Tuesday Afternoon Commute - free kill

I think DDOT is setting up staging for the new Parkside Pedestrian Bridge. At least, that's what it looks like.

• The New Jersey Ave NW Safety improvements presentation is online. The new avenue, under the recommended multi-modal alternative, would include an "innovative" bike lane on the right hand side - to the right of the right turn lane - which cyclists would navigate like a pedestrian. At the New York Avenue intersection there are protected buffers for the bike lane. I've never seen that before, but it does concern me. They call it a "unique Dutch treatment."
• A call for 'strict liability'. "Without laws protecting bikers and walkers, however, the goal of having truly livable cities in America remains out of reach. Legal lines are more important than physical lines. Creating the right laws to govern the interactions among walkers, cyclists and drivers is more effective than painting new stripes for a bike lane....A big step forward is to put the primary responsibility for keeping streets safe on the drivers of the two- and 10-ton vehicles that routinely kill people."
• Bicycle theft isn't treated seriously enough says one bike shop employee. "Also, the police don't understand how a bike could cost as much as $4,000, since most of them are not cyclists and do not understand that cycling is a serious and integral part of our culture The profile of this "thief" is not on their radar. This thief is the one driving the nice van or SUV -- full of bikes -- next to the cop car."

Comments

[SJE]

I am opposed to strict liability as a matter of policy. It makes everyone who kills or injures a criminal, which is unjust, and has the perverse incentives of encouraging a driver to hit and run.

You can make laws more reasonable to pedestrians or cyclists without criminalizing an error (e.g. hitting a ninja cyclist at night). For example, once there has been death, shifting the burden on the driver to prove that he was operating the vehicle in a safe manner, rather than requiring the prosecution to prove negligence.

[charlie]

@SJE; he is talking about civil strict liability, not criminal.

That being said, all you are doing is spreading to cost to every car-owner because of mandatory insurance.

I suspect insurance companies already like to reduce payouts. Of course that isn't how they make money -- they much more like higher premiums to invest.

[SJE]

Charlie: Even civil liability is arguably too far. Strict civil liability might work in the Netherlands, as civil damages are far more contained than in the USA (IIRC). Here, you could be cleaned out, or you would get perverse incentives, such as people hiding assets.

[SJE]

The perverse incentives are that the wealthiest people will have the means to hide their assets or make them partly immune from civil judgement, while your average joe gets cleaned out by a $2million wrongful death suit.

[charlie]

@SJE; a 2 million suit? Try a $100,000 suit.

That being said, I agree with you a strict liability civil standard is not desirable. I also think the deterrent actions are overrated given insurance and the inability to collect on judgements.

[antibozo]

No morning post? (Just checking.)

[JeffB]

I'm ambivalent about penalties assessed on drivers after accidents. To quote an old proverb that's like "closing the barn door after the horse has escaped".

I'd much rather see a stricter enforcement of the laws via ubiquitous red light and speeding cameras. Ditto other aspects of agressive driving that we know are factors in causing accidents.

If we were able to slap a ticket on a bad driver every time they broke the law then they would learn very quickly to operate their vehicles more responsibly.

And the ones that didn't we should man up and pull their licenses for increasing periods of time until they do.

[washcycle]

antibozo, no, there wasn't enough stuff.

[Steve G.]

More on the topic at hand...the design of those bike lanes IS TERRIBLE.

The study calls this a "Dutch" design, but in another section mentions that a signal phase was looked at an eliminated. The Dutch would not use this design without a special signal treatment.

This design is dangerous and asks cyclists to be in the wrong lane--furthering confusion about how to cycle in D.C.

The lanes are designed to slow thru cyclists down so that cars can turn in front of them.

These lanes break all the rules learned in cycling cities across the world and the U.S. Thru lanes go to the left of right turn lanes.

I will NOT ride in these dangerous lanes.

I will take the lane.

[guest]

here's a good video of how the bike lane in that intersection works
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/state-of-the-art-bikeway-design-or-is-it/

[guest]

..or at least how they should work if implemented correctly

[Mike]

The dutch don't have cars whipping to the right around corners without stopping, looking only to the left for oncoming auto traffic. I'm sure that design is very nice for them.

[Jonathan Krall]

Sad to see "strict liability" getting such weak support here. The facts are that a) motor vehicles are the number one cause of death for children over the age of 1 in the US and b) per capita motor vehicle deaths in European countries are 1/3 to 1/4 of the US rate.

Personally, I think it is worth the effort to do a bit of problem solving in order to make strict liability work well. If we could reduce motor-vehicle death rates to European levels, we'd save well over 20,000 lives per year.

[SJE]

Jonathan,
strict liability operates (as a practical matter) in most drug laws, yet it has neither curbed drug use nor reduced harms, but has lead to stuffed prisons and perverse effects on the judiciary. There is now a widespread realization that the current approach doesnt work for drugs. Why should we repeat the same approach for cars?