Cycling Fatalities Spark Outrage and Activism

[randya]

The crash in Beaverton last week that claimed the life of Mike Wilberding has sparked outrage and spurred action from citizen activists.

The incident has caused some cyclists to question the priorities of bike advocates and city planners. One commenter asked,

“what is the more important fight at this time: more bike infrastructure or vastly improved law enforcement to protect cyclists?”

Many people are fed up with what they consider just the latest example of too lenient punishment doled out by authorities for fatal crashes that involve cyclists. In the case of Wilberding, the motorist at fault was issued a $242 ticket for “failure to yield to a bicyclist.”

The motorist—25 year-old Aaron Hessel—claimed he couldn’t see Wilberding because the setting sun was in his eyes.

Read more at: http://bikeportland.org/2006/08/11/fatal-crash-sparks-outrage-activism/

[Helmet Head]

The incident has caused some cyclists to question the priorities of bike advocates and city planners. One commenter asked,

“what is the more important fight at this time: more bike infrastructure or vastly improved law enforcement to protect cyclists?”

Finally, they're waking up!

It takes a while, but the progression seems to be:


The answer to cycling safety is facilities! All too many cycling "advocates" never leave this level.
Several years or even decades later for some, after spending millions on facilities, but still little to no effect on cycling injuries and fatalities, some cyclists who make it to Level 2 realize the emphasis should move. Like this cyclist, they ask rhetorically, "what is the more important fight at this time: more bike infrastructure or vastly improved law enforcement to protect cyclists?” Most cyclists get stuck at this level. These folks are easily identified by their obsession with "careless and inattentive motorists" and their emphasis on the need for better law enforcement.
Unfortunately, very few cyclists, only the particularly insightful ones, get to the 3rd and final level of traffic cycling enlightenment, where they realize that the solution to cycling safety is not segregated facilities, nor even motorist behavior. They finally discover that the solution to cycling safety lies where most solutions to life's problem can be found: within the self. The solution to cyclist safety is determined by each cyclist's individual behavior.


By the way, I think Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling is probably about as helpful for getting a cyclist to Level 3 as is John Forester's Effective Cycling and John Franklin's Cyclecraft. All three authors are clearly enlighted traffic cyclists, none of which see the current levels of "careless and inattentive driving" as a problem that needs to be eliminated or reduced in order to make cycling safe, or that needs to be addressed through improved law enforcement.

"Careless and inattentive driving" to an enlightened traffic cyclist are what rocks, steep slopes, sand and holes are to a mountain biker: they are not problems to be eliminated or reduced; they are obstacles to be anticipated and avoided.

[oilfreeandhappy]

Is that a bike lane at the site of the accident? From the picture, it certainly looks like one. Did the car cross over into the bike lane? I agree with the photo-taker, that the driver should still have been able to see under these conditions.

[Brian Ratliff]

I want to say, before this thread too becomes polluted with VC retoric from a certain member, that I feel for the family of this person. Like all traffic crashes, they are so tough because the loved one is lost so suddenly. One moment, healthy and strong; the next, dead.

There have been two or three major accidents involving cyclists doing nothing of the sort wrong in the westside suburbs of Sherwood, Forest Grove, and now, Beaverton. These were all of the sort that cyclists fear, since they are nearly completely due to a mistake by a driver. These were not "multiple point" accidents, but single point accidents where the mistake of only one party, the one who was not injured in any way, caused the death of another.

I've often thought: why is the erronious expectation that a cyclist is risking their life to be cycling on the road built so far into the legal system. The bike lane law (as it was enforced recently) has cops telling cyclists to act in a way which decreases their safety to increase the convenience of the cars behind. Now this, where a driver makes a blatent mistake on the road and kills someone.

Too often in our culture, we are all about second chances. Fail a class at school? Make it up. Kill a cyclist by not yielding during a left turn? $242 ticket. What will it take for the authorities and the law makers to realize that one person's "little mistake" can cost another person their life!? When can it be realized that those little six words "failure to yield to a bicyclist" amount to a death sentence? Only on our roads do we make excuses for people who lose control of their 2 ton vehicle and kill someone. If you step into a car, you are taking responsibility for what happens with that car when you are behind the wheel. Kill someone; you are a danger to society and your license needs to be revolked on the spot. It doesn't come back for at least a year, and not until an extensive driver's safety class is taken. No excuses. No "I need my car to drive to work." No "I'll lose my job if you take away my car." No "my kids will starve without a car to get groceries." Too bad. You committed the greatest sin in killing another human being. You'll figure out a way to live without your car. If not... well, eye for an eye...

