The Gem, The Beaver--And The Evergreen--Stop

How would you like to get something your neighbor has...

...had since 1982?

Well, I have to admit: That question hasn't crossed my mind because, well, I didn't know my current neighbors in 1982.  And my neighbors in 1982...well, that was a different world, wasn't it?

Anyway...Last year, one state got something its neighbor had 37 years earlier.  And, yesterday, another neighbor got it. 

So, which "neighbors" am I talking about?  They aren't the folks in the house or building next door. Rather, they're three northwestern states in the United States.

What they all have now is named for one of those states.  I've mentioned it in earlier posts:  a cyclist's right to ride through a stop sign if the coast is clear.

In our world (i.e., cycling and transportation circles), it's often referred to as the "Idaho stop."  The Gem State legalized it the same year Michael Jackson's "Thriller" was released.  Since then, other jurisdictions, including a few towns in Colorado and Paris, France, have instituted versions of it. But it took Oregon, Idaho's southwestern neighbor, 37 years to do the same.

Yesterday, cyclists in Washington State, just to the north of the Beaver State, received the same right. 

Kudos to Washington Bikes for its work leading to the passage of the law, sponsored by Senator Andy Billig and Representative Joe Fitzgibbon.  The Evergreen State lawmakers, and the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDT), cited a study documenting decreased bicycle injuries and improved overall bicycle safety in jurisdictions that implemented versions of the "Idaho Stop."  One reason for the improvement in safety is that the "Idaho Stop" reduces the confusion--which sometimes leads to collisions--that results when cyclists stop at signs or motorists give cyclists the right of way when, for example, traffic is entering the intersection from another direction.  

Interestingly, the study cited by the SDT also mentions that cyclist safety improves because, in riding through "stop" signs, cyclists spend less time in intersections, where air pollution is greater. Also, cyclists are less likely to suffer overuse or other injuries from continuous stopping and starting.

Now there's a question to be researched: How much does strain and stress increase the risk of cycling accidents?

 

The Idaho Stop Comes To Oregon

A couple of months ago, I wrote that Jonathan Maus, the editor/publisher of Bike Portland, was trying to persuade the Oregon legislature to legalize the "Idaho Stop."  In essence, it allows cyclists to treat a red traffic signal as a "stop" sign and a "stop" sign as a "yield" sign.  What this means is that a cyclist wouldn't have to stop unless traffic were crossing the intersection.  That allows cyclists to get out in front of the traffic approaching him or her from behind, and to cross ahead of incoming traffic. These maneuvers prevent cyclists from being hit by turning vehicles.

Of course, people who don't cycle don't understand as much. They think that cyclists must behave exactly like drivers and  stop when and where the drivers stop.  They also think we are supposed to ride as far to the right as possible, which of course exponentially increases our chances of getting flattened by a turning car or truck--or of getting "doored."

Apparently, 28 such people in the Oregon legislature think this way.  Fortunately, 31 others "get it", and voted to bring the "Idaho Stop" to Oregon on Tuesday 25 June.  The bill will now go to Governor Kate Brown's desk for signing, and will become law six months from now, on New Year's Day of 2020.

Killing A Cyclist Is A Misdemeanor? What's The Alternative?

My dealings with this city's bus drivers have been, for the most part, respectful and courteous. I try not to make their job more difficult and I think most of them actually to do the same for me. Then again, if I can't communicate verbally, I try to signal with nods, winks, thumbs-up, eye contact and the hand signals (for turns and such) they used to teach in school.  I try to avoid using my middle finger, and most of the time I succeed.
  
They have a tough job. I try to be the cyclist they're thinking of when they complain about us.  There are other cyclists who think and act as I  do--I've seen them--and I hope the drivers remember, if not us, then at least their interactions with us.

Photo by Yanina Manolova

I really don't want anything to make our relationship more hostile.  After all, whether or not it's their intention, they are helping to reduce the number of cars in this city.  And, quite frankly, I am more confident about their commitment to safe driving than that of a lot of other drivers I encounter.

As I've said in other posts on this blog, the best way to create an environment that's safe, let alone friendly, for cyclists is for motorists to understand what it's like to ride.  That is best accomplished when large numbers of motorists are also, or have recently been, cyclists.  Such is the case in many European countries.  Increasing the hostility between cyclists and motorists helps no-one.

That is why I'm really troubled by a bill that's just passed in the New York State Senate. I'm also just as troubled by the situation it's supposed to remedy.

As it's written, the bill would exempt bus drivers--as taxi drivers and others paid to drive--from the same consequences other drivers face when they hit or run down a pedestrian or cyclist.  If the bill is enacted (i.e., if the State Assembly votes for it), the police would not be able to detain any bus, cab or livery driver who strikes a cyclist or pedestrian who has the right of way.  They would also not be held at the scene of an accident for reckless endangerment, assault or other violations that aren't covered in the traffic code.  As long as the driver remains at the scene, has a valid license, is cooperating with police and  isn't suspected of being drunk or high, law enforcement can only issue him or her a desk appearance ticket.

In other words, the bill would make killing a cyclist--as long as the driver responsible is a professional--a misdemeanor.

Of course, as a cyclist, I find that outrageous.  However, at the same time, I don't think that automatically slapping the cuffs on a bus or cab driver if there's a pedestrian or cyclist lying in front of his or her vehicle is the best policy.  While I've seen reckless drivers, I suspect that the majority of cases in which cyclists or pedestrians are struck or run over by bus or taxi drivers are accidents--terrible ones, but accidents nonetheless.  

So, I can understand why the transit workers' union wanted the bill that's just passed at the same time.  On the other hand, I can't help but to think that they want it only because the only alternative they've been presented is one that automatically assumes the guilt of the driver.  I'm no Constitutional scholar,or even a lawyer, but it doesn't sound like either the bill or the automatic assumption of guilt squares very well with the foundational document of this country's jurisprudence.

As we say here in the Big Apple, There's Gotta Be A Better Way.

A Cloud Over Cyclists' Safety

120.

Why does that number matter?

It's how many cyclists were killed in traffic accidents in two different localities during 2012.

Take a guess as to which localities.

All right, I'll tell you the first one:  the United Kingdom. About 64 million people live in its 242,990 square kilometers of land.  About 43 percent of the people own or have access to a bicycle.  By this definition, the UK has 27.5 million cyclists, of whom 3 million cycle three times a week or more.

Now, what's the other place where 120 cyclists were killed in traffic accidents in 2012?

It's none other than Florida.

Yes, the Sunshine State, which is about two-thirds the size of Britain and has less than a third of its population. 

The fatality statistics come from an article on The Economist's blog.  It also mentions that Florida's pedestrian fatality rate is double the US average. In fact, according to the National Complete Streets Coalition, the four most dangerous cities for pedestrians in America are also the four largest cities in Florida:  Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa-St.Petersburg and Orlando.

The article rightly points out, "Florida's cities are routinely dangerous because they are designed for cars, not for people."  That is true:  Traffic lanes are wider in Florida's cities than they are in other urban areas of the United States, and speed limits are higher but not enforced. This encourages drivers to go faster than they should. 

What the article doesn't mention--and I know from a fairly extensive amount of cycling in Florida--is that those drivers are rarely cyclists themselves, and are thus unaware of what makes for a safe (let alone harmonious) existence between cyclists and motorists.  I have argued, in other posts on this blog, that this is the single most important factor, apart from the behavior of cyclists themselves, in determining the safety of cyclists.  Without this internal human infrastructure, so to speak (which is what much of Europe has), no number of bike lanes or traffic signals is going to make cycling safer in any city.

To its credit, Florida officials are looking into the issue of bicycle/pedestrian safety and, I believe, some localities are addressing the issue as best as they know how.  One problem, as The Economist article points out, is that the state also plans to continue with an economic model based on breakneck growth, all of it fueled by cars.  It is not an exaggeration to say that for every person added to the Sunshine State's population, another car is added to its roadways.

Interestingly, the author of the article seems to recognize that it's not a sustainable economic model.  And it's not a recipe for reducing the number of cyclists killed, no matter how many new bike paths are built.