« Sligo Creek Trail crossing at Riggs Road in need of improvement | Main | Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act of 2015 »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Great Post. I read his column this morning in my print edition. I will not play to his sad game of getting his click count up.

The statistics he included are bizarre and make absolutely no point relevant to his argument (such as it is). "30 percent of bicyclist fatalities occurred between 4 and 8 p.m." Umm, so?

I will be for ever thankful if Courtland builds me a bike track from A to B in his own back yard. I'll even buy him a beer and leave it on the back porch from time to time, as a sign of my everlasting gratitude. Nonetheless one day the romance will end and we will once again be tasked with the terrible enigma that is Courtland's befuddlement. I have an idea! I think it will be more fiscally responsible, if we engage the police we already pay, to enforce the traffic laws that already exist. When we are reasonably sure that all the homicidal motorists and suicidal cyclist are off the road earthworms will rejoice that we have improved the roads for everyone without laying an additional cubic yard of concrete.

I read the column in the paper. He is actually calling for a ban on bicycles from cities and not supporting the building of new bicycle facilities along roads.

"What cyclists need is a separate network of roads, not bike lanes. Give them trails through wooded areas away from cars and trucks." He is talking about existing trails we already have. There is no more wooded areas to build new trails and he would not support getting rid of a road to plant trees and build a new bicycle trail.

His statement: "Once they enter high-traffic areas in the city, it's off the bicycle and onto alternative transportation. Like two feet." confirms that he is calling for a ban on bicycles from city roads.

This is reinforced in his closing paragraph along with the discriminating suggestion that cyclists need "special buses" and cannot use regular busses. “Better to provide a special bus for cyclists once they get off the wooded bike trail. It would beat riding in the ambulance. “

The statistics of bicycle injuries and deaths is just filler. It is added to pretend he is concerned for the wellbeing of cyclists. This editorial is just a repackaged, regurgitation of his call to ban bicycles on road.

His statement "Bicycles and cars were not designed to share the road" is incoherent. The problem with sharing roads is not the design of cars and bicycles. The real issue is if the drivers and cyclist will be selfish or selfless and friendly. I prefer selfless and friendly drivers as even if bicycles are banned from the roads, selfish drivers will still cause more accidents than friendly drivers.

With the exception of his call to segregate buses between cyclists and not cyclists, his idea of banning bicycles in cities does actually exist. Both China and India have banned bicycles on major city roads. I wonder which one of these cities he feels DC should try to emulate?

I think the sad part is that this is his sincere attempt at a constructive solution. Maybe his editor challenged him to answer his critics (although it's hard to imagine a real editor looked at this). He really is just incapable of getting bikes on the road.

It's a generational thing. I haven't been able to find his exact age, but he's up there, he started writing for the Post in 1983. That makes him old enough to have come of age in an era when there really was such thing as automobile advocacy. It's hard to believe now, but for much of the twentieth century the AAA's primary mission was working to change the legal and cultural atmosphere so that roads were reserved exclusively for automobiles. For anyone born before 1900 the idea that walking on roads could be illegal was laughable, that was how 99% of humanity used roads since time immemorial. Yet for anyone born after about 1935 the idea that roads could be used by anything other than automobiles was just as ridiculous. He's a victim of his times.

It is telling that his column starts by stating that a "bicyclist was hit by a car." Note he does not say that the cyclist was hit by a motorist, but by a car, as if the car coasted into him. No, Mr. Malloy, the cyclist was killed by another human being operating a motor vehicle. He also failed to note that this motorist left the scene, leaving Mr. Palermo on the street to die. Fail to see why this might cause any anger...

As for the incident in Harford County, the cyclist did put himself in harm's way. Riding after dark, dark clothing, no lights or reflectors, appears that he pedaled through a red light. The driver did stop and render assistance, and that cyclist is still alive.

I certainly appreciate the work, which went into the well research and reasoned post, but this guy is not a serious voice on urban policy whom it is necessary, or even possible, to engage on the facts. He's just one of the politics-of-resentment mob who's found a vexing and convenient target. He mines a rich vein of anger, but all the trends are against him and his audience on this and other issues.

A 0.1% bike fatality rate, while trending down, is still extraodinarily high, assuming the denominator is commuting trips. To put that into context, if passenger vehicle deaths had the same rate, we'd being seeing over a million highway fatalities per year instead of "only" 33,000. This country would obviously not stand for that, and we would a see nationwide re-design of our roads. In this context, the super-high fatality rate actually makes the clear case that current bike facilities are specifically designed in a manner that is dangerous to cyclists and that a redesign/rethinking is an immediate need.

I often say and wrote that someone was hit by a car. This has been debated fully on GGW, but saying they were hit by a car is accurate. Saying they were hit by a person isn't really accurate. Saying they were hit by a car driven by a person is MORE accurate, but unnecessary. I believe the assumption is that cars are driven by people. In the case that a car, not being driven by someone, hits something, it is the duty of the writer to note the exception.

This is the least of Milloy's sins.

The fatality rate above is the (Total # of NHTSA reported bike fatalities per year)/(Total number of bike commuters).

It's not really an accurate measure of the % of cyclists killed, since most cyclists killed aren't commuting and commuting cyclists aren't the only cyclists - or even a majority of cyclists. It's just an attempt to show the trend.

@washcycle: at the very least it's inconsistent. Or, why wasn't "a bicycle" hit by "a car"?

The bicycle may have been hit by the car, but the cyclist almost certainly was too. However, the car definitely would have done the hitting unless the driver got out and hit the cyclist, which is an entirely different thing.

Because no one really cares that the bicycle was hit. What's important is that a cyclist - a person - was hit by something (in this case a car) and injured/killed. That's what makes it news.

There is a well-established tradition in the news business of using language when describing motor-vehicle collisions to avoid ascribing blame. For example, using the passive voice ("a cyclist was killed") or ascribing actions to inanimate object ("a car travelling northbound crossed the dividing line and collided with a school bus.")

Part of this is the journalistic custom of giving the accused in criminal matters the benefit of the doubt, but part of it is a societal bias that automobile collisions are unavoidable and not really anyone's fault.

Saying that a person was hit by a car does not fall into either of those traps.

Just wait 'till we get self-driving cars....

Self driving bikes will solve the problem entirely.

Maybe since the woman charged in Mr. Palermo's death has now been charged with Manslaughter, DUI (0.22), and Texting While Driving, M.r Milloy can more easily underatand why cyclists are sad and angry, and maybe afraid.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader