advertisement

City receives extra $5.9 million for bicycle and pedestrian improvements

Thursday, September 1, 2011 | 2:48 p.m. CDT; updated 6:27 p.m. CDT, Thursday, September 1, 2011

COLUMBIA — The city has landed an additional $5.9 million in federal funds to spend on bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

The grant, awarded to the city in July, supplements a $22 million federal grant Columbia received in 2006 for trails and other projects designed to provide alternatives to driving.

Ideas for how the money will be spent include GetAbout Columbia project proposals that couldn't be financed with the original $22 million.

"It would kind of end up accomplishing what we were hoping we would accomplish with the original money," said former Mayor Darwin Hindman, who heads up the GetAbout Columbia advisory committee. "The money didn't go as far as we had hoped that it would."

Columbia is one of four local governments participating in the non-motorized transportation initiative. The others are Marin County, Calif.; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn.; and Sheboygan, Wis. All automatically received the extra grant money when Congress continued with the current highway law, rather than passing a new bill, Ted Curtis, GetAbout Columbia program manager said.

There are about 15 working ideas on a list of ways to spend the $5.9 million. The total estimated cost for projects on the list is $7.76 million, not including costs to acquire easements.

Hindman said he thinks the working ideas primarily came from the Columbia City Council's plans for the $22 million. Even so, there's still room for public input.

"I don't know what the odds are of somebody coming up with an idea that hasn't already been considered," Hindman said, "but if somebody has a really good idea, naturally, we want to know about it."

There are two high-priority projects on the list: Manor Drive sidewalk from Broadway to Rollins on the east side and Fairview Drive sidewalk from Broadway to Highland on the east side. Because the city did enough work on them previously, federal guidelines require that the projects are completed within 10 years, Curtis said in an email.

Major connectivity project suggestions include linking Spring Valley Road and Rockcreek Drive neighborhoods to County House Trail and connecting Hominy Branch Trail to Hinkson Creek Trail and Shepard Boulevard neighborhood.

The city Public Works Department is taking recommendations from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Parks Department and the GetAbout Columbia advisory committee. Most commissions have yet to decide which recommendations they favor.

Senior Planner Mitch Skov said the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission first saw the list of suggestions at its August meeting and will likely give it a closer look during the commission's next meeting at 7 p.m. on Sept. 21 in Conference Room 1B at City Hall.

Tammy Miller, spokeswoman for the city Parks and Recreation Department, said the Parks and Recreation Commission plans to look at the ideas during its Sept. 15 meeting, which is at 7 p.m. at the Activity and Recreation Center.

The GetAbout Columbia advisory committee hasn't scheduled a meeting to discuss the project list, Hindman said, and he's open to suggestions.

“I want to see those things that will do the most to provide interconnectivity and will serve the most people,” he said. “I don’t have any particular pet project at the moment, but I want to evaluate the ideas as they come in.” 

Recommendations should be gathered by the end of September. After screening, some are expected to be presented to city council in October or November, Curtis said.

If community members would like to make recommendations, they can contact Curtis via the city’s website, Skov said.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Derrick Fogle September 1, 2011 | 7:36 p.m.

GetAbout gets another $5.9M? H4X is bummed...

Debris (and parked cars) is already piling up in the newly painted bike lanes on West Blvd. They totally blew the drainage detail on the Rock Bridge trail; that strip of concrete will spend it's miserable life covered in mud and debris as well. Now, I see the Garth Extension trail takes you at least 2/3rds as far as just going all the way to the trailhead at Providence and Stewart.

Some of the earlier projects, like the Stewart/Providence underpass, were awesome and provided so much promise. It's very sad to see the utterly poor quality and/or ineffectiveness of the most recent projects. It was especially hard to see GetAbout not just waste, but shoot themselves in the foot by handing $3M+ to Vangel to, as far as I can tell, stir up anger and discontent towards cyclists.

So here I was, just earlier today, fantasizing about the day (which I thought was imminent) that GetAbout would run out of money for paint. What they're doing with that is nauseating. Then, I read this.

I'm sorry, but... no matter how many federal dollars GetAbout grabs, they're still blowing it with their own community. As a dedicated cyclist who has spent nearly his entire life using non-motorized transportation, I'm deeply *not* amused.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 1, 2011 | 7:51 p.m.

As another full time cyclist I concur with Derek's comments. GetAbout has completely squandered these funds and giving them more will not improve anything.

I recently visited Minneapolis and was amazed with what they have accomplished with their funds. It really added a new perspective on how wonderful of an opportunity for Columbia was wasted by GetAbout.

(Report Comment)
Gerald Shelnutt September 1, 2011 | 8:25 p.m.

I agree with both of the above gentlemen.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 1, 2011 | 10:36 p.m.

To play devil's advocate, this isn't all GetAbout's fault. Many much more effective infrastructure projects got held up or scuttled because landowners were convinced a recreational trail in their neighborhood would bring a hoard of criminals to their doorstep. Even fitness facilities were more concerned about the value of their land, than what a running trail at their doorstep might bring. GetAbout wasn't the only one making really poor decisions.

Then, the classic "stupid" of any government-funded project kicked in: Use it, or lose it. It's no surprise the latest projects were poorly conceived and/or executed. That's par for the government-funded course.

But, there's no way to defend letting Vampire Vangel suck $3M out of the project for really bad PR. That was just stupid.

I just wish more money could have been spent on education - teaching both bicyclists and motorists how to coexist on the roads we have, instead of trying to segregate them, with lines of paint. The only thing I've ever seen bike lanes accomplish is to collect rocks and other debris, and create the expectation that cyclists must ride in that crap.

Education - especially focused on improving the consistency of how cyclists interact with traffic - would have been so much more effective. Instead, cyclist training is the one, and almost only, thing that GetAbout doesn't fund very well.

$5.9M could pay for every single Columbia resident, including the transient student population, to attend those cycling classes 5 or 6 times in a row. Some of the boneheads I see out there on bikes would need that.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 2, 2011 | 7:49 a.m.

"I just wish more money could have been spent on education - teaching both bicyclists and motorists how to coexist on the roads we have, instead of trying to segregate them, with lines of paint."

I agree completely. Take the bike boulevard on Ash as an example. It is a great idea but does not work at all because no one followed through on it. I ride down it every day and I can't tell you how many times I have almost been run over by the fire chief driving his SUV down the bike boulevard at 45 mph. If the city cannot get the fire chief to drive even somewhat responsibly down the supposedly most bike friendly road in Columbia how can we expect the regular citizen too? It is a classic example of them throwing some paint on the ground and expecting it to make a change.

The same goes for cyclist. How can we expect drivers to share the road with us and respect our rights when half the cyclist in town blow through every stop sign and stop light in town while the rest are riding down the sidewalk? I am still waiting for the day that MUPD decides that enough is enough and starts a saturation patrol against cyclist who blatantly disregards the rules of the road and other people’s safety.

However, I am not so convinced that education is the issue. The vast majority of cyclists that you see blowing through red lights without even looking know perfectly well that what they are doing is unsafe, irresponsible, and illegal. They also know that there will be no repercussions for it because they will not be ticketed. Drivers are in the same boat. Most people in Columbia know about the law against harassing cyclist. However, they also know that CPD is never going to actually give one of those tickets out. If we do not give people incentives (negative or positive) to follow the rules then the rules will be disregarded no matter how much paint we slap down or how many training classes we put people through.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 2, 2011 | 8:32 a.m.

JackH: Excellent post...equally presenting both sides of the issue. I also doubt the value of education for this issue. Drivers and cyclists indeed already know the law, and they flout it because they can.

For the cycling enthusiasts, I do have a question that has puzzled me for quite some time: If a cyclists cycles for exercise, wouldn't it make MORE sense to stop at a stop sign/light and then accelerate back to speed?

Perhaps the question is not relevant because my underlying assumption that exercise is the main motive is incorrect. The main motive may be just like us auto drivers...simple transportation from one place to another. Before my knee gave up the ghost, I rode bikes, too, and I remember quite well the relative impunity I felt from various safety laws. My cycle gave me extraordinary maneuverability from which came a sense of immunity from problems; the gist of it was (unwisely, I might add) I could quickly get out of any problems that came my way. I see this same attitude in drivers of powerful, small, highly maneuverable autos.

