Not a bad idea at all. Kinda like the Bell free helmet deal.

hey
i wrote to the mayor - here's the response:

Thank you for contacting my office with concerns regarding Saturday's terrible bicycle tragedy along Summit Avenue east of Snelling. We are deeply saddened by the passing of Virginia, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Heuer-Bowar family at this time.

We take the safety of all bicyclists very seriously in the City of Saint Paul. Please know that the Saint Paul Police Department is investigating the facts of the case. If the investigators believe there is enough evidence to warrant charges, they will present the case to Ramsey County or the City Attorney's Office for possible charges. The Saint Paul Police Department presents the evidence and they determine what, if any, charges should be applied.

In traffic accidents that result in death, the police department does not issue tickets at the scene as it may jeopardize the pending investigation.

This is a horrible tragedy for the Saint Paul community. We will move forward carefully, and take the appropriate steps to fully investigate the case.


Sincerely,

§¨©ª

Christopher B. Coleman
Mayor

So. Is anything any better now? I feel like we have done some good community building, but the city still doesn't do much for our safety and for punishing unsafe drivers. The response of the police to improve safety was seemingly hand out more tickets to cyclists. This, of course, could be part of the solution, but drivers still have a pretty free reign over most of the metro.

Has anybody ever heard of a ticket or even a traffic stop occuring due to a car passing a bike with less than 3 feet?

One person was convicted for hitting and killing a cyclist last year. That person was drunk, fled the scene, and crashed into another car. They got 27 months. Does anybody know of any criminal investigations into the other crashes? I know the search for Jimmy Nisser's killer is ongoing. As for the cases of Nik Morton, Ginny Nelson, and Dale Aanenson, there doesn't appear to be any sort of action being taken against the drivers.

My impression was that Nik Morton's death was an accident - a nasty, unfortunate accident. I work across the street from where he was hit, and with the one-way configuration, the LRT and the wonky lights (that stay red forever in both directions, anticipating a train that SO isn't there) contribute to a lot of jaywalking and very low visibility.

I've never seen anyone get pulled over for driving poorly around bikes, but I've never seen anyone get pulled over much of anything stupid they do. That's also something that's really difficult to witness from the vantage point of another car on the road, until the patrol is directly behind the offending vehicle.

I've been doing what I can to maintain the image of cyclists in the city. I obey all traffic rules, wear a helmet and a vest, let cars go first if we arrive at a stop sign together, signal diligently and wave when drivers let me in, and always wave/say hi to traffic cops directing traffic in and around the bike lane. I'm hoping manners and interaction will make cyclists seem more human, especially when we're all balaclava'd up this time of year.

When I was on a run through Dinkytown on Sunday, a car nearly hit me - didn't see me at ALL - as I was crossing 4th Street with a walk light, illegally turning on red. I was pissed off enough that I stood directly in front of the vehicle until the light turned green, pointing at the 'No Turn on Red' sign <-- that's the kind of diplomacy I reallyreallyreally try to avoid doing on a bike (and in general), because when someone does an asshole thing like that (even when they're right) and you already think they're an asshole, two assholes don't make a saint.

I wasn't there to witness it. The 2 people I've talked to who were, however, said the cop seemed to have decided who was at fault (Nik) when he got there.

In my opinion, they should pull the driver's cell phone records and see if he was driving distractedly when the crash occured. There isn't a law against cell phone use in drivers 18 and older in place (though there is a bill in the Senate to create such a law), but there certainly is a law against reckless driving. This driver dragged Nik a ways before he realized he had hit him.

ISTR reading somewhere that side impacts are one of the more common forms of motor vehicle/bicycle accidents that results in a fatality.

While some of this is idiocity on a driver's behalf (bike or motor vehicle), and some of this is misjudging the speed, a bike coming from a cross street is less visible and, at night, difficult to recognize as a bike.

ETA: This is in reply to ciechano's account in Dinkytown. Dunno the entire circumstances of the Nik accident.

Like I said, I was running and he had a No Turn on Red. If you can't see and recognize a road sign, day (which it was) or night, you really shouldn't be on the road.



I'm sorry, but that seems like a horrible way to deal with it, not least of all because there are approximately 1,000 ways to be distracted behind a wheel that don't involve a cell phone. If the department thought there was cause to investigate further I honestly think they would have. Also, how do you know they didn't? I think it's fair to assume we don't get the complete scoop on investigations. If he was riding on 5th Street, which I think he was, I find it very easy to believe it was 100% an accident. That street, and intersection, is horrible for bikes and pedestrians, and even when no one is at fault, cars always win.

