Bike Messangers Oppose new Bike Laws, Hit & Run

Nothing better than finding out that Bike Messengers will be holding a protest at their little hang out, LOVE Park, at 5PM today to protest the new bike laws that were proposed. They say they have no problem with current laws, but say the new ones target them specifically.

The fines would raise for existing laws (riding on the sidewalk, running red lights) and banning "breakless bikes". Again, the Bike Messengers oppose these ideas.

But on a sad note, one of them was hit early on Thanksgiving:

Fletcher said she was yelled at by an angry driver near 23rd and Locust and then struck by his silver hatchback at about 2:30 a.m. Brito says police are treating the incident as an accident, not the hit-and-run they said it should be.

Was this a hit-and-run based solely on the person being a cyclist? If it was, it simply is tragic to see this happen, especially due to the severity of the injury. I hope she has a speedy recovery. This hit-and-run driver needs to be persecuted immediately.

Again, the protest is:

LOVE Park
5PM Today

And Now, a Message to Philly Cyclicsts

Stay safe out there!

If a Pro-Bike Group Posts a Pro-Bike Story... Oh God, It MUST be True!

Philebrity posted a story that got to me:

New Prevailing Wisdom: In Philly, A Bike Will Get You There Quicker Nearly Every Time

Here’s something they don’t tell you: Who plans the route?

For the last 4 years, the Bicycle Coalition stages a race against a car and a SEPTA bus. Every year, the bike wins.

Am I the only one who is going to call bullshit on this “study” and this “story”?

This is like getting a press release from some group like the PMRC in the 80’s, quoting it verbatim, then holding it up like some grand truth! “Motley Crue are evil!” “Bikes beat cars!”

I’d rather see a non-partial study done, a non-partial race, and see who wins. If a PRO-BIKE group holds a race and a BIKE CONSTANTLY WINS, doesn’t that seem odd and fishy? Doesn’t seem that the smart thing to do would be to not report this story as fact and, instead, call it for what it is: A publicity stunt that doesn’t prove a point, but reasserts what people want to hear and what the group in charge wanted to see.