by Mr. Thomas Pease, February 17th, 2010 The Anchorage Press.
The Anchorage Police Department has proposed new language in the Municipal Traffic Department’s Title 9 traffic rewrite that would negatively impact bicyclists throughout Anchorage. Current code (sect. 9.38.020(c)) requires motorists to yield to bikers and other non-motorized users at all intersections. Recently, municipal traffic planners inserted language into the draft Title 9 rewrite that would reverse this arrangement and would require all human-powered vehicles to yield to vehicles at all intersections (See the Press’s “Don’t get your chain in a knot just yet,” December 17, by Scott Christiansen). This new language will not reduce collisions between vehicles and bicycles, but it will unduly burden non-motorized users and could encourage bicyclists to ride on the roads.
Dawn Groth RN, BCA board member, and Walk to School volunteer coordinator responds to Mr. Pease’s article and the new law. She feels the potential law poses the most risk for children riding their bicycles on sidewalks. “When bicyclists follow the rules of the road, roads are the safest place for bicyclists to ride, but parents are not comfortable with their children riding on the road with traffic. They want a separation between fast moving, heavy vehicles, and their kids.” The new language in Title 9 removes motorists obligation to look for a child in their path. It places the burden of safety on children, who are just learning bicycle safety skills.
You can read the entire article here
Feb. 17, 2010 Anchorage Press – Guest opinion by Thomas Pease
The Anchorage Police Department has proposed new language in the Municipal Traffic Department’s Title 9 traffic rewrite that would negatively impact bicyclists throughout Anchorage. Current code (sect. 9.38.020(c)) requires motorists to yield to bikers and other non-motorized users at all intersections. Recently, municipal traffic planners inserted language into the draft Title 9 rewrite that would reverse this arrangement and would require all human-powered vehicles to yield to vehicles at all intersections (See the Press’s “Don’t get your chain in a knot just yet,” December 17, by Scott Christiansen). This new language will not reduce collisions between vehicles and bicycles, but it will unduly burden non-motorized users and could encourage bicyclists to ride on the roads.
In Anchorage, according to DOT findings in the 2009 draft Anchorage Bicycle Plan, bicycle-vehicle collisions decreased significantly from 170 in 2003 to 103 in 2006. The sharpest collision decreases occurred after the current traffic ordinance passed in 2004, which requires drivers to yield to bicycles at intersections. This data shows that it’s safer for cars to yield to bicycles, and not the other way around.
|
|
The proposed language would unfairly shift legal liability involving bicycle-vehicle collisions squarely onto the cyclist. Bicycles would be required to yield to vehicles at all intersections, even signaled intersections. If a turning vehicle struck a bicyclist crossing an intersection on the white “man” signal, the bicyclist would be legally liable. (In fact, drivers making right-hand turns cause 33 percent of all bicycle-vehicle accidents at intersections.) Not only would the bicyclist now be responsible for medical bills, but for damage to the vehicle as well. Additionally, the new language would require cyclists to yield to motorists crossing any separated pathway. If a collision occurred where a driveway or side street crosses a separated pathway, the proposed language again shifts fault to the cyclist.
The proposal to address bicycle-vehicle collisions is unworkable. Ten or more driveways and side roads cross any half-mile stretch of pathway that parallels most busy streets in Anchorage (consider Muldoon, C Street, Lake Otis). Multiply that half-mile by 10 for the five-mile average bike commute, and cyclists cross 100 intersections along a separated pathway on a single bike commute. To have to stop at even half these intersections because a car is present could increase commute time to the point of rendering biking impractical. Ironically, travel delays and legal threats to bike commuters created by proposed code language could force more bicycles off pathways and onto roadways, where bicyclists are granted the same rights as motorists. In other words, under the proposal, motorists may find themselves sharing roads with more cyclists, while the pathways that parallel these roads sit unused.
This proposal may have arisen out of the observation that motor vehicles sometimes fail to yield to bicycles, resulting in bicycle-vehicle collisions at intersections. Rather than change the law, we should find ways to help drivers obey the current law.
The Municipality and Anchorage residents can promote safe bicycling by doing the following:
1) The city should install more stop signs and stop bars, and improve sight lines, where roads intersect pathways.
2) DMV and APD should sponsor educational programs promoting bicycle awareness and emphasizing current traffic codes.
3) Parks and Recreation and APD should team with the school district, youth groups and cycling clubs to teach bicycle safety.
4) The city should initiate an ad campaign to remind drivers to look both ways for pedestrians and cyclist before pulling into traffic.
5) APD should cite cyclists and drivers who violate present traffic codes. Consequences should include fines and traffic safety classes.
6) Cyclists should submit comments to the Municipal Traffic Department and the Assembly on new language proposed to Title 9, section 38.020 (c). (Watch for a public comment period as early as next month.)
