Advocacy & Safety - National Public Radio Segment on Cyclists v Drivers

Today's All Things Considered included a five-minute segment (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120457877) featuring Christian Stoehr and Ron Peterson's encounter with that felonious Mandeville Canyon driver.

That was a very good piece, thank you for sharing it.

Seemed too heavy on the implication that it is cyclist who are not sharing the road.

I hate the term "share the road". It seems like a lot of people think "share the road" means for me to be out of their way, no matter what the road conditions are.

Seemed too heavy on the implication that it is cyclist who are not sharing the road.

That also bothered me. There does seem to be a small group of riders who enjoy riding abreast and are not much interested in the real or imagined consequences for other traffic.

When a lane is too narrow for safe sharing, riding abreast is arguably efficient from a cyclist's perspective. To the average intelligent driver this can seem like a bunch of riders doing a rolling blockade.

Seemed too heavy on the implication that it is cyclist who are not sharing the road. I got that impression too. It's like they were trying to "balance" the story. "Yes murder is bad, but you cyclists better not be riding side by side (even if it is legal)".

Way too heavy on the car drivers in the segment. Althoug one of the persons interviewed, that lives in the same neighborhood as the convicted MD basically said he is hoping cyclists get killed, so it did show the irrational hatred that many car drivers have towards cyclists.

They definitely didn't talk about the non-spandex-clad segment that cycle for transportation. That bothered me as well. But then again, the case in question does involve spandex-clad cyclists, so it makes sense the story focused on them.

Way too heavy on the car drivers in the segment. Althoug one of the persons interviewed, that lives in the same neighborhood as the convicted MD basically said he is hoping cyclists get killed, so it did show the irrational hatred that many car drivers have towards cyclists.

Agreed, there could have been more cyclists interviewed then there was.

Yeah, I heard that and got the same impression. Hopefully the sentence that the "good" doctor gets will help to dissuade anyone in that neighborhood from doing so. But sadly I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

That also bothered me. There does seem to be a small group of riders who enjoy riding abreast and are not much interested in the real or imagined consequences for other traffic.

When a lane is too narrow for safe sharing, riding abreast is arguably efficient from a cyclist's perspective. To the average intelligent driver this can seem like a bunch of riders doing a rolling blockade.


Small group of riders? As a %age of cyclists it may be small, but in terms of defining how motorists and others see us, they have completely dominated the headlines. The thousands of cyclists who have coexisted with traffic on the nations roadways for decades are, of course, far to boring and unprogressive to get news media attention.

roughstuff

They definitely didn't talk about the non-spandex-clad segment that cycle for transportation. That bothered me as well. But then again, the case in question does involve spandex-clad cyclists, so it makes sense the story focused on them.

????

As a matter of fact, they didn't mention the word spandex at all. Not once. When they were talking about the East Hollywood "bicycle district" I was under the impression that they were talking to transportational cyclists.

Speedo

????

As a matter of fact, they didn't mention the word spandex at all. .....

Speedo

Do they wear speedos under their spandex? :)


roughstuff

They definitely didn't talk about the non-spandex-clad segment that cycle for transportation. That bothered me as well. But then again, the case in question does involve spandex-clad cyclists, so it makes sense the story focused on them.Interesting that YOU do not consider my 20 mile one way, daily, work commute as NOT "cycle for transportation" simply because I am a "spandex-clad" cyclist. I suppose my utility rides do not count either, when I wear spandex.

Am I OK on the days I wear the wool jersey rather than a spandex one?
Or, must I also wear wool shorts to be OK?
How about if the motorist cannot tell the difference between my wool and spandex cycling clothes?

Interesting that YOU do not consider my 20 mile one way, daily, work commute as NOT "cycle for transportation" simply because I am a "spandex-clad" cyclist. I suppose my utility rides do not count either, when I wear spandex.

Am I OK on the days I wear the wool jersey rather than a spandex one?
Or, must I also wear wool shorts to be OK?
How about if the motorist cannot tell the difference between my wool and spandex cycling clothes?

