BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

a 30-45 yo black female in a gold midsized GM SUV

I don't feel bad generalizing here -- I keep an eye out for all 30-45 yo black females in gold midsized GM SUVs.

I keep an eye out for everything. I never thought I'd have an issue over stopping at a sign though.

That came out differently than I intended; I just copy/pasted. It's mostly the "gold SUV" portion of the statement that gets to me.

I keep an eye out for all ages, races, and genders of people in all types of vehicles. I haven't ever noticed any pattern as far as which ones are the idiots trying to kill me vs not.

That's a pretty messed up story, glad it didn't turn out worse. Hope they find the scumbag and actually take some kind of action, which unfortunately seems unlikely.

The first actual "tap" incident after the TonyK thing on the radio a week or two back, and this certainly doesn't sound like she's TonyK's target audience. Sure acted like it, though.

And is it just me, or does anyone else think the letters and numbers on PA's license plate font are so stupidly difficult to discern quickly? "G" vs. "C", "M" vs. "W", "K" vs. "X", others.

It's unlikely that they will find her, but I think if they did this officer would do something. She was (impressively) very professional.

Seriously thinking about a helmet cam for the commute. I mostly worry more about drivers on phones these days rather than the random aggro dbag, tho both are real threats. When something does happen, I generally shout out the license plate number so the driver can hear it, and so I can remember it.

Damn, that's my hood.

It's my hood too.

Even given the failure of a letter or two, there shouldn't be more than one vehicle that is a gold SUV registered in SWPA ending in 9274. It's hard to believe that the DOT's search function doesn't do "fuzzy matches". Especially given that vehicular assault is a felony.

Holy shit what the hell is wrong with people. Glad to hear the police actually helped you out. I had a very similar thing happen to me last summer downtown and I ended up calling 911 3 times over the course of 4 hours before a officer finally came out to help me. She told me they canceled the 2 first calls but didn't know why. Good thing I didn't need a ambulance huh. The woman that came after me was also about 35-40, black and drove a GMC envoy. Hers was a different color and plate number but who knows could be the same person and they are driving a different SUV now.

Here's a good response to keep in mind; "All roads are bike lanes, asshat." (invective and inflection per personal preference)

I was a victim of agrivated assault while riding my bike many years ago. Long story short, when I got a copy of the police report it was all screwed up. When I called to complain and correct the report, the reply was "We're not going to catch the guys so why do you care?"

So, I suspect this is part of the attitude that lead to Willie's first two calls being canceled. with no expectation of an arrest, citation or conviction, the cops don't want to bother because those sorts of things mess up their stats.

Now that I think about it, we may have run into this woman before, there was an incident at Crit Mass a couple of years ago that sounds strikingly similar.

Not to diminish the seriousness of your incident, but it's sad, for this person and people like her (drivers). This "gold SUV" is probably her proudest possesion, her crowning achievement, her identity, and a punk on a bike is challenging to that. Can you imagine the abysmal emptiness of the ownership of a vehicle being your proudest moment? I was just reading somewhere (can't remember, to cite it) that you have to hate the infrastructure, the policies, and the societal framework that puts people in that position, that makes these vehicles the opiate. But don't hate the people. For the most part they are not even aware that they are stuck in this framework, or that there are any options.

First, I'm glad you didnt get hurt. But I'm glad to hear that the cop took you seriously and professionally. Since that intersection is a kinda out of the way shortcut, I wouldnt be surprised if this woman uses this rout often, so please keep vigilant in that area. Her rant about "thats what bike lanes are for" I've heard several times. As much as I enjoy dedicated bike lanes/paths, I sometimes think they work against us to the general non-biking public.

That is, in a way akin to two previous posters, likewise my hood.

Swin(e?)burne is an enormously fun street to ride down (to the bridge), and I'm really glad this lady encountered you at the stop sign and not along that windy hill. That would be an exceptionally dangerous spot for an assaulty driver to encounter a cyclist, as it's curved, often blind, no shoulder, and you'd be going really fast. In addition to how bad the wreck could be, you'd be lumped on the ground around a blind curve where another car might not see you in time to stop.

I've generally had good luck along that road with people waiting behind me until they could see far enough ahead to pass with space. I'm sorry to have my lovely mental image of Swineburne (what a nursery, too!) tainted by nasty SUV ladies, and I'm glad you got away unscathed.

your attitude on the situation is amazingly calm nick.

glad to know the officer was professional about it

Glad it didn't escalate further.

+1 for Kordite.

I called about a drunk driver who had come out of a bar, attacked a newly planted city sapling, breaking the trunk (BIG dude) and got into his car and peeled off.

