about f'ing time (bike rule enforcement)

barbie gee wrote:


On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Peter Cole wrote:

Ghost bikes are hardly like Nobel prizes or Congressional Medals of
Honor, there's no committee. Anybody can paint a bike white & chain it
to a street post.

You sure about that?
I saw an email address posted, that said something like "for more info
on this Ghost Bike, contact soandso@whatever.

My impression is that there is a core group that erects these, and they
get a group together for the "installation" and so forth. I'll have to
google it, but I think it's not just some random white bike erected by
an anonymous mourner.

Trib article from May:
http://www.ghostbikes.org/press/ethe...stly-white-bik

They didn't say who put up the bike for Matthew Manger-Lynch, but in the
latest Chicago fatality mentioned, Tyler Fabeck, the article says it was
friends and family:

"Starting with a junked frame, several friends and Tyler's brother Jason
took turns stripping the handlebars, welding on wheels and pedals and
spray-painting the final, assembled product."

I don't get all the nastiness.

"Peter Cole" wrote: If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a
ghost bike?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I see your point.

On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't included
some really stupid
moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough for
you?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did not
learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him and
cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
"really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest of
us stay alive.

If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?

How about "He was dead wrong"?

wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't included
some really stupid
moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough for
you?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did not
learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him and
cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
"really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest of
us stay alive.
If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?

How about "He was dead wrong"?

I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
his friends and family.

Peter Cole wrote:
I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
his friends and family.

Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
a red when traffic's already going the other way.

On 2008-08-25, Geoff Gass wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
his friends and family.

Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
a red when traffic's already going the other way.

It's nothing when it's a right on red and you slowed down to 0.00001 mph
or some other low speed that would be aproximately zero to make sure it
was clear and make the turn. Congalining through when the signal turns
red can be just as bad result wise as going through at the middle of the
signal. Someone in cross traffic could be at speed and have the green
timed perfectly. Recently I was waiting at a light and guy went across
the line in the last half second of red because his timing was off, he
was just a wee bit early.

What I find odd is that the very same drivers who will risk killing a
bicyclist for no gain at all suddenly find it horrible when someone on a
bicycle puts himself at risk of being killed by doing something stupid
(like run a red light, that actually has a gain for the bicycle rider).
Is because these drivers are in control of the offing of the bicycle
rider when they clip him with a side mirror or right hook him or cut
him off and slam on the brakes or pull out in front of him or any other
number of selfish and disrespectful actions?

They can brush pass a bicyclist intentionally, missing him by only a few
inches but if a bicycle rider goes through a red and they miss him by a
few inches there's now a 'trauma' of nearly hiting someone? Now it's a
problem? They don't have a problem risking making a hood decoration out
of a legal operating bicyclist that is 'in their way', so why have a
problem with one operating illegally by running a red signal?

I dislike those who disregard the rules of right of way, bicycle or
other vehicle as much as anyone, but if a driver isn't going to respect
bicyclists as vehicle operators on what grounds can he demand that
bicycle riders behave as such?

On 2008-08-25, barbie gee wrote:

"Right now, the conversation that occurs in the realm of bicycle safety
is in the form of a question, something like "Who owns the road?". It
is this conversation of uncertainty that leaves cyclists exposed and at
the mercy of insensitive drivers. For cyclists to be safe, the
conversation must be transformed definitively into a statement of fact,
that the road is owned by "whoever is the most vulnerable". Yielding to
the most vulnerable will transform the mine-field of urban streets into
a safe place for cyclists and pedestrians."

Um, how about we ALL own the road, and we ALL share and have a
responsibility to follow the rules of the road, respect the protocols and
behave in a predictable fashion while on those roads?

Because this is no longer a culture that cares for individual liberty.
It's about gaining power through the political process. About using the
force of government to take from others for your own benefit. That's
why. Why should these people be any different about their particular
topic of interest than any one else with theirs? Their view is typical
of most people in the US these days, that's it's fine to take from
everyone else through the political process.

We give a few groups special emphasis,

Right there is the recipe for failure. Group think.

by pointing out their existence,
like children (school warnings), deaf, seniors. But these signs are there
to show they are a special group of poeple who may not be able to respond
in a predictable way to traffic around them. If cyclist wish to be
treated as incapable of navigating traffic like the rest of us, then they
ought to get their own special roads, somewhere very safe, away from
traffic. Special treatment, I suppose.

The vast majority of drivers do not want legally operating bicyclists
that they have to respect as other vehicle operators. I learned to ride
in the 'stay out of the way of cars' school. This school of thought
means one rides to avoid conflict with motor vehicle traffic. The
problem is that by trying to do so one has more conflicts with drivers.
Running red signals actually can reduce your interaction with motor
vehicle traffic in many situations BTW. Sure the conflicts when they
happen are killers, but there is less interaction over all.

Most drivers do not have any problems with these near deadly conflicts
from sidewalk riding, wrong way riding, etc that put bicycle riders in
places no traffic should be. The idea that they are 'staying out of the
way of cars', defering to the power of the automobile means it's 'okay'.

After moving to an area where there were no good options for 'staying
out of the way of cars' and having daily near-misses I made a conversion
to total, 100% vehicular bicycling. Instead of nearly being killed by
friendly motorists I was getting hostile angry motorists yelling at me
for merely using the road.

I found that the average driver would rather have a bicycle rider use
the side walk and then jump to the road and run a red signal than
to be behind a bicyclist waiting in a queue at that same red signal.

I don't know what happened to things like the film 'Drive your bike' on
archive.org, but somewhere things changed. Bicycle riders were supposed
to stay out of the way and that was most important, not the rules of
right of way or anything like that.

