New Haven Independent

Posted by: Edward_H | November 22, 2009 11:36 AM

Damn sorry to hear this. Hope there is no permanent damage. Get well soon.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | November 22, 2009 11:51 AM

Broken jaw? Dang. Horrible to hear about that. I wish Mr. Streever a speedy a full recovery.

Posted by: Walt | November 22, 2009 11:52 AM

Hope Streever is OK.

Surprised that he would be bicycling around Town at 2 a.m. when the drunks were controlling Downtown with an extra influx from the Yale/Harvard fans.

Avid bicyclist or not, I thought he was one of the more sensible riders

Not saying it was his fault, but a little caution might have protected him..

Lights, reflective jackets and bikes, I would expect that he had, unlike those pedaling out State Street every morning in the dark, hustling to their jobs, but they are all in danger, not necessarily because of a driver's fault.

When you recover, Streever ,I hope you will emphasize bike safety in your efforts..

Posted by: Norton Street | November 22, 2009 12:32 PM

"visitors swarmed into town for the Yale-Harvard football game."

Commuters swarm into the city 5 days a week also.

Mass automobile usage requires expansive construction of car storage infrastructure, which often requires demolition of historic buildings. The space taken for parking infrastructure is then made up for by stacking space further vertically like in sky scrapers, which destroy the scale of towns like New Haven, make walking an immensely daunting task, and separate people from the street. Cars also pollute, are noisy and extremely dangerous.
There is no argument for continuing a car dependent culture; simple as that.

Streever has made it abundantly clear that he knows how to properly ride a bike in the city, if he's getting hit, then what hope is there for anybody else?

Children should be able to do somersaults in the middle of the street and not have to worry about getting hit. Streets are an extension to the buildings that face them. Over decades we have perverted their use to only carrying traffic. Life is not about getting from point A to point B fastest, its about the experience at every moment. What can be experienced on many streets other than the noise of traffic, smell of gasoline, the sense that you're in constant danger, and that to be outside of a car is abnormal? Is this good enough?

The only thing I disagree with in the article is:

"and perhaps the most gracious and charitable to other commenters and public figures with whom he disagrees."

He's a big meany pants to me.

Posted by: Esteban | November 22, 2009 12:55 PM

Thank goodness Mr. Streever will recover from his injuries and was not more seriously hurt. As one who was very nearly creamed between a city bus and a parked car while riding my bicycle on Chapel Street some years ago, I know what a danger New Haven streets can be.

I've observed and participated in the local motorized traffic of many other cities in North America and Europe, and I know first hand how perilous the streets of New Haven are in comparison to most. Indeed this is only one of many ways in which New Haven is a model of rudeness.

When will our law enforcement authorities take seriously New Haven motorists' ever growing indifference to traffic lights, stop signs, and rules of the road? When will New Haven's bicyclists have their own lanes of traffic and when will the CT state legislature recognize bicycles as legitimate vehicles worthy of the same respect afforded the motorized polluters of the road? And when will all you Chatty Cathys shut off your cell phones when you drive your cars? Save your hot air. You'll need it to explain your next traffic violation.

Posted by: Nan Bartow | November 22, 2009 1:56 PM

David, I sorry to hear about your horrendous accident on Chapel and Temple. I wish you well and hope you recover fully and as quickly as possible under the circumstances. We must continue the fight for safe streets for everyone in New Haven.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 22, 2009 2:43 PM

Sorry David! Rest will, and a speedy recovery. Will check with friends to see how you are doing and what you may need.

Posted by: Greg | November 22, 2009 3:04 PM

I was shocked to hear about this, as I had seen and talked with Streever Friday evening. At least it wasn't worse.

Obviously, the police are working on the details of the accident, but I tend to believe that Streever was riding safely and properly (that's the only way I've seen him ride).

Get well soon.

Posted by: juli | November 22, 2009 3:07 PM

thank you for all that you do for new haven, david. we are all wishing you the best.

Posted by: Carl Goldfield | November 22, 2009 3:09 PM

For me there is a small painful irony in this. I biked to work on Thursday and saw David on the Green that evening at the fundraiser for the homeless. He was manning the Elm City Bicycling tent and pleased to see that I was riding. I was preparing to leave and he expressed great concern that I was not sufficiently lit up, urged me to buy better lights at Devil's Gear and then wished me a safe ride home which I accomplished. He bestowed his good karma on me and I wish I could have returned the favor.

David get well soon!

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | November 22, 2009 3:16 PM

Get well soon,Look to see you back on this site so we can kick it.

Posted by: Liana | November 22, 2009 3:26 PM

I was rather shocked to hear this as well. David, I'm so sorry.

Posted by: robn | November 22, 2009 3:54 PM

STREEVER,

The pain from the jaw injury might have been surpassed by the temporary but excrutiating inability to speak...good news is that you've still got the NHI.

Just joshing. Get well soon buddy!

Posted by: MR | November 22, 2009 4:25 PM

That photo is heartbreaking.

Here's wishing you a very speedy recovery, David! New Haven could use more do-gooders like you.

Posted by: nfjanette | November 22, 2009 4:59 PM

Best wishes to Streever for a speedy and complete recovery.

Posted by: andrew garrow | November 22, 2009 5:52 PM

norton st.i'd like very much to see you do summersaults and handstands in the street. what a very strange thing to say. my kids are not allowed to play in traffic, nor will they ever be. there are cars in these streets. can i have some of your crack dude? i hear it's invigorating.

i hope mr. streever recovers fully, then stays out of traffic when he knows drunks and revelers are in full effect behind the wheel.
you are a good man, and it's not time for you to leave us. cars on streets trump bikes. be careful while bicycling.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | November 22, 2009 5:57 PM

Glad to hear it wasn't more serious! Best wishes on a speedy recovery.

Posted by: JSJ | November 22, 2009 6:36 PM

Wishing you a quick and full recovery, David!

