Month: September 2010

Abstract
Visibility limitations make cycling at night particularly dangerous. We previously reported cyclists’ perceptions of their own visibility at night and identified clothing configurations that made them feel visible. In this study we sought to determine whether these self-perceptions reflect actual visibility when wearing these clothing configurations. In a closed-road driving environment, cyclists wore black clothing, a fluorescent vest, a reflective vest, or a reflective vest plus ankle and knee reflectors. Drivers recognised more cyclists wearing the reflective vest plus reflectors (90%) than the reflective vest alone (50%), fluorescent vest (15%) or black clothing (2%). Older drivers recognized the cyclists less often than younger drivers (51% vs 27%). The findings suggest that reflective ankle and knee markings are particularly valuable at night, while fluorescent clothing is not. Cyclists wearing fluorescent clothing may be at particular risk if they incorrectly believe themselves to be conspicuous to drivers at night.
Continue reading “Cyclist visibility at night: Perceived visibility may not match reality”

[B’ Spokes: It’s been on the cycling advocates wish list to be effective as MADD so this might have some relevance in that people can make a huge difference.]

from Welcome to the Fast Lane: The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation by Ray LaHood

Continue reading “MADD marks 30 years of effective road safety advocacy”

from Streetsblog.net by Angie Schmitt

On Monday, the U.S. DOT released a report concluding that the number of deaths caused by distracted drivers dropped 6 percent in 2009 — from 5,838 the previous year to 5,474. The report was a prelude to the agency’s second national summit on distracted driving, where the message from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was very clear: Distracted driving is preventable and enforcement works. LaHood pointed to a pilot enforcement program in Syracuse that has cut texting and cell phone use behind the wheel by about 40 percent.

Over at the National Journal’s transportation experts blog, Greg Cohen, president of the American Highway Users Alliance, wasn’t convinced that enforcement and driver responsibility are the answer. Writing that “we should admit that we all get distracted sometimes” and “enforced legislation and education can only go so far,” Cohen argued that engineering cars and roads to be more “forgiving” of driver inattention and carelessness is the way to go.

Should cars and streets be designed to send the message that these activities are okay? Photo: Seattle Weekly

Cohen’s post prompted this response from Andy Clarke, president of the League of American Bicyclists:

I’m not interested in trying to walk or ride along the street as part of some giant fairground bumper car game where drivers feel like they can crash with relative impunity. I want drivers (and cyclists) to pay attention, drive carefully, and NOT crash. The focus for me has to be on improving driver behavior, attention and responsibility.

We have come a long way in improving the safety of vehicle occupants. Indeed, you could be forgiven for wondering why we aren’t doing dramatically better already after the introduction of seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones, roll-over protection and the like. After 50 years of highway design that has widened, and straightened roads; removed all manner of roadside obstacles (like killer trees); installed collapsible poles and safer guardrailing; limited access and crossings; rumbled, signed and marked roads with ever-increasing levels of visibility and reflectivity. After quite incredible improvements in medical treatment and EMS services in the event of crashes. Really, where have all the benefits to all these great developments disappeared? Why have we still been killing 40,000-plus people a year for decade after decade?

One possible answer could be that we are a nation of generally lousy, distracted, careless drivers who really don’t take the responsibility of driving seriously and are not held to account for that behavior individually or collectively. That needs to change, and focusing on distracted driving is a welcome opportunity to do just that.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Following the recent death of Green Party Senate Candidate Natasha Pettigrew in a hit-and-run collision with a motorist, Baltimore Spokes reports that Maryland has some of the country’s most lenient vehicular manslaughter laws in the country. A Commute Orlando blogger analyzes the road conditions on a local thoroughfare after witnessing a motorist hit a cyclist. And the Seattle Transit Blog reports that tax revenue declines as a result of the recession will delay Seattle’s 15-year voter-approved transportation plan.

Continue reading ““Forgiving” Distracted Driving Won’t Keep Our Streets Safe”

By: Steve Magas

“Share The Road” to me, actually STINKS as a marketing & legal concept… in fact, it’s not “legal” at all…

Usually diamond-shaped and yellow, these “warning signs” caution drivers that the road is slippery when wet; there is an intersection ahead, the lanes narrow, or there may be bicyclists, farm animals, or wildlife on or near the roadway. Somehow cyclists are supposed to be comforted by the notion that Big Brother is “protecting” us by putting out a “warning” that we are nearby – as though we are a hazard to motorists...

