bicycle safety

Congress at the Wheel? – Well, we knew it was dangerous…

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

A while back I wrote about Congress’s progress on negotiations surrounding the Federal Transportation Bill. Now those negotiations are closed, the vote has been taken, and the Federal Transportation Bill has finally passed.

While the passage of any transportation bill is encouraging after so many delays threatened to freeze funds, alternative transportation advocates are understandably disappointed with the final bill. Many of the programs in the previous bill advocating cycling and pedestrian paths have been gutted and funding has been compromised. This news is especially disappointing since representatives, like Senator Barbara Boxer, promised to protect these programs.

Here is an overview, courtesy of America Bikes, of the major differences between the previous transportation bill and the current bill and what this could mean for cyclists and pedestrians in California and the Bay Area.

1) The 2012 bill combines Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancements, Recreational Trails and ‘Some Road Usages’ into a single category. These programs no longer have separate funding and distribution mechanisms. This means that not only will alternative transportation programs be competeing against one another for funding, they will also be competing against highway and road projects classified as ‘road usages’.

2) Funding for this category has been cut from $1.2 billion to $800 million.

3) The old bill allowed states to redistribute 10-15% of funds from these alternative transportation programs to other transportation uses.  Under the new bill states could transfer 50-100% depending on the circumstances.

This bill will be in effect until October of 2014.

 

Sources:

Federal transportation bill negates decades of progress

http://www.americabikes.org/analysis_of_the_new_transportation_bill_map_21

Bad News Berkeley

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

Between 2005-2010 there were 819 cycling accidents in Berkeley making it the 4th most dangerous city for cyclists in the Bay Area.

The recent death of world-renown neuropsychologist, Shlomo Bentin, in a cycling accident near the UC Berkeley campus, has brought more attention to the dangers of cycling in downtown and southern Berkeley.

One of the reasons Berkeley may be an epicenter for cycling accidents is that it has one of the highest bike commuter rates in the nation,  about 8 percent of residents commute by bike. The city should be proud of the achievement, but at the same time city officials need to recognize that this constituency needs to be supported with safe and readily available infrastructure. Berkeley cyclists have been calling for reform and improvements for many years. The East Bay chapter of the Bicycle Coalition argues that road conditions and lack of safe bike lanes make the areas around the campus some of the most dangerous in the Bay Area for cyclists.

Sources:

http://berkeley.patch.com/articles/berkeley-ranks-high-in-bike-accidents

http://www.baycitizen.org/bikes/story/berkeley-campus-cyclists-collisions/

 

Tucker v Mejia Verdict Summary

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

We are pleased to report a plaintiff’s verdict obtained in the San Francisco Superior Court on July 26, 2012 by Lenore Shefman of the Shefman Law Group and Shaana A. Rahman with Rahman Law PC in the case of Tucker v. Mejia.  The case involved a hit and run collision between plaintiff, who was traveling on Eddy Street on a fixed gear bicycle, and defendant, an independent contractor operating a Lorrie’s shuttle van.  The collision occurred on August 17, 2009 on Eddy Street, near its intersection with Mason.  Plaintiff Tucker was riding his bicycle in the number one lane when the defendant began making a lane change from the number two lane into Mr. Tucker’s lane of travel.  The van sideswiped Mr. Tucker causing Mr. Tucker to be ejected from his bicycle onto his face.

Mr. Tucker sustained serious facial injuries, including two jaw fractures and two facial fractures all of which required immediate surgery.  Plaintiff incurred past medical expenses of approximately $150,000.00.

Defendant never stopped his van and left the scene.  A witness chased the van and although the van was identified as a Lorrie’s van, there was never any positive identification of the driver or the van number.  Through the use of Lorrie’s internal documents relating to its drivers plaintiff identified four of the 30 Lorrie’s drivers who were in the Union Square area at the time of the collision. Further investigation pointed to defendant Mejia as being the only driver on Eddy Street at the time of the collision.  Defendant Mejia denied being involved in the collision although admitted to being on Eddy Street approximately 10 minutes after the collision when he was briefly stopped by the police.

Defendant further contended that there was no contact between the van and the bicyclist.  Defendant’s accident reconstruction/biomechanical expert opined that as plaintiff was on a fixed gear bicycle with a single break it was likely that he over-braked and pitched himself over the handlebars.  Defendant also contended that plaintiff veered from his lane into the defendant’s lane to make a right turn.  As plaintiff admitted fault for the collision to the investigating officers the defendant maintained that plaintiff was to blame for his injuries.

