TheWashCycle

We should start attaching points to speed camera tickets

Right now if someone gets a speeding ticket in DC they incur 3-5 points on their license. Unless that ticket is camera-enforced, then they don't get any points assessed. [Surprisingly, there are no points for running lights or stop signs] When I've asked about it, I've been told we can't because of the Constitution or the presumption of innocence. The problem with that is that other places do it.

And if Arizona, if someone amasses many tickets, the police will go to their home.

Identifying the driver takes some work - they use the driver's license photo for the registered owner, and if that doesn't work they send out the ticket and give the owner a chance to identify the driver. Which they sometimes do. It's not just AZ either. Both California and Oregon do this. 

Attaching the tickets to drivers instead of cars, would also result in the insurance rates of bad drivers going up. Which is how the system should work - although some states (MD and VA included) forbid this.

If we started giving points for camera tickets then we might need to lower the penalty (as enforcement goes up, the penalty should go down), but the incentive to slow down and drive safer would remain. 

NTSB bicycle safety report

The National Transportation Safety Board recently issued its first bicycle safety report in 47 years.

Among those bicyclists involved in crashes with motor vehicles, 15% were hospitalized, treated and transferred, or held for observation, indicating a serious injury level. In comparison, only 7% of bicyclists in other crashes received the same treatments. This difference suggests that crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles produce more severe injury outcomes for the bicyclists.

You don't say?!

The report was written in response to recent studies that showed a percentage decline in motor vehicle fatalities, yet an increase in deaths of vulnerable road users as well as some other disturbing trends. NTSB admitted that the annually reported number of fatalities were just a floor and acknowledged they didn't really know for sure if they included all the deaths, and likewise that they likely underestimate the level of bicycling activity in the United States. They also conceded that the injury data was almost meaningless. 

The research goals were to (1) describe fatal and nonfatal injury trends associated with bicycle crashes involving motor vehicles, (2) examine the scope and nature of bicyclist crash and injury risk factors and assess data limitations, (3) identify proven countermeasures that may be underused, (4) assess obstacles that may interfere with the full use of the identified countermeasures, and (5) explore emerging issues that are relevant to bicycling safety

Some of their findings echo things most safe streets advocates have been talking about for years: protected bike lanes and slower car speeds can reduce fatalities, road diets make roads safer. Others are somewhat novel like " allowing adaptive headlight systems and
to require evaluating headlights in real-world settings rather than in a laboratory would likely result in headlights that improve drivers’ ability to detect other road users, including bicyclists."

The report calls for the DOT to consider bicyclists and pedestrians in current and future safety research, assessments and guidelines for cars; to push for more separated bike facilities; and for more to be done to improve conspicuity of cyclists. 

They also recommend that state governments:

Require that all persons shall wear an age-appropriate bicycle helmet while riding a bicycle

So there's that. They do present many studies that back up the efficacy of helmets, but I'm not sure that helmet laws work (though they have data that implies they do). And, of course, it mandatory helmet use is a good idea for cyclists, why not pedestrians and motorists?

With conspicuity (think lights and reflectors) they note that the standards are from the 1980's but that technology has come a long way since then and that perhaps they should be updated to include LED-based lights for example. The section on car lights was interesting and new to me. 

Yet, the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) for headlights, FMVSS 108, does not include minimum illumination distance or on-vehicle performance testing of lighting systems. Rather, manufacturers self-certify that their lights meet criteria for bulb output, using the results of component tests―that is, operating tests carried out on parts that have been removed from a vehicle. Additionally, DOT rules permit a low beam and a high beam; however, unlike European standards, they do not allow vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to continuously adjust the light pattern and provide high-beam illumination except within a segment of the beam that is adjusted to limit glare for oncoming drivers.

They also seem bullish on technology like Collision Avoidance Systems and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian systems, which I remain hopeful about. The call for helmet laws was controversial, but I was glad to see them give so much attention to safer cars and safer roads. The US has a long way to go.

2020 legislation seeks to make roads safer and fairer

For DC cyclists, it was a busy legislative year. Four separate pieces of legislation passed in 2020 that will impact cycling either directly or indirectly.

Arguably the most important piece of legislation was the Vision Zero Enhancement Omnibus Amendment Act which passed in October. It is a grab bag of legislation sought by safe street advocates that aims primarily to reduce road violence. The law will

• make it easier to make safety changes to the roadway
• add more sidewalks
• improve crosswalks
• build more protected bike lanes. 
• require DDOT to be more transparent, report more data online, issue curbside loading rules, study every fatal crash, explain what steps it's taking towards Vision Zero in large projects; and to add a protected bike lane to any road where it is called for DC Multimodal Long-Range Transportation Plan if the District undertakes significant work.
• fine developers who don't restore bike and ped facilities when work is done.
• make it illegal to drive with headphones or earbuds in
• ban most right-turns-on-red
• assess points for all distracted driving violations.
• Restore DPW as a member of the Bicycle Advisory Council
• add DMV to the Major Crash Task Force
• lowers the speed limit to 20mph on District roads classified by DDOT as local or collector
• puts teeth in the Ignition Interlock Program by making it possible to take the license and vehicle registration of people who fail to enroll when they have to.
• require the Mayor to send warnings to drivers caught going 8 or more miles per hour over the speed limit by an automated traffic enforcement camera;
• allow the Mayor to negotiate with MD and VA on reciprocal enforcement.
• add more Automatic traffic enforcement cameras. 
• require cyclists to have tail lights at night
• ban the parking of trailers next to bike lanes.  

It is not perfect. Some of the things most needed to make DC streets safer, like rebuild them, take time.  Others, like mandating safer vehicles, the District is powerless to change, but the law moves the ball forward on almost everything safety advocates like the BAC and PAC suggested. 

The District also passed the Shared Fleet Devices Amendment Act of 2020. It mostly exists to regulate the various shared scooter and bike companies after the law focused on just that, instead of a more expansive bill as originally proposed.  The law requires shared vehicles to be available in every ward, bans parking near certain schools and wellness centers and tries to deal with some of the perceived nuisance aspects of scooters by requiring lock-to devices and outlawing bad parking. It will require operators to offer free online safety courses and DDOT to put up signs or markings that signify the CBD (where sidewalk riding is not allowed). And it makes it illegal to scooter while drunk. Since the safety aspects seem mostly designed to protect pedestrians from scooters, and since scooters aren't much of a threat, it doesn't do much to make the roads safer.

The part most of interest to cyclists is that it requires the installation of 1000 new bike racks a year until 2025. 

The Council also expanded Contributory Negligence to almost everyone outside of a car. The only cases that won't be covered are pedestrian-pedestrian crashes (Not sure why) or crashes that occur off roads or sidewalks and instead in places like parking lots, trails and plazas (again, I'm not sure why). It will become effective sometime in early 2021 if the Mayor signs it (she has until 12/24).

Finally, the District passed a law that will make subsidies available to more people who choose not to drive to work. The Transportation Benefits Equity Amendment Act of 2020 requires employers who offer free parking to also offer the employee either a Clean air Transportation Fringe Benefit, an increased contribution to the health coverage, and/or the taxable wages of equal value. This is money that will go to those who walk, bike or take transit to work. The law does create some outs - like paying a fee or putting together a Transportation Demand Management Plan - but even if many choose one of those options, not all will and cyclists could still benefit. This law mirrors a rule the EPS tried to put in place in DC in the 1970's to deal with automobile emissions. That ran into trouble with Congress and then the Reagan administration and contributed to the decades long weakening of the EPA. Should lead to more biking and a need for those 1000 bike racks.

DC's busy bicycle legislative agenda, part 3

In parts 1 and 2 of this series wherein I discuss the torrent of bicycle-relevant bike laws proposed in DC, we covered Charles Allen's Vision Zero bill and Transportation Benefits Equity Act as well as the Budget. This week we'll look at four smaller bills.

Councilmember Mary Cheh introduced the Mandatory Protected Cycling Land Amendment Act of 2019 in late April, following the death of Dave Salovesh.  The bill mimics similar legislation out of Cambridge, MA that requires the city to include the safest bike paths whenever a roadway is reconstructed.

The DC bill requires DDOT to build a protected bicycle lane on any street segment where one is recommended by the Multimodal Long Range Transportation Plan (aka MoveDC) whenever the road is to be repaired, reconstructed or get gutter replacement. They are, to the greatest extent possible, to be built contiguous with other portions of the cycle network.  DDOT will be required to provide 60 days notice prior to starting construction of their intent, of the construction schedule and of the 30 day public comment period. Recommendations from affected ANC's made during the comment period are to be given great weight.

But, the whole requirement will be waived if the DDOT director determines that it is impractical or unnecessary to build the bike lane because (1) it would be too expensive (2) cyclists wouldn't use it (3) safe cycling can be accommodated with it or (4) the city would need to buy land to build it. The DDOT Director will need to write a letter to this effect and post it on DDOT's website. 

So that gives DDOT a lot of wiggle room and basically allows for them to bypass it any time they want as long as they're willing to take the heat, but this is the same as in Cambridge.  And it appears that the affected ANCs are the ones the road segment passes through, not those ANCs nearby where people who bike on the road might live. But hopefully it will push DDOT to build out the bike lane network from MoveDC faster. 

The Curb Extension Act of 2019, introduced by David Grosso, is similar but deals with curb bulbouts instead of bike lanes. Notably, it doesn't reference MoveDC. 

Another bill from Cheh, the Vulnerable User Collision Recovery Amendment Act Of 2019, would extend the contributory negligence carve out from the Motor Vehicle Collision Recover Act of 2016 to include people on e-bikes and electric scooters. Not sure why they chose to just extend it to those on electric scooters and not all of those on Personal Mobility Devices, but maybe they think that's already covered by the otherwise confusing "Segways...and other similar non-powered transportation devices." Still I would have just included everyone on "motorized bicycles" and "personal mobility devices" which are the classes those currently belong to. Instead they intentionally leave out mopeds,  

Chales Allen and Jack Evans have also introduced the Bike Valet Grant Program Act. It creates a grant of up to $3000 per event to pay for providing a bike valet for festivals and events. 

Finally, Councilmember Todd introduced the Cyclist Safety Campaign Amendment Act of 2019. It specifies the questions relating to bicyclists that the Department of Motor Vehicles is required to quiz driver license applicants about on the driver's license examination (specifically the 3 foot law, the Dutch reach and yielding to cyclists when turning) and it establishes a public outreach campaign to educate the public about automobile-bicycle fatalities.

Governor Hogan vetoes bikeways funding, transit planning - override effort set for 2020

This year, Bike Maryland did heroic work to increase bikeways funding. At current levels, it will take 369 years to build all the bikeways in the plan, but Bike Maryland convinced legislators to pass a bill to increase that from ~$2 million to $3.8 million a year (which still means hundreds of years). Then Governor Hogan vetoed it on May 24th. 

In addition to the Bikeways funding, the bill the Governor vetoed helped to ensure that the creation of a much-needed transit plan for Central Maryland was informed by residents and leaders in the region.

Since the cancellation of the Red Line in 2015, Central Maryland has been without a transit plan to help guide transit investment and projects.  HB 1281 would have clarified and strengthened elements of the 2018 law that mandated the Regional Transit Plan. Governor Hogan’s veto indicates that he is not seriously interested in creating a robust transit plan that would allow for an expansion of the light rail, MARC, and bus service that is needed throughout Central Maryland.

The veto can be overridden next year. 

Please click on this link and email your representatives in Annapolis and tell them to override the veto when they go into session in 2020.

Despite the veto, this is a success as it gets them two votes away from victory. 

In addition, the Maryland Legislature passed a Vision Zero bill that the Governor did sign.

specifying the purpose and goal of Vision Zero; requiring the Department of Transportation to designate a coordinator to oversee the implementation of Vision Zero; requiring the coordinator, in implementing Vision Zero, to collaborate with certain entities; requiring that the implementation of Vision Zero include certain strategies; requiring that the funding for Vision Zero be as provided by the Governor in the State budget; requiring the Department to submit a certain report to the Governor and the General Assembly on or before a certain date each year; requiring the Department to make a certain report available on its website; defining certain terms; and generally relating to the establishment of Vision Zero.

They also expanded the Complete Streets policy to include access to healthy foods; worked with the Sierra Club to pass a Transportation and Climate Initiative bill that authorizes the Governor to include Maryland in any regional governmental initiative, agreement, or compact that limits or reduces greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

Other bills did not fare as well. A Vulnerable User bill passed the house, but not the Senate as did a bill removing the "narrow road exception" to the 3 foot passing law. 

All in all, there's a lot to build on there, but still more work to do. 

DC's busy bicycle legislative agenda, part 1

David Grosso stops in a bike lane.

I've been on the BAC for over a decade now, and on the legislative committee for most of that time, and I've never seen a year like this when it comes to legislation. There are at least 10 bills that have been introduced this year that should matter to cyclists, and others concerned with safe streets. It's a lot so I'm going to try to break it up into a few posts

The Bicycle Advisory Council (BAC) Expansion Amendment Act Of 2019 was already discussed here. Since then the BAC has suggested that the District Council nominate one person representing scooters or other non-traditional Personal Mobility Devices to join the BAC as well. There's a lot of place that our interests overlap or collide and they should have a voice somewhere in this process. And such a person could help the BAC give better advice (which is the main purpose after all). 

The Florida Avenue Multimodal Project Completion Emergency Amendment Act of 2019 has already passed and is headed to the Mayor for signature. That bill sets a September deadline for creating a 6-4 road diet for Florida Avenue between 2nd and H NE and using the newly freed space for something other motor vehicles. It has the same deadline to install High-visibility crosswalk marking. It also requires monthly status reports starting in June. The Mayor needs to respond by the end of the month. A letter couldn't hurt. 

But the big bill on the agenda is CM Allen's Vision Zero Enhancement Omnibus Amendment Act Of 2019. This bill has MANY moving parts. The bill aims to:

• Approve the 2014 Multimodal Long Range Transportaion Plan (aka Move DC)
• Shorten the Notice of Intent period from 30 days to 10 days in cases where the proposed change will increase safety at a high-risk intersection as defined in Move DC and a report about it has been posted on the internet.
• Prevent the issuance of building permits until DDOT has published a report assuring that for-hire and delivery vehicles going to that building will not make conditions unsafe
• Require the construction of sidewalks on both sides of the street, not just one
• Require DDOT
  • to submit a Vision Zero progress report and make it public. The report will include
    • A list of projects in MoveDC by ward describing how it would improve safety, increase equitable access to transit, contribute to the mode share goals in MoveDC, decrease motor vehicle speeds. 
    • The expected delivery dates for all the projects in MoveDC for which funds have been allocated
    • Interim steps for projects that are to be allocated 2 years out
    • An explanation for why unfunded projects in MoveDC are unfunded
  • to publish all the data required by the 2016 Bike and Ped safety Act, data from the DOH's annual trauma report, all speed data they collect    
  • to create a transparent, standard project delivery process focused on MoveDC plans and things that make the roads safer and more equitable (sorry alleypalooza). 
  • to update the MoveDC every two years and to report on the goals to get commuter automobile mode share in all wards to lower that 25% and transit share in all wards to at least 50%. Should also include a list of streets to add bus-only lanes to with at least one in each ward and a list of high-risk intersections.
  • to submit an incident report to the council 30 days afer each crash that results in a fatality or injury including interim design changes that have been put in place, permanent changes they plan to put in place and whether or not it is a high risk intersection. 
  • to install marked crosswalks where an unmarked one currently exists when doing other roadwork (unless DDOT thinks it will make things less safe)
• Prevent the issuance of public space permits for new buildings until they have built and restored all the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that they were required to build and all that was there prior to construction
• Require MPD to collect information about the speed of vehicles involved in collisions or that receive moving violations. 
• Require anyone getting a new or renewed driver's license to take a written test
• Lower the speed limit to 20 mph on all local, collector and minor arterial roads and to 25 mph on all principal arterial roads.
• Prohibit right turns on red (everywhere, all the time)
• Require stop signs or traffic lights at all intersections of roads classified as local, collector or minor arterial.
• Authorize towing of a vehicle blocking a bike lane or crosswalk or that have more than 5 outstanding tickets for exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 mph or for overtaking a vehicle stopped for a pedestrian
• Authorize the city to mail citations of more moving and non-moving violations
• Create a Citizen Safety Enforcement Pilot Program allowing a few citizens to cite violators using a phone app. This has been all over the media, and much of it has been bad and/or ill-informed takes. 

It's a good start.

Seriously, these are some great ideas. Some of these things the BAC has recommended in the past and some (faster NOIs) are new to me. But they all seem targeted to my Vision Zero sentence that I've been saying which is that:

Getting to Vision Zero will require us to have fewer and safer cars; driven at slower speeds; by sober, safer drivers, on better roads shared by more cautious cyclists and pedestrians.

And this bill will hit on most of these things, and certainly the more important ones. 

Finally, just a few comments on some of the media coverage of the Citizens Enforcement pilot. It's fascinating to me that this has gotten all the press (it's become national news even) while the plan to ban RTOR everywhere or lower the speed limit to 20 (!!!) or even, finally approve MoveDC has not. Oh well, I don't know journalism.

Petula Dvorak at the Post, whom I normally agree with, has a particularly bad take. 

She starts out by referring to it as tattling. As someone on twitter put it

You can tell a lot about a person by where they define “snitching.” Is reporting animal abuse snitching? Child abuse?

The article mentions safety once, and not in relation to this bill, but instead goes straight to the AAA framing of "revenue grab" using the old Trump trick

A lot of us wonder whether this has anything to do with the city’s declining parking ticket revenue, thanks to mobile parking apps.

Which might be a valid concern if you thought bad parking was no longer a problem, but she doesn't.

It’s infuriating and dangerous to have cars parked in bike lanes, bus lanes and crosswalks — the violations citizen avengers would be targeting in the proposed pilot program. I live on Capitol Hill and have circled my block for an hour more than once after a Costco shop, past scores of Virginia (mostly) plates overstaying their legal right to park on my street, keeping me from accessing my own home.

I honestly don't think she understands what the proposal is because she mentions both vigilantes and Batman and people parked in RPP spots. That's not what this will be. 10 people from each ward will be selected and trained. They will photograph violators and submit them to DPW who will then review them and issue tickets where warranted. The only tickets this will be for are for parking in a bicycle lane, crosswalk, bus lane or streetcar guideway. 

Dvorak is instead worried about the gestapo.

 The scars and resentments of this kind of citizen tattling run three generations deep in my family, when the communist regime in Czechoslovakia corrupted families and communities with Little Brother tactics.

But how do we begin to police citizen avenger motivations?

There is overview of the people who are allowed to do this, that's how. It's hard to address her fears because they aren't clearly stated. Is she worried the innocent will be falsely accused? That's what the photos are for. Is she worried that there will be confrontations? Since all the CE's will be doing is taking a photograph, and since they will take training for that, I don't see how it would be any worse than cyclists yelling at drivers. Is she worried it will be inequitably enforced (racist or classist enforcement)? Me too, but cars create some anonymity, making it hard to know who's driving that Honda accord (To be fair, if I were an enforcer I might show a bias towards ticketing Hummers or other giant SUVs, And who wouldn't want to ticket someone in a Maserati?), and I suspect that's one of the things the pilot will study. If we see some inequity then we can tweak or abandon the idea. 

She goes on to compare this to public shaming on twitter. That's not what this is either, though that's already happening since people frequently post photos of cars parked in bike lanes. What negative consequence has that had so far?

Luz Lazo also misses the mark though she at least understands the facts.  But her story starts off poorly,

D.C. officials are so desperate for more solutions to the city’s parking and traffic problems that they’re considering recruiting citizens to help enforce the rules of the road.

This is not about fixing parking and will only have a small effect on traffic. This is about safety. Now I'll concede that there isn't any proof that blocking the bike lane makes cyclists less safe (sorry, I'm just not aware of any) but at the very least it makes biking frustrating as hell. And blocking crosswalks too, though there I am more confident about calling it a safety risk. But whether or not it is or is not based on data, safety is the goal. She does get to that later. 

Then she quotes Walter Olson of the Cato Institute. 

"But traffic enforcement does have a lot of judgment calls.”

I'm not sure what judgement call would come into play here, and he doesn't name one. Just some vague idea. I participated in the bike lane project last week. A food truck parked in a hashed off area to wait for the lunch crowd and a parking enforcement car pulled up and told him to leave without issuing a ticket. I guess that's a judgement call - to let that guy go without a ticket - but I don't know if I agreed with it. You get off with a warning if you don't walk away? BTW, the flexposts in the streetview are now gone - wonder how that happened?

Olson also blames this on revenue generation

“The city gets more revenue without having to pay salaries,” he said. “The potential increase in ticket revenue would get their interest right away.”

Ugh. I wish we would just take all the money generated and set it on fire, Dark Knight style, once a year just so we could stop hearing about this. 

“The idea of vigilante enforcement is a bad idea,” D.C. attorney David Tompkins said. “Everyone I don’t like would have a lot of tickets. Well, that’s the joke until a real jerk gets ahold of this idea.”

Again, not vigilantes. He should look up what that word means. Violators would get tickets from DPW, they would not be beaten with iron pipes by a mob in the alley. 

“Law enforcement is a profession,” he said. “Have professionals handle it.”

So is teaching. Is Tompkins against volunteer tutoring programs?

A lot of articles ask "What could possibly go wrong?" and then list very little that could go wrong. 

Imagine what could happen if a resident gets a ticket from his or her neighbor — a neighbor whose address he or she knows.

That is a very special case. One which can happen if you get a ticket from DPW or MPD or DDOT.

There could be some legal issues involved in providing citizens such power

None of those were actually listed.

As with any idea, this could end up being great for neighborhoods or disastrous. 

No potential disasters were identified. 

The inner libertarian in me, of course, doesn’t approve of such over-policing, but the “nearly hit by a cyclist who rode full speed through a red light and nearly plowed into me when I was legally crossing the crosswalk” in me thinks these people need to obey some traffic laws.

Ah yes, we don't need any more policing except for the people who almost hurt ME. Very libertarian. 

Anyway, no hearing has been scheduled for the bill, but when it is, I'm sure it will be widely publicized. 

Vision Zero and Trucks

Since Vision Zero was first implemented in the area there has only been one cyclist fatality involving a truck, but there have certainly been more collision, injuries and other road user deaths. NYC is taking steps to reduce the risks that large trucks bring with them, and they're having success and saving money, because crashing into people is deadly and into things is expensive.

Since New York City announced its Vision Zero initiative in 2014, collisions per mile have dropped across the city’s fleet, the fleet has seen a reduction in red light and speeding violations and traffic fatalities have declined by 26 percent, while they have increased by 13 percent nationally.

“One of the things we know from our crash tracking is that 50 percent of the collisions that we are involved with that lead to litigations and claims are rear-end events due to tailgating and speeding. It’s a $50 million program for the city, and it’s a very simple thing to avoid. We do focus on training, and we think that’s where everyone should start.”

In addition to training, they're only buying high visibility vehicles when they're available. These trucks minimize blind spots by lowering the height of the truck cab, using additional windows and reducing the size and height of the truck’s hood.

This includes vehicles like tow trucks, garbage trucks and dump trucks, among other types. Overall, New York City operates at least 2,500 conventionally designed work trucks that could be transitioned to high vision trucks through this initiative.

As part of the initiative, the city adopted a Vision Zero Safe Fleet Transition Plan (SFTP), which was first published in May 2017 and outlines a series of safety investments that DCAS will require of fleet vehicles. In less than two years, the SFTP has resulted in the implementation of nearly 20,000 safety upgrades, including expanded use of automatic braking, backup cameras, driver alert systems, blind spot alerts, heated mirrors, truck side guards and vehicle telematics. 

The SFTP notes that 

In 2015, the expansion of Automatic emergency braking (AEB) to avoid or mitigate collisions involving pedestrians/bicyclists topped the list of measures considered likely to be cost-beneficial for possible future legislation by the EU in a Transport Research Laboratory report

The Volvo Trucks Safety Report 2017 finds that pedestrian-capable AEB or Forward Collision Warning (FCW) could be relevant for preventing or mitigating about 40 percent of crashes between large trucks and bicyclists or pedestrians in Europe.

In addition, NACTO recommends buying smaller vehicles where possible. 

“In our research, we found that it’s possible to have the best of both worlds: smaller, more maneuverable trucks, with the same capabilities as larger, less nimble models,” said Jonah Chiarenza of the U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center in a release. “As cities look at new models in the life cycle of replacing their fleets, this win-win dynamic can help make for safer streets.”

Like smaller Vision Zero fire trucks.

Meanwhile, UPS is experimenting with using electric-assist tricycles in Seattle. 

In the new system, cyclists will pull a trailer from UPS’ distribution center to a vehicle parking spot downtown. They’ll drop off the trailer, then ride on sidewalks and in designated bike lanes to make deliveries in narrow and congested areas, like Pike Place Market.

UPS partnered with the Seattle Department of Transportation to develop the pilot project. Riders will be trained to follow city ordinances.

These are things we should be trying in DC. There are ways to incentivize UPS to not drive in the CBD during rush hour, for example.

UPS started out as a bicycle delivery company in Seattle. It'd be great if they found their way back to that - at least in part. 

Bike crashes down in Arlington from last year, but still high

According to a report by the Arlington Police Department, bike crashes were down from 2018, but 2018 was still higher than in 2014 to 2016.

In 2018 there were 57 crashes in Arlington, down from 80. That's the good news, but that's still higher than the 38 averaged over the prior 3 years. Comparisons to years prior to that are difficult because of different records management systems. Motor vehicle crashes were also down in 2018, by 4.7%.

In most crashes involving cyclists and pedestrians, motor vehicle drivers were found at fault, 52% and 74% respectively. 67% of drivers deemed at fault in a crash with a pedestrian were cited, as were 74% of those with cyclists. Pedestrians were at fault in 19% of their crashes with cars and cyclists in 37% of theirs. Pedestrians were cited 13% of the time they were at-fault, and cyclists 32%. There were 3 bike-ped crashes, with the cyclist at fault in 1 and pedestrians in the other two. 

33% of the bike crashes had no injury, 65% minor injuries and 2% were serious. There were zero fatalities. There was 1 pedestrian fatality. 

In 28% of bike-car crashes, the cyclist was in a bike lane. In 26% they were in a crosswalk. In 12% they were in a crosswalk, going against the signal. 10% of crashes were doorings. 14% involved a car going in or out of a parking lot. 14% involved a car going straight. 12% were right hooks. 

66% of pedestrian crashes happen in the crosswalk. 

More than half of all crashes, 50.6% happened at dusk, at night or when otherwise dark. 

Some other data from the report, there were more crashes during the morning commute and, oddly, on Thursdays.

Crashes by age.

A map of bike crashes shows that many (most?) are in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. 

New DC Bike lane and Vision Zero regulations

DDOT has been busy adding and modifying their regulations in an effort to make roads safer. A set of Vision Zero regulations went into effect at the start of the year and new rules governing the Proper Behavior in Bike Lanes were published this week - to go into effect in 30 days. 

The Vision Zero regulations will

• raise the fines for
  • excessive speed
  • failure to stop at a stop sign
  • failure to yield to a pedestrian
  • making an illegal right-turn-on-red
  • overtaking another vehicle stopped for a pedestrian
  • stopping, standing or parking in a bike lane
  • parking in medians or safety zones
  • Dooring
  • Driving on the sidewalk
  • Carrying an item on a bicycle that prevents the usage of at least one hand
  • Hitching onto a moving vehicle (on a bicycle)
  • Failure to yield (on a bicycle)
  • Bicycling too fast
  • Walking suddenly into the path of a vehicle, without the right-of-way, and colliding with it
• Creates new fines
  • for crashing into a pedestrian on the sidewalk or when the pedestrian has the right-of-way while riding a bicycle
  • Riding with a headset,  headphones, or earplugs covering both ears
• add points for failing to move out of the way of an ambulance, overtaking another vehicle stopped for a pedestrian or to proceed with caution near an incident
• require side guards on large commercial vehicles within 2 years
• lower the speed limit near schools and rec centers to 15mph for much of the day
• require drivers to yield to buses that have signaled to move back into traffic
• ban stopping or parking in a travel lane
• Expands dooring fines to include both sides of the vehicle

Mostly the Vision Zero rules are good. 

In most cases raising the fine probably won't do much, but for illegal parking (in the bike lane or otherwise) it might help with commercial vehicles. To the extent that you believe UPS/Fedex and the like have decided that parking tickets are just a cost like gasoline, raising the cost could help them to re-evaluate their business plan. For the raised fines for cycling infractions, I'm old enough to remember when all the fines were dropped to $25 as the city tried to get more bike friendly, but (my theory) an appearance of equity matters. 

The new rule about not riding with headphones in each year is hard to justify. There's not a lot of scientific justification for it, and there really can't be because there hasn't been much study of the subject. A 2009 study found that people who listen to music break more traffic laws (but that's likely not causal) and perceive that they are more at risk (slightly more than riding with one hand). Observations showed that 4-8% of cyclists are observed listening to music but only 2.2% of cyclists report listening when they're in a crash. There is no distinction in this study between listening with both ears or one ear. In the figure below, of perceived risk,Control 1 is riding with 1 hand and Control 2 is riding with both hands. MP3 is listening to music.

In total that data is hardly damning. Further, are they saying the hearing impaired can't bike safely? I think there would be some pushback on such a claim.

There's another study (I can't find now) that shows that cyclists auditory perception does go down when listening to headphones in both ears - as anyone would expect - but that even then, it is better than that of drivers listening to the radio. So, it might save lives, but if it's a good idea then we're missing out by not removing radios from all cars.  Frankly, I don't know of any crashes where dual-headphone use by a cyclist was a contributing factor - but MPD should add this as a statistic to track to see if there is some relationship. 

The side underrun guards were something proposed by the safety commission Cheh set up several years ago, so I'm not sure why it took so long to get the regulations in place. In the intervening time there's been at least one crash where such guards could have saved the cyclist's life.

Naturally, John Townsend of AAA protested the fines. 

“This is about generating revenue under the patina of traffic safety,” said John B. Townsend II, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic. “There is not a shred of empirical evidence or research that proves that higher traffic fines deter bad driving behavior, and the District knows this and ignores the fact.”

I tend to agree that there's no evidence tying higher fines to better behavior, but I disagree about revenue being the motivation. I think they are just trying to turn the knobs they have. 

The recently published proposed bike lane rules limit when a driver may use a bike lane to legal turns, parallel parking and at the direction of a police officer. This is a subtle difference as, right now, they may also block a bike lane "when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic". So drivers won't be able to do that anymore. It also removes the loophole that allows for double parking or other "bad" parking temporarily to load or unload freight or passengers. I'm not sure what prompted the first change, but I would guess someone started abusing that loophole. The second changes is long overdue.

Regional traffic fatalities hit a 10 year high in 2017

MWCOG released their annual report on drug and alcohol related fatalities and it does not have good news. After hitting a 7 year low of 59 for the region in 2016, there was a reversion to the mean and it surged back up to 86 in 2017, which is the 2nd worst of the 8 years listed in the report. The drop and subsequent rise were primarily driven by PG County which hit a low of 17 in 2016 and then popped back up to 34 in 2017, but Northern Virginia did it's part as it had a 10 year high of 29. 

Alcohol-related traffic arrests are down 8%, and crashes are down 3% even while total crashes are up a trivial amount. Total injuries and alcohol-related injuries are down by 18% an 8% respectively. Total fatalities are up 11%, to 271, for the worst year since 2008.  

The data isn't perfect - it never is. For example, they group all the drug and alcohol crashes together, so it's impossible to say how progress is going on the two - but based on what I know about DC, alcohol is the bigger problem. Also, DUI fatalities are under-reported as they don't always test a driver if there is no crime to investigate - such as in a single-car fatality. In addition reporting methods are not standardized across the jurisdictions. What we can say is that drug and alcohol played a role in at least 31% of all traffic fatalities, but likely higher because many are unreported. 

If we're going to get to Vision Zero, we're going to have to get a handle on drunk driving.