Posted by: Norton Street | November 22, 2009 7:30 PM

Andrew,
In America, 'the street' is part of the public realm; it is 'a place'. Buildings and trees are meant to line streets in an ordered manor in ways that define outdoor space by enclosing it on at least 2 sides. Streets are places for people to congregate, chat, stroll, etc. The street also serves as a place for different kinds of transport to happen, from pedestrian to bike to trolley to bus to car. Unfortunately, with the surge of automobile use beginning in the 1920s and exploding after WW2, the 'public realm' part of the street was ignored and a set of arbitrary, illogical and nonsensical set of traffic laws were created to control usage of the street in only terms of transit. Well, its been about 50 years, maybe its time to look back and decide whether or not this was a good decision. Do the number of vehicle related deaths/injuries, the asthma rates, the air pollution, the general sense of danger, the stress related to commuting in traffic, the time spent away from family/friends locked in a steel and glass box, the isolation, and the failed organization of our living arrangement outweigh the benefits of having mass personal transportation? If so, does it also outweigh the destruction done to city cores, rural landscapes, forests, farmland and small towns through traffic and parking infrastructure?
To think that we must continue a transportation system and a way of organizing a living arrangement that both destroy our culture and degrade our lives just because this is how its been since we were born is just about the most idiotic thing ever. We can do better than this.
There are quantifiable and realizable solutions to all these problems; it is just a matter of implementing them. People don't have to spend hours a week away from their families to sit in a car to commute, children don't have to live outside of walking distance to parks, and friends' houses, people don't have to live in crowded slums or give up their gardens and front yards in order to transition into a more sensible living arrangement where things that we need and use everyday are a short pleasant walk, a short safe bike ride, and/or a short affordable mass transit ride away. Cars can serve a valuable purpose that does more good than bad, if they are used moderately. Parking can occur on-street and in private garages and in few cases could even be in small lots in the center of built up blocks, but that space should be mostly used for courtyards except when additional parking is absolutely required. Parkways are great vehicular travel systems, highways should be gotten rid of though and fixed path transit along rail should be vastly expanded.

If you have an argument for why accidents like the one Streever just had are something we will just have to accept as being part of our lives, I'd love to hear it, Mr. Garrow.

Posted by: AndersonScooper | November 22, 2009 8:13 PM

David, please recover quickly.

We need you as an advocate for Safer Streets, and again, I'd like to know what the City and Yale are doing to make downtown an environment that is safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.

PS-- That same Friday night I saw a souped-up Honda, without its lights on, do literally 60-70mph down Crown Street from College to York. Strangely, one of the cars he sped by was a patrol car, who did absolutely nothing. When asked I was given the excuse that there is a "no-chase" policy?

Posted by: Jason Stockmann | November 22, 2009 8:20 PM

David, our thoughts are with you as you await surgery. You've been an inspiration to a lot of people in this town.

Mr. Garrow, not to politicize this story -- I just want to hear that David makes a brisk and full recovery -- but your comment about cars trumping bikes on the street demands a response. I think such a remark is particularly out of place in this article, salt in the wound given David's tireless efforts to elevate the stature and safety of cyclists in New Haven. The remark also has no legal basis, given that state law treats bicycles as vehicles no different from automobiles.

Posted by: ParkStTaxPayer | November 22, 2009 8:33 PM

bicycling is the most efficient form of personal transport known. See: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10/quote_of_the_da_9.php for more details.

I last saw Streever at New Haven Green Drinks this past week, and in true form, he was a PART of the solution, not just a spectator, like so many of us.

If an individual chooses to ride a bicycle, (s)he should not be demonized for taking care of his/her health, environment, and personal impact on the world. Bicycling in New Haven can be fun, harrowing, fantastic, social, safe, and dangerous. Individual drivers move en masse, but are still individual drivers. Bicyclists share the road with drivers. Police horses share the road with drivers too. The streets are for the individual; whether they are pre-packaged in 2 tons of steel or riding a carbon-fiber bicycle weighing less than 20 pounds.

When two automobiles crash, there are often different outcomes for those at fault, compared to auto-bicycle collisions. I hope the driver doesn't just get a slap on the wrist.

As for reflectors, lights, signaling lane changes, wearing a helmet, etc; it doesn't matter how safe a bicycling activist is riding if the motorist is drunk or not paying attention.

Drive safely not for yourself or your passengers; drive safely for the person you might hit! Be in control of your vehicle, and be able to stop your vehicle on the YELLOW.

I wish Streever a speedy recovery, and commend Tom on his quick thinking. I'm lucky to call both my friend.

~Eric T

Posted by: dkr | November 22, 2009 8:42 PM

yes mr andersoncopper,..what you were told was absolutly correct. new haven p.d has a no-chase policy. so when you are a part of the overhaul concerning our judicial system along with the liberal population that feels the death penalty is cruel and unusual, tell that to the victims of the ft. hood incident, or mr, petit,..go back and ask that same police officer the same question.

Posted by: juli | November 22, 2009 8:43 PM

well said, jason.

Posted by: andrew garrow | November 22, 2009 9:01 PM

norton st. no. no no no no.
front steps, walls in front of your house / apartment, sidewalks, parks, front yard & the hood of your car - that's where you congregate.
even when we were playing street hockey as kids, we knew enough to yell "car" when cars were coming (by the way we didn't play on campbel ave, we knew enough to move the game to side streets because at the age of ten we knew better) then "play on" after the potentially life ending vehicles were safely away.
should i plan a picnic on the amtrak line in branford this weekend and expect trains to let me finish? how about setting up a blanket on chapel st sidewalk in july and yell at people who tell me to move?
maybe you should move somewhere that only allows jetpacks, segways or momorails. of course remember what happened to ogdenville from the simpsons when the monorail came to town.
am i the only one here who finds you to be a tad extreme? ...

Posted by: Norton Street | November 22, 2009 10:18 PM

Andrew,
So your answer is yes, we should accept that death or injury is an acceptable outcome for a person doing anything in the streets other than driving a car or using some form of transportation?
You are hilariously misinformed and historically ignorant. To understand what 'the street' is you must go back further than your childhood, you must actually look at history. Then compounded with what we know today about streets, we can make good decisions about how our streets should perform in the future.
"The street" is an idea that represents how our sidewalk and road systems should compliment and connect our public spaces. In order to determine the best usage of an individual sidewalk and road system aka street, we must carefully look at what is needed, what is desired and what should be planned for. An Avenue, for example, is best used to circulate mass transit at slow speeds as to allow people to enjoy walking the street but not so much so that they impede movement. A parkway, as another example, is best used to circulate fast moving automobiles and buses from one town to another. A parkway is not a street because it does not contain the second part of what makes up a street (the sidewalk). A boulevard is best used when transit is a priority but pedestrian activity is still very important. A street (different from 'the street') is best used as a calm, peaceful place for people to enjoy their front porches away from the noise of busier streets like avenues; it is appropriate and good that children use this space. Rail lines are strictly for moving fixed path transit and cargo, people are not meant to use them at all.
Ideally, cities would like to build either elevated or underground rail lines, but since many cities do not have the capital to do so, they put it on streets. This condition is a privilege; to share the streets with people is a privilege for vehicles, not a right.

"even when we were playing street hockey as kids, we knew enough to yell "car" when cars were coming (by the way we didn't play on campbel ave, we knew enough to move the game to side streets because at the age of ten we knew better) then "play on" after the potentially life ending vehicles were safely away."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. There are not enough of these types of streets around for children currently. We have destroyed countless childhoods based on our continued and yearly expansive usage of cars. The idea that 'cars rule the streets' is false and dangerous. It is best to allow movement on streets, but not at the expense of people. Your childhood street hockey games are actually working along with my point; unfortunately you are misunderstanding what they actually represent. There is a balance when you get off the street to allow a car go by; there is a balance when a car see's children ahead and slows until they move; there is a balance when vehicles move slow enough to visually comprehend their surroundings completely; there is balance when the conditions on the street are BALANCED. There is no balance when kids can't even go into the street in the first place because 'cars own them'.

Posted by: Josh Smith | November 22, 2009 10:37 PM

First of all, I wish Dave Streever a speedy recovery. This couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. I was in Milford today, and if I had known this happened, I would've stopped by to visit him, but I'm back up in Glastonbury already. :(

Andrew, if we had built only around existing train stations/depots years ago, the streets could have been public spaces on which to play or do whatever. That's what "Norton St." was trying to say.

My dream is that America will some day wake up and build a car-free city, where no motorized vehicles are allowed past the perimeter, and where everything is built along the train/subway lines. It may just be a "radical" idea at the moment, but I know I'd LOVE to live in a place like that -- a place where you never have to worry about getting hit by a car, and you never have to hear the roar of engines flying past your house. Venice, Italy doesn't allow any cars in the city, and it seems like life goes on there, doesn't it? Why can't the USA have a town like that, but with rapid transit instead of canals? I'm not asking everyone give up their cars, just that a place is built where owning a car is optional, that's all...

Posted by: RAY WILLIS | November 22, 2009 11:54 PM

Saw David in the hospital tonight, the man looked like hell. dunno if I should be writing that, but it was heartbreaking. He did so much for me when I was hit and I walked away, I wish I could do the same in some way. Norton St, I've kind of got this man crush on you but David could have been far worse, we once discussed some of your comments irl. You guys are like prof X and Magneto. And Garrow, Paul Bass would never print what I call people like you. BTW, has anyone read the register comments thread on this story? Staggeringly revolting how drivers have reveled in Davids tragedy, it speaks volumes about the people of this town as well as the registers readers.

Posted by: DingDong | November 23, 2009 12:59 AM

Really sorry to hear this! Get better. And then kick this City's butt for having such unsafe streets!

Posted by: Morris Cove | November 23, 2009 1:07 AM

Really sorry to hear about your accident Streever, have a speedy recovery.

Posted by: RIchard Stowe | November 23, 2009 2:02 AM

Stowe to Streever - Get well soon, David!

Posted by: anon | November 23, 2009 4:53 AM

Thanks for posting that, Anderson. I also saw several cars doing 70MPH down Chapel this weekend, and two weekends ago. It is only a matter of time before several people are killed.

Redesigning the street here so that it is a place people simply can not speed on, as opposed to what it is now (i.e., a standard design right out of a 1950s interstate highway manual), is the only solution. Police officers are transient by nature. Redesign is the only way to put a halt on the insane traffic patterns and make Downtown into a livable place.

I am right at Church and Chapel, so have a front row seat to all of this action. I have seen two near-fatal crashes within the past year within one block of this location -- one about a month ago involving a young cyclist, and the other last spring involving an elderly pedestrian. I did not witness the killing of a pedestrian there a few weeks ago, but it happened there too.

I have also recently seen several pedestrians nearly run over by cars speeding along Church Street and making quick turns onto Chapel, a result of improperly-designed turning radii that must be addressed using bump-outs.

Did not witness David's crash here, but wish him a speedy recovery - from the looks of the crash scene and smashed windshield, if he had not been wearing a helmet, things could have been worse. Hope that the city will wake up and start promoting some new policies when it comes to make our streets accessible for those who do not drive.

Posted by: JR | November 23, 2009 5:03 AM

Get well soon!

Posted by: Sara K | November 23, 2009 7:41 AM

David, I am so sorry that this happened to you. You're like NYC. If it can happen to you, it can happen to any cyclist. Get well soon, buddy. We need you.

Norton St, I want to live in your future.

Posted by: Ned | November 23, 2009 8:03 AM

So sorry to hear about the harm done to Mr. Streever. Get well soon.

Posted by: Eddie | November 23, 2009 8:19 AM

Get well soon, Dave. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: Bruce | November 23, 2009 9:28 AM

STREEEEEEVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!

Hey man, hope you recover quickly. I know you won't listen to the defeatists who are ready to surrender the streets to reckless drivers.

In honor of your tireless efforts, I will ride my bike to work every day this week, weather be damned. I encourage all others to do the same.

Posted by: anthony | November 23, 2009 9:30 AM

Oh man. this is terrible news. David is one of the nicest guys I know, and easily the safest most cautious cyclist i know.

You'll be in my thoughts hommie.

anthony

Posted by: Walt | November 23, 2009 9:38 AM

The photo above shows the car well on the inside of the double line on its own side of the road. Looks (but may not be) like bike debris on the car -side also, as if the collision took place in the westbound lanes and the bike was tossed to the other side,

Certainly not an expert, but as most posts here appear to put the blame on the driver, it should be noted that she may or may not be at fault.

Either way, good luck to Streever.

Please keep us up to date on this.

Posted by: ROBN | November 23, 2009 9:42 AM

There is a three part solution to this problem.

One is for the state legislature to remove a city's disincentive to enforce vehicular laws by reimbursing cities for vehicular law enforcement; currently the state reaps speeding ticket fines.

Two is for the state legislature to learn from Ray Willis' experience and embed punitive measures in vehicular law which severely punishes automobile drivers who endanger or injure bicyclists; this would recognize the asymmetrical danger that automobiles pose to bicycles.

Three is to step up enforcement of vehicular laws, but with a bias which recognizes the asymmetrical danger that automobiles pose to bicycles (i.e. stricter enforcement on automobiles).

ARE YOU LISTENING HARTFORD?

Posted by: Volvo | November 23, 2009 9:47 AM

DS,

Thanks for all your tireless efforts on our behalf. Get well soon and hopefully we'll be seeing you soon.

To the Mayor, Alderman, Piscatelli, and others...the time for some greater action is upon us, no?

Posted by: Moira | November 23, 2009 9:50 AM

Streever! I'm so glad you're alive! Heal quickly and know that we are all thinking of you. oxoxoxoxo

Posted by: steve ross, human | November 23, 2009 9:50 AM

You're in our thoughts, Dave.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | November 23, 2009 10:48 AM

Wishing you a speedy recovery Streever.

We have been living in Berkeley for the past several months. The first thing we noticed is that every car stops at crosswalks. (No exaggeration - I have yet to see a single car race through a crosswalk.) The second thing we noticed is the large number of bikes, ridden by people of all ages. Since we live on a seep hill, we see serious bikers speeding down the hills at 25 m/p/h, and on the flats see more leisurely bikers on their way to school or work. All are accommodated.

Berkeley has a population similar to New Haven, with a crowded downtown with inadequate parking and plenty of traffic and major highways on both sides of town, jammed daily with commuters. The streets are still dominated by cars, but traffic moves more slowly, with several traffic calmers, from low-level speed bumps, to four-way stops to enforcement of the crosswalk law. Most of all, there is more of an acceptance of the relationship of the car to pedestrians and bikes. When I try to enter a crosswalk in New Haven, drivers often keep going, swerve, or yell an obsenity. That is a state of mind more than anything else, but it's not human nature.

Posted by: Jack | November 23, 2009 11:30 AM

I know a guy like you won't let a little thing like this keep you down for long Streever, see you at the New Year's Critmas.

Posted by: The Count | November 23, 2009 12:40 PM

You will note that this did NOT happen in the area of the Tomlinson Bridge, where cycling advocates claim the rails make for "hazardous" cycling.

Posted by: Steve | November 23, 2009 2:30 PM

@The Count:

If your point is that the Tomlinson bridge isn't the ONLY place where dangerous conditions exist for cyclists, then your point is well taken.

Posted by: nfjanette | November 23, 2009 4:43 PM

One is for the state legislature to remove a city's disincentive to enforce vehicular laws by reimbursing cities for vehicular law enforcement; currently the state reaps speeding ticket fines.

I agree and hope that some progress can be made on this issue - it's an amazing money grab by the state. How was that ever allowed to become law?

Two is for the state legislature to learn from Ray Willis' experience and embed punitive measures in vehicular law which severely punishes automobile drivers who endanger or injure bicyclists; this would recognize the asymmetrical danger that automobiles pose to bicycles.

Three is to step up enforcement of vehicular laws, but with a bias which recognizes the asymmetrical danger that automobiles pose to bicycles (i.e. stricter enforcement on automobiles).

I could not disagree more. The attitude expressed in this opinion shows that some cycling and pedestrian advocates do not accept fully the responsibility that is required by law for using the roads. It is an attitude which gets people hurt and, God forbid, killed. It is almost an every day occurrence that I see cyclists blowing through red lights in clear violation of the law, creating danger for themselves and all others in the road from potential avoidance maneuvers of motor vehicles. There can be no "asymmetrical" distinction made with regard to the need for increased enforcement, as proven by multiple pedestrian deaths in the city that were not the fault of the motor vehicles involved. All users of the roads must respect and obey the laws, and those laws are applicable to motorists, cyclists, and yes, pedestrians.

Posted by: Harry | November 23, 2009 7:14 PM

Walt is right. Everyone assumes that the driver is at fault, but who knows? The photo does make it seem as though the driver is where she should be...bikers aren't always perfect. She has been cooperating with police and no arrests have been made. I am curious to see what details emerge, but it seems as though the only witnesses were the driver and David.

In any event, I hope you get well soon, David!

Posted by: Norton Street | November 23, 2009 8:33 PM

NFJANETTE,
You've completely ducked out of responding to several of my posts to you on other articles, but perhaps you'll stop running.

The difference between a car and a cyclists is the difference between a bazooka and a knife. The difference between a car and a pedestrian is the difference between a bazooka and a fist. This is what should be considered when using streets.
If we imagine a scale and on it we place 3 cars on one side and 3 people on the other, is the scale balanced? No, you would need many more people to balance the weight of 3 cars. This principle can be applied to proportional responsibilities when using streets. The safety of pedestrians is of greater importance than the safety of vehicles (bike, cars, buses, etc). The safety of cyclists is more important than motorized vehicles, the safety of mass transit riders is more important than the safety of single passenger cars, and so on. This condition should exist based on the danger posed by 2000 lbs of steel and glass versus 175lbs of a bike rider + bike going 15 mph. The responsibility to society of transportation users is proportional to their threat of injury posed to people. Motorized transit, for example, bears a great level of responsibility because of the potential for speed + mass, and because of the pollution they cause, the unpleasant street conditions they cause, the isolation and separation they cause in society, etc. Non motorized transit, like pedestrians and bicyclists bear less responsibility because they cannot go very fast and cannot create much force, and they do not destroy the public realm.
This doesn't even get into the discussion of people not in transportation who have just as much a right to streets as a person in transit (walking is a type of transportation). People looking to have conversations, relaxing, whatever are allowed to use the public realm, which includes the street; not in a way that impedes movement, but balance is the key.
All forms of transit should be accommodated for in respect to pedestrians, all types of activity should be accommodated for in respect to the human being; this is the basic principle that you don't get. The kind of circulation systems we've been used to seeing in the last 60 or so years will merely be seen as a millisecond defined by massive inefficiency in moving people, and massive destruction to the public realm on the timeline of the history of civilization. We can do much better than this; we should do much better than this, and people like you should start helping, rather than impeding needed progress by accepting current trends as being the only way to do things.

Posted by: andrew garrow | November 23, 2009 9:32 PM

HEY NORTON!
dude, just had an epiphany, everything you have said now makes sense.
instead of ambulances we'll just have tandem bikes take stroke victims to the hospital.
No more trucks carrying merchandise -no, we're going full ho chi minh trail, guys with backbacks, donkeys and dudes with two sticks carrying stuff hanging from them for our delivery system.
my kids will now actually walk the six miles to school thier grandfather swears he did.
no more drive up tellers, fast food or funerals. making out a the drive in movie - no way.
when i need to take my dog to the vet at 3am, he'll get the old fashioned "ole yeller" - one behind the ear.
thank you man, i came THAT close to conforming.
say, can i borrow your copy of "catcher in the rye"?

Posted by: anna | November 23, 2009 10:11 PM

David, please be ok

Posted by: Brian Tang | November 23, 2009 10:52 PM

Get well soon, Streever!!

Posted by: JMS | November 23, 2009 11:37 PM

Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Hope you are back up and riding ASAP.

JMS

Posted by: Norton Street | November 24, 2009 12:32 AM

HAHAHAHA,
Aandrew, thank you for bringing up ambulances. Because its precisely the car dependent culture in America that prevents ambulances, fire trucks and police cars from getting to destinations faster due to traffic. The idea that we should get rid of vehicles is ridiculous. The automobile was one of the greatest inventions ever; unfortunately, its overuse has created many unintended consequences.
We shouldn't get rid out trash pick-up, and we shouldn't bring back horses to cities either. There are things in the past we can redevelopment to work in our modern lives, and there are things we currently do that make no sense and should be abandoned.
Also, rail is much more efficient then trucking. The poor layout of our living, working and shopping arrangement however, makes trucking necessary, but by retrofitting many suburban communities into town centers (example: Kentlands, Maryland) we can make rail workable again in this country.
I am within a 10 minute walk to 2 amazing parks, one designed by Frederick Law Olmstead Jr. I'm also in walking distance to groceries and clothing stores. Don't blame me for your poor choice in where to buy a house.
Its perfectly fine for everyone to own a car; its just important to not be dependent on them because their overuse negatively effects the country more than positively. Look at how towns were laid out prior to WW2, they were much better places to live than post WW2 suburbs. Lower Westville, for example, is laid out on a simple grid that allowed for pleasant walking as well as driving. Upper Westville is laid out on windy, disorienting and illogical streets, which does not make walking pleasant or practical. I'm advocating for choice, you are advocating for....car dependence? more traffic? more asthma? more deaths? more isolation and separation? In what way does your sarcasm help to make the quality of life better for the next generation of children?

Posted by: RAY WILLIS | November 24, 2009 1:44 AM

NFJANETTE, I am personally offended when, in this type of thread, people such as yourself rationalize people like Streever and I being hit by citing "I see cyclists cycling like jerks all the time". The details on Streevers accident are forthcoming but I can fax you a copy of my police report if you'd like. I was riding to the right of the road, hugging the curb, and was hit by a car that was speeding in the wrong lane. Now, please explain to me how all the kids riding on the sidewalk and against traffic validate my getting hit riding responsibly? Or is it my fault for being close to sunset when it rained that morning, or Davids fault for riding during a time of night when its common knowledge that everyone on the road is drunk and we all accept that kind of insanity as the reality we're comfortable living in? Are we now irresponsible cyclists for riding on days that aren't sunny and perfect when the drunks and aldermen aren't out potentially killing people? Please, somebody, tell me the schedule that I am allowed to ride my bike so as not to inconvenience drunks and uninsured bad drivers; I'd hate for them to have to feel guilty for murdering me.

Posted by: maso | November 24, 2009 7:32 AM

why is it acceptable for so many to find guilt with the driver of the car, but when I comment that the cyclist may be at fault, my comments are not posted ? DID NHI EVER HEAR OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT?

[Editor's Note: This statement is fine under the posting guidelines. Thanks for posting it. Unsubtantiated factual allegations, especially involving a police matter, are not.]

Posted by: maso | November 24, 2009 7:35 AM

To all the "green" cyclists: have you heard about the global warming hoax/coverup?

Posted by: maso | November 24, 2009 8:19 AM

The cyclist downtown are like the mafia. They spit at cars, scream and swear at anyone who drives near them, ride on sidewalks when convenient, go against traffic flow, weave in and out of traffic waiting at lights and then intentionally slow down the very same people whom they just cut in front of. I agree that lanes are needed for cyclist, but only to protect everyone else!

Posted by: Ned | November 24, 2009 8:21 AM

"One is for the state legislature to remove a city's disincentive to enforce vehicular laws by reimbursing cities for vehicular law enforcement; currently the state reaps speeding ticket fines." I think the rationale for this policy is to prevent cities from using traffic tickets as a revenue source - like some hick towns. Is the point to make money, or make the streets safer? You could make the speed limit on the Boulevard 2mph and then right tickets all day, while ignoring people driving 40 mph in residential neighborhoods...

I have never heard a persuasive argument as to how increased vehicular traffic improves life in New Haven.

Those damn cyclist and pedestrians should be killed or maimed for getting in the way of my Lincoln Navigator with the chrome rims and earth shattering sound system or toxic Prius; really how dare I be even momentarily inconvenienced; what's next yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks?...

Posted by: maso | November 24, 2009 8:24 AM

Same rights. SAME RULES

Posted by: Norton Street | November 24, 2009 9:21 AM

Maso,
You're being more annoying than I am, calm down.

Posted by: Ned | November 24, 2009 9:26 AM

Maso,

Is a sparrow a 747?

Posted by: newsie | November 24, 2009 9:49 AM

"[Editor's Note: This statement is fine under the posting guidelines. Thanks for posting it. Unsubtantiated factual allegations, especially involving a police matter, are not.]"

thanks, editors-- I only wish the Register held themselves to the same standards.

Posted by: Bruce | November 24, 2009 10:04 AM

MASO, That's like saying all drivers are drunks. I have never seen a cyclist spit on a car -- that is revolting. Most just ride around like normal people on the way to work or class. Personally, I think I have only once yelled at a driver and that was because he tried to kill me (literally). I think you would yell, too.

Posted by: anthony | November 24, 2009 10:27 AM

You people are vultures. This isn't a forum to argue over cars/vs/bikes. If anything, David workes endlessly to make the roads safe for both.

A New Haven resident has been seriously hurt, and you bottom feeders are trying to use this to disprove global warming and complain about bikes?

What's wrong with you?

As a resident of New Haven, I hope he, and the driver are well.

Let's not pass judgment on the internet, like a bunch of basement dwelling computer nerds. That's pathetic, and about as effective as a drunken lumberjack swinging blindly - Things are changed, but nothing's accomplished.

Get well David!
~anthony

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 24, 2009 11:14 AM

Don't feed the troll.

Posted by: Tom Harned | November 24, 2009 11:16 AM

Well put Anthony. Thank you.

Posted by: Edward_H | November 24, 2009 11:38 AM

NFJANETTE

I agree and hope that some progress can be made on this issue - it's an amazing money grab by the state. How was that ever allowed to become law?

I don't know about Connecticut but other states have done this in order to prevent towns from creating speed traps in order to generate additional revenue.

Posted by: Susan Rubinsky | November 24, 2009 12:48 PM

David, I hope you recover quickly! Drew, Peter and I will all be thinking of you.

I have lived in New Haven for more than 20 years and have had the pleasure of knowing and working with David Streever for almost 4 years now.

David is tirelessly devoted to improving the quality of life and community here in New Haven. There are many changes that have happened in our city due to his enthusiastic work -- more bicycle lanes, more awareness for cyclists, etc.

Despite the efforts of all, I observe more and more people driving recklessly each and every day. It is a danger to all of us.

Some examples:
Every time (each and every time, I'm not exaggerating) I am in my car on The Boulevard heading towards Crescent Street waiting for the light to turn, someone speeds by me in the bicycle lane to turn right on red.

On Edgewood Street (where I live) many people speed by every day going at least 50 miles an hour despite the fact that there is a school two blocks away and there are pedestrian signs in the middle of the road. The posted limit it 25 MPH.

At least once a week I observe a car passing a school bus with children boarding. Often the car behind me beeps at me for stopping for the bus then passes me and then the bus. My son, who is 13, has suggested that we citizens install webcams in our cars so we can record the license plates of all the idiots on the road.

Maybe my son has a good point. It makes me think of something David Streever did a couple of years ago over in the East Rock neighborhood. People often blow the red light over at the intersection of Orange St. and Trumbull St. David and some of his friends stood at the corner with a video camera and recorded all the people who blew the light. Another group of people stood a block down holding up a sign that said something like "We just recorded you running a red light."

I would love to get a bunch of webcams that just run 24/7 that posted the license plate numbers and videos of these people on the internet.

This is something that could be organized in honor of David. I know he would like this very much.

Another thing is that I don't know if David has health insurance. We should probably get a group together to collect some donations to help him. He is also self-employed so I'm sure he will need a little help while he is in the hospital and not working. If anyone is organizing something please let me know. I will also post something on Facebook about this.

