BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Ugh......

Ditto Ugh!

Further research reveals that this was a guy who rode often, wore all the proper gear (including helmet and reflective clothing), is reported to have been almost annoying in his determination to obey EVERY traffic sign, and took (and encouraged others he rode with, to take) bike safety education courses. Accident occured at 4:30 in the afternoon. So sad.

Pertinent quote I've seen floating about:

The best way not to be noticed is to wear urban camouflage - hi viz clothing, lots of lights and reflectors and a helmet.

--attributed to Dr. Tony Raven of Cambridge.

Also, meh.

here's another article:

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-bethlehem-bike-crash-20111207,0,2460559.story

it says: Ytsma was riding his bicycle south on the Fahy Bridge at about 4:30 or 5 p.m. Sunday when he was struck by a car driven by 79-year-old Lucille DeMartin of Center Valley.

So sad.

79 year old driver.... sounds like this will be labeled an "unfortunate accident" if any charges are filled. However, how much of an "accident" is it to hit a cycling from the rear?!?

Ugh

@bikeygirl, are you suggesting that the driver hit the cyclist intentionally? We can certainly hold people responsible for recklessness or carelessness that results in the death or injury of others, but unless it was done on purpose, it's still an accident. Killing someone with your car because you didn't pay attention is a terrible thing, but it's not murder.

Nope.... didn't suggest that. And I did not suggest that the accident was on-purpose or due to malice.

I personally do not believe that "reckless driving" is an accident. If someone is not driving carefully that is no accident, one is choosing to not be careful on the road -period. "Accidents" due to reckless driving are avoidable -technically.

In the news report it says the cyclist was hit from the back, meaning the driver should have seen the rider. That's all I'm saying.

the thing is, these cases usually don't see any charges filed. not even reckless driving, involuntary manslaughter, etc.

they are usually brushed off as an "accident" with no repercussions, so what incentive is there for people to drive less when you might not be able to see correctly, your reaction time has slowed, you're talking on your celly, you're a speedy teen driver, or you are wearing improper footwear.

I'll put $5 on "the sun was in my eyes".

@Edmonds.....my thoughts exactly.

All of that is fine, but everyone keeps putting "accident" in quotes, implying that it wasn't really an accident. If it wasn't done on purpose, then it was an accident, no quotes needed - that's all I'm saying. A lot of people on this board call for blood (well, long prison sentences anyway) in these cases, as if the driver had done something malicious that was deserving of severe punishment.

I agree that distracted and careless driving are a huge problem, but throwing the book at people isn't the solution. The problem is that the vast majority of distracted driving doesn't actually result in accident, so there's no way to fine or punish people for it, and without consistency, fines/punishments have very little effect (as we see with virtually all traffic laws). We have to grapple with this issue in some other way than simply condemning the sliver of bad drivers whose bad driving actually ends up killing someone. Suspending licenses is probably a good way to go (and one that gets mentioned a lot on this board as well), but you can do you that without the morally accusatory language.

@edmonds, to your comment, what if the sun really was in her eyes. An old or dirty windshield can be tough to see through when the sun is at the wrong angle, even dangerously so, but then what do we do about that? I'm not sure I can think of a good answer that isn't massively intrusive or restrictive.

Yikes, long post, sorry.

If this person was driving with a windshield that was in poor condition, or dirty, or didn't have washer fluid, or crappy wipers, or didn't have the right glasses, whatever - that's pretty much negligent operation, and inexcusable. Any person who is issued a drivers licence should be aware that at some point you will encounter a condition where you are driving into the sun.

I dunno. I'm not 79 years old, but I have definitely had the experience of rounding a bend and literally being blinded by the sun, causing me to fumble for the visor, or frantically try to shield my eyes enough to see. Every time I breathed a sigh of relief that there was not anyone or anything on the road in front of me in those moments.

If something had happened in one of those moments, would I have been criminally negligent? I am aware that the sun shines (even in Pittsburgh), and that sometimes it might get in my eyes, but operating a motor vehicle with that knowledge doesn't protect me from being blinded on occasion.

If this person was driving with a windshield that was in poor condition, or dirty, or didn't have washer fluid, or crappy wipers, or didn't have the right glasses, whatever - that's pretty much negligent operation, and inexcusable. Any person who is issued a drivers licence should be aware that at some point you will encounter a condition where you are driving into the sun.

Demonstrate that none of those conditions were factors and I might concede that, my, my, it was simply a tragic accident. I find our current law enforcement system far too quick to excuse preventable conditions as "accidents".

