When did we start blaming pedestrians for being hit by cars?

A colleague in Montana circulated this article that explains the history of how we view pedestrian fatalities.

It used to be that motorists that hit or killed pedestrians were viewed in the same way as someone who drive a motorcycle down a crowded hallway: That's just not acceptable. You shouldn't operate a large, fast, heavy machine in a place where there are a lot of people.

A typical busy street scene on Sixth Avenue in New York City shows how pedestrians ruled the roadways before automobiles arrived, circa 1903. Via Shorpy.

Now we just expect that pedestrians will stay out of the way of cars.

There are so many good quotes in the article, I won't even start to pick them out. But the old news stories, cartoons, and ads are also well worth the click. It follows the change in our society from drivers needing to watch for pedestrians, through changes in attitudes brought about in part by the auto industry; how traffic controls developed; and the history of traffic safety, including ad campaigns that target unsafe behavior.

In the Netherlands - which arguably has the highest bicycle mode split in the world - there is strict liability on the driver's part if s/he hits a bicyclist or pedestrian. That is, a collision is assumed to be the fault of the driver, and the circumstances when the driver is not considered 100 percent at fault are very narrow.

Strict liability is the law in all but five European Union countries, and there is a campaign to change the law in the UK. In the U.S., we struggle to pass Vulnerable User Laws.

Just after reading that article, I saw two items on our local TV news website about kids being hit by cars. One was a child that rode his bike out into the street from a driveway. And the driver didn't even stop! The other was a child killed when he ran out from between two parked cars. Both happened on residential streets.

Sure, these days, we think, "Well, those parents should watch their kids. The kids should learn that they have to be careful and stay out of the street."

But as the article about the history of pedestrians and motor vehicles in public roadways points out, streets are public spaces, and it used to be that drivers were expected to watch out for other road users, including people walking on the public right of way. We used to realize that kids are to be expected in residential areas.

We even allow drivers to break the law with impunity, as long as it's just a little bit breaking the law. Everyone assumes that "5 over" is OK for speeding, and the police generally won't write a ticket if you are not more than "10 over." If a driver is going below the speed limit, s/he is considered a menace and a freak.

What difference does 5 mph make? Well, a pedestrian hit at 20 mph has a 95 percent chance of surviving. A pedestrian hit at 40 mph has an 15 percent chance of surviving.

30,000 people are killed by motor vehicles every year in the U.S.: drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, passengers, etc. Any other product with that kind of safety record would be pulled from the store shelves within a day. Yet we let the carnage continue year after year. When is will we say, "Enough!"?

Business owner freaks out over bike lanes

Yes, it's been awhile since I posted. But I have a whole folder of thoughts marked "Save for Blog," so maybe I'll get some of them out.

Today's topic is the freak out that the Northside Business Association had about the redesign and re-striping of North Sherman Ave. Commonly called "putting bike lanes on Sherman Ave," even though the safety improvements are going to improve the safety for all users, including drivers.

The vote and the whole debate is now old news, but today one business owner - not even located on Sherman Ave - managed to revive it and piss off the biking community as well.

The owner of New Orleans Take-out, on Fordem Ave banned Alder Marsha Rummel for supporting the project. Reaction was swift on the Bikies list.

I called the west side NOTO, which is pretty close to my house, and asked if I was banned as well, since I sit on two city committees that voted in favor of the project, and I testified in favor. The owner - turns out it's a different owner, despite what the article said - told me no one was banned from his restaurant. He hadn't even read the article, but I think people had already started calling him.

Others called and expressed their displeasure. One wrote:

After his initial diatribe we actually talked.

Among other things, he said his business has been down ever since bike lanes were put on Fordem.  I questioned that since Fordem was always two-lane.  I said perhaps the fact that the mural on the side of the building has deteriorated badly in the last two years and his sign needs work, it looks like he is not open or barely open at best.  He actually said I had a point.
John said he will have something in the Isthmus next week - let's wait and see.

Another person wrote an email to the owner and got this reply:

You are wrong, Bill.  But, the city council running rough-shod overthe city has to stop.  There was no investigation into how this wouldaffect the city.Public safety wasn't an issue. No other solutions were investigatedor discussed.  Their rational was fabricated and there was noeconomic impact statement done.  It will affect property values.  Itwould nice to know how and how much.  I used this incident to wake upthe city to what's going on.  It's time for civic involvement to curbcity council excesses.   I knew that I would take a lot of heat butsomeone has to, "Stop, enough."  The council can't close off one ofonly two ways to get to the north side and not think that it isn'tgoing to affect life on the north side.

I simply couldn't let this response go without an answer. Although I didn't email the owner directly, I posted back on the list - which is widely read by even non-bicyclists because of the number of people and level of public involvement on the list:

I'm not going to argue with this guy, since he obviously has some issues beyond not thinking bike lanes are a good idea. But, he is very wrong on so many points.

1. The city - specifically Traffic Engineering (not the most radical bunch) did investigate other solutions to documented safety issues on Sherman Ave. They tried other solutions for 20 years. 
2. There are documented safety problems - for motorists, pedestrians, transit users, and bicyclists. 
3. The City Council was following the recommendations of Traffic Engineering.[pdf] Again, and I say this with affection, "Not the most radical bunch, or known car-haters, IMHO."
4. Every study of this type of roadway redesign has been shown to either have no effect or a positive affect on economic activity along the corridor.
5. This project is not closing off any routes. Traffic Engineering estimates that the same volume of traffic will be able to use Sherman Ave after the re-striping. When you have a four-lane road with no left-turn pockets, the center two lanes become de-facto left-turn lanes, so only the outer lanes can be used for through traffic. Local users - drivers - have said that they worried about being hit from behind when stopped in the left lane to make a turn. This means some people might not even make that left turn into a business. The center turn lane removes this problem and reduces conflict points for left-turning vehicles from seven to two. 
6. Yes, this redesign was put forward twenty years ago by Traffic Engineering to make the road safer for DRIVERS.
7. Civic involvement is how this project got approved. Just because you disagree with the vote doesn't mean that no one listened to you. It just happens that there are others - perhaps even a large majority that disagree with you. 

Whenever I hear doomsday predictions from people that haven't even researched the subject, I always want to ask for a retraction after the horrible results fail to materialize:

• Smoking ban will kill all the bars in Madison! (And before that, "All the restaurants will close if smoking is banned!")

• Big building will lead to massive traffic jams every morning and night!

• Everyone will sell their house or property values will drop if this building gets built!

• Roundabouts will lead to terrible crashes because people don't understand them!

• No one will move into those apartments, and they will all become run down when the project fails economically!

• etc.

[And someone reminded me of one of my favorite, which somehow slipped my mind: "If that bike path is built, crime will soar and housing prices will plummet!" Of course, exactly the opposite is true. Studies have shown that housing prices near paths are almost always higher than comparable houses farther away from paths.]

Every one of the above I have heard in the last ten years, and not one of the dreaded outcomes has happened.

Transportation articles roundup - not just bikes

More articles with a few comments, OK, sometimes quite a bit of commentary.

The Atlantic Cities ran an article titled, Why Cyclists Run Red Lights. I'm not entirely sure the research conclusions for Australia are valid here in the U.S., but at least someone is doing the research.

And the above article also refers to the NY Times article, If Kant Were a New York Cyclist. This article ponders the ethics - not the legality - of running red lights. A nice quote sums up the feelings of many bicyclists with regard to traffic laws:

Laws work best when they are voluntarily heeded by people who regard them as reasonable. There aren’t enough cops to coerce everyone into obeying every law all the time. If cycling laws were a wise response to actual cycling rather than a clumsy misapplication of motor vehicle laws, I suspect that compliance, even by me, would rise.

The Guardian (UK) suggests that demonstrating cycling proficiency be a requirement to get a driver's licence. In general, I think that getting a driver's licence in the U.S. us far too easy. In many countries it is hard and expensive to get a driver's licence and easy to lose it. People take it seriously. It's more like getting a professional certification. Unfortunately, many people in the U.S. consider driving a right instead of a privilege. We require a licence because operating a motor vehicle is dangerous to yourself and others. Maybe if we made it harder to drive we could cut down on the 33,000 people every year that die in motor vehicle crashes.

A New York Times transportation reporter writes about learning to ride a bike for the first time - as an adult. He talks about how he felt he needed to learn for professional reasons. Bicycling has become a controversial and popular topic over the last few years, and he thought he needed to know first-hand how it felt to ride through the streets.

From the other side, a couple years ago I taught an adult (OK an 18-year-old) how to ride a bike for the first time. I didn't write about it at the time because I didn't want to embarrass her, but it was thrilling for both of us when she started pedaling around the streets for the first time.

And make sure to read the comments on the NY Times article. Over 200 so far. Although some complain about rude bicyclists on city streets, a great many talk about the joys of learning to ride as an adult. To many of us who ride, a bicycle gives a certain type of freedom of movement and a feeling close to flying. Seeing someone experience this, or hearing them describe that joy and freedom almost brings tears to my eyes.

