Thanks Doc Barnett for your thoughtful disagreement. You may be right about everything you've said about interpretations, but I stand by what I saw: the rider nearly ran me and my dog over, on the sidewalk, just the day before his crash. That's the reason I posted. I felt that it was too weird a coincidence not to comment on.

When you wear a uniform and even flourish a bit of jargon to describe it, people are going to perceive you as belonging to a group. Generally, that is what people want when they dress and talk alike. But that's beside the point. It's not racers specifically but people endorsing a particular outlook (a romantic view of deadly surface transportation, opposition to institutional improvements) that slow progress. The only common cause I share with them, wishing that drivers would start driving better of their own accord, is made insignificant by its own futility. Livable streets is the constituency I belong to; we've got plenty of jargon but so far, no common apparel.

http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/2008/03/terminology-folly.html

For real. This particular anonymous does strike me as a "nasty elitist", and a rather confused one. Glorification of danger and dismissal of "bureaucratic, legislative, and/or behavioral" mitigation of it are precisely the qualities that characterize NYC's elite cyclists that everyone else finds so repugnant. Odd that s/he doesn't see that. But then, mainstream American cycling (athletic 4ever!) has proudly followed this same self-improvement course for the past 50 years of being crushed under the wheels of automobiles; we can't expect them to change direction in strategy as quickly as they can change lanes on a tricked-out bicycle. Meanwhile, elitist grannies in Copenhagen tool around in relative safety without owning up to any facts or making responsible use of the danger their wrinkled hands play with. What is their secret? Magical shawls that take them to the plane of kinetic transcendence that NYC's bikesnobbiest strive to attain? Or! Maybe it is their bureaucratic / legislative bicycle infrastructure, demanded from the government by the bunch of "whiners" that finance and put it in power.

"The article is incorrect. The bus and cyclist were traveling side by side. That would mean that if he ran a red light- then so did the bus. He was not hit by the bus as a result of running a red light. The article almost implies that they were perpendicular- not the case- they were parallel."

Seeing as one newspaper report vaguely referred to the cyclist 'trying to make the light' (then what, newshound?) and the other described the bus as 'barrelling', I was wondering how that could be. When one party to a crash has or nearly has the green light, and the other is moving very fast, it's hard to construct a scenario where the fast moving vehicle is not at least partially, if not primarily at fault. Dan's accounting above fills in the blanks that the newspapers chose to leave out.

I can understand the desire of reporters not to pointlessly tarnish a reputation after the police have declared there was no 'criminality' (so it wasn't intentional?), but their discreetly incomplete reporting does a lot more harm to society than good to the individual. It leaves everyone with the impression that killed cyclists are usually to blame for breaking the law or being careless or not wearing a helmet. (If you think about it, this is a useful delusion for all concerned.) That impression turns out to be all hogwash in this case, but tell that to those who have already made up their minds based on what they read (and didn't read) in the paper—a thousand misinformed "THIS shows why we/they must obey the RULES of the ROAD!" comments have already been posted across the NYC web, and the cycle of 'inevitable' traffic deaths is exonerated once again.

Cycling is inherently dangerous.

"anonymous" (please use a more unique title if you're here for a conversation), every form of transportation is inherently dangerous. People are injured and killed by cars while standing on the sidewalk, or even inside buildings.

That's part of why we love it.

Speak for yourself. That's not why all cyclists ride. Sometimes we just want a way to get from point A to point B reasonably quickly, without the expense and hassle of a car, maybe on a route where the MTA would require multiple transfers, and hopefully get a little exercise.

Sure it's elitist and entitled for people to expect to speed cycle safely, just like it would be to demand safe parachute-jumping or hang-gliding. But we're not asking for that. We're asking to be able to go to work without being run over, to go shopping without getting run off the road, and to go to the park without being doored.

But yes, if the "vast noncycling public" really perceives "us" as danger-loving speed demons, then there could be a problem. The solution is to change that erroneous impression, rather than validating it.

You acknowledge in your comment that there are "non-performance cyclists." Why do you assume that they're not reading and writing on this blog?

The other is that the reply sort of proves my point. I was not making a political argument; I was sharing a perspective on a reflexive attitude of entitlement that often surrounds such awful but inevitable outcomes.

Cycling is inherently dangerous. Riding fast is more so. That's part of why we love it. For a couple of thousand dollars, and a couple of thousand hours of training, we can get an experience of speed, performance, and control that is arguably unsurpassable in high performance sportscars, motorcycles, airplanes, boats, etc. that cost tens or hundreds of times more. Cycling is the most accessible high performance kinetic experience you can get.

Unlike many posters who seem to think of danger as a sign of some breakdown of the system — something that must be fixed and eliminated through bureaucratic, legislative, and/or behavioral means — I'm saying that it's something that must be acknowledged and managed responsibly.

Until we own up to this fact, and commit ourselves to more responsible use of the danger we play with, I believe that we will (with some justice) continue to be perceived as entitled whiners by the vast noncycling public, as nasty elitists by non-performance cyclists, and as illegitimate interlopers by drivers of the cars, trucks, and yes, empty schoolbuses that will always inhabit the roads with us.

I saw the rider in question arrogantly riding fast on the sidewalk past pedestrians just a day or two before his fatal crash. He showed not a touch of concern for them as he zoomed by. Others have said that he ran the red light. [...] But to innocently throw up our hands and cry for even more privileges as cyclists, when we do not adequately respect others on the road, is an ugly entitlement [...]

Forgive me if I show some skepticism for this anonymous, unconfirmed report of the most egregious cycling behavior, usually not practiced by "elite" cyclists - linked directly to a glib, caustic reiteration of the latest anti-livable-streets talking points.