Ever ride your bike straight into the rising, or setting, sun? I find it to be pretty much a non-issue, without that windshield. It's astounding what a clean windshield, inside and out, can do.

"Flip-flop caught on a pedal": preventable.

"The sun" : not preventable.

"Texting while driving": preventable.

"High-beams in my eyes from oncoming traffic": not preventable.

Black and white: absolutes.

Gray: reality.

IMHO.

"I find our current law enforcement system far too quick to excuse preventable conditions as "accidents"."

What part of that statement implies absolutes?

In fact, it is implicit in that statement that there is a sliding scale, and on that scale, in "accidents" such as this where a human life has been lost(there are those dang quotes again), IMHO law enforcement puts far too little effort into penetrating the fog of reality.

@edmonds: you seem intent on applying absolutes. Good luck with that. It's a messy world, and unfortunately accidents happen. Laws and those enforcing and prosecuting them are imperfect, too.

Cars hit cars and people die. Cars hit inanimate objects and people die. Cars also from time to time hit people on bicycles, and unfortunately people die. Not every time a car and bicycle collide is the result of an illegal or criminally negligent act or omission.

79 year old woman at the wheel...

I hate to put out blanket statements and jump to conclusions, but most people at that age aren't working with a full deck. Reaction time is way below what's needed to operate a vehicle, and some just aren't thinking. There aren't many "good" drivers that late in their life. I know Paul Newman raced cars into his 80s, and even won the 24 Hours of Daytona when he was 79, but he's a very obvious exception.

Aging sucks, and losing your independence at that age is even worse, but something needs to be done. Driver re-testing at a certain age would be prudent, but politicians are afraid of losing the senior vote and never visit the issue. Until someone acts, beware of cars plowing through banks, bike shops, intersections, crowds of people, cyclists, etc.

Google maps indicates that the accident was on a long bridge, two lanes in each direction, with virtually no shoulder. The bridge runs pretty much due north-south. (New Street/Fahy Bridge for anyone wanting to check it out.) You'd have to take the lane here. And with multiple off ramp options on at least one end of the bridge, I can see where some fender benders (and unfortunate bike accidents) might occur. I am not making excuses here, just noting that this is probably not a place where someone unfamilar with the area might expect to see a cyclist, and if he were switching lanes to the left to continue straight ahead, as opposed to staying in the right, exit only lane, there could be some confusion, misinterpretation of speed, whatever.

There is a sidewalk on one side of the bridge. You can see at least one pedestrian on it. If I were the poor cyclist, I'd probably have opted for the sidewalk, surface conditions permitting.

But, in the cyclist's defense, there appear to be trails on either end of the bridge - D&L Trail on the north and the ___ Greenway on the south. Cyclists should be fairly common in the area. (Not all that helpful if the poor woman driving was unfamiliar with the area, of course.)

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fahy+Bridge,+Bethlehem,+PA&hl=en&ll=40.616738,-75.378807&spn=0.000033,0.013497&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.554089,55.283203&vpsrc=0&hnear=Fahy+Bridge,+Bethlehem,+Lehigh,+Pennsylvania+18018&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.616836,-75.378831&panoid=bdwewak5apvXcq64LW0R2Q&cbp=12,145.6,,0,-10.58

This will probably be the last I post on this thread, as there is little I can offer in the way of explanaton or excuse.

But, in checking out the circumstances of the accident, I found his obit. I thought you'd all like to see it. Check out paragraphs 3 and 5, in particular.

Headline: Patrick B. Ytsma

Patrick B. Ytsma, 53, of Bethlehem, died December 8, 2011, at St. Lukes Hospital, Fountain Hill campus, after being struck by a car while riding his bicycle. He was the husband of Judith B. Parr, with whom he shared 23 years of marriage.

Born in Oklahoma City, OK, Patrick was a son of Bill T. R. and Itie (Velds) Ytsma. He was an architect for Spillman Farmer Architects, Bethlehem.

Pat would want everyone to know that bicycles have the same legal rights to the road as cars. Please treat bicyclists with respect.

Survivors: Parents; wife; children, Willem and Caroline; brothers, Pieter and Powell; sister, Donita, wife of Andy Marze; sisters-in-law, Caroline and Louise Parr; Elizabeth Parr, wife of Ed Reibman; nieces and nephews.

Services: Saturday 11 a.m. at Bachman, Kulik & Reinsmith Funeral Home, 17th & Hamilton Streets, Allentown. Burial will follow at Fountain Hill Cemetery, in the green section. Call10 to 11 a.m. at the funeral home. Bicyclists are invited to follow with their bikes to the cemetery. This will be the very first green burial in the Lehigh Valley.