When drivers as a whole started believing that bicycle riders were not
vehicle operators, when someone got out of their car on and on to a
bicycle he didn't behave as a vehicle operator. It's the same mentality
on both ends. When kids are taught to 'stay out of the way of cars' they
end up believing that people should ride that way once they are driving.
They then practice it while riding. But what of the conflicts?

What's their decision in this culture of taking through the political
process when there is a problem with the method of riding they learned
as kids? Re-examine the method? surely not. It's to have drivers yield
to their brand of riding. Who's 'right' isn't decided by simple logical
rules of 'right of way', it's decided by political power. It's 'us' vs.
'them'.

In article XBxsk.722$UX.560@trnddc03,
Peter Cole wrote:

wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't
included
some really stupid
moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough
for
you?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did
not
learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him
and
cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
"really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest
of
us stay alive.
If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?

How about "He was dead wrong"?

I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
his friends and family.

scond point first. since you can't figure it out, i was being rhetorical
about putting a DUMBASS sign on the bike. Anyone with the IQ of frozen
yogurt should have been able to figure that out, yet you've made it made
it necessary for me to point it out explicitly.

As far as friends and family, no one has insulted his family. But,
since you opened the door, let's talk about his friends: they did a
real good job of stepping up to the plate on this. They helped create
the conditions that killed him, they encouraged his behavior and
supported him in killing himself and went on to lionize his behavior pos
humously. golf clap way to go, pals! Thanks for mentioning it.

If you want to be concerned about someone's feelings, how about that
poor woman who has to live the rest of her life with the memory of
having killed him? I can't remember,, did she have kids in the car?

Now. RE-RE-Stating the obvious: Not 1 in 100 people who pass that
particular bike have an inkling of its ontogeny. There's no context.
Nothing. As a cautionary tale it's three times more useful than a 3"x5"
sticker on a light pole proclaiming bikes are people too. Virtually
nobody who sees it will think -- "oh ya, that alley cat dude". They're
more likely to think "some cager stopping at starbuks squashed a biker".

What makes a bicyclist's death more tragic or important than anyone
else's? What about suicides? Murders? DUI victims? J-walkers? Stumbling
drunks? Children who ran into traffic? If we memorialize every
senseless or tragic or wrongful death on the streets of the City that
Worsks, (and it's a very big city), soon our sidewalks will be
completely impassable.

Do we really want our streets to be miles-long mausoleums?

..max






It doesn't send a truthful message, communicates victimhood.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

On Aug 25, 5:30 am, Peter Cole wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:26 pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Peter Cole" wrote: (clip) I can't imagine any life that hasn't included
some really stupid
moments, they're usually not fatal, thankfully. This guy had the
misfortune of paying the ultimate price. Apparently that wasn't enough for
you?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With all due respect, Peter, I take a slightly different view. He did not
learn from this experience. The comments being offered cannot help him and
cannot hurt him further. But the rest of us should learn to avoid such
"really stupid moments." The comments are directed at helping the rest of
us stay alive.
If it was your son would you want to see "DUMBASS" on a ghost bike?

How about "He was dead wrong"?

I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
his friends and family.

His friends and family created a memorial at the place of his death. A
memorial in such a public place is meant to make the passersby think.
If the circumstances of his death are not explained, the implication
is that he was the innocent victim of a crazed motorist, when instead
he was the victim of his own bad judgment. Leaving this out makes the
memorial dishonest. Explaining the circumstances would make the
memorial educational for cyclists. The ghost bike would be like the
smashed-up car exhibits MADD hauls from high school to high school to
encourage prom-goers and new graduates not to drink and drive.

If the memorial were just for the friends and family, they could have
incorporated a bike in his grave stone. Instead they chose to inflict
it on the public.

In article bz,
barbie gee wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Geoff Gass wrote:

Peter Cole wrote:
I don't see the point in stating the obvious. The rider essentially
received a death sentence for a $25 misdemeanor. The sentence was
delivered by fate, not by society or the driver who hit him. In any
case, he has over paid his debt to society, I see no point in insulting
his friends and family.

Saying that running a red light is merely a misdemeanor is grossly
understating the safety aspect. It's merely a misdemeanor when you tag
onto the end. It's another thing entirely when you just charge through
a red when traffic's already going the other way.


It's pretty clear there's a subculture that believes stuff like this:

"Right now, the conversation that occurs in the realm of bicycle safety
is in the form of a question, something like "Who owns the road?". It
is this conversation of uncertainty that leaves cyclists exposed and at
the mercy of insensitive drivers. For cyclists to be safe, the
conversation must be transformed definitively into a statement of fact,
that the road is owned by "whoever is the most vulnerable".

talk about wallowing in victimhood!

"conversation". That's pomo pocket-picking language attempting to
legitimize an illigitimate position. It's kind of like those people who
complained about all the money they invested in McDonalds and KFC (by
buying burgers)

Yielding to
the most vulnerable will transform the mine-field of urban streets into
a safe place for cyclists and pedestrians."


y'know.... based on watching the car-bike interactions in the city the
last few times i've been there, i'd say that on average, car drivers are
_more_ than doing their part to protect cyclists on the road from
cyclist's behavior. Extraordinarily so.

While i see plenty of basically RotR-abiding cyclists (except for the
lighting thing!), i saw waaay waaaay more madly reckless cyclist who
seemed to be daring someone to squash them flat.

I think it's amazing there aren't several bike fatalities every night on
the north side.

Its truly pathetic that Chicago's cycling advocacy dweebs and critical
massholes don't recognize their willful contributions to aggravating
car-bike confrontations.

Which, to bring it around to the article i linked at the beginning of
this thread, means that there's lots of room for enforcement of bike
rules in chicago.

For the clueless, or out of towners, traffic enforcement in chicago
means money for the city. A nice revenue source is about to be tapped.
This one will actually have the side benefit of making the city safer.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.