Once, I called 911 and reported his plate number. They kept reading the plate number back to me - and after 5 or 6 erroneous readings, I just gave up.

If you know a cop or various other people, you could check the number you thought it was. I bet it comes up Gold Trailblazer/Envoy.

Not only my hood (So' Oakland *IN* the house!) Parkview's my street. We ought have a neighborhood get together sometime. Uncle Jimmy's?

That is one way police/dispatchers handle it if they don't want to deal with a complaint.

Mick

Erok, you are right. I realized that this morning. I kept all of you guys in mind as the whole thing was going on. I wanted to make sure I handled it the best I could in order to lead by example (and so I didn't get flamed when I posted about it).

The response for the 911 dispatcher and the reporting officer really impressed me--it was very assuring to see the professional response.

rsprake, I'm glad it didn't escalate further either. When she got out of the car and started approaching me, my hand went over my u-lock, but I didn't pull it out. I was afraid things were going to get real ugly real fast.

I made sure to try to keep as much power over the situation as I could, doing my best to be assertive, but not aggressive as to not incite violence.

Mick, the officer did run the plate number I had. It came up to a 91 Buick. She also ran a few similar numbers, no luck.

We should have a neighborhood get together sometime. I had no idea there were so many South-O BikePGHers (besides you Mick).

Re:Uncle Jimmy's:

God yes. Let's do it. Help ndromb relax after his unnerving encounter.

I'd bet that she lives right up the street

She was heading down Swinburne, so she may have been going to Greenfield/Hazelwood/Homestead.

I am pretty relaxed, but I'd be down for a drink sometime.

Here, I found it, some relevent brainiac stuff for reading;

http://www.momentumplanet.com/bike-rage

If someone "tapped" me with their car I don't imagine my response would be nearly as gracious. Their car would at least have some damage, if not their person.

That said, your response was the correct one in the end.

haha!

Brad, it was VERY hard to not react violently.

Part of what kept me composed was knowing a lot of the cars had just pulled up, and from their perspective, she would look like the victim.

I can't stand some drivers. I personally like biking on the rail-trails since it's so much safer. But I feel bad for the bike commuters who have to deal with people like that lady

oh yea btw, it looks like that lady was holding up traffic a lot more than you were lol

I personally like biking on the rail-trails since it's so much safer.

That's your perception, but is it? Forester, at lkesat, claims the opposite is true and cites some studies. Are there any studies that show the trails to be safer than the road?

Do you live next to a trail? Do you walk to the trail? Take public transit? Drive?

Mick

I find myself commuting more on the trails just because its more relaxing. Its a good prep when coming into work.. and a good wind down going home.

I'd focus on the "is" of that sentence. Alternate takes: it *seems* safer? it scares me less? there are no known cyclist-vs-hiker fatalities?

As someone said in another thread, to expect cyclists only to use trails is analogous to expecting cars only to use interstate highways. At some point, we have to share local roads and streets.

For Saturday's Tweed Ride, I used a trail and quiet streets to get to the ride, we rode the streets as a pack, then I used the SSide trail, Smithfield Street, and a 1D Mount Royal bus to get home -- a nice mix of many modes. But on Smithfield and other Downtown streets, I took the lane.

Assert yourself when you have to, and chill when you can. That's the joy of cycling.

There is a greater chance of violence or crime on a trail, I suppose (if that is what you are getting at). But in my experience they could take my bike, clothing, and every penny I had on me, charge up my credit card, give me a good beating and it still wouldn't cost me a fraction of the money and pain as getting hit by a car did.

I like my chances better on a trail than on the Pittsburgh streets. Just anecdotal evidence on this board supports my theory. There are a lot more stories about crazy drivers running people down than the one incident I read about on the trail. Maybe it is different in other parts of the country, but here I believe I am safer on the trails.

There is a greater chance of violence or crime on a trail

I've been assaulted by geese on the north shore trail.

Forester cites the dangers of bikeways, but by that, he seems to mostly mean poorly-designed bike paths from decades ago. See this article for instance, where he says "Any ubiquitous urban bikeway system has to run largely along the existing streets" (and so has traffic crossing it, driveways, and so forth). I suspect more cyclists use Pittsburgh's riverfront trails than any of its handful of bike lanes where his criticisms could potentially be valid. He also seems to assume that such lanes won't be designed to prevent right hooks by merging into a motor vehicle lane prior to an intersection. I haven't seen any claims he makes that seem applicable in any way to Pittsburgh's segregated trails.

