By Geoff Page
I credit the Bush, Jr. era for institutionalizing the politics of fear in this country. Since then, it has become interwoven into the fabric of society in more ways than most people realize. Bush and his criminal cohorts elevated concern about “safety” to colossal heights, even to justify a war. Since then, all kinds of crap has been foisted on an obedient and willing American public. Security systems and guns to name the top two.
But, it’s insidious and ubiquitous use in our day-to-day life now has become acceptable. This is sad because fear for our safety is now used as a cloak for a whole bunch of things. How could anyone be against measures to keep us – and our children of course – safe?
Here are three cases where the fear card being is being dishonestly played to obtain a desired end. The most egregious is a cycling subject. There is a crosswalk. And there is the Humane Society.
Cycling deaths in 2021
There have been a number of stories recently about cycling accidents and the need to make the roads safer. On July 26, several news station and media carried stories that all referred to 12 cycling deaths in San Diego this year alone. The San Diego County Bicycle Coalition and other cycling groups are using these statistics as a “clarion call” for the San Diego to spend more on bike lanes and to do so fast.
A Times of San Diego article on July 26 quoted Elizabeth Mayer, program manager for BikeSD “The lack of infrastructure and protected bike lanes is the main cause of the deaths.”
The San Diego County Bicycle Coalition was asked for the list of 12 fatalities, which they did provide. The list was, however, very odd. Five of the twelve were simply labeled “unnamed male” or “unnamed person.” Ms. Mayer stated in an email, “At this time, the names of all of the victims have not been released.” And she added a 13th name to the list.
This was odd because a little research easily found the names of the unnamed victims. The 13th accident was the cyclist’s fault. It makes one wonder how much the Coalition actually knew about any of these accidents.
Five of the 13 fatalities were the fault of the cyclists. Including these in a list of accidents to blame on infrastructure is dishonest. Several of the 12 clearly involved poor choices by cyclists and in several of the accidents, it is not even known who was at fault.
Accident deaths are tragic, no one can deny that. But, to use those deaths dishonestly to further the cycling agenda is shameful. There were no stories or comments from anyone using the deaths of the cyclists, who caused their own demise, as a safety teaching moment. It’s all about cars and more infrastructure. It is clearly because of some of this infrastructure that some of these folks perished.
Here are the 13 fatalities:
(1) Jan 10, 2021: Julius Cunanan in Chula Vista – The accident happened at 9:30 a.m. on a Sunday morning. A motorcycle and a bicycle collided and both riders died. There were no eyewitnesses because the Cunanan was at the back of a pack of cyclists. The news stories said the bike was hit from behind, probably based on the details. But, no one really knows if the motorcycle strayed into the bike lane or if the bicycle strayed into the motorcycle’s path.
Because it is not known who was at fault, it is unfair to use this statistic.
(2) Feb 10, 2021: Unnamed Male in rural El Cajon – The accident happened after dark at 7:20 p.m. on unlighted county roads. The stories said Willow Glen Drive west of Dehesa Road and another said on Dehesa east of Willow Glenn. The cyclist was hit from behind.
Willow Glen intersects and ends at Dehesa. Dehesa then abruptly curves left and right and then roughly parallels Willow Glen. The road is not lighted except for a signal at the intersection and there are no nearby structures. The moon on February 10 was a waning crescent with an illumination of 2%. In other words, it was very dark.
The speed limit here is 50+mph.
The news stories did not provide enough detail such as whether or not the bicycle had lights or if the rider was wearing reflective clothing. Why didn’t the cyclist hear the approaching car?
Dehesa and Willow Glenn have some bike paths but they are not continuous. When the roads approach the intersections, a marked bike lane appears between the lane going straight or turning left and the lane turning right. In other words, right between traffic.
The stories do not provide precise locations of the accidents. Google Maps show a section of Dehesa with concrete barriers on the lane line, leaving no shoulder for a bicycle. Did it happen there? Did the bike go into the travel lane there where the road also curved?
With so many unknowns, using this statistic is deceptive. The cyclist could be at fault or at least share the fault. The story said he was not wearing a helmet at least.
Because it is not known who was at fault, it is unfair to use this statistic.
(3) March 26, 2021: Diego Mateo in Escondido According to the Union tribune account “The Escondido resident was riding on Ninth Avenue near Spruce Street about 7 p.m. on March 26 when he swerved in front of a Nissan Altima also traveling westbound, authorities said. The Nissan and bicycle collided, and the impact threw Mateo from his bike into the street.”
Using this statistic is deceptive.
(4) April 18, 2021: Robert Bronk in El Cajon – A homeless man living in El Cajon was hit on a Sunday morning at 10:30 am at El Cajon Blvd. and West Lexington. No more details were available. We have no idea who was at fault.
Using this statistic is unfair.
(5) April 21, 2021: Unnamed Male in Balboa Park near the 163 The cyclist was struck riding across Highway 163 at 9:00 p.m. It was dark and he was crossing a high-speed road. This was clearly the cyclist’s fault.
Using this statistic is deceptive.
(6) May 22, 2021: Unknown person in Oceanside – Cyclist was hit at 1:50 a.m. on Oceanside Blvd. near Beverly Glenn. The driver may have been impaired. Riding a bicycle at 1:50 a.m. on a major road was taking a risk. There are no details on whether or not the bike had lights or the rider was wearing reflective clothing. The driver said it was not his fault and the other witness was killed.
Using this statistic with so little information is unfair.
(7) June 2, 2021: Unnamed Male in rural Jamul – This accident occurred at 7:20 p.m. at Lyons Valley Road and Monterey Crest Drive just east of where the road becomes Skyline Truck Trail. “A southbound man on a black Motiv bicycle on Monterey Crest Drive entered the intersection directly in front of a westbound 2002 GMC Yukon SUV driven by a 39-year-old woman, which struck him, Garrow said.” This was the cyclist’s fault.
Using this statistic is deceptive.
(8) June 22, 2021: Allen Hunter II in Solana Beach – Retired scientist was killed at 10:30 a.m. riding on South Coast Highway 101 near Lomas Santa Fe Drive. A driver has been charged in his death. The speed limit is 35 mph, the maximum speed limit recommended for placing sharrows, which are on the road. A map of the area shows roads paralleling Highway 101, which may have been better choices. With a speed limit of 35 mph in today’s world, the traffic probably moves much faster, another consideration for any cyclist choosing which road to ride on.
This could perhaps be a teachable moment about cycling choices.
(9) June 23, 2021: Swati Tyagi near UC San Diego – A woman scientist was killed at 4:20 p.m. on North Torrey Pines Road near the intersection with Expedition Way and Revelle College Drive in La Jolla. Police said the 34-year-old woman merged into a lane in front of a car that struck her on North Torrey Pines Road. The victim was riding in the right lane when she merged into the left lane and was struck from behind by a 74-year-old man driving a 2005 Mercedes-Benz SL500, Buttle said.
Using this statistic is deceptive.
(10) July 15, 2021: Jackson Williams in Oceanside – This accident happened at 11:30 p.m. The cyclist was hit in the eastbound lane of Oceanside Blvd west of I5. It was a hit and run and the woman was arrested and plead not guilty. There are not enough details to know who was at fault. Clearly the woman was guilty of leaving the scene but who was at fault? The moon that night was at 29% illumination. We don’t know if the cyclist was wearing reflective clothing or if the bike had lights.
Using this statistic is unfair.
(11) July 20, 2021: Laura Shinn in Balboa Park This accident happened at 7:30 a.m. on Pershing Drive just south of the Morley Field Disc Golf Course. The bike lane in this area is the outside lane marker. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. What bike lane there is disappears where this accident occurred. The motorist stayed at the scene but was arrested and charged. This accident may be the motorist’s fault. But, riding a bicycle on a road with a 50 mph speed limit is very risky and perhaps a poor choice for a cycling route.
(12) July 23, 2021: Unnamed Male in Clairemont – According to police, the rider turned into the right lane of Genesee, then made a quick move into the left lane into the path of the SUV.
Using this statistic is deceptive
(13) August 21, 2021: Jerry Eugene Torres in Escondido Officials have released the identity of a man killed Saturday night when he was hit by a car in North County.
Escondido resident Jerry Eugene Torres, 53, was hit by a white Volvo going about 55 mph a little after 8 p.m., according to the county medical examiner’s office. Investigators with the California Highway Patrol said Torres was riding his bike westbound on state Route 78 near the center divider when he tried to cross traffic lanes and was hit by the car traveling in the No. 1 lane.
Using this statistic is deceptive.
When examined in detail, the manner in which the cycling community is using all 13 of these fatalities to further its agenda is doing them more harm than good because it ruins their credibility. It’s hard to trust anyone when they are shown as not being completely honest.
Voltaire Street Crosswalk
This one also has the fingerprints of the cycling community on it as it was pushed through the planning board and the city by cycling advocate Nicole Burgess, who is on the Board of Directors of BikeSD.