Frustrations of air travel push passengers to Amtrak. The NY Times article title says it all. And it makes me want to weep, or maybe throw something, that we also had the chance to have rail service to Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago, and is was all thrown away due to short-sighted thinking and allegiance to the road builders.

The article is about the NE Corridor, the most popular and only profitable service for Amtrak, but I've been seeing enough other articles about pending rail service - run as for-profit companies no less - to make me think rail travel is on the verge of a resurgence. After all, you can work on the train without being told to turn off your phone, computer, or music.

More articles about rail service coming back, and it's sometimes a bit surprising where people have redeveloped an interest in trains:

• Dallas-Houston in 90 minutes. No public money requested.
• Gulf Coast mayors want to bring back Amtrak's  Sunset Limited between Jacksonville and New Orleans.
• LA to Las Vegas in 1 hour 45 min. for $45 say investors in private rail service.
• And even Florida is talking about the Miami-Orlando service again, this time as a private company.

Bicycle news stories round-up - Late July 2012

I haven't been blogging much, but I've been writing a lot at work. Instead of something profound (as if my stuff is ever "profound"...), maybe I can just share a few things I run across. I'll also try to write more, but in the meantime...

I'm going to try to post a few interesting stories about bicycling each week or two. Few comments, but mostly links to the articles.

Madison PD expands bike-cop program. New bikes, more cops on bikes. The program as been very popular with both the officers and the public.

The Atlantic Cities examines how bicyclists can sometimes be the bad guys. Although some pedestrians are quick to complain about bicyclists being rude, generally pedestrians and bicyclists are allies.

Walking and Biking Pay Off. The final reports are in, and an article for Federal Highways looks at the four Non-Motorized Pilot Transportation projects - one in Sheboygan.

Have you ever been accused of hating cars? Or heard people say the city is waging a war on cars? NPR examines this claim. And unless you think that this is a new argument, they look at the history of the American relationship with the car, one that has not always been loving.

Bike sharing helps transit systems bridge the "last mile." A good article in Mass Transit magazine explains that bike sharing can enhance a transit system by allowing customers to get from the bus or rail stop to their final destination quickly and easily. Chicago received money to get a bike sharing program off the ground from TIGER III funding by pointing out that the program will complement and improve access to the transit system. But as the Mass Transit article points out, the Federal Transit Administration won't fund the infrastructure for bike sharing, although the Federal Highway Administration will. And both the physical and political environment in a city must be friendly for bike sharing to work.

New York's huge bike share program is still on hold, and people are wondering what is holding it up. Even elected officials say the silence about the delay is disconcerting.

From Boston comes this blog post about why we should pay people to bike to work. What the post really argues is that "parking cash-out" should be more common.

A study from Florida shows that using "sharrows" on roads without bike lanes, but which have on-street parking, decreases the percentage of bicyclists riding in the "door zone," that is the area where they could be hit by a car door if someone opens it into traffic. Unfortunately, the percentage decrease only went from 71 percent to 55 percent, meaning that more than half the bicyclists still are at risk. Maybe they need more bicycle education. Florida isn't known as the safest place to ride or walk, and bicyclists are probably not all that confident that they won't get hit anyway.

Madison installed a HAWK signal - otherwise known as a pedestrian beacon at Blair St on the E. Mifflin bike boulevard. This signal is supposed to help bicyclists and pedestrians cross Blair while not encouraging additional motor vehicle traffic on Mifflin. Some recent research shows that these types of signals are effective in reducing pedestrian crashes.

Stop the bike vs car wars - we're all at fault

No matter what mode of transportation you name: cars, bikes, feet, bus, trains, airplanes, or rollerblade, someone is going to gripe about people that use that form of transportation. With a background in bicycle advocacy, I have heard more than my share of gripes about the way bicyclists and motorists operate.

Instead of arguing who's right or wrong, or what road users break the law more often, I try to diffuse the tension and give people a little perspective with a couple of thoughts.

First, my personal opinion is that all road users should obey all traffic laws all the time. That includes signalling turns, not speeding, yielding to pedestrians, not going through an "orange" light, full stop at stop signs, etc. But we all know that everyone breaks at least some laws every time they take to the road. Yes, even you. Let's try to concentrate on stopping people from doing things that are going to endanger other people.

And before all my biking friends jump down my throat, and if anyone else is interested in a perspective on why bicyclists blow stop signs, here's a little article from Toronto to give the other side.

