Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on A Clarification

1

While I appreciate all the attention being paid to this story, I'm really pissed off at the focus being given to fixed-gear bikes as some kind of central element in this tragic tale. I've ridden bikes through Seattle for the 12 years I've lived here, including several fixed gears. While they are slightly more challenging bikes to ride, they are not so different from geared bikes that they explain away the death of a cyclist! Three things would have made a crucial difference in keeping this kid alive: 1) A bike helmet; 2) A clearly marked bike lane; 3) More caution from both the rider AND the driver.

In the end a "fixie" is just another bike in a city full of bikes. A helmet education campaign, or better yet, expanding the number of bike lanes, will keep cyclists alive. Obsessively focusing on freewheels and gear ratios will not.

Posted by Gurldoggie | September 20, 2007 2:47 PM
2

While i agree that wearing a helmet is crucial and that riding a fixed gear poses additional hazards, I think it's ridiculous that you focus on these things when writing about this accident.

The reason Bryce died was because either he or the driver of the truck made some error in judgment.

Posted by Henry | September 20, 2007 2:48 PM
3

It's not just bikers that get hit by cars turning right, it's pedestrians, too.

The most obvious solution would be to require drivers to come to a full stop before turning right.

Posted by Seth | September 20, 2007 2:51 PM
4

While I'm glad that you're clearing up that not wearing a helmet is the culprit here (in addition to rider/drivers not paying attention) I still take offense to the fixies-as-death-machines slant to your article. On the other hand, you did give a shout out to Counterbalance Bicycles in Lower Queen Anne.


Counterbalance Bicycles Rulz!

Posted by iwanttobealion | September 20, 2007 2:54 PM
5

Once you put the front brake on there, it's the same if he's riding a fixed gear or a freewheel bike - you can't slam the front brake down on either, and once the front brake is at it's best braking capacity the rear wheel is barely touching the ground and not really relevant.

I'm sure some of us Point83ers would be happy to demonstrate that for you if you'd like - fixed gear riding is really easy once you get the hang of it. Thanks for quoting us a ton, but you could have at least let us know when you were going to go learn how to ride fixed - I'd have been happy to directly show you how the braking process is identical.

Posted by Lee | September 20, 2007 2:58 PM
6

I have a somewhat related question to throw out there. What is the acceptable length of time for an impromptu memorial at a death site (like the one for Bryce Lewis pictured in the article) to remain in place? A young pedestrian was killed at the corner of 24th Avenue East and Boyer in Montlake all the way back in May, and the pile of memorializing items left by her friends and family is still there on the spot where she died, which happens to be a tiny pocket park owned by the Montlake Community Club. My question is, uh, can that be taken down now? I don't mean to seem insensitive, but I think it has probably long since served its purpose in the grieving process for the family and friends of the victim.

Posted by Joe | September 20, 2007 2:58 PM
7

That seems like a serious detail. In fact, although I haven't read your article yet, it could be the crux of the accident. (Brakes or no brakes? That is a big difference!)

It seems that the Stranger's print section might be having the beginnings of a quality control issue. Earlier this season, the Cheat Sheet had Al Runte checked instead of endorsed candidate Venus Velazquez. Then there was the mix up between the crazy church and the mainstream church (although that may have been just SLOG, which is up for debate whether that reporting counts or not.)

Anyway, I'm just starting to notice this stuff and I'm not usually a nitpicky person. Misspellings/bad grammar are unfortunate, but content mistakes are what I'm really worried about as a reader.

Posted by what? | September 20, 2007 2:59 PM
8

dust the sand out of your fixie ( OH I DIDNT SAY FIXED GEAR WAAAA) vagina.

yes you ride a fixed gear bike great, but there are still tons of bad haircut fucktards who idolize the perfect mix of no brakes and purple deep vee's who have no idea how to ride. I would assume ECB is trying to lay a little into that with calling the core audience of this readership a bunch of reckless poser dumbasses.

Posted by meanie | September 20, 2007 3:01 PM
9

i like to eat cheeseburgers and corndogs.

Posted by derrickito | September 20, 2007 3:08 PM
10

The "best" line from the story:

As a fixed-gear bike moves forward, the wheel moves forward too, making it impossible to just stop pedaling.

a) Doesn't that describe all bikes -- all wheeled vehicles, in fact?
b) And thus, doesn't this suggest that it is impossible to "just stop pedaling" any bike?
c) So it follows that the fact that he was riding fixed gear had nothing to do with the accident!

Posted by smiles | September 20, 2007 3:22 PM
11

What about the dump truck's brakes?

Posted by lu | September 20, 2007 3:24 PM
12

Helmets are important safety precautions, but based on what I've read and heard, the nature of the injury seems to indicate that a styrofoam helmet would not have helped. As Henry pointed out, an error in judgement took place. The design of this intersection invites such errors in judgement - that seems to be a good point to focus on, rather than creating false associations with brakeless bikes.

The "clarification" about the front brake only serves to add more confusion. Even on bikes with both front and rear hand brakes, it is the front brake which provides most of the stopping power.

Do we even know whether the braking ability of the bikes had any bearing on the accident whatsoever? Didn't one of the witnesses say that the dump truck overtook the cyclists? So why all the speculation about the bikes' brakes?

Posted by Mike | September 20, 2007 3:26 PM
13

I still don't know anyone who rides a bike that is stupid enough to flip it over with the front brake. And a few cheeseburgers and corndogs for ballast helps even more.

I completely agree with Henry @2.

Posted by Tony D. | September 20, 2007 3:29 PM
14

I bet Mr. Poe rides fixie.

Posted by smiles | September 20, 2007 3:30 PM
15

I'm sure brakes are just as important as a helmet when going down a big hill.

Posted by la | September 20, 2007 3:31 PM
16

I bet helmets don't protect your body from being in an "impossible position."

Posted by Anon | September 20, 2007 3:31 PM
17

I'm not entirely sure why people feel the need to get so defensive about the kind of bike they ride [1,2,4 above. I'm sure there are more but I got bored and stopped reading]. Know what, if you ride a track bike in the city and you get killed as a result, that's your own damn problem!

Frankly it's rather narcisstic to assume that it matters to anyone but you what kind of bike you ride. "Fixies-as-death-machines slant". What, you expect people to start discriminating against you now, like a pitbull owner or something? Jeez Louize! Get over yourself!

Posted by bubba baBOOM | September 20, 2007 3:50 PM
18

@17 - Obviously it matters what kind of bike someone rides if they are going to blame the bike for a kid's death. The whole idea is that it shouldn't matter what kind of bike you ride. Fixed geared or free wheel; bikes are dangerous sometimes.

Posted by iwanttobealion | September 20, 2007 4:16 PM
19

Fixies are inherently more dangerous - this is a fact. A derailleur and rear brakes could have saved a life here. I just hope that fixies get banned soon.

Posted by BikeGuy | September 20, 2007 4:17 PM
20

bubba @17: the point is that your choice of bike has nothing to do with getting killed in this scenario. it is someone's error and a dangerous intersection that is the problem, not your choice of bike.

the point that i think most of us are trying to make is that it's a bunch of crap to take something that's a tragic accident and sucks for all parties involved and spin it into something i'd expect to see on fox news- sensationalism combined with peronal axe-grinding, and drawing needless lines between us and them to make 'us' feel better and safer. "he died because of his bike, which isn't what i ride- can't happen to me!"

well, guess what, erica? it could have easily been you.

Posted by jonathan pork | September 20, 2007 4:25 PM
21

@19: so is a manual transmission, let's ban those too!

Posted by jonathan pork | September 20, 2007 4:27 PM
22

fixies are more difficult to ride. people ride them will tell you this. it might be no more dangerous once you learn how, but that learning makes a big difference. even then, more difficult is still more difficult even when you konw what you are doing. so, it's not bad for a few reminders: wear a helmet, watch for vehicles even when you have the right of way, if you're on a fixie be a little more cautious (and don't get on the street with one until you know what you are doing -- just like you should ride any bicycle in the street until you know how to ride it).

Posted by infrequent | September 20, 2007 4:28 PM
23

Erica,

Do you know anything about bikes at all? Any experienced cyclist knows that 90% of the time you should only use your front brake. The few exceptions include cases where the road is slick.

When riding a fixed gear with a front brake, you actually have a better feel for the traction on the road and this is arguably safer than riding a freewheel bicycle, especially in poorer road conditions.

Posted by dave | September 20, 2007 4:32 PM
24

Remember, most dump trucks travel at 5-10 mph over the speed limit.

... so, who's more at fault? The taxpaying cyclist who died?

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 20, 2007 4:33 PM
25

Erica has the balls to demand a helmet law and a law making fixies illegal. Someone in Seattle has to stand for morality. No one should be able to ride without a helmet, or ride a fixie no matter how much fun they are. It's time for a law folks, and The Stranger is right to take a moral stand against these biking idiots.

Posted by Issur | September 20, 2007 4:39 PM
26

#20 - Perhaps, yes. But... 1] riding a bike in the city is inherently dangerous, 2] the presence/absence of gears or brakes directly affects that danger level, and 3] the only person whose danger level is affected is the one riding the bike. These are caveats that everyone should be aware of when riding a bike in the city... FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and theirs alone.

I kinda felt like the point of the article was to make this abundantly clear, given the present too-cool-for-school status of fixed gear bikes. It should be widely known - for experienced bikers only!

