Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Notes From The Prayer Warrior | Students' Rights Update »

Monday, September 24, 2007

About that Bike Accident

posted by on September 24 at 16:18 PM

I’ve gotten a lot of reaction to my story last week about Bryce Lewis, the cyclist who was struck by a dump truck and killed while riding downhill on a fixed-gear bike equipped with a front brake. Most have accused me of “blaming” Lewis for being hit because he was riding a bike I think is dangerous, and suggested I know nothing about biking in the city. To wit:

in your article on the death of bryce lewis, you put a lot of emphasis on the fact that he was riding a fixed gear bicycle. that is absurd and offensive - he got run over by a truck. if he was coasting, he still would have been run over. he would still be dead. to say that he wasn’t paying appropriate attention, when it is obvious that you have little to no information on the circumstances of his death, is terrible journalism and disrespectful to the dead.

in your article, you say that he was “riding a dangerous bike” simply because you don’t know how to ride one.

And:

Trying to the blame this kids death on him riding a fixed gear bike is infuriating. I ride a fixed gear bike very safely. This is not a new phenomenon. I know friends who have been riding fixed gears instead of road bikes for years. They are simple, silent machines that give the rider full control of the bike. Coasting down a steep hill makes me feel unsafe and out of control and my speed is much greater that when I ride my fixed gear down a steep hill. A fixed gear rider must focus more on riding which can make them much safer riders.

And:

Your recent article regarding bicycles had several distinct errors regarding the fundamental mechanics of cycling equipment and their functional capacities.

If you’d like I can recommend several volumes for your perusal, their knowledge applied would allow you to write comprehensive articles without error. They may not be fun to read, but most persons find calculus boring too, yet don’t deny it’s necessary applications. I’m certain you’d find fault with anyone whose written an article about carrots to consistently refer to them as “fruit”, would you not?

If you’d like to be able to write articles of merit regarding cyclists, I’d gladly provide you a short reading list or even a contact for a course you can take locally to learn the basics of cycling on city streets.

So, to clear a few things up:

1) I didn’t “blame the victim” for being hit, nor did I exonerate the truck driver. As I said in my original Slog post:

Coming down the hill off Harvard, it’s easy to reach speeds topping 30 miles an hour, and even if you’re going slowly, drivers still pay way too little attention—as I learned when I was hit in the exact same spot a year and a half ago, by a left-turning driver who pulled into my path (also known as the bike lane) too quickly for me to stop. …

Technically, the dump truck driver appears to have been at fault, but as every cyclist knows, it’s up to us to look out for them, because we’re the ones who always lose in bike/vehicle collisions. Fair? No Drivers should be more aware of cyclists too—much more aware. (In addition to my three accidents, I’ve had countless near-misses with drivers who broke the law and nearly smashed into me.) But looking out for cars—hell, assuming they don’t see you and don’t care if they hit you—is how you avoid being hit.

This isn’t blaming the victim; it’s accepting the reality that drivers are careless, and that cyclists are the ones who have the most to lose.

2) I said explicitly in my story and elsewhere that fixed-gear bikes in and of themselves are not the problem, but that problems can arise when you’re new to riding one, as are many, many of the people I see tearing around on these bikes, usually helmetless, all over the city. Longtime fixie riders may think that because they’re experienced and safe, every single fixed-gear rider out there must be, too, but the safety of the machine depends on the experience of its rider. And bombing down a hill is dangerous no matter how experienced you are.

3) Yes, there are some things I got wrong about the mechanics of fixed gear bike—specifically, I said they go faster than freewheel bikes downhill when in fact they’re just harder to stop going downhill—and no, I don’t want to read “volumes” to understand exactly how every cog and screw on fixed-gear bikes work. The basic point—that riding fast downhill on a fixed gear is not a good idea if you’re unfamiliar with riding on hills or inexperienced with fixed-gear bikes—still stands, as does my larger conclusion: If a driver hits you, it may be their fault, but that doesn’t matter if you’re dead. I would much rather see cycling folks lobbying for more punitive laws against hitting cyclists—say, automatic license revocation if the driver is at fault—than sniping about who knows more about bicycles and whether this accident was avoidable or not.

RSS icon Comments

1

"drivers are careless"?

i drive and i don't think i'm careless.

that's a blanket statement that's akin to:

"bikers are wreckless"

would you agree with that? no.

Posted by terry miller | September 24, 2007 4:21 PM
2

That corner is NOT at the bottom of the Harvard hill. To imply that Bryce may have been "topping 30 miles an hour" is totally without merit.

Posted by DOUG. | September 24, 2007 4:25 PM
3

Dear Prayer Warrior...

Posted by monkey | September 24, 2007 4:34 PM
4

Or...maybe in addition to all of that...WEAR A HELMET! It's uncool. But is it cooler to a vegetable who didn't wear one? Or dead?

Posted by OR... | September 24, 2007 4:38 PM
5

Perhaps you wrote more clearly in your article than you did here, but you seem to be implying that Lewis was a novice fixie rider and this contributed to his death. If that was your intent then great, message conveyed. If I had to guess, though, it seems like you're so het up about getting your ass handed to you in this argument about "who knows more about bicycles" that your writing is suffering.

Posted by Bison | September 24, 2007 4:40 PM
6

it's a block away from Harvard Hill tho, which doesn't give much time to slow down. I think it was a good article, Erica, and you covered it from all sides. I don't think you really said who was at fault and I don't think anyone will ever find out who really was. I think the situation and the article should be a lesson for both cyclists and drivers to watch out for each other and that there should be more things the city should do to keep cyclists safe. Our hearts go out to Blake's family and friends.

Posted by Scottie | September 24, 2007 4:41 PM
7

While we're taking away licenses for careless drivers (I drive and think this is definitely an appropriate punishment), at the same time I'd really like to see some law-breaking cyclists get nailed, too. In Seattle in particular there seems to be a strong disregard by cyclists when on the road and when off it - they don't seem to care about red lights, stop signs, or pedestrians, and whether I'm walking or driving, I'd like to see those guys get their bikes taken away or something. If cars would follow laws and pay attention and cyclists follow laws at all, we might actually be able to share the road for once - but it takes both sides to grow up and start behaving properly.

Posted by Anne | September 24, 2007 4:42 PM
8

ECB: I think I agree with what you are saying. But often a victim, or someone who relates to a victim does not like to be told that even though they are not at fault there were things they could do to be safer. it just rubs you the wrong way.

like telling someone who was attacked when walking home from a club they should be careful when walking alone on that stretch of broadway. or that they shouldn't have worn a certain type of clothing.

i know accidents are different from attacks. but to the victim, or those who relate to the victim, helpful advice can sometimes sound like blaming.

Posted by infrequent | September 24, 2007 4:44 PM
9

Almost everyone in American has experience riding a fixed gear device, they're called tricycles. Most of us remember careening widely down a hill unable to match our feet up the rapidly revolving pedals. Some of us, on the other hand, are slow learners.

Posted by Mike | September 24, 2007 5:04 PM
10

Yesterday I overheard both roadies on Mercer Island and fixed gear riders in Fremont complaining about the article's basic inaccuracies regarding cycling.

So one positive outcome is that you briefly united disparate cycling cliques.

One negative outcome is that you also lost The Stranger its credibility among any cyclists of any type.

Posted by danny | September 24, 2007 5:22 PM
11

It isn't that you actually blamed the victim; it's that you seem to be exploiting the victim.

By all appearances, you wanted to find a way make a story out of this, and the story you wanted to tell was about fixies. It doesn't exactly look good when you "accidentally" left out the one big ugly huge fact that blows a hole below the waterline of the story. That elusive front brake.

Well, there would be two big ugly facts if you knew whether or not the dead man you hung the story on was an experienced fixie rider, or a novice. Unless you want to say that he'd never seen a hill before -- well not a Seattle hill. Seattle's hills are exceptional, of course, just like everything else here. Seattleite exceptionalism is always a hoot.

Did you learn that he was a skilled fixie rider and accidentally forget to include that fact too? Or did you not even try to find out? That would be consistent with your unwillingness to read a book, or even read a few Wikipedia paragraphs, or go and speak with an expert who doesn't share your set of beliefs.

I suspect that you didn't want to have to say in print that the elusive front brake would make the bike flip over if ever used in earnest. You knew there were too many facts to overcome if you tried to make that fly. And you were just unable to come out and admit you had been that wrong, for that long. Twenty five years, right?

Advocacy journalism is one thing. But your impenetrable lack of curiosity and unwillingness to learn, combined with a stubborn certainty that you are incapable of error about bikes is the reason why you are to blame for all this heat coming down on your head.

Posted by elenchos | September 24, 2007 5:30 PM
12

riding downhill fast -- what you can do on a freewheel, is far more dangerous than riding downhill slow(er) -- what you should do on a fixed gear.

i've done the experiment.

tricycles.. yea, like i remember that.

Posted by sam hill | September 24, 2007 5:31 PM
13

i'm with #7. take away bikes from morons too.

Posted by terry miller | September 24, 2007 5:35 PM
14

My problem with your article was that your tone and your style of writing implied that the riders were at least dumb, and at most partly at fault for the accident. You also clearly don't understand the basics of bicycle handling or the basic concept that if someone wants to do something, and they aren't' harming other people they should be allowed to do it.

Even if fixies were more dangerous (which they're not), who are you to say that people shouldn't ride them? It's just typical of the inflammatory loose-with-the-facts style of reporting we all love from the Slog.

Posted by Smegmalicious | September 24, 2007 5:38 PM
15

everyone should wear a helmet.

nothing can change what happened.

i support bicycle anarchy.

Posted by mcfnord | September 24, 2007 6:10 PM
16

Aside from your tone, the actual layout of the article was a problem also. Taking an out of context and inflammatory quote and putting it in large type was problematic at best. Bad design, at the very least.

I appreciate that you and Dan ride bikes and advocate bikes. That said, maybe you should make some friends that are actually involved in the bike community. Your article seemed to be written by someone completely out of touch with the reality on the street. Very Seattle Weekly of you.

Posted by flash gordon | September 24, 2007 6:15 PM
17

The critique here of the article's tone and implicit statements is off base. I thought Erica tried extremely hard to lay out the facts, and explain to those of us who have biked for most of four lives and never touched a fixed-gear bike how that might have contributed to the accident -- regardless of whether the truck driver was totally, partially, or not at fault.

I stopped biking through that intersection about a year ago, even though it's completely convenient to my bike commute, because it's so bloody dangerous.

Maybe the city will act at last.

Erica, I thought the article was great and sensitive. As "infrequent" posted above, it's hard for the victim's family and friends to hear anything that sounds even remotely critical. They're mourning. But for the rest of us, we're constantly weighing risks, and I'd like to know my odds.

