By Paul Bignell
…
Mr Porter said: "The excuses of not seeing cyclists seem to be too readily accepted by the police and the CPS so there isn’t a prosecution when there should be. Judges should be handing down stiffer sentences and prosecutors should be more ambitious in the choice of charges and the decision to prosecute," he said yesterday.
"It’s up to a judge and a jury to accept whether an excuse is good enough. It is not good enough to go into a space not knowing what is there. It’s all part of the car culture that doesn’t expect the motorist to foresee that the road might be occupied by a cyclist. That needs to change."
…
"This needs to change because it’s becoming clear that cycling is the answer to many of society’s ills – whether that be climate change, obesity or improving busy roads. Cyclists need to be treated like they belong on the roads."
…
Emma Chesterman, a friend of Ms Cairns, said: "He admitted his eyesight was not good enough and gets £200 and three points on his licence. It does not seem fair. We are bewildered by the whole system that treats cyclists’ deaths in this way. It seems to be the attitude that you are putting yourself in the way of danger and therefore it is your own fault if it happens to you, which is not the same as if it were a pedestrian killed."
The Department for Transport denied that cyclists are insufficiently protected.
…
******************************************************************************************
[B’ Spokes: This is exactly the same problem as here. The fines and punishments for denting a fender, knocking out a head light or totaling a vehicle is exactly the same whether talking about a car or a person as long as its a traffic "accident". I know, I know you are thinking don’t we have laws that provide extra fines if you injure or kill someone in a hit-and-run? Sorry they don’t apply if the driver is not drunk and didn’t know what they hit. Natasha Pettigrew where the police said while the case is still under investigation that the motorist violated no laws because the driver did not know what she hit. Well then how about the extra not more the $1000 and not more the 180 day license suspension for causing serious bodily harm or death when violating another *vehicles* right-of-way? Well, first pedestrains need not apply as they are not vehicles even though they comprise over 20% of Maryland’s traffic fatalities (National average is 12%) and Maryland has the 4th highest pedestrian fatality rate. Next read the fine print, the right-of-way is limited to intersections and driveways only. So Natasha Pettigrew. Larry Bensky and Curtis Leymeister fatalities don’t involve intersections so that’s not applicable. Speaking of Curtis Leymeister at least the driver got convicted of negligent driving … $313.00 which the Judge asserts is the maximum penalty, seriously? Other states are complaining that $2,500 is too low and look what we got.
The Jack Yates fatality should have been an ideal case for extra fines for violation of a cyclists right-of-way at an intersection but the police cited Yates at fault for failing to ride his bicycle like a motorcycle. So the police got the laws wrong in the Yates case, the police got the laws wrong in the Leymeister case. And I will assert the police got the laws wrong in the Pettigrew case, if not we need to seriously rewrite our hit-and-run law. The driver could have known and should have known she hit a cyclist as there was a bicycle stuck under her car as she drove away for three miles! And some witnesses say they spotted the driver inspecting the damages to her car. Excusing this kind of behavior should be done in court, not out of hand by police before the investigation is over. If the police cannot properly report a fatality which gets the highest level of attention by the police what hope do we have in less then fatal crashes?
Additional MDOT has historically been actively resisting any legal changes to Maryland code in our favor, more or less insisting that fines for damaging to a car should be exactly the same as damaging a person. What’s up with that? Doesn’t that exceed or violate their mission: "MDOT’s mission is to: Enhance the quality of life for Maryland’s citizens by providing a balanced and sustainable multimodal transportation system for safe, efficient passenger and freight movement."
Additionally while fighting against improved rights for vulnerable users, MDOT got double fines for highway workers. Clearly they suffer from a double standard. To MDOT’s credit they cut back in opposing us last year (possible the result of our complaints) but still they did a lot of damage in the Legislature from previous years testimony and they still have the potential to come back and oppose us, it is something we need to be ever vigilant on. I bring all this up as it’s still basically MDOT’s position that cyclists are sufficiently protected. This has to change! MDOT has grossly mishandled our Federal funding and announcing our new 3′ safe passing law. While we MIGHT get some improved safety information publicized by MDOT, IMHO they are still doing less then the best job they could in accommodating bicyclists and pedestrains on ALL roads in Maryland (either on State roads or helping fund local roads to better accommodate bicyclists and pedestrains via Federal funds given for that purpose.) MDOT is doing very poorly in educating and testing our drivers as they are more concerned about the time it takes to do the test then if drivers have sufficient knowledge about driving safely, not to mention the complete lack of professional psychometrics.