Contributions: In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to Judith B. Parr, for the purpose of establishing educational funds for their children. Donations may be mailed or delivered to the funeral home, 1629 Hamilton Street, Allentown, PA 18102.

So far, nobody has asked the question, What was this person doing needing to use an automobile to get from one place to another? Was this, in fact, an issue of inadequate public transit? Why does anyone, ever, need to drive anywhere, anytime? I less place the blame on the 79yo driver, and more on things that took place months or years ago. It's a societal thing that caused the needing of getting from A to B to require using a car. Had it not been the 79yo, it would've been the 46yo businessman in the car behind her. Who knows? But if car usage would please go down, then the occurrences of cars hitting bicycles, buildings, each other, would also go down.

Don't fight it, Stu, things are the way they are, we are powerless dust motes against the winds of fate. C'est la vie.

I blame Eisenhower.

My apologies Stu, I hope you understand that was entirely sarcastic. It's a bright beautiful morning, and time to go saddle faithful Rocinante.

@edmonds: "Sancho! My sword!"

I don't know this bridge, or this area at all, but one thing struck me in the comments on the article that i posed above.

someone said "The side of the bridge Patrick was on has two lanes with the right lane marked with sharrows to alert drivers that this is a shared lane. "

WillB - i understand where you're coming from. but what about the other drivers who managed to see a fully reflective and lighted cyclist on a straightaway with sharrows not into the sunlight and didn't hit him? dunno, kinda brings the skills and ability of the driver into question, and i there for stand by my use of quotations around the word "accident."

WillB, Many of us call for retesting to renew your license and this is why. It's likely she didn't have the reflexes, skills, or even knew the law anymore.

She didn't do it on purpose, but she should never be allowed to drive again. She's proven that she doesn't have the ability but that won't happen unless her family takes her keys away.

There is no accountability for shitty driving so it just goes on and on and on.

how to tell the greatest generation what they have made is not what we want?

Our society is F’d up: if you have alcohol in your system and drive without swerving etc. but are unlucky enough to come upon a DUI checkpoint - you may go to jail. Drive with absolutely no alcohol in your system but your flip-flop is loose, or the sun is in your eyes, or your face is into your phone, etc. – and you kill a person? Oh that’s not your fault.

And I am not saying that driving with alcohol in your system is ok. It is NOT ok. I’m trying to say that we need to start treating these other negligent activities as harshly as we treat DUI. Hypothetically – a 79 year old confused lady with a dirty windshield driving into the sun = DUI as far as driving ability is concerned. You should be in control of your vehicle at all times. Is the sun in your eyes? Slow down or even stop if you have to.

Would you rather have a drunk coming up behind you or a teenager texting their friend? That’s right; you don’t want either of them on the road – so let’s start treating them the same!

I’m one of those cyclists who goes way over the top with blinkies, safety vest, etc. just like this cyclist appears to have been. We’re not doing the minimum reflectors required; we’re doing everything we can to be seen. I personally feel as though I’m trying to do the drivers around me a favor by making myself visible to them. I’m helping them to not have an “accident” (and yes that word needs to be in quotes!). My sympathy goes out to Mr. Ytsma’s family, and my anger goes out to this driver! No mater how nice of a lady she may be.

There is a reason trauma centers refer to them as "MVCs" and not "MVAs" anymore. the explanation I got boiled down to "most of the time the crash was due to reckless driving or other preventable negligence and wasn't truly accidental."

As a society we seem to have a hard time distinguishing between unintended consequences due to poor decision making and accidents that are truly outside of our reasonable control.

The problem is that the vast majority of distracted driving doesn't actually result in accident, so there's no way to fine or punish people for it

The infrequency of being caught or punished justifies a harsher punishment so that (on average) the expected value of the outcome will be at the level to produce the right incentives.

@sloaps -- I suspect the greatest generation was interested mostly in making whatever they thought they wanted to make without thinking about or caring about whether it was something anyone else could use. They were well trained to believe you had to live in the suburbs, you had to have a car to drive to do anything, you had to buy all your food prepared for you at the grocery store. Why not? They were properous enough to afford it.

I suspect if you pointed this out to them they wouldn't know what you were talking about and would be offended that we miserable ingrates don't appreciate this wonderful construct they were persuaded to build for themselves.

