If you haven't already, it's time to cancel your AAA membership

AAA is fighting the Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act that will end contributory negligence for cyclists and pedestrians on the grounds that it will raise insurance rates (which is what one would expect when drivers are required to reimburse cyclists and pedestrians for crashes in which the driver was primarily responsible).

AAA would like to keep insurance rates low by making non-motorized victims of motor vehicle crashes pay for their own surgeries and physical therapy. Why should drivers have to pay for the hips they crush through distracted driving, they figuratively ask?  

They claim that insurance rates could go up by 24.4% - according to a study done by the Insurance Industry. [Here's my bet that it won't go up by anything near that amount]. But if that's true, then drivers are walking away from a lot of shattered tibias and traumatic brain injuries, that they have primarily caused, without the inconvenience of paying for them. It is a sweet set-up, and AAA, which is just looking out for drivers, doesn't want them to have to stop putting Moms in the hospital. 

But they're all about safety.

Here's Jon Townsend's email - [email protected] - just in case.

Comments

[83b]

I genuinely do not understand how Jon Townsend continues to have a job.

[caphillKeith]

I quit them a long time ago. Seeing them at bike to work day turned my stomach.

[fongfong]

The email was posted to the Chevy Chase listserv by a concerned citizen. Here was my reply:

AAA Is Lying In Its Email

This is plain and simple untrue. AAA is lying about the impact of this act.

What AAA is not lying about though is the fact that drivers in DC regularly maim and kill cyclists and are able to escape with no legal liability if it is determined the cyclist is even 1% responsible for a crash. This is completely different than if two cars collide, where negligence percentages will be decided by a court or the insurance company. All this bill would do is hold auto drivers to the same standard when they collide with cyclists.

The vast majority of collisions are between cars and cars, so to argue that insurance rates will shoot up simply because cyclist will now have the same rights as drivers is absurd on its face. For this to be true, it would mean that most DC drivers are running over cyclists with impunity every day in proportions far above car collisions. If that is AAA's position, this makes it even more imperative that drivers take more care in their driving, and this is precisely the type of law that is needed to make that happen.

AAA wants things both ways. First, they strenuously opposed permitting cyclists to use Stop signs as Yield signs, complaining that we cannot treat cyclists differently than cars. But when it comes to treating cars the same as cyclists as it involves negligence laws, AAA want no part of that.

I would say to AAA that it is time for a new leadership when you can't even get a coherent message out into the public domain.

Steve Seelig

[SJE]

We are AAA, and we will fight for your right to drive over cyclists. Its like the reaction to the civil rights movement: if we start treating THOSE people differently, we won't be able to do whatever we damn well please. Next, they will be President.

[JorgeGortex]

My letter sent just now:

#####

Mr. Townsend,

I have been a member of AAA since I first became a driver at 16 years old. Now at 46 I've counted on AAA's services and advocacy for safety on our roads throughout, and am now appalled at the stance being taken against the Motor Vehicle Recover Act. You see, not only am I a driver, but also an avid cyclist, and proponent of walkable communities. Since the 1950's the emphasis in our country has been the automobile, but as times and priorities change, so must our perspectives. In an age when too many people are more concerned about only what is important to them, our roads have become more dangerous. The most vulnerable individuals: pedestrians and cyclists, are treated like cones on a slalom course instead of the human beings they are. Accidents and the resulting Injuries to both are becoming more frequent, and those injuries cannot and should not be brushed aside by our police, governments, or the AAA.

When a pedestrian or cyclists is involved in an accident with a distracted driver or one in a hurry, they are dealing not with another person, but with thousands of pounds of medal and kinetic energy. The person is going to lose every time, and the time they lose is significant. They lose time to recovery to mend broken bones, disabilities, their jobs, their children, our maybe their life entirely. There will always be accidents, but drivers, with the large responsibility they have using a motor vehicle need to he held accountable. Injured pedestrians and cyclists deserve remuneration and support equal too (at the very least) that of a driver who is involved in an accident. A raise in my insurance rates doesn't even compare to the years of suffering a pedestrian or cyclist contends with in an accident with a motor vehicle. To compare the two is absurd.

