Daily Archives: March 26, 2009

Wasn’t this one of the signs of the apocalypse?

Another strange one this morning. I mean really strange, Bizzaro strange, world upside down strange. I think we might be seeing signs of the Second Coming. Two drivers have gotten tickets for hitting cyclists in the same week. Yes, I know, that’s impossible, but it happened. I covered the one yesterday, and I have another today. I never thought it could happen.

And getting to that miracle first is this report from IA. Cyclist injured after being hit by truck The driver got a ticket for careless driving when he went into the bike lane and hit a cyclist. Was the LEO drunk or something? All kidding aside this is some of the best news I have read that had someone injured in it. I mean sure it sucks to have been the guy that got hit but it has to make it hurt that tiny bit less that the driver that hit him was given a ticket. I know that being hit-and-run and the driver escaping did nothing for my disposition during my recovery. And many if not most drivers that hit cyclists in TX never get a ticket or any other prosecution even when it’s blatantly obvious the driver was at fault. To have two reports in two days of drivers getting tickets, well it just astounds me. I’m speechless but obviously I can still type.

Chattanooga is still trying to educate drivers about where cyclists should be (on the roads) and sometimes the cyclists themselves aren’t too clear on the concept. Chattanooga: Cycling safely Articles like this remind me we still have a long way to go to get back to where we were as cyclists in the 1960s when it was recognized that bicycles were road vehicles with a right to use the roads.

The survivors of a victim of vehicular homicide are using the courts to extract some kind of justice from the situation. Bike fatality on Route 111 is subject of suit If LEO would do their jobs and arrest and prosecute drivers that kill cyclists there would be a lot fewer survivors having to seek justice in civil courts.

And finally from Jolly Olde comes another salvo in the helmet wars. Helmet-wearing issue is brought to a head again I’m getting tired of the same old arguments about saving one life yadda yadda yadda. Has anyone stopped to think about if that one life is worth saving? If fatal brain injury is reduced to catastrophic brain injury that counts as a life saved, but aside from breathing and growing moss on his north side can that person actually do anything? Was that life really saved? What about my case, where I was a spoken word poet and a computer help desk operator before the wreck and barely able to speak at times after the wreck? The life I have now is nothing like the life I had before, does that count as a life saved? US helmets are basically designed for a 12.5 MPH impact and become less and less effective above that speed becoming basically useless at impact speeds above 20 MPH, and do nothing to prevent rotational injury to the brain which can be much harder to detect and much worse for the social functioning of the person carrying the brain around. In fact the soft shells of the majority of bicycle helmets sold in the US actually contribute to rotational injury in cases where the head gets a glancing blow. The skull remains intact but the brain gets Osterized (and I know that’s an obsolete term, that’s what Google is for, look it up). Well folks the UK standard is even weaker than the US’. So what are they thinking about when they call for styrofoam hats to solve the problem of cars hitting cyclists?

And that’s all I have this morning, maybe more later.

Billed @$.02, Opus