RIP, Randy Van Zee

Note added 4-11:
This piece got away from me. I'm writing this PS because not everyone who reads the post will read the comments. I got upset thinking about another good cyclist gone, and I let the upset push me around. I did not intend to make poor Randy Van Zee seem responsible for what happened - as if he'd have had a choice in rural Iowa of the country road or a bike path. I see many bicycle advocates as unsympathetic and unhelpful - insisting that we are legally, optimally part of traffic - as traffic mows us down. Forgive me for losing it a bit in this post.

Fifty-six year old cyclist Randy Van Zee from Sheldon, Iowa, was killed last week when a 21 year old driver hit him from behind on a country road. The driver had no insurance and may not have stopped immediately "to render aid," as the law demands.

Van Zee was not just any cyclist. He was a Race Across America finisher in '04. Wasn't easy.

His neck muscles failed in New Mexico as he rode east. The rest of the ride he wore a brace to support his head. His ankles and feet swelled terribly but he pressed on in pain. He fell off his bike in Ohio and broke his pelvis but kept riding, having to be lifted on and off his bike by his crew.

It's safe to say that Randy Van Zee was a fine bike rider, a seasoned cyclist. He was not a risk-taker. He was a grandfather and an example to his crew and the RAAM community.

Randy Van Zee was taken from his family and friends because he shared the road with motor traffic, entrusting his physical health to careless strangers.

In small-town Iowa he had no option, no other place to ride. Most of us live closer to cities where we do have options: We can ride on the streets or we can ride off-street bike trails. Had Van Zee been lucky enough to have been riding an off-street bike trail he'd be hugging a grandkid today.

So-called cycling advocates insist that bikes are traffic; cyclists should take their place on the road - a road those cyclists share with untrustworthy Americans like the young lady who took Randy Van Zee's life.

Those advocates are taking a lot on themselves. I hope they're sure they're right.

They don't just encourage cyclists to ride with traffic. They discourage highway planners from building alternative bikeways. I see their hands stained with Randy Van Zee's blood.

I've tried for years to understand their position. Since Tamar and I moved to Denver, we are able to ride off-street trails that take us all over the metro area. We are seldom exposed to Mr. and Mrs. Murderous America in their cars. We like it better and they like it better.

What's the downside? What is it about bike trails that upsets advocates so?

Granted we could have a mishap on a bike trail. We could break a collarbone or scrape a knee or elbow or both. Unlike poor Randy Van Zee, we would not give up our lives.

We wonder and we suggest that you wonder about cycling advocates who think that bike paths are roads to hell paved with good intentions. We wonder if those cycling advocates ride their bikes. What is there about a bike path or bike trail that a rider can hate?

Some so-called advocates tell planners just what planners want to hear: Don't spend any money. Don't paint lines to create bike lanes. Don't convert that old railroad right of way into a bike path. Don't create roadside paths for bikes and pedestrians.

Cyclists should take their rightful place on the road.

That's where Randy Van Zee was: in his rightful place on the road. The funeral is today in Sheldon.

PS. As Kansas Cyclist points out in his comment, this is not the most logical post I've put up on my blog site. I thought about Randy Van Zee's death and then about how many riders we've lost to drivers who were distracted or drunk or who merely tried to scare a cyclist and misjudged. That led me to thinking about our expert advocates who want us out there with traffic - because that's where we belong. Hey, it's for our own good. Those damn bike paths are dangerous...