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!"?

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."

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?!

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. 

Random thoughts on a winter walk on University Ave

I'm working on a post about the bike sharing program that will be before the city council tomorrow night, but that is going to be a long post. In the meantime, here are a few thoughts on walking down University Ave this afternoon.

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.

Two similar crashes. Two media reports. Can you spot the difference?

Crash # 1: Two vehicles collide on Mineral Point Road, one eastbound, and one westbound. Westbound vehicle operator turns left, failing to yield to eastbound vehicle operator.

Crash # 2: Two vehicles collide on University Ave, one eastbound, and one westbound. Westbound vehicle operator turns left, failing to yield to eastbound vehicle operator.

Can you spot the differences in the way the incidents were reported? Same reporter, although many times the newspaper reports are a verbatim repeat of the police reports, so it may not be the reporter's fault.

"...only had two beers and a shot."

Bradley Erickson, who was allegedly driving drunk when he crashed into a parked car killing three people early Thursday, said he didn't see the car and had only two beers and a shot of liquor hours earlier while watching a baseball game.

This makes me so angry. The quote above is from the guy that killed three people on the Interstate last week. He was in Marshfield for work, watched a baseball game, then left at 10 PM to drive back to Madison. Before he left, he had two beer and a shot of Jagger (or at least that's what he says.)

The crash happened at 2:35 AM, and his blood alcohol content at that time was 0.158, more than twice the legal limit. So, he's been driving for four hours, and his BAC is still twice the legal limit? What makes me think he either drank along the way, or was so smashed when he left that he's lucky he didn't go off the road within the first fifteen minutes?

Thinking that "only two beers and a shot" is nothing when leaving on a long, late night drive is bad enough, but I'm just not sure it's physically possible for his BAC to be that high after four hours if that is all he had.

Really, if you knew you weren't going to drive for 4 1/2 hours at night, not getting home until 2:30 AM, would you have a few drinks before leaving? How stupid and careless do you have to be to think that's OK? Or do we just assume that both alcohol and driving are rights, instead of responsibilities?

We have to do something about the idea that drinking and driving are an acceptable combination. Make a choice: either drink and don't drive, or drive, but don't drink. Maybe we need every car to have an ignition lockout as standard equipment. Certainly, we need to change the laws to make first time OWI a criminal offense, like every other state. And we all need to tell our friends, family, and work colleagues, "No" when they want another one, if they are going to drive home.

This has to stop. The price is too high to continue to cave to the Tavern League and the auto industry.

Big roads act as barriers for those not driving

Whenever I hear transportation planners say that they are going to make "improvements" to a road, my first thought is, "improvement for whom?" Something that might make it easier or less congested for drivers on that road might make it much more difficult, or actually impossible for someone to cross that road, especially if that someone is walking or bicycling.

Reminder: School Zone speed limit is 20 mph in Madison

In the last couple of day, there have been a couple of articles reminding us that school is starting and motorists should drive carefully around schools. The Madison Police Dept. put out a press release, so I assume the articles were generated from that. Some also mention that the MPD will be enforcing speed limits and other traffic laws in school zones.

This is good, because everyone using the roads should be aware of kids going to and from school. And the article mention that we should "slow down." They are even starting to mention that motorists (and bicyclists, too) need to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

But something is missing, and it is bugging me that this little fact is left out. Neither the MPD press release nor any of the articles mention that the speed limit in school zones in Madison is 20 mph. It doesn't matter if that yellow sign is on Midvale Blvd, Milwaukee St, E Washington, or Regent St. No matter what the speed limit is at other times, or how fast the rest of the cars are going, when there are children present, the speed limit is 20 mph.

There are two schools on Midvale Blvd, also two schools on Regent St in a one mile stretch. Milwaukee St has several school zones strung together. And East High School, where two students were killed crossing the street, sits right on East Washington. And I have driven at 20 mph through each of these area, with kids present, and had people tailgate me, pass me unsafely on a 2-lane road, and generally been subjected to the treated as if I was trying to be a public menace.

You think you get dirty looks as a bicyclist riding in the middle of traffic? Try driving the speed limit past a school!