But...hell....SUV drivers ignore signs as well.

So, hell, I don't know why we do what we do. I give up.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 2, 2011 | 8:59 a.m.

"For the cycling enthusiasts, I do have a question that has puzzled me for quite some time: If a cyclists cycles for exercise, wouldn't it make MORE sense to stop at a stop sign/light and then accelerate back to speed?"

This baffles me too. Even when I am biking for commuting purpose I believe it is a benefit. It barely slows you down and after a few months your legs should be strong enough that the extra energy needed won't bother you (not to mention sometimes a red light can give you a much needed breather).

The same thing goes for drivers; waiting behind a cyclist for a safe time to pass will only cost you a few seconds (even though it feels like an eternity sometimes). Even if it is a road like Rock Quarry where you may have to wait for 30-60 seconds to pass it is more than worth it to wait then to risk another person’s life. There is definitely something to be said about patience being a dying virtue in our culture.

I think there is another issue with irresponsible cyclist that is often overlooked or ignored that I will explain with an example. I was cycling home from my office around last April. Heading north on Hitt St coming up to University Ave I see a cyclist going in the same direction as me blow through the stop sign causing a car to swerve out of the way to avoid hitting the cyclist and possibly killing him. The car however was not so lucky and hit another car heading the opposite direction (east bound on University). The cyclist had headphones on and all this happened behind him so he likely had no idea that he just caused an accident and he most certainly would not be held financially liable for any repairs like he should be.

Cyclists so often think that when they break the law they are only putting themselves in danger because they believe that a car cannot be hurt by a bike. However, they ignore the fact they can severely hurt or kill pedestrians, cause other cars to have an accident, or harm cyclist-motorists relations leading to another cyclist getting hurt or killed in a road rage incident. Moreover, even if it is the cyclist that gets killed because of his own stupidity then someone has to live the rest of their lives with that kid’s dead soul hanging over their heads. It is an incredibly selfish and immature way to behave on a roadway.

The biggest safety factor we all share on the road is predictability. It is something we should all strive for on the road regardless of our mode of transportation.

(Report Comment)
Dave Overfelt September 2, 2011 | 9:01 a.m.

Use the money to make some "blue lanes" through intersections. You can paint all the lanes you want on roads but most accidents occur in the intersections and nothing has been done to help guide and protect cyclists through busy intersections.

This money could have gone to education but GetAbout ruined its name with Vangel. All the propaganda in the world wouldn't make them look good now.

(Report Comment)
Holly Henry September 2, 2011 | 11:07 a.m.

One other thing my fellow cyclists really need to do is adhere to the rule of having actual lights when riding at night. Additional reflective gear helps too. I was in my car last night and discovered how really, REALLY difficult it can be to see cyclists with only the standard bike reflectors, and you can't see them at all when they're coming toward you rather than when you come up from behind them.

Since Columbia gets a new influx of cyclists every fall, maybe as Derrick suggested, some of the money could be used to go to the campuses and provide at least a welcome/orientation class that makes the new students familiar with the laws here as well as the meanings of the various bike markings on the roads.

(Report Comment)
THOMAS COOLEY September 2, 2011 | 11:33 a.m.

Rock Quarry Rd. REALLY?
Imagine driving south on rock quarry. You are winding up that steep sun dappled hill with several cars in the rear.
Suddenly! there, hidden in the shadow just in the middle of a blind curve is a pair of bicylist "exercising" at 1/2 mph.
Scenery 3. Potential for disaster 10.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield September 2, 2011 | 11:49 a.m.

"The cyclist had headphones on and all this happened behind him so he likely had no idea that he just caused an accident and he most certainly would not be held financially liable for any repairs like he should be."

What did the police say when you gave them the cyclist's description?

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 2, 2011 | 11:51 a.m.

Thomas

Your comment exactly represents the kind of bad attitude that we are talking about.

First, 1/2 mph is way beyond an exaggeration. Worst case they are going 10-12 mph and as a car driver you really should not be going over 30 on that part of the road (I'm fairly certain the limit is 20 or 25 on the bends). They are literally costing you 30-60 seconds of waiting until they travel a few hundred yards to get around the bend to the straight away. However, instead of being patient for literally less than 1 minute you instead feel like a victim and rush past them endangering both of your lives (them going to the morgue and you going to prison/poor house).

Exaggeration and impatience like that are traits of small children. If you are old enough to drive a car make sure that you are mature and responsible enough to handle the power that comes with it.

If both cyclist and drivers act responsibly and maturely while considering everyone's safety then the potential for disaster is a 1 not a ten. When a driver gets impatient and thinks that his time is more valuable then a fellow citizens life the potential for disaster goes up to ten.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 2, 2011 | 11:52 a.m.

When I say "Education" it has nothing to do with learning the law. Is the already noted perpetual breakdown of the rule of law - from and on both sides - really *the* problem?

I don't think so. I have no faith that the full application of law, especially exclusively, will solve the problem. Where has it, ever, really?

The biking classes don't just say, "Stop at stop signs." You actually see it, do it, practice it, learn it. Debris lines on the pavement are a poor confidence building substitute for this kind of education. While disregard of traffic controls is by far the biggest safety and image problem, there's a lot more to successful mixed traffic integration than just that.

What the actual laws are doesn't matter nearly as much as just *any* kind of consistency. We could all potentially agree that bikes could run stop signs. As long as everybody knew this, and expected this, and the behavior was consistent, there would be very few problems.

As Jack said, "Predictability." I still believe the right educational efforts can substantially improve this. I'm not saying it's the only thing that should be done. In fact, the actual "solution" is actually a lot of different solutions, together.

I'm just advocating that we allocate at least some of the $5.9M funds to increase education efforts.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield September 2, 2011 | 11:52 a.m.

No doubt at least some of the money will be wasted repainting those ridiculous sharrows.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 2, 2011 | 11:55 a.m.

@ Jimmy

I didn't stay for the police to show up. I talked to the driver of the car that swerved to make sure he had a good description of the cyclist and gave him my contact info if the police wanted a witness statement but I was never contacted by anyone.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 2, 2011 | 12:23 p.m.

Again, the law. What practical effect does the speed limit have on the Rock Quarry hill? None. Drivers are going fast; cyclists are going slow. The angle of the sun and shadows during certain times creates very poor visibility.

This is a physical conflict problem more than an application of law problem. I'm a big advocate of un-lined, mixed traffic. But I'm also a big advocate of realizing that in situations like this - steep hills and high speed differentials - that a separate path is a darned good solution.

That's why I say the problem requires a lot of different solutions, not just one solution. Bicycle use spans the entire gamut of speeds and situations, from pedestrian, to in-town auto speed. That's part of what makes cyclists so unpredictable; the bike is an amazingly versatile machine, which also has an extremely high degree of variability in it's typical velocity.

The problem is very complex, the solutions will have to be multiple and varied, but the potential benefits are awesome.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 2, 2011 | 12:40 p.m.

GetAbout might be able to get some brownie points if they brokered some of those millions over to our police department for a bicycle brigade of officers who could patrol on segways, bicycles and cars to fine cyclists who are creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians and motorists.
More safety police officers would also bring in some revenue for the city as monies collected from unsafe cyclists could be used for non-bicycle related projects, such as an additional source of subsidizing bus service.
Heck, GetAbout could also have a pass-through funding towards "Bicycle Park and Rides" where express bus service from Cosmo Park, Boone County Fair Grounds, the Airport and Lake of the Woods could get "free" bus rides into the city during rush hour times.
If a person should park in these "park and rides" with their vilified cars, just punish them with a one dollar fare.
Any surplus from this "pass-through" Bicycle Park and Ride program could help subsidize bus fares used by college students who own bicycles around campus.
Another project with these GetAbout funds could be for an electric trolley system on Stadium, College Avenue and the District.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 2, 2011 | 12:44 p.m.

Derrick,

I don't think the Rock Quarry/speed limit discussion had anything to do with the law enforcement argument (at least not on my behalf). The point was that most of these problems are symptoms of immature, selfish, and impatient behavior on the part of "adults". If both cyclist and drivers would show concern for other people's safety and have occasional patience we could get past the petty issues and start to focus on a more comprehensive transportation system.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 2, 2011 | 12:51 p.m.

@ Jack: Agreed. Unfortunately, that kind of education starts at home. It's gonna be a tough nut to crack, but it's never too late to try. And the longer we keep trying, the more likely we'll have some success.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum September 2, 2011 | 1:16 p.m.

As yet ANOTHER full-time cyclist, I can agree that the money hasn't been used very effectively. There are two paved, dedicated greenways: one from rogers @ Columbia college to College Ave near Wilkes, and another that starts at Twin Lakes and takes you a) the bottom of a hill on Stadium Blvd or b) back around to the Forum area. The sign says that greenway was 1.2 million, if I'm not mistaken.

Point being, I've 'Gotten About' mid-MO my entire life on a bike, so if you're going to purport to be doing something awesome with 'green' transportation, do something real, don't just perpetuate your job in your office, going to lunches.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 2, 2011 | 1:43 p.m.

GetAbout could give out free bus passes to cyclists, wheelchair users and seniors to encourage getting about during winter months.
I'd also like to see GetAbout give out gas cards to middle class motorists willing to carpool their "working poor" neighbors to and from work.
This might help residents North of Smiley, out by Clark Lane and duplex dwellers West on Scott Blvd.
GetAbout could also partner with AAA, local churches and other nonprofits to maximize resources.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 2, 2011 | 2:00 p.m.

Ray,

I always like to hear new ideas but GetAbout can only legally spend their funds on *non-motorized* transportation. Paying people to ride the bus or to carpool kind of completely defeats the entire purpose of GetAbout and the grant.

(Report Comment)
Jason Entermyer September 2, 2011 | 2:13 p.m.

Louis Schneebaum--I'm not sure what your point is? As someone with a family that lives north of Stadium Blvd, the County House Trail is worth a fortune if it allows my kids and I the chance to ride to the MKT Trail without the risk of crossing Stadium Blvd. In order to become a full-time rider, we've got to teach our kids and co-workers how to ride safely on recreational trails. Then we can progress to the streets and finally feel comfortable enough to ride to work. Most people will not start out riding on Broadway or Scott Blvd, or if they do, they'll end up in trouble with either the law or vehicle drivers.

I just wish the trail went all of the way to the ARC then I'd be really happy!

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 2, 2011 | 2:32 p.m.

I think it depends on the person Jason. I road for years on the roads without ever riding on the trail. I do enjoy the MKT and Katy now but my first concern is transportation not recreation and there are never going to be trails that take me to my office.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 2, 2011 | 4:54 p.m.

I think Jason illustrates my point of complexity rather well. Kids on bikes? They don't belong out in the street where I am. But, they're still bicycles. Where's the line?

There isn't one. It's mostly a big grey area.

Bicycles span everything from pedestrian-level traffic to city driving traffic, and everything in between. That's what makes them so valuable. It's also what makes people tend to ride them like they're just walking, makes them relatively unpredictable, and makes them so difficult to integrate with traffic.

That's why I think the most effective solution is actually going to be a patchwork of a lot of smaller, more specific infrastructure solutions, plus a sustained effort to teach people best practices on how to use what, where.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 2, 2011 | 7:44 p.m.

To address the biking safety issue: From my perspective, it takes 4-5 years of riding like a total jerk to approach 100% probability of a bad accident. Even though it's relatively dangerous, the speed of a typical cyclist is low enough that a self-inflicted wipe-out is just scrapes and bruises; actual car-bike collisions are relatively rare; but... close calls are fairly common.

The close calls are still scary as hell every time they happen, though. Fear leads to anger...

Back to the point, a college student who uses a bike occasionally for a few years doesn't fall very high up on the probability threshold. Indeed, a few get hurt every year; the statistics correlate. But lifetime cyclists like Jack, Louis, and myself, would be dead several times over if we rode like that.

There are behaviors that work. They can be taught. There are critical spots where some new infrastructure would really help. It could be built. But an additional $5.9M isn't all that much; I can only hope it gets used very wisely.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm September 2, 2011 | 8:33 p.m.

Derrick,

I actually almost got run over on my way home from work today. Going through the 9th street-University ave intersection a young kid with a packed car didn't stop while turning right on to 9th from University. Luckily I was going slow enough from having just stopped at the sign plus I was more in the left most part of the lane to avoid that massive crater in the middle of the north bound lane so I was just able to avoid getting hit. Although the girl in the passenger seat gave a gasp as she saw me the guy driving seemed to never notice he almost ran someone over.

Usually I loathe that crater at the 9th-University intersection but it probably saved me from a trip to the ER today. Starting the new school year off right!

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 2, 2011 | 11:43 p.m.

@Jack Yikes! Like I said, the close calls are always scary as hell. Even I have them sometimes. Cyclists aren't the only ones who disregard traffic controls and exhibit other poor behavior in traffic.

That's one more good reason for the cyclist to stop. As long as one party is behaving and paying attention, disaster is easily avoided. I can make sure at least one party is, indeed, behaving and paying attention.

Here's my companion Yikes story: While I was actually driving a car the other day, I very nearly got head-on'd by a MO Highway Patrol car crossing the center line, because the patrolman was, as best as I could tell, texting while driving.

I was already laying skid marks and aiming for the ditch; I think the sound of my squealing tires finally made him look up and jerk his car back into his own lane. We missed by inches, with him still well over into my lane.

The only thing that saved us was that he was driving well below the limit, and I was, inexplicably, driving just below the limit, too. Another 10mph combined speed between us would have almost certainly meant a collision.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 3, 2011 | 7:47 a.m.

From Derrick:

"...and I was, inexplicably, driving just below the limit, too."
_______________________

I laffed out loud at this dry and subtle humor, my favorite kind.

Probably because I can relate to the "inexplicable" part.

(Report Comment)
vinnie TAGGERT September 3, 2011 | 10:06 a.m.

Why does the City of Columbia spend so much money on rewarding cyclists that continually flaunt breaking the law? Watch the cyclists in this town blow through stop signs and lights, ride on sidewalks, then ride in the middle of the traffic lane. How about the ones that ride with the flow of traffic some times, then against it. Cyclists think nothing of riding bikes in other peoples yards, especially when wet and leave ruts.

Any other vehicle that operates on city streets must be equipped with the proper lighting and obey common traffic laws, yet cyclists go unpunished when they break the law. Why is the police department turning a blind eye to these lawbreakers and missing out on a good chuck of revenue from fines for the city?

Maybe a good audit would be in order? See where all this money is spent.

Bottom line: If I drove my car like a majority of cyclists drive their bikes, I'd be carted off to jail in no time. I have no problem with sharing the road but follow the darn traffic laws like everyone else!

(Report Comment)
Gerald Shelnutt September 3, 2011 | 11:37 a.m.

The bikers see themselves as above it all. It is political correct for the cops to look the other way.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum September 6, 2011 | 9:13 p.m.

Sorry about riding through your wet yard Vinnie, I was only trying to avoid your wife in her Lincoln Navigator while she was texting.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 6, 2011 | 10:20 p.m.

...as if Vinnie doesn't speed, take 'pink' stoplights, roll stop signs, and take rights on red after slowing down a little bit. If he really doesn't, he's an even rarer motorist, than I am a cyclist.

What the jerk cyclists "see" is that they are still mostly a pedestrian, who happens to be riding something. The perception is fairly realistic. Cyclists have one foot in the pedestrian world, one foot in the auto world, and... a big crack in the middle.

Truth is, all the drivers hate each other just as much, or even more, than they do a cyclist. For some of the same reasons.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield September 6, 2011 | 10:28 p.m.

"Why is the police department turning a blind eye to these lawbreakers and missing out on a good chuck of revenue from fines for the city?"

"It is political correct for the cops to look the other way."

One exception is Paul Sturtz. In 2009, he was arrested for riding on the sidewalk in the urban core, the only place where it's illegal to do so.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle November 29, 2011 | 2:14 p.m.

Bicycle safety? Look here: http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-...

This is a zoomable map of roadway deaths 2001-2009. Here is is, pre-zoomed into the Columbia area: http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-... See that *one* bicycle death, compared to dozens of vehicle occupant deaths, and about a dozen pedestrian deaths?

Project your fear onto cyclists all you want, but this proves it's just projection. Get out of your car one in awhile. It might just save your life.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements