, 2007
A bike messenger was killed in an accident with a truck on a near South Side street. Police say 27-year-old Ryan Boudreau was hit by a truck and killed along Clark and 18th streets on Monday. The driver of the truck did stop after striking Boudreau. Police shut down part of Clark Street for several hours while they investigated the deadly accident. So far, no citations have been issued against the truck driver.
Cyclist struck, killed by truck in South Loop Chicago Tribune staff report - August 14, 2007 CHICAGO - A Chicago man riding his bicycle in the South Loop was struck and killed by a truck Monday afternoon, police said.
Ryan Boudreau, 27, of the 4000 block of North Oakley Avenue, was pronounced dead at the scene, according to the Cook County medical examiner's office. Boudreau was riding his bicycle south in the 1800 block of Clark Street when he was hit by a truck traveling northbound at about 3:15 p.m., Chicago Police Sgt. Eugene Mullins said.
Hey guys...So a friend of mine who's a messenger in Chicago forwarded this to me and told me to spread the word. I'm sorry to anyone who knew this guy and is hearing about it first over email. Ryan Boudreau was hit by a car yesterday and passed away. he had a wife and kid. members of the Chicago Couriers Union are planning a memorial. the following was written by a CCU member and dispatcher, Marshall Arnold: "Ryan is the guy on the right with the 'Stop making my job harder' sign. Aaron, the other guy, is his best friend."
- Liza www.iww.org/en/node/3404
Bike messenger killed in S. Loop August 14, 2007 - FROM STNG WIRE REPORTS
A 27-year-old bike messenger was reportedly killed instantly when he was hit by a truck in the South Loop neighborhood on Monday afternoon. The bike messenger, who was identified by the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office as Ryan Boudreau, of the 4000 block of North Oakley Avenue, was working when a truck struck him and killed him instantly, according to a Central District police captain. One of the bike’s wheels was badly bent in the collision, the captain said. Boudreau was riding the bicycle west on 18th Street in the eastbound lanes and made a left turn to go south on Clark Street when he went into the northbound curb lane and collided with a northbound truck, according to Police News Affairs Officer David Banks. The truck had a green light, Banks said.
The accident occurred about 3:15 p.m. Monday at Clark and 18th streets, according to police News Affairs. Paramedics were called to the scene but the bicyclist was not taken to a hospital, according to Fire Media Affairs Cmdr. Will Knight. No citations were issued, according to police News Affairs Sgt. Eugene Mullins. Pronouncement information was not available early Tuesday.
Ryan was a great guy I had the distinct pleasure of working with during my time on the bike in Chicago. I first met him after tracking him down for wearing a Velocity Chrome bag, I had to know who was sporting my company's logo. After talking with him then, crossing paths on the road, and drinking many after work beers at Cal's with him, I quickly deciphered that his true passion in life was his kids. He had a beautiful portrait of his daughter tattooed on his bicep. He was an all-around good guy, with that gruff exterior until you talked to him and found out what a great guy he is.
Fuck. Chicago has lost one of the good guys, and the brothers and sisters of SF all send condolences. Stay safe out there kids, this job isn't worth dying for.
- Dewey
Rest in Peace Ryan Boudreau Flickr by JoeM500
Messengers pay tribute with 'ghost bike' Death of one of their own shows group's tight bond Chicago Sun-Times , August 19, 2007 By Mark Brown
Ryan Boudreau was a bike messenger, and a good one by all accounts, a young man of 27 who was respected by his peers for being quick on a bike and loved for being even quicker with a smile. Bike messengers, though, don't get much respect in our society, a problem the messengers have solved by creating a little society unto themselves.
On Friday evening, about 100 members of their distinctive tribe rode their bikes to the corner of 18th and Clark to mark the spot where Boudreau was killed Monday in a collision with a truck. They chained a "ghost bike" -- stripped down and painted white -- to a light pole to create a makeshift memorial, then lit candles and shed tears, which were wiped away with tattooed arms. Aloud, they shared memories of their friend. Silently, they shared the knowledge of the danger of their job -- racing through city traffic to make both a delivery and a living.
Earlier, I spoke with many of them about their work as they gathered at Cal's Liquors, a dive bar at Wells and Van Buren that is a favorite hangout, before they made the ride to the accident scene. Boudreau was a regular here, stopping by during the day to buy a Gatorade to drink with his lunch or making the after-work scene to get a beer and swap stories with other messengers. "How many runs did you make today?" is a common greeting, owing to the fact that most bike messengers are paid by commission -- usually half the delivery charge. That means they are rewarded for going fast and taking chances, which is part of what makes them the bane of pedestrians in the Loop. Most American drivers, of course, treat all bicyclists with contempt, the messengers perhaps bearing the brunt of it.
An average messenger will make 25 runs in a day and make maybe $300 a week. Ride fast and a little crazy, and they might do 40 runs and make up to $600.
"Ryan was a fast biker. The faster he was, the more runs he made, the more money he made. There's a reason we ride the way we do," said Lumes Glenn, 53, a messenger for more than 12 years.
Police said Boudreau was riding in the oncoming lane when he was struck. The truck driver was not ticketed. A dispatcher for Boudreau's employer, Dynamex, said Boudreau was running a personal errand at the time he was killed, but messengers said that shouldn't distract from the fact he was hustling so he could get back to work.
So why do they do it?
"They all love it. Everyone wants to try it. You can ride a bike and make money," said Gina Depcik, 55, known around town as the "bike messengers' mother."
"But they don't know the companies treat them like meat," said Depcik, who formed her bond with messengers while working out of a pizza truck.
By the time they fully appreciate the poor work conditions -- no benefits and often no workers compensation coverage in an accident -- many are already hooked.
"It becomes this bond," Depcik said. The bond is partly us vs. them -- them being the messenger companies, motorists, pedestrians and maybe even society as a whole. They know everyone looks down on them, and they revel in it. "We're misfits," said Theo Forand, 26, who has been doing this for six years while in slow pursuit of a college degree. "We're a collection of people who didn't fit in, and we each fit in together."
"One time a guy yelled, 'Get a real job.' I don't think it gets much more real than this," said Joe Norton, 35, who looks like he could have played tight end for the Bears but says he's actually a musician.
'It takes a certain kind of person'
They also enjoy the physical activity, being outside and the relative freedom that comes with it.
"It takes a certain kind of person to be a bike messenger," Lumes said. "You know, can't everybody do this."
Boudreau's death has become a rallying point for the Chicago Couriers Union, which is trying to raise money for his two young children -- ages 3 and 5. Boudreau, a messenger for about two years, was a proud member of the tribe and always ready to lend a helping hand, said his friends. But he also was apparently aware of the limitations.
Julie Schabel, 19, said Boudreau showed her the ropes, both on the job and off, persuading her to stay in college at the School of the Art Institute. "You don't want to be a bike messenger when you're 27 like me," he told her. He won't get a chance to be a bike messenger at 28.…
at everybody's brain shrinks after age 30. So this creates more room for bouncing. Which that is were you may receive some brain trauma without realizing.
Adriana said:People over thirty?...are you calling me old :p
I am not arguing the benefit of using a helmet. Again... I am not arguing the benefit of using a helmet. What I am trying to say is that we are all individuals; as such, we have different risk comfort levels. Biking in traffic, jumping out of an airplane, rock climbing, working in an office, race car driving, motocross etc. Technically, one could become a hermit and increase safety, but that is no fun.
role model? Hmmm that is another can of worms. I have not gone pro yet.
Simpson vs. Tatum "Payback"
'Why, I could wallop you all day with this surgical two-by-four'
I'm with Howard; I'm blowing this joint.
buddaa38 said:Adriana, These are facts! Did you know that as you age your brain shrinks, But not your skull. That remains same size! So your rate will go up for head trauma cause of this. People over 30 should be particularly careful because their gray matter is not packed as tightly as it used to be. And I don’t mean that only figuratively.
2ND; Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injuries by up to 88 percent and facial injuries by 65 percent, according to a Bike riders who play against those odds do not fare well in accidents. More than 90 percent of the 714 bicyclists killed in 2008 were not wearing helmets, according to the
3rd; CHEAP CAN BE SAFE! According to a study by the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Arlington, Va., $10 helmets from Wal-Mart Stores and Target held up just as well as more expensive models from high-end outlets. an independent lab test six helmets in different price ranges. The report summarized its findings: “When you pay more for a helmet you may get an easier fit, more vents and snazzier graphics. But the basic impact protection of the cheap helmets we tested equaled the expensive ones.” ONE FALL PER HELMET! Most bike helmets are lined with expanded polystyrene foam, typically abbreviated as E.P.S. When you fall, the foam compacts (even though your helmet may look perfectly fine) and so will not cushion a subsequent blow adequately.
Because materials degrade over time, it is wise to replace your helmet every five to seven years. If your helmet dates from 2003 or earlier, buy yourself a new one.
4Th; LOOK FOR A C.P.S.C. STICKER! The sticker ensures that the product has met the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission’s standards. The commission requires that helmets be tested for impact resistance on special rigs, that they offer adequate peripheral vision and that their straps be sturdy, among other measures. Helmets are tested in a variety of conditions: when they are hot, wet, cold and at room temperature.
LAST BUT NOT FORGOTTEN; BE A ROLE MODEL! !! Whoot! !! Whoot! !!
For Safety Classes Check out Albany Park Bikes (A.P.B.) at:
http://AlbanyParkBikes.org
Adriana said:The most severe head injury I have ever experienced was slipping on some black ice (on foot) and using my head as a tuning fork...boingggggggg. Not counting all the times my parents probably dropped me on my head as a baby. I won't discourage anyone from doing anything that makes them feel secure, but I also feel this contributes to the pussyfication of America...meow. I mean, people think I am crazy just for riding in the street, is that going to stop me? No. Does that mean I will suffer a preventable head injury one day? Who knows. I can take a licking and keep on ticking. We are all capable of shear stupidity at times for various reasons (Damn tired), its just a question of luck. For the most part, I try my best to ride safe. I just hope I get a lavender ghost bike and a giant statue that breaths fire and shouts "Remember Me!"
…
don't seem like a teenager who doesn't give a crap about anyone else.
"Again, I say f'k the stop signs and the cops who try to enforce them. They can't catch me anyway, HAHA!!"
I think that proves, or at least illustrates, my point about immaturity. FYI, you can't outrun police radio, and Chicago isn't a one-squad-car town (though they probably wouldn't take up the chase unfortunately).
As for beer, I only drink with people I respect.
Eddie said:That's your opinion, as you know nothing about me. And opinions are like assholes (like you), everyone has one. If you have a gripe with me, then maybe we need to sit down, have a beer or two, and discuss it. Otherwise, I'll still think your an asshole for pointing fingers at me over the safety of the internet
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Hahaha, what? I didn't realize danger and order were always related in that way. I guess I should install my bottom bracket cups before the bottom bracket. There's no danger there because I won't be going anywhere with an empty bottom bracket shell.Just admit that you don't give a damn about anyone's time or safety other than your own.Eddie said:There would be less stop signs. Bikes are smaller, very easy to manuver, do very little if no damage when crashed. There could be reason to have less order. As danger goes down then so should order (e.g. stop signs, lights, etc).Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Let's say there were less cars and more bikes. Wouldn't the increase in bike riders still make stop signs necessary?Eddie said:Did you even read my message? I think you misunderstood. I choose to break the law when my safety is not compromised. And again, (if you didn't hear it the first time), if there weren't so many cars, we wouldn't have so many stop signs. And personnally, I think that if you drive a car, you should be penalized with more stop signs. If not for the mere fact that you are more dangerous, and you polute.Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:As it stands now, yes, Same Road, Same Rights, Same Rules. If you have a problem with it, try to get it changed. Just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. I'm sure all cyclists would be overjoyed if motorists decided to run red lights with abandon, etc. I have a feeling the number of ghost bikes would skyrocket.Eddie said:...Not the same speed, weight, and killing power, hence not the same rules. Cars suck, and if there weren't so many, we wouldn't need all these stop signs. F'k the stop signs, and the cops who try to enforce them!! It's my life, and my time, and I choose when to stop, and when not to.Regards, A guy who has already been run over by a stupid driver.Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:While this should be enforced for all road users, keep in mind that blowing a stop sign carries graver danger for a cyclist than a motorist.Remember - Same Road, Same Rights, Same Rules.
…
rk, I must admit my argument had its weak points - I liked the idea of treating the red light as a stop sign; I agree that going forward on a red light (after stopping to make sure there are no cars coming either way) increases our safety; I agree that the lights exist primarily to provide safety from motor vehicles. I still think there is something to say for some bikers' behaviors leading motorists not to trust us anymore, but I also think their psychology comes partly from being in a car - it is a large metal suit that protects them nicely (they think) and increases their narcissism and feelings of entitlement. I read this in a psychology magazine - this has been tested and shown to be true. SlowCoachOnTheRoad said:
I can see why some cyclists don't like the idea of sitting at a red light - they are intellectualizing their illegal behaviors - it is illegal to go through a red light. The law exists to promote safety on the road, including for pedestrians who have or should have the right to experience a walk across the road as "their space" too, just as we like to experience our bike lanes as "ours," and cars' space as "theirs." While cyclists who go through red lights, and they are probably a majority from what I've seen each morning on my way to work, think they are outside of the law, they fail to see how their narcissism (a disorder when in serious dimensions and always accompanied by a sense of entitlement - the sense that I am above others or possess more value than others) negatively affects others (by definition, narcissists have no empathy and can always justify their behavior). But the reality is that if we want a right to "own the road" too (which I think we all agree we do) we must agree to basic rules of conduct on the road. It is amazing how people sometimes want rights but don't want, to quote Spiderman's uncle, a sense of responsibility that goes with them (okay, his uncle was talking about "great power"). It is immaterial, as bikers like to state to justify their sense of entitlement, whether accidents are likely when we go through red lights, or that we are not very likely to hit pedestrians crossing the road. Rather, the reason for the rule is to endow us with a sense of equality with cars, which surely is what we want (and the more we have it, the more others will use bikes and put those cars increasingly out of circulation). If we act like kids who pretend that the rules of the road only apply to cars, we are in effect saying that we are not on their level, that we don't have the same legitimacy. I work in a highly dangerous environment in inner cities working with kids in gangs and I see all the time the effects of a human inability to curtail impulses, and also a remarkable inability to see how two groups can co-exist (gang mentality is pretty much like tribal mentality, that we all abandoned a few thousand years ago, although countries still often have it). We are the bikers, they are the car drivers, we can't co-exist, we are special, they are shit. This is no different than the gang mentality I see all the time (although it leads to less children dying). BUT violence historically has declined in our cities because humans increasingly succeeded to curtail their impulses so that not every insult led to a murder. Surely bikers can contain theirs long enough to wait at a red light? Though I go through about 60 light intersections on my way to work, the chances of a red light happening are maybe 8 out of those. Big deal. Time to relax and catch one's breath. But there is a more dangerous psychology at play. If you take on a more aggressive stance, then car drivers won't care about you. The chances that they'll skim past you rather than take their full 3 feet to the left of you will increase if they don't care about you. The city is doing all it can right now to paint more lanes and fine more bad car driver behaviors, so why can't we take some responsibility for our actions? We love to accuse the car drivers for everything under the sun, and they often deserve it, but now that we have a chance to prove that we are on average careful and considerate, bikers don't want the opportunity to prove that. Typical ironic human nature. Typical moronic humans. However I have seen again and again how bikers (yes, US!) have irritated car drivers with their behaviors, but they don't like to take responsibility for the bad behaviors that car drivers then, in turn, will take out on us (including us bikers not directly responsible for others' behaviors). Next time you see ghost bicycles, consider the possibility that the careless behavior of the car driver may just to some small degree have been the result of some of you jumping in and out traffic on your bikes and zipping through red lights and pissing off the car drivers. A fine sounds like a good idea if it means all transportation users follow equal rules.