LOL I wear spandex shorts, but cotton shirts... oh my, I must really confuse motorists. ;)

Huh. This was broadcast on a day when something similar happened to me, but thankfully, the guy decided to only pull in front and tap his brakes to scare me and teach me a lesson rather than slam them on fully.

Gotta be thankful for small things. I'm glad I'm not writing this from inside his back window.

Do they wear speedos under their spandex? :)


roughstuff

Since I am no longer the rippling hunka-hunka burning man flesh that I (think that I) used to be. There are people who wish I would wear my Speedo under spandex. :(

Speedo

Interesting that YOU do not consider my 20 mile one way, daily, work commute as NOT "cycle for transportation" simply because I am a "spandex-clad" cyclist. I suppose my utility rides do not count either, when I wear spandex.

Am I OK on the days I wear the wool jersey rather than a spandex one?
Or, must I also wear wool shorts to be OK?
How about if the motorist cannot tell the difference between my wool and spandex cycling clothes?

Good points as except for the very shortest of trips I too am wearing spandex when I ride. As it gets cooler/colder out I add arm/leg warmers, windbreaker, hoodie, etc., and eventually jeans. BUT I've still got the spandex on underneath it all.

LOL I wear spandex shorts, but cotton shirts... oh my, I must really confuse motorists. ;)

And what about those of us who as it gets colder wear jeans over our spandex?

A little off topic. Considering that it is the "good" doctor's fault that Peterson (I think it was Peterson) lost his teeth and he now has to wear false teeth is the "good" doctor responsible for each new set of false teeth or just the first set?

A little off topic. Considering that it is the "good" doctor's fault that Peterson (I think it was Peterson) lost his teeth and he now has to wear false teeth is the "good" doctor responsible for each new set of false teeth or just the first set?

I haven't heard anything about the civil suit. After that is concluded, I hope the driver is left with only bus money.

Interesting that YOU do not consider my 20 mile one way, daily, work commute as NOT "cycle for transportation" simply because I am a "spandex-clad" cyclist. I suppose my utility rides do not count either, when I wear spandex.

Am I OK on the days I wear the wool jersey rather than a spandex one?
Or, must I also wear wool shorts to be OK?
How about if the motorist cannot tell the difference between my wool and spandex cycling clothes?

Sorry, my brief statement was misinterpreted. You are reading too much into what I said. Of course your commute is transportation regardless of what you wear, duh. BTW, I'm also a spandex-clad bike commuter that takes the long way to work (16 miles) and the short way home (8 miles). So I combine fun, exercise, and transportation.

I was trying (and failed) to make the distinction between recreational cyclists and bike commuters. Of course some might be one in the same, but there are some people who bike purely for transportation (for a variety of reasons) and not for fun and exercise.

Sorry if I offended you.:twitchy:

I hate the term "share the road". It seems like a lot of people think "share the road" means for me to be out of their way, no matter what the road conditions are.

Ditto!!! I think of that term as, 'I will share the road BUT, motorists will eat my dust, since I 'take the lane'.

I haven't heard anything about the civil suit. After that is concluded, I hope the driver is left with only bus money.

Which for the next 10 yrs (or however long he get's sentenced to) he won't be needing. And given that IF he serves the whole dime he'll be in his early 70s isn't about or past the time that he would have hung up his keys for good? Granted I think many here would agree that he should have done so before now.

But at least for a while he's off the road and is no longer a threat to anyone else.

It would just be so much easier if we set up a priority system like they have on trails and use it on surface streets. Cars yield to everyone, bikes yield to pedestrians and equestrians, pedestrians yield to equestrians and equestrians yield to no one (and don't even have to pick up their ****). On highways or roads with separated bike/walk paths running parallel, then cars have free reign and no others allowed.

Seemed too heavy on the implication that it is cyclist who are not sharing the road.

That's what I thought too as I listened. The comments on the article are even worse. I didn't realize NPR listeners were such idiots.

"Share The Road" is PC and inoffensive -- unlike me. I'll tell an idiot driver to move the F over in a second, and my middle fingers are as limber as my legs! But I will also demonstrate good sense when on the road, showing these fools that I DO know what I'm doing. That, and a newspaper article from some time back, has made an impact. I have really noticed a reduction in demonstrations of road rage from drivers since that article hit the stands.

