Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Mary Shane and Susan White some of our many supporters.


Hitting and killing a cyclist? That'll be $175

There is a law to protect vulnerable users of the road, like cyclists and pedestrians, but it's virtually unenforced. Here's why.
A new law might do more to protect bikers and pedestrians, if only it were enforced.

A new law might do more to protect bikers and pedestrians, if only it were enforced. furtwangl/Flickr

On March 18, the 29-year old driver of a pickup truck hit and fatally injured 19-year old Caleb Shoop as he rode his bike through the crosswalk at 61st Ave. NE in Kenmore. A car in the northbound lane stopped to let Shoop cross. The pickup driver, in the northbound lane, didn't. The driver struck Shoop, who died, in Harborview, on March 21.

The penalty for killing Caleb Shoop? A $175 ticket.

The King County Prosecutors Office reviewed the case for potential felony charges, but did not pursue vehicular homicide because there was no evidence that speed, drugs or alcohol contributed to the collision. A King County detective issued the $175 fine after King County Prosecutors determined they had no felony case.

There is legal recourse for pursuing further penalty in the case of accidents involving bicycles. It's called the Vulnerable User Law.

Enacted in 2012, the Vulnerable User Law created a civil infraction that increases penalties for drivers who, through their negligence, injure or kill vulnerable road users; that is, people who are walking, biking, in wheelchairs, on motorized scooters, etc. Specifically, the law states that if a driver commits a traffic infraction — speeding, texting while driving, running a stop sign, failing to yield at a crosswalk — that results in serious injury or death to a vulnerable road user, that driver is subject to an automatic fine of $5,000 and a 90-day license suspension.

The law also allows judges to compel the defendant to perform community service hours or take driver's ed classes. Because it is a civil infraction, it is typically up to the police officers investigating a case to make the decision about Vulnerable User.

Press Secretary Dan Donahoe said the County Prosecutor's Office referred the case on to the Kenmore Prosecutor’s Office, which would have been responsible for filing a Vulnerable User Law infraction. The Kenmore Prosecutor’s Office did not return a call asking if the Vulnerable User Law’s stiffer penalties were applicable in Shoop’s case.

John Duggan, a Seattle attorney who specializes in bicycle law, says the Vulnerable User Law likely could have been applied. “The fact that they cited him with an infraction makes me think Vulnerable User was applicable," said Duggan. "At the least, it should’ve been considered and probably charged and left to a judge to let it stick.”

Because the Shoop case fell outside of his jurisdiction and he did not have the investigative report, Seattle City Attorney’s Office Deputy Chief of Staff John Schochet declined to speak directly about it. But Schochet said because, “the law is designed to be used where any vulnerable users are seriously injured or killed as a result of the negligence of a driver, this is the sort of case we would certainly look at applying the vulnerable user infraction.”

The problem with the Vulnerable User Law is that nobody knows about it. “It’s one thing to get a law passed, but you need people aware and enforcing it," said Duggan. "It’s not just drivers; cops and city attorneys just don’t know about it … if you were to line up 50 cops I’d bet most of them have never heard [the vulnerable user law].”

In fairness, the Vulnerable User Law has been applied in previous cases. In October 2012, Trent Graham was struck and killed by a pickup truck while he was riding his bike along Evergreen Way SW in Everett. Snohomish County Prosecutors used the Vulnerable User Law to increase penalties to $10,287.

In September 2012, Heather Barnett, a client of Duggans, was hit by an SUV while she was biking down 8th Ave NW in Ballard. She suffered severe injuries and ran up more than $100,000 in medical bills. The City Attorney’s Office used the Vulnerable User Law to seek additional penalties after Barnett’s boyfriend pressed the issue. The driver who hit Barnett was eventually fined $11,184.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


Posted Tue, Jun 24, 4:04 p.m. Inappropriate

So now the bicyclists want special legal privileges on top of not paying anything to use their vehicles on the streets. As far as I'm concerned, the $175 fine was excessive. I have no sympathy for bicyclists. You are freeloaders and guests on the streets, and you will take whatever you get.

By the way, does the "vulnerable user law" apply to bicyclists who hit pedestrians? Nope. You see, bicyclists are deemed superior beings. And then they wonder why they are so widely and thoroughly despised here and elsewhere.


Posted Tue, Jun 24, 4:21 p.m. Inappropriate

More than 50% of our roads are paid for by property taxes and sales taxes. So the cyclists, including Caleb Shoop are often subsidizing the single-occupant drivers, especially if they also have a car at home in the driveway for which they buy gas and pay tabs.

NotFan - how many cyclists kill pedestrians every year in our country? It does happen but you can usually count them on your fingers. There are 1000's of pedestrians killed by cars each year. Are you really suggesting driving a 4000 pound car and riding a 20 pound bicycle are equivalent?


Posted Tue, Jun 24, 6:31 p.m. Inappropriate

Bicycles are the only authorized road vehicles that pay no user fees. You are freeloading parasites, and until you pay, many if not most other vehicle users who do pay fees will have little or no sympathy for you.


Posted Tue, Jun 24, 8:35 p.m. Inappropriate

And you, sir, are an idiot. Good rationale for running them down.

Posted Tue, Jun 24, 11:04 p.m. Inappropriate

Nice to see the "progressive" viewpoint. You sir, are a moron, an imbecile, and a parasite. So there. See, I don't pretend to be nice, polite, or Good like you do.


Posted Tue, Jun 24, 4:59 p.m. Inappropriate

There only one "widely and thoroughly despised" entity here, and it's not bicyclists.


Posted Tue, Jun 24, 6:31 p.m. Inappropriate

Nice to see "progressive" nastiness on display!


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 10:19 p.m. Inappropriate

Actually, Snot Fan (oops, there's that pesky typo again), your critics above were being restrained and polite, for what you are -- and your words below leave no doubt -- is a coward who hides like a worm beneath a nomme de ordures from which you cravenly squirm out to berate and slander the defenseless dead.

Posted Thu, Jul 3, 2:07 a.m. Inappropriate

"Slander the defenseless dead." Has a nice ring to it, but whatever are you talking about? An argument among the voices inside your "progressive" head? By the way, you don't even live in Seattle, as I recall. What are you doing here?


Posted Fri, Jul 4, 6:24 p.m. Inappropriate

You don't live in reality; what are you doing here?


Posted Sat, Jul 5, 11:32 a.m. Inappropriate

Paying the bills. What bridge do you dwell under, anyway?


Posted Sat, Jul 5, 3:48 p.m. Inappropriate

SnotMan calling me a troll! lol again


Posted Sat, Jul 5, 3:48 p.m. Inappropriate



Posted Tue, Jun 24, 5:14 p.m. Inappropriate

The article says the bicyclist was in a crosswalk; did you notice that?


