It doesn't have to be like this
10-22-07, 05:36 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
It doesn't have to be like this
PEDALING EDUCATION
The Oregonian Sunday, October 21, 2007
JEFF MAPES
https://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...770.xml&coll=7
Two years ago, on a visit to Amsterdam, I watched a middle-aged motorist prepare to turn right off a busy highway onto a street bisected by a bicycle path. Both the driver and the woman next to him craned their necks looking over their right shoulders to make sure they would not hit a cyclist.
What struck me as I stood there, only a few feet away, was that there was not a hint of irritation or impatience in their faces as they waited 10 to 15 seconds until the road was clear and they could safely turn.
That simple awareness -- and patience -- on the part of drivers is one reason why it is statistically three times as safe to cycle in the Netherlands as in the United States, despite that virtually no cyclist in Holland wears a helmet.
I've found myself thinking about traffic safety in the Netherlands as I read about the 19-year-old cyclist crushed under the wheels of a turning cement truck on the streets of Portland. The horrible crash earlier this month, which seemed to touch the hearts of Portlanders no matter their feelings about biking, created a moment when people were willing to talk about how to accommodate this increasingly popular form of transportation.
Journalists explored whether motorists should be able to enter bike lanes to turn right and whether the city should create more "bike boxes" that allow cyclists to move to the front of the intersection. And on one local bicycle listserv there was a serious discussion -- for the first time that I've seen -- about how to teach safe riding techniques, particularly to all new cyclists in Portland.
These discussions bring at least some good out of this tragedy. The reality is that cycling has become part of the city's culture and is not going away. In the summer, there are now some 14,500 daily cycling trips across Willamette River bridges. And just over 5 percent of city residents say they usually commute by bike.
In the last three years, the bridge counts have climbed by 64 percent, and there's no reason to think the increase will stop there. Oil supplies are becoming more uncertain, climate change is now widely seen as a real threat and -- perhaps most important -- Americans desperately need to be more physically active. More than 30 percent of adults are obese, and sedentary-induced disease is a leading cause of early death.
I don't say any of this to guilt-trip motorists out of their cars or even to go on about the rights of cyclists. Instead, I want the city, and ideally the entire country, to be a lot safer for all of us. The truth is that everyone is far too much at risk in traffic, whether in a vehicle, on a bike or walking.
Last year in the United States, 42,642 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, including 4,784 pedestrians and 773 cyclists. That's the equivalent of having two fully loaded jumbo jets fall from the sky and kill everyone aboard -- twice a week.
And here's the number that amazes me. Last year, 2.6 million people were injured on American roads. Your odds of being hurt in a crash are nearly one in a hundred, every single year. To me, these are not statistics. I still remember, as a young reporter, seeing four blood-streaked teens wailing like little kids as they sat trapped in a car wrapped around a tree.
As a society, we pay a lot more attention and money combating homicide, which causes half as many deaths as motor vehicles. And in Oregon last year, there were nearly six times as many road deaths as homicides.
One professor, William Lucy at the University of Virginia, has made a cottage industry out of examining the combined death rates for homicide and vehicle crashes. He found that the overall death rate is higher on the suburban fringes of metropolitan areas in Virginia than in the high-crime cities of Richmond and Washington, D.C.
In other words, because people on the edge of suburbs drive a lot -- particularly on two-lane roads with curves and fast traffic -- they may be putting themselves more at risk. Yet, providing a safe environment for their kids is precisely one of the reasons I so often hear people give for moving to the edge of the countryside.
Unless caused by a drunk driver, we have simply accepted death on the road as a part of modern life. People are quite willing to agree that aggressive and inattentive drivers cause many crashes, but we really think it is the "other" driver who is at fault. One survey found that 72 percent of people thought they were above-average drivers; virtually no one confessed to being below average.
It doesn't have to be like this. Our road fatality figures -- particularly when expressed as a rate per 100,000 people -- are far above those in most European countries. Even countries like Australia, where people also drive a lot, have made major strides in reducing their vehicle deaths.
That brings me back to the Netherlands. The Dutch tackle road safety with the same zeal we bring to eliminating airplane crashes.
Safe cycling and pedestrian behavior are part of the elementary school curriculum. Driver's education is mandatory and rigorous (and no one gets their license before the age of 18). Speed cameras and traffic-calmed residential areas are commonplace. Since the early 1970s, they've cut their fatalities from a peak of nearly 3,500 a year to fewer than 1,000 annually now -- despite a huge increase in vehicle mileage. They put electronic governors on trucks to limit speeds and fine drivers who get in a crash while using a cell phone.
And this brings me back to that middle-aged Dutch couple, patiently waiting to make their turn. Part of their safety culture is watching out for the weakest among them. "There's a strong political and social interest to save vulnerable road users, to protect children, to protect elderly people," explained Fred Wegman, who runs the country's traffic safety research institute.
And in watching out for others, they are protecting themselves. We can do that here, too.