What a tragedy; my heart goes out to the Ytsma family. As for fault, liability, punishment, etc., what marko and ieverhart (among others) said are completely in line with my views.

if I may - I think the Great-Gen were trying to do the best they could for themselves and their families; they saw their issues and their means and did what they thought was best. Turns out, there were long-term implications and costs they weren't prescient about. (see: Marcellus Shale)

With what we know now, standing on their shoulders, we think we see a better way. That doesn't mean it was evident to them in their time, or that they were brainwashed to a different degree than the contemporary consumer society. The Great-Gen-Geezers did pretty well.

It's our turn to see our issues and our means and do what we think is best. Which is perhaps all anybody can do.

We do need to get a handle on accountability for shitty driving. We do need (IMO) to shift to an understanding that roads aren't for cars - roads are for people - and it's not cars-vs-bikes per se as much as it is people - people walking, people bicycling, people driving, and we shouldn't be routinely killing each other "by accident" and considering it acceptable or normal.

< / personal opinion flag off>

And back to the main topic, Bicycling lost a great advocate, a family lost a good man, and I have given some thought to his notion that we're all Ambassadors when we're riding in public.

Peace and Best to All, V.

Technically, this woman is not part of the "Greatest Generation". And I think some are unfairly bashing people because of their age.

Regardless, all drivers should be re-tested frequently (every 3 years sounds good to me). Physical and mental capacities break down at different times for different people.

@vannevar - +1 to your personal opinion rant.

That's the other part of it. No one can ever be sure as they do something that what they think they are doing and what they actually are doing are the same thing.

Look at all the times people say, "But I never meant for this to happen!!" Like reaching down to pull a flip-flop loose from underneath the accelerator of your truck.

BTW I think that there will be consequences for the driver even if it is ruled to be an accident. The driver's insurance should still pay, quite a bit, and there may be other civil liabilities.

Back on the Don Parker thread, we tossed around various ways of causing people to get wiser about their driving. One of the better ones is to randomly select 1 in 20 for a re-test of the written test at time of renewal, making sure the test asks about changes in traffic law, and respect of bikes & pedestrians. Then 1 in 20 of those 1 in 20 gets randomly selected for a long form written test, asking 100 questions instead of the usual couple dozen. Cases of six-point infractions trigger an automatic invocation of the 100-question test in order to retain license.

Put all the questions and correct answers out on the web so people can study them, test or not. Just the threat of having the dreaded long form test will cause people to brush up on their knowledge of the rules. That will benefit everyone.

I don't think this woman (or flip-flop boy) thought it was legal to run a cyclist over. Although, it more or less is.

Regarding the insurance Jona mentioned above, a real issue for us as cyclists is that nearly every driver on the road is "underinsured" in the context of a serious car-on-bike accident given the nature of personal injuries that can be inflicted and the cost of medical treatment.

When I renewed my license after I started wearing glasses the attendant noticed I was wearing them and asked me to re-take the vision test. I now have to wear corrective lenses when I drive, it says so on my license. How many people renew their license and can't see?

Maybe it's 1 in 20 like Stu suggests until retirement age. After that you have to pay for and take the drivers test again.

@rsprake - I'm in total agreement on frequent license retesting (and more rigorous testing to begin with) as well as suspending/taking away licenses for bad driving. I just don't think that being a bad driver makes one a bad person deserving of severe punishment. Our goal should be to prevent further accidents, not to inflict retribution on the people who cause the accidents

@ieverhart - Where does the logic of harsh punishments stop then? Should we put people in prison for littering just because it's hard to catch them doing it? The punishment has to fit the crime, which (to my original point) is why it's important to acknowledge that most of these cases are accidents. They are frequently avoidable, and are often caused by carelessness or distraction, but I don't put those things in the same moral category as actually intentionally harming someone.

Our goal should be to prevent further accidents, not to inflict retribution on the people who cause the accidents

I see them as one in the same. Drunk driving hasn't gone down on its own. Increased enforcement and punishment has caused the decrease.

I don't find the permanent revocation of the privilege of operating a motor vehicle to be excessively harsh in the case of the taking of a human life, except in the most clearly extenuating circumstances such as unforeseen mechanical failure or severe fault in the roadway.

The burden should be on the vehicle operator to prove that there were factors involved that were beyond their control, and not on the state to find negligent operation of the vehicle, to allow prosecution. It's ass-backwards as it is.

Ooofff....

I think that littering on the street and killing someone are VERY far stretches for comparison.

So, "the punishment has to fit the crime" you say...... killing someone for driving recklessly a 5-ton machine is beyond an "accident"..... I really think that it should be called what it really is: Involuntary Manslaughter.

