Five Cyclists Mowed Down In Michigan

Yesterday, I wrote a post-mortem for Jocelyn Lovell, whose career was cut short when a dump truck ran him down and broke his neck.  He would live the second half of his life, which ended last Friday, as a quadriplegic.  The trauma nurse who helped to airlift him to Toronto Sunnybrook Hospital immediately recognized him when he returned 18 months later for a round of rehabilitation.  She rushed to his side, grasped his hand and tearfully exclaimed, "Jocelyn, we thought you were going to die!"

Whatever miracles, whatever interventions, kept him in this world for the next 32 years weren't forthcoming for five cyclists near Kalamazoo, Michigan.  Debra Ann ("Debbie") Bradley, Melissa Ann Fevig-Hughes, Fred Anton (Tony) Nelson, Lorenz John (Larry) Paulik and Suzanne Joan Sippel were all run down from behind by a blue Chevy pickup truck.

Melissa Fevig-Hughes

In the minutes before the tragedy, police were seeking that vehicle after receiving three separate calls saying that it was being driven erratically.  The driver, a 50-year-old area resident, is in custody while authorities decide on what charges should be filed against him.  Among them might be one for DWI, according to the latest reports available as of this writing.

 

Suzanne Sippel

One very notable aspect of this story is that the victims were all experienced cyclists who had been riding with each other weekly for more than a decade.  Ms. Fevig-Hughes, age 42, was the youngest of them, while Mr. Paulik, 74, was the oldest. Another disturbing aspect of this tragedy is that it struck in daylight, on a street in a residential area.  At least one witness tried to alert the cyclists and the driver, to no avail.

Debbie Bradley

Four other area cyclists were injured and are hospitalized.  Jennifer Lynn Johnson is in fair condition, while Paul Douglas Gobble, Sheila Diane Jeske and Paul Lewis Runnels are in serious condition.

 

Tony Nelson

According to witnesses, these cyclists were a familiar sight to many in the area and were known to abide by all laws, regulations and accepted safety practices.  Thus, according to Paul Seiden, "The tragedy underscores the need for increased awareness and re-dedication on the part of the community as a whole to the safety of bicyclists when they're on the road."  Seiden, the director of road safety for the Kalamazoo Cycle Club, added, "In an accident like this, everybody loses."

Larry Paulik

 Truer words have never been said.  As a fellow cyclist and human, my thoughts are with Debbie Bradley, Melissa Fevig-Hughes, Tony Nelson, Larry Paulik and Suzanne Sippel and their families and friends.  I can only be thankful that I have not met a fate like theirs, and hopeful that I never will.

Cycling In Montreal

Different cities have different "feels" or "vibes".  A musician--Charles Mingus, I believe--once remarked that he could tell, blindfolded, and with his ears plugged, whether he was in San Francisco or New York or Paris or wherever.  

He, or whoever that musician was, also said it was possible to sense the "energy" of a place you're visiting for the first time the moment you step off the plane or train or whatever took you there.  I believe there's something to that:  I recall feeling almost as if I'd developed another sense as I walked through the airport in Istanbul.  Every place I went, whether in the city itself or along the coast or into the Cappadocia countryside, just seemed to pulse with vitality, whether I was marveling at the Blue Mosque, sauntering among the ancient ruins or looking at the almost-otherworldly landsapes--or seeing the mansions along the Bosphrous or the shacks of once-mighty cities whose harbors had silted up.

Likewise, cycling feels different in different cities.  In Boston, it can seem like mano-a-mano combat with drivers; all through Florida (all right, it's not a city, but bear with me), it feels as if you're holding out (I was going to stay "standing your ground", but that seems pretty touchy!) and holding onto pieces of real estate that are miles long and inches wide.  In Prague, you're always climbing or descending a hill, just as I remember San Francisco.  The difference between cycling in Paris and cycling in New York is like the difference between caffeine and Red Bull laced with cocaine:  The former energizes cyclists but doesn't seem to impair their social skills; the latter turns everything into a race--to what, no one seems to know.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, Parisian drivers are courteous and respectful because, I believe, many are--or have recently been--cyclists.  I'm not sure that the bike lanes or Velib made it a more "bike friendly" city, as some have said, although I did see more cyclists on my most recent trip there than I saw on previous trips.  More time elapsed between the Montreal trip I just took and the one before it, but I think it's fair to see that there are more real changes in the city's cycling atmosphere than I've witnessed in any other city.

