SPD Says Call 911 When a Motor Vehicle Driver Acts Aggressively Towards You as a Bicycle Driver

One morning this week while riding to work at about 7:00 AM I was aggressively cut off by a car driver. I was travelling south on 5^th Avenue at about 17 MPH in the right curb lane approaching the Pine Street intersection (at the south end of the monorail in Seattle) and the driver of a late model white Subaru Impreza (WA ABW 3335) aggressively merged into my travel lane forcing me to brake and move towards the curb. I slowed and honked my air horn. After she passed through the intersection she turned her head back to look and flew me the bird. The driver was a brown-haired middle-aged woman.

I moved out of the roadway onto the sidewalk and looked for paper and pen to write down the plate number and vehicle description. Somehow I didn’t have anything to write with so I memorized the plate number. I didn’t think that I should call 911, and that was my mistake.  

Later after getting to work and navigating the Seattle Police Department directory and automated phone system I talked to a human on a non-emergency line. She was very helpful and told me that I should have called 911 even though there was no physical harm or explicit verbal threat. She said if I had called immediately they would have put out a call to officers in the area and looked for the driver and vehicle, come and talked to me etc.

I am not a vindictive person, nor overly oriented towards crime and punishment but I did want to seek some recourse after being run off the road. So, if you find yourself in a similar situation, go right ahead and call 911 immediately and make a report.

Keep the situational awareness up and the rubber side down. Happy urban biking!

Insurance for the Car-less

Today's guest blog post was submitted by Mimy Bailey, a bicycle attorney practicing in Seattle.  She handles cases involving collisions and roadway defects.  She is a member of the Bicycle Alliance of Washington.

After my last post on insurance (Time for an Insurance Check-Up) I received requests for more information relevant to those who gave up their cars.   I spent some time calling insurance companies about any available replacement for car insurance and came up empty handed.  This post will address some special considerations for those who are car-less.

Before we dive in, I’ll give you the bottom line:  There is no car insurance equivalent for the car-less.  You want to make sure you have health insurance in case you are hurt and homeowner/renter coverage in case you cause a collision or have a property damage claim.

Car insurance provides three important areas of coverage that comes into play in a bike v. car collision:

•  Personal Injury Protection (PIP)pays for medical and other expenses, such as wage loss and household services.  PIP is no-fault coverage, so it does not matter who caused the collision, your bills will be paid.  The bills are paid as they are incurred (similar to health insurance). 
• Car-Less Scenario:  You will only have access to PIP coverage if the driver has it on his/her policy.

•  Under/Uninsured Motorist Coverage (UM/UIM)will provide insurance if you are hit by someone who is uninsured or whose coverage is inadequate to cover your damages. 
• Car-Less Scenario:  Not available.

•  Liability coverage is mandatory at a minimum of $25k.  This is the coverage that you will make the final claim against on the driver’s policy.  You must have an auto policy to have this coverage. 
• Car-Less Scenario:  You don’t have this coverage to take care of the other person in case the collision is your fault (homeowner/renter insurance is the replacement).  If it’s the driver’s fault, this is the coverage you will make your claim against.

 Is there bicycle insurance?

I know of one company that sells bicycle insurance, but it is not equivalent to car insurance.  After reviewing the coverage, it’s not coverage I would recommend.

Can I buy car insurance without a car?

There is no replacement for the type of coverage available to you if you own a car.  No car insurance will provide Personal Injury Protection (PIP) or UIM coverage if you are hit on your bicycle, unless your car insurance is tied to your vehicle.

This means that health insurance and homeowner/renter insurance is all the more important.  Health insurance to cover your medical bills and homeowner/renter insurance to provide liability protection in case the collision is your fault.

Who will pay my medical bills if I am hit by a car?

IF the driver has PIP coverage on his/her policy, then it will pay medical bills up to the limits of the coverage (usually $10k, $25k, or $35k).

If the driver has no PIP coverage, or you max out the coverage, you need to have medical insurance to cover your bills.

Am I limited by the driver’s insurance coverage? Can I go after him/her personally?

It is possible to go after the driver’s personal assets, but this is considered a last resort to be exercised in rare circumstances.

What coverage do I have when driving a Zipcar?

Zipcar provides liability and PIP coverage for members when driving one of their cars.  Learn more here.

Am I covered when I borrow a friend’s car?

So long as you have your friend’s permission to use the car, you will be covered on your friend’s policy.  That said, it’s always a good idea to call the insurer to make sure.

What if I cause injury to someone else while riding?

In this scenario, you will be concerned about liability coverage to take care of the harm you caused to another person.  Homeowner/renter coverage may provide general liability coverage in this scenario.

What if I am involved in a bike v. bike or bike v. pedestrian crash – what insurance coverage applies?

Most likely, the only available coverage will be homeowner/renter if carried by the at-fault person.

What if my bike is stolen?

Again, you will make the claim on your homeowner/renter policy.  It will be helpful if you have pictures of the bike and a receipt for the original purchase.


If you have other questions about insurance or some of the information provided is unclear, send me an email and I'll be happy to clarify mimy@seattlebicycleattorney.com

Mimy's website is at www.seattlebicycleattorney.com and her Twitter handle is SeattleBikes. 

Time for an Insurance Check-Up

Today's guest blog post was submitted by Mimy Bailey, a bicycle attorney practicing in Seattle.  She handles cases involving collisions and roadway defects.  She is a member of the Bicycle Alliance of Washington.

Spring is upon us (supposedly), so now is a great time to review your insurance coverage as you get ready to spend more time on your two-wheeler (yay!).

If you've never taken a close look at your auto coverage, be thankful, because it means you've probably never been hit on your bike.  That's right, your auto policy provides coverage if you are hit by a car while riding.  Of course you hope that the driver is adequately insured, but you can only hope for that.  There are a couple coverages that will ensure you're taken care of if the unexpected occurs.

Two coverages are especially important for cyclists.  I'll go through each coverage is, explain why it's important, and provide general advice on a coverage amount.  Of course, insurance polices can vary, and coverage can get complicated, but I'm boiling this down to make it easy to see whether you need to make changes.

Personal Injury Protection (aka PIP)

What?  PIP pays for medical and other expenses, such as wage loss and household services.  PIP is no-fault coverage, so it does not matter who caused the collision, your bills will be paid.  The bills are paid as they are incurred (similar to health insurance).

Why?  PIP is vital if you don't have health insurance.  Without it, you'll be personally responsible for 100% of your medical treatment costs.  If you do have health insurance, it's still important.  PIP pays approved bills at 100%.  There are no copays or deductibles.  PIP will also cover a limited amount of wage loss and household services.

How much?  PIP is usually offered at $10k, $25k, and/or $35k of coverage.  If you can afford it, purchase one of the higher levels.  With a trip to the ER potentially costing $5k or more, you want to make sure there's enough coverage to cover all of your treatment.

Under/Uninsured Motorist Coverage (aka UM/UIM)

What?  Liability coverage is mandatory in Washington, but some people drive without insurance and others carry the minimum ($25k).  UM/UIM coverage will provide insurance if you are hit by someone who is uninsured or whose coverage is inadequate to cover your damages.

Why?  Without this coverage, if you are hit by a driver who is uninsured, there will be no recovery.  You can still get your medical bills paid under your PIP, but you will not be compensated for your general damages (pain and suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life, etc).

How much?  Unlike PIP, that's just covering your medical bills, this coverage may need cover the kitchen sink – medical bills, wage loss, and general damages.  Seriously consider coverage that's at least $75k.

If you have other questions about insurance or some of the information provided is unclear, send me an email and I'll be happy to clarify mimy@seattlebicycleattorney.com

Mimy's website is at www.seattlebicycleattorney.com and her Twitter handle is SeattleBikes.  

Get out of my bike lane!

Does this look familiar?  I regularly encounter parked vehicles that take a portion of the bike trail.  I spotted this particular offender last summer on Seattle's Waterfront Trail.

Or maybe you've come across a vehicle or two--or five!--parked in your bike lane.

bicyclewatchdog.org

If you have your cell phone handy, you could call and report the violator and hope justice will be served.  Or you can snap a photo, record the location details and the license plate, and post it on a website called My Bike Lane for all the world to see.

New York City tops the list with over 6000 bike lane violators posted, and the top offender is a UPS truck with 28 recorded violations.  Seattle and Spokane are represented on My Bike Lane, with 32 and 56 recorded violations respectively.  I don't know if any of the reported violators on My Bike Lane get their just dessert as a result of this public outing, but I suspect that the individuals who report them feel some satisfaction by reporting the scofflaws.

If you live in Spokane, you have another course of action available to you.  Snap a photo of the offending vehicle, then email it along with license plate number and location details to the Spokane Police Department at carparkedinbikelane@spokanepolice.org.  The police send a letter to the violator informing them that they are not allowed to park in a bike lane.  Repeat violators are supposed to receive a citation.

Bradley Bleck of the Spokane Bicycle Advisory Board reported several bike lane violators using the system.  He received one email confirmation from the police department confirming that they sent a warning letter to the violator, but he doesn't know if there was follow up on his other reports.

Although there may some inconsistencies regarding follow up, the Spokane Police Department demonstrated a willingness to work with local bicyclists by establishing a reporting system.  How do you report bike lane violators in your community?

If At First You Don't Succeed: Vulnerable User Bill Passes Legislature

Persistence pays off.

On April 18, after a multi-year effort by the Cascade Bicycle Club and other cycling advocates, Washington lawmakers finally passed legislation designed to protect vulnerable road users. The law, Substitute Senate Bill  (SSB) 5326, has been sent to the governor for her signature.

If signed by the governor (and there's no indication at this point that she won't), the law will strengthen penalties under the state’s negligent driving statute for motorists who kill or severely injure bicyclists, pedestrians, and other vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists and equestrians.

Under current law, the penalty for second-degree negligent driving, a non-criminal traffic infraction, is a flat $250 fine regardless of the harm caused to others.  Under SSB 5326 the offense would remain an infraction; however, motorists who drove negligently and caused the death or serious injury of a vulnerable user would be subject to a maximum $5,000 fine and would lose their drivers’ license for 90 days.

In lieu of that penalty, a driver could ask for a court hearing; in that case he or she would be required to pay a $250 fine, attend traffic school, and perform community service that included activities related to driver improvement and traffic-safety education. Motorists who chose to go to court but failed to follow though with their obligations would be subject to the $5,000 fine and 90-day license suspension.

Let's Lawyer Up!

Opponents of bicycle facilities have turned to the courts. The litigation isn’t likely to stop until cycling advocates win in the court of public opinion.

Baseball, it seems, is no longer the National Pastime. No, America’s favorite activity now appears to be the filing of lawsuits. And lately those lawsuits are being used as a weapon to stop the construction of cycling facilities, or remove the facilities that do exist.

Litigation is not an inherently bad thing. In fact, it’s sometimes a necessary thing (The lawsuit brought against the tobacco industry by a number of state attorneys general comes to mind). Nonetheless, litigation is always frustrating, costly and time-consuming; ramps up the emotional ante and creates an adversarial mindset; and delays resolution of the issue at hand.  

In the case of cycle-facility litigation, in fact, lawsuits can serve to postpone—sometimes for years—the construction of needed infrastructure.   But even more disturbing is what such litigation says about the negative perceptions toward cycling that persist in the United States, and about the cycling community’s limited success in combating it.

Witness a tale of three lawsuits in three cities.

The first, familiar to Puget-Sound area cyclists, is the litigation that’s delayed completion of the last one-and-a-half mile section of the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle’s Ballard neighborhood—the trail’s so-called “missing link.”

The bulk of the 15-mile Burke-Gilman was finished in 1978, with short additional sections built since then.  When the “missing link” is complete, cyclists will be able to travel from Seattle’s Shilshole Marina to Issaquah without ever having to ride on the street.

But according to the Pacific Northwest magazine, the Ballard segment, which would pass through an industrial neighborhood, has been mired in controversy since at least 1996. After the city finally decided on an alignment for the section in 2003, some local businesses objected, then sued, claiming that the trail would harm their industrial activities and present a safety hazard. (Editorial comment: I’m not sure how anything could be less safe than the status quo, which, as the Pacific Northwest article noted, involves cycling along a street “with the shoulder the width of a laptop and 36-ton cement trucks bearing down on you.”)

The Missing Link (Seattle Times photo)

The city won most of that lawsuit, although a judge did order an environmental review for one section of the missing link before construction could proceed.  Seattle’s transportation department (SDOT) finished that review last month, concluding that the trail would have no significant impact.

This would seem to have been the end of the delays—until a group of businesses appealed the transportation department’s conclusions to the city hearing examiner. One can presume that if the hearing examiner rules in the city’s favor, it’s off to court again to appeal the hearing examiner’s decision.  And on it will go.

So the missing link, which the city says it has the money to build and would have started building in 2009 but for the lawsuit, remains in limbo 33 years after the bulk of the trail was constructed.

But things could be worse.

In San Francisco, a lawsuit brought by gadfly and frequent cycling critic Rob Anderson put that city’s bike-lane plan on hold, at least in part, for four years.  Anderson, who shares his thoughts on the “war on cars” on his District 5 Diary blog, claimed that the City should have conducted an environmental review before proceeding—a claim not unlike that made by the plaintiffs in Seattle’s “missing link” lawsuit.

A court agreed with Anderson, so the City did the review, at a cost of $2.2 million.  The result? No changes had to be made to the plan as originally proposed.

As a result, a superior court judge last August lifted the injunction that had blocked the plan, and the San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom finally got to lay a ceremonial strip of paint on one of the contested bike lanes.

S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom prepares to paint a long-awaited bike lane (The Bay Citizen, San Francisco)

Finally, New York City’s plans to make the city safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and bicyclists are under serious attack, as is the city transportation commissioner who is making it happen.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg had set out an ambitious agenda for changing New York’s transportation balance. To help bring that about he hired Janette Sadik-Kahn as the city’s transportation chief.

A recent New York Times profile noted that Sadik-Kahn, who is lauded as visionary by some but criticized as high-handed by others, has made huge changes, nearly doubling the miles of bike lanes in the city, creating separated European-style cycle tracks, introducing “rapid-transit” buses that use dedicated lanes, and turning once car-clogged Times Square into a pedestrian plaza. During her tenure bicycle ridership in New York has doubled and fewer people have been killed in traffic accidents in the city than at any other time during the last 100 years.

But as elsewhere, the backlash has grown. One tabloid gossip columnist has taken to calling Sadik-Kahn the “wacko-nutso bike commissioner.”  Even the New Yorker magazine’s John Cassidy, normally a sober commentator on financial issues,  has said that “it’s time to call a halt to Sadik-Kahn and her faceless road swipers.” Cassidy criticized the Bloomberg bike-lane plans as “a classic case of regulatory capture by a small faddist minority intent on foisting its bipedalist views on a disinterested or actively-reluctant populace.”  (Whew!) 

To cap it off, a group of well-connected Brooklyn residents recently filed suit against the city to force removal of a bicycle track along Prospect Park West, claiming among other things that the city had ignored required environmental review. While the lawsuit focuses on the Prospect Park bike track, the New York Times has noted that it also “incorporates criticism of the administration’s overall approach in carrying out [Sadik-Kahn’s] high-profile initiatives…” 

The Prospect Park West cycle track (Park Slope Neighbors website)

Litigation notwithstanding, the new cycle track enjoys the support of 70 percent of the neighborhood’s residents and about half of those who live along the affected street. And according to the Times, a spokesman for the New York transportation department noted that since the track was installed “speeding is down dramatically, crashes are down, injuries are down, and bike ridership has doubled on weekends and tripled on weekdays.”

The mere fact that bike-facility opponents are motivated to litigate shows the depth of opposition that remains toward cycling in America.  Baffling as it may be to regular cyclists, some part of the American public seems to perceive bicycling as a threatening proposition, bad for business and for transportation.  There seems to be a widespread belief that the roads belong exclusively to cars, and that urban transport is a “zero-sum” game: if the cyclists “win,” then cars “lose.”  It’s not that way, of course. Adding bicycles to the transportation mix can actually help decrease traffic congestion and increase overall mobility, as the experience of Copenhagen has demonstrated.

But in bicycle advocacy as in other political endeavors, perception often trumps reality—in fact, perception is reality. So the most important task that bike advocates face is changing the average person’s perception of cyclists and cycling. Until we can do that, bike advocacy will continue to be an uphill fight.

That means that what cycling-advocacy organizations really need is a good marketing strategy.  Even the best product won’t sell without one. So while we should continue to lobby and organize (and in rare instances litigate), we need to realize that just isn’t enough. Perhaps it’s time to bring in the Mad Men. 

Whose Streets?

While citizens in Seattle launch their Streets for All campaign, a Vancouver resident is pushing a Take Back the Streets initiative which would prioritize city streets for motor vehicle use.  According to The Vancouver Voice:

East Vancouver resident Mike Grosenbach is seeking help to start a "Take Back Our Streets" petition for an initiative prioritizing city streets for motor vehicle use.  Key aspects of his draft initiative include requiring pedestrian and cyclists to yield right-of-way to motor vehicles at all times and prohibit converting on-street car parking to any non-car parking use.

pedbikeimages.org/Laura Sandt

 Grosenbach goes on to vent his anger about cyclists--that they take up more than their share of road space and funding.  He claims that bicyclists are "basically stealing everyone else's right to the road."  Read Marcus Griffith's full post.

Sound familiar?  Feel like deja vu?  Just as President Obama's religious views (he's Christian) and citizenship (US citizen) are regularly questioned, we as bike advocates must routinely defend our right to the road.

Bicycles are Vehicles

Bicycles are recognized as vehicles in Washington State, and have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles on the road.  This means that, with few exceptions, you and I have a right to travel by bike on our roads and, if necessary, take a lane of traffic for our safety.  This also means that we are expected to stop at stop signs and red lights, yield to pedestrians, and ride with other traffic--not against it.  You can find more information about laws related to biking on the Bicycle Alliance of Washington website.

Everyone pays for Roads

This may come as a shock to the anti-bike crowd, but most bicyclists also own and/or drive motor vehicles.  (We own a car in my household.)  That means most cyclists are paying road fees too! 

More shocking news:  Americans pay for roads whether or not we own or drive vehicles!  Registration fees, gas taxes, tolls and other user fees don't cover the costs of building and maintaining roads, so we subsidize our roads with other funds.  An analysis by Subsidyscope reveals that in 2007, road user fees and taxes covered only 51% of the costs.  The other half is subsidized by non-user tax sources and borrowing through bond measures.

Most shocking:  Bicyclists and pedestrians pay a disproportionately higher amount for our share of the road!  According to Todd Litman's report for the Victoria Transport Policy Institute:

On average, local and regional governments spend $300-$500 annually per automobile in general taxes on local roads and traffic services, averaging more than 6 cents per mile driven on local roads.  Only 0.7 cents of this is paid through vehicle user charges, meaning that driving is subsidized through general taxes by about 5.6 cents per mile.  Automobiles also impose other external costs, including parking subsidies, congestion and crash risk imposed on other road users, and environmental damages.  Pedestrians and cyclists tend to impose lower costs than motor vehicles and bear an excessive share of these costs, particularly crash risks, because they are unprotected.  A shift from driving to bicycling and walking reduces external costs, providing benefits to society, such as road and parking facility savings, reduced crash risk and congestion delay imposed on other users, and reduced environmental impacts.  This indicates that non-drivers pay more than their share of transportation costs.

Please take the time to read the reports cited above so you understand the information.  The next time someone tells you that cyclists don't belong on the road or don't pay their fair share, you will be equipped to respond objectively.

Now let's take back our share of the streets.

Mr. Smith Goes to Olympia

Bicycle Alliance Board Adopts 2011 Legislative Agenda

In the classic 1939 Frank Capra movie about politics in the other Washington, an idealistic Jimmy Stewart bests the establishment with a heart-rending Senate floor speech that shames the cynics and wins the day.

Oh, if only it were that easy.

Affecting the outcome of the political sausage-making process in the real world takes time, planning, advance work, coalition building and plenty of patience. So even though the legislature doesn’t meet again until next January, the Bicycle Alliance has been working on its 2011 legislative agenda since last spring. If you’re interested in helping to create a more bike-friendly Washington, we welcome your support.

The legislative agenda, adopted by the Bicycle Alliance Board at its August meeting, calls for passage of five primary pieces of legislation, as well as support of other legislation to make cycling safer and more convenient.

Priority legislation includes bills that would:

Traffic safety education—require that the driving schools attended by motorists who have received a traffic ticket teach the Department of Licensing’s approved curriculum for safe driving around cyclists and pedestrians. Such legislation was introduced during the 2010 session, but died without final action.

Mutual courtesy and safe passing—clarify the laws that define safe and courteous behavior for cyclists and motorists, including legislation governing how much space motorists should give cyclists when passing alongside them.

Complete streets—create a framework for a grant program to create incentives for communities that adopt a “complete streets” policy to ensure that their streets are designed and built to accommodate cycling and walking. A “complete streets” bill was introduced during the 2010 session, but died without final action.

Lower speed limits—Give communities broader authority to lower speed limits to 20 miles an hour in neighborhoods with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Studies in Europe have shown that lower speed limits sharply reduce injuries and death.

Liability—Impose reasonable limits on the liability of communities that sign bicycle routes or produce bike maps. Currently, some communities don’t mark or map routes at all because they fear they will be found liable for injuries suffered by cyclists who use the routes.

In addition to its main priorities, the Bicycle Alliance will also support legislation to better protect vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians, require the State Dept. of Transportation to include the external costs of driving when assessing the costs and benefits of its projects, and provide adequate transportation funding for cycling and walking.

The priorities will be fine-turned as the legislative session advances. For more background and up-to-date information, visit the Bicycle Alliance legislation and issues page, accessible from our home page at http://www.bicyclealliance.org/.

If you have questions or would like to help advance our legislative agenda, contact Bicycle Alliance Policy Director Dave Janis at 224-9252, extension 302, or at DaveJ@bicyclealliance.org.

Red Lights: What About “Stop” Don’t You Understand?

Red-Light Camera Haters and Scofflaw Cyclists Should Both Get a Grip

Opponents of red-light cameras are mad as hell—apoplectic might be a better description—and they’re not going to take it any more.

Their descriptions of the automated cameras—used to identify and ticket red-light runners—range from a relatively mild “unfair” through “extortion” and worse. The cameras represent “Big Brother.” They're apparently a threat to liberty. They're unsafe. Initiative promoter Tim Eyman, employing his usual penchant for understatement, says the cameras are “all about the money” and are “the crack cocaine” of City leaders. Eyman has even sponsored a City of Mukilteo initiative that could ban the cameras.

This being the age of the Internet, the cameras have also spawned a host of websites with names like Camerafraud.com and Ban the Cams.org. The latter website explains that its purpose is to "combat the abuse of power" that the cameras represent.

Another site, “Photoenforced.com,” has a map that pinpoints the locations of red-light cameras around the country; the map is surrounded by a changing array of ads. Some are for lawyers who will help you fight your DUI or speeding ticket. Another ad that appears on the site invites you to buy an “invisible license plate—easy application makes your plate completely invisible to cameras!”

What kind of motorists tend to run red lights, anyway? Granted, it could happen to anyone occasionally. But the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a non-profit group financed by insurers, compiled information based on actual driver behavior at one Arlington, Va. intersection. According to the Institute, red-light runners tended to be younger, less likely to use seat belts, and have poorer driving records than drivers who didn't run red lights. They were also three times more likely to have multiple speeding convictions.

Red-light running is also very common. A Fairfax, Va. Study cited by the Institute and based on observations made at several busy intersections without red-light cameras showed that, on average, a motorist ran a red light every 20 minutes at each intersection--more often during peak travel times.

Statistics compiled by the group also show that red-light running is a deadly problem in the United States. In 2008, 762 people were killed and an estimated 137,000 were injured in crashes involving red-light running. About half of such deaths involve pedestrians and people in vehicles hit by the red-light runners. (I didn’t find separate statistics on cyclists killed by red-light runners. But cyclists, as a vulnerable-user group, obviously face risks similar to those faced by pedestrians.)

If you still think the problem is overblown, then take a look at this video, which records an actual crash and starkly illustrates the havoc that a red-light runner can cause. Even more graphic videos are available if you care to peruse YouTube.

In light of the deadly results red-light running, the high death rate on American highways, and the fact that strained law-enforcement budgets will never support a motorcycle officer at every intersection, it’s a little hard to swallow the victim mentality that seems to pervade the anti-camera movement.

Big brother? An invasion of privacy? Hardly. Driving a car is not a personal act between two consenting adults. You’re out there on a public highway for the world to see, and your behavior can have deadly consequences for those forced to share the road with you. When you look at the real technology-related privacy threats we face, with everyone from Google to the U.S. Government vacuuming up our personal data, concern about red-light cameras seems weirdly misplaced.

The Insurance Institute’s data also debunks camera-opponent’s clams that the cameras actually increase accidents. To the contrary, concludes the Institute, the cameras tend to decrease both crashes and red-light violations.

A word to those who may doubt the Institute's data because of its ties to insurers: Say what you will about members of the car-insurance industry, they are generally very good at evaluating the risks upon which their bottom lines depend. You can rest assured that if red-light cameras increased accidents (and claims), insurance companies would oppose them.

Now a word to those cyclists who may be nodding their helmeted heads in agreement with this post: Red lights apply to you, too. It’s true that a bike and cyclists weighing a total of 200 pounds or less pose a much smaller threat than say, a Chevy Suburban. In fact, if you run a red light on a bike, the person most likely to end up dead is you. If that prospect doesn’t concern you, then consider the way that cycling scofflaws irritate other road users and give ammunition to anti-cyclists. It may be unfair for them to paint us all with such a broad and negative brush, but it happens. If you break the law, it hurts us all. You may be able to come up with all kinds of reasons why cyclists should be able to run red lights, from safety to convenience to bad road sensors to moral superiority. the New York Times Ethicist even approves of it under some circumstances. But none of those reasons changes the fact that it’s against the law. If you decide to do it and get a ticket, don't complain.

Cyclists Make Drivers Uncomfortable

A Pemco Insurance poll has revealed what many of us already know—most motorists are uncomfortable driving around bicyclists and they do not understand the rules of road as they relate to biking. The Puget Sound Business Journal did a short piece on the Pemco poll last week.

Forty-two percent of the respondents described themselves as “somewhat uncomfortable” when bicyclists are present on the road while they are driving. Twenty percent said they are “very uncomfortable.”

Only 23 percent know that it’s legal for cyclists to ride two abreast in a traffic lane. Forty-eight percent responded “false.”

Over one-third of the respondents don’t know that it’s illegal for a cyclist to ride against traffic. Only 23 percent responded “false” (correct answer) to the statement, “Bicyclists can be ticketed for riding their bikes in a crosswalk.” Entire poll results are here.

“It’s good to have this data because it shows the need for education,” said Bicycle Alliance of Washington board member Eileen Hyatt of Spokane.

Hyatt is a retired teacher and League Certified Instructor who successfully brought bicycle safety education into school districts around Spokane. She is working with the Bicycle Alliance to expand this program into other schools around Washington State.

The Bicycle Alliance is also acting to educate motorists on how to safely share the road with bicyclists. Working with the Department of Licensing, we have successfully incorporated “share the road” curriculum in all drivers’ education courses. We distribute thousands of Motorists/Bicyclists Tips for Sharing the Road each year. We are now working with legislators to make it a requirement to include “share the road” curriculum in traffic school programs.

Is there a noteworthy skills training or Share the Road program in your community?

Is your community in need of a Share the Road campaign?

What else might be done to make all users of the road comfortable and tolerant of each other?

Ahead of the Curve? Missouri County wants to ban bikes from roads

St Charles County, Missouri, lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban bicycles from certain two-lane highways in the county.  The effort is spearheaded by Councilman Joe Brazil, who claims this is the number one complaint he gets from his constituents. 

"There's no shoulders.  There's limited sight distance.  The speed limit's 55 mph.  It's very dangerous to be riding bicycles on these roads.  And you're putting motorists in danger,"  Brazil was quoted in local TV coverage.  The bill is also supported by the parents of a teenaged motorist who was seriously injured when she swerved to avoid hitting a bicyclist.

Missouri Department of Transportation officials say the county doesn't have the authority to ban bikes from state highways.  County council remains undeterred and plans to revisit the proposal in August.  Read more of the story.

Is St Charles County an anomaly or ahead of the curve?  Sadly, the casino town of Black Hawk, Colorado, has banned bike riding on almost every street in town and police started issuing tickets in June.  Here's a report from the Denver Post.  Bicycle Colorado is challenging the ban. This sort of knee-jerk reaction is in marked contrast to US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood's support of complete streets and biking as transportation. 

Let's ensure that forward and sensible minds prevail.  Speak up for bicycling in your community.  Thank your local officials when they support bicycling.  Contact the Bicycle Alliance of Washington when cycling is threatened in your community.

A tragedy in Cheney and the “right” to drive

I don’t know anything about William Knight, Jr. of Cheney other than what I read in the news.

What I read in the news, however, makes me very glad that I don’t walk or ride a bike in the town where William Knight, Jr. drives his 1997 Kia.

At 10:45 p.m. on Sunday, June 27, 61-year-old James Dahl was crossing First Street in Cheney when he was struck by the Kia, with Knight behind the wheel. Dahl was airlifted to Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane, where he died.

This event was tragic but not unusual. In 2008, 69,000 pedestrians were injured and almost 4,400 killed in the United States. Pedestrian deaths represent a disproportionate 12 percent of American traffic fatalities.

But there’s more to this particular story. Last April 15, 36-year-old Theodore Chauvin was riding his bicycle near Cheney when he was struck by the Kia, again with Knight behind the wheel. Chauvin suffered a broken leg and shoulder and spent four days in the hospital.

The State Patrol didn’t charge Knight with a moving violation for the April 15 collision, although Chauvin was apparently riding his bike legally when Knight hit him. According to the Spokesman-Review, however, police did ticket Knight for failure to have insurance. That case is pending in Spokane Country District Court.

But that’s not the end of it. On April 6, Knight was driving the Kia when a police officer stopped him for improper vehicle registration. (Knight told the officer that he had borrowed the car.) As a result of that stop, Knight is facing tickets for having an expired registration, no insurance and improper use of license plates.

Of course, police are still investigating the June 27 accident, so it’s premature to assign blame. But you do have to ask yourself: given Knight’s encounters with police in April, why was he still legally on the road the night that he struck Dahl?

Yes, everyone deserves due process, and the wheels of justice always seem to grind slowly. But a motor vehicle is a deadly weapon as well as a means of transportation. We should set the rules accordingly, but we don’t. In Washington as in other American states, it doesn’t take much to get your driver’s license, and you have to work really hard to lose it. Driving is seen as more of a right than a privilege.

It’s not that way everywhere--for example, Germany, where getting a license is difficult and losing it is relatively easy. Traffic penalties are also generally higher in Germany and other EU countries. If you exceed the speed limit in Germany by more than 30 km/h (about 20 mph) or more, you can lose your license for up to three months, in addition to paying a stiff fine. In France, going 40 km/h over the speed limit on an autoroute (freeway) can cost you a whopping $1,500 Euros—much to the consternation of some American drivers.

Our country’s lax attitude toward the driving privilege comes at a tremendous cost in lives. In fact, per kilometer walked, an American pedestrian’s chances of being killed are 14 times higher than they are in Germany or the Netherlands. That’s an incredible number of preventable deaths.

I don't know for sure whether tougher driver-licensing requirements or stiffer fines would have saved James Dahl's life. But there's no doubt that they would save the lives of thousands like him every year.

To Roll or Not To Roll

Hi, my name is Katie, and I roll through stop signs.

I’ll be the first to admit that I ride right through 4 stop signs in on my morning commute across I-90 (sometimes I slow down…sometimes I don’t). In the afternoon, I blow through so many stop signs on the Burke-Gilman trail that I can’t even count them. When this topic comes up, I usually hasten to add that I always stop at stop lights, as if that redeems my blatantly illegal stop sign flaunting.

I know the law; RCW 46.61.190 states quite clearly,

(2) Except when directed to proceed by a duly authorized flagger, or a police officer, or a firefighter vested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line

Since bicyclists are drivers of vehicles (RCW 46.04.670), this law clearly applies to us. Yet if you’re like me, you have probably rolled through your share of stop signs, too. And odds are, like me, you don’t feel particularly guilty about those illegal non-stops, either -- even if the behavior outrages motorists a little bit.

Why is stopping, or not stopping, at a stop sign such a big deal? There has been plenty of discussion about why (here, here, and here [PDF], for starters). As fellow bicyclists, you probably already have an answer ready, and I bet your answer runs along these lines: It all comes down to momentum, an issue that doesn’t even register on the radar of motorists or even most pedestrians. Bicyclists crave momentum, hoard it, and release it only under duress. Stopping at stop signs, particularly at completely empty intersections at the bottom of big hills, kills our momentum and makes us work hard to get going again. This rubs us the wrong way, particularly at empty intersections.

However, few topics divide cyclists more quickly than what to do around stop signs. That means there's an entire contingent of vehicular cyclists who say that the law is clear: Bicyclists should "drive" their pedal-powered vehicles the same as they would a motor vehicle, including coming to a full and complete stop* when traffic control devices mandate it. Additionally, there are other concerns around riding through stop signs: It makes cyclists unpredictable and thus more prone to collisions with other vehicles; it infuriates motorists and increases ill-will between motorists and cyclists (see, for example, here, here, and here); it makes the cyclist more likely to hit pedestrians in crosswalks; the reasons and concerns go on.

This brings us to the question of what we should do about this issue. The law clearly doesn’t reflect reality, and many cyclists would argue that the law shouldn’t apply to us for various reasons. Alternatives such as the Idaho stop have received plenty of discussion, but our strict stop-at-stop-signs law remains on the books. Should the Bicycle Alliance pursue an Idaho stop law (the BTA's 2009 effort to implement such a law in Oregon failed), or some other alternative? Should bicyclists more strictly adhere to the law if only to forestall motorists’ eternal complaining about “those law-breaking bicyclists,” since our casual attitude toward stopping always comes out as the first piece of evidence against us?

I know this discussion has only scratched the surface of the issues surrounding stop signs. I’m interested to hear your thoughts on the topic. Do you stop every time? Should you have to?

* We won’t even get into whether you have to put your foot down or if a track stand counts as a complete stop.

Stop sign image courtesy of FreeFoto.com.

Hang Up or Pay Up!

A few weeks ago, as I was walking to the West Seattle Farmer's Market, I was forced to back pedal in the crosswalk as a left-turning motorist breezed through--oblivious to my presence as he chatted on his cell phone.  Sound familiar?

Beginning June 10, motorists in Washington State can be ticketed for using a handheld cell phone or sending and receiving text messages while driving.  For drivers younger than 18, even the use of a hands-free cell phone while driving is off limits.  The fine is $124.

The passage of this law comes too late for Gordon Patterson of Vancouver.  In September 2009, Patterson, a teacher, was biking home after work when he was struck from behind in a bike lane and killed.  The motorist fled the scene and was later caught.  Evidence showed that the driver, 18-year-old Antonio Cellestine, was sending and receiving text messages when he hit Patterson.  In January of this year, he was convicted of vehicular homicide and sentenced to five years in prison.  Read the article in The Columbian for more details.

The campaign to pass this law was spearheaded by the Driven to Distraction Task Force of Washington State, of which the Bicycle Alliance is a member.  We rallied cyclists across the state to contact their legislators in support of the bill.  As bicyclists, we are more vulnerable on the roadway to inattentive drivers than folks enclosed in vehicles.

This law won't ensure our safety on the roads but, if this law is enforced, it will help.  I, for one, will continue to watch out for the other guy.

Courtesy, Legality, and Cycling

When I was growing up, my mother talked about "heaping coals of kindness" on people who wronged me. It took many years before I really understood what she meant. Now that I commute by bicycle, though, I have the opportunity to put this good advice into practice on an almost daily basis.

Let's take a little vignette from my commutes last week.

A gentleman in a small pickup truck honked at me twice in the same place on different days and rolled down his window to admonish me to get in the bike lane where I belonged. I know he thought he knew the law. However, as a certified League Cycling Instructor and employee of the Bicycle Alliance, I knew that RCW 46.04.670 and RCW 46.61.755 clearly delineate the bicyclist's right to the full roadway. (Check out all the laws relating to bicycling in Washington State if you ride on the road -- it pays to be informed.)

That said, I knew that this gentleman was mistaken. Yet instead of reacting angrily when he honked at me the second day, I smiled and waved as he went by. Why? Because when I ride my bike, I represent all bicyclists. My courteous smile and wave could very well make the difference in his interaction with other bicyclists in the future. And sometimes, responding to rudeness with courtesy and kindness can be my most effective rebuke.