Blamed At Any Speed

On every kind of thoroughfare from Interstate highways to dirt roads, drivers exceed the speed limit.  To be fair, it's easy to do on a deserted rural lane or when all of the drivers around you are over the limit.  I imagine that sometimes drivers think that 5 or 10 miles per hour over the speed limit isn't much, especially if that threshold is 40 MPH or greater.

What people often fail to realize, however, is how much more harm they can do by going "just over" the speed limit.  As an example, William Davies piloted his Ford Focus at 48 MPH on a road where the posted limit was 40 MPH.  Had he been a compliant driver, he would have been traveling three meters (about ten feet) slower per second when he approached an intersection in the Welsh town of Newport.

At an intersection, a few feet, let alone meters, can mean, literally, the difference between life and death--especially for someone crossing the juncture without the protection of 4000 pounds of metal. 

A report issued after the court's inquest said as much.  The excessive speed "more than minimally contributed" to Mr. Davies striking--and killing--16-year-old Joshua Fletcher.

Joshua Fletcher R.I.P.

The teenager, who was said to be a talented rugby player and was studying to be a mechanic, was riding his bike to school on 16 October 2020 when Mr. Davies struck him.  The impact fractured his skull and caused multiple brain injuries.  He was declared dead at the scene.

You may have noticed a key word in the paragraph before the previous one: "minimally."  I can't help but to think that the report's author was a lawyer or had one by his or her side:  It couldn't have been chosen more carefully or deliberately.  That word allowed them to say "but" without saying "but."

To wit:  According to that report, Fletcher crossed the intersection "carelessly" because he was distracted by the headphones he was wearing.  OK, that's fair enough:  I never have ridden with headphones.  Also, the report noted, he wasn't wearing a helmet. 

On the basis of those factors, the report, in essence, said that Joshua Fletcher--who rode his bike to school because he was late whenever he took the bus--was responsible for his own death.

Now, I am not a coroner or forensic scientist, and I have never had children (though I've taught and worked with them in other ways), so take what I am about to say for what it's worth:  Rare is the circumstance when a child, or even a teenager, should be blamed for his or her own death.  Even if we can agree that Fletcher "should have" worn a helmet and "shouldn't have" worn headphones while riding, he didn't deserve to die for making choices teenagers, left to their own devices, would make.

(I rode without a helmet as a teenager because the only ones available were the "leather hairnets"--like the old football helmets--or lids from other sports like hockey.  And I rode without headphones because, well, we didn't have them in those days.  But would I have gone bareheaded and with my ears plugged if helmets and phones were available?)

I am not saying that William Davies was some sort of homicidal maniac.  He, too, made a careless choice--arguably more careless, since he had those 4000 pounds of metal and, one assumes, more wisdom than a sixteen-year-old would have.  

Perhaps the point is not to assign blame but, rather, to look at what leads people to such tragedies.  Of course cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets and not to wear headphones.  But drivers also need to be aware that they are, in essence, guiding a lethal weapon whose destructive force increases exponentially with incremental increases in speed.

What Will It Take To Stop Her?

What do you call someone who

• has 9 unpaid parking tickets
• argued her way out of getting her car towed over unpaid parking tickets
• didn't pay a $3000 veterinary bill until a collection agency came calling
• lives in housing designated for families with incomes a third of what she, as a single woman, makes
• oh, and strikes a cyclist with her SUV and, after he and his bike tumble over her hood and onto the street, drives away--and doesn't report the incident for six hours?

Answer:  a Jersey City Council member.  At least, for now.

This isn't some grim joke among cynical New York-area political reporters.  This is the story of Amy De Gise, daughter of Hudson County Executive Tom De Gise, one of northern New Jersey's most powerful politicians.

As I reported in an earlier post, she didn't even slow down, let alone stop, to see whether the cyclist, Andrew Black, was OK.  Rather, she hid in her cozy lair until the other night, when nearly everyone at a Jersey City Council meeting called for her resignation.  To date, she hasn't so much as apologized to Black, let alone offer to reimburse him for whatever the crash may have cost him. (Thankfully, he suffered only minor injuries although his bike was trashed.) And her father is, in essence, telling people to stop "picking on" his daughter.

Her case has been moved to a neighboring county, Essex (which includes Newark) out of fears that she won't get a "fair" trial.  So far, it seems that the only people, inside or outside Jersey City or Hudson County, who don't think she should resign are her father and a few other local politicians.  That isn't surprising when you consider that Jersey City's corruption has long stood out in a state noted for its political corruption--and that Ms. De Gise is, at least for now, the heir apparent to her father, who is retiring.

The Roman poet Juvenal could have had someone like Amy DeGise in mind when he wrote, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"--Who will guard the guardians?

Where Cycling Isn't All Sunshine

For years, Florida has had, by far, the highest death rate for cyclists and pedestrians of any US state.  One study found that in 2012, as many cyclists were killed by motor vehicles in the Sunshine State as in Great Britain, which is roughly the same size, but has three times as many people and about as many more cyclists.

So, perhaps, it is no surprise that the Tampa Bay area has the highest cyclist fatality rate of any metropolitan area in the US, and that Pinellas--one of the four counties that comprises the area--has the highest rate of any county.

Florida's and the Tampa Bay Area's statistics are part of a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and reported yesterday in The Wall Street Journal.   

The article also included another interesting and disturbing--for folks who cycle in Florida (as I do for a few days every year), anyway.  Of the 50 major metropolitan areas in the US, the four with the highest rates of cyclists killed by motor vehicles--Tampa Bay-St. Petersburg, Jacksonville, Orlando and Miami--are all in Florida.  

I have cycled in Miami and near Jacksonville and Orlando.  For all the pleasure I've had in riding in those places, I can't say I'm surprised.  I do exercise more caution when I cycle in the land of manatees and armadillos than I employ even in New York, my hometown, or Paris.  I have my reasons.

For one thing, Florida, like much of the southern and western US, has an infrastructure and culture that is more auto-centric than they are in The Big Apple.  Although there are many nice side roads and trails, many of them are accessible only by highways or other heavily-trafficked roads.  And those main roads, as often as not, don't have a shoulder, let alone a dedicated bike lane.

Also, while there are more vehicles in New York than in any Florida city, people from the Keys to the Panhandle drive more often and longer.  That means traffic that can be as heavy as--and less regulated than--its counterparts in Northeastern or West Coast metropoli.

That also means drivers are more likely to be driving only themselves.  In my experience, solo drivers are more likely to take risks or simply lapse in concentration than drivers with passengers.

And, as we all know, Florida is a haven for senior citizens.  I have found nearly all of them to be careful, courteous drivers.  But--and I mean no offense to any seniors reading this--after a certain age, people's reflexes slow down, their sight dims and their hearing dulls.  I have seen at least a few people during my travels (and, to be fair, here in New York) who probably shouldn't be driving any more.

Finally, as the Journal article mentions, alcohol and distracted driving also play roles.  They also are hazards for cyclists in other places, but if my own experience is any indication, there is more of both in Florida than in other places I've ridden.  To be fair, I think the police, at least in some areas of the state, are making more of an effort to crack down on drinking or texting while driving.  But even the most vigilant gendarmes can catch only a small number of offenders and, I believe, there isn't as much of a cultural taboo against drinking and driving in Daytona Beach as there is in, say, Park Slope or Back Bay.

Why Was He Targeted?

A 65-year-old immigrant is riding a bicycle in a lane through a gritty working-class neighborhood on the border between Queens and Brooklyn.  

He is pedaling home from his job as a dishwasher.

A group of ATVs and motorcycles approaches from behind.

The lead ATV strikes the cyclist.

The lead ATV flees the scene.

Four days later, the 65-year-old immigrant who was pedaling home from work is taken off life support.