Then again, if #19's opinion is a common one, perhaps we should all just shut the fuck up about track bikes now and let grown adults decide what's best for themselves and leave it at that.

Posted by bubba baBOOM | September 20, 2007 4:44 PM
27

Boy...mention a bicycle in a story, and you can count on a flock of Critical Masshole types to swoop in from the rafters, their "arguments" equally lacking in perspective and logic.

For once, I actually agree with the people who label this event as a "tragedy" (unlike 99% of supposed "tragedies" that are actually just very sad accidents). The reason? It sounds like this kid was young and stupid, and doing what young, stupid kids do. This young, stupid kid just happened to be on the wrong side of the odds, this time. Tragic.

As for you Massholes, please, please try to keep some perspective. Was the fixie responsible for this? No. The kid on top of the fixie was responsible. He should have been more careful.

I ride too, and I see too many bicyclists doing stupid things on the road to believe that this kid was totally innocent. Did he deserve to die for being young and stupid? Of course not. But making him some sort of bicyclist martyr just undermines your credibility.

Posted by A Non Imus | September 20, 2007 5:07 PM
28

@10 i think what erica means is that when the bike is moving the pedals> keep moving on a fixie.

this is unlike a regular bike where you can stop, and hold, your pedals in one place. on some fixies if you stop your motion of pedaling, the bike still moves the pedals around.

i think that's what she ment.

anyhoo.

almost hit a damn biker today who was swerving around and between cars on madison w/ no helmet. when he got too close to me, he screamed "back off!" like i was purposefully gunning for him.

don't bikes supposedly have to follow traffic laws too? just wondering.

Posted by terry miller | September 20, 2007 5:09 PM
29

1. there is a helmet law, i've been fined for it (81 bucks till i showed the judge my helmet)
2. machines don't kill anyone, its the dumbass operators. In this case its some combination of clueless biker and meth-head dumptruck driver (are there other kinds?)
3. Simple solution: a) look up from pavement, b) see dump truck and c) don't go where dump truck will be
4. Wish I had a dump truck to drive thru Evanston and 34th every morning. Pave that intersection with broken skulls.

Posted by wbrproductions | September 20, 2007 5:21 PM
30

@10, I don't ride a bike anymore, but no, on most bikes you can stop pedaling and "coast," your legs not moving but the wheels keep moving. The pedals move the wheels, the wheels don't move the pedals. On Fixed-gear bikes, the pedals move the wheels, and the wheels move the pedals. So even if you're "coasting," the pedals are turning.

Posted by exelizabeth | September 20, 2007 5:26 PM
31

@30 & 28 -- Thanks! Btw, I ride fixed, so I'd figured that out. But perhaps in a story demonizing a piece of technology one might try to describe it accurately for those who don't. ....like for example this idea that the person wouldn't have been going as fast if he'd had a free-wheel. When I ride fixed, I go much slower than when I have gears (and thus can pedal down a steep hill). With fixed, you can't go any faster than you can pedal (plus you still have a break). Well, unless you take your feet off the pedals... now THAT is stupid!

Posted by smiles | September 20, 2007 6:20 PM
32
front-wheel brakes have their own shortcomings, the largest being the tendency to flip the bike

Jesus, ECB sounds here like those idiots on motorcycles who think using the rear brake only is safer, even though it takes 3-4 times the distance to stop.

The only way a front brake could ever flip a bicycle is if you yank it all the way closed, as hard as you can, all at once. (And even then, it's not easy.) If you slam on a car brake pedal that way, the wheels lock and you skid out of control. No one with the faintest clue how to use brakes of any kind is going to flip a bicycle or motorcycle by using the front brake.

Posted by lostboy | September 20, 2007 7:18 PM
33

Interesting reading the rabid comments by the Darwin bait bike riders on here. Maybe *some* of you are intelligent riders, but the majority of ppl on bikes are fucktards. Weaving in and out of traffic up on the curbs with no regard to anything around you. Then you wonder why drivers get tired of your shit. We never know where the fuck youre going to go, or what youre going to do next. You dont use your hand signals, you dont seem to have a clue about the rules of the road. Hey asshole riders, learn the rules of the road then USE them. Dont take over the drivers lane cos its your "right". Right or wrong my 5,000 lb car is going to run right over your 100lb bike every time. Its called the laws of physics and it applies to YOU too. As for bike lanes they wont help expanding them or painting them neon pink. Eventually a car is going to have to turn thru that lane either at an intersection or into a driveway. So YOU fuckers open your eyes and make sure you're not on the losing end of the laws of physics. Personally I have no sympathy for the kid that died. He was riding an unsafe bike in an unsafe way and more likely than not totally ignoring the rules of the road while he did it. Perhaps a licensing program for bike riders would help along with having license plates on the bike so the police can deal with the majority of you riders who act like a car one min and a pedestrian the next. If you cant/wont follow the rules of the road, then get the fuck off it.

Posted by Jeff | September 20, 2007 8:04 PM
34

Why does the Stranger hate fixed gear cyclists?

Posted by cranked | September 20, 2007 8:19 PM
35

@33: 'If you can't/won't follow the rules of the road, then get the fuck off it.'

Man, if only everyone, cars, bikes, trucks, Segways, skateboards, etc. would follow that advice, think how easy my commute would be.

Of course, then I'd probably be tempted to run a red light or two since, after all, there'd never be any cross-traffic. After a couple of days, no one would be using the road, and we could have a massive kickball tournament in the streets of Seattle!

Posted by Greg Barnes | September 20, 2007 8:54 PM
36

lets get this straight:
bikes are not toys. they may be fun to ride, but they are not just toys.

maybe, like motorcycles, which are arguably harder to drive than cars, we should make people who ride fixies take fixie classes and have a designation on their id. this may seem silly, but the fact of the matter is that you would never want someone who doesn't know how to drive their motorcycle darting in front of you in and out of traffic and now you probably are going to be weary of fixie riders too. in some states you have to license your bike just like cars-- why not make this distinction. anything that takes skill to operate safely should be licensed so that idiots don't endanger themselves or others by trying.

i am saying all of this as a cyclist and fixie rider who does not own a motor vehicle.

Posted by bikesarenottoys | September 20, 2007 10:49 PM
37

The sad thing about this article and the Slog posts regarding the accident are the perpetuation of the singular focus on the choices of the victim.

What about the truck? What about the truck driver? Was the driver under pressure to move quickly and could those factors have contributed? How is visibility out of that vehicle different than visibility from a passenger car? How could that intersection and corridor better accommodate bikes and cars?

It's much easier to quarterback the decisions of a dead 19 year old whose name is readily available than to ferret out the name of the driver, employer, and examine the many other factors that played into the accident. This type of coverage shifts blame to the victim via lazy reportage and repetition of convenient information.

Posted by Steve Leonard | September 20, 2007 11:09 PM
38

So a dump truck overtakes two cyclists that are traveling legally in a traffic lane (bike lane), and turns through their path and takes them both out. According to witnesses, the cyclists were traveling between 10 and 20 miles an hour (a very safe speed).

You people have the balls to blame the cyclists or their bikes? Sure the cyclists could have ridden more defensively and maybe could have avoided it. The dump truck was still clearly legally in the wrong.

Do you remember anything from driver's ed? You cannot turn through a lane without first ensuring that it is clear.

It certainly would have been safer for the bikes to be in the center of the right lane. Through intersections like this, bike lanes are death traps.

With regards to the article, next time yall should do some fact checking. I won't bother addressing the misunderstanding of the physics of braking, but Wikipedia could have cleared up most of the more glaring errors.

Posted by Wes B | September 21, 2007 1:52 AM
39


@20
ECB *did* say it could have been her. in her first slog post about this.

Posted by kt | September 21, 2007 9:33 AM
40

I am dumbfounded as to how Erica felt justified omitting the fact the Lewis had a front brake. Oh I understand, if she had printed that piece of the puzzle, then her article would have been totally irrelevant to the tragedy.

I have no problem with Erica Barnett formally posing the question that fixed gears without brakes may be more dangerous to the unskilled rider. But the fact that she framed the question as being relevant to this tragedy is frankly misleading and significantly troubling to me.

Furthermore, her history is off. Her article leads people to believe that fixed gears were invented for velodrome racing. In the history of the bike, the fixed gear was the standard before the invention of the freewheel.

Peace unto Lewis, his family and friends. God save the cyclists.

Posted by Driftwood | September 21, 2007 10:13 AM
41

wow, fixies really are pretty.
http://images.google.com/images?q=fixed+gear+bike&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

And doesn't anybody remember the BMX craze of the early 80's, when every kid had a fixed gear dirt bike? Dude, when I was 8 I used to wear through rear tires almost monthly by riding to the top of the biggest hill I could find, then racing down'em and skidding as far as possible.

Posted by NaFun | September 21, 2007 10:59 AM
42

Your recent article, "Collision Course" skirted the real issue by focusing on fixed-gear bikes. Bicyclists Bryce Lewis and Caleb Hall were struck by a dump truck which dragged them nearly 25 feet. Focusing on the bike type is like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Bryce Lewis was killed while riding in the bike lane on flat ground with dry pavement. The truck driver took a right turn directly into his path. We believe the focus should be on the negligence of the driver of a dangerous truck, not on the difficultly of learning to ride a fixed-gear bike.

The Seattle Municipal Code states "The operator of a motor vehicle shall not drive in a bicycle lane except to execute a turning maneuver, yielding to all persons riding bicycles thereon." Had the truck driver followed the law, this tragedy would have been avoided.

Fixed-gear bikes can be ridden safely. Bryce Lewis was not "asking for it" by riding a fixie. In fact, Erica Barnett, the article author, now acknowledges that his bike had a front brake in addition to the direct braking inherent in a fixed-gear rear wheel. Apparently this fact was edited out of the story.

A clarification on the Stranger blog is not enough. An investigation into Seattle's many "trouble spots" such as the Eastlake corner would be a good start. Seattle claims to be bicycle friendly, but these claims are often inconsistent with reality. More bike riders means fewer drivers. This is good for everyone, so long as bicyclists' rights are respected. The Stranger should become part of the solution, not be part of the problem.

Niki Hurley, Mobius Cycle (niki@mobiuscycle.com)
Bob Anderton, Bike Lawyer (bob@washingtonbikelaw.com)

Posted by Niki Hurley | September 21, 2007 2:48 PM
43

i just ate an entire pepperoni pizza.

Posted by derrickito | September 21, 2007 2:58 PM
44

I would like to bring everyone's attention to another class of potentially dangerous bicycles: recumbents.
I rode a few recumbent bikes once. They had brakes, and they were very comfortable (I have to admit, I wanted one), but the turning radius was TERRIBLE. If I had to make an emergency turn on one of those things to avoid say, a dump truck, I'm sure I'd be a goner. They are also lower to the ground and less visible to cars. Plus, with their dangerously streamlined aerodynamics, they can reach speeds that far exceed fixed gears when descending large hills. They should be banned, and the only bike allowed on the road should be the standard two triangle upright safety bicycle, complete with freewheel and handle operated brakes.

Let's make the roads safe. With the right laws dictating the use of proper, safe bicycles, we can do this.

Posted by Remington | September 22, 2007 9:52 PM
45

Here here to Nikki and Bob's post, #42. Especially the call to be part of the solution. How about it, Stranger? Why not a piece on the most dangerous intersections in the city? The places where right of way breaks down, where road planning is exclusive and biased to the point of recklessness, the places where we can and should ask for more from our city's leaders? I'd like to read that in the Stranger.

Davey Oil

Posted by Davey Oil | September 23, 2007 12:45 AM
46


And man, what about unicycles. I just about flattened a guy in my silent Prius the other day.

Posted by Reignman | September 23, 2007 7:32 AM
47

and don't forget those two-ton, four-wheeled, fully enclosed bikes that are ACTUALLY always killing people. About 30,000 a week worldwide.
If we want to legislate for safety, how about limiting car speeds to under 30 in the city. I am not simply thinking of the safety of selfish pedestrians and cyclists, tooling around on the macadam like they have a right to the place, (JK, we all have a right to the place) but also for the safety of drivers and passengers. They are picking each other off at a horrible rate. #26 claimed that, "riding a bike in the city is inherently dangerous" sure, I guess, but don't forget that it is roads and fast moving cars and trucks that create that danger. I'm not setting up another bikes vs cars thing here, what I am saying is we do not, as a city, need to put up with this. Look at Amsterdam, look at Bogota, Columbia (please look at Bogota), and look at Davis and Arcata, CA and realize that streets can be made livable and safer within a single lifetime or political term. Now look at the Regional Transportation Invesment District plan coming up for Seattleon November's ballot http://www.rtid.org/ and check out how much worse our leaders can and may make this city with a few strokes of a pen.
We have options, do we want streets and public space for the life and joy of all people or for the speed and convenience of some few people?
Go play in the street. It is your right and your responsibility as a citizen.

Posted by Davey Oil | September 23, 2007 9:01 AM
48

Wow. I knew Bryce in high school, and have been bicycle safety advocate for a long time.
IN NO WAY can I even begin to consider that the type of bike Bryce was riding contributed to the accident. If a vehicle turns right into you, it doesn't matter if your bike has a freewheel, brakes, or photon torpedos. It's preposterous to even suggest that it would make a difference. If the truck had turned into say an old VW beetle, you wouldn't say that the accident would have never happened if only they had been driving a Honda instead of VW - it's absolutely a moot point and has nothing at all to do with the accident.

The article I find to be worthless. In fact, I think it's yellow journalism. I think it's a cheap shot to take the death of this person and use it to sensationalize an almost completely unrelated topic.
There are factual errors made too. A bicycle with a freewheel will go down hill easier than a bike with a fixed gear. For comparison - if you're on a going down a steep hill in your car - and you have the car in first - so it's locked in a single gear: it'll go slower than it will if you put it in neutral and let it freewheel down the hill.
In gear the wheels and engine are locked together -like the wheels and legs of a cyclist on a fixed gear bicycle. When you put the car in neutral and let it freewheel down the hill, the wheels can move fast than the engine is running - like the wheels of a bike with a freewheel - they roll freely even when the engine is idling/the legs are not pedaling.
considering the errors made regarding mechanical facts, and the sensationalized tangent the article goes on, I almost find it offensive.
The author has used the death of my friend to sensationalize an inaccurate argument about fixed gear bicycles.
BTW I am actually biased against fixed gears (I personally do not care for them), but I find the very idea that a fixed gear contributed to the cause of this collision to be patently ridiculous.