[Brian Ratliff]

Shame... too late.

HH and oilfree...py, this is the second thread. Stick your crap about bike lanes in the first thread and leave this one free of the drivel.

[chipcom]

Finally, they're waking up!
<snip>

Any excuse to promote the brand, like an ambulance chaser.

[nycm'er]

Too often in our culture, we are all about second chances. Fail a class at school? Make it up. Kill a cyclist by not yielding during a left turn? $242 ticket. What will it take for the authorities and the law makers to realize that one person's "little mistake" can cost another person their life!? When can it be realized that those little six words "failure to yield to a bicyclist" amount to a death sentence? Only on our roads do we make excuses for people who lose control of their 2 ton vehicle and kill someone. If you step into a car, you are taking responsibility for what happens with that car when you are behind the wheel. Kill someone; you are a danger to society and your license needs to be revolked on the spot. It doesn't come back for at least a year, and not until an extensive driver's safety class is taken. No excuses. No "I need my car to drive to work." No "I'll lose my job if you take away my car." No "my kids will starve without a car to get groceries." Too bad. You committed the greatest sin in killing another human being. You'll figure out a way to live without your car. If not... well, eye for an eye...

Well said Brian, Thank you.

[Brian Ratliff]

I ride in Beaverton quite a bit and a see cyclists all the time. If any are here, ride safe and keep the rubber side down... oh yea, and don't hit the big metal boxes.

Just wanted to mention that. This hits close to home for me.

[rando]

Shame... too late.

HH and oilfree...py, this is the second thread. Stick your crap about bike lanes in the first thread and leave this one free of the drivel.

+ 1,000,000

HH, it's a tragedy. keep your stinking theories off of it. a man died. Have some respect.

[Helmet Head]

Shame... too late.

HH and oilfree...py, this is the second thread. Stick your crap about bike lanes in the first thread and leave this one free of the drivel.
Huh? I didn't say anything about bike lanes!

[Helmet Head]

Any excuse to promote the brand, like an ambulance chaser.
Do you guys know how to read? I didn't even mention the brand!

[Brian Ratliff]

like a lawyer chasing an ambulance - loves the technicalities.

HH: "cycling facilities" as you pronounce the word, is equivilent to your brand of single issue interest.

Honestly, HH, I don't read your posts anymore. I skim to get the overall tenor, then ignore what you say. You've been spouting the same stuff and chasing ambulances for well over a year now and nothing you say is something I haven't already heard.

Again. You've already taken the first thread about this incident and used it for your anti-bikelane agenda. For the sake of people who are more directly affected and don't want to hear a bunch of third party analysis from a guy with a hammer looking for nails, leave the bike lane crap in the other thread. I'm tired of it.

[chipcom]

Do you guys know how to read? I didn't even mention the brand!

Ahh, so cycling 'enlightenment' isn't part of your VC brand? When you can snatch the bulltwinkle from my hand, it will be time for you to leave, curb hopper.

[Helmet Head]

Honestly, HH, I don't read your posts anymore. I skim to get the overall tenor, then ignore what you say. You've been spouting the same stuff and chasing ambulances for well over a year now and nothing you say is something I haven't already heard.

If you actually read my posts then you would know that the enlightenment argument I presented in this thread IS new.

Also, some of the stuff in the other thread is new too, but, again, you'd have to read it to see it.

[Helmet Head]

In particular, the presentation of the "enlightened" approach to "inattentive driving" being like an obstacle - something to be anticipated and avoided rather than something to be reduced or eliminated - is new to this thread too.

But, again, you would actually have to read and think about my posts to know that. Sorry to be so demanding. :rolleyes:

[genec]

If you step into a car, you are taking responsibility for what happens with that car when you are behind the wheel. Kill someone; you are a danger to society and your license needs to be revolked on the spot. It doesn't come back for at least a year, and not until an extensive driver's safety class is taken. No excuses. No "I need my car to drive to work." No "I'll lose my job if you take away my car." No "my kids will starve without a car to get groceries." Too bad. You committed the greatest sin in killing another human being. You'll figure out a way to live without your car. If not... well, eye for an eye...

+100 Brian.

[Brian Ratliff]

If you actually read my posts then you would know that the enlightenment argument I presented in this thread IS new.

Also, some of the stuff in the other thread is new too, but, again, you'd have to read it to see it.

whatever...

I'd guess I'd have to care first. You still hijack threads with your silly theories. When you do that, you've lost my respect. Might I suggest that if you have a new idea, you start a new thread for it? I do read OPs. I don't read hijacks. Especially not from you.

Start over. Delete your first post from this thread and post it as a new thread. Then I'll consider your idea and determine for myself if it is a new idea or not. You do this and you might actually get some responses to it. Though most of what you post lately are not new ideas, or ideas at all, but simply veiled insults aimed at your bike lane activist strawmen. You seem to have shot your wad about a year ago... yet are still... er... talking.

[genec]

"Careless and inattentive driving" to an enlightened traffic cyclist are what rocks, steep slopes, sand and holes are to a mountain biker: they are not problems to be eliminated or reduced; they are obstacles to be anticipated and avoided.

And yet States are changing their motor vehicle licensing tests to make them harder, and various city locations are lowering speed limits and attempting traffic calming in an effort to make the streets safer... perhaps these efforts are being spawned due to an excess of "careless and inattentive driving" as seen by more than just some ranting cyclists.

[Brian Ratliff]

The first BikePortland.org article had an email list regarding this incident and how we can prevent other incidents like it. It's aimed to be local, but everyone here who cares should sign up. The link is about half way down the page (http://bikeportland.org/2006/08/11/fatal-crash-sparks-outrage-activism/).

If we get enough people signed up, we might have some pretty good discussions on this particular topic. Right now there are about 30 signed up (which, BTW, about equals the numbers which frequent this forum subtopic with any regularity).

[royalflash]

HH has a point in so far as blaming individual drivers for errors will never solve the problem of accidents in the long term (or even the short term). More severe punishments may make the survivors feel a bit better and may reduce accidents slightly by making people more aware that if they hit cyclists then there will be consequences. But most people don´t hit cyclists on purpose anyway so I would guess that the deterrent factor will not be so great in reality.

The basic road traffic system concept is inherently flawed but it is realistically almost impossible to rectify. Therefore accidents have to be accepted as normal and part of the cost of doing business. We just have to hope that we are not the next ones and try to maximise our chances of survival. If we carry on cycling long enough there is no doubt that we would ALL die a violent death from an automobile at some stage.

Taking this all into account, obviously the thing that we have greatest control over is our own behaviour. So HH is correct from a pragmatic point of view to focus on this as the best survival tactic.

If he could just come across as being a little less smug and dogmatic then he would get his message across better

[Helmet Head]

Might I suggest that if you have a new idea, you start a new thread for it? I do read OPs. I don't read hijacks.
Fair enough. If the issue is really "highjacking", I can understand that, and will keep it in mind. Thanks.

[Helmet Head]

If he could just come across as being a little less smug and dogmatic then he would get his message across better
Coming across as being a little less smug would be dishonest. ;)

Seriously. Good advice. Thanks.

[EnigManiac]

Sorry HH, but I'm with the others on this: you either prance the same old song and dance or you not-so-vaguely infer that you, and you alone, are far more enlightened and at an invented 'third stage of advocacy' thereby dismissing and alienating all those who have valid, reasonable and, dare I say it, 'enlightened' points of view. It's good to have strong convictions but when those convictions are concrete and at the expense of an open mind, they lose their credibility.

As for the thread topic: it is about time that we humble advocates started truly pointing the finger where it needs to be pointed and that is at law-enforcement and the judiciary. Just last night I wrote to the leader of the federal NDP party here in Canada---he is a Toronto native and an outspoken cycling supporter---pleading for his intervention and assistance in forcing the police, from one end of the country to the other, to start living up to their motto of serving and protecting EVERYONE, including cyclists; to launch a program that educates and cites motorists who endanger cyclists and to stop viewing cycling with such contemptuous hostility. Maybe nothing will come of the letter, maybe something will, who knows. It is something, at least.

