Savannah has a well-deserved national reputation for being mannerly, a distinction local convention and tourism officials have used in marketing the Hostess City of the South. But it’s important to remember that not everyone in charming old Savannah is courteous, as a glimpse at the reader-supplied content on the Savannah Morning News’ Web site will reveal.

For instance, it appears at least one person in this “wonderfully hospitable and gracious city” feels comfortable boasting about his or her willingness to murder innocent people. From the Vox Populi section of the Savannah Morning News on Dec. 2:

“Please tell all these wannabe Lance Armstrongs to get on the streets with bike paths. One of these days they are going to pull out in front of someone, mainly me, and, ‘adios.’”

Well, at least this person said, “please.” It’s interesting that threatening the lives of cyclists, at least anonymously, is socially acceptable. Socially acceptable enough not only for a person to send this to the Savannah Morning News, but also socially acceptable enough to win the approval of the paper’s editors. Imagine if someone called in these comments:

“I hate it when people cut in front of me in the supermarket checkout line. One of these days I’ll bring my gun to the store and ‘adios.’”

“People who have loud conversations on cell phones annoy me. One of these days I’ll pull out my hunting knife and ‘adios.’”

Would the Savannah Morning News publish these threats? If not, why was the threat to kill “wannabe Lance Armstrongs” treated differently? Was it the intended victims’ mode of transportation or the murder weapon (a car) that made the threat more palatable?

Still, I’m glad the Savannah Morning News chose to publish this comment. It is a reminder that there are those in our community who wish to do cyclists harm. It’s worth noting this comment was published on the same day as this NPR story. It reports the conviction of a driver in Los Angeles, who made good on his threats against some wannabe Lance Armstrongs by assaulting them with a deadly weapon: his car.

As a cyclist, the main threat to my safety comes in the form of inattentive, impatient, impaired or inexperienced drivers. The vast majority of motorists I encounter are friendly and courteous, though increasingly distracted. However, it’s a fact that there are people in this most mannerly city who have used their cars as weapons against cyclists. Others — even if they are simply making idle threats — can easily have them published in the daily newspaper.

According to the 2004 City of Savannah Neighborhood Demographic Profiles report, there are 1,236 households in my neighborhood. How many of these contain at least one adult who is physically capable of  a quick and comfortable bicycle commute to a workplace in the Historic District? Dozens? Hundreds?

What would happen if these folks — joined by residents from other neighborhoods — commuted by bike? What would this look like? How would this affect demand for parking? Traffic congestion? Air quality? Public health? Public safety? Wear and tear on streets? A significant increase in bicycle commuting could really go to work on these problems.

H.G. Wells said, “Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.” When I see adults riding their bikes to work, I feel a lot better about Savannah’s future. I hope to see plenty National Bike to Work Day.

“Accidents Will Happen” is the first song off Elvis Costello’s 1979 LP “Armed Forces.” It’s also the attitude many journalists and law enforcement officers seem to take in regard to car vs. pedestrian or car vs. cyclist crashes. I first heard an objection to the word “accident” in describing these types of incidents several years ago. An epidemiologist was giving a summary of data on local crash car vs. pedestrian crashes. She used the word “accident” repeatedly until a physician stood up and objected. “Accident,” he said, “describes an event that could not have been prevented.”

His point: Many of the crashes described may have been an unintentional, but to call them “accidental” ignores their identifiable causes and dismisses the fact they they were preventable. After all, if a motorist crashes into something or someone while speeding, driving under the influence, driving recklessly or aggressively, while sending a text message, or in the midst adjusting the picture on the monitor of a dash-mounted car theater system, is it really an accident? When drivers engage in these behaviors in  pedestrian- and cyclist-rich environments, the needle tips from predictable into the realm of the probable.

In his excellent blog, “How We Drive,” Tom Vanderbilt describes the tendency to assign “accident” to events that really aren’t as “our cultural downgrading of personal responsibility when it comes to negligent driving.” Read the full post here, which references another excellent blog. Vanderbilt tries to understand why the term accident is so freely used even in cases in which it is clearly inaccurate:

I am frankly not sure why we are so afraid to assign responsibility in car crashes. Is it that we view traffic violations in general as “folk crimes,” not quite “real” crimes? Is it the “there for the grace of God” argument, that it may someday be us behind the wheel of “a car that strikes a pedestrian”? I sometimes hear the argument made, ‘well that driver will suffer the rest of his life for what he did’; maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But that’s not provable, not quantifiable.

Vanderbilt may be on to something, if comments on Savannah Morning News coverage of pedestrian deaths and injuries are any indicator. As dependable as morning delivery of the paper (at least for now), any news item describing a car vs. pedestrian “accident” will be greeted by comments from readers sympathizing with with driver and vilifying the pedestrian—no matter who is at fault. Many fret over the cost of the car’s bodywork.

This is indicative of a kind of thinking that imagines cars as being autonomous from the people who drive them. I’m guilty of this as well. When I was struck while riding my bicycle several years ago, I described it as being “hit by a car,” not “hit by a person driving a car.” And I’ve done it again in this post. Every reference to car vs. pedestrian or car vs. cyclist above should really read “motorist vs. …”

Clearly not every “accident” is the motorist’s fault. Pedestrians and cyclists sometimes engage in behaviors that elevate their chances of being hit, especially if they are in the presence of motorists who are equally reckless. Still, to call it a draw diminishes the fact that the person outside the car is almost certain to come out the loser in the event of a crash. To my way of thinking, the person in control of a machine easily capable of causing death or injury is obligated to exercise a commensurate level of care while operating it.

Photo by Brittany Randolph via Flickr.

But there is something the local government could do to help some local businesses. Bill Dawers touched on it in his Dec. 9 “City Talk” column “Whitaker shops thrive.” He claims the “great shopping experience” available at stores in the “Downtown Design District” was likely lost on locals “who have never been in any of them.” Why? Dawers explains:

“… it’s hard to window shop when you’re driving 40 mph through the heart of an otherwise quiet neighborhood. The Downtown Design District is just one of many areas where traffic patterns have been created to save a few seconds for commuters but produce huge inconveniences for businesses, residents and pedestrians.”

I lived near the corner of Jones and Whitaker streets in the late 1990s, just a stone’s throw from the “Downtown Design District.” Then — just as it does today — Whitaker Street acted as a raceway that motorists used to make a quick escape to the Southside. Several years later I lived on the corner of Price and Gaston streets, which was even worse. The place was impossible to keep clean. Cars, buses and trucks flying down Price Street forced wave after wave of dust into the apartment.

I’m told Savannah Mayor Otis Johnson doesn’t have any interest in converting one-way streets to two-way, but perhaps a weakening economy could provide a new argument. Of course, the economic damage done by one-way streets is only one reason for doing away with them. In their paper “How One-Way Thinking is Hurting Historic Downtown Neighborhoods,” Matt Hanka John Gilderbloom of the Center for Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods at the University of Louisville offer a strong indictment of streets designed for cars, not people.

“… downtown one-way streets help kill neighborhoods and small businesses. We need to convert these one-way ghetto makers into two-way streets with parking, trees, and bike lanes to calm traffic and make neighborhoods more livable for families, young urban pioneers, and the elderly…These one-way streets also constitute a kind of ‘environmental racism,’ where speeding motorists on one-way streets increase the levels of exhaust, noise, and pollution.”

Hanka and Gilderbloom also suggest that one-way streets increase crime, decrease residential property values and generally degrade livability. What’s more, they suggest converting one-way streets to two-way will actually pay for itself as the cost “would easily be recaptured in increased taxes on homes and business growth.”

Photo by Russ Morris via Flickr.

A story from today’s Christian Science Monitor, “Whole lotta clucking going on in cities” suggests that more Americans raising chickens in their backyards. Keeping chickens is part of a larger urban homesteading movement and is popular with folks who like to “eat local” or who are concerned about factory farm conditions, according to the article.

Angelina Shell of the Seattle Tilth Association, a group that offers sustainable-living classes, suggests that more people will be keeping chickens as the recession gets worse:

“If our economy continues on the downward spiral,” says Ms. Shell, a third-generation poultry hobbyist, “you’re going to see a lot more people raising their own chickens in their backyards and starting up vegetable gardens.”

Some communities are not so keen on the idea:

“Still, chickens aren’t always popular with neighbors in city and suburban neighborhoods. Chicago Alderman Lona Lane proposed a citywide chicken ban late last year after constituents bombarded her office with complaints about noise, odor, and rodents. But chicken enthusiasts from other parts of the Windy City cried fowl, stalling a final decision. After the holidays, Ms. Lane plans on introducing a new bill to ban chickens in just the neighborhood she represents.”

What about Savannah? Is it legal to keep chickens here? Robin Wright Gunn wrote about urban chicken keeping for Connect Savannah back in August in a piece called “The Big Chicken.”

“At least three friends are the proud owners of chickens that are scratching and laying and living their chickeny lives smack in the middle of town, beneath heirloom camellias in Parkside, or strutting among tasteful lawn statues in Baldwin Park. Each urban chicken flock boasts five hens, the maximum allowed by city ordinance. Rhode Island Reds and Leghorns are among the favored breeds. I love the idea of having friends who have chickens.”

Is this correct? Are Gunn’s friends in Parkside and Baldwin Park in compliance with city ordinances? Is Baldwin Park the hotbed of chicken-keeping it is purported to be? Will the chicken people organize to promote this practice? Are neighbors’ feathers being ruffled over the chickens next door? Please share your answers in the comments section.

Photo credit: Sarah Gilbert via Flickr.

But what happens when fear of crime makes people feel uncomfortable using public spaces?

Well, it ruins everything.

People will be less likely to walk, ride bikes or participate in other beneficial activities such as community gardening. And thus a positive feedback loop is created. As more people withdraw from the public realm, conditions deteriorate for those who continue to use sidewalks, streets, parks and other public spaces. This cumulative causality extends to those who seek protection in the perceived safety of their automobiles. As one of my neighbors likes to say, the most dangerous seconds in your life may be between your car door and your front door.

When we retreat into our cars and houses, we become isolated from the public realm and the safety of the public realm suffers from our absence. The idea of “eyes on the street” as a deterrent to crime is not a new idea. In fact, Jane Jacobs coined the phrase in the early 1960s. Here are a couple quotes from “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” which remains important and instructive decades after its publication in 1961.

“The first thing to understand is that the public peace — the sidewalk and street peace — of cities is not kept primarily by the police, as necessary as police are. It is kept by an intricate, almost unconscious network of voluntary controls and standards among the people themselves, and enforced by the people themselves.”

and

“… there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a street equipped to handle strangers and to insure the safety of both residents and strangers, must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their back or blank sides on it and leave it blind.”

and

“…the sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously, both to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce the people in buildings along the street to watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers. Nobody enjoys sitting on a stoop or looking out a window at an empty street.”

What Would Jane Jacobs Do if she was worried about crime in her neighborhood?

I have to think she’d be turning her eyes toward the street and that’s what I’ve been doing. I’ve resolved to spend more time on my front porch, watching what happens on my block. Jacobs is correct in her assessment of viewing an empty street: It’s boring. The highlight of four hours spent on my front porch this Sunday was a brief conversation with a strolling family, who couldn’t remember the seventh dwarf’s name (Brainy? Nope. He was a Smurf). I’ll be ready with the correct answer next time they walk by and I hope to have more conversations in the future, with both “residents and strangers.”