Posted Sat, Jun 28, 4:46 p.m. Inappropriate

I did. Isn't that illegal? Not an excuse to run him down, but a bicycle is a vehicle and shouldn't be riding in the crosswalk. Unless I misunderstand the facts.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 10:31 a.m. Inappropriate

You misunderstand the rules of the road. Bicycles are allowed in crosswalks.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 11:36 a.m. Inappropriate

"I have no sympathy for bicyclists. You are freeloaders and guests on the streets, and you will take whatever you get."

Someone died. And this is what you have to say? Oh Not Fan, I'm sorry your mama didn't love you better.

Posted Thu, Jul 3, 1:27 a.m. Inappropriate

Oops, sorry. I'm weeping now. Kumbaya.


Posted Thu, Jun 26, 1:04 p.m. Inappropriate

"on top of not paying anything to use their vehicles on the streets."

Wrong again... property taxes pay most of the costs for local roads. Only tourist bicycle riders fall into this category. The rest are all paying either directly or indirectly via their rent.


Posted Thu, Jun 26, 4:23 p.m. Inappropriate

You "progressives" just love the lie. Everyone pays the taxes you mentioned, whether or not they've got a street-legal vehicle. Everyone with street vehicles pays an additional user fee, except for the privileged bicyclists, who add insult to injury by lying about every single issue related to their toys.


Posted Fri, Jun 27, 2:27 p.m. Inappropriate

Well you must love paying taxes because you drive instead of bicycling. No rule that you must pay "unfair" taxes... whine whine whine... "I'm forced to pay taxes for things I don't use..." Gosh, buy a bicycle and become a healthy richer person legally not paying excess taxes!

Or not, keep driving, and having high blood pressure venting on the internet about how life is unfair.


Posted Fri, Jun 27, 9:43 p.m. Inappropriate

Gary, please run a stop sign. I beg ya.


Posted Tue, Jul 1, 3:44 p.m. Inappropriate

Gosh, never ever saw a car & driver roll through an intersection. You must be a saint... oh wait, not possible as your anger spills all over your posts here. Must still be angry that you "have" to pay excess taxes for things you never use.

Buy a bicycle and become the legal Warren Buffet of tax evasion. Or pay your taxes and quit whining. You know the old mantra, tax what you don't want, and clearly driving is what is being taxed.


Posted Tue, Jun 24, 4:10 p.m. Inappropriate

The vulnerable users law (which the Seattle City Attorney’s Office lobbied legislators to pass) is not virtually unenforced. Rather, some jurisdictions use it and some don’t. Our office has filed nine such cases to date in Seattle Municipal Court. Also, another infraction alone isn’t sufficient to file a vulnerable user charge; prosecutors need to establish negligence on the driver’s part. -- Kimberly Mills, Commmunications Director, Seattle City Attorney's Office

Posted Thu, Jul 3, 1:40 a.m. Inappropriate

Do you work for the same city attorney who refused to prosecute the habitual downtown offenders named by the police?


Posted Tue, Jun 24, 6:32 p.m. Inappropriate

So there appears to me to be some confusion in the report. are bicyclists a vehicle or pedestrian when riding across a crosswalk? I've been surprised when driving by a bicycles and runners who enter a crosswalk at a much higher rate of speed than a walking pedestrian allowing little reaction time. This could have been the case here . As a cyclist I would never enter a crosswalk riding and expect to be treated as a pedestrian.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 8:06 a.m. Inappropriate

There is no requirement that cycles walk in the crosswalk http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2011/05/26/are-bicyclists-required-to-walk-bikes-in-crosswalks/

It's likely the driver simply didn't use their brain to think about why a vehicle would be stopped in front of a crosswalk and couldn't see the law abiding cyclist as they were shielded from view by the yielding vehicle.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 8:13 a.m. Inappropriate

I've seen that happen many times - I think many people don't realize why a car in the adjacent lane has stopped. Fortunately, in almost all cases, no accident occurs. This time one did.

Double lanes and no stoplight makes for a trouble. It takes awareness from both the vehicle driver and the cyclist (or ped, etc) using the crosswalk. Had Caleb been crossing slower (I'm assuming), he might have had time to react to the vehicle in the 2nd lane. Had the driver learned or been trained to stop or look carefully when vehicles in the adjacent lane are stopped, he might have saved a life.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 1:19 p.m. Inappropriate

Section 11.44.100 of the Seattle Traffic Code "Right of Way in a Crosswalk" may provide the key to this case: "....No person operating a bicycle shall suddenly enter a crosswalk into the path of a vehicle which is so close that the driver cannot yield safely." That provides drivers some defense from cyclists who suddenly pop into the crosswalk. Of course I don't know the precise facts of this case, but neither apparently does anyone else....

Posted Tue, Jun 24, 9:05 p.m. Inappropriate

Every reference in this story regarding “Vulnerable User” indicated it was applied when the rider was riding with traffic and in accordance to the laws of the road; at least as I was taught when I rode bicycles. Nothing refers to any bicyclist acting as a pedestrian. The law used to state that when using a bicycle you must walk it through a crosswalk and not ride it. Has this law changed?

Was the light green for the pickup? Did the crosswalk have a red pedestrian stop light lit? I cannot count how many times I have seen a bicycle use a cross walk when the light is red for pedestrians.

This story seems very slanted and loose with all the facts. Having had a relative killed while on their bicycle makes me very cognizant of bicyclists. My brother was killed when a car cut him off and he hit the car doing 50 in a 25 mph zone. (The car was doing 25 per the law.) It seems that this is a common factor in bicycle fatalities. Skating the edge of the law and expecting to get away with it. Too often, the bicyclist does get away with it, and, on occasion with tragic results, they do not.

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 2:30 p.m. Inappropriate

Yes, that crucial piece of information, the color of the signal, was left out of the story. One can only speculate why. Journalism was hit by a bus a long time ago.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 3:34 a.m. Inappropriate

The law is unenforced because it is unenforceable, as long as presumption of innocence and the laws of evidence apply. It's a stupid law that never should have been passed. It was a PR sop to the bicycle lobby. The fix lies in the judicial branch (educating judges) and in the executive branch (educating prosecutors), and not in the legislative branch.

It's obvious that as time goes by, there will be open-and-shut cases in which witnesses -- or other evidence -- corroborate that drivers were at fault in an injury or death of a cyclist or pedestrian, and that in those cases this law could apply. But not all cases will be so cut and dried. Judges and prosecutors will insist on having flexibility and discretion in those cases, based on the evidence that is particular to each incident, not on any one-size-fits-all law.