Jeff Mapes is a political reporter at The Oregonian who writes a blog on politics, which can be found at https://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics. He is also working on a book on bicycle transportation. Contact him at 503-221-8209 or jeffmapes@news.oregonian.com.
The Oregonian Sunday, October 21, 2007
JEFF MAPES
https://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...770.xml&coll=7
Two years ago, on a visit to Amsterdam, I watched a middle-aged motorist prepare to turn right off a busy highway onto a street bisected by a bicycle path. Both the driver and the woman next to him craned their necks looking over their right shoulders to make sure they would not hit a cyclist.
What struck me as I stood there, only a few feet away, was that there was not a hint of irritation or impatience in their faces as they waited 10 to 15 seconds until the road was clear and they could safely turn.
That simple awareness -- and patience -- on the part of drivers is one reason why it is statistically three times as safe to cycle in the Netherlands as in the United States, despite that virtually no cyclist in Holland wears a helmet.
I've found myself thinking about traffic safety in the Netherlands as I read about the 19-year-old cyclist crushed under the wheels of a turning cement truck on the streets of Portland. The horrible crash earlier this month, which seemed to touch the hearts of Portlanders no matter their feelings about biking, created a moment when people were willing to talk about how to accommodate this increasingly popular form of transportation.
Journalists explored whether motorists should be able to enter bike lanes to turn right and whether the city should create more "bike boxes" that allow cyclists to move to the front of the intersection. And on one local bicycle listserv there was a serious discussion -- for the first time that I've seen -- about how to teach safe riding techniques, particularly to all new cyclists in Portland.
These discussions bring at least some good out of this tragedy. The reality is that cycling has become part of the city's culture and is not going away. In the summer, there are now some 14,500 daily cycling trips across Willamette River bridges. And just over 5 percent of city residents say they usually commute by bike.
In the last three years, the bridge counts have climbed by 64 percent, and there's no reason to think the increase will stop there. Oil supplies are becoming more uncertain, climate change is now widely seen as a real threat and -- perhaps most important -- Americans desperately need to be more physically active. More than 30 percent of adults are obese, and sedentary-induced disease is a leading cause of early death.
I don't say any of this to guilt-trip motorists out of their cars or even to go on about the rights of cyclists. Instead, I want the city, and ideally the entire country, to be a lot safer for all of us. The truth is that everyone is far too much at risk in traffic, whether in a vehicle, on a bike or walking.
Last year in the United States, 42,642 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, including 4,784 pedestrians and 773 cyclists. That's the equivalent of having two fully loaded jumbo jets fall from the sky and kill everyone aboard -- twice a week.
And here's the number that amazes me. Last year, 2.6 million people were injured on American roads. Your odds of being hurt in a crash are nearly one in a hundred, every single year. To me, these are not statistics. I still remember, as a young reporter, seeing four blood-streaked teens wailing like little kids as they sat trapped in a car wrapped around a tree.
As a society, we pay a lot more attention and money combating homicide, which causes half as many deaths as motor vehicles. And in Oregon last year, there were nearly six times as many road deaths as homicides.
One professor, William Lucy at the University of Virginia, has made a cottage industry out of examining the combined death rates for homicide and vehicle crashes. He found that the overall death rate is higher on the suburban fringes of metropolitan areas in Virginia than in the high-crime cities of Richmond and Washington, D.C.
In other words, because people on the edge of suburbs drive a lot -- particularly on two-lane roads with curves and fast traffic -- they may be putting themselves more at risk. Yet, providing a safe environment for their kids is precisely one of the reasons I so often hear people give for moving to the edge of the countryside.
Unless caused by a drunk driver, we have simply accepted death on the road as a part of modern life. People are quite willing to agree that aggressive and inattentive drivers cause many crashes, but we really think it is the "other" driver who is at fault. One survey found that 72 percent of people thought they were above-average drivers; virtually no one confessed to being below average.
It doesn't have to be like this. Our road fatality figures -- particularly when expressed as a rate per 100,000 people -- are far above those in most European countries. Even countries like Australia, where people also drive a lot, have made major strides in reducing their vehicle deaths.
That brings me back to the Netherlands. The Dutch tackle road safety with the same zeal we bring to eliminating airplane crashes.
Safe cycling and pedestrian behavior are part of the elementary school curriculum. Driver's education is mandatory and rigorous (and no one gets their license before the age of 18). Speed cameras and traffic-calmed residential areas are commonplace. Since the early 1970s, they've cut their fatalities from a peak of nearly 3,500 a year to fewer than 1,000 annually now -- despite a huge increase in vehicle mileage. They put electronic governors on trucks to limit speeds and fine drivers who get in a crash while using a cell phone.
And this brings me back to that middle-aged Dutch couple, patiently waiting to make their turn. Part of their safety culture is watching out for the weakest among them. "There's a strong political and social interest to save vulnerable road users, to protect children, to protect elderly people," explained Fred Wegman, who runs the country's traffic safety research institute.
