Posts

Posted on

AAA supports HB 363 but Senator Frosh is not so sure (Manslaughter by Vehicle or Vessel – Criminal Negligence)


Senator Frosh has been quoted in the paper saying some things that do not ring true about HB 363 and that needs to be addressed. Some quotes of Frosh in the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post, what the bill actually says and my comments:

Frosh: Already approved by the
House, a bill that would change
the law now is in the Senate
Judicial Proceedings Committee,
which Frosh chairs. He says the
rush of Senate business has kept
him from reading it. He plans to
hold a hearing next week but isn’t
sure whether he will ask the committee to vote on it.
“It depends on what the bill
says,” Frosh said, “and whether it
can be fixed and whether they can
thread the needle.

B’ Spokes: So to be fair he has not read the bill yet so this may be a bit of an over reaction but still his concerns necessitate a response.

Frosh: Proponents jubilation at House passage of the bill has been tempered by comments from Sen. Brian E. Frosh, chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, expressing concerns that the law could be used to jail people over unintentional driving errors.

HB 363: IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION FOR A PERSON TO CAUSE THE DEATH OF ANOTHER AS THE RESULT OF THE PERSON’S DRIVING, OPERATING, OR CONTROLLING A VEHICLE OR VESSEL IN A NEGLIGENT MANNER

B’ Spokes: Simple negligence still exists and is purposefully excluded in this bill to address that concern. This bill fills the GAP between simple negligence and recklessness.

Frosh: Sen. Brian E. Frosh, chairman of that panel, expressed misgivings about creating an offense carrying a jail term for conduct that was negligent but not intentional or reckless.

HB 363: THE PERSON SHOULD BE AWARE, BUT FAILS TO PERCEIVE, THAT THE PERSON’S CONDUCT CREATES A SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK THAT SUCH A RESULT WILL OCCUR; AND THE FAILURE TO PERCEIVE CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE THAT WOULD BE EXERCISED BY A REASONABLE PERSON.

B’ Spokes: Really, someone that drives without the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable person and KILLS someone should no way, no how, in all circumstances never face jail time?

Post: “For someone to demonstrate
‘substantial negligence’ is higher
than ordinary negligence but
lower than gross negligence,”
Simmons said. “At one point I
estimated that there were 30 to
40 [vehicular] homicides that
prosecutors wanted to prosecute
but couldn’t under today’s high
standard.

Frosh: But Frosh said he’s concerned about imposing harsh penalties on drivers who may have killed others as a result of “split-second negligence.” “Our jails are bursting right now,” he said. “To me the jails are a place for people who have done something that is intentional.”

HB 363: A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION IS SUBJECT TO IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 3 YEARS OR A FINE NOT EXCEEDING $5,000 OR BOTH.

B’ Spokes: Split-second negligence??? Cute misdirection but what is he saying? It’s perfectly fine to take a split second to send a text message thus missing a red light and then killing people as a consequence? Frosh seems to keep referring to simple negligence and the penalty for that is still $500 max.

Post: To Frosh, that new standard
could be applied to the mother
who fatally hits a bicyclist when
she takes a glance at a crying child
in the back seat of her minivan

B’ Spokes: First I would like to point out that Frosh has NOT read the bill so his assertion that a glance back is more then simple negligence may not be valid. Next, as a father of five we have ALWAYS pulled off the roadway to deal with the kids. I take exception to the assertion that a mother HAS to be distracted for a split second to deal with kids. As always we trust the courts and juries to do the right thing, if we throw that out the window there is no point to making laws.

Overview

Descending order of culpability in manslaughter Simple definition Explanation Fines
Currently Maryland only has this Manslaughter Reckless, gross negligence High risk and driver knows there is a high risk of death. Felony, imprisonment not more then 10 years or not more then $10,000 or both.
HB 363.will establish this Negligent homicide (model penal code version) Substantial deviation from standard of care High risk and driver should know there is a high risk of death. Misdemeanor, imprisonment not more then 3 years or not more then $5,000 or both.
NOT HB 363 Negligent homicide (2 states and DC) Simple negligence; any deviation from standard of care Driver does something where the possible risk times the likelihood of death was greater than the benefits of doing so, and death results.

