another cyclist hit and run (legally, floor, drivers license)

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by CaptainPittsburgh

Hmm, I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. Apologies. The "culture change" I'm referring to is merely a greater appreciation/understanding of cyclists place on public roadways. Less children would get runover by SUVs if, as a culture, we appreciated that these types of vulnerable commuters belong on our roads, will always be on our roads and that we need to drive carefully because of it.

For me, the culture should place a greater responsibility on drivers, since their vehicles are the ones that present more risk to others--I also own a car and drive quite a bit, for what it's worth. When I read posts like the one you wrote, I see the perspective of, "Dang, that's a shame, but this is the risk you take when you bike on the road." The culture that I think we need to see is, "Dang, it's a shame that this driver ran someone over in broad daylight at an intersection with a stop sign on a street with "Share the Road" signs and bike sharrows all over it. That is crazy, and this person needs to be punished."

It may seem like a fine distinction. I'm only further explaining so you don't think I was trying to insult you. Sorry, if I did.


This is another instance where I would cite the "culture change" need. Cyclists should not be on sidewalks. They should share the road. This is their legal right, and we need to accept that and drive appropriately. More bike lanes are a great idea, but sidewalks are not. This city has fine infrastructure for road sharing; it just also has a population of some motorists and some cyclists who don't know or care how to do it. That's what we need to change.


There are many, many dense urban areas in the world that have safe road-sharing culture. Ours can easily become one of those, once we can change the mainstream perception of who can use the road and how. It's already happening, it's just frustrating to see incidents like this poor kid getting crushed and having to realize that we still have a ways to go.

Anyways, I'm not trying to be a beliggerant, argumentative jerk, just trying to explain where I'm coming from. Again, I'm a motorist as well, so please don't think of me as some crazy, elitist bike guy. I'm a member of both camps.

On the contrary, I think as evidenced by the fact that deaths occur more frequently on particular roadways they most certainly belong on the sidewalks. Again you're making the assumption that people are driving inappropriately which leads to these accidents, where as the accidents occur as a result of human nature which you simply cannot change. Accidents with cyclists will happen regardless, and those accidents will always be more severe than they would be if the rider were operating a car. The only possible way to prevent accidents is to remove the cyclist from environments that are less conducive to their means of travel, and design others that are.

Suggesting that its your right to be on a road is a poor argument as rights can change all too easily. The best bet for cyclists is not to take the current approach of distributing blame on automobiles, as you will always (or for the forseeable future) be a very tiny minority in the world of transportation. You're not going to change the mainstream when you do not have enough support and likely never will. That is of course that the culture causes the accidents, and that simply isn't the case. No, the best plan of action is for rational compromise and as you cant change human nature (the cause of most accidents) you have to find other means to protect the cyclist. I feel that creating an environment where the cyclist can travel the majority of their trip at their own pace without worry of hitting pedestrians or being hit by vehicles is perhaps the best approach possible. If those environments can be strategically placed around the city on side streets there exists no possible justification for cyclists being on roads that are heavily traveled by automobiles. Nor would it be justified for a cyclist to be doing over 8 mph on a sidewalk if they can travel the majority of their trip at top speed off of it safely.

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by ex-burgher

Pedestrians get in fatal accidents quite often as well - should we ban them too?

From walking in the street? Yes, of course.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Woah, woah woah.

I was okay with your idea initially, but I presumed you were talking about putting those bike lanes on major streets like Penn, Liberty, Butler, East Carson, etc. After all, they are usually the most dangerous streets.

Ghettoizing bikes onto side roads won't work for a number of reasons.

1. It's literally impossible to commute on a bike without going on the main roads to some degree. I don't see how you could bike through the Strip District, for example, without going on a main commercial street (particularly if you include Smallman in the definition). Or in Lawrenceville you cannot cross from Upper Lawrenceville into Central Lawrenceville without going on Butler Street.
2. Setting up bike lanes on side streets means residential streets. Which means you'd be eliminating streetside parking directly in front of their houses. People would be ripping pissed about that.
3. It's illegal in PA, as others have noted, to bike on the sidewalk through a commercial district. So without a change in state law, this could not be done.