Burgess got the Peninsula Community Planning Board to propose a crosswalk at Voltaire and Froude Streets. They used the tactics of fear again. In a letter to the city, this intersection was characterized as one of the most dangerous intersections in our community. They cited the death of a skateboarder in the vicinity as proof.
When pressed for evidence of the danger at this intersection, neither the PCPB nor the city could produce anything. The skateboard accident happened blocks away and had nothing to do with this intersection at all. But, once they raised the “safety” flag, they got the city’s attention.
In my 34 years of using this intersection thousands of times to drive down to OB, I have never seen an accident. There is a traffic signal and crosswalk at Ebers and Voltaire. But, the cyclists wanted this crosswalk and it appears one will be going in this year or next. All based on dishonest claim of safety in order to raise the fear flag.
Humane Society
Walking down by Collier Park one day, I saw a Humane Society SUV parked on the grass under the trees. The park was deserted except for this. Curious why the vehicle had to be parked on the grass instead of the very nearby pavement, I approached the person inside. During the conversation the officer told me the reason they are watching the park was because of recent dog bite incidents.
Having used this park almost daily for 34 years, I was very surprised to hear this because I had never even heard of a dog bite at the park, much less witnessed one. She said there was concern about the public’s safety so they were being diligent. She gave me a phone number at the Human Society who directed me to the Public Records Request system.
A PRR request of the record of dog bites revealed one bite in the last eight years on the night of June 29, 2020. A woman claimed to have been bitten on the thumb at 9:00 at night and was only able to describe the dog as black and male. No information on the size of the animal or the breed. Determining the sex of a black dog is hard, even in the daytime, at night it would have been impossible to see that and not be able to describe the size of the dog.
The location of the incident was not in the park but near it. In the report on the thumb bite, the woman said she thought the dog was a visitor and not one that frequents the park. And, this happened nearly a year before my conversation with the enforcement officer.
There was no rash of bites. There were no recent incidents at all. And the one in the last eight years was highly questionable. But, preying on people’s fears of rabid dogs out there is being used to justify the Human Society’s predatory ticket writing campaign for dogs off leashes.
My next encounter with the Humane Society cost me a $280 ticket. I was walking with my wife, my coonhound/lab mix, and our shih tzu, in Bill Cleator Park about 5:30 p.m. We were the only people in the whole park except for some people at the far north end. Our dogs were walking quietly with us. A Human Society officer pulled in and literally chased us down. After ticketing us, she ran to the north end and wrote another ticket.
When asked why she felt the need to hunt us down when we were all alone on the huge field and there was no trouble at all, she pulled the same fear card that her colleague did. Dog bites again. They are just trying to protect public safety by ticketing peaceful dog walkers with a docile, harmless 75-pound dog and a 15-pound dog.
It became clear these folks have been trained to disarm people by claiming there have been dog bites and they are just trying to protect the public. How that translates to off leash tickets is unknown.
Another PRR request on dog bites at Cleator Park returned two documents. The first document was from the San Diego Police Department. It showed no dog bite incidents since 2012. Of the six items listed, three were in 2011 and three were int 2012.Two incidents were at Nimitz and West Point Loma and one was at Nimitz and Rosecrans, nowhere near the park. Three incidents in 2011 were listed as at 4400 Nimitz.
The second document was dated February 21, 2019. It appeared to be from animal control. It recounted what appeared to be a dog nip, not a dog bite. There was a picture of the wound that looked like two red dots on a hip. The report said “Unclear if it broke the skin.” The picture was clear, the skin was not broken.
If a dog bite is serious enough for medical attention, the hospital is obligated to report the bite on a form to the police department. There was nothing for this incident.
That was the sum total of the dog bite epidemic at Cleator Park, one nip two and a half years ago, back to 2011 for some other possibilities not described as in Cleator Park.. No recent danger of any kind. The Human Society officer lied to us, the second one to do so. They’ve been taught to use the fear and the safety cards to justify writing expensive tickets to people who are causing no one any harm. But at $280 a shot, they can buy lots of kibble. But, that would be after paying for several big SUVs, tricked out as well as any SDPD SUV and all their new “officers.”
{ 137 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve read a lot of anti-bike, victim-blaming pieces over the years, but this is absolutely the most stomach-churning opinion I’ve ever encountered. The level of windshield perspective and entitlement is astounding.
“Why didn’t the cyclist hear the approaching car?” Just – wow.
“Riding a bicycle at 1:50 a.m. on a major road was taking a risk.” What if that was their only travel route (there are no parallel routes there) and mode of transportation?
“Riding a bicycle on a road with a 50 mph speed limit is very risky and perhaps a poor choice for a cycling route.” No, the road should be safer, and should have been by then with the delayed Pershing Bikeway.
“With a speed limit of 35 mph in today’s world, the traffic probably moves much faster, another consideration for any cyclist choosing which road to ride on. This could perhaps be a teachable moment about cycling choices.” No, the road should be safer. Your statement is a teachable moment about car culture perspectives.
Even in cases where the bicyclist made a mistake, their deaths were often caused by the unsafe, high rates of vehicle speed our roads encourage. Instead of addressing that, you feel these fatalities are acceptable? Because they were bicyclists and therefore deserved it? That’s disgusting.
Mr Page, having the gall to question the credibility and honesty of others after revealing your deep, disturbing hatred of bicyclists is priceless. Like your incessant railing against housing opportunities for others, this article is another example of your elitism and intolerance for those less fortunate than yourself.
And to answer your earlier question, my bike cost $1200. An average new vehicle is $40K. How much did your car cost?
Paul, you’re using the same tactic I am critical of when you wrote, “Even in cases where the bicyclist made a mistake, their deaths were often caused by the unsafe, high rates of vehicle speed our roads encourage.” You don’t have any facts at all to back that statement up. It’s just another generality.
I don’t hate cyclists, my problem is with the dishonest tactics they employ to achieve their agenda. I don’t give a shit what group it is, including the Humane Society, I will do my best to show the community. I will never apologize for that. In fact that is something everyone should do. If everyone were honest, there would be no need.
Oh I have plenty of facts to back that up Geoff. I think this site allows one link per post so here we go…
Simply reducing vehicle speeds on our roads (through lower posted limits, narrower and fewer lanes, etc) would greatly reduce the number of bicyclists killed: https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/#:~:text=The%20average%20risk%20of%20death,and%2090%25%20at%2058%20mph.
I’m curious why you don’t understand this – is it because of your deeply-ingrained car culture bias, or because you truly believe motorist convenience trumps people’s lives?
I will try again. You wrote, “Even in cases where the bicyclist made a mistake, their deaths were often caused by the unsafe, high rates of vehicle speed our roads encourage.”
This piece is about 13 specific accidents that you have no facts about to show any of their deaths were “caused by the unsafe, high rates of vehicle speed our roads encourage.” You slipped in a generality that you now are backing up with a study of pedestrian injuries showing the risk of severe injury goes up with the speed limit. There is an amazing conclusion but what does it have to do with this discussion?
Well, that research was actually about pedestrians, not bicyclists, but I get your point.
The point of the article is that the severity of impacts is a function of vehicle speed. This is, of course, simple physics.
I am compelled to point out that if a bicycle is involved in an accident, the speed of the bike also raises the level of severity of the impact. I am reminded of this recalling the cyclist last week who practically knocked me on my a** as he ran a red light while I was crossing the street in a crosswalk with a walk sign at the Newport/Sunset Cliffs intersection. Oh and he yelled an insult at me for being in his way.
Data show that adding protected bike lanes greatly reduce bicyclist deaths:
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourself-separated-bike-lanes-means-safer-streets-study-says/
They certainly give a bicyclist more margin for error than squeezing between parked cars and vehicles doing 40, 50 MPH. But of course you oppose this common sense measure, because you value free street parking over people’s lives.
My “agenda” is to not get killed, and I’ve always used data-based arguments to forward it. And “I will never apologize for that”.
Regarding honesty, you’re among the most dishonest people I’ve ever encountered.
Well, it appears you can’t have a civil disagreement. Paul. Too bad. But, you opinion of my honesty means nothing to me because I don’t know you.
It is ironic that the picture in your link shows bike lanes “protected” by flexible plastic lane markers. I can’t think of too many cars those would stop. Where have they done this on roads with high speed limits? This is downtown Denver.
Ride a bike at your on risk.
Own risk.
This story lacks humanity and even the faintest sense of journalistic integrity. You just gave a platform to someone blaming innocent people for getting killed in complete disregard for the laws the govern such matters. It’s fine to be upset about losing parking spaces, but there’s got to be a less irresponsible way to do it than this kind of victim-blaming. I’m astounded that any editor would publish this.
Try to be specific when criticizing, Peter, otherwise it doesn’t have much effect.
How does the piece not have journalistic integrity? The basic integrity of journalism is whether or not the facts are correct. What specifically do you mean?
