Fed Ex delivery trucks are tracked so closely (by routes, registered time of drop offs, etc.) that I hope you follow through on this with the corporate office--they'll know exactly who the offending driver was. (CT Transit buses are the same, btw--always note location and time to report offending drivers.)

I agree with MR:! Call it in and get him in trouble.

If FedEx fails to discipline this dangerous employee, we should start a letter-writing campaign to corporate headquarters and tarnish the company’s public image!

A large vehicle is a deadly weapon. This employee threatened a public citizen with his vehicle. I repeat, THIS FEDEX EMPLOYEE THREATENED A PUBLIC CITIZEN WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. This should not be taken lightly.

Threatening citizens with deadly weapons is an extremely serious offense.

Perhaps this issue should be referred to the NHPD or state authorities for investigation.

FedEx Corporate contact information (and Twitter feed!): http://about.fedex.designcdt.com/more_information

Local FedEx office at 30 Whitney Ave that may be able to help pass the report up the chain: (203) 495-9741 or e-mail: usa4493@fedex.com.

I shutter to think that a driver with this much anger is allowed on the road!

You should definitely follow through with the company and keep on them until you get a resolution. What action are the police taking?

Can someone Tweet this issue with a description @ FedEx.

I have filed a complaint w/ FedEx - the very nice person I spoke with on the phone took all the appropriate information and promised this would be brought to the attention of the driver's supervisor and their manager.

I called NHPD and spoke with "Operator 602" she wouldn't tell me a name. She took the the information and then said, "ok thanks"
- "that's it?" I ask "can't you do anything about it?"
"No sir."
"Ok, thanks goodbye."
Somehow I don't think this is going to be a high priority for them - she didn't even ask for my name or the time that the incident occurred - I had to insist...
I wouldn't bet money that she actually recorded anything anywhere. If anyone from the PD or City Hall is actually reading this, you might want to consider getting operator 602 some training in actually at least pretending to care.

Thanks Derek. That sounds like a lack of training/response protocol, not necessarily a lack of care, though. The center may still be unequipped to handle complaints like these, even though the Dept had promised to review all policies and retrain last year.

Wooster Square Block Watch had similar complaints about the dispatchers, and we got great advice and a supervisor's phone number from Officer Joe Avery. See the article and phone number here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/wooster_square_2.php

All calls are recorded so they can review the call if needed. And yeah, they probably aren't equipped to take calls like this, but it's good to highlight for future trainings!

Hey guys,

Do some research. FedEx Ground guys are basically contractors. He's most likely the owner/franchisee which is why he willingly suggested that you "call his boss."

Regardless, though, FedEx Ground is definitely affiliated with the FedEx corporation and they would be ashamed to learn of his behavior. Good luck.

This road was just repaved and it should have had been re-striped with sharrows at the very least.

I have had more people beeping recently and telling me to get on the sidewalk or off the road than in the past.

Its time the City steps in and paints sharrows on all major arteries. New Haven is truly antiquated in this regard and needs to give us a plan for how they are going to encourage more safe cycling and respectful drivers.

Sharrows were promised to multiple community groups last yr - still haven't seen any get striped. Hopefully sometime this fall. Not sure why such a delay

this disgusts me. I hope the cyclist is following up.

Does Elm City Cycling have any updates from the city on plans for Sharrows?
Somehow I am not on the ECC list :-)

We’re pretty confused about this as well, actually. There seems to be some ambiguity as to whether Connecticut State Statutes actually permit bicyclists to take the lane (which is odd, because—in my experience—it is frequently unsafe NOT to take the lane). There’s also the usual unease around sharrows stemming from the fact that they do not actually have any enforceable legal function as a traffic control device (bicycles have an equal right to the road, regardless of whether a sharrow is striped; there is a fear that drivers will somehow feel that they do not need to be as careful around bikes on streets without sharrows if sharrows are employed only on certain streets).

That said, the idea of requiring some sort of bicycle accommodation on all arterial roads (even if sharrows are all that can be afforded) is an intriguing idea, as it might be a way to achieve the kind of consistency desired in order to ensure that drivers will not think they have permission to be reckless on arterial roads without bike accommodations. You should suggest it to the Complete Streets Committee (Roland, Erin, Tom, Mike, Dick Miller, etc.) Under most Complete Streets policies, arterial roads tend to get all (i.e. bike lanes) or nothing. On the west coast, that’s fine, because arterials usually just end up getting widened and bike lanes are added. Here in New Haven, we wouldn’t really want to widen very many (or any) of our arterials, so it’s possible that the all or nothing strategy would result in a lot of nothing here.

After having worked at TT&P, I’m willing to speculate that cutting through the endless bureaucracy standing in the way of sharrows in New Haven got pushed to Mike’s back burner by a million other things that people demanded that he take care of immediately, lest face dire consequences (a.k.a. “putting out fires”). I don’t want to suggest that sharrows need to be on fire in order for him to be able to justify spending time on it, but that might be reasonably close to the reality of the situation. I find it pretty frustrating that the department Director is the only person in any position to do the legwork to move forward on this. Maybe we could crowdsource some of the work? Would anybody out there be interested in slogging through the CT State Statutes to try to figure out whether the law as it currently stands would actually allow the City to install signs stating that bicyclists may use the full lane? And if not, what laws would need to be amended? As for the “they’re not actually a legally-enforceable traffic control device” argument, would anybody be willing to summarize why exactly that should not stand in the way of installing sharrows in New Haven?

3 of the 4 people who have tried to kill me on my bike (only partly exaggerating for comic effect) have shouted something along the lines of, "Get on the sidewalk", "Get off the road", etc. while they tried to force me off the street (often at red lights when agitated I was taking "their spot"--State St. is pretty dangerous for this). If the issue with statutes is resolved, I'd like to see some of these at critical junctures:

http://bicycledriving.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mayusefulllane.gif

MR, that sounds eerily familiar:
http://seeclickfix.com/issues/7458

I agree that sharrows, used in conjunction with “bikes may use full lane” signs, would go a long way toward reducing incidents like these.

as the n/n consultants pointed out, the answers to those questions are simply not as important as the urgent need of simply getting sharrows on the road as a pilot 2-3 year program.

therefore, please just paint the sharrows. now.

if what you say is true, it is just another example of failing to see the forest for the trees.

The FULL LANE signage would be a dream come true in New Haven, potentially helping solve the bicycle related problems on the Tomlinson St Bridge(traffic would still have a full lane to pass cyclists) and English Drive, where a full lane should be designated for pedestrians anyway. (Off topic, remember the woman who hit me on english dr? the owner of the car has blown off 2 court appearances and has been given a third instead of a warrant being issued. Just wanted to remind everyone that hitting cyclists in New Haven is A-OKAY!). An obvious problem is drivers being uninformed of cyclist rights, this sign would certainly help raise awareness.

Not sure I fully support the idea of "sharrows." I'd prefer drivers to be alert for and aware of cyclists everywhere, regardless of what's painted on the shoulder.

Just my 2 cents.

Uncle Egg,
I fully agree but how else to encourage more cyclists to be in the road so that we start to shift the mentality?

Whitney Avenue is kind of a special case. There are some stretches where there is simply no shoulder at all, and I suppose sharrows are a reasonable way to remind drivers that the road is not only for them. But I see this as a stopgap measure.

My first preference would be redesigning the road itself, with explicit accommodation for cyclists. I think you could get away with three lanes of traffic (one lane of travel on each side, plus a shared left-turn lane); then you could create a designated bike lane, along with other improvements.

But that's not going to happen any time soon. So my next preference would be to see more and better driver education about sharing the road, followed up by public awareness campaigns.