As far as I know, no one is asking for "even more privileges" because of this. The main response is that Eighth Avenue is dangerous, the signal retiming was not enough, and more needs to be done to protect pedestrians, cyclists and people traveling in cars and buses.

I myself hide behind anonymity, but I do not use it to speak ill of the dead, and I do not take advantage of a man's death to attack safety initiatives that could have saved his life.

http://rollingresistance.net/word/2008/09/bike-crash-kills-helper-to-troubled-young-men/#comment-1573

Dan Romero
Posted September 12, 2008 at 12:52 pm

I was approx 30 feet away from this accident and saw it happen. It was the most awful thing I have ever seen. The article is incorrect. The bus and cyclist were traveling side by side. That would mean that if he ran a red light- then so did the bus. He was not hit by the bus as a result of running a red light. The article almost implies that they were perpendicular- not the case- they were parallel. I don’t think it was the bus’ fault, nevertheless. It was just a freak accident. Out of respect for Mr. Millstein, I feel it’s important to set the record straight.

God knows I am guilty of both of these infractions, and worse, in my time. But to innocently throw up our hands and cry for even more privileges as cyclists, when we do not adequately respect others on the road, is an ugly entitlement that ultimately endangers no one more than ourselves.

My heart goes out to the family. I hope they can forgive me for speaking out this way in their time of grief. The community of elite cyclists needs to own the fact that they are engaged in a dangerous activity whose chief virtue as such is that it endangers themselves more than it endangers others. Unlike aggressive motorcycle riders, or worse, aggressive car and truck drivers.

>The solution is the two-way cycle track on Prospect Park West, park side.

Yes, exactly!

t,

With respect, your points are not well taken..

On weekdays, outside of commuting hours (when cars are on the road), there is plenty of room for everyone on the loop road.

On the day Mr. Obnoxious cursed me out, he and a buddy were riding down the outer edge of the road, which is quite usual for the faster riders, and I was riding up the inside (park side). There was a ton of space between us.

So if you want to talk about signage, well, these two guys were not riding in the bike lane, thus making the park road hazardous for people entering the park.

>How much distance are you saving by riding that way?

I saved roughly three quarters of the distance around the park - so, er, 3.75 kilometers out of 5 -- and a long uphill haul.

Not that a desire to save distance while running an errand on a bike is inherently wrong, in any case.

> There are also places in the park where you can cut across so you don't have to ride the entire way around.

The traverses have a number of very isolated spots, and are nearly deserted during the weekdays. Anyone should think twice about taking the traverses during most daylight hours of the weekdays.

> I guess I just find it ironic to be upset at jerky cyclists -- who, admittedly, can be jerks -- when you are actually doing something that most signs in the park encourage you not to do.

This amounts to blaming the messenger. City agencies are not doing enough to make the local avenues safer for me to ride my bicycle in the neighborhood, but I should stick to the letter of city agency rules when I ride through the park the "wrong" way to avoid the dangerous streets?

I am desparately sad to hear of this poor man's tragic & unnecessary death. I think the question now is how to prevent others.This very afternoon I drove up 8th Ave past the accident spot; as I was waiting at the lights right beside this spot, I saw a cyclist ride across a red light on the wrong side of the road (incidentally with no helmet) - she was lucky but I am frankly appalled by the cavalier attitude of so many cyclists in this city to the law...they not only disregard traffic lights, road directions etc but ride at night in dark clothes (many) with no lights or reflectors (most); why is this tolerated here? It isn't in other first world cities. I believe cyclists should have rights but with those rights go responsibilities, not least a duty to obey the law.

A few yards further on, there stood a van double parked; there was plenty of space for him to park alongside the kerb but he couldnt becos there was a fire hydrant. I realise freeing up the hydrant spaces wouldn't give many more parking spots to what I call "No-Park Slope " (apparently only 3% of spaces available at any time ) but what is this big deal with hydrants? In other cities, fire trucks do not expect some 30 feet of space for a foot wide hose, and please don't tell me that a fire truck is going to parallel park in an emergency... In fact, some months ago I saw a fire truck on an emergency unable to pass a double parked car which had chosen to park this way instead of next to the adjacent hydrant! (By the way I understand many of these hydrants are not even operational). The squeeze on parking spaces caused by hydrants (amongst other things) leads to people justifying double parking.

Altho I have driven for 35 years and have a clean record, becos my licences were non US, I have recently had to take the full driving test here (inc a 5 hour seminar designed for rookie drivers - aagh!);the one & only abiding lesson I learnt from this rigmarole was how wide the gap is between the theory of how one is supposed to drive in this State and the reality of the actual driving taking place on the street, esp in NYC. And it appears to be tolerated; an example - I asked a policeman to do s'thing abt a car driver nearly running some people (who had the right of way) over on a pedestrian crossing the other day & his response was to shrug his shoulders.

So my suggestions would be :1. enforce the law for everyone - cyclists, double parkers etc
2. modernise the law so that anachronisms such as the hydrant thing are no longer adding to the parking problems
3. zero tolerance for bad driving

Again my sympathies go to the family of this poor man and let us ALL do our part to reduce the chance of further such accidents.

Well, there is that hill on the other side of the park.

The solution is the two-way cycle track on Prospect Park West, park side.

I'm assuming you were riding counter-clockwise in Prospect Park. While I share some of your disdain for "serious" riders, I have to admit that it's still fairly dangerous for you to be riding against the normal riding pattern of the park loop. How much distance are you saving by riding that way? There are also places in the park where you can cut across so you don't have to ride the entire way around.

I guess I just find it ironic to be upset at jerky cyclists -- who, admittedly, can be jerks -- when you are actually doing something that most signs in the park encourage you not to do.