Just another distracted driving accident

A crumpled bike lies at the roadside along with a couple of other pieces of trash blowing by in the wind. The large dent in the front of the van and the broken windshield shows how hard the cyclist was struck.

The driver of this AT&T work van that struck and killed a cyclist on the Charleston James Island Connector Road in early July paid a $113 traffic ticket yesterday. In doing so he did not admit guilt and he does not even have to appear in court; the case is over. What kind of bullshit justice is that?

What has happened to our local Charleston Police Department’s pledge to serve and protect? There is very little serving or protecting going on as far as I can see.

This is not the first injustice; just last year two motorcyclists were stopped at a red light when an SUV rear ended them, killing them both. The two were from the same family, a man and his father-in-law. No charges were filed in that case; local motorcyclists were puzzled and outraged at the time, with good reason.

Both these are clear cases of distracted driving. Gregory Rupley the AT&T driver was charged with improper lane usage; police stated this was the closest applicable charge under state law involving a cyclist verses car accident.

The cyclist Mitchell Hollon, a much loved local anesthesiologist, was riding his bike on a wide and ample shoulder when he was struck from behind and was knocked over the side of a bridge to land in a marsh some 50 feet below.

Deemed an “Accident,” this happened on a straight stretch of highway so how could the driver fail to see the cyclist ahead of him? He was obviously distracted and not looking where he was going.

There were independent witnesses; where was the problem with bringing forth more serious charges and making them stick? Police it seems cannot be bothered.

There will likely be a civil case and the family of the deceased will no doubt receive a large settlement; however, this will not come out of driver Rupley’s pocket, but his employer AT&T and their insurance company.

Distracted driving is a huge problem and back when this incident happened I asked that people be held accountable for their actions. Treating the death of someone along the same lines as a parking ticket will not bring about accountability.

Mitchell Hollen, a fine outstanding citizen and member of our community is dead.  His death was easily avoidable; if only the AT&T driver had paid better attention to his driving.

                        

The positive impact of commuting by bicycle

The London School of Economics recently published a report on the economic impact cycling has in Britain.

The report states that in 2010 cycling contributed 2.9 billion British Pounds to the economy.

Which would be 4.7 billion US Dollars; note that is billion with a “B.”

This figure is not just new bicycle sales; it includes income made by people working in bicycle manufacturing and retail. It also estimates for example that people who commute to work by bike are healthier and therefore take less sick days off work. There are many other factors taken into account that contribute to the 2.9 billion figure; you can read the full report here.

One piece of information I gleaned from this report (On page 16.) is that between 10,000 and 15,000 people commute into London every day by bicycle. That figure is up 52% since 2007, and the forecast is for that number to quadruple by 2025.

I wonder if the average motorist driving into London and complains about the increased number of cyclist he encounters, realizes what a huge positive impact that number of regular bicycle commuters has on his daily drive.

As most people drive solo in a car, 10,000 bikes means 10,000 less cars on the road on any given day; 10,000 bike commuters is the low side of the estimate.  

A car needs a lot of space to operate, not just due to its increased physical size but due to the space required between each car which is far greater than the vehicle itself. Most car safety advocates agree that a car needs 2 seconds time lapse between vehicles in order to maintain a safe stopping distance.

At 20 mph. (29.33 feet per second.) a car should have 29.33 x 2 = 58.66 feet of space between it and the car in front. Add to that the length of the vehicle; let’s assume it is an average compact at about 15 feet.

That is 73.66 feet (22.45 meters.) of road space needed for every car; so take 10,000 cars off the road and you free up a whopping 139.5 miles of roadway. (Using Wolfram Alpha to calculate.)

The reason I chose 20 mph as the car's speed was because I figured this might be the average speed of a commute into to London during rush hour with the resulting stop and go traffic. A car would take up less space while at a standstill but would require more than 73.66 feet if going at more than 20 mph.

On the other hand, a bicycle takes up little or no space because the average car can pass a cyclist within the same lane. If a motorist has to slow to safely pass a cyclist, rather than become annoyed at the cyclist’s presence, he should realize that the cyclist represents one less car ahead of him that he would most likely not be able to pass.

Think of the impact that 10,000 per day less cars on the road has on the wear and tear of the road’s surface; a bicycle puts little or no wear on the road. Motorists who complain about the increased number of cyclists on the road, and complain about the cost of installing bike lanes, etc., are really not looking at the whole picture.

They should instead thank the person who decides to ride his/her bike to work, and in doing so takes one more car off the road. London is only one city in the world where this is happing.

I have recently been critical of cyclists in New York for running red lights, etc. However, bicyle commuting into New York City every day, will be having a similar positive impact as London, with the resuliting reductiion of cars.

Footnote: The picture of a London street at the top of this piece came from this article. (Worth a read.) It is interesting to note there are twice the number of bicycles in the picture than cars.  

                            

NYC cyclist fined $1,500 for running red lights

Juan Rodriguez (Above.) got not one, not two, but three tickets for running red lights in New York City. He thought if he went to court and explained to the judge that cyclists going through red lights are no real danger to anyone, the judge would dismiss the charges.

