Friday, July 31, 2009

To the Grocery Store: An Exercise in Aesthetics

There are many grocery stores close to where we live, but we prefer to go to a particular one, down by the Charles River. This is the shortcut we take to get to the river from the Harvard campus.

It is such a nice little stretch to cycle through. I wanted to document the feeling of being there before the grimness of November sets in.

The Co-Habitant advancing into the distance.

I must say that I love the look of men's coat-tails flapping in the wind when they cycle.

And here I am. Alas, no coat-tails.

The Pashleys arrive at the grocery store. If you are local, you can probably guess where this is, even with the limited visual cues. I thought the yellow stripes went nicely with the foliage in the previous photos.

I am happy here, because this was one of my first trips after the latest adjustments to my Pashley (raising and setting back the saddle). My legs are almost completely extended on the pedals now, and I can still touch the ground with one toe while remaining on the saddle. (I know, I know - I need to learn how to ride without being able to reach the ground! )

The Co-Habitant is happy here as well, because we did not spend too much time inside the grocery store. Most of the time, everything we shop for easily fits into my basket and his saddlebag. Not a lot of hastle there.

Back home through the tree-lined shortcut. The grocery store trip was actually at the end of a long day of riding all over town. We both had Friday-Sunday off (a rarity due to our unconventional schedules) and enjoyed the weekend together. A good thing, as in a few days I am off to Europe again for the rest of November.

I've never seen anything quite like these...







Photos taken June 1, .. in Park City, Utah

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Fluttering About: the Papillionaire Sommer

Papillionaire Sommer

One of the newer members of the upright city bike club, the AustralianPapillionaire (a sponsor of this blog) has recently opened its doors in the USA and sent me a bicycle to try - their step-through Sommer model in the aptly named "Boston" colour scheme. Based on a traditional European loop-frame design and available in a range of candy colours, the lugged steel Sommer also comes with an attractive price tag - starting at $429 for a basic single speed bicycle, including fenders, chainguard and rear rack.




Papillionaire Sommer

Founded in by a brother and sister team in Melbourne,the Papillionaire name is based on the Latin word for butterfly (papillio)- reflecting their philosophy that "riding should be easy and fun and of course look good at the same time."




Papillionaire Sommer

The bicycle frames are designed at Papillionaire's Australian office and manufactured in Taiwan to their specs, along with the rear racks, and custom leather grips and saddles. The finish is powdercoat.The stated weight of the complete bike is 29lb.




Papillionaire Sommer

The cro-moly frames are lugged and the fork features an attractive crown with cutout detail.




Papillionaire Sommer
Here is a look at the seat cluster.





Papillionaire Sommer

And the junction of the curved top tube with the seat tube.




Papillionaire Sommer
The bottom bracket is the only lugless joint on the frame, and it is done smoothly.





Papillionaire Sommer

The horizontal dropouts in the rear accommodate hub gearing and incorporate braze-ons for rack mounts, fender mounts and chainguard bracket.




Papillionaire Sommer

Braze-ons for both fenders and front rack on the fork dropouts as well.




Papillionaire Sommer

The Sommer comes in two sizes: standard and small.Aside from the curved top tube, a main distinguishing feature of this model is its handlebars: Somewhere between North Roads and Apehanger on the upright spectrum, the bars have quite a rise to them. This has the interesting visual effect of making the rest of the bike appear miniature, almost toy-like in comparison. In fact the bike is normal sized, with 700C wheels to boot - it's just that the handlebars are quite massive - intended, in combination with a short top tube, to achieve a super-upright riding position.




Papillionaire Sommer

View of the bars from the rider's perspective.




Papillionaire Sommer
And a side view of the rise. Note that the stem here is shown lowered to maximum capacity.





Papillionaire Sommer

The test bike I received was set up as a 3-speed, with a Shimano Nexus hub and twist shifter, front and rear caliper brakes,




Papillionaire Sommer

Papillionaire's leather grips (a copy of the Brooks version, it seems), a silver bell,




Papillionaire Sommer

a Peterboro front basket (big enough to fit a handbag or similar),




Papillionaire Sommer

and a sprung leather saddle (looks to be Gyes-made), embossed with Papillionaire's logo. Note that the saddle here is shown sitting pretty far forward, with the clamp not allowing further backward movement. A setback seatpost is now available to get the saddle a bit further back.




Papillionaire Sommer

The Sommer's rear rack is rated for 18kg (40lb) of weight. No lighting is included with the bike, but the rear fender is drilled for a tail light, and a rear reflector is included. The fenders, rack and chainguard are all powder-coated to match the bicycle's frame.