I would also like to point out for some of the people commenting above, that Bryce was not some sort of hipster buying into a fad.
Bryce was a competent cyclist, and worked at a bike shop. He knew how to handle a bicycle. He wasn't clueless about this, and I'm certain he knew far more about bicycles and how to correctly ride them than the majority of people posting comments here. Anybody who met Bryce would know he's not a dumb kid. Anybody who claims or suggests he was obviously knows nothing about him.

Further, I should also point out that when you make a turn, or merge while driving - you are responsible to make sure THAT YOU can make that maneuver - it's not the other motorist's, cyclist's, pedestrian's job to clear the way for you.
If you put your blinker on, then turn into the car right beside you - YOU are at fault. You may have signaled your intent, but they (other vehicles, pedestrians, objects, ect.) are not in anyway obligated to make space for you - YOU have to wait until there is space for you to merge or turn.
If there is a car there, a cyclist there, or some other physical object occupying the space you need - you have to make sure it's not to be there when you're going to be there.

Posted by D.A. Grimshaw | September 23, 2007 12:15 PM
49

In response to Jeff (post 33) - Do you not find it ironic that you express such outrage at people who don't know the rules of the road, yet as evidenced by the content of your post - you are one of those people? You should probably go back to Driver's ed.
"Eventually a car is going to have to turn thru that lane either at an intersection or into a driveway. So YOU fuckers open your eyes and make sure you're not on the losing end of the laws of physics."
The driver of the car must yield to pedestrians on crosswalks, and bicycles in bike lanes. It's the driver's responsibility. Not the anybody else's. Obviously you know nothing about the rules of the road. I think you you should take your own advice: park your car, and get the fuck off the road. Thank you.

I should also point out, that in Seattle (SMC 11.44.080) bicycles are granted the right to pass vehicles on the right by law.

Posted by D.A. Grimshaw | September 23, 2007 1:36 PM
50

In response to number 27:
"The kid on top of the fixie was responsible. He should have been more careful."

So we ought to protect the hammers from the eggs, eh? I'm still not sure what he was doing that was wrong, aside from not wearing a helmet - which given the nature of the accident probably wouldn't have helped him much.
He was in the bike lane - where bikes go. Now, as I understand it, the truck smashed him - he didn't smash the truck... So what you're saying, is that Bryce should have made up for the error of the truck driver. The driver either did not see Bryce, or saw him and did not yield, did not react quickly enough.
Now, put yourself in this situation. You're riding in the bike lane, a large truck is right beside you - the driver in this case, apparently cannot see you - and you are alongside of the truck, rather than in front of it, or behind it - and so have no way of seeing its blinkers, or its brake lights - you have NO WAY of knowing it's about to turn! Then, the truck turns.
First off, as already stated, the cyclist was not obligated to make room for the truck to turn - the truck however was obligated to yield to the bicycle on the bike path, something which obviously did not happen for whatever reason. Secondly, it's VERY likely the cyclist did not know that the truck was going to turn, until it was already turning - by which point it was too late to be "more careful" in any case, even if he had seen the trucks signal - guess what? It's not his responsibility to make way for the truck, it's still the truck driver's responsibility to make sure he can make that turn safely.
Now of course, if he had seen the signal he could have (possibly, maybe) taken some action to avoid the collision, though that's just speculation, as maybe he couldn't have - and even so it's STILL not his responsibility to do so. The driver of the truck was at fault. The truck driver should have been more careful. Period.
I don't want to make this out like the truck driver is some evil, nasty person. I'm pretty sure he did not start the day off thinking "well, I'm going to run over some kids today" - accidents happen, the guy didn't see them.

Although apparently, it's not beyond some people to say the cyclists were dumb and asking for it, by not breaking a single law and riding in the bike lane like they were supposed to. Go figure.

Posted by D.A. Grimshaw | September 23, 2007 2:09 PM
51

The most important thing about bike "safety" is where you put you and your bike. It's not about helmets, brakes, and certainly, not about "right of way". If you ride in traffic, you have to assume that a vehicle in the R hand lane is going to turn, and more importantly, assume that the driver does not know you are coming up on his blind side. Yes, the driver "should" check and see if you are there, but the truth of the matter is that bikes are a small minority and drivers know how to deal with other cars, not bikes.