Once again, I'm not saying the driver meant to kill the cyclist, but if they did KILL the cyclist while being unfit/careless driver, that's manslaughter -just involuntarily.

@WillB: I'd guess that in most "accidents", the problem is certainly not one of malicious intent, but of carelessness or inattention.

That said, operating any dangerous machine in an unsafe manner should be penalized. It's no more a leap to say that inattentive drivers should be punished (at least by taking away their right to drive) than it is to say that someone casually discharging firearms in an unsafe manner should be punished, even if they don't happen to be actively aiming at someone.

When someone has lost control of their dangerous machine and harms someone else as a result, the burden of proof should be more on the operator than the victim.

Personally, I'm not in favor of jail time for people who are not committing malicious crimes, but that's just me. I am in favor of revoking the right to operate a motor vehicle for an extended period of time (10 years to life sounds good, depending) for anyone who has demonstrated an inability to do so safely. (And, of course, to implement penalties such that getting caught driving sans license actually hurts...kinda pointless otherwise, really.)

I was hit by a driver who didn't look before making a turn. I was all the way across the street when she hit me and on the police report says that she made a careless turn. I was sent to the hospital on a stretcher and she was driving the next day. There is something very wrong with that.

Where does the logic of harsh punishments stop then? Should we put people in prison for littering just because it's hard to catch them doing it? The punishment has to fit the crime, which (to my original point) is why it's important to acknowledge that most of these cases are accidents. They are frequently avoidable, and are often caused by carelessness or distraction, but I don't put those things in the same moral category as actually intentionally harming someone.

So, there is some ideal level of punishment for any given crime. (Play along here.) For simple littering, it might be a dollar: and people are willing to pay a dollar for the privilege of littering. They are "caught" (or self-report) and there is no dishonesty in the system. OK. That's the model.

But in the real world, there isn't 100% enforcement or self-reporting. So if there were a 50% chance of getting caught, to preserve that same level of expected deterrent, you would set the penalty at $2, so that on average, you would still pay $1 for each time you litter. Now there's a 10% chance you get caught, and the fine should be somewhere in the neighborhood of $100. And so on. There's also a non-linearity to it because people are risk averse and might go well out of their way to avoid littering even though rationally they should be able to get away with it.

Extend this to these other scenarios. In a world of perfect enforcement, you would have some penalty for bad driving, and you would pay it every time you did something dumb. We don't live in that world, but we can replicate some of its effects by balancing probability of punishment with the scale of punishment. So that if there's only a 1/10,000 chance of getting caught for any given instance of dumb driving, that one time you do get caught should have a penalty about 10,000 times what it "should" be.

Setting these ratios of probabilities and penalties will encourage the right levels of precaution. When these sorts of collisions are preventable, drivers should have the right incentives to do what's needed to prevent them.

@ieverhart - I just think the probability of getting getting caught for any given act of distracted or careless driving is so vanishingly small that in order to have an appropriately scaled punishment, we would have to resort to life-ruining fines or substantial prison time. At some point, the punishment is just not morally appropriate for the crime. Revoking driver's licenses and mandating community service seems to me like an appropriate punishment for causing a fatal crash. 10 years in prison or million dollar fine does not.

I know that in this thread no one has actually talked specifically about prison time, but it has certainly come up in previous threads, and it strikes me as a wild over-reaction that does a disservice to the greater goal of reducing these types of incidents. The fact of the matter is that there are far too many cars, bikes and pedestrians in the world for us to ever have enough enforcement to shape behavior with legal deterrent alone. I'd rather see a focus on things like better driver's ed and safer infrastructure instead of calling for the head of every driver who hits somebody.

re: "There's also a non-linearity to it because people are risk averse and might go well out of their way to avoid littering even though rationally they should be able to get away with it."

The theory falls apart because responsible people have much to lose and are risk averse, but some segment of the population has very little to lose and have no risk aversion at all. A relative of a relative of mine was hit (in a car) and had both ankles broken by an individual who was driving on a suspended license from a previous DUI, had no insurance, no bank account, owns nothing, and was immediately arrested at the accident for the previous thing. There is no possibility of recovering any damages from this individual, this person should not even be walking around free.

Revoking driver's licenses and mandating community service seems to me like an appropriate punishment for causing a fatal crash. 10 years in prison or million dollar fine does not.

I don't think prison is appropriate for something that wasn't deliberate, but letting the driver drive the next day isn't either.

What edmonds describes - a person who is "judgment proof" - accurately describes an all-too-real scenario where the civil law system offers little deterrent to irresponsible conduct. I also think that Ian has it right in pointing out that the criminal law needs to impose sufficient penalties - whether in jail time of some modest length, lost licenses, financial penalties, or some combination, to create a bigger downside to negligent driving than what presently exists. At some point - and I don't know where it is - a higher punishment can be set to hopefully decrease the daily bloodbath on our roads without being draconian or costing a fortune to taxpayers. Maybe the problem will solve itself when gas hits $8 per gallon. But I would just as soon see some increased penalties and enforcement in the meantime.

I'd like to see some minimal attention paid to getting people who are no longer qualified to drive off the road. I don't know if that was the case with the 79 year old who killed this guy in Lehigh Valley, but my wife's grandmother, before she died, was an accident waiting to happen. She drove off the road a couple of times, messing up the neighbor's shrubbery. Her daughter, my wife's mother, tried to get a doctor to pull her license, but he wouldn't do it -- this was in Ohio. Minimal attention to ensuring that the people behind the wheels of cars are competent would go a long way towards making the roads safer for everyone -- not just cyclists.

if anyone on here is in the bethlehem area, or wants to go, there is a memorial ride scheduled.

Bad things happen. You can't legislate against being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's sad, but that's Life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q80_BtDpkbk

BTW, on legislation: HB 170 (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=170), if passed, would require drivers to give us 3 feet when passing. So the driver who killed Patrick Ytsa would have been breaking this law, as would the driver who ran down those doctors from Children's Hospital last May. It might be worth asking your state representative to take a look at this bill.

4 feet. Even better.

§ 3303. Overtaking vehicle on the left.

(a) General rule.--The following rules shall govern the

overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same

direction, subject to the limitations, exceptions and special

rules stated in this chapter:

* * *

(3) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a

pedalcycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the

left of the pedalcycle within not less than four feet at a

careful and prudent reduced speed

The thing about Patrick's death that upsets me the most is that I've always thought the Lehigh Valley was pretty safe for cycling.

I lived there for five years and that's when I got into bikes. Not sure if anyone has spent time there, but cycling is more common than in the Burgh (I think more rural roads to take to avoid traffic and forgiving hills).

I've always felt that drivers there are more used to seeing bikes on the road. I had fewer scary car incidents there in five years than I've had here in three.

It's just awful. It really shakes me up that this happened to a safe, experienced cyclist in that area.

There are some interesting wrinkles to the 3 ft. passing law that the PA Pedalcycle Advisory Committee is currently struggling with. One is that they question whether a 3 ft (or 4 ft) mandate is really useful, in the sense that in terms of citation, it almost requires a law enforcement officer to have a tape measure and be able to recreate the observed incident. Their question is whether "safe passing distance" is a better guide. Lots of discussion back and forth.

The other question was enforcement. I can find three or four cases (nationally) in which this 3 ft. passing law resulted in driver citation. All cases (I think) were of citations issued following a vehicle on bicycle crash in which a cyclists was hurt (including beign the only citation issued in the death of an experienced cyclist in Wisconsin last year, which I posted on this board, with updates on the inquiry).

If this sort of legislation is enforced ONLY following a serious accident, the detractors argue, why do we need it? Can't the motor vehicle operator simply be charged with failure to yield, unsafe passing or ????

I really need your thoughts on this one. I first heard of the PPAC uncertainty on this yesterday, and I've been trying to wrap my head awround their thinking ever since. I need ammunition to support a stance, one way or another.

Thanks, in advance. I know I can count on all of your to share your passionate and/or well reasoned thoughts on the matter.

Even if this sort of thing is only enforced following a crash, at least the driver is charged with SOMETHING -- as you point out, the driver in the Wisconsin case would not have been charged with anything otherwise.

Think of the case of the Children's Hospital doctors who were run down on Washington Boulevard last May. Right up to the point where the driver caused the crash and drove away, he hadn't committed any chargeable offense. That's just wrong.

A 3 (or 4) foot law would be a standard that would have soem effect.

1) Some law-abiding drivers would give more room to cyclists.

2) An angry cyclist would be able to shout "IT'S THE LAW!" at drivers who violate.

3) The law would re-enforce the idea that bikes are allowed on the streets.

4) It could be used to prosecute at least one violation when a car hits a cyclist.

Probably other obvious things I'm forgetting.

@ Mick, another element that was pointed out in the discussion is that it gives young drivers, who lack on the road experience to judge "safe distance" a standard from which to operate/base their behavior.

I Am Not A Lawyer, but PA law (§ 3732.1. Aggravated assault by vehicle) seems to pretty clearly state that, if you recklessly/negligently hurt someone while violating any laws applying to vehicular operation, you may be charged with aggravated assault by vehicle. And we do have laws against both reckless (§ 3736. Reckless driving) and careless (§ 3714. Careless driving) driving, so hurting somebody while doing either would make it aggravated assault by vehicle. See http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/vehicle_code/chapter37.pdf for the legalese.

So, as has been pointed out many times in the past, it's not that we don't _have_ applicable law, it's that we don't _enforce_ it.

In general, I would argue that, if we don't enforce the laws we already have, there is little practical purpose to passing new ones, especially ones that are simultaneously very specific and very difficult to verify after the fact.

A functional downfall I can imagine to the law is that, I would bet there is a large segment of the population who have no idea what "4 feet" looks like, especially from 50 feet away and in a moving vehicle. I realize this is how other states have worded it, but it almost needs to be worded as "half a lane width to pass" or something. I can't think of a better way to gauge it. It would be interesting to do a "Man on the street" thing and ask random people to show "4 feet".

Re: Reddan, yes, I can barely think of a more reckless/negligent act than fishing for a flip flop on the floor of your car while driving, and yet our esteemed District Attorney failed to find cause to prosecute in that case. Bullshit.

Yeah. Somehow, the idea that 'lack of intent' indicates 'lack of responsibility' seems to have crept into our collective legal psyche.

I find it endlessly frustrating that the tools we need, legally speaking, to address a whole lot of the problems on the road are already at hand, but there is no societal desire to use them.

Think about it this way. If the driver in the Children's Hospital/Washington Boulevard case had stopped, rendered aid, and called the police, would he have been charged with anything--assuming he wasn't DUI? "I just didn't see them". Probably not. Because reckless driving depends on intent. You're not reckless simply because what you did resulted in an accident.

The 3-4 rule (the idea is to mimic the width of a rider's handlebars + rider, more or less, so it's easy to judge) would create an enforceable standard which would be easy to verify in this case. Because you can't hit a rider or run them off the road without coming closer than that.

Because reckless driving depends on intent

The classic example of "recklessness" in the legal sense of which I'm aware is that of someone randomly discharging a firearm in a public area. While there is not any intent of harming a specific individual, there is a disregard for the easily foreseeable effects of your actions.

So, no, I do not believe that intent is a factor required to meet the legal standards of either reckless or careless driving.

Heck, the very definition of carelessness implies lack of intent...no-one consciously decides to be careless (although I suppose they do at least subconsciously decide to behave recklessly.) Making bad decisions like passing too closely, is certainly carelessness.

My point is twofold:

1) With the existing laws regarding careless driving and reckless driving in conjunction with the law regarding aggravated assault by vehicle, we've already got the ability to charge a driver after an incident in any circumstance that the 3-foot law would provide, as well as plenty of circumstances that it does not.

2)We don't enforce many of the laws we already have; if we aren't even capable of dealing with ticketing people driving 55 in a 25, I don't believe we can realistically expect that we'll have cops watching out for people passing with insufficient space.

I also doubt that we'll see a lot of prosecutions for passing distance violations. Still, to add to what Mick said above, the law would be of some usefulness in the civil context insofar as it would provide more of a framework for assessing who is at fault when cars hit bikes. Regardless of whether there is a criminal prosecution, these assessments still have to be made by insurance adjusters, police officers, judges, juries, etc. The law re: safe passing distance may be another factor that "tips the scales" in favor of a proper result. Granted, that doesn't reverse an injury, but it does put a slightly better framework in place for resolving who is at fault.

The idea of some laws is not to punish the actual behavior you want to prohibit, but instead to punish some undesirable behavior which is necessary to the targeted behavior. So, for example, we have laws that say it is illegal to discharge a gun in city limits to keep people from shooting each other, even accidentally, as well as for the obvious reasons of noise, etc. It's the same sort of thing with the 3 foot rule. In order to prevent drivers from running us down, make a rule that -- hopefully -- will cause most drivers to give us lots of leeway, and make it easy to charge those who do run us down, whether or not they did it accidentally.

Just the news coverage about such a law's passage could tell some motorists that they're not leaving enough room. They're not retesting motorists when they renew their licenses, so any excuse to teach new behavior to drivers helps a little.

I believe I asked this before in a similar discussion of the passing law, but I'll bring it up again.

Does this apply in the reverse? Such as filtering. If a cyclist can be charged for moving into the 3 ft barrier, I could see this backfiring due to the social ill-will towards cyclists, from the law enforcement angle.