I certainly saw more cyclists--and, perhaps most important, a wider variety of people cycling--than I did on previous visits.  I rode some routes I'd ridden before and explored areas I'd never before seen.  I was able to do most of my riding on bike paths, although that was not one of my objectives.  I wouldn't say that the paths, which were all but non-existent the last time I was in Montreal, necessarily make cycling safer or even more pleasant than it had been before.  But I have to say that, for the most part, they seem well-planned:  I didn't find myself on "paths to nowhere" or ones that abruptly let cyclists out into dangerous intersections.  

However, I found myself questioning the wisdom of this:

I understand what planners were trying to do:  Provide paths that allow cyclists to ride in an orderly fashion.  And, for whatever reasons, they wanted or had to keep the paths on one side of the street or the other.  The issue wasn't the width of the paths.  One lane in each direction is more or less like one lane in each direction on a road for motorized vehicles:  You follow similar kinds of procedures and etiquette for riding with, behind or in front, of--or passing--other drivers.  It certainly seemed to work well:  I didn't sense conflicts between cyclists over rights-of-way.

On the other hand, there was a problem I found with them:  When you're riding in the right lane, in the opposite direction from the motorized traffic, and you come to an intersection, you have to take extra care, especially if the cross-street is one-way, with the traffic coming from your left.  This is even more true when drivers traveling in the opposite direction on the street your path parallels make right turns.

To be fair, the local cyclists and drivers didn't seem to have any problem.  Perhaps they've grown accustomed to the arrangement.  Were I living in Montreal--or simply cycling there more often--I probably would, too.  

I didn't see any of the confrontations, or any other expressions of hostility, one witnesses--or, perhaps, gets involved in--here in New York.  There seems to be more respect--or, at least, some sort of detente--between motorists and cyclists.  The latter--even the fastest and most competitive ones--come to a full stop at red lights, as do pedestrians. So do the drivers:  They don't try to "gun it" as the light is changing, and there is actually a pause between the light turning green and cars proceeding through it.  In the Big Apple, it seems, drivers have learned how to put their foot on the gas pedal a second or two before the signal changes so their vehicles are in motion even before the light is green.

In brief, the calm atmosphere I experienced while riding in Montreal seems to be a result of people's sense of security about themselves, as motorists and cyclists as well as human beings.  In New York, I am realizing, no matter how well you do, you've only survived the day and, perhaps, survived for another day.  As James Baldwin has noted, when everyone is striving for status, nobody really has any.  Or, as a student of mine remarked last night, "You have to be a shark to survive in this city!"  If that is the case, and Montreal's streets are waterways, one can navigate them as a dolphin.

Plus, you've got to love a place where you can see a sign like this:

I think something was lost in translation.

or a street with a name like this:

Admit it:  You would love to say you live on "Rue Rufus Rockhead"!

just blocks away from this:

In Vieux Montreal, or Old Montreal

or this:

"Farine Five Roses":  I'm not sre of whether it's stranger in French or English!

or where a bridge like the Jacques Cartier would have an underpass like this between the east and west walkways:

 You can't hear the traffic above you, and look at how clean it is!  It was open, even tough the west walkway is closed.

Such a thing never would be built in New York.  (A fair number of bridges, such as the Verrazano Narrows, don't even have bike paths or walkways.)  And if it were, it would always be "closed for repairs", but homeless people or the young and intoxicated would break into it.

All right.  I'll stop whining about what does and doesn't happen in New York and say that Montreal is indeed a fine cycling city. 