Posted by Glenn Fleishman | September 24, 2007 6:55 PM
18

actually you did blame the victim. and you did so without evidence. you inferred, without actually demonstrating, that the type of bike the bicyclist was riding was a factor in the person's death. it seemed like opportunistic moralizing to me.

Posted by actually | September 24, 2007 6:57 PM
19

Erica, did you talk to Bryce's family? Members of the local bicycle community did. They were told that Bryce was an extremely skilled cyclists and mechanic and new his bike well.

Did you talk to eyewitnesses who SAW the accident and put the blame on the dump truck driver?

Why don't you try those for starters?

The story should have been about how dump trucks, not fixed gear bikes, are dangerous.

Posted by I'm a Nuclear Bomb | September 24, 2007 7:12 PM
20

ECB: Don't sweat it. Your hate mail on this topic is akin to the crap W receives from the far-nutty right.

I normally find your writing to be preachy, especially on the topic of all things bicycle, but your writing on this accident was thoughtfully balanced, IMHO.

You simply pissed off your "base" for not being sufficiently unhinged.

Posted by oneway | September 24, 2007 7:23 PM
21

In the spirit of National Punctuation Day, I'd like to point out that the third author inserted an apostrophe improperly in his or her second paragraph. It should be "its" not "it's."

Posted by apostrophe police | September 24, 2007 7:31 PM
22

Drivers/bikers

Here's a suggestion: Wear a helmet, or wear a safety device, like a seatbelt

Here's another suggestion: have brakes on your vehicle.

Here's another one: don't be an asshole. respect people on the road.

I'm really sick of getting cut off in traffic on my bike by cars, and I'm REALLY sick of bike nazi's telling me how it should be done and then acting like assholes on the road. I can't count how many times I've been embarassed to see other bikers acting irresponsibly and then taking a cavalier attitude about it, as if daring someone to hit them accidently, so they could go "see?"

But really Erica, you are taking the stereotypical Stranger response to criticism. Rebut, act like you don't give a shit (this is really key), and try and humiliate your critics. Also poke them in the eye a bit for good measure.

This is a tragedy where from all accounts I've read (granted I wasn't there) there is fault from both parties, but I would have preferred the initial Slog entry about the fixie aspect and just have had it left at that. Or at least just talk about the issues without trying to paint the fault of the accident. I mean, who the fuck cares about the minutia, the poor guy died.

Posted by grizzly bear | September 24, 2007 7:34 PM
23

Elenchos- "impenetrable lack of curiosity and unwillingness to learn" - is that like a Texas thing?

Posted by whatever | September 24, 2007 7:37 PM
24

Erica, your article very plainly speculated that the accident might have been caused by the fact that Bryce was riding a fixie. You didn't mention any evidence to suggest that the type of bike was relevant here, just a notion that fixies can be harder to stop for novice riders than freewheel bikes. As far as the teams of bicycle-hostile drivers out there are concerned, you might as well have said that riding a fixie is inherently negligent, and that drivers can not be held responsible for hitting them.

If you're determined to discuss the type of vehicles involved, you should have pointed out that a 20 ton dump truck is much harder to stop than, say, a BMW or Mini Cooper, and that the height and width of dump trucks gives the driver an enormous blind spot. Certainly, these factors were more relevant than the type of bike that was squashed under its wheels.

Really, though, the problem is one of putting bike lanes to the right of right turning traffic. I know you know this. That should have been the message of your article, but unfortunately it was overshadowed by your fixie fixation.

Posted by Sean | September 24, 2007 7:46 PM
25

One thing we can all agree on: recumbent bicycles are both dangerous and aesthetic disasters, as are the people who ride them.

Posted by kinaidos | September 24, 2007 7:54 PM
26

I drove down Harvard toward that same intersection last week. I was appalled to see a biker hurtle down Harvard, completely ignore the red light and dart out into traffic on Eastlake despite the clearly marked Bike Lane closure due to the ongoing construction. Shouldn't she have joined the stopped traffic and waited with all of us until the light turned green? With a lack of a clearly marked bike lane, shouldn't she have been obeying the laws of the street?

After the light changed, I moved on with traffic and noted that she had stopped at the intersection where Bryce died and was reading the flyer posted there. I hope that she learned something.

Posted by AGM | September 24, 2007 7:55 PM
27

Absolutely true what somebody said above, the Stranger has zero credibilty among cyclists. Your article was so bad and so wrong that it's not just fixed-gear cyclists who think so -- even roadies think so.

Posted by tree | September 24, 2007 7:58 PM
28

Oh, and one more thing you should know, Erica. My girfriend who is a cyclist, rides a fixed gear very safely, and has excellent bike handling skills, not only thinks your article is shit, but also thinks it contributes to the idea among a lot of guy cyclists that girls are dumb when it comes to bike.

Posted by tree | September 24, 2007 8:00 PM
29

@23

Whatever,

If anything I said implied in even the most tangential way that ECB has the slightest thing in common with the former Governor of Texas who has appeared on our TV screens with alarming regularity for the last several years, I want to assure you in the strongest possible terms that no shadow of the thought ever crossed my mind. Just because someone from Texas rides a bike, crashes frequently, is certain they are right about everything, and has no curiosity for things that would upset their world view doesn't mean that they should be directly compared with the occupant of the Whitehouse who is also commonly referred to by three initials. There are many differences. For example, one is a strident ideologue known for spreading misinformation, and the other started a war with Iraq.

I could go on, but there is nobody who wants me to.

Posted by elenchos | September 24, 2007 8:09 PM
30

Anne @7
"they [bicyclists] don't seem to care about red lights, stop signs, or pedestrians"

Sorry to pick on you, Anne, but if I hear another asswipe bitch about minor cycling infractions, I'm going to start shooting. Yeah, bikes sometimes bend the rules. Guess what - so do cars! And pedestrians! They roll through stop signs. They exceed the speed limit. They cross in the middle of the block. They cross when the sign says "Don't walk"! The horror!!

What would you think if you read some rant about pedestrians who dare cross against the light when there's no traffic around? Or cars that drive 60 mph on a 55 mph highway. You'd think "Wow, what a fucking asshole", that's what you'd think, and you'd be right. Please apply that same standard to yourself.

Posted by Sean | September 24, 2007 8:23 PM
31

Oooo, dump trucks are dangerous. I guess we should start towing waste to the dump in little handlebar baskets on our fixed gear bicycles.

Posted by ol'jb | September 24, 2007 8:28 PM
32

I just got finished watching Vera Drake for the like 5th time. I love that quick scene of the son on the bike (i grew up riding a tall sleek English Raleigh). But really, Vera as the ideal Jewish mother makes the film.

Posted by June Bee | September 24, 2007 8:37 PM
33

@30:

I am equally pissed at car drivers who break the law. However, car drivers seem to get pulled over for breaking the law, and often ticketed (I know, not all do, but a cop is more likely to ticket a car that breaks the law). I have yet to see a cop nail a cyclist for breaking the law - hell, I've seen plenty of jaywalking tickets handed out, even, but not one. single. cyclist ticketed, even when they've blatantly done this in front of cops.

I don't give a rat's whether someone wants to ride a bike - frankly, I prefer public transport and have been using it for over 10 years in many cities - but like cars and pedestrians, cyclists should be held accountable for breaking the law when they do so. Why does Seattle have this cycling amnesty anyways? And where do you get off saying that just because some cars get away with breaking the law it's therefore okay for cyclists to do so as well? It's not okay for *anyone* to do that shit, so stop whining at me because I call people out (drivers and cyclists) for breaking the law.

Posted by Anne | September 24, 2007 9:20 PM
34

Erica,


Aside from all but blaming this incident on the type of transportation these kids were using, you have done the an amazing job of taking a pro bike advocacy stance and knock back a decade. Nice job.


Couple that with a complete lack of tact by solidifying the trauma that none needed to read, I wonder exactly what IS your stance with this article?


That being completely rhetorical, it doesn't really matter now. You've done permanent damage with your pen. You may as well have been the driver of the truck. Do you NOT realize that friends and family of Bryce will read your story? Did it not occur to you that your lack of fact finding and near blatant finger pointing were nothing more than a slap in the face to the deceased AND the community that supported him?


Ironically, you quote comments from a local bike group. Have you read the comments from those folks about what you have written? I don't think you've made many friends after this story.


If you desire to correct your errors (and you SHOULD) you need not to bold your very minor statements, but either retract your piss poor story, or issue a very heartfelt apology to Bryce's family and the community that stands behind him . We may, then, forgive you.


If you stand your ground, then maybe one day you'll see how much of a cunt you really are.

Posted by wheeler | September 24, 2007 9:22 PM
35

that was a thoughtful analysis wheeler, but you really just needed to say the last sentence...the part after "then."

Posted by June Bee | September 24, 2007 9:28 PM
36


Posted by kinaidos

"One thing we can all agree on: recumbent bicycles are both dangerous and aesthetic disasters, as are the people who ride them."

go phuck yourself, this is one aesthetic disaster that will happily unload on your very narrow point of view.

Posted by wheeler | September 24, 2007 9:35 PM
37

Holy fuck...Ssome of the people in this thread need to start wearing helmets when they ride. The brain damage is obvious.

Posted by Jesus Fucking Christ on a Bicycle | September 24, 2007 9:39 PM
38

@33:
Sorry, when reading your post, I stopped after the part about bikes assuming that it was yet another driver posting yet another rant holding bikes to a standard of perfection. Having read the rest, you clearly apply the same high standard to cars.

Personally, I don't take offense when someone drives 5 mph over the speed limit, or jaywalks when no cars are around, or doesn't stop their bike at an empty intersection. There are more meaningful things to worry about.

Posted by Sean | September 24, 2007 9:43 PM
39

As a lifelong cyclist and journalist who has written about cycling extensively myself, I can sympathize with Erica's predicament here. I think she did a good reporting job but came up short in the subtlety and sensitivity department. What she needed was an editor who understands cycling as well as she does and could work her through the article's soft spots.

I don't think Erica overtly blamed the cyclist for the accident, or intended to at all. But the sinking sense I got reading the piece was that by focusing all the attention on the cyclist and fixed-gear riding (which, critics are correct, Erica did not fully understand), she was implying that the cyclist was more at fault than the truck driver. (As an editor I also would have had her answer the question why the truck driver was not cited. It doesn't matter what he and witnesses said at the scene, in a similar vehicle-to-vehicle accident there'd be no question of citation and let the court sort out the truth.) It's this *implication* that Erica and The Stranger should have been more sensitive to (usually they are, especially in their criticism of The Times and P-I!).

A little more sensitivity as well would've been helpful in the "Doesn't matter if you're right if you're dead" arena. All cyclists understand this, but again, it always shifts the burden of responsibility to the victim. There have been some recent tragic pedestrian deaths in Seattle, but I have yet to hear anyone suggest, "You know, that pedestrian did have the right of way in that crosswalk, but he/she should've been watching out for drivers talking on their cell phones."

I have a feeling that if Erica the cyclist had sat down with Erica the journalist and had a heart-to-heart, the story would have come out differently. But come on. We all know Erica's on our side. It's time to move on, wish one another safety on the streets and work *together* to support the cause!

Posted by Paul Andrews | September 24, 2007 9:50 PM
40

@33: "Oooo, dump trucks are dangerous. I guess we should start towing waste to the dump in little handlebar baskets on our fixed gear bicycles."

Don't be stupid. My point was that the type of bike Bryce was riding is no more relevant than the type of vehicle that ran him over.

P.S. Trucks are actually quite dangerous, especially if you're driving in a nearby car.

Posted by Sean | September 24, 2007 9:59 PM
41

Some cyclists are going to get rabid at any suggestions that maybe they could be at fault for their accidents, or that drivers are at all innocent.

Don't take this too much to heart. These are apologists who will fight to the death to justify vilifying the driver because he is a driver and absolving the cyclist because he is a cyclist.

Some bicycle advocates are like some feminists. They are TOO hardcore and have lost touch with objective reality. At least it appears, ECB, that you were reasonably connected therewith in covering this story.

Posted by Gomez | September 24, 2007 10:02 PM
42

@17 Glenn Fleishman: "I stopped biking through that intersection about a year ago, even though it's completely convenient to my bike commute, because it's so bloody dangerous."

So how do you get across the cut, swim? Montlake is just as dangerous.

Posted by Sean | September 24, 2007 10:16 PM
43

"If a driver hits you, it may be their fault, but that doesn’t matter if you’re dead."

I do not think this point can be repeated enough. It can also be extrapolated to a general life principal: get out of the way of assholes, as quickly as you can. You'll still be alive, they'll still be assholes. Maybe it's not fair, but as William Gaddis wrote, "Justice? In the next world you get justice. In this world you get the law."

Posted by croydonfacelift | September 24, 2007 10:28 PM
44

@18 - FYI, it's INFERRED when you read into something that someone says or writes that isn't really said. It's IMPLIED when you write or say something without actually saying it.

@43. EXACTLY.

Posted by Actually more ... | September 24, 2007 10:42 PM
45

I would much rather see cycling folks lobbying for more punitive laws against hitting cyclists—say, automatic license revocation if the driver is at fault—than sniping about who knows more about bicycles and whether this accident was avoidable or not.

If you wanted the focus to be about traffic laws and safety, instead of a certain type of bicycle, then perhaps you shouldn't have allowed the 'editorial process' to include the following headlines:


Front page:
ERICA C. BARNETT ON DANGEROUS BIKES P.26


Feature Headline:
Cyclist Killed... Was Riding a Fixed-Gear Bike.


The focus of your article clearly seems to be set on fixed gear bikes. In fact, I can only imagine that the driving force behind your article is your personal fear and incomprehension that these bicycles can be ridden safely.


Snowboards were once new and dangerous and banned from ski areas. Your reaction to this new incomprehensible mode of transportation is just as unfounded. Do you have any statistics to report, at all?


You squandered an opportunity to highlight the unnecessary dangers imposed on cyclists in this city, and instead enraged your fellow riders with a piece of journalism I would rate as below the standards of The Daily.


You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by Denny Trimble | September 24, 2007 10:43 PM
46

Denny, reality called and you need to turn down your stereo.

Also, this incident is a two way street. Cyclist safety is an issue, but it's just as much about cyclists having the sense to read and react to conditions as it is about drivers having the sense and the sightlines to see cyclists.

Posted by Gomez | September 24, 2007 11:35 PM
47

Well ECB, just a little friendly advice that you may want to consider sucking it up on this one and admitting you're wrong. There were two legitimate but separate stories -- the accident, and fixies -- that you decided to combine into one piece, thus creating the blatant implication that the bike rider was to blame. Your clarifications and excuses don't cut it (and make for very boring reading). Ask your editor for some advice -- he's still sucking it up about his early support of the Iraq war.

And yes, the fixie craze is no doubt a worthy story on it's own. Just today I saw a guy without a helmet on a fixie with no brakes get cut off by a car turning left without signaling across the bike lane on 2nd Ave downtown. That people voluntarily put themselves in such a situation is completely wacked. But before we all get too worked up about it, we might want to put it in perspective. People do all sorts of crazy dangerous things for no rational reason (rock climbing, etc, etc). The interesting thing to me is the question of why fixed gear riders seem to be the target of such a disproportionate amount of derision.

And speaking of disproportionate derision, as duly noted @30, in pretty much any post that has anything to do with bicylces, at least one, but usually several fucktards whine about how bikers don't always follow the rules. Please get a grip on reality people. It's like arguing that well, we can't really crack down on this megacorporation for dumping nuclear waste when we still have people who throw their gumwrappers out on the ground. Or maybe more like this: the cars are like Godzilla on a rampage of destruction through the city, and the bikes are like some flies buzzing around his head, and yet all you hear about is the big problem of those annoying flies.

Oh, and in case anyone's still reading: I got a ticket once for going through a stop sign on my bike!

Posted by Henry Miller Lite | September 25, 2007 12:05 AM
48

Fact: Kinetic and Potential Energy.

If you are on a bike (mass say 100 kg total) and you hit a truck (mass say 2000 kg total), you will take 2000/2100 of the released kinetic energy and the truck will take 100/2100 of the released kinetic energy.

Your gears won't save you.

Hit the sign, you might live.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 25, 2007 12:47 AM
49

What is "the bike community"? (Were you born that way, or was it a choice?)

I see that tree @ 27 mentions that it includes "not just fixed-gear cyclists" but also people called "roadies", who I assume unload the fixed gear bikes from the trailers and then try to pick up groupies?

I assume it doesn't include just any person with a bike who rides it around town to get to work or run errands, like the article's author or this commenter.

Based on its use of precision slang, obsession with insider and outsider status, and narrowness of focus, it would be perhaps be better termed the bicycle clique (as in Danny @ 10) or club.

Posted by Eric F | September 25, 2007 12:53 AM
50

Hey Erica, congrats! You got all the douchebags who used to hate your guts (and who always hate cyclists) now sticking up for you. You've done a swell job.

Posted by tree | September 25, 2007 1:14 AM
51

Wow.
Erica, you have clearly missed the point that folks have been trying to make about your article.
Bombing a hill (if that means riding at unsafe speeds down a hill) is dangerous. What does that have to do with what you are writing about? Bombing a hill is significantly easier on a bike with a freewheel.
I you didn't blame the victim, then at the very least you wrote an article about the type of bike the victim was riding and said directly that they are unsafe, without any reliable evidence that that is the case. Your evidence to support this was a quote from one of the worst bike shops in the city, just because they are next door to your office. If the blame on the victim wasn't directly stated, it was strongly implied throughout the article.

Also, once again, a fixed gear bike with a front brake is noticeably easier to stop while going downhill than a free wheel bike. What you do is squeeze the front brake. Do some research.

Posted by Wes B | September 25, 2007 1:37 AM
52

Here is what I have learned from comments: fixie riders are hyperventilating assholes who lack basic reasoning skills.

Fixies are like Formula 1 race cars, hanguns without trigger locks, turkey fryers, whatever. They can be safely operated by experienced users. But -- and this is the kicker folks -- most users are NOT experienced. Ergo, when their use results in a tragedy it may warrant a balanced discussion about prudence -- even though the user was not at fault. And that's exactly what ECB provided.

Here's a real life analogy: I left some CDs on my car seat in Cap Hill and some idiot busted my window to get them. My fault? Absolutely not. The blame lies squarely with the criminal. Could I have taken prudent steps to avoid the incident? Obviously, yes. I know this is a real mind-bender for fixie riders, but there is no contradiction here.

Riding a fixie down a steep hill in city you're not familiar with, while not wearing a helmet is not prudent. It doesn't mean the cyclist is at fault -- not legally, not morally. It means that we cyclists might benefit from a discussion of prudent behavior. And that's exactly what ECB provided.

But thanks, fixie commenters, for living up to your reputation as childish dickheads. You're a real credit to all of us who ride in the city.

Posted by bike_rider | September 25, 2007 8:23 AM
53

@17 & 37: I concur.

ECB: Good article, good Slog post.

Posted by als | September 25, 2007 9:08 AM
54

I bicycle commute and I know I'd feel much better if the driver who killed me lost his license. Oh wait, I'd be dead, I wouldn't feel anything.

On those rare occasions when I do drive if I knew I could loose my license I certainly think more about it before I crushed a bicyclist.

What an absurd idea.

Posted by Mike | September 25, 2007 9:12 AM
55

Her tone? Why are people who call themselves cyclists so damn whiny? This "your tone" crap sounds so wimpy is not even funny. The broad is a reporter not a grief counselor. Jesus! People want news not confessionals. To me, the article spoke about an individuals' choice and about the choices you make when driving in an unsafe city for biking. The choices sometimes can cost you and you have a lot more to lose than the car driver.

I ride my bike everywhere, but Im glad I dont consider myself part of the "cycling community" whatever the hell that is. So you ride a bike and youre a "community?" You eat greens and youre part of the vegeterian community? You slaughter your own chickens and youre part of the slaughter house community?

here should be a moratorium placed on the word community.

Posted by SeMe | September 25, 2007 9:34 AM
56

WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET
WEAR A HELMET

Don't be a fucking idiot.

WEAR A HELMET

I was in a serious accident five years ago (been a cyclist for 23 years) and had I not been wearing a helmet,

I'D BE DEAD TOO

Posted by Greg | September 25, 2007 9:47 AM
57

Post hoc ergo propter hoc != good article

Posted by logisticamajigger | September 25, 2007 10:11 AM
58

Yes, this was a tragedy, and no points made here or anywhere else in this discussion are meant to deny that basic reality.

But, OH the defensiveness. For some reason, a subset of bicyclists has turned ridiculously militant and arrogant in general. This morning, while I was walking to my bus stop, I was shouted at very angrily by a biker going about 25 miles an hour down the otherwise deserted street I was crossing. I hadn't seen him out of the corner of my eye. News flash: bikers aren't as visible as cars. Bikers need to yield to pedestrians. But most of all, bikers need to stop being so militant and uppity. If you're a biker and you don't see that this kind of behavior is inappropriate, that's a problem.

Posted by PK | September 25, 2007 10:50 AM
59

Gomez, I think your comment
"Don't take this too much to heart. These are apologists who will fight to the death to justify vilifying the driver because he is a driver and absolving the cyclist because he is a cyclist."

Is basically missing the entire reality of the what happened here.
Nobody is vilifying the driver because he is a driver. He's only getting the blame placed on him, because he failed to yield to a bicyclist in the bike lane - and killed them.
What is so hard to understand about this?
The bike legally has the right of way in the bike lane - the driver of the truck didn't. The driver made a turn (illegally) and as a result of his breaking the law, he killed somebody.
Secondly: Nobody (or at least I'm not) is saying the truck driver is a "villain" - I sincerely doubt he had any intention to kill anybody. It was a simple, but deadly mistake - and he made it. The cyclist did not break the law, but the truck driver did. I'm still not sure how anybody can get this backwards.

Posted by D.A. Grimshaw | September 25, 2007 12:02 PM
60

I should also point out for all of the general, panties in a bunch comments about cyclists: This event concerns the death of a single cyclist. Not cyclists in general. I would agree, that there are probably as many stupid people riding bicycles as there are stupid people driving cars.
It's easy when you only drive, or only bike - to only see things from a motoring, or cycling perspective. Yeah, there are assholes on bicycles. Just like there are assholes in cars. Accept it already. So you're a motorist tired of getting cut off by cyclists - or your a cyclist tired of getting cut off by motorists - we all deal with eachother.
But this story isn't about general idiots operating whatever sort of vehicle (yes, there are even asshole submarine commanders, and asshole train engineers) This story only regards the death of one cyclist, who most definitely was not a reckless jerk. So stop acting as though, just because some other person may have deserved this in your opinion, that Bryce did. That's just a downright stupid idea.

Posted by D.A. Grimshaw | September 25, 2007 12:10 PM
61

Bullshit on a stick, Grimshaw.

You ever driven a truck? How do you yield to someone you can't see? You ever ridden a bicycle down that narrow-ass lane? How do you just blow through there without being mindful of the possibility that someone may make that turn in front of you even though they're technically not supposed to?

The intersection has problems in general, and you totally did what I just said everyone was doing: blaming the driver. From your tone, I don't believe there's a scenario in your mind where you'd ever place blame with the cyclist or decide, as was probably the case here, that this was just a bad situation that both parties slid right into for reasons mostly beyond their control.

Posted by Gomez | September 25, 2007 12:15 PM
62

DA,

Actually we don't know that the driver failed to yield. Many times I have had bikes go through the light on a red as I was waiting to take a left onto Eastlake. Not saying that's what happened but if they were running the light the truck would be in the right taking a right onto Fuhrman. Then there is the aspect of driving or riding to the conditions so if the bikes were going very fast passing cars on the right they might be at fault for not riding in a manner consistent with the conditions. An example would be driving the speed limit in a heavy fog.

It could be that the truck used no turn signals and paid no attention to the bike lane. It could be that the truck had the turn signal on started the turn by swinging out and didn't see the bikes passing on the right. The bikes might have been trying to "beat the train" and the driver of the truck went faster than they thought. Or they could have pulled out into the intersection and the driver taking a free right just drove right over them because he couldn't see from the high seat he's in.

BTW the bike lane is barely visable as the paint is worn off and the whole set-up is not well thought out. And the "eye witness" said that the truck ended up against the curb which the PI pictures show is not true.

Posted by whatever | September 25, 2007 12:48 PM
63

Erica - not sure if you are reading all of this or not. I think overall your article was good.

I wasn't upset about the fixed gear thing, I was upset you didn't make a bigger deal of the fact the rider wasn't wearing a helmet.

I'm a driver and a rider, so I can see both sides. It sucks to be both.

@56 has the real issue pegged.

Posted by cnine | September 25, 2007 4:45 PM
64

Gomez. I hope to god you don't drive any sort of vehicle. I would even trust you to push a shopping cart.
Let's go over this again. Legally - motor traffic has to yield to bicycles in the bike lane and pedestrians in the cross walk. OK? Got that? Or is that very basic aspect of this collision still escaping you? There were bikes in the bike lane? Correct? OK. So, there being bikes in the bike lane, what is motorized traffic supposed to do BY LAW? YIELD TO THE BICYCLES. DUH! How do you not get this?
You yield to bicycles in the bike lane it's really very simple. If bikes are in bike lane, what do you do? You yield to them. You have to yield BY LAW to bicycles in the bike lane.
The cyclists are in no way legally obligated to make way for the truck! But the truck was legally obligated to yield to the cyclists.

Which brings us to this:
"Actually we don't know that the driver failed to yield."
Well let's see here: Bikes are in the are in the bike lane correct? So should a truck be there at the same time as bikes if the truck is yielding to the bikes? What do you think? What happens when a dump truck tries to occupy the same space at the same time as two cyclists? They collide correct? And was there a collision? Yes, there was a collision. So - we know that the truck, and the bicycles where in the same space at the same time, and where were the bicycles? The bike lane correct? So where was the truck? The bike lane. And where should the truck be if bicycles are in the bike lane, and the truck is yeilding to the bicycles which it by law, is supposed to do? I'll let you figure that one out. (hint: not the bike lane, where the cyclists were)

Gomez, From your tone, I don't believe there's a scenario in your mind where you'd ever place blame with the truck driver. Even though he was legally obligated to yield to the cyclists, and he ran into them instead, killing one of them.
As for myself? Let's say the cyclists had made that right turn, and run into a pedestrian. Would I side with the cyclists? No. Because bicycles are supposed to yield to pedestrians. It has nothing to do with who drives what - it has everything to do with following simple laws that exist to keep people from making accidents like this one. I'm not some anti-car, car hater. It might be easier for you to me off though, if you imagine me as some sort of bicycle loving car hater, but I'm not, in fact it's quite the opposite.