I've done several centuries on fixed, ride track and road. In the last ten yrs, there have been a few major injuries and even deaths of riders on freewheel bikes in the L.A. area. So, are we to make freewheel bikes illegal?

Posted by Wes | September 23, 2007 4:41 PM
52

So based on this death Erica C. Barnett advocates wearing a helmet. What type of injury killed the cyclist? I would bet part of his body was crushed under the truck. So how could wearing a helmet in that situation have saved the cyclist?

I've seen the post mortem bodies of one bicyclist and two motorcyclists, and their skulls were completely untouched. It was their bodies crushed, broken and the subsequent bleeding that killed them.

Nothing like urban myth news reporting. Think I will stick to reading "Savage Love," at least Dan recognizes when he doesn't know something and does a little research.

Even with the shortcomings of front brakes, I will still be using mine on both my motorcycles and bicycles.

Posted by fixrider | September 23, 2007 7:41 PM
53

While I completely agree that the safest route as a bike rider or in any capacity is to trust no one, I think it important to understand that all of us, (bikers, drivers, humans) in every capacity, have a tendency to be reckless. I think it equally important to note that none of us know for sure if the cyclists were acting recklessly (though I think the facts indicate that they were not), and to blame a bike is the stupidest act of all.

Legally it follows that the truck is at fault. Cars cause far more deaths than any bicycle, even if you broke it up by percentage. Stop and think for a minute about how many of your closest friends have been hurt or killed by cars versus any other method.

I think Niki is keen to observe the analogy of a rape victim and her skirt wearing. Yes, a cyclist owes it to himself to be fully responsive to potential threats. More importantly, a driver owes it to society to be fully aware and cautious of the potential of his vehicle to harm others. I for one would love to see bicycle safety be a part of driver's ed.

In general, I tend to believe that drivers should unquestionably undergo more testing. Just like I tend to believe that we all should be taught how not to be rapists, instead of how not to become victims.

Posted by Lia Jane | September 23, 2007 7:52 PM
54

It's actually pretty alarming how simple and easy it is to get your driver's license - considering that for most people, a car is the heaviest, most complex, and most deadly machine they will ever own.

It's also completely unacceptable that there is little to no info given about cyclists/other non-car vehicles and road users, and usually no questions on the test.
If you have to get a pilot's license, for instance you have to know how what happens if you encounter a hot air balloon, even if you plan on never flying one - bicycles are completely ignored on driver's tests. It's absolutely unacceptable.
A lot of drivers aren't even aware that bicycles are allowed to operate on the street with cars. Much less what to do when they come across one.

Posted by D.A. Grimshaw | September 23, 2007 8:38 PM
55

The fact of the matter is that these kids were hit while riding legally in a bike lane. It doesn't really matter what kind of bike they were riding, how they were allegedly riding before the accident (30 miles and hour downhill on a fixie? virtually impossible!), or what kind of brakes they had on their bikes. THEY WERE RIDING LEGALLY IN A BIKE LANE AND HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY. Besides, bike brakes aren't made to stop dump trucks, whether they are front, rear or inherent. And helmets aren't made to save a person's life when a dump truck runs over them.

As both a fixed-gear cyclist, a pedestrian, AND a driver, i see all kinds of reckless behavior on the road. I think it bears mentioning that (with extremely few exceptions) only motor vehicles are fatally striking people. i haven't seen or heard of a pedestrian or cyclist fatally or seriously colliding with other people, cyclists, pets, or cars and/or accidently dragging them to their deaths.

Yes, it is the responsibility of cyclists to ride in a manner that keeps them safe, however, it is also the responsibility of drivers to be VERY aware that they are operating potentially deadly machinery (both to themselves and to others) at all times, and please, let's put the focus where it belongs: on how to prevent accident such as this in the future. Writing sensationalized articles from an ignorant perspective insures that nothing positive will come out of such a tragedy except more division and scapegoating.


Posted by Nicole | September 24, 2007 4:50 PM
56

Lots to say in response to Erica Barnett’s 9/19/2007 “Collision Course” article on Bryce Lewis’s death at the intersection of Eastlake and Fuhrman and the related 9/20/2007 SLOG follow-up.

Erica’s own “Author Archive” on the Stranger website identifies her as an avid cyclist and having worked for both the Seattle Weekly and Austin Chronicle prior to her position with the Stranger. Based on this, I assume she is no stranger to cycling or journalism, so how is it that she butchered this story so completely?

If one disregards the peanut-gallery commentary and stereotypical “all cyclists suck” rants from the 9/20/2007 SLOG posting, three overarching themes emerge as to why so many people (myself included) took offense to her reporting.

First, the sloppy fact-finding, fact-checking, and fact-reporting resulted in outright errors and grave misrepresentations. Most importantly, Bryce’s bike was outfitted with a front brake, a HUGE editorial mistake. Explanations of the mechanics of fixed-gear bikes and are subjective or faulty. Dan Heidel and Bryce never met each other. The facts are the foundation of the story and simply must be correct in order to give readers the chance to draw independent conclusions.

Second, the direction of the article was confusing and downright insensitive. Is it an article about her personal discovery into fixed-gear bikes? Is it about the accident that killed Bryce? Is it about her proselytizing about the (presumed) inherent dangerous nature of fixed-gear bikes? It moves awkwardly between those themes, obfuscating any real conclusions and generating plenty of unsafe notions. The article strongly suggests that Bryce’s death was the result of a particular type of bike and his lack of a helmet and conversely, that cyclists on non-fixed-gear bikes who wear helmets are safe. This type of victim blaming is unacceptable. Additionally, including graphic details about Bryce’s injuries was tasteless and unnecessary.

Third, the article is a huge missed opportunity. There was minimal commentary on how Seattle infrastructure fails both cyclists and motorists at multiple intersections throughout the city and how the Bike Master Plan has been developed to specifically address these issues. There was no analysis or discussion about the specifics of the truck driver, for example if he was appropriately certified to be operating a dump truck or had been in prior accidents while operating a truck. If the reporting is going to be fair, it should be fair. There was no driver re-education through clarification of incorrect statements, such as that made by the KING 5 witness who noted Bryce and Caleb “shouldn’t have been trying to pass a dump truck on the right-hand side …” which is actually the bike lane in which all motorists need to yield to cyclists.

Irresponsible journalism has consequences.

A disheartening result of the article (and reporting like this) is the perpetuation of the following thought posted as a comment to her SLOG follow-up: “He was riding an unsafe bike in an unsafe way and more likely than not totally ignoring the rules of the road while he did it.” Wow. Reporting in a manner that encourages and fuels this sort of local urban legend is appalling.

Additionally, Seattle is currently in a delicate position regarding its bike infrastructure. The Bike Master Plan is actively being curtailed and thwarted in traditionally bike friendly neighborhoods like Fremont and West Seattle, limiting the possibilities for pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists to interact safely. The accident that killed Bryce Lewis occurred at an intersection notorious for creating dangerous situations for both cyclists and motorists. His death should be a loud wake-up call to the city to get its act together and a rallying point for cyclists (and motorists) to demand clear and safe infrastructure on Seattle roadways. By re-focusing all the attention to the type of bike, her article did nothing to move the infrastructure issue forward.

As Nikki Hurley of Mobius Cycles pointed out, the meager 9/20/2007 SLOG addendum posted by Erica, obscurely labeled as “A Clarification” under the insulting title of “Housekeeping,” is insufficient. An extensive, well-researched follow-up article, if not several, needs to be printed examining the relevant counterpoints raised by Stranger readers. She owes it to Seattle-area cyclists (regardless of the kind of bike they ride), she owes it to herself in order to maintain some degree of credibility as a cyclist and reputable journalist, and she owes it to Bryce Lewis to set the record straight.

Posted by Laura | September 24, 2007 4:56 PM
57

I would love to see cycling education in driver's ed (and another, more productive article, of course). In the meantime, can people please do themselves a favor and get a copy of John Forester's "Effective Cycling"? http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/bikebooks.htm
Or alternatively, the free (and shorter) "Bicycle Street Smarts" online at http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

Posted by Remington | September 24, 2007 7:45 PM
58

In response to 56, I'm glad someone else agrees with how shoddy the journalism was in this article. Completely irresponsible.

Set the record straight Stranger!

Posted by Michael | September 25, 2007 9:19 AM
59

im about to eat an entire gallon of mashed potatos and gravy.

OMG im excited

Posted by derrickito | September 25, 2007 12:39 PM
60

I agree with 56! Please do something about this Stranger!

Posted by Nicole | September 25, 2007 7:44 PM
61

>> I agree with 56! Please so something about this Stranger!

I know it's difficult for people to admit when they're wrong, but please own up to this calumny.

Posted by Bill | September 25, 2007 8:10 PM
62

Just to add to the dogpile:

1. Why not give the cyclists the benefit of the doubt? Motorists are exclusively at-fault in 60% of car-bike collisions, vs. 17% for cyclists. (League of American Bicyclists).

2. The author has been a cyclist for 25 years and is questioning the use of the front-brake for a panic stop? As others have pointed out, stopping fast is *entirely* a front-brake operation. Get a clue!

3. Falling back on the helmet issue is ridiculous. The real issue is that the truck turned into the cyclists. All politics aside, the unfortunate kid would have been dead with or without a helmet.

The journalist deserves a proper keel-hauling on this one. Let's see some integrity creep back into the profession.

Posted by Jay | October 3, 2007 8:46 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).