text:
Ped/bike safety enforcement stories, part 1: Alice Swanson
Many people who had been hit while walking or bicycling, or the families of those killed while walking or bicycling, testified at Friday's hearing on pedestrian and bicycle safety enforcement.
Here is the testimony of Ruth Rowan, Alice Swanson's mother. Alice was killed when a garbage truck driver turned right across the bike lane at Connecticut and R, NW in July 2008. According to Ms. Rowan, the police investigator was intent on blaming Alice and suppressed pertinent information from the police report.
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Feb 7, 2011 10:55 am • link • report
I don't think we need to re-hash the arguments already covered here (http://tinyurl.com/4k63upg). But I believe that there is legal language that lets trucks turn wide -- some wording with the term "practicable" in it which should be familiar to cyclists -- and whether Swanson actually had right of way or acted with "due care" is clearly debatable. As a layperson looking at the police report, charging the driver with a serious crime is likely a losing case. That written, I would have prefered the driver be cited and let a judge handle the nuances of the law. But given all of the attention and resources to the case, it would be surprising if the decision to let the driver go uncited was done without some sort of review.
I'm no lawyer but if there is someone with prosecution or defense lawyer experience familiar with the case, I would be an interested in those opinions.
I would think that the Pettigrew collision is something that we should illicit much more outrage. A woman is riding in a perfectly legal position in an environment with excellent visibility and is simply run over from behind. The driver leaves the scene with the hard to fathom excuse of a human + bicycle sounding like a deer.
Just for clarity, my understanding is that a bike lane does not extend through the intersection. Is that wrong? Anyway, I'm unsure whether Ms. Swanson was killed in a bike lane.
I think the truck driver deserves most of the blame--at least if the only eyewitness is to be believed. But the suggestion of "separate facilities" is just hot air. As we had to explain to 'w' every single day for years, people ride bikes in order to go places. Separate facilities will never be comprehensive. So cyclists will always ride in the road (as is right and proper). This is why I take the lane in most situations where there's any doubt.
I also like her suggestion about an investigative unit.
Car driver hits drunk in bar area? Car driver's fault, he should have expected drunks to show up somewhere.
Kid gets hit because it ran from between cars in a suburb? Car driver's fault. He should have been aware of the children's presence and have anticipated that kids do stupid stuff.
Car hits a biker without lights in the dark on a clear night on a rural road? Driver may get away with it, if he was not speeding. If it's raining or visibility is impaired in any way, the driver should have slowed down due to the poor visibility.
The assumption is that bikers and pedestrians have life and limb to loose and therefore have every incentive to not get hurt. In short: despite the fact that pedestrians and bikers have poor judgment, car driver's have a higher duty to pay attention because they can actually kill bikers and pedestrians.
I should add here that the Dutch legal system does not award damages after accidents, so you can't run in the street, get yourself hurt and be rich for the rest of your life.
We seriously need to
Regardless of whether criminal charges should or should not have been filed, the police report should--at a bare minimum--reflect the reality of the eyewitness accounts, and what is physically possible. It's clear that the investigating officer came to the scene with an agenda, and merely wrote up the report to support her prejudices.
The idea that Swanson was travelling so fast as to strike the truck, throwing herself under the front wheels is a physical impossibility. The fact that that was allowed to be the "official" report is a travesty.
I should add here that the Dutch legal system does not award damages after accidents, so you can't run in the street, get yourself hurt and be rich for the rest of your life.
This is a function of our country's unique social safety-net. In most European countries, life-long support for the disabled is a given. In the US, no such support is forthcoming. But when someone is disabled for life, for whatever reason, the money's got to come from somewhere. So we let the civil courts sort it out.
(This is why every US doctor that whines about malpractice premiums should be fighting tooth-and-nail for universal health care and more generous disability support.)
This is like one of those horror movies where the monster, who has lay dormant for eight centuries, is awakened by the plucky teen who repeats his name three times in front of a mirror.
Anyway, welcome back, 'w'!
That was one of the wrongs which got righted when the US broke away from Great Britain. 'Innocent until proven guilty' became the law of the land ... and last I looked, it still is.
I think the answer is simple. It's a question we faced back in the early part of the 20th century and already answered then. Short memories and, as you put it w, 'racing and athletic' cycling people are unfortunately causing us to revisit this.
My grandfather was a real cyclist racer (with professional awards and the like), who actually grew up when this question got asked and anwered the first time around ... And when he taught me to ride many many decades after this all played out, I still remember him telling me how while bicycling was a great sport and something to be enjoyed, one should never go with their bike where there was a lot of traffic. Now maybe having had a relative on a bike killed by a truck in similar circumstances to Alice may have affected his judgement, but even all these years later I think he was right. Let's build more bike paths in the woods, and more cycle tracks in the city, but let's not let bikes mix with heavy traffic. And let's be rational and realize that someone out in the middle of traffic on a 20 lb frame called a bike in no more reasonable than someone out on a 10 lb skate board in that same traffic.
Call him what you want- he is speaking the truth.
And I actually have a lot for respect for REAL bicycle racers- not the play acting racer wanna bees out there who pack all of the planning meetings and make their wishes known over everyone else's.
Another Lance- the Armstrong guy- is a racer who is actually all for separated auto protected bikeways and sit up bikes. He has come out in public saying this kind of thing. Yet when I say the same thing - I am attacked viciously.
I will say one thing to "our" Lance-
that 5 % can easily go up- and I bet that it already has gone up in many parts of DC. Every year there are more and more cyclists on the streets -and sidewalks.
15th street is the right way to go with cycling infrastructure. The rest of these bike lanes are "please door me" travesties and should be redesigned or done away with entirely. Let's see cycling become safe for women and children -and smart men- most of whom are reluctant to die in traffic. This can be done. But we have to get the idiotic male oriented bicycling culture to become more inclusive here in the USA & DC first...
I told the my kids the same thing when I taught them to ride. Because they were 4 years old.
Can you read. I didn't say what you say I said. Jasper said the Netherlands applies 'Guilty until proven innocent' in the case of cyclists. I reminded/informed her that one of the items the Americans fought a revolution over with the British was a rejection of this very fundamental principle in jurisprudence. (I.e., We're not going to do like the Netherlands and apply 'Guilty until proven innocent as that in repulsive to our laws.)
This is not to say that the proper rights and responsibilities of drivers and cyclists and pedestrian are not subject to debate. Certainly they are (even if I/we have very strong views on those). But that's different from the issue of what happened here (where the facts are largely not in dispute, and the law is also quite clear). I think Swanson's killer, certain elements of MPD, and a few others would prefer to make the investigation of Swanson's death into a debate about how drivers would like cyclists to behave, rather than an inquiry into what the particular driver and the MPD did or did not do.
the tendency to blame the cyclist after an accident- and after an especially horrible one like this poor Swanson girl- to try to "crack down" on cyclist behavior- which is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do. The authorities need to make it EASIER and MORE PERMISSIVE and SAFER for cyclists not more legalistic and more complicated. That will only result in a drop in the number of cyclists- like it has in Australia where they mandated helmets- in other words- more rules-instead of more auto protected bikeways.
France is in "catch up" mode with Germany,Holland,Eastern France and the Nordic countries- they never had as many regular cyclists in France as in those countries-despite the fact that France is a racer paradise.. Glad to hear about change in Paris- but Paris is simply not as easy to bike in as in Munich ,Berlin,Freiburg, Speyer, Amsterdam or in Copenhagen. They have a long way to go and I sort of lump France & Italy in with the Anglo countries .
The other problem in the USA is that people only see cycling as a "sport" and not as a way to get around or a serious transport option. When folks in the USA & in DC start seeing bikes as a serious way of getting around and stop ridiculing people who live car free and use cargo bikes- we will be on the right track. As long as people see cycling as a competition thing w/o the benefits of the car free lifestyle things will stay the same.
For instance, we don't hear many arguments against the requirement of drivers to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks because "they're innocent until proven guilty." We just say you have an obligation to yield ROW. Same thing here: unless there are extenuating circumstances, a driver who hits a pedestrian or cyclist should be considered to have been neglectful in their duty to avoid other road users. If you find yourself incapable of doing so, you should slow down.
@ oboe: This is a function of our country's unique social safety-net.
Correct. I just put it there to pre-empt comments that would argue that people could abuse the system.
@ Lance: That was one of the wrongs which got righted when the US broke away from Great Britain. 'Innocent until proven guilty' became the law of the land ... and last I looked, it still is.
Sigh. You should really learn something about the US dude. In the Netherlands (and the UK), one is also innocent until proven guilty. There are a few exceptions, as there are in the US. For instance, when filing your taxes, the burden is on you to show that your filings are correct. That's why auditors don't have to show that you're wrong. And don't get me started on the content of the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and burden of proof. BTW: It is that other country of yours where Napoleon invented the guilty until proven innocent.
@ Kathy: +1
I think those posting here and in the other bike thread should remember that the roads were built for MOTOR vehicles. As for what goes in the Netherlands or wherever, thats certainly nice, but it has little to do with America.
Incorrect. All laws of the road apply to bikers, just as they do to car drivers. You are correct that many people are not aware of that.
roads were built for MOTOR vehicles.
Also incorrect. When L'Enfant designed DC, there were no cars.
I guess thats what we get for asking a Frenchman to design our capital city!
Yep. For cars, bikes, motorbikes, trucks, horse carriages. Pretty much anything on wheels. I am not sure what the law says about little wheels as on skate boards and roller skates.
I guess thats what we get for asking a Frenchman to design our capital city!,
Nah. Nobody in his time would have designed for anything else than carriages, pedestrians and an occasional bike. Cars were not very developed in the late 1700s.
Please use that line when debating against the C100.
1. Codi Alexander - hit in a crosswalk by a driver who claimed he never saw her even though the sidewalk she was on beforehand was visible from 200 feet away. This was 12 years after another cyclist had been killed in the exact same place. In both cases the cyclist was officially blamed.
2. Dr. Yoram Kaufmann - a coworker of mine. He was hit from behind, but the driver claimed he swerved in front of her unexpectedly as she tried to pass. No charges were filed. No ticket.
3. David Marsden - hit by a truck in a crash very similar to Alice's except he was on a sidewalk and the driver came from behind him. No charges.
This article pretty much sums up my feelings towards the "waiting for manna from Heaven" attitude of the cycling segregationists.
Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who!
Anyway, you'll probably want to talk to Swanson's mom about her nitpicking and obsession with such trivialities.
And here's the clip form that post. It is actually a really good description of the design policy of the last 20 years.
[I am not sure if this will work, I have never embedded a clip here.]
BTW: The white and red poles you see took some time to be accepted, as you can see from the fact that not all of them are standing straight up. The red-white ones can be removed by emergency personnel, and initially many cars try to just run over them. Does not work. There are plenty of funny clips about that as well. Some poles open up only for residents.
Turning drivers are error-prone when checking their blind spot while turning. The driver here was legally at fault, but a road design that encouraged through bicycle traffic to be positioned inside the turn, where drivers often fail to look, likely contributed to the problem. Such bike lanes dupe many cyclists who see themselves as law-abiding into riding too far right, instead of a more defensive position in the center of the lane or to the left of the right-turning vehicle. One possible reason why this type of collision happens more often to women is that they are more likely than men to trust the letter of the law and the stripes on the ground to protect them than some more assertive male cyclists who aren't as afraid of motorists beeping their horns at them for riding outside the bike lane where it's safer.
Bicyclists could learn a lesson from motorcycles and ride more defensively. You have to be ready to react at all times and always assume the worst of other drivers. This is the only way you can survive.
And bicycles need to follow all the laws of the road, including stopping at lights and stop signs. Otherwise they risk death or injury.
When I stop having motorcyclists blow past me at 120 mph on the beltway, then you can preach to me about how cyclists need to follow the law.
How about we just stop bitching at others breaking the law and using that as an excuse for breaking the law ourselves. You have control over your actions. Behave the way you'd like others to behave. Lead by example, instead of bitching about examples.
I'm not preaching to anyone. I ride both and follow the laws. If you feel like a motorcyclist going 120 on the beltway justifies you running lights and stop signs in the city on your bicycle, then I advocate that you continue to do that. Hopefully you learn your lesson before you end up dead.
There are approx 6,567,197 registered motorcycles on the road, of which typically between 4-5k are involved in fatal accidents annually. That means on average my chance of being killed on my motorcycle is like .07%. And that assumes I'm the average rider, which unfortunately includes a lot of knuckleheads. If one rides defensively then the chances are greatly reduced from even .07%.
Anecdottaly, most people that I've heard about being seriously injured or killed were doing something stupid (popping wheelies on the beltway, going 100mph+ on city roads, etc.)
Myself, not being a stupid rider, I feel safer on my motorcycle than my bicycle. I can out accelerate, out brake, out maneuver anything else on the road. Plus I have bright lights and a loud horn. I don't need a seperate lane because I can keep up with the flow of traffic.
Having done both, I would guess that more motorcyclists are indeed killed, but more bicycles are involved in collisions. A bicycle collision is less likely to kill you though, because there is almost always less speed involved. Afterall, they aren't really capable of that much speed.
I think David C's point was that cyclists are *already* much safer than motorcyclists. Actually, motorcylists tend to kill themselves in single-vehicle accidents. The majority are young men who are driving too fast for conditions, and wrap themselves around telephone poles. Meanwhile, most cyclists who are killed *aren't* killed while engaging in "scofflaw" behavior (which actually tends to increase cyclist safety). They're killed while obeying traffic laws to the letter, and generally trying not to make a nuisance of themselves by hugging the right-most side of the road, etc...
Seems pretty fair to point out that motorcyclists don't really have much to teach cyclists on the subject of safety.
You can't be serious? Unless following the traffic laws to the letter doesn't include stopping at lights or stop signs. And I've seen many accidents involving cyclists while engaging in this "scofflaw" behavior. Scofflaw behavior is more than just going fast, which bicycles can't do.
"The majority are young men who are driving too fast for conditions, and wrap themselves around telephone poles."
False. "75% of accidents were found to involve a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle, while the remaining 25% of accidents were single motorcycle accidents."
I go back to my original post. If you are going to ride either, you have to obey the laws and ride super defensively and not engage in "scofflaw" behavior of going too fast for the conditions, running red lights and stop signs, wear proper gear, etc. Like Jasper said, going back and forth bitching about others' lack of responsibility is counter productive. I choose to be responsible for myself and don't worry about anyone else. And I am alive after 20+ years of riding bicycles and motorcycles.
Sorry, what part of this do you disagree with? I didn't claim cyclists don't engage in "scofflaw" behavior. Just that such behavior doesn't make them any less safe. Cyclists treat stop signs as yields, and stop lights as stop signs. They do this almost universally. Cyclist are almost never injured while doing this. They're generally either doored, or run over by a right- or left-turning vehicle, etc...
Congratulations on your staying alive lo these 20 years. I've been riding a bike in the streets of Washington for 20+ years now, and had maybe one close call. Obviously, the ultimate responsibility for our own safety is ours. But strict 100% adherence to the letter of the law doesn't add appreciably to road safety on a bike, any more than it does while on foot.
A good example of this: there are parts of town where you're safer jay-walking mid block than crossing with the light on the corner, thanks to right-turn-on-red drivers who can't be bothered to yield.
I wasn't "bitching" or using it as an excuse for lawbreaking, I was saying that I don't think motorcyclists have a lot of room to hold themselves up as an example for anyone. I don't like to be talked down to, especially by a group that isn't exactly the paragon of safety.
@Ward 5 Rez, Again, I never claimed that bad motorcyclist behavior justified running lights and stop signs. What I was saying was heal yourself first. How is "Bicyclists could learn a lesson from motorcycles and ride more defensively...And bicycles need to follow all the laws of the road, including stopping at lights and stop signs." not preaching? Also your logic is wrong, but I'll use your numbers. There are 150,000,000 people who will ride a bike this year and ~700 of them will die. So your chances of dying on a bike are far lower than .07%, something like 0.00000005%. I'd calculate it all differently of course. I'd measure fatalities per million hours traveled, but I don't think you'll find that any more satisfactory.
I disagree that cyclists follow the law to the letter. They don't. I don't care if it's "universal" behavior for bicyclists to run stop signs. It's still against the law and does impair safety. It's "universal" behavior for cars to speed. But it still impairs safety. I can't count the number of times where I've been nearly run over as a pedestrian at a crosswalk with a green light by a bicyclist universally running a stop light.
I disagree, following the laws DOES add appreciably to safety. Sure, a lot of drivers/bicyclists/motorcyclists break laws, but to try and advocate that this does not impair safety is pure denial.
It's about 57,000,000 people
I don't disagree that you're less likely to be killed on a bicycle than a motorcycle. According to these stats, it's .07% for a motorcycle or .001% for a bicycle. Either one is small enough for me to be comfortable.
I'm not trying to preach, just sharing the measures I've taken to stay alive.
And which group's behavior are you now holding me responsible for exactly? And how reasonable do you think that is?
The cops need to enforce traffic laws against ALL users of the road. Which means they need to ignore the whinings of whatever group is complaining when they're hit with tickets (Pedestrians: Why are the cops focusing on jaywalking when there's all these speeding cars and dangerous cyclists? Cyclists: Why are the cops focusing on dangerous cycling when there's all these speeding cars and jaywalkers? Drivers: Why are the cops focusing on speeding when there's all these dangerous cyclists and jaywalkers?)
Just enforce the laws equally and watch people's behavior change.
You quote all your numbers without sources, I've seen bicycles get hit universally running lights, and I've seen pedestrians knock bicycles over as they ran through.
@Jasper, I'm not holding you responsible for anyone. That comment was about Ward5rez's statement that cyclists should behave more like motorcyclists.
@Fritz, I too often laugh at stuff I just make up out of thin air. Like when you quoted oboe as saying that cyclists "almost universally" comply with traffic laws regarding red lights and stop signs, something he actually never said. Or how about this quote from you "I like to eat my own underpants". I laughed when I pretended that I heard you say that.
But since it is universal (i.e. nearly every cyclist does this), and since the number of cyclists who are injured doing so is trivial
As far as your claim that you've been nearly run down by scofflaw cyclists innumerable times, you must be both the luckiest--and unluckiest--man who ever lived. Luckiest because you managed to come out of this unending ordeal in one piece. Unluckiest because your experience seems to be constrained to folks who want to make a point on GGW. I guess it depends on your personal comfort zone, but generally when a cyclist passes me by 3-5 feet going 10 mph, it barely registers.
Actually, it reminds me of Charlie's anecdote from a few days ago that cyclists are always spitting at him. Really?
Perhaps more people would pay serious attention to what you wrote if you didn't engage in juvenile behavior.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Oboe's statement that I took issue with: "Cyclists treat stop signs as yields, and stop lights as stop signs. They do this almost universally."
My statement: "have to laugh at oboe's comment that cyclists "almost universally" comply with traffic laws regarding red lights and stop signs..."
Your statement: "I too often laugh at stuff I just make up out of thin air. Like when you quoted oboe as saying that cyclists 'almost universally' comply with traffic laws regarding red lights and stop signs, something he actually never said."
Oboe's backtrack: "...I'm running out of ways to phrase this, but no, cyclists don't follow the law to the letter. Of course they don't."
Have a nice day!
Note he said "treat stop signs as yields," not "treat stop signs as stop signs," and "stop lights as stop signs," not "stop lights as stop lights."
by David Alpert on Feb 8, 2011 2:38 pm • link • report
In that case you need to work on the lay-out of your responses. My quote was from the text after @jasper, and before @Ward5rez.
Also, my numbers are based on the sheer number of bicycles and motorcycles and deaths. It's important to note that motorcycles ride many times the number of miles on average than bicycles. So taking that into account, the number of deaths on motorcycles is actually quite low.
Now, the inherent risks of motorcycles are definitely greater, but much of that risk is mitigated by responsible riding (yes, the majority of motorcycles follow the laws, despite what a few knuckleheads that stand out might lead you to believe).
Entire books have been written on motorcycle safety, and motorcyclists take safety much more seriously, from what I've seen. And I've known lots of bicyclists and motorcyclists over the years. When was the last time you saw a motorcyclist without a helmet? I see bicycles without helmets all the time. That is what I meant when I said that bicyclist could stand to learn a little about safe riding from motorcyclists.
I don't know all the circumstances of the incident in this story, but perhaps the bicycle rider that was killed could have been looking ahead more or been more skilled in reading the traffic flow and perhaps would not have been killed.
But then again, the bicyclists on here seem to think they already know everything, and no one can teach them anything, surely not a wreckless group like motorcyclists. Whatever.
@Ward5Rez: Cyclist deaths per 1 million miles biked: 0.2. Motorcyclist deaths per 1 million miles ridden: 24.7.
If motorcyclists want to take safety seriously, perhaps they should learn a lesson from bicycles and ride more defensively. Or perhaps they should just ride a bicycle.
Helmets: Many states require adults to wear helmets when motorcycling. Almost no one does while bicycling. Also, bike helmets aren't shown to be that useful, and not for the kind of crashes that adults get into.
Cyclists are in fewer crashes, are injured less often and die less often than motorcyclists. So if cyclists were to model their behavior on motorcyclists how would that be good?
Like I said, motorcyclists die 120+ times more often per mile traveled than cyclists. Perhaps they aren't the group to emulate.
They'd have more facial hair? (if thats "good")
She did everything correctly and a guy turning right, from the lane left of her hit her and was not charged with any moving violation.
Those numbers for motorcycles at least are false. According to the NHTSA, the number of motorcycle deaths are 39.89 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
So assuming your source is correct on the bicycle data at least, multiply 0.2 x 100 and you get 20 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled as opposed to 39.89 on motorcycles. This supports what I stated. Yes motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, I would say more than double dangerous, but a lot of this risk is better managed because motorcyclists ride safer.
That's the point. Even when you follow all the laws, you have to be prepared for the unexpected. If Alice had learned the riding skills I'm talking about, she would have probably been able to read the situation and reacted instead of being killed.
And that is wrong. Her family should sue the bastards. That won't bring her back unfortunately.
Seriously, everybody pay attention to traffic, look far ahead, and ride defensively. It doesn't matter if you have the right of way or not, it's not worth risking your life.
Ride safe everyone, whatever you ride.
Here's the problem people have with what you're saying:
I go back to my original post. If you are going to ride either, you have to obey the laws and ride super defensively and not engage in "scofflaw" behavior of going too fast for the conditions, running red lights and stop signs, wear proper gear, etc. Like Jasper said, going back and forth bitching about others' lack of responsibility is counter productive. I choose to be responsible for myself and don't worry about anyone else. And I am alive after 20+ years of riding bicycles and motorcycles.
People do things like go through stop signs and red lights in order to ride defensively and stay out of the way of traffic.
You however seem to be one of those people who only see the one moron out of every 100 bicyclists who rides the wrong way down a street, cuts in front of cars dangerously, etc. You seem to see bicyclists as all hot-dogging messenger-wannabes with no concern for their safety or the safety of anyone else. If you took ten seconds to look at the people you see riding bikes every day you would see that's not true.
Understand the following: #1, riding within the frame of the law isn't always the safest thing to do; #2, riding through a stop sign or crossing against a red light isn't always dangerous - since I guess you've never jaywalked in your entire life.
You've done absolutely nothing to prove that "motorcyclists ride safer." If they die more often, and are injured more often and crash more often, how is that safer?
If Alice had learned the riding skills I'm talking about, she would have probably been able to read the situation and reacted instead of being killed.
You don't know much about the crash, but you think she would have "probably been able" to avoid being killed? If she exhibited the uber-safe skills that motorcyclists who get themselves killed like 120 times more often per mile do? It's false to believe that every cyclist (or motorcyclist) can safe their own life if they just ride more safely and learn more skills. At some point, you have to rely on other people to not plow their car into you.
But to get back to the point, we've got a bunch of folks who live in an urban environment. Increasingly, they're both walking and riding bicycles to get around. You seem to think that it's perfectly normal to require folks who do this to undergo hours and hours of specialized training in order to safely navigate their neighborhoods. That's one way of looking at it. If they don't, their deaths are a sad but inescapable part of life.
But given the fact that it's the operators of motor vehicles who are killing 99.999% of these folks who are sharing public space with them, frankly that seems like a lunatic mis-prioritization of values. If it's really the case that motor vehicles cannot be operated safely in an urban environment, we need to severely restrict which ones can be operated in our city.
Ten posts in 5.5 hours - what does a slow day look like for you?
I think I agree with both of you. Shudder.
@the bike gang
I'm carless here in DC and still young enough to ride a bike, but I would never, never consider it. Sure I'll take my bike to Rock Creek Park when it gets warm (thank you Tina) but ride on the streets? No way. It isn't safe.
Ha, no, but rather for convincing me to drag my bike to RCP, I will once it's warmer. Sorry way off topic.
--We want the police to recognize and enforce the law.
100% agree. I hope for justice for Alice, but even if she gets it.... We are a LONG way from changing attitudes sufficiently for me to ride on the streets.
That's too bad. It's a lot of fun, a great way to see the city and the fastest way around in a lot of cases. You should try a free Confident City Cycling course from WABA. Maybe you'll feel differently afterward. If not, I have a friend who met his wife in one of the classes, so y'know, you might get lucky.
Ironically, the guy that wrote that site died shortly afterward on his bicycle.
You've done absolutely nothing to prove that "motorcyclists ride safer." If they die more often, and are injured more often and crash more often, how is that safer?"
Your source says for death it's 1 in 26 versus 1 in 71 for motorcycles. Your source also says total injuries were 58,000 for bicycles versus 54,000 for motorcycles.
More motorcyclists die overall because there is more speed involved, and more miles ridden. That alone increases the odds.
Death and injury should be much higher compared to bicycles given the inherent risks. They're not because motorcyclists generally ride more defensively, wear proper gear, and follow the laws (except maybe speeding).
There should be practically no deaths or injuries involving bicycles. You have dedicated lanes, can't go faster than 20-30 mph unless going downhill, and don't get ridden that many miles in a year. The fact that the stats are as high as they are is because bicyclists don't take safety and traffic laws seriously and the gang of bicyclists posting today here prove that.
I think there should be driving tests depending on what you plan to drive. They do this with motorcycles in Europe. You must start with 250cc until you can prove you can handle it enough to move up.
For cars, you should only be authorized to drive a subcompact, until you demonstrate you know how to handle it. I see people driving SUVs all the time that shouldn't be able to drive a golf cart.
The other problem I see is distracted driving. They have no cell phone and texting laws, but these are hard to enforce. But it's really more than that. People are distracted with all kinds of things these days, from GPS to radios, DVDs, ipods, and more. And automakers are constantly putting more and more stuff into the cars. Something needs to be done, but I don't know what.
Mostly I see two types. I see "hot-dogging messenger-wannabes", and fat old men in yellow spandex (no offense to anyone). Having ridden bicycles here for years, I know many of the first type. I have a lot of friends and friends of friends that ride bicycles. I also have a lot of friends that ride motorcycles. My views on both groups and how safely ride are not based on statistics from a dead guy's website. They're based on my years of experience riding with both groups. Have you done both? If not, no offense, but I don't see how you can relate.
Death and injury should be much higher compared to bicycles given the inherent risks. They're not because...
What are you talking about? Death and injury rates are 120 times higher for motorcyclists.
motorcyclists generally...wear proper gear
"Helmet use nationally has declined from 71 percent in 2000 to 63 percent in 2008. In 2007, 63% of fatally injured motorcycle riders were not wearing a helmet in states without all-rider helmet laws"
motorcyclists generally ride more defensively,...and follow the laws (except maybe speeding).
I like the way you brush away the really dangerous thing they do by making it a paranthetical. Unfortunately speeding is a major reason why motorcyclists die at such an alarming rate - and is not consistent with your claim about defensive driving.
"In 2006, 37% of all motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were speeding"
There should be practically no deaths or injuries involving bicycles.
I agree. Unfortunately drunk drivers - like the one that killed Ken Kifer, distracted drivers, speeders and other careless drivers and cyclists keep messing that up.
[bikes] don't get ridden that many miles in a year
In 1997 there was 21 billion miles of biking in the US. If motorcyclists drive about 0.4% of all miles traveled (NHTSA, 2009) and there were about 3 trillion total miles travelled (NHTSA, 2006) than motorcyclists travel about 12 billion miles per year. So there are nearly twice as many miles bicycled per year.
The fact that the stats are as high as they are is because bicyclists don't take safety and traffic laws seriously and the gang of bicyclists posting today here prove that.
How so? I take bike safety very seriously. That's my point. Despite the popular perception, bicyclists not only take bike safety seriously, we're a bit obsessed. And the numbers bear that out.
So I'm either a wannabe or a fat old man, how is that not offensive.
Every motorcyclist I see rapes puppies. No offense.
My views on both groups and how safely ride are not based on statistics from a dead guy's website. They're based on my years of experience riding with both groups.
How Ken Kifer being dead is relevant, I'm unsure, but I will stick with statistics, science and fact. You can have your opinion which is clearly free of bias) based on experience. Just remember, there are 120 dead motorcyclists out there for every Ken Kifer.
Your "source" says that motorcycles have 27.6 deaths per million miles traveled.
NHTSA says that the death rate is 39.89 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.
While the death rate for bicycles is .2 per million or 20 per 100 million.
Even your "source" meant 100 million, his number is still totally off base.
I will believe NHTSA, as your source is completely unreliable.
A lot of inexperienced folks feel this way. Meanwhile, the statistics show it's one of the safer activities you can engage in.
My mother is terrified of taking the Metro train. After all, they had a crash a year or two ago. Not safe! Meanwhile she thinks nothing of getting on the Beltway and tooling along at 65 mph with the local NASCAR wannabees.
The human capacity for risk assessment is a strange and interesting thing.
I used to ride with a rather large group of motorcyclists when I lived in a large city (decades ago). We all rode 25+ year old BMWs. I can't remember anyone getting in a major wreck. Meanwhile folks with the same demographic profile--on different equipment--were dropping like flies.
Are there safety-conscious law-abiding motorcyclists? Of course, and they're probably in the majority. But if motorcycles were bicycles, something like 40% of the motorcycling community would be made up of "outlaw couriers."
Despite the popular perception, bicyclists not only take bike safety seriously, we're a bit obsessed. And the numbers bear that out.
I'd argue the only group who takes safety more seriously than committed commuter cyclists is private airplane pilots. I think some of our motorcycle-riding guests here are confusing their inaccurate picture of what makes for safe urban bicycle riding with best practices that actually do make for safe urban bicycle riding. It's a bit like power-boaters giving safety advice to windsurfers. There's some overlap, but not much.
One effective safety technique on a motorcycle is accelerating out of danger. Why don't cyclists do this?
125cc in the UK. Some of the available bikes demonstrate the "Walter Mitty" aspect of the young men who take up motorcycling: http://bike-exchange.co.uk/display_picture.php?ref=00029037&adtype=n
(And to think, your average DC cyclist gets stick for being a "Lance Wannabee". Heh.)
For cars, you should only be authorized to drive a subcompact, until you demonstrate you know how to handle it. I see people driving SUVs all the time that shouldn't be able to drive a golf cart.
I have long advocated (tongue-in-cheek) that anyone operating a vehicle larger than a minivan should be required to get a CDL. That should put an end to the "soccer mom in an Escalade" phenomenon.
According to a 1991 FHWA estimate (page 21), cyclists biked about 21 billion miles in 1991. And there were 843 "pedalcyclist" deaths that year. Which comes out to 3.96 deaths per 100 million miles. In the same year, motorcyclists had 30.85 deaths per 100 million miles.
So, you're correct it isn't 120 times. It's 7.8 times. But, while the number I used was wrong, the point remains the same. The evidence is contradictory to the claim that motorcyclists ride safer than cyclists, since they die nearly 8 times as often as cyclists.
[the number of cyclist deaths has gone down since 1991 - to 773 in 2006 - and the number of miles traveled has likely gone up. So the cyclist ratio has surely gone down. The motorcyclist ratio, on the other hand, has risen to 39.80 as of 2006. The pedalcyclist number is further inflated by the inclusion of child cyclists. So the true, current number is surely larger than 8, but probably not 120]
And to think that a modern motorcycle is vastly safer than anything 25+ years old. Modern bikes are very powerful. The average 600cc bike can accelerate 0-60 in under 4 secs, and average 1000cc bikes can accelerate 0-60 between about 2 to 2.5 secs.
The problem is when inexperienced young people get on them and don't manage them properly. If you respect the bike and don't abuse the power, and ride defensively, the odds of dying decrease substantially. Plus if you add in the fact that a lot of inexperienced riders don't wear proper gear, that compounds the problem. We call them squids. Squirrely kids riding 1000cc bikes in shorts and sneakers, with only a helmet.
Excellent point. A sizable number of cycling fatalities are children. Wonder what the motorcyclist death rate would look like if a similar percentage of motorcyclists were 7 year olds.
[Reason #1,382,332 I'm glad I'm raising my daughter in the city.]
That's probably right. But my point is that motorcycle wrecks are less survivable due to the speed involved. Yes, motorcycles are inherently more dangerous. I'm not arguing that.
If ALL bicyclists wore helmets and rode more defensively, the difference in the death rate between bicycles and motorcycles would be even greater. Yes, some states don't have motorcycle helmet laws, but I would guess that nationally, more people wear helmets with motorcycles than with bicycles. Plus, most motorcyclists wear protective jackets, boots, and other gear, which has been proven to vastly improve safety.
Studies say that wearing helmets when bicycling substantially reduces injuries. Head injuries accounted for 62.6% of fatalities on bicycles. When bicyclists come on and insist that helmets don't matter, it makes me think that they don't take safety very seriously. And following traffic laws. If you're going to run the light or stop sign, at least make sure no one else has the right of way.
I do think most bicyclists ride safe. It's the unhelmeted ones, swerving through traffic, cutting cars and pedestrians off and generally acting like douchebags that give a bad name. But I realize that they're not everyone.
A 7 year old on a bicycle is about like an 18 year old on a 1000cc sportbike. It takes a lot more skill and maturity to ride a 1000cc sportbike correctly than it does a 16" kids bicycle with barbie decals.
Granted, most people don't walk on average the number of miles one rides on a motorcycle, but for that time you are walking as a pedestrian, you are more at risk.
The worst states for pedestrian and motorcycle fatalities are in the sunbelt, car-centric places, like FL, AZ, TX. No real surprise to me.
DC had just 4 motorcycle deaths in 2009, making it one of the safer places. Again, it's the speed. You don't generally go very fast in DC. Speed definitely does kill. That's the major reason why motorcycles have a higher death rate than bicycles.
The post is the eloquent brave testimony from a parent who lost a child pointing out the lack of justice for that child in the system. The truck driver broke a traffic law by turning right from a lane left of the right-most lane. The police ignored it and tried to make Alice responsible for the illegal action of someone else.
This is about justice for Alice and all the Alice's.
As we established before, survivability might account for a trippling of deaths. Motorcyclists die at 8 times the rate. So, survivability isn't the whole reason.
If ALL bicyclists wore helmets and rode more defensively, the difference in the death rate between bicycles and motorcycles would be even greater
OK. But that's wasn't your point. If all motorcyclists wore helmets and rode more defensively the difference in the death rate between bicycles and motorcycles would be even smaller.
I would guess that nationally, more people wear helmets with motorcycles than with bicycles.
Right, because motorcycling is more dangerous than cycling. We generally wear helmets when we do things that are dangerous like motorcycling, spelunking and white water rafting, but not when gardening, eating dinner or using a calculator. Cycling falls somewhere in between.
Studies say that wearing helmets when bicycling substantially reduces injuries.
True, but only head injuries, and most of those injuries are cuts and bruises, not head trauma and death. They don't substantially reduce all injuries.
Head injuries accounted for 62.6% of fatalities on bicycles.
Even if 62.6% of fatalities involve head injuries, many of those cyclists were wearing helmets. In most local cases I know of, the cyclist was wearing a helmet - and where they weren't I doubt it would make a difference. If you get hit from behind by a car going 50 mph and thrown 70 feet in the air, a piece of plastic molded styrofoam is not going to save your life.
When bicyclists come on and insist that helmets don't matter, it makes me think that they don't take safety very seriously.
Well, that's your choice, but the science about the efficacy of bicycle helmets is very much in the air. So when a cyclists insists that helmets don't matter, it's because no one has been able to prove that they do. Want to do a little experiment. Look up the number of deaths in pro cycling before and after helmets were mandated. You'll see little change. And racing is one place where crashes are common.
When non-bicyclists come on and insist on helmets, it makes me think they don't know what the hell they're talking about, because using front and rear lights, having a bike in good repair and taking a safe cycling course are all significantly more important than wearing a helmet. Insisting on the use of helmet for a cyclist is like insisting that motorcyclist wear gloves. Yeah, it's good, but it's hardly the most important thing.
If you really want to make cycling safer, complain about cyclist who don't use lights. They make up something like half of all cyclist-at-fault fatalities.
If you're going to run the light or stop sign, at least make sure no one else has the right of way.
Which is what the overwhelming majority of cyclists do.
Survivability is the main reason, period. More than tripling (not sure where you got that tripling number).
On your other points, I will agree to disagree with you on the helmets. According to the bicycle helmet site, bicyclists on average wear helmets between 35%-50% of the time. So, a fairly large number of fatalities involve an unhelmeted head. Would a helmet have made a difference? Who knows, they're dead. Comparing your anecdotal evidence is nice, but hardly helpful.
Yes, I agree lights are required equipment too. I don't see the big deal. Even if you're not sure if a helmet makes a difference, why not put it on just to be safe? Afterall, you only have one head. It doesn't but just a tap to fuck you up. A helmet might not prevent all head trauma, but it certainly helps.
And I'm not a non-bicyclist either. I've been riding bicycles since my dad taught me at age 5 in 1981. I currently have a Trek 4500 mountain bike. Have I always worn helmets? Not when I was a kid, but I've seen too many accidents in my time to not wear one. If I think it might make a difference, then I will do it. But that's just my opinion. Do what you wish.
If survivability is the main reason - period - perhaps you can prove that?
Even if you're not sure if a helmet makes a difference, why not put it on just to be safe? Afterall, you only have one head. It doesn't but just a tap to fuck you up. A helmet might not prevent all head trauma, but it certainly helps.
Excellent point. I guess this means you wear a helmet when you ride in or drive a car. Surely you wear a helmet when walking since "being a pedestrian is actually one of the most dangerous things you can do." No? Huh. You should learn to follow the example of motorcyclists.
BTW, if your criticism of cyclists is that they don't wear helmets that belongs on a different post. Alice Swanson had a helmet on.
We won't even begin to touch on the complete failure of car drivers to adopt widespread helmet use, which belies a near-universal self-destructive tendency I find incomprehensible.
Sometimes I don't have it with me, and I'm grabbing a CaBi bike. Sometimes it's cold out, and it won't fit over my hat. Sometimes it's really, really hot, and I want to wear a cycling cap to serve as a sweat gutter (and the helmet pushes the brim down, reducing visibility). Sometimes I forgot it, and get to the trailhead, and realize I'm in more danger driving the extra 45 min back home, then 45 min back again than I would be if I just mountain biked without the helmet. Sometimes I'm lending it to someone I'm riding with because they're without helmet, and are more risk-averse. Sometimes...well, you get the point.
If I'm riding in a pack on the road, I wear a helmet 100% of the time. If not, maybe 80%? I'm always puzzled by how the first thing various detractors offer when arguing that cyclists are scofflaws and careless is "that guy isn't even wearing a helmet!"
I'd argue that, in hot weather, *gloves* are more important as a safety gear, but you never hear folks yelling at perfect strangers, "Hey!!! Where are your gloves!!!"
Helmet hectoring is just one of the few socially-sanctioned outlets for folks to indulge in their appetite for getting in other people's business. And people loove to do that.
If you can show a study that demonstrates helmets make pedestrians safer, you might have a case. There are studies for bicycles that suggest that.
I don't think there's stats on that. And there's no stats saying it's 3 times. But other than speed, there's not much difference between a motorcycle and a bicycle, except better lights and horn which actually makes the motorcycle safer.
The figures, such as they are, pertaining to bicycle helmet use are completely applicable to pedestrian use.
And there have been no randomized, controlled studies about bicycle helmet use. As the CTC, the UK's national cyclists organization says, "the evidence currently available is complex and full of contradictions, providing at least as much support for those who are skeptical as for those who swear by them."
Meanwhile, we may have figures soon:
It's the same dynamic at work that led to the accident report having a section on Swanson's footwear. As a society, we look to find any possible explanation we can to blame the victim. After all, so long as we can assign blame to the victim, we don't need to change our collective behavior.
I don't have to. As you said, "Even if you're not sure if a helmet makes a difference, why not put it on just to be safe?" Yes, why not?
I don't think there's stats on that.
Usually when people say "period" they mean it is beyond debate. But I think the relative survivability of motorcycles and bikes is a matter that is far from settled. You seem convinced that crashing on a bike is more than 8 times safer than on a motorcycle, but have nothing to back that up. So let me fix this quote for you "Survivability is the main reason, question mark." There, that's better.
But other than speed, there's not much difference between a motorcycle and a bicycle, except better lights and horn which actually makes the motorcycle safer.
Speed is the main thing we're talking about. Speeding is not defensive driving. I used to teach defensive driving, I know. Other than the fact that one shoots bullets and the other doesn't, there's not much difference between a real gun and a fake one.
Also, when has a horn ever saved anyone's life? Has anyone ever said "thank God for my horn."
Look, I'm going to allow you to bow out of this gracefully. Would you not agree that there are things that all road users can do to make themselves and others safer, and that really no one group has demonstrated such a commitment to safety and lawfulness that it can hold itself up as the model by which the others should live? That is all I'm trying to get at.
Also, when has a horn ever saved anyone's life? Has anyone ever said "thank God for my horn.""
I didn't say speeding. I said speed, as in motorcycles are capable of going 65 on the highway, which is much higher speed than a bicycle but is not speeding.
And yes my horn has saved me from accidents. It's as loud as a freight train.
Bicyclists like yourself continue to argue with a brick wall. Evidence shows helmets reduce fatalities, following traffic signals, yielding right of way, horns. All that improves safety. Any reasonable adult can see that.
Ignoring the obvious, riding wrecklessly cutting people off, all with no helmet, does not make others on the road respect you. You can deny it all day long, but you're still in the wrong.
Look, I'm going to allow you to bow out of this gracefully. I agree you can do what you want to feel like you're safe. If you feel safe riding through lights, cutting off cars, all with no helmet, and feel like your friends that ride like you are all in the right, go right ahead and keep doing it. As more of you get hit and die, Darwin's theory takes over and the road is freed of poor riders. That is all I'm trying to get at.
My point was that Alice Swanson was indeed in the right. Just that sometimes you have to be alert and ready to react even if you do have the right of way. I don't know specifically if Alice could have done anything. Maybe not.
I was just pointing out that in my 20+ years of experience riding various bikes that this is something that I've learned. Take it or leave it.
I have a general idea what you're trying to say, but you're simply wrong. You can keep repeating it, but there's little evidence that helmets reduce fatalities among cyclists. At least no more than there is evidence that pedestrian fatalities would be reduced by helmet use. It's a red herring. As evidence of bicyclists not caring about safety, it's just silly.
It also shows a poor understanding of the Theory of Evolution
I didn't mean it in regards to Alice Swanson. I already said she was in the right. I was referring to oboe and David C and their lack of regard for safety.
Ok, you win, you're right.
Please, if you have a helmet, throw it away. Get rid of your little flashing lights. While you're at it, break off the little reflectors too. They're all useless. And that little ching a ling bell? Useless too.
Now go ride down Suitland Parkway at 6pm today, in the left lane, and please, when a car comes up on your ass, give him the finger and weave around from lane to lane. Spit on them too, drivers love that.
All this will earn you a lot of respect from all the evil drivers. After all, there's no evidence to suggest that any of this increases your chances of injury or death. Show it to them. You have the right to road just as much as they do. If Suitland Parkway can't be made safe for bicyclists, then those damn cars shouldn't be there. You go.
I understand your "as more of you get hit and die" crack is born out of frustration, but the bottom line is 1) biking is pretty damned safe; and 2) it's no less safe (I would argue even safer) if done as David C and I advocate.
Of course, some folks just can't accept that evildoers aren't punished for their evildoing, and that virtuous law-abiding folks aren't given their just rewards. The people commenting here who have the most experience riding in traffic learned long ago that law-abiding cycling is not safe cycling, and that scofflaw cycling is not unsafe cycling.
The outrage here is that everything Swanson did was 100% legal and still no repercussions for the driver that killed her whatsoever. Given that there's no safety benefit *and* that in the aftermath of an accident, you're not even given the protections of the court, what's the point of riding "lawfully".
Again, there is "driving in 100% compliance with the law" and there is "driving as safely as possible". These two things overlap; they are not the same. I think this is the source of your frustration.
That the same MPD was much more attentive to drivers' causal actions in the death of Mr. Schwartz and the injury of Ms. Czemjah's(sp?) daughter and were dilligent in the investigation of the death of Mr. Schwartz is encouraging.
The testimony of these women has really highlighted the holes in the laws and the systemic bias against justice for non-motorized-victims of crashes even when law enforcement gets it right.
Arguing with you, it does feel that way.
riding wrecklessly cutting people off, all with no helmet, does not make others on the road respect you. You can deny it all day long, but you're still in the wrong.
Where did this come from? When did I deny that riding wrecklessly and cutting people off would not make others on ther road respect me? I think you may be projecting a bit. [Aside: I'm not sure motorcyclists are that respected either]
If you feel safe riding through lights, cutting off cars, all with no helmet, and feel like your friends that ride like you are all in the right, go right ahead and keep doing it.
When did I ever say that cyclists should cut off cars? You seem to think you know how I ride, but clearly you don't. I wear a helmet. I don't cut off cars. I don't ride through lights without looking. You seem to have this idea in your mind of what every single cyclist is like - and they're all dangers to themselves and others, except of course for you. And you're wrong. The vast majority of cyclists ride safely. Just because I disagree with you that the primary blame for bike crashes should lie with cyclists (because they didn't learn good defensive driving techniques like the oh-so-safe motorcyclists did) doesn't mean that I think cyclists should ride blindfolded against traffic while drunk. It just means that I think cyclists do a pretty good job of looking out for themselves, and don't really need you to blame them.
As more of you get hit and die, Darwin's theory takes over and the road is freed of poor riders.
That's classy. That's the kind of dead-end argument people get to when they realize their position is completely bankrupt. Some people just don't like to hear that their deeply-held personal beliefs (motorcyclists are safer than cyclists) are completely false, and they certainly don't like to be shown the facts that make it clear. So yeah, if you need to lash out because you're having a crisis of confidence, then have at it. I have a newborn at home so I'm used to temper tantrums now.
You don't have to be nice to me and you certainly don't have to agree with me. If you want to continue to assert that cyclists are reckless scofflaws with no concern for their own safety, I can't stop you. If you want to continue to claim that if cyclists behaved more like motorcyclists, I can't stop you from doing that either. But the facts aren't on your side. Maybe that bothers you, maybe that doesn't. Frankly I don't care. I feel confident I've made my point, and backed it up with something more than "my personal experience" or whatever hogwash it is you're selling.
Agree, good summary. With luck the Mayor gives some strong top down guidance to the MPD who clearly need it.
No need to work yourself up...
I already said I do have a helmet, and often wear it. I also have a pair of knee-pads I wear when I go in-line skating. If I forget the knee-pads, I don't expect absolute strangers to go apoplectic about my not wearing them...or make assumptions about how I must not care about my life. It's just as much melodrama when people do this in re: cycling and helmets.
I haven't ridden on the Suitland Parkway, but I have ridden Pennsylvania Ave from the city out to Upper Marlboro. It's not the most pleasant ride ever, but it's safe enough so long as you take the right-most lane. And why would I be giving driver the finger? Most of them are reasonable and courteous.
As far as lights go, of course I don't usually ride with lights during the day, but I do at night. Where'd you get the impression anyone's against lights?
It's almost as though you just took a collection of uncontroversial safety tips, glommed "always wear your helmet" onto them, and accused your opponents of rejecting the whole of them.
You might find non-motorcyclists would respect you more if you stopped throwing empty beer cans at senior citizens and stabbing people at rock concerts. Just because you wear a helmet doesn't give you a free pass.
Get that kid out on the Suitland Parkway in the Burley, STAT!
Not until he learns how to give the finger. Safety first!
Sure, whatever. You know everything. Congratulations.
@David C.
So with a baby in tow now, you'll be moving to Loudin County ASAP ? lol
Not everything, Ward 5 Rez. I don't know how to win your heart.
1. Alice Swanson was doing everything right, wearing a helmet, following the laws, but was killed. MPD mishandled the case. Tragic.
2. Motorcycles are 8x more dangerous than bicycles. But in DC there were 4 motorcycle deaths last year and 2 bicycles deaths.
3. Bicycles don't need to follow traffic laws nor wear helmets. And this has no impact on safety.
4. The bicycle posters on here apparently know everything about safety, and don't need no stinkin' advice from no one.
I do think the majority of bicycles follow the laws, and I see a lot with helmets. Good. I think it's the minority that causes the MPD and other road users to lose respect for the entire group. Tragic.
Perhaps the DMV needs to start regulating bicycles, make sure they have proper lights, brakes (no more fixies), helmets, etc. And a study should be done to see if breaking traffic laws increases or decreases safety. The result of this should either be that bicycles follow the traffic laws everyone else does, or they have laws put on the books for them. There needs to be established laws and standards for bicycles though. That way everyone on the road will have the same expectations of bicyclists.
@ Ward 5 Resident:Well put.
I understand your "as more of you get hit and die" crack is born out of frustration, but the bottom line is 1) biking is pretty damned safe; and 2) it's no less safe (I would argue even safer) if done as David C and I advocate.
Of course, some folks just can't accept that evildoers aren't punished for their evildoing, and that virtuous law-abiding folks aren't given their just rewards. The people commenting here who have the most experience riding in traffic learned long ago that law-abiding cycling is not safe cycling, and that scofflaw cycling is not unsafe cycling.
The outrage here is that everything Swanson did was 100% legal and still no repercussions for the driver that killed her whatsoever. Given that there's no safety benefit *and* that in the aftermath of an accident, you're not even given the protections of the court, what's the point of riding "lawfully".
Again, there is "driving in 100% compliance with the law" and there is "driving as safely as possible". These two things overlap; they are not the same. I think this is the source of your frustration.
by oboe on Feb 9, 2011 4:17 pm
I'm curious, and I've never had this sufficiently explained to me: what is it with the helmet fetish? If you want to wear one, wear it. But you always here these two things linked "Cyclists will never get respect until they wear helmets 100% of the time!!!" If you ever needed evidence that most non-cyclists are just looking for a justification for their existing prejudices, look no further.
Bicycles don't need to follow traffic laws nor wear helmets. And this has no impact on safety.
I think you dropped the thread here. Cyclists should follow traffic laws--when they increase safety. They should ignore them when they have a neutral (or negative) impact on safety. Now obviously helmets are a fetish and article of faith for some, and that's great. Wear one. I do usually. Good for you. What puzzles me is why, on the days I *don't* happen to wear one, some irrational folks feel it's okay to "lose all respect" for me. Whaa?
4. The bicycle posters on here apparently know everything about safety, and don't need no stinkin' advice from no one.
Bicyclists love a good debate about technique, and are always open to suggestions as long as they're supported by an argument. Not sure why you think it's remarkable that cyclists tend to discount safety advice from those who have no experience cycling. Why don't you visit a white-water kayaking forum and dispense advice there? Or, if you have any kayaking experience, perhaps you should find a group of hang-gliding enthusiasts and share your thoughts...
And a study should be done to see if breaking traffic laws increases or decreases safety. The result of this should either be that bicycles follow the traffic laws everyone else does, or they have laws put on the books for them. There needs to be established laws and standards for bicycles though. That way everyone on the road will have the same expectations of bicyclists.
Completely uncontroversial--depending on how this panel of "DMV experts" is composed. Till that day happens, though, I'm going to continue riding in a manner that keeps me safest while not increasing risk of any other road users. (i.e. the way I already do). I'm certainly not going to change behavior that's proven to be safe for decades in order to satisfy someone's else's arbitrary sense of personal aesthetics.
I'm not sure we can draw conclusions from the small dataset that you've presented. In 2009 there were 0 cyclist deaths in DC, if there were even 1 motorcyclist death that would make motorcycling infinitely more dangerous than biking - but that isn't the case. Also, an argument can be made that Constance Holden should be counted as a pedestrian. As I understand it, she was standing beside her bike, holding it as she was hit. Was she a cyclist at that moment? I don't really know (see, I don't know EVERYTHING). I think reasonable people could differ on that.
by Ian Brett Cooper on Dec 20, 2011 11:04 pm • link • report
Add a Comment
We are switching over to our new website. Commenting on the old site is now disabled. Thank you for your patience and pardon our dust!
- 495 and 95 toll prices were very high on Tuesday. Here's why that happened.
- In defense of "political theater" for Metro
- Should a "historic gas station" keep new housing units from going up in Dupont?
- Federal employees: Please don�t quit your jobs under Trump
- A developer has agreed to build shorter and less dense than the law allows, but neighbors are still fighting it
- A court just halted DC's McMillan development
- Where is Falls Church, exactly?


text:
Kelley Library
234 Main Street, Salem New Hampshire 03079
Mon - Tues 9-7
Wed - Fri 9-9
Saturday 9-2
Adult Services Menu
Adult Services @ Kelley Library
Reader's Advisory: All Kelley staff is ready to provide recommendations for other books to read. Special displays also highlight materials on specific topics. Try out DearReader. We also have a Reader's Advisory Blog and our online catalog has a variety of reviews and recommendations. Our staff is always ready to help you find just the right book to read. Start here.
Programming: A wide range of programs are offered each month. There is the ongoing KLAS series, a monthly movie night, a variety of book groups, self-help and hobby programs, Family nights for the whole family and much more. Check our calendar at right for details.
Book Groups: We now host 4 book monthly book discussion groups: Fiction, Non-fiction, Science Fiction/Fantasy and Civil War. Start here to see what we are reading next. Watch our main page for our quarterly Author Series.
E-sources: In addition to an extensive selection of resources accessible from home and in the library, the Library offers access to downloadable audiobooks . We also offer eBooks compatible with all devices including computers, readers, phones and ipods. eBooks can be easily downloaded for instant use. We also offer access to streaming videos and music. Start here.
Internet Access: The Library provides free internet access from 9 public computers, as well as free WiFi access for your laptop. There is an additional computer devoted only to Office applications. Staff is ready to provide assistance for using the computers and will provide private lessons.
Reference: Professional, trained reference librarians are available during all business hours ready to answer your questions, do research, provide training on using computers, assist you in finding books, etc. among many other services
Quick & Simple
Don't have a Kelley Card?
Get the app for your device - downloadable content is a (sn)app using 3M
Visit this blog for help with downloading Overdrive products
Kelley staff is always ready to help you to get started (put in that stuff at the bottom of the current front page.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
« Back to Author Index
Haruki Toyama .
Haruki Toyama
Haruki Toyama .
Articles by this Author
Pages: ←1→
Features »
When Companies Combine, and Other Accounting Confusions
Stock Fundamentals: Plans are in the works to change the way companies account for mergers and acquisitions. Understanding the method used is vital for investors when determining the value of any business.
July 2001 | Journal
Pages: ←1→


text:
2nd MN West Nile Death Confirmed
A second person has died from the West Nile Virus in Minnesota. The Department of Health has now confirmed 29 human cases of the virus in the state so far this year, and the 2 …03 Sep 13
Local News, Multimedia, Sports - The Local Connection
Wheeler Dealer
A second person has died from the West Nile Virus in Minnesota. The Department of Health has now confirmed 29 human cases of the virus in the state so far this year, and the 2 …03 Sep 13
It's Back To School time, which also means that it's time to start sharing the road with school buses again. State Patrol Lieutenant Brian Reu reminds drivers to follow the state's school bus laws. He …03 Sep 13
Governor Dayton recently implemented an "Online Suggestion Box" idea in the hopes of making state government work better, faster or simpler, and the idea has already yielded well over a hundred suggestions. Dayton says he …03 Sep 13
The power was knocked out at Cashwise Foods in New Ulm Sunday afternoon, and at and around the stoplight at the nearby Highway 14 intersection after a car hit 2 power transformers off the side …02 Sep 13
The two-month season for Minnesotans to hunt doves is under way. The season opened Sunday and runs through the second Saturday in November. The Department of Natural Resources says hunters need a small-game license and …02 Sep 13
Although Labor Day marks the unofficial end to summer, the need for blood continues. The American Red Cross says that all types are needed, with an urgent need for A-, B-, and O- blood and …02 Sep 13
Labor Day today (MON) brings the 58th Annual Godahl Day Celebration in the small community on the Brown and Watonwan County line. Hundreds of people attend the annual festival marking the end of the summer …02 Sep 13
For many, Labor Day means department store sales, a three-day weekend and a last blast of summer fun. The holiday actually originated in New York in 1882 to honor the working class.This prompted a widespread …02 Sep 13
Four members of Twin Valley Council Boy Scout Troop 25. Brian Longtin, age 13; Glenn Howell, age 16; Jeremy Holm, age 16; and Bennett Carlson, age 12, received this months Hometown Hero Award. The youths …


text:
Escape from the Red Sox Nation!…
Julia (of Julia's Rants) has graciously reduced my sentence by one blog! Yeah, I am free! Well, I guess I will be after this blog! 😉
For my last Red Sox blog, I thought long and hard about what player I wanted to write about. I thought about David Ortiz since I think the man is personally responsible for the end of the Curse of the Bambino. He gave Manny Ramirez huge protection in the line up, and he instilled a 'don't quit' attitude in the Red Sox clubhouse. For the life of me, I still don't understand why the Minnesota Twins released Big Papi…or why Brian Cashman didn't react quicker.
Cataffo/New York Daily News
I also thought about manager Terry Francona. For years, Red Sox managers were always guys that you loved to hate. Even though he later occupied the Yankees bench along side Joe Torre, I couldn't stand Don Zimmer when he was the manager of the Red Sox. With Tito, the Red Sox finally had a manager who commands respect. I am hopeful that Joe Girardi will one day be the man that Tito is today.
Ultimately, I decided to go with the Man of the Hour. Fresh off the newly signed contract, Jon Lester seems to be the most appropriate current Boston player for my final Red Sox blog.
So, here goes my final blog as a temporary but involuntary member of the Red Sox Nation…
Future 20-Game Winner
I first became aware of Jonathan Tyler Lester in 2006. I had started to hear about the latest Red Sox pitching phenom early that year (he made his major league debut on June 10, 2006 at Fenway Park).
In his first game, Jon pitched 4 1/3 innings and gave up 5 hits, 3 runs, and 4 walks. He also had 4 strikeouts. He received a no-decision, but the Red Sox lost the game to the Texas Rangers, 7-4.
Over the next couple of months, Jon pitched very well. He had racked up 7-2 record, with 4.76 ERA in 81 1/3 innings by late summer. But on August 27, 2006, he was scratched from a start in Oakland against the A's. The reason listed was a sore back, and there were concerns it was related to an auto accident that had occurred earlier that month. He was placed on the DL, and sent back to Boston for further tests. On August 31st, it was reported that Jon had enlarged lymph nodes. A few days later, the doctors confirmed that he had a treatable form of anaplastic large cell lymphoma.
In December of that year, after a sixth round of chemotherapy, the doctors reported no evidence of visible cancer cells and declared that Jon was in remission. It will be a five year process before Jon can be declared cancer free, but it has been all good so far.
Jon was born in Tacoma, WA on January 7, 1984. He graduated from Bellarmine Preparatory School in Tacoma. He was named the Gatorade State Player of the Year for Washington in 2000. He had the opportunity to go to college on a scholarship, but opted to sign with the Boston Red Sox after being selected in the second round of the 2002 draft (57th selection overall).
Following the cancer treatments of 2006, Jon's velocity had returned by mid to late 2007. He returned to the majors in the summer and finished the year with a 4-0 mark, 4.57 ERA and 50 strikeouts.
In October, Jon started and won the deciding Game 4 of the 2007 World Series against the Colorado Rockies at Coors Field in Denver. He pitched 5 2/3 innings of shutout ball, and only gave up 3 hits and 3 walks, and had 3 strikeouts.
Bill Greene/Boston Globe
As Jon moved to 2008, he had gained 25 pounds from the year before (almost all muscle) and looked to be in great physical condition.
On May 19th, with the temperature only 56 degrees, Jon and the Red Sox faced the Kansas City Royals, and he promptly threw a no-hitter. With 130 total pitches, to go with 9 strikeouts and 2 walks, Jon threw first pitch strikes to 20 of the 29 batters he faced. The game was highlighted by a diving catch of a sinking liner in the 4th inning by Jacoby Ellsbury.
In July, Jon made his debut at Yankee Stadium. Unwilling to yield to the mystique and aura of the Stadium, he threw a complete game five-hit shutout.
Jon finished the successful 2008 campaign with a 16-6 record, 3.21 ERA, and had 152 strikeouts. He became the first Boston southpaw since Babe Ruth (1916) and Lefty Grove (1937) with as many as 15 wins, 30 starts, 200 innings, 150 strikeouts, and sub 3.50 ERA in a single season.
Yesterday, the Red Sox and Jon finalized the much anticipated 5 year contract for $30 million. The contract includes a club option for 2014. "Everyone is excited about it," 2B Dustin Pedroia said. "You want to play for a long time with those guys you came up with. Jon is going to keep getting better and better. I'm sure by Year 5 of that deal he's going to be an even better pitcher than he is right now."
That doesn't bode well for AL East opponents, including my beloved Yankees. It's no wonder the Red Sox held Jon out of trade discussions involving the likes of Alex Rodriguez, Josh Beckett, and Johan Santana over the years.
I wish #31 the very best…well except when he makes the trip to the Bronx or the Bombers travel to Fenway. Jon is a champion competitor, a true ace, who plays the game the way it should be played. He deserves our respect, but clearly the pleasure of watching him pitch is all ours…
Jim Rogash/Getty Images
Granted, it's not sports-related; however, I would like to acknowledge the passing of actor Ron Silver who died Sunday at the age of 62. He had been fighting esophageal cancer for the past couple of years.
Through the years, Ron has been involved in so many television and film roles dating back to The Mac Davis Show in the early 70's. More recently, he had a recurring role on "The West Wing" as a slick strategist for the president.
He was a very good actor, he commanded your attention when he was on screen, and he'll be sorely missed…
Ah, let's talk about the Yankees! I love it! Yankees, Yankees, Yankees…24/7 from here on out! Yeah!
- The Yankees routed the Philadelphia Phillies today, 12-0. Nick Swisher played first base, and had 3 RBI. Joba Chamberlain pitched three shutout innings of two-hit ball. He also had 3 strikeouts. Kei Igawa continues to pitch well, but I'd definitely take the 'sell high' approach with him (even if it means paying part of his contract to unload him).
- LP Zach Kroenke, 25, who was chosen by the Florida Marlins in December's Rule 5 Draft, was returned to the Yankees on Monday. He has been assigned to AA Trenton. Sorry, Zach, but I am glad you had a miserable time in the Florida training camp. Welcome back…
- Both 2B Robinson Cano and P Damaso Marte received good news from the results of their respective MRI's. Cano has bursitis of the right shoulder, and Mare has inflammation of the left shoulder. So, both should be back in action before long…
- Good luck to former Yankees C Pudge Rodriguez who has signed a one-year deal with the Houston Astros.
- In a non-Yankees note of interest to most likely only me, Denver Broncos QB Jay Cutler had a very acrimonious meeting with new head coach Josh McDaniels over the weekend, and has demanded to be traded. The Vikings deny interest, but the Minnesota papers seem to follow every step of the action between Cutler and the Broncos with great detail. I personally think Jay would look pretty good in purple and gold…
It is great to be back in Yankeeville! Hopefully, my guys won't let me down next month when the Great Showdown II with Julia of Julia's Rants takes place (the weekend series between the Yankees and Red Sox on April 24th through 26th).
With all sincerity, I do want to thank Julia for the incredible sportsmanship and good humor that she displayed during our first showdown. I know, without a doubt, that it would have been no different had she lost. We are very privileged to have her as one of our leading bloggers, and she continues to work harder than anyone I know at making MLB Blogs an incredible experience for everyone.
But with that, I will still say…Go Yankees! J
7 Comments
Way to come thru on your end of the bet. I kept checking the score friday night to see who was going to win the bet. lol
~King of Cali
King – of yea of little faith!
Scott – you served your sentence well and I gladly let you off early for "good behavior"! Great final choice. Jon is an inspiration to not only future baseball players but to all who are fighting cancer. And I will have to agree with you on Tito. Though – and I can't not believe that I am admitting this – I am reading "The Yankee Years" and my respect for Joe Torre has increased greatly. (And I did always find him to be a class act.) I am glad that all is right with the world for now – though I am looking forward to seeing that "Red Sox Pro-blogger" banner here on April 27th!😉
You were a worthy opponent – I look forward to our next battle.
Congratulations on your freedom from captivity, Scott. You paid your debt in a very gentlemanly fashion. No grousing. No whining. No trying to wriggle out of your responsibility. Good job. And now, without further ado, GO YANKEEEEEES.
Scott,The Twins released Ortiz because he was injury-prone and never really lived up to expectations (which is why Cashman wasn't very interested in him, either). Of course, in retrospect this is one of the worst decisions the team has ever made, but at the time it looked like they were doing the right thing. Hindsight is always 20/20.I refuse to get excited about the prospect of Cutler landing in Minnesota. Not until a deal is done and Cutler is introduced as the starting QB, anyway. I think the Vikings are still a little delusional about their QB situation and I doubt the Broncos are going to give up on their young star so quickly, no matter how much of a temper tantrum he throws.-Erinhttp://plunking-gomez.mlblogs.com
I can't believe Julia made you do all that, that's cold. But you did a heck of a job, you really put some effort into that. Reading all that made me gain some major respect for Jon Lester, nice work, you're a true fan of the game of baseball.
Unfortunately, I can't say I'm gonna read this blog very often, because I am not a Yankees fan. But I won't hesitate to click on your name once a week or so, keep up the good work.
Mr. Eatsleepmlb – sorry you found my actions "cold".
Scott – I thought you would appreciate Jeff's comments on my blog about you:
"Wow. He is much more of a man than I."
Come on Julia why did you reduce it!🙂 Good pick with Lester. You need to add in there he is the 2009 Cy Young winner.


text:
GoingOutGuide Music
Subscribe: Home Delivery | Digital
Album review: "The Tender Thrill"
By Mark Jenkins
Friday, July 27, 2012
Alt-rockers these days tend to be tricky, employing odd time changes or raiding the band-room closet for exotic instruments. The Tender Thrill doesn't use such gambits, but its self-titled debut sounds contemporary nonetheless. The trio, whose members live in Arlington and Baltimore, rely on such standard garage-rock ingredients as surging organ and twangy guitar. Yet tunes such as "It's Alright" are less golden-oldie than their titles suggest.
The album opens with a bold move: "All Night" runs 10 minutes, as if the band is prepared to chug and sway till dawn. If none of the other tracks last that long, few qualify as short, and all move at a measured pace. There's a woozy "stoner rock" element to the Thrill's sound, but within the implacable drones are kernels of '50s rock-and-roll that keep even the longest, slowest tracks from being ponderous.
Also classic are singer Brian Faust's concerns. His lyrics are layered toward the middle of the mix, but when the lines are audible, they're often about affairs of the post-adolescent heart. Using a Bo Diddley beat to celebrate the likes of "Geena" and "Katy P," the Tender Thrill sounds not retrograde but nearly timeless.


text:
Detail Images
Current Color
Free 2-Day shipping on orders over $50*
Select a Size:Select options
Select a Color:Select options
Be the first to review
For the children of the future.
Kids these days are riding at insane levels, so they need a boot that can keep up with them. That's why Burton created the Kids' AMB Smalls Snowboard Boot. It's built off the same platform as the team favorite AMB boot, except it's tweaked to meet the needs of hard-charging kids.
Speed Zone lacing allows kids to independently tighten or loosen the upper and lower zones of the boot to get the perfect fit, and it's are made with ultra-tough New England Ropes laces. The youth-sized Imprint liner is heat-moldable for a comfy custom fit, and it's soft enough for unrestricted jibbing as well. The Dynolite outsole gives them plenty of traction on icy slopes and a molded EVA footbed absorbs shock from harsh landings. Best of all, the AMB Smalls is super light, so little guys (and girls) don't have to wear boots that weigh as much as they do. If your little shredder has surpassed the bunny slope and is looking to knock the local park-shark off his spot at the top, the AMB is exactly the boot he or she needs.
- Item #BUR01O6


text:
The Honeywell ZD12X16 24v Parallel Blade Damper has a durable 24 volt spring return motor that is dependable. It has the basic operation that is simple and very easy to wire. This Honeywell ZD12X16 24v Parallel Blade Damper is compatible with standard and networked zoning. It has a sound perfect operation with lesser blades. The Honeywell ZD12X16 24v Parallel Blade Damper has the firm and hard construction using extruded aluminum frame and blades. It has an automatic visual position indicator for damper status and its dimensions are 12 inches x 16 inches damper with the motor on the 10 inches side. It can be mounted on the bottom or at the side of the duct as the application requires. It has a hassle free and a very easy installation. It's a 2 wire connection, 90 Deg, Timing Rotation Angle (Sec) 30, with an Ambient Temp Range 40F-140F, its Power Method is 24 Volts, and has the Application Controls of Air Flow in Heating and Cooling Systems.
|Parallel Blade Air Damper
|Electrical Voltage:
|24 Volt
|Other Info:
|Easy To Install
|Trade Tools:
|Mpn #
|7.90 lbs.
PlumbersStock.com has earned a 4.5 out of 5-star store rating . We are proud of our reputation and we have achieved it by offering useful information to shoppers. This particular product, the Honeywell ZD12X16 24v Parallel Blade Damper for Zoning Systems, does not yet have any customer reviews. If you are familiar with this product, please leave a review for the benefit of others. We appreciate your help!


text:
Tired of the same old threadbare, scratchy towels? Now, I don't let friends and family see that dark side of my homemaking skills. So I set aside a nice set of towels that I break out whenever company comes over.
I'm hitting up this sale at daily deal site Woot.com to stock up on luxury towels so I can treat myself like company.
The Home Source 6-piece plush set was voted America's best cotton towel by Real Simple Magazine. It comes in 8 color choices. The soft and absorbent set includes 2 bath towels, 2 hand towels and 2 wash cloths. With an Amazon price over $100.00, this is a fantastic deal!
Home Source Microcotton 6-Piece Towel Set $39.99
Shipping is $4.99
Final Price: $44.99 shipped


text:
Brajana at Mend Pet is celebrating her 1 year anniversary and the 250th post of Mend Pet in the best possible way — with a "Need More Stable Slots!" SPCA Charity Drive & Giveaway,
This is an event that all hunters should consider taking part in. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is an international organization that exists to educate people about animal abuse and foster what they fetchingly call 'good pet parenting practices', as well as to promote spay and neuter programs around the world. The SPCA has a number of internal and outreach programs, and also works with existing animal shelters to support these goals.
And Brajana has made it very easy to participate! If you can, please donate some small (or large!) amount of money to the SPCA. There are instructions on Mend Pet about how to go about this, and donating will enter you into the giveaway portion of the event where you can win fabulous prizes.
If you are not in a position to donate right now — and believe me, I understand if you're not — you can still participate by helping Brajana get the word out. Just make a post on your blog or talk about the event on your podcast, or even just make a post on your favorite forum letting everyone know what's going on and how to get involved. Spreading the word will also get you entered in the prize drawing — you just need to let Brajana know (via e-mail) with a link to your efforts.
Finally, Brajana is still looking for prizes for the drawing, so if you have something you think other WoW players might enjoy, consider tossing your hat in the ring as a prize sponsor. I am donating an item of the winner's choice from my CafePress store, which perhaps isn't terribly exciting but is what I've got. :> Much more exciting is the prize donated by wtfcraft: a set of FigurePets!
The drawing for the prizes will take place at the beginning of August and your chance to enter ends July 31st. So hurry up and get donating and/or spreading the word!


text:
Below are poems written by poet
Amber Moll. Click the Next or Previous links below the poem to navigate between poems. Remember, Poetrysoup is an environment of encouragement and growth. Thank you.
List of ALL
Moll poems
Amber Moll
Encumbered about with the many twists and turns of life.
Traveling down a long road, picking up every hitchhiker along the way.
Carrying each one alone; being conscientious to not drop one, not even the lowlife.
Contemplating each step, apprehensive of the outcome, will they go or will they stay?
Slowly sinking to the floor, the weight one can no longer bare alone,
Lamentably, there is no one who can to help; all the road signs were ignored.
Struggling with each step, knowing the perspicuous choice, the way has been shown.
Why carry this load that can walk on its own, the facts are there, this is untoward.
Unsure of the next step one by one they get set down disconcerted by this news,
Some begin to lie and claim they cannot walk, so they get picked up again out of pity.
Soon it becomes a revolving door, they begin to come and they go as they choose.
Weighed down again unable to breathe, there's a need for a break through; a need to be free.
In one colossal move, arms stretched out like the horizon at sunset,
A spinning takes place, like the agitator of a washing machine.
All those hanging on are violently shaken off, thrown too far to pose a threat,
Running at full speed from the chaos of them all, creating all this space in between.
Unencumbered now, breathing never seems so pleasant, walking is now a run.
Flying isn't far behind, as the relief and acceptance is now at hand.
Adding two letters to a word looks small on paper, like all that's added is a un.
Per Contra in life it's a freedom, it's a matter of the soul, it's a gesture of taking a stand.
Copyright © Amber Moll | Year Posted 2014


text:
Writers' Guild Award-nominee Rhianna Pratchett will be returning as the scribe to Codemasters's upcoming sequel, Overlord II. Pratchett earned the nomination for Best Video Game Script in 2008 for her work in the original Overlord title.
"A huge part of Overlord's popularity stems from its tongue-in-cheek, often dark humour and Rhianna's dialogue provides the perfect fit to the gameplay," said by game director Lennart Sas. Pratchett also worked on EA's promising action title, Mirror's Edge, which launches this November 11 for the Xbox 360 and PS3.
Overlord II will be available in 2009 for the Xbox 360, PC and PS3.


text:
About tylerwc111 : 'To fly far away; above the clouds. Then past the stars where mystery shrouds.' TWC...
tylerwc111's FML badges
Keen reader – Level: master ninja
You have voted for 50% of the entire collection of FMLs to date.
Keen reader – Level: student ninja
You have voted for 15% of the entire collection of FMLs to date.
Hard at Work
Voting on an FML from the Work category on a Monday between 8 and 9am, how ironic.
tylerwc111's favorite FMLs
Doh! This user still hasn't added any FMLs to their favorites. :(
- 1
- « Previous page
- Next page »


text:
Your views
Your feedback is vital to us as we continue to increase the quality of our services.
You are here:
Date: 8 December 2016
Time: 14:07
Travelling by train
Travelling to Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham and the old QE by train
The nearest station to the hospital is University station, which is less than 10 minutes' walk from the hospital. The hospital is clearly signposted from the station.
A minibus service is also available, which carries patients, visitors and staff from University station to the Birmingham Women's Hospital, both the old and new Queen Elizabeth Hospital buildings and the Mental Health Trust. The bus runs approximately every 20 minutes between 07:00 and 19:00, Monday – Friday.
Maps of the hospital site are available from the 'Related pages' and 'Downloads' sections near the bottom of this page.
University station is on the Cross City line. There are trains approximately every 10 minutes from New Street station in Birmingham city centre (final destination: Longbridge or Redditch).
Related pages
Getting here
Information about travelling to, staying at and getting around the hospital.
Jobs at UHB
A great place to work. Learn why.


text:
Low-fat deli meats are hanging in there. As a subcategory, reduced-fat and fat-free versions of popular deli meats -- such as ham, turkey and roast beef -- have been fighting for attention and a bigger portion of sales from the service case in supermarket deli departments for years. And like many other health-oriented alternatives to conventional fresh products, healthy deli meats have had to struggle against perceptions of inferior taste -- whether justified or not -- and premium price ...
REGISTER TO VIEW THIS ARTICLE - Register for a Free Account
WhyRegisterfor FREE?
Registering for content on Supermarket News will give youINSTANTaccess to invaluable articles and media content that industry professionals rely on. You will have access to our special reports, feature articles, and industry analysis. It'sFREE, easy and quick. What are you waiting for!In addition you will also receive complimentary access to the SN salary survey data tables.
Click here to read the FAQ page if you have any questions (opens in a new window)
Attention Paid Print Subscribers: While you have already been grantedfreeaccess to SNwe ask that youregister now.We promise it will only take a few minutes! Or visit your profile and add your print magazine account number and zip code.


text:
The post was inspired by a conversation with my student about telling truth. And it is also a good topic for an energetic piece of writing.
As for the conversation, we were discussing the poem by Emily Dickinson "Tell all the truth but tell it slant", and he said that it is a good idea in some cases to tell truth in a slant way. Developing the conversation I said that I'd prefer to tell truth directly to my children. And there was his question, 'Will you tell at the very beginning that there is no Santa?" But is there no Santa?
The point is that I think that Santa exists. I don't mean a white-beard guy who comes to your house at night, but the idea of Santa is the Santa himself. He exists as long as people continue telling stories about him, as long as parents leave gifts under the New Year trees, as long as there is the anticipation of miracle in children's hearts.
And when my child asks, "Who has brought the gifts, mummy?", I'll surely answer, "It was Santa." But when she grows up enough to ask "How has Santa managed to bring the gifts here?" I'll say that he does it through me and through your father. If there was no Santa there would be no gifts in the New Year night.
What's more, telling truth in a direct way doesn't mean sitting in front of a child for hours and telling him everything what you know. It's just telling he truth he/she asks for.