As far as these radio segments, news reports, and the like, where comments ALWAYS include something about "it doesn't matter if it's legal -- the car always wins!", I'm about fed up with the idea that drivers don't have to exercise their braking foot. That NEVER seems to be an option for the idiots on parade out there.

It would just be so much easier if we set up a priority system like they have on trails and use it on surface streets. Cars yield to everyone, bikes yield to pedestrians and equestrians, pedestrians yield to equestrians and equestrians yield to no one (and don't even have to pick up their ****). On highways or roads with separated bike/walk paths running parallel, then cars have free reign and no others allowed.

Really? In 2009 you want to encourage horse riding within the city?

Interesting that YOU do not consider my 20 mile one way, daily, work commute as NOT "cycle for transportation" simply because I am a "spandex-clad" cyclist. I suppose my utility rides do not count either, when I wear spandex.

Am I OK on the days I wear the wool jersey rather than a spandex one?
Or, must I also wear wool shorts to be OK?
How about if the motorist cannot tell the difference between my wool and spandex cycling clothes?

In his defense, I believe the riders in the collision were out for recreation/training and not to go somewhere specific. I could be wrong, but it seemed like they were out on a joyride.

That also bothered me. There does seem to be a small group of riders who enjoy riding abreast and are not much interested in the real or imagined consequences for other traffic.

When a lane is too narrow for safe sharing, riding abreast is arguably efficient from a cyclist's perspective. To the average intelligent driver this can seem like a bunch of riders doing a rolling blockade.

There's a site, somewhere, that demonstrates precisely why "single file" is often stupid for groups. By doubling or tripling up you fit in about the same space (after you've moved out far enough to block the lane so that you don't get buzzed) you reduce the required passing distance by a factor of 2 or 3.

If you want to see a group take up a lot of road space find one in an echelon fighting a cross wind.

Sorry, my brief statement was misinterpreted. You are reading too much into what I said. Of course your commute is transportation regardless of what you wear, duh. BTW, I'm also a spandex-clad bike commuter that takes the long way to work (16 miles) and the short way home (8 miles). So I combine fun, exercise, and transportation.

I was trying (and failed) to make the distinction between recreational cyclists and bike commuters. Of course some might be one in the same, but there are some people who bike purely for transportation (for a variety of reasons) and not for fun and exercise.

Sorry if I offended you.:twitchy:I was hoping that was the case. We really do not need another spandex hater in BFs.:thumb:

Getting offended on the internet would seem rather pointless to me.

Really? In 2009 you want to encourage horse riding within the city?Yeah, in Nebraska, they ride cows, not horses. The real horse riders are in Wyoming.;)

Really? In 2009 you want to encourage horse riding within the city?

I was being sarcastic, as my comment about the **** should have made clear! On the trails, that's the right of way system they have set up though: horses are king.

That also bothered me. There does seem to be a small group of riders who enjoy riding abreast and are not much interested in the real or imagined consequences for other traffic.


There's a site, somewhere, that demonstrates precisely why "single file" is often stupid for groups. By doubling or tripling up you fit in about the same space (after you've moved out far enough to block the lane so that you don't get buzzed) you reduce the required passing distance by a factor of 2 or 3.

If you want to see a group take up a lot of road space find one in an echelon fighting a cross wind.

(my bolding)

I often thought about this when riding in groups. Is perception more important than reality? Imagine a group that somehow had its shyte together and could coordinate its movements like synchronized swimmers into a 4 abreast echelon. If they were single file originally they just reduced the passing distance 4 fold. I could easily imagine a following motorist see this as some sort of effort to thwart passing.

What a passing motorist wants to see (forget about cyclists getting off the road entirely for a moment) is for everyone to gutter hug even if its an unsharable lane and results in the most passing distance required in spite of better alternatives.

It's a bit of a mind ****

I heard a few minutes of the broadcast on the way to dinner last night. I don't feel like listening to the whole thing because it will probably put me in a bad mood. The small exerpt I heard of the cyclist saying, "its not safe to ride in the gutter, door zone, glass, etc" was nice to hear get air time. I know there are two sides to everything, but there is a legal/illegal and practical/impractical line that exists. There are truths in this world and both sides don't deserve equal consideration when the answer already exists.

