Month: November 2010

Posted on

WMRT westward Expansion in EA process

from TheWashCycle by washcycle

The National Park Service has begun the Planning, Environment and Public Comment period on the proposed extension of the Western Maryland Rail Trail approximately 15 miles from its present western terminus at Pearre Station to a point near Paw Paw, WV.  This extension will be under the management of the C&O Canal National Historical Park.  Project information is available here.  The Public Comment period is from Nov 16 – Dec 23.  The project needs all the favorable comments it can get.
 
Note the Topic Questions Instructions here. Those submitting comments are encouraged to answer all, or part of, the six Topic Questions.  Since the Indigo Tunnel detour will use the towpath, it is important that the towpath have a surface that will accommodate road bikes.
There were two public meetings earlier this week which kicked off the comment period. NPS will make its decision next year. If you’ve never been on the WMRT it’s really nice. And this next section will have several bridges – including six over the Potomac river, and two tunnels through the Paw Paw bends. It will also take the trail into West Virginia (and back).
WMRT extension

Continue reading “WMRT westward Expansion in EA process”

Posted on

Current Bicycle Laws (Phase one)

[B’ Spokes: as a result of your efforts the following corrections have been made to MVA’s web site. In particular note how our 3′ law is summarized, big improvement. Thanks again to all who helped in this, and to our good friends in Maryland Highway Safety Office who helped a great deal. Hopefully there will be a few additional changes but we are off to a great start.]

The laws referenced below are current as of October 2010, and can be found in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Transportation Article.

Take The High Road:  Share The Road – It Belongs To Everyone

You are responsible for controlling your vehicle as necessary to avoid a crash!

By Maryland law, bicycles are vehicles.  Bicyclists are authorized users of the roadway, and bicyclists have the same rights-of-way and the same duty to obey all traffic signals as motorists. But bicycles are less visible, quieter, and don’t have a protective barrier around them. Motorists should drive carefully near bicyclists; even a slight mistake can result in serious injury or even death.

Traffic Laws for Motorists

  • The driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle, including a bicycle, must pass at a safe distance and leave plenty of space.  The driver should be able to see the passed vehicle in the rear view mirror before returning to the original lane. After passing you must make sure you are clear of the bicyclist before making any turns.
  • Drivers shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle, Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device (EPAMD), or motor scooter being ridden by a person.
  • The driver of a vehicle must not pass any closer than three (3) feet to a bicycle or motor scooter if the bicycle is operated in a lawful manner. It is not lawful to ride against traffic.
  • The bicycle has the right of way when the motor vehicle is making a turn, and you must yield to bicycle.
  • Motorists must yield the right-of-way to bicyclists riding in bike lanes and shoulders when these vehicle operators are entering or crossing occupied bike lanes and shoulders.
  • When riding on a sidewalk, where such riding is permitted, or a bike path, a bicyclist may ride in a crosswalk to continue on their route. Motorists are required to yield right of way to a bicyclist operating lawfully in a crosswalk. So, look for bicycles coming from both directions. (TR §21-101, §21-202, & §21-1103)
  • A person may not throw any object at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter.
  • A person may not open the door of any motor vehicle with intent to strike, injure, or interfere with any person riding a bicycle, and EPAMD, or a motor scooter.
  • Failing to yield right of way to a bicyclist, resulting in a crash in which the bicyclist is seriously injured can result in a $1,000 fine and three points on your driving record.

Traffic Laws for Bicyclists

  • Maryland’s traffic laws apply to bicycles and motor scooters. (TR § 21-1202)
  • A bicycle may not carry a passenger unless it is specifically designed for and equipped with a seat for each passenger. (TR § 21-1203)
  • Bicycles, motor scooters and EPAMDs are not permitted on any roads where the speed limit is more than 50 miles per hour or higher. (TR § 21-1205.1)
  • A person riding a bicycle shall ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable and safe, except when:
    • Making or attempting to make a left turn;
    • Operating on a one-way street;
    • Passing a stopped or slower moving vehicle;
    • Avoiding pedestrians or road hazards;
    • The right lane is a right turn only lane; or
    • Operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane (TR § 21-1205)·
  • Where there is a bike lane, a person must use those and not ride a bicycle or motor scooter in the roadway except: (TR § 21-1205.1)
    • If passing safely cannot be done within the bike lane or shoulder;
    • When preparing for a left turn; o To avoid hazards;
    • When the bike lane is also a right turn or merge lane.
  • A person riding a bicycle or motor scooter may not cling to any vehicle on the roadway. (TR § 21-124)
  • A motor scooter may not be operated at a speed in excess of 30 mph. (TR § 21-1205.1)
  • An EPAMD may not be operated at a speed in excess of 15 mph. (TR § 21-1205.1)
  • A person cannot carry anything that prevents them from keeping both hands on the handlebars or that interferes with the view or balance of their bicycle, motor scooter, or EPAMD. (TR § 21-1206)
  • A bicycle, motor scooter, or EPAMD may not be secured to a fire hydrant; a pole, meter, or device in a bus or taxi-loading zone; a pole, meter, or device within 25 feet of an intersection; or where it would obstruct or impede traffic. (TR § 21-1206)
  • A person may not ride a bicycle, motor scooter, or EPAMD while wearing a headset or earplugs that cover both ears. (TR § 21-12010)

Helmets

  • Helmets are required for everyone under the age of 16, including passengers, who ride their bicycles on the road, bicycle paths, or any public property. (TR § 21-1207.1)
  • Helmets are also required for everyone under the age of 16 who are riding on a scooter or on in-line skates. (TR § 21-1207.2)
  • The helmets must meet or exceed the standards of the American National Standards Institute, the Snell Memorial Foundation, or the American Society for Testing and Materials. (TR § 21-1207.1)

Equipment Required

  • A lamp is required on the front of a bicycle or motor scooter, if the bicycle or motor scooter is used on a highway when people and vehicles are not clearly visible at 1,000 feet. (TR § 21-1207)
  • A red reflector on the rear is required if the bicycle or motor scooter is used on a highway when people and vehicles are not clearly visible at 1,000 feet. (TR § 21-1207)
  • A bicycle or motor scooter may be equipped with a bell or other audible device, but not a siren or whistle. (TR § 21-1207
  • A bicycle or motor scooter must be equipped with a brake. (TR § 21-1207)

.

Continue reading “Current Bicycle Laws (Phase one)”

Posted on

Maryland Comparative Negligence on the Way?

from Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

Certainly, the title is a little hyperbolic. But at the Maryland Court of Appeals Rules Committee meeting this morning, a memorandum was issued from Chief Judge Robert M. Bell requesting a study of how other jurisdictions have dealt with the comparative negligence doctrine.

Just a study, mind you. But this memo jumps right to the heart of the matter.

If the Court were to consider replacing the doctrine of contributory negligence, a common law doctrine in Maryland, with some form of comparative negligence with some sort form of comparative fault:

(a) whether in the Committee’s view, the Court could effect that change by Rule, as opposed to judicial decision.

(b) if the Court were to consider the adoption of such a Rule, what form and content of the Rule should be; and

(c) what related legal principles, such as joint and several liability, would need to be considered concurrently.

Well thank you for not beating around the bush, Judge Bell. There is also a specific request for the consideration of views of the Maryland Defense Counsel, the Maryland Association for Justice, and the Maryland State Bar Association.

Timely, I wrote about the interplay between joint and several liability and comparative negligence this week. In terms of what position these groups take, I think it will all depend on joint and several liability. If joint and several liability remains unchanged, Maryland plaintiffs’ lawyers would support comparative negligence and Maryland defense attorneys would be obligated to make a big stand in opposition (although that is a lot of show, many self-interested defense lawyers get that more opportunities for plaintiffs’ is more opportunities for them). But if it is a swap of comparative for abolishing joint and several liability, this becomes a more, for lack of a better word, nonpartisan issue where fractions are going to split off within the interest groups.

Continue reading “Maryland Comparative Negligence on the Way?”

