And, in Oregon, he didn't have to actually kill anyone to get a 3-year sentence.

Bicycling is so innocuous to landscape. You never need to displace families for its infrastructure, unlike motoring, which runs down whomever gets in its way.

One way streets with bike lanes on right, parking on left and travel lane in the middle would work if done judiciously, which leave most planners out, because all they know how to do is spend billions of dollars badly instead of providing bike lanes on all roads (except highways) wider than 23 feet, as mandated by federal and state law.

Cyclists don't care, though. As long as there is SOME infrastructure to use, they will gravitate to it. You see, bicycling isn't needy and unsustainable. Yet it gets less attention than its share when it comes to planning.

Most interesting are the tired arguments of government officials as to why they can’t supply bike lanes. “We can’t knock down buildings!” Yet they do exactly that every day to throw in more motoring infrastructure than they’ll ever use just to placate automotive impatience.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't think the comparison is quite fair. Yes, buildings are often sacrificed for some street expansion, but typically it's a limited number in a relatively small area (i.e. the land seized for the I-way project). Modifying buildings to make all streets wider, so that we can have bike lanes everywhere is a different matter. It would affect FAR more buildings and I don't think it makes sense. What I do think makes sense is elimination of on street parking spaces. People want to drive to the city, fine, have them park in a monstrous parking garage somewhere (heck the Providence Place Mall one is probably severely under capacity these days) and then ride public transit around. This would provide plenty of additional capacity for bike lanes, without taking away more space.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimo…

Most interesting are the tired arguments of government officials as to why they can't supply bike lanes. "We can't knock down buildings!" Yet they do exactly that every day to throw in more motoring infrastructure than they'll ever use just to placate automotive impatience.

1) Fix infrastructure to support cycling, as required by federal and state law.

2) Revoke licenses of bad motorists, 3 strikes and you're on a bike or bus.

1 is more easily accomplished than most imagine. Wherever there are 2 lanes in one direction, make it 1 plus a wide shoulder for biking and pulling over in emergencies. The 2 narrow lanes just cause more accidents, which betrays bad urban planning, and repainting stripes is fairly cheap and easy. Volunteers are standing by to do it for free.

For 2, nobody wants to give up their privileges, neither drunken motorists or other criminals. But the others are rightly sent to prison. You are still free if you can go wherever you want, which is why God invented bicycles.

Heard on television that a bicyclist was struck in Providence yesterday, but it is not reported in ProJo.

In State of RI v. Sean Commins…
http://www.courts.ri.gov/superior/pdf/00-0516.pdf
defendent had been drinking before running down a victim in a hoodie on Main Avenue where it intersects the airport runaway and leaving the scene. However, don't know if victim survived according to the abstract linked above. What is instructional is how lawyer immediately filed a motion to dismiss. Who runs someone down intentionally? The standard of law is rather lax in such cases. Watch your back.

Bicycling deaths are something they are quick to report, whereas a 500 times as many motoring deaths each year go barely noticed, because they aren't so eager that you know about them.