Uncle Egg,
My most recent experience with public awareness campaigns:

I'm standing in a crosswalk with a yield to pedestrian sign. A CT Transit Bus flies through the crosswalk without stopping. I look up at the rear of the bus and see plastered on the offending vehicle the new campaign that encourages sharing the road with pedestrians and cyclists.
No one listens to these campaigns! Not even the people wearing it on their sleeve.

The sharrow and the pedestrian sign (though it was not yielded to in this case) are the only way to keep the public constantly aware of the rules. At least I was able to point to the thing and make the driver aware of what he was doing.

Paper and Marketing campaigns are a waste of money when you have access to giant asphalt billboards that speak to the consumer (angry driver looking to run over cyclist) at the point of sale.

Ben: I understand where you're coming from, but I think the question you raise really has to do with the effectiveness of the campaign, rather than the concept. The message needs to be drilled in from driver training on until it becomes part of driver culture.

I don't have a problem with sharrows or other markings per se, but the original post sort of illustrates the larger problem: When drivers don't see bike lanes or explicit "share the road" markings, they assume it means bikes don't belong there at all. Lives will be at risk until all drivers understand that the road is not their exclusive playground.

I think that's right.
I think the message that "the road you are driving on right now is for that guy on the bike in front of you right now"
is much more effective than "here's a pamphlet telling you that roads in general are for bikes"

I think the message can and should come before driver training. If every teen was taught to safely ride a bicycle in the road they would have a greater respect for bicycles when they became drivers.

I agree w/ Ben. I hope the city stops wasting money on campaigns like these ...until they actually put some infrastructure in place.

How hard/expensive is it really to go plop down a stencil and spray some paint? Then again I remember hearing that the city crews place just one of those in-street crosswalk signs at a cost-to-taxpayer of something in the vicinity of $500 bucks...

Would ecc be willing to collect money for this that we could then give to the city?

I don't think money is the issue...unless it could be used to hire a bike/ped coordinator/grant writer.

What is the issue then?

From what I can tell, it boils down to skepticism at the state level as to whether sharrows would actually help the situation, or merely open them up to liability.

Oddly, municipalities have been successfully sued for providing substandard bike/ped accommodations; yet, to my knowledge, they have never been successfully sued for providing no accommodation at all. It's messed up, if you ask me.

As for the "full lane" signs, the obstacle is uncertainty as to whether state law actually allows bicyclists to use the full lane on Whitney Ave.

From Boca Raton, "The Boca Raton Bicycle Club, Florida Bicycle Association, the League of American Bicyclists and local cyclist Bruce Rosenzweig filed a lawsuit September 1 against Palm Beach County for excluding bike lanes in county road projects

The suit specifically targets the portions of Lyons Road between Glades and Clint Moore roads in Boca Raton where the county is widening the road from four to six lanes. The lawsuit is asking the county to include the bike lanes and to provide documentation explaining why bike lanes are not part of the project.

"In this day and age, a roadway ‘improvement’ project that totally ignores the safety, access and mobility needs of bicyclists is short-sighted at best", said Andy Clarke, president of the League of American Bicyclists. "At worst it demonstrates a willful lack of care and responsibility for alternative modes of travel. Hiding behind a ‘lack of space’ or ‘additional cost’ simply doesn't pass the laugh test in a project that unquestioningly adds two more travel lanes, medians and other features that will not address congestion, safety, air quality, health energy and environmental concerns in the long run. A project like this should start with sidewalks and bike lanes."

The lawsuit points to state law that says the Florida Department of Transportation must put in bike lanes on state roads unless there is a compelling reason – such as not enough room or high cost – not to include them. The plaintiffs believe cities and counties have to follow the same rules as the state.

A 2008 lawsuit filed by Palm Beach cyclist Bruce Rosenzweig, the Boca Raton Bicycle Club and the League of American Bicyclists won a landmark ruling in May 2008 establishing state design guidelines for road construction projects. The lawsuit was in response to the failure of the Florida DOT to follow the agency's own policies and manuals in the reconstruction of State Route A1A in Palm Beach County, said Rosenzweig."

