed to exercise due caution (easily
be confirmed by your published communiqué) and you
failed to make every effort to avoid the collision,
you will be sued and with any luck found guilty by a
court of law. Hopefully, you would then forfeit your
car and all your worldly possessions to the prevailing
party. Then, you might find yourself (gasp!) walking
or riding a bike to get around and find out first-hand
exactly how inconsiderate the majority of motorists
like yourself are! Wouldn't that be just deserts!

You are a very important guy and thus your time is
important. But other people’s safety is more
important. Think about it.

Galen Wallace

--- DJDurrenberger@aol.com wrote:

Talk about a rant ....

Well, you need to read the column again. It specifically states that the women gave the guy her name/address before she left. It wasn't a hit and run.

And, yes. My time IS more important than the safety of some idiot that foolishly puts him or herself in harms way.

Me:

Giving your name to an injured party at a personal
injury accident does not permit one to leave the scene
of the accident. She could have scribbled 'my time is
more important than your life' on the paper, and then
drove off. I hope she gets arrested and prosecuted to
the fullest extent OF THE LAW.

Here is a little cut-and-paste of Arizona Law:

28-661. Accidents involving death or personal
injuries; failure to stop; classification; driver
license revocation

A. The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident
resulting in injury to or death of a person shall:

1. Immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the
accident or as close to the accident scene as possible
but shall immediately return to the accident scene.

2. Remain at the scene of the accident until the
driver has fulfilled the requirements of section
28-663.

B. A driver who is involved in an accident resulting
in death or serious physical injury as defined in
section 13-105 and who fails to stop or to comply with
the requirements of section 28-663 is guilty of a
class 4 felony, except that if a driver caused the
accident the driver is guilty of a class 3 felony.

C. A driver who is involved in an accident resulting
in an injury other than death or serious physical
injury as defined in section 13-105 and who fails to
stop or to comply with the requirements of section
28-663 is guilty of a class 6 felony.

D. The sentence imposed on a person for a conviction
under this section shall run consecutively to any
sentence imposed on the person for other convictions
on any other charge related to the accident.

E. The department shall revoke the license or permit
to drive and any nonresident operating privilege of a
person convicted pursuant to subsection B of this
section for five years.

F. The department shall revoke the license or permit
to drive and any nonresident operating privilege of a
person convicted pursuant to subsection C of this
section for three years.

28-663. Duty to give information and assistance;
classification

A. The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident
resulting in injury to or death of a person or damage
to a vehicle that is driven or attended by a person
shall:

1. Give the driver's name and address and the
registration number of the vehicle the driver is
driving.

2. On request, exhibit the person's driver license to
the person struck or the driver or occupants of or
person attending a vehicle collided with.

3. Render reasonable assistance to a person injured in
the accident, including making arrangements for the
carrying of the person to a physician, surgeon or
hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is
apparent that treatment is necessary or if the
carrying is requested by the injured person.

B. A person who fails to comply with this section is
guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.


Looks like she committed a class 3 felony. Was she
related to you? I think you both have been out in the
sun too long.


--- DJDurrenberger@aol.com wrote:

Take your meds!

Me:

How about you refrain from fomenting motorist's road
rage against cyclist and pedestrians with your lame
excuse for an editorial?

--- DJDurrenberger@aol.com wrote:

> You're so stupid. It was, actually, a pro-cyclist
> column. You're just too
> #&#^ ing dumb to see it. Poor dear.
>

Me:

As usual, the person without a logical and
supportable point of view resorts to name calling.
Are you in high school?

--- DJDurrenberger@aol.com wrote:

> Seriously, you're a complete idiot. It was very
> much pro cyclist. But, you
> and the spandex crowd are just too dumb to see it.
> There wasn't one
> misstatement of fact. Anyway, like I said, take
> your meds and go ride your bike. Oh,
> yes. Be sure to see this Friday's column. You and
> yours have earned it.
>

Great!

Can't wait to read it! I am sure it will be written
with the same amount of intelligence as the first one
- zero.

Regarding misstatement of fact, you have failed to
respond to the Arizona State vehicular law I forwarded
to you. Maybe in your next article you can note that
the person you allude to in the first article who ran
down the cyclist and left the scene of the personal
injury accident and failed to render aid committed a
felony.

Before you publish your next infantile diatribe, you
might want to alert AOL to upgrade your email server
as I am sure you will get spammed from all over the
globe.

Good luck with that...

P.S. Just because you may look like a sack of
potatoes in tight clothing does not mean everybody
does.

