Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers investigate the scene of a deadly crash that claimed two bicyclists Tuesday afternoon. The cyclists were riding east on the shoulder of Oklahoma 51 near 161st West Avenue when a woman in a sport utility vehicle veered off the busy highway and crashed into them from behind about 4 p.m., Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Brian Warren said. Troopers said that they found an empty container of alcohol in the driver's car after the woman tried to flee the area. MATT BARNARD/Tulsa World
FIRST A REMINDER: The chances of suffering a fatal injury on a bicycle, per hour of exposure, are about the same as for walking on a sidewalk. Don't get scared.
I don't like posting this, I really don't, but it's important for a number of reasons.
More redundant laws that threaten our rights as legal operators of a vehicle won't save lives. That's a false argument. A local bicycle advocate has posted a picture (probably downloaded from Cycle*Dallas, oddly enough, that I used as an example of why on-street bike trails are dangerous) of a car driven by a drunk driver going the wrong way, plowing into a peloton of cyclists as an example of how the "Vulnerable User Law" would have saved lives. Perhaps they could explain just how that magic would have worked in that situation? Magick laws and magick paint won't save lives (the cyclists in Tulsa were on the shoulder of the road in a de facto bike lane).
For that matter, as the following link shows, more segregation won't necessarily save lives either. A Tulsa cycling blog I follow has more info on this tragic double homicide, and a close call.
The solutions are Education (all parties), Enforcement (all parties), Engineering (pretty good right now, but could be better, as what's good for all road users is good for cyclists), Encouragement (as opposed to the Dis-couragement too many "bicycle advocates" employ as part of their fear campaigns), and Equity (which the so-called "vulnerable user" laws threaten).
9 comments:
Great post Oh Wise One!
Do I recognize the "five E" advocacy goals from LAB? Boy are they on target!
http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/bfc_five-Es.php
As our "advocates" re-group, I hope they would adopt these far more attainable goals.
The LAB's fifth "E" stands for "Evaluation and Planning", and means literally, "How many miles of bike lanes do you have, and how many miles do you intend to stripe to be recognized as a Bike Friendly Community?"
I substituted "Equity" for the 5th, referencing the League's "hidden" (try to find it) Bicyclist Equity statement.
I'm still waiting.
Although I'm not entirely convinced that this law would do more harm than good, the suggestion that it would actually prevent any significant number of fatalities is pretty hard to swallow.
The thing that bothers me is when negligent motorists who kill cyclists are not charged with a crime; the idea that everything is an "accident" and no one needs to be held accountable. My *hope* was that this law would help with that sort of thing. Perhaps that is overly optimistic but if new (somewhat redundant) laws won't help promote (E)nforcement than what will?
Uhhhh, haven't they had such a 3-foot passing law in Oklahoma (ref Cycledog) since 2006?
I didn't read in the news that the driver would be charged with 3-foot passing violation in addition to the other charges.
stu42j said...
"The thing that bothers me is when negligent motorists who kill cyclists are not charged with a crime; the idea that everything is an "accident" and no one needs to be held accountable. My *hope* was that this law would help with that sort of thing. Perhaps that is overly optimistic but if new (somewhat redundant) laws won't help promote (E)nforcement than what will?"
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." That's precisely why we don't need a redundant law that includes language that opens the door for bicycles to be removed from the "legal vehicle" category in the Vehicle Code.
If the goal was to improve conditions for cyclists, then lobbying for stricter enforcement and prosecutions would have been far more helpful (or even lobbying for the existing laws to have a distance added to the language)... but it wouldn't gained as much publicity for TBC as this effort to adopt a faddish law.
But as Keri Caffrey said about another disingenuous situation; "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain. Behold the great and wondrous oz."
I can't find LAB's equity statement, only rumors that it exists. On the other hand, I did find this:
http://home.swbell.net/mpion/equality_for_cyclists_6th_E.pdf
I think all would find it interesting!
Here's the League's Equity Statement.
http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/search?q=Equity
Personally, I'd eliminate the Evaluation "E", as that has been used by the League's BFC program to undermine the original "4 Es".
More on Equity here, too.
Post a Comment