PEDALING EDUCATION
The Oregonian Sunday, October 21, 2007
JEFF MAPES
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/119283637590770.xml&coll=7
Two years ago, on a visit to Amsterdam, I watched a middle-aged motorist prepare to turn right off a busy highway onto a street bisected by a bicycle path. Both the driver and the woman next to him craned their necks looking over their right shoulders to make sure they would not hit a cyclist.
What struck me as I stood there, only a few feet away, was that there was not a hint of irritation or impatience in their faces as they waited 10 to 15 seconds until the road was clear and they could safely turn.
That simple awareness -- and patience -- on the part of drivers is one reason why it is statistically three times as safe to cycle in the Netherlands as in the United States, despite that virtually no cyclist in Holland wears a helmet.
I've found myself thinking about traffic safety in the Netherlands as I read about the 19-year-old cyclist crushed under the wheels of a turning cement truck on the streets of Portland. The horrible crash earlier this month, which seemed to touch the hearts of Portlanders no matter their feelings about biking, created a moment when people were willing to talk about how to accommodate this increasingly popular form of transportation.
Journalists explored whether motorists should be able to enter bike lanes to turn right and whether the city should create more "bike boxes" that allow cyclists to move to the front of the intersection. And on one local bicycle listserv there was a serious discussion -- for the first time that I've seen -- about how to teach safe riding techniques, particularly to all new cyclists in Portland.
These discussions bring at least some good out of this tragedy. The reality is that cycling has become part of the city's culture and is not going away. In the summer, there are now some 14,500 daily cycling trips across Willamette River bridges. And just over 5 percent of city residents say they usually commute by bike.
In the last three years, the bridge counts have climbed by 64 percent, and there's no reason to think the increase will stop there. Oil supplies are becoming more uncertain, climate change is now widely seen as a real threat and -- perhaps most important -- Americans desperately need to be more physically active. More than 30 percent of adults are obese, and sedentary-induced disease is a leading cause of early death.
I don't say any of this to guilt-trip motorists out of their cars or even to go on about the rights of cyclists. Instead, I want the city, and ideally the entire country, to be a lot safer for all of us. The truth is that everyone is far too much at risk in traffic, whether in a vehicle, on a bike or walking.
Last year in the United States, 42,642 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, including 4,784 pedestrians and 773 cyclists. That's the equivalent of having two fully loaded jumbo jets fall from the sky and kill everyone aboard -- twice a week.
And here's the number that amazes me. Last year, 2.6 million people were injured on American roads. Your odds of being hurt in a crash are nearly one in a hundred, every single year. To me, these are not statistics. I still remember, as a young reporter, seeing four blood-streaked teens wailing like little kids as they sat trapped in a car wrapped around a tree.
As a society, we pay a lot more attention and money combating homicide, which causes half as many deaths as motor vehicles. And in Oregon last year, there were nearly six times as many road deaths as homicides.
One professor, William Lucy at the University of Virginia, has made a cottage industry out of examining the combined death rates for homicide and vehicle crashes. He found that the overall death rate is higher on the suburban fringes of metropolitan areas in Virginia than in the high-crime cities of Richmond and Washington, D.C.
In other words, because people on the edge of suburbs drive a lot -- particularly on two-lane roads with curves and fast traffic -- they may be putting themselves more at risk. Yet, providing a safe environment for their kids is precisely one of the reasons I so often hear people give for moving to the edge of the countryside.
Unless caused by a drunk driver, we have simply accepted death on the road as a part of modern life. People are quite willing to agree that aggressive and inattentive drivers cause many crashes, but we really think it is the "other" driver who is at fault. One survey found that 72 percent of people thought they were above-average drivers; virtually no one confessed to being below average.
It doesn't have to be like this. Our road fatality figures -- particularly when expressed as a rate per 100,000 people -- are far above those in most European countries. Even countries like Australia, where people also drive a lot, have made major strides in reducing their vehicle deaths.
That brings me back to the Netherlands. The Dutch tackle road safety with the same zeal we bring to eliminating airplane crashes.
Safe cycling and pedestrian behavior are part of the elementary school curriculum. Driver's education is mandatory and rigorous (and no one gets their license before the age of 18). Speed cameras and traffic-calmed residential areas are commonplace. Since the early 1970s, they've cut their fatalities from a peak of nearly 3,500 a year to fewer than 1,000 annually now -- despite a huge increase in vehicle mileage. They put electronic governors on trucks to limit speeds and fine drivers who get in a crash while using a cell phone.
And this brings me back to that middle-aged Dutch couple, patiently waiting to make their turn. Part of their safety culture is watching out for the weakest among them. "There's a strong political and social interest to save vulnerable road users, to protect children, to protect elderly people," explained Fred Wegman, who runs the country's traffic safety research institute.
And in watching out for others, they are protecting themselves. We can do that here, too.
Jeff Mapes is a political reporter at The Oregonian who writes a blog on politics, which can be found at http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics. He is also working on a book on bicycle transportation. Contact him at 503-221-8209 or jeffmapes@news.oregonian.com.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
I'm not assuming that every place in North America is ready to have this discussion, but I think Jeff may be correct in his belief that the time is right in Portland. I realize I work in social services and that's a unique group of people, but I've had more than one coworker come up to me since Tracey was killed and ask me "What should I do? I don't want to hurt anybody." It's a good thing, too. Even my coworkers who haven't been on a bike since they were a kid have noticed more cyclists remaining on the roads since the rains returned. We're not going to disappear and we're not some statistical fluke.
BarracksSi
Good column; I hope more people get to read it.
why2not
one reason why it is statistically three times as safe to cycle in the Netherlands as in the United States, despite that virtually no cyclist in Holland wears a helmet.
It can't be so, we all know that anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is an idoit, a future Darwin elimination just waiting to happen :rolleyes:
tpelle
Good read! The part that particularly hit home was the statement about "There's a strong political and social interest to save vulnerable road users, to protect children, to protect elderly people". Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? Are we too wrapped up in our own self interests to do this? I'm afraid so.
It's unfortunate, though, that the case that brought this discussion on was (as far as I can glean from the reports), plain and simple, an accident. The poor girl was likely not in the driver's field of view. Around those big trucks, no matter if you're on foot, on a bike or a motorcycle, or in a car, you have to be aware of the driver's blind spots.
LittleBigMan
Good point
If only American drivers had the same care for other people as the Dutch drivers depicted in randya's post. It wouldn't take much more than a little character and self-control.
Mos6502
But we live in the United States, where it's a God given right to drive how you want and to hell with anybody else. If you kill somebody, it's their fault for not driving a bigger car than yours. We ought to just ban bicycles and pedestrians, and compact cars because they're so dangerous when big cars hit them...
At least that is the argument I hear from probably 75% of the people I've ever had a discussion about automotive safety, or traffic safety in general about...
Also, accidents never happen. The Titanic was just an "accident" - they just accidentally were running too fast in water known to have ice bergs in it (they also just accidentally did not supply enough lifeboats for the ship's passenger capacity). They Also just accidentally painted the Hindenburg with a super flammable compound, and then filled it with Hydrogen to boot.
There is not a single "accident" that could not have been prevented somewhere along the line by somebody directly involved. This is because nothing just happens. Every action has a reaction - you can't get a reaction without an action. If somehow a reaction occurs without any action to instigate it - you have just come upon something that is unpreventable, unforseeable - that would be an accident.
I think we all too often just write things off that we didn't intend to happen as accidents, and therefore imply that just because we didn't intend them to happen, that there was nothing we could have done to prevent them from happening. Therefore - the same types of accidents happen again and again, because they're just accidents and it's too hard to avoid them.
BarracksSi
But we live in the United States, where it's a God given right to drive how you want and to hell with anybody else. If you kill somebody, it's their fault for not driving a bigger car than yours. We ought to just ban bicycles and pedestrians, and compact cars because they're so dangerous when big cars hit them...
At least that is the argument I hear from probably 75% of the people I've ever had a discussion about automotive safety, or traffic safety in general about...
Right -- it's all about survival of the fittest/richest/etc and who has the biggest gun (or vehicle, in this case). Compete, compete, compete. If you can't outsmart 'em, bludgeon 'em into submission. Looking out for the smaller guy is just "communist".
bmclaughlin807
Good point
If only American drivers had the same care for other people as the Dutch drivers depicted in randya's post. It wouldn't take much more than a little character and self-control.
We're all doomed! :(
ChipSeal
"Speed cameras and traffic-calmed residential areas are commonplace. Since the early 1970s, they've cut their fatalities from a peak of nearly 3,500 a year to fewer than 1,000 annually now -- despite a huge increase in vehicle mileage. They put electronic governors on trucks to limit speeds..."
With speed limits at about 1/3 of comparable roads in the USA, of course fatalities have come down. Will Portland be the first North American city to follow the dutch model? :p
randya
Portland is debating whether or not it is ready and wants to go that way right now
maddyfish
A chance of 1 in 100 of being injured is crazy. I knew the 43,000 deaths part of it. My brother-in-law was one of those 43,000 in 2005. But 1-100 of getting injured. That's crazy.
littlewaywelt
But we live in the United States, where it's a God given right to drive how you want and to hell with anybody else. If you kill somebody, it's their fault for not driving a bigger car than yours. We ought to just ban bicycles and pedestrians, and compact cars because they're so dangerous when big cars hit them...
At least that is the argument I hear from probably 75% of the people I've ever had a discussion about automotive safety, or traffic safety in general about...
Also, accidents never happen. The Titanic was just an "accident" - they just accidentally were running too fast in water known to have ice bergs in it (they also just accidentally did not supply enough lifeboats for the ship's passenger capacity). They Also just accidentally painted the Hindenburg with a super flammable compound, and then filled it with Hydrogen to boot.
There is not a single "accident" that could not have been prevented somewhere along the line by somebody directly involved. This is because nothing just happens. Every action has a reaction - you can't get a reaction without an action. If somehow a reaction occurs without any action to instigate it - you have just come upon something that is unpreventable, unforseeable - that would be an accident.
I think we all too often just write things off that we didn't intend to happen as accidents, and therefore imply that just because we didn't intend them to happen, that there was nothing we could have done to prevent them from happening. Therefore - the same types of accidents happen again and again, because they're just accidents and it's too hard to avoid them.
No one is saying accidents aren't avoidable or preventable, sometimes easily. What you fail to understand is intent. Intent is what changes the nature of the wreck from accident. You are confused thinking that negligence negates something from being an accident. The fact that something is an accident does not absolve someone of their contributions to creating the accident.
andrelam
I was over at my parent's house this weekend and my Mom found a few more Dutch books in a box and wondered if I wanted any. After going through the box I found a bag containing my 4th grade calss materials from when I live in Haarlem (The Netherlands / Holland). Right in the middle of the pile was a familliar looking blue book... my Traffic Safety workbook. So what do they teach 4th graders in Holland:
The book is filled with senario based pictures of intersections and cars and pedestrians in various places. We then had to write out how had the right of way and why. Some road rules in Europe are a little more complicated as on most local roads traffic on the right has the right of way... if always takes me a while to get used to that when driving in Europe again.
Here are some highlights that I found very applicable to the author's comments above:
- Some of the key items that they teach are that if you turn right on a street that Pedestrians and Cyclists that are to your right MUST be given the right of way.
- There were also pictures of roads with 3 lanes, a Left Turn lane a straight lane, and a right turn lane and then you had to paste in little pictures of cyclists and where they should line up when turning left, going straight and turning right. This is something that American motorists are generaly completely baffled by. Why would a cyclists line up where a car would turn?... because it is the only safe way to get accross.
I remember starting these books in Kindergarden and they are used up till at least 6th grade. In 6th grade there was also a "cycling exam." You had to pass the exam or you could not go on the class trip as it involved riding your bike about 40 miles to Den Helder to catch the ferry to Texel. From there the bike was the only source of transporation during the multi-day trip. Can you imagine a school in the USA taking kids on a 40 mile bike track through various cities, where they WILL have to interact with cars... I think most parents would freak.
I wonder if any of the National Cycling orginizations has any good materials that can be used in school. It would be very helpfull if ALL kids in America learn the rules of the road early in life. It does not guarantee that they won't do stupid things on a bike or in a car, but at least they know how they are supposed to interact.
Happy riding,
André
genec
Here are some highlights that I found very applicable to the author's comments above:
- Some of the key items that they teach are that if you turn right on a street that Pedestrians and Cyclists that are to your right MUST be given the right of way.
I was out walking just yesterday and as I came to various intersections, where auto traffic had the red light and was approaching and then making a right on red (after a stop), I took note at how few motorists actually looked right, so see if I wanted to cross on my LEGAL crossing. Surprisingly few. Some would glance as if to indicate they were going, no matter what I did. Some motorists did not even look.
I remember starting these books in Kindergarden and they are used up till at least 6th grade. In 6th grade there was also a "cycling exam." You had to pass the exam or you could not go on the class trip as it involved riding your bike about 40 miles to Den Helder to catch the ferry to Texel. From there the bike was the only source of transporation during the multi-day trip. Can you imagine a school in the USA taking kids on a 40 mile bike track through various cities, where they WILL have to interact with cars... I think most parents would freak.
I wonder if any of the National Cycling orginizations has any good materials that can be used in school. It would be very helpfull if ALL kids in America learn the rules of the road early in life. It does not guarantee that they won't do stupid things on a bike or in a car, but at least they know how they are supposed to interact.
Happy riding,
André
There used to be programs in America... and they probably still exist in some smaller towns, regarding street safety and riding a bike safely. I remember a "bike rodeo" when I was a kid in the early '60's. These days however, kids are told not to ride bikes to school in some areas. Driver's ed is a joke... and courtesy from motorists... not likely.
Recently while in Finland, I experienced a road system in which the motorists DO watch for peds and cyclists. I was rather amazed when motorists stopped for me rather than "right hook" me. I was even more surprised when a motorist stopped for me (as I stopped for them first... due to my American habits) and honked at me to get on with it.
The problem is in the US, we have given rights to cars... not motorists, but cars, over the rights of humans. Time to swing it back the other way.
gosmsgo
I wonder if any of the National Cycling orginizations has any good materials that can be used in school. It would be very helpfull if ALL kids in America learn the rules of the road early in life. It does not guarantee that they won't do stupid things on a bike or in a car, but at least they know how they are supposed to interact.
Happy riding,
André
The LAB has a "kids I" and a "kids II" program. We will teach the cirriculum at least 15 times in 2008 here in columbia. We taught it about 6 times in 2007.
Its an 8 hour class typically broken down into 4 sessions and it ends with about a 5 mile road ride "test."
Ian Freeman
The problem is in the US, we have given rights to cars... not motorists, but cars, over the rights of humans. Time to swing it back the other way.
Well said. It's disgusting that the constant threat of danger to pedestrians and cyclists is socially acceptable. People don't think twice about flying through 25 mph residential zones at 35 mph, even 40 mph. If you aren't smart enough to get out of the way, you deserve to be run over. That's how an unsettling number of people think.
What's truly the worst though, is that we've spoiled ourselves with automobile infrastructure. Sure, the government could lower speed limits and encourage transportation education, but America has tasted what it's like to be the absolute top of the "road food chain." Can you imagine trying to convert to a system where an automobile is not considered the primary user of roads, constantly at the whim of slower forms of transport? There would be riots. I'm not sure this country is really capable of changing like that.
Mos6502
Well said. It's disgusting that the constant threat of danger to pedestrians and cyclists is socially acceptable. People don't think twice about flying through 25 mph residential zones at 35 mph, even 40 mph. If you aren't smart enough to get out of the way, you deserve to be run over. That's how an unsettling number of people think.
What's truly the worst though, is that we've spoiled ourselves with automobile infrastructure. Sure, the government could lower speed limits and encourage transportation education, but America has tasted what it's like to be the absolute top of the "road food chain." Can you imagine trying to convert to a system where an automobile is not considered the primary user of roads, constantly at the whim of slower forms of transport? There would be riots. I'm not sure this country is really capable of changing like that.
Actually, in WWII we did curb our automotive indulgence. The government realized though that as it stood, the automobile was still an absolute necessity to functioning of American infrastructure - however they also realized that most people overused their vehicle for trivial trips and errands. I'd have to look up the figures again, but I believe prior to the start of the war the average motorist logged 9,000 miles on his car per year, during the war the average was reduced to just over 6,000 (the average driver today logs about 15,000 per year) - and emphasis was put on carpooling, taking the train, bicycling, etc. Even the venerable old streetcars recieved quite an increase in patronage during the war...
Of course people were united in a very "real" situation, it was the patriotic thing to do, to save gas and rubber by not driving everywhere... And unfortunately, it seems protecting the environment, saving resources, and increasing the safety of all road users (did I mention that there was also a dramatic drop in traffic deaths during this period?) is a lot less meaningful to most people than winning a war.
andrelam
I was out walking just yesterday and as I came to various intersections, where auto traffic had the red light and was approaching and then making a right on red (after a stop), I took note at how few motorists actually looked right, so see if I wanted to cross on my LEGAL crossing. Surprisingly few. Some would glance as if to indicate they were going, no matter what I did. Some motorists did not even look.
<SNIP>
I have this happen all the time. On Niagara Falls Blvd in Amherst NY this is pretty much 100% guaranteed to happen. I am always on extra alert and try if at all possible to just take the lane and go with the car. There are situations however where that is just not possible, like making a left hand turn, there is no way I can cross 2 lanes full crazed motorists traveling at 45 MPH.
Please don't anyone get the idea that European drivers are somehow kinder than American drivers... they are NOT. They DO however know better when they HAVE to give the right of to yield. Even the seemingly insane drivers in Rome that seem to give not one bit of care to road rules in general will stop when a pedestrian enters a cross walk. Try that in most of the USA and approaching drivers are not going to stop and are quite likely to accelerate just to get by even quicker... never mind most states have rules on the books that state that the car has to yield. I would venture to guess that complete ignorance is probably 90% of the problem, the other 10% are just JAMs. I was shocked for instance how easy my NY State drivers license written and driving test were. I find it even more frightning how many people actually manage to fail either part of the test. 6 hours in a classroom does not make for a well educated driver, no does a 5 minute driving test where I was never able to exceed 15 MPH because it passed through a school zone. Heck I ride my bike faster than I took my driving exam :eek:.
Here are some things that would definitely help in the USA. Maybe the government can come up with some "helpfull" program name like "No Kids Left Dead on the Roads"
1. Start teaching kids to rules of the road starting in Kindergarden.
2. Make the parents attend some sessions as well and give them their own test - Just teaching the kids will not be enough since it is frequently the parents that the ones driving like maniaks. It the patent can't pass the test they have to find something to realy anoy them till they can pass the test. I don't know what could be done yet... maybe don't allow any parent to pickup or drop off a kid at school by car if they can't pass the test.
3. Make a Grand Parent interactive event with the kids as well. This should get an other large part of the driving population that needs some "re-programming"
4. Make the traffic rules that protect pedestians and cyclists have some stick and actually implement them. A co-worker was visiting Cape Cod and was amazed that cars there stopped for pedestrians. The rules there are also inforced there to protect the tourists. Injured tourists = tourists that may never come back... that is bad for business. I don't care why a car properly yields, all I care about is that they do it..
5. Anyone that fails to yield to cyclist or pedestrian needs to be taken to the worst intersection in town and made to walk accross with the light at least 10 times during the bussiest time of the day... that should scare them straight :D.
6. Consider the no-fault protection for pedestrians and cyclists. This is the case in Holland. Many cyclists drive where-ever they want and don't bother following the rules. I agree that it is not proper or right, but motorists are affraid to his a cyclist or pedestrian because the ramifications for them are not good. Here people don't care about hitting a cyclist or pediestrian chances, the motorists vehickle isn't liekly to sustain that much damage, and if you kill someone, there is a good chance they let you off the hook :mad:.
Happy cycling,
André
genec
I have this happen all the time. On Niagara Falls Blvd in Amherst NY this is pretty much 100% guaranteed to happen. I am always on extra alert and try if at all possible to just take the lane and go with the car. There are situations however where that is just not possible, like making a left hand turn, there is no way I can cross 2 lanes full crazed motorists traveling at 45 MPH.
Please don't anyone get the idea that European drivers are somehow kinder than American drivers... they are NOT. They DO however know better when they HAVE to give the right of to yield. Even the seemingly insane drivers in Rome that seem to give not one bit of care to road rules in general will stop when a pedestrian enters a cross walk. Try that in most of the USA and approaching drivers are not going to stop and are quite likely to accelerate just to get by even quicker... never mind most states have rules on the books that state that the car has to yield. I would venture to guess that complete ignorance is probably 90% of the problem, the other 10% are just JAMs. I was shocked for instance how easy my NY State drivers license written and driving test were. I find it even more frightning how many people actually manage to fail either part of the test. 6 hours in a classroom does not make for a well educated driver, no does a 5 minute driving test where I was never able to exceed 15 MPH because it passed through a school zone. Heck I ride my bike faster than I took my driving exam :eek:.
Here are some things that would definitely help in the USA. Maybe the government can come up with some "helpfull" program name like "No Kids Left Dead on the Roads"
1. Start teaching kids to rules of the road starting in Kindergarden.
2. Make the parents attend some sessions as well and give them their own test - Just teaching the kids will not be enough since it is frequently the parents that the ones driving like maniaks. It the patent can't pass the test they have to find something to realy anoy them till they can pass the test. I don't know what could be done yet... maybe don't allow any parent to pickup or drop off a kid at school by car if they can't pass the test.
3. Make a Grand Parent interactive event with the kids as well. This should get an other large part of the driving population that needs some "re-programming"
4. Make the traffic rules that protect pedestians and cyclists have some stick and actually implement them. A co-worker was visiting Cape Cod and was amazed that cars there stopped for pedestrians. The rules there are also inforced there to protect the tourists. Injured tourists = tourists that may never come back... that is bad for business. I don't care why a car properly yields, all I care about is that they do it..
5. Anyone that fails to yield to cyclist or pedestrian needs to be taken to the worst intersection in town and made to walk accross with the light at least 10 times during the bussiest time of the day... that should scare them straight :D.
6. Consider the no-fault protection for pedestrians and cyclists. This is the case in Holland. Many cyclists drive where-ever they want and don't bother following the rules. I agree that it is not proper or right, but motorists are affraid to his a cyclist or pedestrian because the ramifications for them are not good. Here people don't care about hitting a cyclist or pediestrian chances, the motorists vehickle isn't liekly to sustain that much damage, and if you kill someone, there is a good chance they let you off the hook :mad:.
Happy cycling,
André
I think the best thing that can be done is to remove the "right turn on red" laws... Those laws are seen as giving green lights to motorists under all conditions. I have even seen motorists honking at school kids who were crossing the street at a legal crosswalk with a walk signal.
The problem is giving any priority to autos at any situation. Motorists need to be reminded that we are all human and all share the same rights. The problem is motorists see big SUVs as both giving them safety and more rights based on size... both issues are wrong.
As far as EU motorists being "better..." I think the laws are different and there is a better understanding of the laws and responsibilities in some EU countries.
noisebeam
I think the best thing that can be done is to remove the "right turn on red" laws... Those laws are seen as giving green lights to motorists under all conditions.
From a letter to the editor in yesterday's paper:
"Two intersections that I travel that are excessively dangerous because of visual obstructions in Tempe are:
1) Corner of River Road and Broadway, heading north. When stopped on River Road at stoplight wanting to make a right turn on red, cannot see oncoming cars from the west on Broadway that are on the nearest lane. Problem is a combination of shrub hedge, apartment wall and public utility boxes that are much too close (within 5 feet of Broadway). Every year there are one or two accidents at this intersection because of this problem! Solution: Remove shrubs, wall and move utility boxes."
While I totally agree the vegetation should be cut back for better sightliness, I do wonder if the letter writer considered: "Solution: Don't turn right on red if you can't see oncoming traffic." or better yet "Solution: Make right on red illegal at this intersection" (After all I can't see a quick fix for this one considering the apartment wall is in the way.)
Al
genec
From a letter to the editor in yesterday's paper:
"Two intersections that I travel that are excessively dangerous because of visual obstructions in Tempe are:
1) Corner of River Road and Broadway, heading north. When stopped on River Road at stoplight wanting to make a right turn on red, cannot see oncoming cars from the west on Broadway that are on the nearest lane. Problem is a combination of shrub hedge, apartment wall and public utility boxes that are much too close (within 5 feet of Broadway). Every year there are one or two accidents at this intersection because of this problem! Solution: Remove shrubs, wall and move utility boxes."
While I totally agree the vegetation should be cut back for better sightliness, I do wonder if the letter writer considered: "Solution: Don't turn right on red if you can't see oncoming traffic." or better yet "Solution: Make right on red illegal at this intersection" (After all I can't see a quick fix for this one considering the apartment wall is in the way.)
Al
It is amazing that so few motorists consider this an option... This falls into line with the same thinking as "I had to cross the double yellow into oncoming traffic... just because of that biker." Or "I had to make that left turn right then..." left hooking that cyclist.
OCLV Assassin
PEDALING EDUCATION
That simple awareness -- and patience -- on the part of drivers is one reason why it is statistically three times as safe to cycle in the Netherlands as in the United States, despite that virtually no cyclist in Holland wears a helmet.
It's Holland. Everyone is smoking pot, and chilled out. What do they care how soon they get where ever they are going? They will get there eventually. No need to get upset at cyclists, or run them over, and injure or kill them. People in this country just need to chill the hell out. There is no reason you are in such a hurry to disreguard the safety of another human. Instead everyone is high strung concentrated on deadlines, and their own personal agendas. People just need to chill out, and fire up a fat one.
Hickeydog
The one problem with that article is that it uses logic. Therefore, it will be utterly impossible to achieve the same thing, because the US, by nature, is illogical.
closetbiker
That's a good article.
What I've always thought is it's attitude, rather than things, that make people safe. It's like that driver and the woman next to him craning their necks looking over their right shoulders to make sure they would not hit a cyclist. They have a safe attitude.
I saw the same thing when I was in London recently. Jam packed tiny roads, and bikes are given as much courtesy as a truck. Is it any wonder they have better death and injury rates than the US?
I was coming home from the surgeons an hour ago when a driver was honking at a right turning motorist just as he was getting out of the way of the honker.
What an attitude. The right turner was doing nothing wrong, except perhaps from the honkers viewpoint, he might have been slowing the honkers rate of speed for a bit. Sheesh.
Last night watching TV, all I see are these "performance" commercials for cars. Like the streets of the city where these cars are to be used are some sort of private playground and the purchasers are skilled, professional drivers. "be a mavrick" "live life". Ironic.
With attitudes like that, is it any wonder death and injury rates are so high?
LittleBigMan
Now we also need to include the famous Chinese model. Anyone see Peter Jennings' reports, post Tiennamen Square, when American journalists were given unprecedented access to film and report in China?
A Chinese rush-hour was just like ours, only bicycles replaced cars, and were as thick as a sea of pedestrians in Times Square on New Year's Eve.
More recently, as the "Chinese Industrial Revolution" steamrolls forward, bicycles are starting to be banned from major roads to make way for the prestigious automobile. Thing of the furture, you know.
So depending on where you live, and what model you adopt (I think the Chinese are lusting after the American model,) you get a different scenario.
When bikes and cars collide (not literally,) who will win?
JohnBrooking
Thanks, genec, for the link to the cycling advocacy video in your sig!
slagjumper
Portland is debating whether or not it is ready and wants to go that way right now
In my city, can you believe it, the motorists where outraged. It was as if they had a right to run the red, unfettered, as long as a cop does not see them. Finally the camera idea seems to have been tabled. I’ve also seen some pro car groups fighting the legal standing of giving tickets based on a picture of a license plate.
Lamplight
I was coming home from the surgeons an hour ago when a driver was honking at a right turning motorist just as he was getting out of the way of the honker.
What an attitude. The right turner was doing nothing wrong, except perhaps from the honkers viewpoint, he might have been slowing the honkers rate of speed for a bit. Sheesh.
I see that fairly often here, too. Also, if a driver in a left-turn lane doesn't go the split second they get a green arrow, the person behind them will lay on the horn. Like they've never hesitated at a light. :rolleyes: Besides, with the way people run red lights I'd probably hesitate too!
People in this country just need to chill the hell out. There is no reason you are in such a hurry to disreguard the safety of another human. Instead everyone is high strung concentrated on deadlines, and their own personal agendas. People just need to chill out, and fire up a fat one.
I think you've made a key point here. Many people in this country set a nearly frantic pace for themselves. They are proud of the fact that they have so much on their plate that they have to constantly be on the go as quickly as possible, no matter how dangerous they are to others. Are they trying to get their lives over with as fast as possible?
BarracksSi
I’ve also seen some pro car groups fighting the legal standing of giving tickets based on a picture of a license plate.
The problem they have -- and it's not unfounded, either -- is that it can't be proven who was driving the car at the time.
One of the guys at work was selling his car to another coworker, and for whatever reason it was taking a while for the money to change hands (but that's beside the point). The car still was wearing the owner's license plates when the buyer-to-be ran a red light and got caught by the camera. The ticket was mailed to the owner, and he made the buyer pay for it. However, no points were issued against the license of either person. Any points normally assessed by a ticket did not, and could not, apply to the car owner since he wasn't actually driving the car; the driver at the time was effectively anonymous and could not be assessed points, either.
Photo tickets are tenuous anyway, but citing specific drivers via photo tickets is never going to pass muster.
-=£em in Pa=-
Great article, Randya.
Very depressing though.
It really, really seems that whatever is done in the name
of driving is OK and necassary.
If you feel the need to kill someone, drink a little and do it
in a car. If someone is holdng you up from getting to WAL*MART,
hit them and say they were obstructing the roadway in dangerous
manner, just make sure you are in a car.
Now, all kneel to the god of our society, the car. :rolleyes:
And some people actually think we are the most advanced species.....ha ha ha
randya
It really, really seems that whatever is done in the name of driving is OK and necassary.
If you feel the need to kill someone, drink a little and do it in a car.
Lem, you're wrong on this point. being drunk when you mow down a cyclist will get the book thrown at you; OTOH, if you do it sober, better yet, on the job, no problema.
:mad:
CB HI
The problem they have -- and it's not unfounded, either -- is that it can't be proven who was driving the car at the time.
One of the guys at work was selling his car to another coworker, and for whatever reason it was taking a while for the money to change hands (but that's beside the point). The car still was wearing the owner's license plates when the buyer-to-be ran a red light and got caught by the camera. The ticket was mailed to the owner, and he made the buyer pay for it. However, no points were issued against the license of either person. Any points normally assessed by a ticket did not, and could not, apply to the car owner since he wasn't actually driving the car; the driver at the time was effectively anonymous and could not be assessed points, either.
So what is the problem here? The person that ran the red light had to pay for the ticket. The person who sold the car did not have any points assessed. The system worked well, and a red light runner had to pay up.
Photo tickets are tenuous anyway, but citing specific drivers via photo tickets is never going to pass muster.Some cities have systems that photograph the plate and the driver. I believe those sysltems have already passed legal muster for assessing points as long as the photo matches the drivers license photo in the DMV system.
CB HI
Very long article considering it completely missed the key point. Dutch motorist are held responsible for any collision with a cyclist or pedestrian. US motorist are never held responsible for any collision with a cyclist or pedestrian unless they are grossly drunk.
If the cement truck driver were held responsible for the first Portland death, lost his job, his company having to pay for the death of the cyclist; it is much less likely the second cyclist death would have happened. Wide angle truck mirrors are much cheaper than paying for a cyclist death.
pj7
US motorist are never held responsible for any collision with a cyclist or pedestrian unless they are grossly drunk.
Never?
Wow!!
sbhikes
Americans are just way too aggressive. Aggression permeates every aspect our society. We don't have the capacity to care for the weaker among us. It's not part of our nature. I hope Portland can make a dent in this.
Locally we're about to be treated with a news segment in a couple of days that will "prove" that cyclists are less law-abiding than motorists. This will do absolutely nothing to improve safety for anybody, just stoke the flames of aggression toward all cyclists, law abiding or not. People feel justified using their cars as weapons against anybody in their way, and especially justified if they can add some kind of sanctimonious "lesson-teaching" to their anger. It's truly sad.
Dchiefransom
I saw the same thing when I was in London recently. Jam packed tiny roads, and bikes are given as much courtesy as a truck. Is it any wonder they have better death and injury rates than the US?
I was coming home from the surgeons an hour ago when a driver was honking at a right turning motorist just as he was getting out of the way of the honker.
What an attitude. The right turner was doing nothing wrong, except perhaps from the honkers viewpoint, he might have been slowing the honkers rate of speed for a bit. Sheesh.
They are in a hurry to get to the smorgasbord restaurant, where they proceed to take twice as long as everyone else, stacking up a long line behind them while trying to let their addled minds make a decision on what to eat, then taking forever to spoon it onto their plates.
Blue Order
The problem they have -- and it's not unfounded, either -- is that it can't be proven who was driving the car at the time.
One of the guys at work was selling his car to another coworker, and for whatever reason it was taking a while for the money to change hands (but that's beside the point). The car still was wearing the owner's license plates when the buyer-to-be ran a red light and got caught by the camera. The ticket was mailed to the owner, and he made the buyer pay for it. However, no points were issued against the license of either person. Any points normally assessed by a ticket did not, and could not, apply to the car owner since he wasn't actually driving the car; the driver at the time was effectively anonymous and could not be assessed points, either.
Photo tickets are tenuous anyway, but citing specific drivers via photo tickets is never going to pass muster.Not true. They provide several photos here-- a long shot of your car running the light, a closeup of the driver, and a closeup of the license plate. Unless you can prove that it wasn't you in the photos, or alternatively, that the city did not follow their own camera maintenance protocol, the ticket is yours.
BarracksSi
Not true. They provide several photos here-- a long shot of your car running the light, a closeup of the driver, and a closeup of the license plate. Unless you can prove that it wasn't you in the photos, or alternatively, that the city did not follow their own camera maintenance protocol, the ticket is yours.
Yow -- the driver closeup is new to me..:eek:
noisebeam
Yow -- the driver closeup is new to me..:eek:
The system BO described has been in use for several years here in AZ as well. I've seen the close up photos (not my own ;) ) and they provide a good driver ID.
Al
sbhikes
Lots of people wear caps pulled down low just because of the cameras.
noisebeam
Lots of people wear caps pulled down low just because of the cameras.
And there are often pics of drivers covering their faces with their hand while running red lights and passing speed cameras.
Al
Blue Order
Lots of people wear caps pulled down low just because of the cameras.And there are often pics of drivers covering their faces with their hand while running red lights and passing speed cameras.
AlScofflaws.
Until they begin obeying the law, motorists will not be respected and should not have a right to the road.
:D
BarracksSi
Scofflaws.
Until they begin obeying the law, motorists will not be respected and should not have a right to the road.
Right on! The hell with them.. running red lights, thinking that they don't apply...