Absolutely and no doubt whatsoever the City and Yale community has a Fed-ex driver on the loose, ran into it at a location on campus . The former Overnite express has converged with UPS and UPS has taken in not only their trucks but problem employees as well - As of press time the overnite is UPS freight, hopefully it will remain that way as the freight only handles skids and weight

Has anything happened with this?

How much road tax or bicycle registration are you willing to pay for your bicycle to be accommodated?

Time for troll to troll! How original of you.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/free.htm

This particular road is kept up mostly by state and fed taxes. I pay a lot of those thank you very much. Now how about some carbon taxes on that ride of yours? Might not seem like today, but Mother Nature's gonna call in that debt...

agree w/ derek that the city should deputize residents to paint sharrows everywhere. the residents could customize them , kind of like chicago did with its famous parade of cows project.

imagine custom sharrows on every street, giving a sense of place to different neighborhoods.

Bicyclist bring these problems on themselves with their "I'm above the law" and inconsiderate attitudes. They ignore the traffic rules, cutting between rows of cars waiting at lights, ignoring traffic lights & stop signs. Riding in the dark with no lights, no insurance and they pay no registration fees.

They need to remember one fact. The law of physics over rule the law of the land every time.

It's really hard to feel sorry for them.

It is, however, easy to feel sorry for you "MeAgain" Please try not to be so bitter - empathize a little - put yourself in the shoes of another person and see if you still want to threaten them with vehicular homicide. That could be some cute little kid's Mommy or Daddy - yes some people on bikes act dumb but that doesn't mean we all do. In the same way that just because some drivers or anonymous internet commenters act dumb doesn't mean they all are bitter mean little people with an inferiority complex.

P.S. this is the last comment I will make on this thread and I am removing the email reminders so it is dead to me now.

This driver was or wasn't disciplined or educated by his peers/supervisor and he will either continue to be ignorant about the rules of the road or he won't. For the record, FedEx never followed up on the phone or by email as their service personnel promised... UPS?

Today's NYTimes had a great article on companies deliberately misclassifying workers as independent contractors to get out of paying taxes:

"Among the most often misclassified workers are truck drivers, construction workers, home health aides and high-tech engineers.

Portraying regular workers as contractors allows companies to circumvent minimum wage, overtime and antidiscrimination laws. Workers classified as contractors do not receive unemployment insurance if laid off or workers’ compensation if injured, and they rarely receive the health insurance or other fringe benefits regular employees do."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/business/18workers.html?em

No one is better at cyclists... there is a hypocritical issue here that MeAgain was raising that is continuously ignored by the cycling community. MeAgain was not "threatening him with vehicular homicide", she was simply raising a point. A point that Derek feels is an assault on all cyclists. Talk about ignorant.
Cyclists need to do a better job of following traffic laws. A parallel: pedestrians at crosswalks. At a crosswalk, it is the job of the driver to yield to the pedestrian but only if they can do so safely- and allow the pedestrian to cross the street. Many high and mighty pedestrians confuse the law with a sense of entitlement; they believe that they can simply walk into a crosswalk and traffic will stop for them. I assume you all see the difference here, as well as the parallels with the cycling community. I can’t tell you how many times a pedestrian basically ran to the crosswalk and started walking across the street while a motor vehicle was traveling at 25 mph, already in the intersection, only to have the pedestrian angrily react due to entitlement issues.
The issue with cyclists not following traffic laws is a valid one. Instead of attacking drivers, why not use some energy to educate cyclists? I have not seen any posts regarding safe cycling, nor have I seen any brochures issued to cyclists informing them of the rules of the road. This also raises another interesting question of whether or not cyclists in fact know the rules of the road considering they may not have a driver’s license. I believe that a cyclist education program might help both sides. For some cyclists, red lights and stop signs are optional and if the road is too crowded they go on the sidewalk which is even worse.
Educate, don’t retaliate!

Guy,

Don't be ridiculous. As a hypothetical, if a car breaks a traffic law what do you think the chances are of someone getting seriously hurt or killed versus when a cyclist or pedestrian breaks a traffic law. If you understand the concept of momentum, even at an elementary level, you know that a 1-2 ton vehicle will cause much greater damage than a 200lb vehicle. Don't be an apologist for reckless, anti-social behavior like this FedEx Ground driver displayed. What's next you're going to blame innocent shooting victims for getting in the path of a bullet?

And blaming pedestrians for daring to cross the street at a crosswalk!! WTF? I've never seen anyone jump in front of a car just because they see a crosswalk. They use crosswalks because they are the only safe places to cross a street, with the city having been taken over by speeding cars. Let's get our priorities straight here. We want people to feel safe walking and cycling here.

If you drive at a safe speed (20-25 mph) you will have no problem stopping for someone in a crosswalk. Note that the MAXIMUM allowed speed limit on almost every city street is 25MPH. This apologist behavior has got to stop. Drivers need to be more responsible. Drivers need to be educated. Drivers need to be safer. How many of them even realize that they are required by law to yield to pedestrians? Or that cyclists have the right to use the whole lane, or be given 3 feet of passing distance?

Since we're in the practice of generalizing about each other I would guess maybe only 5-10% of drivers are aware of traffic laws that pertain to cyclists and pedestrians.

Gal,
Gal,
I guess Ill address your rant one point at a time

The situation of whether or not cyclists obey traffic laws has nothing to do with your short-sighted momentum argument. Am I to understand Gal, that because a car causes more damage that cyclists don’t need to follow the rules? I am aware of the laws of momentum thank you. But I appreciate you putting everything into perspective for me. I had no idea that more damage is caused by a 1-2 ton vehicle than a 225 lb cyclist… thanks for clarifying for me.
The point that I actually made, which you so conveniently brushed past is the fact is that most cyclists that I see on my commute, (which is on public transportation mind you) do not obey traffic laws. I wonder why this is the case and have come to the conclusion that it is because 1. They feel a sense of entitlement- because they are on a bike everyone around them needs to yield to them or 2. because they are not aware of the shared responsibilities of the road.

I am not blaming pedestrians for "daring" to cross at a crosswalk. My statement simply said that there are often entitlement issues that pedestrians have. It is dangerous to start crossing the street before a car comes to a stop, what if the driver doesn't see the pedestrian? Would you be willing to lay your life on the line because you have the right of way and according to that law the car should stop for you? That is why the law states that drivers must yield to pedestrians, the law does not say that pedestrians have the right to walk out into traffic and hope the car stops.

Also Gal, FYI no where in my comment was there any mention of the FedEx Driver, or the incident. I am having a hard time understanding how that equates to me being an apologist for the driver. I also think that your comment regarding what’s next: i.e. me blaming a person for getting in the way of the bullet is a bit over the top but true to form- it has nothing to do with anything that I am arguing and you obviously are missing the point.

I understand that you are an upset and frustrated individual. Your criticisms in no way addressed my suggestions for making any travel, either by car, bike or otherwise safer for everyone. My claim was that due to a lack of understanding of the laws that are in place there is confusion that leads to the types of arguments that are all over this forum.

My recommendation was that there needs to be a way to connect the cycling community part of which should be dedicated to advising them of their responsibilities as cyclists. Again, I am not being apologetic to poor drivers, I am saying that all need more education... including cyclists. On that point I say that drivers attend driver’s education, where they learn the laws before being issued a license. Cyclists, on the other hand do not need any education in order to ride on the road, but don't you think they should be aware of the laws that pertain to them? If not, you are being ignorant.

Why? In my opinion it is because people like you (ignorant, angry) feel like you are entitled. Because a car is heavier than a bicycle and can cause more damage is no reason for cyclists to remain oblivious to the rules. In your above comment you have made no effort to consider and respond. You made claims that have no basis and your responses were childish at best.

www.elmcitycycling.org is a great site, their share the road brochure is great and it is addressed to both cyclists and motorists. Both have responsibilities. Rule #1 for cyclists: “Respect rules of the road.”

Guy,

You make it hard to respond to all your points since your speech is so long-winded and rambling. But I'll try.

Your first point was that the "cycling community" has neglected to educate fellow cyclists, but then at the end of your last comment you provide a link to elmcitycycling.org. Well, genius, ECC pretty much is the cycling community in New Haven. If they've already made a concerted effort to educate cyclists - which they have - then what other "cycling community" did you have in mind?

Next you try to tell us that cars only have to stop at crosswalks when it's safe. Oh really? Here's the actual law:

"A pedestrian generally has the right of way over all vehicles while at the curb of or in a crosswalk. This means that cars and other vehicle traffic (buses, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, etc. ) MUST slow down or stop in front of a crosswalk when a pedestrian is using or is about to use a crosswalk. Vehicles must remain stopped until the pedestrian has fully crossed the street or has reached a "zone of safety. "

I don't think that says anything about not having to yield to pedestrians because you're driving too fast and you feel it would be "unsafe" to stop. Does it, Guy?

And then this,
"I can’t tell you how many times a pedestrian basically ran to the crosswalk and started walking across the street while a motor vehicle was traveling at 25 mph, already in the intersection, only to have the pedestrian angrily react due to entitlement issues."

Again, I walk around downtown every single day and I've never seen anyone run into a crosswalk because they think it will provide a shield against oncoming traffic. If feel like you're exaggerating this point a bit. If there are such people, I'm not defending them. That would be incredibly stupid, and if they did get killed, it would be considered natural selection.

You seem to be hung up on this entitlement issue. Who are you kidding? What pedestrian or cyclist goes around with their nose in the air thinking that they're better than everyone else. More than anything, by choosing to walk or bike it humbles you. It makes you realize how vulnerable you are and how unfriendly our streets and communities are designed. It make you care about your community more than ever before because you get to experience more fully. You take notice of things you never would have from a car or bus. In general, you start to care more. I guess that's what you consider entitlement.

Finally you say this,
"FYI no where in my comment was there any mention of the FedEx Driver, or the incident. I am having a hard time understanding how that equates to me being an apologist for the driver."

It's because you posted your rant under the ticket dealing with the FedEx Driver, and you explicitly attacked the citizen who opened the ticket. Nice.

P.S. Next time your on the bus, why don't you tell the driver to slow the f' down. I can't tell you how many times I've been waiting at a crosswalk or riding my bike and have almost been killed by a CT Transit bus because they failed to either grant me the right of way or acknowledge my right to use the road.

Oh yeah, and the momentum argument is totally relevant in this case. How could you miss that?

~F=ma

A) Please bear in mind that the bike rider in question was fully obeying the law at the time of the incident.

B) Education on safely bicycling with traffic has been recognized by the New Haven cycling community as a critical issue for several years. The education committee is one of the most active committees of Elm City Cycling. If you are concerned about the education of bike riders, I strongly encourage you to get involved with these efforts. Our current efforts focus on working with New Haven Public Schools to offer the services of League of American Bicyclists-certified cycling instructors and other experienced volunteers in our group in instructing physical education classes on how to safely ride bicycles in urban areas. For more information on these efforts, please contact Melinda Tuhus at melinda[dot]tuhus[at]gmail[dot]com or Bill Kurtz at william[dot]v[dot]kurtz[at]gmail[dot]com (email symbols replaced with text to protect against spam bots). Additional education efforts in Fair Haven will be funded through the federal Safe Routes to School program (http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/02/11/news/a3-newalking.txt).

I look forward to working with you,
Brian Tang

One of the local Fed -Ex drivers is not playing with a ful deck. We had an issue with a DHL driver at Yale once and this Fed-Ex guy wins hands down.Just be safer and a bit more cautious when near