As pro-bike protesters take to the streets of Toronto to protest the death of cycle courier Darcy Sheppard, a report from the CBC [sorry, no embed] reveals that Sheppard may have been intoxicated when he became involved in his fateful encounter. Cyclists’ anger towards former Ontario AG Michael Bryant could seem a bit misplaced if it turns out Sheppard was drunk and attempted to grab the wheel of Bryant’s car or put Bryant into a headlock. Ontario police say they are investigating both of these possible scenarios. On the other hand, Bryant has a well-established record of media manipulation dating back to his attempt to place harsh rules on street racers. Both sides are itching to be outraged at this story, but it might be best to get a few of the facts straight first.
[Thanks to James Frederico for the links.]
The consensus is that Sheppard ought not to have reached inside the car, and Bryant may have struck him first and probably ought not to have kept driving. Both sides had poor judgement, and no one had to die as a result of this.
That said, this isn’t going well for cyclists in Toronto and the media. It’s not going well for Bryant, either, but that’s to be expected, despite his having hired a PR firm, but that cyclists haven’t been able to use this as a cause celeb points to a really poor understanding of the problem on their and their advocates’ part.
So, manslaughter instead of murder?
There’s no way this is going to fall Bryant’s way unless they can show that he wasn’t in control of the car.
In the media Sheppard’s girlfriend has stated that he was indeed “drinking” and was actually stopped by the police prior to the incident, and released. The girlfriend is now blaming the police for releasing Sheppard, instead of taking him home.
“Both sides are chomping at the bit to be outraged at this story, but it might be best to get a few of the facts straight first.” I love it. We should always wait to get the facts straight to avoid what happened to those unfortunate, innocent, Duke Lacross players.
Had this occurred in a right-to-carry state in the US, this would have been far less dramatic.
Here, the driver would have shot the drunk angry cyclist who was attacking him and his vehicle, and by extension threatening his wife. There would be no sympathy for the cyclist, who clearly should have responded to a minor collision by exchanging information, not by attacking the driver, and these charges would be dismissed.
Break this down into simple facts, and the case is fairly clear. If you are rear-ended, it is not appropriate to respond by attacking the other party. If the accident was deliberate, the cyclist’s legal response would have been to phone 911 and let the cops sort it out. It’s wise to avoid attacking other people if you don’t want to risk getting hurt.
I ride a bike & drive a car.
The driver should have stopped if he sees something is attached to his car.
Now a person had died he can hire Eddy Greenspan but to clear his name is not going to be easy.
The best is not to mobilize the car until the Gendarme arrives.
If it were in the Uncle Sam Country u can get a taste of the .45 Colt Speciale.
Is very sad, he didnt have to die.
Is hard to say about the Police, should this guy be brought downtown with a little disturbance?
Sometimes the Police/Gendarme may not know that he’s going to ride his bike home. The Aggravator withhold info, as keep nodding his head ” Yes Sir I am going to walk , bus home Pronto.”
So this time can’t blame the fault of Police Brutality, blame them for too lame I guess.
If I’d been in Bryant’s place, assuming the guy was really attacking him or trying to commandeer his car, I can imagine I would have done whatever I could to free myself of the attacker. I did in fact once have an incident where I was coming out of a store in what was not one of the best sections of Wash. dc. A guy was trying to sell fenced electronics, and I let him know — probably stupidly, I admit — that I did not approve. As I sat down in my car, he tried to hold my door open. I quickly started the car and took off, and he let go. I don’t know what I would have done had he not let go, but I can easily imagine doing as Bryant did. One can’t expect a normal H. sapiens to disengage fight or flight under these sorts of circumstances.
Also, and here I’m treading onto soft ground, I can easily imagine from sheppard’s history that he was basically the sort of person who has a lot of anger bottled up that he’s just champing at the bit to let out on someone, and that here was his chance (my prejudice is that a lot of couriers may be like this), and that this was basically an excuse for him to assault Bryant. (4 kids, by how many different women at age 33???!) (I guess I’ve talked myself out of getting onto THAT jury, but then I’m in the wrong country.
@Pch101: You mean like in Asheville when a firefighter pulled over and shot a cyclist in the head to punish him for riding his bike on the shoulder of the road with his 3-year-old son? The firefighter’s honest-to-goodness defense is that he thought the cyclist was putting the child in danger. SO HE SHOT HIM IN THE HEAD. Presumably our brilliant firefighter thought that would be much better for the child’s welfare. (Thankfully, somehow, the cyclist was wearing a helmet, and the bullet managed to destroy the helmet but not hit his head… The Fireman is out on bail.)