Posted by: Molly Wheeler | November 24, 2009 1:10 PM

Streever, please get better soon and take care of yourself. In the meantime, you and your infectious cheer will be missed on the streets of New Haven.

Posted by: Greg | November 24, 2009 2:33 PM

What does the first amendment have to do with a privately owned website? Anyone? Anyone?

As I understand it, Streever is still in the hospital, but hopefully will be going home soon.

Posted by: nfjanette | November 24, 2009 3:19 PM

You've completely ducked out of responding to several of my posts to you on other articles, but perhaps you'll stop running.

Given the amount of time you appear to spend generating vast qualities of verbose, radical comments, it shouldn't surprise you that I (or anyone) either can't keep up with that level of text, doesn't want to keep up, or decides that it isn't worth the effort to joust with you.

The difference between a car and a cyclists is the difference between a bazooka and a knife. The difference between a car and a pedestrian is the difference between a bazooka and a fist. This is what should be considered when using streets.

You have misdirected your focus - again. There is obviously no disagreement about the physical characteristics involved. However, as I have pointed out numerous times in these "comment wars" on NHI, is it entirely possible for the smallest member of such a system to cause the largest member to lose control and cause damage. How? By causing radical avoidance maneuvers! A pedestrian or cyclist that suddenly darts in front of a moving vehicle has just started a potential chain reaction of events that may cause the vehicle to swerve or brake suddenly, potentially causing other vehicles to do so as well. One can see this dynamic caused by the smallest of animals running into the road: how many accidents or near accidents have been caused by a motorist trying to avoid hitting a squirrel/dog/cat?

The little "knife" has far more power in this situation than you seem to care to admit, and therefore far more responcibility that you care to acknowledge. Fortunately, our legislators do understand those facts and have required cyclists and pedestrians to obey traffic laws too!

Posted by: nfjanette | November 24, 2009 3:26 PM

NFJANETTE, I am personally offended when, in this type of thread, people such as yourself rationalize people like Streever and I being hit by citing "I see cyclists cycling like jerks all the time".

I neither stated nor implied anything of the kind with regard to Streever or any other specific case - it would seem that I am the one with the reason to be offended.

I did state that all users of the roads must obey the laws for everyone's safety and that, indeed, I do on an almost daily basis see cyclists weaving in traffic and/or blowing through red lights. How could one derive that I believe that all cyclists do such things? One thing any cycling advocate should be doing is encouraging all cyclists to comply with traffic laws, and I believe Streever is one such advocate. I admire and support such efforts. I have also posted many comments on NHI supporting efforts to increase law enforcement on all users of the roads, motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 24, 2009 4:01 PM

nfjanette,
Vehicles shouldn't be traveling at speeds that necessitate braking suddenly and swerving to avoid things. 25 mph is a pretty high speed LIMIT. A more effective way of organizing circulation is through balance and common sense, not an arbitrary set of laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGVoxyt7odc

How many traffic laws were around here? How many stop lights do you see? How fast are things traveling? How many different activities are taking place?

There are few or no traffic laws a century ago, and the conditions on the street are extremely complex, so much so they are nearly impossible to accurately describe.
Today, there are books worth of laws and rules and punishments that are immensely complex, yet the conditions on the street are very basic and easily describable: cars rule everything, anyone else needs to get with the program or risk getting run over.
The above 1900 era streets were not perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than what we have now. Traffic laws and a culture that requires vast amounts of boundaries are problematic. Do you give a kid a stick of dynamite and matches, then a booklet of things not to do with them? Eventually that kids blowin something up because he either found a loophole or he got sick of all the rules. Solution, don't give the kid dynamite at all or give him fire crackers. If we can't control our cars, they gotta go; if we decide to grow up and use them responsibly (part of being a responsible car-owner is using it moderately) then we'll have to drive much slower, much less and much more considerately to people not moving at high speeds and creating massive amounts of potential force.

Posted by: SW | November 25, 2009 12:55 AM

Wishes to David on his recovery...

And to all the haters out there:
Even if David was doing a blindfolded swerving backward handstand, against traffic, with no lights, no brakes, low air pressure, while breaking the speed limit and after blowing through five lights in a row AND taunting other cars by suddenly going slow like a "MAFIA"-cyclist (to quote some delirious poster above), guess what?!?

David is hurt. The driver is not.

Posted by: RAY WILLIS | November 25, 2009 2:21 AM

NFJANETTE
"It is almost an every day occurrence that I see cyclists blowing through red lights in clear violation of the law, creating danger for themselves and all others in the road from potential avoidance maneuvers of motor vehicles... multiple pedestrian deaths in the city that were not the fault of the motor vehicles involved."
This thread is about David Streever being hit by a car. This isn't about the cyclists you see violating the law, unless you were at Chapel and Temple Sat. morning at 2am and that cyclist was David Streever. Those cyclists you supposedly see have no relevance to this thread unless you are using them to imply that because those cyclists violate the law David Streever was hit. Its pretty cut and dry, lets not back pedal here. PUN INTENDED!

Posted by: Jack | November 25, 2009 7:08 AM

A Cyclist who will not obey the Traffic Laws is playing Russian Roulette, plain and simple.

Posted by: Walt | November 25, 2009 8:50 AM

When he recovers which I hope is soon. , would like to see both Streever's version and the driver's version of this event.

I dont share his advocacy of bikes as most bike folk I see are hazards to themselves or others , but Streever seems a reasonable and honest guy and I would respect his version.

Those like Norton Street and ANON, however. IMHO are a bit wacky and just throw BS in front of us, claiming it is truth,

Posted by: robn | November 25, 2009 9:13 AM

NFJANNETTE,

I also hate when cyclists burn through red lights. It diminishes the importance of traffic laws intended to protect them (and creates a statistically modest danger for someone in a car who has to stop quickly or swerve out of the way.)

Regardless, my point stands …we have limited police resources and the law should recognize that a far greater danger is posed (for everybody) by misbehaving cars than misbehaving bicycles. Common sense and physics tells us that 3500 pounds going 40 mph is more dangerous than 200 lbs going 15 mph. If that isn’t good enough for you, check the stats…they don’t lie.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/ctanbike.htm

Posted by: Mark | November 25, 2009 10:27 AM

I have reasonably good luck riding with motorist. Only three times have I had a "near miss."
Once with a cop downtown and another time with a twenty-something girl in the Wooster area. Both were my fault. At least I got lunch out of one of those incidents (I wont say with whom ;-) ).
The other time was with a speeding civic. Words were exchanged. He saw I was serious when I "showed" him my baton.
Sometimes it can feel like the wild west but everybody that bikes needs to remember that you're not entitled to blow lights or disobey any laws. Your frame (body or bike) really isn't any match for a car or the pavement. At the same time, you need to have balls and protect yourself. Let your presence be known.

Posted by: Barbara | November 25, 2009 11:04 AM

David,
So shocked to hear you've been hurt. Hope you recover quickly and fully.

Posted by: Greg | November 25, 2009 12:20 PM

Jack, A Cyclist who will obey the Traffic Laws is playing Russian Roulette, plain and simple.

Posted by: Greg | November 25, 2009 2:11 PM

A note on my last comment: I'm not trying to excuse unlawful behavior, but I can understand it. As someone who rides my bicycle safely and follows the law, I rarely get respect from those who are driving cars.

Posted by: Jack | November 25, 2009 5:03 PM

Greg, As a Cyclist who has riden the streets of NH for the last 35 years and survived, all I can say is that I am here today because I ride as if I am completely invisible. Half of these people don't even see other cars, never mind me.

Posted by: streever | November 25, 2009 7:17 PM

Walt: Right you are. I strongly believed--and still believe--that we are our first line of defense. I won't take this opportunity to claim biking is a death trap.

I wanted to make a note not to explain or comment, but to thank you all. I have no memory of the night in question--or the next day--just dislocated voices speaking with no relevance. I'm sorry I can't fill in any blanks yet, but this will probably take time and I am very, very tired every day.

Your well-wishes mean so much to me as do the countless people who came to the hospital. Thank you all so much for your concern.

I am feeling much, much better. I feel badly for worrying everyone and causing such concern. I'm looking forward to getting better so I can keep my winter training up!

Posted by: Norton Street | November 25, 2009 8:02 PM

Walt,
Can you point out stuff I've said that is BS and tell me how I'm incorrect?
I study city planning, urban design, architecture, architectural theory, historic preservation, modern architectural history, pre-industrial American architecture and city planning, industrial American architecture and city planning, and I am deeply committed to studying New Haven history, and I have a good, thorough understanding of present conditions in New Haven, which I've acquired through my lifelong residence in this city (minus 20 months).
Is your authority to judge the factual accuracy of my comments based on the fact that you drive a car, have used streets many times, or because you just don't like what I say?

Does someone who studies marine biology, and/or oceanography get called on BS by someone who surfs?

I merely am trying to clear up obvious, deep-seeded, and destructive inaccuracies in our current understanding of street usage, design and purpose.

Perhaps in 1950 when the open roads were a thing to play on in cars for newly middle class residents who were helped out of the dirty slums of industrial cities, these auto centric activities made sense and were acceptable, but wake up, our cities are in trouble, too many children do not have adequate environments for childhood, money is being thrown into infrastructure, living arrangements, and services that make no sense. Ignorant assumptions about the public realm, street usage and transportation that over time have developed into entrenched policies that are creating disastrous problems in cities, small towns, countrysides, farms, forests and the quality of many lives.

People use the internet all the time, but many don't understand how it works. Is it possible that street systems are the same way?

Call me elitist, call me crazy, but please if you do those two things, first call my bluff.

Greg,
Exactly.

Jack,
Hopefully that will change, its good to be safe, but I hope we can make it ultimately unnecessary to be THAT precautions.

Posted by: Just Saying | November 25, 2009 8:57 PM

Hope everyone's OK.

Love the NHI & not a 'hater' but a sentence from the article "The driver of a white sedan apparently collided (with) Streever’s bike"... can perhaps be read to unfairly put the onus on the woman driving the car.

FWIW, it seems more likely the other way around as the photo appears to show that the cyclist apparently crossed the yellow line into oncoming traffic and collided with the white sedan.

Does anyone know what caused the accident? Mechanical failure? Road hazard?

Posted by: streever | November 26, 2009 7:08 AM

Hey guys just managed to read this whole thing--WOW. Such kindness, I feel as blessed as I did at the hospital when they told me I was going to be OK :)

(Ray saw me after a 6 hour surgery)

But yea, just to echo what others have said, I have NO MEMORY of that night, and I have no idea who is at fault. Let's let the police come up with their thing, etc, and not be hating--I love the internet as a community advocacy tool and as a community building/organizing tool, but am rarely into the speculation that can happen because it ultimately isn't legal & can lead to a lot of mistakes, and right or wrong, will be a little biased based on how you feel about an issue. Don't assign blame to the driver because you like me or to me because you hate bikes: and remember that "blame" is a very legalese term that only means who is financially responsible. Dig?

Thanks for all the well-wishes, and hope to see many of you soon--have a great thanksgiving

Posted by: streever | November 26, 2009 9:12 AM

(and I have to say Norton gets more and more logical--I appreciate the more nuanced responses lately! I'm agreeing with a lot of what you say. The only real problem I have with it now is it's too idealist, for me, but hey, what do I know? We need idealists as much as we need anyone else. If you'll let bygones be bygones I'm prepared to too--thanks so much for the concern)

Posted by: Jack | November 26, 2009 10:05 AM

Hopefully Norton Street, hopefully. In the meantime, I'll obey the Traffic Laws and do whatever it takes to avoid Traumatic Injury, short of riding on the sidewalk. If people are smart, they will do the same.

Posted by: Paul | November 26, 2009 7:45 PM

Streever
I feel so bad for you. My heart goes out to you. I Hope you fully recover
this is one of the scariest articles I have read in a long time.
If this can happen to Streever then it could happen to anyone one of us who rides a bicycle. I am torn up on the inside.
Get Well Soon...

Posted by: Walt | November 27, 2009 9:29 AM

Norton St

OK

"Children should be able to do somersaults in the middle of the Street and not have to worry about being hit" and other similar statements by you re the use of our streets might better be described aa "encouraging behavior which can likely result in death""fanatic" or "out-of-touch with reality" or "19th or maybe 18th century City Planning" or just "ridiculous " or even the "PETA version of street usage" if you prefer.

Lost a schoolchum many years ago because one kid thought hanging on to a truck while biking across the trolley tracks on the Grand Ave. bridge was a good idea.

Neverthweless,in the current spirit of comity and to make you happy, I'll withdraw the simple "BS" description if you wish and let you choose your own description, with which I'll probably disagree..

Streever

Happy you are feeling better.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 27, 2009 3:26 PM

Walt,
I also think that women should be able to walk around naked in dark alleys and not have to worry about getting raped, but do you think that means I'm advocating for women to do that right now? Of course not, I am saying that we need to solve social issues in a way that allows us to achieve an ideal state or as close to one as possible.
Should children play in streets right now? Of course not, they're immensely dangerous. We should work to make the streets safe for children. Possibly within my lifetime this can occur.

There are historic precedents that we can study, research and learn from that have nearly ideal conditions. What I propose isn't some wacky thing that has never occurred; I'm not asking for hover cars and time travel, I asking us to observe and judge the conditions of our street systems and compare them to history in order to make informed decisions about how to design and improve streets and street usage in coming decades. If you think that having high speed single occupancy car traffic is worth the well documented devastation its created than perhaps I'm not the "ridiculous" one. I've driven a car about a dozen times in the last 3 years; it is very easy to live without them or to live with very limited use of them when you live in a sensibly designed environment like any pre WW2 town.

Posted by: Laurie | November 30, 2009 8:05 AM

Why are we discussing the history of cars, streets, and who should rule the street? Mr. Streever was in the left lane, expressing road rage against a car (whether the car deserved it is beside the point). Neither cars nor bikes belong in the left lane, and the reason for that is so that nobody crashes into each other.

I'm sure Mr. Streever didn't mean to swerve into the left lane, but being there got him hit. Others don't know the rules, or don't care about them -- you can't go outside and not see people on bikes riding against traffic, in the left lane, running red lights without even looking, and riding on the sidewalks.

The wide misunderstanding about the rules of the road for cars and bikes fuels the anger that cars feel about bikes, and vice-versa, as well as the self-righteousness that car drivers and bikers feel -- and sometimes express.

The rules keep everyone safe. Let's hope that this and other car-bike incidents keep bicycle advocacy focused on safety.

Posted by: E A | December 1, 2009 6:24 PM

I'm glad Mr. Streever will be OK. I would like to know the whole story - from his point of view as well as from the driver's perspective to sort it out. My hope is that justice prevails in the end. Too often I see drivers walk away from an accident without a ticket or any indication of wrong doing.

Posted by: Just Saying | December 3, 2009 7:59 AM

EA wrote:
"My hope is that justice prevails in the end. Too often I see drivers walk away from an accident without a ticket or any indication of wrong doing."

EA,

The police report and witnesses all say that the driver of the car did nothing wrong. Compete NHPD accident report here:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/11/24/blotter/doc4b0bc1c781f2f502779727.txt#blogcomments

Posted by: MADD 3 | December 8, 2009 6:19 PM

We raise our glasses of nog and toast to the speedy recovery of the injured and responsible future consumption!

MADD Parent wrote on Dec 2, 2009 9:58 PM:
..."the accident report/witness statements clearly show Streever veering into oncoming traffic and "initiating contact":

Connecticut Uniform Police Accident Report Case Number 09-72388 11/21/09 1:55 AM

The Accident Diagram shows Operator 1 & Traffic Unit #1 (Streever & bicycle) traveling eastbound in the left of the left lane of travel then initiating contact with Operator 2 & Traffic Unit #2 (Audi) on the drivers side near the front wheel. Diagram shows accident occurred in front of #900 Chapel. (The main doors to the old mall.) There are no parked cars in the right hand, eastbound lane of Chapel St. (All the business locations in the middle of the block here are vacant, old LOFT etc.)

Other than Operators 1 & 2 there are four witnesses (Thomas Harned listed last and the only one with no contact info)

"Operator 2 (Audi) stated she was traveling westbound on Chapel Street in the left lane of travel. She observed two cyclists traveling eastbound in the left lane of travel. An unidentified vehicle was traveling eastbound on Chapel Street in the left lane of travel. Operator 1 (Streever) turned his bicycle into westbound traffic directly in front of Vehicle 2 initiating contact."

"Two witnesses stated that they observed Operator 1 traveling eastbound on Chapel Street. Operator 1 made a hand gesture (middle finger) to the operator of the unidentified vehicle. This unidentified vehicle was described as a dark colored SUV style vehicle. They explained that Operator 1 then turned into oncoming traffic directly in front of Vehicle 2."
"Thomas Harned was later identified as the operator of the bicycle with Operator 1."

Note:
-No 'Enforcement Action Taken' against Operator 2 (Audi)
-Traffic Unit #1 is classified as a Vehicle

Mr Streever has posted that he may have been intoxicated that night so we wonder what his Blood Alcohol Content was......

MU wrote on Dec 3, 2009 6:48 AM:
" Cops Crack Down On Cyclists

Posted by: David Streever | October 25, 2008 7:09 PM

'Something has been bothering me, though, & it's hypocrisy. When I first saw this I said, "Well, it'd be hypocritical to want a "freebie". If we want motorists to obey the law, so do we." But, that cuts every which way.'

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/10/cycling_and_its.php

Hypocrisy is right, the only way I'll consider the validity of his loud preachy posts is if they're posted anonymously. "

J wrote on Dec 3, 2009 9:28 AM:
" Posted by: David Streever | Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:17 pm

'If you are unhappy, feel free to purchase the "DAVID STREEVER RUINED
EVERYTHING" shirt. It is available for pre-order & will be printed on
lovely "grass" and "pink" in mens & womens styles.'

I'd like to order one of the 'DAVID STREEVER RUINED EVERYTHING' shirts and one of the CHAPEL-QUIDDICK shirts with the logo of the weaving cyclist barking into the "Safe Streets" megaphone while flipping the bird, both in medium women's style and "lovely grass" please.

Thanks a lot. "

Streever wrote on Dec 3, 2009 5:24 PM:
" Yes I'm a hypocrite "
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/11/24/blotter/doc4b0bc1c781f2f502779727.txt#blogcomments

Happy, and SAFE, Holidays.

Posted by: jay | December 9, 2009 11:54 AM

I think when people call themselves advocates for a cause and have the ability to effect the masses as David does, you should recognize that your level of accountability goes up. Giving people the finger and kicking cars as I have heard him brag about doing are no way to maintain credibility or to create a venue for change. I for one appreciate what changes he is promoting but certainly have little respect for the violence inherent in his demonstrated methodology. Someone who advocates for children certainly wouldn't advise them to give the finger to others or kick their car as this could be dangerous and also violent. Being a visible public figure and behaving this way sends that message to children and everyone else. I am sorry you got hurt but hopefully you have learned your lesson about using aggressive and violent means.

Posted by: Bonnie Byrne LeMay | December 17, 2009 7:24 PM

David , I was shocked to hear of your recent accident and the resulting injuries ! have been distressed and concerned for you . A broken jaw and other fractures?, thats just awful , I feel for you. I hope by now you are resting better and on the mend . this is terrible but we all know it could have been far worse. Thank goodness you wore a helmet !!! . Do all you can to heal well and completly so you can get back out there in the world and keep doing your thing . You are always one of my favorite people on this earth David , oustanding ! I am so glad you are alive

Posted by: Cap | December 18, 2009 3:21 PM

Glad to hear it wasn't worse and that he'll be okay. Bikers are at risk by careless drivers who don't appreciate that cars don't own the road. Some public education campaign is needed here. Hard to enjoy a bike if you have to constantly fear being hit and look out for all the drivers with blinders on. Get well soon Streever.

Posted by: innocent motorist | December 19, 2009 8:41 PM

Cap said: "Bikers are at risk by careless drivers who don't appreciate that cars don't own the road. Some public education campaign is needed here. Hard to enjoy a bike if you have to constantly fear being hit and look out for all the drivers with blinders on."

Agreed, but in this case cyclist Streever somehow lost control, hit an innocent motorist and received a $180 ticket...yet here he complains about the driver and the NHPD:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/12/13/news/doc4b244a0397e85671539264.txt