Papillionaire Sommer
The alloy touring-stlye pedals come with reflectors.







Papillionaire Sommer

The 700Cx35mm Kenda West city tires are available in gumwall or cream.




Papillionaire Sommer

The Papillionaire was delivered to a nearby shop, the Bicycle Belle (read about it here), where I test rode it on a 4 mile urban loop simulating some of my usual local commutes.


Nothing about Papillionaire's branding suggests a focus on performance and speed, and so the bicycle's tame handling was consistent with my expectations. The Sommer is a bike for fluttering about town, not for "super commuting" 10 miles up hilly country roads. At the same time, the gearing is set quite low - so reasonable urban inclines are not difficult to tackle. And the roomy, integrated rear rack is a convenient standard feature, making it immediately possible to attach panniers, as well as rack-top bags and baskets to the bike.





On the whole, my impression of the Sommer was dominated by its bolt-upright positioning and tight "cockpit." Seated upon the saddle, my back was as straight as if I'd been sitting in a chair, and my hands gripped the handlebars just forward of my ribcage. The new setback seatpost alters these proportions, but only slightly: The Sommer was deliberately designed to be extremely upright. Those looking for that sort of fit will appreciate that, while those seeking a more leaned-forward, active position, may find the proportions limiting.




Papillionaire Sommer



Another notable feature of the Sommer is its very high bottom bracket. Those who enjoy being perched as high as possible on a city bike so as to "see above traffic" will appreciate this. Those who like to stop with a toe on the ground without getting off the saddle, may not: The high bottom bracket will make it difficult to set the saddle height to make this possible whilst achieving full leg extension on the downstroke when pedaling.




While Papillionaire refers to their bicycles as "Dutch-style," theSommer is not a typical Dutch Omafiets. They do have the upright positioning in common. But the Sommer's frame angles are not as relaxed and the fork is not as raked-out - giving it a more compact, less boat-like - and also less cushy - feel than that of a traditional Dutch bike. The Sommer's combination of tight frame, 700C wheels and wide tires also leaves very little toe clearance with the front wheel; some riders may experience toe overlap.




The 29lb stated weight figure feels pretty accurate; for a bike of its kind the Sommer is on the lightweight side. But note, that (to be fair, like most bikes in its price category) the Sommer does not come with lighting options - something I hope Papillionaire (and other manufacturers) will consider remedying, since the bike is intended for regular commuting.




Papillionaire Sommer
Since Papillionaire expanded its market to the US, I'vereceived regular emails from readers asking how it compares to the popular Bobbin Birdie(see reviewhere).As far as apples-to-apples comparisons with other city bikes, I think this is a fair one: Like the Sommer, the Birdie isa Taiwan-made lugged cro-moly loop frame with hub gears, fenders, chainguard and rear rack, at a similar price point. As far as quality, I find the bikes equivalent - from the finish, to the components, to bike shop mechanics' feedback on the quality of the from-the-factory assembly. As far as frame design and ride feel, there are notable differences: The Sommer is a considerably more upright bike, and it is fitted with 700C wheels, whereas the Birdie is a 26" wheel bike with a position that (while still firmly in the upright category) is more aggressive, and to me feels more responsive. So the choice between the two will likely rest on the type of fit and ride quality a cyclist prefers. Go with Papillionaire if you want to be more upright and higher off the ground; with Bobbin if the reverse. Price-wise both are pretty good deals. I get so many inquiries from readers looking for new, but "vintage-style" upright bicycles at reasonable prices. It's great to have multiple options in the sub-$700 price range.





The Papillionaire Sommer as shown here (the 3-speed version, with leather accessories and basket) is priced at $629, and is available to test ride at the Bicycle Belle in Somerville, MA. Aside from the Sommer model, Papillionaire also offers a diamond frame and, most recently, a mixte. You can check out the specs and colours of all their modelshereand see the complete Sommer picture set here. Many thanks to Papilllionaire and Bicycle Belle for the opportunity to try this bike!

Fort DeSoto Park


Sometimes we visit a place that is nearby, and I find myself thinking I can't believe we have never been here before. This park was one of those places. We knew it was in the area, and we even tried to find it one day when we were with our travel buddies but we never actually made it to the park.





I am glad we finally did because it was one of the more awesome state parks we have visited in Florida. The park sits on an island, which is always a cool bonus. That means there is a beach, pier and park facilities like kayaking and biking. There is also the fort, which you can walk through.



