Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood

 
Register or log in to post

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

One-term McSchwinn strikes again!

(81 posts)
  • Started 1 year ago by Pastafarian
  • Latest reply from Mondoman
  1. Granted, I voted for the dufus, but he seemed like the best option at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    Now he (or one of his "consultants") has had the genius idea to lower speeds on non-arterials to 20 mph. You see, this will GREATLY reduce any harm to bicyclists who get run into. Never-mind the fact that at least half the cyclists I see daily run red lights, blow through crosswalks without even a glance to see if there's a car approaching, don't wear helmets, or don't have lights/reflectors. But, by all means, go ahead and punish drivers and drivers alone.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/131956403.html

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

    Would that also limit bicycles to 20 mph?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. The speed limit is the speed limit, so of course it technically is the limit for cyclists as well. But, who is going to enforce speed limits for a bicycle? SPD has too little manpower, and too little willpower even if they had the manpower. They enforce the laws they see fit to enforce. And bicyclists who ignore laws and common sense now aren't going to suddenly start caring.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    I don't know. I mean, unless you are on an obvious arterial, its unsafe to drive around most of Ballard over 20 mph as it is.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. Miss Radish

    Miss Radish

    offline
    Member

    Would that also limit bicycles to 20 mph?

    I wondered the same thing, especially after seeing a guy on a recumbent (sp) bike almost crash into two pedestrians this morning.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. great idea

    great idea

    offline
    Member

    "who is going to enforce speed limits for a bicycle?"

    I've heard of a few speed traps along the B-G trail that went after bicyclists. tickets were handed out.

    you really could say the same thing about cars though.
    who is going to enforce speed limits for a non-arterial street? no one.

    keep going as fast as you think is safe.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    People who drive like crap drive like crap regardless of mode: bike or car. However, I think bikers are emboldened to be more careless as they mistake the idea that there is less damage by a bike than a car in accident, and take that to mean there is no damage in an accident with a bike. I mean, I see bad driving by everywhere, but I observe many more offenses and risks taken by bicyclists.

    Still, as crowded and narrow as residential Ballard is, I fail to see how 20 is a bad thing.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. User has not uploaded an avatar

    momnballard

    offline
    Member

    pasta +1. thanks for the info. last time i checked, the road rules apply to all. and why wouldn't they?

    i had to laugh the other day when i saw one of the motorcycle cops actually stop a cyclist on 14th who didn't have a helmet on.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. Sunset Hill David

    Sunset Hill David

    offline
    Member

    Take it easy and don't believe everything you hear on Dori Monson's show. He doesn't even live in Seattle.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. gcm

    gcm

    offline
    Member

    The 20 mph speed limit on non-arterial streets would increase the safety for everyone. Crashes between cars and pedestrians have a 40 percent risk of fatality if the driver is doing 30 mph. But that risk drops to just 5 percent at 20 mph.

    http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-01-20-is-plenty-campaign-takes-crazy-stance-against-running-over

    I regularly see cars charging down my non-arterial street around 30 mph. Considering that I live near a park and live on a street with several kids, I would be very pleased to see 20 mph enacted and strictly enforced.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. MidWest

    MidWest

    offline
    Member

    gcm, you may live near us-we see cars going 40-50 mph down our street near Salmon Bay Park.

    You answered the basic question: Does a car hitting a bike at 20mph cause any less damage? According to the Grist article, apparently - yes.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  12. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    offline
    Member

    But reducing the speed limit to 5mph would reduce injuries and damage even more dramatically!

    Any speed limit above zero will allow some injuries and even fatalities, so we just need to decide as a society what limit we feel comfortable with. We are all within our rights to drive as slowly as we think is necessary for local conditions, so I'm happy leaving the limit as-is and letting those who don't feel comfortable with that drive a bit slower.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  13. gurple

    gurple

    offline
    Member

    I like this idea, partly because 30mph is way too dangerous on my tiny little street and others like it, but more for this reason: if people don't like the low speed limits on residential streets, they'll use the arterials more.

    One of my pet peeves is drivers who decide to drive up, e.g., the entire length of 22nd Ave from Market to 65th, rather than going over to 20th or 24th. Sure, it's legal, but it's obnoxious. The roundabouts slow you to a crawl every block, so the only way to make decent time is to overcompensate and floor it in between them, which is unsafe. There's low visibility on every single corner, it's too narrow for two cars abreast in places, and there's high bike/pedestrian traffic all the way up and down.

    Streets like that, and there are lots of them, oughta be 20mph, mainly to get people who aren't driving just a few local blocks off of them.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  14. mostobstreperous

    mostobstreperous

    offline
    Member

    The thing is, unless otherwise posted, the speed limit on side streets (non-arterials) IS 20 mph -- and the speed limit on arterials, unless otherwise posted, is 30 mph. UIsed to be 25/35, but that was when I took Drivers Ed back in '86. There are still a couple of I-5 off ramps coming into the city limits that post this rule.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  15. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

    The speed limit on side streets, unless otherwise marked is 25mph now, how many cars do you see going the limit (or less) now?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  16. mostobstreperous

    mostobstreperous

    offline
    Member

    RichY, you are correct, I just checked the city website. But the sign on the 145th off ramp to Seattle still listed 20 mph for residential last time I took it couple of weeks back.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  17. Ballard Ninja

    Ballard Ninja

    offline
    Member

    I'm a little confused as to why this would be upsetting to anyone. Is it really that big of a deal to go 20 mph instead of 25, or even 30? Like some of the previous posters mentioned, it's not like most people follow the speed limit on those roads currently.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  18. ynh98107

    ynh98107

    offline
    Member

    For the love of God, why not just outlaw all cars in Seattle. I wish our elected officials would focus on the issues.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  19. User has not uploaded an avatar

    thomaschh

    offline
    Member

    It's only irritating because he's doing it "for bicyclists". As if the fraction of bicyclists on the road compared to vehicles really warrant so much ridiculous attention. How about people assume responsibility for their actions? This dumbing down of everything and turning Seattle into the Fisher Price city isn't REALLY helping anyone.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  20. boatgeek

    boatgeek

    offline
    Member

    What I find interesting about the reaction to the article is that all of the quotes from McGinn are about all road users. The journalist mentions that bicyclists are at the top of McGinn's mind, but we don't have any of his actual words on that. The journalist goes on to interview a bunch of bicycling advocates, and doesn't mention talking to any pedestrian advocates (are there any?). So the mayor says that he's trying to make the roads safer for all users, and everyone assumes that this is code for bicyclists, possibly partly because of the journalist's bias in selecting sources.

    And 20 mph is totally reasonable for all traffic on non-arterials. If that's too slow, go over a couple of blocks to an arterial.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  21. BHS68

    BHS68

    offline
    Member

    I'm confused... the apparent reasoning behind this is the spate of recent bicyclist deaths. IIRC, none of them occured on a side street, weren't they were all on arterials?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  22. cdpenne

    cdpenne

    offline
    Member

    "Funding costly engineering studies" seems like a good ole boy scratch my back I'll scratch yours type of arrangement that should always be looked upon with scepticism and probably should be done away with. If cities (groups of people), perhaps even neighborhoods or block associations want to lower the speed limits, they should be able to do so without paying the college tuition of some useless engineer with a cushy state contract.

    That said, this smacks of a meaningless gesture or a bone thrown towards the CBC.

    The first still image of the video says it all - is that sharing the road or hogging it? Never trust the CBC when they pander to your soft side and say they are looking to make it safer to every one.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  23. Ernie

    Ernie

    offline
    Member

    they should be able to do so without paying the college tuition of some useless engineer with a cushy state contract

    FWIW your whole modern lifestyle is available to you because of "some useless engineer".

    Posted 1 year ago #
  24. Ernie

    Ernie

    offline
    Member

    Granted, I voted for the dufus, but he seemed like the best option at the time. Hindsight is always 20/20.