Sorry, my brief statement was misinterpreted. You are reading too much into what I said. Of course your commute is transportation regardless of what you wear, duh. BTW, I'm also a spandex-clad bike commuter that takes the long way to work (16 miles) and the short way home (8 miles). So I combine fun, exercise, and transportation.

I was trying (and failed) to make the distinction between recreational cyclists and bike commuters. Of course some might be one in the same, but there are some people who bike purely for transportation (for a variety of reasons) and not for fun and exercise.

Sorry if I offended you.:twitchy:

I bike purely for transportation because it's fun and good exercise.

I was being sarcastic, as my comment about the **** should have made clear! On the trails, that's the right of way system they have set up though: horses are king.

That's true. Although, I've never seen a horse on our shared trails. Most of the city trails, I think, do not allow horses. I suppose there's no specific ban, but there aren't any signs reminding you of the correct yield procedures.

(my bolding)

I often thought about this when riding in groups. Is perception more important than reality? Imagine a group that somehow had its shyte together and could coordinate its movements like synchronized swimmers into a 4 abreast echelon. If they were single file originally they just reduced the passing distance 4 fold. I could easily imagine a following motorist see this as some sort of effort to thwart passing.

What a passing motorist wants to see (forget about cyclists getting off the road entirely for a moment) is for everyone to gutter hug even if its an unsharable lane and results in the most passing distance required in spite of better alternatives.

It's a bit of a mind ****

I heard a few minutes of the broadcast on the way to dinner last night. I don't feel like listening to the whole thing because it will probably put me in a bad mood. The small exerpt I heard of the cyclist saying, "its not safe to ride in the gutter, door zone, glass, etc" was nice to hear get air time. I know there are two sides to everything, but there is a legal/illegal and practical/impractical line that exists. There are truths in this world and both sides don't deserve equal consideration when the answer already exists.


My problem with it stems from them being "unbiased" and showing both sides. But they did this while covering a case where the one side was trying to injure the other: I don't think they hilighted that nearly enough.

Anyway, it wasn't a horrible piece. They tried. It might have been nice if they'd done a talk of the nation on the subject (and maybe they will). I'd like to hear call ins with someone who's ready with intelligent rebuttals.

Well, I see horses on the road pretty often around here. I have no problem with them being on the roads.

I bike purely for transportation because it's fun and good exercise.

Me too, as well as other reasons. I have one bike setup as a toddler carrier/grocery getter, I have a 2nd bike (a road bike) for commuting, and my old Trek 820 to use as a poor weather beater. And despite the fact that in the past 3 days, there have been multiple reports of bike/car incidents (one was a hit'n'run, another in which a 9 year old was "accidentally" ran over in a cross-walk), I do plan to eventually teach my kid to ride a bike.

My problem with it stems from them being "unbiased" and showing both sides. ....

Being unbaised is certainly a problem amongst publicly funded NPR and their followers.

The article showed both sides of the debate over roadway access...not 'both sides' of the intent to injure. If they wanted to do THAT, they could have shown critical mazzholes smashing in car windshields.

roughstuff

The "public funding" is minimal. About 10% last I knew. It's getting smaller everyday and will surely disappear eventually.

I'm a bit off topic, I know. Sorry. I felt the need to address the misconception that NPR and PBS are completely "on the dole". A little, little bit of taxpayer money goes into them, it's true. But it's money very well spent compared to trillion dollar wars that accomplish nothing.

The "public funding" is minimal. About 10% last I knew. It's getting smaller everyday and will surely disappear eventually.

I'm a bit off topic, I know. Sorry. I felt the need to address the misconception that NPR and PBS are completely "on the dole". A little, little bit of taxpayer money goes into them, it's true. But it's money very well spent compared to trillion dollar wars that accomplish nothing.

True on the funding part. Mostly corporations, charities, endowments, and "viewers like yourself" are funding. You know those semi-annual pledge campaigns?

Take the NPR funding side show and rants against killing terrorist to P&R.

Being unbaised is certainly a problem amongst publicly funded NPR and their followers.