As another data point, Bike Pgh's crash report map has one incident on a segregated trail (turkey vs bike), and the rest on non-segregated roads. None involve a road with a bike lane.

> There is a greater chance of violence or crime on a trail

Is there really? I haven't seen any studies one way or the other. Anecdotally, I've been assaulted three times on the street and never on any trail.

I was only guessing. The whole sentence was "There is a greater chance of violence or crime on a trail, I suppose (if that is what you are getting at)." I simply couldn't think of any other possible way a segregated bike trail would be more dangerous than a road. See this thread: http://bike-pgh.org/bbpress/topic/attack-on-jail-trail

If the "trail" parallels a road and crosses side streets and driveways I can't see how it is any different from riding on a sidewalk. Yea, I'd pick the road over a sidewalk in most cases.

I've never really trusted Forester's stats, but I just thought I'd bring it up.

I ride trails when I can and it does feel safer.

On the other hand, this business of driving to a trail? Like, driving one of those death machines we call "cars?" I seriously doubt that is much safer than regular street riding.

Certainly, you have much less risk of, say, killing another person with normal street riding, compared to the risk of doing that while driving to a trail.

When I read CanTheCar's posts, I think that someone who drives a car to get around is lecturing me on safety. Someone who drives a car! That is usually something I do not tolerate.

Wanna be safe? Can the car.

Personally, I have two modes of bicycle use. One is primarily weekends: that's long pleasure rides. For those rides, I prefer trails. Generally, the trails have fewer stop signs and no traffic lights, so I can just ride, ride, ride for long stretches, which I love.

The other use is commuting to and from work. There, my route is largely dictated by the two obvious endpoints. I often take a longer route home just so I can use the Eli^H^H^HJail Trail and the Junction Hollow Trail, but when I'm heading to work in the morning, time is often of the essence, so going miles out of my way is a poor option, even though I may buy myself a few more traffic lights in the process.

Also, to be honest, I hate anything that smacks of the "bikes don't belong on roads" argument. Look, there are routes on which motor vehicles are banned (bike trails), and there are routes on which pedal-power vehicles are banned (rt 28, parkway, turnpike). I'm okay with that. I'm not at all okay with people who think that bikes don't belong on city streets in general.

There is a serious problem with a concept of "safety" that considers only one's own personal risk of physical injury, and ignores the risk of causing harm to another.

I have lots of comments re the claim that bikeways are comparably dangerous to surface streets, but only time for three:

1. certain bikeways such as the Cape Cod Rail Trail do have very frequent intersections with roads and poor visibility. Bicycle safety dogma is that intersections are the most dangerous places, so if they're poorly designed, it's no wonder that there would be frequent crashes. The construction of the Eliza Furnace Trail might improve safety along the greater portion of it, but it definitely made the Greenfield Ave/2dAve intersection worse by stealing a lane and forcing all the peds and cyclists to share a restricted tunnel in both directions. Unless you walk, perhaps. But then, there'd be no motor vehicle fatalities if motorists were forced to walk, would there? To the extent that our riverfront trails are completely

2. Forester uses "crashes" uniformly and glosses over the relative severity of different kinds of crashes. I believe this is ideologically motivated and it disappoints me. Not that there aren't equally biased distortions from his ideological opponents, but sometime, somebody has to rise above all the lying with statistics.

I think his statistics are technically accurate, but I think there is a lower fatality rate on trails. At some level, you probably would accept more low-severity crashes, assaults, and the odd rape or two, in exchange for fewer fatalities -- but that's a very difficult calculation to make. Ultimately, I think you have to let individual cyclists make those tradeoffs themselves.

3. Statistics around bicycle crashes are difficult to gather and compare. Most crashes are never reported. Even those which require a hospital visit are not reliably coded and entered into a tracking database. Motor vehicle fatalities ARE reliably tracked and coded in the Fatal Accident Reporting System, but bicycle fatalities on trails will not be. The tragic fatality noted in another thread is probably not recorded in FARS, and if it was, would you consider it a risk of riding on roads that would be improved had those girls been on a separated trail? I think not. I saw a bunch of boys riding mountain bikes in Frick Park the other day, and I was surprised that they made it home without at least one broken collarbone.

Forester harps on those "single-vehicle" crashes as proof that no amount of infrastructure will significantly improve bicycle safety, as their biggest enemy is themselves.

Technically, I suppose he's right, but he discounts people's high tolerance for self-inflicted risk, compared to their low tolerance for risk factors outside of their control.

Somewhat off topic at this point, but if you are trying to remember a license plate number, a mnemomic device can help.

randomly created number

FGM-1833

Fred Get Mom

or anything else that occurs to you can help you remember. Numbers are harder but sometimes you can relate things like "I was 18 when I graduated from high school" and my dad was born in 1933 or anything else that pops into your head.

My mnemonic devices usually include much more explicit language.

Martin guitars: Founded 1833.

Last night, the news carried a story of a man who attempted to talk a girl into his pickup truck, then left empty-handed. The girl's mom called the police. They put out an APB, and the news stations heard the call on the scanner, and got right on it.

The news had photos of his truck, a description of it, and the first three letters of his license plate.

This is what happens when society takes a crime seriously.

If the police had taken your assault seriously, Nick, they would have done something about it.

I've been assaulted by geese on the north shore trail.

As another data point, Bike Pgh's crash report map has one incident on a segregated trail (turkey vs bike), and the rest on non-segregated roads. None involve a road with a bike lane.

I was chased by a turkey while riding on Boundary St. a few years ago. Wildlife attacks aren't always limited to trails.

That is a solid point, Lyle.

I don't know if the two scenarios are directly comparable though.

"As another data point, Bike Pgh's crash report map has one incident on a segregated trail (turkey vs bike), and the rest on non-segregated roads. None involve a road with a bike lane."

I have gone down twice on the trail- once slipping on wet leaves near Big Jim's, rendering me unconscious for a bit. The other was a glancing near head on just uphill from there where the trail bends and there was a tree obstructing the view. Potato-chipped my front wheel on a CMU student coming downhill too fast.

Yikes. I've been told that anytime you are knocked unconscious there is brain damage. Though beer does that, too, and it doesn't stop me drinking.

Brain injury is a complicated thing, but I don't know if I'd go as far as saying anytime you are 'knocked' unconscious there is brain damage. Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) such as hitting your head on the pavement are very different from drinking too much. High concentrations of ethanol inhibit receptors in your brain similar to a general anesthetic and come with all the fun side effects like memory loss, and impaired speech and senses. Long term, chronic exposure to alcohol can cause these cells to die, and will certainly lead to brain damage. Alas, knowing all this hasn't prevented me from enjoying a cold beer.

In any case, anytime you (or someone you are with) lose consciousness due to trauma I'd suggest seeking medical attention as soon as possible even if you feel fine. There is a decent chance that there is secondary damage that sneaks in hours or days later that can be much worse than the primary damage.

The phrasing "potato-chipped wheel" made me smile. In California we called them "taco'ed wheels", because I guess there is more mexican food out there? Did the CMU student stop and help you?

The phrasing "potato-chipped wheel" made me smile. In California we called them "taco'ed wheels", because I guess there is more mexican food out there? Did the CMU student stop and help you?

We call them taco'd too. I've never heard of potato chipped, but it also made me smile.

more accurately, "Pringled".

"Long term, chronic exposure to alcohol can cause these cells to die, and will certainly lead to brain damage."

This made me think of Cliff Claven's buffalo theory from Cheers:

“Well, you see, Norm, it’s like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it’s the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.”

But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.

I have experience to the contrary.

I had never heard it called "taco'd".

After the fall, I rode to the library and cleaned up the blood (some scrapes on my face) in a restroom. I did have a bit of short term memory loss immediately afterwards, but no lasting effects that I was aware of.

The CMU student stopped and apologised profusely, saying he felt it was his fault for going too fast, but I did not agree. I felt we were both at fault. He did let me use his cell phone to call for a pick up in a car.

I have experience to the contrary.

I find that the brain cells most likely to survive are those that go motionless and frozen, probably because they are less likely to attract attention.

You mean like from an ice cream headache?

Exactly. That's why one should always have large portions of ice cream before a night of binge drinking.

Yesterday I was tapped by an ignorant driver. I was riding west on Butler St., as I approach 40th street the light turns red. I get off my bike and on the sidewalk, I often get off my bike here and use the sidewalk. I'm standing at the corner waiting for the light to turn green. The light turns green, I look over my left shoulder to make sure no one is going to turn the instant the light changes. No cars are turning, but there is a car approaching slowly, maybe 10 mph, no turn signal is on so she must be going straight, I proceed into the intersection, pushing my bike. Wait, the woman's not going straight, she is turning right, turning right, directly into my path. I watch in amazement as she slowly turns into my bike and taps my front basket. She doesn't stop, just continues on her way, she just hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk, amazingly she's unfazed, I'm not even sure she noticed. Ignorant driver? definitely.

Holy cow! Was she old or something? Did she look as though she had any clue as to what she just did?

That car would have definitely gotten a sound smack if that had been me.