The only time I ride on the sidewalks rather than the streets is crossing bridges. I do have to admit I've gotten peeved when I've said "on your left" and people don't react, but then again, pedestrians aren't used to having someone pass them.

In general, I've gotten really conscious of road safety as a biker now, because 90% of the time I ride, my daughter is with me in her bike seat. I try and avoid using roads as much as feasible and stay on trails, but outside of the North Side trail, there's no complete one we can do a regular commute on. I do notice drivers are notably more conscientious when I have my daughter with me compared to when I do not however.

Ghettoizing? That's a new one.


Its just a suggestion. One way to offset the issue of a loss of parking would be to turn some of these streets into one way traffic, and have parking on the other side of the barrier. It wouldn't work everywhere mind you, but I could see it being useful in areas like Lawrenceville or the south side where many one way streets already exist.

I'm not against cyclists operating in traffic with cars, but when you share the space cyclists are going to get hit just as cars are. The difference is that the cyclist has a significantly lesser chance of being able to walk away.

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by greg42

Apparently. Nothing is more important than the almighty automobile.

This is the same damn argument as ever. I personally don't like to ride a bicycle on roads. But I will extend as much courtesy as I can to them when I encounter them while driving a car.

No, cyclists are important as well. In fact, by advocating the position that bikes should not be allowed on the same road as a car, I'm extending more concern for the well being of cyclists than you are.

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by eschaton

my wife has made it absolutely clear that she won't allow me to commute to work on the bike by myself. We just had this discussion this morning, because she was concerned it was too cold for our daughter to ride, but she was not willing to drive her into day care unless I came along in the car.

Huh? Why can't your wife drive your daughter to daycare without you in the car?

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by tclifton

No, cyclists are important as well. In fact, by advocating the position that bikes should not be allowed on the same road as a car, I'm extending more concern for the well being of cyclists than you are.

Except that you're treating cyclists as hobbyists, not commuters. A bicycle is a vehicle, not a toy, so telling cyclists that they can safely ride around in circles in an empty parking lot isn't exactly helpful to people trying to go from point A to point B.

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by fleetiebelle

Except that you're treating cyclists as hobbyists, not commuters. A bicycle is a vehicle, not a toy, so telling cyclists that they can safely ride around in circles in an empty parking lot isn't exactly helpful to people trying to go from point A to point B.

Roller skates are a vehicle too, but the infrastructure doesn't support them sharing the road with cars. I know people would like to commute with bikes, but it's just not practical, and worse yet it's dangerous for everyone involved. Unless and until the infrastructure changes are made, they simply don't belong on the roads.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by tclifton

Roller skates are a vehicle too, but the infrastructure doesn't support them sharing the road with cars. I know people would like to commute with bikes, but it's just not practical, and worse yet it's dangerous for everyone involved. Unless and until the infrastructure changes are made, they simply don't belong on the roads.

The part that you're consistently missing is that the current infrastructure also doesn't support bicycles and pedestrians sharing the sidewalks. There's nothing you can actually do to fix this within the current infrastructure. Sidewalks aren't designed for cycling; most of those are too narrow for it as well.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by jay5835

Huh? Why can't your wife drive your daughter to daycare without you in the car?

I'm not sure. I certainly don't have an issue taking my daughter to daycare alone. But when you're in a marriage for enough years, you learn what not to push on.

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by greg42

The part that you're consistently missing is that the current infrastructure also doesn't support bicycles and pedestrians sharing the sidewalks. There's nothing you can actually do to fix this within the current infrastructure. Sidewalks aren't designed for cycling; most of those are too narrow for it as well.

I'm not missing that. I've never said that bicycles belong on sidewalks.