Category: Biking in Maryland

"It would lose us $2 million a day — that’s $6 million for three days. But I think it would be a big boost for the state’s economy and most of all, it would just give our citizens a break (from high gas prices)."
*********************************************************************************************************
[B’ Spokes: Do you really want to know what would be good for the economy? Give away $6 million in bikes, cargo trailers, racks and panniers. Empower the people to spend money and a verity of goods and services without sinking so much into just one thing that mostly profits out of state business.
Or maybe we should look at every parked car as someone begging for a hand out because they can no longer afford to be a profitable member of society by going lots of places like they once did. So cyclists could unite to form a chartable society and take some of that money we save and give it to "the poor" cars in the form of little gas cans and printed on the side of the gas can something like: "We know owning a car is expensive so here is enough gas to get you to the store and back so you can spend your money on more important things then just gas. Or you could go out and buy a bike like we did and save even more."
Of course giving away little cans of gas is silly but so is gas tax holiday. If you want to give people a holiday, how about $6 million worth of six Flags or Movie discounts? Why does the auto industry and only the auto industry benefit from such "deals", what’s wrong with spreading some anti-inflation around? It’s not like the price of gas is the only thing that got more expensive.
Assuming we get people to buy as much gas as they are saving in tax, that’s $5 million that Maryland is giving to the middle east and other places that produced the gas and less then one million will stay in the local economy (See "Cars, good for the economy".) It’s like co-opting "buy from local farmers markets because it’s good for the economy" with "buy anything but locally produced stuff." ]
Continue reading “Md. comptroller calls for gas tax freeze over summer holidays”

by Lebowitz & Mzhen
Traffic accidents that take innocent lives are some of the most regrettable events anyone has to face. Recently, the Maryland legislature assed House Bill 363 that essential says drivers who are found guilty of being grossly negligent in fatal car crashes will be facing a new prison term option from courts across the state.
According to news reports, the general assembly approved the bill that calls for "grossly negligent" drivers who are determined to have caused a fatal traffic accident will be looking at mandatory jail time. Previously, even reckless drivers’ actions were found to have resulted in a deadly automobile or motorcycle crash were not always help to account for another person’s death.
Under Maryland’s current statutes, a motorist could be facing jail following a fatal car-bike crash, but only if it can be proven that the defendant was grossly negligent. Many experts have suggested that some of the state’s prosecuting attorneys feel gross negligence is an extremely high standard to reach in court. The approach, according to earlier reports, was to get lower the standard to something closer to “substantial deviation from the standard of care.”
Naturally, demonstrating “substantial negligence” is typically more difficult than “ordinary negligence,” however it is easier than meeting the standard for “gross negligence.” It has been suggested that the standard of substantial negligence would apply to more instances of, say, vehicular homicides in which the defendant was found to be going twice the speed limit on a winding country road, or passing a slower vehicle on a blind curve.
Nevertheless, the new jail-time penalties likely to be used by state and local prosecutors’ offices may begin to make a dent in what seems to have become the painful and all too common occurrence of deadly car-bicycle accidents. The goal, as suggested by many observers, is to thwart the sometimes reckless behavior of motorists and even to reduce or eliminate fatal biking accidents, not unlike the way that DWI and DUI laws have helped to reduce the number alcohol-related traffic accidents, injuries and fatalities.
As Maryland auto and motorcycle accident attorneys and Washington, D.C., injury lawyers, my office has seen the results of road accidents involving passenger cars, commercial trucks and bicycle riders enough to know that new laws designed to protect cyclists and pedestrians are a step in the right direction.
According to news reports, advocates of better bicycle safety laws here in Maryland and in the District have been lobbying for this latest vehicular manslaughter bill many long years. Even the American Automobile Association (AAA) has joined the fray and added its muscle to the effort. While prior years have seen the bill become mired in committee, the last-minute lobbying apparently paid off with passage in the state legislature.
Based on the news, the loss of congressional candidate, Natasha Pettigrew, who was killed in a hit-and-run bicycling accident last September, added to the impetus for the bill’s passage. Pettigrew’s mother had devoted much of her energy to gathering petition signatures and was apparently quite pleased that the legislation would soon become law.
Regardless, there is still much to be done before the roadways are safe for all bikers and pedestrians. Once the law is in place, then comes the enforcement and likely added public awareness campaigns to instill in motorists the possible penalties associated with killing another person through reckless or thoughtless actions.
Continue reading “Maryland Personal Injury News: AAA Joins Victims’ Families in Pushing for Stricter Vehicular Homicide Legislation”

A story in the Baltimore Sun (https://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-05-26/news/bs-md-maryland-drivers-20110526_1_maryland-motorists-gmac-insurance-drivers) notes that Maryland drivers were rated 3rd from the worst in the nation based on a written test covering rules of the road.
Spending more than a few hours riding (or even driving) around Baltimore and Maryland in general, it becomes clear that people do not drive well. They tend to be not courteous and generally unsafe. Especially as it often pertains to bicyclists. Well, the study confirms that at least they are also ignorant of the rules of road!

from TheWashCycle by washcycle

Kate Ryan reports from the Montgomery College cycling conference that

Chief of the Maryland National Capital Park Police Darien Manley said he’d like to see a shift away from the “Share the Road” mentality.

“The share the road/share the trail concept implies that every user is an owner, and that they’re having to give something up,” Manley says.

Instead, Manley would like to see the thinking change from “What am I giving up?” to “What do we need to do to reduce conflicts and improve safety,” with an emphasis on the “we.”

I have to say that I agree 100%. “Share the road” is a vague phrase that encourages everyone to decide what it means to them, and as we’ve seen countless times before, some drivers don’t read it the same way we do. Some, for example, think it means cyclists shouldn’t impede traffic; while cyclists think it means “don’t buzz me bro.”

I much prefer the “Cyclist may use full lane” signs. Tell us – all of us – exactly what is expected, and, as long as it’s reasonable, we’ll do it.

Continue reading “Is it time to retire "Share the Road"?”

This article in the Patch about a 19 year old cyclists who got git by a car in AA County got me looking at Google Street View. It is as if SHA did a checkoff list for complete streets; bike lanes, check; sidewalks,check. And then went and “painted” with bold lines a six lane car centric roadway, much like they have always done and then “penciled” in the bike lanes and crosswalks so as not to disturb the car centricity.

One principle that I hold dear is to keep the fast large turning radii on the freeways where no bike/peds are present and when there are bike/peds present, slow down turning motorists so crossing movement will be less deadly with sharper turning radii. The next principle is clarify that turning motorists are invading other road users space, like this example from NYC:

Now contrast the above with the intersection named in the article:

Is SHA really going to argue that their treatment is the best engineering practices as required by TR § 2-602.1? Did you notice the ONE crosswalk in this picture? Well don’t feel bad it is one of those less visible transverse marked crosswalks that SHA seems to love to do on high speed multi-lane roads. This is not a complete street!

Other sample problem areas near the crash and comments:

Two really wide enter & exit areas for one shopping area allowing high speed entrance (blue car) and no crosswalk and nothing done to the bike lane to indicate potential cross traffic (no dashed lines or chevrons) signalling to motorists – full speed ahead, this is your right-of way and bike/peds are trespassers in this area. This is not a complete street!

Does high speed turning radius, a freeway design (where there are no bicyclists) belong on local roads? Also note the low visibility crosswalk and solid striping (not dashed) of the bike lane across the driveway with conflicting solid turning guidelines for motorists. Why isn’t there a right turn / deceleration lane? Or is a landscape panel in front of a massive parking lot more important then mixed use safety?
This is not a complete street!
Continue reading “How to fail at complete streets while "doing" complete streets”

from TheWashCycle by washcycle

A couple of questions came in to Dr. Gridlock on bicycling that argued that cyclists are breaking the law (when they aren’t) or using poor judgement, even though they’re following the law.

As near as I can tell, in Maryland, bicycles are considered “vehicles” by the Transportation Code (11-104) and bicyclists are subject to “all duties required of the driver of a vehicle (21-1202). Those duties invclude stopping at stop signs and not passing on the right except in certain limited defined circumstances (beating a line of cars stopped at a red light not among those). Maybe DC and VA have similar laws, but I wonder why we don’t seem to see these in your frequent columns on bicycles. Just this morning I had a bicyclist go between two lanes of traffic stopped for a red light and then proceed through the red light and resume a blocking position in the right lane.