[sbhikes]

Put him on your ignore list. It works wonders to raise the value of the A&S forum. I think I'm going to see what I can do to support this lastest activism http://bikeportland.org/2006/08/11/fatal-crash-sparks-outrage-activism/ . It is really needed to wake up the drivers.

Everybody has an excuse when they make a mistake. But car drivers get away with their lame excuses when they kill people. That has to stop. Sorry but even if that driver couldn't see the cyclist he certainly could see the road and the other vehicles using it and at the very least, that white line would have been gleaming in the sun.

[sbhikes]

Here's a quote from that blog:

(this new email list is) for those who want to work to make reduce dangerous motorist behavior to make streets safer…We’re going to find out how to have motor vehicle drivers held accountable for criminally negligent driving, and MAKE IT HAPPEN. We’re going to find out how to create a traffic education media campaign that is so intense, every driver will hear five times per week that:

cyclists are traffic
cyclists have a right to occupy a lane and in fact should for safety at times
cyclists have the right of way in a bike lane
driving is a privilege, not a right
you should never drive where you can’t see
when you exceed the speed limit, or fail to yield when the law requires, or drive while distracted and you kill someone, you are a murderer

[banerjek]

“what is the more important fight at this time: more bike infrastructure or vastly improved
law enforcement to protect cyclists?”
Although I favor both, I can't see how giving special focus to one of these things will help that much.

Bike infrastructure and enforcement have slowly improved over time, but only slightly. The reason for this is simple -- changing any kind of infrastructure requires enormous amounts of money and time. It's easy for an economist to say that the railroads could haul much more freight if the gauge of the rails is widened a bit, but you have the problem of what to do with all the existing rails, cars, etc. Likewise, bike facilities can't just appear out of thin air. Even with a huge investment, bike facilities will only be available in a few places.

I agree that killing people should warrant more than a traffic ticket, even if the driver is remorseful. However, there are also many noncyclist deaths caused by crummy drivers who get away with a slap on the wrist.

I'm not saying we should not do what we can to promote better facilities and enforcement. I've been known to harass the DOT and city officials directly (and sometimes get useful responses that make my ride just a tad bit safer).

Clueless inattentive drivers are simply a part of our environment. As recently as yesterday, a truck towing some huge trailer with machinery on it pulled down on me as I rode along the highway (he was deaccelerating from highway speed to enter a service station). Even though I was on a shoulder, he left me no place to go so I had to leave the road entirely to avoid being hit. He'd seen me and barely paused when he realized what happened. I gave a "WTF?" signal since I couldn't detect any malice and we both went on about our days. I ride a lot, and this doesn't happen often, but cars probably come down on me a couple times a year.

Tragedies like the one that prompted this thread are a reminder for everyone to do what they should. Drivers need to be reminded that guiding thousands of pounds of steel at high speeds near people is serious business. Cyclists need to remember that there always will be drivers who don't take their responsibilities seriously enough. The laws of physics dictate the cyclists must be very proactive about their own safety.

You have very little influence over what drivers do. Many are impaired by fatigue, distractions, a wide variety chemicals, and other factors. Short of concrete barriers that separate us from traffic, nothing but our own preparedness and reflexes can protect us from some motorists. You can control your own behavior though. If you communicate with motorists, use your ears and mirrors to monitor what is not in front of you, and use appropriate clothing/lights as well as positioning to make yourself visible, you can drastically reduce your chances of being hurt.

[Brian Ratliff]

HH has a point in so far as blaming individual drivers for errors will never solve the problem of accidents in the long term (or even the short term). More severe punishments may make the survivors feel a bit better and may reduce accidents slightly by making people more aware that if they hit cyclists then there will be consequences. But most people don´t hit cyclists on purpose anyway so I would guess that the deterrent factor will not be so great in reality.

The basic road traffic system concept is inherently flawed but it is realistically almost impossible to rectify. Therefore accidents have to be accepted as normal and part of the cost of doing business. We just have to hope that we are not the next ones and try to maximise our chances of survival. If we carry on cycling long enough there is no doubt that we would ALL die a violent death from an automobile at some stage.

It goes back to basic responsibility. The cause of this outrage wasn't that the ticket cost was low. The outrage is that the accident happened at all. Do you think that the survivors of the victim care a twit about the punishment? No - they are morning their loss.

