Five Bicycles in Kalamazoo

Damn. Just damn.

Those pictures……………

This is also why my eyes glaze over whenever a 20-40 year old able-bodied man tells me that off-street facilities or separated infrastructure aren’t necessary because everyone can just ride as a VC on the streets. The best cyclists in the world won’t stand a chance against a poorly-driven junk car. There’s no mitigation against car crashes. Avoidance is the only safety mechanism.

@Fairlington124 141504 wrote:

… I have yet to be aware of an instance where a motorist died because of being hit by a cyclist. I do recall one instance where a cyclist killed an old woman on the W&OD a few years back, but I think that’s the extent of bike-caused deaths (https://www.arlnow.com/2012/06/11/woman-seriously-injured-after-being-hit-by-cyclist/)…

The collision was not on the W&OD, it was on the connector trail from the southeast corner of the Columbia Pike/4MR Dr intersection going downhill to the 4MRT where it crosses over 4MR and under Columbia Pike, steep and narrow.

@scoot 141549 wrote:

Red herring.

The victims were riding on a country road, in a location that will never have sufficient demand to justify separated infrastructure. Additionally, since separated infrastructure is almost never designed to accommodate typical speeds of road cyclists, these people would have been using the road anyway.

The real advocacy issues here are:
How can we oblige motorists to operate vehicles in a moral and responsible fashion?
How can we identify those people who are too irresponsible, and prevent them from driving cars?

They are both, fairly, advocacy issues. Yes, we will never have seg infra everywhere, nor will most seg infra be suitable for faster cyclists, and we do need to try to oblige motorists to drive responsibly and morally, and we need to try to identify those who are too irresponsible. However we will likely never be able to identify all, and we likely will never get everyone to drive responsibly – some will have heart attacks at the wheel, some will have substance abuse problems that overcome the most massive deterrents, etc. And so for those not willing to accept those risks we need some alternatives (and of course to shift our culture to the point where we can address the issues you raise we need more cyclists to begin with – more voters who ride, more pols who ride, more police and judges and DA’s and journalists who ride, etc. )

It sounds funny to suggest that someone would disregard the safety of other, more-vulnerable road users because they wouldn’t mind being one of those other road users [when their license is suspended]. Not saying it isn’t true, just that it certainly is illogical

@hozn 141584 wrote:

It sounds funny to suggest that someone would disregard the safety of other, more-vulnerable road users because they wouldn’t mind being one of those other road users [when their license is suspended]. Not saying it isn’t true, just that it certainly is illogical

I think dasgeh’s point was more societal than individual. That, as a society (or a judge, perhaps), the idea of suspending someone’s license seems more acceptable if it doesn’t entail ending their ability to function in society entirely–which is how losing one’s license is perceived by many.

I think that 99% of people that are not already riders would think that loss of the DL as one half step away from incarceration. I think most committed cyclists would have real issue too. Heck, I ride to and from work every day year round and look forward to each ride rain or shine but the though of no DL is chilling. I love my bike but 100% true car free would be a logistical nightmare.