"If they did it to my dad," lamented Angelica Xelo, "they're going to do it to someone else."

Little did she know that the assault--which  at least one news outlet called an "apparent collision"--was captured on about a dozen surveillance videos.  Or that some of them caught that same group of motorized thugs doing the same thing to another cyclist a few minutes later.  

That victim, whose name hasn't been released, wasn't seriously hurt.  But police believe that cyclist, like Eucario Xelo--a 65-year-old immigrant father and grandfather, was targeted.

I would like to know:  on what basis?  In Xelo's case, being an immigrant might be an obvious rationale.  But I have to wonder whether it's also a case of drivers using two tons of metal to express their resentment at people on two wheels "taking" "their" traffic lanes away from them, just as immigrants are "taking" "their" country.

Either way, I can't help but to think that ATV driver and that group feel emboldened by the current political situation.  How much difference is there, really, between white male entitlement and motor vehicle entitlement?

Either way, the result is the same:  a 65-year-old immigrant father and grandfather pedaling home from his job as a dishwasher in a restaurant ended up dead. 

 

That, in a neighborhood a little less than 10 kilometers from my apartment--and which I came to know well in my days of writing for a local newspaper.  

Perhaps that's the reason why, even though I never (to my knowledge, anyway) met Eucario Xelo, I feel as if I've lost someone I know.  Of course, it's much worse for Angelica:  She lost her father.  She is sad and angry: She has a right to both, and much more.

Carrying The Evidence Against Him

If you're going to commit a crime, you shouldn't leave evidence.  And you certainly had better not have the evidence on you when you get caught.

Josue Flores-Ochoa has just learned this lesson.  The 27-year-old from the Boston suburb of Everett had one too many and drove through nearby Revere in the wee hours of Sunday morning. At the same time, a 56-year-old man from Winthrop was riding his bike.

Unfortunately, you can guess what happened next:  Flores-Ochoa struck the man with his car. 

The man was taken to a nearby hospital where, fortunately, his wounds were not found to be life-threatening.

In another instance of good fortune, police found Flores-Ochoa a short time later.  Several people reported seeing the crash, which certainly helped. 

Don't carry the evidence with you!

But Flores-Ochoa actually did more than anyone else to help the police find him:  When he drove away after hitting the man, the bicycle was attached to the front of his car.  It was still there when the cops stopped him on Washington Avenue in Chelsea.

I wish his victim a speedy recovery.  Most of all, I want him to be well enough to get a chuckle out of Flores-Ochoa's ineptitude.

If Not Justice, Then Strength. Or So One Hopes.

They were not looking for vengeance.  Instead, they sought justice.  But is it possible when five lives are ended, horribly and pointlessly, and survivors may nurse wounds for the rest of their lives?

Paul J. Bridenstine probably did the best he could under the circumstances.  On Monday, he sentenced Charles Pickett Jr. to 40 to 75 years in prison.  Given that he has already served 734 days (just over two years) and that he is 52 years old, Pickett won't be eligible for parole until he is 90.

What caused Bridenstine to mete out such a sentence?  Two years ago last week, Pickett--who was driving 58 MPH in a 35 MPH zone while under the influence--plowed into a group of cyclists out for their weekly social ride.  He didn't hit his brakes until he hit the first cyclist.

Last month, he was found guilty of five counts of second-degree murder and five of driving under the influence when he cut short the lives of Debra Ann Bradley, Melissa Ann Fevig-Hughes, Fred Anton "Tony" Nelson, Lorenz John "Larry" Paulik and Suzanne Joan Sippel in Kalamazoo, Michigan. In addition, he was convicted of four counts of driving while intoxicated and causing serious injury to Paul Gobble, Jennifer Johnson, Sheila Jeske and Paul Runnels.

At the sentencing hearing, Johnson spoke of how she lost one of her best friends, Fevig-Hughes.  She rides "only in a group" now.  "I find myself holding my breath as people pass."  Still, despite intense pain, she continues on, inspired by the strength of her friend.