In a normal car crash (car into car), both drivers have incentive to avoid the accident because there are consequences for both parties. The situation then is self rectifying. If you make a mistake in a car and hit another car, there is a halfway decent chance that you, the mistake maker, will be seriously injured or die. In a bike-car crash, there is no rectifying behavior. The driver will most certainly not even be hurt, and the cyclist might be killed. If the situation is not self-rectifying, then artificial concequences must be put in place to protect the victim.

We have a lot of cars on the roads, and cars are now thought of as a basic necessity. It is because of this thinking that we are able to tolerate crashes. It is not the fault of our traffic system or the enforcement, though those contribute a bit. This is a sociological problem. Culture dictates what can and cannot be done between two humans (in public, at least). You don't see people having sex on the bus, even though you can bet it is on at least half of all men's minds at all times. This is because culture constrains this behavior. You don't see very many fist fights between passing strangers. Because our culture doesn't tolerate this either. However, for some reason, culture does not constrain those people who express their displeasure of being "stuck" behind a cyclist by threatening the cyclist's life.

The good news is, unlike the road system which has lots of resources dumped into it over a long period of time (we could hardly afford to replace the interstate system if it were to suddenly disappear tomorrow), culture is relatively compliant. Every generation is different, and to a certain extent, rebellious toward the last. This fosters frequent cultural change.

Taking this all into account, obviously the thing that we have greatest control over is our own behaviour. So HH is correct from a pragmatic point of view to focus on this as the best survival tactic.


What HH does and advocates vs. what others do and advocate are similar to a the difference between a home fix of a faucet involving duct tape and silicon sealent, and calling the plumber to permanantly fix the outdated piping. A person who lives in a home should know how to do the former, because many times, the plumber cannot make it out until next week. But the smart homeowner won't confuse a temporary fix with a permanant fix.

The problem with advocating only deterence, is that 1) deterence always breaks down at some point. It's only a question of when; and 2) it is more efficient to use at least some of the resources we have to go down the longer, harder road than it is to keep stumbling into the same problems over and over and never addressing the root issue. The subject of deterence is even more tenuous than before because of the increasing incidents of road rage. Vehicular cycling, the principle deterent to bad drivers, is premised on the notion that drivers don't want to hit cyclists. In a time when some motorists will pull a gun on another to deal with an otherwise minor traffic issue, this line of deterence is more vulnerable than most.

Ultimately driving a car or riding a bike on the road is a cooperative venture. It is utterly impossible to travel on the road if people don't follow or unwilling to follow basic rules of the road. And one of the most basic of these rules is that you don't hit other vehicles with your own. Accidents happen, but consequences must apply to keep people from becoming lax. Accidents between cars are self regulating because both parties come out worse for wear. Accidents between car and bike must be artificially regulated because, no matter who's fault, the cyclist comes out worse for wear. By changing the current paradigm where a cyclist's life is worth $242, our culture will be changed in time.

[Daily Commute]

Yes, HH should have expressed sympathy for the family, and yes, he should have been less smug, but the original OP posed the following question:

“what is the more important fight at this time: more bike infrastructure or vastly improved law enforcement to protect cyclists?”

That means it is NOT a thread jack to discuss whether "more bike infrastructure" would help or hurt the situation.

Brian and othershave a double standard. It's OK to speak out in favor of "bike facilities," but it is somehow wrong to criticize them. If you don't want to read critiques of bike facilities, you should also try to shout down anyone who says anything positive about them.

[banerjek]

In a normal car crash (car into car), both drivers have incentive to avoid the accident because there are consequences for both parties. The situation then is self rectifying. If you make a mistake in a car and hit another car, there is a halfway decent chance that you, the mistake maker, will be seriously injured or die. In a bike-car crash, there is no rectifying behavior.
This is where our litigious nature actually has some benefit. Of course it does nothing to deter uninsured motorists with no assets to protect.

[Brian Ratliff]

Yes, HH should have expressed sympathy for the family, and yes, he should have been less smug, but the original OP posed the following question:



That means it is NOT a thread jack to discuss whether "more bike infrastructure" would help or hurt the situation.

Brian and othershave a double standard. It's OK to speak out in favor of "bike facilities," but it is somehow wrong to criticize them. If you don't want to read critiques of bike facilities, you should also try to shout down anyone who says anything positive about them.