And in watching out for others, they are protecting themselves. We can do that here, too.
Jeff Mapes is a political reporter at The Oregonian who writes a blog on politics, which can be found at https://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics. He is also working on a book on bicycle transportation. Contact him at 503-221-8209 or jeffmapes@news.oregonian.com.
10-22-07, 06:45 PM
#2
tired
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,651
Bikes: Breezer Uptown 8, U frame
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I'm not assuming that every place in North America is ready to have this discussion, but I think Jeff may be correct in his belief that the time is right in Portland. I realize I work in social services and that's a unique group of people, but I've had more than one coworker come up to me since Tracey was killed and ask me "What should I do? I don't want to hurt anybody." It's a good thing, too. Even my coworkers who haven't been on a bike since they were a kid have noticed more cyclists remaining on the roads since the rains returned. We're not going to disappear and we're not some statistical fluke.
__________________
"Real wars of words are harder to win. They require thought, insight, precision, articulation, knowledge, and experience. They require the humility to admit when you are wrong. They recognize that the dialectic is not about making us look at you, but about us all looking together for the truth."
"Real wars of words are harder to win. They require thought, insight, precision, articulation, knowledge, and experience. They require the humility to admit when you are wrong. They recognize that the dialectic is not about making us look at you, but about us all looking together for the truth."
10-23-07, 07:20 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
10-23-07, 10:47 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Good read! The part that particularly hit home was the statement about "There's a strong political and social interest to save vulnerable road users, to protect children, to protect elderly people". Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Are we too wrapped up in our own self interests to do this? I'm afraid so.
It's unfortunate, though, that the case that brought this discussion on was (as far as I can glean from the reports), plain and simple, an accident. The poor girl was likely not in the driver's field of view. Around those big trucks, no matter if you're on foot, on a bike or a motorcycle, or in a car, you have to be aware of the driver's blind spots.
It's unfortunate, though, that the case that brought this discussion on was (as far as I can glean from the reports), plain and simple, an accident. The poor girl was likely not in the driver's field of view. Around those big trucks, no matter if you're on foot, on a bike or a motorcycle, or in a car, you have to be aware of the driver's blind spots.
10-23-07, 07:28 PM
#6
Good point
If only American drivers had the same care for other people as the Dutch drivers depicted in randya's post. It wouldn't take much more than a little character and self-control.
If only American drivers had the same care for other people as the Dutch drivers depicted in randya's post. It wouldn't take much more than a little character and self-control.
__________________
No worries
No worries
10-23-07, 07:31 PM
#7
Elitest Murray Owner
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,657
Bikes: 1972 Columbia Tourist Expert III, Columbia Roadster
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
But we live in the United States, where it's a God given right to drive how you want and to hell with anybody else. If you kill somebody, it's their fault for not driving a bigger car than yours. We ought to just ban bicycles and pedestrians, and compact cars because they're so dangerous when big cars hit them...
At least that is the argument I hear from probably 75% of the people I've ever had a discussion about automotive safety, or traffic safety in general about...
Also, accidents never happen. The Titanic was just an "accident" - they just accidentally were running too fast in water known to have ice bergs in it (they also just accidentally did not supply enough lifeboats for the ship's passenger capacity). They Also just accidentally painted the Hindenburg with a super flammable compound, and then filled it with Hydrogen to boot.
There is not a single "accident" that could not have been prevented somewhere along the line by somebody directly involved. This is because nothing just happens. Every action has a reaction - you can't get a reaction without an action. If somehow a reaction occurs without any action to instigate it - you have just come upon something that is unpreventable, unforseeable - that would be an accident.
I think we all too often just write things off that we didn't intend to happen as accidents, and therefore imply that just because we didn't intend them to happen, that there was nothing we could have done to prevent them from happening. Therefore - the same types of accidents happen again and again, because they're just accidents and it's too hard to avoid them.
At least that is the argument I hear from probably 75% of the people I've ever had a discussion about automotive safety, or traffic safety in general about...
Also, accidents never happen. The Titanic was just an "accident" - they just accidentally were running too fast in water known to have ice bergs in it (they also just accidentally did not supply enough lifeboats for the ship's passenger capacity). They Also just accidentally painted the Hindenburg with a super flammable compound, and then filled it with Hydrogen to boot.
There is not a single "accident" that could not have been prevented somewhere along the line by somebody directly involved. This is because nothing just happens. Every action has a reaction - you can't get a reaction without an action. If somehow a reaction occurs without any action to instigate it - you have just come upon something that is unpreventable, unforseeable - that would be an accident.
I think we all too often just write things off that we didn't intend to happen as accidents, and therefore imply that just because we didn't intend them to happen, that there was nothing we could have done to prevent them from happening. Therefore - the same types of accidents happen again and again, because they're just accidents and it's too hard to avoid them.
10-23-07, 08:09 PM
#8
Bike ≠ Car ≠ Ped.
But we live in the United States, where it's a God given right to drive how you want and to hell with anybody else. If you kill somebody, it's their fault for not driving a bigger car than yours. We ought to just ban bicycles and pedestrians, and compact cars because they're so dangerous when big cars hit them...
At least that is the argument I hear from probably 75% of the people I've ever had a discussion about automotive safety, or traffic safety in general about...
At least that is the argument I hear from probably 75% of the people I've ever had a discussion about automotive safety, or traffic safety in general about...
10-23-07, 08:25 PM
#9
Crankenstein
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Spokane
Posts: 4,037
Bikes: Novara Randonee (TankerBelle)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
__________________
"There is no greater wonder than the way the face and character of a woman fit so perfectly in a man's mind, and stay there, and he could never tell you why. It just seems it was the thing he most wanted." Robert Louis Stevenson
"There is no greater wonder than the way the face and character of a woman fit so perfectly in a man's mind, and stay there, and he could never tell you why. It just seems it was the thing he most wanted." Robert Louis Stevenson
10-23-07, 11:15 PM
#10
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"Speed cameras and traffic-calmed residential areas are commonplace. Since the early 1970s, they've cut their fatalities from a peak of nearly 3,500 a year to fewer than 1,000 annually now -- despite a huge increase in vehicle mileage. They put electronic governors on trucks to limit speeds..."
Last edited by ChipSeal; 10-23-07 at 11:16 PM. Reason: punctuation
10-24-07, 06:22 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ky. and FL.
Posts: 3,944
Bikes: KHS steel SS
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A chance of 1 in 100 of being injured is crazy. I knew the 43,000 deaths part of it. My brother-in-law was one of those 43,000 in 2005. But 1-100 of getting injured. That's crazy.
10-24-07, 08:26 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,508
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
But we live in the United States, where it's a God given right to drive how you want and to hell with anybody else. If you kill somebody, it's their fault for not driving a bigger car than yours. We ought to just ban bicycles and pedestrians, and compact cars because they're so dangerous when big cars hit them...
At least that is the argument I hear from probably 75% of the people I've ever had a discussion about automotive safety, or traffic safety in general about...
Also, accidents never happen. The Titanic was just an "accident" - they just accidentally were running too fast in water known to have ice bergs in it (they also just accidentally did not supply enough lifeboats for the ship's passenger capacity). They Also just accidentally painted the Hindenburg with a super flammable compound, and then filled it with Hydrogen to boot.
There is not a single "accident" that could not have been prevented somewhere along the line by somebody directly involved. This is because nothing just happens. Every action has a reaction - you can't get a reaction without an action. If somehow a reaction occurs without any action to instigate it - you have just come upon something that is unpreventable, unforseeable - that would be an accident.
I think we all too often just write things off that we didn't intend to happen as accidents, and therefore imply that just because we didn't intend them to happen, that there was nothing we could have done to prevent them from happening. Therefore - the same types of accidents happen again and again, because they're just accidents and it's too hard to avoid them.
At least that is the argument I hear from probably 75% of the people I've ever had a discussion about automotive safety, or traffic safety in general about...
Also, accidents never happen. The Titanic was just an "accident" - they just accidentally were running too fast in water known to have ice bergs in it (they also just accidentally did not supply enough lifeboats for the ship's passenger capacity). They Also just accidentally painted the Hindenburg with a super flammable compound, and then filled it with Hydrogen to boot.
There is not a single "accident" that could not have been prevented somewhere along the line by somebody directly involved. This is because nothing just happens. Every action has a reaction - you can't get a reaction without an action. If somehow a reaction occurs without any action to instigate it - you have just come upon something that is unpreventable, unforseeable - that would be an accident.
I think we all too often just write things off that we didn't intend to happen as accidents, and therefore imply that just because we didn't intend them to happen, that there was nothing we could have done to prevent them from happening. Therefore - the same types of accidents happen again and again, because they're just accidents and it's too hard to avoid them.
Last edited by littlewaywelt; 10-24-07 at 08:40 AM.
10-24-07, 08:35 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 1,035
Bikes: Gerry Fisher Nirvana, LeMond Buenos Aires
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I was over at my parent's house this weekend and my Mom found a few more Dutch books in a box and wondered if I wanted any. After going through the box I found a bag containing my 4th grade calss materials from when I live in Haarlem (The Netherlands / Holland). Right in the middle of the pile was a familliar looking blue book... my Traffic Safety workbook. So what do they teach 4th graders in Holland:
The book is filled with senario based pictures of intersections and cars and pedestrians in various places. We then had to write out how had the right of way and why. Some road rules in Europe are a little more complicated as on most local roads traffic on the right has the right of way... if always takes me a while to get used to that when driving in Europe again.
Here are some highlights that I found very applicable to the author's comments above:
- Some of the key items that they teach are that if you turn right on a street that Pedestrians and Cyclists that are to your right MUST be given the right of way.