Bethlehem PA cyclists held a memorial ride for Patrick Ytsma on Thursday.

This photo shows them riding over the bridge he was killed on.

That's awesome.

I wonder why the night ride. It wasn't mentioned in the article, though I didn't check out every link or related thread. I like the idea. That makes it all the more awesome.

The creepy thing about this story is that Ytsma was 53, as I am, just as I was 52 at the time of death for Don Parker and Dr. Varacallo. In all cases, they were well known for doing the right thing, as I am. Riding visibly and predictably, as I do.

The next one? Could be me, could be any of us. Damn creepy.

Yep, same here. Don Parker commuted to work just the way I do, had three kids like me, was also a software developer, rode carefully -- way too much like me for comfort.

@Stu - I don't know why they did the memorial ride mid-week, but perhaps the date had some significance to the deceased, or the event? In any case, it may not have been a true "evening" ride. It gets dark early. Ae event that started at 5 or 6 could easily be happening in the dark for a portion of the ride. (And yes, I know you knew that.....I was just sharing perspective of a "late afternoon, just after work type ride being different from a "night ride."

As for the correlation in ages with so many of the recent victims, I am in the same situation you are, other than the fact that the previous victims you reference have all been men. I realize that I take a certain risk every time I get on my bike (or my scooter, or my rollerblades or .....) I can only go so far to protect myself, with proper equipment, high visability everything, predictability on the road, etc. That guarantees almost nothing about my safety. I do the best I can to protect myself while I live the life I want to live. Knocking wood, I hope that this time next year I can still say it has been 30+ years since I last had a bike accident or (road) bike related injury. And I hold the same "safe cycling" wish for all the rest of you out there......

I think you three are the norm, rather than them. I can't handle thinking otherwise.

Hm. There are lots of stats geeks on this board. I'm sure someone here can do a better job of analyzing this data than this old English major:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

In 2009 there were 30,797 motor vehicle crashes that resulted in fatalities (nationally). 33,808 total deaths resulted. Of those, 24,474 were either drivers or passengers. Among non-motorists, 4092 were pedestrians and 630 were cyclists (150 were "unknown.").

That year, cars drove 2.9 Billion miles. Of a "resident" population of 307 Million, there were 259 million registered vehicles and 209 million registered drivers.

Hm. I found this link which seems to provide the context I was searching for... please forgive the threadjack:

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIurRqi6ySw

This video actually does a pretty nice job of explaining the relative risks of different transportation modes. Short answer: if you look at deaths per mile traveled, cars are safer than bikes; if you look at deaths per hour of travel, bikes are a bit safer.

This of course comes with the caveat that estimates of bike miles traveled are extremely rough, but I think the video and included explanation (you need to expand the info section by clicking "show more") make a good attempt, and he's actually a bit high on the rate of motor vehicle deaths per 100 million miles.

I find this paragraph from the newspaper particularly troubling:

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2011/12/bethlehem_cyclist_patrick_ytsm.html

Um, the driver of the automobile drove over and killed a human being. He did not drop out of the sky into her path, nor did he run out between parked cars into her path. By the news accounts he was in front of the driver wearing ‘reflective clothing’ and she hit him. One of these two did SOMETHING wrong or this “accident” wouldn’t have happened.

I guess I’m going to start the new year pissed agin.

EDIT:

…asked Bethlehem Police Commissioner Jason Schiffer if Ytsma had a mirror when his accident occurred.

"Yes he did," he replied. "It [his bike] was equipped with a mirror on the left handlebar." Schiffer said Ytsma also was using a flashing red light on the back of his bike when he was mowed down.

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/news/n.cfm/cyclist-patrick-ytsmas-death-has-dark-irony

The 79-year-old woman who crashed into bicyclist Patrick Ytsma of Bethlehem, causing his death, has been cited with careless driving, according to court records.

http://articles.mcall.com/2011-12-29/news/mc-bethlehem-bicycle-ytsma-charges-20111229_1_bicycle-bethlehem-group-safety-courses

Yeah, that quote is exactly the root of the problem. It "just happened" - right. And of course who could possibly find any fault with a driver for not being able to avoid running over someone directly in their path?

I actually talked to someone from over there about the ride. He said that part of the reason for it being a night ride was to raise awareness that plenty of people ride bikes at night. Plus, logistically it worked well because people could make it to the ride, interrupting their commute home. Whereas many people need to make arrangements to make weekend rides.

I really wanted to make it out there, but I didn't get a chance. I did send a bunch of reflective sticker out there though.