Bicyclist killed by woman driver who was downloading cell phone ring tones



"Robert Coe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:29:53 -0700, Notan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> : Michael Press wrote:
> : >
> : > In article
> : > <[email protected]>,
> : > "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:
> : > > You go on to list problems common to urban cycling in any city.
> Philadelphia
> : > > is no worse than most of the cities I've ridden in, and better than
> many.
> : > > The solution is always the same: take the lane, hold your line, obey
> the
> : > > rules, be predictable, ignore assholes. Assert your rights and be
> visible in
> : > > doing so, and don't catch the drivers by surprise. They don't
> improvise
> : > > well.
> : >
> : > Pellucid, succinct, precise, and accurate.
> :
> : And sometimes fatal.
>
> Yes, possibly. Bad things sometimes happen, and riding a bicycle isn't the
> safest of activities. But how would you improve on Rich's advice?



I'd add, maintain a sense of humor.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006 21:49:23 -0800, "zeez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Of course, a good loud horn helps!
> >>

> >
> > Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if you fit one of those freight train
> >air horns to your bike? :)

>
> An AirZound does an adequately comparable job at a fraction of the
> weight and cost.
>
> Pump up the plastic pop-bottle reservoir with your bicycle pump and
> you get 115 attention grabbing decibels.
>
> Mine has stopped a Jeep and a Lexus.
> --
> zk


Where did you get yours ZK? Do you bring it with you when leaving the
bike?
 
Claire Petersky wrote:
>
> "Robert Coe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:29:53 -0700, Notan <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > : Michael Press wrote:
> > : >
> > : > In article
> > : > <[email protected]>,
> > : > "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > : > > You go on to list problems common to urban cycling in any city.
> > Philadelphia
> > : > > is no worse than most of the cities I've ridden in, and better than
> > many.
> > : > > The solution is always the same: take the lane, hold your line, obey
> > the
> > : > > rules, be predictable, ignore assholes. Assert your rights and be
> > visible in
> > : > > doing so, and don't catch the drivers by surprise. They don't
> > improvise
> > : > > well.
> > : >
> > : > Pellucid, succinct, precise, and accurate.
> > :
> > : And sometimes fatal.
> >
> > Yes, possibly. Bad things sometimes happen, and riding a bicycle isn't the
> > safest of activities. But how would you improve on Rich's advice?

>
> I'd add, maintain a sense of humor.


Thank you! <g>

Notan
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > Cell phones are intended to be used while driving. You can tell this by
> > the fact that coverage in almost all US metropolitan areas is excellent
> > on highways and spotty to poor more than 1/4 away from highways. In the
> > Twin Cities metro are there are many, many coverage holes and my phone
> > (Sprint) is frequently unusable on surface streets and in neighborhoods.

>
> Very interesting - and infuriating - point. I hadn't thought of that.
>
> > Not that talking on a cell phone and driving is a good idea. A dozen
> > times a day or more I see people driving neglectfully while talking on
> > cell phones- all of them probably thinking they are driving fine. NO
> > ONE drives safely while talking on a cell phone, and hands free phones
> > don't help much if at all. If you think you can drive safely while
> > you're talking on your cell phone, you are delusional.

>
> I agree.
>
> Since this is a tech group: I'd love to see a portable device that
> would deactivate or jam every cell phone within, say, 100 feet of my
> bike.


Except that this would result in drivers looking down at their phones,
pressing butttons, shaking the phone and generally not paying attention
to the road. That is the scary part -- drivers looking down to dial
their cell phones. Just yaking away is one thing, looking down at the
phone is another.

> Hmm. Maybe replace the caller's voice with "Watch out for the bike!
> Watch out for the bike!" repeated over and over!


I like this idea. -- Jay Beattie.
 
On 5 Dec 2006 07:07:13 -0800, "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Where did you get yours ZK? Do you bring it with you when leaving the
>bike?


It was a gift. I think it originally came from The Bike Doctor.

By the time you've got the clamp mounted and the hose tied down with
zip-ties, it's kind of hard to remove.
--
zk
 
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:16:57 -0600, Tim McNamara <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> People do all sorts of wrong etiquette in this news group.
>> Mostly including the previous message.
>> waste of time

>
>So you're the newsgroup's resident troll. Figures.