My second approach, to try to get people off the "who's worse" train, is that it's not the vehicle that causes bad behavior. It's the person using the vehicle. And most bicyclists are also drivers. They are probably scofflaws when they drive as well. You may see them, or only pay attention when they are on their bikes, but they probably get behind the wheel and break the law there too. If someone is in a hurry or is reckless when riding their bike, then they are likely in a  hurry and reckless in a car as well.

And finally, people ask me what they can do to improve the driving (or biking) of others. As an elected official, people constantly asked me how to get people to stop speeding, or how to get people to yield to pedestrians. Well, it's not easy, and we all have a part. We have to speak up, and it may be speaking up to those we love.

How often do each of us ride in a car with someone else, and notice that person speeding, blowing a red, not coming to a full stop before making a turn, or not yielding to a pedestrians? And how many of us say something to our spouse, friend, co-worker, neighbor, parent or sibling? If we see our neighbor blow the stop sign at the end of the block every day, and don't say anything about it, how can we expect anyone else to get through to that person?

So yes, the police can run around ticketing people for every little thing, but that is going to cost you, the taxpayer a ton of money. Contrary to what some people think, it costs the city money to enforce those laws. The time required to stop someone, do a license check, write the ticket, file the paperwork, and then possibly go to court when the person contests the ticket, is far more in staff time and resources than the money coming in from that ticket. That's not to say that we shouldn't enforce traffic laws, but we are never going to get perfect compliance by using law enforcement only.

Why do people yield to pedestrians in California and many other parts of the US? Because that's just the way things are done, and you learn that from the time you start to walk. It's cultural, like being stoic about cold weather in Wisconsin. (Or a more negative cultural tradition, drunk driving.)

We all have to start being responsible for our own behavior and also speaking up when we get the chance. Don't sit silent if you see someone speeding, and you are sitting in the car next to him. Say something. And let's all watch our own behavior as well. none of us is perfect, regardless of whether we walk, bike, drive, roll, or run.

We can make the streets safer for everyone, but we all have to be part of that change.

Todd Dr "bike lanes" are not

Earlier today, I posted a blog entry/rant about crossing the Beltline by bike or foot. It all bubbled up because there was yet another bicycle-car crash on Whitney Way neat the Beltline. Why does it seem we obsess and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to be sure car drivers are safe, and yet we can't spend a fraction of that to make sure that people using non-motorized transportation also have safe and convenient facilities.

Instead of tacking on the post below to the earlier one, I thought I'd tell a story about a time when we did have money to do things right, and yet the money ended up elsewhere, and the results were not even safe when the project was done.

Back when I was an alder and Mike Rewey was just leaving the Wisconsin DOT, Mr Rewey got some funding to fix a safety problem: people were trying to get across the Beltline between Fish Hatchery Rd and Park St. They were cutting holes in the fence and running across the Beltline. some of them got hurt doing that. 

Why were they taking such risks? Because they wanted to get to jobs in the area of Greenway Cross, and they lived in the Burr Oaks and Bram's Addition areas of the city, which is traditionally a lower income area, in other words, full of people who would like to work at the entry-level jobs in the area directly across the Beltline from them. The Fish Hatchery Rd crossing of the Beltline is not friendly to pedestrians, and for people on foot, it's pretty far out of the way to just get across the highway.

So Mr. Rewey got funding to build a pedestrian-bike bridge to connect the two pieces of Perry St on either side of the Beltline. 

View Larger Map

However, some of the businesses in the area were concerned with making this connection, and the project was killed by the local alder. The money was diverted to another project farther west, rebuilding Todd Dr. 

There was just one problem, and that was that Wisconsin generally doesn't allow targeted bicycle and pedestrian money to be used just to add sidewalks and bike lanes when a road is rebuilt. The Wisconsin DOT, and the various MPOs and municipalities that follow the WisDOT guidelines, figure that bike lanes and sidewalks are part of the roadway anyway, and since it's not really all that expensive to add them when the road is being rebuilt, you don't have to use a special, and very limited pot of money to out them in.

I argued that this was an inappropriate use of the funds that were supposed to alleviate a very specific safety problem, but I lost that battle and the money was used to add "bicycle and pedestrian accommodations" to the Todd Dr . project. 

So imagine my chagrin when I went down to Johannsen's Greenhouse, next to the rebuilt intersection, and found that the "bike lanes" were to the right of a right-turn-only lane! Uh huh. So you are riding along in the "bike lanes" - note that they are not actually marked as such, because they are in the wrong place - and all those cars are going to be cutting you off to get on the Beltline. Great. 