Fort De
Soto has the only four 12-inch
seacoast rifled mortars (model 1890 mounted on 1896 carriages) in
the continental United States. Also at the fort are two 6-inch Armstrong rapid-fire rifled
guns (model 1898) which were originally mounted at

Fort Dade, and
are the last two guns of that model year in the United States.



The walls on the fort were incredibly thick, meaning the inside was unusually cool. I can't imagine how dark and lifeless it would have seemed though, to stay inside for any length of time.





I'll be honest, my favorite part was watching Nathan explore the fort. He goes into complete guy mode in places like this.





He was trying to find evidence of firing, so I looked it up. "Ironically, Fort De Soto was never the site of any major battle, and the weapons of Fort
De Soto and Fort Dade were never fired in anger at an enemy. However,
it played a significant part in the evolution of modern weaponry. In
1977 Fort De Soto was added to the National Register of
Historic Places. Very interesting place to visit!




The Berlin Family :: John D. and Susannah

Born on December 8th, 1792 near Abbottstown in York (now Adams) County, Pennsylvania, John D. Berlin was the eldest of nine children of John Frederick Berlin whose wife was reportedly Juliana Dietzler.



A record in the “Orphan's Court” of Adams County, Pennsylvania dated August 25, 1845 shows that John Sheffer, as heir at law of Frederick Berline in right of his wife Loretta, petitioned the court stating that “Frederick Berline died intestate September 18, 1843 leaving issue eight children, to wit: John, Henry, George, Loretta (wife of petitioner), Eli, Joel, Polly and Frederick. All over the age of twenty-one.”



Census records suggest that John D. Berlin may have resided with his father through 1810 in Adams County, Pennsylvania. I have not located John in the 1820 census where he would have been 28 years old and single.



It is not known when John D. Berlin settled in Columbiana County, Ohio but on February 16th, 1826 he was married to Susannah Huffman in that county. They resided near Washingtonville which lies on the line delineating the counties of Columbiana and Mahoning.



Susannah Huffman (or Hoffman) was born March 9, 1804 in Columbiana County, Ohio. She was the second of eleven children of John and Catherine (Coy) Hoffman. There arises some confusion in several published biographies of Coy family members. It seems that Susannah's aunt, Elizabeth Coy, also married a man by the name of John Berlin! Those biographies state that Elizabeth and John Berlin resided in Nappanee, Indiana. Not true. Elizabeth Coy did marry John Berlin but they lived in Ohio. That John Berlin was born January 8, 1777 and was probably the son of John Nicholas Berlin (brother of John D. Berlin's grandfather) which would make John and John D. first cousins once removed. A record on Find A Grave shows that that John Berlin lived to be 101 years old. He is buried in Stark County, Ohio while his wife Elizabeth is buried in Summit County.



I have never seen a record that indicates what the “D” stands for in John D. Berlin's name but suspect that it was used primarily to distinguish him from that other John Berlin. Columbiana, Mahoning, Portage, Stark and Summit counties are all in the northeast corner of Ohio, which is where both of them lived at various times. His mother's maiden name is reported to be Dietzler, so perhaps he used the “D” in her honor.



On May 26, 1827 Solomon Berlin, the first child of John D. and Susannah, was born. They remained in Columbiana County, near Washingtonville, for the next 19 years and had eight more children: Catherine, 1830; Lydia, 1832; Josiah, 1834; Jacob, 1836; Mary, 1838; Sarah, 1840; Elizabeth, 1843; and Lovina, 1845.



In 1846 John D. Berlin moved with his family to the Rootstown area in Portage County, Ohio where they lived for 18 years. Their youngest son, Joseph Milton was born there in 1848. He was killed in the spring of 1856 in a wagon accident, at the age of seven years.



As with the majority of my ancestors, John D. Berlin was a farmer. As a result, there doesn't seem to be a lot of records on him. I've found him in land records and census records: In 1830 and 1840 in Columbiana County, Ohio as John Barlein and Jno. D. Berlin, respectively. In 1850 in Rootstown, Portage County, Ohio he is enumerated as John Elsworth! He and his family were listed on the lines immediately after Dolly Elsworth. The names and ages of the children match his family completely so there is no doubt that it is the family of John D. Berlin. In 1860 he was enumerated as J. D. Berlin and was still in Rootstown. At that time only the four youngest daughters were still living at home.



