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.

To the guy in the white Lexus hybrid SUV

Scene: Today, Saturday, August 4, 2012, approx 11:15 am. Westside Farmers Market (DOT parking lot).

I had parked next to the above mentioned white Lexus hybrid SUV. When I parked, I noticed that the engine was running, and a woman was sitting in the passenger seat looking bored, maybe slightly irritated, and definitely not smiling. I sort of wondered why she had to run the engine, contributing to the air quality problems on a hot summer day. (Last night there was an air quality alert.)

But I didn't say anything and went off to to my shopping.

When I returned, I was just opening the door to get into the car when a man, apparently the driver of the SUV, called out, “Whoa! Careful there.” I looked down, and my door was nowhere near his car. I had opened the door slowly and carefully. I nodded to him, indicating that I saw his car and was being careful.

SUV guy: “Well, it's a $63,000 car. Don't want it to get scratched.”

Me, silently, in my head: [Well, aren't you special. If you really wanted to be sure no one would get near your car, you could have parked it on the other side of the lot where no one would park near you, but you couldn't be bothered to walk a few dozen extra feet.]

Me, out loud, but still calmly and politely: “Don't worry, I'm not going to ding your car. But since we are having a conversation, you should know that there is a 15 minute idling ordinance in the City of Madison.”

SUV guy, sarcastically: "Oh, well, thanks for letting me know."

SUV guy, under his breath, as he gets into the car: “Yeah, and you can stick that....”

Me, through the rolled up window: “Oh, thanks for that comment too.”

We both smile insincerely at each other and give each other a thumbs up as he drives off, obviously both thinking we'd both rather be using another finger.

[end scene]

Seriously, I didn't do anything except try to get in my car, and this self-important jerk starts blustering about his expensive car.

So if anyone knows someone that fits that description, tell him he's a real piece of work. And tell him his behavior and concern for his status symbol car is indicative of someone trying to compensate for, umm, shall we say “shortcomings.”

Keeping older people mobile shouldn't just involve wider roads and bigger signs

This is a theme in transportation policy: If people are driving off the road or otherwise having crashes, the obvious solution is to make the road more "forgiving," that is make it easier to drive faster and without paying attention. The solution isn't to make people drive slower or be more alert; it's an engineering problem, not a human problem.

Talk about enabling bad behavior. How would the tough-love people feel about fixing the problem of irresponsibility in other areas of our lives by making sure there aren't harsh consequences? I'd love to hear this in a debate among conservatives.

Here's another example, a report on "Keeping Baby Boomers Mobile: Preserving Mobility and Safety for Older Americans."

The most dangerous consumer product in the US

This AZ press release makes some very good points about driving and road safety. As I am fond of saying, "If any other consumer product had this sort of safety record, it would be pulled from the market within a week."

When I say things like that, people point out that the majority of Americans either drive or ride in a car every day, so it's not surprising that we have a few deaths. OK, let's look at this another way. What if 30,000+ people were killed every year using a computer, or a credit card? Those are some pretty mundane task that tens of millions - maybe more than a hundred million - of people use every day. Would we accept someone using a computer dying every 15 minutes? Would we accept 30,000+ people dying from turning on the lights in their homes or making coffee?

Why is it acceptable to lose this many people every year by motor vehicle? Especially when the majority of those deaths could be easily prevented by making sure that people take driving seriously. No, you can't talk on the phone. No, you can't drink alcohol. No, you can't go over the speed limit. Not OK. A motor vehicle is a large, complex, dangerous machine, which is why we require people to have a license to operate one.

In many countries of the world, getting a driver's license is hard and expensive. And losing one is easy. In some European countries, you can lose your license for a year if you get your first DUI, and if you get three, ever, you will never be issued a license again, for the rest of your life.

Yes, we make it easy to get a driver's license, and hard to lose it, in this country because most people have no other way to get around, if they can't drive. Children can't get to school, unless their parents drive them. People wouldn't be able to work, shop, visit friends and relatives, see the doctor, or otherwise do normal activities. Of course, 30% of the US population doesn't drive, but they are considered some sort of freaks, those too young, too old, too cheap, too frail, or too environmentally conscious to drive or own a car.

But we need to rethink this whole transportation thing. People shouldn't be trapped in their cars to live, work, and move about. It's too expensive - for both individuals and taxpayers, too unsustainable - in so many ways, and yes, too dangerous to have everyone doing it.

My mantra: "Driving should be a choice, not a requirement."