He was wrong; he was fined $190 for the first offence, $375 for the second, and $940 for the third, a total of just over $1,500…… Ouch.

Now Juan is angry and puzzled; he feels that fining a cyclist at the same rate as a tractor-trailer running a red light is overkill. While I might be somewhat inclined to agree, on the other hand cyclists are pushing the slogan, “Same road. Same rights. Same rules.”  So if the same fines are applied, does the cyclist really have an argument?

The excessiveness of the fines is only felt if the cyclist runs a red light; if he stops as he should it doesn’t really matter. And if the cyclist doesn’t grasp the concept of stopping on red after the first ticket, and goes on to collect two more, is there anyone to blame but the cyclist himself?

To get fines lowered for cyclists would call for a change in the law, and who is going to propose and push through such legislation? There are far more important laws that could be placed on the books that could be of real benefit to cyclists.

The problem is that Juan Rodriguez has probably ridden his bike through red lights ever since he first learned to ride a bike as a school kid. Like literally millions of others, no one said he shouldn’t do it, and it has become a habit. Cops in most places have turned a blind eye to it, figuring there is no real danger to anyone but the cyclist themselves. 

Things have changed; there are now far more cyclists on the road and numbers continue to increase. People are becoming aware of cyclists, which is a good thing; but often we are being noticed for the wrong reasons. Running red lights is just one of them.

Traffic lights by their very nature only work by everyone taking a huge leap of faith. There is no barrier that descends like a railway crossing; if you approach a light and it is green, the only reason we feel safe about driving through is the leap of faith we all take that everyone crossing your path will obey the law and stop. Naturally that includes cyclists.

Even though the cyclist estimates he can beat the car through the intersection, for the approaching car driver it is unnerving and annoying, whether it is a cyclist or a pedestrian running across. No one wants to hit another person, or even have a close call.

Rodriguez was also fined for not having a bell on his bike; a requirement in NYC and some other places; you could say he got a No-Bell Prize. (Sorry ‘bout that, I couldn’t resist.) I notice in the above picture he now has a bell. I wonder the bold Juan will stop at red lights from now on; I assume if he doesn’t it will cost him $940 a pop.

                        

Losing momentum: An excuse not to stop, not a reason

Dionette Cherney (Right.) who was hit by a cyclist while crossing a San Francisco street has died from her injuries.

That makes me both sad and extremely angry.

This unfortunate lady’s death was totally unnecessary; it was rush hour, she was crossing in a crosswalk with a green light, and now she is dead because a cyclist decided not to stop but to push through the crowd of pedestrians.

This not stopping by cyclists has to stop; it is total bullshit. It is a stupid habit many bike riders have, and there is no logical reason for it.

I am not being critical of the cyclist who rolls S-L-O-W-L-Y through a deserted intersection on a residential street. I am talking of the failure to yield to pedestrians, or to other vehicles that arrived first at busy stop signs and red lights.

If anyone wants to argue that in both instances cyclists are breaking the law I will have to plead no contest. However, the big difference is that the latter is rude and anti-social; it pisses people off, and in this case someone has died because of it. 

Forget that 811 pedestrians were hit by cars in San Francisco last year, while only 18 were hit by a bicycle; that is not the point. Unless a pedestrian steps directly into the path of a speeding cyclist, no one should get killed or seriously injured by a bicycle.

Nearly every complaint I hear about cyclists revolves around the fact that cyclists hate to stop; or in many cases, even hate to slow down.

The reason; they will lose their precious momentum. Are they that fucking lazy that they can’t slow or stop and make the effort start again?

All it takes is get out of the saddle give a few hard pumps on the pedals and you are back up to speed again. The ones with the potential to do serious damage are the ones who have reached a level of fitness that stopping and starting again should not even be an issue.

I witness this bullshit behavior almost on a daily basis; riding on a local bike path. I see cyclists buzz past pedestrians without warning or any attempt to slow down; in many cases there are small children around who are totally unpredictable and extremely vulnerable.

There are a couple of places where the path crosses a street and you can hear cars approaching and if they are close you can even see them. Why anyone would ride a bicycle from a bike path onto a road with a car approacing is beyond my comprehension.

Yet I see cyclists not even attempt to stop but rather make a hard left, ride towards the oncoming traffic, forcing the car to swerve towards the center of the road. They then continue riding until the road is clear and do a U-turn to double back to the path.

If a car approaches in the far lane from the opposite direction, they pull the same maneuver and make a hard left into the near lane without stopping. In most cases the car will stop because the driver has no idea what this idiot is about to do. The cyclist then turns in front of the car without so much a hand signal, or thank you wave.

All this just to avoid losing that little bit of precious momentum. All types of cyclists, across the board; even people on cruiser bikes, wearing street clothes and no helmet, and not traveling at any great speed. But already they have learned that momentum must be maintained at all costs. It is a habit these cyclists have formed; probably at the same time they first learned to ride a bike.

It is a habit born out of laziness; what other reason can there be. Like all habits it can be broken, but only if there is a willingness to change on the of part the individual. If a person is riding a bike to stay in shape, stopping and starting again is increasing your rate of effort; it is a form of interval training.