Posted on

Imagine if: Those that did not drive did

Greater Greater Washington has some interesting stats on car ownership in Georgetown.
* 20% of households have no car
* 57% of households have one car
* 23% of households have more than one car
Now what would happen if the 20% that did not have a car followed the example of the 23% that have more then one car, there would be an increase in traffic by 46%.
Or if those multi-car households would drop just one car, there would be 21% decrease in traffic.
None of us like traffic and congestion but the solution is not more and more car centric thinking so everyone has to drive. In Georgetown if everyone followed the car light model with only car per household the traffic reduction would be 46%. 57% are already doing it, its just the 23% that is making it hard on everyone else. Think about this.
Continue reading “Imagine if: Those that did not drive did”

Posted on

Gossamer crankset recall

A Washington-based bicycle component manufacturer is recalling 9,300 bicycles that were outfitted with a faulty crankset that can break, causing falls and injuries.
The recall involves 21 different bicycle models from 8 bicycle brands (see list below) that were sold between February and October this year.
The US Consumer Protection Agency urges owners of the listed bicycles to stop using them immediately and take them back to the dealer for inspection and free replacement of the faulty crank arm. Eleven breaks have been reported, and two injuries.
The importer, Full Speed Ahead of Woodinville, Wash., issued the recall for its BB30 Gossamer crankset installed as standard equipment. The cranks were manufactured in Taiwan by TH Industries.
The cranks involved have two drive gears (triples are not involved in the recall). They are painted either black with "Gossamer" printed in white on the arm or white with "Gossamer" printed in black on the arm. The crank arms at fault have serial numbers beginning with either 10B, 10C, or 10D on the backside of the arm, near the pedal threads.
If the fixing bolt on the non-driver crank arm is over-tightened, the bolt shoulder can crack or break, causing the crank arm to fall off the bicycle.
The bicycle models in the recall are:
Continue reading “Gossamer crankset recall”

Posted on

Police almost run me down while they are talking on a cell phone

Letter sent to the Mayor:

On 11-21-10 at 7:33 PM as a pedestrian I was crossing lawfully (wearing a reflective jacket) Reisterstown Rd at Seven Mile when a Police car #09(8)117 made a left turn from Seven Mile to go South on Reisterstown heading directly into me. I yelled and they came to a stop a few feet into the crosswalk almost hitting me. So I said loudly "Hang up and drive." to which the officer just smiled/laughed and then drove off. This is no laughing matter! Maryland ranks the 4th highest in pedestrian fatality rate, Baltimore City 42% of all traffic fatalities are pedestrains, Baltimore County the 2nd highest count of pedestrian fatalities.

Please understand that I am a very shaken over this event, It was Baltimore City Police but the intersection falls in Baltimore County. I would love to request a crack down on drivers that fail to yield to pedestrains at this location as there have been weeks where it’s been a daily occurrence for me. And please, tell your officers to hang up the cell phone and drive safe.

Thank you.

Posted on

John Yates – preparing for the informational hearing with the Baltimore Police Department

I ran into a expert witness for the John Yates court case last night. If it goes to court it will be 11/29/2010, note that there is a possibility they will settle outside of court. He viewed the video and it clearly shows the truck at fault and indeed it was the truck that struck the cyclist, not the other way around.

Court System: Circuit Court for
Baltimore City –
Civil System
Case Number: 24C10001701
Title: Ellen S. Yates, et al vs Michael Dale Chandler, et al
Case Type: Motor TortFiling Date:03/03/2010
Case Status: Open/Active
Event Type: Civil Trial  Notice Date:
Event Date: 11/29/2010  Event Time:09:30 AM
Result: Result Date:

Now I would like to remind our readers of the statement made by the police:

I am the commander of the Traffic Section within the Baltimore Police Department. I supervise the Crash Team and therefore the e-mail you authored to Mayor Sheila Dixon was forwarded to me for a response.

I was at the scene of this tragic crash and I know that this incident was investigated thoroughly from the very beginning as a very serious issue, as all fatal crashes are. We have obtained a video of this incident that shows the entire event.

There are only some aspects of this case that are public record. I will tell you that the video clearly shows the cyclist to be at fault. There is no “right to the road” as a cyclist. You have the same rights as a motor vehicle and also the same obligations. The cyclist was not operating within those parameters. The tanker truck that the cyclist struck was a large one. The cyclist struck it in the rear. There is no evidence to support that the driver was ever aware there was an impact. Do not believe what the media reports as entirely true regarding this or any event.

The investigators within the unit are very educated and experienced in all types of crashes and have attended several schools specific to the physics of a pedestrian crash and a cyclist fatal crash. With regard to the question of it being investigated as a hit and run accident, not only was it investigated as such but the truck was located by investigators within a few days of the incident.

Please feel free to contact my office if you have any further questions.

Lt. Leslie Bank
Traffic Commander
Baltimore Police Department

First I wounder if this is the same error MVA made but without “the responsibility to move aside and let you pass.” Or per MVA’s correction a cyclists “has exactly the same rights as any other vehicle … and is subject to all the duties required of the driver of a vehicle”. This simply is not true, as this rule as stated in 21-1202 has exceptions, and one of those is unless there is a bicycle specific rule. So for cyclists position on the roadway. The law says a cyclists “shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway” and we are allowed to move further left if we can find a lawful excuse. Certainly for safety we encourage cyclists to be aware of how far left they are lawfully allowed and why but the assertion that we are required to be as far left as legally allowed is false and goes against MVA’s advice to move aside and the guidance in the State’s Drivers’ Handbook “A bicycle should be operated as close to the right side of the road as practical and safe.” or the police are asserting that it is unlawful for a cyclist to ride right or be courteous and move aside. And remember it is a fact that the truck did not signal its turn.

Is it really too much to ask that all levels of government supply a consistent message to cyclists? It’s a very bad joke to tell cyclists to be courteous and ride out of the way of motorists so you can be at fault in a crash. Which is it, are we legally obligated to get out of the way (per MVA) or not (per Police)? And also note the confrontational tone in the underlined portion. If a cyclists is riding lawfully then we do have rights and it is unlawful for another vehicle to violate the right-of-way of another, especially without giving warning (signaling.)

Lastly I’ll show some screen captures from MDOT’s Bicycling Guide for Adults that show Yates’ approximate road position +/- a few inches (He was riding 3′ from parked cars (outside the door zone (a hazard.))
image
Keep in mind that I have not seen the video of Yates’ crash, but is riding the “line” unlawful? The line certainly qualifies in concept as a far right portion of the roadway. Or maybe Yates was a few inches further right then what’s shown here so now it becomes so outrageously unlawful the Police have to make an outcry of the wrongness by stating There is no “right to the road” as a cyclist” Seriously? Cyclists can’t lawfully ride out of the way of motoring traffic?

image

Watch MDOT’s video here (click Roadway Riding.) And see if “Riding (slightly) in an area where parking is permitted is illegal.” For a video that highlights riding in Baltimore you would think that they would mention that.

Certainly for safety we recommend cyclists ride further left to help prevent scofflaw motorists from illegally turning in front of cyclists. But the inverse is not true “If a motorists turns in front of a cyclists then the cyclists was not lawfully riding far enough left.” Which seems to be the police’s implication. Driving with your lights on improves your safety but failing to follow safety advice does not make you at fault in accident just because you didn’t have your lights on. In the same way riding further left may improve your safety but to make a case not left enough by a few inches seems incredulous to me. Or maybe it’s a case of “passing on the right” read Bob Mionske on that subject for clarification of another incredulous claim.

So in prep for the informational hearing, cyclists all over Baltimore are wondering how in the world could a truck that fails to signal and kills a cyclist when turning right not be at fault? And then we get yelled at “There is no “right to the road” as a cyclist” besides being an incorrect statement, it fails to explain anything and is extremely inflammatory.

I will strongly assert the law does not work by saying lawfully the cyclists could have been somewhere else so that’s where they should have been. The law does work by asking does the law allow the cyclists to be where he was? And I dare the police to state in no uncertain terms that a cyclist has no right to ride far right on the roadway.

Posted on

MDOT improving pedestrian safety in the wake of tragedy

from Greater Greater Washington
…None of the current staff of MCDOT or the SHA is responsible for decisions in the 1960’s that turned Rockville Pike into the monster that it is today.
This tragic event shows how quickly people who are otherwise uninterested in transportation policy quickly become experts when it touches their life. It also underscores how much our infrastructure and urban form shape our everyday life. …
Continue reading “MDOT improving pedestrian safety in the wake of tragedy”