Of course running a red light is still illegal in Maryland, but lane splitting is not according to WABA. So the commenter is wrong on that (it’s also legal in VA and DC).

Dr. Gridlock says

Bicyclists across the region are supposed to obey the traffic laws, and as I frequently point out, many don’t. (I also point out that drivers at least slow down for stop signs.)

That’s the third time he’s said that recently, as though that somehow absolves drivers. Of course drivers slow down (and so do cyclists more often than not). They’re going faster to start with, had less time to look as they approached the intersection, have poorer vision and don’t have the benefit of stereoscopic hearing. If I were half blind and half deaf, I’d be more cautious too. But either one is opposed to scofflaw behavior, or one is not. And even slowing down, drivers are still probably more dangerous at intersections.

The next commenter wrote

The WaPo has had quite a few stories about, yes, it’s legal for bicyclists to take a full lane while riding. I wonder though whether it is prudent to exercise this right on (for example) a single lane curvy uphill road with a 35 mph speed limit, when you have trouble maintaining 6 mph. None of the stories ever seem to address the safety aspects of what can be an enormous speed differential.

Banning cyclists from going uphill, is the same as banning cycling. I wonder how often the situation described above has ever occured. Plus we just recently talked about how a driver should be prepared to stop for a stopped vehicle, so 6mph should give a pretty good cushion. The only reason it would be dangerous, is because of bad drivers. Dr. G does a better job with this one.

When I hear cycling safety advocates urge bikers to take the lane, it’s usually in this scenario: They’re driving on city streets with cars parked along the sides, and they’re hugging the curb, then pulling out to get around cars, then pulling back to the curb, then pulling out to get around cars.

That’s not a safe situation. They’re confusing the drivers — sometimes they’re there, and sometimes they’re not. It would be better to remain in the drivers’ field of vision at all times, rather than popping in and out.

Continue reading “Bikelash on Dr. Gridlock’s chat”

Our federal tax dollars actually go to build these streets that are designed to be perilous to children, older adults and everyone else. And yet, right now, some in Congress are considering the total elimination of funding for projects to make it safer to walk and bicycle.

The highways-only lobby insists that pedestrian safety is a “frill” and a local responsibility. But 67 percent of these fatalities over the last 10 years occurred on federal-aid roads — roads eligible to receive federal funding or with federal guidelines or oversight for their design.

That’s right: Federal programs have encouraged state departments of transportation to prioritize speeding traffic over the safety of people in our neighborhoods and shopping districts. Shouldn’t our tax dollars be used to build streets that are safe for all users, and not deadly for those on foot?

The irony is that fixing these conditions is relatively cheap: Existing funds for that purpose — now targeted for elimination — amount to less than 1.5 percent of the current federal transportation outlay. A policy of giving federal support only to “complete streets” that are designed for the safety of people on foot or bicycle as well as in cars would cost next to nothing.

Tell Congress: it’s no time to start cutting funding keeps pedestrians safe.

---

Continue reading “Dangerous by Design 2011”

With some sadness I bring you Maryland’s 2011 ranking:

Maryland – Bronze – Cumulative Grade C

State Rank: 10 out of 50

Category	Grade
Legislation:	B
Policies & Programs:	A
Infrastructure:	D
Education & Encouragement:	A
Evaluation & Planning:	F
Enforcement:	F

---

B’ Spokes: The sadness comes from all we want is an accurate assessment of where Maryland is but sadly our Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access only had time to throw insults and would not engage in constructive dialog.

Legislation: Mandatory bike lane use and no vulnerable user law is equal to a B? (I would give a C)

Policies: There is no doubt that Maryland has some great polices that we really need to start calling them on but policies to increase the number of trips by bicycle or CO2 reduction by more bicycle use are debatable.

Education & Encouragement: A ??? Seriously? At least now you know why I have been picking on the Driver’s Test of late. That’s right, this stuff is top notch, grade A, at least according to our Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access.