What do you mean, resident? He's new here.
\

Jasper
 
On 3 Dec 2006 10:34:40 -0800, "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> In article <42lch.409456$R63.64718@pd7urf1no>,
>> "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
>> > jist of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$ You people are
>> > thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read NO So why are
>> > you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to bike
>> > in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous
>> > for my taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck.
>> > comment. Would you? Because that is what you are telling me.
>> >
>> > I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show. Have you
>> > answered even one of my questions No

>>
>> Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
>> unable to think critically as well.

>
>Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
>unable to think critically as well.


I know you are, but what am I?

Jasper
 
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> On 3 Dec 2006 10:34:40 -0800, "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Tim McNamara wrote:
> >> In article <42lch.409456$R63.64718@pd7urf1no>,
> >> "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I donot fuccing care wise a$s. that was one article. Do you get the
> >> > jist of what I was saying No. Do more reading A$$ You people are
> >> > thoroughly disgusting. Do you believe everything read NO So why are
> >> > you taking me to task. Get over it already. Would you like to bike
> >> > in a Chinese city Monday morning rush hour. A little too dangerous
> >> > for my taste. That is alll I am saying about the dave's reck.
> >> > comment. Would you? Because that is what you are telling me.
> >> >
> >> > I did not say I had a source I said I heard it on a TV show. Have you
> >> > answered even one of my questions No
> >>
> >> Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
> >> unable to think critically as well.

> >
> >Good grief. Unfortunately your writing makes it appear that you are
> >unable to think critically as well.

>
> I know you are, but what am I?


Nice come-back! <g>

Notan
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2006 07:07:13 -0800, "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Where did you get yours ZK? Do you bring it with you when leaving the
> >bike?

>
> It was a gift. I think it originally came from The Bike Doctor.
>
> By the time you've got the clamp mounted and the hose tied down with
> zip-ties, it's kind of hard to remove.


No bicycle accessory mounting is complete unless it involves the use of
ALL of the following:

- inner tube rubber shim
- Jubilee clips (hose clamps)
- cable (zip) ties
- electrical tape
- hooks and loops (aka Velcro [TM])
- rubber bands
- Fabrizio Mazzoleni hyperventilating when he sees it ;-)

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
 
This is just awful! Here in Madison, WI we have quite large bike lanes
and drivers still manage to take us out from time to time. People need
to get off their phones and pay attention!


Yarper wrote:
> Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
> to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
> working for a personal-injury law firm.
>
> http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/woman_is_sentenced_for_bicyclists_death
>
> What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
> they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.
 
wiscojohn wrote:
> This is just awful! Here in Madison, WI we have quite large bike lanes
> and drivers still manage to take us out from time to time. People need
> to get off their phones and pay attention!...


Well, some of them are just bad design. The two-way bike lane on the
south side of University Drive (one-way, westbound) in the campus area
is one. Many drivers will not be looking for cyclists when they (the
drivers) turn left, and even if they are cyclists are easily missed in
the hoards of UW student pedestrians waiting to cross the street on the
sidewalk, the barrier island between the motor vehicle lanes and in the
bike lanes themselves. In my opinion, these bike lanes should be
scrapped, and replaced with a right-hand motor vehicle lane that is
about 5 feet wider than standard.

It should also be noted that many of the cyclists (primarily UW
students) behave in a totally unpredictable manner that completely
ignores traffic signage, traffic signals and rules of the road, so they
are not blameless in many cases.

--
Tom "Former West Wilson resident" Sherman - Post Free or Die!
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Robert Coe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:29:53 -0700, Notan <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > : Michael Press wrote:
> > : >
> > : > In article
> > : > <[email protected]>,
> > : > "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > : > > You go on to list problems common to urban cycling in any city.
> > Philadelphia
> > : > > is no worse than most of the cities I've ridden in, and better than
> > many.
> > : > > The solution is always the same: take the lane, hold your line, obey
> > the
> > : > > rules, be predictable, ignore assholes. Assert your rights and be
> > visible in
> > : > > doing so, and don't catch the drivers by surprise. They don't
> > improvise
> > : > > well.
> > : >
> > : > Pellucid, succinct, precise, and accurate.
> > :
> > : And sometimes fatal.
> >
> > Yes, possibly. Bad things sometimes happen, and riding a bicycle isn't the
> > safest of activities. But how would you improve on Rich's advice?

>
>
> I'd add, maintain a sense of humor.


He said `ignore assholes.'

--
Michael Press
 
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>wiscojohn wrote:
>> This is just awful! Here in Madison, WI we have quite large bike lanes
>> and drivers still manage to take us out from time to time. People need
>> to get off their phones and pay attention!...

>
>Well, some of them are just bad design.


And some aren't. Unless you're talking about the cell phones, in
which case, some aren't.

> The two-way bike lane on the
>south side of University Drive (one-way, westbound) in the campus area
>is one. Many drivers will not be looking for cyclists when they (the
>drivers) turn left, and even if they are cyclists are easily missed in
>the hoards of UW student pedestrians waiting to cross the street on the
>sidewalk, the barrier island between the motor vehicle lanes and in the
>bike lanes themselves. In my opinion, these bike lanes should be
>scrapped, and replaced with a right-hand motor vehicle lane that is
>about 5 feet wider than standard.


Personally, I prefer the 6' (2m) plus bike lanes here in the Phoenix
Arizona east valley over a foot less width left of the auto
demarcation. But for some strange reason, some cyclists can't imagine
that having a lane with lane markings the discourages auto incursion
to our LEFT is a good thing. Go figger.

>It should also be noted that many of the cyclists (primarily UW
>students) behave in a totally unpredictable manner that completely
>ignores traffic signage, traffic signals and rules of the road, so they
>are not blameless in many cases.


They're just as clueless when walking or riding a bike (I ride through
ASU at least several times a week, and have to be in "swivel-head
mode" all the time). Yesterday a college student on a road bike blew
through a red light about 5 seconds after it turned, potentially
taking me out (fortunately I was looking), and just about ended up on
the hood of a car turning right (who also was watching).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> Personally, I prefer the 6' (2m) plus bike lanes here in the Phoenix
> Arizona east valley over a foot less width left of the auto
> demarcation. But for some strange reason, some cyclists can't imagine
> that having a lane with lane markings the discourages auto incursion
> to our LEFT is a good thing. Go figger.


It discourages, but doesn't prevent. In addition, it encourages
drivers to think that the rest of all the other roads are for cars
only.

Have you ever had a driver shout "advice" to you about bicycles and
traffic law? If so, have they ever been right? (If not, then count
yourself lucky.)

In any case, just about every bike lane I've ever seen is an
afterthought, in the door zone, less than 3 feet wide, not contiguous
(ends at intersections) or contains a lot of road debris. Or some
combination thereof. Pretty much any one of those things makes cycling
in and around autos harder, not easier.

A wide lane, with no bike ghetto off to the right, is my ideal
commuting set-up. If only for the reason that auto drivers not get the
idea that bikes MUST remain in the bike lanes.

Those lanes in your area sound nice, if you accept the idea of a bike
ghetto to begin with. They would be way ahead of anything I've ever
had the "priviledge" of riding on.

E.P.
 
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Zoot Katz wrote:
> > On 5 Dec 2006 07:07:13 -0800, "nash" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Where did you get yours ZK? Do you bring it with you when leaving the
> > >bike?

> >
> > It was a gift. I think it originally came from The Bike Doctor.
> >
> > By the time you've got the clamp mounted and the hose tied down with
> > zip-ties, it's kind of hard to remove.

>
> No bicycle accessory mounting is complete unless it involves the use of
> ALL of the following:
>
> - inner tube rubber shim
> - Jubilee clips (hose clamps)
> - cable (zip) ties
> - electrical tape
> - hooks and loops (aka Velcro [TM])
> - rubber bands
> - Fabrizio Mazzoleni hyperventilating when he sees it ;-)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!


I bought mine yesterday when I got my disc bike rack installed.
anyone want one? I might be able to get more at half price. $25
AirZound I live in Surrey, BC
I do not know if they have any left but I can try.
 
"Yarper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clear and obvious guilt. Result? A slap on the wrist, due directly
> to Democratic State Attorney Julia Reitz, who ironically is listed as
> working for a personal-injury law firm.
>
> http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/11/30/woman_is_sentenced_for_bicyclists_death
>
> What we need in the USA is separate bicycle lanes, like
> they have throughout Denmark and parts of Holland.


Unless they're built in as roads are constructed they will be too expensive,
often impossible to deploy. Unless they provide a physical barrier it will
not save many cyclists.

What we *really* need is a first-time $500 fine for assholes who talk on
their phones while driving. I can't tell you how many people drive around my
town barely paying attention to the road because they're yapping on their
phones. My kids walk home from school on these same streets.

Second offenders should lose their licenses for a month and be fined $2500.

In this case, the woman should be charged with vehicular homicide. If you're
doing something illegal and someone dies as a result, you deserve to go to
jail.
 
"Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bn4ch.54$QC.34@trnddc02...
> richard wrote:
>
>>
>> But I do not feel that an improper lane usage charge is not adequate as
>> there was a human life involved, which is a test for reckless operation,
>> and that test was met with flying colors.
>> I have a sneaking hunch this will not be the last time we will hear about
>> Ms. Stark and her cell phone.
>>
>>

>
> Actually Ms. Stark should be prohibited from owning/using a cell phone for
> the rest of her life!


And a car as well. If you kill someone while driving and you're at fault you
should lose your driving priviledges permanently.
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Have you ever had a driver shout "advice" to you about bicycles and
> traffic law?


This is where a cell phone that takes photos that can be downloaded to
a remote place for saving is a very handy thing.

Mine doesn't really take pictures but I've shut up a couple of drivers
pronto with it anyhow.

Maybe the times are finally a-changin!!!

I've called 911 on pay phones (remember pay phones?) in the past and
had a squad car respond. "I'm being threatened by a driver" while
giving location, lic. #, car/driver description. Do it! ("I'm going
about my lawful business" is a handy phrase)

> If so, have they ever been right? (If not, then count
> yourself lucky.)


I know what you mean, but I never count myself lucky or unlucky
depending on the behavior of others. Abuse is abuse; same for
threatening. "Get off the road" is a threat, plain and simple.

> In any case, just about every bike lane I've ever seen is an
> afterthought, in the door zone, less than 3 feet wide, not contiguous
> (ends at intersections) or contains a lot of road debris. Or some
> combination thereof. Pretty much any one of those things makes cycling
> in and around autos harder, not easier.
>
> A wide lane, with no bike ghetto off to the right, is my ideal
> commuting set-up. If only for the reason that auto drivers not get the
> idea that bikes MUST remain in the bike lanes.
>
> Those lanes in your area sound nice, if you accept the idea of a bike
> ghetto to begin with. They would be way ahead of anything I've ever
> had the "priviledge" of riding on.


Shoal Creek Blvd, Austin Tx has been a "proving ground" of sorts over
the last year or so.

What works on this curvy street is pushing the vehicular traffic to the
middle of the ROW, with a "Parking/Bikes" lane striped to the right.
Excuse me if I don't provide measurements here. There's about 2'
between the side of a minivan and the stripe:

http://bicycleaustin.info/roadways/shoalcreek-aca.html

The cars slow down because they don't want a headon collision (proving
some intelligence, after all!), while they seem to really respect the
parking/bike stripe if for no other reason than the parking part is
"for them", if you know what I mean.

Some local "zealots" (a few of whom have commandeered the Austin
Cycling Association's bully pulpit) are still trying to get all MV
parking out of bike lanes here but that's not going to happen before
$30/gal gas. Actually, it was their ("zealot", not ACA necessarily,
just to be clear) misguided efforts that caused the furor IRT SCB in
the first place, where wacky lane pattern options were publicly
considered, such as a meandering ROW with parking alternating from side
to side--IOW, approx. half of the residents would have lost their
street-front parking. Let's not pretend to be surprised that they were
mighty PO'd about it. Then, the city paid a ton of money to construct
"parking islands" which obstructed the parking/bike lane in a really
dangerous manner. A swat back at the "No Cars!!!" zealots? Certainly a
"solution" no one liked.

Not surprisingly, a couple of these "Dragons' Teeth" took the oilpan
out from underneath an AARP Buick or two. Not to mention making it
impossible to use a street sweeper... or the fact that much (most, most
all) of the time, there were more parking islands on the street than
parked cars!

So, sanity prevailed and they pulled up the parking islands-- a really
remarkable and welcome admission of error-- and left the Parking/Bikes
lane stripe where it was. I've been riding SCB for 20+ years; there is
a new civility present and obvious; the best bike road in Austin got
better. And more: sections of the street that have not had sidewalks
are being improved not just with sidewalks on both sides, but really
attractive limestone block retaining walls where needed, and also new
driveways, curb cuts, and aprons, again per need. Quite a few residents
are having their old water meters replaced, with new WM boxes and new
homeowner cutoffs, and some old water service yardlines are being
replaced as needed; some sewer line work is being done, also. It's a
fairly extensive re-do and IMHO a showpiece for "how it can be done".
Note, the stripe itself is about the cheapest improvement possible;
along with a few new signs denoting use, a big return on minimal cost.

You'll see complaints in the "hazards to cyclists" theme (such as in
the website above) but IMHO there's an attitude problem* at the base of
this rhetoric, plus a lack of simple real-world riding skills, like
listening and looking behind you, and looking into parked vehicles to
see if someone is about to open a door, not waiting until the last
second before veering around a parked car, adjusting your speed to flow
in traffic, and so forth.