[Helmet Head]

Lets get one thing straight, HH: ANY HALF_WAY DECENT DRIVER IN THE WORLD SHOULD BE ABLE TO MANUEVER THEIR AUTOMOBILE AROUND PEDESTRIANS STANDING IN THE ROADWAY WITHOUT ENDANGERING THEM IN THE SLIGHTEST. Even the 'mostly incompetent' drivers should be able to make a right turn safely under these circumstances, so what does that make those who can't?

This is his attitude towards pedestrians standing on the curb, and you tell me his sympathies don't lie with sloppy, incompetent drivers? Don't make me spit!
Do you drive?

It is perfectly natural for a driver to be looking left as he's turning right. You can't look in two directions simultaneously. So, you look left, then right, then left again, because that's where your biggest potential threat is. It's irresponsible to proceed at a corner to make a right turn without NOT looking where you're going at least some of the time because you're looking left to double-check that no one is coming from your left. If someone is standing right at the curb, or, worse, already in the street, this makes the situation more difficult and more dangerous. If you don't understand why this is so, no wonder you're so upset about him saying this.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Don't you see what he's doing?


No.


He's trying to gets peds and cyclists to understand why it's particularly important for them to be safe. What do you care whether his primary concern is the prospect of running over an irresponsible cyclist or pedestrian, or the inconvenience it will cause him? Either way, he's concerned, and, therefore, motivated to avoid it if possible.


I don't know how you got that. His concern is pure selfishness, and no word of the article contradicts that.


And, frankly, standing on the edge of a sidewalk corner, or in the street at a corner where cars are turning right, which is what he's talking about, is probably not the safest choice. Point well taken.


Where, might I ask, is his criticism for drivers who are so bad at turning that they come close to striking pedestrians who are on the freaking curb? Why must pedestrians bear the brunt of his safety demands? Around here, a pedestrian standing on the edge of the curb or even in the street will be not even come close to being struck by a right turning car. The pedestrian behavior is no different here than what he describes.


Don't put me in a position to defend every word of his editorial. It's not perfect. But I don't see what the big issue is.

The big issue is that this writer is trying to turn bad driving into a blame-the-victim game: Did I come too close to hitting you during my turn, Mr. Pedestrian? If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk!

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Where did you get that? If that comes from another editorial, okay. My comments and lack of understanding about the outrage comes from reading only the two editorials referenced in this thread.
[QUOTE]

Here:

[QUOTE]
The driver did what she could to help, which was next to nothing. After consoling the injured man (an Arizona State University student), she handed him a slip of paper, presumably containing her name and telephone number, and drove away.

Who was at fault? In this particular cas e, although no ticket was issued (since there was no one around to issue one) it appeared to be the driver. Stop signs at 10th Street and Ash Avenue favored the guy on the bicycle. That said, my sympathies also extend to the driver, who, like so many other drivers, is forced to navigate the maze of bicyclists who routinely converge on ASU.


She hit and ran, albeit with a slight delay (and passing a paper that we have no idea what was written on it.) He then expresses sympathy for her, even though by his own admission the stop sign favored the cyclist.

[Keith99]

I disagree, and perhaps this is where our difference lies. I thought the point of the article was that irresponsible/unsafe motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists are not only putting themselves at risk, but are also putting an undue burden on the responsible ones. In particular, even if a motorist is paying reasonable attention he can end up hitting an irresponsible cyclist or pedestrian. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Serge,

Don't you realize that any article that says there are unsafe motorists and cyclists MUST be biased. After all we all know all cyclists are safe and all drivers are @ssholes.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Do you drive?


Not any more.


It is perfectly natural for a driver to be looking left as he's turning right. You can't look in two directions simultaneously. So, you look left, then right, then left again, because that's where your biggest potential threat is. It's irresponsible to proceed at a corner to make a right turn without NOT looking where you're going at least some of the time because you're looking left to double-check that no one is coming from your left. If someone is standing right at the curb, or, worse, already in the street, this makes the situation more difficult and more dangerous. If you don't understand why this is so, no wonder you're so upset about him saying this.

This is the weakest excuse-making I've read yet. When you make a turn of any kind, you should be nowhere near the curb. Turns like this are made every day on campuses with much higher density than ASU, and they are done safely. Why? Because for the most part the drivers are careful in their turns. His description is that the peds are waiting for the light to turn green, in which case the driver has the right of way and should not need to check left more than once, or they are making a right turn on red when they are incapable of doing so safely.

