New Haven Independent

Posted by: Norton Street | November 27, 2009 3:46 PM

Weeeeeelllll, that's unfortunate.

Although, I'm sure many posters will have no problem assigning blame to one person, I say that there are two issues present in this situation.
1. From the article, it sounds that Streever did some poor cycling and was not paying attention. When I flip the bird I just throw it behind my shoulder without turning around.
2. That driver seems like it could have been anyone, there was nothing out of the ordinary that the driver did to get into the situation. I still think its a good thing to have less cars on the road at any given time, to have less cars per household, to have more mass transit, and more communities designed around the human being (walking) rather than automobile usage. This would prevent many accidents from occurring (maybe not this one specifically), it would clear up streets for more uses, it would make the public realm more pleasant and usable, it would encourage better design of buildings and it would help people save money (it costs roughly $5,000-10,000 a year to own a car).
I don't think automobiles should be gotten rid of, they are practical and useful in moderation. Perhaps the driver was using this car sensibly and just happened to be put in this situation (sounds likely), but ultimately I don't know.

Unfortunately, this will probably lead to a lack of credibility for Streever's opinions, but his work is an important part of rediscovering a good street system and balance for America's landscape. While Streever's apparent actions look horrendous from the article, its unclear how the SUV provoked him (still not an excuse, but an important part). While I dislike him personally, his work is undeniably important and should not be discouraged.

Posted by: streever | November 27, 2009 4:08 PM

Thanks a lot Norton, and Paul, and Ben for the video. (and my wonderful boss for trying to make me feel better!)

I'm surprised I flipped the bird--typically when I turn my head to address a driver behind me, it's to ask for courtesy and signal a turn/motion to them to slow down. I have flipped the bird a few times: always at incredibly angry, impatient, honking motorists. (I agree this isn't the best response, hence my routine now of making eye contact & motioning "slow down, I'm just turning")

Either way, I feel really awful for the woman who must have been incredibly scared by what seemed like a sudden bike attack--I'm really sorry, both for the damage to your car, and thank you for being understanding. Please feel free to get in touch with me, I've wanted to send you a note, but have no idea who you are.

Thanks all--

Posted by: Greg | November 27, 2009 4:32 PM

Interesting. I'll restate something posted quite a bit in the comments from the other story: I'm glad it wasn't worse.

Stay safe, people.

Posted by: Morris Cove Mom | November 27, 2009 8:44 PM

NORTON STREET: "it costs roughly $5,000-10,000 a year to own a car" What?
I don't know what gold-covered tank, er, bought on credit overpriced car, you drive, but my car was bought outright, and is insured at a great rate through AAA.
It costs less than a few hundred a year to maintain it, a few hundred more for insurance, but a ton to fuel! So I don't drive much, and try to walk with the kids as much as possible.

Posted by: Jack | November 27, 2009 10:31 PM

Lots of lessons in this for everyone. Pay attention, let things go, be safe. Nether bikes or cars are going away anytime soon. Share The Road! Hurry up and get back on the bike David, the way I see it, you perform a valuble service for the Cycling Community even when you screw up. But next time, PLEASE!, find an easier way!

Posted by: Morris Cove | November 28, 2009 12:18 AM

Norton St.

Ahh what would an article be without reading the comment section and finding one of your famous long winded rants about the evils of automobiles and your utopian ideals of mass transit.

I think your slam on Streever's credibility is a bit harsh and unwarranted, first off he has not been interviewed and all the facts aren't in yet so why don't you wait before you condem him, also if the eye witness account is true, you also have to way in on the factors that led up to the accident, what was the guy doing in the SUV, before Streever flipped him off? and even if you take all this in you have to consider that Streever is human and we all lose our cool sometimes, you even admitted to flipping off, the only difference is that he didn't do it cowardly, he actually turned to face off the other guy.

So if you come off your high horse or soap box long enough, consider all the facts before making judgement. Speedy recovery Streever.

Posted by: streever | November 28, 2009 8:25 AM

"this will probably lead to a lack of credibility for Streever's opinions" this may be true on message boards, but the reality is that my opinions hold myself at fault: and I feel badly for my fault in this & will continue to preach. The truth of the matter is that I'm careful 364 days out of the year: that the one day I wasn't could lead to this is sad, ironic, and makes my argument all the more compelling.

I've always advocated personal responsibility as a part of safe cycling, and the number 1 way to ensure your safety. Not riding while drinking is another, and in the past 3 years, I can honestly say I've ridden my bike once (maybe twice depending on that night--I can't remember) with too much alcohol in me. I suspect most people can't say the same thing about their driving habits, judging by national statistics, so if people who think nothing about driving a ton of solid steel after too many beers think a guy who has worked hard to make the streets safer is not credible for having biked once or twice while over the limit, then they aren't important people.

The people that I work with--state reps, city officials, private business people--will know that I'm sincere & working hard to practice what I preach.

I've also never advocated zero-sum judgements. When one of our aldermen recently drove very intoxicated, I suggested we forgive and forget, and that the real mistake was made by a sober City Hall in orchestrating the event.

Ultimately, this is a setback for me, but not an insurmountable one. I am so grateful to be alive & able to keep working.

Posted by: Walt | November 28, 2009 2:17 PM

Oh great!

If Norton had his wishes, apparently CT
Transit would be running up Chapel at 2 a.m.(as it did many years ago) instead just of an SUV.

Then, Streever might have swerved into a bus. and in the frequent force /ratio suppositions
used by the bike enthusiasts here, mashed into nothingness.

Guess, as Norton says, he really, really dislikes Streever.

As a proven guy with regretably real experience, Streever's comments re safety should carry more , not less, value in the future.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | November 28, 2009 4:00 PM

This is the single reason why I tend to be sympathetic to bikers on sidewalks especially on Whitney Avenue and Prospect Streets. Even though it's extremely dangerous when cyclists whiz up behind and pass pedestrians without warning.

Yet I have witnessed the cyclists in extremely vulnerable situations as ignorant, cowardly motorists behind them insist on using their 4000-pound machines to intimidate cyclists off the street by blaring horns and doing sicko sideswipe maneuvers.

Streever, hope you recover quickly, learned your lesson and use this experience to strengthen and continue your good efforts.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 28, 2009 9:19 PM

Morris Cove Mom,
The following is quoted from Philip Langdon's book, A Better Place to Live: Reshaping the American Suburb

"The American Automobile Association calculates that in 1991 an average mid-sized car costs 43.6 cents a mile to own and operate. Assuming that the car is driven 10,000 miles per year, this means that a suburban family spends $4,360 to keep a car at its disposal. But it's a rare suburban family that gets by with just one vehicle. In the suburbs built since World War II, homes have been deliberately placed away from work and stores; public transportation in these communities is scant, there being no efficient way to serve such dispersed houses, workplaces, and shopping areas, even if the demand for public transportation were strong. So the average suburban household has a car for each of its adults...The annual cost of vehicles, then, is likely to double, to $8,720.
...The Census Bureau says that for 1991 the mean income of households outside central cities but inside metropolitan areas was $44,103. In that year, the average household nationally paid...for a total federal tax bill of $8,708. If we subtract federal taxes from the $44,103 annual income, the mean after-tax income comes out to $35,395. Transportation expenditures of $8,720 thus consumes 24.6 percent of the household's income after federal taxes. If these figures are a fair representation of suburban families' finances, this means that suburban families are working ninety days of each year just to pay for transportation. They work from January 1 through March 31 to support their cars. To recognize the cost of suburban living, we could designate April 1 as Auto Freedom Day. On April 1 people begin earning money for food, shelter, education, clothing, recreation, household furnishings, and so on. Up to April 1 all their after-tax money is going to buy transportation.
If these figures err, they probably err on the conservative side."
He then goes on the explain how this is a very conservative calculation.
Also, costs of everything have gone way down since 1991 and personal income has skyrocketed, right?

Morris Cove,
I think you misinterpreted my post/I wasn't clear enough. I don't think mass transit is that great; it should be expanded and improved, but the most important form of transportation to design around is walking, design for all other forms should come after.
My comment on Streever's credibility had nothing to do with how credible I find him, but rather it was an assumption about how autocentric people will most likely use this article as a basis to de-legitimize the work that people like Streever have done to bring awareness to cycling. Whether or not my assumption proves to be true has yet to be seen. That sentence was also worded poorly, I meant "Unfortunately, this will probably lead to a lack of credibility for the work that people like Streever have done". I also made it clear several times in my post that my comment was based on the article, not on the entire series of events that took place that night, which are not available. Did you see my comments about the SUV driver?
"you even admitted to flipping off, the only difference is that he didn't do it cowardly, he actually turned to face off the other guy."
This is a pretty loathsome suggestion. You're actually saying that turning around while operating a vehicle in motion for a reason other than orienting myself, checking for passing safety and horizontal movement is a good idea? You honestly think that me riding a bicycle in fast moving traffic with road-mates that weigh 10x+ times more than I do is cowardice if one of them should do something that warrants a hand gesture? C'mon, you're dislike of me is leading you to make ridiculous comments. Which reminds me that I do not know Streever personally, and my dislike of some of our past exchanges is not sufficient enough to say I know him, and so that sentence was also poorly worded.

Walt,
Strange comment; perhaps you should read the article again. Streever was not hit by an SUV. If we assume that a CT Transit bus replaces the SUV, then Streever flips off the bus driver and crosses the yellow line and is hits nothing, because the driver of the car that did hit him would have been riding on a CT transit bus, not driving on the street, that is of course if we're assuming I "have my wishes" and not the distorted views you try to portray as being mine. In your view of my view, you must think that buses pass as frequently as single occupancy cars, which isn't true, mass transit comes at a fraction of the frequency as cars, thereby greatly reducing the chance of collision. So even if it decreases the chance of survival if collision occurs, the chance of a collision even happening in the first place is much much lower. Thanks for trying, though.

Posted by: Jen | November 28, 2009 9:58 PM

Norton Street:
You obviously are very excited about enlightened urban design. For years, planners have been trying to reverse the current trends in zoning and road-building to create vibrant cities where everyone, regardless of their mode of transportation, can move around safely and comfortably, and I can see you are working to promote this. But you may want to rethink the approach. If people wanted to read a textbook on urban planning, they'd be reading that and not the Independent. Many of the posters here AGREE with you, and Streever's posts and his work have frequently agreed with you as well.

You're not making us look good by attempting to undermine an injured activist in the most passive-aggressive style.

You may want to consider a less pedantic approach. However important changing the urban landscape is, repeating the theory whether or not it relates to the topic won't help.

Posted by: ANDREW GARROW | November 29, 2009 2:57 AM

Thank you norton st for your posts - i think i am no longer the most hated man on the nhi. your self absorbed bizzare postings have now given me a farther reaching social radius for my pro citizen agenda. you who espouse the most vehiment of verbal poisons to those of us who'd need to sell the homes our children live in to follow your twisted ways - ...
paul, why do you censor some but not all? i ask again, is this a blog or a news site?
mr. streever, i wish you godspeed with your revovery.

Posted by: streever | November 29, 2009 4:40 AM

Thanks a lot guys--I really appreciate the kind hearted comments. I'm recovering quickly--I look a LOT better then I did in the hospital and feel it too. I slept 8 hours last night for the first time and am feeling thankful for people like Mr. Hammond, the NHPD, Yale Hospital, & all of my friends & family.

I wonder if the SUV was parked & had just opened it's door? that would account for my swerve--trying to avoid dooring? (I heard Marcus was reading these--hope so--would like to hear your thoughts)

And yes, the lessons learned here are many. As much as I like to treat my bike like a car, it's probably not a smart idea to be downtown in the middle of last call--it's also good to be patient even with those who harass you & not respond in anger. Doesn't help anyone.

Posted by: robn | November 29, 2009 10:13 AM

WALT,

Since force is measurable, and ratios calculable, how can they be supposed?

Posted by: Old Punk | November 29, 2009 11:31 AM

Best wishes, David. Hope to see you out and about on Orange Street soon.

Posted by: Walt | November 29, 2009 12:07 PM

ROBN

Good point but, as the posts here usually suppose specific weights for both the car and the bike which may or may not be correct, they are suppositions as I see it.

Don't you ?

Posted by: Walt | November 29, 2009 12:34 PM

Norton

As almost all CT Transit busses on night operations, are scheduled to arrive at the NH Green area at shortly before the hour, there is a reasonable expectation, if CT Transit were operating, of several buses arriving from each direction at 1:55 a.m. , the time of the accident, therefore potentially replacing both the car and the SUV in the accident.

Therefore your theory re expected frequency of buses vs cars would be doubtful re that particular time

Nevertheless, as Streever accepted responsibility re his actions I must plea to carelessness re the SUV/car.

Posted by: Brian Tang | November 29, 2009 7:52 PM

Streever, there's no parking allowed on that portion of Chapel St, so I don't think it would have been a car door.

Posted by: OzoneRoad | November 29, 2009 10:49 PM

just glad to see Streever's gonna make it. one of those gut-wrenching stories that makes this cyclist wish people in cars would take the road less traveled and hop on a bicycle... see it from our perspective.

it's a scary road out there, dominated by people without a clue; that their anger coupled with their automobile can really hurt someone.

share the road. share the road. share the road.

Posted by: streever | November 30, 2009 5:43 AM

(and just to be clear, I'm describing the witnesses scenario, because I still can't recall anything--hope that came through clearly)

Posted by: Greg | November 30, 2009 9:57 AM

Brian, a lot of people don't care that there's no parking on that block of Chapel. During the day, people park/stand there outside of 900 Chapel to pick up and drop people off. At night, waiting for friends to get out of the bar, it seems quite possible that there would be more than one car there.

Of course, that doesn't mean that that is what happened.

Posted by: streever | November 30, 2009 10:28 AM

Brian: there are lots of cars parked there at night anywhere. Go by around bar closing time and you'll see what I mean! (Just be careful)

Posted by: CampyGrl | November 30, 2009 12:01 PM

A point was brought up on the New Haven Register's site that I've been wondering about myself; the other cyclist riding with Dave Streever that morning could help avoid over speculation while schooling us with his firsthand account. Tom Harned might recall parked cars or other possible hazards...
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/11/24/blotter/doc4b0bc1c781f2f502779727.txt#blogcomments

Posted by: Bill | November 30, 2009 12:11 PM

NORTON STREET,
Some of the main causes of the decay of the inner cities, were crime and forced integration of schools. Anyone who could afford to do so, moved to the suburbs and unless you find a way to remove these obstacles the inner cities will be the domain of the poor and the idealists like yourself.

Posted by: JMS | November 30, 2009 12:43 PM

Glad to read you are feeling better. Had my share of bike-meets-car incidents over the years but (knock on wood) never broke anything or got hurt too bad.

JMS

Posted by: Walt | November 30, 2009 1:06 PM

Dont know the weight of my land barge, but it would probably skew ROBN's calculations and be even scarier for bike folk.

I dread that one of the bike jerks I see heading through Ridge Road and on State St. in Hamden will wind up under my or someone else's car thru their or my error.

If they are on the right side of the road, I do beep my horn and do not pass if traffic iscoming the other way. so they will not swerve out in front of me (beep as short as possible, not blast, Is that supposedly bad?)

If I encountered the Ridge Road tight-pants jerks riding 4 abreast as they often do, it could, but hasn't yet, result in a blast.

You " take charge of the lane" or whatever you call it, bike folks are dangerous to yourselves and others.

State law forbids the 4-abreast jerks but does allow 2 abreast. Specifically it does not allow the bikists to purposely block the lane or purposely delay traffic despite contrary claims often posted here..

Be smart, as Streever might advise. Stick to the right side, and avoid swerves. Obey the traffic signals. you are NOT exempt!

Use reflective and protective gear. I want to avoid a collision or blood as much as you do and will try to do my part by keeping as much space between us as possible.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 30, 2009 1:12 PM

Jen,
"However important changing the urban landscape is, repeating the theory whether or not it relates to the topic won't help."
That's arguable, and has yet to be proven either way.
"If people wanted to read a textbook on urban planning, they'd be reading that and not the Independent."
Many of the articles on the Independent are directly related to urban design and city planning. Perhaps, most of the articles are; when you consider that everything in our built environment occurs within an organized infrastructure of planning, from our hospitals, to schools, to civic buildings, whatever. Design and planning of our environment is perhaps the most important, universal thing to discuss, yet it is greatly overlooked and its existence is just assumed. The vast majority of Americans and completely unaware of underlying issues within our physically organized world and I merely hope to bring awareness to these things and I often supplement this with my personal opinions on solutions, causes of problems, and extent of damage, which leads to debate.
"...you may want to rethink the approach."
Possibly. I often post quick (however long they are most always quickly written) responses that are not entirely thought out and organized, which tend to be unintentionally lengthy. I think many,if not most, of my long posts are responses to people who have misrepresented my opinions and so I feel it necessary to go into detail, which sometimes further leads to misrepresentation because responders may end up skimming through the response.
So, mostly I think you are correct and perhaps I should rethink some stuff (after this post).

Andrew,
Whatever makes you feel better, buddy. Also, don't try the victimized "you who espouse the most [vehement] of verbal poisons to those of us who'd need to sell the homes our children live in to follow your twisted ways" line, its misleading. I support the uplifting of the most important, fragile part of our society: the family unit-the parent(s) and child(children). It is precisely the poor planning and organizing decisions of the last half century that has degraded family life, roles and success in our country. Parents spend more time away from their children because they are stuck in traffic commuting to work that is far from where they live, children become dependent of chauffeurs (usually mom) to drive them around anywhere, which prevents them from becoming independent, well-rounded people, mono-cultures breed, people become isolated and separated, etc all because of poor planning that is well advertised and marketed to falsely lead half of the country's population into living in dysfunctional habitats, which end up degrading small towns, cities, rural communities, woodland and farm land.

Posted by: Walt | November 30, 2009 1:12 PM

Sorry!

Too many posts. Think I caught verbal diarrhea from Norton.

Apologies etc.

Walt

Posted by: robn | November 30, 2009 1:20 PM

WALT,

I suppose so.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 30, 2009 1:25 PM

Bill,
I wrote this several weeks ago:
"Urban exodus occurred, then the high crime rates followed, not the other way around. This is clearly observable in statistics. It may be true that people continue to avoid cities due to crime, but originally urban exodus had very little to do with crime because there wasn't very much crime in cities prior to the beginnings of the suburbanization of the country.
To think if the crime problem were somehow solved than suburbanites might move back into cities where they'd be closer to their job is ridiculous. Reducing crime from 1990 levels (highest in the history of the country) to current levels was done be just imprisoning more people, not actually solving the problem. The only way to combat crime is with the middle class. First families move back, then cities recover. It will happen no other way.
Until then we can just sit back and continue to stamp in the history books our title of "The most apathetic people in the history of existence" while our cities continue to burn, our older suburbs continue to bread ignorance and depression, and our country continues to plow over forests and farmland in order to give wealthy people more and more room to get away from fellow human beings. Suburbs are already falling apart, look at West Haven, East Haven and Milford. If Guilford and Branford (and others) continue this untamed growth then they will soon follow, and evenutally we will run out of space to develop, and people will have to stop avoiding solving our problems.

This chart shows the rise in crime rates in US cities:
http://www.library.yale.edu/thecitycourse/Data_Tables/Crime/Crime_Violent_Comparison_of_Cities_1940_1990.xls

It is easy to see that around 1960-70-80 the crime sky rockets. Most white, but more importantly middle class urban flight occurred in the 40s, accelerated in the 50s and 60s and had peaked by the late 60s.

http://www.library.yale.edu/thecitycourse/Data_Tables/Crime/Homicides_New_Haven_1935_85.xls

That shows the clear trend just for New Haven.

This website shows how Hamden's 2004 violent crime rate is 3 times what New Haven's was when urban flight began:
http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crime_report.cfm?state=CT&area=Hamden

This website shows how Branford's 2003 violent crime rate is nearly identical to what New Haven's was when urban fight began:
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Branford&state=CT

This website shows how Milford's 2006 crime rate is double what New Haven's was when urban flight began:
http://milfordct.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

So does this mean that people should now flee to further away suburbs? Or should we, as a country, rethink some stuff?"

There were many intricately complex reasons why cities in the country have decayed, but the basic problem stems from the act of the most involved, influential, powerful, active, hard-working, ethical, moralistic and successful group of people leaving the cities. And its not true that people who could afford to get our did, black people, not matter their status, were barred from nearly every suburban development during this period of urban exodus. It's not called 'white flight' because only white people wanted to leave, it's called that because only white people were allowed to leave. And this act was not done without help, the working class was basically federally subsidized enough to become middle class in the mid 20th century, which has mostly lasted to this day.

Posted by: Tom Harned | November 30, 2009 1:58 PM

CampyGrl,

Unfortunately, I did not actually see the crash. As I told the police, I was riding in front of David and heard the crash then stopped and turned around to see my friend lying in the road. I wish I could be more helpful here, but that's all I saw and anything else would be speculation.

Posted by: jade | November 30, 2009 4:25 PM

i don't care whose "fault" it is, i'm just sad it happened and i'm glad you are ok, david. we love you! cass

Posted by: juli | December 1, 2009 1:51 AM

WALT:
i wanted to comment on a few of your points.

"If they are on the right side of the road, I do beep my horn and do not pass if traffic iscoming the other way. so they will not swerve out in front of me (beep as short as possible, not blast, Is that supposedly bad?)"

- thanks for not passing if there is oncoming traffic. but the beep is completely unneccessary and probably louder to the cyclist than you intend. (do you ever bike? just curious. car horns are loud when you aren't enclosed in glass & metal)

"You " take charge of the lane" or whatever you call it, bike folks are dangerous to yourselves and others."
-this is a dangerous line of reasoning on your part, not the cyclists you mention. you have no idea why a cyclist needs to travel where they choose to within a lane. it could be there is broken glass, a pothole, a dead animal, a driver rolling through a stop sign on our right directly into our path. your perspective as an approaching car can be such a snap judgement. if you weren't approaching a cyclist at presumably OVER the speed limit, you probably wouldn't be so hell-bent on getting past them. passing us isn't always the safest option.

"and will try to do my part by keeping as much space between us as possible"
-again, thanks. but "as much as possible" doesn't mean you are following the law. if you can't safely pass a cyclist by giving us 3 feet, then you must wait until you can. because after all, the law says we are a car. just chill out and pretend you are passing a chubby post office truck and let us live.

& i'll see you on ridge road sometime.

Posted by: Walt | December 1, 2009 9:17 AM

JULE
You may be right re beep but it is done back a hundred feet or so so that they know a car is coming. Necessary as I see it as bikists seem to be paying little attention to traffic, traffic signs etc, I think it is a safety move.

(I know it is illegal, but I would prefer that bikes drivee opposite to traffic flow. That wa y they could see me, and I. them.)

Contrary to your assumption, I am not likely to be oveer the speed limit.

Agree that three feet for clearance is a minimum. Would try for twice that, which is why no- pass if traffic approaching.

Check the State Statutes. Intentional blocking of lanes by bikes is prohibited.

Posted by: Mister Jones | December 1, 2009 9:36 AM

Bill, don't blame integration for the decline of cities, especially not New Haven. The "flight" to the suburbs is part of the long march of history, and particularly the immigrant experience in New Haven. Come to America, live in the ghetto with friends, relatives, compatriots. Work and save then move on, to Westville, the Cove, City Point, etc., and eventually to the surrounding suburbs. All this was happening before any hastening by urban renewal and before New Haven's worst days in the 70's.

Posted by: Walt | December 1, 2009 9:46 AM

Jule

Re bikists "taking ownership of the lane" or whatever you may call it.

Try CT General Statutes, Section 14-286b

Dont let the title of section confuse you, it covers other stuff.

Suggest you read all, but especially items under (a) and (b) sub- sections.

"Intentional" blocking is my term. Statutes apparently do not require "intent", just the blocking for an offense per the law/

Thanks

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 1, 2009 10:05 AM

I actually sat down and drafted a reply to some of your points, Walt, but then I realized I was exceeding Norton Street in raw word count and thought I should edit before I posted it--then Juli beat me to it and I wasn't saying it any better. I will add my two cents anyway.

I appreciate that you seem motivated at least in part by a concern for safety. Thanks for that. It's a refreshing relief from the steady stream of people in public forums (the street itself and other online venues) who amuse themselves by threatening to run over more vulnerable road users.

I also share your frustration with those using the roads (regardless of how, whether driving, biking, or walking) who are unwilling or unable to use them in a safe and courteous manner, such as cyclists riding four abreast without yielding when it is safe to do so, and motorists who insist on passing cyclists in the oncoming traffic lane on blind curves.

Regarding your other points: first, state law requires a cyclist to ride as near to the right as "practicable"--specifically not as far to the right as possible. As Juli has already pointed out, there are a number of reasons why the extreme right side of the road is not safe or practicable for cyclists, including parked cars, broken glass, potholes or degraded pavement, storm drains, piles of leaves or other obstacles or safety hazards. It's also not practicable to ride to the extreme right when preparing for a left turn, or when the travel lane is too narrow for a motorist and a bicyclist to share it safely. In these cases, the "'take charge of the lane' bike folks" are operating safely, legally, and responsibly, and the primary danger is presented by motorists who don't understand that. For example, I remember two specific occasions--among many forgotten ones--where motorists saw fit to pass me in the same spot while I was descending English Drive (the road down from East Rock Park). Both times were on the first sharp curve coming down, near the turnout overlooking the Whitney Museum while I was traveling at or near the posted speed limit and indicating with my lane position that I did not expect to be passed. On one of these occasions, there was oncoming traffic and the driver swerved immediately back in front of me, nearly striking me in the process. Only one of us that day was operating outside the boundaries of law, sense, and courtesy and it wasn't me.

Second: state law does in fact prohibit bicyclists from impeding the "normal and reasonable flow of traffic" but the problem there is that those terms are undefined and therefore open to pretty wide interpretations. What you might view as "intentionally blocking traffic" I might see as "being part of traffic." On a heavily-traveled bicycle route, the "normal and reasonable flow" is different than it is on an interstate highway. Is a group of cyclists riding at 18-20 mph in a 25 mph zone "normal and reasonable?" Legally, probably yes. I suppose if someone was cited, it would be for the courts to decide. I do agree that it's courteous and responsible for any slower-moving traffic to allow faster-moving traffic to pass at time and in a place where it is safe to do so, which may or may not coincide with the actual moment at which that faster-moving person decides he wants to get by.

Riding against traffic is absolutely, hands-down, one of the worst, most dangerous choices a cyclist of any age or skill level can make. This is objective fact, not opinion, conjecture, or "radical bikist" philosophy and regardless of what you prefer (and again, I appreciate your motives) it's illegal for a reason. Since you seem so sincerely concerned for safety, please take the time to learn more about this and please stop advocating for it in any way shape or form.

So much for brevity!

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 1, 2009 10:13 AM

Since so much of your reasoning seems to hinge on your personal interpretation of the traffic law, check out this article by Bob Mionske, attorney, cyclist, and Velonews columnist:

http://www.velonews.com/article/9772

He tends to be a little long-winded and the cases he's discussing concern Ohio and Minnesota, but as he notes, the statute language is fairly standard and appears in Connecticut's 14-286 as well. Here's the punchline:

"Based on that analysis, the Ohio court held in Trotwood v. Selz that 'a bicyclist is not in violation of the ordinance when heis traveling as fast as he reasonably can.'"

Posted by: Greg | December 1, 2009 10:18 AM

Walt, I will never ride my bicycle opposite to the flow of traffic. Never mind how illegal it is, it is extremely dangerous (see this and the other Streever accident article for what happens when a car meets a bicycle head on).

Posted by: Bill | December 1, 2009 10:44 AM

Sorry Norton Street and Mr Jones, but crime and forced school integration were major factors in white flight and they're not coming back.

Just another day in New Haven:

A Pocket Mobile courier was robbed at 9 p.m. on Friday on Church Street. The courier was at an ATM machine. The mugger took a red Pocket Mobile shopping bag containing $400-600 in cash deposit envelopes.

Police received reports of gunshots at Sherman Avenue and Scranton Street at 1:45 a.m. on Saturday. They located several shell casings from the scene. Moments later, police got a call from 60 Sherman Ave. The caller said his house was hit by bullets. Two projectiles were located in the home.

There was a robbery at 4 a.m. on Saturday at 94 Diamond St. A man reported that he had been sitting in a car with his girlfriend when a man with a silver gun and a mask approached. The mugger ordered the man out of the car and onto the ground. Then he demanded the girlfriend�s possessions. He made off with a Coach bag, a wall, a Blackberry, and $100.

At 7:35 a.m. on Saturday, a car was stolen from a house on Winthrop Avenue. The owner of the car was standing in the driveway when a man approached him with a handgun. �I need this car,� he said. He left in the car with a woman. The vehicle was recovered at 1 p.m.

A man was shot on Wolcott Street after refusing to hand over money to muggers. The victim was approached at 6 p.m. on Saturday by two men, who demanded money. He turned to walk away and was shot in the back. The bullet exited his front lower abdomen. He was treated for non-life-threatening injuries at Yale-New Haven Hospital.

A woman�s car was jacked at 4:40 a.m. on Sunday. She was sitting in her black Honda Civic at 1235 Ella Grasso Blvd. when a man approached her and told her to get out. He drove off in the car, but he didn�t get far. The car was recovered moments later after the carjacker crashed it at the Boulevard and Chapel Street. He fled.

A man was stabbed once in the chest by his live-in girlfriend. It happened at 4:13 a.m on Stevens Street. He was listed in critical condition, with a puncture wound to the lung.

On Sunday, at 6:14 p.m. a man said that he was jumped while walking on Eastern Street towards Bella Vista. One man pinned him down while two more came out of the woods and went through his pockets. They took his wallet, which contained no cash.

The ShotSpotter system indicated that there were four gunshots in the area of Shepard and Bassett Streets at 6:16 pm on Sunday. A resident called in over an hour later to report a shot through a bedroom window.

At 7:20 p.m. on Sunday, a man was walking on Blatchley Avenue when he was approached from behind by two men. One put a blunt object against his back and said, �Don�t turn around or I�ll shoot you.� The muggers stole a wallet containing $200. The wallet was later recovered without the cash.

Officers responding to an assault at 467 Lombard St. found two victims who had been pistol whipped and robbed. They were both drunk. The victims said that two men with handguns approached them on Lombard Street and demanded money. They took a total of $350 from the victims then hit them both on the head with the guns and ran away.

Posted by: streever | December 1, 2009 11:04 AM

Good points Kurtz, and I agree, I'm glad to see your concern with safety Walt! It is really refreshing.

I just want to echo Kurtz warning about riding against traffic:
In-depth analysis showing the chance of accidents has shown that the number one spot to be injured is Against Traffic, On A Sidewalk. Second is Against Traffic. (Third is On Sidwalk).

So, ride with traffic, don't get distracted, don't get angry, and stay safe.

Posted by: Walt | December 1, 2009 11:04 AM

William Kurtz

Agree with most of what both you and Juli said, allowing for pro-bike and pro-car biases.

In your examples, of course, stay on right is not required, My reading of the comments on the Independent show attitude that bikists legitimately, can take charge and block reasonable traffic whenever they desire which is not true..

"Practicable" correct. If I said "possible". Sorry.

I have, many, many years ago often biked down from the East Rock summit and remember the effort and braking required on that right -hand turn, just to try to stay in my own lane, let alone at the right side of the right lane.Wicked curve.

Still say opposite travel for bikes is preferable, but Statutes say you win.

.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 1, 2009 6:09 PM

Bill,

How are crimes committed this weekend (not in one day, as you incorrectly stated) relevant to a period of mass middle class urban exodus that occurred a half century ago? I said in my earlier post "Urban exodus occurred, then the high crime rates followed...It may be true that people continue to avoid cities due to crime, but originally urban exodus had very little to do with crime..."

Then I proceeded to post crime rates for New Haven, which included the rates for the period around urban flight, then I also posted recent crime rates for surrounding suburbs, which shows their crime rates higher than what New Haven's was when urban flight became. Therefore, showing that urban exodus had little or nothing to do with crime.

Essentially, the long-term effects of racist and classist decisions made at mid 20th century, in this country, in terms of living arrangement are seen today in the form of high inner city crime rates, high poverty rates, undereducated students from essentially segregated neighborhoods, and most other problems that people observe throughout their daily lives, which are mostly a result of the decades of cultural and social degradation that followed the enormous reorganization of our American living arrangement.

Learn what "red-lining" and the HOLC study are before posting a response. There is one layer of current issues in America's cities that is summed up in crime levels, poverty levels, blight, gangs, etc, and there is another layer of history that explains the cause of these things. Cops chasing robbers and putting people in jail is not a solution to a problem, it is a response to a symptom of a problem. The problem, in the case of urban decay, is cultural and social degradation that began with the suppression of poor, un(der)educated and minority immigrants and migrants who came into northern industrial cities looking for work, which quickly evaporated overseas soon after their settling, then they were barred from the American Dream for decades, and during this time neighborhoods decayed, followed by schools and the urban fabric of retail and jobs who opted for suburban locations made possible with enormous federal subsidies (as was middle class white home ownership). Now today we expect this group of people to just repair this extensive damage themselves, it makes no sense, or our version of helping is uselessly throwing money at programs and services.

Ironically, the problems of decaying suburbs, depression in children, drug abuse in suburbs, degradation of 'the family' and other problems outside of cities are caused from precisely the same decisions made in our living arrangement a half century ago, that was fueled by the automobile, advancements in moving electricity vast distances without dissipating and the period of enormous wealth that occurred post WW2 with us being an opposition-less world power.

Posted by: What were we talking about?? | December 1, 2009 8:09 PM

Ummm? Paul, can you start editing comments for relevance to the article? Maybe I just don't see the connection between Streever's accident and suburban flight...

...Wait, I think I get it....Both scenarios are centered around the movements of middle-aged white men and both were instigated by pride.

Posted by: Norton Street | December 1, 2009 8:52 PM

What were we talking about,
Discussions naturally move to different topics other than what the article was specifically about, especially when there are many comments. Also, there was another article about this accident on this website, as well as on the Register's website, so most of the relevant comments have kind of run their course, or it at least seems that way. However, my most recent posts are pretty ridiculous. Editing and/or deleting them may be appropriate because I usually respond to comments directed towards me without much consideration for other things.

Posted by: Greg | December 1, 2009 9:07 PM

Wait, what were we talking about? Streever's not middle-aged, last time I checked. Unless they've expanded middle-age recently?

Posted by: Claudia Herrera | December 2, 2009 12:24 AM

Streever

Fist, I glad to hear that you will be ok and you are healing around people who love you.

I didn’t have any time to check the nhi lately, anyway, when I heard about this immediately your words of “I suggest it is time for us to forgive and forget, (the drunk alderman)” come back to my mind, I bring this comment now, NOT to blame of judge YOU or extend the wrong doing of the alderman and is not even to exchange angers feelings.

In one way or in other one, we all have times and actions (mistakes) to make us or force us to reflect a little bit deeper about our choices and decisions. What move us to speak up with passion on what you believe is right?

I think is only when you have bee experienced the result of a small mistakes, (pain and suffering) that's when we understand is not about to find the responsible, is a lot more of what WE did to prevent it.

My point, it is an urgent need to be very careful to who we support and what action can be forgive easy. When you breach some one safe, peace and health I support zero tolerance.

Get well soon, respectfully.

Posted by: streever | December 2, 2009 11:09 AM

Hey Claudia,

definitely, we all make mistakes! And I said from the start that I thought Joey is a great guy & was happy to move on & forgive and forget.

the one thing I don't like is the City's next day press release party for him.

That simply isn't their role.

Joey is an elected official, and City Hall is not who elected him: his constitutents are. I would be just as angry at City Hall if they held an event for me the day after my crash.

I think it's fine to forgive and forget. I don't think it's OK to have an element of control in an alderman's function, and that's what that as all about for City Hall, not about forgiving someone's mistake.

Posted by: CampyGrl | December 2, 2009 3:07 PM

Tom Harned,

I agree, the last thing needed is more speculation.

That's why I'm asking if you can recall any parked cars to your and David's right on Chapel Street to help David's wondering if the SUV was parked & had just opened it's door? that might account for his swerve--trying to avoid dooring.

Thanks again.

Posted by: dana b | December 2, 2009 5:34 PM

Is Streever going to pay the woman for the damages to her Audi (or her deductible), if police determine that he caused the accident by turning around to curse another driver?

Posted by: CampyGrl | December 2, 2009 10:16 PM

Nevermind, I got the answer to the parked car-dooring question over on the other site where a mother against drunk driving posted the whole police report
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/11/24/blotter/doc4b0bc1c781f2f502779727.txt#blogcomments

Posted by: Walt | December 3, 2009 7:22 AM

Took a look at Elm City Cyclists site today. About half of its Directors are regular posters here which explains, I guess. why biking is so emphasized in the Independent.

Has good safety advice which, if followed by area bike folk, would lessen car drivers/bikists friction.

As to driving against traffic, you folks and the Statutes have pretty well convinced me that it is not a good idea although I really do not know why.

Posted by: William Kurtz | December 3, 2009 10:49 AM

Walt,

Riding against the flow of traffic is dangerous because it drastically reduces the response time for both the cyclist and the motorist, as well as decreasing their ability to see each other. Imagine yourself in a steady line of cars driving down the street. On a city street, especially, with parked cars, traffic lights, pedestrians, intersections and all the other things to pay attention to, a fast-moving cyclist will likely not be visible until he passes the car in front of you. If you are parking, turning, or changing lanes the two of you will not have time to react.

Riding a bike is different from walking; a cyclist can't immediately get off a road to avoid oncoming danger. Additionally, in the event of a collision, the force generated by the speed of the cyclist is added to the force of the automobile, with far more devastating consequences.

I hope that clears it up some. Here are links to some people who have explained it in more detail:

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/wrong.htm

http://bicyclesafe.com/ (scroll down to 'The Wrong-Way Wreck.'

Posted by: juli | December 3, 2009 11:29 AM

hey walt,
thanks for checking out ECC's website and safety info. feel free to direct people to it whom you think might need it.

and i understand your instinct about the direction of travel. you think that moving into each other with give you both more time to make eye contact and react to each other. but, riding the wrong way in traffic is actually a main cause of cyclists' deaths.

think about it in terms of speeds. a car moving at 25mph and a cyclist moving 15mph:
if we are travelling together as traffic, it is like the car is moving at 10mph and the cyclist is motionless (like when you are on the train and another train passes you at a similar speed...)

but if we are moving in opposite directions, you add the two speeds. it is like the car is travelling at 40mph and the bike appears out of nowhere. plus, if the two collide, the impact is also like if a car hits a wall at 40mph instead of 10mph.

i hope this helps?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | December 3, 2009 11:56 AM

Streever I hope that this incident teaches you some humility. In the future before your next tirade against someone who is riding on the sidewalk think back to your own unfortunate incident, and realize how surprisingly few people criticized your bicycle behavior. Granted the Independent does seem to be the mouthpiece of Elm City Cycling, but even the New Haven Register comments are surprisingly favorable in condoning your activities that night.

Posted by: Walt | December 3, 2009 12:30 PM

Thanks

I know the physical effects of collision but would prefer no contact.

You win. If I bike again which is quite doubtful, I'll go with the flow,

Posted by: Debra Hauser | December 4, 2009 12:04 PM

David,
So sorry to hear the news. GET WELL SOON.
Debbie Hauser

Posted by: Walt | December 13, 2009 11:18 AM

Don'r know Streever, but thought he was pretty good at accepting responsibility until I read
Randall Beach's column in the Register. this morning/

He supposedly doesn't remember the previous 16 hours, but one friend, not a witness to the accident, told him they did not drink too much and of course, Streever agrees.

The poor woman in the Audi's car is seen, well within her proper lane in the photo, far from the dividing line, in the Independent, yet now Streever is miffed that she did not "swerve and avoid him" Her fault!!!!????

Streever who usually comes across as a sensible bicyclist, now adopts the bike riders' habit of disobeying the law and blaming a motorist if there is an accident caused by his own acts.

Hopefully it is Randall Beach,fudging as journalists often do,, not really Streever who originated the quotes in the Register.

Tell us please, who is offbase here, Streever or Beach?