I'm sorry that, from your account, the police officer approached the situation the way he did, but us assuming a driver is at fault is no better than the officer assuming the cyclist was at fault.

I'm not saying the auto was legally right, but I'm saying that, from a safety perspective, many drivers can and will make a right turn on a red light, even with a "no turn on red" sign if they don't see anything coming.

Not can, just will. And again, cars that can't see anything approaching their driver's side within the crosswalk their car is entering really, REALLY need to get off the road.

So we investigate the ones the we can gather evidence for, and worry about the 999 other ways if there's evidence for any of those.



Like St. Paul hasn't with Virginia Nelson, where it was discovered by how far she was launched that the driver was doing 35mph at a stop sign in a 25mph zone. Granted, these are different departments, but I have very little faith in either.



I guess I can't know if there is a investigation. Neither city attorney has returned my correspondence, though it has been a while.



He was hit on 5th Street between Nicollet and Hennepin. There is no way to pass a bike with 3 feet clearance there. I suppose Nik could have been biking on the train tracks and skipped off in front of the driver. What concerns me is he drug Nik a distance and didn't know until bystanders screamed at him.


I'm not assuming the driver was at fault. I just want to know one way or the other as a result of a reasonably thorough investigation. I can't abide by the sentiment that it's a dangerous section, so it must have been an accident. Following that attitude, drivers can drive wrecklessly there with immunity and blame the layout when things go bad.

I wandered by there on my lunch break, and was unable to see if there are any police cameras east of Hennepin. There is one at Hennepin and 5th, but it's pointed NW.

"Auto/bike collisions are 'accidents' and ergo, nobody is at fault.

Plus none of these would have happened if the bikes stayed on sidewalks and bicycle paths."

That's probably what the investigators are thinking.

But not what I said. Also, love how you project negative assumptions of cyclists into the mouths of people you view negatively. How is that AT ALL productive? What does that do? Does that produce solutions? Does that foster good will? Open channels of respectful communication?

I will strongly advocate for cyclists rights, but I truly think that vilifying police and civil servants is THE most ass-backward way to do it. Simple fact is that in all three accidents we cannot change what has happened, we can only advocate for -and demand - improvement in the future; I believe this includes a continued, *respectful* effort to encourage that both cities investigate the drivers' possible errors, if they have not already done so. I have never, ever had a negative encounter with any employee of either city, particularly regarding transportation matters. Until that happens, I will continue to treat them with respect; should I have a bad experience, I truly hope I will act in a way that is still respectful of them.

I'm not projecting anything.

http://www.startribune.com/local/297254 ... LanchO7DiU



You say we should demand changes in the future. This means holding public officials accountable to produce justice when bike-car collisions occur in their city. This also means following up when justice seems to have forgotten past incidents.

You can question and even challenge authority while still respecting it. I'd advocate a form of respect that is more than *yes, officer, whatever you think is best* which is just patronizing.

I've been pulled over threee times on my bike. Twice was 100% my fault (biking on Nicollet and crossing an intersection a couple seconds before my light was green). Once was due to profiling during the RNC (the officer said they were looking for people on bikes; ridiculous). I have a nuanced opinion of law enforcement: some cops are idealists who risk their jobs to make a positive difference, some are pragmatists just doing their jobs, and some are sadistic bullies with an outlet for power and violence.

Thank you for the clarification; I understand your viewpoint a lot better now.

I don't take the same tone you do from that quote (I read it more as, "Cyclists, obey the rules; drivers, don't be so resentful of bikes on the road, and start looking for them"). It's also pretty much the party line for any incident involving a bike, I've noticed.

I did say we should follow-up on the accidents that have already occurred. I also didn't mean to imply that blindly obeying officers is always appropriate; what I was going for was that we shouldn't project a disposition onto city officials before we interact with them. We shouldn't assume we were pulled over by a bike-hating cop until the officer acts that way, not least of all because doing so might seem standoffish and inspire a standoffish reaction from the officer. A nuanced approach is the best approach, obviously, but I think some people approach nuance from the direction of optimism ("probably has good motives - let's see) and some from pessimism ("I don't trust this, but we'll see").

Bicyclist dies from an accident -> "Bicyclists need to obey traffic laws"

Imagine if cops said similar things about other victims.