B’ Spokes: Jail time – We have jail time for for selling cars without a licence for crying out loud but when it comes to driving in a KNOWN (or should be known) risky way that ends up killing someone, well we’ll just let that go unchecked because it was not intentional, seriously? (I will also assert one major reason why risky behavior may not seem intentional is because the MVA does such a terrible job in educating drivers about driving risks with only a 20 question test. (Other States have 100 question test.)) But at the end of the day we have to trust the courts and the juries to use this tool properly, we may never see any jail time even for the most grievous of cases as there is nothing mandatory about jail time.[1]

B’ Spokes: Maximum punishments are there to cover the first time very, very close to recklessness cases. They are also there to cover repeat offenders, in spite of getting numerous tickets, there are some people that still engage in risky behavior that will sooner or later end up killing someone.

Frosh: Frosh said somebody who kills another through automotive negligence can face harsh consequences in civil lawsuits. “You can lose your house for that. You can lose your kids’ college fund,” he said.

B’ Spokes, In Conclusion:
In 2007 The Judicial Proceedings Committee (Frosh was the Chairman) failed to bring to a vote SB 267 “the fact that a plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent may not bar recovery by the plaintiff” which means being contributorily negligent by just 1% a plaintiff can be bared from recovery of ANY AND ALL damages is still on the books and does come up on occasion.

So apparently Frosh wants it both ways, no serious misdemeanor charges AND no civil damages either. Not to mention in civil cases it is often the insurance that pays, not the driver. This is simply not right and in most states, drivers who kill can be charged with negligent homicide, if their driving is a flagrant violation of the duty to drive carefully—even if there is no proof that the driver realized they might kill someone AND on top of that most states allow civil damages based on comparative negligence (or something similar.) The loophole in Maryland is that there is no such crime and civil remedies are denied, is it any wounder that The 2010 “Allstate America’s Best Drivers Report™” has DC and Baltimore dead last?

Note: I am sending this to Frosh to see if he would like to comment.
If you want to take action this is our latest alert.


Continue reading “AAA supports HB 363 but Senator Frosh is not so sure (Manslaughter by Vehicle or Vessel – Criminal Negligence)”

Posted on

Apoyo a la ley 363

La ley en vigencia no castiga a conductores que matan a alguien con su vehículo. Esta ley está bajo revisión en este momento y ya a sido aprobada por la Cámara de representantes. Falta que la ley estableciendo como un Crimen de Homicidio a la persona que por manejar su vehículo en una manera negligente mata a una persona sea aprobada por el Senado. Para tener justicia en los condados de Baltimore y el estado de Maryland es necesario que la propuesta de ley sea aprobada por el Senado. La propuesta de ley de la Cámara de Representantes 363 (Establece como un crimen de Homicidio Involuntario por causar la muerte con un vehículo a un peatón o ciclista a la persona que se compruebe que estaba manejando su vehículo en una forma negligente.)

Por favor llame a su Senador solicitando la aprobación. Senador Zirkin (410) 841-3131 and 1-800-492-7122 x 3131 Pregúntale a votar a favor del el proyecto del ley 363. Si no están presentes hablé con el personal de la oficina, eso ayudara en el establecimiento del proyecto de la ley 363 y incrementara la seguridad de los peatones y ciclistas en el Estado de Maryland.

Posted on

Have You Been in a Crash & Denied Recovery?

If so, we need your story.
We are looking for stories of cyclists and pedestrians who were involved in crashes, but were unable to recover damages for their injuries or property damage because they were found at-fault.
We need stories from the throughout the region, so please let us know if this happened to you, and forward this request to your friends who have been in crashes.
DC, Maryland, and Virginia are three of the last jurisdictions retaining a liability standard that allows blaming the victim for his or her injuries and denying any recovery if any fault can be attributed to that victim.
We want to begin chipping away at that standard and making the roadways fairer, where those at fault must pay a fair percentage for the harm they cause. But we need the real, concrete stories to make the case.
To tell us your story email us at info [at] BaltimoreSpokes.org and/or Bike Maryland https://bikemd.org/page.php?id=166
In the DC metro area follow the link after the fold.
Continue reading “Have You Been in a Crash & Denied Recovery?”

