Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, September 3, 2011
City The Economist Condemns Seattle For Failing to Wage War On Cars
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 12:07 AM
The editors of The Economist take note of the hit-and-run death of another Seattle cyclist and condemn the United States in general—and pseudogreen Seattle in particular—for failing to take any real steps to make cycling safer. It's required reading for the asshole autophiles on the Seattle Times ed board and for all the obnoxious and entitled drivers who can't stop ranting about this cyclist they saw roll through a stop sign once anytime someone suggests we build some actual bike lanes or ticket drivers who endanger cyclists. I'm hoping the eds at the Economist will forgive me for reproducing the editorial here in full:
Dying while cycling is three to five times more likely in America than in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands. To understand why, consider the death of Michael Wang. He was pedalling home from work in Seattle on a sunny weekday afternoon in late July when, witnesses say, a brown SUV made a left turn, crunched into Wang and sped away.
The road where the 44-year-old father of two was hit is the busiest cycling corridor in Seattle, and it has clearly marked bicycle lanes. But the lanes are protected from motor vehicles by a line of white paint—a largely metaphorical barrier that many drivers ignore and police do not vigorously enforce. A few feet from the cycling lane traffic moves at speeds of between 30 miles per hour, the speed limit for arterials in Seattle, and 40 miles per hour, the speed at which many cars actually travel. This kind of speed kills. A pedestrian hit by a car moving at 30mph has a 45% chance of dying; at 40mph, the chance of death is 85%, according to Britain’s Department of Transport.
Had Mr Wang been commuting on a busy bike route in Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Berlin, his unprotected exposure to instruments of death—namely, any vehicle moving at 20mph or more—would be nearly nil. These cities have knitted together networks for everyday travel by bike. To start with, motor vehicles allowed near cyclists are subject to “traffic calming.” They must slow down to about 19mph, a speed that, in case of collision, kills less than 5%. Police strictly enforce these speed limits with hefty fines. Repeat offenders lose their licences.
Calmer traffic is just the beginning. In much of northern Europe, cyclists commute on lanes that are protected from cars by concrete buffers, rows of trees or parked cars. At busy crossroads, bicycle-activated traffic lights let cyclists cross first. Traffic laws discriminate in favour of people on bikes. A few American cities have taken European-style steps to make streets safer for cycling, most notably Portland, Oregon, which has used most of the above ideas. The result: more bikes and fewer deaths. Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America. But in five out of the past ten years there have been no cycling deaths there. In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists have been killed in the past few weeks.
Dedicated bike lanes, traffic lights that allow cyclists to go first, traffic calmed to under 20 MPH near bike lanes, drivers that endanger cyclists being slapped with fines, drivers who routinely endanger cyclists losing their licenses—that's what a "war on cars" looks like, you fucking whiners.
There's a war going on around here alright—it's a war on cyclists and it's being waged by drivers. I wish someone actually had the guts to declare a war on cars.
1
They also use bicycles in large numbers in Europe too. It would be nice if that was true in this country, because otherwise things like designated bike lanes and bicycle first traffic lights wouldn't go to waste, and drivers would be more accustomed to looking for those riders. I think the fining people who drive like assholes near a bicyclist is a fine idea though.
3
I love the war on cars meme. It tends to expose narrow idiotic thinking in people right away in a conversation. You see it in times commenters and in conversations with all kinds of political backgrounds.
THE MAYER MCSCHWINN WANTS EVERYONE TO RIDE BIKES! NOT EVERYONE CAN!
%6 is considered a huge success.. somehow people think trying to get to 6 = 99%
objectivism is apparently a non-partisan disease.
THE MAYER MCSCHWINN WANTS EVERYONE TO RIDE BIKES! NOT EVERYONE CAN!
%6 is considered a huge success.. somehow people think trying to get to 6 = 99%
objectivism is apparently a non-partisan disease.
4
You know, when I was in Paris a couple of years ago, I was amazed to watch four lanes of traffic at a three-way intersection, each lane of cars interspersed with a lane of bikes, and NO white lines painted on the ground. When the light went green, everybody went on their way with absolutely zero drama.
Why do you think that was?
Oh yeah, because people in places like that know how how to drive cars and ride bikes like people with functioning brains.
That whole "share the road" thing? It goes both ways. So don't be a dumb-ass in a car OR on a bike.
Why do you think that was?
Oh yeah, because people in places like that know how how to drive cars and ride bikes like people with functioning brains.
That whole "share the road" thing? It goes both ways. So don't be a dumb-ass in a car OR on a bike.
5
The Economist: "Everybody drives too fast to support bikes. Take the death of Mr. Wang, where he was hit by a left-turning SUV at the speed of probably under 15mph, on a road with clearly marked lanes... Oh. Wait. How did I make a hit-and-run turning accident into a topic on speed? I don't know. Either way, drivers obviously suck."
note: not defending the hit-and-run driver, just showing the tortured logic of this idiot.
note: not defending the hit-and-run driver, just showing the tortured logic of this idiot.
6
Berlin and Copenhagen and Amsterdam are all Godless socialist Homo loving nations that provide single payer health care, world class education, good non-GM food, clean energy, and 6 weeks of vacation to their citizens. Ask any American Republican, that's NOT what we want here in America. Besides we saved their asses from the Nazis and they owe us. Bike riders, oh THOSE people....
7
This is part of a larger problem. Dependency on cars, no one taking the bus or subway in larger cities, let alone walking, dependency on oil, wars in the middle east. American will be buried in their cars one day.
Where I live in Sweden, most people in larger cities don't even own a car. It's not necessary and to expensive to park.
Where I live in Sweden, most people in larger cities don't even own a car. It's not necessary and to expensive to park.
8
Vancouver BC has introduced many of those ideas over the past decade or so. And in the last three years, after electing a truly bike-friendly mayor and council, busy downtown streets and a major bridge have dedicated bike lanes (separated by concrete barriers) and traffic lights.
It's worth noting that Vancouver had its share of car-clinging whiners before this council was elected. The bike lanes were constructed amid furious criticism from the public and opposition council members. However, after living with the new lanes for a couple of years, there's been no noticeable affect on traffic (none of the predicted gridlock), yet we see more and more people on bikes.
The whiners in Seattle need to take a look at Vancouver, and in particular they need to talk with the former whiners who now have lost face and don't talk about the matter anymore. It can be done. It just takes a few leaders with balls to make the first move and not back down amid the predictable chorus of criticism.
It's worth noting that Vancouver had its share of car-clinging whiners before this council was elected. The bike lanes were constructed amid furious criticism from the public and opposition council members. However, after living with the new lanes for a couple of years, there's been no noticeable affect on traffic (none of the predicted gridlock), yet we see more and more people on bikes.
The whiners in Seattle need to take a look at Vancouver, and in particular they need to talk with the former whiners who now have lost face and don't talk about the matter anymore. It can be done. It just takes a few leaders with balls to make the first move and not back down amid the predictable chorus of criticism.
10
@5:
A witness said the car was trying to turn left onto Thomas from Dexter when a line of oncoming cars began approaching. The driver speedily made the turn and hit the bicyclist, the witness said.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/12636…
The driver sped through the intersection, they said, causing a terrific noise, before stopping briefly then taking off.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
11
I have been commuting by bike for a little over a year from 15th on Cap Hill to Downtown. The #1 danger I've encountered is parking garages at rush hour. Some idiot on their phone pulling out because their tiny little brain can't look for pedestrians, bicyclists, and automotists at the same time that they're deciding with their s.o. who is going to pick up the dogs from the day kennel.
The second most dangerous is right turners. I know 95% of Capitol Hill drivers watch for the bike lane. But even I'm guilty of this. You make a right turn and then think, "Shit. There's a bike lane and I didn't look." Generally, coming down the hill I just act like a car and don't even attempt the bike lane. It's too dangerous, and I can kind of keep up with traffic.
The third is busses. These monsters believe they ALWAYS deserve the right of way, even if they're going to bend a fender, maim a cyclist or run down a pedestrian by obtaining it. A couple of weeks ago a bus overtook me in the bike lane, then as it passed and needed to jump into my lane in order to make the stop on the next block, merged and forced me to slam on my brakes to avoid a collision.
When I caught up with him a moment later I angrily expressed my disappointment in his choice to disregard my safety.
"I saw you, but I had to get into my lane!" was his only defense.
This city is great for cycling. It's just not good for cyclists.
The second most dangerous is right turners. I know 95% of Capitol Hill drivers watch for the bike lane. But even I'm guilty of this. You make a right turn and then think, "Shit. There's a bike lane and I didn't look." Generally, coming down the hill I just act like a car and don't even attempt the bike lane. It's too dangerous, and I can kind of keep up with traffic.
The third is busses. These monsters believe they ALWAYS deserve the right of way, even if they're going to bend a fender, maim a cyclist or run down a pedestrian by obtaining it. A couple of weeks ago a bus overtook me in the bike lane, then as it passed and needed to jump into my lane in order to make the stop on the next block, merged and forced me to slam on my brakes to avoid a collision.
When I caught up with him a moment later I angrily expressed my disappointment in his choice to disregard my safety.
"I saw you, but I had to get into my lane!" was his only defense.
This city is great for cycling. It's just not good for cyclists.
12
This is a major reason I got my ass out of FreedomLand and moved to Yurp. No car, the bike gets me everywhere that public transit won't. And you don't get hassled by the [FAR LESS prominent] cops. And produce is tons cheaper. So what if they all jibber on in German....
13
I'm not into bikes, but I keep a couple around for the occasional spin, and I just picked up another for a family member. It was missing reflectors, so I went to a bike shop thinking I would BUY some, and the mechanic pulled a big box out from under his workbench and GAVE me an assortment of types and sizes.
Apparently both the lycra-clad fanatics and the kids who come in WITH THEIR PARENTS are almost universally too cool for reflectors and ask that they be left off when their bikes are assembled.
As it turns out, the random bagful I got was still missing a couple of things I needed, so I went to the other nearby bike shop. Same story; got the remaining essential bits and pieces.
Standard practice in my dinky town: kids tear around on bikes after dark, in and out of alleys, wrong side of the street usually, no reflectors, no lights, dark clothing ('cuz that's cool too). Adults often ride wrong side of the street, day or night, scaring the shit out of right-turning drivers who were looking mainly left.
Cops turn a blind eye to it all.
Apparently both the lycra-clad fanatics and the kids who come in WITH THEIR PARENTS are almost universally too cool for reflectors and ask that they be left off when their bikes are assembled.
As it turns out, the random bagful I got was still missing a couple of things I needed, so I went to the other nearby bike shop. Same story; got the remaining essential bits and pieces.
Standard practice in my dinky town: kids tear around on bikes after dark, in and out of alleys, wrong side of the street usually, no reflectors, no lights, dark clothing ('cuz that's cool too). Adults often ride wrong side of the street, day or night, scaring the shit out of right-turning drivers who were looking mainly left.
Cops turn a blind eye to it all.
14
Licata and O'Brien pushed back against an attempt at watering down McGinn-proposed pedestrian/bike funding: http://publicola.com/2010/11/04/council-…
They failed, it was gutted.
Interesting how Jon Scholes is singing the Council's praises and Meinert is confronting him on his priorities in the comments. The horse trading is fun, too, since the same citizen process Scholes says should guide us was more or less brushed aside for a lower-than-requested fee that cuts $460,000 in bike funding from the recommended $80 VLF level.
OH, POLITICS! <3
They failed, it was gutted.
Interesting how Jon Scholes is singing the Council's praises and Meinert is confronting him on his priorities in the comments. The horse trading is fun, too, since the same citizen process Scholes says should guide us was more or less brushed aside for a lower-than-requested fee that cuts $460,000 in bike funding from the recommended $80 VLF level.
OH, POLITICS! <3
15
Here's where I'll pivot though: the current proposed investment is a good start and we should back it for many reasons, including addressing safety concerns highlighted in the original post. There are also plenty of other safety-related investments included that will aid drivers and pedestrians, so in the interest of safety we as voters can do something.
Let's make Seattle safer! Looks like the campaign we'll need to back is this one here: http://www.streetsforallseattle.org/ -- so approve proposition 1!
We owe it to ourselves to make Seattle a safer place :)
Let's make Seattle safer! Looks like the campaign we'll need to back is this one here: http://www.streetsforallseattle.org/ -- so approve proposition 1!
We owe it to ourselves to make Seattle a safer place :)
16
Fuckin right! I also wish I had a buck'o'five for every time some 60-year-old, unemployed, tea-bagging mouth breather ranted about licensing bikes or paying for the privilege of using roads built "for cars." Hey, fucktards, the average cyclist also owns a fucking car and pays tab fees/gas taxes that contribute to road maintenance. I really wish i could meet one of these folks in public and have a discussion with them, but I never hang out in Puyallup. Because that place sucks. Seriously.
17
A diary posted after midnight, and look at the number of comments already. This one's going to be epic. (And right on, Dan.)
18
By and large, biking isn't safe in America. This country, large metropoliti in particular, is just too damn big and sprawling to allow it. Sorry, cyclists, but until we focus on cyclist safety by building concentrated urban centers instead of facilitating urban sprawl, it's not going to happen. Even motorcyclists get the shaft. That's how it has always been.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's the truth unless you want to die. Get a goddamn car, or start walking. You don't have to answer more than a couple token questions (if even that, depending on jurisdiction) about being alert for smaller wheeled traffic when you get your driver's license. People simply aren't prepared to see or yield to cyclists on major local 4-lane highways, with 50+mph speed limits.
There are no bike lanes in my suburb. Even better is seeing a bike on a 2-lane local road with no ability to pass (speed limit 45 or so). They're riding in the middle of the lane, because legally and safely they have to. Meanwhile there's a honking line behind it of 50 cars piloted by potentially unstable drivers, getting pissed off.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's the truth unless you want to die. Get a goddamn car, or start walking. You don't have to answer more than a couple token questions (if even that, depending on jurisdiction) about being alert for smaller wheeled traffic when you get your driver's license. People simply aren't prepared to see or yield to cyclists on major local 4-lane highways, with 50+mph speed limits.
There are no bike lanes in my suburb. Even better is seeing a bike on a 2-lane local road with no ability to pass (speed limit 45 or so). They're riding in the middle of the lane, because legally and safely they have to. Meanwhile there's a honking line behind it of 50 cars piloted by potentially unstable drivers, getting pissed off.
19
@11: Putting local-stop buses and bike lines on the same street is a recipe for the leapfrog slowdown and for dangerous incidents like the one you experienced.
They're working on solutions for this, such as the bus islands they're adding on Dexter that eliminate the need for the bus to cross the bike lane to pick up passengers.
But until they eradicate the conflicts everywhere, you need to be cognizant that the dozens of passengers on that bus shouldn't be beholden to your chosen pace. If a bus is coming up behind you, let it pass, and if it stops in front of you, do not leapfrog. It will quickly put enough distance between you two to keep the conflict from recurring.
(When you play the leapfrog game, you usually appear in the driver's mirror just as he's checking for clearance to pull back out. Then he's obligated to wait for you to pass. He gets to his next stop 20 seconds later than he otherwise would, you pass him again, and the cycle repeats. Don't do it unless you want a busload of people resenting you.)