Should judges and prosecutors be tougher on drivers who through their proven negligence maim or kill "vulnerable users?" Of course. Certainly. Did they need this law to be able to do that? They did not.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 10:30 a.m. Inappropriate

Shouldn't there be some acknowledgment of the vulnerable users role in the accident? In the case cited above, the cyclist didn't make sure that the road was safe to cross before entering the inside lane, where the other car was passing the one stopped for the crosswalk. It was an accident and I'm not suggesting that the cyclist was at fault, but vulnerable users also need to exhibit extra awareness of what is going on around them in order to minimize their risk of injury and death.

If we truly are interested in safer streets then ALL users need to practice safe and predictable behaviors.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 7:46 a.m. Inappropriate

A few thousand dollars is still a pittance in compensation for a life. The good part about the fine is that it is bringing more awareness to vehicle drivers about their responsibility. Everyone makes mistakes but the more awareness - both by cyclists and vehicle drivers - will reduce mistakes and accidents.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 8:58 a.m. Inappropriate

If the PD Seattle wants to help protect pedestrians (bicyclists should not be riding in crosswalks or on sidewalks), they need get the arrogant Little Lord Fauntleroy motorcycle cop who patrols Third Avenue every morning and tickets cars that are (most probably inadvertently) in the zone restricted to transit, and also stops and tickets jaywalkers who cross against a light even when no vehicles are anywhere near the intersection, and instead have them start ticketing the cars that fly through red lights and crosswalks EVERY DAY across Third in the afternoon when I'm walking to catch a bus or the Sounder. That way LLF and his ilk could still meet their quota but would actually be doing something to enhance safety.

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 10:25 a.m. Inappropriate

Stopping jaywalking enhances safety.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 11:27 a.m. Inappropriate

Bicycles are allowed on sidewalks and crosswalks. They do not have to dismount but must yield to pedestrians.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 9:27 a.m. Inappropriate

What I did not find in this story, was DATA, indicating that the increased civil penalties, with a good education campaign, will reduce the number of such accidents.

If the civil penalties, which go to the state, not the victim, won't bring them back from the dead or treat their injuries, what good is it?

If it doesn't reduce the number of car v. pedestrian or car v. bike accidents, what good is it?

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 9:27 a.m. Inappropriate

What I did not find in this story, was DATA, indicating that the increased civil penalties, with a good education campaign, will reduce the number of such accidents.

If the civil penalties, which go to the state, not the victim, won't bring them back from the dead or treat their injuries, what good is it?

If it doesn't reduce the number of car v. pedestrian or car v. bike accidents, what good is it?

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 9:59 a.m. Inappropriate

Let me see if I've got this straight. A bicyclist was struck and killed while illegally using a crosswalk designed for use by pedestrians, and the author laments that the penalty for the driver should have been higher. Is that about right?

Now, I'm sorry that the bicyclist was killed. But don't you think he bears some culpability in his own death?

I'm happy to share the road with bicyclists, but I'm getting a little tired of the arrogance that too many of them display. Yes, there are arrogant motorists, too, but it seems to me like there are a whole lot of cyclists out there who just dare you to hit them.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 10:39 a.m. Inappropriate

Where in the law does it say bikes may not use crosswalks (or sidewalks)? The reason bicyclists use those routes is the lack of safe alternatives. No bike lanes separate from cars? You'll find some of us on the sidewalk.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 10:24 a.m. Inappropriate

It was an accident. The section of road involved has already been reduced to one lane in each direction, so the mechanism of this accident has been removed.

Yes, the car should have stopped when it saw the other car stopped at the crosswalk. And, yes, the bicyclist should have checked to make sure that the road was clear and no cars were coming before crossing the street. (You don't step out until you look both ways and verify that it is safe to cross.) There was culpability for both sides here, and the dangerous design of the street has already been modified.

There was no deliberate criminal act here, and the city involved has already remedied the unsafe conditions that led to the accident.

This kind of sensationalist tripe is insulting.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 10:26 a.m. Inappropriate

I was hit by a parking enforcement biker while walking on First Avenue in Belltown. No apology or explanation. The Sergeant who showed up to assess the damage, (I declined a fire truck medical visit) told me there is no provision for assault or other traffic infractions when the bike is operating on a sidewalk.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 5:44 p.m. Inappropriate

Pedestrian here. And cyclist sometimes. And auto driver sometimes.

Tragic that a cyclist lost his life, no matter the circumstances. I agree with others that we're not given enough information here to really assess whether there was negligence on the driver's part: (1) was the "walk" sign on for users of that crosswalk? (2) When did the cyclist enter the crosswalk, at what speed, and was he visible to all drivers (not just the one that did stop)? (3) At what speed was the automobile travelling?

I have personally witnessed a near-collision in a downtown crosswalk when a cyclist travelling at "cruising" speed (that's 12-15 mph for most bikers) entered a crosswalk (yup, the light was in his favor) without slowing at all--causing a panic stop by a driver who thus avoided flattening that rider. It could easily have resulted in serious injury or even death for the rider, and in my judgment, there's no way the driver could have been held liable in either a criminal or civil proceeding; he had no fair warning of the bike's entry into the crosswalk. The rider might have been "right" in that situation, but in a common-sense manner was dead wrong, and the driver was certainly not wrong--and saved the situation by a split-second reaction.

I ride a fairly standard 15-speed road bike, usually travelling between north of the Ship Canal to UW or downtown and back, and do sometimes use the sidewalk when (as happens occasionally) sticking to the street is less safe. I remind myself to slow my speed, and always to give pedestrians the right-of-way (and be aware that bolting into crosswalks too fast is just plain bad for my health). When I was a kid, riding a bike on the sidewalk was illegal, and you'd get a lecture from a cop if they saw you doing it, and I still feel like a bit of an interloper.

As a pedestrian, I rate my fellow Seattle cyclists fairly low on their sidewalk manners. They zoom up onto sidewalks through curb cuts, don't alter their speed a bit, and in general are oblivious to the safety hazard they create.

This is especially noticeable on the Fremont Bridge, where neither cautionary signage (SLOW) is present, nor do some riders compensate with the use of common sense. The sidewalks on the bridge deck are narrow, and many riders (the 'macho commuter' in particular) ride at 15-17 mph, so they don't lose momentum in their attempt to set a personal best in getting home. When one of these guys pumps by me, I definitely feel vulnerable and unsafe, and I wish that the city and the Cascade Bicycle Club would work harder to educate riders about the very real dangers of speed. There is legal liability here, too, for cyclists--if they actually stop after clipping a pedestrian--and it would be very interesting to get some data on pedestrians who have been hit by cyclists on sidewalks or narrow bridge walkways.