First, the OP simply reposted from BikePortland.org. This was simply relaying information from a different website. As for the question, even in the article the question is retorical.

Second, I'm not sure where your double standard idea came from. I don't see any posts about bike lanes except one from HH, one from oilfree...py (who was simply responding to HH's post with a question, I probably came down on him too hard), and now you. I cannot help it if all the thread hijacks are from people critical of bike lanes.

Now, back to enforcement and driver behavior issues... Start another thread if you want to take about bike lanes.

[Brian Ratliff]

This is where our litigious nature actually has some benefit. Of course it does nothing to deter uninsured motorists with no assets to protect.

I think a bad joke along the lines of us really not liking others and only behave "properly" because of mutually assured destruction is in order here.

Joking aside, in the event of death on the road, there are few enough that litigation should not be the next step. The next step should be automatic and done by those slated to serve as the public's protectors. Though in the absence of the best case and with only a $242 ticket; the survivors should press through with a lawsuit if only to keep this 25 year old thinking about the person he killed after the check has cleared.

[Daily Commute]

First, the OP simply reposted from BikePortland.org. This was simply relaying information from a different website. As for the question, even in the article the question is retorical.

Second, I'm not sure where your double standard idea came from. I don't see any posts about bike lanes except one from HH, one from oilfree...py (who was simply responding to HH's post with a question, I probably came down on him too hard), and now you. I cannot help it if all the thread hijacks are from people critical of bike lanes.

Now, back to enforcement and driver behavior issues... Start another thread if you want to take about bike lanes.

Calls for "more bike infrastructure" is a discussion of, among other things, bike lanes, regardless of whether the OP was quoting someone else.

You start another thread if you don't want anyone to mention bike lanes.

[randya]

Letter to the District Attorney regarding criminal prosecution of the driver, from a local resident and cyclist:

http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2006/08/10/bicyclist-becomes-gumshoe-in-response-to-fatal-crash/

[randya]

Calls for "more bike infrastructure" is a discussion of, among other things, bike lanes, regardless of whether the OP was quoting someone else.

You start another thread if you don't want anyone to mention bike lanes.
Like Brian said, it is rhetorical question and clearly the answer is not meant to be 'more bike lanes'; therefore your comments and Serge's are misguided and don't belong here. Now quit bickering about it.

:(

[Brian Ratliff]

Letter to the District Attorney regarding criminal prosecution of the driver, from a local resident and cyclist:

http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2006/08/10/bicyclist-becomes-gumshoe-in-response-to-fatal-crash/

Hopefully it will help. There should be an investigation on this; very public, and very punative. I know, I know, the driver was just doing what all other ignorant drivers (which, I guess by some people's count, is most of them) do. We should let him off easy, right? Wrong. We have to start enforcing responsibility while on the public roadway sometime, and gee, if you are the first to be caught? Sucks to be you.

And if it were me who killed the cyclist from my own blatent error, well, I'd expect to be stripped of my driving priviledge - in fact, I'd probably strip it myself. Perhaps then I'd die on my bike from some other idiot and be put out of my misery.

Accidents happen, but accidents have consequences. We as a society are always looking for the easy way out. Always looking for that second chance at life. We romanticize about it; about the guy who made a mistake and is reborn. We make movies about it. But the truth is, that sometimes, there are no second chances. Sometimes, that one mistake is permanant. The guy here will probably walk off with his $242 ticket. He'll pay it, though he will probably go to court to try to get the fine reduced. He'll go about his life. He'll never pay the price that Mike Wilberding's survivors paid.

[banerjek]

The guy here will probably walk off with his $242 ticket. He'll pay it, though he will probably go to court to try to get the fine reduced. He'll go about his life. He'll never pay the price that Mike Wilberding's survivors paid.
Or the price that Mike paid. I've always told my wife that I don't want to sound like a sore loser, but if someone converts me into road kill, sue them out of existence.

[Brian Ratliff]

Or the price that Mike paid. I've always told my wife that I don't want to sound like a sore loser, but if someone converts me into road kill, sue them out of existence.

True, that.

[TacoPropelled]

Or the price that Mike paid. I've always told my wife that I don't want to sound like a sore loser, but if someone converts me into road kill, sue them out of existence.
There seems to be an awesome wrongful death suit that could be had here.