Posted on

FYI AAA alert on House Bill 363

Take Action. Now!
You and your State Senator must act now to make Maryland roads safer!
AAA Urges Marylanders to Support House Bill 363 Which Will Strengthen Vehicular Manslaughter Laws And Close Existing Loopholes

Take Action!
Please Contact Your Senator Today to Urge HB 363 to Be Passed Out of the Judicial Proceedings Committee
 
House Bill 363 will help ensure that those recklessly negligent drivers who kill and seriously injure others can be appropriately punished.    Maryland ’s current vehicular manslaughter statute requires prosecutors to show actual intent to kill, regardless of how irresponsible or reckless their driving may have been. 

This legislation increases penalties for those who drive in such a negligent manner that it results in a crash that kills someone, or in some cases, many.

Maryland’s current law is routinely allowing some drivers to get away with murder on our roads. It is reprehensible that a motorist can drive a vehicle outrageously, and kill someone in the process through his or her own negligence, and then get away merely with a fine or a traffic ticket. We are not referring to simple negligence, but negligence that is so egregious that it exceeds ordinary negligence, such as the intentional violation of several traffic laws that lead to the death of someone.

The auto club is advocating once again to pass this important legislation, to change the penal law, and call attention to Maryland’s extremely lenient vehicular manslaughter laws. The loopholes that exist allow those who drive in a criminally negligent manner on Maryland roads and kill innocent people to escape without serious sanctions. For the sake of the victims and their families, it is the right thing to do and it’s the right time to do it.

Over the years, AAA has seen many killers on Maryland’s highways go virtually unpunished for the heinous crimes they committed behind the wheel because the standard for vehicular homicide and manslaughter are so high. Because the standard is so high, such cases are very difficult to prosecute. HB 363 will at least provide a middle-ground and criminal conviction instead of a simple traffic citation for negligent traffic offenses that result in death.

HB 363 passed in the House Chamber and the bill is now in the hands of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. AAA Mid-Atlantic encourages you to take action by filling out the information below and sending a letter to your Senator asking the Judicial Proceedings Committee to vote in favor of HB 363 so the legislation will proceed to the Chamber for a full vote.
Posted on

Motorists, cyclists need to learn how to share pavement

BY ROBERT VITALE – THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Jim Cristy’s string of close calls came to a crashing, bruising halt a week ago on Cannon Drive south of Ohio State University.

The North Side resident was riding his bike in the right lane when a car passed on his left and then made a right turn into a parking lot. Christy hit the car’s rear passenger side and was thrown to the street. He bruised his hip and shoulder.

The car never stopped.

Coexistence isn’t always peaceful these days on central Ohio streets, many of which are being re-engineered to accommodate people driving on two wheels and four.

Columbus has created 14 miles of bike lanes on its streets since 2008. The city also has added
pavement markings – “sharrows” – and signs along 37 additional miles to welcome cyclists to the
streets.

But people’s knowledge of the rules of the road hasn’t kept pace with the biking boom.

“There’s a new paradigm,” said Bernice Cage, spokeswoman for the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning
Commission, which monitors traffic of all types. “Motorists aren’t sure where cyclists should be,
and a lot of cyclists don’t know where they should be.”

Annual bike-traffic counts by MORPC show, anecdotally at least, that more people are
pedaling.

The agency counts bike riders several times a year at more than two dozen locations in central
Ohio and says it has seen increases in each of the past six years, particularly during morning rush
hours.

“We look out our window, and we see it,” said Jeff Stephens, who heads the Columbus
Transportation and Pedestrian Commission and runs an advocacy group called Consider Biking. “The
census shows it. We have counts on trails. Bike retailers’ sales are increasing.”

So consider this an avoiding-the-crash course on the laws governing how we roll.

Street or sidewalk?

State law allows bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk, but Columbus says adults must ride in the
street or on trails.

Despite the local rule, nearly half of the bicyclists MORPC counted in September were on
sidewalks.

It might seem more dangerous for bikes to ride among auto traffic, but studies have found that
it’s safer.

Drivers are more attuned to what’s on the road around them than what’s on the sidewalk. People
walk slowly enough for drivers to spot, but faster-moving bicyclists can enter their field of
vision too late.

Share the road

Some cyclists say they don’t like the street signs that remind drivers that bicycles use the
road, too. They say the message reinforces the idea that autos own the road.

According to the law, they don’t.

Columbus requires cyclists to ride as far to the right “as practicable,” but cyclists can use
their judgment. They can use the left lane for turns but can’t ride left of center. They don’t have
to use bike lanes, and they don’t have to ride at the curb.

“If a cyclist hugs the curb, they are easily squeezed off the road and into a wreck by passing
cars,” said Erle Haunn, who rides in Delaware and Morrow counties.

Jamie Fellrath, a cycling instructor who lives in Clintonville, said it’s safest for bicyclists
to ride in the right third of the right lane, not at the curb. The tactic is called “controlling
the lane,” and it tends to keep cars from driving right next to a bike.

Equal rights

Under state and local law, bikes are included under the definition of
vehicle.

That means that drivers must extend the same courtesies to cyclists that they are required to
extend to other motorists: no passing in the same lane, no tailgating, etc.

It also means that bicyclists must follow the same laws. They can ride two abreast in the same
lane, but can’t roll up to an intersection between or beside the vehicles that got there first.

“You should ride your bike the same way that you
should drive your car,” said John Canty, who commutes by bike between Worthington and
Downtown.

Equal responsibilities

If bicycles and cars are viewed equally in the eyes of the law, then the big driving no-no’s
apply to bikes, too.

Cyclists break the law if they ride through stop signs and red lights.

That’s what makes Johanna North nervous.

“I’ve had cyclists breeze through red lights and swerve in front of my car,” the Far East Side
resident said.

The ticket for running a red light – as much as $150 – is the same for bicyclists and
drivers.

According to the State Highway Patrol, about 1,500 bicyclists are injured and about 18 are
killed in Ohio every year.

Setting the pace

“There’s an impression among both drivers and cyclists that there exists something called a
minimum speed limit,” Fellrath said.

A state appeals court ruled against that idea in 2001 by throwing out the case against a cyclist
who had been ticketed for impeding traffic in the Dayton suburb of Trotwood.

Drivers can pass bicyclists just as they’d pass another car. Cyclists aren’t required to move
over to let cars pass, but they can’t pick up speed until they’re passed.

However, if a car or bicycle is going less than half the maximum speed limit, vehicles are
allowed to pass in a no-passing zone by going over the centerline. Drivers cannot pass in the same
lane.

Continue reading “Motorists, cyclists need to learn how to share pavement”

Posted on

A Baltimore bicyclist’s manifesto

By Julie Gabrielli 
For The Baltimore Sun
March 22, 2011

Dear fellow Baltimore driver:

Now that spring is in the air, I’ve begun riding my bike a couple of times a week. Nothing too ambitious. It’s great for short trips — the gym is 3.7 miles from home and Saturday yoga class is 1.6. I’ll be getting sweaty anyway, so why not?

I also drive in my car, plenty, and I’ve noticed something. When we are driving, we tend only to pay attention to other cars. When we do see a bike, we can be surprised or even resentful. Why is that recreation-seeker getting in my way? Don’t they know how dangerous it is to ride a bike in the street?

This morning on my ride, I decided to let you in on some of the reasons why I choose to ride my bike and my promise to those who share the road with me.

Reasons why I ride:

  • I’m a multi-tasker. I like being able to get somewhere while at the same time burning off some of that winter-stored fat.
  • It’s fun — really.
  • I can hear the birds singing while I ride and say hello to people who are out.
  • It saves me money – have you seen the price of gas lately?
  • My car is overdue for its 105,000-mile checkup, so I’m trying to drive it as little as possible.

Not reasons why I ride:

  • I like climbing hills on Greenspring Ave.
  • I’m addicted to the adrenaline rush of a very loud car horn, as it sweeps past me with inches to spare.
  • I want a new bike, but I have to get rid of this one first.
  • I want to test how low my co-pay will be for an extended hospital stay.

