FLCC> FW: crushing of local cyclist

[John Dennis]

Stan, 

Good point, Stan,  the Jeep Cherokee is--according to curb weights--only 22% heavier (about 800 lbs) than a Toyota Camry.  

I don't mean to suggest that it is up in the SUV stratosphere with the Lincoln Navigator. But, perhaps that extra 800 pounds was just enough to push that FedEx truck over causing a cyclist to lose his life. 

I don't mean to come across as some sort of red-eyed SUV basher.  Like you, I've logged many miles at the wheel of an SUV, but I do object to SUVs being used as urban/suburban commuter vehicles. 

Log enough miles and the story is replete with enough good and bad to make any argument.  My naturalist father's car of choice in late 50s/the 60s and the first car I learned to drive on the family farm was a Willys Jeep.  The most dramatic crash I've had was while driving a Ford Bronco at high speed when I was an undergraduate. It so impressed on me the inherent instability of short wheel-base, high-center-of-gravity cars that I've never personally owned that body type again.  

But I swear by SUVs for certain work. On field trips in war-torn Cambodia in the early 80's, Land Rovers and Toyota Land Cruisers were the only vehicles that could traverse grueling rural terrains that included detours into Khmer Rouge territory to get around blown-up bridges. Ditto for the Sudan-Ethiopian border and SE Madagascar. 

But there can be inherent risks to owning shiny, must-have vehicles. In Phnom Penh in 1993, I had two brand new Toyota Land Cruisers stolen from my project in a two week period, the second at gun point. My staff and I would have been safer if I had just bought some beater pickups. 

How's this for an analogy: in the urban/suburban context, the extra bulk and weight of an SUV is like a lawyer or dentist wearing camouflage clothing to the office.  Camouflage may be completely appropriate while out deer hunting, but in the urban setting the message it broadcasts is, "I am a killer of animals; I know all about guns and possess several of them; I'm dangerous." 

Maybe I'm prejudiced but for me an SUV used as the family commuter car carries that same sort of in-your-face message, "Don't mess with me; I'm heavier, higher up, and therefore more dangerous than you." Weber probably would have labeled them "conspicuous consumption." 

One off-list suggestion is simple and more enforceable than a weight ban: tax passenger vehicles on a sliding scale with tax increasing with vehicle weight and decreasing as fuel efficiency increases.  

How's this for a cyclists' letter to the editor of the IJ: express sympathy for the plight of the dead cyclist and encourage the City and Town to seek ways to discourage the use of heavy passenger vehicles? 

Best,   John






 -----Original Message-----
From: flcc-bounces at icycle.org [mailto:flcc-bounces at icycle.org] On Behalf Of Stan Mcfall
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:05 PM
To: flcc at icycle.org
Subject: Re: FLCC> FW: crushing of local cyclist

maybe its just me, but i dont consider jeep a big SUV....at least not by 
the tahoe, suburban type standards.  i have owned a jeep and i have owned 
the older blazers and an 90's landcruiser and a durango , the jeep was the 
smallest of them.

stan





At 11:37 AM 10/23/2007 -0400, aspec335 at aol.com wrote:
>John, FLCC,
>
>It's probably just coincidence but the two times I was hit in the city 
>were by large Jeep SUVs. On the first occasion, the guy went right through 
>a red light and hit my car in the back, spinning me completely around 
>(claimed he didn't see the red, or any, light). On the second occasion, I 
>was hit while riding my bike to work by someone who turned into me trying 
>to get into a driveway (claimed he didn't see me).
>
>Yesterday, I saw an accident on Meadow street by the Ithaca bakery and, 
>you guessed it, a large Jeep SUV was involved.
>
>Ride safe,
>Alex
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Dennis <jvd at baka.com>
>To: flcc at icycle.org; 'Mike Simkin' <mes13 at cornell.edu>
>Sent: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 8:29 pm
>Subject: FLCC> FW: crushing of local cyclist
>
>Hi Mike and the FLCC listserv,
>
>Yes, I was in error in my earlier post to have implied that the driver of 
>the Jeep was at fault, as there was little or nothing first IJ article to 
>warrant such an implication. From the IJ today we learn that witnesses saw 
>the FedeX truck driven into the path of a Jeep Grand Cherokee which had 
>right-of-way.
>
>My point about momentum is that many SUVs are unnecessarily heavy and thus 
>are more prone to cause harm to others when involved in accidents.  Why 
>not complain about this?
>
>According to Wikipedia, “vehicles over 6,000 pounds are restricted from 
>many <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City>city roadways in the United States 
>although there is some dispute about whether this restriction is for 
>actual curb weight or for GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating). GVWR is the 
>maximum allowable total <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight>weight of a 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road>road 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle>vehicle or trailer that is loaded, 
>including the weight of the vehicle itself plus 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel>fuel, 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger>passengers, 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo>cargo, and 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer>trailer tongue weight.” In the 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>United States, two important 
>GVWR limitations are 6,000 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_%28mass%29>pounds (2,721 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram>kg) and 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg).
>
>Andy Bowers suggests in a <http://slate.com/id/2104755/>2004 article that 
>California has banned big SUVs from many of its roads without realizing 
>it. He claims that many big SUVs are banned from most roads in LA, San 
>Francisco and Santa Monica by pre-SUV laws that banned trucks weighing 
>more than 6000 pounds. Below I have made a table showing the GRWR and curb 
>weights for various 2007 model SUVs and a few 2007 sedans. Note that the 
>Jeep Grand Cherokee—the sedan involveed in Friday’s accident--is just 
>under the 6000 pound GRWR threshold.
>
>
><http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS>NYS’s 
>limits on vehicle weights appear to be very liberal.  The weight on a 
>single wheel “shall be not  more
>   than eleven thousand two hundred pounds.” That’s the equivalent of 
> an entire H1 Hummer resting on a single wheel.
>
>
>
>Vehicle weights in pounds for 2007 vehicles unless indicated
>
>
>
>factor
>
>
>
>
>GRWR is
>
>
>GRWR
>curb weight
> >6000 lbs
>
>Hummer H1 (2006)
>10,300
>7847
>1.72
>
>Hummer H2
>8600
>6400
>1.43
>
>Lincoln Navigator
>7800
>6008
>1.30
>
>Chevy Tahoe 2008
>7300
>5524
>1.22
>
>Chevy Suburban
>7200
>5505
>1.20
>
>GMC Yukon
>7100
>5635
>1.18
>
>Toyota Land Cruiser
>6925
>5425
>1.15
>
>Toyota Sequoia
>6600
>5140
>1.10
>
>VW Touareg
>6493
>5254
>1.08
>
>Jeep Grand Cherokee
>5900
>4488
>0.98
>
>Hummer H3
>5850
>4700
>0.98
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Toyota Rav4
>4535
>3444
>0.76
>
>Toyota Camry
>
>3680
>
>
>Toyota Corolla
>
>2550
>
>
>Toyota Prius
>
>2890
>
>
>VW Passat
>
>3344
>
>
>VW Beetle
>
>2948
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Does the Town or City of Ithaca have any weight limits?  Engineer Tom West 
>of the City of Ithaca told me today he didn’t know of any, but he will 
>check. I have found a limitation of truck weights to 5 tons in parts of 
><http://fhia.org/events/truckcount.htm>Forest Home.
>
>Would it be out-of-line for cyclists as a group to ask that the Town of 
>Ithaca and the City of Ithaca to impose limits on the size of SUVs allowed 
>on Ithaca streets?  I think not.  For one thing, it would be a show of 
>solidarity with the cyclist, Edward Coil, who was crushed by the Fedex 
>truck as a result of Friday’s accident. Second, are streets would be 
>safer for everyone, no just cyclists.  Third, our pavements would last 
>longer and there would be less pressure to raise taxes. And fourth, our 
>City and Town would be on record as taking a stand to say, Enough is 
>enough from a sustainable livelihoods perspective.  In this age of global 
>warming that may yet have catastrophic impacts on many millions of people, 
>there is no need to drive to work or to the store or anywhere in a vehicle 
>that weighs over 6000 pounds. Could a ban be imposed on a given street, 
>when a (12,000 lb?) snow plow was allowed to operate on that street. I 
>have no idea!  The latter is an emergency vehicle and the objective of 
>minimizing weight stresses to pavement and the number of heavy vehicles on 
>our streets would still be served.
>
>Friday’s accident is at least the second fatal SUV-related accident in 
>Ithaca in the past year, is it not?  In an earlier accident on Seneca St., 
>a female pedestrian was fatally run over by an SUV as she crossed the 
>street. The driver of the SUV continued on without stopping.  Police later 
>found him shopping at Home Depot and he apparently denied knowing that he 
>had run over anything.  According to the IJ on-line comment section, the 
>driver received only a traffic citation.
>
>One wonders if members of the community spoke up and asked the police and 
>District Attorney’s Office how much investigation went into the 
>driver’s claim to have been completely unaware of having hit anything? 
>Was this driver asked to submit to a polygraph or related test?  Did the 
>District Attorney’s office order simulation tests to be performed to 
>test whether it would be physically possible for an SUV of the model in 
>question to hit a manikin of the victim’s weight, size, and density 
>without the impact shock being clearly noticeable to a driver?
>
>If California’s major cities already have 6000 pound weight limits for 
>most of their roads, why shouldn’t Ithaca pass similar laws?  In our 
>case, however, I would be in favor of there being a clear intent to 
>enforce these laws for both SUVs and commercial trucks (with exceptions 
>for fire trucks, snow plows, garbage trucks and similar service vehicles).
>
>Best,   John
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 
>10/22/2007 10:35 AM
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 
>10/22/2007 10:35 AM
>
>_______________________________________________
>FLCC mailing list
><mailto:FLCC at icycle.org>FLCC at icycle.org
>http://icycle.org/mailman/listinfo/flcc_icycle.org
>
>
>----------
>Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free 
><http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>AOL 
>Mail!
>_______________________________________________
>FLCC mailing list
>FLCC at icycle.org
>http://icycle.org/mailman/listinfo/flcc_icycle.org


_______________________________________________
FLCC mailing list
FLCC at icycle.org
http://icycle.org/mailman/listinfo/flcc_icycle.org

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 7:57 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 7:57 PM