TheWashCycle

More evidence that the Idaho Stop is safer

Someone sent me some links to other studies of the Idaho Stop. Like the oft-cited Meggs study, both seem to indicate that the Idaho Stop law is either safer or, at least, no less safe. 

The Idaho Stop Law and the Severity of Bicycle Crashes: A Comparative Study; Brandon Whyte.

This study found that crashes at stop-light controlled intersections were more severe in Urbana-Illinois than in Boise, Idaho. 

While no significant difference in proportion of crashes exists at intersections verses midblock between the cities, there were differences in the severity of crashes overall. Champaign/Urbana held a 54 percent level of Type B crashes and a 24 percent level of Type C crashes. This compared to Boise’s more balanced 45 percent and 40 percent respectively. 

Type B crashes are more severe than Type C crashes.

It is possible that cyclists in Boise are more accustomed to judging the traffic conditions that are safe for crossing. They may be more likely to use caution when crossing a signalized intersection, while their counterparts in Illinois, who are required to stop and wait at all controlled intersections, are not as skilled at judging a safe traffic crossing, thus resulting in a proportionately higher level of severity and one statistically different than in Boise.

Another plausible explanation for these findings is that drivers are more likely to expect cyclists crossing at controlled intersections when the driver has the right of way. Thus, motorists may in fact be more likely to slow down and avoid a crash or greatly decrease the severity of crash.

Bicyclists’ Stopping Behaviors: An Observational Study of Bicyclists’ Patterns and Practices; Catherine Marie Caverly Silva

This is not a study of the Idaho Stop, per se, but it does have a lot of information about it. In addition it studies non-compliance by cyclists at stop signs in Seattle, noting that this is similar to compliance elsewhere.

Results from this study find that approximately 55% of all bicyclists used rolling stops and/or track stands, 25% failing to stop and only 19% coming to a complete stop. Despite this high degree of non-compliance with the stopping law, no reliable evidence was found exhibiting decreased safety resulting from the use of rolling stops by bicyclists at stop signs.

No accidents or near-incidences were observed during the pilot study, which indicates that this significant non-compliance at two-way stops, two-way yields may not be an exceptionally important issue

Other interesting findings

curbside parking, after crossing an intersection, actually inspires more obedient stopping behaviors for bicyclists

a significant relationship between not turning left and not stopping at the stop sign. These findings are not surprising, as it is logical that left turning bicyclists will stop more often, as they need to yield to more lanes of traffic than do bicyclists turning right or traveling straight.

Descriptively and with a consideration for the limited validity of this qualitative variable, these results support the theoretical assertion that bicyclists are capable of making safe decisions regarding rolling stop.

Update: I'd like to see this second study repeated in Boise. Is compliance in Boise different than in Seattle (and New York City, which this study says is similar)? If compliance is the same, it implies that the law and enforcement does little to nothing to change behavior, so the argument for one law or the other is about optics, politics and the "hardship" of enforcement. If compliance is lower in Boise, then that means we need to do more to study whether or not it is safer. If, counter-intuitively, compliance is higher, then we should still study the safety difference but also need to check our assumptions. In all cases, of course, some confounding variable could be the cause of the difference, but that would be more likely in the latter scenario. 

Don't take your folding bike on Delta

Not unless you have $150 you never want to see again.

 

.@Delta understands my frustration, reiterates their folding bike policy, offers nothing but regards. pic.twitter.com/2m3KkSFLr2

— Darren B (@bikepedantic) December 16, 2015

Bowser Administration Releases “Vision Zero” Action Plan

Press release:

This morning, Mayor Muriel Bowser was joined by Department of Transportation (DDOT) Director Leif Dormsjo, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and other city officials to release the “Vision Zero” Action Plan – the District’s s plan to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries to people walkers, bikers and drivers by 2024. 

“Vision Zero is our strategic roadmap to eliminate fatalities and injuries on District streets by 2024,” said Mayor Bowser. “But this is just the first step. Now that we have a smart plan, we will make the necessary changes to our street network so that residents, workers and visitors can safely navigate our great city.”

The Vision Zero Action Plan is the result of an extensive planning process involving 30 government agencies, community groups and residents.  The plan places a high priority on making safety improvements and refining how the city monitors and addresses hazardous street conditions.  During the planning process, residents reported more than 4,500 hazardous locations.  Those sites can now be mapped along with historical crash data to inform the District’s engineering, education, and enforcement efforts. 

“Protecting vulnerable travelers through speed reduction is a strong theme through our Action Plan,” said DDOT Director Leif Dormsjo. “Through extensive public outreach and collaboration, we are taking our first step towards realizing a ‘Vision Zero’ where no lives are lost on our streets or at our intersections. Together, we will make the District a safer place to live and travel through.” 

Widespread public feedback has confirmed some of the root causes of severe traffic crashes in the District. 45 percent of residents surveyed knew someone who had been killed or seriously injured in a crash. Across all eight wards, residents also advised that their primary concerns are speeding drivers, distracted drivers, and people ignoring traffic signals.

The Action Plan was released at 10th and Maryland Avenue NE, where earlier this year DDOT installed a new traffic signal and other safety features to help families cross the street to access School Within School, a DCPS public school.

From the beginning of this year through December 10^th, 24 people have lost their lives in traffic crashes. The Action Plan outlines the strategies, timeframes, and agencies responsible for implementing programs to improve traffic safety regardless of where or how travelers move throughout the District. The plan serves as the playbook for the first years of the initiative and incorporates legislative and regulatory proposals already released by the Administration.

The District joins a growing list of U.S. cities that have formally committed to goal of zero traffic fatalities, as well as over 230 other communities that have signed onto the U.S. Secretary of Transportation’sMayors’ Challenge for Safer People and Safer Streets. The initiative aims to improve pedestrian and bicycle transportation safety by showcasing effective local actions, empowering local leaders to take action, and promoting partnerships to advance pedestrian and bicycle safety. 

Tim Holden's Final Ride

Tim Holden, a former Navy Seal and father of five, was killed during an August bike ride when he was struck from behind by a driver who fell asleep at the wheel. 

On Friday December 18th, he and his family will gather at Gawler's funeral home on Wisconsin Ave NW for his final ride to Arlington Cemetery where he will be buried with full military honors at 0900. With his family's blessing, you're invited to join in a bike escort of his motorcade from Gawler's to Arlington Cemetery that morning.

Plan Options (PLEASE, NO BIKES AT GAWLER'S):

Option 1 Cyclists Meet Up @ Bethesda Pool:

0645: Meet at Bethesda Pool (6300 Little Falls Parkway Bethesda MD 20816); there is free parking at the lot as well as at the lot for the park just N on Little Falls
0700: Depart Bethesda Pool down Capital Crescent Trail (CCT) to Georgetown
0730: Arrive N of Lincoln Memorial along Potomac River
0745: Procession arrives 
0805: Depart for Arlington Cemetery with Holden motorcade
0815: Arrive Arlington Cemetery
0900: Ceremony
At will: Return up CCT back to Bethesda Pool

Option 2 Cyclists Meet Up just N of Lincoln Memorial (if coming from VA or in case riding from/to Bethesda inconvenient):

0730: Cyclists arrive N of Lincoln Memorial along Potomac River (next to sand volleyball courts on The Mall; there is 3 hr free street parking)
0745: Procession arrives 
0805: Depart for Arlington Cemetery with Holden motorcade across Memorial Bridge
0815: Arrive Arlington Cemetery

0900: Ceremony

Holden's family welcomes our respectful attendance at the ceremony at Arlington. If you haven't attended before, an Arlington burial with full military honors is unforgettable. Arlington is making an exception for us and bike's are permitted on the grounds.

Rockville cyclist killed in collision with car

Samuel Vigil, 37, of Rockville died after a crash with a motor vehicle on Saturday evening.

Police said the preliminary investigation indicates that the bicyclist, identified as Samuel Vigil, 37, of Rockville, was traveling south, in the area of the crosswalk, across the westbound lanes of East Gude Drive. Police said a black 2004 Lexus RX330, was traveling west on East Gude Drive when the bicycle Vigil was pedaling struck the Lexus while Vigil was crossing in the traffic lanes. Police said the investigation indicates that Vigil was facing a red signal and was crossing against the pedestrian indicator. Vigil was transported to Suburban Hospital in critical condition with life-threatening injuries. Police said he died from his injuries on Sunday evening.

Several things about the Idaho Stop provision in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act

Last week DC's Committee on Transportation and the Environment held a hearing on several traffic safety bills, including the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act. One small part of that bill was a provision allowing cyclists to treat stop signs and steady red lights as yield signs. Of course if you watched or read media coverage of this, you might think it was the main change being proposed, or that it was a particularly controversial proposal. Neither is true.

The "stop-as-yield" provision of the 2015 Safety Act is a small part of the bills discussed. The bill is 19 pages long, and this provision is less than one page of it. It's not nearly as important as the complete streets provisions or the mandating of side-under run guards on all District-registered trucks, but it is the "telegenic" part since it allows news reporters - especially TV news reporters - to say "Whaaaat? Let cyclists run stop signs??"

It's also not that controversial - The provision came out of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Working Group, where it originally was approved with only token opposition, but then after the draft report came MPD expressed reservations about it (though Co-chair John Townsend disagrees with this, and says consensus was never reached). The "opposition" was limited to:

1. Wayne McOwen, executive director of the District of Columbia Insurance Federation when speaking for DCIF said only that they wanted to see it coupled with an education effort. But later when, coincidentally, the subject came up during the panel he was on, he said - speaking for himself - that he had concerns about it. That was it. He didn't show up to testify against it, and would not have had it not come up. Nonetheless, Mr. McOwen's testimony was widely covered by the media in part because he was on the first panel and, other than Martin DiCaro, the media had largely left before the hearing was over and MPD spoke against it.
2. AAA never said that they opposed it or were even concerned about it. Townsend, in his role as the Working Group co-chair, noted that MPD was "diametrically opposed to it" and gave MPDs reasons in an effort to clear up what he saw as an inconsistency in that this provision was in the bill even though it was not approved in the final report (the bill was based on the draft report). 
3. The main opposition to the provision came from MPD. They took the position that it was not about safety and was a matter convenience, and that "in fact, in a highly populated setting, this could lead to more bicyclist and more pedestrian injuries by them not stopping at stop signs and red lights" because it would confusing to motorists and other users when taking into consideration young and inexperienced riders.
4. When asked, Leif Dormsjo, said that having two sets of traffic rules for different users is problematic and that he obeys all the laws of the road. Which isn't really a statement against it.

MPD's opposition either isn't relevant or isn't based on any facts.

First of all, during the working group meetings and during the hearings it was repeatedly stated by others that MPD represented experts on traffic safety. No offense to MPD, but I'm not sure that this is true. They're experts on enforcement, and probably have a great deal of relevant field knowledge about safety, but I would not call them experts. DDOT is the experts, and within the working group they supported it. 

The criticism that it is only about making cycling more convenient was relevant on the working group, when we were charged with creating recommendations for ways to make DC roads safer and thus eliminated anything that wouldn't. But Council is not so limited. So, if this only makes cycling more efficient, and I believe that it is more than that, and it has no negative impacts, Council should still support it anyway, since making a more efficient transportation system is something they should support. This unsupported point, thus, is irrelevant. 

As to the safety concern, when pressed by CM Elissa Silverman, Assistant Police Chief Lamar Greene said that he thought it was safer when all road users obey DC laws and regulations. His argument was, then, that the law shouldn't change because it's safer when everyone follows the law. But, of course, if this bill passed as is, then the laws and regulations would change so that cyclists who roll through stop signs when no one else has the right-of-way would be following the law. 

When Silverman (who clearly supports stop-as-yield) asked him what his belief that the "stop-as-yield" change would lead to more crashes was based on and what evidence he had, he offered none but said that some of his colleagues had talked to some in law enforcement in Idaho and that they had shared his concerns. That was it. 

And just to respond to Wayne McOwen's criticism "“We teach our children when the light is red we stop. We teach them when they see a sign that says stop to stop. We teach them to look both ways before they cross the street. We teach them to cross at the crosswalk.  Now we are beginning to say follow those rules except if there’s no one around, you can run across the street anyway" Well, yeah. The only way if no one is coming is if they looked both ways. Basically stop-as-yield is how pedestrians already treat stop signs, since they aren't required to stop unless someone else has the right-of-way. I don't see where the problem is.

There are reasons to believe that it does make cycling safer.

Authorities in Idaho have conservatively said that they have perceived, at minimum, no impact on the number of crashes, injuries or deaths since the law was passed. Furthermore, the only study done showed that bike crashes dropped by 13% following introduction of the law. 

Determining why it makes things safer is somewhat more difficult, but there are several possible reasons. It could be that it makes riding on slower streets, with more stop signs, more appealing since cyclists can travel at a faster average speed, thereby getting them out of harms way. It could be that the safety-in-numbers effect comes into play once biking is more convenient and more people bike. It could be because bikes, unlike cars, are inherently instable at slow speeds and so forcing cyclists to slow to a stop and then restart creates wobbly cyclists at the most dangerous part of the road - intersections. Or that the Idaho Stop at red lights allows cyclists to get in front of traffic, the same way that bike boxes and Pedestrian Leading Interval lights do, where they're more easily seen. Or a combination of these, or something else.

Knowing how it works might be hard to tease out. But aspirin was developed in the late 19th century and had been used for nearly 80 years before researches figured out how it works, so maybe knowing how something works isn't as important as knowing whether or not it does. [I also use this analogy when talking about distracted driving. We may not know WHY talking on the phone is more distracting then talking to someone else in the car, but there is a lot of research indicating that it is nonetheless. So we'd be wise to not wait to figure out why.]

One more bike-relevant rendering of DC Water's new HQO

Biz Journal has a couple of new renderings of DC Water's new Headquarters, or as I'm calling it the "HQO." Only one of them shows anything bike relevant, and that is a shot down the extended Potomac Avenue, with it's wide sidewalks and green space adjacent to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail.

Bike lanes could be added along east and west sides of Lincoln, but not a contraflow lane

In October, DDOT presented to ANC-6A a plan to add bike lanes to the east and west sides (11th and 13th Streets SE) of Lincoln Park as well as a a contraflow lane to the 100 block of 11th Street NE  (11th Street is one-way on this block, but goes in both directions north of it and south of the park). Lincoln park already has bike lanes along the the north and south sides (East Capital Street), so these would compliment those. The ANC opposed the contra-flow lane, and after discussion, DDOT agreed to instead install a standard bike lane in the direction of traffic on that block and this design was approved by the ANC.

With ANC approval, bike lanes installation should begin soon.

We've got a giant hole in the highway trust fund - let's blame bike trails.

In a recent report on government waste called "Federal Fumbles", Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma identifies "Federal Bike Trails" on his list of programs he believes are wasting American tax dollars. Actually the report is not just "examples of wasteful spending, but also federal departments or agencies that regulate outside the scope of the federal government’s constitutional role," and it seems the bike trails - actually the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) - falls more in the latter category according to Lankford.

It's an extensive list and while there are certainly some good examples of waste and over-regulation in there, TAP isn't one of them.

Lankford starts out by describing how the gas tax is used to fund the federal Highway Trust Fund.

This system allows individuals who use the roads and bridges to pay for them to be in good condition without charging those who do not use them. Or at least that is how user fee systems work in theory.

But it doesn't because the gasoline tax hasn't kept up with the rate of inflation and now taxpayers subsidize about 50% of it. So surely that's the problem Lankford latched on to and he's going to call for an increase in the gas tax, which everyone but people who run for office seems to know we need to do, right?

Instead the federally collected dollars in the highway trust fund are used to fund bike paths, scenic viewing areas, and the conversion of abandoned railroad routes into pedestrian paths, all while roads in many states continue to deteriorate.

Money is diverted to these other non-highway uses, that's true, but even if all diverted money (and most of that is transit) were allocated to roads, it wouldn't fix the problem Lankford is trying to solve - that people who don't use roads and bridges are having to pay for them. 

This is all happening because DOT requires states to spend about two percent of their highway funding on a program called Transportation Alternatives—infrastructure for non-motorized and non-gas tax contributing transportation infrastructure.

Yes. DOT requires them to do this - because Congress told them to, in bills that passed with wide majorities. 

Without these federal requirements, states could be empowered to take on more multi-year, significant projects that help shorten the commutes of thousands of people and ease the movement of goods through the vast economy

TAP projects aren't "significant" perhaps but they do help to shorten the commute of thousands of people and ease the movement of goods. For example, the two projects in DC that got the most TAP funding over 2013 and 2014 were the removal of hazardous trees along roadways and enhancements to the pedestrian walkway on the Bus Deck level of the Union Station Parking Garage. TAP money also paid to widen and repave the trail from the 14th St. Bridge to E.Basin Drive. Those are things that ease people's commutes, and by reducing congestion, ease the movement of goods.

Over the past few years, the highway trust fund has needed an influx of general revenue funding to continue to pay for road projects that are authorized under the law. However, the federal government can implement small changes to make it easier for states to patch potholes and build bridges.

Again, when there is a 50% hole in the budget, the 2% that goes to TAP isn't going to fix that. And fixing potholes, while a good idea and better than building new billion-dollar elevated highway through Oklahoma City, isn't exactly a "mutli-year, significant project."

Not requiring them to use highway money meant for roads to build bike paths would be a start.

That money is meant to build bike paths (or at least something allowed by TAP), and the reason why is that Congress said so. Is there some higher power than Congress that dictated that highway trust fund money had to go to roads? Was it Moses? This is not a moral outrage or a failure to follow rules; it's a decision with which Lankford disagrees.

The next step is to stop the constant expansion of the federal highway inventory. More miles of road are added each year to the interstate system; the U.S. cannot continue to expand the federal footprint with the same amount of money.

If only there were some way to get more money for roads...some way. Though Lankford is right that highway mile expansion needs to slow down, and possibly even reverse, if the system is to be sustainable.  

Perhaps there is an argument to be made that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of telling states how to spend their federal transportation dollars. I've heard them before and I think they're flawed, but Lankford doesn't make one here.

But even so, it's not clear that states would choose to do things much differently. Under current law, a state may transfer up to 50% of its TAP funds* to NHPP, STP, HSIP, CMAQ, and/or Metropolitan Planning - and most of those programs will allow the money to spent directly on roads. Despite this "just 10 percent of TAP funds have been transferred" in prior years. Clearly state DOT's see value in the projects that TAP funds are paying for.

One last point - not all TAP money (or even a majority of it) is spent on "federal bike trails." We're literally talking about a fraction of a percent of the highway trust fund. Oklahoma, for example, only puts 52% of it's TAP money towards Bike/Ped facilities and Rail Trails - and not even all of that is "trails," which are also used by pedestrians. The project that got the largest amount of funding in 201, for example, was the downtown Main Street Improvement Project. 

*The amount transferred must come from the portion of TAP funds available for use anywhere in the State (no transfers of suballocated TAP funds, or funds set aside for the RTP).

WC: This article has been updated because I originally included the following in reference to Oklahoma, but it's actually Ohio. "for example, is using it's money for a wide variety of uses - one of the largest of which is to help pay to replace the three-lane Mt Vernon Avenue Bridge over the Kokosing River (which will include a bike path)."

DC Council committee to consider three pieces of bike-related legislation today

From a WABA release:

On Tuesday, December 8th, the DC Council’s Committee on Transportation and the Environment will consider three pieces of bike legislation. Together, these bills include a host of safety improvements and policies that will make DC streets safer and friendlier for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers alike.

What does that mean specifically? Here’s a taste:

• Harsher penalties for distracted and drunk driving;
• Prioritization of heavy use bicycle / pedestrian areas to expedite safety upgrades where they are needed most urgently;
• Improved crash reporting and accessibility to data to inform safety improvements.

To learn more about the bills, read our detailed analysis here.

Over the past year, we’ve worked hard to bring these bills to the table. Now we need you to show your Councilmembers on the transportation committee that you support these bills and the bold vision they represent. Here are two ways you can help:

1. Testify in person at the Public Hearing next Tuesday, Dec 8th, 11:00 am

If you believe in Vision Zero and share our excitement for a more bike friendly city, join us at the hearing to tell your story. Public hearings are the best time to show our lawmakers the impact that bike friendly laws can have on our lives.

Want to testify? We’re here to help. First, email abenjamin@dccouncil.us or call (202) 724-8062 to get a place on the speaker’s list. Then, tell us you are coming with an email toadvocacy@waba.org. We’ll have talking points, resources, and staff available to help you write and deliver your testimony. Stop by the WABA office on Monday, Dec 7, between 4 pm and 7 pm for help with testimony or call 202-518-0524 x 212.

2. If you cannot testify, submit written comments in support of the bills

We’ve prepared a template, but feel free to personalize it. Personal stories are great, and resolute support is helpful too! Please take a few minutes to submit comments here.