[sbhikes]

The question was
“what is the more important fight at this time: more bike infrastructure or vastly improved
law enforcement to protect cyclists?”
Which was a quote from the blog post page that the OP linked to. The question isn't about bike lanes, it is about what should we be doing as advocates: Trying to entice more people to ride bicycles or improving law enforcement so that it's safer for cyclists.

In other words, should advocates keep offering carrots or start carrying big sticks?

[Blue Order]

The question was

Which was a quote from the blog post page that the OP linked to. The question isn't about bike lanes, it is about what should we be doing as advocates: Trying to entice more people to ride bicycles or improving law enforcement so that it's safer for cyclists.

In other words, should advocates keep offering carrots or start carrying big sticks?I don't believe in either/or answers. It's always both.

[sbhikes]

I don't believe in either/or answers. It's always both.
Maybe that's the answer. Maybe it hasn't been enough of each and it's time to start advocating for better law enforcement.

[joejack951]

Ultimately driving a car or riding a bike on the road is a cooperative venture. It is utterly impossible to travel on the road if people don't follow or unwilling to follow basic rules of the road. And one of the most basic of these rules is that you don't hit other vehicles with your own. Accidents happen, but consequences must apply to keep people from becoming lax. Accidents between cars are self regulating because both parties come out worse for wear. Accidents between car and bike must be artificially regulated because, no matter who's fault, the cyclist comes out worse for wear. By changing the current paradigm where a cyclist's life is worth $242, our culture will be changed in time.

Ok, you've convinced me that law enforcement is THE answer to making the streets safe enough for me to ride on. So, when will it be safe for me to ride my bike again? I just slashed my tires to make sure I don't accidentally out of habit get back on that death trap.

[chipcom]

The question was

Which was a quote from the blog post page that the OP linked to. The question isn't about bike lanes, it is about what should we be doing as advocates: Trying to entice more people to ride bicycles or improving law enforcement so that it's safer for cyclists.

In other words, should advocates keep offering carrots or start carrying big sticks?

I've said for a long time that the best thing that can be done to provide for the safety of not only cyclists, but everyone else too, is to ENFORCE THE DARNED TRAFFIC LAWS. People's perception of the roads, whether on a bike, in a car or walking, is that they are dangerous...and I can see why they perceive that - people zipping around at an average of 10mph+ over the speed limit, driving like they are in a death race, ticked at anything that gets in their way. The root problem is societal - we (folks in general) consider the situation acceptable, so I don't see law enforcement as a 'solution', but seeing the cops out enforcing traffic laws a bit more seriously would both help improve people's perception of the danger of our roads, and perhaps make the idiot drivers think just a teensy bit before doing what idiot drivers do.

I don't take my opinion on this lightly...I hate driving slow and I hate a lot of traffic laws, but I've slowed down, paid more attention to the laws and gone out of my way to be courteous not because I like it, ut because it's the right thing to do. But of course, HH and others want to educate cyclists to their dogma rather than see any improvement in law enforcement.

[genec]

I've said for a long time that the best thing that can be done to provide for the safety of not only cyclists, but everyone else too, is to ENFORCE THE DARNED TRAFFIC LAWS. People's perception of the roads, whether on a bike, in a car or walking, is that they are dangerous...and I can see why they perceive that - people zipping around at an average of 10mph+ over the speed limit, driving like they are in a death race, ticked at anything that gets in their way. The root problem is societal - we (folks in general) consider the situation acceptable, so I don't see law enforcement as a 'solution', but seeing the cops out enforcing traffic laws a bit more seriously would both help improve people's perception of the danger of our roads, and perhaps make the idiot drivers think just a teensy bit before doing what idiot drivers do.


+10... thanks chip... this is exactly the right thing. Educating cyclists is important, but we cyclists are not the major users of the road... and rarely cause any damage or harm to others.

While I don't want to put all the blame on motorists... their score of ~45,000 deaths a year points to a problem that needs a solution. Anyone that has lost a loved one in an auto collision understands that there is a real problem out there.

I do think that cyclists need to learn to obey their local (state etc) rules of the road, but that is somewhat like telling minnows to stay out of the Shark's mouth.

[randya]

I've said for a long time that the best thing that can be done to provide for the safety of not only cyclists, but everyone else too, is to ENFORCE THE DARNED TRAFFIC LAWS. People's perception of the roads, whether on a bike, in a car or walking, is that they are dangerous...and I can see why they perceive that - people zipping around at an average of 10mph+ over the speed limit, driving like they are in a death race, ticked at anything that gets in their way. The root problem is societal - we (folks in general) consider the situation acceptable, so I don't see law enforcement as a 'solution', but seeing the cops out enforcing traffic laws a bit more seriously would both help improve people's perception of the danger of our roads, and perhaps make the idiot drivers think just a teensy bit before doing what idiot drivers do.

I don't take my opinion on this lightly...I hate driving slow and I hate a lot of traffic laws, but I've slowed down, paid more attention to the laws and gone out of my way to be courteous not because I like it, ut because it's the right thing to do.
I agree with you, Chip; but you know, the cops, like the majority of people in the US, self-identify as motorists, which results in selective enforcement against, and harassment of, the least dangerous users of our public streets, instead of the most dangerous, see the following two threads:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=214768
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=215975

[oilfreeandhappy]

Huh? I didn't say anything about bike lanes!
Yeah, and I was just asking about the picture in the article. Getting a little TESTY here, aren't we?

[Daily Commute]

Like Brian said, it is rhetorical question and clearly the answer is not meant to be 'more bike lanes'; therefore your comments and Serge's are misguided and don't belong here. Now quit bickering about it.

:(
With all due respect, if you meant the question to be rhetorical, you did not write your post that way.

You started out by explaining that a cyclist had died and that the incident had, "has sparked outrage and spurred action from citizen activists." Then you wrote that

"The incident has caused some cyclists to question the priorities of bike advocates and city planners. . . ."
That seems to open the quesion about what their priorities should be.

Then you added:

One commenter asked,

“what is the more important fight at this time: more bike infrastructure or vastly improved law enforcement to protect cyclists?”
Again, that opens the question to discuss those two specific ways.

Randya, after this post, I'll respect your newly-imposed limit, but if you don't want to discuss one of the topics raised in your OP's, it would be helpful if you would say so. And in future threads, if Brian tries to shut down the discussion of ideas he is unable to dispute, I will feel free to call him on it (at least in threads he has not started). But I am glad that some Portland folks appear to be figuring out that most "bike facilties" don't do much, if anything, for cyclists.

Randya, I apologize to you for not understanding the limit you wanted to place. And unless someone says something that needs responding to, that's the end to my comments on this topic in this thread.

On the randya's topic: I agree with Chipcom and Genec--enforcing traffic laws on cars, including removing the right most drivers feel they have to go 5-10 mph above the speed limit, would be an enourmous help to cyclists.

I noticed in the comment section to the article, that one of the peole said that failure to yield was somehow far less bad than running a stop sign. I don't even get that mentality. Failure to yield is one of the most serious offenses, because it means you automatically are causing a conflict. Putting enforcement on that offense--and taking a look at the penalties--would seem a good place to start.

[chipcom]

I agree with you, Chip; but you know, the cops, like the majority of people in the US, self-identify as motorists, which results in selective enforcement against, and harassment of, the least dangerous users of our public streets, instead of the most dangerous, see the following two threads:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=214768
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=215975

Easy on the cops. I have some experience in law enforcement - they self identify as a lot of things, but that has no bearing on enforcement of the laws. Traffic laws are a good example - show me a cop and I'll show you someone who drives fast and loose with the laws, especially within their 'turf' - but put em on duty and they write people for doing the exact same things. Hypocritical, yup, but as long as they DO THEIR JOBS, I can live with that.

[carless]

Just visiting. I voted with my feet/bike to Eugene, Oregon. 2K miles downtown and no problems. I'd like an effort to make accidents with bikes automatically the drivers fault, ala european laws. It would raise awareness, and Oregon would get massive PR. It would cost, well nothing. Matched with DUI penalties it would be (oh god..$) a revenue maker. "Hit a bike, go to jail"

[sentinel4675]

OK, make all crashes with bikes the car's fault? That is ridiculous! Not every crash between a car and bike is the cyclists or the driver's fault. Each crash has to be investigated to determine who made a mistake. Some crashes I've investigated involving cars and bikes were with the bike at fault. Come on folks, you can't always blame one or the other.