An internal investigation by Lorrie’s led to the identification of four drivers possibly involved, but Lorrie’s never disciplined Mr. Mejia or concluded that he was the driver.  Prior to trial the Shefman Law Group reached a settlement with Lorrie’s in the amount of $250,000.00.

The case was tried before The Hon. Ellen Chaitan.  Defense counsel was Susan Watson with Harrington, Fox et al.  A cross-complaint for indemnity was filed by Lorrie’s counsel Stephanie Krmpotic.  The cross-complaint issue was bifurcated.

After an eight day trial and one day of deliberation, the jury returned a 12-0 verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $593,172.67.  The jury found that plaintiff was not comparatively at fault.

Confusion on the JFK Bikeway

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

Earlier this year the SF Municipal Transportation Agency revealed the new JFK separated bikeway. Since its unveiling there have been mixed reviews on the effectiveness of such a design. For those of you who have not ventured over to Golden Gate Park to see what the fuss is all about, the new separated bikeway looks like this:

The SFBC noticed that in the early stages of use there were three main problems with the design:

1. Cars parking in the bike lane

2. Cars parking in the buffer lane

3. Pedestrians exiting cars and crossing the bike lane without looking out for bikes

According to the SFBC these problems largely rectified themselves as riders and drivers became acclimated to the new design. They found that in general, cyclists felt safer using the lane because there was so much space between them and moving traffic.

Protected bike lanes are increasing in number throughout the United States and with Market Street improvements on the table and city planners always looking for new ways to integrate bikes onto city streets, it is important to have an open and productive conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of this type of protected bike lane.

In May the San Francisco Bay Guardian expressed a few of its concerns with such a design:

1. The increased potential for pedestrian and cyclist collisions

2. The lack of traffic enforcement leading to use of the buffer lane during peak hours, increasing the potential for collision between cars and between cars and cyclists.

It is clear that San Francisco needs better and safer bike lanes. However, the jury is still out on this particular type of protected bike lane. What can be improved with this type of project? How can we do it better next time?

Offer your feedback on the JFK bikeway by taking the SFMTA Survey and take part in the Market Street Improvement discussions.

Sources:

http://www.sfbike.org/?project_JFKDr

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/04/25/its-not-that-hard-to-find-people-who-like-the-jfk-bikeway/

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/05/17/new-jfk-bike-lanes-are-bad-everyone

 

Bike + BART = Better for Everyone

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

For the next five Fridays commuters will see bicycles on BART trains during rush hours. The change is courtesy of a pilot program BART is running as part of its new goal to double BART ridership among cyclists. The Draft 2012 BART Bicycle Plan has more on BART’s goals for the coming years.

Normally bikes are not allowed on BART trains during rush hours in the morning and the evening, so those people from the East Bay region who might combine public transportation and cycling in order to avoid the frustrating, expensive and environmentally degrading commute, are unable to do so.

The pilot program lifts the ban on August 3rd, August 10th, August 17th, August 24th and August 31st. The SFBC encourages riders to take advantage of the program and to help make a statement. This ban is good for BART and good for the community.

In order to make the program as great a success as possible, SFBC encourages riders to remember a few key rules:

1. Bikes are still not allowed in the first car

2. Bikes are not allowed in crowded/full cars

3. Bikes must give priority to elderly and disabled persons

4. Please be as courteous and polite as possible. The success of the program depends on you!

For those of you who are interested in ways to combine public transportation and cycling outside of the designated pilot program days, there are a couple of alternatives in the Bay Area:

1. CalTrans Bike Shuttle

2. AC Transit

 

Sources:

http://www.sfbike.org/main/bart-announces-pilot-to-lift-rush-hour-bike-ban/

http://www.sfbike.org/?bart

 

 

The Power of 3

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

Earlier this month, East Bay Attorney Bill Dullea of GJEL Accident Attorneys testified before the Assembly Transportation Committee in support of Senate Bill 1464. Senate Bill 1464, commonly known as the 3-Foot Passing Bill, clarifies the current, vague law requiring cars to give cyclists a ‘safe distance’ when passing. In his testimony Dullea argued that the ‘safe distance’ law unnecessarily endangers cyclists because not all drivers judge ‘a safe distance’ in the same way. Since 40% of cycling collisions occur when a cyclist is hit from behind by a vehicle, this proposed legislation is poised to make a large impact in the cycling community.

