The Chainlink

I am shaking with sadness and anger and heartbreak for this child's family.

Trib article here.

 

Views: 967

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

+1

Thunder Snow said:

And therein lies the fallacious crux of your argument.
 
Richard Jarrow said:

  The street is for cars, not pedestrians.


 

Richard:

I'm certain you don't get it; you'll be frantically clutching your car keys on the day you die of old age many decades hence.  But...

Sidewalks are meant for the convenience and safety of pedestrians, but by no stretch of the imagination are pedestrians limited to them.  Much the same way that bike lanes are for the convenience and safety of cyclists, but cyclists aren't prevented from not using them if they'd rather ride amongst the autos.  Streets have existed for thousands of years, as long as people formed the communities who used them.  Streets have long served as de facto meeting halls, political conventions, places to sell wares or dance halls (rural Irish, for example, often staged ceili dances in the middle of the nearest crossroad).

Cars hadn't been yet invented when my grandparents were young, in the 19th Century.  Automobiles were still new when my father was born in 1911.  When I was born in the early 1950's, many people I knew owned a car--but not all did, and no one I knew had more than one per family.  But it is now up to my generation, and those that come after us, to rebalance the car-centric mania that swept Western urban planning from the mid- to late-20th Century, to re-include pedestrians, bikes or even horses.  Arguably, the paving of huge portions of our world have smothered would-be food crops, prevented rainwater from re-entering the groundwater system, have triggered wars for oil, have encouraged suburban and exurban sprawl...need I go on?  Luckily, there are visionaries in planning and government, here in Chicago, in London, Paris, New York, Portland (OR) and Seattle, among others, who are rebalancing the transportation systems of their cities for the better, away from the car monoculture.  And, unfortunately, there are reactionaries, as in Toronto, Canada, who are fervently trying to hang on to the old.

For all the wrong-headed legislation passed in the last 50 years, promoting cars above all other users, luckily one tenet has remained: the pedestrian has right of way.  Always.  Whether the pedestrian is foolishly jumping out from behind a bus, weaving unsteadily in a drunken stupor down the center line, is tapping down the road with a blind person's cane or is simply an eight year old riding her new bike...it's never OK to mow down a pedestrian.  Never.

I suspect I differ from many folks on this board, as I believe it's in cyclists' best interests in being treated exactly like other vehicles: cars, buses, trucks or horse-driven carriages.  If we allow ourselves special privileges that motorists don't have, we become a special class of vehicle and we can then be culled from the herd: restricted to bike lanes only or, worst case, in being restricted to only ride on scenic forest preserve bikeways and banned from mixing with motorists "for our own safety".  I wish bicycling to remain and increase as a workable mode of transportation, allowed to ride anywhere.

A Street in Calcutta, India

OK, that's fair. My weekday commute is only a mile, and weekends about 4.5, but if it were much more than that I might also decide it's too far.  On the other hand, I did make a variety of sacrifices so I could live close enough to work to be able to make a go of it easily.

But enough about me.

Can I ask what it was that motivated you to launch this crusade against cyclists? Was there one "trigger" or was more of a string of events?

Richard Jarrow said:

A new set of lungs?  :-P   Seriously, I have been an asthma sufferer, badly.  Actually, it was worse as a teen and in my 20s than is has been through my 30s, and I'm probably in better shape now than at 22 cuz I do so much more walking.    The last bike I had was a Trek 500 or 800 mountain bike in the 90s, that I would try to use to exercise on the forest preserve trails.   Stationary bike in my condo and walking to and from work via the train is my main exercise now.

For years bicycling simply wasn't a viable commuter option for me, either I'd need my car for my job, or I'd work too far away in the suburbs while living in the city.   The 30 mile each-way commute is not bike friendly for me.  Fortunately the last couple years have all been jobs downtown so the train is a no-brainer.  I also can't show up at work first thing looking like a drowned rat either having been rained on or all sweaty and nasty after I just worked out.

It wouldn't take much to convince me to ride but like I said it's not a viable commuter option for me.

h' said:

So what would it take to get you on a bicycle? Do you own a working bicycle now? 


I will drop a note to Gin suggesting that she remove or obscure the victim's name from the OP.

We've had lots of families and friends of victims finding these discussions via google over the past two years, and at this point in the development of this thread, I don't think this is the sort of thing they really need to see.

I took her name off and deleted a post I made that had her name in it. But name is also in Thundersnow's comment.

Deleted.

Gin said:

I took her name off and deleted a post I made that had her name in it. But name is also in Thundersnow's comment.

I'm not even sure where to begin to respond to this...

Regarding sidewalks - if you seriously think that pedestrians belong in the middle of the street, that's about as logical as cars belonging on the sidewalk.  There are clearly delineated paths for the different modes of transportation.  Thank goodness the average street in the USA doesn't look like that street in Calcutta!

Also, you need to read my posts - I don't singularly depend on my car to get around, walking, the CTA, are all viable options for me even I don't personally commute using a bicycle.   So your personal attack is baseless.   

As for your paragraph I'm quoting here this is basically what I'm here trying to find out - the willingness of the bicycling community to be "treated exactly like other vehicles: cars, buses, trucks or horse-driven carriages" - if you want to claim the rights to be treated equally you have to man up and live up to the responsibilities that go along with those rights.   This means following the established traffic laws!   They're maybe not perfect, and traffic signals really need to have their timing reevaluated to allow better traffic flow - but the basic point that vehicles on the road (bikes included) are equally subject to the rules of the road is something we apparently agree on.  ;)

As for people nit-picking what the law 'allows' as opposed to some apparent common sense in keeping your kids from playing in traffic on a busy dangerous street, I have one last question.  Was this little girl wearing a bicycle helmet?  The law specifically states kids under 15 are required to have one on.

Thunder Snow said:

Richard:

I'm certain you don't get it; you'll be frantically clutching your car keys on the day you die of old age many decades hence.  But...


I suspect I differ from many folks on this board, as I believe it's in cyclists' best interests in being treated exactly like other vehicles: cars, buses, trucks or horse-driven carriages.  If we allow ourselves special privileges that motorists don't have, we become a special class of vehicle and we can then be culled from the herd: restricted to bike lanes only or, worst case, in being restricted to only ride on scenic forest preserve bikeways and banned from mixing with motorists "for our own safety".  I wish bicycling to remain and increase as a workable mode of transportation, allowed to ride anywhere.

This is NOT a crusade against bicyclists!!!   Why is it when peoples opinions are questioned they assume it's a personal attack?   I'm here asking questions and bringing up the point that I see people on bicycles ignore traffic law a far far greater percentage of the time than motor vehicles.  And that's just wrong, if bikes are to be allowed to ride on the street and given equal space.  

The string of events that has led me to this has been multiple instances of me either being hit by bicycles blowing red lights, seeing bikes almost hit by cars as the bicycle rider is swerving all through traffic and acting unpredictably, or seeing pedestrians hit-n-run by bicyclists.  

Ultimately what pushed me too far is that lack of accountability of bicyclists in general.   Many believe you don't even have to have a drivers license - which is basically proof that you can pass a test proving you know the rules of the road.  (if you can't pass that test, or don't have a license, you have no business riding on the streets where you're expected to know the rules of the road).  Also, no license plates on bikes - red light cameras are useless, clear identification of a bicycle is almost impossible. How does that make you equal with cars on the road?  It doesn't - it makes bicyclists a protected and special class - less accountable to the restrictions the rest of the people on the road have to abide by.   And the number of folks riding around with no lights or reflectors dressed in dark clothes at night (the NINJA BICYCLISTS!) just amazes me.  That's just lack of responsibility in the extreme.

h' said:

OK, that's fair. My weekday commute is only a mile, and weekends about 4.5, but if it were much more than that I might also decide it's too far.  On the other hand, I did make a variety of sacrifices so I could live close enough to work to be able to make a go of it easily.

But enough about me.

Can I ask what it was that motivated you to launch this crusade against cyclists? Was there one "trigger" or was more of a string of events?


If you count speeding, a higher proportion of drivers break established traffic laws than bicyclists.  

Compliance with speed limits is almost non-existent on many roads.  

Stopping at stop signs?  Hardly.  Maybe, just maybe, cars will come to a complete stop if there are others cars at the intersection--don't expect them to take turns correctly though.  If it isn't a busy intersection a huge number drive through at speeds over 5mph.

Then there are cell phones... Oh cell phones...  How many drivers are on the phone while driving?  Either hand held or headset, it doesn't matter--it makes you a danger.  Would you drive drunk?  Would you drive while on a phone?  Numerous studies have shown that driving on the phone is at least as impairing as driving drunk.  

There are plenty of terrible cyclists out there.  They ride dangerously and it is amazing that so few ninjas get killed.  Luckily they are a greater threat to themselves than others.  But please, don't act like bicylists are uniquely bad road users.  Personally, as a pedestrian I find cars to be much, much scarier and I've had orders of magnitude more near accidents with distracted drivers than bad cyclists.  


Richard Jarrow said:

This means following the established traffic laws!

It seems like a crusade if you're going to harp on how bad cyclists are but not acknowledge that drivers are just as bad or worse since they're driving cars and have the potential to do much more damage.  I routinely see car drivers change lanes without signaling even if they're zooming across 4 lanes on a freeway; they roll through stop signs; run reds; and do crazy things like come to a complete stop on the freeway trying to get into an offramp that is backed up or drive around on shoulders.

You've complained that cyclists don't have license plates so they have no accountability when they get caught on red light cameras, but those red light cameras (as well as speeding cameras, speed traps, speed bumps, etc) are there because car drivers routinely violate those laws and necessitate the installation of those things.  

In response to your comment about needing a license to ride a bike on the streets, would you mind pointing me to the law or code that requires that to be the case? 


Richard Jarrow said:

This is NOT a crusade against bicyclists!!!   Why is it when peoples opinions are questioned they assume it's a personal attack?   I'm here asking questions and bringing up the point that I see people on bicycles ignore traffic law a far far greater percentage of the time than motor vehicles.  And that's just wrong, if bikes are to be allowed to ride on the street and given equal space.  


All true.  Cars do stupid things on the road, which if you've read what I've posted I'm not trying to absolve cars of any wrong doing..   But what you're saying is in no way justification for bicyclists to deliberately ignore traffic lights and such.   Speed traps don't really apply to bikes anyway, so you're basically exempt from those laws - but red lights, stop signs, one way streets, right of way, etc.  Yes, you're subject to those just like cars are.

S said:

It seems like a crusade if you're going to harp on how bad cyclists are but not acknowledge that drivers are just as bad or worse since they're driving cars and have the potential to do much more damage.  I routinely see car drivers change lanes without signaling even if they're zooming across 4 lanes on a freeway; they roll through stop signs; run reds; and do crazy things like come to a complete stop on the freeway trying to get into an offramp that is backed up or drive around on shoulders.

You've complained that cyclists don't have license plates so they have no accountability when they get caught on red light cameras, but those red light cameras (as well as speeding cameras, speed traps, speed bumps, etc) are there because car drivers routinely violate those laws and necessitate the installation of those things.  

In response to your comment about needing a license to ride a bike on the streets, would you mind pointing me to the law or code that requires that to be the case? 


Richard Jarrow said:

This is NOT a crusade against bicyclists!!!   Why is it when peoples opinions are questioned they assume it's a personal attack?   I'm here asking questions and bringing up the point that I see people on bicycles ignore traffic law a far far greater percentage of the time than motor vehicles.  And that's just wrong, if bikes are to be allowed to ride on the street and given equal space.  


RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service