Calm down
With a very few exceptions, America is no place for cyclists

Sep 3rd 2011 | SEATTLE | from the print edition

DYING while cycling is three to five times more likely in America than in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands. To understand why, consider the death of Michael Wang. He was pedalling home from work in Seattle on a sunny weekday afternoon in late July when, witnesses say, a brown SUV made a left turn, crunched into Wang and sped away.

The road where the 44-year-old father of two was hit is the busiest cycling corridor in Seattle, and it has clearly marked bicycle lanes. But the lanes are protected from motor vehicles by a line of white paint—a largely metaphorical barrier that many drivers ignore and police do not vigorously enforce. A few feet from the cycling lane traffic moves at speeds of between 30 miles per hour, the speed limit for arterials in Seattle, and 40 miles per hour, the speed at which many cars actually travel. This kind of speed kills. A pedestrian hit by a car moving at 30mph has a 45% chance of dying; at 40mph, the chance of death is 85%, according to Britain’s Department of Transport.

Had Mr Wang been commuting on a busy bike route in Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Berlin, his unprotected exposure to instruments of death—namely, any vehicle moving at 20mph or more—would be nearly nil. These cities have knitted together networks for everyday travel by bike. To start with, motor vehicles allowed near cyclists are subject to “traffic calming”. They must slow down to about 19mph, a speed that, in case of collision, kills less than 5%. Police strictly enforce these speed limits with hefty fines. Repeat offenders lose their licences.

Calmer traffic is just the beginning. In much of northern Europe, cyclists commute on lanes that are protected from cars by concrete buffers, rows of trees or parked cars. At busy crossroads, bicycle-activated traffic lights let cyclists cross first. Traffic laws discriminate in favour of people on bikes. A few American cities have taken European-style steps to make streets safer for cycling, most notably Portland, Oregon, which has used most of the above ideas. The result: more bikes and fewer deaths. Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America. But in five out of the past ten years there have been no cycling deaths there. In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists, have been killed in the past few weeks.

–EBR

Here’s the code:

“Section 9-05-001-0015 Right of Way At Intersection: Upon approaching an intersection, any person riding or operating bicycles in a bicycle lane shall yield the right of way to all vehicles within or approaching such intersection; except, that all vehicles which must stop or yield before entering an intersection because of a stop or yield sign and all vehicles making a left-hand turn at an intersection shall not proceed into such intersection nor make such a turn without first yielding the right of way to all bicycles within or approaching such intersection, and shall proceed only when it is safe to do so.”

Translation: if you are in a car you don’t need to be concerned about any cyclists to the right of you when making a turn — it’s their job to avoid you. And if you are on your bicycle and run down by a car in this fashion, don’t expect to collect from the driver’s insurance company, because you were “per se” negligent under the law.

My favorite part about this is that bicyclists even have to yield to cars that are behind them, approaching the intersection but overtaking them.

It’s pretty much not possible for a cyclist to cross an intersection in Flagstaff without putting herself at risk, because she would need to know the intentions of the drivers that may overtake her (and run her over) on the way through the intersection.

–Erik Ryberg

I sure hope the local authorities determine that something worse than just leaving the scene of an accident occurred here.

–EBR

Now I am sure my readers all agree how wonderful it will be to get another parking garage downtown.

I’ve been looking around on the web to try to figure out where the exit and entrance points of this thing will be, but can’t quite make it out. I don’t have a lot of confidence that the traffic engineering here will be any better than it was when they designed the new Fourth Avenue tunnel.

But of course we all know that the key to invigorating downtown is more parking garages.

–Erik Ryberg

I am told that he got schooled a little bit in court because that was an incorrect interpretation of the law, and in my last case he didn’t bother to show. According to another attorney, Arizpuru also dismissed the violation in the courtroom when he saw that the defendant was going to use a memo by his Lieutenant that states flatly that riding two abreast in Arizona is legal.

So when he appeared in court yesterday, he stated my client, who rides Mt. Lemmon several times a week and is a competitive cyclist, was riding his bike in the middle of the lane, carelessly forcing traffic to pass him unsafely. He stated he did not cite the motorist who he witnessed make an unsafe pass around my client because he felt the motorist had no other choice but to run over my client in the road. I asked if there might be a third option, which is to wait for a safe passing opportunity, but Arizpuru insisted that the way my client was riding, it wouldn’t ever have happened.

So basically we had a situation where my client stated he was riding in a straight line eight inches away from the fog line, and the officer stated he was riding in the middle of the lane. The judge preferred to believe the officer. We lost.

Lesson: If you get cited for this, stop your bike and ask the officer to describe exactly how far away from the line you were. Ask if any traffic has been stopped behind you. Making them talk about the situation at the moment you get the citation will make it harder for the story to change later (though nothing guarantees an officer won’t make things up out of whole cloth).

As depressing as this whole incident was, I think Arizpuru has gotten the message. I think he really did misunderstand the law when he issued those citations, and I don’t get the feeling he is going to maliciously keep giving them. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think he’s glad it’s over, and I think that it helped a great deal that so many cyclists fought these tickets, even those who lost.

–Erik Ryberg

–EBR

I reviewed his police report, and found that the officer noted that the cyclist’s inattention was the cause of the collision. The driver, by contrast, was recorded as having “taken no inappropriate action.”

Carry on.

–Erik Ryberg

The problem is, if you want to, you can carry just $15,000 worth of such coverage — an amount that has remained unchanged since it was first set by the Arizona Financial Responsibility Act back in 1972.

What that means is that if you get hit by somebody who is carrying the minimum policy — whether you are driver, a bicyclist, or a pedestrian — the most you are going to recover from the driver’s insurance company is $15,000. And, sadly, most people on the road in Arizona carry the minimum coverage.

Arizona’s requirement is particularly low. Only four states in the U.S. require less coverage than Arizona; thirty-seven require more.

Now, in most collisions that involve modern, motorized vehicles, $15,000 is more than enough. Most of the time most people are not badly injured if they are inside a motorized vehicle.

But if they are hit while on foot or on bike, $15,000 often doesn’t even start to pay for their injuries. If you have an ambulance ride, a CT scan, and a couple of X-rays, you are probably going to be pushing that $15,000 policy limit pretty hard. Throw in a broken bone or an overnight stay, and you’ve exceeded it. You will owe the hospital money for your troubles.

The AZ legislature could easily bring Arizona in line with the times by increasing the minimum to $25,000 or more. This would provide much better protection for our state’s pedestrians and bicyclists, and the increase in coverage should cost the consumer very little (remember, unless a driver actually hits a cyclist or a pedestrian, he or she is still only going to pay whatever the costs are now — so the actual increase in rates should be small).

Of course, the likelihood of our legislature doing such a thing is nil.

If you are a bicyclist, please be sure you are carrying health insurance or, at a minimum, underinsured motorist coverage on your driver’s policy. This will usually protect you even while you are on your bike or on foot.

I too often see people in my office who have hospital bills that exceed or nearly exceed the minimum policy limits of the driver who hit them, and it breaks my heart to have to tell them that most likely the best we can do is make a sizeable dent in their hospital bills. It’s worse still when they have permanent injuries.

–Erik Ryberg

Update: Above is a photo of the signs Matt Zoll, Pima County Bike/Pedestrian Program Manager, says are the appropriate solution to construction sites.

I’ve been getting a lot of emails about the decision to close the Kolb Access road to bicycles during construction, even though the speed limit there is now 15 mph, a speed almost any cyclist can sustain for the 1/2 mile-long closure, and a speed that is actually slower than most of the commuting cyclists who use that road generally travel.

The result is that bike commuters have to now make a truly dangerous detour.

Here’s the latest email exchange with the U of A over the matter, which I found quite illuminating. As usual with such exchanges, read from the bottom:

To “Ken Marcus”

Subject RE: Kolb access road closure to cyclists
Ken – thanks for the response. The word ‘almost’ is key regarding the
alternate route. I completely agree that up to the point of crossing the
RR tracks it is just fine. From there to the entry gate it is terrible.
I’m sure in car it seems like nothing, but 2 lanes of cars and trucks
are passing at 60 MPH on a curve with zero shoulder. All of us (the
cyclists) would take our chances with a little wet dirt any day.
Everyone likes to talk about going green, but when things get squeezed a
bit the knee jerk reaction is almost always to ban the bicycles. It’s
telling of course that you refer to the ‘bicycle issue’ instead of the
‘unsafe driver issue’.
Ironically in this case, we’d actually be a bit safer in the
construction zone because everyone would be going the same speed. The
large construction vehicle argument is nonsensical, if they are a threat
to bicycles they surely are a threat to motorcycles and other vehicles
as well.

>From *”Ken Marcus” *
> To Steve
> RE: Kolb access road closure to cyclists
Steve,
Thank you for your concern of cyclists on the Kolb Access Road. We have
looked at the safety concerns regarding bicyclist using the Kolb Access
Road and at best when there is no construction we believe there is a
bicycle issue because there is no bike lane. With the beginning of
construction the dangers for bicycles is even more acute since there is
small area with large construction vehicles, dust and wet dirt and
pavement. The road is governed by the Project Operation Agreement and we
concur with the Managing and Contract Operator’s decision to not allow
bicycles on the Kolb Access Road.
I did travel the Valencia , Old Vail Road to Rita Road route and found
it to have a bike lane and level shoulders for almost the entire route.
This appears to be a very safe alternative with very little added distance.
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns.
Ken

Ken Marcus
Director / CFO
University of Arizona Science and Technology Park
9070 S. Rita Road Suite 1750
Tucson, AZ 85747
Phone (520) 382-2482, Cell (520) 401-8636, Fax (520) 382-2499

> *From:* Steve
> To:* kmarcus@uatechpark.org*
> Subject:* Kolb access road closure to cyclists
Ken – I wanted to ask for your help with an issue we’re having with
Grubb & Ellis here at the Tech Park. I’m part of a group of cyclists
that regularly commute to IBM at the site. Many of us regularly use the
Kolb Rd entrance as it’s our most direct and safest route. With the
recent construction for the new Vail High School, G&E has taken the
rather draconian measure of banning cyclists from the access road for 3
months.
This is difficult for us to accept as the detour is quite lengthy and
more dangerous than the construction zone with there being high speed
traffic on Rita Rd combined with zero shoulder. Ironically the
construction zone is actually safer for us as it slows down the cars and
we can maintain the speed limit of 15 MPH through the construction zone,
which is less than 1/2 a mile.
The bottom line is that there is no rational reason to ban bicyclists
from the area. It’s no more dangerous for us than a motorcycle. I know
you are interested in making the site more green, and it would seem that
banning bicycles is a step in the wrong direction. Any help you can give
us in this area would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Steve

As usual, someone who doesn’t really know anything about bicycles or bicycling has decided to make a decision ostensibly to improve their “safety” and has offered (in my opinion) patronizing reasons for why his decision has done that, over the objections of many very experienced cyclists.

Of course, I suspect the real issue has nothing at all to do with the stated concerns for safety. The real issue is that the U of A wants to limit its liability wherever possible. (Cue up the anti-lawyer arguments now everyone.)

–Erik Ryberg

Suspended sentence for driver who tried to run cyclist off road…9 times

By Simon_MacMichael – Posted on 03 February 2010

A teenage driver who repeatedly tried to run a cyclist off the road has been told by a judge sentencing him to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, that he had made a “bit of an unfortunate choice of victim” – an off duty senior police officer. Even so, the judge only gave him a suspended prison sentence.

Detective Inspector Martin Melvin had been cycling home from Burnley police station last July when 18-year-old Benjamin Harrison, who lives in the town, pulled alongside him and started beeping his horn, shaking his fist and shouting, “Get off the road. I will run you off the road. I will kill you. Get off the road,” according to a report in the Lancashire Telegraph.

Burnley Crown Court heard how Harrison had made nine attempts to run Detective Inspector Melvin off the road, trying to hit him on the pavement and making contact with his handlebars and causing him to veer into trees, with the result he came off his bike. He also threw coins and stones at his victim.

Besides the suspended sentence, Harrison was given a 12-month supervision order, ordered to carry out 100 hours’ unpaid work and pay £750 costs, and banned from driving for two years.

Harrison was arrested at his parents’ house, where it is claimed he told police, “Can I not just apologise?”

Story here. I’ve got nothing else to add.

–EBR