- There were also pictures of roads with 3 lanes, a Left Turn lane a straight lane, and a right turn lane and then you had to paste in little pictures of cyclists and where they should line up when turning left, going straight and turning right. This is something that American motorists are generaly completely baffled by. Why would a cyclists line up where a car would turn?... because it is the only safe way to get accross.
I remember starting these books in Kindergarden and they are used up till at least 6th grade. In 6th grade there was also a "cycling exam." You had to pass the exam or you could not go on the class trip as it involved riding your bike about 40 miles to Den Helder to catch the ferry to Texel. From there the bike was the only source of transporation during the multi-day trip. Can you imagine a school in the USA taking kids on a 40 mile bike track through various cities, where they WILL have to interact with cars... I think most parents would freak.
I wonder if any of the National Cycling orginizations has any good materials that can be used in school. It would be very helpfull if ALL kids in America learn the rules of the road early in life. It does not guarantee that they won't do stupid things on a bike or in a car, but at least they know how they are supposed to interact.
Happy riding,
André
The book is filled with senario based pictures of intersections and cars and pedestrians in various places. We then had to write out how had the right of way and why. Some road rules in Europe are a little more complicated as on most local roads traffic on the right has the right of way... if always takes me a while to get used to that when driving in Europe again.
Here are some highlights that I found very applicable to the author's comments above:
- Some of the key items that they teach are that if you turn right on a street that Pedestrians and Cyclists that are to your right MUST be given the right of way.
- There were also pictures of roads with 3 lanes, a Left Turn lane a straight lane, and a right turn lane and then you had to paste in little pictures of cyclists and where they should line up when turning left, going straight and turning right. This is something that American motorists are generaly completely baffled by. Why would a cyclists line up where a car would turn?... because it is the only safe way to get accross.
I remember starting these books in Kindergarden and they are used up till at least 6th grade. In 6th grade there was also a "cycling exam." You had to pass the exam or you could not go on the class trip as it involved riding your bike about 40 miles to Den Helder to catch the ferry to Texel. From there the bike was the only source of transporation during the multi-day trip. Can you imagine a school in the USA taking kids on a 40 mile bike track through various cities, where they WILL have to interact with cars... I think most parents would freak.
I wonder if any of the National Cycling orginizations has any good materials that can be used in school. It would be very helpfull if ALL kids in America learn the rules of the road early in life. It does not guarantee that they won't do stupid things on a bike or in a car, but at least they know how they are supposed to interact.
Happy riding,
André
10-24-07, 08:52 AM
#15
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I remember starting these books in Kindergarden and they are used up till at least 6th grade. In 6th grade there was also a "cycling exam." You had to pass the exam or you could not go on the class trip as it involved riding your bike about 40 miles to Den Helder to catch the ferry to Texel. From there the bike was the only source of transporation during the multi-day trip. Can you imagine a school in the USA taking kids on a 40 mile bike track through various cities, where they WILL have to interact with cars... I think most parents would freak.
I wonder if any of the National Cycling orginizations has any good materials that can be used in school. It would be very helpfull if ALL kids in America learn the rules of the road early in life. It does not guarantee that they won't do stupid things on a bike or in a car, but at least they know how they are supposed to interact.
Happy riding,
André
Recently while in Finland, I experienced a road system in which the motorists DO watch for peds and cyclists. I was rather amazed when motorists stopped for me rather than "right hook" me. I was even more surprised when a motorist stopped for me (as I stopped for them first... due to my American habits) and honked at me to get on with it.
The problem is in the US, we have given rights to cars... not motorists, but cars, over the rights of humans. Time to swing it back the other way.
10-24-07, 09:25 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I wonder if any of the National Cycling orginizations has any good materials that can be used in school. It would be very helpfull if ALL kids in America learn the rules of the road early in life. It does not guarantee that they won't do stupid things on a bike or in a car, but at least they know how they are supposed to interact.
Happy riding,
André
Happy riding,
André
Its an 8 hour class typically broken down into 4 sessions and it ends with about a 5 mile road ride "test."
10-24-07, 09:35 AM
#17
Utility Cyclist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 33
Bikes: 2007 Trek Calypso Cruiser, Surly Cross-Check
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What's truly the worst though, is that we've spoiled ourselves with automobile infrastructure. Sure, the government could lower speed limits and encourage transportation education, but America has tasted what it's like to be the absolute top of the "road food chain." Can you imagine trying to convert to a system where an automobile is not considered the primary user of roads, constantly at the whim of slower forms of transport? There would be riots. I'm not sure this country is really capable of changing like that.
10-24-07, 10:31 AM
#18
Elitest Murray Owner
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,657
Bikes: 1972 Columbia Tourist Expert III, Columbia Roadster
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
Well said. It's disgusting that the constant threat of danger to pedestrians and cyclists is socially acceptable. People don't think twice about flying through 25 mph residential zones at 35 mph, even 40 mph. If you aren't smart enough to get out of the way, you deserve to be run over. That's how an unsettling number of people think.
What's truly the worst though, is that we've spoiled ourselves with automobile infrastructure. Sure, the government could lower speed limits and encourage transportation education, but America has tasted what it's like to be the absolute top of the "road food chain." Can you imagine trying to convert to a system where an automobile is not considered the primary user of roads, constantly at the whim of slower forms of transport? There would be riots. I'm not sure this country is really capable of changing like that.
What's truly the worst though, is that we've spoiled ourselves with automobile infrastructure. Sure, the government could lower speed limits and encourage transportation education, but America has tasted what it's like to be the absolute top of the "road food chain." Can you imagine trying to convert to a system where an automobile is not considered the primary user of roads, constantly at the whim of slower forms of transport? There would be riots. I'm not sure this country is really capable of changing like that.
Of course people were united in a very "real" situation, it was the patriotic thing to do, to save gas and rubber by not driving everywhere... And unfortunately, it seems protecting the environment, saving resources, and increasing the safety of all road users (did I mention that there was also a dramatic drop in traffic deaths during this period?) is a lot less meaningful to most people than winning a war.
10-24-07, 10:41 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 1,035
Bikes: Gerry Fisher Nirvana, LeMond Buenos Aires
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I was out walking just yesterday and as I came to various intersections, where auto traffic had the red light and was approaching and then making a right on red (after a stop), I took note at how few motorists actually looked right, so see if I wanted to cross on my LEGAL crossing. Surprisingly few. Some would glance as if to indicate they were going, no matter what I did. Some motorists did not even look.
<SNIP>
<SNIP>
Please don't anyone get the idea that European drivers are somehow kinder than American drivers... they are NOT. They DO however know better when they HAVE to give the right of to yield. Even the seemingly insane drivers in Rome that seem to give not one bit of care to road rules in general will stop when a pedestrian enters a cross walk. Try that in most of the USA and approaching drivers are not going to stop and are quite likely to accelerate just to get by even quicker... never mind most states have rules on the books that state that the car has to yield. I would venture to guess that complete ignorance is probably 90% of the problem, the other 10% are just JAMs. I was shocked for instance how easy my NY State drivers license written and driving test were. I find it even more frightning how many people actually manage to fail either part of the test. 6 hours in a classroom does not make for a well educated driver, no does a 5 minute driving test where I was never able to exceed 15 MPH because it passed through a school zone. Heck I ride my bike faster than I took my driving exam
. Here are some things that would definitely help in the USA. Maybe the government can come up with some "helpfull" program name like "No Kids Left Dead on the Roads"
1. Start teaching kids to rules of the road starting in Kindergarden.
2. Make the parents attend some sessions as well and give them their own test - Just teaching the kids will not be enough since it is frequently the parents that the ones driving like maniaks. It the patent can't pass the test they have to find something to realy anoy them till they can pass the test. I don't know what could be done yet... maybe don't allow any parent to pickup or drop off a kid at school by car if they can't pass the test.
3. Make a Grand Parent interactive event with the kids as well. This should get an other large part of the driving population that needs some "re-programming"
4. Make the traffic rules that protect pedestians and cyclists have some stick and actually implement them. A co-worker was visiting Cape Cod and was amazed that cars there stopped for pedestrians. The rules there are also inforced there to protect the tourists. Injured tourists = tourists that may never come back... that is bad for business. I don't care why a car properly yields, all I care about is that they do it..
5. Anyone that fails to yield to cyclist or pedestrian needs to be taken to the worst intersection in town and made to walk accross with the light at least 10 times during the bussiest time of the day... that should scare them straight
.6. Consider the no-fault protection for pedestrians and cyclists. This is the case in Holland. Many cyclists drive where-ever they want and don't bother following the rules. I agree that it is not proper or right, but motorists are affraid to his a cyclist or pedestrian because the ramifications for them are not good. Here people don't care about hitting a cyclist or pediestrian chances, the motorists vehickle isn't liekly to sustain that much damage, and if you kill someone, there is a good chance they let you off the hook
.Happy cycling,
André
10-24-07, 11:07 AM
#20
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I have this happen all the time. On Niagara Falls Blvd in Amherst NY this is pretty much 100% guaranteed to happen. I am always on extra alert and try if at all possible to just take the lane and go with the car. There are situations however where that is just not possible, like making a left hand turn, there is no way I can cross 2 lanes full crazed motorists traveling at 45 MPH.
Please don't anyone get the idea that European drivers are somehow kinder than American drivers... they are NOT. They DO however know better when they HAVE to give the right of to yield. Even the seemingly insane drivers in Rome that seem to give not one bit of care to road rules in general will stop when a pedestrian enters a cross walk. Try that in most of the USA and approaching drivers are not going to stop and are quite likely to accelerate just to get by even quicker... never mind most states have rules on the books that state that the car has to yield. I would venture to guess that complete ignorance is probably 90% of the problem, the other 10% are just JAMs. I was shocked for instance how easy my NY State drivers license written and driving test were. I find it even more frightning how many people actually manage to fail either part of the test. 6 hours in a classroom does not make for a well educated driver, no does a 5 minute driving test where I was never able to exceed 15 MPH because it passed through a school zone. Heck I ride my bike faster than I took my driving exam.
