data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a4b41/a4b414931a91b6ea811c4587c76e406657aed94a" alt="DSC_0194"
Or, new addition to the fambly, as Pa from the Grapes of Wrath would say.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/39469/3946940a10b3940c7c3869f77c15587723676289" alt="DSC_0184"
As I read this, Hickey was heading north on the sidewalk and the truck was also heading north. Then truck then turned right (east) onto a side street that Hickey was crossing at the same time, still heading north.
It seems to me like Hickey had the right of way here, doesn't it?
I obviously don't know what happened, and I am not trying to vilify the driver here. Two days ago I failed to see a cyclist on the sidewalk while pulling out of a side street I regularly use. He fortunately stopped, and I let him go, but it made me realize how fast something like that could happen. It's very scary.
Going back to the article though, the part about the i-pod, the "no brakes," and the helmet is very disturbing. Was the i-pod a factor? Was it being played excessively loud? Does a person give up his/her rights as a cyclist if they are using an ipod?
Same for the helmet. Would it have saved him? Where were his injuries? It is very possible that his failure to use a helmet had zero effect on the outcome of this tragedy.
Although I cannot verify this, the "no brakes" comment is a lie. I spoke with someone today who said that Hickey was a bike messenger at some point, which of course means that his "no brakes" bike was most likely a fixed gear with adequate stopping power.
Overall, the article represents the "bikers are guilty" attitude that permeates the media and law enforcement. Including the bits about the i-pod and the no helmet without facts to verify whether these things even made a difference in the accident is very suggestive and unfair. The "no brakes" sentence is also unacceptable (assuming it was a fixed gear with braking power). Stories like these only serve to rile up readers and add to an already disturbing anti-bike sentiment. Just read some of the "comments" after the article to see what I mean.
So, after reading the article today, I called Donna J. Miller, its author. She answered the phone and we discussed the accident. She assured me several times that the driver had the right of way. She was actually quite militant about it. When I pressed her as to why this was the case, she said that the cross street where the accident happened was a "big" intersection and the truck surely had the right of way. I then got her to pretty much admit that she had no idea how big the intersection was and that she had lied to me. I later checked mapquest and verified that the street onto which the truck turned was in a fact a side street, not a "big" intersection. (not that it would really matter in terms of whether a cyclist traveling parallel with a vehicle has the right of way). After I caught her lying to me, I told her that she engaged in "bullshit journalism that fosters a biased attitude towards bikes." She didn't like that too much. We talked a bit more, and when I asked her if she had inquired into whether the driver was listening to his car stereo when the accident happened (a valid question since she included in the article the fact that Hickey was listening to his i-pod), she hung up on me.
After reading the article, speaking to Ms. Miller, and thinking way too much about this tragedy today, I have come to one conclusion: Patrick Hickey was guilty of being a cyclist in Cleveland. Who will be next?
Whoa! Regardless of your view on the merits of driving a car (I happen to drive one myself....much more than I'd care to admit), this guy is a clown.
He calls driving cars "free market transportation." That is a lie.
According to the Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office in October 2007:
Spending on surface transportation infrastructure by all levels of government in 2004 was $191 billion (in 2006 dollars), or 1.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The federal government provided about one-quarter of those funds, and states and localities provided the rest. Those funds were split about equally between spending for capital projects and operation and maintenance. Most of that spending was for roads.
The graph at the top (from the same source) shows that, in 2004, government spent about $130 billion on roads. Of the total $191 billion spent on surface transportation, the federal government (aka gas tax funds) covered approximately 1/4, or $48 billion of that cost. I am sure that Mr. Jeffrey would like all of that federal money to have gone to road infrastructure, not public transport. So let's assume that all federal money did go to roads (which it did not) That still means that, in 2004, state and local governments spent $82 billion on roads that was not covered by the federal gas tax ($130 - $48 = $82).
Travel by car is not a "free market" mode of transportation when you consider the $82 billion dollar tax subsidy for road infrastructure that is not covered by the federal gas tax.
This guy is a total fraud. If you love your car, then drive it. Great. Wonderful. Have fun. Just don't lie to me and tell me how I (and every other taxpayer who may or may not own a car) am not subsidizing this endeavor.
Here's another money quote from the article:
Hopefully, the 8 percent who have taken to socialized transportation represents a trend that can be reversed.
Wow again. This guy actually wants those who take public transportation to stop it because it offends his sensibilities.
His main point in the article is that America should start drilling its own oil. The funny thing is that he sabotages his argument and shreds his own credibility by needlessly lying, resorting to silly propaganda ("changes in their lives because of escalating gas prices should be worrisome signs for those who love liberty;" cars are "freedom machines;" etc.); and breeding fear through classism and racism: "In a socialist transportation system, a person may be compelled to travel in the company of people he does not know and who could even be a danger to him."
That's a really good point. The RTA rapids during rush hour are very dangerous and filled with the dregs of society. No one is safe there. Once, I even got hit in the head by a businessman's briefcase who wasn't paying attention while he was walking down the aisle and talking on his cellphone. I was so traumatized by the event that I needed to take the day off and go for a "free market" drive on our glorious roads.
Thanks to BikePortland for the heads up on this topic.