The whole point of the “SHARED lane” marking is to indicate to motorists that they ought to “share the lane” with cyclists. This entire line of thought has always baffled me, frankly, because it implies that motorists OWN the lane and must be told, or just asked, to “share” a bit of it with cyclists.

“Sharing” is not a concept mandated by law, but a concept that relies upon the goodwill of the Share-or to give up a little bit of that which he owns to the Share-ee.  No law says that the motorist owns the road and the cyclist may borrow it sometimes, IF the motorist feels like sharing.

Rather, the law is that a PERSON wishing to use the public roads has the right to CHOOSE the vehicle. A bicycle and a car are equally valid, legitimate and lawful choices as vehicles. A person who chooses to ride a bike on the roadway has exactly and precisely the same quantity or bundle of rights as one who chooses to operate a car.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL – RIGHT TO USE THE ROADS

Remember this –> The rights belong to the person, not the vehicle. The RIGHT is the RIGHT TO TRAVEL.  The Right is not bigger if you choose a bigger vehicle…

The “right to travel” has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Guest which held citizens hold “… the constitutional right to travel freely from State to State and to use highways and other instrumentalities for that purpose…”

In Packard v. Banton, the Supreme Court said, “The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way.”

In Kent v. Dulles, the Court said, “…The Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law ...”

The Virginia court said, in Thompson v. Smith: “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways …. includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel….” While ”ordinary and usual conveyances of the day” is certainly open for discussion bicycles, having been around longer than cars, certainly fit the bill!

With regard to the right to travel and move about the country, a Mississippi court held in Teche Lines Inc. v. Danforth, held as follows:

“…The right of a citizen to travel on public highway is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” and the right to “travel,” which means the right to go from one place to another, includes the right to start, to go forward on the way, and to stop when the traveler’s destination has been reached, and also the right to stop on the way, temporarily, for a legitimate or necessary purpose when that purpose is an immediate incident to travel…”

RIGHT OF WAY LAW

So the PERSON, the “citizen,” not the vehicle, possesses this “right to travel” about the country.  But, once you’ve walked into your garage, looked at your car, your truck, your motorcycle and your bike and you chosen to use the public way on ylur BIKE, what “rights” do you have on your bicycle?  Most states say you have the SAME bundle of rights as the operator of other vehicles, and the same responsibilities.  You don’t get bigger rights because you choose a bigger vehicle!

The person driving in the front of the pack of traffic typically has the “right of way” and the rights of the operator of the vehicle operated behind, or passing, are subservient to the one with the right of way.  The “right of way” is a very powerful collection of rights.

In Ohio, for example, the “right of way” is defined in O.R.C. 4511.01:

UU) “Right-of-way” means * * * :

(1) The right of a vehicle, streetcar, trackless trolley, or pedestrian to proceed uninterruptedly in a lawful manner in the direction in which it or the individual is moving in preference to another vehicle, streetcar, trackless trolley, or pedestrian approaching from a different direction into its or the individual’s path;

Note – the word “share” is not in the law.  There is no crying in baseball, and there is no “sharing” in the right of way law.  So, really, the concept of “sharing” has absolutely no business being in the transportation lexicon.  Advising a motorist who is coming up on a bicyclist from behind to “Share The Road” with the cyclist ahead is fundamentally and legally WRONG.

The cyclist owns the right of way and does not have to share… in fact the cyclist shouldn’t “share.”  Once the cyclist gets into a “sharing” mentality, the cyclist has lost the battle.  You HAVE rights – the right of way.  Maybe the motorist doesn’t know this but you have to ASSERT that right.  The fact that you have a right means nothing if you don’t USE it.

Remember, the cyclist ahead of the motorist has the right of way –  which is really a powerful collection of rights.  The right to proceed ahead in an uninterrupted manner.  The operator with the right of way has rights, as the preferred vehicle, that are GREATER than other vehicles.   A “Share The Road” sign may give the motorist behind the cyclist the wrong message that the motorist can choose to share, or not, since the implication is that the bigger car has bigger rights that supercedes the right of the cyclist.

The motorist is encouraged to view the cyclist as one who has actually SNATCHED HIS RIGHT TO DRIVE HIS CAR away, which ticks off the motorist, who may not WANT to “share” his roadway…

The Right of Way is valuable – it’s important – and it’s something cyclists should not SHARE.

Continue reading ““Share The Road” STINKS…”