[B’ Spokes: This has relevance to Baltimore’s recent trend of nixing bike lanes because of “safety issues.”]

by Tom Fucoloro, Seattle Bike Blog

Changes to Nickerson St in 2010 have resulted in a 23 percent drop in collisions, the city reported during a press conference today.

Last year, Publicola reported that traffic volumes on Nickerson remained consistent, as the city had predicted. Average speeds dropped from over 40 mph to 34-37 mph, which is still higher than the speed limit.

We’ll have more details soon (UPDATE: See below), but this appears to be yet another example that such road design improvements (AKA “road diets”) work dependably at increasing safety without negatively impacting traffic congestion.

The Nickerson redesign was fairly controversial, with opponents claiming there would be massive traffic jams and accusing the mayor of being too pro-bike. While the added bike lanes on Nickerson certainly help people access businesses and homes along the Nickerson corridor by bike, the project was hardly about just bikes. The Ship Canal Trail provides a better alternative for people passing through the area on bike (especially now that it has been extended to Fisherman’s Terminal). Rather, the Nickerson project was about road safety for everyone, as it appears to have done.

UPDATE: You can see the full study report below. The study found that the number of people driving more than 10 mph above the speed limit dropped by a staggering 92-96 percent.

Here’s a before-and-after shot. Notice how much more inviting the after image is for people who need to cross the street to access that bus stop.

The study also found that daily traffic volumes on Nickerson remained unchanged. The number of freight trucks of all sizes even increased slightly. The AM peak traffic volumes did drop significantly, but this was not due to people taking alternative routes. 15th Ave W actually saw an even larger decrease in AM traffic, so that decrease may be a sign of a larger traffic trend in the area and not related to the road changes.

…
Continue reading “Collisions drop 23 percent on redesigned Nickerson”

By Bob Mionske, Bicycling.com
“Mrs. Morgan, you should not have been riding your bike on the road,” said the judge.
…
The pair never finished their ride. As Richardson recalls, on a stretch of road near the town of Pheba, she saw a car next to her, very close, and then heard the sound of an impact. Jan Morgan had been rear-ended by a driver traveling at 55 miles per hour. She was thrown into the air, landed on the hood of the car, and hit the windshield. When the driver, Robbie Norton of Cedar Bluff, stopped her vehicle, Morgan was thrown to the road. One witness, driving directly behind Norton, observed that Norton never slowed or took evasive action before the impact. It gets worse: After exiting her car and taking a look at Morgan lying in the road, Norton got back into the car and drove over Morgan again. According to the witness, the car came to a stop with the tire resting on Morgan’s head.
…
At trial, Norton was found guilty of a lesser charge, negligent driving, and for the Morgans, it seemed as if justice, even if it was a small justice, was at hand. But they were in for a rude awakening. According to David Morgan, Judge Joe Taggart was sympathetic—towards the driver. Addressing Norton, Judge Taggart apologetically explained, “Robbie, I know you did not mean to do this and I don’t want to fine you, but you were negligent.”
After fining Norton a token $50, the judge turned his attention toward what he felt was the real problem in his courtroom. “Mrs. Morgan,” he lectured, “you should not have been riding your bike on the road.” According to Judge Taggart, people who ride bikes are assuming the risk of being injured; as he explained, “the highways weren’t designed for bikes.”
…
Judge Taggart’s legal reasoning is completely wrong. There is no such thing as somebody assuming the risk of being injured by a negligent driver just because she decided to travel on a public road. This is pretty basic legal stuff, and something that Judge Taggart appears to be completely unfamiliar with.
And it’s not even the only thing he got wrong. He also took care to explain some circumstances under which Norton would not have been found guilty—if a car had been coming from the other direction, or if her brakes hadn’t been working. So according to this reasoning, if there is oncoming traffic, it is okay for a driver to run down a cyclist instead of, say, slowing and waiting until it’s safe to pass. As for properly maintaining your brakes? Not necessary in Judge Taggart’s courtroom.
I’d like to say that the way Jan Morgan was treated was unusual. But unfortunately, I’ve seen it many times in my own law practice, in cases all across the country. As I explained in Bicycling & the Law, from the moment a cyclist is hit, there’s a social bias working against the cyclist. At every step, from witness perceptions, to police reports, to insurance-company claims adjusters, to the legal system, the cyclist is blamed for what happened. Sometimes called the “windshield perspective,” this bias even extends to media accounts of what happened.
There’s only one way to defeat this bias, and that is to refuse to accept it, to refuse to let careless drivers off the hook when they injure somebody. When we challenge the status quo, we have the power to change it. As the Morgans have discovered, it isn’t always going to be easy to find justice, but unless we do demand justice when it is withheld, it will never be ours. For their efforts and determination, we all owe Jan and David Morgan a debt of gratitude, and our support when they re-enter the courtroom on April 2.
Research and assistance by Rick Bernardi, J.D.
Continue reading “Adding Insult to Injury”

from Dirt Rag Mag https://www.dirtragmag.com/node/84172
On January 12 of this year, in a courtroom in Hagerstown, Maryland, 21-year-old Meghann Weaver stood before a Washington County circuit judge to face sentencing for hitting a bicyclist, eight-year-old David Greeley, in August of 2009.
The outcome: a fine of $140 for the collision, which fractured the cyclist’s skull and damaged his left leg to the point that it necessitated amputation at mid-shin.
Looking at that case in relation to some similar cases, her penalty was harsh-but nothing when viewed in the context of how her operation of a two-ton box of steel with horsepower to spare altered the life of the boy and his family.
…
These cases and others are infuriating cyclists all over the U.S., causing many to question the integrity of a system that appears to dismiss the value of lives extinguished or crippled on roads that traffic signs and PR campaigns remind us are meant to be shared.
The reality is that, unlike in Europe, such leniency has been part of the American way of justice for decades, as state after state changed its respective laws to process car-bicycle collision injuries as compensation matters handled in civil courts-and the result was less punishment for the offender and greater emphasis on compensation for the injured cyclist.
"I can understand the reaction," says Steve Kessell, the Maryland State’s Attorney who prosecuted Weaver. "But it’s based on a perception of the law that is not really accurate."
In the ’70s, with cycling’s surge in popularity, America’s criminal courts began to be so overwhelmed with cases that, as part of a state-by-state court reform, car-bike collisions were downgraded as criminal matters and turned over to civil courts for the purpose of meting out compensation to victims. Thus, in most states, anything less than cases of wanton disregard for human life, malicious intent or gross misconduct with a motor vehicle will merit little more than a ticket-and sometimes not even a ticket.
"Until then, motor vehicle offenses were criminal," explains David Hiller, advocacy director for the Cascade Bicycle Club in Washington State. "Then, in exchange for waiving the right to due process, and to unclog the courts, the trade-off was those cases would be handled in civil court."
As civil cases, says Portland, Oregon lawyer Ray Thomas, they do little or nothing to advance real justice. "You could have a carrot for a lawyer," he says, "and you (the injured) will get the limit [of monetary compensation]."
"It’s extra work for the police officer to go to court," says Thomas, who specializes in pedestrian- and bicycle-related cases. "Everyone just says, ‘Let the insurance companies work it out.’"
"The lowest of the low" is how bike-vehicle collisions rank in the eyes of police, Thomas says. "They say, ‘Our job is to get criminals off the streets.’" Period.
…
"Few families would seek to send to prison the soccer dad whose moment of inattention caused the death of a child attempting to walk to school. But when responding police officers merely issue a minor traffic violation or no ticket at all, victims’ families are justifiably frustrated and angry that so little is done to provide some public accountability for the horrific mistake and to reduce the likelihood the driver will kill again.
"While sending every driver who makes a fatal error of judgment to prison is not a realistic solution, the time has come to recognize that driving is a dangerous privilege and serious consequences should follow anytime a needless death occurs because a driver failed to drive carefully."
…
"Sixty-three percent of the public drives," says Hiller. "They make up the majority of the voting public."
And they have clout-applied and implied. "Some lawmakers don’t see cyclists as equally entitled to the roads," says Bruce Drees, advocacy director for the Tidewater Bicycle Association in southeastern Virginia, where Daniel Hersh was killed. Not only that, Hiller believes that instead of doing something to discourage careless and inattentive driving and protecting people from becoming victims, legislators are inclined to put themselves "in the position of the perpetrator, not the victim. They say, ‘That could have been me’" who hit the cyclist, Hiller says. "The carnage we accept in this country."
…
Therein stands the question that boggles the minds of those who take "Share the Road" literally: Shouldn’t the fragility of life be enough motivation to make drivers extremely watchful and mindful that they have the capacity to kill people?
"You would think so," says Clarke. "But it doesn’t."
…
Continue reading “Incivility: How Lawyers and Legislators De-Valued Your Life”