She wasn't old, I think she did know she hit me, she just didn't care, I mean she didn't knock me down or anything, just barely hit me. Kinda my fault really, I was walking where people drive their cars.

Not to play devil's advocate or anything, but isn't the right hand lane on Butler at that intersection right-turn only, onto the bridge? That would explain the lack of turn signal -- not that it's right, but it's certainly common for drivers to not signal in a turn-dedicated lane... either way, she sucks for ignoring the fact that she hit you.... but it's quite fortunate you were only pushing your bike, and not on it! Yikes!

I hope you had a bit scratchy, metal front basket.

Turning lane or not, the women broke the law, she hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk and didn't even stop. I push my baby through that intersection in a stroller, It's been explained to me, even here, that unless the person hits me "it's cool", "you ever been to New York" yesterday someone hit me and just kept on driving, I guess we can wait for someone, maybe an elderly person, perhaps a child, to get injured maybe killed, perhaps then PennDot will put in a pedestrian signal, not that I think it would do much good, People are entitled to drive their cars however they want and feel justified doing it, that's how it is, even here on a bicycle forum their bad, dangerous habits will be defended.

I dont think anyone was defending her behavior. Were you able to get her tag number?

Sigh...

I apologize, I don't think anyone was defending this women hitting me but someone feels the need to point out why she didn't use her turn signal, I know it's common for people in a turning lane not to use their signal. It's illegal but people do it, I KNOW DRIVERS BREAK THE LAW, you must use your turn signal when you turn, that's the law turning lane or not. this from another thread :

"The driver has a green light and is not hitting you.

What's the problem??"

The other day I was hit, that's the problem, drivers break the law, and people quickly step up to explain why someone they don't even know broke the law. Why she didn't signal. It's frustrating.

I would be pissed too Timto, My wife has been hit by cars either as a pedestrian or as a cyclist at least twice to my knowledge, both pretty severely, both times the driver's fault, both times because the driver was in a hurry and couldnt be bothered.

If it were me in that situation I would have definitely called the cops. Just say you are a pedestrian that was just struck by a vehicle, and always try to get the tag number.

In some states, signalling is only required if another vehicle would be affected. Unfortunately I don't have the PA code memorized.

http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/vehicle_code/chapter33.pdf

Subchapter C $3334

Signals are ALWAYS required. As a note, This goes for cyclists too.

In some states, signaling is only required if another vehicle would be affected. I'm not a vehicle but I was definitely affected. Part of the problem is people don't know vehicular law. People operate 4000 lb cars and aren't even sure, or don't care, how to do it correctly.

Honestly I think one of the problems around here is the lack of education and lack of enforcement. I have been living in pittsburgh for about 2 years now and in this time at least 5 people have been killed on bikes and im not even counting pedestrians that where hit. I haven't heard too much about people getting charged with much in these cases. The man that hit the delivery guy in oakland was sentenced to 2 years if i remember. The other case in carnegie where the driver was fined 500 bucks. Penalties like that don't really seem to scare people and they continue to drive without care for others around them. Oh and the fact that most of these crashes get passed off as a accident bothers me too.

Oh and the fact that most of these crashes get passed off as a accident bothers me too

+1.

I'm willing to believe that genuine "accidents" can happen, rather than inattention or carelessness leading to disaster; however, I'd also estimate that at least ninety-nine out of a hundred collisions betwixt vehicles are not accidents by any stretch of the word.

This reminds me of the time I watched two policemen on foot whistling down drivers rolling through the stop sign at Ivory Ave and Nelson Run Road. In the 15 minutes I waited for my bus, they must have written up four motorists.

Just think how fast the City of Pittsburgh could fill its coffers and pension funds if they just enforced the traffic laws at a couple of key spots.

Just think how fast the City of Pittsburgh could fill its coffers and pension funds if they just enforced the traffic laws at a couple of key spots.

I said much the same thing to a friend yesterday who had the same conversation with a police officer. He said they were told not to be so zealous becuase the overtime invovled (paperwork, court appearances etc.) was too costly and offset the money generated by the fines. Not sure if that's true or not, but I pass it along. Nothing is ever simple it seem.

I wonder if anybody has a timeline of bike fatalities. Prior to this latest rash of them, I don't recall any for quite a few years. Two years, willie? Were there any in 2008?

Well maybe they all took place in the last year.

I'd also estimate that at least ninety-nine out of a hundred collisions betwixt vehicles are not accidents by any stretch of the word.

this is why they are no longer referred to as "MVA"s in hospitals, they are now referred to as "MVI"s, motor vehicle INCIDENTS.