Evaluation & Planning: Grade F – Nice comment on our State’s 10 year old stagnate Bike Master Plan. Gee, I wounder who is the head bike guy in MDOT’s Office of Planning? Does he even know that this is a reflection of how well he is doing in his job?

What hope do we have in making improvements if the Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access would rather engage in personalized attacks rather then engage in constructive dialog?
Continue reading “Bicycle Friendly America”

Via TheWashCycle
Maryland wants to raise the toll on the Bay Bridge but state Rep. Andy Harris thinks it’s unfair. The toll hasn’t been raised from $2.50 since 1975. If it raised with inflation it’d be $10.45. So much for "user’s fees".
Continue reading “Another not keeping up with inflation motoring "user fee"”

[B’ Spokes: I thought it only fair to translate this Washington Post article to more accurately say what was intended. THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL and is satiric in nature.]
*********************************************************************************************************************************************
Peter Smurph of Falls Church writes that he’s never seen a motorist that drives UNDER the maximum speed limit or stop BEFORE the crosswalk when making a right-on-red or get ticketed by police for breaking these laws. But cyclists riding in the roadway is the real problem but since it is legal for some unknown reason, he’ll just point out things that cyclists have a hard time doing on roads designed solely around the automobile. Like coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. Stop means a complete cessation of motion, like the difference between "No Standing" (leaving the motor running) and "No Stopping" (motor off) so Stop means stopping the engine but since no motorists does that it’s OK for motorists but if all cyclists do something to equalize car centric roads then we should throw the car centric book at cyclists. Cars and all the carnage they cause is why we have these traffic laws in the first place so those laws should be doubly applicable for cyclists since they kill more people then cars do because they are inherently less safe without all the safety equipment that cars have.
Sharon G. Badhairday of Bethesda says that she’s an avid walker and that there is no place where pedestrians are safe from bicycles — on the streets, sidewalks or even off-road paths. So bicyclists should stay off the sidewalks, the bike paths and of course the streets.
From out in Gaithersburg, James Rushneverslow writes that upcounty cyclists put their shoulders against his car, pushing it across the yellow line in to oncoming traffic. Rushneverslow says he does not like being forced into oncoming traffic by cyclists.
All three say sharing the road works one way and one way only, it is cyclists that must always get out of the way of cars and never, never should the motorist be inconvenienced in the slightest. The rule of the road is the faster you can go. the faster you need to go. And the slower you go the more you don’t mind going even slower, that’s just simple logic.
Shane Goesfaronthatthing, head of the Bicyclist Association, has read those recent letters to The Washaton Post and similar sentiments from drivers in e-mails, letters and in conversation.
As thousands of cyclists are expected to join everyday bike commuters for Bike to Work Day on Friday, Goesfaronthatthing agrees with those who say that cyclists will get more respect if drivers understood traffic laws and safety as applicable to cyclists.
“Cyclists need to preserve their own safety first” Goesfaronthatthing said. "If everyone realized that bicyclists need to be apart of traffic (riding in the middle of the lane) for standard rules for traffic to be safe for cyclists. Once a bicyclists tries to ride "outside" of traffic the court is still out on what makes riding that way safe but too often trying to obey standard rules for being in-traffic while riding outside-of-traffic does not always work well.
One of the regular frustrations for drivers comes when some cyclists are riding erratic, like riding outside of traffic when extra road width is present and then back into the travel lane when there is no extra width, which Goesfaronthatthing says the bicyclist association’s education courses help cyclists address that by stressing that cyclists should be more reluctant to ride outside of traffic (do not weave in and out of parked cars for one.)
“For bikes to be treated as a viable part of the transportation system, cyclists have to be visible and predictable,” Goesfaronthatthing said. “They have to behave in ways that help motorists understand what to expect.”
He also said that greater awareness on the part of those behind the wheel would also help keep people safe.
“There are things that seem like minor details to drivers but keep the cyclists in safe places,” he said.
For example, sometimes a road’s shoulder is not safe for cyclists if there is glass, debris or potholes. Riding too close to parked cars can be dangerous for cyclists if doors suddenly swing open. Drivers who turn right without checking for bikes can collide with cyclists in adjacent lanes.
Continue reading “The Post’s "sharing the road works both ways" – translated”