Posted Wed, Jun 25, 7:06 p.m. Inappropriate

Who needs information? In "progressive" Seattle, any time a bicyclist is injured or killed, it's an occasion for weeping, wailing, knashing of teeth, and the flinging of hate at ... well, everyone else.

Take the case of the barista who was zipping along a sidewalk on Eastlake, texting while riding without a helmet, before he tumbled down a flight of stairs, cracked his skull, and died. Whose fault? The city's, of course, for not having a sign in front of the steps that the reckless rider wouldn't have seen anyway.

There was the young fella who bombed down Capitol Hill toward downtown one morning, ran a red light, smacked into a panel truck, and died. No comments from Cascade Bicycle Club about obeying traffic signals or riding at a prudent speed.

There are the bicyclists on the Burke-Gilman Trail who get to Ballard and try to cross railroad tracks at an oblique angle, violating basic bicycle safety rules once taught to every 10 year old. The break bones and sometimes worse. What do they do? Demand that the businesses in the area be thrown out.

It goes on and on. The selfishness and recklessness of Seattle's bikesters, and the outrageous pandering done by this city's "progressive" politicians, is out of control. It's the biggest reason for the demise of "Mayor McSchwinn," and played a role in the redistricting of the city council.

Seattle's bicyclists are increasingly resented throughout this city, and for damn good reason.


Posted Thu, Jun 26, 11:30 a.m. Inappropriate

"The selfishness and recklessness of Seattle's bikesters, ...played a role in the redistricting of the city council."

Ya think? I don't. I'm one of the two primary co-authors of Charter 19 and campaigned for it endlessly, including putting up yard signs all over NW Seattle... by bike! In fact, some of the most adamant opponents of council district elections were many of the transit and bike advocates at Seattle Transit Blog.

Aside from being rude and offensive, you don't know your a$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to political dynamics around here.


Posted Thu, Jun 26, 4:25 p.m. Inappropriate

Ah yes, another hateful "progressive" showing its true, nasty colors. Do you know just how revealing you are?


Posted Sat, Jun 28, 1:29 p.m. Inappropriate

"Do you know just how revealing you are?" Yes, SnotMan, I do.


Posted Fri, Jun 27, 2:31 p.m. Inappropriate

"information?"... or making sh*t up? Where is the reference to texting while riding on that accident? Nowhere.. the guy didn't have a helmet, or lights, and the city put a bike lane leading up to a set of stairs. That's why the lawsuit prevailed, it was a hazard. No more than putting a road leading to stairs and wondering why cars crash.


Posted Fri, Jun 27, 9:41 p.m. Inappropriate

His sister posted the part about him texting. But it's inconvenient to a "progressive" bike rider whose entire purpose in life is to find ways to be a parasite on the body politic. Please: Do us all a favor and run a stop sign. Of course, your parasite survivors will file a lawsuit because there wasn't a warning sign in front of the stop sign.


Posted Tue, Jul 1, 3:41 p.m. Inappropriate

How would his sister or anyone else know exactly when he was texting and when he died? He was found hours after he crashed. How would they know that he didn't stop, text, then ride on? If he was texting at the time of the crash there would be pieces of phone all over the crash site. More imaginative cr*p.


Posted Wed, Jul 2, 1:05 p.m. Inappropriate

Because there was a time stamp on the text message, and there was a time stamp on the phone call to 911. Your barista hero was texting while he was bicycling. It happens a lot. You want to excuse it, deny it, and lie about it -- like all bicyclists and "progressives."

Your kind specializes in blaming everyone else for your failures.



Posted Thu, Jul 3, 11:29 a.m. Inappropriate

That link doesn't have any of your alegeded information.

1) The cyclist didn't call 911, someone else did, and no one witnessed the accident therefore if there was in fact a text message sent, they weren't sent at or near the same time.

2) The city paid the claim, there is no way the city would have paid that if the cyclist was at fault. Instead the city agreed that stairs, in the middle of a bike path are a hazzard.


Besides your basic rant is not about accidents, it's about taxes, which you willingly pay more than is necessary because you refuse to take advantage of the tax breaks available to you....

Sorry no sympathy here.


Posted Sat, Jul 5, 11:30 a.m. Inappropriate

Seattle paid the claim, so that means the texting barista wasn't at fault? How soon we forget that the mayor was that fat weasel, Mayor McSchwinn. Of course they were going to pay it. If we're lucky, Gary, maybe you'll be texting, riding too fast, not looking where you're going, and not wearing a helmet.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 10:34 a.m. Inappropriate

Yet again,"texting barista" allegations without fact. Good thing for you, that you can't slander the dead.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 11:46 a.m. Inappropriate

Sorry, but there was a time stamp on the barista's final text, and a time stamp on the 911 call. The fella was texting and bicycling. You don't want to admit it because good p.r. for bicyclists is all you really care about.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 12:26 p.m. Inappropriate

Yet again you make up sh*t. Of course there were timestamps on the 911 call and the text. Yet since the bicyclist didn't dial 911, and the accident wasn't discovered right way the timestamps are either 1) different, 2) based on two clocks which are not synchronized with the Atomic Clock in Colorado. Or you are again making sh*t up, because if you can blame the rider, then the fact that the city put a bicycling trail in place which had a stairway in the middle of it can be ignored.

Got a link to your evidence?... thought not.


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 1:33 a.m. Inappropriate

Gary, face it, in your eyes no bicyclist can ever do wrong, even when he's texting and riding way too fast on a clear summer afternoon, and tumbles down a flight of stairs. With Seattle's "progressive" bicyclists, it is ALWAYS someone else's fault, and there is ALWAYS another lie to tell. And then your kind wonders why we chuckle and cite Darwin.


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 11:11 a.m. Inappropriate

Must have hit the Jack Daniels a bit early today. "even when he's texting and riding way too fast on a clear summer afternoon, and tumbles down a flight of stairs." Except that the accident occured at night.. Making Sh*t up again to support your argument so much easier than thinking.

Oh, and you must really like paying taxes if your pastime is drinking and smoking two of the mostly highly taxed items in the state.


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 4:53 p.m. Inappropriate

This is proof that the drinkers of Jack Daniels have clearer heads and a firmer grip on reality than dope-smoking Seattle "progressive" bicyclists. Brian Fairbrother, the texting barista in question, rode down those stairs at 6 p.m. on August 30, 2011. Sunset on Aug. 30 is 7:54 p.m. It was a clear day, and the sun was at his back.

Speaking of "making s*** up," got any more "progressive" bicyclist lies you'd like to tell, once you've put down the joint and thought real hard about your next one? This time, try a lie that can't be so readily checked out and knocked down. You know, like the Mormon golden plates or something?


By the way, I wonder if they did a toxicology screen on him. I think that this should be a requirement for every accident that results in a hospitalization or death. All drivers and riders should be tested in those situations, including single-vehicle incidents like Fairbrother's.