    Yeah, two years into a Mallahan administration we'd be so much better off. LOL.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  25. cdpenne

    cdpenne

    offline
    Member

    FWIW Ernie,I didn't say anything about Engineers in general so no offense intended and I'm pretty sure you already know that.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  26. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    Pastafarian - actually the link you posted starts out with the statement " Mayor Mike McGinn is pushing a road safety summit aimed at making Seattle streets safer for everyone - and one topic that is likely to come up includes lowering speed limits in some neighborhoods." The mention of bicycles is because of the higher than usual bicycle fatalities this year.
    Who would not want lower speeds on our streets?
    The mayor did not think this up on his own. The folks at SDOT have been working on these ideas for some time, the current mayor is just stating it in a public forum. Traffic calming has been on the book since the last mayor and before.
    And this issue is not about bicycle riders.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  27. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    cdpenne - "this smacks of a meaningless gesture or a bone thrown towards the CBC" Please, you mention CBC like it is some "bad" organization. I have worked for then part time for the last five years and I can tell you that all the people on staff are hard working and dedicated to "Creating a Better Community Through Bicycling".
    And the CBC members are a cross section of our community, we are not just riders in spandex on road bikes.
    What is it that you think "CBC" wants? And who do yuo think "CBC" is?
    We, the people that make up the club, are all local people just like you, with families and homes in this area. Most of us want a livable, safe environment to enjoy our lives in.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  28. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    FYI - SPD officer on Traffic Enforcement can and often do enforce the bicycle helmet law. I have spoken to many riders that found this out the hard way. Officers often combine fine when the rider runs a stop sign or a light and the cost of the ticket can be as much as $150.
    I ride quite a lot and I have to say that more than 50% of riders wear helmets. I will agree that if you are driving a car you might only notice those riders that are breaking the law in some way and are also not wearing a helmet, but most of us do wear helmets.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  29. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

  30. great idea

    great idea

    offline
    Member

    I'd say more like 70-80% of riders have helmets on locally.

    kind of makes you cringe when you think of the states where you don't need a helmet on a motorcycle (a far more dangerous ride imho).

    illinois
    iowa
    new hampshire
    (and we let these clowns hold the first primaries?)

    not to mention the 29 states w/ no bike helmet law.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  31. cdpenne

    cdpenne

    offline
    Member

    Thanks for the clarifications VB. I suspected the original article might have been sensationalized.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  32. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    cdpenne - You are welcome.
    The reporters just did not do their homework and made an assumption.
    And I still don't understand why you post such harsh comments about the Cascade Bicycle Club?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  33. cdpenne

    cdpenne

    offline
    Member

    Hello VB,

    What is livable and safe according to the CBC is not necessarily what is livable and safe in my opinion. The CBC are now political insiders and their lobbyists do a successful job of representing and getting programs and state money for what is a very small (albeit growing) percent of the population while claiming to be working for the good of all. I don't trust anybody who claims to be working for the good of all specially when they refuse to see that their goals and achievements have direct negative impact on many other people and their livelyhoods. The CBC, in my opinion, has a very myopic point of view.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  34. Edog

    Edog

    offline
    Member

    Insider outsider does not matter to me. They are hell bent to put their thumb on the scale and get as much as they can from as much membership as they can, as any organization does.

    Still, I've come to have a negative opinion of CBC. I say this as someone who fully believes that a bicycle's potential as part of a traffic solution/transit option is underutilized.

    I only know of them passively through their website, the comments of their ambassadors, and some of the interviews they done on radio, other media outlets and even their own message boards. While I've taken all this in with an open mind, I have increasingly come to view CBC as the Northwest's answer to the NRA in that all of life is viewed with respect to a tool: a magical tool that they believe can cure society of all its ills.

    While I believe their membership is a crosscut of the area, their professional and volunteer face suffers from a strange grandiose spiritual relationship with their bike. For them, its not simply a transit option, or recreational activity, but a tool they have some sort of spiritual bond with outside of its manifest use. After listening to them talk, one gets that sense its not enough to bike, but one MUST rearrange their world view as some sort of spiritual journey whose nirvana has a platinum bike atop a pyramid at its end.

    In this context, the slogan "Creating a Better Community Through Bicycling" is indeed quite telling. Its not about improving cycling, its about the world from the eyes of the bicycle. I suffer from no illusion that crime would go down, if I carried a gun. Similarly, a bike does not lead to some magical utopia where there is no traffic, congestion, or accidents, repair costs, and so forth.