They're working on solutions for this, such as the bus islands they're adding on Dexter that eliminate the need for the bus to cross the bike lane to pick up passengers.
But until they eradicate the conflicts everywhere, you need to be cognizant that the dozens of passengers on that bus shouldn't be beholden to your chosen pace. If a bus is coming up behind you, let it pass, and if it stops in front of you, do not leapfrog. It will quickly put enough distance between you two to keep the conflict from recurring.
(When you play the leapfrog game, you usually appear in the driver's mirror just as he's checking for clearance to pull back out. Then he's obligated to wait for you to pass. He gets to his next stop 20 seconds later than he otherwise would, you pass him again, and the cycle repeats. Don't do it unless you want a busload of people resenting you.)
20
Speaking as an inhabitant of the Netherlands, probably the most bike-friendly country in the world (what's a Dutchman without his bike?), even though all the things people say in favor of biking are true (more exercise, less polution, no costs, it's fun, etc.), and even though it works really fine here in the Netherlands (and elsewhere in Europe, to a lesser extent), I have to agree with Mrs DePointe (@18) above: it wouldn't work that well in America even in the best case scenario.
Cities are packed and compact in Europe, and especially in the Netherlands. Hell, I live in a city (Leiden) with a population the size of Eugene, Oregon (about 140,000 people) but which occupies less than 1/10 of the area. A normal biker can cycle around the whole urban perimeter in an hour; there's nowhere in town where a biker couldn't be in less than an hour. Considering how difficult it is to find parking downtown, it makes perfect sense here to either go by bike or use public transportation.
American cities are not like that. It's much rarer there than here that one lives within a reasonable, bikable distance from one's work, given how spread out American cities usuallly are. Because of this, despite its advantages, biking in America will remain for most people a healthy pastime, but not really a workable commuting solution. It's just the way cities developed in America.
Cities are packed and compact in Europe, and especially in the Netherlands. Hell, I live in a city (Leiden) with a population the size of Eugene, Oregon (about 140,000 people) but which occupies less than 1/10 of the area. A normal biker can cycle around the whole urban perimeter in an hour; there's nowhere in town where a biker couldn't be in less than an hour. Considering how difficult it is to find parking downtown, it makes perfect sense here to either go by bike or use public transportation.
American cities are not like that. It's much rarer there than here that one lives within a reasonable, bikable distance from one's work, given how spread out American cities usuallly are. Because of this, despite its advantages, biking in America will remain for most people a healthy pastime, but not really a workable commuting solution. It's just the way cities developed in America.
22
"In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists have been killed in the past few weeks....."
o.m.g.
Seattle needs an IGB for bikers.
"just because biking in Seattle sux and is lethal
Don't Give Up!
all you little HomoLiberal European wanna-bes
can grow up and move to Denmark!!"
you can use this idea for free, Danny.......
o.m.g.
Seattle needs an IGB for bikers.
"just because biking in Seattle sux and is lethal
Don't Give Up!
all you little HomoLiberal European wanna-bes
can grow up and move to Denmark!!"
you can use this idea for free, Danny.......
24
@ ankylosaur, I disagree. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle are really not any more spread-out in their functions than many European metropolises. Leiden is a good size for biking everywhere, but Berlin, Stockholm, Copenhagen all have good public transit systems as well just because you obviously can't expect people of all ages and abilities to bike 10 or 15 k to work each day.
What better bike lanes seperated from auto traffic enable, if you really look at the data, is that people who are not hardcore cyclists, such as women, children and the elderly, are able to use bikes for short trips: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/co… This is the main reason why more European urban dwellers cycle, and why drivers are more conditioned to look for and accept cyclists as part of traffic. With a seperate bike lane, cycling becomes a much more accessible and common form of transportation.
This doesn't, as we Americans often falsely assume, mean that Europeans don't own cars or use public transit, i.e. rely exclusively or near-exclusively on a bike.
What better bike lanes seperated from auto traffic enable, if you really look at the data, is that people who are not hardcore cyclists, such as women, children and the elderly, are able to use bikes for short trips: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/co… This is the main reason why more European urban dwellers cycle, and why drivers are more conditioned to look for and accept cyclists as part of traffic. With a seperate bike lane, cycling becomes a much more accessible and common form of transportation.
This doesn't, as we Americans often falsely assume, mean that Europeans don't own cars or use public transit, i.e. rely exclusively or near-exclusively on a bike.
25
damn
you humanists worship Darwin
but then when natural selection
thins your asses out of the population you squeal....
SUVs are at the top of the food chain.
bikers are snacks.
you humanists worship Darwin
but then when natural selection
thins your asses out of the population you squeal....
SUVs are at the top of the food chain.
bikers are snacks.
26
Whenever I return to Seattle, I notice almost immediately that the worst violators of the traffic laws are the Metro busses. I haven't looked it up, but I guess the R.C.W. statute they cite on the yield sticker on the back of the bus allows them to break every traffic law.
More to the point of biking in Seattle, back before I had a drivers' license I would bike around the neighborhood. I would often end up wherever I was going wet. I can understand why people would prefer getting wherever they are going both dry and on their own schedule.
More to the point of biking in Seattle, back before I had a drivers' license I would bike around the neighborhood. I would often end up wherever I was going wet. I can understand why people would prefer getting wherever they are going both dry and on their own schedule.
27
@20: According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey here in the good ole US of A, 46% of all trips made by car were three miles or fewer. That's an easily bikeable distance for just about anybody. Imagine the impact on air quality, public health, and traffic patterns if 46% of all trips in the US were by bike.
Example after example shows that if you build safe cycling infrastructure, people will use it. And it's so, so much cheaper than roads built to withstand vehicle weights.
Example after example shows that if you build safe cycling infrastructure, people will use it. And it's so, so much cheaper than roads built to withstand vehicle weights.
28
@22, 23, 25 You'll argue about anything, won't you?
Yes, it's so HOMOLIBERAL not spending $5 a gallon on gas. Excellently made point, sir, you're really taking us to task on such a very pressing social issue. You keep on keeping on using that SUV as a scooter to haul your obese ass down the block. Fight the man!
Yes, it's so HOMOLIBERAL not spending $5 a gallon on gas. Excellently made point, sir, you're really taking us to task on such a very pressing social issue. You keep on keeping on using that SUV as a scooter to haul your obese ass down the block. Fight the man!
30
Biking in Bellevue is actually a pretty good experience. I bike to work and most of it is on a multi use trail, the rest has a dedicated bike lane. it's 5-6 miles and only a few minutes slower than driving.
31
I'm not a cyclist, but I always support cyclists in these sorts of threads. I understand, for instance, that they tend to run stops when they can because they need momentum. They're not like those of us in cars, who just push that thing on the floor to go from stopped to moving and don't even have to break a sweat doing it.
But I do wish you'd all wear helmets. And I wish you'd be more careful going downhill, Particularly on Pike/Pine. You go too fast, dears. Older people like myself, who really do try to keep an eye out for you, find that when you're flying down the hill, you're harder to spot when we go to make a turn.
As for the buses, I don't ride the bus and I don't bike, so I'm a neutral observer. But it seems to me that buses, like trains, are hard to stop - all that momentum, and such. - and when they do stop on a dime, they throw everyone in the bus around. I'd just advise you keep your distance from them.
But I do wish you'd all wear helmets. And I wish you'd be more careful going downhill, Particularly on Pike/Pine. You go too fast, dears. Older people like myself, who really do try to keep an eye out for you, find that when you're flying down the hill, you're harder to spot when we go to make a turn.
As for the buses, I don't ride the bus and I don't bike, so I'm a neutral observer. But it seems to me that buses, like trains, are hard to stop - all that momentum, and such. - and when they do stop on a dime, they throw everyone in the bus around. I'd just advise you keep your distance from them.
32
For those who do complain that bikes disobey traffic laws regularly, I've noticed that the increased number of bike lanes helps with that. Only anecdotal to be sure, but on my commutes and errands, we (cyclists) tend to group together on the streets with the nicer bike lanes. More people means a greater necessity to obey rules so that everyone can ride safely (stop at red lights, signal when turning etc.). It's not perfect all the time of course, but then again plenty of drivers disobey basic traffic laws - with much more dire consequences.
I do wish Philly would go even further, or at least have the police enforce people blocking bike lanes.
@11 - couldn't agree more. I can't tell you how upsetting it was to find out from someone who works for SEPTA that often, often!, that is intentional by the bus driver. Of course SEPTA is the worst of the east coast city public transportation services. Sad to hear it happens in Seattle too.
I do wish Philly would go even further, or at least have the police enforce people blocking bike lanes.
@11 - couldn't agree more. I can't tell you how upsetting it was to find out from someone who works for SEPTA that often, often!, that is intentional by the bus driver. Of course SEPTA is the worst of the east coast city public transportation services. Sad to hear it happens in Seattle too.
33
Almost anytime I drive less than 10 or 15 mph OVER the speed limit, less than 45 on an arterial, I get tailgated. Usually by a giant SUV or pickup truck. Drivers from the suburbs think they're still on their wide parkways and can go 55-60. Most arterial streets in the city are not constructed for vehicles to go faster than 35 and have cars parked on both sides. They don't KNOW there are rules about yielding for pedestrians or bikes or buses. They aren't looking forward to see the traffic ahead is still stopped at the green light.
Last year I was rear ended while stopped for pedestrians, children and their mother, crossing on Union St. There were 3-4 blocks between me and the truck when I stopped. I would never have stopped if he was closer. The driver from Auburn wasn't looking because "you don't stop between stoplights". That's the rule suburbanites and rural drivers are following when they come to town.
Last year I was rear ended while stopped for pedestrians, children and their mother, crossing on Union St. There were 3-4 blocks between me and the truck when I stopped. I would never have stopped if he was closer. The driver from Auburn wasn't looking because "you don't stop between stoplights". That's the rule suburbanites and rural drivers are following when they come to town.
34
The part that Dan didn't mention is that The Economist is a CONSERVATIVE magazine by the standards of Western Europe..... Seriously, it's considered to be on the right.
That ought to tell you how totally fucked up the United States has become in the past generation or so.....
That ought to tell you how totally fucked up the United States has become in the past generation or so.....
35
@31: As always, yours is the voice of reason. Drive on, Catalina dear, and get to that fashion show on time so we know where our hemlines will be this season.
36
Dedicated bike lanes with barriers would be nice for drivers and riders alike.
What makes me fucking crazy is when idiot bikers ride on the road even though there is a perfectly fine bike/pedestrian path that runs parallel to said road. Like on the waterfront. That's a tight, busy street, and I'm sick of jackoffs in tour de france tights crying about me getting too close to them when their is a perfectly safe alternative 5 feet away.
What makes me fucking crazy is when idiot bikers ride on the road even though there is a perfectly fine bike/pedestrian path that runs parallel to said road. Like on the waterfront. That's a tight, busy street, and I'm sick of jackoffs in tour de france tights crying about me getting too close to them when their is a perfectly safe alternative 5 feet away.
38
I'm an advocate for both sides being far more accepting of each other, and less quick to use divisive terms like "war on cars."
That said, I've been a regular bike commuter for 25-plus years, and bike recreationally a little bit, too. The negative attitude of drivers towards cars has escalated a lot in the last 10 years—it's scary for cyclists. As a female cyclist, I suffer truly mean-spirited harassment (physically and verbally) on my bike that probably goes beyond anything most men experience. I'd love for that to stop.
And I'd like drivers to consider something: How more often are you enraged by a cyclist than another driver? Probably a lot less often. So think hard before you take your rage out on an easy target (and easily injured) cyclist. It's literally a life-or-death choice.
Secondly, if we weren't on our bikes we'd be in front of you in a car. When I'm in my car and get annoyed at a cyclist, I take a breath and take a moment to appreciate that at least this isn't an annoying driver holding me up: I'd take a clueless cyclist over a clueless driver any day.
Live and let live. If the worst part of your day is that you saw a cyclist run a red light, than your life is pretty sweet.
That said, I've been a regular bike commuter for 25-plus years, and bike recreationally a little bit, too. The negative attitude of drivers towards cars has escalated a lot in the last 10 years—it's scary for cyclists. As a female cyclist, I suffer truly mean-spirited harassment (physically and verbally) on my bike that probably goes beyond anything most men experience. I'd love for that to stop.
And I'd like drivers to consider something: How more often are you enraged by a cyclist than another driver? Probably a lot less often. So think hard before you take your rage out on an easy target (and easily injured) cyclist. It's literally a life-or-death choice.
Secondly, if we weren't on our bikes we'd be in front of you in a car. When I'm in my car and get annoyed at a cyclist, I take a breath and take a moment to appreciate that at least this isn't an annoying driver holding me up: I'd take a clueless cyclist over a clueless driver any day.
Live and let live. If the worst part of your day is that you saw a cyclist run a red light, than your life is pretty sweet.
39
You're too kind, TV dinner. I should mention that I mostly just drive for work. To get to work, I take Link. We're only two blocks from the station, and when you get down to it, where is there to go in Seattle other than downtown or the airport? The North End? It's a rest home. West Seattle? Too smug. Although it will be nice when they open the Capitol Hill station.
40
But, wait; that’s not a war on cars, that’s preservation of public safety. Wouldn’t everyone be better off with fewer traffic deaths in general? Wouldn’t a war on cars actually look more like people forcing car owners to turn in their cars? Or maybe making the whole downtown core off-limits to cars? (Though inconvenient, not a bad idea...)
Also, along with allowing bikes to move first through an intersection, it would be safer to stop all traffic through an intersection twice a light-cycle to allow pedestrians to walk to any other corner they’d like and then let the cars through without those pesky people in the way.
Also, along with allowing bikes to move first through an intersection, it would be safer to stop all traffic through an intersection twice a light-cycle to allow pedestrians to walk to any other corner they’d like and then let the cars through without those pesky people in the way.
41
Rotten666, it's possible that the cyclists you see are jerks. However, it's also possible that there's something in that bike lane you can't see, such as broken glass, rough pavement, a car about to pull out or open its door. I don't know where you are, but some municipalities put down bike lanes without really thinking through whether it's actually a good place for a bike lane to be.
42
@10 Yes, "speedily" and "sped" probably equate to making a turn around 20mph. Have you made a turn in an SUV at speeds of more than that? It doesn't feel safe.
Chances are, the idiot in the SUV probably didn't see the bike as he was turning, and your idiotic feel-good "traffic calming" laws are probably null and void. This is, still, what we call tortured logic.
Baconcat, I know thinking isn't your strong suit...but try, for me. Try to read into situations, and interpret emotional-baiting scare words for what they are instead of being scared by them. It's kind of a learned skill, but you can do it. Others have faith in you.
Also, I wonder if Terry still takes Dan to and from the airport every time he travels.
Chances are, the idiot in the SUV probably didn't see the bike as he was turning, and your idiotic feel-good "traffic calming" laws are probably null and void. This is, still, what we call tortured logic.
Baconcat, I know thinking isn't your strong suit...but try, for me. Try to read into situations, and interpret emotional-baiting scare words for what they are instead of being scared by them. It's kind of a learned skill, but you can do it. Others have faith in you.
Also, I wonder if Terry still takes Dan to and from the airport every time he travels.
43
Dan rides the light rail. And he buses to the light rail. And if he's going away overnight, he bikes to light rail and leaves his bike on the street.
Dan doesn't like being in cars if he can avoid it. When Dan was in LA for a month he bought a bike and rode everywhere he needed to go and fell in love with LA in the process.
Dan walks where he can, and bikes when he can. And sometimes he gets in cabs.
And Terry? Terry hate cyclists. It's a rich source of conflict in Dan and Terry's relationship.
Dan doesn't like being in cars if he can avoid it. When Dan was in LA for a month he bought a bike and rode everywhere he needed to go and fell in love with LA in the process.
Dan walks where he can, and bikes when he can. And sometimes he gets in cabs.
And Terry? Terry hate cyclists. It's a rich source of conflict in Dan and Terry's relationship.
45
Isn't LA wonderful seen up close like that? And how do cyclists annoy Terry, or are you just winding us up?
46
I'll settle just for making people drive the existing speed limit. Its crazy how fast drivers go to sit in line at the next red light. Let's face it, it's not a small minority it's almost universal. Driving 10 miles per hour over the speed limit is nothing on an interstate, but on a surface street it's often exceeding the speed limit by 33%. Rigidly drive your car the speed limit and watch the behavior of other drivers as they go insane to get around you. The anti bike nuts here like to go on about "Lycra this" and "spandex that" but I assure you they'd be just as rabid about a car that kept them from going as fast as they wanted.
47
@38, I'm also a female bike commuter, & I feel your pain. I think the situation has been steadily improving for us here in Cincinnati. The city has made dedicated bike lanes a priority along major bike routes. Our buses are pretty considerate; my biggest annoyance is hospital staff leaving parking garages and talking on the phone . My workplace now has 3% who commute by bike at least once per week. It's starting to feel like we're reaching critical mass.
48
Dan darling, only Republicans and dictators refer to themselves in the third person. You're not trying to tell us something, are you?
49
The north end "rest home" is experiencing a generational turnover in population in the post WWII housing.
Old people moving out or passing on, replaced by people that need more than a single room condo, and can't afford an eastlake rubiks cube townie homes.
I think it is inevitable that civilization that serves the old folks is replaced by that which serves younger folks.
Unfortunately, there are many homes with two cars, rainwater ditches where the capital hill bubble-folk think we have sidewalks and bike lanes already, and remakible poor metro bus service for people that supposedly live in the "city" of Seattle.
I can't imaging riding my bike mire than a few blocks, it is simply not safe. The two lane roads with rainwater ditches on either side do not instantly become safer by painting a little white circle/arrow with a bike on it.
Worse, there aren't meaningful jobs within walking/biking distance of the upzone cubes in the most northern part if Seattle. Uless you work in the downtown core you are driving someplace else where there are jobs that actually support the housing being built. Having a nail salon and coffee shop on the first floor of these cubes is absurd. These are not walkable communities, communities have jobs.
I understand the pov of Dan and the Capital Hill Times (aka, the Stranger) it advocates for a society that really only exists within about a half mile of of your open windows, and yet expect "Seatte" to be a particular ideal, and all it's citizens to fund your neighborhood view of the world.
You are demanding a bicycle infrastructure to be paid for by people that, for the most part, do not have sidewalks or transit (no meaningful transit alternative) right now.
So, when you, Dan, want to rant on about "Seattle" and its terrible treatment of bicycle community, realize that large swatches of this same city would love to have the "problem" of bikes/sidewalk/car/transit integration safety issues.
More...
Old people moving out or passing on, replaced by people that need more than a single room condo, and can't afford an eastlake rubiks cube townie homes.
I think it is inevitable that civilization that serves the old folks is replaced by that which serves younger folks.
Unfortunately, there are many homes with two cars, rainwater ditches where the capital hill bubble-folk think we have sidewalks and bike lanes already, and remakible poor metro bus service for people that supposedly live in the "city" of Seattle.
I can't imaging riding my bike mire than a few blocks, it is simply not safe. The two lane roads with rainwater ditches on either side do not instantly become safer by painting a little white circle/arrow with a bike on it.
Worse, there aren't meaningful jobs within walking/biking distance of the upzone cubes in the most northern part if Seattle. Uless you work in the downtown core you are driving someplace else where there are jobs that actually support the housing being built. Having a nail salon and coffee shop on the first floor of these cubes is absurd. These are not walkable communities, communities have jobs.
I understand the pov of Dan and the Capital Hill Times (aka, the Stranger) it advocates for a society that really only exists within about a half mile of of your open windows, and yet expect "Seatte" to be a particular ideal, and all it's citizens to fund your neighborhood view of the world.
You are demanding a bicycle infrastructure to be paid for by people that, for the most part, do not have sidewalks or transit (no meaningful transit alternative) right now.
So, when you, Dan, want to rant on about "Seattle" and its terrible treatment of bicycle community, realize that large swatches of this same city would love to have the "problem" of bikes/sidewalk/car/transit integration safety issues.
50
Biking infrastructure is not great in Seattle, but it's getting better. Major urban arterials like Stone Way, Nickerson and Dexter Ave have all seen significant improvements over the past five years. Hopefully the progress we're making won't be curtailed by the asphalt and bulldozer crowd who hates Mayor McGinn.
51
WAR ON CYCLISTS!
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/08/29/a…
http://tinyurl.com/3hpcy8y
Teens Target Cyclists In ‘Knockout’ Game
August 29, 2011 12:38 PM
ST. LOUIS, MO. (KMOX) — There’s an alert out about recent assaults on bike riders in south St. Louis.
Trailnet.org, an organization that promotes hiking and biking, is cautioning riders to be on the alert for roving bands of teenagers who swarm and attack riders.
Trailnet says the latest attack was last Thursday (8/25) afternoon near Missouri Botanical Garden where a group of 10 to 15 African-American teens charged and attacked a cyclist.
“They weren’t really interested in robbing me. It just seemed like they wanted to beat me up,” says assault victim Cheech Ramirez. “They weren’t interested in letting me get off the ground and having a fair fight.”
Ramirez says he and his friends returned to the scene minutes later to help another bicyclist who was being beaten.
Police say there have been other, similar attacks in the city, and they believe all the victims are picked at random.
Mayor Francis Slay is calling for action, possibly with citizen bike patrols set up with the help of Trailnet and local police.
Police urge bike riders to be aware of their surrounding and call 911 when they see a swarm mob preparing an assault.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/08/29/a…
http://tinyurl.com/3hpcy8y
Teens Target Cyclists In ‘Knockout’ Game
August 29, 2011 12:38 PM
ST. LOUIS, MO. (KMOX) — There’s an alert out about recent assaults on bike riders in south St. Louis.
Trailnet.org, an organization that promotes hiking and biking, is cautioning riders to be on the alert for roving bands of teenagers who swarm and attack riders.
Trailnet says the latest attack was last Thursday (8/25) afternoon near Missouri Botanical Garden where a group of 10 to 15 African-American teens charged and attacked a cyclist.
“They weren’t really interested in robbing me. It just seemed like they wanted to beat me up,” says assault victim Cheech Ramirez. “They weren’t interested in letting me get off the ground and having a fair fight.”
Ramirez says he and his friends returned to the scene minutes later to help another bicyclist who was being beaten.
Police say there have been other, similar attacks in the city, and they believe all the victims are picked at random.
Mayor Francis Slay is calling for action, possibly with citizen bike patrols set up with the help of Trailnet and local police.
Police urge bike riders to be aware of their surrounding and call 911 when they see a swarm mob preparing an assault.
52
Yes but most Cyclists around here are the ones who advocate the in-traffic style of riding on busy roadways.
I blame the hotshots.
I blame the hotshots.
53
A few American cities have taken European-style steps to make streets safer for cycling, most notably Portland, Oregon, which has used most of the above ideas. The result: more bikes and fewer deaths. Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America.
Not surprising. Portland was also way ahead of Seattle in another area of transit: light rail. MAX opened in 1986 and now has 4 lines with 85 stations. Seattle? Too busy masturbating until LINK finally opened two years ago. Now we have one line with 13 stations. Woo-Hoo..go Seattle!
I wonder what percentage of commuters bike to work in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin and other major European cities?
A witness said the car was trying to turn left onto Thomas from Dexter when a line of oncoming cars began approaching. The driver speedily made the turn and hit the bicyclist, the witness said.
A situation and maneuver like this can easily become tragic, not just for a bicyclist but also for a pedestrian. I'm a very safe and observant driver (only one minor accident in over three decades of driving...lightly tapped the rear end of a car at a stoplight in Springfield, Oregon when coming back to the U of O from an evening at some hot springs because I got drowsy and my two friend who had promised to stay awake to help keep me awake had dozed off...thanks guys) but, about fifteen years ago, I almost nailed a woman and her dog in the exact same situation. I was planning to turn left onto Winona from Aurora, saw cars approaching southbound on Aurora and punched it. At that moment, the woman and her dog -- who must've been standing on the corner but who I hadn't noticed -- started heading across Winona and I can still recall the horror I felt in the split-second where I thought I might hit them. Fortunately, I swiftly veered to the left and she jumped back so nothing tragic occurred. If she had been on a bike, with momentum, I may very well have hit her.
Point is: you can be a very safe and observant driver but no one is perfect and all it takes is one time to fuck up by not being observant enough or by being aggressive instead of cautious and the consequences can be deadly. That being said, any good driver who is also a decent human being would stop if something deadly did happen, not run away as the driver of the SUV did.
In my experience, when I've encountered drivers who are overly aggressive, they are usually driving SUVs. I think being in a larger vehicle tends to give people an "I-own-the-road" mentality" and they have less consideration even for other drivers in cars.
More...
Not surprising. Portland was also way ahead of Seattle in another area of transit: light rail. MAX opened in 1986 and now has 4 lines with 85 stations. Seattle? Too busy masturbating until LINK finally opened two years ago. Now we have one line with 13 stations. Woo-Hoo..go Seattle!
I wonder what percentage of commuters bike to work in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin and other major European cities?
A witness said the car was trying to turn left onto Thomas from Dexter when a line of oncoming cars began approaching. The driver speedily made the turn and hit the bicyclist, the witness said.
A situation and maneuver like this can easily become tragic, not just for a bicyclist but also for a pedestrian. I'm a very safe and observant driver (only one minor accident in over three decades of driving...lightly tapped the rear end of a car at a stoplight in Springfield, Oregon when coming back to the U of O from an evening at some hot springs because I got drowsy and my two friend who had promised to stay awake to help keep me awake had dozed off...thanks guys) but, about fifteen years ago, I almost nailed a woman and her dog in the exact same situation. I was planning to turn left onto Winona from Aurora, saw cars approaching southbound on Aurora and punched it. At that moment, the woman and her dog -- who must've been standing on the corner but who I hadn't noticed -- started heading across Winona and I can still recall the horror I felt in the split-second where I thought I might hit them. Fortunately, I swiftly veered to the left and she jumped back so nothing tragic occurred. If she had been on a bike, with momentum, I may very well have hit her.
Point is: you can be a very safe and observant driver but no one is perfect and all it takes is one time to fuck up by not being observant enough or by being aggressive instead of cautious and the consequences can be deadly. That being said, any good driver who is also a decent human being would stop if something deadly did happen, not run away as the driver of the SUV did.
In my experience, when I've encountered drivers who are overly aggressive, they are usually driving SUVs. I think being in a larger vehicle tends to give people an "I-own-the-road" mentality" and they have less consideration even for other drivers in cars.
54
I would favor a localized gas tax to pay for the rest of Seattle catching up to the infrastructure level as these unsafe downtown multimodal safety nightmares that has Dan so worried.
There are plenty of cars that cross the city line that keep on going to Seattle jobs that would actually contribute to paying for the Seattle infrastructure they consume by buying gas in Seattle. The car tab taxes have a limited ceiling and only tax people that live in Seattle that might otherwise want sidewalks, buses, and bike lanes.
I would also support regular police enforcement of the speed limit at the edges of the city. The speed limit on N 145th running east and west is 35 or 40, you turn south and it is instantly 25 on local streets, 30 or 35 on arterials. The traffic really doesn't slow down until it comes to a complete stop, on Aurora that is from Shoreline at 145th do not hit another stop until the stoplight at 135th.
There are plenty of cars that cross the city line that keep on going to Seattle jobs that would actually contribute to paying for the Seattle infrastructure they consume by buying gas in Seattle. The car tab taxes have a limited ceiling and only tax people that live in Seattle that might otherwise want sidewalks, buses, and bike lanes.
I would also support regular police enforcement of the speed limit at the edges of the city. The speed limit on N 145th running east and west is 35 or 40, you turn south and it is instantly 25 on local streets, 30 or 35 on arterials. The traffic really doesn't slow down until it comes to a complete stop, on Aurora that is from Shoreline at 145th do not hit another stop until the stoplight at 135th.
55
War on Cars = Stupid
War on Idiotic and Careless Drivers = Win
There are some drivers I have seen who are great, attentive, and extremely well mannered, then there are the rest of the drivers. If you want to solve a problem you have to get to the actual cause, don't just be lazy and go after a broad category expecting that to fix anything. As a pedestrian I have almost been hit by cars crossing the street at the light, when it says to cross, more often than I can count, the only reason I was not hurt at many of them is that on foot we can do quick reversals in a heartbeat while bikes cannot. The problem is not all motorists, it's the idiots who probably shouldn't even be allowed on bicycles as well. For instance the cyclists who ride on the downtown sidewalks at full speed, running over pedestrians expecting them to get out of their way while they break the law. Special note to you bikers: It is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, period, because it's dangerous to everyone.
But, humanity is stupid. So here's the thing, if you want a real "war on cars" have at it, because that will just open up the "war on bikes" next, or you can take the smart route and start a "war on stupidity" instead. I say no personal transportation vehicles of any sort in city areas, that would be my dream, if you're too lazy to walk a few blocks you don't deserve the body you were given at birth.
War on Idiotic and Careless Drivers = Win
There are some drivers I have seen who are great, attentive, and extremely well mannered, then there are the rest of the drivers. If you want to solve a problem you have to get to the actual cause, don't just be lazy and go after a broad category expecting that to fix anything. As a pedestrian I have almost been hit by cars crossing the street at the light, when it says to cross, more often than I can count, the only reason I was not hurt at many of them is that on foot we can do quick reversals in a heartbeat while bikes cannot. The problem is not all motorists, it's the idiots who probably shouldn't even be allowed on bicycles as well. For instance the cyclists who ride on the downtown sidewalks at full speed, running over pedestrians expecting them to get out of their way while they break the law. Special note to you bikers: It is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, period, because it's dangerous to everyone.
But, humanity is stupid. So here's the thing, if you want a real "war on cars" have at it, because that will just open up the "war on bikes" next, or you can take the smart route and start a "war on stupidity" instead. I say no personal transportation vehicles of any sort in city areas, that would be my dream, if you're too lazy to walk a few blocks you don't deserve the body you were given at birth.
60
I live in Lexington KY and have been biking to work all summer. It took awhile to get used to riding the way you are supposed to, not to be nervous riding on the road and to act more like car (obeying all the traffic rules a car does, etc).
