Month: March 2010

While at a conference in Buffalo last year, Dom Nozzi corrected me. Biking and walking are not alternative transportation. Alternative transportation is an auto-centric term which implies that only motor vehicles are mainstream transportation.

It’s a loaded term and one worth dropping, especially given the U.S. DOT’s recent policy statement that encourages government agencies to consider “walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.”
…

This great opening by M-Bike get’s one thinking, all car trips begin and end with walking. Car’s for personal trips are essentially motorized wheels and a seat for those who are physically unable to move under their own power. Cars are the lazy alternative to getting somewhere.
Continue reading “Biking is not alternative transportation”

[The same can be said for Maryland.]

by David Alpert  

Photo by Don Fulano.

At Friday’s oversight hearing on the Metropolitan Police Department, Councilmember Phil Mendelson asked some tough questions about prosecution against drivers who kill pedestrians or cyclists.

The exchange starts at 4:53:45 on this video recording.

Mendelson asked about a particular incident where a driver killed a pedestrian on Wisconsin Avenue while allegedly talking on a cell phone. He said, “There have been a couple of these incidents where a pedestrian or bicyclist was killed… and there’s no prosecution, even though we have a reckless driving law. It’s as if, as a government, we are too easy on the driver, too forgiving of the driver, even though an individual has lost their life.”

Chief Lanier responded that the driver has to have committed a specific violation before the police can bring any charges. Assistant Chief Patrick Burke then said that MPD did submit that particular case to a grand jury, but wasn’t able to definitively determine whether he was on a cell phone, and the grand jury refused to bring an indictment.

After some further discussion, Mendelson concluded by saying, “I just think we’re being too easy on drivers who re hitting individuals and killing them, and there’s no charge.”

Certainly not all drivers who kill pedestrians or cyclists deserve to be prosecuted. Sometimes the driver really wasn’t distracted or speeding or otherwise being reckless, and sometimes pedestrians do suddenly jump out into traffic without enough opportunity for drivers to see them and stop. However, MPD also seems to refuse to bring charges except in the most egregious of cases, such as when witnesses see the driver on a phone. We haven’t seen proseuctions if the driver is speeding, for example.

Furthermore, a source familiar with safety prosecution said that MPD’s policy is to assign fault the pedestrian if the pedestrian or cyclist violated any laws at all. It appears, therefore, that if the pedestrian or cyclist violates the law in a small way and dies, the victim is responsible, but if a driver breaks a law in a small way and kills someone, the driver isn’t responsible.

It’s tough to provide evidence for these generalizations because we have little information on MPD’s conclusions in fatal crashes or subsequent prosecutions. MPD generally refuses to provide copies of the police reports in these cases; for example, years after Alice Swanson’s death, attempts to get that police report have been unsuccessful.

The first step to determining whether MPD is being too easy on drivers is to get information on how easy they are being. What did they conclude in the recent fatal crashes? If they assigned fault to the dead pedestrian or cyclist, was that based on real evidence? How often did they bring charges or issue tickets? Mendelson could help shed light on these questions by pushing MPD to release these police reports and information on prosecutions.

Thanks to Michael Neibauer for watching the hearing and highlighting this exchange.

Continue reading “Mendelson: "We’re being too easy on drivers" who kill”

[Click on the link in the read more section to see the experts responses. You may want to come back during the week to see how the conversation is progressing. ]
With all the attention last week focused on extending the surface transportation law and Federal Aviation Administration programs, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s announcement of a major policy change regarding the way bicyclists’ needs are treated in the transportation planning seems to have received little notice.
"People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning," LaHood wrote on his Fast Lane blog March 15. "This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized. We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects." LaHood’s blog post includes recommendations for how states and communities can accomplish this, such as "treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes" and "set a mode share target for walking and bicycling."
LaHood called the new policy a "sea change," but is it a good one? Should non-motorized modes of transportation be treated as equal to other modes, particularly when modes like driving and mass transit are at least partially, if not primarily, self-funded? Or is it the essence of DOT’s evolving 21st-century mission to give people more mobility options that, according to LaHood, are relatively fast and inexpensive to build, are environmentally sustainable, reduce travel costs, improve safety and public health, and "reconnect citizens with their communities"?
Continue reading “Should Bikes And Cars Be Treated Equally? – What the experts say”

Continue reading “When I was a kid….”