Lame, HH, very, very lame.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Helmet,

Here is my entire email conversation with this guy in order:


Yikes!

What a defensive little prat!

[Helmet Head]

OK, Galen explained the "fled the scene" thing. But I don't think the spirit of the "hit and run" felony law is to punish those who leave their accurate contact information. I think it's to punish those who are trying to avoid arrest. That does not seem to be the case here at all, though she probably should have stayed until the ambulance arrived. You have a point, but it's mostly technical, and I can understand why Durrenberger thinks you're overreacting.

[galen_52657]

The thing I find so irritating about this guy is the same thing I witness day in and day out - by motorists on the road and cyclists on MUPs:

If you are in an area of known congestion that it is up to YOU as the operator of a vehicle to take the necessary caution.

How may BF members have been to a beach resort with bike lanes and lots of pedestrians? How many of those pedestrians and cyclists follow the rules? I go to Bethany Beach, Del. and I can tell you about 50% of the people don't follow the rules. But you know what? I am aware of the conditions - just like the writer of the article - so I slow WAY DOWN when driving or cycling in town to take into account old ladies, kids and yuppy moms with dogs who are all over the road! On bikes, on skates and on foot. Sounds just like the campus this guy is ranting about.

It's all about the 'tude dude.....

[Mr. Miskatonic]

OK, Galen explained the "fled the scene" thing. But I don't think the spirit of the "hit and run" felony law is to punish those who leave their accurate contact information. I think it's to punish those who are trying to avoid arrest. That does not seem to be the case here at all, though she probably should have stayed until the ambulance arrived. You have a point, but it's mostly technical, and I can understand why Durrenberger thinks you're overreacting.

HH,

Many times people drive away from the scene of an accident so that they can avoid little extra charges like, oh, Driving Under the Influence. That is why that law is in place. A scrap of paper doesn't make up for an on-scene accident report.

[galen_52657]

OK, Galen explained the "fled the scene" thing. But I don't think the spirit of the "hit and run" felony law is to punish those who leave their accurate contact information. I think it's to punish those who are trying to avoid arrest. That does not seem to be the case here at all, though she probably should have stayed until the ambulance arrived. You have a point, but it's mostly technical, and I can understand why Durrenberger thinks you're overreacting.

Helmet,

Coming from a guy who goes on and on about the technicalities of VC cycling you are a bit daft on the law:

If you are in a personal injury accident you have NO CHOICE but to stay on the scene until aid arrives. Even if you are a medical profesional, you don't get to make the determination if the person you injured is OK or not. If the guy she hit had suffered internal injuries and bled to death on the side of the road, she would be charged!!!!

It's not a technicality for crying out loud!!!

I find it difficult to believe that someone would be so stupid as to condone leaving the scene of a personal injury accident.

[Hawkear]

This is the weakest excuse-making I've read yet. When you make a turn of any kind, you should be nowhere near the curb.
Well, then why is it written in the vehicular code?
22100. Except as provided in Section 22100.5 or 22101, the driver of any vehicle intending to turn upon a highway shall do so as follows:

(a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except:

(1) Upon a highway having three marked lanes for traffic moving in one direction that terminates at an intersecting highway accommodating traffic in both directions, the driver of a vehicle in the middle lane may turn right into any lane lawfully available to traffic moving in that direction upon the roadway being entered.

(2) If a right-hand turn is made from a one-way highway at an intersection, a driver shall approach the turn as provided in this subdivision and shall complete the turn in any lane lawfully available to traffic moving in that direction upon the roadway being entered.

(3) Upon a highway having an additional lane or lanes marked for a right turn by appropriate signs or markings, the driver of a vehicle may turn right from any lane designated and marked for that turning movement.

[nova]

HH,

Many times people drive away from the scene of an accident so that they can avoid little extra charges like, oh, Driving Under the Influence. That is why that law is in place. A scrap of paper doesn't make up for an on-scene accident report.


The only time leaving the scene is the right thing to do is if theres no one around with a cell phone and you have to go make a call. After makeing the call you are legally bound to return to the scene. Most often with in a couple minutes of a accident there will be some one else who pulls up and they can go make the call.

If i splatered some one all over the road and no one was around id leave call and return. Simply put in a bad colision minutes and even secounds may count.

[nova]

Helmet,

Here is my entire email conversation with this guy in order:

<big huge snip>

P.S. Just because you may look like a sack of
potatoes in tight clothing does not mean everybody
does.


Rofl
The whoe thing was pretty damn funny this guy is the most ignorant and arogent person i ever seen. How can he call him self a reporter?

[Laika]

my mail to him following today's column:

Mr. Durrenberger,
Thank you for your column today. It proved, conclusively, that lightning can strike twice. The depth and breadth of your understanding of the delicate balance required for all road users to share public spaces safely is truly unbelievable. Your common sense approach to roadway nuisances which cuts through the nonsense of "laws" and "traffic regulations" must truly be read to be appreciated for what it is.

I urge you to continue to espouse your beliefs about roadway behavior as publicly as possible. Only then will your views recieve the proper reception that they-and you-so richly deserve.

-----------------------------

Is he too thick to really read it?

[Helmet Head]

He's trying to gets peds and cyclists to understand why it's particularly important for them to be safe. What do you care whether his primary concern is the prospect of running over an irresponsible cyclist or pedestrian, or the inconvenience it will cause him? Either way, he's concerned, and, therefore, motivated to avoid it if possible.

I don't know how you got that. His concern is pure selfishness, and no word of the article contradicts that.
Exactly. And because of his selfishness, he wants to avoid hitting others, because doing so would cause him the inconvenience he wishes to avoid. Hence, he's motivated to avoid hitting people. Why do you care if the root of his motivation is selfishness or altruism, as long as he is motivated to avoid it?


The big issue is that this writer is trying to turn bad driving into a blame-the-victim game: Did I come too close to hitting you during my turn, Mr. Pedestrian? If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk!
Blame-the-victim implies there is a victim. I think his concern is for avoiding future hits. Jeez, this sounds familiar. I get criticized for playing the blame-the-victim game too, when all I'm trying to do is bring attention to underlying causes in order to reduce the incidence of these events. That's all he's trying to do too. I feel like emailing him and letting him know there is at least one cyclist out there who understands what he's saying. Note how you have to misrepresent him, "Stay off the sidewalk!", in order to express your criticism. He never said or implied that peds should stay off the sidewalk. All he said was that standing at the curb at a corner is not safe. Take a step back while you're waiting for the walk signal. That's all. It's good advice (more on why below).


Don't you realize that any article that says there are unsafe motorists and cyclists MUST be biased. After all we all know all cyclists are safe and all drivers are @ssholes.
Thank you Keith, for pointing out what is the only reasonable explanation for the expressed outrage that I am aware of. How dare you critize poor defenseless cyclists in the face of having to deal with jerk motorists in their 2 ton caged death machines!




Do you drive?



Not any more.
...
This is the weakest excuse-making I've read yet. When you make a turn of any kind, you should be nowhere near the curb.
How long has it been since you've driven?


22100. Except as provided in Section 22100.5 or 22101, the driver of any vehicle intending to turn upon a highway shall do so as follows:

(a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway ...
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm

That's CA, but I'm sure AZ has similar law. Do you understand the basis for requiring drivers to drive as close as practicable to the curb when turning right?

By the way:


Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm

While not saying so explicitly, I think standing on the curb with your body partially into the roadway where it could be hit while a driver is turning right legally and correctly as close as practicable to the curb constitutes entering the roadway, practically, if not legally. And this is precisely the behavior he's addressing... Pedestrians standing right on the curb at turns should take a step back.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Well, then why is it written in the vehicular code?

Near enough to strike pedestrians who are on the curb? I think that is not what that law intends.

I can only say again that turning in dense campuses happens all the time without trouble as long as the drivers take proper care.

[Laika]

Exactly. And because of his selfishness, he wants to avoid hitting others, because doing so would cause him the inconvenience he wishes to avoid. Hence, he's motivated to avoid hitting people. Why do you care if the root of his motivation is selfishness or altruism, as long as he is motivated to avoid it?

You spent way too much time asking people to disregard his tone to be making an argument based on percieved intent. (Personally, I think even the most literal reading of this editorial establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Durrenberger is an utter tool. To wit, he bases his entire argument on an accident in which the cyclist had legal right of way and in which he himself states the motorist was most likely at fault.)

[Helmet Head]

For the record, Galen has convinced me that calling him on condoning the hit-and-run at the beginning of the first editorial is appropriate. But bringing that to his attention, in a polite and helpful way, was all that was called for. There are plenty of otherwise reasonable people, including he, the woman, and myself, who do not realize what she did was technically hit-and-run.

As to why there is so much outrage, I still don't get it.

[Helmet Head]

Laika, I'm not making an argument based on perceived intent. He stated quite clearly that his primary concern was the inconvenience that hitting someone would cause him. Since its his primary concern, he is motivated to avoid it.