What should be enforced?

David Alpert started a discussion about the new DDOT enforcement program and what should be enforced (of course, "everything" is the answer, but we live in a world of limited resources that we must focus where they'll do the most good). The question is, what is the "good" we want to do. I'm of the opinion that enforcement should push towards safety. As an engineer I like to go to the data.

I only know the cause of four fatalities in DC. They are (1) cyclist hit by overtaking truck, (2) cyclist hit by truck turning from the wrong lane (3) cyclist on the sidewalk hit by turning truck when back wheel jumped the curb and (4) cyclist riding at night without lights crosses against light (there has been one other fatality in DC since I started the blog, but I don't know any details about it). The truck situation is so serious that a few years ago DDOT put together a safety pamphlet for truck drivers. This isn't very much data.

We do have more data and this comes from DDOT's 2004 report "Bicycle Collisions in the District of Columbia: 2000-2002". The data is based on police reports, which are only written if there is an injury or property damage of more than $1200. Over the six year period from 1997-2002 there were 1627 reported collisions involving a bicyclists and 853 of them were in the 2000-2002 period.

There were 900 identified "contributing factors" in these 853 crashes - of which 268 were the helpful "other." The report does point out that of these 268 "other" causes, 111 are likely to be hit and runs, and in a hit and run it is almost always the car that does the running. Drinking was only a factor in 12 collisions and sleepiness in 12 also. Oddly 4 of the crashes involved a cyclist who was listed as "apparently asleep." How does one bike while asleep? (This does make one wonder how valid this data is).

Cyclists were found to be responsible in 31% of the crashes they were involved in - this includes bicycle/bicycle crashes and bicycle/pedestrian crashes. Drivers were deemed responsible in 26% of the cyclist crashes. I'm not sure if this includes the hit and run incidents. I'd like to see who was more at fault in bicycle/motor vehicle crashes. This also includes 10 crashes between bicycles and police vehicles. I wonder who was found guilty in those?

In those 266 times that cyclists were found at fault here are the top reasons:

70 - Failure to yield the right of way to a driver
41 - Cyclist inattention
24 - Stop/Go Light (I assume running)
18 - Improper passing
18/15 - Wrong way riding on a two way street/Wrong way on a one way street
14 - Speeding (Not sure if it means actually exceeding the speed limit or if the reporting officer thought they were going too fast)
12 - Stop Sign (again running)
10 - Failure to yield to a pedestrian or bicycle
9/7 - Defective Brakes/Other defects
7 - Following too close

Let's turn to drivers.

54 - Driver inattention
37 - Failure to yield to a bicycle
28 - opening a door to traffic
26 - Making an improper turn
12 - Stop/Go light
11 - Following too close
11 - Changing lanes without caution
9 - Speeding
6 - Improper backing
6 - Stop sign

If we go to the national figures we get more guidance. Some similar factors in top cyclist-caused accidents are (not in order)

1) Making a left turn from the wrong lane
2) Cyclist failing to yield
3) Wrong way cycling/Making a right turn from the wrong lane
4) Cyclist not visible

And for drivers

1) Failure to overtake safely - by far the largest where fault can be assigned
2) Motorist runs light or stop sign
3) Motorist turns into cyclist

I don't think the national stats include anything on speeding - though they do note that most fatal accidents occur on roads with high speed limits.

From this, I think we can make some decisions about what should be enforced to encourage safety.

For cyclists it would be making a turn from the wrong lane, failing to yield the right of way, wrong way cycling and not having a front light and/or rear reflector.

For drivers it would be failure to pass with the proper passing distance (3 feet), running stop lights/signs and turning from the wrong lane (which would be the bike lane and not turning from the bike lane when one is present). More speeding enforcement would be great too.

Having said that if you want to be contrary, you could ask this:

If cyclists are only involved in an average 270 collisions per year - almost all of them involving a motor vehicle, and pedestrians are involved in an average of 690 collisions a year - almost all of them involving a motor vehicle, and those are but a small portion of the nearly 13,000 collisions per year in DC - most of which are motor vehicle/motor vehicle, on which class of users should an enforcement campaign, with the goal of safety, focus?

[I do recognize that bike and ped involved collisions are probably much more under reported than car/car collisions]

Of course, if you think enforcement should serve goals other than - or in addition to - safety, that's fine too. Keeping people from blocking the box, for example, is about preventing gridlock. You could prefer enforcement that reduces congestion. This would be directed at jaywalking, blocking the box, double parking, illegal parking etc...but not really cyclists so much (at least, nothing I can think of - certainly cyclists using the sidewalks are also guilty of jaywalking at times)

Or you could prefer enforcement that raises revenue - in which case red light and speeding cameras are the way to go.

Comments

[guez]

I understand the argument that enforcement should be targeted where the need, statistically, is the greatest, and that would be cars. Cars are also the overwhelming majority of vehicles on the road.

But there are also benefits, including safety benefits, to an enforcement scheme that occasionally targets pedestrians and cyclists. The primary benefit is political, not in a cynical, but in a more profound way: *everyone* is reminded that they are citizens and are bound to follow the law. And a culture of lawfulness tends to benefit minorities (such as cyclists). If we understand enforcement in these terms, as addressing lawful/unlawful behavior (rather as solely targeting statistical risk), there is also a potential benefit to safety. (I know that no one on this blog buys this argument, but if you travel to other countries, you will note that drivers are more or less respectful of other vehicles, often independently of the legal penalties attached to infractions. This is *cultural* phenomenon, and culture can be changed.)

So, no, not everything should be enforced. But the law, and lawfulness, does matter.

[Washcycle]

That's a good point. If you feel that unlawful behavior is a risk in its own right, then you'd be interested in going after the most frequently broken laws. Probably red light and stop sign violations for cyclists and speeding for drivers.

[chiggins]

For drivers it would be failure to pass with the proper passing distance (3 feet), running stop lights/signs and turning from the wrong lane (which would be the bike lane when one is present).

Okay, so are you saying that moving into the bike lane at the intersection to make a (I'm assuming) right turn is "the wrong lane", or that not using the portion of the bike lane with the broken line is turning from the wrong lane?

This is, in my opinion, the worst part about the design of DC's bike lanes (I mean other than the fact that we've been pushed into the door zone). My understanding of how they're supposed to work is that someone making a turn across the bike lane is supposed to occupy the bike lane at the broken line, and that it's supposed to be that way to avoid right hooks. But I've also seen people in that spot, waiting for cross traffic to open up, and in the meantime getting yelled at for sitting in the bike lane despite that fact that they're in the right spot.

I try to keep up with these things since I'm almost always on a bike and my safety depends on it, and I thought I was pretty clear on this. But now I'm not sure. And if I'm not sure, it's my guess that most motorists are just doing whatever seems like the right thing to them.

The system of guidelines on bike lanes are, in my opinion, a total fail.

[Washcycle]

Not using the portion of the bike lane with the broken line is turning from the wrong lane.

Is the situation you're describing one where a cyclist is waiting at a red light and a driver wants to make a right turn on red, but can not because the cyclist is in the turning lane/bike lane, or is it a car waiting to make a right turn in the turning/bike lane? In either case, the person sitting in the bike lane is doing the right thing and the person yelling is wrong.

It's easier to think of the bike lane as a limited access lane. It is limited to: bikes (and mopeds and segways), right turning vehicles of all kind, cars that are parallel parking, and vehicles that are legally stopped for loading and unloading (the law proposed last year that would have made stopping in the bike lane illegal didn't pass).

[ibc]

Probably red light and stop sign violations for cyclists and speeding for drivers.

Okay, as an "scofflaw cyclist" (roll stop signs w/ no traffic; stop, look, and run red lights) I'll sign on for the stepped-up bike enforcement when we see MPD implement zero-tolerance towards speeders.

Any vehicle exceeding the posted speed limit by more than, say, 1 mph, will be pulled over by DC police officers. Right?

Looking forward to lots of responses that are some combination of "Everybody should follow the laws!" from the cyclists, and "Don't be ridiculous! One MPH! Snort!" from the drivers.

[Eric_W.]

"Everybody should follow the laws!"

"Don't be ridiculous! One MPH! Snort!"

:-D

[chiggins]

Okay, that's what I thought, so this portion of the sentence had me confused:

...and turning from the wrong lane (which would be the bike lane when one is present).

So does that mean, wrt the report, that "turning from the wrong lane" meant that they were turning from the non-bike-lane portion of the street, or that the motorist was turning from the bike lane?

Oh, the example situation was one where I came up to a red light on Q at 14th, headed east, and there was a motorist in the broken-line portion of the bike lane waiting to turn right on a red. A cyclist was yelling at him that he was in a bike lane and shouldn't be making a right turn from there.

The thing is, the motorist was clearly pretty confused since the the cyclist sounded like he knew what he was talking about, and it was plausible. For a second, I had to double check my own understanding of how it's supposed to work. It's just not very clear.

[Washcycle]

Chiggins, sorry about that. I need a full time editor. That was my mistake and I'll fix it.

I meant turning from the non-bike lane portion but it doesn't sound that way.

[chiggins]

Heh, but, it too was plausible :)