I have to continue to "whatever's" comment:
"BTW the bike lane is barely visable as the paint is worn off and the whole set-up is not well thought out. And the "eye witness" said that the truck ended up against the curb which the PI pictures show is not true."
http://www.flickr.com/photos/singlespeedluv/1347485980/
Note the angle of the truck, in comparison to the sidewalk. About how far away from the sidewalk do you think the rear end of that truck is? I'm pretty sure the eye witness who saw this is more correct than you, who didn't - and this photo seems to show that the truck was indeed right up against the curb while making the turn.

Posted by D.A. Grimshaw | September 25, 2007 5:20 PM
65

Tone, blah, blah, uppity bikers, blah,

IT WAS THE DUMP TRUCK DRIVER'S FAULT!!

IT WAS THE DUMP TRUCK DRIVER'S FAULT!!

IT WAS THE DUMP TRUCK DRIVER'S FAULT!!

IT WAS THE DUMP TRUCK DRIVER'S FAULT!!

IT WAS THE DUMP TRUCK DRIVER'S FAULT!!

IT WAS THE DUMP TRUCK DRIVER'S FAULT!!

IT WAS THE DUMP TRUCK DRIVER'S FAULT!!

Posted by Morgan | September 25, 2007 6:50 PM
66

DA - the "eye witness" said the truck was it a position next to the curb that would have required the truck to start from the inside lane - look at the PI pictures see what you think. As I said in the earlier post it could have down in many ways perhaps the investigation will say the driver was solely at fault.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/121409.asp

Posted by whatever | September 25, 2007 7:27 PM
67

And DA - the "eye witness" said that the bikes had turned up Fuhrman so they WEREN'T in a bike lane by his account.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/how_fast_were_those_cyclists_going

#108

Posted by whatever | September 25, 2007 7:35 PM
68

I thought ironic that Velo has an ad in this very issue of the Stranger claiming that they're some sort of Fixie Headquarters (I noticed the advert a just today). It'd be a shame to buy a fixed gear bike there considering they think they're "suicide machines" Seems rather contradictory and two-faced. I wouldn't step foot in there to get a bike, let alone a bike pump.

Posted by HQ | September 25, 2007 9:07 PM
69

It just goes on and on here. Here's the result of my extensive empirical observations: there's a direct corollary between a cyclist's amount of visible cycling accoutrements (shorts, cycling shirt, the whole nine yards. Oh, right, except for a helmet) and their level of utter asshole-ishness, self-righteousness, etc.

Look a little bit towards home, folks--slow down, wear a helmet, and remember you actually don't own the road simply because you paid thousands of dollars for that bike and all your cool Lance-wannabe gear. There's little more that can be usefully said about the accident in terms of the tragedy, but there's a lot to be said about cyclists' militant attitudes and their arrogant dismissal of any criticism as just being people with their "panties in a bunch".

Posted by FedUp | September 26, 2007 10:15 AM
70

If they were already on Fuhrman when they were hit, then they would have been hit from the rear, and it seems from the accounts of witnesses they were hit from the side (as I'm not sure how the second cyclist who lived would end up trapped under the truck BEHIND the front wheels if they were hit from the rear, and not from the side while the truck was turning.)
Secondly, if they were already on Fuhrman and were indeed rear ended - then wouldn't it still follow that the truck driver would be responsible for the accident? Being that when you rear end a vehicle, it's the vehicle in back that gets the blame. The only exception to this possibly might be if the cyclists were not riding as near the right as practicable - but witness accounts state they were traveling on the right - OR - if the cyclists suddenly and without warning stopped, but that's not what happened according to witnesses.

Posted by D.A. Grimshaw | September 26, 2007 11:46 AM
71

DA - we don't know that was my point - if you read the "eye witness" account it is consistent with his report that the bikes did that swing into the crossstreet move bikes make at red lights. I was there shortly after the event and the bikes looked to me as if they had been struck from behind or that they had slid under the truck. The second bike was centered under the truck.

If the truck were taking a right on a red light and the bikes turned on Fuhrman without stopping and were hit, then the rear end rule might not apply.

Posted by whatever | September 26, 2007 5:10 PM
72

Whatever, take a look at those pictures again. You can clearly see that neither rear wheel of the bike is deformed. Whereas the front wheel of Bryce's bike is obviously damaged - it is also damaged in the way that indicates an impact from the side of the wheel rather than one from the front. I HIGHLY doubt they were hit from the rear because of this.

Posted by D.A Grimshaw | September 27, 2007 6:58 PM
73

One time, when I was riding my fixie down Denny at 50 mph and eating a burrito, I swallowed a bug and crashed into a pole. I swear on a stack of holy books of your choice that the pole swerved into me with malicious intent.

Posted by Cy Klore | October 2, 2007 1:35 PM
74

Enough of this going 50 mph crap. Has anyone that is commenting about the speed of the bikes actually been on a bike going that fast? Not likely, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a long enough hill in the city to be able to reach such a speed.

To a pedestrian and and car sitting in traffic a bike traveling at 15 mph looks really fast. 20 mph is faster than most casual riders can even pedal their bikes up to. I understand that going downhill makes it easier to go fast, but not 50 mph. Especially on a fixed gear bike where you cannot coast, thus having to pedal as fast as your bike is traveling. If they were going above 25 mph I would be impressed.

Posted by Chuck E | October 3, 2007 5:04 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).