    I've found the various advocates of CBC, will listen to the concerns of others only in that the get a chance to talk, and tell you why you are wrong. Your concerns do not penetrate them. They are out there only to offer weak platitudes, false identities, or to say they have some program that makes it better, in the effort to make it seem like they have addressed a common concern, while in reality all they have done is amplify their core message and upped the volume.

    For example, Cascade Ambassadors live in world where bikes are generously separated from negative actions. Its a magical world where a person is never hit by a bike, there was no accident, rather a bike connected with someone who fell and sustained a injury, a fatal injury. Mind you this link is not about the frequency of bicycle collisions with peds, but rather a stunning display of just how bikes are viewed in a world colored by Cascade.

    http://www.myballard.com/forum/topic.php?id=10254&page=2#post-147874

    Posted 1 year ago #
  35. On what planet is this even remotely a controversial measure?

    Please take a moment to gather information a bit more broadly than local so-called libertarian Dori Monson (who is asking for a ban on bikes on public roads, because I guess government intrusions are OK if Dori wants them) or the imaginary-war-on-cars-obsessed local media, it *allows* (doesn't mandate) local cities to lower the speed-limit to 20 on residential (non-arterial) streets.

    This is a bill that had unanimous, bipartisan support in the State legislature last year. Not the Mayor's idea.

    Still not convinced, now that McSchwinnhahahahathatsfunnierthe100thtimeireadit's paws are off of it?

    Try these articles on for size:
    http://daily.sightline.org/2011/10/18/the-war-on-kids-the-elderly-and-other-people-who-walk/
    http://seattlebikeblog.com/2011/10/19/the-neighborhood-safe-speeds-bill-has-unanimous-bipartisan-support/
    http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/12/22/twentys-plenty/

    The statistics on significant decrease in pedestrian fatalities at 20mph vs 30mph are solid, and London has seen the following result with 20mph residential zones:
    "The safety effects of the 20 mph zones have been enormous for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike. In London, serious traffic injuries and fatalities have fallen by 46 percent within the zones, according to the prestigious British Medical Journal. Deaths and serious injuries sustained by children have dropped 50 percent. There's even a small spillover effect, with areas immediately adjacent to 20 mph zones seeing an eight percent reduction in total injuries and deaths. The science is so clear that in 2004 the World Health Organization endorsed 20 mph speeds as an essential strategy to save lives." (from http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/03/22/how-london-is-saving-lives-with-20-mph-zones/)

    And guess what, there were also a large reduction in injuries to car occupants.

    As for the "people drive as fast as they want anyway" argument, what a bill like this would do is *allow* (not mandate) SDOT to design safer residential streets (like neighborhood greenways) to be "self-enforcing", with chicanes, curb bulbouts, speed tables, and other effective engineering techniques.

    Still have a problem with this bill? I'd really love to hear what it is, because I just don't understand how it's controversial once you understand what's proposed. Are you really against reducing pedestrian and child fatalities on residential streets by 50%? I'll understand if you don't think we can currently afford to re-engineer our streets but don't you think the option should be at least be on the table?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  36. Sunset Hill David

    Sunset Hill David

    offline
    Member

    Thank you for a little common sense, Julian. As a car rider who is also a fair-weather bicycle rider, I get really tired of these bicycle haters. Aren't there enough conflicts in this world without making up such a silly one as this? Bike riders aren't ogres, for goodness sake, some are your own children.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  37. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    Julian and SHD - thanks for your positive posts. And Julian thanks for some intelligent information.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  38. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    cdpenne - I still don't understand who you think "CBC" is. Of the 28 full time staff only two of them are active in the political arena. That would be Max Hepp-Buchanan and Chris Rule.
    http://www.cascade.org/About/office_staff.cfm
    What exactly has anything that any of the staff of the Cascade Bicycle Club done that has a "negative impact on many other people and their livelyhoods" as you just posted?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  39. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    Edog - I know from what you have posted that you are a bicycle rider however I am slightly perturbed by your comments regarding Cascade Bicycle Ambassadors! Other than the posts that you have read on this website, all posted by me and I am a Cascade Bicycle Ambassador, where have you seen comments by other Cascade Bicycle Ambassadors? Currently there are only four of us and I am the only one living in Ballard.
    In the last paragraph of your last post,you added a link to one of my earlier posts, regarding the tragic accident on the Cedar River Trail. I am not sure what you read into my statement but I can assure you that I do not live in a magical world that you seem to imagine. My world is magical but mostly because I am alive and I appreciate the wonders of life around me.
    What you seem to have done is to read my comments and take them to be the comments of the "CBC". I can assure you that if you talked to the 28 staff members and the 4 Ambassadors and the 4 or more Americorp interns, you would have a number of different opinions on what bicycling means to them. We are not all the same.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  40. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

    VB, my problem with CBC is the attitude that is given from this statement from their website:

    I recently received a call from a cyclist (I’ll call him Joe) who was hit by a car when he rode his bike through a red light. Joe was taken by ambulance to Harborview where he was diagnosed with a broken collarbone. Joe incurred a $500 ambulance bill and a $2,200 hospital bill. Joe admitted that the accident was his fault and was calling for advice on how to handle the medical bills because he did not have any medical insurance.

    Luckily for Joe, most car drivers in Washington carry PIP (Personal Injury Protection) coverage as part of their auto insurance policy and most PIP policies state that regardless of fault, the car driver’s insurance will pay reasonable and necessary medical bills for a pedestrian or a cyclist involved in an accident with the insured car. Most PIP policies have a maximum medical benefit limit of $10,000.

    This ,according to my attorney and insurance company, is false. I MAY pay if I wish, such as if they are a friend but not required, but in this case the rider IS responsible for all damages and cost.

    The above quote shows that the CBC feels that the riders should never shoulder any responsibility for their actions

    end rant

    Posted 1 year ago #
  41. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    RichY - can you please post the link to that statement, or email me the link at veganbiker at gmail dot com.
    I can't seem to find it on the web site!
    However according to this:
    http://seattlebicycleattorney.com/archives/441
    Your facts may not be correct and the info on the CBC website looks like it is correct.
    I don't think it is a question of "riders should never shoulder any responsibility for their actions" possibly the person posting the information was just stating a fact. Admittedly I do not know the exact circumstances of this particular incident so I really don't know.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  42. Mondoman

    Mondoman

    offline
    Member

    I'd like to compliment the authors of the last dozen or so posts for your facts, cogent arguments, links, etc. It's nice to have a well-reasoned discussion rather than a snark or even hate fest.
    VB - while I tend to agree with Edog's view of the CBC, I've found your statements, actions, and my interactions with you uniformly positive and helpful -- thanks!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  43. dsomers

    dsomers

    offline
    Member

    RichY,

    I am afraid I don't see the sinister intent in that quote. If you or I were approached by someone who had an accident of some sort and was having trouble shouldering the financial burden and seeking any ideas as to what they could do, would we tell them to keep a stiff upper lip, throw their shoulders back and to take it like a man (or a woman?) Or would we ponder and offer whatever we could think of that might help them cover their costs at least a bit? I don't see this CBC quote as doing any more than that.

    If your attorney and insurance company are correct, and I assume they are, then you have a 1 word difference between CBC's suggestion and reality. An important difference....will pay as opposed to may pay....but still something that can be chalked up as a misunderstanding of the coverages available. The idea is still worth pursuing either way.

    I guess I don't see this as some sign of intent on the part of theCBC "that the riders should never shoulder any responsibility for their actions."

    For what it is worth I have never been a CBC member and don't have any strong feelings about them one way or the other. Though I do know and respect Vegan and the work he does with them.

    Dave

    Posted 1 year ago #
  44. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    Mondoman - thanks to you also.
    I try to post and also say things that I know to be accurate, but I also make mistakes and happily accept correction if I do. And most of the people that I have known at the club appear to have the same intentions.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  45. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

    here is the link: http://www.cascade.org/Advocacy/legalspin_may07.cfm

    The info posted I found interesting, ran it by my insurance company - they disagreed with the statement, in fact they stated that the company policy is not to pay unless I directed it, during a lunch with a friend who is also my attorney I asked the same question, and she did confirm the insurance company’s stand.

    I think the better stand for the CBC should be the same as the AMA, which I am a longtime member of, - you do the crime, you do the time or as it more publicly states Ride to live, Live to ride.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  46. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

    dsomers & VeganBiker, please do not get me wrong, I do not think bicycles are evil or the CBC is, but the CBC has entered the political arena and stands to most in the bicycle community as the leader for riders.

    The messages to riders should be if you run a stop sign and get hit, then you need to be responsible, not don’t worry the person you hit will pay . This is not a social justice issue this is more of "let’s be careful - the rules are there for a reason"

    As Douglas Adams wrote "How much damage do you think my bulldozer will have if I let it run over you?"

    We all need to keep it real

    Posted 1 year ago #
  47. dsomers

    dsomers

    offline
    Member

    Richy! No worries. I didn't hear you saying the CBC and bikers are evil! <grin> I just didn't see the same thing in that quote that you were describing.

    And I don't disagree that bikes should be obeying the traffic laws. I often think we are way too aggressive and discourteous in our riding. It bothers me to see others doing it when I am riding a bike or driving a car.

    But while personal responsibility is desired, is someone who admits he was in the wrong to ask for help as well? In the case of this particular form of insurance coverage the possibility of help is there. But if you don't ask??? The CBC was wrong in saying you WILL be covered, but not far off since you might be covered if the other party agrees. If you need the help is it wrong to ask?

    So....I still don't see that quote as a sign of the CBC advocating that "the riders should never shoulder any responsibility for their actions."

    Dave

    Posted 1 year ago #
  48. cdpenne

    cdpenne

    offline
    Member

    "I'd love to hang these people up by their toenails at the edge of town and paint 'killer' across their chest and let them hang there until the buzzards peck their eyes out."

    Does that apply to the guy who ran over the elederly woman last year on the Eastside?

    Or how bout the guy who was arrested for using his bike as a weapon and smashing it against the side of car?

    The accident on 24th and 65th in 2008 - they place the blame sort of on the woman driving the van but everyone knows that is only half the truth. Should she have her eyes pecked out too?

    I have said it before and I'll say it again. You can't simultaneously request or demand 3 feet of space and then not grant the same. Share means share.

    Yes not all bicylists are CBC but the activism always had and still does have one goal - empower cyclists to take the streets. Well the cylclists now are so used to power, that they feel entitled. They are told the law will always be on their side in and accident. They ride through lights, too fast, on the side walk, then on the road, across the cross walk, against the traffic, and for the most part without harrassment from SPD. They willingly and beligerantly slow traffic and act as though anyone who might call them on it obviously wants the world to die choking on green house gasses. It is a horrible combination - entitled and holier than thou. Suddenly any businesses that raise a protest are villianized and labled luddite. Just look at the comments here by SPG, Michael Snyder, and others every time the Ballard Beaver or the the BG trail come up.

    And how bout the recent deaths of cyclists this past summer. I can't say for sure because I wasn't there, but I drive through downtown everyday twice a day and the biggest scofflaws who cause the biggest problems are more often than not the cyclists. It's all fine and good to just assume that it's always the drivers fault until you're dead. The hit and run driver fled because he / she knew that he / she would hang for it, right or wrong, or as the case likely is partially right and partially wrong.

    Bicylists are small, easily missed, vulnerable. The CBC came along and said the only way to be safe is to be big. Go take the lane. I know the logic. I don't own a car and ride motorcyle or bicyle 365 days a year so don't tell that isn't the central core message of the bicycle activism. The problem is that you can only TAKE for so long before you have to do a little giving. That's called sharing. CBC hasn't learned to share. In fact they deny the shit storm they helped cause is even their fault. They deny the shit storm even exists. What war? The little snot nose kid just made to the top of the pile and he aint going to share yet. That is the CBC.

    Well, VB, Ambassadors aren't only responsible for toeing the party line and delivering the same old tired lines.. 'we are doing this for your own good you polluting luddite cagers'. Ambassadors also take messages back to the mother ship. Those people who sacked Hillier were right and the "Rescue Squad" got it all wrong.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  49. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

    Dsomers, You are correct - I just see what happened in the 70's with MC riders and the number of fatalities that were accruing, mostly from poor safety equipment and real poor (as in no) training, It is happening with today’s bicycle riders- maybe I over-react but in my heart I think the CBC could (should) be a better role model.

    I was taught by my half uncle, who was an outlaw rider, and I still ride by his rules:
    Don’t go anywhere without an exit
    Ride like you will die today
    if you hit anything - you lose
    if anything hits you – you lose
    and if it stops being fun – stop

    Posted 1 year ago #
  50. dsomers

    dsomers

    offline
    Member

    CD,

    You won't get an argument from me about there being sick, or violent people, or just plain criminals riding bikes. Just like there are the same types of people driving cars and walking on the sidewalks. No issue there.

    And no argument that if we want people to be more careful of bikes then the bikers need to be courteous and cautious in return. Same thing that should go on between two vehicle drivers or two pedestrians on a sidewalk. Or any mix of the 3.

    But does the stupidity or aggressive actions of some bikers negate the need for street construction that safeguards bikes, and peds, and vehicles? Do the actions of a few dangerous people on motorcycles reduce the need for measures on the roads to improve overall motorcycle safety? There is stupidity and inappropriate behavior in all their ranks. Does that negate the need to improve conditions for everyone when it can reasonably be done?

    And...you may have stated part of the solution to much of this. Bikers get away with a lot of stuff "without harassment from SPD."

    One of the reasons traffic laws get obeyed is they are enforced. We all see what happens when lack of staff, or lack of interest causes certain laws to be overlooked by the police, or for patrols in given neighborhoods to be reduced or eliminated. When that happens the laws get ignored by a larger number of the drivers until the PD starts paying attention again. Bikes should not be exempt from this. You can't expect bikers to obey laws better when there is no enforcement than you would expect among drivers or pedestrians when they see no enforcement. Most of us will obey the laws regardless because it is in our best interest to do it, and because we are pretty law abiding people. A group of us will flaunt the laws when we can get away with it. Bikes are not different than cars or pedestrians or motorcyclists in that regard.

    Right now laws for bikes are not being well enforced. Due to money constraints? Lack of interest on the part of the PD? Lack of public demand for that enforcement? Probably a combination of those and other reasons.

    The CBC developed to be an advocate for bikes. They have pushed hard to get the clout needed to accomplish things. Dozens of Automobile and Trucker and Motorcycle groups do the same things on behalf of their constituents. Are you as angry with them for their advocacy as you are with the CBC for its? Much of what those groups wanted to accomplish is done. You might say they are in a maintenance mode as far as their advocacy goes. They still have things they want to do, but the distance from where they are to where they want to be is getting pretty small. With bikes that distance is still pretty large. So they push that much harder and are that much more visible.

    Do I think everything the CBC advocates is worthwhile? No. Like any advocacy group they have good ideas and ill considered ideas. They have ideas that are reasonable and ideas that would seem to cost too much for the gains they offer. Its a mixed bag. Its not all bad though, any more than it is all good. Overall I think it is fairly good, but when it is bad is really stands out.

    Just my thoughts CD. A couple of beers sometime to continue banging away on this issue would be good!!

    D

    Posted 1 year ago #
  51. dsomers

    dsomers

    offline
    Member

    Sorry! Should have put TLDR in front of that last post! <grin>

    D

    Posted 1 year ago #
  52. eric

    eric

    online
    Member

    sorry cd, but the incident at 24th and 65th was clearly due to the van making an unsafe u-turn from the southbound curb. i think the business that owned the van has already settled the case (for lots of $). i'm pretty sure that this is not debatable.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  53. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    RichY - John Duggan the person who wrote the post that you question, is a Seattle lawyer:
    http://www.dugganbikelaw.com/
    And I am pretty sure what he posted is correct! So you might want to check your sources.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  54. RichY

    RichY

    offline
    Member

    Yes, I know, he practices personal injury law.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  55. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    cdpenne - so much of what you posted in that last post is not accurate.

    "Yes not all bicylists are CBC but the activism always had and still does have one goal - empower cyclists to take the streets." (-Nobody at CBC ever said that!-)

    Well the cylclists now are so used to power, that they feel entitled. They are told the law will always be on their side in and accident. They ride through lights, too fast, on the side walk, then on the road, across the cross walk, against the traffic, and for the most part without harrassment from SPD. (- CBC gives classes on how to ride legally with other traffic. CBC publishes brochures on local traffic laws, CBC insists that riders follow the local traffic laws.-) (-SPD and the UW Police force enforce those laws.-)
    Almost all of the riders that are not wearing helmets and breaking the traffic laws are NOT members of CBC!

    They willingly and beligerantly slow traffic and act as though anyone who might call them on it obviously wants the world to die choking on green house gasses. (- You just made that one up!-)

    It is a horrible combination - entitled and holier than thou. Suddenly any businesses that raise a protest are villianized and labled luddite. (Again those are just your words.)
    Just look at the comments here by SPG, Michael Snyder, and others every time the Ballard Beaver or the the BG trail come up.
    (- And do you really want to bring up the Missing Link again? Any one with any sense can see that for all road users it would be better to finish the BGT and get bike riders off Shilshole Ave.-)

    P.S. Both Firefox and Google Chrome have spell checker! I know that was nasty. :)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  56. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    RichY - so are you saying that this lawyer that represents the CBC does not know what he is talking about?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  57. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    cdpenne - check this out:

    http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=486063

    This is the what really happens!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  58. teigyr

    teigyr

    offline
    Member

    dsomers, I think your idea of beers and conversation is brilliant :) I think there are a lot of sincere opinions here and the written word can be a bit sterile. There's nothing like face to face conversation and alcohol to actually help people understand each other. I'm not being sarcastic, it's a bonding experience.

    Before I moved to WA, I checked around for cycling resources. I did find CBC and intended on joining when I moved up here. The more I looked into them, however, the less I liked them. I think they've done some good but they assert themselves way too heavily sometimes. In all fairness though, dsomers is right in that other groups do that too.

    I try to see things both ways. On the trails, the cyclists can get screwed due to the mom army and roller bladers and people simply not paying attention. I get the impression that the serious cyclists would rather be on the road. Then on the road I see cyclists on roads that are questionable, I see them out in the lane blocking cars, and I see them run lights. Heck as a runner I was about run into by a cyclist who ran a red light! He yelled at me to get out of the way because he was speeding through a light and didn't want to get hit by a car. Jackass. Jackass not wearing a helmet either, I was wishing him to hit a rock or grate because I'm petty that way.

    I think Seattle has a bunch of problems right now. Drivers are frustrated and anything that'll lengthen an already too-long driving time is hard to take. There is a segment of people that have to drive to get to work, cycling or a bus isn't an option. I think THAT needs to be solved first. If the city is going to put money and energy into something, I really think fixing our roads comes first.

    And if there is a lowered speed limit (knowing that police don't patrol there so the whole thing is moot) and a cyclist has an unrealistic expectation of safety, does that seem right? It's like the sharrows. It might've seemed like a good idea at the time but I don't think it does much of anything at all.

    Then again I am a wussy cyclist and therefore don't ride up here :) I DO have to commute to work and being stuck behind a cyclist who doesn't get over even when there is opportunity is a very frustrating experience.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  59. teigyr

    teigyr

    offline
    Member

    damn. Yup, me and tldr are more than acquaintances :)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  60. VeganBiker

    VeganBiker

    offline
    Member

    teigyr - having a face to face conversation and alcohol sounds like a GREAT idea, I am up for that. If anyone on this topic wants to have a real discussion then we can meet at the Noble Fir next Wednesday and talk! How about it? 7:30 PM ish?

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

OUR SPONSORS










Advertise here
There are 136 users online. 7 of them are members.
213745 posts in 14757 topics over 62 months by 3928 of 87970 members. Latest: nispvywvvo93, uo559rch, onpqa2745