*Anger at past incidents, plus an unwillingness to "share the road";
which after all is a two-way street.

I've been known to slow or even stop (solo riding) at some safe
distance behind a parked car or truck to let a cluster of drivers get
on down the road on SCB (and other places). Some cyclists regard this
as a shameful, or even cowardly act, "letting them push you around",
etc. etc. All I can say is, I take the lane often as not but at the
same time, courtesy to drivers is noticed, appreciated, and returned.
Not in every case, of course. But, why be an asshole *too*?

OK, back to the new novel: "Grime and Polishment". Should be finished
in a couple of years or so!
--D-y
 
> doing something illegal and someone dies as a result, you deserve to go to
> jail.
>


Last I knew. driving and using a cell phone WASN't Illegal . .

In a nutshell. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. and to say people who drive and use a
cell phone should be fined. well . BS .. I've been using a cell phone and
driving since they first came out. ya know the BIG OLD phones in your car
bag.. I haven't hit anyone yet. . OH WAIT.. I think it's because I CAN
MULTITASK.. Now dumbass's that can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
well Duhh Maybe they shouldn't be driving and talking on a cell phone.. I
truely don't believe everyone should suffer because of a few idiots.. let's
face it .. i see idiots on cell phones riding bikes. not paying attention.
let's fine them to. and LORD KNOWS how many morons I've seen WALKING and
talking on a cell phone. Just walking into traffic or crossing the side
street not looking. Now were gonna fine anyone using a cell phone NOT
sitting down .. . it's simple People.. YOU SCREW UP. TAKE RESPONSIBLITY..
doesn't mean everyone else needs to suffer. It's no more simplier than
that.
Kinda like all those damn gun laws over 22,000 in the USA.. I mean come on.
22,000 + . wouldnt 1 gun law work? YOU commit a crime with a gun. YOU get
an AUTOMATIC GO TO JAIL for 20 years and NO more guns for you. Period!!
Now using a cell phone and causing an accident is NOT a crime per say . I
mean I saw people in here saying SHE should NOT be allowed to every drive
again, she should not be allowed to use a cell phone ever again. WONDEFUL if
she INTENTIONALLY go into a car. and on her cell phone to RUN SOMEONE DOWN
on purpose.. I realize all your folks throwing stones NEVER EVER caused an
accident doing something Careless .. and I wish the rest of us were as good
as you. But come. OK.. I'm done venting. after reading all those comments I
had to say something LOL
 
compubyte wrote:
>
> > doing something illegal and someone dies as a result, you deserve to go to
> > jail.
> >

>
> Last I knew. driving and using a cell phone WASN't Illegal . .
>
> In a nutshell. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. and to say people who drive and use a
> cell phone should be fined. well . BS .. I've been using a cell phone and
> driving since they first came out. ya know the BIG OLD phones in your car
> bag.. I haven't hit anyone yet. . OH WAIT.. I think it's because I CAN
> MULTITASK.. Now dumbass's that can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
> well Duhh Maybe they shouldn't be driving and talking on a cell phone.. I
> truely don't believe everyone should suffer because of a few idiots.. let's
> face it .. i see idiots on cell phones riding bikes. not paying attention.
> let's fine them to. and LORD KNOWS how many morons I've seen WALKING and
> talking on a cell phone. Just walking into traffic or crossing the side
> street not looking. Now were gonna fine anyone using a cell phone NOT
> sitting down .. . it's simple People.. YOU SCREW UP. TAKE RESPONSIBLITY..
> doesn't mean everyone else needs to suffer. It's no more simplier than
> that.
> Kinda like all those damn gun laws over 22,000 in the USA.. I mean come on.
> 22,000 + . wouldnt 1 gun law work? YOU commit a crime with a gun. YOU get
> an AUTOMATIC GO TO JAIL for 20 years and NO more guns for you. Period!!
> Now using a cell phone and causing an accident is NOT a crime per say . I
> mean I saw people in here saying SHE should NOT be allowed to every drive
> again, she should not be allowed to use a cell phone ever again. WONDEFUL if
> she INTENTIONALLY go into a car. and on her cell phone to RUN SOMEONE DOWN
> on purpose.. I realize all your folks throwing stones NEVER EVER caused an
> accident doing something Careless .. and I wish the rest of us were as good
> as you. But come. OK.. I'm done venting. after reading all those comments I
> had to say something LOL


"This is your brain on drugs."

Notan
 

Similar threads