The World's Worst Place To Ride...And He Would Know

I started reading Bicycling! magazine as a teenager in the mid-1970s.  I came in, so to speak, for John Rakowski's around-the-world bike tour.  Every month's issue included another installment of his epic ride, whether in India or Afghanistan or South America. 

As I recall, after three years and something like 50,000 kilometers of riding, he made a list of "favorite" and "least favorite", "best" and "worst", among other categories.

The former included countries (As I recall, Spain and Thailand were among his favorites.) while the latter included food, beer and cycling conditions.

As far as I know, Thomas Andersen has not yet made such a list.  But he has declared a "worst", as in "worst place for cyclists".  That distinction, he says, belongs to Australia. He singles out Sydney for particular criticism, saying he was shocked by the regular abuse from drivers.  "Australia has wonderful people, but some just don't like cyclists," he says.

Thomas Andersen in Sydney

Andersen is following in Rakowski's tire tracks and circumventing the globe on two wheels.  He's pedaled over 30,000 miles in 25 countries and is now pedaling through Ecuador. 

"In most countries, people drive fast but are usually happy enough to give some space to a cyclist on the road," Thomas says.  "I think the worst attitude I met toward cyclists was the day I cycled into Sydney in Australia."

He believes that one reason for such hostility is the lack of infrastructure.  For example, he cites the lack of lanes. "You have them for a bit, and then a gap."  Such a lack of continuity makes it difficult for cycling to develop as a viable means of transportation, he says.

But another reason he gives is, in my opinion, far more relevant.  In Denmark, his home country, many people cycle to work and for recreation.  On the other hand, he says, he saw few cyclists in Sydney or the rest of Australia, where he cycled some 5000 kilometers.

In previous posts, I have said that having such a critical mass, if you will, of cyclists, is far more important than bike lanes or signs or anything else for improving cyclists' safety and causing the bicycle to be seen as a viable means of transportation.  More cyclists brings more awareness of cycling, as greater numbers of motorists are likely to be, or more recently have been, cyclists.

I don't recall that John Rakowski had a "worst place for cyclists" on his lists.  If he had, I wonder whether he would have agreed with Thomas Andersen.

If Speed Doesn't Kill

Today I'm going to talk about one of those topics about which none of us wants to think:  accidents.

Specifically, I'm thinking about motorists hitting or, worse, running down cyclists.

One reason it's on my mind is that last night, I had one of the closest calls I've had in a while.  

I had just traversed the Pulaski Bridge from McGuiness Boulevard in Greeenpoint, Brooklyn to Jackson Avenue in Long Island City, Queens--a crossing I've made hundreds of times.  On Jackson, I turned left and followed it to 50th Avenue.  Then I turned right on Vernon Boulevard, which skirts the East River and takes me within a few blocks of my apartment.

Daylight, such as it was, fell into night.  Showers were turning into a downpour.  Even that, in itself, is not so unusual, especially at this time of year.  I exercised my usual caution:  I rode a little bit slower and gave myself extra time and distance to brake.  I expected nothing more inconvenient than wet clothes (I was riding Vera, which has full fenders and a flap, but I had not brought any rain gear.) on the rest of my trip home.  

But as I approached the "Y" shaped intersection of Vernon with 45th Avenue and 10th Street, a car shot out from behind me and seemed to miss my front wheel by inches.  A quick turn of my handlebars saved me.

The intersection was well-lit, so my "blinky" lights and reflective vest should have been sufficient for the driver to see me.  There was no light or "stop" sign in the intersection, and I proceeded as far to the right as I could without making a turn.  

However, that driver had to be going at least twice the speed limit for that street.  And, given that it was early on Saturday night, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that his blood-alcohol level was over the legal limit.

In thinking about the incident, I realize that in every one of my close encounters with automobiles in which road conditions or inadequate signals or signage weren't the cause, the driver was speeding.  And, I would suspect that there was a better-than-even chance that the driver was drinking.

Then, just a little while ago, in doing some research (i.e., surfing the web), I came across this account of a 70-year-old cyclist in India who was mowed down by a speeding mini-bus. As it turns out, the driver has a record of speeding and recklessness.

That got me to wondering whether speeding is the main cause of accidents between cars and bikes in which the motorist is at fault. 

Two Wheels vs Two Feet In Bucharest?

Many of us have an image of Europe as a place where cycling is revered, or at least respected.  Even if you haven't been to Amsterdam or Copenhagen, you've seen images of streets full of people riding to work, to school, to go shopping, or just because they can, wearing everything from fashionable suits to flashy racing gear.

Even in less bike-friendly European cities, one finds accommodations, if not in physical accoutrements, then at least in the attitudes of local motorists and pedestrians--and, sometimes, even the police, who are often recreational or sporting cyclists themselves.

But, believe it or not, there is a major European capital in which officials actually seem to be discouraging cycling.  Or, worse, they seem to be pitting cyclists against pedestrians and motorists--and everyone else in the city.

That place is one I've never visited:  Bucharest, Romania.  Believe it or not, the city's to build bike paths on the sidewalks.  This would endanger both cyclists, for both will have less space than they would have were the bike lanes in the roadway--or if there weren't bike lanes at all.  

Riding to Bucharest City Hall to protest the Mayor's decision to place bike paths on the sidewalks.  From Demotix

As I've never been to Bucharest, I can't comment on its motor traffic or cycling conditions.  However, it does seem as though there is a growing number of commuting  and recreational cyclists--and people who would like to be one or both.

What's interesting is that, according to a poll, 81% of motorists believe that cycling and walking should be encouraged.   Perhaps they're thinking about the study that rated Bucharest the most polluted capital in Europe in 2011 and the second-most in 2012.  I would imagine that even those who wouldn't normally think about the environment could be noticing an increase in the number of respiratory ailments or cancers.  Perhaps those motorists have contracted one or both themselves.

Those same motorists, for the most part, agree that making cyclists and pedestrians share the same ribbons of concrete is a terrible idea--at least for a city that should encourage cycling and walking.  

 

Passing: How Close?

Here's something I can't believe I missed.

Six years ago, Scientific American's blog reported on a study about helmet-wearing.  According to British researcher and cyclist Ian Walker, motorists give a wider berth to helmetless (Is that a real word?) cyclists than to those of us who don hard shells.  

How did he come to this conclusion?  He attached ultrasonic sensors to his bike and allowed 2300 motorists to overtake him as he pedaled in and around Bath.  His data indicated that drivers passed 3.35 inches closer to him when he wore his helmet than they did when he was bareheaded.

He also conducted another experiment: On some of his rides, he wore a wig of long brown locks to make him look like a woman from behind.   When motorists thought Ian was Lana, they gave him an average of 2.2 more inches to ride, he said.

His findings are interesting, to say the least.  Now, I have no experience in conducting experiments like his.  But I have to wonder just how good his data actually is.  After all, he was the only test subject. So, I have to wonder whether other factors might have influenced the way motorists passed him on the road.

From Bike New York

 From all of my experience of cycling, I honestly don't know whether  wearing a helmet influences the amount of room motorists give me.   Then again, about the only times I notice how much of a berth I'm granted are when the cars are close enough to scrape the crocheted back off my glove.

As for the male-female thing: Most mototrists may well be giving me more room than I got when I was Nick. But, every once in a while, some male driver pulls up close to me and whistles, makes a comment like "Nice legs!" or finds some other way to annoy me.

In spite of Walker's findings, or any others, I'll most likely continue to wear my helmet.  While it may cause drivers to ride closer to me, I want to have it on if I'm in an accident. Once, when I flipped over (through no fault of any motorist), my helmet broke in two but I emerged with nothing more than a few scratches on my left arm and leg.  Another time, a tiny Vietnamese truck driver flung his door into me, causing me to do an unintentional cartwheel on my head.  I came out of that with a sprained wrist.