Here are some things that would definitely help in the USA. Maybe the government can come up with some "helpfull" program name like "No Kids Left Dead on the Roads"
1. Start teaching kids to rules of the road starting in Kindergarden.
2. Make the parents attend some sessions as well and give them their own test - Just teaching the kids will not be enough since it is frequently the parents that the ones driving like maniaks. It the patent can't pass the test they have to find something to realy anoy them till they can pass the test. I don't know what could be done yet... maybe don't allow any parent to pickup or drop off a kid at school by car if they can't pass the test.
3. Make a Grand Parent interactive event with the kids as well. This should get an other large part of the driving population that needs some "re-programming"
4. Make the traffic rules that protect pedestians and cyclists have some stick and actually implement them. A co-worker was visiting Cape Cod and was amazed that cars there stopped for pedestrians. The rules there are also inforced there to protect the tourists. Injured tourists = tourists that may never come back... that is bad for business. I don't care why a car properly yields, all I care about is that they do it..
5. Anyone that fails to yield to cyclist or pedestrian needs to be taken to the worst intersection in town and made to walk accross with the light at least 10 times during the bussiest time of the day... that should scare them straight.
6. Consider the no-fault protection for pedestrians and cyclists. This is the case in Holland. Many cyclists drive where-ever they want and don't bother following the rules. I agree that it is not proper or right, but motorists are affraid to his a cyclist or pedestrian because the ramifications for them are not good. Here people don't care about hitting a cyclist or pediestrian chances, the motorists vehickle isn't liekly to sustain that much damage, and if you kill someone, there is a good chance they let you off the hook.
Happy cycling,
André
Please don't anyone get the idea that European drivers are somehow kinder than American drivers... they are NOT. They DO however know better when they HAVE to give the right of to yield. Even the seemingly insane drivers in Rome that seem to give not one bit of care to road rules in general will stop when a pedestrian enters a cross walk. Try that in most of the USA and approaching drivers are not going to stop and are quite likely to accelerate just to get by even quicker... never mind most states have rules on the books that state that the car has to yield. I would venture to guess that complete ignorance is probably 90% of the problem, the other 10% are just JAMs. I was shocked for instance how easy my NY State drivers license written and driving test were. I find it even more frightning how many people actually manage to fail either part of the test. 6 hours in a classroom does not make for a well educated driver, no does a 5 minute driving test where I was never able to exceed 15 MPH because it passed through a school zone. Heck I ride my bike faster than I took my driving exam
. Here are some things that would definitely help in the USA. Maybe the government can come up with some "helpfull" program name like "No Kids Left Dead on the Roads"
1. Start teaching kids to rules of the road starting in Kindergarden.
2. Make the parents attend some sessions as well and give them their own test - Just teaching the kids will not be enough since it is frequently the parents that the ones driving like maniaks. It the patent can't pass the test they have to find something to realy anoy them till they can pass the test. I don't know what could be done yet... maybe don't allow any parent to pickup or drop off a kid at school by car if they can't pass the test.
3. Make a Grand Parent interactive event with the kids as well. This should get an other large part of the driving population that needs some "re-programming"
4. Make the traffic rules that protect pedestians and cyclists have some stick and actually implement them. A co-worker was visiting Cape Cod and was amazed that cars there stopped for pedestrians. The rules there are also inforced there to protect the tourists. Injured tourists = tourists that may never come back... that is bad for business. I don't care why a car properly yields, all I care about is that they do it..
5. Anyone that fails to yield to cyclist or pedestrian needs to be taken to the worst intersection in town and made to walk accross with the light at least 10 times during the bussiest time of the day... that should scare them straight
.6. Consider the no-fault protection for pedestrians and cyclists. This is the case in Holland. Many cyclists drive where-ever they want and don't bother following the rules. I agree that it is not proper or right, but motorists are affraid to his a cyclist or pedestrian because the ramifications for them are not good. Here people don't care about hitting a cyclist or pediestrian chances, the motorists vehickle isn't liekly to sustain that much damage, and if you kill someone, there is a good chance they let you off the hook
.Happy cycling,
André
The problem is giving any priority to autos at any situation. Motorists need to be reminded that we are all human and all share the same rights. The problem is motorists see big SUVs as both giving them safety and more rights based on size... both issues are wrong.
As far as EU motorists being "better..." I think the laws are different and there is a better understanding of the laws and responsibilities in some EU countries.