Then the students come back for fall semester. Fucking Hell. These assholes give bike riders a bad name everywhere. And they are legion. I wish there was a comprehensive mandatory bike safety course and enforcement, it is just fucking unbelievable what these morons do. Lexington is trying to support cyclists, and progress has been made, but it is still very disconnected, with beautiful bike lanes disappearing into narrow lanes across intersections. If people took the time to learn how to fucking ride their bikes and get involved with the process we would be a decent biking town by now.
Then the students come back for fall semester. Fucking Hell. These assholes give bike riders a bad name everywhere. And they are legion. I wish there was a comprehensive mandatory bike safety course and enforcement, it is just fucking unbelievable what these morons do. Lexington is trying to support cyclists, and progress has been made, but it is still very disconnected, with beautiful bike lanes disappearing into narrow lanes across intersections. If people took the time to learn how to fucking ride their bikes and get involved with the process we would be a decent biking town by now.
61
I almost ran a bike over the other day making a left turn from second onto James.
The bike lane on left side of second avenue is a death trap. If I were riding in that lane I certainly would ride defensively especially when coming up to left turns like James Street.
The bike lane on left side of second avenue is a death trap. If I were riding in that lane I certainly would ride defensively especially when coming up to left turns like James Street.
62
@57 check out SMC 11.44.120
I agree that riding on the sidewalk is generally unsafe (for both pedestrians and cyclists), but illegal it is not . . .
I agree that riding on the sidewalk is generally unsafe (for both pedestrians and cyclists), but illegal it is not . . .
63
I live in a college town, and my god what terrible cyclists most of them are. Head phones, Iphones, riding opposite traffic, riding on sidewalks, running stop signs and lights, zooming around like fucking hummingbirds colliding with pedestrians, basically acting like assholes.
We have bike registration here, but I have never seen enforcement of either cyclists riding dangerously or motorists endangering cyclists and there are plenty examples of both. I just recently started to commute with my bike and it took a lot of getting used to, riding the way you are supposed to. My dad doesn't understand why anyone would do it, he's like "OH MY GOD you are riding INCHES AWAY FROM DEATH". This meme is stuck in my brain every time I start off now, inchesawayfromdeath, inchesawayfromdeath. It makes the ride less enjoyable, but I'm probably safer because of it.
We have bike registration here, but I have never seen enforcement of either cyclists riding dangerously or motorists endangering cyclists and there are plenty examples of both. I just recently started to commute with my bike and it took a lot of getting used to, riding the way you are supposed to. My dad doesn't understand why anyone would do it, he's like "OH MY GOD you are riding INCHES AWAY FROM DEATH". This meme is stuck in my brain every time I start off now, inchesawayfromdeath, inchesawayfromdeath. It makes the ride less enjoyable, but I'm probably safer because of it.
65
Thank you @61, re: left turns from Second onto James, & that left-side bike lane. I totally agree, it's a major tragedy waiting to happen.
I hope somebody from the City transportation department (or legal department) gleans something from this particular blog.
Thanks, Dan!
I hope somebody from the City transportation department (or legal department) gleans something from this particular blog.
Thanks, Dan!
66
WAR ON CARS! WAR ON PEDESTRIANS!
http://tinyurl.com/3jyzs4a
Driver Charged In Street Shooting Felt He Was 'In Jeopardy'
Markus Solomon Accused Of Killing Gordon Rees In New Castle
POSTED: 11:12 pm EDT August 30, 2011
UPDATED: 8:53 pm EDT September 2, 2011
NEW CASTLE, Pa. -- A motorist who's accused of shooting and killing a pedestrian who told him to slow down claims he acted because he thought he was in danger, police say.
"I don't feel like I should have did it, but my life was in jeopardy ... It could have been avoided," said 18-year-old Markus Solomon, according to the criminal complaint filed by New Castle police.
"I just can't believe what happened to him," said Christina Lyerson, stepsister of the shooting victim, Gordon Rees Jr. "It was just the worst. His eyes were still open, he looked at me, and it was just -- I couldn't even say anything to him. I just walked away."Police say the 31-year-old Rees turned toward a car and yelled at the driver shortly before 10:30 p.m. Tuesday on Williams Street. Police said the car stopped, the driver got out, and a verbal altercation began."There was an old black Cavalier that was going about 70 or 80 miles an hour and came up behind him and clipped him," said a friend who was with Rees at the time. "Gordon stood there and said, 'If you're going to shoot me, shoot me,' because he didn't really think he was going to get shot, because he did nothing wrong."
Rees' friend, who did not want to be publicly identified, said they were walking to the home of Rees' mother at the time."I just started screaming and screaming, 'Someone call 911,' and since no one was answering me or doing anything, I had to pick him up and put pressure on his heart and his back to keep the blood from coming out," he said. "I was just hoping my brother wasn't going to die. He's like a brother to me. He's always protecting me.""I heard gunshots, I come outside and I seen everybody running down the street," said Rees' aunt, Laurie Schmitt. "I seen my sister, Lori, bawling -- 'My son, he got shot, he's dead.'"Police said Rees, a father of two, was taken to Jamestown Hospital and was pronounced dead."So my nephew dies because he asks him to slow down? He lost his life? That ain't right," Schmitt said.
"I just take it day by day. I try not to think about it, but his room is right next to mine, so I kind of have to see all of his stuff," Lyerson said.On Friday, police said they arrested Solomon on unrelated charges during a traffic stop.After Solomon was taken to the Lawrence County Jail, police identified him as a suspect in the Rees shooting and said he will be charged with homicide.
Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/29033666/detail…
More...
http://tinyurl.com/3jyzs4a
Driver Charged In Street Shooting Felt He Was 'In Jeopardy'
Markus Solomon Accused Of Killing Gordon Rees In New Castle
POSTED: 11:12 pm EDT August 30, 2011
UPDATED: 8:53 pm EDT September 2, 2011
NEW CASTLE, Pa. -- A motorist who's accused of shooting and killing a pedestrian who told him to slow down claims he acted because he thought he was in danger, police say.
"I don't feel like I should have did it, but my life was in jeopardy ... It could have been avoided," said 18-year-old Markus Solomon, according to the criminal complaint filed by New Castle police.
"I just can't believe what happened to him," said Christina Lyerson, stepsister of the shooting victim, Gordon Rees Jr. "It was just the worst. His eyes were still open, he looked at me, and it was just -- I couldn't even say anything to him. I just walked away."Police say the 31-year-old Rees turned toward a car and yelled at the driver shortly before 10:30 p.m. Tuesday on Williams Street. Police said the car stopped, the driver got out, and a verbal altercation began."There was an old black Cavalier that was going about 70 or 80 miles an hour and came up behind him and clipped him," said a friend who was with Rees at the time. "Gordon stood there and said, 'If you're going to shoot me, shoot me,' because he didn't really think he was going to get shot, because he did nothing wrong."
Rees' friend, who did not want to be publicly identified, said they were walking to the home of Rees' mother at the time."I just started screaming and screaming, 'Someone call 911,' and since no one was answering me or doing anything, I had to pick him up and put pressure on his heart and his back to keep the blood from coming out," he said. "I was just hoping my brother wasn't going to die. He's like a brother to me. He's always protecting me.""I heard gunshots, I come outside and I seen everybody running down the street," said Rees' aunt, Laurie Schmitt. "I seen my sister, Lori, bawling -- 'My son, he got shot, he's dead.'"Police said Rees, a father of two, was taken to Jamestown Hospital and was pronounced dead."So my nephew dies because he asks him to slow down? He lost his life? That ain't right," Schmitt said.
"I just take it day by day. I try not to think about it, but his room is right next to mine, so I kind of have to see all of his stuff," Lyerson said.On Friday, police said they arrested Solomon on unrelated charges during a traffic stop.After Solomon was taken to the Lawrence County Jail, police identified him as a suspect in the Rees shooting and said he will be charged with homicide.
Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/29033666/detail…
68
Sure, ticket and fine drivers careless of the safety of anyone else, pedestrian, bicyclist or other driver. If they show an inability to get the point, revoke their licenses.
Then require each bike riding on the roads to be licensed, with the rider carrying an operators permit which can be revoked for violating safety laws repeatedly, just like drivers. (Hint- just because you're riding a machine fundamentally unsuited to traffic, and need to keep up momentum to overcome this flaw, stoplights and signs apply to you as well.)
Then change the climate and geography of the Puget Sound so that riding to work is halfway practical... Oh, yeah.
BTW, those from Sweden or England or anywhere else lamenting democratically established US policy? You seem confused. We don't enact policy here to please you, but to serve our own interests. Just as you do. It's called the will of the people, but that only matters to you when you're stealing one persons income to pay for the 6 week vacation, or health care or child care expenses or housing or food of another too lazy or thriftless to do so himself.
Then require each bike riding on the roads to be licensed, with the rider carrying an operators permit which can be revoked for violating safety laws repeatedly, just like drivers. (Hint- just because you're riding a machine fundamentally unsuited to traffic, and need to keep up momentum to overcome this flaw, stoplights and signs apply to you as well.)
Then change the climate and geography of the Puget Sound so that riding to work is halfway practical... Oh, yeah.
BTW, those from Sweden or England or anywhere else lamenting democratically established US policy? You seem confused. We don't enact policy here to please you, but to serve our own interests. Just as you do. It's called the will of the people, but that only matters to you when you're stealing one persons income to pay for the 6 week vacation, or health care or child care expenses or housing or food of another too lazy or thriftless to do so himself.
69
I would love to see more of this kind of thing implemented, with the rules of the road being clear to *both*. I have absolutely no wish to hit a bicyclist, but I come close every time one of them ignores what rules there are, and ignores stop signs, ignores the direction of the road (!), turns left in front of me (from my right side (!)) and so on. With the described procedures in place, particularly the separation of bike and car traffic, this kind of stuff would be greatly reduced.
70
I live in Davis, CA, and living here shows me every day what a bike-friendly city looks like. We unfortunately have less bike commuters than we did at our peak, but it's still 15%. One thing that I really like is that we have extensive bike paths and not bike lanes on roads with high speed limits, so the cars are pretty much no danger to us. I think that this is unfortunately difficult to implement in places where the streets and sidewalks are already as wide as they can be, but I even remember in Berlin having a line in the sidewalk to designate a bike lane, which seems much, much safer to me than in-street bike lanes. I still use those bike lanes, but I'm always nervous while in them.
71
#68 Thank you! All of these improvements that the Economist speak of are great, but we and the police have some different priorities here than in Europe. Let's raise the money for bike improvements by requiring a license for bike riders, who after all are operating wheeled vehicles that can go in excess of 25mph and do not belong on the sidewalk. And make sure they get plates so that when they inevitably run a red light, they can get their picture taken and receive a $125 ticket like the motorists they share the road with.
73
As a pedestrian, I've had more close calls with aggressive cyclists than aggressive drivers.
They routinely fly through red lights, weave through traffic, bike against traffic, ride up on side walks when it suits them and they never yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
And then they wonder why they get hit by cars.
They routinely fly through red lights, weave through traffic, bike against traffic, ride up on side walks when it suits them and they never yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
And then they wonder why they get hit by cars.
75
Having just returned from Denmark I'm reminded why biking is easier. One, the infrastructure is designed for it. Two the price of car ownership and licensing is very high, car ownership is for the well off and even then they are compact and manuel transmissions. Three, just a week ago it was about 13.00 DKK (Danish Kroner) per liter (1 liter = 0.264172052 US gallons) of petrol and it is DKK/USD = ~5.25194 making it ~$2.48 USD for a liter of gas. Four, in many places bikes and pedestrians share the road, pedestrians stay to the far right which makes for less lethal collisions. Something my 4 y.o Danish speaking niece quickly taught her English speaking cousins by shoving them over repeatedly. Five, even traffic lights work different with a yellow light before turning green and red, and bikes have the right of way. Six, the regional, S-tog, and Metro have designated cars for bikes (and prams) that take you around the city, the suburbs, and across to Sweden (with free wifi). Recently there was a recent article about the cost of car ownership in Denmark and how that impacts bicycle ownership, I will look for it for you all. I found it illuminating.
76
@11, @26, @32:
It's important to remember that "the bus" is not some evil monolith out to crush you. It is a vehicle containing perhaps dozens of people trying to get where they're going in a reasonable amount of time. And tragically, it is what passes for "mass transit" in Seattle.
I guess I'm not sure what you think bus drivers "should" do. Do you think they should have to hang behind you at 15 mph for multiple miles, just in case someone on board pulls the stop-request cord? Is your unbroken momentum so important as to delay that many people's day, make them late for work, make them miss their connecting buses? Unlike auto drivers, bus passengers can't simply switch to a different route.
If a bus is approaching behind you, let it pass. Slow down for just long enough to put some distance between it and you. If you're on a low-pedestrian street, like 15th through Interbay, ride on the sidewalk for a minute (yes, it's legal) to avoid lane conflict.
But don't leapfrog. It's a jerky thing to do. You don't have the right to pace-set the entire world.
It's important to remember that "the bus" is not some evil monolith out to crush you. It is a vehicle containing perhaps dozens of people trying to get where they're going in a reasonable amount of time. And tragically, it is what passes for "mass transit" in Seattle.
I guess I'm not sure what you think bus drivers "should" do. Do you think they should have to hang behind you at 15 mph for multiple miles, just in case someone on board pulls the stop-request cord? Is your unbroken momentum so important as to delay that many people's day, make them late for work, make them miss their connecting buses? Unlike auto drivers, bus passengers can't simply switch to a different route.
If a bus is approaching behind you, let it pass. Slow down for just long enough to put some distance between it and you. If you're on a low-pedestrian street, like 15th through Interbay, ride on the sidewalk for a minute (yes, it's legal) to avoid lane conflict.
But don't leapfrog. It's a jerky thing to do. You don't have the right to pace-set the entire world.
77
bikers bitching about busses is a total dick move.
buses have your ass beat on every front:
In the popular Green Virtue Department
a bus hauling 40-50 folks
(and burning natural gas even...)
totally is more important than some prick on a bike.
Give way.
and genuflect.
In the often ignored but critical
Physics Department a bus
totally has the tonnage on a bike.
You think an SUV bites?
again. Give way.
but carry ID in case you aren't nimble enough.....
buses have your ass beat on every front:
In the popular Green Virtue Department
a bus hauling 40-50 folks
(and burning natural gas even...)
totally is more important than some prick on a bike.
Give way.
and genuflect.
In the often ignored but critical
Physics Department a bus
totally has the tonnage on a bike.
You think an SUV bites?
again. Give way.
but carry ID in case you aren't nimble enough.....
78
28
why so grumpy, darlin?
wishing we were Europe is an innate HomoLiberal trait.
in fact, it is the easiest way to tell a HomoLiberal from a Real American.
why so grumpy, darlin?
wishing we were Europe is an innate HomoLiberal trait.
in fact, it is the easiest way to tell a HomoLiberal from a Real American.
79
the cheap next step is to paint bike routes on the side streets that soooo frequently parallel an arterial for 12, 20 40 or blocks or two miles, then stitch together these as "suggested routes for bikes going a ways" so bikes actually agglomerate on said routes.
then when they cross an arterial you ensure there's a light there.
often we don't have the physical room for a separate bike lane as in amsterdam; let's do that too; but that's way more money; in the meantime the greenways concept some of us have pushed for for years is good.
it's too bad some cyclists react by saying "how dare you suggest I shouldn't ride in the arterial with the pedestrians, the garages, the busses, the lights making me stop and the car doors opening into the sharrow lane!! you must be against bikes!"
I hear there's a new cycling group supporting this concept and calling it greenways.
why not bikers just start with a little non permanent chalking guerrilla action on the streets, mmmmm?
There's gotta be some road one block from 35th that goes a long way south in W Seattle. There's 14th in Ballard from the water up to 65th. Better than 15th, right? there's side streets parallel to 3d and 8th in Ballard. Instead of Roovsevelt north of 75th to northgate, some side street. sure the biker has to dogleg here and there but my god every single cyclist who regularly cycles gets injured. fact. it's too freaking dangerous. let's solve the problem, and with the rights of way we have we don't have room for the entire array of bike infra. they have in copendamsterhaven.
then when they cross an arterial you ensure there's a light there.
often we don't have the physical room for a separate bike lane as in amsterdam; let's do that too; but that's way more money; in the meantime the greenways concept some of us have pushed for for years is good.
it's too bad some cyclists react by saying "how dare you suggest I shouldn't ride in the arterial with the pedestrians, the garages, the busses, the lights making me stop and the car doors opening into the sharrow lane!! you must be against bikes!"
I hear there's a new cycling group supporting this concept and calling it greenways.
why not bikers just start with a little non permanent chalking guerrilla action on the streets, mmmmm?
There's gotta be some road one block from 35th that goes a long way south in W Seattle. There's 14th in Ballard from the water up to 65th. Better than 15th, right? there's side streets parallel to 3d and 8th in Ballard. Instead of Roovsevelt north of 75th to northgate, some side street. sure the biker has to dogleg here and there but my god every single cyclist who regularly cycles gets injured. fact. it's too freaking dangerous. let's solve the problem, and with the rights of way we have we don't have room for the entire array of bike infra. they have in copendamsterhaven.
80
@78
fuck you moron. it's my country my foreberers fought for our liberty and we're not going to be bullied around by cretins like you. You leave. You're not into free speech, so you're unamerican so you leave asshole.
fuck you moron. it's my country my foreberers fought for our liberty and we're not going to be bullied around by cretins like you. You leave. You're not into free speech, so you're unamerican so you leave asshole.
81
80
now now.
don't stick around just to spite conservatives.
you know you hate America and all it stands for....
you know you admire the French and especially the Danes...
you know you think legalized pot and prostitution and 4 years of unemployment benefits are the key to human happiness.
listen to your heart.
go.
fly fly, little birdie......
now now.
don't stick around just to spite conservatives.
you know you hate America and all it stands for....
you know you admire the French and especially the Danes...
you know you think legalized pot and prostitution and 4 years of unemployment benefits are the key to human happiness.
listen to your heart.
go.
fly fly, little birdie......
83
my boyfriend and I (both car-less cyclists who only take the bus when it's necessary) were talking about this article this morning and he made a good point that got me thinking. a lot of drivers use the excuse "yeah but we paid for this road with our taxes and we have to be licensed to be here so cyclists should too!" for why they hate cyclists so much. he also mentioned the fact that a lot of people really just want to feel like they're being treated fairly, so that's why they don't understand why cars need licenses and bikes don't.
one thing car drivers tend to overlook is that cars are WAY harder on the roads than bikes are. when was the last time you saw a pothole in the burke-gilman or any other dedicated bike path? that's why the streets are so fucked up all over the city--not because of cyclists "not paying their share", but because cars are REALLY destructive to the roads. on top of that, it's a fucking CHOICE to drive. no one forces you to purchase and operate a two-ton death machine. no one forces you to pay over $4 a gallon for gas. no one forces you to sit on your ass in traffic for an hour instead of taking the bus or riding a bike or walking where you need to go. it's a convenience, and an expensive one. which makes people cranky in our entitled society, because they want everything for free and no one wants to pay anything to support the choices they make. (this argument could go for a lot of things, but I digress.)
so as for the licensing thing, I honestly wouldn't give a flying fuck if they passed a law that cyclists need licenses to be on the street too. I'd go down and happily hand them the cash to prove that me and my bike are allowed to "share the road" like so many others (drivers) aren't willing to do. I think it'd be smart anyway, and they could take all the money made from licensing fees and use it to improve the infrastructure for bikes. move the bike lanes out of the way of traffic, create barriers, save some lives, and further encourage more bicycling. from two cycling commuters who haven't driven cars in over 3 and 6 years, it makes sense to us.
More...
one thing car drivers tend to overlook is that cars are WAY harder on the roads than bikes are. when was the last time you saw a pothole in the burke-gilman or any other dedicated bike path? that's why the streets are so fucked up all over the city--not because of cyclists "not paying their share", but because cars are REALLY destructive to the roads. on top of that, it's a fucking CHOICE to drive. no one forces you to purchase and operate a two-ton death machine. no one forces you to pay over $4 a gallon for gas. no one forces you to sit on your ass in traffic for an hour instead of taking the bus or riding a bike or walking where you need to go. it's a convenience, and an expensive one. which makes people cranky in our entitled society, because they want everything for free and no one wants to pay anything to support the choices they make. (this argument could go for a lot of things, but I digress.)
so as for the licensing thing, I honestly wouldn't give a flying fuck if they passed a law that cyclists need licenses to be on the street too. I'd go down and happily hand them the cash to prove that me and my bike are allowed to "share the road" like so many others (drivers) aren't willing to do. I think it'd be smart anyway, and they could take all the money made from licensing fees and use it to improve the infrastructure for bikes. move the bike lanes out of the way of traffic, create barriers, save some lives, and further encourage more bicycling. from two cycling commuters who haven't driven cars in over 3 and 6 years, it makes sense to us.
84
Vancouver's separate bike lanes in some cases were pretty cheap ; they just blocked off a lane by throwing up the temporary concrete barriers frequently used on interstate construction sites for lane repaving. They've also built metro lines that are a lot faster to outlying towns than taking a car, and can hold bikes.
I'm in a college town, and all the buses have racks on the front that can hold bikes; it's just not that difficult to get that feature when you replace old buses.
So it doesn't have to take THAT much money to encourage bike use.
Bike registration is probably a good idea, if the money could be used to build infrastructure; and it could encourage better driving by bikers.
It took 100 years of dedicated spending biased towards automobiles to build the paved roads and highways that are key to universal auto use; and the low-density suburbs that may be difficult to sustain as gas prices rise. There is no reason why there can't be steady infrastructure spending towards more people riding bikes and mass transit for shorter trips now. The more people who ride bikes, the less crowded the streets will be for cars, and the less money we'll be sending to our "good buddies" in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia for oil that is better used for building things like plastic and asphalt than for burning.
I'm in a college town, and all the buses have racks on the front that can hold bikes; it's just not that difficult to get that feature when you replace old buses.
So it doesn't have to take THAT much money to encourage bike use.
Bike registration is probably a good idea, if the money could be used to build infrastructure; and it could encourage better driving by bikers.
It took 100 years of dedicated spending biased towards automobiles to build the paved roads and highways that are key to universal auto use; and the low-density suburbs that may be difficult to sustain as gas prices rise. There is no reason why there can't be steady infrastructure spending towards more people riding bikes and mass transit for shorter trips now. The more people who ride bikes, the less crowded the streets will be for cars, and the less money we'll be sending to our "good buddies" in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia for oil that is better used for building things like plastic and asphalt than for burning.
85
@ 72, I think you're referring to this (not exactly a rant IMO):
The reason we don't apply a $20 fee to bicycles is because the vast majority of cyclists barely use their bikes at all, or are children going around in circles in the driveway, etc. It is insane to demand a fee from those people, and if you did, casual bicycle use in the city would disappear, and almost all bike shops in the state, with their attendant business taxes, would disappear as well. You'd lose money on the deal. The devoted commuters wouldn't miss it but they are a tiny portion of the people who own bikes in the state.
It's kind of sad that no one is able to even imagine people living in circumstances other than their own anymore.
Posted by Fnarf on July 29, 2011 at 2:03 PM
86
@83 Not all potholes are because of the traffic, though I won't argue the point that cars are worse on them, perhaps a better example would be the vibration effects on less soft parts, like the pipes under the streets. ;) Vibration has a much larger effect than some people want to acknowledge, and cars can vibrate buildings as they pass, that's a lot, while bikes do not. Most potholes are because of a combination of ground shifting and poor maintenance, if a crack appears in the sidewalk, that will turn into a pothole, same holds true for asphalt.
87
When I told people I'd acquired a bike, everyone had a cyclist horror story to share. A broken collarbone in this intersection, a shattered knee on this street, a concussion at that intersection, a broken wrist on that street. I ignored the warnings and in one week I had three car doors opened in my path, a narrowly avoided collision due to a run red light, and a bus edging me off the road. Boston may be a "walking city" but it is hell on cyclists. I bought a bus pass and gave away the bike.
88
@83
No, drivers hate cyclists because they point blank refuse to follow the rules of the road endangering themselves and everyone else around them. And then they act holier than thou for doing so, which really is adding insult to injury.
Some examples-
Stop signs, yield signs and lights apply to you too, cyclists, amazing as this clearly is to you.
If 5 or more vehicles are held up by you, in a bike or in a car, you must pull over and let them pass. Which cyclists rarely or never do. As an example, a bike path borders both highway 202 and East Lake Sammamish. Do cyclists use them? Absolutely not! After all, they're saving the planet from us evil car drivers trying to get our kids to baseball or get our shopping done. They insist on using the roads at 10 to 30 miles an hour under the limit and completely refuse to get out of the way of legitimate traffic.
Erratic or aggressive driving is as much an infraction for a cyclist as a driver, though from the behavior of most cyclists you'd never know this. They seem to think it required once they don the silly costumes remniscent of medieval jesters and board their childrens toys for a jaunt on the roads.
And most to the point, we pay millions a year to build and maintain dedicated bike lanes for a fundamentally unsuitable means of transport in our hilly rainy low density region. We block key arterials to allow for a bike lane instead of 2 lanes of traffic that might actually be used to, you know, get to work or school or the grocery store. And they don't get used. I might see a bike or two in any given bike lane, but never enough to justify blocking an entire lane of traffic for it.
Want to talk about meaningful mass transit solutions to traffic congestion and the high cost of cars in the city? Fine. But any rational person knows that bikes aren't one of them.
More...
No, drivers hate cyclists because they point blank refuse to follow the rules of the road endangering themselves and everyone else around them. And then they act holier than thou for doing so, which really is adding insult to injury.
Some examples-
Stop signs, yield signs and lights apply to you too, cyclists, amazing as this clearly is to you.
If 5 or more vehicles are held up by you, in a bike or in a car, you must pull over and let them pass. Which cyclists rarely or never do. As an example, a bike path borders both highway 202 and East Lake Sammamish. Do cyclists use them? Absolutely not! After all, they're saving the planet from us evil car drivers trying to get our kids to baseball or get our shopping done. They insist on using the roads at 10 to 30 miles an hour under the limit and completely refuse to get out of the way of legitimate traffic.
Erratic or aggressive driving is as much an infraction for a cyclist as a driver, though from the behavior of most cyclists you'd never know this. They seem to think it required once they don the silly costumes remniscent of medieval jesters and board their childrens toys for a jaunt on the roads.
And most to the point, we pay millions a year to build and maintain dedicated bike lanes for a fundamentally unsuitable means of transport in our hilly rainy low density region. We block key arterials to allow for a bike lane instead of 2 lanes of traffic that might actually be used to, you know, get to work or school or the grocery store. And they don't get used. I might see a bike or two in any given bike lane, but never enough to justify blocking an entire lane of traffic for it.
Want to talk about meaningful mass transit solutions to traffic congestion and the high cost of cars in the city? Fine. But any rational person knows that bikes aren't one of them.
90
Seattleblahs is here! Finally, the conversation will reach the level of discourse it deserves. If we're lucky, maybe loveschild will chime in with a Biblical justification of why it's ok to hate cyclists.
It's a beautiful day, Seattleblahs. What are you doing on Slog? Who has the highly theoretical children? Or did they run away to escape you constant priggishness?
It's a beautiful day, Seattleblahs. What are you doing on Slog? Who has the highly theoretical children? Or did they run away to escape you constant priggishness?
91
@ 90, SB has been a very active participant all week. It makes me fear for the state of his business.
92
I should also add that Denmark is a relatively flat country, they don't have to contend with hills. Although their weather can be more severe.
And, a more specific idea on the cost of car ownership in Denmark, an $11,000 USD automobile in US sells for roughly $30,000 USD in Denmark because of the 180 percent tax on automobiles. The tax on luxury cars, automatic transmission are considered luxury features, is much higher.
I loved being back with family and I enjoyed the ease of getting around. Although it cost me 455,00 DKK, that is $86.63 USD per person x 4 = $346.52, for a 10 klip Alle zoner pass for the trains and busses. And it is true that we have much in common: greenspaces, Intel, rain, and miles of bike paths. Portland has about 324 miles of bikeways, I don't know about Seattle. We are also very different. It would be lovely if we could have the same economic success, riders in Copenhagen are responsible for a $247 million (USD) economic impact that translates into about 300 businesses and 650 full-time jobs as reported by the city, across the US. I can't see, maybe I'm too cynical, a good majority of people in the US embracing the cost of living in Denmark even with the other benefits of universal health care, state-provided education all the way through university, state-funded childcare, and a system for taking care of (not merely giving pensions to) senior citizens. I love it there and I envy much of their culture, but I think I might be an exception not the norm.
And, a more specific idea on the cost of car ownership in Denmark, an $11,000 USD automobile in US sells for roughly $30,000 USD in Denmark because of the 180 percent tax on automobiles. The tax on luxury cars, automatic transmission are considered luxury features, is much higher.
I loved being back with family and I enjoyed the ease of getting around. Although it cost me 455,00 DKK, that is $86.63 USD per person x 4 = $346.52, for a 10 klip Alle zoner pass for the trains and busses. And it is true that we have much in common: greenspaces, Intel, rain, and miles of bike paths. Portland has about 324 miles of bikeways, I don't know about Seattle. We are also very different. It would be lovely if we could have the same economic success, riders in Copenhagen are responsible for a $247 million (USD) economic impact that translates into about 300 businesses and 650 full-time jobs as reported by the city, across the US. I can't see, maybe I'm too cynical, a good majority of people in the US embracing the cost of living in Denmark even with the other benefits of universal health care, state-provided education all the way through university, state-funded childcare, and a system for taking care of (not merely giving pensions to) senior citizens. I love it there and I envy much of their culture, but I think I might be an exception not the norm.
93
my favorite part about reading a seattleblues comment is counting how many weasel words and unsupported "facts" he can fit into one paragraph. cute!
94
i dont hav e ahelmet, ride on the sidewlak 90% of the time and will run any stop light or stop sign that isnt gonna cause anyone harm. and I dont give ashit what happens regarding the bike/car/road situation. I thought I would post this as a retort to all the honks and dirty looks I get from all you dandy pussies and nanny bitchez.