Posted Fri, Jul 11, 9:38 a.m. Inappropriate

More making sh*t up. You read the families site where they clearly state:

"Brian was cycling on Fairview E (5:30 pm on Tues.) and hit a tricky bit of dirt path near a stairwell. He may have headed down the path to the stairs thinking it part of the BG trail. Medics found him on the stairs and performed CPR as he wasn't
breathing or had a pulse. Apparently, 20 min elapsed between his last sent text
and being admitted to Harborview."

Since you can walk to Harborview from that point in 20 minutes, we know that it was at least 10 minutes difference between arriving at Harborview and being found. So we have a 10 minute gap where a 50 year old man, not some kid, wrote a text, (it would be about right if he wrote it just leaving his coffee stand on Capital Hill, as it takes about 10 minutes to ride from there to the accident site. (Something you wouldn't know because you don't ride a bicycle)

And here I agree with you. "By the way, I wonder if they did a toxicology screen on him. I think that this should be a requirement for every accident that results in a hospitalization or death. " First because he was unconcious they should do it 1) to avoid over medication in case he is under the influence, 2) to gather statistics on the abuse of toxins.

So pour yourself another shot, and toast a "victory" to a win. I was "wrong" about the time of death. What I remembered was the photo of the stairs in the dark as they are in the shadow of the vegetation. Oh well...

You are wrong about texting being a factor in that accident.


Posted Fri, Jul 11, 10:12 a.m. Inappropriate

Also it appears that JD clouds the thinking as it was clearly explained to you that Texting and bicycling were not part of this accident.


"You don't have any evidence that he was texting while riding (BTW, one rides a bike, one doesn't drive a bike). Consider the actual times involved. These are from the fire department's Web site, at http://www2.seattle.gov/fire/mr/incidentDetail.asp?ID=110080

Engine 22 was dispatched at 17:52 and arrived on scene at 17:57. Medic 1 was dispatched at 17:53 and arrived on scene at 17:58. Engine 25 was dispatched at 15:54 and arrived on scene at 17:58. Medic 44 was dispatched at 18:03 and arrived on scene at 18:05. The earliest any of these apparatus was back in service was 18:31 (E22).

So, 34 minutes elapsed since the first apparatus arrived and one was back in service. Already, that accounts for more time than the 20 minutes that apparently elapsed between his last text and being admitted to Harborview. In fact, the first medic unit to report back in service was M44, at 18:41. That is likely the unit that took Mr. Fairbrother to Harborview (both M1 and M44 are stationed at Harborview, FWIW).

It's tempting to play armchair detective. It's tempting to go to the scene and play detective.

But you simply don't know enough to come to the conclusions that you're coming to."


Posted Sat, Jul 12, 12:18 a.m. Inappropriate

Poor, poor Gary P, the stupid, lying "progressive" Seattle stoner bicyclist, too dumb to know that he's been caught in a lie.

Your barista hero wasn't walking anywhere. He was lying in a pool of blood, waiting for an ambulance to take him to Harborview during rush hour. The 20-minute gap between his final text and his admission to Harborview is conclusive evidence that your hero was texting and bicycling.

And there was no "dirt path." The stairway in question was connected to a paved sidewalk. Would you like me to search for a photograph and post it, you laughable fool? The unfortunate, inattentive, reckless, texting Brian Fairbrother was too involved in his text to see the stairs. Hey, it happens. The only real problem was when every other stoner "progressive" Seattle bicyclist decided is was someone else's fault, which is what you people ALWAYS do.

And isn't it fun how you decided that you wouldn't deal with your other lie about it happening at night? See, you and your kind will lie at will. And when you're caught, you'll just pull out another lie and toss it out to see if it sticks.

Please, Gary, do us all a favor and run a stop sign in heavy traffic. I beg ya.


Posted Thu, Jun 26, 11:29 a.m. Inappropriate



Posted Thu, Jun 26, 12:33 p.m. Inappropriate

OK, I'm embarrassed to admit it, but on occasion I scroll through the comments below these articles. Some people are uninformed, some are comedians, some are trolls, but in this case one is so vile and so toxic that I feel compelled to respond. In this case I'd like to call out the sociopath that goes by NotFan, who for this purpose I'll refer to as NotMan.

First off, bikers are not asking for special legal protection. This bill also applies to most anyone else that is not encased in a two-ton steel cage. This includes people who are walking, biking, in wheelchairs, on motorized scooters, or a Mom pushing a kid in a stroller. I imagine you hate all the people in these categories as well, but the point is that it's not just cyclists.

Second, the idea that cyclists are 'parasites' is absolutely laughable. The cost of most things in life is driven by ones rate of consumption. You want twice as much land, pay up. You want twice as much food at the store, pay up. I'm hoping you can follow this concept? The money that is spent to maintain roads and bridges comes from wear and tear, caused by cars & trucks. Bikes to zero damage to infrastructure so the money spent on them is not for nor because of bikes. I'll bet you drive a full size pickup truck or SUV which absolutely tears up the road...and should therefore pay more for them.

Lastly, we are living through the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. Our hard currencies flowing out of the US and into major oil producing nations, many of which are corrupt, terrorist backed states that anyone who uses gasoline is funding. In which case, why is it bad for people to walk or ride a bike to reduce their annual fuel consumption? It seems like common sense to me not to fund your enemy.

There, I said it. Now you can bust out your fire hose of hatred and hose us all down.

Have a nice life...and try not to hate everyone, scientific research has proven that it will shorten your life span.


Posted Thu, Jun 26, 4:27 p.m. Inappropriate

Yes, you're right, hatefulness shortens life. This is why "progressives" in Seattle need to make special efforts to reduce the hatred they spew at everyone who disagrees with them.


Posted Sat, Jun 28, 2:01 p.m. Inappropriate

"the hatred they spew" -- coming from you that's worthy of a gusty lol


Posted Thu, Jun 26, 1:44 p.m. Inappropriate

You are making the false assumption, that our CrossCut Village Idiot, Not-Fan-of-Logic, has the capability to latch onto this dialog. A very bitter person for some reason. Haters gotta hate I suppose.


Posted Thu, Jun 26, 4:26 p.m. Inappropriate

Actually, the most hateful people in Seattle are the "progressives."


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 10:36 a.m. Inappropriate

"most hateful people in Seattle" ... yet again making things up. Or do you have a scientfic study to back this claim up? Or do you feel persecuted about to your own beliefs?


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 11:54 a.m. Inappropriate

You're such a denialist. It's a well-known fact that 97% of the behavioral scientists believe that Seattle "progressives" are hateful. Get with the program!