Also, please be specific about where I blamed innocent people “for getting killed in complete disregard for the laws the govern such matters.”
It is comforting to know that if I am hit by a vehicle and die while riding my bicycle at night back home to Ocean Beach from Downtown that Mr. Page will be there to suggest it is my fault just for being on a high-throughput road at night.
It is all about choices, Greg. If there are safer, less traveled roads you could have taken, that is your choice. If you had no lights, that would be your choice. If you failed to wear reflective clothing, again your choice. If you were unfortunately to die riding your bike from to OB from downtown. I would examine all the variables and available evidence before I would say anything. But one thing is for certain, responsibility for accidents very often has to be shared by both parties. I hope you stay well.
Eric and Greg, I think you are missing the point, which is that people need to ride their bikes with common sense. You have to take into consideration the laws of physics, a bike will never be safe around a 3000 pound projectile moving at 35 mph. The answer is to not be around that projectile, period!
Common sense, you said it Sam. It seems to be lacking.
Sam, you are missing the point, which is that motorists need to drive their cars with common sense. You have to take into consideration the laws of physics, you can’t drive recklessly, distracted or drunk – yet motorists kill 40,000 people per year in the US because they do just that. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/09/03/covid-19-road-death-surge-continues/
How are bicyclists “not to be around that projectile, period!” when we are required to use the same roads as two ton vehicles? Please take a moment to consider your windshield perspective here – if you have the ability to.
Try to have a polite discussion, Paul, there’s no need to be insulting.
All Sam said was use some common sense and avoid heavily trafficked high speed roads if at all possible. I see cyclists on roads like this that I know have parallel streets and wonder why they insist on riding that road. The idea of having rights is getting in the way of common sense.
Try not to keep victim blaming Geoff, you’re really digging yourself a deeper hole here.
Bicyclists ride “heavily trafficked high speed roads” because there often *are* no alternatives, and these roads are often the most direct route to where they need to go.
Motorists often speed to save time, with deadly results. Bicyclists often take busier roads to save time. Guess which one you’ve decided to blame here.
I did not blame anyone, Paul. I said several of these accidents were the cyclist’s fault based on news accounts. In others, I simply raised the question about the wisdom of where to ride. In others, I showed that no one really knows who was at fault. I’ve seen many cyclists on busy roads when there were safer alternatives, it’s that simple.
People get put into dangerous situations while they are driving all the time. What if somebody pulls out in front of them and the car has to swerve to avoid an accident, thereby breaching the bike line boundaries? What if a car hits a hidden pothole that throws the car off course for a second? What if a kid jumps into the street chasing a ball, forcing a driver to swerve? All of these situations can and do happen everyday causing drivers to react at the blink of an eye, and not necessarily because they are distracted, drunk or high, its just a natural reaction to the never ending chaos that is constantly enveloping everybody’s lives.
There is a law in California that all cars need to stop for anybody that walks into a crosswalk. That’s great, however I teach my kids to look before they just blindly step out into the street to make sure it is safe. What if the driver doesn’t see them? What if there is a mechanical malfunction of the vehicle and the steering or brakes go out? By exercising common sense my kids won’t get hurt, but if they just walked right in front of a car and one of those scenarios happened they would be dead, regardless of what the law is. That’s why bikes need to be more cautious than cars, because they are far more vulnerable if they get in an accident.
Why tempt fate?
I would add another example, Sam. I taught my kids to look both ways at a traffic light when it turned green and they were the first car. How many T-bone accidents could have been prevented if everyone did this instead of rabbiting off the starting line? It won’t matter if you had the right of way if you get hit, except legally.
You’ve taught you’re kids well Geoff! I’ll be sure to pass on that sage advice when my kids are old enough to learn to drive!
I tried, Sam, we all do. I see you’ve yet to embark on the adventure of teenage drivers. I don’t usually give unsolicited advice but I think some of what I did worked well. I put each of my kids in small, single cab pickup with a four cylinder and manual transmission. Great visibility, low power, easy to drive on narrow beach streets, and something to keep their hands busy when driving. Today, they both are kind of proud that they can drive a stick when very few people can. Good luck with yours, I’m sure they will be fine.
Thanks for the advice! I am already hell bent on teaching them how to drive a manual transmission! It is criminal how few people can drive a stick these days!
That is true. My daughter insisted on a manual transmission when she got her first new car, a Subaru. She went to an event downtown that required valet parking. When she came out later, none of the valets could drive a stick so they escorted her into the garage to get it herself. That tickled her.
I and many bicyclists *are* more cautious – why are you implying we aren’t?
Stop making excuses for motorists while blaming bicyclists. Distracted driving causes 25% of all collisions; impaired driving 28%; reckless driving 33%. (I’m limited to one link per post, so: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)
Yet you chose to recite a bunch of anecdotal items that pale in number to the above. Again, consider why you might do that (bias).
What does *are* signify?
It appears that you have not paid attention. I did not “recite a bunch of anecdotal items.” I wrote about 13 specific accidents that the cycling community has cited as reasons why we need to build more bike paths and fast. That is not “bias,” I did not select the accidents. And, this was not anecdotal information either, all the information came from the news stories. Five of these accidents were the cyclist’s fault. Including them was dishonest along with others where no one knows who was at fault.
I did not imply you many cyclists are not cautious, but clearly some are not.
I was responding to Sam’s “That’s why bikes need to be more cautious than cars” comment.
The “anecdotal items” I referred to were Sam’s “jumping out in front of a car” examples. Yet motorist behavior is the overwhelming cause for all collisions.
I see. The comment thread was connected to my comment, not Sam’s, which was why I answered as I did.
I think it’s bizarre how you’re missing the point. Two factual points worth making:
1. There are laws that govern this stuff. Cyclists have a legal right to be on the road and drivers have speed limits to obey and also a legal requirement not to do things like hit people from behind. We just need people to be reasonable and respect and enforce the law.
2. Though you don’t intend it, your misguided observations underscore by bike riders want protected bike lanes—they are seeking protection from the projectile as you say.
There are laws that govern the riding of bikes, as well. And, frankly, I am always more than a little surprised that there aren’t more cyclist deaths than have been recorded, given the reckless and lawless ways of many cyclists that I see on our streets – running stop signs and red lights primarily, but also using cell phones, riding erratically, not following the laws that govern all vehicles, including bicycles, etc.
Motorists break laws at a far higher rate than bicyclists (and with far deadlier consequences): https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/?sh=343710dc4bfa
What would cause you to blame bicyclists, but not motorists, for breaking the law – when data show it’s the latter who do so much more frequently?
Are you able to consider what created your bias here?
Paul, please re-read my comment. There is nothing in it absolving motorists of violations of the law, and there is nothing in my statement that says that cyclists break the law more than motorists. I have driven enough to know that such a statement is not true. When I ride I ride defensively. I obey the rules of the road I don’t ride recklessly, but I observe many, many cyclists that do ride carelessly and recklessly.
I myself was the victim of an inattentive motorist who apparently did not see me and who cut me off making a right turn in front of me, resulting in injuries that required surgery and extensive re-hab, so I understand both sides of the issue. That said, what-about-ism has no place in any discussion. And I think you should be careful about identifying other peoples’ biases.
Love it when when people drop the “so many lawless bike riders” as if car drivers aren’t breaking laws at a far higher rate, with far great consequences. What a boomer article.
Eric, what is with the “boomer” insult? All I see is a narrow-minded individual who has generalized a whole generation of people as being all the same. You could not be more wrong. When you resort to insults, you lose any credibility you may have had. And when you use something like that to condemn millions of people, you show the size of your, intellect.
I did not make that observation in my article because I wanted to let the facts speak for themselves. But, I have a whole shitload of the same stories, Paul. I nearly t-boned a rider one day as I was driving to Sunset Cliffs park on Cornish when a cyclists ran a stop sign on Monaco right in front of me. I was in my E150 full size Econoline van. I slammed on the brakes as he passed no more than a foot off my grill. My dog slammed into the dash but wasn’t hurt. I sat still shaking for several moments at how close that was. The cyclist never even acknowledged me.
People need to think about the drivers who killed cyclists when it was the cyclist’s fault. Think about the emotional scar the driver will carry for the rest of their life for doing nothing wrong.
Yes, Pewter, cyclists have a legal right to be on the road and driver’s have to obey speed limits. I did not find anything in any of the 13 accidents that blamed a driver for driving too fast.
Of course it is not legal to hit someone from behind, that is called an accident, which happens every day regardless of the best intentions. Protected bike lanes won’t stop that.
Sorry, I meant Peter.
This article is disturbing and frankly disgusting. The writer should be ashamed. Responding to the advocation of safer infrastructure for cyclists in our city by dismissing recent deaths with biased assumptions while asserting that motorists, while speeding illegally, not being sufficiently aware of their surroundings while operating a dangerous vehicle etc are the real victims…Add to that the nerve to complain at being cited for breaking the law himself! Truly incredible.
Actually, Geoff – who is not afraid to speak his mind – is attempting to burst the bubble that is being used cynically by bicyclist extremists. Certain groups are using these deaths as a way to leverage their ideas against a government bureaucracy that responds to pressure groups. They want us to rush out of our cars without mass transit infrastructure in place. Geoff is showing that it is deceptive to use these deaths as a grounds for their narrative – which cannot accept the reality we’re in. I’m a bicyclist – as is Geoff. Although the vast majority of bicyclists I’ve seen and experienced over the decades are polite and sensitive, there are those who feel they’re part of an elite brand and believe they’re the only ones with the correct vision.
This is a brave piece and it certainly has set off a needed discussion, although the tangential points are distracting.
For every 20 people killed in San Diego County every year 1000+ are hit and injured but not killed… every year. Pedestrians are another 1000+ a year. Egregious and despicable victim blaming aside, this article is equivalent to kicking a few rocks at the base of a mountain and claiming to have conquered it. Geoff mistakes one news bite for the totality of the argument while choosing to ignore the mountains of data, death counts and scientific studies that make up the argument for protected bicycle infrastructure.
What bubble needs to be burst here other than the one he himself lives inside?
Apparently, you also missed the point of the piece.
You wrote, “Geoff mistakes one news bite for the totality of the argument while choosing to ignore the mountains of data, death counts and scientific studies that make up the argument for protected bicycle infrastructure.”
What news bite are you referring to?
The article is not an argument for or against cycling. It is a commentary on how information is used dishonestly to forward an agenda. I haven’t ignored any data, what I did was research the accident list provided to me and provide the facts of those accidents to show the dishonesty. This is not the first time I have caught the cycling community using these tactics, it is their modus operandi.
Frank,
What is brave about victim shaming? How is this different from blaming an assault victim for walking through a dangerous neighborhood, even if that is their only way home?
Eric, show me, show everyone, exactly where in my article I shamed a victim.
This is not a “brave” piece, it’s an incredibly distasteful one, and the fact that it hasn’t been taken down yet shows just how low the folks who run this site, including Frank, have sunk.
Perhaps Geoff could forward this piece to the families of the victims that he’s blamed for their own deaths, and see how “brave” they think it is. Just appalling.
“They want us to rush out of our cars without mass transit infrastructure in place.” Yes, the old “needs more transit, but I won’t say how much, so I can keep moving the goalposts” argument. Let us know when we’ve met your requirements Frank, so we can safely ride.
I don’t want to be killed while riding and then blamed for it. If that makes me a “cynical bicyclist extremist”, then you’re a sociopath Frank.
Paul, if you are killed riding your bicycle, there is a very good chance it will be your fault, as much as a chance as it will be the fault of a car. If you don’t want to be blamed for your own cycling demise, then don’t make any mistakes. If it was your fault, are we all to give you a pass because Paul is such a good guy, and blame the car anyway?
I think Frank answered this one very well, Ms. Brattich, but I have a few comments too.
For starters, please explain the comment about me “dismissing recent deaths with biased assumptions.” What biased assumptions are you referring to?
I’m always surprised at how people read into something what is not there based on their own biases. You wrote, “while asserting that motorists, while speeding illegally, not being sufficiently aware of their surroundings while operating a dangerous vehicle etc are the real victims.” Where did any of the facts provided about the accidents say anyone was speeding illegally? Where did any of the facts provided about the accidents say anyone was not “sufficiently aware of their surroundings?” Where did I write that the motorists were victims?
I suggest you reread the piece.
Geoff,
You are complaining about the building of bike infrastructure at the expense of car space, speed, etc, no? So car drivers are the victims of these policy decisions, in your own narrative. Your descriptions of the accidents, many of which are based entirely on the account of the driver involved, are hardly likely to be wholly truthful if the driver was actually at fault, no? Your “unbiased analysis” that takes such self reporting as gospel is flawed from the start, even if you yourself weren’t clearly self interested in promoting an anti-cycling as transport narrative. You admit that drivers regularly speed (illegal and unsafe) but seem to think that behavior is acceptable and that changing infrastructure to discourage it is the real problem. Or did I misinterpret your opinion?
In my last comment to you, I suggested you re-read the article but it appears you did not.
You wrote, “You are complaining about the building of bike infrastructure at the expense of car space, speed, etc, no?” I defy you to find any such comment in what I wrote.
“So car drivers are the victims of these policy decisions, in your own narrative.” I defy you to find any such comment in what I wrote.
Your descriptions of the accidents, many of which are based entirely on the account of the driver involved, are hardly likely to be wholly truthful if the driver was actually at fault, no?” Which accounts are based entirely, or at all, on the driver involved?
“Your “unbiased analysis” that takes such self reporting as gospel is flawed from the start, even if you yourself weren’t clearly self interested in promoting an anti-cycling as transport narrative. “ I defy you to find any such comment in what I wrote.
“You admit that drivers regularly speed (illegal and unsafe) but seem to think that behavior is acceptable and that changing infrastructure to discourage it is the real problem. Or did I misinterpret your opinion?” Yes you clearly did misinterpret.
I suggest, for the second time, that you re-read the article, really read.
Geoff, thank you for writing this article. I also read your interview with Peter Flax. While you’re way off on some of the crashes I think your underlying main point is valid. I think much of what the political bike advocacy community (which I distinguish from the apolitical cycling community) does backfires. And it’s not just dubious claims of safety to promote separated infrastructure that often turns out to be more dangerous to cyclists, especially in a world where e-bikes are growing in popularity. The whole attempt to redefine common terms like “accident” (to mean “without cause” rather than the traditional and more useful “unintentional” meaning) and “victim blaming” (to mean pointing out what a victim did that was actually wrong, like riding at night without lights, rather than the traditional and reasonable pointing out what a victim did that wasn’t wrong, like walking alone at night) are not helping either.
But I must correct your assessment of the June 22 Solana Beach fatal crash with Allen Hunter who absolutely was doing nothing wrong or ill-advised. First of all, the entire 101 route down the coast from Camp Pendleton to the base of Gilman has been a popular and reasonably safe cycling route for decades. It sees more bike traffic than any other road in the county, and is among the most popular in the country. Yes, the speed limit is 35 but due to a traffic calming design there motorists don’t speed much and commuter/fitness cyclists typically are in the 15-20+ mph range there so the closing speeds are low. Crashes are very rare. This was clearly a case of an out of control drunk driver hitting a cyclist riding visibly, safely and legally, from behind. But it’s nevertheless dishonest to use this crash in an argument for physically separated infrastructure because there already is a parallel separated Class 1 bikeway adjacent to the entire stretch of 101 through Solana Beach. Most cyclists, however, prefer to ride in the road, because cycling on most bikeways is too dangerous at typical commuter and fitness cycling speeds.
Serge, thank you for providing a thoughtful and reasonable comment and thanks for adding to the information about the Hunter accident and the available biking infrastructure in that area.
I think that the author of this piece should have pursued police reports on each of the incidents instead of just applying personal opinions based upon news coverage. In each of these cases there were PEOPLE involved, and to reduce the analysis to this level of detail does a disservice to those involved.
That being said, there is a bill heading towards approval in the CA legislature that should concern everyone who shares intersections. The so-called “Idaho Stop” bill would give those who bicycle special privileges at intersections (the rolling stop, which is illegal presently but almost never enforced by the police). Sounds like those in favor have never seen how packs of bicycles behave presently in our County:
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/04/22/legislative-update-bike-safety-stop-bill-passes-ca-assembly/
Peter, I did a lot more research than those who were using these accidents to push the cycling agenda. I looked up the news stories on all of these and read several stories on some. The accounts of five stories concluded the cyclist was at fault. Stories about the other accidents contained some facts. Obtaining police reports on fatal accidents is impossible unless requested by a family member. I know, I tried to get the report on the skateboarding accident on Voltaire and was told I could not have it.
You are right on about the police reports having to be requested by an involved party; I did some digging through the California Public Records Act to verify that.
However, your blunt analysis of fatal accidents was insensitive at best, cold-blooded at worst. There are victims out there, no matter the circumstances of who or what was to blame for a fatality.
Here in Oceanside, in the last 12 months we have had at least two vehicle/bicycle fatalities that were the result of impaired drivers that left the scene of the crime and were apprehended by OPD several hours later.
As to who is at fault in any motor vehicle accident, you must be aware that it is rare to have one party or the other judged to be 100% at fault; there is usually a percentage of blame calculated by the police. In short, your overall conclusions may be valid, but your modus operandi lacks human compassion and I daresay would have been rejected by any media outlet with an ethics review policy.
“You are right on about the police reports having to be requested by an involved party; I did some digging through the California Public Records Act to verify that.” I don’t say things that I have not verified, Peter.
This sentence could use some explaining:
“However, your blunt analysis of fatal accidents was insensitive at best, cold-blooded at worst.”
I did not “analyze” anything. I looked up the accidents and reported the facts as could be found. If you are going to characterize a person as insensitive or cold-blooded, you need to back that up with something specific, otherwise it is meaningless.
Yes, I know there were two fatalities in Oceanside recently. Did you read what I wrote? These two are included.
And, even though it may not have been intentional, you helped make one of my main points when you wrote:
“As to who is at fault in any motor vehicle accident, you must be aware that it is rare to have one party or the other judged to be 100% at fault; there is usually a percentage of blame calculated by the police.”
However, judging by the comments, it appears the car is always at fault, regardless of the facts.
And lastly, please, educate me on what media ethics policy I violated.
At the risk of injuring your heels, which you have been digging in consistently in your responses, even when someone agrees with an element of your defense (you found out about not being able to get access to police reports because of one experience with a fatal accident, when if you had actually done research you would have found out that anyone mentioned in ANY police report can request that it be sequestered from anyone not directly involved in the state of California as well) I will just leave you with this analysis of “victim blaming” and its impact on the victims:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/the-psychology-of-victim-blaming/502661/
Empathy, Geoff. Empathy. It is a virtue that society seems to be lacking nowadays. You did not just report, you assigned blame based upon initial reporting by third parties in a truly hurtful fashion just to make a point about bicycle infrastructure.
Ok, Peter, then obtain the police reports or report on one of these fatal accidents and share it with us.
I was told bluntly by the police department that only a family member could have access to the report. They returnd the $12 I mailed in for the report. There was nothing said about anyone mentioned in the report not wanting anyone to see it. But, go ahead and prove me wrong, I’d like that so I can then go after that skateboard accident report.
And finally, other than the five deaths that were the cyclist’s fault, please show me where I “assigned” any blame to anyone in what I wrote. I keep hearing this and I keep asking people for examples but nothing comes back.
It is time for you to take your own advice and re-read my last comment regarding police reports. I did not say that you could obtain one in the case of a fatality if you were not involved, in fact I agreed with you. I added that in ADDITION to that carve-out, ANY police report can be similarly shielded by an involved party requesting that it be so protected.
Peter, now that you have explained it, your previous comment makes no sense.
You wrote, “you found out about not being able to get access to police reports because of one experience with a fatal accident, when if you had actually done research you would have found out that anyone mentioned in ANY police report can request that it be sequestered from anyone not directly involved in the state of California as well)”
So all you were trying to do was give additional, and irrelevant information in a somewhat insulting way? And if you don’t get that, I mean the words “if you had actually done research.” I did not need to research it, I learned it from a personal experience. This extra information you provided is interesting but what does it have to do with this discussion?
I am out/about the peninsula daily in a (small) SUV and every day, yep every damn day I see at least 10 cyclists violate traffic laws generally driving right through a red light, turning left on a red light, I could go on. I am not opposed to cycling but many of these “accidents” could be avoided if those riding bikes followed the laws that cars/trucks are expected to follow. Just today waiting for the light to change at the WPL/Nimitz intersection the light turned green for those of waiting to go as as an old gent (I use the term loosely) crossed WPL on his bike against the red light taking his time as he gave those of us with the green light the finger. To my surprise I flipped him the bird as well and do not ever recall doing that since my teenage years. Mixing bikes, cars, trucks in these multi-use lanes is not doing anything to increase safety of any of us regardless of what we drive. To the gentleman above comparing the cost of his bike to a car please advise how one bike going 15 mph down the middle of a mixed use lane with a trail of cars/trucks slowly trailing behind is being gentle with the environment?
I am out/about in San Diego daily, and every day, yep every god damn day I see multiple motorists violate traffic laws generally (sic) driving right through a red light, driving through a stop sign, I could go on. I am not opposed to driving but many of these “accidents” could be avoided if those driving two-ton vehicles followed the laws they are expected to follow. Just Wednesday waiting for the light to change at Meade Avenue and 35th, and El Cajon Blvd and 35th, and B Street and 10th, I watched motorists run red lights.
Go yell at the sky some more, entitled boomer.
You really have managed to completely devalue anything you have had to say here. Paul. “Entitled boomer?” How do you know the writer was born between 1946 and 1964? I didn’t see that in the comment. Now, you’re just throwing out insults without any thought. You could at least do a better job than that. Or can you?
I am far more pro bike advocacy than Geoff or Frank, but your turning the table’s strategy here is pretty disingenuous. Yes drivers break laws all the time but the fact is, cyclists DO ride through stop signs and red lights far more than drivers. If you’re going to say otherwise than that will make you kind of a liar. There is just no way you truly believe that. Irregardless of Geoff’s examples he sited, there ARE many cases where the cyclist is at fault and you know that. As for better bike infrastructure I’m with you 100 percent, but that’s not going to happen over night. So until then, you are willingly and knowingly taking a risk on some roads.
Geoff should stick to reporting on the OB Pier
Why exactly, Mr. Zanolli? Are my facts wrong? Is that all you have to say, or had the energy to say?
How does a publication claiming to be progressive, green, community and family oriented publish this article?
Cycling is infinitely more environmentally friendly than driving, takes up far less space to ride and park than cars, is healthy for the rider, and is a great family activity. Anyone who cycles regularly in San Diego experiences woefully inadequate infrastructure and dangerous drivers, no matter how many safety precautions are taken by the cyclist.
A ride from OB to Mission Beach is an unfortunately excellent demonstration of our poor and unsafe cycling infrastructure. Would anyone take their family on a ride over West Mission Bay Drive? The bike lane is not separated, is covered with oil and is often littered with broken glass while cars drive by at 60mph, racing from one red light to the next. Worth noting is that there is no bus route between OB and MB. To drive is the only option and that means spending more time looking for parking that it would take to ride over on a bike.
Drivers make cycling in this city exceptionally dangerous. They do not pay attention to the road, regularly use their phones while driving, often do not use turn indicators and often do not come to complete stops. This article and perspective make cycling even more dangerous.
Eric, look up some pictures of the original wooden Ventura St. bridge between OB & MB if you want to see a classic picture of what an entirely unsafe bridge for bikes and walkers looks like. Especially if you can find one looking down from above! Holy smokes, that was the scariest bridge ever and I have no idea how I didn’t get smashed flat riding to my granny’s in OB from home in MB all those years. Cars were a lot wider then, too… And I was always dragging a wheeled longboard rack hooked onto the back of the bike that completely blocked the lane. That really pissed off the ‘car culture!’
sealintheSelkirks
You’ve made the same mistake as other readers who have a cycling bias. This was about using fear, dishonestly, to achieve an end. There were two other parts to this piece demonstrating the same thing. This is not an anti-cycling piece when read by a discerning reader.
“Would anyone take their family on a ride over West Mission Bay Drive?” Why would anyone need to ride on that road for a family outing? There are so many bike paths all around Mission Bay all along the water that would make way more sense to use. You can ride from OB to Mission Beach easily without ever getting on that road and, even if you needed to it would only be for a very short hop over the bridge before you can get off into the parks. This was not a great example.
“Drivers make cycling in this city exceptionally dangerous. They do not pay attention to the road, regularly use their phones while driving, often do not use turn indicators and often do not come to complete stops.” San Diego is no different from everywhere else in the country when it comes to this kind of thing.
What exactly did you mean by “This article and perspective make cycling even more dangerous.” What perspective are you referring to?
Geoff,
There are no bike paths connecting OB to Mission Beach. West Mission Bay drive or Ingraham St (much longer ride) must be crossed. The “short hop” over the bridge is quite harrowing with cars driving 50-60mph and zero barrier, even after crossing it hundreds of times. If one wanted to circumnavigate the entire bay, they could make it on a bike path but that turns a 3 mile ride to more than 10 miles which is not sensible.
“San Diego is no different from everywhere else”. So does that make it OK that drivers break laws and create unsafe conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, just because this often happens in other cities?
To quote your article:
“The news stories said the bike was hit from behind, probably based on the details. But, no one really knows”
“This accident may be the motorist’s fault. But, riding a bicycle on a road with a 50 mph speed limit is very risky and perhaps a poor choice for a cycling route.”
“This could perhaps be a teachable moment about cycling choices.” (He chose to ride in a well marked bike path at 10:30AM and lost his life. How about a teachable moment about safe driving?)
The perspective that these cyclists are to blame for their own deaths empowers drivers to continue to create unsafe road conditions in San Diego and elsewhere. That is exactly what I meant.
Also, what is with the condescension to the readers and supporters of this publication? Perhaps using unfortunate deaths to illustrate your point was not the most “discerning” choice of examples.
Eric,
When you ride over the river from OB, there is a bike lane on the bridge. When you come off the north side you can drop down into the Quivira Road around the Marina Village shopping center past Seaforth Sportfishing. The bridge I was referring to is the one on West Mission Bay Drive over a portion of the bay. This is not a 50-60 mph road. I ride on the wide sidewalk over the bridge and down to Gleason Road where you can jump off into the Bonita Cove Park. You never have to cross a major road.