95
@88: You complain about bikes holding up traffic, and then you bitch that bike lanes are unnecessary. You do realize that bike lanes' main effect is to get bikes out of traffic lanes, thereby stopping them from holding up traffic?
And if you think that removing bike lanes will allow us to put in more traffic lanes, I've got news for you; two bike lanes put together won't make up even ONE traffic lane. The space we cyclists take up is roughly 2/5ths of a parking lane. Reducing congestion by taking out bike lanes is like trimming the Federal budget by defunding NPR.
@94: A family friend of mine, a neurosurgeon, says that people in her line of work have a term for people like you: organ donors. Make sure you fill out your card!
And if you think that removing bike lanes will allow us to put in more traffic lanes, I've got news for you; two bike lanes put together won't make up even ONE traffic lane. The space we cyclists take up is roughly 2/5ths of a parking lane. Reducing congestion by taking out bike lanes is like trimming the Federal budget by defunding NPR.
@94: A family friend of mine, a neurosurgeon, says that people in her line of work have a term for people like you: organ donors. Make sure you fill out your card!
96
I like driving and I like riding my bike. As a driver, I view cyclists as people who are helping to reduce traffic and pollution, so I want more bike lanes and other features that make it easier and safer to ride a bike. Even if I never rode a bike, I'm pro-bicycle because more cyclists = less traffic congestion.
As a cyclist, I prefer lanes that have a physical divide from cars. I would feel safer and ride my bike more if there were better bike lanes. Bike trails are nice for recreation but rarely are they decent routes for commuting.
Overall, bike-friendly features help drivers and cyclists alike, by reducing traffic, pollution, parking demand, and increasing safety. More cyclists also means less demand for gas, which means potentially lower prices for gas.
As a cyclist, I prefer lanes that have a physical divide from cars. I would feel safer and ride my bike more if there were better bike lanes. Bike trails are nice for recreation but rarely are they decent routes for commuting.
Overall, bike-friendly features help drivers and cyclists alike, by reducing traffic, pollution, parking demand, and increasing safety. More cyclists also means less demand for gas, which means potentially lower prices for gas.
98
@82 you first, dear. You've already shown a lack of understanding of news articles. Now demonstrate the lack of understanding of traffic concepts. I'm not your Wikipedia/Google.
99
Its the near universal excessive speed of cars that is the issue. More dangerous than any number of bicycles running a red light.
101
@98: "Traffic calming" refers to a number of physical modifications that can be made to a road, which cumulatively discourage motorists from traveling at high speeds and make reckless maneuvering all but impossible.
You referred to traffic calming as intangible "feel-good laws." Which makes you an idiot.
You referred to traffic calming as intangible "feel-good laws." Which makes you an idiot.
102
@18- "This country, large metropoliti in particular, is just too damn big and sprawling to allow it."
Our largest metropolises are generally our densest and best places to bike. The size of the country is completely irrelevant.
"Get a goddamn car, or start walking. "
Because these roads you can't ride a bike on are safe to walk on?
"Meanwhile there's a honking line behind it of 50 cars piloted by potentially unstable drivers, getting pissed off. "
This has never happened in my decade of bicycle commuting.
Our largest metropolises are generally our densest and best places to bike. The size of the country is completely irrelevant.
"Get a goddamn car, or start walking. "
Because these roads you can't ride a bike on are safe to walk on?
"Meanwhile there's a honking line behind it of 50 cars piloted by potentially unstable drivers, getting pissed off. "
This has never happened in my decade of bicycle commuting.
104
@85 and 72, see 99.
People the drive cars have to pass a test on the rules of the road. The "test" for riding a bike on the same road is the will to do so.
When people with conflicting expectations occupy the same space there are bound to be accidents, no matter how many rules, laws, street painting you do, as like as somebody thinks they get to blow through stops because they don't feel like stopping, or simply don't know what the fuck they are doing, then you will have your freedom without responsibility.
Enjoy.
People the drive cars have to pass a test on the rules of the road. The "test" for riding a bike on the same road is the will to do so.
When people with conflicting expectations occupy the same space there are bound to be accidents, no matter how many rules, laws, street painting you do, as like as somebody thinks they get to blow through stops because they don't feel like stopping, or simply don't know what the fuck they are doing, then you will have your freedom without responsibility.
Enjoy.
105
@104- So drivers have to take tests and such, but they blow through stops all the time. I don't see your point.
106
Seattle cyclists, past and present: many of you have already heard that Val Kleitz, Instigator of the Bikesmith (formerly of Wallingford), passed away August 10th after losing his battle with cancer. There will be a memorial ride on Monday starting at noon and a wake Monday night at the Pike Place Brewery. Aaron has all the details at his site, rideyourbike.com.
Val took a piece of Seattle's soul with him when he left. And a sizeable chunk of mine, as well.
Val took a piece of Seattle's soul with him when he left. And a sizeable chunk of mine, as well.
108
As a deaf pedestrian, I can't begin to express how much I FUCKING LOATHE it when we are supposed to share with bicyclists. I am convinced I will be killed by some fuckwit screaming ON YOUR LEFT ON YOUR LEFT ON YOUR LEFT at me... It is not a solution at all, unless the pavement is actually divided in half for each and it is actually enforced.
109
@108 I feel very sorry for you, I can hear and they scare the shit out of me a lot, most don't even say anything and just whiz by almost knocking everyone over. It's not just the motorists, it's the cyclists that are also the problem, ironically, I see more skateboarders with better manners here.
111
@101 Traffic Calming laws are feel good laws that will never prevent all random tragedies like what happened to Mr. Wang.
112
it will be interesting to see how the cycle track (segregated/protected bike lanes) on Broadway will turn out
113
@111: Traffic calming does not involve laws at all, you fucking halfwit!
Traffic calming = physical changes to the road. Thinner lanes and curb bulbs. Lights that aren't synced so you hit 15 greens in a row if you floor it. Median strips with gaps for turning small enough that it would be literally impossible to whip through them at sufficient speed to kill a cyclist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_cal…
You sub-literate hack.
Traffic calming = physical changes to the road. Thinner lanes and curb bulbs. Lights that aren't synced so you hit 15 greens in a row if you floor it. Median strips with gaps for turning small enough that it would be literally impossible to whip through them at sufficient speed to kill a cyclist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_cal…
You sub-literate hack.
114
Hmm, I read the same article, and I didn't get the impression the Economist was "condemning" the US at all. I thought it was merely pointing out it's more dangerous to ride bikes in the US.
As a pedestrian I am frightened of being hit by a bike, because I've had several near misses. A number of them seem to me to be very careless, suddenly coming on the sidewalk, swerving from a car lane to a crosswalk in order to not have to wait at a red light (the nerve of making me wait for a light!). They move so suddenly it's harder to predict where they're going to be. So they're harder to get out of the way of than a car, also quieter so you don't hear them as easily. Dusk is particularly dangerous as they don't put their lights on. Even after dark, half the cyclists I see don't use any light (which is a danger for them as well).
It's true cars might run a red light, but not nearly as much as a bike does; I see a bike run a light/stop sign every time I take a walk longer than 10 mins. I haven't seen a car blatantly go thru a red light (meaning the red light's been on more than 30 seconds) in some years now. I most recently saw bikes breeze thru the intersection at 12th & Pike by the police station. I doubt most drivers would be so blatant right in front of the cops.
Bikers should definitely be ticketed for all these, and many more, infractions. Aren't we in a budget crunch? Shouldn't we be looking to take in more money however we can? To keep them from feeling picked on, I'm fine w/more strict enforcement of car violations too. And why not pedestrians? Jaywalking laws are on the books; enforce them and bring more money to the city's coffers. None of this requires any new laws to be passed.
I do think bikers should have to take a test to get a license, like cars do. And no biking on the sidewalks once you're no longer a child.
It was interesting to read in the article about the real bike lanes in other countries, w/barriers, that would seem to make it safer for everyone. I don't quite see how that can happen on existing streets in the US though. And I do believe we have too much of a "car culture." Like we have a gun culture. So I don't think this will ever, on the whole, be a friendly country for bikers any more than we will ever have more stringent gun control measures no matter how high the death by handgun rate rises. Aside from in pockets like Portland or other lefty communities. Although as we sink into 3rd World status, there may well be fewer people capable of owning cars.
The Economist is "conservative" in the old sense of the world. I think by the current standards of the right in this country, they would consider it centrist, or maybe even liberal, because it's not "hard right" enough.
More...
As a pedestrian I am frightened of being hit by a bike, because I've had several near misses. A number of them seem to me to be very careless, suddenly coming on the sidewalk, swerving from a car lane to a crosswalk in order to not have to wait at a red light (the nerve of making me wait for a light!). They move so suddenly it's harder to predict where they're going to be. So they're harder to get out of the way of than a car, also quieter so you don't hear them as easily. Dusk is particularly dangerous as they don't put their lights on. Even after dark, half the cyclists I see don't use any light (which is a danger for them as well).
It's true cars might run a red light, but not nearly as much as a bike does; I see a bike run a light/stop sign every time I take a walk longer than 10 mins. I haven't seen a car blatantly go thru a red light (meaning the red light's been on more than 30 seconds) in some years now. I most recently saw bikes breeze thru the intersection at 12th & Pike by the police station. I doubt most drivers would be so blatant right in front of the cops.
Bikers should definitely be ticketed for all these, and many more, infractions. Aren't we in a budget crunch? Shouldn't we be looking to take in more money however we can? To keep them from feeling picked on, I'm fine w/more strict enforcement of car violations too. And why not pedestrians? Jaywalking laws are on the books; enforce them and bring more money to the city's coffers. None of this requires any new laws to be passed.
I do think bikers should have to take a test to get a license, like cars do. And no biking on the sidewalks once you're no longer a child.
It was interesting to read in the article about the real bike lanes in other countries, w/barriers, that would seem to make it safer for everyone. I don't quite see how that can happen on existing streets in the US though. And I do believe we have too much of a "car culture." Like we have a gun culture. So I don't think this will ever, on the whole, be a friendly country for bikers any more than we will ever have more stringent gun control measures no matter how high the death by handgun rate rises. Aside from in pockets like Portland or other lefty communities. Although as we sink into 3rd World status, there may well be fewer people capable of owning cars.
The Economist is "conservative" in the old sense of the world. I think by the current standards of the right in this country, they would consider it centrist, or maybe even liberal, because it's not "hard right" enough.
115
@113 Yes. A speed limit and enforcement of such isn't a law. And, the main thrust of the quoted section wasn't about that. Jesus fucking Christ, get a clue. Construction of islands and shit are only one part of the traffic calming ideaology, and also the first part of which that people will fight for in main corridors. Or, were you not reading the same post and wiki entry I was?
God damn I hate Idiotic people who can't understand things like systems, but pretend they do.
God damn I hate Idiotic people who can't understand things like systems, but pretend they do.
116
"It's called the will of the people, but that only matters to you when you're stealing one persons income to pay for the 6 week vacation, or health care or child care expenses or housing or food of another too lazy or thriftless to do so himself.
Posted by Seattleblues on September 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM "
Don't fret too much 'cause It works the other way too, conservatives support many kinds of massive government spending that liberals dislike.
Posted by Seattleblues on September 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM "
Don't fret too much 'cause It works the other way too, conservatives support many kinds of massive government spending that liberals dislike.
117
@115 "Yes. A speed limit and enforcement of such isn't a law."
I think it is. You're kind of nasty for someone whose posts are almost incomprehensible.
I think it is. You're kind of nasty for someone whose posts are almost incomprehensible.
119
Man, all these threads feature the same dumbasses making the same lame arguments over and over AND OVER!
Meanwhile, I will continue to ride my bike to work everyday, obey most traffic laws (like, you know, everyone everywhere), have a great time. I will also ride my bike along roads int he King County hinterlands and to sweet campgrounds and over mountain passes and along dirt roads in the National Forests and generally live the sweet, sweet life of bicycling that I love.
@44
HOWEVER!
Rotten666 describes the viaduct bike path as "a perfectly nice, wide path." That's flat out wrong. The viaduct path is miserably narrow path built before there were any rules informing MUP design. Not only is it narrow, it's crowded with clueless tourists wandering in packs, cars pulling through intersections with nary a look either way, and pedestrians crossing from the parking lots directly under the viaduct to the sidewalk. In other words, that path is a nightmare, one of the worst paths in the whole city. That's why you see folks riding on Alaskan. I don't understand why Rotten hates the bikes on that road so much, as the traffic is generally pretty light and it's easy to pass in the left lane. Whatever.
Meanwhile, I will continue to ride my bike to work everyday, obey most traffic laws (like, you know, everyone everywhere), have a great time. I will also ride my bike along roads int he King County hinterlands and to sweet campgrounds and over mountain passes and along dirt roads in the National Forests and generally live the sweet, sweet life of bicycling that I love.
@44
HOWEVER!
Rotten666 describes the viaduct bike path as "a perfectly nice, wide path." That's flat out wrong. The viaduct path is miserably narrow path built before there were any rules informing MUP design. Not only is it narrow, it's crowded with clueless tourists wandering in packs, cars pulling through intersections with nary a look either way, and pedestrians crossing from the parking lots directly under the viaduct to the sidewalk. In other words, that path is a nightmare, one of the worst paths in the whole city. That's why you see folks riding on Alaskan. I don't understand why Rotten hates the bikes on that road so much, as the traffic is generally pretty light and it's easy to pass in the left lane. Whatever.
120
@115: Construction of islands and shit are only one part of the traffic calming ideaology...
Wrong-diddly-fucking-indisputably-wrong, you dumb fuck of the century. "Traffic calming" refers to the physical modifications to the street. That's all. It refers to nothing else.
And traffic-calming street modifications are precisely what the article applauds when explaining how Portland reduces vehicle speeds to "19mph, a speed that, in case of collision, kills less than 5%."
You don't get to just decide that terms mean whatever best suits your backwards world view. Terms mean what they mean.
"Speed limits" are laws. "Traffic calming" is physical. Buy a dictionary and shut the fuck up.
Wrong-diddly-fucking-indisputably-wrong, you dumb fuck of the century. "Traffic calming" refers to the physical modifications to the street. That's all. It refers to nothing else.
And traffic-calming street modifications are precisely what the article applauds when explaining how Portland reduces vehicle speeds to "19mph, a speed that, in case of collision, kills less than 5%."
You don't get to just decide that terms mean whatever best suits your backwards world view. Terms mean what they mean.
"Speed limits" are laws. "Traffic calming" is physical. Buy a dictionary and shut the fuck up.
121
@114, you're a piece of work too:
Hmm, I read the same article, and I didn't get the impression the Economist was "condemning" the US at all. I thought it was merely pointing out it's more dangerous to ride bikes in the US.
Yup. More dangerous, throughout the US. Just the way it is. Never gonna change. Get used to it, and get back behind the wheel.
Oh, wait...
Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America. But in five out of the past ten years there have been no cycling deaths there. In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists have been killed in the past few weeks.
But, you see, Seattle is a unique snowflake. Nothing that works anywhere else could ever possibly be effective here, and so forth. A unique, permanently blood-stained snowflake...