…
stantly building ramps). My older brother was a tinkerer to the extreme, so was always passing down his bikes as he got new ones to play with -- recall having a couple Mongoose bikes, a Haro, etc. In college and grad school I had a mountain bike (Specialized Rockhopper, ca. 1995) that I used somewhat sparingly (usually lived close enough to campus to walk and preferred that over dealing with having to find a place to lock the bike, etc.); when we left Boston after grad school graduation, I left the mountain bike in the bike room of our building (unlocked, with a note that it was up for grabs) because we did not have space to transport it in our U-haul, and it had fallen into disrepair. Once in Chicago, I always lived close to public transport with a straight shot to work (no connections) and in a couple of cases within walking distance of my building, so a bike never seemed like a priority, at least from a commuting standpoint.
Eight or so years into our time in Chicago, I passed by the Dutch bike shop that used to be on Armitage after we had moved into the area from another Chicago neighborhood, and was intrigued by these good-looking, seemingly very practical/functional bikes. I work in a business casual/sometimes business formal environment, and do not generally have time or the inclination to shower when I get to work (although we do have a gym and lockers/showers on site), so the thought of a commuting bike that would largely protect my clothes (fenders, coat guard, mud flap) and allow me to commute at a pace that would not turn me into a dripping, sweating mess really appealed to me. Went in to the shop for a test ride on a nice, sunny day and just the joy of being on two wheels again really took over -- classic moment of "why haven't I done this in so long?" Ended up buying a Workcycles bike that, while somewhat pricey (at least for someone who had not purchased a bike in nearly fifteen years), is still going strong 4 years in (very low maintenance, no major repairs) and has easily paid for itself in savings on CTA fares.
Two things from a cycling infrastructure/investment standpoint helped convince me to get into bike commuting and take the plunge on purchasing a bike. First, my route to work is effectively all (unprotected) bike lanes -- more or less all on Lincoln and Wells. Plus, there are enough stop lights/signs and traffic congestion on the stretches of these roads that I ride that cars traffic rarely gets too fast or crazy, and in my four years have never really had any close calls (although I pass by a ghost bike marking a fatality on this route every day I ride, so clearly not without risk). The second thing is that my building has a locked bike room with security cameras and the aforementioned lockers/showers (which I've actually only used once). Just very nice to not have to find a place to lock the bike, worry about theft (a friend with a similar bike has had two leather saddles stolen), worry about the elements during inclement weather, etc.
I am hooked; I ride to work just about year-round -- sometimes take a pass on very hot days in the summer, but usually just start earlier and/or am more likely to bring a shirt I can change into at the office, and in the winter my main restriction is snow/ice (and the disappearing bike lane) as opposed to cold. Last winter (2012-13) I can probably count the number of times I did not bike on both hands, whereas this winter (2013-14) I can probably count the number of times I did bike on hands + feet. I find the commute home in particular to be a great way to decompress from what is often a stressful day at work, which allows me to engage my family more quickly on getting home rather than needing 15 or so minutes to myself. Taking public transport got to seem to be such drudgery (it's really not all that bad, just comparatively speaking) that I bought an annual Divvy membership when it launched so I would have an option for days where I end up not having a bike at the office due to non-bikeable meetings or appointments out of the office to start the day.
In addition to commuting, I try to find excuses to run errands on my bike on the weekends -- between panniers and front rack, I can do our larger, weekly family grocery shop on my bike. As I think about it, most of my biking has a specific transportation purpose (commuting, errands, getting to an appointment), it's not the type of bike that is particularly useful for recreational/exercise riding and my schedule and family commitments (3 young children, all of whom have been transported to school on the bike over the years) do not really afford me the opportunity to do a bunch of leisure riding at present in any event.
…
nter has set in. A switch gets thrown towards the base of your brain stem.
Spring lands differently, its more one day you roll out realized your gloves and hat are too much and you are free to move unencumbered by your carapace of of layers and wraps.
For a while I've been fiendish in trying to intellectually convince myself that spring is on it's way, grasping hard to all the clues and indicators: The slowly lengthening days, St Patrick's day, the presence of Easter candy in the store, the drops of desperate self hypnosis to get me limping along towards today.
And then there is the day like today where all the little attempts come together and the world surges like an ice breaker. The graffiti artists, two of them doing a wall. Winter is hard for taggers for the time spent outdoors and that their nozzles clog and the Krink doesn't want to flow. But there they were, radio, ladder and I got choked up for them. Over there soccer practice, up and down the pitch. Kids in strollers not under their weights of blankets, the guy outside washing his car and more like this in one ride than I could count.
People talk about leaves and birds for spring but that ain't it, the solid uptick in guys with glass bottles in brown paper bags walking around means as much to me as anything. Soon enough the beach and parks will fill and we'll almost forget we even own thermals.
I understand why they did it, the Druids dressed in robes would move massive rocks around the grass plains of England and lined them up with the stars. With the fires and ceremonies to slaughter lambs and cast out the ice and bring in spring. The names of their gods are lost to me but bring out the goats, lambs, virgins whatever, line them up and get the knives. We have suffered winter enough.
Soon I will do my part, offer my own version of prayers: I'll sleep with many blankets and my windows open, I'll near burn myself in front of a fire pit and make s'mores and drink far, far, far too much, (neil call me, we can cook meat on sticks) I'll joyfully pack away the seasonal affectation disorder light deep into the closet, all this and so much more.
Not that I won't cry as my ghost is clawing to get out of my body when I am caught out on a long ride on a dry 90+ degree day, but this, days like this are like heaven. And no, I'll barely sleep tonight and probably not tomorrow and then we'll see but this is how it always is, a short hit of insomnia that is profoundly welcome.
And all those sleepless hours barely all I can manage is sit and try and tabulate all the things do to, the rides to take, create playlists for future listening and for a while nearly ignite with anticipation. If I were to ever actually spontaneously combust now would be the time.
h…
ublic transportation because not everyone can/will use a bike not to mention the need for delivery and service vehicles but we'll ignore that little issue and assume a 100% bike world so we replace all the cars on the road with bikes and now we have streets clogged with cyclists taking almost the same routes to and from almost the exact same places that people are driving to and from and you are going to end up with something like this:
Can you imagine trying to navigate that with no form of traffic control? not only would it be nearly impossible to make it through a major 4 way but you would have a ton of collisions, injuries and pissed off people. Trying to hold onto the opinion that reducing the number of cars is going to reduce the number of cars is very poor logic at best.
Seriously, imaging trying to navigate a 4 way where everything looks like this:
And shut the pie hole about how with the proper infrastructure and better city planning making everything run smooth because the fact of the matter is our city is already laid out and making the changes to make it friendly to that many cyclists is a financial impossibility
.
Never mind that fact that without fuel tax and vehicle registrations we are either going to pay a hefty 'bike tax' or have some pretty crappy roads to ride on.
Use your head, stop hating on cars and learn to work the system and make changes as a whole because fighting 'the man' at street level very rarely works out well.
Eddie said:There would be less stop signs. Bikes are smaller, very easy to manuver, do very little if no damage when crashed. There could be reason to have less order. As danger goes down then so should order (e.g. stop signs, lights, etc). Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Let's say there were less cars and more bikes. Wouldn't the increase in bike riders still make stop signs necessary?Eddie said:Did you even read my message? I think you misunderstood. I choose to break the law when my safety is not compromised. And again, (if you didn't hear it the first time), if there weren't so many cars, we wouldn't have so many stop signs. And personnally, I think that if you drive a car, you should be penalized with more stop signs. If not for the mere fact that you are more dangerous, and you polute.Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:As it stands now, yes, Same Road, Same Rights, Same Rules. If you have a problem with it, try to get it changed. Just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. I'm sure all cyclists would be overjoyed if motorists decided to run red lights with abandon, etc. I have a feeling the number of ghost bikes would skyrocket.Eddie said:...Not the same speed, weight, and killing power, hence not the same rules. Cars suck, and if there weren't so many, we wouldn't need all these stop signs. F'k the stop signs, and the cops who try to enforce them!! It's my life, and my time, and I choose when to stop, and when not to.Regards, A guy who has already been run over by a stupid driver.Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:While this should be enforced for all road users, keep in mind that blowing a stop sign carries graver danger for a cyclist than a motorist.Remember - Same Road, Same Rights, Same Rules.
…
sure a mouth breathing ignorant asswipe such as yourself is going to be able to grasp what I have to say and digest it unless hit over the head with it.
1. This is not a 'public' forum and any effort to keep dumb shits such as yourself from saying ignorant or inflammatory shit is not, in any way shape or form, the trampling of anyone's first amendment rights. When you joined this site you agreed to terms and conditions that govern acceptable conduct on this form and can be reprimanded for not doing so. I think you also need to ask yourself if this, a thread about a man's untimely death, is really the place to start a debate over free speech rights? Rights you have already made it clear you do not understand all that well?
2. I am, arguably, one of the meanest and most crass people on this forum and I feel it is poor taste to say anything about this kid getting himself dead. I may be a bit of a jerk but even I realize that saying much of anything about it is just fueling a fire that does not even really need to be ignited; what purpose does it serve to say anything about this beyond that fact that it is a shame he lost his life and that you feel sorry for his loved ones?
3. Your bullshit of making asshole statements and then trying to hide behind 'free speech' when you are called on it is a load crap; stop trying to excuse your own ignorant behavior by calling it a right. People like you who act like a total dong and then try to excuse it all with talk of the first amendment are exactly the sort of bullshit that makes it hard to defend the people who have a legitimate first amendment beef. Do the rest of the country a favor and learn how to think before you speak.
4. To the O/P, the pictures are in bad taste; if this had been your loved one who would you feel about coming up on your post after a google search? Once again, I put it out there that even I find it ignorant.
James Baum said:I agree with all of your points -especially the one about there isn't anything that can be done without severely limiting people's Freedoms. This goes double for enforcing "civility" and staying classy in a public forum -not much can be done without having the civility cops ban anyone who says anything that might upset anyone or be tacky/rude/offensive or politically incorrect. Sure that could always be done but such measures usually turn said forum into a ghost town eventually as people tend to abhor such totalitarian moderation.
It'd be nice if people were to stay classy 100% of the time. But since most people are NOT it's kind of hard to expect them to act that way.
I hope the family of the unfortunate soul who ventured out into the highway can find some closure and don't wish upon them any further indignity. But short of silencing everyone and closing down this thread there isn't much anyone can do at this point. People tend to talk -even if there aren't many facts to go on. And this kind of an event usually seems to attract a crowd.
H3N3 said:As Rick suggested, it's possible this person had a cognitive disability. With the current lack of safe infrastructure for cyclists, there's not much one would be able to do to prevent such a death without limiting such a person's freedom, but common decency would still prevent a decent person from gleefully dancing around the corpse with taunts and jeers.
Also remember Jepson Livingston-- we had multiple family and friends of the victim find the chainlink discussions via web search, register, and reach out. Would you want this victim's family to read "the age of stupid" and "Darwin Award?"
James Baum said:Good point. I'm sure there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation why someone was out in the express lanes of the Dan Ryan long after nightfall on a bike. H3N3 said:Obviously nobody here has heard of or remembers Trish Quane, a speech pathologist and mother of young children from Oak Park, and president-elect of the Oak Park Cycle Club at the time she walked in front of a Metra train. I watched with horror as the same disgusting "Darwin Award" comments rolled in on an unnamed bike club list, and slowly it came out who the "idiot" was, and ultimately it came out that the gates were broken and a Metra employee apparently waved her across the tracks to her death.
…
strators of the CSBR for about 15 months. That means I have read and approved, read and edited, or at the very least read, every stolen bike report that has come in for the last year and three months. When the reports come in via email for review and approval, as I scroll down the fields, my eyes almost always scan the area code field. Depending on the area code (and mindful of the fact that in our mobile society, long term residents of Chicago may retain an area code from another part of the country for years), I'm better than 75% accurate at guessing when the type of lock was some form of cable lock based solely on the area code.
I think bike theft is the ugly stepchild of bike advocacy. I really do think that people's perception of having a safe place to keep their bike is, for many, a significant impediment to broader adoption of a bicycle for transportation, errands and/or commuting. Talking about ghost bikes and bike theft is depressing. It's like talking about cancer at a cocktail party. Everybody wants to talk about protected bike lanes, and bikeways, and flyovers, and infrastructure attracts the lion's share of the bike advocacy energy. I am certain that bike theft in Chicago could be reduced significantly just by getting people to think about bike theft, see bike theft, and take reasonable precautions to prevent it. I am at a loss with respect to how to get that message out.
I try to be careful about not blaming the victims of bike theft. Typically when a report is received, it has been written by someone within hours of their own victimization. I do abhor bike theft and have devoted a lot of time and effort to preventing it. That having been said, many reports that we receive evidence a lack of responsibility on the part of the owner. 1. "I locked my bike (with a cable lock) on a busy street. Why didn't someone witness/stop the theft?" The simple answer is that a cable lock can be cut in a matter of seconds and to the casual observer, would simply look like someone unlocking their bike and riding it away; 2. "I left my bike (unlocked) in the common area of my building/common area of the garage/in the back yard/on the back porch/in the bike storage room and my spouse/significant other/neighbor/friend left the door open/someone climbed the fence/contractors were working on the building, and one of them is at fault." The simple answer is that if YOU leave your bike unlocked in an area where members of the public (or anyone who can climb a fence) have free access to it, YOU have not taken adequate precautions to safeguard your property.
On the subject of being careful not to draw incorrect conclusions from CSBR stats, five times as many stolen bikes are locked through the frame and front wheel as bikes locked through the frame and rear wheel. The most likely explanation for this is that five times more people lock their bikes through the front wheel and frame as lock through the rear wheel and frame. But just to be on the safe side, on the rare occasion when I only use one u-lock, I always lock through the frame and rear wheel.
Reducing bike theft in Chicago would be easy if we could just get more people to take responsibility and pay attention. James BlackHeron said:
I wonder how much of this is because of new riders to the ranks who have yet to learn that bike floss isn't going to cut it in this city, or making other mistakes of just not knowing how things work. It's a learning curve with some people. Also disturbing is the trend that fewer and fewer people even know the serial numbers of their bikes. Is this a newbie mistake -do most people wise up after their bikes are stolen?
I'd love for more information tracked about how long a person has been in Chicago, how long they have been riding, how many miles/week they do ride, if they are new to riding/commuting daily, and if this is the first bike that has been stolen from them.
There is no way to know but my gut would say that as the experience level in these things goes up the probability of a theft goes down. Some of the things that help deter theft are beyond the control of the bike owners but many of them are simple things that help a lot. Some, like taking the bike inside overnight might be a huge PITA but after a bike has been stolen people might reassess the bother versus the risk. Kevin C said:
For the period 4/1/11-10/31/11, it appears that we're getting worse at locking our bikes. Over 60% of the thefts reported to the CSBR during the 2011 prime theft time were either not locked or were locked with a cable lock. That's pretty pathetic.
…