Dullea argued that the 3-Foot Passing Law would help make cyclists feel safer when they are  sharing the road with automobiles and would therefore encourage more cyclists. Ideally, this law would lead to safer streets for everyone. Like Rahman Law, GJEL represents many cyclists in their line of work. Dullea testified that in his experience it s clear that drivers don’t know how to judge a ‘safe distance’ mostly because most California drivers do not have to deal with cyclists very often in their day -to-day driving. This has obviously been changing in the last few years, especially in San Francisco and the Bay Area. A statistic that often creeps into these conversations and which is extremeley illuminating, is that in San Francisco in the last 5 years, cycling ridership has increased more than 70%.

With interactions between cyclists and vehicles constantly increasing it is important for drivers to know how they can best avoid collisions. The 3-Foot Passing Bill is designed to do just that. The California Bicycle Coalition and cycling advocates like Rahman Law and GJEL Accident Attorneys support SB 1464 because it protects cyclists and drivers and generally makes the roads, which we all share, a safer place.

The bill is currently waiting for Governor Jerry Brown’s signature.

For more information on how you can become involved in the California Bicycle Coalition’s Safe Passing Campaign visit their website at http://calbike.org/advocacy/safe-passing/

 

Sources:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/East-Bay-Attorney-Advocates-for-Bike-Safety-with-3688716.php

Scofflaw?

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

A google search of the term ‘scofflaw’ reveals an urban dictionary definition of “one who habitually flouts or violates the law, esp one who fails to pay debts or answer summonses”. Understanding this term is an important first step in understanding the debate raging about ‘the growing problem’ of scofflaw cyclists in San Francisco.

The SFBC’s report, What About Scofflaw?  also provides some valuable insight and context into the debate. As the numbers of cyclists have grown in San Francisco, 71% in the last five years, conflicts between cyclists, pedestrians and drivers have naturally increased. Indeed, recent stories involving careless and negligent cyclists have inflamed an already sensitive issue.

San Francisco has an oftentimes harrowing mix of pedestrian, cycling and automobile lanes. Negotiating the changes from street to street, the sharrows and the lack of marked lanes, can cause frustration and unease for even the most experienced cyclists and drivers. The fact is that in San Francisco, and indeed in any major urban center, there will be pedestrians, cyclists and drivers who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, break traffic laws. Unfortunately for the cycling community these few ‘scofflaw cyclists’ can have an extremely detrimental effect on the cycling community as a whole because public opinion is so split on the cycling issue in general. One rude or unsafe cyclist can mess things up for everyone else. The situation might not be fair, but that’s the way it is.

The best defense against the argument that there is a ‘growing problem’ with scofflaw cyclists in San Francisco, is to simply be aware of the rules of the road and to be polite and safe at all times. This is true for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers as well.

We have to share the roads. Please, let’s be safe and courteous while doing so.

The SFBC hosts regular Urban Bicycling Workshops as part of its drive to educate cyclists about the rules of the road.

 

Market Street Improvements

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

Market Street is at the heart of San Francisco’s history, tourism industry and daily transportation system. As a city hub, it is a meeting point for many different modes of transportation. Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers all share one heavily trafficked area. It may come as no surprise to many people who frequent the Market Street area that cycling is becoming an ever more dominant mode of transportation.  In fact, Better Market Street claims that at various time of the day bicycles outnumber vehicles.

As cyclists who frequent Market Street know, there are a number of areas where a collision between cyclists and autos or cyclists and pedestrians is intensified by poor urban design. One of the goals of the Better Market Street Project is to optimize the safety and efficiency of the traffic on Market Stteet. This is an area of San Francisco that needs improvement and the opportunity to create that change is here.

Better Market Street is currently in Phase 1. This phase includes the opportunity for public input. Join the San Francisco Bike Coalition at one of two community meetings to discuss potential improvements to the Market Street area.

Community Meeting | Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 6:00 PM – 8:30 PM | SFMTA (1 South Van Ness, 2nd Floor Atrium

Community Meeting | Saturday, July 21, 2012, 10:00 AM – 12:30 PM | SFMTA (1 South Van Ness, 2nd Floor Atrium)

The Blame Game

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

Recently, SF District Attorney George Gascón stated that the reason so few drivers are prosecuted in pedestrian collisions is that pedestrians are at fault “in the majority of cases”.

This is simply not true and it reflects the pro-auto attitude in a city with a cycling population that has increased 71% in the last 5 years. This tendency to favor automobiles is illustrated in the DA’s office history of persecuting only those fatalities and injuries which involve a DUI or a hit-and-run. Drivers, even those who are deemed at fault, often avoid any criminal prosecution. DA Gascón has broken this tradition by prosecuting three drivers and a cyclist with lethal negligence, a misdeamanor, in pedestrian fatalies. His recent statement, however, shows a dismissive attitude towards the safety and security of pedestrians and cyclists in San Francisco.

WalkSF is an organization fighting for pedestrian safety in San Francisco. Join them in their campaign to bring justice to pedestrians killed by negligent drivers. Email them at info@walksf.org and they will forward your email onto the DA’s office to let them know that the pedestrians-at-fault stance is not an acceptable attitude.

As WalkSF argues “the District Attorney and our police should be keeping us safe on the street and making it clear that injuring people has consequences. Instead, they’re blaming the victim.”

Sources: SfStreetsblog1 and SfStreetsblog2

Congress at the Wheel?

Posted on by Shaana A. Rahman

If you are anything like me, then the multitude of recent articles about the Transportation Bill currently making its way through Congress seem to illustrate one thing: Democrats and Republicans may never be able to agree on anything ever again. However, once you dredge through the partisan bickering and look at what the various versions of the bill propose, there are certain sections that will directly affect Bay Area Transportation.

Background of the Bill:

  • The current transportation bill was set to expire on March 31st, 2012. If this deadline had passed, then funding for transportation programs and workers would stop.
  • However, on March 29th, Congress passed a 3-month extension of the current bill (the latest of many), to give themselves more time to reach an agreement.
  • This extension expires June 30th, 2012.
  • These types of bills are designed to address funding through their deadline. Extensions are not taken into account when funding it allocated. In the case of the current extensions, the Highway Trust Fund has paid the price.  Another extension could bankrupt it and even the passage of the bill does not guarantee its solvency.
  •  There are two separate versions of the bill. The version proposed by the Senate and the changes proposed by the House.
  • Currently,  a committee is trying to reconcile the two bills so that a single bill can be put before the houses for a vote. This process is illustrated by the Transportation for America diagram below.

Now:

  • Yesterday 6/13/12- Committee Chairmen, John L. Mica, released a statement about the committee’s progress. It was not encouraging. He stated, “I remain hopeful that we can reach a bicameral compromise with the Senate. However, I am disappointed in the fact that Senate negotiators have yet to move significantly on key House reform proposals.”

The Issues: 

  •  The Bill proposed by the Senate is for a budget of $109 Billion, so job creation is a major concern.
  • The Keystone XL Pipeline and the coal ash amendment (controversial issues for another time)
  • The Cardin-Cochran Agreement 

The Cardin-Cochran Agreement:

  •  The current transportation agreement has 3 programs dedicated to pedestrians and cyclists: Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trail.
  • In the proposed Senate Bill these programs are combined under the Additional Activities section.
  • The ambiguous wording of the Additional Activities section creates the potential for funds to be used in ways detrimental to walking and biking. So, Senators Ben Cardin, a democrat, and Thad Cochran, a Republican, offered a bipartisan amendment to ensure that cities and counties have an opportunity to use Additional Activities funds for biking and walking projects, if they choose to do so. This became the Cardin-Cochran Agreement. To illustrate how the amendment works, I have found another fun diagram: 

  • The idea is that local communities are in the best position to utilize federal funds to make streets safer and more accessible for walking and biking.
  • The problem is that in the committee hearings to reconcile the House and Senate Bills, the House has proposed  a counteroffer which would allow states to “opt out” of Additional Activities funding completely, thus eliminating the Cardin-Cochran agreement and effectively eliminating local access to federal funds.

Negotiations are geared to continue right up until the June 30th deadline. Now, hopefully, we can decipher the daily articles on Congress’s progress and understand how their inability to reach an agreement affects us….

Sources: Congress Extends Current Transportation Bill, Boxer and Inhofe…Try to Avoid 10th Extension, Boxer Changes Her  Tone, Adopts a Fighting Stance, House of Representatives Aims to Eliminate Local Funds for Biking and Walking, House GOP Threatens to Wipe Out Local Control over Bike/Ped Funding