I strongly urge you to support the measures being proposed instead of opposing them. Our society and how we live is changing and adapting, and its high time the leadership at the AAA does as well. It is in the best interest of our society, people... your and my children.

Sincerely,

[Sam & Diane Glasgow]

Yes we have AAA and we will strongly consider canceling it, if AAA doesn't support this bill.
Please keep us in touch.
Sam and Diane Glasgow

[MoCo]

Meh - they're great when you need them on the road, and the AAA discounts can be significant, particularly at hotels. I'm a cyclist and driver, and being nonpartisan, I understand that both groups routinely advocate for unreasonable policies. There are things an auto-centric constituency wants that I don't agree with (like this issue), and there are things that cyclists advocate that I think are unreasonable (demanding the right to "take the lane" when keeping to the right and three-foot passage laws accomplish the same thing without inconveniencing the vast majority who don't commute by bike).

[Jeffb]

I'd bet that Vast majority of people who join AAA do so for their emergency road services and other benefits and not for their advocacy (assuming they are even aware they do that).

@MoCo
Some states have laws that require cyclists to keep to the far right even on roads that are far to narrow or in situations where it is unsafe for a car to pass. This endangers both the cyclist and the motorist.

I think it is better in these cases to not have this requirement so as to not "invite" a dangerous passing attempt.

[MoCo]

@Jeffb

Why is it that the cycling community always has a rebuttal, no matter how hypothetical, unlikely, irrational, or just plain absurd? I am a native Washingtonian, and I have been ridding in and around the city for 40 years. I have never found myself on a road that was "too narrow" for a car to pass a cyclist. The only roads that are too narrow to accommodate both a car and a two-foot wide bike rider are known as "bike paths."

The "Idaho Stop" is another. As a cyclist who regularly blows through stop signs, it's patently obvious to me and everyone else who runs signs that the Idaho Stop has nothing to do with safety ("I might fall over if I have to come to a complete stop!" Oh yeah? Then how do you ever safely dismount?), and everything to do with convenience.

And then there is the opposition to helmet laws. Again, as a cyclist, I never wear one, even though I know I should (I had a wreck two weeks ago after being hit head-on by a jackass trying to overtake a jogger on a blind corner on the MVT - 99 times out of 100 I should have cracked my head open, but because I went head first backwards into a bush instead of the tree that was six inches to the right, I walked away), and to claim that they serve no purpose and offer no protection is not only silly, it's factually inaccurate. And yet nearly every bike "advocate" (including David Cranor) rails against any attempt to establish a law requiring helmets. It's those sorts of unreasonable positions that give the community a bad name, and rightly so.

The auto lobby certainly promotes illogical and sometimes dangerous policies, but we in the cycling community definitely give them a run for their money. So yeah, I'm not going to be canceling my AAA membership.

[Joe]

MoCo, the 3 foot law is has been water down to the point of being worthless. It's only enforceable when the lane is 14 feet wide. If the lane is less than 14 feet a driver can legally just give the cyclist a few inches.

[jeffB]

Why is it that the cycling community always has a rebuttal

Perhaps it is because when you are a engaging in an activity that most don't participate in (and thus don't experience and understand) in an environment where little thought has been given to your needs you have to speak just a little louder to be heard.

I have been ridding in and around the city for 40 years. I have never found myself on a road that was "too narrow" for a car to pass a cyclist.

In the judgement of existing DC law almost every traffic lane in DC is technically too narrow for a car to safely pass a cyclist while still remaining wholly in the same lane

So motorists should,at least partially, change lanes when passing.

The "Idaho Stop" is another. As a cyclist who regularly blows through stop signs, it's patently obvious to me and everyone else who runs signs that the Idaho Stop has nothing to do with safety

An "Idaho Stop" is not the same thing as "blowing a stop" and we should stop equating the two.

I agree that the desire of cyclists to not completely stop at intersections is driven by convenience. Hell, most other traffic fails to come to a compete stop at the same intersections as well.

Still there have been a few studies that have suggested that an Idaho stop could be safer. Are these studies the last word? Probably not. I think any attempt at studying human behavior is subject to poor design and misinterpretation.

But the more important point is that an Idaho stop doesn't appear to be more dangerous. Many of us intuitively know that already since we've been doing it for "40 years".

If most cyclists are not coming to a complete stop at intersections when not warranted anyway and its not resulting in increased danger to themselves or others then we should align the law with people's practice.

Doing so allows us to define what an Idaho stop is (the term being something that probably 95% of cyclists have never heard of) and safety organizations to teach what it is and is not.

It also facilitates targeted enforcement of those practices that are truly not safe i.e., blowing a stop.

Now on to helmets ...
And then there is the opposition to helmet laws. ...
to claim that they serve no purpose and offer no protection is not only silly, it's factually inaccurate. And yet nearly every bike "advocate" (including David Cranor) rails against any attempt to establish a law requiring helmets.

You're right there is opposition against mandatory helmet laws. But I don't think anyone has ever maintained that helmets don't serve any purpose or offer no protection.

DC has posted about that the benefits of wearing a helmet in a crash rests upon just a few studies and these shouldn't be taken as the final, absolute word.

I believe that helmets offer protection against superficial injuries and skull fractures. I'm uncertain how well they protect against concussions and other traumatic brain injuries.

For many years I was a helmet "nazi". Lately I've taken to not wearing one and find cycling much more enjoyable. I have a "hot head" and any helmet quickly causes me to steam over :(.

I also think I ride a bit more defensively without one so maybe a net safety gain?

As far as policy - we know that mandating helmet use decreases cycling numbers while encouraging cycling, to increase numbers, has a positive impact on safety.

It's those sorts of unreasonable positions that give the community a bad name, and rightly so.
Honestly debating subjects should not give anyone a bad name. Its only when one offers counter factual opinions that my esteem waivers.

[MoCo]

@JeffB

I think a modified Idaho Stop makes sense, and I agree that there should be discussion as to what exactly an Idaho Stop should looks like and where it should apply. I pointed it out as an example of the cycling community steadfastly refusing to honestly acknowledge why it's advocating a particular position. When that happens, what could be a constructive discussion about policy becomes an entrenched battle simply because everyone knows the proffered reason for it - that it is somehow dangerous for a cyclist to come to a complete stop because they will fall down - is absurd.

The mandatory helmet debate is a similar example of the cycling community offering disingenuous reasons to obscure true motives. Helmets have utility. Should we force people to wear them? I don't know, but to argue that a helmet law is unnecessary because helmets don't prevent every possible injury is yet another absurdity that flies in the face of common sense. As you pointed out, the real reason the cycling community opposes them is that they dissuade people from riding bikes and impinge on the freedom of cycling (which is the reason motorcyclists denounce helmet laws, except they don't make the spurious argument that helmets don't work), and offering a dishonest narrative only reinforces the negative stereotype that cyclists are unreasonable "laws and liability for thee, none for me" militants.

And people DO argue that helmets don't serve a purpose - David Cranor is one of them.

As to being a helmet nazi, were you the MAMIL on Beach Drive who literally wagged his finger at me while giving a flyby lecture about the dangers of not wearing a helmet?

[jeffB]

MoCo

You keep referring to "the cycling community" as if it is a single identifiable cohesive entity.

To paraphrase Will Rogers - "I am not a part of any organized community - I am cyclist". And I'll add one simply trying to get from A to B while staying alive.

Still if there is a voice for cycling in DC it is WABA. At least they are a true advocacy group and not a towing service masquerading as one.

On Idaho Stops WABA has always struck a measured tone. Here's a Q&A from Shane Farthing (former director of WABA) from 2010:

Stephen Miller:
In early June, you mentioned to us that it's important to "[consider] other laws that are more tailored to the realities of urban cycling." What are you referring to here? Does it include the Idaho Stop? What, if any, would be an appropriate change to the stop law for cyclists in DC?

Shane: Idaho Stop has come up in a number of contexts and tends to divide the cycling community a bit. Personally, I'm a bit torn on the issue. I do think that laws should be appropriate to cycling--and I think that Idaho Stop would be more tailored to the needs of cyclists. But I also believe that the laws on the books should be followed. So for now, stop and stop signs & red lights or you're breaking the law. And we don't advocate breaking the law. But we're discussing with our membership and considering next-steps.
source GGW:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/6530/live-chat-with-shane-farthing-of-waba/

In that response what is disingenuous? There is simply the acknowledgement that the present laws don’t always serve the best needs of a cyclist. Especially in an urban context with a plethora of 4-way stops.

The mandatory helmet debate is a similar example of the cycling community offering disingenuous reasons to obscure true motives
So here is WABA’s official position:
WHY WE DON’T SUPPORT MANDATORY HELMET LAWS
http://www.waba.org/blog/2013/01/why-we-dont-support-mandatory-helmet-laws/

I think they are very clear. Where is the obscurity?

[jeffB]

And people DO argue that helmets don't serve a purpose - David Cranor is one of them.

If that is his argument I'll let him defend it if he so choses.

As to being a helmet nazi, were you the MAMIL on Beach Drive who literally wagged his finger at me while giving a flyby lecture about the dangers of not wearing a helmet?

Not me :). I keep any judgements to myself when on the road. I learned long ago that offering people unsolicited advice was a good way to get a nose job.

Besides - I too have taken to not using a helmet. And any lycra I have is kept covered by other garments. For me to do otherwise would a crime against humanity.

[Crickey7]

Of course helmets serve a purpose. Where else am I going to mount my GoPro?

As for the Idaho Stop, I would, in fact, urge WABA to stop being associated with it. In that, MOCO has a valid point.

[contrarian]

This was on the Shepherd Park listserv this morning:

The new amendment will have a cruel financial impact upon African-American residents’ ability to afford an "additional" increase in their auto insurance premiums. Don't forget the autoinsurers' annual renewal rate increase.
This is a classic case of discrimination that negatively impacts a segment of the District's struggling population. The proposed act only enriches a selected portion of non-motorized users - bicyclists.

When all else fails, play the race card.

Oh, and Dave Cranor is right about helmets -- the scientific evidence of their effectiveness is lacking.

[washcycle]

I'm a cyclist and driver, and being nonpartisan, I understand that both groups routinely advocate for unreasonable policies.

I disagree that bike advocates routinely advocate for unreasonable policies, but regardless of that perception, nothing WABA advocates for will make roads less safe or the courts less fair. At worst they slow down traffic. I can't say the same for AAA's willingness to combat fines for unsafe drivers, a change from contributory negligence, higher parking fees, or bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue. And AAA routinely lies in order to push their position, something I can't say I've seen WABA do. This "they all do it" is something people say when they want to seem non-partisan, but its incorrect or at least ignores the difference in magnitude.

I think are unreasonable (demanding the right to "take the lane" when keeping to the right and three-foot passage laws accomplish the same thing without inconveniencing the vast majority who don't commute by bike).

If the law alone was sufficient to keep drivers from crashing into cyclists from behind then we wouldn't even need the 3-foot law. But it isn't. Taking the lane discourages unsafe passing. If the price of safety is inconvenience, we should all be willing to pay. Besides, many people in DC commute by Metrorail or walking, so while it's true that the vast majority don't bike - they aren't all inconvenienced by cyclists who won't move out of the way. (Also, a bike causes about 25% of the congestion that a car does, so the claim that cyclists are what inconveniences drivers is pointing the finger in the wrong direction)

I am a native Washingtonian, and I have been ridding in and around the city for 40 years. I have never found myself on a road that was "too narrow" for a car to pass a cyclist.

