Whither a League of American Bicyclists Legal Defense Fund?

...I'm the innocent bystander
But somehow I got stuck
Between a rock and a hard place
And I'm down on my luck
Yes, I'm down on my luck
Well, I'm down on my luck...

From "Lawyers, Guns, and Money" by the late
Warren Zevon (1947-2003)

Once again, we are lucky we live in Los Alamos where cyclists are treated fairly by the Police and county government. And by most people, too. You could be stuck in Black Hawk, Colorado. They just banned bikes. Really.

But in response to some highly visible (on the Internet) prosecutions of a few cyclists occurring elsewhere (Reed Bates in TX and Eli Damon in MA) and the resulting discussion of these on the Internet, I made the suggestion to the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) that it establish a Legal Defense Fund (the late and great Warren Zevon said it best) in conjunction with the bicycling industry. Why the bicycling industry? Well, it has deeper pockets than LAB and has a lot to lose if cyclists are subjected to hostile legal actions for riding our bikes in what we would assume is a legal, law-abiding fashion. Or, when cyclists are facing harsh and discriminatory laws. The LAB LDF could back up local and state bicycling organizations in critical cases. Selz vs. Trotwood, OH, was an example.

Having said that, not all cyclists actions are defensible and not all worthy cases are winnable. For example, I am not taking a stand on the TX or MA cases I mentioned above but merely supplying them as examples. Carefully considered opinions on those cases should be offered by those with legal expertise and "boots on the ground" in those states. Indeed, some strict guidelines and oversight of a LAB-LDF would have to apply before resources are committed. Obviously, some people would feel they were not represented but this is the real world we live in; checkbooks are not infinite and hard decisions have to be made.

Should the League establish a LDF, I would write a check. Here are some guidelines we used, assuming I remember them correctly, when I belonged to a labor union and was a member of the Board of Directors of the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly (UHPA):
======================

We paid our law firm an annual retainer out of union dues.

When a faculty member got behind the 8 ball at work and filed a formal grievance, a grievance committee would meet and taking advice from our legal counsel if needed, vote on whether it was a valid case that we wanted to pursue.

If our lawyer's services were needed for further work, the hired guns would be called in, I think by our Executive Director.

Our lawyers were experts in labor and contract law and how that applied at Hawaii public universities.

Getting grievance committee and ED approval, a case involving a major commitment of the law firm would go to the full Board for a vote on whether to support it since a legal battle involves substantial union resources. We did not want to spend scarce resources on foolish cases when people voluntarily and willfully screwed up. I recall voting on at least one of these cases--in support of a faculty member whose work I detested but who had been legally screwed by the administration.

I imagine most organizations have some sort of vetting protocols in place.

That is my member suggestion to our LAB Executive Board. Perhaps the League and BikesBelong could convince a prominent person such as Bob Mionske to join our Executive Board as Chief Legal Counsel.

As it happened, our UHPA lead attorney, Tony Gill, was also the captain of my USCF racing team. Small world.

Support the League. Join and get involved even if it means being a PITA.

New AASHTO Bicycling Design Guide is out for comments

The new AASHTO draft bike guide is online. Here is the document. Over 200 pages and 8 Mb, so not sure everyone will want hard copy.

http://design.transportation.org/Documents/DraftBikeGuideFeb2010.pdf

Some good stuff there and some good definitions. I especially like the AASHTO explicit statement on what is "as far right as practicable, on page 46. Most is in Los Alamos Code except the explicit "right tire track" guidance, which should be good for police and good teaching material for citizens who think we should be riding in the gutter.

Apparently, comments from critics have to go through an AASHTO committee member. I sent one to Richard Moeur, who is a cyclist and state transportation engineer licenced in AZ and who was involved in AASHTO. I emailed State BPE coordinator Tom Trowbridge to see if someone from New Mexico can take comments.

Downtown Streets Plan and Bicycling

I have asked to have the revised Downtown Streets Standards proposal put on the agenda for this Thursday's Transportation Board meeting. The original wording regarding bicycling approved by the Transportation Board is first. Then the new wording, which the Transportation Board just received to look at.

Original:

Objective 1C: Bicycles: Street standards will strive to incorporate elements that enhance safety, comfort, and mobility of bicyclists
Strategies
1. Develop a long range plan for a network of bike routes;
2. Street standards will include marked bike lanes, shared lanes or separate bide/ped paths as appropriate to the street type and bicycle network where possible;
3. Bike Facilities: Street standards will include bike racks and other bicycle storage/parking facilities appropriate to the street.

Revised:

1.1. Bicycles. Street designs will strive to incorporate elements that enhance safety, comfort, and mobility of bicyclists. Some elements to be considered are listed below.
1.1.1. Plan Adherence. Designers shall, to the extent possible, adhere to any County plans for a network of bike routes.
1.1.2. Bike Lanes. Wherever possible and appropriate, street designs should include marked bike lanes, shared lanes or separate bicycle pedestrian paths as appropriate to the street type on which they are located.
1.1.3. Bike Facilities. To the extent feasible and appropriate, street designs should include bike facilities including but not limited to bike racks, and storage and parking facilities.
1.1.4. Separate Pathways. Where feasible, bicycle paths separate from the street right- of-way shall be considered.

My concern is the original wording put all types of facilities on an even basis, and left facility design to be "appropriate to the street". The new wording specifically calls for a primacy of separate bike paths where feasible, i.e., "shall be considered".

I have two objections. First, this diminishes our rights to the road by encouraging the thinking that bicyclists don't belong there but on a separate facility. Secondly, I wonder if the DT Streets task force fully understands what they are asking for. Adding paths complicates street design, needs more right of way, and if not done right, can make bicycling more inconvenient and no more safe since if a path looks like a glorified sidewalk or sidepath, it will have the same problems as riding on the sidewalk, i.e., increased conflicts and confusion at intersections. This is why the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) does not endorse sidepaths built alongside roads if the paths intersect the roads. So a bike path would have to be carefully designed to do any good and once built, you would be expected to be using it.

Cycletracks are an ongoing experiment in Europe and are being tried in some U.S. and Canadian cities. They are designed to defeat the hazards cyclists face on road-parallel sidepaths through extensive engineering features such as separate colors, dedicated bicycle-specific traffic signal cycling to hold cars while bicyclists have right of way and vice-versa, and other engineered features designed to manage traffic at conflict points and where turning and crossing are required. Further, they dismiss with the notion of "bike-ped multiuse paths" seen so often in U.S. design. These therefore cost money and while may be a good idea in big cities with big city problems, I am not convinced we need them here.

Your comments now or at the Board meeting are welcome

John Allen's table of contents on bike paths. He has thought about these a lot.
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/index.htm
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/issues.htm

Alta Planning on Cycletracks
Alta Planning: Cycletracks Lessons Learned (pdf)

Two points:
1. Whatever we do, cyclists cannot be less welcome or more inconvenienced on our roads.
2. If cyclists want, and special facilities are built in BombTown, we write the check to do it right based on all the available best practices and lessons learned.

League of American Bicyclists Equity Statement

League National Rally in Albuquerque, 3-6 June, Ride for Gail proclamation on 4 March

Here is the rally site which links to the league site.

And from Gov. Richardson and BCNM:

Governors Proclamation Honors New Mexicos Top Bicycle Advocate on March 4th, 2010

Santa Fe, February 17, 2010 New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has proclaimed March 4, 2010 as Ride Your Bicycle In Honor Of Gail Ryba Day, to pay tribute to New Mexico's foremost bicycle advocate.

For more than a decade, Dr. Gail Ryba has been New Mexico's leading voice in promoting bicycling for transportation, highlighting its many benefits including reduced auto congestion, preservation of the environment and increased physical fitness for those who ride, said the proclamation signed by the Governor.

The Proclamation honors Dr. Ryba for her bicycle advocacy work in New Mexico as well as her encouraging New Mexicans to incorporate bicycles for all transportation needs. In addition, the Proclamation notes that Gail has worked to educate motorists and cyclists alike to promote mutual awareness and safety.

We're both proud and pleased that Gail Ryba's work is honored through this Proclamation and we urge all New Mexicans to ride bicycles on March 4th, added the Board Members of the Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico. For those citizens who are unable to ride a bicycle, the Board asked that they choose a mass transportation alternative or carpool on the fourth.

Ryba, who has a Ph.D. in Chemistry from California Institute of Technology, first came to New Mexico to work for Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. She co-founded the Sandia Bicycle Commuters Group, then founded Albuquerque's first bicycle advocacy group, the Greater Albuquerque Spokes People (GASP), which is now BikeABQ.

In 2001 after moving to Santa Fe, Dr. Ryba went on to form the Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico (BCNM), the statewide bicycle advocacy organization. Additionally, she has served on the New Mexico Department of Transportation's Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Advisory Committee. Her role as a bike advocate is one part of her complete commitment to sustainability in a broad range of concerns. As Executive Director of the New Mexico Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy, she promoted renewable energy and fair practices in energy development for the state, said Elena Kayak, Energy/Environmental Specialist for Rio Rancho Public Schools.

For more information on Ride Your Bicycle in Honor of Gail Ryba Day, contact: Diane Albert at 505.235.2277 or president@bikenm.org

Online interview with cycling Attorney Bob Mionske

Nolo Interview: Bob Mionske on legal issues for cyclists (podcast)

Secretary LaHood Issues Recall of the American Motorist

"DoT Secretary Ray La Hood has recalled the entire surface transportation fleet to replace an endemic factory defect: dangerous loose nuts have been installed behind the steering wheels of more than half of our cars..."

Too far out to be true? Much has been said lately about the recall of all those Toyotas due to defects in brake algorithms and sticky accelerators. But from what I have read in multiple sources (here is one), there have been about 19 deaths over a decade cause by Toyota's faulty throttles. Not sure how many have been killed by the brakes, but I suspect similar low numbers.

Meanwhile, what about the real "factory defects" in our vehicle fleet? We have killed roughly 400,000 people in traffic crashes over the last decade and according to the FHWA: "Depending on the source, driver error is cited as the cause of 45 to 75 percent of roadway crashes and as a contributing factor in the majority of crashes (Hankey, et al, 1999)."

Out of all those deaths, the defective gas pedal can explain perhaps %0.005. Driver error? 45-75%. Who are we kidding?

While roads and cars have acquired numerous safety features over the last quarter century, we see two big problems. One, that motorists increasingly take safety for granted and often engage in high-risk behavior such as driver distraction. Secondly, many of these improvements, designed to protect motorists, have done little to protect non-motorists such as bicyclists and pedestrians who are at ever increasing risk of being hit by distracted or safety tone-deaf motorists.

DoT Secretary Ray LaHood has been quoted as calling Toyota "a little safety deaf" over the accelerator issue. But looking at the FHWA report, don't you think its about time that the Secretary of Transportation took stronger action to prevent the lion's share of traffic crashes and immediately demand a recall of that most imperfect of designs, the "safety deaf" American motorist, to repair his or her hearing?