He observed the officers hanging out on the corner in plain clothes and on motorcycles, waiting for cyclists to roll right through the busy intersection’s stop light before issuing warnings.

The bent of the UA blog reflects what is often a confrontational relationship between drivers and cyclists in San Francisco. However, the posts author, Kevin Montgomery, is quick to point out that the cyclists he saw being pulled over earned the warnings they received.

I appreciated Mr. Montgomery’s perspective here: he’s clearly an advocate of cyclists, but recognizes that if cyclists wanted to be treated with the rights and respect that car drivers give each other, they must also be willing to obey the law. It’s a 450$ fine for drivers who run red lights, and half that for cyclists.

As someone who rides a bike for my morning commute and writes about street safety on this blog, I’m constantly conflicted about the right way to behave. I read and write about tragic stories of cyclists injured with their headphones in, running a stop sign or simply being whacked by a turning vehicle that fails to yield. Still, I find myself cruising through empty intersections when there are red lights and taking advantage of the “freedom” cycling imparts to switch lanes and generally behave very differently than I would if I was driving a car.

I think the majority of the reason why I ride how I ride, and I think it’s fair to extrapolate to a significant portion of the cycling community, is because I know I won’t be ticketed, and I know cars won’t treat me with the same caution and respect they would even a motorcycle, let alone another car.

But I wonder: if police held cyclists to the same standards as car drivers, would cyclists begin to more uniformly see themselves, and behave like, cars? That is– never going on the sidewalks, riding in the middle of lanes, honking be damned, and stopping/signaling when appropriate? And if that happened, would car drivers treat cyclists better?

It seems that one of the big issues in bike safety is that not everyone within the cycling community rides by the same rules, which is largely an understandable response to inconsistent conditions. But the result is that drivers, the people who pose the greatest danger to cyclists, aren’t sure exactly what to expect from those with whom they share the road. Ticketing, or at least warning cyclists that running red lights might be punished, could go a long way to encouraging uniform cyclist behavior.

Turk and Market is one of the deadliest intersections in San Francisco, with drivers rushing to make brief green lights and an abundance of pedestrians and cyclists. It’s in places like this that everyone needs to be on the same page, and following the same rules. As the officer told Mr. Montgomery “I’m just out here looking out for your safety.” In this circumstance, on this dangerous intersection, even skeptics understand that a few tickets and warnings now will keep commuting cyclists safer.

Photo Credit: Ell Brown

But when you look at this image of the proposed design (below), which would remove parking spaces rather than constricting traffic flow by cutting into driving lanes, that left hand turn gives me plenty of pause. See I have spent a lot of time in Washington DC before working for GJEL, and when the city implemented its bike-friendly updates, part of that was putting in what is essentially the bike highway on 15th street NW.

Proposed design of bikeway on Fell and Oak

Most of the design is the same as what is proposed on Fell and Oak, 15th is a oneway, three lane street with heavy traffic. The big difference is that the left hand turn lane does not infringe on the bike lane. At no time do bikes and cars mingle. They even coordinated left hand turn lights with the bike lights to make sure that drivers should never have to worry about sideswiping a cyclist flying up the street.

As a bike-rider, the results were great. The sense of security in using 15th street is unparalleled, and it is an essential artery for riders around the city. Even though there are bikelines throughout DC, it’s worth going to 15 street where you can be sure to be out of drivers’ ways and separated by a barrier.

The city of San Francisco has done something similar at Fell and Masonic, where cameras and light signals ensure that drivers don’t creep into the cyclist thoroughfare.

I think one of the big pluses of the 15th street bike corridor in DC is that it sort of cordones off an area where cyclists feel safe and where cars don’t feel like they are competing for space. It encourages cycling while removing them from the most dangerous and high-conflict areas. Bikers aren’t going anywhere, in fact they are growing in number. Structural advancements, like the Fell and Oak bikeway, are crucial to accommodating the shifting modes of transportation in San Francisco. Smart implementation of just a few such bike highways like DC’s throughout San Francisco could go a long way to alleviating the stressful relationship between bikes and cars in the city.

But a ton of cyclists and an appetite to hit the roads does not a great biking city make. There’s plenty to be said about the rough relationship that San Franciscan cyclists share with their automobile neighbors, and indeed the city’s lay out itself, with narrow streets and steep hills, doesn’t exactly scream “ride these streets!”

People are working to change that, though. San Francisco Metro Transportation Agency is installing 15 new bike corrals throughout the city, which should provide space for about 150 more bikes. That may not sound like a massive figure, but seeing as there are only nine such corrals currently in the city, it’s a significant bump. This move doesn’t constitute a sea change, but it is progress nonetheless. To wit, the benefits are:

• Better visibility for bikers. When drivers see bike corrals, especially on corners, they expect to see riders as well.
• Better visibility for local businesses. These bikes will take up the space of a single car space. That means up to 12 people where before only a few could park. That means more foot traffic around street-facing businesses, and hopefully more people brings more business.
• Corrals open up space for cafés and sidewalk seating. Aesthetically, a bunch of bikes is nicer than having cars so close to potential sitting areas.

Technology is advancing at an accelerating rate. “Steps” in innovation that previously took years are now taking months. Each new iteration of the smart phone increases our connectivity with our digital lives and selves. Increasingly, when we think, we don’t do it alone, but with the help of

That integration between technology, our own lives and indeed how we use our brains for tasks large and small complicates the issues surrounding cell phone use and driving. Obviously no one should use cell phones or even hands-free devices to call or send texts while driving. But now that we think using these tools, is it time to re-evaluate the whole debate?

On the Huffington Post, I drew on the work of anthropologist Amber Case who she believes that we are all, effectively, cyborgs, because of how we have integrated technology into our cognitive habits. She is at the fore of a movement to better understand the way humans use interactive technology, and her thoughts helped me grapple with the driving and cell phone issue:

Consider all the times you’ve Googled something that you can’t believe you didn’t know. Or the notes that, despite not being about a pressing matter, you texted someone rather than wait to tell them in person. The way we perceive reality has been shifted so that in our minds, we consider ourselves connected to a greater amount of information through our devices. These are not external, but a part of our internal knowledge. You know where the nearest restaurant is not because you can recall it immediately, but because you can use an Internet program to find the answer immediately. In function, there is no difference.

So when someone resists not using his or her phone while driving, it’s because this technology is a part of our cognitive habits. It’s not a hammer we pick up for a specific purpose then put back down, it’s an extra lobe of the brain.

The implications of this reality, if we accept it, are pretty dramatic. It means we should stop building cars and roads for the humans we used to be, and start planning for cyborg life.

I can’t say as anyone has figured out exactly what to make of this question. We are not the same people who have been driving in cars, riding on bikes and walking in streets for a hundred years. Those dynamics are all complicated by the fact that each of us, usually is connected to a smart phone–whether to listen to music, talk to friends, look up directions, whatever– while we move about.

Moreover this isn’t some problem for only the tech addicted. While driving or walking to riding, who hasn’t had a thought or question pop into his or her head that only a device connected to the internet could answer?

When we drive, we think. When we think, we increasingly rely and work with smart devices to augment the scope of our minds.

How do we account for this in the roads, sidewalks and cars we build?

Can we really expect driving to be one of the only activities for which we give up this part of our “mental self”?

For now, we must. But if Case’s theories are on target, we are on the cusp of a reinvention of the way we interact with our cars. There’s no question that automakers are increasingly moving in that direction, because that’s where the demand is.

So far, the results are mixed. Even using on board interactive systems while driving raises the danger level. Still, we should probably encourage car makers to perfect these systems rather than pushing to outlaw them. Interactive technology is simply a part of the modern human experience. Denying that reality could be even more dangerous than indulging it.

Photo Credit: Mo Riza ]]> http://www.gjel.com/blog/cyborgs-cell-phones-and-traffic-safety.html/feed 0 http://www.gjel.com/blog/map-of-all-us-road-accident-casualties-from-2001-2009.html http://www.gjel.com/blog/map-of-all-us-road-accident-casualties-from-2001-2009.html#comments Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:43:12 +0000 Beckley http://www.gjel.com/?p=24429 This incredible map was put together by The Guardian and ITO using data from the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. In the US, 369,629 passengers, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists died on the road between 2001-2009.

In 2009, California had the 15th highest rates of pedestrian deaths by population, though overall roadway casualties dropped by 27 percent between 1994 and 2009.

That’s the hypothesis of a new movement that started in Europe and may be making its way state side. It’s called “Shared Spaces,” and it proposes to make streets safer by eliminating barriers between pedestrian and auto traffic.

In the researcher’s own words “Shared space is a design approach that seeks to change the way streets operate by reducing the dominance of motor vehicles, primarily through lower speeds and encouraging drivers to behave more accommodatingly towards pedestrians.”

If nothing else, the idea is fairly counterintuitive. Sidewalks are designed to keep pedestrians safe by separating them from vehicles. But sidewalks also may encourage dangerous driving, and certainly encourage drivers to drive at high speeds as there is no apparent danger of hitting a pedestrian in the street. Shared Spaces operates on the supposition that the delineation of space and responsibilities is responsible for accidents involving pedestrians because the two groups are operating under different rules. When those two sets of rules collide, people get hurt.

Roads in England have experimented with Shared Spaces theory by deleting curbs and blurring the lines between walkways and car roads. The result, according to research from the British Department for Transport, is that cars slow down significantly, decreasing the likelihood of serious accidents with pedestrians.

Of course, you can’t just eliminate curbs and sidewalks and expect everything to be hunky dory. Plenty of other design measures, like removing traffic signs to deemphasize vehicle supremacy, are important to implement in conjunction with shared space principles.

Overall the idea is to slow drivers down to around 15mph, or about the same speed as in many school zones, and to encourage pedestrians and bicyclists to use the street as a walkway, yielding to vehicles as they slowly make their way through.

Advocates argue that this is an important step for quality of life and safety in cities and towns. But one can imagine the chaos that could ensue if pedestrians were all the sudden sharing the road with drivers on Market Street in downtown San Francisco. But the results might not be so bad. Drivers would likely find alternative routes, freeing up the space for the many pedestrians who use public transportation or commute by foot through the area.

Certainly, Shared Spaces is a practice that has not yet been perfected, especially when it comes to protecting the disabled and blind. These were the users who most consistently felt more comfortable with curbs to separate auto traffic from pedestrians.

But flaws and all, it’s heartening to see new theories on how to make cities and roads more livable gaining traction around the world. It’s easy to say, “this is not how we do things” and fail to challenge existing models. Who knows, there may yet be a better idea than Shared Spaces theory on the horizon, but thinking progressively about how we design the places in which we live is a necessity that is too often ignored. Investigating somewhat radical thinking with research and data is the best way to confirm whether the policies a city currently pursues are best for its people.

Photo Credit: Fietsberaad

Here are five misconceptions about bikeshare programs, and the reality behind the myth:

1. Bikeshare is for cyclists. This statement seems logical, but consider who is most likely to use a bikeshare system: probably not the person who already owns a bike, right? Bikeshare is actually a great way for non-cyclists to be introduced to the health benefits of cycling, and instead of cannibalizing members from the current cycling community, it serves as an outreach tool to those who don’t own foot-pegs and a titanium bike-lock. In cities with bikeshare, you see a surprising number of users in suits and skirts. Tourists and other day users can use the system in lieu of expensive taxi cabs or renting a car. If anything, bikeshare programs are the best way to encourage heathly, more environmentally friendly transportation habits in those to whom active transport may not come naturally.
2. Bikeshare is just for tourists. Cities with large bikeshare networks actually report that the majority of their users are frequent customers who use bikeshare as a commuting tool for work, errands and entertainment destinations. Instead of a novelty curio, think of bikeshare as a mode of transportation akin to busing. Just like a bus, bikeshare stations are not everywhere, but they are plentiful enough that you can get just about anywhere with a few blocks of walking. Also like buses, bikes might not be available right when you want one, but before long, one will come along. Understanding bikeshare as a personalized mode of public transportation is a smart way to recognize the widespread benefits of such a flexible and versatile system. And get this: in Washington DC, nearly 75 percent of users are annual members, and half of Boston’s riders are on high-value year long contracts. In practice, bikeshare programs may gain the majority of their revenue from the relatively more expensive day passes, but that simply subsidizes cheap annual contracts for the bulk of users.
3. Bikeshare hurts public transportation. One worry is that bikeshare will decrease the quality and quantity of public transportation options by diverting public transportation revenue. In fact, the most frequently used bikeshare stations are at the busiest public transportation stops, indicating that bikeshare is used as a supplement, not a replacement, to traditional transportation options. A person is more likely to use buses and trains when he or she uses bikeshare in conjunction with traditional public transportation because biking can help cut out awkward transfer times and straighten out indirect routes.
4. Bikeshare is unsafe. If non-cyclists are flooding the road, it stands to reason that safety would be an issue. But Boston’s program reports a lower incidence of crashes amongst bikeshare users than in the larger cycling community. The reason isn’t clear: perhaps it’s because bikeshare bikes are slower and more upright than private bikes, or because bikeshare users are generally less aggressive, or maybe it’s a natural aversion to wrecking property owned by someone else. Whatever the reason, relative to the general population, bikeshare users are at no greater risk. Drivers may object to having more cyclists on the road, but remember: that’s just one fewer car you’re stuck behind at a stoplight.
5. Bikeshare hurts businesses. Sometimes bikeshare stations and accommodations for cyclists (like bikelanes and car-free zones) decrease the number of parking spaces or roadways outside businesses. This can lead to the misconception that bikeshare hurts businesses. But a bike station holding ten bikes can fit in the space needed for just two parking spaces. In some areas of Boston, that translates to 25-35 trips in and out of that station per day, bringing a good deal more people to a business storefront than traditional parking spaces.

Photo credit: Daniel Lobo

The study, which was published in September, examined trends in the ways that motorists interact with cyclists while passing by using a video camera to track how much space motorists gave cyclists, and at what speed they passed.

The data also revealed that drivers were less likely to give the proper amount of space to bikers dressed in “bicycle-specific attire.” Does this means that wearing a helmet and reflective gear, the most important items in a cyclist’s wardrobe, actually makes riding a bike more dangerous?

It’s hard to imagine that protecting one’s skull has a negative effect on road safety, so don’t ditch the helmet. But it’s an interesting bit of psychology to find that drivers offer less space to those they feel are better prepared to be on the road. That statement assumes that drivers passed men more closely than women not because they wanted a closer look at male cyclists, but out of some protective instinct that was not activated by seeing a male cyclist in the road.

Obviously in a bike-car relationship, the car has the mass, speed advantage and thus the power (some might say responsibility) to protect vulnerable non-motorists. As the study put it “it is possible that motorists perceived less risk passing riders who were in [a] bicycle outfit.”

It’s reasonable to extend that logic to the differing treatment on the basis of gender.

This disturbing data is echoed in the negligence revealed by a study out of Seattle that examined city accident data from 2010. The study concluded that “Three-quarters of vehicle collisions with pedestrians and cyclists in 2009 and 2010 involved the actions of the driver as a contributing factor. In two-thirds of those cases (about half of the total) the problem was the most basic of driver derelictions: failure to yield the right of way to the pedestrian or cyclist.”

The implication in this instance is that drivers are simply not taking pedestrians and cyclists into account when making right hand turns.

In each case, we see drivers failing to acknowledge that as the wielder of 1,500 a piece of metal moving at high speed, caution is the most important attribute. Yielding a few seconds or a few feet to vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians is a meager price to pay in return for making the roads dramatically safer.

Photo Credit: alantankenghoe

As we noted in an earlier post on SB 910’s progress, 19 other states, beginning with Wisconsin in 1973, have already adopted similar laws. What seems like a common sense step that could prevent accidents between cars and vulnerable street cyclists was complicated by a section of the bill requiring drivers to also slow to 15 miles per hour while passing.

In his veto message, Brown noted that “On streets with speed limits of 35 or 40mph, slowing to 15mph to pass a bicycle could cause rear end collisions. On other roads, a bicycle may travel at or new 15 mph creating a long line of cars behind the cyclist.”

Bike advocacy organizations and blogs were upset with the logic, but it encapsulates a general fear within the government and amongst people who do not spend much time on bikes: that protecting cyclists may cause greater harm than good. In the absence of widely acknowledged statistical information, change may appear to be the less appealing option.

Meanwhile, in a parallel story, Sonoma cyclists will have more space than ever on Fifth Street West, where the city is putting in bike lanes in an effort to ease road congestion and encourage a more environmentally friendly mode of transportation.

But what appears to be win for cyclist safety apparently comes at a public relations cost. Although the project started gaining momentum way back in 2007, today it faces the same fate as a West Spain Street project that was killed when area residents protested. Although Sonoma city council approved the plans 4-1, its residents are also asking the council to reconsider the plans.

That’s because the new bike lanes will trim 35 parking spaces from the street and cut the four-lane thoroughfare down to a two-lane street.

The Press Democrat quoted Karen Hall, who signed a petition against the construction as saying, ““I like bike lanes, but I don’t see this as the best use of our time or money.”

It’s a legitimate concern; the project is budgeted for about $170,000. If local citizens feel that money could be put to better use, they have every right to voice their displeasure. But is the outcry justified?

In both the SB 910 and Sonoma city examples, government intervention is either being proposed–or actually used in the case of Sonoma’s project–in order to make a community or the state itself more bike-friendly. In doing so, public bodies have the opportunity to make cyclists safer, and to encourage more people to bike. With more people cycling safely, the greater community benefits from the exercise and lack of carbon emissions.

That is, the legislation seems self-evident after the fact because it encourages the behavior it is designed to protect. It’s getting there that’s the hard part.

Photo credit: Richard Masoner

These sort of accidents, where space for vehicles to pass is scarce, are the kind that make cyclists feel unsafe about biking to work or for leisure in an urban environment. They are also exactly the type of accidents that SB 910, a safe passage bill for bicyclists, seeks to minimize through legislation.

A part of the California Bicycle Coalition’s Give Me 3 campaign, SB 910 would formalize the way that most drivers and cyclists already interact by requiring passing vehicles to give bicyclists at least three feet of space when passing from behind.

It would be a smart move for the state, and CBC lays out the reasoning succinctly on their website:

“Nineteen other states have already enacted a specified minimum passing distance for motorists. The nation’s newest 3-foot passing law took effect in Georgia on July 1, 2011.

A specified passing distance provides drivers with a more objective and easily understood measure of what constitutes “safe” and gives law enforcement and the courts a more objective basis for enforcing California’s safe passing requirement. Most importantly, it helps emphasize a driver’s special responsibility to safeguard more vulnerable road users like bicyclists.”

This last point is important. Often drivers are surprised by sudden adjustments a cyclist may be forced to make. With a mandatory three-foot berth, drivers will be better prepared to respond themselves, and help everyone stay out of potentially life-threatening circumstances.

Initially the progress of this bill was heartening and it passed through the California Legislature on September 8. The bill has now been sent to Governor Brown to be signed into law.

If you would like to improve cyclist safety and encourage Governor Brown to sign SB 910, you can send him a letter.  Make sharing the road easier and safer by helping California become the twentieth state to take this important step.

Photo credit: Richard Masoner