Month: August 2011

Transportation For America has put a call out for pictures of streets designed for speeding traffic at the expense of safe travel by people on foot or bike. Their samples could be all from Maryland (one actually is.) I encourage you to send in your photos to them as well as us, it will help to make a difference. Thanks.
Ref: https://feedproxy.google.com/~r/transportationforamerica/~3/Sclpi3WBFqA/

from Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space by Richard Layman

Washcycle mentions an insurance case in Alaska, involving an accident between a pickup truck and a cyclist, where it was stipulated that the truck driver was at fault. The insurance policy limited liability to other parties to $100,000, even if the actual damages were much higher.

Every state’s minimum insurance requirements are dreadfully too low. In this case the motorist had $100,000 liability (not insignificant) but his own insurance company valued the damages to the cyclist to be $375,000 – $475,000.

And this from simply pulling in front of a cyclist.

What I get from this is:

1) Minimum liability insurance needs to be raised several orders of magnitude.

2) Perhaps we should have a new liability insurance component that specifically covers damages to person(s) who are NOT motorists (and by virtue of not having several tons of steel protection suffer greater injury).

I would set a liability requirement for damages to non-motorists to be several multiples of the existing liability minimum limit.

Keeping in mind that a car – car collision at 25 MPH likely will not injure any of the occupants while a car – pedestrian collision certainly will). Actuaries could work out the correct multiple.

Crickey7 makes the key point:

… It’s truly risk-shifting to the victims and an example of moral hazard in that the irresponsible pay less in insurance premiums and get away with it.
Continue reading “How car insurance underprices the risk to pedestrians and cyclists”

[B’ Spokes: You gota love Washcycle when they get into these issues:]

from TheWashCycle by washcycle

Linda Need weighs in now, trying to be the voice of reason, but she misses in oh-so-many ways.

Motorists want bikers on the bike paths, and bikers want motorists to toodle behind them while they pedal at various speeds up the road.

See, what motorists want is simple – bikes on bike paths, but what cyclists want is to inconvenience drivers.

Motorists and cyclists both break the law; unfortunately it’s the motorist who will go to jail if the two collide.

Oh, if only she knew how untrue that was. Unless the motorist was drunk or left the scene (and was caught) they will almost surely do no time – even in the rare event that they are found at fault – and might not even have to show up in court. Besides, is going to jail really worse than dying. Why wouldn’t she say “unfortunately it’s the cyclist who will go to the hospital or morgue if the two collide?”

No wonder motorists are unnerved driving around cyclists.

Yes, that’s been my experience.

When cyclists yell obscenities and spit on motorists (both have happened to my family), it just inflames the situation. Neither side has been polite about this.

Well then, why are you focused only on the cyclists? Has someone in your family been run off the road by a cyclist? Because I’ve had a driver do that to me. It inflamed both the situation and my knee.

As a motorist who doesn’t have the privilege of having time to cycle,

Cyclists are so privileged. You know how she could free up some time? Start biking more. Oh wait…

I think the cyclists should be on the bike paths, as it is much easier for bikes to dodge pedestrians than cars to dodge cyclists.

But what about when there are no bike paths? Or people want to ride fast? And is it really easier? Maybe drivers should slow down instead of trying to “dodge” cyclists.

However, I think the only permanent solution is to put in bike lanes

Hooray! We agree,,,

and make cyclists pass a “driving” test and get licensed to ensure that they all know that they must follow the same rules as cars when they are on the road.

…and the moment is over.

Until that happens, we will continue to have frustrated motorists and angry cyclists.

And see, drivers are frustrated – which is a reasoble, thoughtful reaction, while cyclists are angry, which is emotional and scary.

Continue reading “Gazette Letter-to-the-Editor fight, round 5”

From our Commercial Drivers Manual:

When Passing. Whenever you are about to pass a
vehicle, pedestrian, or bicyclist, assume they don’t
see you. They could suddenly move in front of you.
When it is legal, tap the horn lightly or, at night,
flash your lights from low to high beam and back.
And, drive carefully enough to avoid a crash even if
they don’t see or hear you.

Contradicting the Drivers’ Manual:

As you approach a bicyclist, slow down. Avoid
honking your horn. Bicyclists can usually hear an
approaching vehicle and loud noises can startle
bicyclists, causing a crash .

And contradicting state law § 22-223.(c) that prohibits use of high beams within 300 feet of ANY vehicle including a bicycle.

I really wish they put in something about being extra careful for bike/peds when turning as a turning truck killed Jack Yates, Alice Swanson … FARS shows trucks kill more bicyclists then passenger cars and trucks use the right side of their vehicle to kill more frequently then cars as well.

To show how bad a blind spot is for trucks this UK video shows just how many bicyclists can be hidden in a trucks blind spot.

from TheWashCycle By Jack Cochrane
[Just to give you a heads up on a issue.]
…
In addition to the yellow Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign, SHA staff also brought a yellow sign to the meeting with the message "Bicycles May Be in Roadway." That sign is not a suitable substitute for the yellow Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign. First, it does not express the fact that bicyclists may use the full lane, which is what we need. Second, telling road users that cyclists may ("are allowed to") be in the roadway could leave the impression that they are not allowed to be on roads where the sign is not posted. If SHA approves that sign in addition to the yellow and white versions of Bicycles May Use Full Lane, that is okay; but I would much rather have the sign say "Bicycles in Roadway" than "Bicycles May Be in Roadway."
Advocates need to stand up for having a yellow Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign as well as the white R4-11 version. As WABA has pointed out, 700 people sent letters asking SHA to approve such a sign. Their concern was clearly to get these signs posted throughout the state along the roads where they ride, not the shape or color of the sign.
(Jack Cochrane is Chair of Montgomery Bicycle Advocates, also known as “MoBike”)
Continue reading “Maryland Should Approve Both Versions of the Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign”