Biking in Baltimore
[B’ Spokes: Two notes: If we can’t get police to enforce the 3′ law then advertising on the back window would be a good option. Texas gets 6′ for passing trucks while Maryland wants to give trucks less then 3′, something is wrong with that.]
Continue reading “From the City of Austin Bicycle Program”
B’ Spokes: So besides contributory negligence working against us, Maryland has a cap on pain and suffering that applies to all personal injury cases. :/
https://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2007/01/wrongful_death_settlements_and.html
B’ Spokes: Washcycle has a great writeup of the new Street Smart Campaign which should be coming to Baltimore Metro Area as well, though I have not seen any coverage yet. It also echoes my support for the enforcement program that comes with it, my big question is will our local police follow through?
B’ Spokes: If you haven’t heard what happened on Guilford…
https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/04/12/rash-of-assaults-raises-concern-among-city-bike-riders/
Be careful out there folks and I’ll note if you see suspicious activity examine all avoidance options including making a u-turn and riding against traffic for a bit.
Baltimore Velo has an update: https://baltimorevelo.com/2013/04/15/guilford-ave-update/
B’ Spokes: I would like this idea a lot better if it also included biking. Imagine "Regular Burger – biking 10.4 miles" and people think, you know maybe I will bike to work so I can eat better. Well that’s my two cents.
The Scientific American article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=labels-that-translate-calories-into-walking-distance
B’ Spokes: I’ll note there are three kinds of drivers: Those that signal well in advance of their turn, those that signal once they start their turn and those that don’t signal at all. I put the last two in the same category… hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians. It looks to me that the Streetfilm coverage puts the first two in the same category. Granted it would be more work to identify those that signal well in advance of the turn (as the law requires) but still if we want to count drivers who drive in accordance with the law and what’s necessary for safety this should have been done.
Even with all that those that signal are in the minority and that is just wrong.
Street Film’s coverage: https://www.streetfilms.org/an-experiment-how-many-nyc-drivers-dont-signal/
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DOT-PedSafety/Resource/Safety_Tips.html
During the months of April and May, the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD) will be focusing enforcement efforts on pedestrian safety. MCPD will be conducting a number of operations at locations with marked crosswalks and areas that have been identified as pedestrian High Incidence Areas (HIAs) — areas with more pedestrian collisions. Police will be issuing citations to both drivers and pedestrians who are breaking the law.
https://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/Blog/DOTblog.asp?blogID=25&blogItemID=2183
[B’ Spokes: Now I have to ask when are the counties with higher pedestrian fatality rates going to do something similar? Ya I am looking at you Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Prince Georges County.]
by Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog
…
The problem is that there is data that suggests that it’s not the holding of the phone, but the distraction in general that causes more accidents. It may be that it is not so much where your hands are when you are driving – not many of us are in a 10-2 position anyway – but where your mind is.
So should we eliminate talking on the phone while driving? Honestly, we probably should. I talk on the phone constantly when I’m driving but never with my kids in the car. But there is zero – absolutely zero – inertia to ban cell phone use while driving. Everyone turns a blind eye to these statistics because we believe what we want to believe and we don’t want to give it up. Ironically, there is just one group that sees it my way: insurance companies.
https://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2013/04/maryland_toughens_handheld_pho_1.html
(Note: Link to the data in the quoted article.)
by Matt Johnson, Greater Greater Washington
…
Her response stunned me, and probably goes a long way to describing the plight of cyclists in this country. She said to the guard and me:
"I had my signal on. You were supposed to stop for me."
In the first place, this is completely inaccurate. When driving on a street with bike lanes, the bike lane is considered a regular lane. You always have to yield to cyclists in the bike lane if you need to turn across it.
And the appropriate maneuver is to first merge into the bike lane before turning right. In this case, she should have merged behind me, since she did not have room to pass first.
In the second place, because she initiated the turn before she passed me, I really had no way of knowing that her signal was on anyway. Yes, cars have signals on the front, too. But as the front of her car passed me, I was focused on watching the car in front of her, because I did want to be right hooked by that driver either.
…
https://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/18422/a-misinformed-driver-almost-right-hooked-me/
*******************************************************************************************************
[B’ Spokes: I’ll add I would love to see someone try "I had my signal on. You have to stop for me." when merging onto the highway with a police car in their way forcing the police to slam on their brakes. I think the real point here is too many drivers feel that cyclists and pedestrians always have to yield to them and never the other way around… and that seriously needs to be addressed. Next, the proper turning method for motorists when a bike lane is present needs to be officially endorsed. I think the legal and safety arguments for this method are a lot stronger than those against but it seems those against don’t want motorist driving in bike lanes but have no problem with motorist parking in bike lanes. (OK I put two separate discussions back to back here but it seems those with power at MDOT are more concerned about motorists convenience then they are about the safety of cyclists.)]
