Can you see the cyclist? Neither could I and almost killed him

The photo was not taken there or then. It is just to illustrate the road conditions at the time.

while i agree that the cyclist should take more care (wear brighter clothing, use lights etc) it is you who must accept that you are driving the death trap not her. why do mototrists always pass the buck and insist it is up to the cyclist whether they get hit by a car or not? i don't care why you were driving, you need to take some responsibility for driving a dangerous vehicle.

what you are talking about. a guy flew right in front of my last night when i was driving and i had to roll down the window and yell at him to get some lights. just as i would do if someone was driving down the road with their lights off.

I suppose if you going swimming with sharks you are going to blame the sharks if you get bitten? Riding a bicycle on the street is a deadly serious business. You are putting yourself into harms way. Denial or wishful thinking about a better world without cars is not going to save your life. The reality is the cars are there, they are going to be there and if you can't be seen, you are in big trouble. People who want to live long are mindful of danger and behave in ways that protect their own lives. The other's have what my mother called rights, dead rights. So if that was you and I hit and killed you, what would be the improvement to the world? If you want the world to be a better and safer place, you will have more results by being sensible and realistic.

"while i agree that the cyclist should take more care (wear brighter clothing, use lights etc) it is you who must accept that you are driving the death trap not her. why do mototrists always pass the buck and insist it is up to the cyclist whether they get hit by a car or not? i don't care why you were driving, you need to take some responsibility for driving a dangerous vehicle. "

While I agree that the pedestrian should take more care (wear brighter clothing, use lights etc) it is you who must accept you are riding a death trap not her. Why do bicyclists always pass the buck and insist it is up to the pedestrian whether they get hit by a bike or not? I don't care why you were riding, you need to take some responsibility for riding a dangerous cycle.

My point is simple: If I were walking along the center of a bike path, wearing dark clothing late at night, I would expect to be hit by a bicycle. Were I hit by that bicycle, it's very likely I would be seriously injured -- maybe even dead. This would not be the cyclist's fault. The cyclist may have been doing everything they were required to -- wearing a helment, wearing reflective clothing, riding in the proper lane. If anyone could be said to be at fault then, It would be me, the pedestrian.

The parent poster's car, in all likelihood, had its lights on. That makes it visible at night. It was likely going the speed limit. (I don't believe the poster would be so indignant were he not). It was probably properly within a lane.

Thus, had he smashed into the bicyclist, could you really blame him? If you can't see someone, you can't see them. Shit does happen, especially when you don't take the slightest precaution to prevent it.

SE Portland is made up of a community of cyclists. I can not bike down division or clinton without passing more bikes than cars. The fact is when I look at that picture I see that it would be difficult to see a car in that weather. You need to be driving really really slow if you choose to drive. It's in the automobile hand book. And just like if you were driving by a school you would slow down- you should slow down if you are in a cycling neighborhood. You should have respect that if you want to share the road you do need to aknowledge basic road conditions, like the fact that their are more cyclists in these areas than cars, especially late at night, and that you slow way super down in poor visibilty conditions. If you are driving in the SE area and you think you might have trouble seeing a cyclist at the speed you are going, slow the fuck down. Don't come into their neighborhood and kill them because you can't get it!

i ride back and forth to work everyday (for the past 5 years) and i've been freaked out lately in the dark and rain. i have two front headlights, two back lights, and tons of reflectors (although, admittedly, my rainjacket is black... i'm working on getting a bright one). almost every night i have a close call.

anyway, i have to drive occasionally too (insert flame protector here). lately driving has been freaking me out because it reminds me how hard it is to see a biker in bad weather and dark. and as a biker i have to admit most people i see running stop signs and red lights are other bikers (including me), practically begging to get ran over. in fact, i'm impressed at 1. how few deadly accidents actually occur, because it is sooo hard to see us bikers in rain and dark and 2. at how considerate the vast majority of drivers are--at a four way stop many let me go first even if they have the right of way.

i'm not going to stop riding, ever.

sure, i'll take responsibility for driving a dangerous vehicle and i'll be as careful as i can. but the facts are that even if you're extremely careful you can't see everything that is going on out there. when i'm biking it is my life on the line, not a driver's, so ultimately it is my responsibility to ensure my own safety. isn't that the principal anarchist viewpoint, that ultimately you are responsible for yourself?

You know how many times I have been hit by cars who were not obeying traffic laws when as a pedestrian I had the right of way? Three times off of the top of my head. No, they weren't going fast enough to do real damage. Problem is, is that it has happened in the division area, and sooner or later some stupid car is going to gun it through that stop sign. Should I decorate my body for cars? Should I say your right, this area isn't eco friendly, its a car empire? No fucking way! You are right K. It's getting scarier and scarier for those who don't choose to drive. I will not apologize for not driving. I don't believe in it. And I have never ever been hit at night.

I am not the only pedestrian I know who had some car nudge them because the driver wasn't aware.

Please don't drive in the SE.

funny, i live one block off of division and i ride on clinton and lincoln all the time. while i do think there are more bikers there than in most of the city, you are way wrong about the numbers. cars outnumber bikers everywhere you go, including that neighborhood. and remember i bike everyday. sit down on the curb and do a count some time. there's no reason to lie in an argument to prove a point, it just makes your argument weaker.

Night rider writes: "while i agree that the cyclist should take more care (wear brighter clothing, use lights etc) it is you who must accept that you are driving the death trap not her. why do mototrists always pass the buck and insist it is up to the cyclist whether they get hit by a car or not? i don't care why you were driving, you need to take some responsibility for driving a dangerous vehicle."

It is amusing to note that night rider has presented exactly the red herring argument the poster Heart Attack was worried about. It is no less a red herring for the rejection of the poster's plea.

Every person who drives a vehicle legally in this state, every one, has the legal responsibility for their actions while driving enforced upon them. They are required to carry a license, registration, and proof of insurance at all times while driving. They are required to keep the vehicle in proper operating condition. If not well-maintained, if missing even a single light, motor vehicles are subject to being stopped and ticketed.

Heart Attack is clearly a driver who does not wish to have the death of a cyclist on his conscience, even should an accident be clearly the fault of the rider. I read his tale as a plea to any cyclist who rides at night: USE LIGHTS! The life you save will almost certainly be your own.

Cars are indeed dangerous vehicles even if operated responsibly. Whether or not you believe that some people must drive, it is simply a matter of survival for a cyclist to take into account that many people *do* drive. Choose wisely.

 http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/manual/indexold.htm
 http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/bicycles/DMVmanual.htm

I am not lying to prove my point. At night you are bound to see more cyclists out than during the day. I never, ever drive. I think you have a different perception. You have not provided facts. On Clinton Street I have rarely seen cars driving but I pass crowds of people on bikes, all the time. Clinton doesn't go up to 52 so people switch to division. So I see crowds of bikes, usually on the sidewalk biking up division during the day. I know that at night I usually feel safer biking in the road because there are less cars out. So do other people. There are tons of cyclists on division st at night because it is safer and a lot more fun in the street. I pay for these roads and I don't drive a car. I have every right to bike on them!!!

Car free zones in certain areas would accomplish several goals;

1) no risk of bicyclist getting hit by irate auto drivers who complain they have to watch for bicycles. If you can't drive there, then you don't have to worry about what outfit bicyclists are wearing.

2) reducing petroleum dependency which is the main reason the United States military is dropping bombs on Iraqi civilians and exposing them (and our young soldiers) to aerosolized depleted uranium fragments.

3) quiet park like zone where people could relax their ears and lungs without the constant reving of petroleum combusting engines emitting NOx, CO2 and CO..

Car free zones are pleasant places in the central areas of many European cities, also in other countries. People can walk at a leisurely pace without having their toes run over by automobiles.

We need to prepare for the upcoming petroleum collapse and learn alternatives that don't perpetuate petroleum addiction..

I commute to work by bike. I get around town most of the time by bike. But, as an occassional driver I can tell you that there is a significant problem with the bikers not making enough of an effort to be seen. We ALL have responsibilities here, the car driver needs to SLOW DOWN in bad weather and the biker needs to LIGHT UP front and back. Both of these are easy to do and easy to forget. Choose the first one.

Am I without sin in my biking? No. Am I without sin in my driving? No. I do my best but I make mistakes out on the roads, we all do. That is why we all (drivers and bikers) need to take that extra step (cars slow down/bikers with many lights) because when we make a mistake that extra step is the margin of safety we all need.

Pax vobiscum

For drivers to learn the rules for right-of-way. It seems like people in cars assume that they always have the right of way over bicycles when in fact, they often don't (the same rules as for cars, but somehow people don't know that).

Oh, and the swimming with sharks analogy strikes me as false since one is comparing a human with a deadly instrument to an animal predator. I would say the more apt analogy would be walking into a room full of people with guns. Whose fault is it if someone gets shot?

And hitting a pedestrian with a bike and killing them made me laugh. Yeah, a bike is really heavy enough to kill someone. The statistics don't support bikes causing serious injuries to others. And why should they, running full speed on a bike into someone may bruise them a bit but it takes really unusual and rare situations for someone to be harmed to the point where it is comparable to automobile accidents (which kill 40,000+ a year and maim seriously injure hundreds of thousands more). Car accidents are serious because they're thousands of pounds of metal often going quickly. A bike is tens of pounds of metal not going very quickly (and often the faster it can go the lighter it is).

Anyway, I have been to court over this I can tell you, for the car drivers out there, not seeing something is not an excuse. I ran a stop sign (in a car) because it was covered by a tree and I was told that it was my responsibility to make sure I was not traveling faster than my visibility. So the lesson is, if you're driving realize you can take someone's life. Be cautious, alert, and attentive. Slow down if you're having problems with visibility. Realize that it is not law for cyclists to have a rear light, just a rear reflector. Driving an automobile is a serious responsibility; take it seriously.

If you are driving it is your responsibility to see what is in the road in front of you. Chances are a person walking to their car or crossing the street in dark clothes would be just as hard to see on a rainy night. I think if you have half a brain you should have lights if you are cycling at night. These are two different issues: One: drivers need to pay more attention to the road. Two: cylists should have a light on the front of their bike and a reflector on the rear of their bike as required by law.

Great idea. I recommend 10th and Division to 39th and Powell. That'd piss off an incredible number of people, but it might be nice. Ever consider a voter initiative to do it? You'd just have to convince Multnomah County voters, not voters in Beaverton.

2002 County Initiative and Referendum Handbook
 http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/Publications/cntyir.pdf

Yeah, This is always a good idea but has it's caveats. I like the idea of having one big section, though 12th-39th and division-powell non-inclusive would be great but you'd have to deal with those residents having to park far away. What some neighborhoods in olympia have done is just put up barricades in one lane saying no thru-traffic do discourage non-residents from cutting through. I wouldn't mind seeing clinton st. turned into a bike street more like ankeny. I do remember the imf/world bank protests in dc being able to walk in the streets and enjoy the peace and quiet even with the protests it was much quieter than dc usually is). Ever since then I've wanted to see more car free zones. But I think a number of smaller zones might be more amenable to people than a huge large zone.

Cars are not going away. Not in this lifetime, anyway. Whether more cars than bikes go down Clinton is irrelevant. Cars are here; they maim and kill us on a daily basis; and there's a big difference between driving offensively and stupidly. Riding in dark clothes without lights is asking to get hit. Don't give incentives to car drivers: both the maniacal and the responsible (who really can't see you!).

And dressing in revealing clothes is asking to get raped. Don't give incentives to rapists.

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt it only legal to have a head light and NOT a backlight? the reason being that headlights on cars can see bikers from behind but the lights are to prevent injury from cars driving in the opposite direction?(turning into the lane etc). I live in the SE and ride to work in the NW and back everytime and even though riding up Division is easier I sometimes choose Hawthorne because it is better lit and I feel alot safer. I hate Division...it creeps me out everytime...between having to bike around all the parked cars and whatnot I am more afraid of getting hit from behind then infront. I would also like to remind people that alot of people commute by bike because they cant afford to commute in any other manner. two months ago my bike light broke and and instead of getting the cheapo kind that only last a day i decided to try and save up the twenty bucks for a good one that is actually meant for a bike...but in the end I decided to buy food instead and not the bike light so I will be lightless for another two weeks. Just remember that there are circumstances where people can not always get that fancy raingear that has reflectors all up the back...but i still have to get to my crappy job somehow...so if anything just slow down please..or make sure that there is enough room between your car and the parked car so that a bike can be there if there is no designated bike lane...especially Division.

My back light broke and I didn't have the time to get a new one for a couple weeks. Was I "asking to be hit"? Of course not, that assumption is asinine, ridiculous, and insulting. I wear dark clothes when I bike because they're what I have. I am not in violation of the law in my actions, though I concede that by not having a back light I am at greater risk (but how much greater is a difficult question) of getting hit by a car. But let's be careful with our language. It is the driver of the car who is responsible for ensuring that they do not kill, maim, or injure someone by their actions, not the responsibility of their victims (outside conforming to whatever safety regulations govern pedestrians, bicyclists, and other drivers).

A thread's not worth reading unless there's a little sex in it, eh?

i am sensible and realistic heart attack. that is why i ride a bike. i also drive from time to time and that is why i feel car drivers need to back the fuck up and give way at all times to peds and bikes. yes it might be dangerous to ride down the road dressed in dark clothing with no lights but i still blame the car. maybe that is unreasonable of me, but i have no sympathy for car divers (my self included). if you drive you should constantly be aware that people are out there walking, cycling, skateboarding etc and they should be feel free and safe enough to do so. it is up to you to ANTICIPATE them. the whole city should not revolve around the right of way of cars. the streets are for everyone.

btw. i would also blame the cyclist is the same thing happened with a pedestrian.

sometimes it feels like a battle out there and i don't think bikes should back down to whinning car drivers who 'can't help it' if they hit us.

give yourself a heart attack just don't come anywhere near me or you might enjoy a swift U-lock to the windsheild.

Cyclists are telling motorists that the motorists are responsible for seeing and not hitting cyclists. You are darn right! If I am driving and hit a bike it is going be terrible for both of us and it will likely as not be MY fault. That is all beside the point! If you can't be seen, you are tremendously more likely to be hit! So what if it is not your fault! Again, as my mother would say, you would be dead right.

Person who said the shark analogy was bad. The gun room is too. Better is the guy in camoflauge who runs across the shooting range while guns are being fired. The responsible shooters darn well better put down their guns and stop firing! But the guy running across? He is the cyclist who refuses to illuminate or dress appropriately. They are both risking their lives.

I am a motorist and cyclist. I put 3,000 miles a year on my car and about the same on my bike. Even on my bike I have almost run down dark riders in the dark who dart out or go the wrong way. Stop making excuses for irresponsible behavior! Have any of you ever biked in a truly intensive bike city? Davis, California, for example. You would not get along very well or for very long carrying on with the righteous attitude you have here.

1. There are legal requirements for lighting your bicycle for riding at night, which include a steady white front light visible at 500 feet and a rear reflector OR light visible at 600 feet. While extra lights and reflectors, light colored clothing, etc. are helpful, this is the legal minimum. It's somewhere in ORS 815.

2. Unfortunately, in most cases, bicycle manufacturers do not provide the minimum legal equipment for night riding on the new bicycle that you buy from them. Used bicycles are probably even sketchier. The manufacturers only provide the reflectors that the Consumer Product Safety Commission requires. These reflectors DO NOT meet the legal requirements for night riding. There is a very long story as to why the CPSC reflector standard doesn't meet minimum legal lighting equirements for night ride which I won't go into here, but suffice it to say that it involved heavy lobbying by the Bicycle Manufacturers Assonciation (BMA) during the Nixon Administration, and it was the BMA's positions that their product was 'not intended for riding at night' (for liability reasons). Can you imagine going to purchase a new car and being told by the salesperson that the vehicle did not come with lights, and that you would have to spend $X.XX to equip your car with aftermarket lights in order to be able to drive after dark???

3. Safety equipment such as bicycle lights, reflectors, reflective tape and a helmet are not a very big investment when your life is at stake. I generally keep the lights and reflectors on the bicycle itself, and wear my normal street clothes, as I don't necessarily like to decorate my person like an XMas tree in dorky bike gear...

4. Motorists are in control of WMDs and do indeed have a responsibility to SLOW DOWN and be more careful in low visibility conditions (as well as at other times, too). What's next, padding, helmets and strobe lighting for pedestrians, too? Streets are for people, not just for people in cars!

Why do you suppose it is that so few cars have this problem of being without headlights, or taillights? Why don't we ever have to have this argument concerning the dangers of "invisible cars"? Why? Actually, it's real simple and extremely obvious. Ever seen a new car sold without headlights or taillights? No. Because they're legally required equipment. Whereas, with bikes.... Ahhh.., where should I begin???

Believe me, if it were as hard to get adequate lighting systems for cars as for bikes, we WOULD be having this problem with cars (and it'd be a whole lot deadlier, ofcourse). With bikes, not only are these not legally required equipment, they're not standard equipment, and they're barely even available equipment as after-factory add-ons. The equipment that is available as after-market accessories is wholly inadequate, when it isn't exorbitantly expensive. Tends to fall off quickly, with totally inadequate mounting systems. Tends to burn out way too soon to be useful, to the point that riders on trips of more than 20-30 minutes at a time have to strictly economize on their usage lest the things run down long before the journey is over. (Some of the new LED systems are making improvements in this regard, but still don't provide enough illumination.) Anyone who has spent any significant amount of time investigating this issue will know of all the problems I'm talking about. The fact is, I have had to invest a small fortune in lighting systems to get even a marginally adequate solution for my bike. The real solution? The real solution would of course be to require lighting systems as standard equipment. Afterall, why should bike manufacturers be allowed to sell bikes without all the equipment needed to safely and legally ride them? The problem with this is that it would naturally raise the price of bikes. The upside is that, not only would such lighting systems become much more readily available, but they would also decrease in price if there were a large market to create the incentives for manufacturers to invest in the design and deployment of such systems. Another benefit is that new, built-in, internally routed, generator-powered lighting systems would be bound to be vastly superior to even the best after-market add-on systems available only at great expense now.

I can already hear the objections: "But what if I want to buy a real cheap bike, that I never plan to ride at night?" "What about bikes for purely recreational use?" etc. Simple: create a loophole that allows the sale of such bikes, but requires special labelling: "Warning: recreational use only. Not to be ridden at night." There may still be problems with this, as people may buy the cheaper, non-street legal bikes and ride them at night. The answer there is the same as now: enforcement. But at least people who actually want to ride safe bikes will have a much better chance of buying affordable and effective ones. Ultimately, the real solution is to promote bicycling enough to substantially increase the existing market, at which point all these problems will be reduced or disappear.

swimming with sharks?? running across a gun range??

you miss a key point. the streets are not soley for cars.

i'm not making excuses for irresponsible behaviour. i agree cyclists should use adequate lighting and take safety precautions, as i do every night when i cycle home at midnight. all i'm saying is, in the end is up to you, the car driver to drive reponsibly and anticipate that some people are not always gong to be highly visible enough for you to see them in your killing machine. drive slower where there are likely to be bikes.

if you can't handle the fact that you are a dangerous driver then don't drive. or go back to davis where shitty driving is allegedly tolerated.

This whole problem illustrates yet another byproduct of our maniacally free-market-as-religion society: the systematic conversion of structural economic and political problems into personal morality plays, accompanied by stern lectures about the need for "personal responsibility."

I also wanted to say, I agree with Burr: It's a reasonable investment when your life's at stake. But the fact is, at this point, it remains UNNECESSARILY and UNREASONABLY HIGH, and UNNECESSARILY and UNREASONABLY INCONVENIENT, and that is the reason for the problem, not because of some strange insouciance and carelessness uniquely associated with cyclists but oddly lacking in motorists (obviously). Also wanted to agree with Burr, for much the same reasons as the foregoing: Lighting systems are, or should be understood as, attributes of the BIKE, not accouterments for the RIDER. Otherwise, why wouldn't we just tell auto and motorcycle manufacturers that they can save money too if they like, by omitting such systems and suggesting that their occupants and drivers carry along the necessary illumination themselves on their own persons when practical? Of course we wouldn't dream of doing any such thing, it would be ridiculous on its face, as it would obviously greatly increase the incidence of roadside carnage due to poor visibility.

I wrote: "If I am driving and hit a bike it is going be terrible for both of us and it will likely as not be MY fault."

Typo: it should have been "it will likely BE my fault" And that SUCKS A BIG ONE!

The physics of it are when you don't emit or reflect light you cannot be seen. On a dark wet night most of the ambient light that might otherwise illuminage you bounces off the wet street surfaces. If you cannot be seen, you are in big trouble. If you refuse to take reasonable responsibility for yourself and the cars who share the road with you, the YOU don't deserve to use the public roads. It is a so called 2 way street.

For the record. I am an extremely careful, slow, watchful auto driver who has NEVER had a ticket or accident of any kind in more years of driving than many of you have been alive.

How can I get it thru my fellow cyclists thick skulls that SHIT HAPPENS! and sometimes it happens to YOU and sometimes you could have done something to prevent it. Your stubborn refusal to be reasonable does the bike movement more harm than good. Full time drivers pay no attention to careful cyclists. They pass them and forget them. They remember the ones like I almost hit and get pissed off at all cyclists. Now I am in danger because they are pissed at you.

Heart attack's problem is a manifestation of 3AO: Angry Adolescent Acting Out.

Their attitude is: "The world is messed up, I'm great, and fuck you!"

There's no reasoning with people operating in that mode. Time will straighten out some of them. But some of them will go to their graves still angry at the image of their parents they've projected onto the world around them. And some of them will go to their graves way early, run down by some "evil" car whose driver couldn't see them because they were doing the bike imitation of a stealth fighter.

The reason that cars are able to emit lights and opperate electrical equipment is that they have a power-plant (enternal combustion engine) that generates electricity to power said equipment and lights. A bicycle has a human as it's powerplant and thus must rely on batteries to power its lights. Batteries run out and are expensive to buy, especially if you ride at night a lot as many people who work do... In the winter it is "Night" at about 5 o' clock. I have seen some primitive generators that attach to the wheel of a bike and slow the bike down considerably. They are expensive as well and easily stolen. Is there anyone out there who knows of any innovations in generator design that they could post here? SOmething local? And if there is no one doing this kind of thing, are there any ideas for electricity generation for bicycles? Is there a collective or group that works on this kind of stuff? I have a friend who has been working on this problem but lacks the resources and tools to launch his designs into prototypes... his experiments seem to show promise but he has no way to take it further... anyone have any ideas?

What bothers me is that it seems like cyclists always blame the car driver, no matter what.

I ride my bike to and from work (about 110 miles per week) and also drive sometimes.

I was driving down Lincoln the other day when a cyclist came darting out from a side street. I almost hit her.
All I could think of is what would have happened if I would have hit and killed that girl. I would have been the bad car driver that hates cyclists and doesn't pay attention to cyclists rights.

The reality is - that girl ran a stop sign and put her own life in danger. There is nothing more I could have done to prevent an accident if she would have run that stop sign a few seconds later. It would have been her fault. Just like if a drunk driver runs a stop sign and kills a cyclist or someone in a car.

This is fairly simple. I don't think bikes need to come with lights on them. Considering that some people would want a different light than what comes on the bike it seem even more stupid. Factor in the fact that a lot of people change handlebars( most headlights mount to them) is seems even more ridiculous. A lot of people buy their bikes off the shelf, but most people I know personalize their bikes to some degree,some even build them from the wheels up.

It's hard. It's goddam hard. Hard enough that I've spent years looking for an affordable aftermarket lighting system that mounts firmly on a bike, stays firmly mounted, provides adequate illumination, and lasts at least a good couple hours between recharges. Hard enough that I've spent hundreds of dollars on the project. Hard enough that most people do without such things. That's how hard. The only reason I've overcome the problem is because I've spent a lot more time on it than most people who are not such dedicated cyclists would care to, and lavished more money on it to boot, not really because I'm a more morally responsible or intelligent cyclist.

Answer this question: how many of the poorly illuminated bikes on the roads have lights on them with burnt-out batteries? How many of them had lights on them recently that have since fallen off? I'll wager you plenty.

Yet still, the morality sermons just never stop. Americans must really love this shit.

The truth is, the problem is not rocket science. Generator-based lighting systems are not space age. They've been around for generations, almost as long as bikes themselves. I understand Sturmey Archer made quite a bullet proof generator hub decades and decades ago that was even sold on the American market. I've seen a tiny handful of bike shops that actually sold such things, one of them in Coos Bay/North Bend area. For a short time, I understand Specialized or Trek or somebody like that was actually selling a factory line of such bikes in this country. The only reason we don't have such things commonly in use in this country is the small total size of the commuter bicycle market, and the resistance of the bike industry.

I rant on with The Gory Details now, for your delight, Skidmark:

No, you are right, most mounting systems are not overly difficult to put on, and, in truth, they usually
do stay on, in a manner of speaking. More often, the problem is that they fail in a variety of other ways,
short of actually falling off (which they also occasionally do). Here are some examples:

They come with screws that are too small, and readily get stripped when torqued to sufficient tightness that they will be adequately secure. Then they become impossible to get off or readjust without destruction.

They come with a little rubber spacer that is of the wrong size, or somehow slips out, and one must hunt down a replacement. In the meantime, the light attached to them flops down uselessly to illuminate the ground no more than six inches in front of the front wheel and not much else.

They come with a snap-in mechanism that breaks and jams, again making readjustment impossible and removal difficult.

I'm sure I could think of more, from my wealth of experience by now. These are just a few that come to me off the top of my head from my own personal experience.

I can assure you, the people you are speaking of, the ones who customize their bikes, "sometimes even building them from the wheels up," are not representative of the majority of people who use bikes, either for commuting or recreation. Moreover, they will hardly be so inconvenienced by regulations that would require companies to sell street legal bikes ready to go on the shop floor. People who can build or customize their own bikes will still also be able to buy bikes that don't have lighting systems, or to replace or remove the lighting systems they already have in place, just like people can buy cars and do the same. Afterall, I'm not proposing that manufacturers be required to sell handlebars with built-in lighting systems, only whole bikes with them. At most, the manufacturers will be compelled to offer such things as an option. No doubt, however, there will continue to be a market for bike parts, although, with such regulations, fortunately the variety of parts, especially parts compatible eventually with some kind of standardized internally routed lighting system, would expand, hopefully.

"I was driving down Lincoln the other day when a cyclist came darting out from a side street. I almost hit her.
All I could think of is what would have happened if I would have hit and killed that girl. I would have been the bad car driver that hates cyclists and doesn't pay attention to cyclists rights."

As I read what you wrote, after "All I could think of..." I expected you to talk about how you might have hurt the girl and how bad that would be for her, instead you talked about how bad her death would be for you!

She'd be dead, but most of all, you'd have a bad reputation.

I mean, Geez!

To all posters was it Jagger or Darwin who said "If you're on you're bike, late at night , be sure to wear white?

heinrich, and everyone else. i'm sitting at work now...in a bike shop. we have no less than 10 headlights and 8 taillights to choose. prices ranging from $9.97 to $359.97 the lights i use are cheapy planet bike BRT-1's and BRT-Spots. 10 bucks, goes on fast, stays there, and works good. incredibly bright and the batteries last forever if you use blinking mode. you can even get just the mounting brackets so you can use the same lights on different bikes. As for all the shit about stripping screws and the rubber collars that slip out, i dunno. it doesn't happen to me. some of the high end headlight systems are really fucking bright. they can work on different wattage levels to increase battery output. and all these high end ones come with or you can get chargers that charge batteries in a matter of a few hours.

and i'm banking on a serious oil shortage soon. that would be sweet. wishful thinking? a teensy bit. shit's gotta hit the fan some time. the auto industry and the systems we have set up for them are inefficient, expensive, filfthy and they kill. good riddance to bad rubbish.

and it should be known that i'm unfortunately residing in minneapolis right now. you know the twin shitties. it fucking sucks here. we've got snow and ice on the streets and temps below zero and in single digits at night. and biking still beats driving.

Most headlights come with a 2 rubber pads,on for 7/8 (most bikes) and one for 15/16(road bikes). If you take the pad out you have 1 inch which is the size of the clamping area in the middle.Some mountain bike bars are tapered so it's best to mount the light up against the brake lever so it doesn't try to slide down the taper. Phillips screwdrivers come in different sizes so if you use one too big or too small you'll strip the head. You could always replace the screw with an allen head one. I actually move my light bracket from one bike to another without incident cuz I only have enough money for one light. Wealth of experience aside, you sound a little impatient and ham-fisted. I assure you a lot more people know how to work on bikes than you think, which is why shops never advertise for new mechanics, they'd have a line around the block.
Citybikes on Ankeny and 20th sells a front wheel with a generator hub and the lights that go with it. I don't how bright people expect their lights to be. If it's as bright as a car or motorcycle it's never gonna happen. I figure my lights are for being seen , not seeing.

IMO, Generators (dynamos) are a much better solution to lights on a bicycle than battery-operated lights. They work fine and contrary to your statement, they are less easily stolen than battery lights, since they are usually pretty securely bolted to the bicycle frame. The drag or loss of efficiency is minimal if the dynamo is properly installed and working correctly.

City bikes is a good local source for dynamo lights; Peter White Cycles is a good source on the Web, see links below:

 http://www.citybikes.coop/
 http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/lightingsystems.htm

I've been using generator lights since I was 15- that's 31 years now.

My experience has been that the drag, while detectable, isn't bad enough to zark about. Of course, it helps to make sure that the generator's axis is really lined up with the radius of the wheel so that the tire wall isn't skidding across the generator wheel.

My latest genny set cost a bit over twenty bucks and has provided several years of reliable service. When the bulb in my taillight burned out (it was an oddball Chinese bulb for which I couldn't find an exact replacement through the usual electronics industry sources) I ripped the socket out of the taillight and installed a couple of rectifiers, current-limiting resistors and four 10mm super-bright red LEDs. Result: a taillight that was brighter than the average car taillight.

If you want to get more sophisticated, it's possible to rectify the generator output and trickle-charge a rechargeable battery so as to keep the lights on when you stop. Popular Electronics published a project to do that back in the '70s.

Genny lights are always there when you need them, unlike lights using batteries, and they're a lot more environmentally friendly than constantly buying batteries, draining them and throwing them away.

Whatever technique you prefer, FOR FUCKS SAKE LIGHT UP! There's already too much hazard from drivers who don't care enough about safety; there's no point in adding conscientious drivers with merely human powers of vision to the dangers you face.

I witnessed a horrible accident a few years ago. On a dark, secluded, winding road, a highly intoxicated man jumped out in front of a moving vehicle. The driver, a young mother, was going well below the speed limit with two young children in the car. There was absolutely nothing the driver could have done to avoid the accident. I know that for a fact because I saw it happen.

The result of the accident? The reckless drunk was airlifted, hospitalized, and eventually recovered. Luckily all the passengers in the vehicle were physically unharmed. However, they are still dealing with the psychological trauma. I was there holding these two young children (both around 8 years old) as they wept hysterics. I was there as the driver almost went into shock. And I can't even fathom the guilt and grief that will plague her for years to come. I imagine the scene replays itself over and over when she closes her eyes at night. It has been three years now, and it still haunts me as well.

My point is, it is not always the person labeled as "victim" that exclusively suffers. In this case, the passengers in the vehicle were the victim of another persons disregard for his own life. "Geez", you should pay attention to this before you pick on people like Rex. He has a very valid point from a perspective that many are too stubborn to consider.

Heart attack is obviously a conscientious, articulate person. He is bringing up a EXTREMELY LEGITIMATE point, in a forum where he knew people would dismiss it without even considering his stance. I wondering how he's reacting to the fact that the same people he is trying to help are attacking his stance. That shows a lot of open-mindness.

suggestions to cyclist (from someone who bikes 95%, and drives 5%):

*try to pay extra attention to cars (i know you "shouldent have to", but i have noticed that after 2 1/2 yeras of biking, many times i have to think for not only myself, but also for the other driver. especially people on cell phones. i think its bullshit that they are distracted (and it is their fault), but i just try to make eye contact and try to "perdict" what they are going to do.
i know people blow stop signs and dont signal, ect ect, but being extra observant will save your life.


*if you bike at night: lights, lights, lights! front and back (otherwise it is illegal). would you drive a car without your lights on? of course not. cyclist are responsible for their own safety. having lights could save your life, so its worth it! and dont say..."well, my lights broke", or "my batteries died..." so what, plan ahead! lights are serious shit that will save you. maybe carry an extra set of batteries with you, just in case! these are lame excuses people! i would also like to say that while biking, i have almost hit other bikers who dont have lights, ect, this really sucks too!


*life is not fair. yeah we all know. there are always going to be assholes in cars who dont give a shit about anyone. SO, with that said, just watch out for yourself and maybe learn to just RELAX a little bit. i know i used to get crazy in the past at people who would almost kill me. i used to give the finger to them. after awhile, i used to hate ALL cars and it started to become distructive to me and my health. i have come to realize this is not worth the trouble. OK, so it is the drivers fault they almost hit you. giving them the finger will only piss them off more, maybe they will get angrier and hit you anyways. its not fair, its not cool, BUT, its not worth it. let it go. people in cars DO have the advantage of 2000 pounds (or more) of steel to protect them. we dont! take the higher ground, turn the other cheek, ect (or if you really feel strongly about it, get a license plate number and report it to their insurance company, i just dont think direct confrontatin is worth it, its really not....)

*use the portland bike map ($6 dollars at local bike stores). i cant believe bikers who will bike up the most main, and busy streets (hawthorne, belmont, division, burnside, SE 39th). come on people! look at the bike map. go one or two blocks over from these main roads, and its nice and quiet. that way you can parralell these roads, and save yourself from getting hit. its my opinion that most people who bike up the major roads (with some exceptions) are just looking to be "seen"., to look "cool". well its not cool, and most cyclist know that your just trying to be cool when everyone else with half a brain wouldent bike up that road.
try this: instead of hawthorne go to salmon st. (3 blocks over), division = clinton (or lincoln), SE 39th = 42nd (north to south), burnside = go to glisan (bike lanes on road), i mean, come on people. this isnt that hard, and its alot cooler anyways!

i love to bike and i want everyone to be safe. but come on people, use common sense. the people who bike without lights, they give the rest of us bad names. lets take responsibility for ourselves instead of letting the people in cars ruin it for us. i love you all !!!!!!

The "cyclist and car driver" above is a victim of Cyclist Inferiority Complex. You have bought into the notion that bikes don't belong on main drags, that they are safer on side streets. It ain't so, not necessarily. You are usually safer on streets with controlled intersections. You are both safer and can ride faster on thoroughfares with a minimum number of intersections, as opposed to residential streets with uncontrolled intersections at every single block. Riding on such streets is actually much slower and more dangerous, because the temptation becomes very strong to glide through stop signs due to the tedium of stopping at stop sign after stop sign. Any fast cyclist who has a destination to get to and a time to get there will find stopping assiduously at dozens of blocks of such stops can often be excruciating.

Learn how to ride competently in all traffic conditions. Read John Forester's book, _Effective Cycling_. Learn the real statistics of accidents and the conditions that usually cause them. Take an Effective Cycling course. You will learn how to ride with confidence anywhere you need to go in the most expeditious and safest way. Believe it or not, even if you've been riding a bike since you were a child, there are still things you don't know about riding bikes, things that are not intuitive and that you wouldn't know unless you either learned them the hard way, deliberately riding in all different kinds of road conditions without benefit of instruction and taking your lumps, or through taking a good vehicular cycling course.

Inciting people to run over bike riders.
Why is it that no court action has been taken on this?
Why has it not made the main stream news?
Why does fox news not run it every night?

 http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1066555972322380.xml


Radio DJs' remarks incite national concern for cyclists

10/19/03

Martin Stolz
Plain Dealer Reporter


CORRECTION: Because of a reporting error, this story about bicyclists and Clear Channel Communications gave an incorrect occupation for Patrick Galla. Galla is a structural technician who works at an engineering firm. END

Cleveland radio disc jockeys created a local frenzy last summer when they advocated that motorists mow down bicyclists.

Similar comments last month on Raleigh and Houston radio stations - all owned by Clear Channel Communications - have sparked a national furor against the company. Some bicyclists have asked the federal government to punish the company or revoke broadcast licenses.

The spiritual leader behind the fight against the nation's biggest radio conglomerate is Lois Cowan, a Cleveland woman who runs four bike shops and rallies supporters using pleas posted as "idiot alerts" on a Web site and in e-mail.

The controversy began June 30 with broadcasters on the "Lanigan and Malone" show on WMJI-FM/105.7. "Cleveland's Knuckleheads," as the station promotes them, and on-air callers described ways to heckle cyclists, edge them off the road or strike them with car doors, according to listeners. Such acts could bring felony assault or other criminal charges.

The weeklong banter frayed nerves, both of motorists frustrated by cyclists on the road and of the fearful bicyclists, who have a legal right to use any road in Ohio except interstate highways.

On July 3, the show had an on-air telephone interview with Cowan, owner of Century Cycles shops.

The DJs derided her explanation of Ohio law, saying she suffered from PMS, she said.

The next week, Cowan sat down with Clear Channel officials, who agreed to apologize on-air to bicyclists, broadcast public service announcements about sharing the road and donate $10,000 for bike advocacy.

Cowan thought the crisis had passed.

That changed last month when she learned about anti-bicycle rants on Clear Channel stations in Raleigh, N.C. and Houston.

On Aug. 30, a pickup truck driver in Texas hit a line of bicyclists, killing two and injuring three. On Sept. 2, a Houston station offered bicycle-disabling advice and jokes similar to what aired in Cleveland. Then, beginning on Sept. 22, a Clear Channel station in Raleigh did the same. Both stations later apologized.

Cowan, a finalist for the National Bicycle Dealers Association "Advocate of the Year" award, learned of the Houston broadcasts from a friend of the dead cyclists. In response, she filed a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission. She asked the FCC to investigate and to help her get tapes from WMJI. Other cyclists have filed complaints, too, the FCC said.

"They obviously haven't gotten the message," Cowan said. "I don't consider it worked out."

Clear Channel operates more than 1,200 radio stations in the United States. The company holds FCC licenses for nine stations in the Cleveland/Akron market. For years, WMJI, an oldies rock station, has consistently been one of the region's highest-rated and most-profitable stations.

The company has tapes of the "Lanigan and Malone" shows but will not release them, said Kevin Metheny, the company's regional vice president of programming. "We are not inclined to get into the tedious details," he said.

"If the bicycle enthusiasts wish to enumerate the details, they are free to do so," he added. "But we apologized, we extended numerous, substantial gestures of goodwill, and we believe we have moved on."

Lawyer Patrick Galla, 55, a cyclist who rides his bike about 9,000 miles each year, took notes on all the broadcasts. His firm, Barber and Hoffman, tunes in all day to WMJI. He was listening when the subject of bikers first came up in June.

According to Galla, sports anchor Mark Bishop complained on a "Monday Moaning" segment about encountering a line of cyclists on Lake Road in Avon Lake. Bishop told listeners that as he passed, he wanted to yell obscenities at the cyclists for blocking the road. But Bishop said he forgot to roll down the passenger-side window and shouted in his wife's ear instead.

News anchor Chip Kullik responded that Bishop could have hit them or run them off the road, Galla said.

Galla said host Jimmy Malone did not participate in the banter or respond to callers, whose comments mostly echoed Kullik's. At one point, Malone announced that he rides a bike, Galla said.

As the week progressed, callers' comments grew increasingly irate, Galla said. The station offered dinner prizes for callers with the most outlandish ideas for thwarting bicyclists, he said. One motorist suggested speeding ahead and then abruptly stopping and throwing open the passenger door in a cyclist's path.

Host John Lanigan was on vacation, though he joined the discussion the next week to complain about the deluge of e-mails, including one asking whether his show helped the public.

"Well, quite frankly, I'm not here to serve the interests of the community," he says in a recording of the show. "I'm serving my interests by being here."

After Metheny brokered peace, he explained what happened to his boss, who oversees radio stations in Ohio and neighboring states. He declined to say whether Clear Channel directed stations in other states to avoid or to allow similar programming.

Clear Channel is not new to controversy. In the past year, it has been accused of monopolizing the radio industry, banning the Dixie Chicks and acting as a right-wing mouthpiece.

The company is in the sights of U.S. Sens. John McCain, Russ Feingold and Byron Dorgan.

A Washington-based public-interest research group, Essential Information, last month challenged FCC renewal of 63 broadcast licenses held by Clear Channel stations. The complaint accuses the company of committing animal cruelty, staging fake competitions, abusing the emergency alert system and causing false emergencies by having on-air personalities commit crimes.

"Every station is required, believe it or not, to have 'good character' as part of the public-interest standard," said Jim Donahue, a researcher for Essential Information. He said the law does not appear to matter to Clear Channel. "That's why I'm not surprised that they want motorists to run over bicyclists."

"These kinds of stunts," he said, "should be considered part of the overall history of Clear Channel's violations of law."

WMJI, whose license is up for renewal next October, was not in Donahue's complaint.

Because of the pending complaints from bicyclists, FCC lawyers declined to comment on whether inciting violence betrayed the commission's Character Policy Statement.

Susan Elmore, a company spokeswoman, said Clear Channel does not "condone advocating violence in any form. We've been committed to working with the cycling community in each of these separate incidences."

Elmore said Clear Channel had no comment about the company's compliance with the FCC's character rules.

Cal Kirchick, a Cleveland lawyer and bicycle advocate, said WMJI probably violated Ohio laws against inciting violence. If a motorist were to harm a bicyclist, he added, the company could be found liable.

The FCC cannot censor content. But it restricts obscene and indecent speech.

Violators can be fined or lose their licenses.

Cowan said radio stations should be concerned about bicyclists' safety. Last year, 15 Ohio cyclists and 647 in other states died in accidents with cars.

"This is a serious problem," she said. "The media has some responsibility to the public."

But CRW says that we are the problem.

I don't know why you would think that I wouldn't understand all the ramifications to all parties in a case such as you describe. I also don't know why you think that I am a critic of Heart Attack. I didn't criticize what Heart Attack said, nor did I say anything that runs counter to what he said. I also don't know why you think I am one of the very people Heart Attack is trying to protect. Did I say I ride a bike? For your information, I don't. But let's just agree that Heart Attack seems like a very caring person, and probably cares as much about my welfare as any bike rider in the night.

I also didn't say that Rex was a bad person.

I responded directly to what Rex wrote. Read it again. She dies, Rex is seen as a bad person. And "all" Rex could think about was that people would see him as a bad person.

Rex didn't talk about how bad he would feel about her suffering, or the horror of being involved in an accident (as indicated in the case you described). Rex talked about how bad it would be if people saw him as a bad person.

We all think about ourselves a little too much sometimes. Unfortunately lately, this seems to happen on the road much more than in some other areas of life. And it is seen very clearly throughout this entire thread, on both sides of the issue.

Rex's post was an easy one to use to point this out. My post was not mean at all. Read it again. I was just saying, "Hey, look at what you're saying." Sometimes friends do that for me. I see it as helpful. Sometimes you have to step out of your flow and take a second look at exactly what you're saying and doing. Does it reflect who you really are, or want to be?

So Irony, you commented on a lot of assumptions of your own, which really had nothing to do with what I wrote.

good points. i appreciate them. guess i should have clarified, because my comments/assumptions weren't just directed at you. the whole "people who drive cars are careless evil murderers" assumption that is commonly made just irks the hell out of me. careless evil people are everywhere, and there is no law that says they can't ride bikes.

Whew! I didn't know if you would take my reply nicely (as you did), or react to it. Sometimes it's hard to communicate with text only. But it's great when it works. Glad we could agree on a few things. Have a safe holiday season Ironic, Rex, Heart Attack, all bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians.

It can be a shitty place sometimes.

Let's all be careful of each other and make it a little bit better.

I agree with the old hippie.

The cyclist you speak of should probably have been more careful, and it's a good idea to plan for cyclists who disregard the dangers and hope that everyone is driving/biking defensively.

I appreciate your comments. I should have worded it better.

Of course, my first thoughts were about the girl that ran that sign.

I was angry that she put herself in danger like that, and I really wanted to chase her down and ask her if she knew how close she came to getting killed!
I don't even want to imagine what would have happened if she was a little later running that stop sign. I'm glad she wasn't.

Ride safe! Put some lights on your bike. They're very inexpensive and can save your life.
Imagine what life would be like if cars drove around without lights...

Fix your brakes if you are going to drive a car so that you don't skid and almost hit somebody.

Again, the DCH (Dumb, Cheap Hippie) factor is rearing it's brainless, dreadlocked head. Ride at night? Lights, the best ones you can buy, beg, borrow or steal. Also reflective clothing and, darn it, ride WITH traffic and not against it. Remember that the critters in cars don't have full use of all of their faculties and thus can't be trusted to respond with normal human eyesight, hearing, or reflexes.