TAKE OFF THE HELMET AND GET OFF THE SIDEWALK

I've noticed recently that there is a special sort of fool who has become more common around River City:  Grown men on bicycles wearing helmets while riding on the sidewalks.  A couple of things.  First, whatever argument there is for a child to wear a biking helmet (not much) or for a contestant in the Tour de France (admittedly some) is no argument for a 35-year-old man be-bopping through the city.  You don't need to be a Hell's Angel to dispense with that piece of plastic atop your noggin.  Second, no one over the age of twelve should be riding his bike on the sidewalks.  Those curb cuts at each intersection are for the wheelchair-bound, not for helmeted adult males who need to grow a pair.  Get your bike out onto the street!  Better yet, walk or drive a car.

Comments

[Xopher]

Wear a helmet. Your head will thank you when it hits the ground. As an avid biker, and someone who has been hit from the side by an SUV pulling out onto a busy street, I know that you can't always control your fall or protect your head.

In general, it is a stellar idea to leave sidewalks to pedestrians; a bicyclist on the road is more visible than one on a sidewalk. However, riding the road is also contingent on drivers sharing the road just a little bit.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Chris.

Absolutely motorists need to share the road. But then bicyclists need to obey the rules of the road. More than once I have nearly clipped a bicyclist as I was about to make right-turn-on-red because he zipped up from behind me to make that same turn without stopping. The fact is there a lot jerks out on the road whether on two wheels or four.

Regards, Bill

[Xopher]

Yes, bicyclists need to follow the same traffic rules, and, in my opinion, need to behave better than their four wheeled compatriots, both for safety’s sake and to be good ambassadors. Drivers seem to forget, though, that bicyclists are the fragile ones in the relationship. They also forget that we are taxpayers, just like them, and have as much of a right to be on the road as if we were in our cars – I’ve heard “get on the sidewalk” yelled from many a passing car.

Please treat bicyclists as if it was your brother or sister or spouse or friend on that bike!

[Bridget Dupont-Tingley, Editor @L.A.W.]

I'll have to disagree with both of you guys.

I grew up in the country and we didn't have to worry about who gets to use the road...person in a car, person on a bike, person on a skateboard, person on a scooter, person walking around, etc. Winner...it was the person driving and riding in a car - end of story. People with "accessories" properly took them to a local park, walking/biking trail or public metro beach area. I never heard of bike accidents when I was growing up due to this (less young boys building ramps and riding their bikes off them to see who could go the highest and farthest. Yesterdays young adventurers, todays "jackass" crowd").

It wasn't until I moved to GR a few years back that things got crowded on public streets. All of a sudden, everyone was wearing helmets/arm/knee pads, had their ipods plugged in one ear and chit chatting on a cell phone with the other ear while bike riders, scooter/skate riders, motobike drivers, inline skaters and pedestrians alike were going through intersections as if is no one else was using the road. That "no one else" being a multi digit tonage car or truck of course. I use my horn to warn people who are too often not paying attention to "get a clue". I'm amazed at how often they don't STOP at the intersection to see if anything might be coming their way. They are too busy getting to the other side of the side and too often forget the chicken little rule of thumb. Look both ways before crossing. Oh no...not in this town. The rule is cross first and then get ticked if someone honks at you. The law may give everyone rights to access and use the road here, but it would be nice if everyone paid attention if they are going to be using them. We have enough problems with other drivers (good and bad), why crowd the road with even more distractions that aren't necessary - bike riders, skate/scooter riders, etc.?

I still think each item has it's place. Cars/trucks/buses on the road. People on the sidewalks. Accessories like bikes, skateboards, rollerblades, scooters, etc. in places like parks, biking/walking trails and the like. I'm against humans trying to compete on busy roadways with machines as powerful and deadly as a car. I've had too many close calls to feel confident all parties will be responsible enough long term to make this marriage of man and machine on the roads work.

Regards,

[xopher]

You may not want to share the road with bikes, but at this point, at least, it is legal for bikes to be there.

I do agree with "I've had too many close calls to feel confident all parties will be responsible enough long term to make this marriage of man and machine on the roads work."

Since we are burning our non-renewables as fast as possible, it'll be interesting to see which way it goes.

In the meantime, please don't run over those bikers who do try to share the road as responsibly as possible.

[Theresa]

I am shocked that the executive director of LAW posted this blog.

Are you really concerned about an adult wearing a helmet when riding a bike (even if it is on a sidewalk, as the danger of head injury is just as real on the road, sidewalk, bike trail, etc...)? I cannot imagine why this would concern you.

I assume the real issue at hand is the problem of people riding bikes on sidewalks, which I agree, is a valid issue that should be addressed.

Granted your opinion is indeed your very own opinion, but...
For a website that really has done a fantastic job informing the public about the Dumping Scandal, I was shocked to read your suggestion of driving a car instead of riding a bicycle.

I can't seem to figure out how the suggestion of creating pollution by driving a car (instead of riding a bike) would make any sense coming from a news organization that brought the Dumping Scandal to light. The Dumping Scandal is only a scandal because of what was dumped, "hazardous waste".

In my opinion, your suggestion of creating more pollution by driving a car instead of riding a bike not only shows a lack of integrity for the news you report, but also contradicts the worth of your news articles pertaining to the Dumping Scandal.

[Bridget Dupont-Tingley, Editor @L.A.W.]

Hello Theresa & Xopher,

Driving a vehicle has become considerbly more dangerous in recent years due to bike riders taking over streets and sidewalks. Bike riders are not obeying good rules of the road - especially street crossing areas. Close calls are happening way too often. Weekly, cars are seconds away from a major collision and crash with a bike rider that could be very deadly. It should not be this way, but will be as long as a 150lb man/woman on a bike is up against a two ton car or truck moving at high speeds. It's just not a good mix. It's hard to see some riders as they do not wear clothing or have bike colors that stand out well. They often get hidden behind other vehicles and then pop out unexpectedly when a clearing happens. They often cross streets after lights have told them not to cross and so on. It's frightening at first when these close calls happen and then frustrating that it's just one more issue to deal with in an already complicated driving world. Ultimately, even if someone was paying attention, a mistake can happen. It only takes a second for a tragic result to occur. Yes, riding on the street is legal, but that doesn't always mean every law makes good sense in the real world. I am confident most drivers are being diligent each day to avoid crashes with both other cars and riders as well. Unfortunately, as the number of riders go up I doubt the number of accidents will go down.

As for the Berkey & Gay matter...The dumping scandal is based upon what toxic soil was at The Berkey & Gay site and how it was removed without proper protection and guidelines set down by the EPA. The release of hazardous waste into the surrounding air, soil and possible water system was an issue when it was disturbed and moved. Removing massive amounts of heavily contaminated soil and moving it around the city, lying about it and then covering it up is a crime and very illegal. The severity of this problem (see all previous articles in highlights section) should not be minimized over your desire to see bikes replace cars on your reduce global warming agenda.

Automobile exhaust and emission levels have been greatly reduced in recent decades. They will continue to evolve and improve as time goes on and new standards are imposed. Thus, those of us who drive because we can and must, are comfortable with the use of this product. If you are one that chooses to ride a bike instead, that is your choice. Wagging the naughty finger at those of us who do not is a bit extreme. Once again, we are bringing to light the dangers of pedestrians, bikers and cars on the roadway. People can ignore it if they choose. It doesn't mean the danager will go away. Just like the Berkey & Gay issue.

We are understanding and realistic about what the average person can and should do within limits to help the environement while still being able to live in this world and enjoy it's many perks and amenities.

Appreciate your thoughts on this issue.

Regards,

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Theresa.

You are disappointed that our opposition to the Toxic Towers developers exposing construction workers and the public to hazardous materials has not translated to wholesale support of the environmentalist agenda. I am not sure why you think only those who label themselves "green" have the decency and sense of injustice to be digusted with those who deliberately exposed real people to high levels of known carcinogens and other toxins.

Personally, I don't waste a lot of time worrying about hypothetical hazards, especially those that are mostly speculative. I certainly have little patience for the scaremongering of environmentalists who inflate these speculations, even out-and-out nonsense, into impending doom (e.g., the new ice age of the '70s, the Alar scare, the ozone hole, global warming). What I do concern myself with is real harm done to real people when I can do something about it.

So that's why we have worked hard to publicize the Toxic Towers scandal while not fretting about auto emissions (which today's cars emit at a tiny fraction of what they did thirty years ago). After all, Theresa, if you think about it, we all have only so many hours a day. So, we need to pick our battles. I hope this helps you better understand how we have chosen ours.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director, L.A.W.

[Theresa]

Bill,

Thank you the insightful clarification of your stand on environmental issues.

I am saddened to see that LAW has decided to leave out my previous response in which I clearly back up the reasons for my concerns.

I am only left to assume that if LAW is so quick to leave out my resonse and lambast my comments, that it is most likely doing the same to others and the "news" it reports.

Perhaps the next time you choose to battle a supporter of your site you will consider that it is only fair to allow both parties engage in healthy conversation INSTEAD of lambasting and name calling of those you don't agree with. I no longer feel comfortable supporting your sight with the knowledge that you omit the dialog of those you disagree with, meanwhile continually jumping to unsupported conclusions, leaving out facts and supporting your own opinions that are clearly based on emotion alone.

Fact is that Bridget concocted an image of me that is incorrect, she claimed I said things that I clearly didn't say... Fact is that LAW chose to ignore the FACT that the only form of transportation available to me IS a motor vehicle, that FACT that I am thankful for those who are concerned about the air we breath, the FACT that I have closely followed LAW ever since I receieved a post card in the mail inviting me to the site.

Fact is that LAW chose to omit my previous post and instead jumps to the hasty conclusion that my concerns relate to that of the "scaremongering environmentalists", which is downright is absurd and incorrect.

Perhaps you should re-read my previous response and be fair and post it. (i am not holding my breath...) I can only conclude that your reporting of "news" is likely omitting the facts you are uncomfortable with.

And yes, if you are truly concerned about the toxins in our environment you would be concerned with the other pollutants that contaminate the air we breathe. At best I find your comments hypocritical. And to talk about picking your battles... I hope you can gather up some integrity and back up the war you wage.

Best of luck,
Theresa Milanowski

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Theresa.

You are very quick to make accusations. I am the only who deletes comments, and I only do so if:

[1] They are accidental duplicates,
[2] Advertisements or other spam,
[3] Abusive of our readers or other persons (as for the Editor and me, any slings and arrows are fine).

While I reserve the right to delete comments for any reason I care to and without explanation to anyone for doing so, the fact is I do not delete comments just because they express a point of view we disagree with. I certainly did not delete any comment you had posted. You might want to consider the very real possiblity that your missing comment did not ever go through to us in the first place.

By all means post it again, if you care to.

Moreover, I suggest reading again what the Editor and I wrote in response to you. I think you'll find our remarks are not particularly dependent on the specifics that would have been in your missing comment, and they weren't aimed at denigrating you. We were clarifying what we think is important when it comes to pollution of the environment.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director, L.A.W.

[Theresa Milanowski]

Thanks Bill,
I would gladly re-post.

Car emission pollution measures have drastically decreased the per vehicle emissions in the last 20 years, however, the number of miles driven has doubled with the addition of more vehicles on the road. Therefore over all air pollution from motor vehicles has not decreased, but has actually increased in the past 20 years. (feel free to fact check that info)

Motor vehicles today still emit classified toxins such as hydrocarbons, NOx and carbon monoxide. In fact, in many urban areas up to 90% of carbon monoxide in the air is created by motor vehicle emissions.

Again, to suggest that the bicyclist give up the bike and drive a car is somewhat absurd. Look, the guy may be annoying, but he isn't harming anyone. (I do agree with earlier posts on bike/car safety and that it is a major issue- as I also encounter uneducated bicyclists and MV drivers, but am not going to get into that topic at this time) The point is, to suggest a person creating no pollution instead take up creating pollution is just plain silly.

I am sorry that you and Bridget are quick to think that I am on some environmentalist agenda. The point is people are making lifestyle choices that are healthy, not only for them, but for others around them. Give them a break. I am happy to see people riding their bikes car-pooling, or taking mass transit when possible. I wish I could do the same, but due to a car accident two years ago, I don't have that choice.

On a side note, I again thank LAW for bringing the dumping scandal to light. I live only a short distance up the river from the dumping site and as a parent of a child with asthma, I have always been concerned about the pollutants that harm her health. But my concern doesn't make me an overzealous environmentalist, it just makes me an aware and concerned citizen. Instead of poking fun at the perhaps goofy middle aged guy who doesn't REALLY need to wear a helmet (interesting thing to research- the fact that bicycle helmets have NOT decreased the # of deaths from MV vs. bicycle related accidents) or ride on the sidewalk, just think positive, he isn't harming the air we breathe.

Enough said.

Best wishes, and keep up the good work on bringing the unreported topics in GR to light.
Sincerely,
Theresa Milanowski

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Theresa.

I think you misunderstood the tone of the original article. It was tongue-in-cheek. I think it is fine that people use bicycles for transportation. I understand how is makes sense for many in an urban area.

However, since our discussion about the article has ensued, there is a serious point to be addressed. Public safety is more important than a clean environment. Indeed, a clean environment has critical importance only to the extent that it is public safety issue. So if a bicyclist cannot operate his bike with being a traffic hazard, then it would be best for him to either walk or drive a car.

So, if public safety is the criterion, I'm not sure we really are all that far apart on priorities.

Regards, Bill

P.S. Thank you for the kind words about our work here at L.A.W.

[Bell]

I was searching for posts on either fitness and cycling when I came across this blog. Not quite what i was looking for but I will give it **** for effort.

[Bridget Dupont-Tingley, Editor L.A.W.]

Thanks for the positive feedback Bell. Nice to know we were an unexpected surprise to you.

Regards,

Bridget