In that sense, she is someone else who gave a moving statement:  Madeline Bradley, the daughter of Debra Ann.  She attended Michigan State University for a semester after her mother's death, she said, but remained "broken".  At first, she thought, nothing remained of her mother until she discovered her strength.  "She continues to protect me with this strength, her strength," she declared.

At least she has that, whether or not there is justice.

A Move To The Left Too Late?

Most streetside bike lanes I've seen on one-way streets are on the right side of the street and demarcated by painted lines and arrows.

The latter feature makes them only marginally, if at all, safer than the street itself for cyclists.  That is something those of us who cycle on a near-daily basis have long known and some planners are beginning to acknowledge.  On the other hand, the hazards of the other part of the equation--lane placement--haven't been as well-recognized.

The fact that the Spruce Street bike lane runs along the corridor's right side may have cost 24-year-old Emily Fredericks her life.  The pastry chef was pedaling to work in Philadelphia's Center City when a garbage truck moving in the same direction turned right from Spruce to 11th Street.

Ms. Fredericks discovered, the hard way, what makes crossing a busy intersection from a bike lane on the right side of the street so hazardous.  Too often, drivers--who, in the US (as in most of the world) are on the left side of their vehicles--have difficulty seeing cyclists or anyone else to the right of their vehicles.  That is especially true if the vehicle is large, like a garbage truck. 

Now Philadelphia city officials, who say they aren't merely reacting to Ms. Fredericks' death, are looking to "flip" bicycle and parking lanes:  the former would move to the left, and cars would be parked on the right.  According to Sarah Clark Stuart, president of the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, such a change would allow drivers to "see the bicyclist better because the blind spot is going to be much narrower."  She also wants to see physical barriers constructed but the city's proposal doesn't call for that.  But, she says, her organization supports it because at least the new lane configuration would provide some safety benefits quickly while allowing additional protections later on.

That does indeed sound like a good idea, at least as far as it goes.  While a cyclist crossing an intersection or making a left turn from a left-hand lane wouldn't be in as much danger as a cyclist making the same moves from a right-hand lane,  painted lines aren't going to protect cyclists (or, for that matter, pedestrians) from a driver that swerves or veers out of the motor lane.  Also, I don't think "flipping" lanes negates the need for cyclists or pedestrians to cross intersections ahead of motorized traffic.  That is really the only way a motorist who is turning in the same direction as the location of the lane will see a cyclist (or pedestrian) who is crossing an intersection.

So, for now, it looks like the City of Brotherly Love is embracing cyclists--with one arm.

A New Low In Bike Theft?

Adding insult to injury

Stealing from the grave

No honor among thieves

Any one of those dreary cliches applies, at least somewhat, to what I'm about to report.

In Fullerton, California a 65-year-old woman was walking her bicycle across Brookhurst Street, just south of Valencia Drive (one of the area's main corridors), the other morning.  A 2015 black Mazda sedan was traveling southbound on Brookhurst and had just crossed Valencia when it smacked into the woman.



To her credit, the driver--a 26-year-old woman--has cooperated with investigators.  She did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  And, in her defense, looking at a map and street view lead me to believe eyewitness and police accounts that say the woman with the bicycle wasn't in a crosswalk when she tried to get to the other side of Brookhurst from the Fullerton Armory.

Here is where the story gets considerably murkier:  When police and paramedics arrived, the bicycle was missing.  According to police Sergeant John Radus, it was stolen.  He says that his department wants it for evidence.

Of course, being the skeptical New Yorker that I am, I have to ask:  When, exactly, was it stolen?  Did the driver--who remained at the scene--see the theft or, more to the point, the thief?  

Since it seems unlikely, to say the least, that the bike simply vanished, I would believe that it was stolen by somebody.  

That woman with the bicycle was was crossing just after 6 am:  when residents of the Armory, which is a homeless shelter, are required to leave.  If that woman was homeless--as seems likely--she may not have had much else besides that bike.  

Could this be a new low in bike theft?

Is Five Feet Enough?

He survived a slaughter or a massacre, depending on how you view it.

Paul Gobble, a photographer and rider, was out for a weekly Tuesday-evening ride with fellow cyclists of "The Chain Gang."  

At that moment, police were searching for a blue Chevy pickup truck after, within minutes, three separate callers reported that it was being driven "erratically" along roads near Kalamazoo, Michigan.  

One of those roads was the one on which Gobble and his friends had been riding.  But the police couldn't get to that truck before it plowed into "The Chain Gang."

Gobble is still recovering from the brain injury and broken bones he suffered that day, in June of 2016.  But Melissa Fevig-Hughes, Suzanne Sippel, Debbie Bradley, Tony Nelson and Larry Paulik have no such opportunity:  They were killed almost instantly as that truck plowed into them.

Like many of us who haven't (yet) been as unfortunate as he was on that day, he says there is "a great deal of ignorance" about cyclists' right to use the road.  Moreover, he says too many drivers are "just angry that we're out there." So, "they yell at us" and "drive aggressively toward us," he points out.

The implication of his remarks, and those of other Michigan cyclists, is that the Wolverine State has been slow to protect cyclists.  Perhaps that is not surprising in a state that is home to Motor City, a.k.a. Detroit, where many workers' jobs have been lost or threatened in recent years.  Since I am not an economist, I will not get into all of the reasons for the decline of the auto industry in Michigan and other parts of the United States.  But I think it's fair to say that some whose livelihoods have been sustained by the internal combustion engine might see--inaccurately--cyclists as "The Enemy", or at least a manifestation of all of the changes that, in their minds, endanger their way of life.

Of course, such thoughts may not have been in the mind of Charles E. Pickett, the driver of that truck.  His vision may well have been impaired by substances rather than a faulty socio-economic analysis that day.  No matter:  He drove into a group of cyclists, killing five and injuring four others, including Gobble.

Other than stopping someone like Pickett from driving in the first place, what can prevent motorists from running down cyclists--particularly those like Gobble and The Chain Gang, who had more than a century of cycling experience between them?

Most planning and lawmaking related to this question seems to be predicated on the notion that bikes and cars must be separated as much as possible.  That, I believe, is the thinking behind most bike lane construction.  It also seems to be the philosophy behind laws like the one that has been proposed in Michigan.  It would require motorists to give cyclists a five-foot berth when passing them.  Current Michigan law stipulates only that vehicles pass at "a safe distance."  Furthermore, that regulation has been interpreted to apply only to motor vehicles, not bicycles.



Eight other states have laws with language much like that of Michigan's.  Thirty other states, and the District of Columbia, mandate a three-foot berth.  One of those states, South Dakota, requires 6 feet when the motor vehicle is traveling at 35 or more MPH.  North Carolina specifies a two-foot berth, except in no-passing zones, where four feet are required.  Pennsylvania stipulates a four-foot buffer zone in all situations.

While some laud members of the Michigan Legislature for giving long-overdue attention to the safety of cyclists--whose numbers are growing--others wonder just how effective such laws actually are.  Studies have reached conflicting conclusions about whether three-foot laws, as they're often called, actually keep cyclists from being struck by motorists.  For one thing, such laws--like the ones prohibiting cell phone use while driving--are difficult to enforce.  For another, it may be close to impossible for a driver to give such a berth on narrow roads, especially if there is oncoming traffic.  

Most important, though, I think that such laws are most useful after the fact because they provide "something you can ticket," in the words of Becky Callender, whose son was riding in a single file of cyclists on a rural road near Lansing  when he was struck by an SUV.  They are not a substitute for driver awareness of, and courtesy toward, cyclists.  But, I suppose, having such laws is better than not having them--or a poorly-designed bike lane.