(As usual, Seattle confuses "can't work" with "prevented on account of stupid intransigent dickishness and a political process that rewards stupid intransigent dickishness.")
Hmm, I read the same article, and I didn't get the impression the Economist was "condemning" the US at all. I thought it was merely pointing out it's more dangerous to ride bikes in the US.
Yup. More dangerous, throughout the US. Just the way it is. Never gonna change. Get used to it, and get back behind the wheel.
Oh, wait...
Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America. But in five out of the past ten years there have been no cycling deaths there. In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists have been killed in the past few weeks.
But, you see, Seattle is a unique snowflake. Nothing that works anywhere else could ever possibly be effective here, and so forth. A unique, permanently blood-stained snowflake...
(As usual, Seattle confuses "can't work" with "prevented on account of stupid intransigent dickishness and a political process that rewards stupid intransigent dickishness.")
122
The answer to Seattle's traffic woes is to make car ownership and use increasingly expensive and inconvenient. That's how it works everywhere else.
Cycling in the Netherlands took off in the past century because car ownership was initially beyond the means of most people [too expensive]. The society — represented by the government — saw that it was good, practical, and economically sustainable and supported a policy that supplemented bike use with a public transportation system. As people became more economically prosperous in the post-war years, the public wisely continued the policy. They considered private car ownership an unnecessary luxury, and so discouraged it by making it inconvenient (to park in the city) and expensive (highly taxed).
If the individual finds it so important to have a car to feed his own ego (it certainly isn't necessary for practical reasons), then he ought to pay for the privilege. Especially since his pleasure comes at the ultimate expense of society as a whole.
Last year I visited my old home of Seattle from Amsterdam (where I now live, and of course cycle everywhere, like everyone else).
This time I decided not to rent a car, since I hate paying for parking, and the traffic that I remembered from back in the '90s was already intolerable.
My friends thought I was crazy; especially since I was staying with relatives in Renton, of all places. But through a little online research I was able to find busses that delivered me to downtown Seattle in about 40 minutes. Pretty much the same as driving. The final legs, from downtown to Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, The U District or Ballard, were all easily made once I decoded the transit maps. To top it off, many of my rides were free, as the driver preferred to wave the fare than change a 10-dollar bill! The whole experience was made more relaxing and enjoyable as I got to walk the short distance between transfer points, breath some fresh air and experience my surroundings directly.
Anyway, I'm happy to report that forgoing a car in the Seattle area is indeed possible, and frankly preferred. All you citizens need is the sense to propose that the taxes on car ownership be doubled or tripled, and that parking be made more scarce and more expensive. You'll soon be able to improve and expand the public transportation system, and create a decent environment for cycling.
Now if you an just do something about those hills.
More...
Cycling in the Netherlands took off in the past century because car ownership was initially beyond the means of most people [too expensive]. The society — represented by the government — saw that it was good, practical, and economically sustainable and supported a policy that supplemented bike use with a public transportation system. As people became more economically prosperous in the post-war years, the public wisely continued the policy. They considered private car ownership an unnecessary luxury, and so discouraged it by making it inconvenient (to park in the city) and expensive (highly taxed).
If the individual finds it so important to have a car to feed his own ego (it certainly isn't necessary for practical reasons), then he ought to pay for the privilege. Especially since his pleasure comes at the ultimate expense of society as a whole.
Last year I visited my old home of Seattle from Amsterdam (where I now live, and of course cycle everywhere, like everyone else).
This time I decided not to rent a car, since I hate paying for parking, and the traffic that I remembered from back in the '90s was already intolerable.
My friends thought I was crazy; especially since I was staying with relatives in Renton, of all places. But through a little online research I was able to find busses that delivered me to downtown Seattle in about 40 minutes. Pretty much the same as driving. The final legs, from downtown to Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, The U District or Ballard, were all easily made once I decoded the transit maps. To top it off, many of my rides were free, as the driver preferred to wave the fare than change a 10-dollar bill! The whole experience was made more relaxing and enjoyable as I got to walk the short distance between transfer points, breath some fresh air and experience my surroundings directly.
Anyway, I'm happy to report that forgoing a car in the Seattle area is indeed possible, and frankly preferred. All you citizens need is the sense to propose that the taxes on car ownership be doubled or tripled, and that parking be made more scarce and more expensive. You'll soon be able to improve and expand the public transportation system, and create a decent environment for cycling.
Now if you an just do something about those hills.
123
@122 We should do the same for computers so people will stop bullying online, sounds like a plan. Then only the super wealthy will be posting on these places to, or driving their cars, hell, let's see how far this can go and raise the prices of clothes, the rest of us will just all run around naked.
124
@122 "oops I don't have change for the bus! sorry, really I am. oh now I get to ride for free? awesome!" is NOT a sustainable way of riding public transportation. way to be That Asshole. you're the kind of fucker I hate seeing get on the bus while the rest of us have to take our hard-earned cash and actually pay to keep the damn things running. and you were on vacation too, with disposable income to spend where ever you please, but don't want to pay for the public utilities you use in my city? FUCK YOU.
126
@108- Sorry about that. See the thing is audible warnings work on 99.7% of the population. And really we're only warning people so they don't make a sudden jump to the left, the cyclists aren't aiming at you. So just don't walk on the left side of a shared trail and look over your shoulder before moving left (which hearing people should do too since not all cyclists cue people when they should) and you are incredibly unlikely to be injured by a cyclist no matter how zippy they are. And if you don't want to be startled by objects approaching from behind, get one of those mirrors that clips onto your glasses. Cyclists use them, you can use them against cyclists!
127
@126 we're also talking city sidewalks here ... and it would be nice if they actually followed rules like that in say, downtown Seattle, but the fact is most do not, the ones that do are probably all the bikes chained up most of the day anyway.
129
@120 "To start with, motor vehicles allowed near cyclists are subject to “traffic calming.” They must slow down to about 19mph, a speed that, in case of collision, kills less than 5%. Police strictly enforce these speed limits with hefty fines. Repeat offenders lose their licences."
Yup. All physical modifications. No laws at all. Fucktard.
Yup. All physical modifications. No laws at all. Fucktard.
130
@120 From the wiki YOU posted earlier: "There are 3 "E"s that traffic engineers refer to when discussing traffic calming: engineering, (community) education, and (police) enforcement."
Police enforcement. Yup. No laws at all. Fucktard.
Police enforcement. Yup. No laws at all. Fucktard.
131
Oh, for fuck's sake.
As you yourself have repeatedly said, changing laws would do little good in the absence of "engineering, education, and enforcement."
And as any website on the subject you could attempt to cite makes perfectly clear, laws are ineffective in the absence of education (in residential areas), enforcement (on arterials prone to high speeds), and engineering projects in all cases.
There is no circumstance under which "laws" alone, as for some reason you insist on claiming, constitute a traffic calming effort. You are simply wrong!
As you yourself have repeatedly said, changing laws would do little good in the absence of "engineering, education, and enforcement."
And as any website on the subject you could attempt to cite makes perfectly clear, laws are ineffective in the absence of education (in residential areas), enforcement (on arterials prone to high speeds), and engineering projects in all cases.
There is no circumstance under which "laws" alone, as for some reason you insist on claiming, constitute a traffic calming effort. You are simply wrong!
133
@131 Actually, no. Now, you're being a revisionist prick. What I said was the laws (which are going to be the next part of the traffic calming ideology to occur in Seattle, as our little experiment with the rotational islands are looked on with mixed reviews from what I've gathered), are going to be rather ineffectual in preventing accidental tragedies like what happened to Mr. Wang. I never said that the laws were the only part of traffic calming. But, I have said that the laws are part of the traffic calming ideology...which, up until the last part, you kept claiming that they aren't.
You yourself claimed "Traffic calming does not involve laws at all, you fucking halfwit!" Go ahead, search...that was copy/pasted. Which was a fucking idiotic statement, as you came to realize by you comment at 131. Traffic calming involves both laws and new construction, you fucking halfwit.
You yourself claimed "Traffic calming does not involve laws at all, you fucking halfwit!" Go ahead, search...that was copy/pasted. Which was a fucking idiotic statement, as you came to realize by you comment at 131. Traffic calming involves both laws and new construction, you fucking halfwit.
134
Try biking in Detroit. I ride on the street in neighborhoods to avoid the main streets when I can, and then on the sidewalk (where there are never pedestrians - why walk when you can drive your giant fucking SUV everywhere) and only as a last resort on the busy roads. People drive 10 over the speed limit (and that's being conservative), are pissed off all the time (you'd be too if you lived here) and aren't watching for other cars, let alone bikes. And infrastructure improvements will never happen, because there's no money. So stop your fucking whining and enjoy the bike paths that you have.
135
Probably a dead thread, but just wish to chip in.
This sort of thing is bad for middle-ground people. To pick just one example, bicycling advocates will often deny that there is a "war on cars" but turn a blind eye to those whose only suggestions for improving things for bicyclists is to make things miserable for car drivers, which is a limited and counterproductive attitude. [eg: GasparFagel: "The answer to Seattle's traffic woes is to make car ownership and use increasingly expensive and inconvenient."] Sorry, I generally use a car because I have a limited amount of time on this planet and I don't want my commute to be three to four times longer than it need be.
Likewise, people who wish to defend driving (and driving is still the best way to get anywhere outside a dense urban metropolis with good public transportation because, duh, the whole damn transport system is rigged in favour of the car) often are bitterly hostile to any form of effective public transit, or, if in government, permit development without such transit. (You wouldn't build a new development without sewers; transit should be similarly integrated into the mix.)
A big problem with using rules and regs to improve things for cyclists is that you just hand another tool to lazy cops with which they can become total dicks. The number of laws which can authorize an officer to haul you over is already huge, and in looking at the trees of making things better for bicyclists we shouldn't miss the forest of civil liberties. None of us, cyclists or cars, will get anywhere if we spend half our time pulled over while officers rack up their quotas. (An excellent example? The one-way street in Washington DC noted by Yglesias, iirc, which is never used by cars during rush hour, but is perfect, but the wrong way, for bicyclists avoiding a very dangerous intersection. The DCPD have sent out half a dozen officers to just pull over cyclists and write tickets.)
Just a word, too, on words. I think that more people would be amenable to "traffic calming" if it so often wasn't a code word for "slowing traffic flow down to infuriating levels simply because we have to Do Something and we haven't got any better ideas or money".
More...
This sort of thing is bad for middle-ground people. To pick just one example, bicycling advocates will often deny that there is a "war on cars" but turn a blind eye to those whose only suggestions for improving things for bicyclists is to make things miserable for car drivers, which is a limited and counterproductive attitude. [eg: GasparFagel: "The answer to Seattle's traffic woes is to make car ownership and use increasingly expensive and inconvenient."] Sorry, I generally use a car because I have a limited amount of time on this planet and I don't want my commute to be three to four times longer than it need be.
Likewise, people who wish to defend driving (and driving is still the best way to get anywhere outside a dense urban metropolis with good public transportation because, duh, the whole damn transport system is rigged in favour of the car) often are bitterly hostile to any form of effective public transit, or, if in government, permit development without such transit. (You wouldn't build a new development without sewers; transit should be similarly integrated into the mix.)
A big problem with using rules and regs to improve things for cyclists is that you just hand another tool to lazy cops with which they can become total dicks. The number of laws which can authorize an officer to haul you over is already huge, and in looking at the trees of making things better for bicyclists we shouldn't miss the forest of civil liberties. None of us, cyclists or cars, will get anywhere if we spend half our time pulled over while officers rack up their quotas. (An excellent example? The one-way street in Washington DC noted by Yglesias, iirc, which is never used by cars during rush hour, but is perfect, but the wrong way, for bicyclists avoiding a very dangerous intersection. The DCPD have sent out half a dozen officers to just pull over cyclists and write tickets.)
Just a word, too, on words. I think that more people would be amenable to "traffic calming" if it so often wasn't a code word for "slowing traffic flow down to infuriating levels simply because we have to Do Something and we haven't got any better ideas or money".
136
Oh, one other thing: listen to the people.
We had a hell of a time in Toronto because the public were all for new subways over light rail and dedicated streetcar lanes (etc.). The assorted pointy-heads pooh-poohed their preferences and concerns and committed Toronto a large expansion of LRT which the public disliked. The bureaucracy's rationales were, basically, (a) LRT is cheaper, and (b) we know way better than you what you want. What came out of that? (a) An independent review by one of N.Am's top transit experts calls the plan "crazy" and notes that it will cost MORE than subways, in the end. (b) The pro-transit types were thrown out of office and replaced by a car-loving right-wing populist who hates public transit.
To mass-transportation-positive politicians and bureaucrats: The public generally would prefer to spend $50 on something it wants than $30 on something that it doesn't. When they're willing to pay for public transit give them the one that they want and will vote for and pay for and please don't assume that they're children who need to be told what to do simply because they made a good choice that wasn't the good choice that YOU would have made!
PS: Why is it that so many pro-public transit types are so fixated -- often to the point of religious certainty -- on light rail?
We had a hell of a time in Toronto because the public were all for new subways over light rail and dedicated streetcar lanes (etc.). The assorted pointy-heads pooh-poohed their preferences and concerns and committed Toronto a large expansion of LRT which the public disliked. The bureaucracy's rationales were, basically, (a) LRT is cheaper, and (b) we know way better than you what you want. What came out of that? (a) An independent review by one of N.Am's top transit experts calls the plan "crazy" and notes that it will cost MORE than subways, in the end. (b) The pro-transit types were thrown out of office and replaced by a car-loving right-wing populist who hates public transit.
To mass-transportation-positive politicians and bureaucrats: The public generally would prefer to spend $50 on something it wants than $30 on something that it doesn't. When they're willing to pay for public transit give them the one that they want and will vote for and pay for and please don't assume that they're children who need to be told what to do simply because they made a good choice that wasn't the good choice that YOU would have made!
PS: Why is it that so many pro-public transit types are so fixated -- often to the point of religious certainty -- on light rail?
137
Rotten666:
You are a fucking imbecile. That bike path under the viaduct is about the most dangerous place to ride a bike in the city. Clueless tourists drive across that thing frantically looking for parking spots with little regard for human life. I will always ride in the road there yes, in my dumb tour de france outfit (because I want to be just like Lance!!! I love him so much!!!! OMGOMG!!!) in the right lane and you can use the left lane to go right around me. You just may have to use that thing called a steering wheel and have the decency to no be an asshole when you do. If you have a problem with it, have the balls to get out of your car and discuss it rather than post dumb comments on the internet and honk at cyclists passive aggressively. Get fucked.
You are a fucking imbecile. That bike path under the viaduct is about the most dangerous place to ride a bike in the city. Clueless tourists drive across that thing frantically looking for parking spots with little regard for human life. I will always ride in the road there yes, in my dumb tour de france outfit (because I want to be just like Lance!!! I love him so much!!!! OMGOMG!!!) in the right lane and you can use the left lane to go right around me. You just may have to use that thing called a steering wheel and have the decency to no be an asshole when you do. If you have a problem with it, have the balls to get out of your car and discuss it rather than post dumb comments on the internet and honk at cyclists passive aggressively. Get fucked.
138
As a driver who loathes and despises bikers (bikes. are. not. cars. please go find some woods.), I would be more than thrilled if bikes and cars were largely separated and there was a legit system in place for the interaction between bikes and cars. My instinctual loathing aside, I recognize that while sometimes bikers are assholes, sometimes cars are assholes too. (However, just because my car is more likely to kill you doesn't make you any less of an asshole, it just makes me more dangerous.) What we need is a legitimate, consistent set of rules, lanes AWAY FROM THE CARS and some kind of infrastructure governing it, like they have in Europe. The painted-on bike lanes are a joke, and they don't do anything to actually protect anyone. I would like bikers a whole lot more if they weren't swerving into my lane, running red lights causing me to screech on my brakes, meandering directly in front of me in my lane during rush hour....
139
What makes you think SUV drivers behave according to what *feels* safe? 99% of those assholes are driving SUVs so they can drive as stupidly and recklessly as possible with (supposedly) no risk to their own safety.
I'll bet good money that that SUV was going as fast as was physically possible when making a left turn, which can be pretty fucking fast, definitely fast enough to kill a bicyclist.
Yes, "speedily" and "sped" probably equate to making a turn around 20mph. Have you made a turn in an SUV at speeds of more than that? It doesn't feel safe.
What makes you think SUV drivers behave according to what *feels* safe? 99% of those assholes are driving SUVs so they can drive as stupidly and recklessly as possible with (supposedly) no risk to their own safety.
I'll bet good money that that SUV was going as fast as was physically possible when making a left turn, which can be pretty fucking fast, definitely fast enough to kill a bicyclist.
140
Misanthrope @133:
I'm caught up on sleep now, so this reply will contain no name-calling or recriminations. Sorry about all that.
But to be absolutely clear, there is no such thing as a "traffic calming law" or a slate of "traffic calming laws," as your language continues to suggest you believe.
Even if "enforcement" were ratcheted up independently of any other changes -- something that would never be described as a "traffic calming plan" by those who use the term in professional life or in common parlance -- no new laws would need to be implemented. The city currently has all the authority it needs to alter speed limits, to assign cops to enforcement priorities, or to make any conceivable physical modification to the road. So traffic calming programs really are not about "laws" in any substantial way.
The real problem with your continued insistence that "traffic calming = laws = ineffective" is that you seem to ignore the proven effects of physical modifications on driver behavior. Everyone drives faster on a wide-open lane than on a skinnier lane. You do it. I do it. Even the SUV hit-and-run asshole does it.
If you design turn lanes and install median humps so that one literally cannot turn left without slowing to 10 mph, then no one will turn left at a higher speed than that. Even that asshole who didn't care about taking the life of another.
You mention the side-street rotaries. Traffic-calming techniques on residential side streets differ drastically from ones you would implement on arterials, of course. But the occasional fender-bender on the rotaries -- mostly caused by blocked sightlines from too-big cars parked to close to the intersection as we -- happens at 5-7 mph. Injury of any sort is rare.
A serious question: had you ever heard or researched the term "traffic calming" before it appeared in this thread?
More...
I'm caught up on sleep now, so this reply will contain no name-calling or recriminations. Sorry about all that.
But to be absolutely clear, there is no such thing as a "traffic calming law" or a slate of "traffic calming laws," as your language continues to suggest you believe.
Even if "enforcement" were ratcheted up independently of any other changes -- something that would never be described as a "traffic calming plan" by those who use the term in professional life or in common parlance -- no new laws would need to be implemented. The city currently has all the authority it needs to alter speed limits, to assign cops to enforcement priorities, or to make any conceivable physical modification to the road. So traffic calming programs really are not about "laws" in any substantial way.
The real problem with your continued insistence that "traffic calming = laws = ineffective" is that you seem to ignore the proven effects of physical modifications on driver behavior. Everyone drives faster on a wide-open lane than on a skinnier lane. You do it. I do it. Even the SUV hit-and-run asshole does it.
If you design turn lanes and install median humps so that one literally cannot turn left without slowing to 10 mph, then no one will turn left at a higher speed than that. Even that asshole who didn't care about taking the life of another.
You mention the side-street rotaries. Traffic-calming techniques on residential side streets differ drastically from ones you would implement on arterials, of course. But the occasional fender-bender on the rotaries -- mostly caused by blocked sightlines from too-big cars parked to close to the intersection as we -- happens at 5-7 mph. Injury of any sort is rare.
A serious question: had you ever heard or researched the term "traffic calming" before it appeared in this thread?
141
@140 Savage wrote "Dedicated bike lanes, traffic lights that allow cyclists to go first, traffic calmed to under 20 MPH near bike lanes, drivers that endanger cyclists being slapped with fines, drivers who routinely endanger cyclists losing their licenses" which includes physical mods (which I agree with when used well...fuck what they did to E Aloha, but Broadway's lane is nice), and laws (new fines, speed limit adjustments, etc).
The laws, like the 20MPH near bike lanes, are indeed feel good laws on major arteries. Yes, the city already has the authority to change speed limits, but an actual traffic calming pattern would include the use of that authority to modify the speed limits in a concerted plan for "safety" to cyclists.
It is my firm belief that the laws will be the next phase of any cycle safety plan in Seattle, without the physical mods. Whether you disagree with whether that or the physical mods will come next is a valid point, but one whose answer will only come with time. Given that Seattle only half-assedly does anything at one time, continues to lead to this belief.
Also, I think that having bike lanes on major arteries is a seriously flawed plan. I think main bike routes should be on not-highly traveled streets, but on lesser used side streets when available. Make Republican a bike route instead of John or Aloha. Make 11th instead of 12th. Traffic is slowed on these routes, and allows for both bike safety and faster traffic on arteries.
The laws, like the 20MPH near bike lanes, are indeed feel good laws on major arteries. Yes, the city already has the authority to change speed limits, but an actual traffic calming pattern would include the use of that authority to modify the speed limits in a concerted plan for "safety" to cyclists.
It is my firm belief that the laws will be the next phase of any cycle safety plan in Seattle, without the physical mods. Whether you disagree with whether that or the physical mods will come next is a valid point, but one whose answer will only come with time. Given that Seattle only half-assedly does anything at one time, continues to lead to this belief.
Also, I think that having bike lanes on major arteries is a seriously flawed plan. I think main bike routes should be on not-highly traveled streets, but on lesser used side streets when available. Make Republican a bike route instead of John or Aloha. Make 11th instead of 12th. Traffic is slowed on these routes, and allows for both bike safety and faster traffic on arteries.
142
@136: To your PS: As opposed to what? Have you been on a bus? I will never get on one ever again if I can possibly help it.
143
@142: He's not comparing rail to bus.
He's comparing "light rail" -- a strange euphemism cooked up a generation ago to convince West Coast suburbanites that it will be less "intrusive" than the big, bad East Coast subways carrying all their scary minorities -- to real subways, which offer exponentially better transit for only slightly higher costs.
Cities with "light rail" systems have spent billions putting together networks that either get stuck running on streets or, in pursuit of faster long-distance trips, run next to highways where they fail to serve any useful walkable destinations.
The result has been marginal increases in transit usage, not even in the same ballpark as the daily-life ubiquity that can be achieved when transit is built in its best possible form rather than its "least worst" form.
He's comparing "light rail" -- a strange euphemism cooked up a generation ago to convince West Coast suburbanites that it will be less "intrusive" than the big, bad East Coast subways carrying all their scary minorities -- to real subways, which offer exponentially better transit for only slightly higher costs.
Cities with "light rail" systems have spent billions putting together networks that either get stuck running on streets or, in pursuit of faster long-distance trips, run next to highways where they fail to serve any useful walkable destinations.
The result has been marginal increases in transit usage, not even in the same ballpark as the daily-life ubiquity that can be achieved when transit is built in its best possible form rather than its "least worst" form.
144
@141:
traffic calmed to under 20 MPH near bike lanes...
I still read that as proposing physically engineered calming methods, as we both agree that just sticking up a sign with a lower number on it will do nothing to slow drivers in wide open lanes.
drivers that endanger cyclists being slapped with fines, drivers who routinely endanger cyclists losing their licenses...
Even this doesn't really strike me as a change in the law. Is not reckless driving already a crime that carries those very penalties? This is about "educating" the cops themselves that bicyclists are legitimate road users and that threats against them need to be taken seriously as "enforcement" priorities. And again, if traffic has been calmed through engineering strategies, it takes a lot of effort to drive in a manner so reckless as to need enforcement attention. There's nothing feel-good (or honor system) about this.
Given that Seattle only half-assedly does anything at one time, continues to lead to this belief.
Well, we agree on this sad point. We also agree that bike routes that double as high-volume auto routes and triple as high-volume bus routes are totally unwise. (Scroll all the way back to @19 and @76 and you'll see me arguing that the onus is upon bicyclists to adapt their behavior rather than selfishly insist busloads of passengers should be stuck behind them.)
Frankly, though, a lot of the hassle and delay of getting around Seattle -- in a car, on a bus, on a bike, or on foot -- can be blamed on our ridiculously mis-weighted light cycles. SDOT planners seem to like to pick a "favored" street at any intersection and give it a 2-minute green at the expense of everyone else. Never in my life, before moving here, had I encountered a place that made you wait more than 45 seconds to go. Combined with Seattle's jaywalking-phobia, the 2-minute waits are a huge deterrent to pedestrianism. And it's no wonder driver's want to go fast when finally given the chance.
Fixing the long light cycle problem would more than compensate for the time lost from halving a road's speed.
More...
traffic calmed to under 20 MPH near bike lanes...
I still read that as proposing physically engineered calming methods, as we both agree that just sticking up a sign with a lower number on it will do nothing to slow drivers in wide open lanes.
drivers that endanger cyclists being slapped with fines, drivers who routinely endanger cyclists losing their licenses...
Even this doesn't really strike me as a change in the law. Is not reckless driving already a crime that carries those very penalties? This is about "educating" the cops themselves that bicyclists are legitimate road users and that threats against them need to be taken seriously as "enforcement" priorities. And again, if traffic has been calmed through engineering strategies, it takes a lot of effort to drive in a manner so reckless as to need enforcement attention. There's nothing feel-good (or honor system) about this.
Given that Seattle only half-assedly does anything at one time, continues to lead to this belief.
Well, we agree on this sad point. We also agree that bike routes that double as high-volume auto routes and triple as high-volume bus routes are totally unwise. (Scroll all the way back to @19 and @76 and you'll see me arguing that the onus is upon bicyclists to adapt their behavior rather than selfishly insist busloads of passengers should be stuck behind them.)
Frankly, though, a lot of the hassle and delay of getting around Seattle -- in a car, on a bus, on a bike, or on foot -- can be blamed on our ridiculously mis-weighted light cycles. SDOT planners seem to like to pick a "favored" street at any intersection and give it a 2-minute green at the expense of everyone else. Never in my life, before moving here, had I encountered a place that made you wait more than 45 seconds to go. Combined with Seattle's jaywalking-phobia, the 2-minute waits are a huge deterrent to pedestrianism. And it's no wonder driver's want to go fast when finally given the chance.
Fixing the long light cycle problem would more than compensate for the time lost from halving a road's speed.
145
@143: Thanks for explaining. I had thought that digging subways was very expensive and time-consuming, because you have to dig underground beneath structures that then need to be supported and reinforced, and there are seismic issues as well whenever you dig underneath a structure. Is that not the case?
146
@145: The short answer is "yes, but not by as much as you'd expect."
Of course it is more expensive to build real transit (subways in the densest areas, otherwise grade separated outside of the densest areas) than to build on-the-cheap light rail. And increases in the cost of labor, materials, planning and legal hurdles, ventilation requirements, layers of utility reloactions, etc. make it exponentially more expensive than back when Boston, Budapest, London, New York, and Paris did it.
But many of those costs actually affect light rail construction as well, pushing its costs higher than they probably should be for the benefit it offers. And your presumption that subways must be deep-boring under existing structures for most of their routes is a modern-day folly that contradicts the experiences of the worlds best transit systems, old and new.
Our neighbors to the north just built a full-fledged, automated, comes-every-4-minutes subway line -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line -- for less than we spent on our first light-rail segment. They threw out a number of the tropes of "modern" subways (deep bores, expensive ventilation, gigantic civic-showpiece stations) and instead built tunnels cut-and-cover immediately below the street for the vast majority of the route (using the rational argument that the benefit outweighed the disruption to overcome NIMBY objections), built the stations compact and minimalist, and proceeded with work 24/7 so as not to drag out the costs of maintaining a construction site. You'd be amazed by the results!
While I don't know the details of the Toronto fiasco @136 mentioned, I too have read that the pro-transit mayor pushed for light rail expansion out of the expectation of frugality, but wound up with a plan that would have been just as expensive as a few well-chosen subway extensions and much less quick or useful.
All of that aside, a light-rail vs. subway project in a U.S. city, dealing with U.S. political forces and U.S. construction costs, is likely to have a difference in price tag of 30%-50%. So you could build a flawed, substandard network for $7 billion or a truly life-changing transit system for just a couple billion more. To me, that's like asking if I want to see a Radiohead cover band for $40 or see Radiohead for $60. It's a no-brainer.
Light rail "fans" must really like cover bands.
More...
Of course it is more expensive to build real transit (subways in the densest areas, otherwise grade separated outside of the densest areas) than to build on-the-cheap light rail. And increases in the cost of labor, materials, planning and legal hurdles, ventilation requirements, layers of utility reloactions, etc. make it exponentially more expensive than back when Boston, Budapest, London, New York, and Paris did it.
But many of those costs actually affect light rail construction as well, pushing its costs higher than they probably should be for the benefit it offers. And your presumption that subways must be deep-boring under existing structures for most of their routes is a modern-day folly that contradicts the experiences of the worlds best transit systems, old and new.
Our neighbors to the north just built a full-fledged, automated, comes-every-4-minutes subway line -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line -- for less than we spent on our first light-rail segment. They threw out a number of the tropes of "modern" subways (deep bores, expensive ventilation, gigantic civic-showpiece stations) and instead built tunnels cut-and-cover immediately below the street for the vast majority of the route (using the rational argument that the benefit outweighed the disruption to overcome NIMBY objections), built the stations compact and minimalist, and proceeded with work 24/7 so as not to drag out the costs of maintaining a construction site. You'd be amazed by the results!
While I don't know the details of the Toronto fiasco @136 mentioned, I too have read that the pro-transit mayor pushed for light rail expansion out of the expectation of frugality, but wound up with a plan that would have been just as expensive as a few well-chosen subway extensions and much less quick or useful.
All of that aside, a light-rail vs. subway project in a U.S. city, dealing with U.S. political forces and U.S. construction costs, is likely to have a difference in price tag of 30%-50%. So you could build a flawed, substandard network for $7 billion or a truly life-changing transit system for just a couple billion more. To me, that's like asking if I want to see a Radiohead cover band for $40 or see Radiohead for $60. It's a no-brainer.
Light rail "fans" must really like cover bands.
147
[Was writing quickly; didn't bother to edit; typos galore; hope anyone who's still interested in this thread after 146 comments is okay with that.]
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
Barack Obama Smoked a Lot of Pot as a Young Man by Paul Constant
-
The Limits of Keynesianism by Charles Mudede
-
Rural America by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (148) RSS