“So does that make it OK that drivers break laws and create unsafe conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, just because this often happens in other cities?” Of course not, the comment was made because you wrote “Drivers make cycling in this city exceptionally dangerous.” The implication was that San Diego was more dangerous than other cities and I merely pointed out that was not true.
“The perspective that these cyclists are to blame for their own deaths empowers drivers to continue to create unsafe road conditions in San Diego and elsewhere. That is exactly what I meant.”
What I said was that five of the cases clearly showed the cyclists were at fault. In five other cases, no one knows who was at fault. In a few cases, I just said that the victims shared responsibility because of the choices they made.
Your final comment seems to illustrate that you don’t understand what the article was about. You wrote, “Also, what is with the condescension to the readers and supporters of this publication? Perhaps using unfortunate deaths to illustrate your point was not the most “discerning” choice of examples.”
The point of my piece was that the cycling community was using the 13 deaths dishonestly, blaming infrastructure and evil cars, which was not supported by the facts. I wasn’t using the deaths to illustrate my point; the cycling advocates were doing that. I used what they used to show it was not honest. Look at the title, this was about using fear, dishonestly, in three cases.
Eric obviously has no interest in the facts, he clearly was just looking for any article he could comment on to push an agenda of a very few people.
Geoff – Your article is spot on, showing exactly how these groups use irrational fear to push their entitled agendas. Just look at all these comments from people I don’t recall adding a voice to these conversations in the past 3 years that I’ve been commenting on the comings and goings of our little beach town!
Thanks, Sam, thanks for understanding what I was trying to do.
I’m actually disappointed the part about the Humane Society didn’t get any comments. I knew the cycling part would touch a nerve. There are some things that are sacrosanct in the community, one is cycling and another is native plants. No criticism allowed.
Actually there is. Why are you saying there isn’t?
On the Dog Bites…Why would you believe that just because you never witnessed a dog bite at Collier Park, means there was not a series of them recently? Are you in the park 24 hours per day? Do you have a cam set up to surveil the park 24 hours per day? Do you know that many people do not make formal reports for dog bites? Do you know that the officer could have been referring to a dog-on-dog bite/attack? Do you know that it often takes about 30 days after a bite to even request a PRR? As, the investigation may still be open — the report is not yet complete. (“There were no recent incidents at all.”) As for the black male dog, it’s pretty easy to spot an intact male dog. Yet, you’re quick to victim-blame and minimize her injury. Would you like to go through life with a damaged or missing thumb?
I applaud the officer for writing tickets for off-leash dogs. You were breaking the law. Also, the officer did not seem concerned about “rabid” dogs, but about “biting” dogs. I’m definitely tickled pink that your next encounter cost you $280 (no lessons learned from the first ticketing?). Tax payers fund animal control agencies to enforce laws — that includes ticketing bad dog owners that FAIL to leash, FAIL to license their dogs and FAIL to vaccinate. Revenues from violations/tickets help those agencies fund themselves too. But you feel “you” should be treated differently? You are part of the ever so widespread, “entitled dog owner” who can thumb your nose to basic public safety and health rules. (“They are just trying to protect public safety by ticketing peaceful dog walkers with a docile, harmless 75-pound dog”…) An off-leash 75 pound dog can inflict life-altering damage to an adult and can kill a child or elderly person. The public should NEVER be expected to take “your word” for it that “my dog would never bite.” After all, you are an admitted SERIAL animal control law violator!
The following sentence is complete bullshit, “If a dog bite is serious enough for medical attention, the hospital is obligated to report the bite on a form to the police department.” No such law exists, at least not for adult victims (this obligation may exist for young children that are badly bitten). Also, police only report dog bites if police are called to the scene — extremely serious injury cases. Otherwise, animal control agencies do the bite reports. Period. It is also their duty in your state to report the bites to public health departments for rabies purposes.
It’s real simple to stay out of trouble with animal control agencies. License, vaccinate and leash your dogs.
As usual Margaret, you did not pay attention to what you were reading. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote about dog bites. I contacted the Humane Society and I did a PRR on both parks.
“Do you know that many people do not make formal reports for dog bites?” No, I don’t, are you telling me you have evidence of people who are bitten and don’t?
“Do you know that the officer could have been referring to a dog-on-dog bite/attack?” No, she specifically said dog bites of people.”
“Do you know that it often takes about 30 days after a bite to even request a PRR?” No, I don’t know that, do you? Do you know of a recent bite incident?
“As, the investigation may still be open — the report is not yet complete.” Sigh. As I wrote, if a dog bite requires medical attention, the hospital has to report it when they treat the victim. The report goes to Animal Control, now the Humane Society, and they follow up immediately.
“As for the black male dog, it’s pretty easy to spot an intact male dog.” The report said it was a male dog not that it was “intact.”
“Yet, you’re quick to victim-blame and minimize her injury.” How in the world did you get victim blaming from anything I wrote about a dog bite?
“The following sentence is complete bullshit, “If a dog bite is serious enough for medical attention, the hospital is obligated to report the bite on a form to the police department.” No such law exists, at least not for adult victims (this obligation may exist for young children that are badly bitten).” Call a hospital emergency room, Margaret, and ask them because you clearly are incorrect.
“Also, police only report dog bites if police are called to the scene — extremely serious injury cases. Otherwise, animal control agencies do the bite reports. Period. It is also their duty in your state to report the bites to public health departments for rabies purposes.”
Sigh again. The dog bite report comes from the hospital. In the case at Collier, they never called the police, they just went to the hospital. The notification is followed up by Animal Control then who then inform the victims about the rabies issue.
I’m not even going to attempt to respond to the verbal dysentery in your second paragraph. My dogs have always been vaccinated and licensed and leashed when necessary.
And, once again, another person who entirely missed the point of the article, but seeing as how it was you Margaret, I’m not surprised.
Geoff, this is sounding very much like arguing semantics with anti-maskers.
You are trying to convince with logic but guys, you won’t even re-read Geoff’s article CAREFULLY to confirm that what you think he said/meant is actually what he said. Which definitely says something about wearing blinders like a horse on a racetrack.
Geoff, you and I have gone ’round a few times over some postings in the past but this one I’m in total agreement with you. And that is coming from a 6-decade bike rider and skateboarder who still does both.
sealintheSelkirks
Thanks, seal. It is comments like yours that give me confidence that what I wanted to say came through. Sometimes you wonder if you didn’t write it clearly enough but most of the time you can see the commenter did not read with an open mind.
Ha! Yes Geoff sometimes I wonder that myself as the RAG isn’t the only place I post comments on. But at least one, the main climate site I post info out of New Zealand, kevinhester.live, nearly everybody there is on the same page! Not so much on the RAG when…heh heh, you smack the hornet’s nest. Great description there… I freaking drop everything and run like hell when I run into a Bald-Faced hornet nest up here. Oh yes I do!
You DID write it clearly, I understood what you were saying immediately. Then the blizzard of howls showed up and I went back and re-read it just to see what they were complaining about. Again, it wasn’t one-sided at all, just a statement of facts that you uncovered that a bunch of people didn’t like. You weren’t promoting any agenda. Weird how people do that.
And how I never got run the hell over riding a bike or skate in the beach area streets all those years was just pure dumb luck I think. I did stuff that SHOULD HAVE gotten me hurt. My old surfer friend E-Gore and extreme bike rider who spent 10 years riding from Cape May Av to SDSU before he graduated in the 80s got ‘doored’ by somebody getting out of a parked vehicle at one point. Headfirst through the open window that probably would have killed him if it had been rolled up even with his helmet. Seriously messed him up of course but at least he didn’t get run over when he was laying there in the street unconscious.
Shit happens in a world governed by random chaos. No reason, it just takes a moment of inattention on the part of bike riders or drivers.
sealintheSelkirks
Thanks for affirming that my point did come across, seal. Here’s one for risk.
When I was 16, I was living in Arlington, Virginia. This was 1967. I had a friend who was a bike nut and he talked me into a long biking trip. I didn’t have a good bike at the time but I managed to secure a used 10-speed, which in those days were not as common as today. We rode 200 miles, 100 miles each day, to Virginia Beach. We road on two lane highways with virtually no shoulder and it rained for part of that. Our bikes wee packed with camping gear and clothes. Imagine a 16-year-old peddling along one of these roads being passed by semis whose backdraft would almost pull you over a a whole lane. That I survived that and the return trip has always amazed me. Yes, some of us get lucky taking big chances and others do not. Who is to say why?
What’s your take on the 8 “not at fault” cyclists who were killed?
I will repeat, five were the cyclist’s fault. Five accidents no one can say who was in the wrong. That’s ten. That leaves three Pratik. What “8” are you referring to?
That’s still 3 dead people who in your opinion died at the fault of someone else in the community; what’s your take on those incidents? I want to read what conclusions about the community you draw from those incidents.
“No one can say who was in the wrong” seems like a round-about way of saying “no fault ascribed in the incident”. Seems like common sense, no? I want to know what you have to say about those incidents? If there is not enough info for that… it seems like you might have the motivation to investigate since this is a topic that seems very important to you. Very curious as to your thoughts.
Why are you so adamant in ‘discovering’ his ‘take’ on three dead cyclists? All Geoff did was REPORT on the incidents and that is mainly reporting what the official investigators conclusions were.
Go look up yourself the conclusions of those investigators and quite trying to turn this into personal attacks. The article wasn’t personal, it was about the statistics and conclusions of investigators. Just how is he supposed to ‘investigate’ beyond what’s already been said by them? This crap is getting tedious.
sealintheSelkirks
Really strange how hostile you’re getting about me asking questions. I’m a proud owner of several nice cars including a ZR1 and looking to move back to OB but worried about these local statistics raising my insurance rates on all my cars. Unlike Geoff, who seems like a well-meaning and informed person, you characterizing my questions as personal attacks make you seem like… not that.
Pratik P: Maybe it’s in the way you are wording your inquiries. Or perhaps it’s my interpretation? But it’s not hostility; the emotion is just plain annoyance with the repetition and the tangent of your questions that angle away from the main thrust of the article.
You ‘want to know what conclusions he draws about the community’ when the community is just under 20,000 people stuffed into 1 square mile (wikipedia). Somehow I don’t think Geoff personally knows even 1/8th of the population of OB to be able to make that kind of judgement. If he does I’d love to come to one of his parties, play a little music and get people dancing!
Your questions seem rather invasive when most are asking for personal opinions not factual reporting like the bike incidents he wrote about.
And then you state you are worried about the insurance rates on your “several nice cars” if you move back to OB. Ummm, really? Because of bike rider deaths? I doubt very much that is going to make a bit of difference in the insurance required on you ZR1. Which also has absolutely nothing to do with the article’s report. You do know the speed limits in OB aren’t really conductive to operating a ZR1 race car, yes?
Yep, your strange comments are…rather off track of the article if that is your main worry, vehicle insurance rates.
By the way, why did you move away since now you want to move back? And what does one do with “several nice cars” and where are you going to park them in OB? You do know parking space is at a premium and getting worse? If you bring several you will be taking the parking away from others who only have one car to park. That’s bad manners. And you do know how bad salt air can be on several nice cars?
Other questions: Just how many cars do you need before you are content with your collection? How much insurance per vehicle are you willing to pay? What’s your driving record like; tickets and accidents? Why don’t you sell off all but one and buy a really really good bicycle? I’ll sell you a classic 70s pool rider skateboard from my collection if you’re really interested to help you transition away from owning too many cars for OB. I breathlessly await your responses.
sealintheSelkirks
My take on the other three incidents is in my article.
You wrote, “No one can say who was in the wrong” seems like a round-about way of saying “no fault ascribed in the incident”.
Nothing round-about it, I said what the facts said, can’t be any plainer.
You missed the point. The cyclists were using these 13 incidents to make their point but none of the stories contained any details of the accidents. I spent time researching them enough to show that using them in this manner was dishonest and it was. How do you not admit that using cycling deaths where the deaths were the cyclists own fault, is dishonest? I think I did much more researching the accidents than the cyclists did. If anyone wants to do more research, that would be great but I’ve done enough.
I just want safer roads because bad local statistics raise my car insurance premiums. If the cycling lobby is being asked to present cycling death numbers and they supply the totality of incidents regardless of fault provides the additional context for someone like yourself the ability to supply a counter point with even more context, and you did. Seems like a healthy debate, no? In your article and these comments you agree that 3 deaths need addressing and 5 more need additional research. That’s common ground with their lobby.
Reading this article, it really does seem like an OP-ed and it really seems like behind it that you have a better idea than the cyclists about how to structure our roads. I want to hear that take, maybe a follow up article?
Yes, you are correct Pratik, there is common ground but no one on the cycling side is taking it that way. All I have received is mindless vitriol. You should read the Twitter feed for Peter Flax, that really illustrate the complete lack of reason or civility.
As for my take on bike lanes, I’m all for them, in the right places. I am opposed to bike lanes on main thoroughfares, like 30th street, when there are safe, reasonable alternatives of which there are several for that road..
Coming back to OB and catching back up with all the news feeds and local personalities it really seems the vitriol on all sides has been cranked to 11. Most of the commenters who are backing you really seem to be just as vitriolic. I really don’t like neighbors treating each other this way… especially when there are people dying. The roads seem much worse than when I left over 6 years ago (shoddy chip seal everywhere) and the numbers of car, bike, pedestrian deaths all seem to be getting worse too. At some point everyone needs to get off their social media feeds, stop pointing fingers and actually try to fix it that’s why I want a follow up article from you addressing the common ground.
Pratik, I have to disagree that the folks who are backing me are just as vitriolic as the other side. If you’d care to share some examples, that would help.
Great to hear you’re lurking on my Twitter feed. Feel free to get a named account and interact with me.
Not lurking but when someone Googles your name, for some reason your Twitter feed comes up first. That was how I found it. I have a named account and I made a comment about your clear lack of class. That was my second Tweet ever. It did lead me to your popular blog with 84 followers though.
I’m not fan of Twitter, it is a bane on our existence. It has trivialized everything.
What would all of you bicyclists propose that the city do with its limited resources? Is it more important that we build cycling infrastructure for the, let’s call it 5,000 people, or .o33%, who might use said infrastructure for a daily commute, or should the city respond to the needs of the other 1.5 million residents of the city? Is it more important to build protected bike lanes than it is to help the homeless get off the streets? How about all of the unpaved roads that still exist in low income neighborhoods, should the plans to pave those roads be pushed off so that you can ride your bike from OB to MB? Get a grip on yourselves and get your priorities straight.
Of course there are more drivers in cars violating laws than there cyclists violations as there are far more cars on the roads than there are bikes but as I witness daily I see far more bikes going through red lights, turning left on red, etc than I ever see the drivers of cars do.
more bikes and lanes would be great
Wow to hear the angry buzz of the entitled cyclists when you smack their hive and reveal their tricks. Must be nice to not live in the real world where you have to juggle work, children, daycare providers, medical appointments, costco runs, home repairs, and can’t afford to live in the same area you work.
Those empty bike lanes cost a fortune, and they take away tax dollars, road dollars, lanes, and parking from us suckers that don’t have the luxury of peddling around hours every day in spandex on our $3,000 carbon fiber specialized.
I love biking, it’s a fun and healthy recreational activity, when I’m not busy with all of the above. But I sure as hell don’t ask anyone else to pay for it.
trigger, this was a great sentence:
“Wow to hear the angry buzz of the entitled cyclists when you smack their hive and reveal their tricks.”
Seems that is what I did, there are angry worker bees commenting here that I’ve never seen commenting in The Rag.
I’ve put in many miles on the bike in the last 50 years, but I think I will refrain from in-depth comment, mainly because a friend of mine was killed by a man in a truck in February, 2011. My friend regularly rode his bike to & from work.
No fault of his; he just was killed.
So after reading Geoff’s article the first time, I drove to Target & bought a
blood pressure cuff. First reading: 121 over 79. Heart rate: 65.
We’re all nuts. I’m nuts because I ride my bicycle on the PCH to Encinitas. I’m nuts because my daily driver is a giant 4X4. I’m nuts because I have a motorcycle. I’m nuts because I sometimes comment on the OB Rag website. Nuts. Just nuts.
It’s time for an Irish coffee for breakfast.
Geoff and Frank you are both disgusting.” Bike extremists” “brave article” I am a horrible person because I ride a bike in public. They deserve to die. Then you go on to say how you should not get an off leash ticket. This is an article of old white man privilege. ”I don’t like something so it must stop”: I should be allowed to do something because I am better than others. Did you read what you wrote. In the same article you contradict yourself. I wish you could stand outside of yourself and see how ridiculous you sound. This is 100% boomer.
“They deserve to die.” Talk about an extremist narrative. Using outrageous hyperbole as a scare tactic is exactly the point of this article, and you just proved Geoff’s hypothesis!
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Another comment from another person who does not read well.
“This is 100% boomer.” Odd statement when you consider the fact that a very large chunk of bike lane advocates are boomers themselves.
Isn’t this article in fact written by a person of the boomer generation? Why so mad at the word? Millennial gets tossed around all the time.
Not mad just baffled. Yes he is (a boomer) but the point is that boomers are a huge part of the pro bike advocacy community. So in other words, plenty of boomers would be in total disagreement with him and likewise there are plenty of both gen x and millennials who DO agree with him. With that, the boomer quip is kind of pointless. As for millennials getting tossed around, all generations go at each other and always have. Makes for some good beer and popcorn time.
The argument going on is one within the bicycling community and not one between “car-lovers” and “car-haters.” But it obviously has hit a nerve. And I think has started a much-needed discussion. I for one am tired of the bicycle extremists who strongly believe their “vision” is the correct one and the only one that government should heed. And I’ve bicycled for decades. In fact, my article on the “Best bike ride around Mission Bay” has been very popular.
Take CirculateSanDiego, for instance. They proudly flout their “environmental credentials” by their push for more and more bike paths while at the same time supporting the Navy’s most extreme and densest option for the redevelopment of the Old Town – NAVWAR complex – the one calling for 60-70 story buildings.
Get off my lawn, boomer.
See? A boomer would have a net-zero water landscape. You would have a green lawn using up our precious water.
That’s a boomer order, Eric, you can’t use that unless you are a boomer.
Eric – You sure are getting triggered like a boomer. Where were you on the afternoon of January 6th?
Haha OK boomer.
Stop using the term bicycle extremists. Are you trying to divide people? Turning people into villains just because they want safer roads. The OBrag has just become a propaganda machine to push your “vision” That is the correct one and the only one that government should heed.
Shawn, every group has extremists. That is not a reflection of the group as a whole. But, if more reasonable, middle ground people just stay silent, then people will believe the extremists speak for everyone.
Shawn, you seem to forget something. Those of us who are criticizing the main narrative are in the minority. “They” don’t just want safe roads. They want more density and overdevelopment and some have become the handmaidens of the developer class.
in no way are you in the minority. “they” “developer class” sound like a bunch of propaganda. The way this article list victims as data is sick. They are people that had Husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. This article was designed to divide.
Shawn, you don’t seem to have noticed but it was the cycling advocates that listed “victims as data” to support their agenda in several news stories going to far as to blame lousy infrastructure for all their deaths. I took their list and provided the facts.
They were using the death of people as an example that roads can be safer. How dare they. People will always get into accidents, but I think it is a good thing that we always move forward on road safety for bikes, cars and pedestrians. You Victim shamed and gaslighted the deaths.
“(8) A driver has been charged in his death. The speed limit is 35 mph, the maximum speed limit recommended for placing sharrows, which are on the road. A map of the area shows roads paralleling Highway 101, which may have been better choices. With a speed limit of 35 mph in today’s world, the traffic probably moves much faster, another consideration for any cyclist choosing which road to ride on.”
“This could perhaps be a teachable moment about cycling choices.”
Teachable moment of cycling? How? The cyclist was riding on a road designated for bikes with a bike lane and the driver was charged for the death. Please tell me the teachable moment for the cyclist.
“The cyclist was hit in the eastbound lane of Oceanside Blvd west of I5. It was a hit and run and the woman was arrested and plead not guilty. There are not enough details to know who was at fault. Clearly the woman was guilty of leaving the scene but who was at fault? The moon that night was at 29% illumination. We don’t know if the cyclist was wearing reflective clothing or if the bike had lights.
Using this statistic is unfair.”
You Question if the cyclist had lights. Why? That is gaslighting. “the moon was at 29%” are you saying you should only ride during a full moon? It was a hit and run you question who was at fault. Why? You turned this person into” a unfair statistic”. It was a 27-year-old man that worked as a server and did not own a car. Not a statistic for you to manipulate for your argument. Not sure what your argument is. It is lost in the victim blaming and gaslighting. It’s all Bush’s fault?
Teachable moment: Chose your cycling routes with care.
Do you know if the victim in Oceanside had lights on his bike and whether or not he was wearing reflective clothing? You seem to know something about this one, can you answer?
No you said you were just stating the facts. This is you asking a question to sow doubt. This is a manipulation technique. You are gaslighting a dead person.
Isn’t it interesting how they only show up in these articles?
From the responses you’d think Geoff just mowed down a line of cyclists and then wrote an article to gloat about it.
I see a lot of people missing the point. We want safer bike facilities, but we also don’t appreciate a powerful deceptive lobbying group controlling the conversation. Fitting it in with existing built-out development is expensive. It has to be considered in unison with other priorities, and common sense. Circulate san diego also has a serious case of mission creep in becoming a developer advocate. And I’m really tired of their effort to villainize the automobile and go after parking standards.
As I mentioned above, the boomer cracks are a bit odd in this context when considering the fact a very large percentage of the pro bike advocacy community (pro lanes, pro slower traffic speeds for cars, pro less lanes for cars, pro stiffer penalties for drivers when they are at fault) are over 60 which would make them boomers. For the most part I’m in disagreement with Geoff and Frank on this whole issue but generalizations on what side someone is based on what generation they are part of is pretty comical yet sad at the same time. The boomer period covers a 20 year span, the youngest of which are just under 60 and oldest pushing 80. And no matter what specific year anyone in that period was born, all people in that given year do not think that same.
“(5) April 21, 2021: Unnamed Male in Balboa Park near the 163 The cyclist was struck riding across Highway 163 at 9:00 p.m. It was dark and he was crossing a high-speed road. This was clearly the cyclist’s fault.”
Well one thing is for sure. No matter what side of the debate you are on, I think it’s safe to say this was undoubtedly the fault of the cyclist. Riding across the freeway at night? Riding across the freeway at any time for that matter? I disagree with Geoff that people should just opt not to ride on the many roads mentioned, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the driver is not always at fault.
Right. And as wrong as Geoff is about many of his assessments he’s absolutely right that it’s disingenuous to include a crash like this (cyclist crossing freeway at night) as justification for the need for action to improve cycling safety.
While we are seeing many more cycling fatalities than usual (in some recent years the city has had zero) we really have to look at the details to determine what, if anything, should and can be done.
Serge, your previous reasoned comment raised the ire of Mr. Peter Flax. He posted it on his Twitter feed and called you a name.
He called you a, dare I repeat it, “vehicular cyclist.” (I hope it’s ok to print such language in The OB Rag.)
Glad to see you’re spending so much time reading my Twitter feed Geoff!
Calm down Peter, as I said before, the Twitter comment came up just Googling your name. The few minutes I did spend on your Twitter feed a few days ago reading comments was like reading comments on Fox News. The intellectualism was stunning. That’s quite a small crowd of knuckleheads you have following you.
Hey Serge, can you point me to any news stories or social media posts or anything at all where bike advocates or city planners called for infrastructure specifically in response to the traffic death of a homeless guy crossing 163?
My article did not identify this guy as a homeless guy.
And, yes, that is exactly what happened, bike advocates used this man’s death in their call for more cycling infrastructure and fast.
Pretext pisses me off and using environment, safety, or a moral stance to get money or power where there is no issue is so low and cheap. Thank you for all the bike accident details. I’m new to bike riding in OB, about 20 years since last bike. But these make me very aware how small I am and that I shouldn’t use the street like a motorist and then jump into the crosswalk to cross like a pedestrian, shouldn’t drive dark at night, should avoid fast traffic areas when a bike path or alternate route is available. Thank you. The lanes are nice but still require vigilence, helmut, no hurry, etc. Humane Society is disappointing. No notice in mail for rabies shot. Didn’t they take over animal control?
You sound like a reasonable rider, Shelly, better watch it, some of these people won’t like that.
The Human Society took over animal control and enforcement in 2018. Their aggressive tactics writing tickets unnecessarily has poisoned the Human Society for me. It really is a shame and the dishonest tactics they have taught their enforcement officers is deplorable.
FWIW, aren’t bike lanes paid for by taxes that are generated from automobiles? Not that it’s any of my business…
And schools are funded by the lottery… so what is your point
I’ve read worse.
But I agree that cycling advocacy in San Diego is ineffective in gaining ground to battle the problems of bad automobile driving and bad cycling.
“Oslo, incredibly, virtually eliminated traffic deaths in 2019 by aggressively reducing speeds, banning cars from the city center, and building out a robust bike path network. Very slow speeds and car-free zones are becoming the norm in many European cities.”
https://www.vox.com/22675358/us-car-deaths-year-traffic-covid-pandemic
But it’s just easier to blame the victims than do the hard work, right Geoff?
Wonderful comparison, a city of less than 650,000 that was founded in 1000 A.D. Bit of a stretch to compare San Diego to, wouldn’t you think?
The 16 yr old rightwinger who ran over the six triathalon riders in Texas trying to ‘blow coal’ on them (owning the libs!) was finally charged with six felony counts, one for each, after the cops just let him drive away from the scene and go home.
But then it IS Tex-ass. Freedom y’all!
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Waller-teen-driver-cyclists-felony-charges-DA-16603498.php
sealintheSelkirks
More bicycle news from Tex-ass; where bicycling while black causes white people to protect the neighborhood. Because it’s Freedom y’all!
Seabrook bicyclist attacked by neighbor who said he was ‘making people nervous’
https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/11/02/seabrook-bcylist-attacked-by-neighbor-who-said-he-was-making-people-nervous/
sealintheSelkirks