banerjek

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

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.

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:

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

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

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

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

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:

https://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/200...o-fatal-crash/

randya

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

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

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

True, that.

TacoPropelled

There seems to be an awesome wrongful death suit that could be had here.

sbhikes

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?

Blue Order

I don't believe in either/or answers. It's always both.

sbhikes

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

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 

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

+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 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:

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/214768-brakeless-fixed-gear-courtroom-near-you.html
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/215975-portland-police-enforcement-downtown-morning.html

oilfreeandhappy

Yeah, and I was just asking about the picture in the article. Getting a little TESTY here, aren't we?

Daily Commute

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

That seems to open the quesion about what their priorities should be.

Then you added:

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 

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.