Well then, get off the bike trail every once in a while. There are plenty of streets in DC with one lane in each direction and each lane is 10 feet wide with parking on both sides. In that case there just isn't enough room for a cyclist to avoid the door zone, and a 6 foot wide car to pass a 2-foot wide bicyclist while giving 3 feet of passing distance. That's just math.

As a cyclist who regularly blows through stop signs, it's patently obvious to me and everyone else who runs signs that the Idaho Stop has nothing to do with safety

And I think that people generally note that the primary reason to support the Idaho Stop is that it makes cycling more efficient. But, there is a safety argument to be made. Usually safety comes up when opponents argue that it isn't safe.

"I might fall over if I have to come to a complete stop!" Oh yeah? Then how do you ever safely dismount?

People sometimes do fall over when they come to a complete stop. I've seen it. I've done it. Not often, but it does happen. It doesn't mean one can also safely dismount in most instances. C'mon, this is a childish position to take.

to claim that [helmets] serve no purpose and offer no protection is not only silly, it's factually inaccurate. And yet nearly every bike "advocate" (including David Cranor) rails against any attempt to establish a law requiring helmets.

Well, I've never made that claim, and it's not the position of any major American advocacy groups I know of., so I don't know what you're talking about. (also, why is advocate in quotes? Do you think these people are not really advocates?)

My position, again, is this: "I think you're probably better off wearing a helmet. I wear a helmet. I'm confident that you're better off riding a bike. So if a helmet keeps you from riding then don't wear one, you might regret it, but on average the benefits of riding probably outweigh the risks of not wearing a helmet."

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2009/10/the-helmet-thing.html

It's those sorts of unreasonable positions that give the community a bad name, and rightly so.

But those aren't the positions, so that's obviously not what's giving us a bad name.

The auto lobby certainly promotes illogical and sometimes dangerous policies, but we in the cycling community definitely give them a run for their money.

What is a dangerous policy supported by the cycling community?

I pointed it out as an example of the cycling community steadfastly refusing to honestly acknowledge why it's advocating a particular position.

Again, I don't know what the hell your talking about. Where is it that cycling advocates are refusing to mention efficiency and ease as the reason to support the Idaho Stop?

When that happens, what could be a constructive discussion about policy becomes an entrenched battle simply because everyone knows the proffered reason for it - that it is somehow dangerous for a cyclist to come to a complete stop because they will fall down - is absurd.

I'm sorry are you living in some alternate universe where people are saying this? Because in this world that doesn't happen, and it's not the reason people oppose the Idaho Stop. Ask Crikey why he opposes it and I guarantee you it is not. People oppose the Idaho Stop because they think it is unsafe or chaotic or unfair or because they don't like cyclists in general or because they knee-jerk support the status quo or some combination of those. No one says "I can't support the Idaho Stop because you aren't being honest about the reasons you want it. But if you would be honest, I'd support it." No one. Absolutely no one.

Which is also how many people say they want the Idaho Stop because if a cyclist came to a complete stop they would fall down.

So, most of your discomfort seems to come from a fundamental failure to understand what is going on around you. You should work on that.

to argue that a helmet law is unnecessary because helmets don't prevent every possible injury is yet another absurdity that flies in the face of common sense.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to start giving concrete examples, because the absurdity of these statements are making you into an unreliable witness. This is not the reason for which I have ever heard an advocacy group oppose mandatory helmet laws.

And people DO argue that helmets don't serve a purpose - David Cranor is one of them.

No. That never happened. I might have said it can't be proven, but not that they serve no purpose. If I did, I'm insane because I almost always wear a helmet. And when I can, I borrow Crikey's whale penis talisman.

[MoCo]

@washcyle

I love rielling you up - I can just imagine you banging away at your keyboard for hours, cutting and pasting, working those HTML tags, dripping with sweat. If you expect me to do the same, I'm not; you may have the time to write 1000-word screeds, but I don't. You're an angry guy living I an echo chamber, and no matter how rational my rebuttal, you won't listen to any of it, so what's the point? There are plenty of people in the community who are willing to have civilized debates (like Jeffb), but you certainly aren't one of them. Yeah, yeah - "ad hominems."

[ACyclistInThePortCity]

MoCo

DaveC and Washcycle do plenty of good for the cycling community, and many of us who do not have the knowledge or the time, or the patience to do what DaveC does are very glad he does it.

As for this

"The mandatory helmet debate is a similar example of the cycling community offering disingenuous reasons to obscure true motives. Helmets have utility. Should we force people to wear them? I don't know, but to argue that a helmet law is unnecessary because helmets don't prevent every possible injury is yet another absurdity that flies in the face of common sense. As you pointed out, the real reason the cycling community opposes them is that they dissuade people from riding bikes and impinge on the freedom of cycling (which is the reason motorcyclists denounce helmet laws, except they don't make the spurious argument that helmets don't work), and offering a dishonest narrative only reinforces the negative stereotype that cyclists are unreasonable "laws and liability for thee, none for me" militants."

You are not correct. I have often seen cyclists make the point that mandatory helmet laws are bad because they discourage cycling. Now that also has a safety implication - there are studies indicating that more cycling means more safer cycling - because drivers are more likely to expect cyclists (plus perhaps because more cyclists, and also more LE, etc, ARE cyclists)

Now if helmets eliminated ALL injuries, that might be an important offset - but since they only eliminate or reduce some, that is a relevant factor in determining if that offsets the damage (safety and otherwise) of the impact of mandatory helmet laws in discouraging cycling.

[washcycle]

Moco, Why is it that trolls never have a rebuttal, no matter how easy it would be to give one if their claims were true and even when they make incendiary claims about people by name?

As I tell my kids when they lie to me, you aren't fooling anyone. No one believes that you have the perfect rebuttal but are just too lazy to give it. It's about as believable as your Canadian girlfriend.

If you want to rile me up, you'll have to do better than that. Throwing rocks at a hornets next only angers them if you hit it, and so far you haven't landed any of your shots.

[Crickey7]

Here we have one player in the policy debate making apocalyptic claims about the financial impact on drivers, which are almost certainly totally untrue. Most other jurisdictions do not follow this law, and rates are not that much different. And let's not forget that for drivers, one of the impacts of contributory negligence is that it makes it more likely that in any accident where YOU were even slightly at fault (but the other driver was more so), that YOU will be required to pay your deductible and higher rates afterwards. There's no savings, on average, for the current law.

So, for drivers, it's a wash. For cyclists the current state of the law is unadulterated bad. Insurers claim that cyclists were partly at fault all the time, and everyone knows how hard it is to prove a negative. The change in the law would have no impact on drivers, but would make recovery for cyclists possible in situations where a driver was "at fault" in the way normal people think of these things.

[SJE]

Wow, I thought with all the nice weather we cyclists would be more chill. But, as noted above, we are not a monolith.

[MoCo]

My rebuttals are clear and concise, unlike your novellas. The proffered reasons militants like you always offer up anytime you're asked to follow a rule "aren't fooling anyone," which is why so many dismiss them out of hand.

And speaking of kids, I thought you were going to take a break from your endless mewling for the sake of your family? I guess those kids of yours couldn't stand you being around? Maybe the wife couldn't either?

[washcycle]

So your rebuttal after 3 days is personal insults? Asuka, you're as classy as you are persuasive.

[DE]

Generally staying away from this discussion for my health, but I will say that because of AA's anti-cycling and anti-increased gas mileage stances, I cancelled long ago and went with BWC. They really should just stay away from politics if they want to get peoples' money.

[Mike]

Make sure that you're very clear to the AAA person that you're cancelling because of AAA's misguided lobbying efforts, not because of unsatisfactory service, etc. Eventually it might bubble up to the money-counters.

[Crickey7]

Washcycle:

And your momma wears army boots.