We can reduce bicycle-motorist collisions through education and basic safety measures rather than through punitive bicycle codes. The community should encourage the Municipal Traffic Department to remove the proposed language in section 38.020 (c) of the Title 9 traffic rewrite to preserve the progress our city has made in promoting bicycling as a safe and healthy alternative to driving.
When Anchorage resident Thomas Pease isn’t commuting by bicycle, he drives a Chevy three-quarter-ton turbo diesel truck that yields to human-powered vehicles.
Good grief. What ever happened to the massive societal investment in bike laws and bike public awareness from the 1970s and 1980s? Back then this was happening on a national level but Anchorage fully participated. I remember as a kid taking my Schwinn Speedster downtown to get it licensed. I took pride in the police department (and looking back on it, I’m pretty impressed with their bike licensing program.) I felt that the police were on my side as a kid riding my bike to school and around in neighborhood.
Put more police on bicycles and they might start to see this proposal as dangerous and absurd also.
As a cyclist (not in Anchorage) I find this to be a bit odd “If a turning vehicle struck a bicyclist crossing an intersection on the white “man” signal, the bicyclist would be legally liable.” Everywhere I’ve lived, bicycles are considered vehicles. If a cyclist is crossing in a pedestrian crossing, they are supposed to dismount. If they’re passing through the intersection that is otherwise a red light while mounted, they should be liable. If they’re dismounted as they should be in the cross walk, they’re a pedestrian and the appropriate laws seem to still apply.
I’m not sure I have a problem with the proposed changes. Just went to the Muni website and downloaded the PDF files. The change only applies to cyclists on sidewalks, trails, or pathways. If pathways includes bike lanes then it is a heinous change. Otherwise, in the long haul it will make for safer cycling. Cyclists belong on the road – not on the sidewalk. The municipality of Anchorage has used sidewalk riding (one of the most dangerous places to be on a bike) as an excuse to not address the real problems facing cyclists here. Namely: speed limits, traffic enforcement and road design. The proposed rules with regard to bicycles on the roadway have not changed and clearly state (9.38.020):
A. Every person riding a bicycle shall be
granted all of the rights and shall be
subject to all of the duties applicable to
the driver of a vehicle by this title,
except as to special regulations in this
chapter, and except as to those
provisions of this title which by their
nature can have no application.
If you want to be seen – get off the sidewalk and onto the road.
While BCA agrees that “adult” bicyclists are safer on the road, in general, we do not agree that all bicyclists are safer on the road. This proposed change places young riders in grave danger and is an unacceptable change in responsibilities from the larger, more dangerous party (the motorist) to the more vulnerable user (the bicyclist). There are also times when the road is just too dangerous and the adult bicyclist may need to use the sidewalk. In these instances, the duty should not be placed on the bicyclist to yield to the motorist simply because APD sees it as something more easily enforced. This change will place bicyclist in danger, leave them liable after being injured and serve as a major disincentive to get on a bike. If we are serious about making Anchorage more bicycle-friendly, we need more protective laws, not less. Simply put, we need to encourage bicycle use by creating a safe environment, and not pass laws that favor motorists over bicyclists.
OK – so much for “tough love” I agree with you. BUT – except for young children, say under the age of 14, and under extremely adverse conditions, it is my belief that cyclists belong on the road, not on the sidewalk. Like I have said over and over The Municipality, by placing cyclists on the sidewalks, gets to side-step a host of issues relevant to the rights given to bicyclists by the laws as defined by The Municipality and The State of Alaska. Riding on the sidewalks is dis-empowering NOT empowering.
When you talk about bike lanes are you thinking about the shrinkage of the roads in the winter time? Besides I commute around town and I am unaware of many bike lanes in town. However I like to stick to the bike paths if possible because when I ride I am meditating. I don’t want to think about the pile up of vehicles behind me on the roads. Also, I was hit on the sidewalk no less in midtown last year by a vehicle on Bike to work Day. It took out my bike, helmet, and left me with a fractured ankle. I was in a very visable spot and there is no reason the driver shouldn’t of been able to see me. Medical bills where about $15,000. That doesn’t include the replacement of my bike or helmet. I understand that it was an accident and I also am much more cautious now. The municipality was very helpful and fully on my side the entire fight with the insurance company.
However if I have to wait for every motorist at every driveway or intersection my commute is going to double in time. In the winter my commute is already longer. I am selfish and personally don’t want to add more time.
I can’t imagine that my 16 year old dare devil boy is going to stop for every motorist. I have a hard enough time strapping a helmet to his head. Plus I am not sure I want him biking in the middle of the road in midtown besides that he does not drive yet and he does not have auto insurance. The laws put in place for people of all ages. Motorists are required to take a test and have insurance before hitting the roads. If the blame is put on the bicyclist then the bikers pays for the damage regardless of being insured or not. Is that fair to our minors or to those who can’t afford a vehicle or auto insurance?
Two flaws (at least) exist in the APD request.
First, they wish to revert to a confused set of conditions. A car must yield to another car, but not a bike, but they must yield to a pedestrian. How many motorists can run through this checklist fast enough to avoid an accident? There is a reason the standard in all US states is “straight away has right of way.” Look both ways before crossing any street (route) is also good advice. Easy to remember is good.
APD provides a “suspected” reason for the previous change. They are wrong. That change was made at my request for the reason stated above.
APD also states that cyclists moving at 20-30 mph are the problem. Even if this were true, motorists are moving at 35-50 mph and would still see the cyclist ahead of time if they looked at all. The concern about visibility, which is clearly valid, also applies to pedestrians for whom the police state there is no problem. This renders that argument invalid (inconsistent is not logical). Finally if cyclists are moving at 20-30 mph on shared paths, they are already in violation of the law requiring speeds match conditions. A stated speed limit for cyclists on trails would be an easier way to adjust for this.
APD has a valid concern. Their suggestion, however, is neither reasonable nor effective.
I think we would all like to see more bike infrastructure on the road that makes it safer for bicycle use. But we just dont have that yet. And even if the Anchorage Bike Plan is implemented as proposed, its a 20 year plan so it will take time to get a fully connected bike network in place that allows for safe bicycle use on the road. BCA agrees that bicycle use on the sidewalks is generally a very dangerous proposition and that bicyclists are safer on the road, where they are more visible to motorists and their intentions are more predictable. Visibility and predictability are very important factors in reducing car-bike collisions. However, there are many places in Anchorage where, currently, it is just not safe to be on the road, and while it isnt safe to be on the sidewalk, it is safer and the dangers are easier to avoid if you are well educated on how to bicycle safely in an urban setting (something many in Anchorage lack). While bicycling on sidewalks may be disempowering, emphasizing the priority of cars over bikes, BCA focuses first and foremost on safety. We promote safety above principals. So with that understanding we educate bicyclists to avoid sidewalks when the road is the better place to be (and there are a variety of factors that influence that decision including volume and speed of traffic and conditions of road). But BCA also advises bicyclists to not place themselves in dangerous road situations. This may mean using the sidewalk. And when on the sidewalk we then instruct the bicyclist to ride in a different manner (for example, being ultra alert of traffic coming from the sides, of traffic coming from behind that may take a right turn while you are crossing a driveway or street, to not proceed in front of a car looking to merge unless you have eye contact and acknowledgment to safely pass in front of them). Until we have better bicycle infrastructure, we will continue to see many bicyclists on the sidewalk. As a result, we will do all we can to ensure that those on the sidewalk are adequately protected by law.
Brian says:
March 3, 2010 at 3:02 pm
I think we would all like to see more bike infrastructure on the road that makes it safer for bicycle use. But we just dont have that yet.
And speaking from experience, I’ve been commuting for the last 30+ years and have 10,000 mile or more on my gams, we will get nowhere in Anchorage until we demand a place on the streets. The Bike Plan is a good start but, in reality, it gives us nothing – it’s just a set of recommendations. I’m sure you are aware of what has been happening in other places. Simply put, you take the street – or you get screwed. Politicians follow the path of least resistance.
[...] The best transportation choice since the beginning of the industrial age, the bicycle still doesn’t get any respect. [...]
I might be in the minority here, but when bike lanes are absent and a sidewalk is available, I believe all cyclists should use them. The reasons that roads are “safer” for those on bikes, is that those cyclists frequently don’t take the time to be safe. Many don’t look carefully at all side roads and driveways before they cross them and many don’t look to their rear when crossing an intersection. I ride on sidewalks for miles a day but I do all of those things and have never come close to having a problem.
Cyclists riding in the road should be courteous and stay as far to the right as possible and obey all traffic laws including obeying traffic signals and not passing cars or trucks on their right unless they have a bike lane. In other words, when at a red light it is illegal to pass all the lined up cars.
I think many of us choose the sidewalk over the road. This is especially true on high speed roads or roads with very little shoulder. The sidewalk gives the sense of safety because we are separated from the traffic by a curb. But, as you noted cyclist have to be extra vigilant on sidewalks. Many motorist will over-shoot cross walks or stop lines. You may have not experienced a problem with riding on sidewalks because you are aware of your surroundings and adjust accordingly. The proposed law is more about fundamental attitudes. Nationwide there is a movement to stop distracted driving. A car is a dangerous appliance and drivers need to become more careful and their attitudes need to be shifted to be more safe and defensive. The proposed language relaxes the driver’s duties to be safe and to respect other road users. Thanks for your comments and keep on bike commuting!
[...] the Anchorage Press, Anchorage Daily News and other media. Thomas Pease’s guest editorial had this discussion on the BCA site. Here is the current discussion thread about the Title 9 rewrite on the [...]