10-24-07, 11:30 AM
#21
Arizona Dessert
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,029
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Liked 2,169 Times
in
1,288 Posts
"Two intersections that I travel that are excessively dangerous because of visual obstructions in Tempe are:
1) Corner of River Road and Broadway, heading north. When stopped on River Road at stoplight wanting to make a right turn on red, cannot see oncoming cars from the west on Broadway that are on the nearest lane. Problem is a combination of shrub hedge, apartment wall and public utility boxes that are much too close (within 5 feet of Broadway). Every year there are one or two accidents at this intersection because of this problem! Solution: Remove shrubs, wall and move utility boxes."
While I totally agree the vegetation should be cut back for better sightliness, I do wonder if the letter writer considered: "Solution: Don't turn right on red if you can't see oncoming traffic." or better yet "Solution: Make right on red illegal at this intersection" (After all I can't see a quick fix for this one considering the apartment wall is in the way.)
Al
10-24-07, 11:36 AM
#22
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
From a letter to the editor in yesterday's paper:
"Two intersections that I travel that are excessively dangerous because of visual obstructions in Tempe are:
1) Corner of River Road and Broadway, heading north. When stopped on River Road at stoplight wanting to make a right turn on red, cannot see oncoming cars from the west on Broadway that are on the nearest lane. Problem is a combination of shrub hedge, apartment wall and public utility boxes that are much too close (within 5 feet of Broadway). Every year there are one or two accidents at this intersection because of this problem! Solution: Remove shrubs, wall and move utility boxes."
While I totally agree the vegetation should be cut back for better sightliness, I do wonder if the letter writer considered: "Solution: Don't turn right on red if you can't see oncoming traffic." or better yet "Solution: Make right on red illegal at this intersection" (After all I can't see a quick fix for this one considering the apartment wall is in the way.)
Al
"Two intersections that I travel that are excessively dangerous because of visual obstructions in Tempe are:
1) Corner of River Road and Broadway, heading north. When stopped on River Road at stoplight wanting to make a right turn on red, cannot see oncoming cars from the west on Broadway that are on the nearest lane. Problem is a combination of shrub hedge, apartment wall and public utility boxes that are much too close (within 5 feet of Broadway). Every year there are one or two accidents at this intersection because of this problem! Solution: Remove shrubs, wall and move utility boxes."
While I totally agree the vegetation should be cut back for better sightliness, I do wonder if the letter writer considered: "Solution: Don't turn right on red if you can't see oncoming traffic." or better yet "Solution: Make right on red illegal at this intersection" (After all I can't see a quick fix for this one considering the apartment wall is in the way.)
Al
10-24-07, 12:21 PM
#23
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,468
Bikes: 2011 Cervelo S2, 2001Trek USPS 5200, 06 Cervelo P3 Alum, 1999 Schwinn Pro Stock BMX, 1987 Schwinn Traveler
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's Holland. Everyone is smoking pot, and chilled out. What do they care how soon they get where ever they are going? They will get there eventually. No need to get upset at cyclists, or run them over, and injure or kill them. People in this country just need to chill the hell out. There is no reason you are in such a hurry to disreguard the safety of another human. Instead everyone is high strung concentrated on deadlines, and their own personal agendas. People just need to chill out, and fire up a fat one.
10-24-07, 02:11 PM
#25
Senior Member
That's a good article.
What I've always thought is it's attitude, rather than things, that make people safe. It's like that driver and the woman next to him craning their necks looking over their right shoulders to make sure they would not hit a cyclist. They have a safe attitude.
I saw the same thing when I was in London recently. Jam packed tiny roads, and bikes are given as much courtesy as a truck. Is it any wonder they have better death and injury rates than the US?
I was coming home from the surgeons an hour ago when a driver was honking at a right turning motorist just as he was getting out of the way of the honker.
What an attitude. The right turner was doing nothing wrong, except perhaps from the honkers viewpoint, he might have been slowing the honkers rate of speed for a bit. Sheesh.
Last night watching TV, all I see are these "performance" commercials for cars. Like the streets of the city where these cars are to be used are some sort of private playground and the purchasers are skilled, professional drivers. "be a mavrick" "live life". Ironic.
With attitudes like that, is it any wonder death and injury rates are so high?
What I've always thought is it's attitude, rather than things, that make people safe. It's like that driver and the woman next to him craning their necks looking over their right shoulders to make sure they would not hit a cyclist. They have a safe attitude.
I saw the same thing when I was in London recently. Jam packed tiny roads, and bikes are given as much courtesy as a truck. Is it any wonder they have better death and injury rates than the US?
I was coming home from the surgeons an hour ago when a driver was honking at a right turning motorist just as he was getting out of the way of the honker.
What an attitude. The right turner was doing nothing wrong, except perhaps from the honkers viewpoint, he might have been slowing the honkers rate of speed for a bit. Sheesh.
Last night watching TV, all I see are these "performance" commercials for cars. Like the streets of the city where these cars are to be used are some sort of private playground and the purchasers are skilled, professional drivers. "be a mavrick" "live life". Ironic.
With attitudes like that, is it any wonder death and injury rates are so high?
Last edited by closetbiker; 10-24-07 at 02:52 PM.