After a couple of years of noticing this, I finally remembered to mention it to a couple of people who should be able to fix it. I sure hope so, because what exists now is very dangerous. And really, this is what we get when we put in "bicycle and pedestrian accommodations" with money allocated to solve a bicycle-pedestrian safety problem? I sure as hell hope not!

Another bicyclist injured on Whitney Way

Last time it was just north of the Beltline, and the driver tried to drive off, dragging the bicyclist under her car. Fortunately, the driver of a Roto-Rooter truck blocked her so the injured woman could be helped. But the driver then sped off again.

This time the hit-and-run was just south of the Beltline, but also on Whitney Way.

Sounds to me like there is a need for some safety improvements, or maybe another route option in this area. The Beltline crossings in this area are pretty far apart for a bicyclist or pedestrian. It is roughly a mile to the Grand Canyon underpass to the west, and about 3/4 mile to the Hammersley overpass to the east (and that is as the crow flies, not as the bicyclist is able to use on-ground connections.)

With two crashes within one month, is that enough to get hazard mitigation funding? There is a nice cul-de-sac at Forward Dr south of the Beltline, and another one on Schroeder Ct., just west of Whitney. Maybe we can get a crossing there? The Odana Golf Course makes it a bit tough to find a crossing between Whitney and Hammersley, but maybe we can find a way.

And just by coincidence, when I went in to Google Maps streetview just north of the Beltline on northbound Whitney Way, there is a bicyclist in the shot!  [edit: On second glance, I actually think that is a scooter, but it's still a horrid place to be on a small vehicle that doesn't go as fast as the cars generally are moving.]

Crossing the Beltline by foot or by bike via the normal car routes - Fish Hatchery, Whitney, Rimrock, Mineral Point, Old Sauk Rd, etc. - is a scary experience, even for experienced cyclists. I've done it many times, and I don't like it. I do it because I have to get somewhere, and just like most people, want to get there by the fastest and most direct route.

If we want people to be able to go the same places by bike and by foot as they do when in a car - and I think that should be our goal - we need to spend as much time thinking about making the routes as safe for bicyclists and pedestrians as we do solving safety problems for motorists. After all, if two cars are in a sideswipe crash at 25-30 mph, or a car bumps another from behind, there will be damage, but likely not major injury to either driver or any passenger. But if a car sideswipes a bicyclist at 30 mph, or rear ends a bicyclist when the speed differential is 15 mph (bicyclist going 15 and car going 30), the bicyclist is likely to end up in the hospital.

We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year in Wisconsin making sure that motorists are both not overly delayed and are as safe as possible. That doesn't stop all the deaths and injuries, but we have engineered the roads as close to fool-proof as possible. We cut down trees, make the roads wide and the curves gentle. We put up signs and lights as warnings. We paint every road with stripes and arrows, and take over huge swaths of valuable land - good farmland or pricey urban land - to accommodate safe and fast roads.

Fortunately, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are nowhere near as expensive as roads. A fe years back, the Madison Transportation Planning Board (MPO) was asked to make up a list of what it would do with $50 million in federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Almost everything we have been planning for for 15 years could be built with that money.

That seems like a lot of money, until you consider that the "interim fixes" to Verona Rd - just to make it work for motorists until 2030 - will cost... what's it up to now? Maybe $140 million? And then the planned freeway conversion in 2030 will be another $200 million. (The DOT web site is nowhere close to up to date on this project. I just attended a meeting on Wednesday where they presented a new version of Stage 1.)

So OK, that's a really big road, and several state highways. How about the S&M intersection on the west side of Madison. That is two county roads, but the City of Madison is picking up most of the local share. Just that one intersection, not even an interchange with the Beltine, will cost about $20 million. And that doesn't count the rest of the "improvements" to County Hwy M to accommodate all the commuters between Verona and Madison (or Middleton.)

So why is it so hard to make it safe for bicyclists and pedestrians to get across the Beltline? Why do we have to have a separate, and very small pot of money for that, instead of just building these projects just like we build big highways?

PBIC image - Dan Burden

The City of Madison has been pretty good about building good, safe connections for bicyclists and pedestrians, but that's partly because we have also been able to tap into federal earmarks. What will happen when those dry up? Will we keep building bigger and bigger roads, even as [motorized] vehicle miles traveled decreases, and bicycle mileage grows? And will be keep putting off the projects that would allow people to safely, easily, and quickly get across the barriers that we have created with... wait for it... all the big road?!

Thanks to City Engineering for being responsive

Sometimes we need to thank people for doing the right thing. Public employees have gotten beat up a lot in Wisconsin over the last few months, and I'd like to be sure we thanks them when they respond to citizen input and concerns. OK, I may have a bit more pull, because I know who to email or call, due to my alder tenure, but I'm just an average, if well informed citizen.

Yesterday, I sent the email below to the Madison City Engineer, Rob Phillips along with the photo seen below.

Rob - 

Not sure who on your staff is overseeing the N Lake St project. Please forward as needed.
Please see attached photo. It is facing the northbound traffic, i.e. the direction that is allowed during the project.  

Why do bicyclists need to walk? Most bicyclists are going to be going the same speed or faster than the motorized traffic in this area, so I see no reason why they can't ride int he lane, just like everyone else. 

Perhaps this sign is courtesy of the contractor, who simply does not recognize the legal status and abilities of bicyclists. If so, could you have a word with them to have them take it down?

Now, if they want to put that sign up facing southbound - where bicyclists will certainly be wanting to make the transition from Langdon to State St - that would make more sense. However, I am hoping that there will soon be a small counterflow lane on N Lake for bicyclists. The Lakeshore Path => Langdon => State St route is a pretty major bike route without a good alternative. (See below regarding this discussion at a City-UW committee.) 

Moving on to the Langdon project that will be coming up later this summer, at the Joint West Campus Area Committee, we asked if it would be possible to keep a counterflow lane open for bicyclists during the project. I would guess that both the 800 block of Langdon and N Lake between State and Langdon get as much or more bicycle traffic than car traffic in summer. Since the State St Mall does not allow biking, and University is very far out of the way for those trying to get from State St to the Lakeshore Path - a very major bike route - I would hope this request from our meeting could be accommodated.  

Thanks for your help in these matters.

I got an email back this morning, with various City Engineering staff cc'd, agreeing that the sign could be removed. I'm headed down that way now, but I assume that it is either gone or will be soon. 

So, I just wanted to thank City Engineering for responding so quickly. I expected that they would recognize that bicyclists are both legal users of the road, so there is no reason they need to walk their bikes instead of riding them, because this is Madison, and staff are very supportive of bicycling, but taking care of the problem is what really counts.

How to pick a bike helmet, and when to replace it

Another in a long list of topics that seems to come up frequently: What kind of bike helmet should I buy? And how long to they last? 

(If you are an experienced bicyclist, you can skip this post. I'm just writing up the FAQs of bicycle education.)

Recently, Steve Meiers, City of Madison Pedestrian-Bicycle Safety Assistance, posted a link on a local email list to a report from the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. It basically says that cheap helmets work just as well as expensive helmets, as long as they both are approved by the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC.) Although you can spend $150 or $200 on a bike helmet, a $30-35 helmet will protect your head just as well.

The difference tends to be color, number and size of vents, and some aesthetic options. For me, one big issue is how easy it is to adjust the straps. Making sure that your helmet fits well, and can be adjusted if the straps stretch, you tuck your hair up, or you want to wear a hat is very important. Here are some tips on fitting helmets correctly:

As an almost-daily bike commuter, I tend to spend a bit more on my helmets for one reason: I am likely going to wearing it every day and frequently for long periods of time. I want a helmet that fits me, is easy to adjust, and feels comfortable. I've owned helmets that didn't quite feel right, or were hard to adjust, and it just drove me nuts.

For what it's worth, I now own two helmets. (OK, I still have any old helmets that just got too banged up and/or gross from daily use, which I use for guests or in emergencies, but I mean new/current helmets.) One is my commuting helmet. It has fewer vents and was considerably cheaper than the other one. I finally decided to get a helmet just for long rides that had better ventilation and was a tiny bit lighter. Since I blew more than my normal helmet budget on it, I'm hoping it will last longer than the commuting helmet.

And for those who wonder, helmets don't last forever. They need to be replaced. Manufacturers will say three to five years or one crash. Helmets are meant to be single use: If you crash, replace your helmet. There may be micro cracks in the foam that will compromise its ability to protect you in the future.

Because I use my helmet almost every day, constantly being carried around or locked to the bike, clipped and unclipped, bumped, pushed, pulled, adjusted, etc., my helmet gets sort of beat up and nasty after about two years. A new helmet is an inexpensive component of my transportation system. Like so many other things about a bike, I think how much a tank of gas is for the car, and then decide that I can afford to buy a new helmet when I need one.

The three things that most degrade the foam of the helmet - the part that is actually protecting your head - are: heat, sunlight, and salt. Hmmmm.... what things is my helmet likely exposed to as I go out riding in hot weather: my sweaty, hot head in bright, hot sunlight.

Seminole Hwy vs. Badger Trail: Why not use the path?

Recently, the Wisconsin State Journal ran a letter asking why bicyclists aren't using the Badger State Trail, which in some areas runs next to Seminole Hwy, instead of the road. This seems to be a common question, "There's a path right there. How come the bicyclist isn't using it? Why are they on the road? Isn't it safer on the path?"

Here is my answer:

Many of the riders you see on Seminole Hwy are going too fast for the path. Paths are not just for bicyclists, but also walkers, joggers, kids on bikes, dog walkers, and slower recreational cyclists. So if you want to go fast, either because you are in a hurry - like so many motorists - or because you are trying to get your heart rate up, the road is the proper place to bike. In the same way motorists cannot drive 55 on many narrow roads with poor sight lines or other, slower users, bicyclists should not be going 20-25 mph on the path, even when there is no one on it.
The bicyclists on the road also may not be coming or going to a location that makes the path a logical choice. Leaving the Arboretum, you use Seminole Hwy to cross the Beltline and get to many places in Fitchburg. The path crosses in a different location. Much as a bicyclist might ask, "Why is the motorist not on Verona Rd?"
The road is only unsafe if the motorists do not wait until it is safe to pass the bicyclist. I have been riding on Seminole Hwy for 20 years, and the only problems I have are when drivers are in too much of a hurry, and cannot slow down until there is a gap to pass.
All these perceived conflicts could have been avoided if Fitchburg had added bike lanes all the way down to Whalen Rd a number of years ago. But they said, "There isn't that much traffic. Bicyclists and motorists can share the lane easily." So now we have bicyclists doing exactly what the planners suggested, and the motorists being upset by that action. 

Be Bright helps Madison cyclists see and be seen

Last night on the East Isthmus Path, bicyclists who didn't have lights after dark were stopped by Madison Police. The good news for these folks is that they weren't given a $76.20 ticket, as state law and Madison ordinance allows, but instead were given a front and rear light. Yes, they had to listen to a quick safety talk and wait around while we attached the lights to their bikes, but isn't free stuff better than a ticket?








One problem with giving out free lights (or helmets), is that these programs can discourage people from making the same purchases from local bike shops. But in this case, local bike shops are very supportive, and partnered with the project by having us hand out coupons for discounts on helmets and other bike accessories. The lights that we gave out were pretty basic, and most year round, all weather, all-day-and-night commuters choose a more powerful or rechargeable light.

Bike Walk Madison organized the volunteers, and the lights were purchased at cost from Planet Bike via a grant from the Dane County Bicycle Association. If sufficient donations are received, this program will continue. If you would like to donate to the program, you can send a check to Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin, with a note that it is to support the Be Bright program. Right now, they are not set up to take on line donations for this program, so please, checks only. The address is: Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin [attn: Be Bright], PO Box 1224, Madison, WI 53701-1224.

Thanks to the volunteers who came out to help out:
Jay Ferm (Advocacy Director at Planet Bike), India Viola (co-owner of We Are All Mechanics), Amanda White (Assoc Exec Dir at Bike Fed), Craig Jackson, Alex DePillis, Mitch Nussbaum, and Liz Zelandais. Unfortunately, I didn't get the names of all the MPD officers who also helped out, but Chris Masterson - a bike commuter himself - was the organizer on that end.

Fish Hatchery Rd rebuild in 2012: Will bike and pedestrian conditions improve?

A quick post about a projects that could improve bicycling south of downtown and the campus significantly, or could just lay new pavement over a crumbling section of roadway.

Below is an email conversation about this project. In the initial email to the Bikies list, I had cc'd a few people who I thought could either provide answers, or should be aware of problems in this corridor. The second email is from Tony Fernandez, of City of Madison Engineering. I'm not sure if he is directly involved in the project, but he at least has knowledge of it, and was trying to provide some info. Much appreciated.

The third email was my response to Tony, which also got cc'd to the same group, plus Christy Bachman, who Tony had identified as the person taking the lead for the City. This is a Dane County project, so the City of Madison neither planned the project nor has direct authority, although I'm assuming they had significant input because the majority of the roadway is in the City.

I haven't heard anything from the County yet, so maybe things are better than I think.

Email #1 - from me.

There was an article in today's Cap Times about the 2012 planned rebuilding of Fish Hatchery Rd from Wingra Dr south to West Badger Rd. 

Most people on this list recognize that this stretch, although equipped with bike lanes, is an unpleasant ride, and often downright scary. Much of the problem stems from potholes and cracked pavement on the far right (the bike lane), but also the amount of trash, debris, sand, and general junk that lands in the bike lane. 

I also think that, given the amount and speed of traffic - normally far over the speed limit - the current width of the bike lanes is too narrow.

Did anyone attend the meeting mentioned in the article? Will the current conditions be improved when the project is done? Obviously, new pavement will be a huge improvement, but are there any other changes planned? 

And while the project is ongoing, will there be some accommodations for those bicyclists that still need to use Fish Hatchery to get around? Due to the Arb on the west and the lack of north-south routes to the east between Fish Hatch and Park, Fish Hatchery Rd is often the only option in this area. 

I have cc'd a cross section of City of Madison, Dane County, and Bike Fed folks. The road is in the City (mostly, although there are sections in Town of Madison), but Dane County is doing the project, since it is a county highway. 

Thanks for any info. I'm sure many people on the list would be interested in any insights.

Response from Tony Fernandez

This is a federally funded pavement replacement project. Dane County is the lead agency and Matt Rice is doing the plans. My supervisor Christy Bachmann is the main liaison for the City of Madison. My understanding is that the type of funding pretty much restricts the project to replacing the existing pavement, and the current plans call for bike lanes for the full length of the project, but no significant widening anywhere. To get the latest information about the current design and any planned public involvement activities or other opportunities for input you should probably contact Matt or Pam Dunphy at Dane County Highways.

Email #3 - from me

I didn't expect widening, but perhaps a change in the location or width of paint? Don't know the width of the curb-to-curb, but since traffic is consistently well above the speed limit, I would imagine the MV lane widths are pretty generous. Might a little narrowing of the other lanes - by even 6 inches - allow a slightly wider bike lane and also slow the average speed? As Mike Rewey has repeatedly pointed out, just making sure that the 6 inch bike lane marking starts in the MV lane, and does not cut off 6 inches of the bike lane makes a big difference.

I also posted the questions to nudge the folks in charge of maintenance (sweeping on a road next to the Arb, anyone?) to perhaps be more diligent when the project is done. The Fish Hatchery corridor suffers from a multitude of issues that make it a crappy bike route, but there is really no alternative. Fast traffic (law enforcement and engineering); higher traffic volumes; ugly, car-based land use (planning); and a multi-jurisdictional roadway leads to poor maintenance.  Because Fish Hatchery is so huge south of the Beltline, and also a major exit off the Beltline, it feels like a fast highway, but it is actually an urban roadway - one that passes through several neighborhoods with a high percentage of low-income resident. There is also a middle school, the Arb, and a large health care facility in this stretch. 

Because it feels like a highway, drivers are less sympathetic to bicyclists and pedestrians in the area (and public right of way), because they wonder why anyone would be on foot or bike on this big, fast road. Well, there really isn't much choice.

So, I think with a rebuilding project, even without changing the curbs, there are a few things that could be changed to make this road more bike and pedestrian friendly. Hey, how about painting the few crosswalks with wider markings too? I hear from lots of kids and parents trying to cross that street to get to Wright Middle School. 

Sorry, this really isn't a rant against anyone in particular, but more a plea that maybe something can still be done to improve the situation. I was really hoping to hear, "Yes! We are doing those things. We know it sucks, and we took all that into consideration, and here's how it will be different when the work is done." 

Still hoping. 

Bicycle-motor vehicle crash types in adults vs. kids

I got an email a bit ago from a friend that got hit by a car while riding his bike to work. A left-turning motorist failed to yield at an intersection as Steven was going straight, and he was hit, thrown up over the hood of the car, and cracked the windshield with his helmet.

Fortunately, he is OK, except for some major bruises, soreness and stiffness, but it makes me think about bicycle crashes. (And another pitch to wear a helmet. Note the part about cracking the windshield with his helmet, instead of his head.)

One of the little statistics that I have learned from being a bicycle safety educator and advocate for over a decade, is that this type of crash - motorists failing to yield and turning left into a bicyclist - is the most common type of motor vehicle-bicycle crash for bicyclists over 16 years old. (See below for why I worded that exactly that way.)

It also happens to be the most common crash type for motorcycle-auto crashes. Probably for the same reason: bicycles and motorcycles are narrower vehicles and easier to overlook when looking for a gap to make a left turn. This is why I am especially cautious when I see a motorist waiting to make a left.

Now, a slightly longer explanation, if you are interested in crash types.