[B’ Spokes: this is from DC but still applicable in Maryland.]
By Washcycle
I’ve been watching footage from Mendelson’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety hearing and there are a couple of conversations that were not reported on earlier.
At around the 27:00 mark, he asks WABA director Shane Farthing about the Idaho Stop saying that it was something “we should be looking into.” That’s encouraging, but don’t get too excited. We probably need to replace the current contributory negligence law with comparative negligence law first. If not, anytime a cyclist is hit in an intersection it will be almost impossible to recover for injury or property damage. Some people fear that the simple existence of the Idaho Stop law will be enough for 1% fault.
The contrib/compare discussion comes up at the 39:00 mark. Farthing proposes changing the law just for vulnerable roadway users insted of changing the entire legal system in DC (which has some opposition from lawyers and insurance companies).
The last part of interest is at the 01:37:00 mark when Mendolson asks BAC representative David Alexander why cyclists sometimes don’t ride in a bike lane. As an example he mentioned almost being hit by a cyclist on Pennsylvania Avenue by a cyclist riding to the right instead of in the center bike lanes. Mendolson wanted to know: What up with that?
It’s a question a lot of non-drivers probably ask and of course there are probably dozens of possible answers (Some bike lanes aren’t well designed. Some cyclists don’t like them. Sometimes the bike lane is inconvenient, or goes over bad pavement. Sometimes it’s blocked) though mine would probably be this: that cyclist didn’t think the bike lane met their safety or use needs as well as the all-traffic lane. I’m not sure where Mendolson was going with the question (bike lane enforcement? bike lane design? Get off my yard complaining?). Maybe he was just curious.
https://www.thewashcycle.com/2011/03/mendolson-asks-about-idaho-stop-and-riding-outside-the-bike-lane.htmloldId.2011030411580873