What I will not do while riding my bike near you:

  • Listen to my iPod
  • Talk or text on my cellphone
  • Change lanes right in front of you
  • Run red lights
  • Ride on the sidewalk (this is actually illegal)

What I will do:

  • Watch traffic in my rear-view mirror (yes, I do have one, and yes, I can also hear you coming, so you really do not have to honk)
  • Go around parked cars (so if you see me in the parking lane and you happen to notice a parked car up ahead, you can safely assume I’ll be in your lane in short order)
  • Ride as far to the right as possible and/or in the paint-marked bike lane.
  • Go around road hazards (OK — it’s Baltimore and we just finished winter. You know and I know the roads are in sorry shape, so, yes, I will go around potholes, gravel patches, big cracks and those deadly storm grates with the bars going parallel to my tires. Rest assured that I’m not pulling into your lane just to tick you off, hear your car horn up close, or draw you into some sort of altercation).
  • Stay upright and moving (this is why I will go around road hazards, the alternative being my becoming suddenly horizontal in the road right in front of your tires).
  • Signal lane changes and turns.
  • Continue to pay my taxes, which gives me every right to be on the roads, whether in my car or on my bike.
  • Expect you to honor the three-foot rule. When you see me, give me a berth of three feet, and I promise to make it as easy as possible for you (I won’t push you into oncoming traffic; don’t worry).
  • Invite you to join me at any time, so you can experience the joys and benefits of self-propelled movement on two wheels.

Continue reading “A Baltimore bicyclist’s manifesto”

Posted on

Shouldn’t it be a crime to kill someone by driving a vehicle negligently? It’s not.

[B’ Spokes: WABA’s alert tailored for Baltimore.]

Action Alert

Each year, too many bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists die on the roadways of Maryland.  Part of the problem is aggressive drivers who speed, tailgate, drive on the wrong side of a double-yellow line or drive on the shoulder–and never yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.  If they kill someone in most states or the District of Columbia, a jail sentence is likely.  But not in Maryland.

A drunk driver who kills someone in Maryland may be convicted of manslaughter if they are drunk.  But otherwise, to convict someone of vehicular manslaughter requires proving that the driver knew that he or she might kill someone.  And that is almost always impossible to prove. 

A driver in Takoma Park swerved off the road and hit a 12-year old girl walking home from school on the sidewalk along Piney Branch Road.  He then made a U-turn and drove off, and the girl died.  The jury convicted him of manslaughter.  But the appeals court overturned the conviction because under Maryland law, this evidence does not prove that the driver was reckless.

A driver in St. Mary’s county decided not to clear her windshield of frost, other than a small viewing hole.  As a result, she could not see anything on the right side of the lane. While fiddling with some items on her lap, she struck and killed a father riding his bicycle on the right side of the road.  Because she did not see the cyclist, she could not be convicted of manslaughter for killing him, and was fined $500.

In most states, drivers who kill can be charged with negligent homicide, if their driving is a flagrant violation of the duty to drive carefully—even if there is no proof that the driver realized they might kill someone.  The loophole in Maryland is that there is no such crime.

But this year, the House of Delegates passed House Bill 363 which would create the crime of negligent vehicular homicide in Maryland.  If the Senate passes the bill as well, Maryland will join most of the other states in the nation by closing the loophole.  But the key committee deciding the fate of this bill killed it last year—and they may do it again this year, unless these Senators hear from their constituents.

Time is dwindling in the legislative session, and at this late stage, phone calls are the most effective means of communicating the importance of this bill.


There are three key senators on the committee who need to hear from their constituents that this is a priority.  If you live within the District of one of these senators, please make a call, stating your support for HB 363-Criminally Negligent Homicide by Vehicle.  To find your Maryland Senatorial District, click HERE.

Senator Lisa A. Gladden (District 41): (410) 841-3697

Senator Robert A. (Bobby) Zirkin (District 11): (410) 841-3131

Senator James Brochin (District 42): (410) 841-3648

*** Note these Senators are already supportive the ASK is to make this Bill a priority and to keep it as passed and amended by the House.

If you are unable to call or do not live within one of these Districts, CLICK HERE to send an email to your state senator expressing your support for HB 363.

Thank you,

Baltimore Spokes
Posted on

A call for better bicycle safety

by Rob Kasper
In the springtime bicyclists flood the streets, some hauling their bikes out of winter storage, other hardy souls simply changing their riding garb.
As the number cyclists increases, so do the chances of crashes. In Maryland over the last five years there was an average of 773 bicycle crashes resulting in 644 injuries and eight fatalities each year. Forty percent of these police-reported bicycle crashes occur in the late afternoon and evening, between four and eight o’clock. Twenty-four percent happen in Baltimore City. These data come from the State Highway Administration.
When a car and a bicycle collide, the cyclist always suffers. One of the most dangerous collisions result from the so called “right hook” turns in which a vehicle in front a cyclist makes a sudden right turn into the cyclist’s path. In the past year two incidents involving right hook turns in Baltimore resulted in the death of one cyclist and put another in a coma. John R. Yates was killed after he was crushed by a large truck making a right turn off Maryland Avenue onto Lafayette Ave., and Nathan Krasnopoler, a John Hopkins student, has yet to wake up after colliding with a car that made a right turn in front of him on University Parkway. In both cases the cyclists were traveling in bike lanes.
Motivated by these crashes and by the fact that police failed to cite the drivers of either vehicle, bike advocates are pushing for better laws and increased efforts to educate motorists about how to safely interact with cyclists.
This week in Annapolis, a manslaughter bill that bike advocates say is designed to stop motorists involved in fatal bicycle crashes from getting off with a minor traffic court violation, cleared the House of Delegates and was sent to the Senate. This legislation would give prosecutors another option for charging motorists who cause fatalities by driving in a criminally negligent manner while sober. The offense would still be considered a misdemeanor and would carry a maximum penalty of three years in prison and/or a fine no higher than $3,000.
This is a more sensible approach to the current options of a prosecutor either sending the case to traffic court or charging a motorist with the difficult to prove felony manslaughter, subject to a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
While enacting a misdemeanor manslaughter law makes sense and follows the modern penal code used by many other states, it alone won’t improve bike safety. The possibility that a negligent motorist might face a stiffer penalty than traffic court advances the cause of justice, but it is unlikely by itself to make drivers more cognizant of bicyclists, and that is what it will take to make our roads safer.
Education and publicity are the most effective tools we have. One idea, offered up by the cycling group Bike Maryland, is for state motor vehicle administration to include a sheet in driver’s license renewal forms that would spell out how to safely pass cyclists, reminding them to give cyclists at least three feet of clearance when passing, in accordance to a state law passed last year, and not to drive, park or stop in designated bike lanes. Putting more signage on roadways heavily used by cyclists is another smart suggestion. Training police officers on the rights of cyclists is yet another.
This is a two-way street, and cyclists have to do their part by following the rules of road, including obeying traffic signals, giving clear hand signals, wearing bright clothing and when riding after dark and equipping their bikes with strong lights. Veteran cyclist advises fellow riders to assume that they are invisible to cars and to make to plans to react to motorists’ movements.
There are many types of cyclists and motorists on our roads, those who follow the rules and those who flaunt them. The rule breakers ride at their peril. Guidelines for how the rest of the motorists and cyclists should share the road need to be clearly stated and regularly repeated. Both groups have the rights to use the roads and both need to be accountable for their actions.
Continue reading “A call for better bicycle safety”

Posted on

Moving urban trips from cars to bicycles: impact on health and emissions.

Lindsay G, Macmillan A, Woodward A.

School of Population Health, University of Auckland, New Zealand. g.lindsay@auckland.ac.nz

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects on health, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions if short trips (≤7 km) were undertaken by bicycle rather than motor car.

METHOD: Existing data sources were used to model effects, in the urban setting in New Zealand, of varying the proportion of vehicle kilometres travelled by bicycle instead of light motor vehicle.

RESULTS: Shifting 5% of vehicle kilometres to cycling would reduce vehicle travel by approximately 223 million kilometres each year, save about 22 million litres of fuel and reduce transport-related greenhouse emissions by 0.4%. The health effects would include about 116 deaths avoided annually as a result of increased physical activity, six fewer deaths due to local air pollution from vehicle emissions, and an additional five cyclist fatalities from road crashes. In economic terms, including only fatalities and using the NZ Ministry of Transport Value of a Statistical Life, the health effects of a 5% shift represent net savings of about $200 million per year.

CONCLUSION: The health benefits of moving from cars to bikes heavily outweigh the costs of injury from road crashes.

IMPLICATIONS: Transport policies that encourage bicycle use will help to reduce air pollution and greenhouse emissions and improve public health.

© 2011 The Authors. ANZJPH © 2011 Public Health Association of Australia.

Continue reading “Moving urban trips from cars to bicycles: impact on health and emissions.”