The article showed both sides of the debate over roadway access...not 'both sides' of the intent to injure. If they wanted to do THAT, they could have shown critical mazzholes smashing in car windshields.

roughstuff

Showing two sides without discriminating the value of the arguments or the credibility of the witnesses is far from unbiased reporting.

IIRC story discussed bicyclists who physically threaten stopped motorists.

Well, I see horses on the road pretty often around here. I have no problem with them being on the roads.

More horses and less rain and you'd smell the problem. I'm not advocating a ban of horses. I'm saying it might be better to not encourage horse riding on city streets for day to day transportation and recreation.

It was mostly intended to be humorous anyway.

More horses and less rain and you'd smell the problem. I'm not advocating a ban of horses. I'm saying it might be better to not encourage horse riding on city streets for day to day transportation and recreation.

It was mostly intended to be humorous anyway.You guys need to learn about those new fancy horsie poop catch bags.

http://www.bunbag.com/

My problem with it stems from them being "unbiased" and showing both sides. But they did this while covering a case where the one side was trying to injure the other: I don't think they hilighted that nearly enough.

Anyway, it wasn't a horrible piece. They tried. It might have been nice if they'd done a talk of the nation on the subject (and maybe they will). I'd like to hear call ins with someone who's ready with intelligent rebuttals.
Radio Times (which is a Philly talk show kind of along the lines of Talk of the Nation) did one on biking in Philly the other week but I didn't have a chance to hear it and they don't upload old shows online :\

Showing two sides without discriminating the value of the arguments or the credibility of the witnesses is far from unbiased reporting.

IIRC story discussed bicyclists who physically threaten stopped motorists.

Exactly. If the issue were "Is the Earth flat?" You certainly would not just put the flat earthers on one side and the round earthers on the other side and just give them the same time for their views.

You guys need to learn about those new fancy horsie poop catch bags.

http://www.bunbag.com/

Awesome. Horse diapers.

It would just be so much easier if we set up a priority system like they have on trails and use it on surface streets. Cars yield to everyone, bikes yield to pedestrians and equestrians, pedestrians yield to equestrians and equestrians yield to no one (and don't even have to pick up their ****). On highways or roads with separated bike/walk paths running parallel, then cars have free reign and no others allowed.

I would change two things in that,

1) Poop and scoop laws are extended to include equestrians....
2) There should be no road that is limited to only motor vehicles, this creates a huge safety issue. Here is the problem, your on main street, and there is a sidepath from 1st to 47th avenue, but there is not beyond 47th. Car drivers then get so used to no bicycle/pedestrian traffic, then such traffic appears at 47th, drivers, who are barely conscious at the best of times, would be running over this sudden bicycle traffic.

That's what I thought too as I listened. The comments on the article are even worse. I didn't realize NPR listeners were such idiots.

There are liberal idiots. There are also educated idiots. At the intersection of these groups lies an infuriating group: liberal, educated idiots. Unfortunately, this is a burgeoning class. Since we're going soft in general, and anyone can get into college these days, it's bound to produce a lot of people who retain only enough knowledge to wholly confuse themselves. These are the kind who think you're a bad person if you don't donate to NPR. Well, you are a bad person, but not for that reason alone. You also eat meat, don't see the value of speaking 7 languages (Hint: almost always none), and don't think your toothpaste has to be organic. There is no fluoride conspiracy. Let it go.

I think the problem with the "share the road" slogan is that people take it literally. Drivers think that they always have the right to pass you on the left, in the same lane. This isn't always true, of course. When you don't let them do this, they might get angry.

We need to make driving less of an entitlement. It should be licensed with the same discretion as pilots are, or regulated even more harshly. Let's face the facts: some people are simply bad drivers. They shouldn't be allowed to drive, but they are because we see it as some kind of right, which is entirely stupid. The truth is that some people are simply bad drivers, and shouldn't be allowed to operate a vehicle under any circumstances. Since lawmakers are spineless, and insurance, automotive, and oil companies have so much clout, however...you get the picture. We're screwed.

I'm surprised coked-out, blind, mentally-deficient epileptics aren't allowed to drive. Some people drive like them, and will never learn.