Resist the urge to keep moving at all cost and embrace stopping and starting as part of your exercise regime.

If nothing else by stopping when a cyclist is supposed to stop takes away the biggest complaint both motorists and pedestrians have against us all. Yes, all of us; I'm sure I get less respect on the road because of the poor habits of others. As I have said before; stop handing them the stick to beat us with.

Slowing down or stopping when it is called for, and the resulting loss of momentum is not your enemy, it is a ticket to increased strength and fitness and greater respect from others with whom we are obliged to share the road

                         

Alien Nation

Watching the news this week and reading reports of the rioting in Britain, my first reaction was, “What is going on?” I have lived in the US for 32 years now; about twice the years of many of these kids doing the rioting.

Being away from my country of birth for that long, and going back infrequently, the UK has changed so much that it is now the foreign country to me.

But the more things change the more they stay the same; as the old cliché goes. A recurring phrase I keep hearing and reading is that these young people in Britain feel “Alienated.”

Well guess what? Teens and twenty year olds have always been alienated in the UK; at least they were 60 years ago when I was that age.

Take what happened with music in Britain in the late 1950s and early 1960s. First of all in America around 1956 young white kids started listening to what the young black kids were listening to; Rock n’ Roll, in much the same way young white adults today listen to Rap and Hip-Hop.

Elvis Presley became such a huge phenomenon because he was a white kid singing like a black man. That is not a joke; listen to Presley’s early recordings with Sun Records. Bill Hayley too; actually a band of older musicians, but white and paying Rock ‘n Roll. This same music and these same records were a huge hit in Britain at the time.

However, in 1950s America the good Christian white folks did not take kindly to their children listening to black music, they would surely all be going straight to Hell in the proverbial hand basket.

The music establishment, the record industry, took Elvis and cut his hair. They toned down his music; and put him in a string of awful movies. In other words, they cleaned him up and he would never be the same again.

Clean cut Christian white singers were brought in, like Pat Boone, but compared to the original Elvis, Fats Domino and Little Richard, as boring as Hell. Other Cookie Cutter artists appeared; they all looked the same and sounded the same, singing songs of teen love and angst.

In Britain teens were alienated from the adult world; their parents, the church, or the government for that matter, could care less what they did or listened to.

Teens and young adults stopped listening to what was coming from America and went back to the roots of American Black Music. Traditional Jazz, Dixieland and New Orleans style that had been popular in the US during the 1920s and 1930s; and also the Blues that had later become Rock ‘n Roll.

Recordings of this older music were hard to come by, so older established musicians in Britain were smart enough to form bands and record this music as well as play live gigs. Teens and young adults soon found this music was not that difficult to play; if you could play three chords on a guitar, a bass could be made out of a wooden box, a broom handle, and a piece of string.

Add a washboard to the rhythm section and you had yourself a Skiffle Band. I know because I was in one around 1958. This all led to the explosion of home grown music in the early 1960s, with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, and many others.

The rest is history as they say, and history repeated itself in the late 1970s when the recording industry became so powerful it no longer produced what young people wanted. The result was the “Punk” movement and the music it produced.

So what does all this have to do with what is going on in Britain today?

What I have just described is something positive that came out of teens being suppressed and alienated. British kids did not accept what adults, even adults in another country were trying to dictate they should listen to.

The music these kids created changed the face of music for the whole world; it has even been said that this same music is what brought down Communism and the Soviet Union.

These riots in Britain are a negative result of this same alienation. These young people are not accepting what older adults and the establishment is saying they should do. They feel desperate and more suppression will only lead to more despair.

The British police are a big part of the problem. They have powers that people living in the US would not believe, and with power comes corruption. When the Murdoch scandal broke a few weeks ago it revealed that certain police officials were taking bribes. Again my first thought was nothing changes.

On London streets the slang name for the police was “The Filth” which implies “Not Clean.” As a teen I was often stopped and searched late at night for no reason other than I was walking home at a late hour. A person could be arrested for “Sus” as it was known on the streets, so I made sure I had absolutely nothing in my pockets..

Say a person had a screwdriver and a flashlight in his pocket; he could be arrested; not for actually committing a crime, but for being “Suspected of about to commit a crime.” (Hence “Sus.”) To make such a charge stick the police would then use what was known as the “Verbal.”

The Verbal was when the arresting officer gave evidence in court he would say something like this, “After I read the prisoner his rights I asked him if he had anything to say, and he replied, ‘I don’t break into people’s homes, just shops.’” Of course the prisoner never said any such thing, but this statement from a trusted member of law enforcement sealed his fate.

In the mid 1960s there was a huge scandal in Britain when police all the way up to high ranking Scotland Yard officials, went to jail for taking bribes from London criminals. Things got cleaned up after that, but many years have since passed and I wonder if over these intermediate years the situation has become as bad again as it was in the 1950s. If it has it would account for the feeling of despair among young people

I don’t condone rioting, vandalism, and other criminal activity, but the British Government needs to be looking deeper into the root cause of the anger and despair. Because trying to control it will not work.

There is now talk of bringing the army in if the police can’t control the situation. Yea’ right; that worked real well in Northern Ireland. Doesn’t history teach anybody anything?