“WYFF News”
You mean like in Asheville when a firefighter pulled over and shot a cyclist in the head to punish him for riding his bike on the shoulder of the road with his 3-year-old son?
I have no idea what that has to do with this incident.
Let’s put it another way: If this story was exactly as it was, except that Sheppard had been driving an ’84 Firebird instead of riding a bike, we’d all be dismissing him as a two-bit redneck drunk thug who messed with the wrong guy. We’d be thankful that the driver’s wife wasn’t hurt, and we’d move on to better things.
But now put the thug on a bike, and suddenly we are delighted by a few cyclists who want to turn Mr. Aggressive into some kind of folk hero. This is looking more trailer park than ecological by the minute.
If anything, this only illuminates the fact that a lot of these hardcore riders who are irrational and cannot be trusted on our roads, because they don’t appreciate the virtues of discipline or self-control. They want all the rights of drivers, but none of the responsibilities.
I am one of the eco-weenies you hear so much about, but even I have no need for people like that. If they can’t be civilized enough to stop at stop signs, then it’s time to license them and limit their presence to their own dedicated routes where they can contain their sanctimony amongst themselves.
It’s funny that the “bicycle community” is so quick to support this Sheppard guy. It’s always wise to get the facts first. Sheppard may turn out to be someone unworthy of supporting.
I have no sympathy for the cyclist. If what’s been told here is true, he started the assault, and he deserves to die.
The driver does have the right to defend himself by keeping on driving. You see, here the driver didn’t actually pull out a gun and shoot. That would be manslaughter or murder. The driver only kept on driving. So the intent was not to kill the cyclist, but to get rid of him. And getting rid of the cyclist is proper self defense.
———————————————–
The core to the problem is that by law the cyclist enjoy the same rights of drivers, but they don’t have the same responsibilities. To make things work, police needs to treat cyclists exactly the same as drivers.
1) Cyclists need to register their bicycles and pay a yearly fee.
2) Cyclists need to have their licenses and plates.
3) Cyclists need to be ticketed when they are substantially slower than the flow of traffic.
Pch101:
Had this occurred in a right-to-carry state in the US, this would have been far less dramatic.
Here, the driver would have shot the drunk angry cyclist who was attacking him and his vehicle, and by extension threatening his wife. There would be no sympathy for the cyclist, who clearly should have responded to a minor collision by exchanging information, not by attacking the driver, and these charges would be dismissed.
As a NY State gun nut, I’m don’t think this case is so cut and dry. Outside of your home, you MUST retreat unless the threat is imminent. I don’t think the driver, in this case, made a good faith effort to ‘retreat’ from an immediate threat.
Your general point about the angry attacker being shot is over dramatic. The most likely scenario is the attacker de-escalating when a gun barrel is pointed at him. No shot is fired.
@wsn :
September 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
“I have no sympathy for the cyclist. If what’s been told here is true, he started the assault, and he deserves to die.”
Uh, that’s a bit harsh. Guy had bad day, and paid with his life. Thankfully for Bryant, there is plenty of evidence of Sheppard’s erratic behavior over the course of the day. Otherwise the rush to judgement against the driver would have been swift and unpleasant.
One man’s life has been extinguished, another’s reputation damaged. The facts indicate a complete vindicaton of Bryant, but at great expense to the man, his family and the family of the deceased.
One hopes that some good will come of this incident, that drivers and cyclists will treat one another with greater respect for awhile, but the reality is, in Toronto at least, it will be another decade or more before motorists learn to adapt to the two wheelers sharing the pavement.
eh_political, not all loss of life are regrettable.
Maybe I saw too many action movies, but a headlock is extremely dangerous. It can kill or paralyze the victim instantly. If a drunk does a headlock on me, I would smash him on whatever possible to release myself. That is, if I don’t have a gun at hand.
As a NY State gun nut, I’m don’t think this case is so cut and dry. Outside of your home, you MUST retreat unless the threat is imminent. I don’t think the driver, in this case, made a good faith effort to ‘retreat’ from an immediate threat.
How does one retreat from a car when the attacker is outside the car?
Outside of your home, you MUST retreat unless the threat is imminent.
Hitting the accelerator is a pretty clear indication of retreating. The fact that the attacker decided to hang onto the vehicle was the attacker’s choice.
it will be another decade or more before motorists learn to adapt to the two wheelers sharing the pavement.
If staying put and getting clocked in the head by a guy on a bike is “adapting”, then I think that I’ll avoid adapting, thanks.
In this particular case, the bicycle seems to be about as relevant as the type of shirt that Sheppard was wearing. The issue is more straightforward that that — one man attacked another man for what appears to be no good reason. His mode of transportation prior to the attack isn’t germane to the story, but for the sidebar about the sanctimony that often accompanies that particular transportation choice.
wsn:
Maybe I saw too many action movies, but a headlock is extremely dangerous. It can kill or paralyze the victim instantly. If a drunk does a headlock on me, I would smash him on whatever possible to release myself. That is, if I don’t have a gun at hand.
Forgive my ignorance, but DID Sheppard have Bryant in a headlock or was Sheppard just hanging onto the car? (And yes, there’s a major difference between the two.)
Has video evidence become available? I know there’s cameras all over Toronto…
Dynamic88:
How does one retreat from a car when the attacker is outside the car?
Stop. Hop out and run. It was a convertible.
Pch101:
Hitting the accelerator is a pretty clear indication of retreating. The fact that the attacker decided to hang onto the vehicle was the attacker’s choice.
Hanging onto a car is not an immediate threat. (I’m assuming (perhaps falsely) that Bryant was NOT being assaulted while driving away with Sheppard hanging on). Driving and trying to smash someone hanging from your vehicle is NOT retreating.
ihatetrees :
September 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Forgive my ignorance, but DID Sheppard have Bryant in a headlock or was Sheppard just hanging onto the car? (And yes, there’s a major difference between the two.)
Has video evidence become available? I know there’s cameras all over Toronto…
———————————–
That’s what someone said in the news. But of course, it’s only a rumor unless the court accepts that as an evidence, which won’t happen very soon.
Hop out and run. It was a convertible.
Bryant was 43. Sheppard was a 33 year old bicycle courier. What are the odds of Bryant being able to run away from him?
Besides, is he supposed to run away and leave his wife in the car where she might be attacked?
A man is dead, and that is tragic, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that Bryant did wrong.
All this crap happened because Bryant was driving a $%^&*! convertible Saab.
BAN CONVERTIBLE SAABS.
BUY A CONVERTIBLE SAAB, GET YOUR CHOICE OF .40 OR 9mm AND 2 MAGAZINES FOR FREE.
ALL YOUR DRIVING PROBLEMS SOLVED.
And besides:
1. Settle domestic disputes
2. Settle disputes with neighbors
3. Something constructive to do while drunk/stoned
4. Hours of fun for the kids
5. Hours of fun for the neighbors’ kids
6. A big help during temper tantrums
7. Chance to be judge, jury, executioner…a big man!
8. Almost like having a big penis
9. Big bonanza for gun thieves
10. Surefire way to blow your dough
11. Terrify the meter man
12. Help deal with feelings of guilt, inadequacy, rage, and other honky stuff
13. Fun to fondle…and so BIG
14. “I was totally sure it wasn’t loaded, Your Honor.”
15. Get yourself killed in a raid, rather than merely arrested!
16. You can’t always be reading great literature, right?
17. Rare chance to become a murderer, get reborn as a lab animal and try again!
18. Angry white men never screw up. Never.
19. Such a comfort when depressed…
Darcy Allan Sheppard, the deceased, had 56 outstanding arrest warrants. The police investigated him earlier in the evening for disorderly conduct. Why wasn’t he arrested then?
We, very much, don’t know all the facts. It certainly looks like that the incident isn’t as cut and dried as the initial reports made it out to be.
I think it’s wise at this point to stop the speculation and wait for some facts to be released. Supposedly there’s video and there are eyewitnesses. The Toronto Police aren’t stupid. They’ll get to the bottom of this and we’ll find out what really happened.
I know this is armchair quarterbacking after the fact, but I really think that (unless he was in a headlock) the driver COULD have found SOME other way to end this than killing the bicyclist.
Darcy Allan Sheppard, the deceased, had 56 outstanding arrest warrants. The police investigated him earlier in the evening for disorderly conduct. Why wasn’t he arrested then?
Gardiner, apparently those warrants were all issued in Alberta. If they’re not Canada wide warrants, then the TPS could have hauled him in and contacted the local cops in the Land of Cows and Oil, but then an Edmonton constable would have had to come out and escort him back to face fairly minor charges. They likely figured it wasn’ worth it.
More here
A true fixie doesn’t have a front brake.
Check this video. One of the guys is doing this ride is on a fixie! Brings back memories from back in the day when my balls were big, and my brain was small. Sigh.
As a member of the Washington Area Bicyclists Association for most of the 23 years I lived there, and a 10 year member of the Massachusetts Bicyclists Association, I can tell you that they both almost certainly would disassociate themselves from the lawlessness of couriers in general, and Sheppard in particular. Both groups support obedience to the rules of the road, and would absolutely be opposed to Sheppard’s alleged violent behavior. The courier community is not the same as the bicyclist community.
Before starting to shoot at anyone it’s always best to check with your lawyer. Seriously.
Many US states have ‘retreat’ type language written into their laws – that in effect, you must first try and get the hell out of before you can use force to defend yourself.
Even so, this can be a grey area. If you are alone in your car, a judge may say you should have just tried to drive away, however if you have a spouse or a small child with you then an immediate response might be viewed as reasonable.
Other states are completely different, giving you a ‘stand your ground’ right in cases of self defense (it’s more states then you think). The thought being that retreating in the face of danger actually encourages an attacker.
As for the old chestnut of what would be acceptable if it occurred inside your house – as apposed to your SAAB – it just comes down to demonstrating intent. Both yours and theirs.
As I (and many others) have peaceably maintained firearms in my home for many years, it is not out of the norm that I would have a Benelli M4 shotgun readably accessible. I do not know Mr Burgler’s intentions, and (especially with a family present) I am allowed to err on the side of caution and use whatever force I see fit.
If I am in my car, it’s a bit different – as the first question cops and judges ask is inevitably “What the hell are you doing with a gun in the car…?” The second question (which is a bit more germain to this thread will be “If you were that scared for your life, you were in a car, why didn’t you just drive away?”
You better have some reasonable explanations.
PCH,
I like your Firebird analogy. I don’t know much about Canada, but here in the US, while people are conditioned to sympathize with Saab drivers over Firebird drivers, even Saab drivers are trumped by bicyclists. Whoever belongs to the most politically correct class wins.
Other than that, from the point of view of avoiding being rear ended, wouldn’t it be better not to stop at stop signs if on a hard to see bike? Unless the Saab driver saw the biker, and hit him on purpose; in which case perhaps they both deserve to die, to follow the logic of a poster above.
How does one retreat from a car when the attacker is outside the car? Stop. Hop out and run. It was a convertible.
Hilarious!
I am a 200-pound karate black belt, and in Bryant’s situation I would stomp on the gas peddle too. It is the only rational response to someone grabbing at you through the window.
The courier community is not the same as the bicyclist community.
Maybe not, but a lot of cyclists turned out to ride for Mr. Sheppard – they could not all have been couriers.
I’m a daily cycle commuter myself, but I don’t join any bicycle groups as they tend to be filled with sanctimonious types.
In the media Sheppard’s girlfriend has stated that he was indeed “drinking” and was actually stopped by the police prior to the incident, and released. The girlfriend is now blaming the police for releasing Sheppard, instead of taking him home.
I blame the police too. They should’ve arrested Sheppard for DUI.
Stop. Hop out and run. It was a convertible.
You must be joking. I could see how well that would go over with the wife: “OK, honey, I’m going to climb out over the trunk lid, while I leave you here to fend for yourself with the Mad Cyclist.”
The minute that the bicycle nut decided to turn it into a violent confrontation was the moment that he set himself up for whatever followed next. Pointer for next time: Don’t grab a moving vehicle if you want something good to come of it.
wouldn’t it be better not to stop at stop signs if on a hard to see bike?
No.
It might make more sense if indignant riders would stop pretending that they are on a par with motor vehicles, and stopped along the curb line instead of parking themselves in the middle of lanes as if that’s a suitable place for them to be.
Cyclists should keep right, and obey traffic laws. If they can’t figure that out, then we should just ban them entirely from busy roads and be done with it. If they can’t use common sense, then keeping them out of harm’s way would make a lot more sense for the majority of road users.
It might make more sense if indignant riders would stop pretending that they are on a par with motor vehicles, and stopped along the curb line instead of parking themselves in the middle of lanes as if that’s a suitable place for them to be.
It is a suitable place for them to be. Cyclists should by all means take their lane. On most public streets there is no minimum speed limit, so cyclists are on par with motor vehicles. Drivers will just have to learn patience and speed adjustment. (just pretend you are driving in the 3rd world and there is an ox-Cart in front of you) Of course, if there is a bike lane, that is where they should be.
It doesn’t follow that cyclists should run stop signs or red lights. Although – Idaho has stop as yield law, allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. I’m against this. I don’t think it’s any great trouble to come to a stop and get started again. It would actually make more sense for cars to treat stops as yields, as it takes more energy to get a car moving again.
Bikes make sense for a lot of travel, and drivers are just going to have to learn to live with it. Crowding a bike in the lane is dangerous for the cyclist. A polite cyclist will of course pull off to the side and let a line of cars go by, but this isn’t always possible.
Back on topic – Mr. Sheppard apparently decided the way to deal with a very minor traffic accident (apparently he was not injured at all by the accident) was to commit assault and battery. You have to be a little tougher than Mr. Sheppard to take on a Saab convertible.
Pch,
Have you ever driven in a city filled with bikes? The absolute last thing anyone could want for is for bicyclists not turning right to hog the right turn lane. Even in Europe, where right turn on red is illegal (but bikes are everywhere), this is nothing but a nuisance, as 20 bikes slowly start accelerating in the right lane when the light changes, blocking the one right turning car, so that everyone behind him again is blocked from going straight. And silly preoccupations with building “bike lanes”, than inevitably end at intersections, only makes it worse, unless said bike lanes are actually completely separated, with overpasses preventing any interaction between cars and bikes at all.
If bikes are not turning right, they should move far enough left to allow a car to make an inside right turn unimpeded. Non right turning cars should as well, but of course never do, unless there are specific road markings indicating they have to.
Dynamic88,
Stop as Yield makes a lot of sense for bikes, as they are so damn slow accelerating from a full stop. Also, if they crash, they bear the brunt, as opposed to cars. Self preservation will cause them to actually yield, while if cars were allowed this, they would risk others’ lives, not just their own.
What I’ve noticed here, both in a car and on a motorbike, is that the most competent cyclists do indeed “take their lane”, which is perfectly fine. Of course, those guys are also some of the faster ones, so pretty much ride with the speed of (city) traffic anyway, at least on the flats and downhills. And when they go really slow uphill, I can make a solid pass in 50 ft of road, which is almost always available if one is alert (Or can be made available with some judicious use of flashing high beams :) ). If I’m ever stuck behind a cyclist for long, it is inevitably as the second or more car behind him/her, as the first one is an utter incompetent, incapable of passing something as small and slow as a bicycle. And that is hardly the fault of the biker.
On most public streets there is no minimum speed limit, so cyclists are on par with motor vehicles.
Stuki’s solution to being rear ended is to blow through red lights. Mine is to stay in a location in which your back end isn’t likely to face the front of a car. If bikes want to sit in the middle of a lane, then they have to deal with the same statistical odds of being hit from behind as the rest of us, and deal with it.
The absolute last thing anyone could want for is for bicyclists not turning right to hog the right turn lane.
I yield to pedestrians at intersections all the time, as everyone should, given that it is required. I would similarly yield to bikes, for the same reason.
Cyclists seem to have it stuck in their heads that they have all of the rights of cars when it suits them, with none of the responsibility. It’s no wonder that they’re god awful to deal with, and seem incapable of obeying basic rules of the road that even the most dumb driver can handle.
The reality is that a bike is not a car. If you want a mode of transportation to be on par with a car, then drive a car. A bike is not a car.
The reality is that bikes can impede the flow of traffic, and their users often behave as unpredictable scofflaws. They can inflict damage, yet carry no insurance. Something has to give.
The Dutch have the right idea. Bike paths are everywhere, and the riders tend to be good about obeying the rules. Bikes are a mode of transport, not a crusade, and the actions reflect the difference in attitude.
Since we aren’t Dutch, we have to deal with the Americans (or in this case, Canadians), who apparently aren’t so enlightened. The Americans have shown a tendency to abuse the rules, so perhaps it’s time that we accepted that reality and clamped down accordingly, so that it becomes clear that trying to have it both ways isn’t an option.
Pch101:
You must be joking. I could see how well that would go over with the wife: “OK, honey, I’m going to climb out over the trunk lid, while I leave you here to fend for yourself with the Mad Cyclist.”
A spouse’s emotional response is not relevant to the legality of Bryant’s actions. Furthermore, Bryant’s spouse possessed legs. She could have joined her husband.
Jumping and running was ONE option. Driving off while NOT trying to crush Sheppard (assuming (perhaps falsely) that Sheppard was not an immediate threat) was another option.
The minute that the bicycle nut decided to turn it into a violent confrontation was the moment that he set himself up for whatever followed next. Pointer for next time: Don’t grab a moving vehicle if you want something good to come of it.
IF (and I’m uncertain regarding details here) Bryant attempted to remove Sheppard from his vehicle while Sheppard was not an immediate threat, Bryant was not retreating. He’s using deadly force.
Don’t get me wrong. Bryant’s choices were crappy IF (again – I’m uncertain regarding details here) Sheppard wasn’t an immediate threat.
And without a doubt, Sheppard was a POS hothead. Which leads to a much larger issue: The decline of effective policing in Toronto and the subsequent increase in borderline incivility and casual violence. (There’s a certain irony in that Bryant’s political brothers at Toronto City Hall are probably sympathetic and/or responsible for this decline).
If I were a Toronto tourism official, I’d make some phone call to get this thing settled quickly before it gets any play in the US. Here in the states, savvy travelers talk about the decline of Toronto and (off topic) many UK cities.
Stuki
… unless said bike lanes are actually completely separated, with overpasses preventing any interaction between cars and bikes at all.
That’s a fine idea, and I’d be willing to pay more in taxes to make it happen, but I doubt most of my fellow Americans would. I doubt we can afford to make this happen in most places.
If bikes are not turning right, they should move far enough left to allow a car to make an inside right turn unimpeded. Non right turning cars should as well, but of course never do, unless there are specific road markings indicating they have to.
We have some bike lanes in my city that are constructed that way. The lane generally is on the right, but will remain straight where the road widens for right turns.
Pch
Stuki’s solution to being rear ended is to blow through red lights. Mine is to stay in a location in which your back end isn’t likely to face the front of a car. If bikes want to sit in
the middle of a lane, then they have to deal with the same statistical odds of being hit from behind as the rest of us, and deal with it.
The have to anyway, unless there is a bike lane or a very wide shoulder. Riding to the right side of the lane just encourages drivers to crowd you out and “share” the lane, and they might still hit you from behind. I feel safer letting drivers see my backside than letting them come along side me at 4 to 5 times my speed.
Cyclists seem to have it stuck in their heads that they have all of the rights of cars when it suits them, with none of the responsibility. It’s no wonder that they’re god awful to deal with, and seem incapable of obeying basic rules of the road that even the most dumb driver can handle.
I’m a daily cycle commuter but I tend to agree with your statement. The rules have to apply all the time, not just when convienient.
The reality is that a bike is not a car. If you want a mode of transportation to be on par with a car, then drive a car. A bike is not a car.
The reality is a street is a street, and in most places, everyone can use it -bikes, horse drawn wagons (if you want me to put a slow moving vehicle sign on my bike I’ll be glad to do so) donky carts, ox carts, mopeds, 1911 Baker Electric cars, etc. etc. etc. Some drivers just seem to have it in their heads that they have a God given right to accelerate to the speed limit (and then some) and maintain that speed w/o impediment. Some people will just have to learn what the brake is for.
The reality is that bikes can impede the flow of traffic, and their users often behave as unpredictable scofflaws. They can inflict damage, yet carry no insurance. Something has to give.
I agree many are scofflaws. A motorcycle cop should be able to take care of them – or a bicycle cop.
I doubt cyclists inflict much damage.
They can impede traffic flow, if one takes the attitude that the faster vehicles have some sort of “right” to go the speed limit, but that just isn’t the case. Bicyclists have as much right to use the public streets as motorists, and if you can’t get around them safely, you’ll just have to go slower. Life isn’t fair. Or rather, it is fair, which sometimes means you can’t have everything to your own liking.