Solomon Berlin, the oldest child of John D. and Susan, married Fianna Slabaugh in 1851 and shortly thereafter moved to Locke Township, Elkhart County, Indiana. Catherine Berlin, the next oldest child, was married about 1854 to Frederick Daniel Richmond. They lived in Iowa for several years (where their first two children were born) before settling in Elkhart County about 1858. Jacob Berlin, fifth child of John D. and Susan, was living with his brother Solomon in Elkhart County in 1860.



Susannah's sister, Elizabeth Coy, had married Jacob Stauffer and they had moved with their family to Elkhart County in 1852. John D's sister, Loretta (full name Clarissa Loretta) and her husband, John Shafer, and their daughter and son-in-law, Anna and Isaac Rodibush (or Raudenbush) moved to Elkhart County, Indiana prior to 1860 where they are enumerated in Union township.



With family (and undoubtedly some friends too) already living in Elkhart County, Indiana it was not surprising to learn that John D. and Susan moved there also. Family letters show that John D. and Susan left Portage County, Ohio just a few days after the marriage of their daughter Sarah to George W. Greene (they were married on August 28, 1864). Traveling with John D. and Susan were their daughters Elizabeth (aka Lizzie) and Lovina, and their son Josiah along with his wife and two sons. Three daughters of John D. and Susan remained in Portage County – Sarah, Lydia and Mary Ann. Lydia had married Myron Collins in November 1858 and Mary Ann was still single.



John D. Berlin and Susan were found in the 1870 census in Locke Township, Elkhart County. Residing with them were his brother Frederic (a blind potter, age 60) and his sister Polly (age 58). By then the two youngest daughters had married: Elizabeth to Samuel Coppes in 1867 and Lovina to Eli Yarian in 1866. Lydia, Mary Ann, and Sarah were all still living in Portage County, Ohio.



Lydia's husband, Myron Collins, had died of disease in a hospital in Nashville, Tennessee in April 1865. Nine years later (September 1874) she would marry Henry Woodruff and move to LaCygne, Linn County, Kansas. Henry died in 1898. Shortly thereafter, Lydia went to live in Elkhart County, Indiana.



Toward the end of 1866 Mary Ann Berlin also moved to Indiana. She was living in Elkhart County in 1875 when she married Lewis B. Winder.



Thus it was that Sarah (Berlin) Greene was the only member of the family who remained in Portage County, Ohio. She would live in the Ravenna area the rest of her life, giving birth to seven children, five of whom would live to adulthood. One of her children, Harry B. Greene, would move to Nappanee, Elkhart County, Indiana prior to 1900.



On November 11, 1879, John D. Berlin passed away at the home of his daughter Mary Winder in Locke, Elkhart County, Indiana. His wife Susan died five months later, on April 22, 1880 also at Mary's home. They are both buried in the Primitive Baptist Cemetery in Locke Township, Elkhart County, Indiana.





The family of John D. and Susannah (Hoffman) Berlinfront row: Elizabeth, John D., Susannah, Lydia , Solomonback row: Mary, Sarah, Lovina, Josiah, Catherine

A copy of the above photograph was received in the late 1990s from a descendant of Solomon Berlin. It is not known who now has the original or whether there were any markings on it to indicate where or when it was taken. I'm guessing that it was taken between 1862 and 1868. The son Jacob is not included – he was killed on April 7, 1862 (the second day of fighting during the Battle of Shiloh) – and Josiah died in March 1869.



John D. and Susannah (Hoffman) Berlin are my 3rd great grandparents. Their daughter, Lovina, married Eli Yarian and their daughter Susie Yarian would marry Henry Phend. They were the parents of Rolland Victor Phend who would marry Hazlette Brubaker. And they would become the parents of Virginia (Phend) Wiseman, my mother...



Additional information on The Berlin Family:

  • Bible Records

  • Introduction to The Letters

  • The Cast of Characters

  • List of The Letters



Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Huffman-Hoffman Kinexxion :: Heirs of Michael

The first document listing the heirs of Michael Hoffman was dated May 15, 1778 and was the Petition for Partition of the Real Estate.








Estate of Michael Hoffman

Berks County, Pennsylvania Probate Files

Family History Microfilm 1653590 Accessed February 11, ..

To the Honorable the Justice of the Peace of the County of Berks at an Orphan's holden at Reading the 15th day of May in the Year of our Lord 1778.


The petition of Martin Hoffman, eldest Son and Heir at Law of Michael Hoffman late of Alsace Township in said County Yeoman deceased.