   

What Makes For A "Bike Friendly" City?

Today begins National Bike Month.  And, the 9th of May is National Bike To Work Day.

From Sheepshead Bites

Here in New York I see many more people riding to work, shop and to conduct other activities of their daily lives than I saw twenty-five, or even ten, years ago.   Bike lanes, which were nearly non-existent just a few years ago, wind along the city's shorelines and cut across various neighborhoods and districts. Bike-parking facilities are being built, as well as kiosks for a bike-share program.

However, as I've said in previous posts, these developments don't make the city more "bike friendly" than it was in in the '80's or '90's.  Sure, more people are biking, and know people who are biking.  But you're just as--or perhaps more--likely to be harassed, spat at, cussed out or even run over. 

From my experience as a cyclist, I know that facilities don't make for an atmosphere in which practical, everyday cyclists can ride safely, let alone in a tolerant atmosphere. In the early '80's, I was living in Paris.  The City of Light didn't offer much more in the way of the facilities I've described than New York or other American cities had.  And motor traffic was just as heavy, if not heavier, in part because Parisian streets are typically much narrower than the ones in the Big Apple.  Yet I used to feel safer riding on even the main arteries, such as the boulevards de Champs-Elysees and Saint Michel, than I did on even the smallest side-streets in Staten Island or New Jersey.

What I've just said about cycling in Paris was also true of other French cities in which I've cycled, and in other European 'burgs.  

I've long felt that one major reason why those cities were more bike-friendly is that, in those days, most European drivers also rode bicycles. That is still the case in some European capitals, most notably Amsterdam and Copenhagen.  Once in a great while, a particularly obnoxious motorist would honk his horn repeatedly and shout things that Mr. Berlitz never taught his students.  Such encounters were far less frequent in Europe than they were in America, at least for me.  The European exchanges also seemed less threatening, whether or not I understood the motorist's language.  Even when they drove "close enough to tear off the back of my glove," as I used to describe it, I never felt that I would be turned into a road crepe because the European drivers seemed to understand bicycles and cyclists, and knew how to act and react.

Even with the exponential increase in the number of cyclists in New York and other American cities, the vast majority of motorists don't ride bikes.   For that matter, many of the pedestrians who fill New York bike lanes--and cross into them without watching the traffic-- also never ride. Or, perhaps, they think they're not going to be hit by a cyclist, or if they are, they assume it's the cyclist's fault.

While I'm happy to see bike storage facilities and some of the bike lanes (like the one that leads to the Queensborough /59th Street Bridge), I think we'll continue to see new "ghost bikes" cropping up all over town until we have a couple of generations of motorists who are also cyclists.  And New York and other American cities will be "bike friendly" only in comparison to other cities.  

Getting There: Further Improvement To The World's Fair Marina Promenade

Yesterday I rode along the Worlds Fair Marina promenade on my way to work.  As I reported a couple of weeks ago, the path had been extended to the Northern Boulevard Bridge.  But there was a problem:  access to the Northern Boulevard Bridge.  

To get to the bridge's walkway, you have to cross an entrance ramp to the Grand Central Parkway. The worst part is that it is on a sharp curve, so motorists approaching the ramp are likely not to see cyclists or pedestrians crossing it.   At night, the visibility is even worse.

Well, since my previous post about this route, a crosswalk has been painted, and curbs have been cut at each end of it.  Best of all, there's a traffic signal there. 

Although it's an improvement, I still think there is a problem with the crossing. Because motorists approach it from a curve, they may not see the signal until they are within feet of it.  And, unless there's a traffic jam, they drive through the curve at highway speeds, or close to them. So I have to wonder whether some of those motorists could slow down and stop quickly enough when they approach that crossing.  

So, even though it's safer than it had been, anyone crossing from the bike lane to the bridge needs to be, really, just as cautious as he or she might have been before the improvements.

Getting there....