Another topic, last year’s negligent-killing-by-auto bill died in the House Judiciary Committee even though AAA supported it. The Chair of that committee… Vallario. if that name sounds familiar follow the link below for other criticisms of his actions in the legislature.
This is a huge, important and complicated battle and one that I am very impressed with how Bike Maryland is handling it and they really can use your support https://bikemd.org/page.php?id=146 . If there is any aspect of this article that motivates you in wanting change, write your rep and ask what they plan on doing to correct your concerns. Our reps not only have the power to improve laws they can call MDOT and the Police to task and get them to do a better job.]
Continue reading “Cyclists ‘left unprotected by police and courts’”
Progressive will offer up to 30% discount for low risk drivers
I’ll take any incentive to discourage aggressive driving and over use of the automobile. The basic deal is they install a device in your car and they monitor your driving for six months. Depending on how you score will determine your discount, with no penalties for scoring badly.
I think its kinda sad/funny the old program flopped because people knew they were being monitored to get a safe driving discount and still drove like jerks and got penalized for it. Are we really that clueless what constitutes safe driving / low risk driving behavior?
Continue reading “Progressive will offer up to 30% discount for low risk drivers”
OMG You are going to die if you bike there
This article from the Harold Mall really bothers me. Besides the fact that they treat some random caller as an expert in the field it’s how we look at motorists here in Maryland. It’s like they are the mafia, above the law and out to do harm to anyone who gets in their way. Why do we accept such tolerance of uncivilized behavior?
Who can fix it: The police! We need to crack down on speeding, aggressive driving, distracted driving and enforce all traffic laws in general. To many people look at the above picture and say to themselves, “Cyclists are going to get killed there so no one should bicycle.” rather then saying “That motorist really should be driving better then that or they should not be allowed to drive at all.”
But shouldn’t we have tolerance for minor infractions, after all we all make a minor mistake from time to time? Well there is two problems with that; 1) We have evolved to the point where only “serious” infractions are enforced like driving drunk and going 25mph above the speed limit, anything less then that we tolerate, 2) What the heck is wrong with giving warnings? Don’t get me wrong as a cyclists I would love to see some drivers in jail for harassing me or my kids or maybe just impound their car for a month so they realize that driving is a privilege and the whole point behind licensing and insurance is because people need to be held responsible for incorrect handling of a machine that kills way too many people. It is not an American right to drive irresponsibly and put other lives in jeopardy, to that end at the very least the police should give warnings.
The above bicycle accommodation is recommended by AASHTO and I really like it as well. It reinforces that bicycles are vehicles and we need to yield to motoring traffic just as much as motoring traffic needs to yield to us. No one has the right to travel totally unencumbered by other road users. We all need to follow the standard rules of the road and no that does not mean it’s bicyclists responsibility to get the hell out of the way of cars. It means we all need to treat each other with respect and courtesy.
Please comment on this article if you support this kind of bicycle accommodation as I would like to say “thank you” to SHA for their efforts in accommodating bicyclists and I would love to see at least as many positive comments as the below referenced article has negative.
Continue reading “OMG You are going to die if you bike there”
Good News from the Trauma Team
by Mia Birk
When I read about the OHSU Report , I was, of course, alarmed. The researchers’ conclusions:
“Approximately 20% of bicycle commuters experienced a traumatic event and 5% required medical attention during 1 year of commuting. Traumatic events were not related to rider demographics, safety practices, or experience levels.”
But then I actually read the report. And it turns out that the risk of serious injury being incurred while bicycle commuting is actually very small.
First issue: the terminology “traumatic event” actually should read “minor injury.” The author explained in an interview with Sarah Mirk of the Portland Mercury:
MERC: Your study shows that over 20 percent of cyclists experience a “traumatic or serious” injury. What qualified as traumatic?
DR. MAYBERRY: You had to actually be injured. It could just be skinning your knee or spraining your ankle, but it couldn’t just be a near miss.
So we’re talking about bumps and scrapes, like the ones I suffered the other day when I crashed on some railroad tracks. Emotionally, I was a bit shaken, but it passed. By the authors’ terminology, this is a traumatic event.
And herein lies a problem: the word ‘trauma’ has both an emotional and medical interpretation. The first definition of ‘traumatic’ that comes up on google is:
- of or relating to a physical injury or wound to the body
- psychologically painful;”few experiences are more traumatic than losing a child”;
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - trauma – injury: any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture etc.
- trauma – an emotional wound or shock often having long-lasting effects
Quite a wide range of trauma there, from a minor physical wound to the utterly devastating emotional loss of a child! So let’s be clear: the authors are using the medical term relating to injuries, and just about any bruise qualifies.
More good news, according to the authors: if we commute by bike to work approximately six miles a day, we’ll experience a minor mishap once every four years. That sounds perfectly reasonable and shouldn’t dissuade anyone from riding a bike for transportation. Shoot, I get injured every few months playing tennis. My son comes home from basketball practice with a scrape or bump pretty much daily. My daughter, who isn’t into sports, regularly manages to injure herself on the playground or in the house.
An average bike commuter that rides six miles a day will experience a minor mishap (bump, scrape, bruise) once every four years.
I wish the researchers had reported their results in comparison to other physical or accident-inducing activities, rather than in a vacuum. Quick research reveals common injury-inducing activities include cooking (slicing a finger or burning a hand), swimming, getting bit by dogs, and participating in any and all sports.
I conducted a survey in my office of 21 regular bike commuters. The results:
- 69% suffered a minor injury in the last year NOT related to bike commuting;
- 19% had a minor injury related to bike commuting;
- 15% suffered a major injury (requiring medical attention) in the last year NOT related to bike commuting
- 5% had a major injury (requiring medical attention) related to bike commuting.
In other words, people living physically active lives suffer injuries, with bicycle commuting no worse an activity than anything else. And, as confirmed recently by a Dutch study, the benefits far outweigh the risks.
The use of the emotion-laden word ‘trauma’ and context-lacking statistics contribute to a culture of fear about bicycling as a dangerous activity. This fear then suppresses bike use, a real shame considering the extremely high level of individual and societal benefits and the fact that bicycling is actually getting safer. This we know from Portland’s extensive annual analysis of reported bike-motor crashes, which clearly show that the number of crashes is holding steady while the crash rate, due to the increase in cycling, is declining precipitously.
I wonder why the authors jumped to the conclusion that “these results imply that injury prevention should focus on improving the safety of the bicycle commuting environment.” They note that 20% of injuries involved road conditions like gravel, metal plates, and railroad tracks. Ok, I buy that. But what about the remaining 80%? Who/what caused these crashes? Were these all bike commute crashes or did some of the commuters also engage in racing or touring? Were the crashes correlated to speed? Were they at intersections? (I’ve left a message for the authors and hope to hear back soon.) Nevertheless, the City of Portland is indeed focused on improving the physical environment and continually looks for ways to improve safety for all of us. In recent years, this has meant everything from traffic calming to slow motorists, red light running and speeding enforcement, crosswalk violation stings, adding advance bike boxes at intersections, providing safety information truck drivers, distributing bike lights, and encouraging helmet use. Personally, I’d love to see a major crack-down on illegal motorist cell phone use, as statistics reveal this to be one of the most dangerous activities possible, on par with driving drunk.
In sum, the OHSU study helps confirm that the risk of injury is small and far outweighed by the individual and societal health and environmental benefits of bicycle commuting.
Capital Bicycle can use some used bikes
Hey if you have an old or used bike laying around please drop it off at capital this weekend we need bikes for the Annapolis rec and parks revolution bike program !we give u 15% off a new bike or $20 dollars off any acc. purchase of $100 or more.
Capital Bicycle located in Annapolis, Maryland. We are a full Service Bicycle Shop featuring Specialized Bicycles. We have a dedicated cycling fitness studio so you can keep spinning on your bike all year.
HRS M-F 10-7, Sat 10-6, Sun 11-4
Capital Bicycle
436 Chinquapin Round Road
Annapolis, MD, 12401
Continue reading “Capital Bicycle can use some used bikes”
Amplify Baltimore, This Saturday January 8.
Join many of Baltimore’s civic and political leaders to discuss who we are, where we’re going, public safety, and political literacy this Saturday from 9a-5p at MICA’s Brown Center-Falvey Hall.
Click here for more information and to register:
https://bit.ly/dLXGld
STOPtheMUD: Join with us to end the madness.
from Stop the Maryland Unsafe Driver by Driver
This website [https://stopthemud.org ] was created to give Marylanders a place to vent, to discuss, to express their opinions about unsafe driving in our state. It was also created to call attention to the senseless loss of life, the mayhem, and the injury on our highways by referring readers to articles at various news organizations. I hoped that creating a site that highlighted unsafe driving in Maryland that the site would attract readers that would participate and encourage comment and debate.
The site is useful in that it does alert Marylanders to some, but not all, of news stories documenting the carnage on Maryland roads and highways. StoptheMUD wants to encourage readers to create an account (it is free) and join the discussion. Our Mingle interface gives you a “Facebook like” user experience that includes a StoptheMUD.org with your chosen username.
Public awareness of unsafe driving is important. By acknowledging we have a serious problem we can each individually make the effort to change our driving behaviors. The state will not do it for us. We, each and every Marylander must make the choice to drive safely. Hopefully by creating a place where we promote individual responsibility we might notice a difference.
I created this site after my wife was involved in a high speed collision that cold have killed her. Two drivers turned in front of her on the highway. One blew a stop sign making a right turn and another made a left turn in front of her without looking for oncoming traffic. Both drivers admitted as much. She crashed into both cars deploying her driver’s side airbag.
Because it was dusk, the MSP officer cited my spouse for failing to turn on her headlights. The following day we met with our insurance adjuster at the accident scene as dusk came upon us. The other drivers COULD have seen my wife’s car if they had bothered to look, but it was just dark enough that the law was not on our side. The egregious behaviors of the unsafe drivers were not even considered.
We learned a couple of things after that collision. In Maryland, there is no contributing responsibility law. The other is that you cannot trust a police a office to tell the truth in court. The officer that cited my spouse for not having her headlights on claimed he was at the accident scene, at dusk, the day after the crash to determine whether the other drivers should have seen my wife’s car. Well we know he was not there because we were and he wasn’t. My spouse was so shocked when the officer made his claim in court that she was afraid to tell the judge that the officer was not telling the truth.
So you see that if we are going to eliminate dangerous roads we have to count on ourselves to make the behavior changes. We cannot depend on the police.
Please join the discussion at StoptheMUD. Comment on the articles or create your own account and Mingle with us. Let’s deal with a problem that is causing loss of life in our state.
Continue reading “STOPtheMUD: Join with us to end the madness.”
MBPAC Discussion on Legislative Issues – Meeting time and place
Scheduled for Monday, January 10 from 1:00 to 2:30 PM in the Bentley Conference Room on the 2nd floor at MDOT.
Maryland Department of Transportation
7201 Corporate Center Drive
Hanover, MD 21076
Meeting is open to all. This is a joint meeting of two MBPAC subcommittees, Legislative and Government Affairs and Commuting and Transportation. The purpose is to go through the legislative issues once again for the purpose of addressing concerns and making tentative recommendations.
[After the fold; is MBPAC complying with the Open Meetings Act?]
Continue reading “MBPAC Discussion on Legislative Issues – Meeting time and place”
Not all infrastructure is worth replacing
On Streetsblog.net by Cap’n Transit posted an interesting point:
"I don’t think that the fate of the world depends on our ability to build or maintain large contraptions"
I agree that the value of a project is not related to the cost of the project. Too many times "we" make the mistake that because its expensive it must be worth doing. We are reaching a point where the cheaper options often have the most value as we have supersaturated what can be done with big expensive stuff. And too many are thinking the only way to fix big expensive stuff is with even bigger and even more expensive stuff. The ICC is a good example of the wrong kind of thinking "because it’s really expensive it must be good." We need to start thinking differently, we need to understand that in heavily traveled corridors, providing transit options provides more utility and bang for the buck then just highway capacity expansions.
Continue reading “Not all infrastructure is worth replacing”
Mountain bike trails and tracks in Leakin Park
A happy partnership is forged between IMBA, MORE, and the Baltimore City Parks and Recreation Department this afternoon. The Mountain bike organizations will be putting together a plan for trails and tracks in Leakin Park.
From Light Street Cycles
Continue reading “Mountain bike trails and tracks in Leakin Park”