Since we aren’t Dutch, we have to deal with the Americans (or in this case, Canadians), who apparently aren’t so enlightened. The Americans have shown a tendency to abuse the rules, so perhaps it’s time that we accepted that reality and clamped down accordingly, so that it becomes clear that trying to have it both ways isn’t an option.
If by clamping down you mean ticketing cyclists for disregarding traffic rules, I’m all for it.
Pch,
My solution to minimize the risk of being rear ended from behind as a biker is not at all to “blow through” anything, but simply to realize that you are a lot safer where cars are less likely to hit you from behind. The far side of an intersection with a red light is one such place. If you can make it there safely, it strikes me as a rather nice and safe place to be compared to right in front of a wall of cars antsy to accelerate. “Blowing through” an intersection does not seem like the best way to get there safely, though, but I can guarantee you that there both have been, and will continue to be, instances where a light is red, yet crossing is perfectly safe for someone looking far enough down both crossing lanes. One thing that do bother me, is the sheer paucity of bikers with anything like a rear (or even front) light. If there is one thing those guys should be required to have, it is lights, although we would probably need much, much stricter punishment for bike and bike equipment theft before they’d go along. Some guys here do have strobes, which I find wonderful, even though it, again, would be blatantly illegal on a civilian car.
I don’t bike much (SF isn’t exactly flat, and I’m no spring chicken…), but I still jaywalk, not by “blowing though intersections”, but only after making sure crossing is safe to do. If my judgment of “safe” is off, well, I’m the one getting hit, noone else. Same goes for bicyclists. But not cars, which is why stricter enforcement for them makes sense.
Next time you yield to a pedestrian when turning right at an intersection, stop to check how much space you left between you and the curb. That’s where you reckon bicycles ought to ride when going straight, right? Do you always leave the 3ft + 1ft + 3ft you’re supposed to? If you do, hats off to you. You’re definitely in the top 1% of American drivers for consistency. I know I don’t, as I expect bikes going straight to go left of me when I’m blinking right, just like I expect cars and motorbikes and Segways and whatnot should do. Even pedestrians, if there’s no sidewalk.
In Holland, the latest craze seems to be a separate set of traffic lights for bicycles where all these bike paths meet car lanes, specifically to address issues of cars turning across bike lanes at intersections, and vice versa. So now, you have to wait for pedestrian signals, then for bike signals, and then, finally cars can go. And this in a country where the tallest hill is a speed bump, and speed limits are such that fast bike riders and cars go pretty much the same speed, even absent traffic. The reason for this, is that the Dutch wants to encourage everyone from 3 to 90, stoned, drunk or not, to ride their bikes in city traffic, and prioritizes to make this safe for even the slowest moving and least aware of the population. Which may be fine, I guess, but it sure doesn’t make getting from A to B in a car any quicker.
The bike population on American city streets is much narrower. Most ride faster, and are of an age where they are perfectly capable safely sharing lanes and signals with cars. And yes, there are those who are not, but as long as bikes are kept off the sidewalks, this is kind of a self limiting problem. SF probably have some of the most attitudish bikers anywhere, especially the couriers, yet outside of Critical Mass, they’re hardly the ones holding up traffic here. Those couriers driving cars, and double parking them with hazards on outside downtown highrises, on the other hand…….
I’m sort of dumbfounded to be the first one to raise the issue of idjit cyclists riding against traffic (i.e., on the wrong side of the road).
Most ride faster, and are of an age where they are perfectly capable safely sharing lanes and signals with cars.
Coulda fooled me. Many of them are not capable of riding safely, showing no respect whatsoever for signals or signage. You yourself have defended blowing through lights on this thread, with the customary excuses made by cyclists. On the whole, they have earned their reputations, and those reputations are deservedly not good.
I’m sort of dumbfounded to be the first one to raise the issue of idjit cyclists riding against traffic (i.e., on the wrong side of the road).
Yeah, I wish that you had told me about that before one of them took a piece out of my hood with the bike frame and my windshield with his body. (Next time, I’ll know better than to sit at stop signs, patiently awaiting my turn to go, just so said idjit can ride the wrong way right into a stopped car.)
And surprisingly, he didn’t have insurance, or ID, or cash, or much of anything else. At least I got a repair bill, so I was able to do my part for the economy.
“… one of them took a piece out of my hood with the bike frame and my windshield with his body. (Next time, I’ll know better than to sit at stop signs, patiently awaiting my turn to go, just so said idjit can ride the wrong way right into a stopped car.)”
Damn, no wonder You have little faith in bicyclists’ safety judgments! I kind of feel the same way about pickup trucks after a friend was mowed down by one while sitting in the left turn lane waiting for a green arrow on a motorbike. Driver had no insurance (he was one of those “undocumented” ones). My friend is OK now, but spent 3 weeks in a hospital, and a year to regain strength in his crushed right leg.
I really don’t think this is typical of bicyclists, though. Guys who can’t even avoid hitting stationary objects probably figure out they should find another mode of transportation relatively quickly. Like a wheelchair, for example. Hopefully not a multi thousand pound car.
And, again, I don’t defend “blowing through” reds. Crossing on a red after making sure no cars are coming, is not the same as “blowing through” it. Think of it like jaywalking. It’s perfectly possible to cross the road on a red without much danger. Of course, it’s also possible to run right into the road in front of a speeding Hummer, or even, to nosedive into the windshield of a parked car. Condoning the first is not the same as condoning the other two.
skor,
That’s not a fixie, it’s a single-speed mountain bike. Look at his left wrist and you can see the brake line, or the red part of the caliper (in this case) below the rear hub.
I really don’t think this is typical of bicyclists, though.
Ignoring stop signs and red lights certainly are typical. Look at the lengths that some go to defend it…
Crossing on a red after making sure no cars are coming, is not the same as “blowing through” it.
See what I mean?
It’s comments such as these that are moving toward a desire for outright bans on many roads. There is simply no way to get cyclists to moderate their behavior; they not only break laws brazenly, but tirelessly defend their disobedience.
This is not a trainable group of people. No requests for law abiding behavior will be respected. Since we can’t jail them all, an outright ban would be easier to enforce.
Pch,
As a cyclist or pedestrian, “Ignoring” stop signs and red lights, in any city with even moderately heavily traffic loads, will quickly take you out of traffic permanently. Treating them slightly different than a car would treat them, is not the same as ignoring them.
And along with some “desire for an outright ban”, will inevitably come demands for additional taxes to fund bike lanes, separate bike traffic lights where these lanes cross cars lanes etc. All for no other reason than to keep utterly incompetent drivers from crashing into equally incompetent cyclists. And vice versa, as in your case. Competents choosing either form of transportation are perfectly capable of getting along as it is.
By your logic, should we move to an outright ban on cars because it seems many, if not most, drivers “ignore” speed signs, and are “not trainable”? Or motorcycles, because riders “ignore” bans on lane splitting. Or even pedestrians, as many will, on occasion at least, jaywalk? Facts are, on the street, as opposed to in traffic planners’ and lawyers offices, heavy, fast moving vehicles kill others, while slow lightweight ones at best manage to kill themselves. Meaning it makes sense to give the slower and lighter more leeway when it comes to interpreting signage and regulations, than faster, heavier ones.
And I’m not even a cyclist. Wish I had the legs for riding up and down San Francisco hills on a fixed gear without brakes, but I simply don’t. But I do speed, I jaywalk, I used to lane split with abandon back when I rode motorbikes, and if I ever were to ride a bicycle in traffic up here, there’s not a snowballs chance in hell I’d worry more about rigidly following some rule cooked up by a clueless bureaucrat, than about my own judgment of what is safe and proper.
Besides, in practice, I have plenty of driving experience in many of the most bike infested cities in the US and Europe, and the bikers that slows down progress the most, are specifically the ones least flexible with the rules. And I’d be willing to bet those are the ones screaming the loudest to have me taxed to pay for bike lanes as well. And I seriously doubt I am an exception. Whenever I come up behind a biker, it rarely, if ever, takes more than 5-10 seconds before I have an opportunity to pass. And then it takes another 10 seconds to catch up to my old spot in traffic. No time lost at all, and I’d be willing to bet entirely typical. At least for those of us competent enough to realize crossing double yellows to pass bikers is perfectly OK as long as visibility is there; whatever the usual suspects in the traffic planning bureaucracy might think about such “hoologanism.”
So, the way I see it, this whole cars vs. bikes “war”, is little more than yet another manifestation of post Rush Limbaugh America’s obsession with viewing everything as “Us” vs. “Them”. Or “they ain’t like us, lit’s go gittim!”, as the rednecks put it.