RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubelilbit wrote >>
Yeah. Like Matthew Shepard? The Laramie Project? Completely out of line.
Not the same at all I say. In that case Shepard's family and friends made that choice, not some creepy vampire with an axe to grind.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion
The death of cyclist Jeffrey Stevenson and my ambivalence toward bike lanes
[132 posts] [52 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
michaelcoyote
!seabus
Login to Send PM
Posted 1 year ago # -
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
lifeontwowheels wrote >>
lilbit wrote >>
Yeah. Like Matthew Shepard? The Laramie Project? Completely out of line.There is a difference when we cross into actual hate crimes, though.
I'm speaking specifically in regards to cycling advocacy and how much we tend to focus on death and injury. In the big picture, what does that really accomplish?Good point. The risks of cycling obviously are only part of the overall picture. We shouldn't forget the joys of cycling.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
MikeReed wrote >>
I don't want to politicize Jeff's death.
Speaking about my own case- I've had a chance to review the footage of the white van/truck that turned left in front of me last Thursday and mangled my bike. It is obvious from the tape that they guy saw me (too late) and tried to cut his turn to avoid me. His isn't praise for the scumbag (who i am on a relentless mission to find now that i have tape)' but had he not done that I would probably have been more seriously injured.
A bike lane would have made no difference in my case. The motorist was crossing my path- that was going to happen lane or no lane. I suspect that the same is true in Jeff's case. That crime did not occur during rush hour. It happened early when the road was likely clear aside from the cyclist and the driver. It was probably recklessness that cost Jeff his life, and doubt a bike lane would have made the motorist a better driver or better human being (one who might have stopped). Very few of the auto/cyclist crashes that do occur happen where the motorist hits the cyclist from behind.
There is very little that can prepare you for a massive vehicle that suddenly turns into your path- this is true of being in a car or being on a bike... The consequences on a bike are far more dire, though. You can't really force a car driver to do anything. Most won't run you down, but should they choose to... Well the bike loses that battle every time and the laws are stacked against cyclists. You are supposed to somehow get a license plate number and be able to make a positive ID of the driver after being chewed up under a car or truck. Ridiculous.
I'll say that I don't think bike lanes are the knee-jerk answer in every case. Thereare times where they will make sense and times where they won't- and in some cases you will see late-in-the-game loop-de-loop bike lanes to account for poor outreach and/or bad design (hilltop). Generally speaking, the sad truth is that some advocates and politicians are pro bike lane not because bike lanes are the right answer, but more because bike lanes are quantifiable end-of-year bullet points for a list of "accomplishments". Those kind of bike lanes for sure serve no one except for people keeping that kind of score.
Life is not without it's risks. So keep riding and stay vigilant. Protect your body and be visible. It usually works out fine that way.Mike, when you say that "life is not without its risks," it makes me think that perhaps my take-the-entire-lane idea is a part of me wanting to believe that my own cycling situation is somehow special, that is, somehow inherently safer than Jeffrey Stevenson's or Steve Barbour's was.
No matter what a cyclist may do to be more safe, there are still risks. I know there are at least some people out there who assert that cycling is not more dangerous than driving. But my guess is that the risk of death or injury PER TIME SPENT cycling is greater than the risk of death or injury PER TIME SPENT in a moving motor vehicle.
Your statement that "there are times where they (bike lanes) will make sense and times where they won't" reminds me that I currently feel significantly safer ( perhaps delusionally) cycling on Morse Road between Indianola and Easton than I did several years ago before the bike lanes and the good sidewalks were installed.
Also, for the sake of accuracy, I got to admit I practice the take-the-entire-lane approach only in some situations. Likely, it's not a news flash for other cyclists that that approach isn't the best for every situation.
One some roads at night I ride the center of the lane until the auto is several hundred feet away, and then I slide over to use the berm, so long as it's similar in size to a bike lane, as it is, for example, heading north on North Star toward Lane. Being seen by the motorist is the goal.
Further, I probably wouldn't cycle commute as much as I do were it not for the relatively good sidewalks on Morse from Easton to Maize Road. Making use of those sidewalks at night seems to make sense given that motorists are often going 50-60 mph on some poorly lighted sections. I balance the increased risk of getting hit by a speeding vehicle if I am in the road against what may be the increased risk of being mugged if I am cycling on the sidewalk.
But the important thing is reducing, if not eliminating, my driving. I don't rule out walking my bike if I have to. In the final analysis, being a purist about this or that aspect of cycling is not what matters.
Posted 1 year ago # -
fredm333
Login to Send PM
TomOver wrote >>
MikeReed wrote >>
I don't want to politicize Jeff's death.
Speaking about my own case- I've had a chance to review the footage of the white van/truck that turned left in front of me last Thursday and mangled my bike. It is obvious from the tape that they guy saw me (too late) and tried to cut his turn to avoid me. His isn't praise for the scumbag (who i am on a relentless mission to find now that i have tape)' but had he not done that I would probably have been more seriously injured.
A bike lane would have made no difference in my case. The motorist was crossing my path- that was going to happen lane or no lane. I suspect that the same is true in Jeff's case. That crime did not occur during rush hour. It happened early when the road was likely clear aside from the cyclist and the driver. It was probably recklessness that cost Jeff his life, and doubt a bike lane would have made the motorist a better driver or better human being (one who might have stopped). Very few of the auto/cyclist crashes that do occur happen where the motorist hits the cyclist from behind.
There is very little that can prepare you for a massive vehicle that suddenly turns into your path- this is true of being in a car or being on a bike... The consequences on a bike are far more dire, though. You can't really force a car driver to do anything. Most won't run you down, but should they choose to... Well the bike loses that battle every time and the laws are stacked against cyclists. You are supposed to somehow get a license plate number and be able to make a positive ID of the driver after being chewed up under a car or truck. Ridiculous.
I'll say that I don't think bike lanes are the knee-jerk answer in every case. Thereare times where they will make sense and times where they won't- and in some cases you will see late-in-the-game loop-de-loop bike lanes to account for poor outreach and/or bad design (hilltop). Generally speaking, the sad truth is that some advocates and politicians are pro bike lane not because bike lanes are the right answer, but more because bike lanes are quantifiable end-of-year bullet points for a list of "accomplishments". Those kind of bike lanes for sure serve no one except for people keeping that kind of score.
Life is not without it's risks. So keep riding and stay vigilant. Protect your body and be visible. It usually works out fine that way.Mike, when you say that "life is not without its risks," it makes me think that perhaps my take-the-entire-lane idea is a part of me wanting to believe that my own cycling situation is somehow special, that is, somehow inherently safer than Jeffrey Stevenson's or Steve Barbour's was.
No matter what a cyclist may do to be more safe, there are still risks. I know there are at least some people out there who assert that cycling is not more dangerous than driving. But my guess is that the risk of death or injury PER TIME SPENT cycling is greater than the risk of death or injury PER TIME SPENT in a moving motor vehicle.
Your statement that "there are times where they (bike lanes) will make sense and times where they won't" reminds me that I currently feel significantly safer ( perhaps delusionally) cycling on Morse Road between Indianola and Easton than I did several years ago before the bike lanes and the good sidewalks were installed.
Also, for the sake of accuracy, I got to admit I practice the take-the-entire-lane approach only in some situations. Likely, it's not a news flash for other cyclists that that approach isn't the best for every situation.
One some roads at night I ride the center of the lane until the auto is several hundred feet away, and then I slide over to use the berm, so long as it's similar in size to a bike lane, as it is, for example, heading north on North Star toward Lane. Being seen by the motorist is the goal.
Further, I probably wouldn't cycle commute as much as I do were it not for the relatively good sidewalks on Morse from Easton to Maize Road. Making use of those sidewalks at night seems to make sense given that motorists are often going 50-60 mph on some poorly lighted sections. I balance the increased risk of getting hit by a speeding vehicle if I am in the road against what may be the increased risk of being mugged if I am cycling on the sidewalk.
But the important thing is reducing, if not eliminating, my driving. I don't rule out walking my bike if I have to. In the final analysis, being a purist about this or that aspect of cycling is not what matters.I am a close relative of Jeff's. I find this thread pretty educational. Jeff was passionate about his art and his skateboarding. He very much so liked his bike. His bicycle was not a hobby of his it was his primary transportation. Like many starving artists (and college students) Jeff was not made of money. He was two years away from making it big in his field as an illustrator.
I doubt Jeff would be offended by this thread. On the other hand I doubt if he wants to be most remembered by his tragic death when there are so many other quality things to remember about him.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM
fredm333, welcome to CU.
I, for one, would welcome some more details about Jeff's life. From what little we've heard he sounded like a very giving person, someone who will be missed very much. It's always a nice tribute to hear more about people like that, as well as a reminder to seek out the extraordinary in those people we already know. Thanks.
Posted 1 year ago # -
fredm333
Login to Send PM
Bear wrote >>
fredm333, welcome to CU.
I, for one, would welcome some more details about Jeff's life. From what little we've heard he sounded like a very giving person, someone who will be missed very much. It's always a nice tribute to hear more about people like that, as well as a reminder to seek out the extraordinary in those people we already know. Thanks.Thank you for your kindness. We are all still in the "devastated" stage.
Posted 1 year ago # -
News
Columbus Underground
Login to Send PM
Why Do Motorists Hit Cyclists & Run? Because 30 days is better than 4-8 YEARS!~
By: Steve Magas, April 20, 2012In Columbus, the end comes to a criminal case two years in the making. Amber Fernandez was sentenced in the hit/run death of Jeff Stevenson – instead of being punished for 4-8 years for killing Jeff Stevenson, she got THIRTY DAYS for running away.
READ MORE: http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2012/04/why-do-motorists-hit-cyclists-run-because-30-days-is-better-than-4-8-years/Posted 1 month ago # -
mrsgeedeck
Castle of Lions
Login to Send PM
Wow. I know people with DUI/OVI who hit/killed no one who have gotten stronger sentences than this. Obviously, not innocent, but kind of ridiculous to know the law thinks its worse to find a person asleep in the back of their car, keys out of ignition (honestly happened to a friend) than it is to be responsible for a hit and run.
Posted 1 month ago # -
cheap
Westgate
Login to Send PM
0Angle said:
What part(s) of the article do you find hard to take seriously?it's written by an attorney.
an attorney represented the young lady,negotiating a plea deal with the prosecutor that got her 30 days for killing this kid.
attorneys are part of the problem with the legal process,not the solution.
Posted 1 month ago # -
DavidF
Elysium Fields
Login to Send PM
cheap said:
it's written by an attorney.an attorney represented the young lady,negotiating a plea deal with the prosecutor that got her 30 days for killing this kid.
attorneys are part of the problem with the legal process,not the solution.
Sure, and doctors are what's wrong with medicine.
(insert meaningless and uninformed generalization here)
Posted 1 month ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.