Humbly Sheweth That your said Petitioners Father Michael Hoffman died the 6th Day of January Anno Dom. 1777. leaving a Widow, named Mary and twelve children, to wit. Your Petitioner aged thirty six Years, Dorothea Now the Wife of Henry Shedler of the Age of thirty Years, Burghard Hoffman of the Age of thirty three Years, Dietrich of the Age of Twenty seven Years, Christian of the age of twenty three Years, Elisabeth of the Age of Nineteen Years, Henry of the Age of Eighteen Years, Catherine of the Age of fifteen Years, Barbara of the Age of twelve Years, Michael of the Age of twelve ten years, John the age of six Years & Mary of the Age of four Years all thereabouts.


That the said petitioners Father died Intestate Seized in his Demise as of Fee of and in A certain messuage on Tenement and Tract or Parcel of two hundred Acres of Land Situate in Alsace Township aforesaid.


Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays your Honours would be pleased to award an Inquest to divide the Said Estate among the said Children, if the Same can so be, without prejudice to or Spoiling the same, and if not to Value and Appraize the said Real Estate of the said Decedent, Agreeable to the Directions of the Law in Such Case made and provided.


And your Petitioner as in duty bound will pray, Martin Hoffman

The next document, also dated May 15, 1778 was the Inquisition ordering the Sheriff to have an appraisal made of the land which Michael Hoffman owned. I'm not going to transcribe the entire thing here because it basically reiterates what was in the Petition for Partition listing the heirs. However, even though it still says there were twelve children, the name Philip is inserted after Martin's age and just before the name of Dorothea.







Top portion of a document in the probate file ordering the Sherriff to have an appraisal made of the land which Michael Hoffman owned.



On June 9, 1778 the real estate was appraised by “twelve free honest and lawful men” who found that the land could not be parted and divided among the children “without prejudice to or spoiling the whole thereof” and it was appraised at seven hundred pounds.







Petition of Maria Hoffman stating that there were 13 children of Michael Hoffman and requesting that guardians be named for the four minor children under the age of 14.


To the Honble the Justices of the orphans Court of Berks county held at Reading the 14th day of August 1778.


The petition of Maria Hoffman Administratrix of Michael Hoffman Late of the said County Yeoman Deceased



Honorably Showeth That the said Michael Hoffman Lately died Intestate leaving 13 Children and a Considerable Real & Personal Estate to and among whom the same does Descend.

That our Petitioner has administered to the said Estate as the Widow & Relict of sd Decd.

She therefore humbly prays your honour Would be pleased to appoint Some proper persons As Guardians to take care of the persons & Estates of the the Minor Children of the said Deceased, to wit, Barbara, Michael, John & Maria All under the age of fourteen years.


And your Petitioner Will over & pray.

Maria Hoffman {her mark}

The Orphan's Court Journal (v2 p248) shows that Jacob Lanciscus and Paul Feger were appointed Guardians of the four minor children under the age of fourteen. Also, guardians were appointed for the four minor children above the age of fourteen: Henry chose George Babb, Elisabeth chose Frederick Shleare, and Catherine chose Jacob Lanciscus.



On that same day (August 14, 1778) a document setting forth the amounts to be distributed to the heirs was filed (see below). However, the distribution wasn't actually made on that day. It seems that “Martin Hoffman Should hold & Enjoy the Real Estate of his said father Valued as aforsd to him & his Heirs forever According to Law” but that Martin was to pay equal shares to the younger children.



There is a document in the probate file showing that Dietrich filed a claim and was paid his share (₤33-6-8) of the real estate on August 16, 1779. Martin then sold the land for ₤1500 Pounds on October 1, 1779 to Daniel Schrader (Deed Book 7 p199). The land had been appraised at ₤700 and Dietrich received his distribution based upon the appraised value. I wonder what Martin paid the other children?



As an aside, the deed tells us that Michael Hoffman purchased the tract of land, which was then in the County of Philadelphia, and which contained 166 acres, on February 22, 1768 from Bernhard Keller.








Distribution of Real Estate of Michael Hoffman

Berks County, Pennsylvania Probate Files

Family History Microfilm 1653590 Accessed February 11, ..


Combining information from baptism records and documents in the probate file, we can say with some degree of certainty that the heirs of Michael Hoffman were (ages, thereabout, given as of May 15, 1778):


  • Martin, age 36, born about 1742

  • Philip, age not given (probably 34-35 years old, born about 1743-1744?)

  • Burghard, age 33, born about 1745

  • Dorothea, age 30, wife of Henry Shedler, born about 1748

  • Dietrich, age 27, born about 1751

  • Christian, age 23, born about 1755

  • Elizabeth, age 19, born about 1759

  • Henry, age 18, born about 1760

  • Catharina, age 15, born about 1763

  • Barbara, age 12, born about 1766 (Anna Barbara, born October 22, 1765)

  • Michael, age 10, born about 1768

  • John, age 6, born about 1772 (Johannes, born May 03, 1770 – perhaps he died young and John born 1772 is really the second John?)

  • Mary, age 4, born about 1774


Now, I don't know about you, but that's quite a span of years with the oldest child being 36 and the youngest being only 4 years old. Call me skeptical, but I'm thinking that Maria Engel may have been Michael's second wife. If she is the mother of all 13 children, she would likely be into her 50s when she had the last child. Possible, I suppose. But I don't have a date of birth or place of birth for Maria or Michael.



I also find it curious that Dorothea is listed “out of sequence” given that her age is 30 and Burghard, who follows her in the lists of children is 33 years old.



I've barely started research on this family; obviously, additional research is needed. And, I'll repeat what I've said before – If anyone researching this family finds these posts, please contact me at kinexxions “at” gmail “dot” com.



Update April 10, ..: Please see Questioning the Status Quo :: Oh, Maria! for my theory regarding the maiden name of Maria Hoffman.



Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Learning and Loving My Smartphone Camera

With a little prompting, I decided to move into this century and get a smartphone. Keep in mind that I just upgraded from a Razr flipphone this past year. A phone that I had to purchase used off of Craigslist and Ebay in order to replace mine when it broke or somehow got lost at Busch Gardens.



I liked my old phone. It was simple and easy and I could use it without thinking too hard.



And although I still can't figure out how to answer the actual phone part, or even hear it when it rings-there are other things I am loving about having a smartphone. Like the fact that the pictures it takes are surprisingly decent.



With some apps, you can grab some really fun shots. Still not sure I'm glad I upgraded the phone but I love not having to lug my huge camera onto the beach each time we visit there.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Crime vs. Accident?

I was cycling across town with a friend today, who suggested that we take the side streets instead of my usual route along the major roads. We were cycling on one of these quiet streets, when a sedan passed us too closely and hit my friend's bicycle with the side of their car.



The impact was not strong enough to knock the bicycle over, but it did happen - and the driver kept going until forced to stop at a red light. We caught up to the driver, and my friend quickly took a cell-phone picture of the license plate - at which point the driver stopped the car and came out, expressing annoyance. My friend said, "You hit me with your car." The driver replied, "Well, you should have been more careful!" (More careful? We were cycling in a straight line in broad daylight!) At that point my friend took out their phone and called the police - telling the driver that they were going to file a report. Bewildered ("The police? But you're fine!") the driver got back in their car, pulled over to the side of the road, and we all waited.



The officer arrived and asked whether anybody was injured and whether there was any damage to the bicycle. When we replied in the negative, the officer seemed confused: "So there is nothing to do here then." We repeated that the driver hitmy friend with their car, to which the officer (politely) replied, "Well, if nobody was injured and there is no damage to your bicycle, that's not a crime. That's an accident." He then proceeded to file a report of the "accident," stressing verbally that there has been no injury or material damage. Both my friend and the driver gave testimony, and I gave testimony as a witness. We were then informed of where and whenwe could pick up a copy of the report,and everyone went their separate ways.



And this brings me to my question. Is it correct, that unless a driver actually injures a cyclist or damages a bicycle while hitting them, then hitting a cyclist in itself is not illegal? That is basically what the officer was telling us, but it does not sound right to me. What about the "passing no closer than 3 feet" rule? If a driver hits a cyclist while passing, does that not automatically mean that they were closer than 3 feet? The driver was unapologetic about what happened, and did not deny that they saw us prior to hitting my friend's bicycle. Yet the officer did not even ask the driver why they did not pass us at a safer distance. Perhaps what the officer meant to express, was that there was no way to determine what actually happened without video cameras or tangible evidence (such as injury or damage to the bicycle) - but his words did not come across that way.



Regardless of the outcome, I am glad that my friend filed a report. As I understand it, these things get entered into the DOT statistical data, and can lead to the development of safer infrastructure on that street if enough such incidents are reported. But I remain confused about what type of collision between motor vehicle and bicycle constitutes an illegal act versus what constitutes an accident. Can any of the cycling activists out there fill me in?