Are you serious, Jason? You are using the very tactics you decry in your own letter...

"What happens to those who cannot bike?" Well, their needs aren't going to be addressed in a master *bicycle* plan, are they?

"Are other forms of transportation even suffering due to these changes?" Again, probably not going to be found in the *bicycle* plan.

"Are there legitimate concerns over bicyclists' behavior?" Of course, but as *you* say, you blame the individual, not the city planners, for bad behavior.

Get real. If you want to live in a city of gridlock, have a great time, just don't stand in the way of actual planning (something Seattle desperately needs more of, by the way) by spreading misinformation and hype of your own.

I kind of repulsed by the cloying condescension of the second to last paragraph.

This guy's the worst. Look at that mess.

The guy is right Holden, you're using someone's death to further you're own agenda. You're kind of an asshole.

It seems so obvious that a city that sometimes has bike lanes on the left side of the street, and sometimes has them on the right side of the street is creating danger. When drivers don't know where to look to find cyclists, it's incredibly risky.

The reality is, we need to find alternatives to everyone in single-person gas-using cars if we want to still exist as a species in 500 years. Bike's are a piece of that puzzle, whether Jason Anderson likes it or not.

The guy is right Holden, you're using someone's death to further your own agenda. You're kind of an asshole.

Someone's death becomes a springboard to do greater things...when has that ever happened (Jesus, Kennedy's, MLK, .........................)

In this case, the bad bicycle infrastructure led directly to this person's death. In this case a discussion of that infrastructure is appropriate. The collision was not intentional on the part of any party, but the placement of the bike lane created a likely conflict, and thus problem is well known by the city.

It would be relevant to know whether either party was following all traffic laws

Wow, did the letter writer even read the article in question? Because Dominic's original article clearly included this statement:

the riders appeared to have the right-of-way, be traveling in bicycle lanes, and be wearing helmets.

Pretty clear, I think. In all cases, the car/van/truck violated traffic law by failing to yield right-of-way.

Does anyone know if the driver will be facing any charges?

This does not make sense. He claims that The Stranger is one of his favorite publications, than acts shocked that an article was a biased policy piece with no real objectivity.

I mean, that is The Stranger's bread and butter, by their own admission.

If this guy is actually an attorney, he's a bad one. First, an event like this is never an "accident," especially to a lawyer. Someones screwed up at some point and was responsible (to at least some degree) in this woman's death.

Am I supposed to believe that a good attorney wouldn't sue the city for bad design of the intersection if that was the cause of the death? Right.

I don't he think he realizes the nature of the newspaper he is reading and it just goes downhill from there.

Shorter Jason Anderson: I like your paper and I voted for Obama, but bikes need to get out of my way.

It's interesting that when discussing a road plan, nobody ever talks about bad drivers. when discussing mass transit, we never talk about bad bus drivers (my husband was hit by a metro driver in a bus once) when discussing pedestrian use, we never talk about bad pedestrians, but everyone always wants to solve the bad bicyclist problem before moving forward on bike infrastructure.

@11, he might have been referring to The Backpage ads. But, no, Dom's piece was definately bias-filled and short on any insightful details about the accident. The death of Kung was certainly used as leverage for Dom's agenda. At least he didn't try to hold a bike rights ride from the scene of her death down to city hall or something.

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98117-wa-j…

"we blame drunk drivers when they injure someone—we do not blame the designer of the road."

This is empirically false. When the family on NE 75th St got hit by a drunk driver last year, a re-evaluation of that road was done and changes were made.

"but when bicycling is emphasized at the expense of other forms of transportation..."

That would be the day. The idea that bicycles have taken over most of our streets and are the cause of our congestion problems is absurd. Take me down to I-5 after work today and show me the massive mess of congested cars and then show me the bicycle that is causing it.

Mr. Anderson makes an interesting argument: We shouldn't comment on or discuss anything until we determine 100% of the facts and 100% of us agree on those facts and their significance.

@19, that redesign was in planning even before the drunk driver.

That settles it I am getting a tattoo of a cyclist carrying a trident and "WarOnCars" on my leg, to go with my other cycling tattoos.

Fuck off dude, less roads don't mean less traffic. If you go to Europe where they have been dealing with density issues like this for 30 or 40 years you don't see huge roads like we see here. Gas should be 12 $/gal, car tabs and tickets should be based on your income, the BMP should be fully funded and public transit should be close to free.

I don't even have to read the original article to know Jason Anderson is very likely correct in his criticisms. Of course, that type of opportunistic journalism is a lot of what makes newspapers tick. Hard to believe Anderson is a regular reader of The Stranger if he's "dismayed" by this article.

Improved bike infrastructure makes cars go a little slower; lack of it makes bicyclists more likely to DIE. Seem like equally weighted arguments, I don't know why the Stranger would ever present one of these options as more concerning than the other.

@21 Yes, but the changes were pushed through quickly as a direct response to the drunk driver tragedy. Ask Dongho Chang at SDOT.

Well I'm unwilling to spend one penny on infrastructure for cars until we address the almost universal exceeding of the speed limit by drivers.

Pearl clutching.

I DESPISE pearl clutching.

The only good thing out of this LTE is that you have the breakdown of an argument you need to effectively neutralize and/or tear to pieces.

Go for it, Dominic.

It's a terrible mess. If he focused on the "it's uncouth of you to use a tragedy as political advocacy" it would at least have had a coherent and plausible point, even if ultimately wrong-headed.

But instead of "how dare you use this tragedy to advocate a policy" it was "how dare you use this tragedy to advocate a set of policies I don't agree with. Here, let me take advantage of this moment to advocate a different set of policies" which is just pathetic.

And as an aside, the whole "what about people who can't ride?" aside is demonstrative of just how dumb, or possibly mendacious, your interlocutor is. Some people can't drive, either, for medical or financial reasons. No one has ever suggested that's a good reason we shouldn't build a safe infrastructure for those who can.

Shorter version:

"I don't care how many cyclists it kills; make sure my car isn't stuck in traffic."

For Canadian Nurse, @5:
http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

Public policy should be based on statistics about the intersection, not a case-by-case placing of blame. If a lot of cyclists die at the same spot, it should be redesigned. Even if 100% of the cyclists ran the same stop sign- if that's happening in one spot and not others, there is a design reasons for it. You can redesign the intersection/feeder streets, or you can wish upon a star that everyone would start following all the rules all the time.

It's fine if the police want to increase ticketing of rule-breaking cyclists. It's still possible to improve what is a clear outlier in intersection safety.

What if bike lanes, separated by jersey walls, went down the middle of the street? But what about intersections? I don't know, but maybe that's an alternative.

Let me play the devils advocate.

Almost no one here is taking on his argument. The majority are taking the lazy route and attacking him personally. (One of his points, I do believe.)

May the flaming commence!

Thank you, @28 for this: "And as an aside, the whole "what about people who can't ride?" aside is demonstrative of just how dumb, or possibly mendacious, your interlocutor is. Some people can't drive, either, for medical or financial reasons. No one has ever suggested that's a good reason we shouldn't build a safe infrastructure for those who can."

This is the absolute worst argument. Mainly because pedestrian improvements almost always come with improved bicycle infrastructure.
Any "improvements" to car infrastructure is generally made at the expense of all other forms of transportation- walking and transit among them.

Ms. Kung was a bike commuter and was likely looking forward to riding on a safer 2nd Ave. If the City Council hadn't dragged its feet for years trying to promote a mode of transportation on the decline, Dominic's article wouldn't be necessary and we'd still have a talented and progressive advocate for the LGBT community still with us.
Dominic's article is exactly the kind of advocacy we need to come out of tragedies like these and I hope Ms. Kung's family sees it as one honoring her senseless death.

It's to everyone's credit that Dom's piece generated this thoughtful response, and that Dominick thought to share it with the readership. Really too much to think about for one comments field, but a few salient points to note:

1) It should be obvious to any regular Stranger reader that the paper doesn't pretend to unbiased journalism. Stranger reporters take positions and advocate for points of view. More often than not they take smart positions based on research and observation, but sometimes the writers are simply reacting to an event as individuals or as members of a community, and are writing to express something deeply personal. If I wanted a lawyer I would hire a lawyer. What I want from the Stranger is smart people writing with passion about my city. This article is a case in point.

2) Clearly, this city needs to have a better, more public and more responsible conversation about transportation investment in general and about bike infrastructure specifically. The media is one place for this to happen, but the real forum for making decisions, answering questions from the public, delegating responsibility and allocating funds is at the Municipal level. In this regard the City is failing us. All other arguments aside, and whatever your personal choices about transportation, no sane person can deny that the number of bike riders in the city is increasing and that we need to improve the systems that get them safely from point to point. This has been documented over and over again from 100 different angles. The City's response has been to stall, and one terrible result of their failure to act was Ms. Kung's death.

The Stranger is fulfilling an important responsibility by reacting strongly to her death, pointing a finger at the parties responsible, and charging this conversation with the drama and weight it demands. With any luck and any sense, the City will take this tragic cue to finally fucking improve the 2nd Avenue bikeway, fund the bicycle master plan, and take seriously the safety concerns of every non-car commuter in this town.

I think I missed the nuance that so many here read into the LTE.

I did not take the LW as specifically advocating for an anti-bike, pro-car postion. I thought the LTE was a long-winded request for more objectified reporting on the topic - maybe to get information to support an agenda, and maybe not.

It would be wrong to ignore the obvious (and really quite minor and inexpensive compared to many ongoing projects) bit of infrastructure remodeling needed to prevent more accidents and deaths at an intersection that has proven to be a source of accidents and deaths. Any publication that chooses not to provide such information is failing in its duty to the public.

@36

I felt that the LW was looking for the snuff video of the accident.

Well, Mr. Outta My Way is right to be suspicious of The Stranger's "agenda"--it's not like car owners ever display anger, or act in a hostile way, toward bikers.

@39, when it's my "turn" at the 4 way intersections, I presume that bicyclists are going to obey the stop sign on their leg. Is that hostile ?

tl;dr

And there's no way I'm the only one.

I appreciate The Stranger's editorial staff being called out occasionally and I'm glad that Dominic was willing to publish some criticism. There are quite a few issues that staff writers have difficulty writing about without showing very large biases or ignorance and it undermines the paper's credibility. I don't want the paper to stop writing about controversial topics but anybody with personal knowledge of, for example, interracial violence, firearms, or transportation policy can easily spot the advocacy masked as journalism. It wouldn't be inconstant with established standards of journalism to label advocacy as editorials, presenting advocacy pieces as reporting/news is not garnering my esteem and undermines The Stranger's credibility.

I support improving bike infrastructure, but I'm dubious about two-way bike lanes on one side of the road. I've seen several near accidents on Broadway, especially when cars are pulling out of the gas station onto Broadway across both bike lanes where there are no signals -- they're always only looking to their left, oblivious to any bikes coming from the right. There are also places where the sight lines don't allow adequate visibility for turning vehicles, you need to see a bike much further away than a pedestrian.

I'd like to see more limits on parking, load zones and oversized vehicles on roads with bikes lanes; more restrictions on the number and duration of construction projects that block sidewalks and lanes of traffic, forcing everyone onto the same few roads; and some actual greenways. We're trying to stuff every conceivable mode of transportation onto some of our roads, it's too much chaos.

Quite foolish to expect any kind of straight-up news reporting on bicycle issues in The Stranger.

The typical American obsession with finding out who's at fault is getting in the way here. Someone's always at fault, right? And if we just find out who that is, and punish them to the full extent of the law, or preferably far beyond it, then everything will be OK, right? Right?

Unfortunately, in the real world, most traffic accidents are not caused by drunk drivers or other demonized malfeasants we can charge with crimes; they're caused by drivers who are confused by difficult traffic situations. Problems with people getting killed in traffic situations cannot be solved by assigning blame.

They can only be solved by analyzing the situation and designing the roadway for safer use. Traffic offenses, like speeding, for instance, are almost always caused by street layouts that encourage speeding even in safety-conscious drivers. Good streets guide their users into appropriate, safe behavior.

That's what redesigning Second Avenue to accomodate bicycle riders safely is all about. Once you've made the decision to permit bicycle riders on the street -- which is state and city law -- it is IMPERATIVE that the street design be done in a way that accomodates bicyclists safely, and guides both bikes and cars (and left-turning trucks) into safe behaviors.

Anderson doesn't know what he's talking about.

@46, have you ever observed all the obstacles that are in Seattle's sidewalks for pedestrians already ? Telephone poles, The Stranger newspaper dispensing boxes, sidewalk cafes with dog bowls rimming the entire thing, the occasional CenturyLink box, and the list goes on.... Sometimes even getting two pedestrians to pass each other is difficult, let alone a bicyclist who isn't on a sunday stroll.

War on Cars, war on bikes, my ass. ever heard of "divide and conquer"? The real war is against public infrastructure spending, and public goods in general like education.
If you want to help, get out in the burbs or out east of the mountains and help elect candidates committed to raising the revenue and building stuff. In other words, Democrats. The Republicans in the state Senate blocked any transportation bill at all, squandering our chance of getting back any federal tax dollars. The Republicans in the US house are holding the Highway trust fund hostage. The President is all for infrastructure but can not wave a magic wand, he needs legislation. Democrats already get more votes, if enough people send in their ballots we can win.

100% agree. You wanna sling opinion thinly disguised as reporting? Save that crap for SLOG. But the fact that Dom doesn't even pay lip service to getting the relevant facts strikes to the core of The Stranger's recent descent. Dom in particular is a problem here. Either send him to the opinion pages or back to J School.

I still maintain that it will be easier to predict bicycle behavior if the infastructure is there. Period. Also like, cars break laws all the time, and nobody takes their road improvements away like some kind of time-out.

Most of the comments here just confirm what Mr. Anderson is saying: Voice anything that can be construed as anti-bicycle and you will be immediately painted as a fat SUV-loving bicycle hating suburban neanderthal.

@12: Calling something an "accident" doesn't mean nobody is responsible.

Telling that he argues that the article should not have been written, rather than arguing with the points that the article makes.

"Are other forms of transportation even suffering due to these changes, such as through longer commutes, or is it imaginary?"

I'd say it's very unlikely that the small number of bikes have an impact on traffic comparable to the tens of thousands of cars on the road, but why don't you explain your theory on the matter rather than making sweeping statements disguised as rhetorical questions?

Oh, silly reader. The Stranger stopped being "news" long ago.

In all seriousness, the level of reporting does seem to have declined in the years I've been here. It used to put more of a premium on fact-based reporting. What happened?

Accidents happen. If we can learn from them, great. But I do think scooters are the answer and people should be allowed to use scooters in the bike lanes.

First off, my sympathies to all who have lost someone they know or love due to this (or any other) accident. But I tend to agree that Dom's post was in bad taste. The headline itself (which may not have been Dom's fault) struck me as ridiculous - the sad reality is that even if Seattle's Bicycle Master Plan was completed tomorrow (shudder) it still will not magically make it impossible for future accidents to occur. As long as there are places where bicycle paths cross traffic lanes, there will be accidents. If there was a solution being offered that 100% guaranteed bicyclist safety, then "blood of their hands" sorts of statements might be almost justified, but the sad fact is that even the most careful cyclist and the most conscientious driver can still collide with disastrous results.

I'm leery of the 'using a tragedy to further your goals is bad' bullet point. Dom didn't shove the poor woman into the truck. Gun control advocates don't slip rifles to crazy people and point the way to schoolyards.

These things happen. They make the news. It's worth using the horror we feel as a call to action, a chance to build some momentum toward making positive changes.

"we blame drunk drivers when they injure someone—we do not blame the designer of the road."

I am perfectly comfortable with blaming both in their respective roles. There is a reason we require engineers to be licensed/insured to work on particular projects.

Sher Kung died for two reasons:

1) Someone failed to check their mirror before crossing a traffic lane.

2) SDOT failed to design the roadway in a way that minimized the chances of such a conflict.

It is not "baseless advocacy" to make these points clear. We should all work together to do whatever possible to prevent this from happening again. It's not a matter of asking what needs to be done, we already know that. It's just a matter of deciding that lives take priority over speed.

No child should have to grow up without a mother. Thank you to Dominic and the Stranger for doing your small part to help prevent another such tragedy.

So. Well. Said.

And that's coming from a cyclist of 30 years.

Do the details really matter when there are virtually no reproductions for operators of motor vehicles when they strike pedestrians or cyclists? I hate to be so cynical, but all you have to do, if you strike a pedestrian or cyclist, is haul out one of four or five standard acceptable excuses (they came out of nowhere, the sun was in my eyes, I pressed the wrong pedal, they weren't wearing a helmet, blah blah) and carelessly taking the life of someone else will be deemed a "tragic unavoidable accident". The only thing you will have to cope with will be the possible mental anguish of taking someone else's life, which could have possibly been avoided if there were actual consequences that would have had you more cognizant of what you were doing behind the wheel. Up until a couple of years ago, before the Vulnerable Users Act was passed, there was a sick joke that made the rounds that went something like "If you ever get the urge to kill someone, just hit a cyclist it'll only cost you $42". Another sick joke is the application, or lack there of of the Vulnerable Users Act by the SPD and county judges, but that is fodder for another rant. Pouring over the details of exactly what happened would only serve as ammunition to be twisted and used to blame the victim. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that the stretch of roadway that this accident happened is a death trap for cyclists. Mr. Anderson's letter is nothing but well disgusted concern trolling.

@63- You act like losing assets after negligently killing someone is somehow out of line.

Back in the day they used to kill people for that, just as if it had been murder.

Moreover it is not at all common for drivers who cause injury or death to lose their property. They have insurance. Hell, you can be convicted of vehicular homicide and not even lose your driver's license.

Biking in Seattle sucks and is scary. As the population booms, it is only bound to get worse no matter what sort of infrastructure is adopted. Last year my hubs was hit by a city bus that failed to signal and proceeded to drag him nearly 2 city blocks. Nightmare. No one in our family will be riding in city again

WOW Jason Anderson. You say you are a practicing attorney. I did notice that you did not list your full name with your middle initial so those interested to know who to stay away from if they want a lawyer who is not long winded, appears hypocritical, appears to be overly self-promoting, and also appears to not have much compassion. There are more than three other attorneys that share your same name that practice in Seattle. I doubt they would want to be confused with you. I spoke with one today. Getting to know you some, from your letter, is to me a bit scary.