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 12:29 p.m. Inappropriate

"97%"? Yet again making sh*t up.


Posted Sat, Jun 28, 6:28 a.m. Inappropriate

It's shocking but I guess not surprising to read such vitriolic hyperbole. As an occasional bicyclist I am all too aware of the hate behind the wheel that I face on every road. Unfortunately "notfan" just gives voice to the animal like fear that drivers have when a bicyclist challenges their place on the road. And that animal response needs only one young man racing through lanes to enrage those drivers- only one amongst the hundreds of other bicyclists. And that single interaction gets globalized to all bicyclists. It's irrational and animal- makes those that might feel, just a little, that "notfan" speaks for them. But righteousness is a dangerous and infectious inclination...addictive even, and blinds one to too much. It may be that only the very enlightened can step away from the anger, rule bending, rule breaking, fear mongering, righteous display of irrational, even animal fear. In that vein, I will be assuming that every driver is like "notfan" and has a bloodlust behind the wheel. I am sorry for those who find themselves unwittingly in his gunsights. I will be avoiding it as best I can.

Posted Sat, Jun 28, 10:10 p.m. Inappropriate

I don't fear you. And if "righteousness is a dangerous and infectious inclination," then take your smug, insufferable, arrogant, "progressive," freeloading hide and stand in a mirror and have a good, long look at the dangerous and infectious inclination you see there.

The life you save might be your own. You can start by not running stop signs and red lights, by observing yield signs, by correctly signaling your turns, by staying off the to the right side of the road, by crossing railroad tracks on the perpendicular, by not darting off of the Burkre-Gilman in front of traffic in the U District as if you have the right of way, by not harassing pedestrians, by being visible, and by knowing your place and riding defensively. Who knows, maybe you'll even equip your bicycle with brakes.

Or not. In the contest between you and two tons of steel, you lose, and I don't grieve. Be as appalled as you want to be. The more the better. Maybe it'll pound some sense through your screen of self-righteousness and make you -- for once in your self-entitled, ever-demanding life as a whining Seattle bicyclist who specializes in making himself into an obstruction -- actually give a damn about your own safety, which is your own responsibility.


Posted Sat, Jun 28, 4:54 p.m. Inappropriate

I did. Isn't that illegal? Not an excuse to run him down, but a bicycle is a vehicle and shouldn't be riding in the crosswalk. Unless I misunderstand the facts.


Posted Sun, Jun 29, noon Inappropriate

As previously cited by kingsley, cyclists can ride in crosswalks and sidewalks in Seattle (other jurisdictions may have differing laws).

(particularly paragraphs 100 & 120)

I think it is a great benefit for cyclists to have this privilege. It comes with responsibility, though, to treat peds with respect and give them safety and priority.


Posted Tue, Jul 1, 6:17 p.m. Inappropriate

Well, I guess Josh gets a "Swizzle Stick" award for this pot stirrer.


Posted Mon, Jul 7, 2:35 p.m. Inappropriate


I had a great bike ride into work today and, as usual, encountered courteous and thoughtful bike riders and vehicle drivers. It's a limited few on both transportation sectors that are not careful.

The primary difference is that a careless bike rider will likely only harm themselves whereas a careless driver will harm others.


Posted Mon, Jul 7, 6:13 p.m. Inappropriate

Let us raise a toast to careless bicyclists, then!


Posted Mon, Jul 7, 10:53 p.m. Inappropriate

Quite right , talley ho! remember to keep your pinky raised while you sip from your drink.

Posted Tue, Jul 8, 10:56 p.m. Inappropriate

Nope, I keep my grip tight on the neck of the Jack Daniels bottle while I watch for bicyclists being careless and solving the problem of their surplus on the streets!


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 10:37 a.m. Inappropriate

Now you add the illegal activity of violating the open container law? How careless of you.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 11:47 a.m. Inappropriate

I watch it from my porch. Not only do I drink whiskey, but I smoke cigars while watching the bicyclists be careless. It's great fun.


Posted Tue, Jul 8, 8:10 a.m. Inappropriate

Had another great ride into work this morning. As usual - no issues with drivers and riders. Generally this is the case. Beats sitting on you butt and stuck in traffic. Great weather!


Posted Tue, Jul 8, 10:58 p.m. Inappropriate

Remember: In every self righteous Seattle bicyclist's "trek," a nice deep pothole will eventually make itself known!


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 8:09 a.m. Inappropriate

Another nice day - another great ride - took a longer loop to get in some miles in the cool morning. Courteous bikers and drivers, as usual.

You should try bike riding to get some of that bile out of your system.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 10:39 a.m. Inappropriate

Especially the week of July 18th thru 25th when they close all but 1 lane of I-90 over the East Channel bridge for 7 days, 24hrs.

And it will affect not just the West bound commuters but others as well, as they detour around the lake to avoid the jam.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 11:51 a.m. Inappropriate

I cheer for whoever spread those roofing tacks in the I-90 bike lane a while back, and for whoever might do it again.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 12:30 p.m. Inappropriate

Except they weren't roofing tacks. ... again making sh*t up.


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 1:46 a.m. Inappropriate

The typical "progressive" Seattle bicyclist



Posted Thu, Jul 10, 11:24 a.m. Inappropriate

typical alcoholic pickup truck owner...



Posted Thu, Jul 10, 4:59 p.m. Inappropriate

Yeah, but alcoholic pickup truck drivers at least pay to be on the streets. And pickups are so much cooler than bicycles. And their fat, drunken drivers at least have the good sense not to wear spandex.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 3:19 p.m. Inappropriate

It's all part of the extended performance art piece our Village Idiot. Thin on facts, long on entertainment, however.


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 7:04 p.m. Inappropriate

Car commuter here. I typically drive north on 4th Ave past Union Station and turn left onto Jackson via the 2nd Ave. extension. Two lanes turn left (with a light) onto Jackson heading west. At least 3 times a week, one or more bike commuters heading west on Jackson run the red light at Jackson and 4th, going into the lane into which I am turning. Some veer into the crosswalk to their right and then immediately veer out of that lane into the traffic, generally without any hand signals or any attempt to avoid cars.

This infuriates me as it is simply arrogant. Red lights don't apply to me; cars need to look out for me; I can instantly go from the street to a crosswalk and back. I even hesitate to honk for fear that they will react and somehow hurt themselves.

These are (some of) the "vulnerable" folks of whom the article speaks. I see them every week. What do bikers suggest I do about this? Or do you think it's fine?


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 11:19 a.m. Inappropriate

Drew, totally agree, that intersection sucks for bicycles and cars. As a bicyclist coming West on Jackson, you have to dodge the buses stopped to pick up passengers in the right lane, get around cars, which won't turn right on red even with a clear path, then get in the far left lane (crossing 3 lanes of traffic) then go from a lane which wants to turn onto 3rd into the bike lane on the left side (West) side of 4th.

I find that erractic behaviour is safer as it draws attention. Not unsafe, just not meek bicycle rider behaviour. And it sucks that I have to do that, but otherwise cars just don't seem to "see" me even with lights flashing and a construction worker highway vest on. (and I get merged onto 3rd whether I want to go there or not.) Once we all hit that underpass things seem to straighten out with the slight incrouchment of trucks as they bear to the left into the bike lane. It's only 3 ft wide, so there isn't much leeway for all of us.

It's a typical SDOT clusterf*k


Posted Wed, Jul 9, 8:51 p.m. Inappropriate

I bike commute year-round, and you are correct - it's illegal and unsafe behavior. I honk at bikers (and car drivers) who are driving recklessly. Using the crosswalk in this manner, IMO, confuses vehicle drivers- is a bicycle to be treated as a pedestrian and a vehicle?

You could send a note to SPD traffic enforcement - but let's be honest, it will go into a black hole. My advice would be the same for this incident as for the odd behavior I see every day in car drivers -, no signals, rolling stops, not yielding - avoid the wackos as best you can and hope you are not around when the inevitable crash occurs. Kinda the same for trolls.


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 1:35 a.m. Inappropriate

Treker, please do as the other reckless bicyclists do, and ignore stop signs, red lights, yield signs and common sense.


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 6:55 a.m. Inappropriate

Another in a string of great mornings of biking to work - took another long loop to take advantage of the morning cool. Nice way to start to day. You should give it a try, might change your disposition.


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 11:14 a.m. Inappropriate

It was another great day to ride in. Looks like next week will continue the trend. And then with the clousure of three lanes Westbound I-90 it be an even smarter choice.


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 5:20 p.m. Inappropriate

So were you the bicyclist who I saw riding between the two lanes of cars on Denny Way today? Please keep doing that, Gary. Someone will eventually change lanes on ya.


Posted Thu, Jul 10, 12:35 p.m. Inappropriate

I might have to pedal over the bridge/and around Mercer Island and back just to see what that cluster looks like!!


Posted Sat, Jul 12, 1:19 p.m. Inappropriate

12:18am on a Saturday morning, and having been caught lying about texting and bicycling two years after being caught lying about it in the comments of the SeattleTimes and you still can't stand it.

Since you hate the city why not pack up and leave?


Posted Sat, Jul 12, 1:19 p.m. Inappropriate

12:18am on a Saturday morning, and having been caught lying about texting and bicycling two years after being caught lying about it in the comments of the SeattleTimes and you still can't stand it.

Since you hate the city why not pack up and leave?


Posted Sat, Jul 12, 10:24 p.m. Inappropriate

Typical Seattle "progressive" bicyclist. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault. No wonder you and your kind are hated here a little more every year. Leave, you say? Hey, Gary, join your favorite fat weasel former mayor on his way back to Brooklyn. We don't want you here, just like we didn't want him here.


Posted Sun, Jul 13, 11:20 p.m. Inappropriate

These comments are consistent no matter the subject at hand. It's a great extended performance art piece really with little analog . In a sardonic manner, it's comparable to the landscape artist Christo, who drapes structures, parks, and mountains in colored fabric . This brilliance, by our designated Crosscut Village Idiot, manages to similarly drape any conversation with a pale wit of gray, repeated over and over.

An ironic performance piece indeed.


Posted Mon, Jul 14, 10:30 a.m. Inappropriate

I know right? If you read the comments on the Mr. Fairbrother on the Seattletimes by a person who also goes by "NotFan" you would think that there is a compasionate curious human behind the keyboard.


The SeattleTimes "NotFan" went to the crash site and looked at it from the perspective of an investigator. He read the families comments about receiving a text, and he wondered how a 50 year old guy could miss a set a stairs in the middle of a bike path. He then wonderede if perhaps the rider had been texting and thus missed cues that there was danger ahead. And in the sprirt of preventing future accidents got curious about the timing.

Then there seems like someone else impersonates him, or his meds run out, and this person who feels like bicyclists are out to destroy his city and the comments go insane. Or else there is the duality of personalities that craves attention and tries to get it by being a mean and insulting as they can "get away with" without the moderators deleting the comments. Using "progressive" as a derogatory term as if they have no understanding of the political meaning of the word. It's kinda sad as the investigative person seems like someone you could meet at a bar and discuss the problems of a growing city and yet if the person who rants and raves shows up you'd wish you'd gone to a ball game instead.

Oh well, I'm hopeful that the "investigative" person gets curious about bicycle commuting to try it for a month and see what it looks like from the other side of the windshield. But I don't see it happening anytime soon... but stranger things have happened.


Posted Tue, Jul 15, 1:28 a.m. Inappropriate

Yep, that was me. Nothing I wrote there was one bit inconsistent with anything I've written here. You are just one more a-hole Seattle "progressive" bicyclist who thinks it's ALWAYS everyone else's fault. I was a bit more sympathetic back then, until I fully realized what hateful, irresponsible, reckless, grasping, parasitical children way, way too many of you are. Especially YOU, Gary P.

And where is the Cascade Bicycle Club, anyway? They have hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank, or at least they did the last time I checked. What are they doing with the money? Last time I looked, they were agitating to re-elect a certain fat bicyclist weasel who was rejected. Why don't they put their money to a better use and educate the bicyclists in this city not to be such insufferable pests on the streets?


Posted Wed, Jul 16, 10:27 a.m. Inappropriate

One couple more thoughts about the theory that Mr. Fairbrother was texting while bicycling.

First, it's really hard to do, "ride no handed", nevermind ride no handed and text. You see it in circus acts where folks do all sorts of crazy things on a bicycle but rarely do you see no handed riders in the city. Too many potholes, cars, pedestrians etc.

Second, it's easy to do while driving (not that you should) because cars don't require your body to be "in balance", so if you don't ride I could see how one could view all the car drivers texting and not paying attention and project that onto a bicycle rider.

I'm not a member of Cascade Bicycle club, but as I understand it they do offer classes in commuting. As for what they do with their funds, heck if I know, or care. They don't seem to agitate for better bicycling facilities and I'm not big on informal group rides.


Posted Wed, Jul 16, 10:27 a.m. Inappropriate



Posted Wed, Jul 16, 2:08 p.m. Inappropriate

So now Gary P comes up with another lie about how it's so hard to text and ride that his barista hero couldn't possibly have done it. All anyone has to do is google "bicycle texting" and look at the images to see what a "progressive" liar Gary P is. Hell, in other places, the insane bicyclists have actually opposed efforts to ban texting while bicycling.

And of COURSE you don't care what Cascade Bicycle Club does with their money. You're a reckless, selfish, hateful, parasitical bicycling Seattle "progressive" sucker who will make up any lie for his friends, and blame every misdeed by every bicyclist on EVERYONE ELSE, naturally.

Come on, Gary P, keep the easily disproven lies coming. You're soooooo easy, do you know that?


Posted Wed, Jul 16, 4:42 p.m. Inappropriate

I've seen a lot of things via google images that I don't see "in real life."..

It's not that it doesn't happen, it's just that it's difficult, and one might expect that a 50 year guy wouldn't be engaging in reckless behaviour.

The main thing about this theory of yours about Mr. Fairbrother texting is that it relies on timing that a) is hearsay, we don't have an actual timestamp for his text. Although we do know when the EMT's responded. And one can't actually write "Arg! I'm going over the stairs.." press "send" and then hit the stairs. Sure it's possible to write "My Personal Message." hit "send" go over the stairs. But the timing also allows for "write message, hit "send", ride down the hill to the accident site. 5 minutes is all that it takes to get from his business to where he fell. and without the text message timestamp it's just another theory.

As for the Cascade bike club I have no relationship to them at all. Are you concerned about AAA and its lack of funds spent on educating drivers to not text and drive?


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 1:42 a.m. Inappropriate

Gary P, please keep it up. It's so much fun so watch a typical lying Seattle "progressive" bicyclist twist himself into knots to come up with new ones. Denying the authenticity of the many images of reckless, entitled, texting bicyclists -- even for you, that was good!


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 2:21 p.m. Inappropriate

Ok, search for "loch ness monster" are those images "real?" "Common?"...

fell into that one you did.


It would appear that auto drivers have a much larger problem with texting.


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 5:25 p.m. Inappropriate

Keep it up, Seattle "progressive" bicyclist -- try to deny that the photographs of your kind riding and texting are faked. You people are really something! Tell me, is there any lie you won't tell?


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 5:25 p.m. Inappropriate



Posted Thu, Jul 17, 1:38 a.m. Inappropriate



Posted Wed, Jul 16, 9:28 a.m. Inappropriate

I think that your messages are consistent no matter the media is exactly the point.

Interesting that no matter the mayor the bike master plan is going forward - first up, the missing link to the Burke Gillman Trail. Ya-hoo - finally!


Posted Wed, Jul 16, 10:20 a.m. Inappropriate

The bike master plan is going forward because it makes sense. If the city of Seattle can move 7 to 10% of the commuter traffic via bicycles it's the lowest cost in space and money option. It's way cheaper than adding more street cars. There is no more room to expand the roads and tunneling or elevating cars/buses/monorails/Light Rails/Subways is extremely expensive.

Besides if more people walk or bicycle it should make them healthier and thus decrease the costs for businesses which employ those folks. And it should free up some space on the roads for freight.


Posted Wed, Jul 16, 1:43 p.m. Inappropriate

This sounds like, OMG, common sense!

Took my 23 mile loop early this morning to beat the heat, so will have the short leg on the way home when it's warm. Still beats sitting in a hot car.


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 1:43 a.m. Inappropriate

So the Seattle "progressive" loves to brag about bicycling 23 miles each way. What about the elderly and the disabled? Oops, the "progressives" hate them. They are useless eaters.


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 9:28 a.m. Inappropriate

Another great day for a bike commute. A little cool. And one less car.

The only thing I hate is witless comments. Come on already. Ask a friend for help maybe? If you're going to be continually wrong at least try for a bit more spunk, eh?


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 2:14 p.m. Inappropriate

Treker you are missing the subtlety of the performance art. The first act is one of defiance to change or a slender of a person making the comment. Act 2 is to claim that the response in question is the work of people of low status and lies. Act 3 which can go on for some time is to refute a completely different topic.

What you are seeing here is the encore performance where other groups/topics are brought which bear no relationship to anyone or any comment and attempt to tie the slander of act 1 to the author.

It's kind of formulaic but with twists that keep the readers coming back for more. The key phrasing is the over use of the word "Progressive" without actually using it's correct dictionary meaning and to see what sort of verbal abuse can be written without having the moderators delete the post.

And yes it is a good day to bicycle.


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 3:08 p.m. Inappropriate

I think Mr. NF definitely qualifies here:

Performance Art is live.

• Performance Art has no rules or guidelines. It is art because the artist says it is art. It is experimental.

• Performance Art is not for sale. It may, however, sell admission tickets and film rights.

• Performance Art may be comprised of painting or sculpture (or both), dialogue, poetry, music, dance, opera, film footage, turned on television sets, laser lights, live animals and fire. Or all of the above. There are as many variables as there are artists.

• Performance Art is a legitimate artistic movement. It has longevity (some performance artists, in fact, have rather large bodies of work) and is a degreed course of study in many post-secondary institutions.

• Dada, Futurism, the Bauhaus and the Black Mountain College all inspired and helped pave the way for Performance Art.

• Performance Art is closely related to Conceptual Art. Both Fluxus and Body Art are types of Performance Art.

• Performance Art may be entertaining, amusing, shocking or horrifying. No matter which adjective applies, it is meant to be memorable.


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 5:27 p.m. Inappropriate

Hey Lily32, you forgot the part where we send your favorite "progressive" fat weasel mayor back to Brooklyn, and where we defeat your $60 car tab increase, twice in a row.


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 9:36 a.m. Inappropriate

Sounds like mr notfan:

Someone who hates one group will end up hating everyone - and, ultimately, hating himself or herself.

Elie Wiesel


Posted Thu, Jul 17, 5:23 p.m. Inappropriate

Yeah, but if you're a nasty hypocritical Seattle "progressive," it's perfectly okay to be a hateful boil on the civic rear end, isn't it, Lily32?


Posted Fri, Jul 18, 8:12 a.m. Inappropriate

• Performance Art may be entertaining, amusing, shocking or horrifying. No matter which adjective applies, it is meant to be memorable

----LOL. Thanks L. Memorable indeed. Particularly for the lack of wit and the mundane and tedious repetition. No one can consciously be such a dolt - so the sardonic messaging is quite original and indeed, entertaining.


Posted Sun, Jul 20, 12:25 a.m. Inappropriate

Just saw the Purge Anarchy today...

Evidently, I'm assuming there's one person commenting on this post who not only would support such an insidious philosophy, but better yet, could actually be a great argument as to why we should enact it: rid the world of slugs like him/her.... Hahaha!!!!

Seriously. The extremism of some...??? Coo coo cachoo!!!

Posted Sun, Jul 20, 1:26 p.m. Inappropriate

Is that the movie about the secret "progressive" wish to start shooting randomly?


Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »