These Guys

Tag: safety

Frustration

Posted on July 30, 2023July 30, 2023 by ljleathem

As I’ve done for the last several years, I worked with folks to schedule training classes for police officers. This year, they were scheduled in Alabama, Louisiana and New Jersey. The New Jersey sessions were successful; seven groups of officers, from multiple municipalities all across the state participated with great, thought-provoking ideas and discussions in each. In Alabama (one session only), the officers of one agency in a town that sees many bicyclists daily, learned a lot about how and why bicyclists and pedestrians act in certain ways, and we discussed what the law really says versus what many people think it says about the rights and duties of road users. The chief of police in that agency already wants to schedule another session. I’ll be heading back in the fall.

Louisiana, though, was a different story. Sessions in three parishes were scheduled for July. A fourth had been promising to get me and the course into their academy to work with new recruits. I was excited to be able to work in my home state since Louisiana is a focus state under the federal guidelines…that means that the number/rates of injuries and fatalities is higher than most states. Pardon my bluntness, but that means that yes, we’re doing a better job of injuring and killing road users than most other places in the country. What happened? Even with registration open for several weeks I had ZERO registrants for any of the sessions. Another region tried to get a session scheduled. We offered several dates…twice…and then (crickets). I’ve gotten radio silence from the agency that wanted me to present in their academy…

Not the response you might expect. I do understand that staffing is problematic most everywhere, and I’m asking agencies to give me several officers for a half- or a whole day. But there are requirements for continuing education anyway. How does this education not matter? Doesn’t keeping all road users safe make the list? This in a state that has FOUR of the top 50 most dangerous counties (parishes) in the entire country for bicyclists. And those four are all in one region! And in that region, we’ve been trying for three years to get agencies to participate, to no avail.

Given that, I’m not sure Louisiana will renew my grant for the next fiscal year. And that will be the worst thing, because I won’t be able to back and try again for another year. But believe me, I will try again. Because it’s too important not to try!

Same song…again

Posted on November 17, 2021November 17, 2021 by ljleathem

“Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists.”

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)

Yeah…I have started many of my blog posts with a quote…from a book, an essay, an article. Usually they’re about some aspect of being on a bicycle that provides a way to discuss how we can be safer or more confident, but occasionally straying into discussions about crashes, injuries and other such things.

Today, though I was struck by the facts on a particular webpage that I accessed in the process of writing a proposal. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety looked at the US Department of Transportation’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).

As the quote that started this article says, each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. That’s 843 lives lost in 2019. That’s down a bit from the 888 in 2018, but it still represents a frightening number of fathers, mothers, friends, children, sons and daughters who died…

There are some remarkable details in the numbers. Ninety percent of deaths were among bicycle drivers aged 20 and older. Ninety percent is also the reduction in deaths since 1975 for bicycle drivers less than 20 years of age. And in every year since 1975, more males were killed than females.

Helmet use – no, you don’t have to wear a helmet as an adult, but 62% of bicyclists killed in 2019 were not wearing helmets. And yes, I understand that wearing a helmet would NOT prevent a large number of the deaths, but thank you, I’ll be wearing mine every time I get on my bicycle.

I’ve conducted a couple of certification seminars recently, and one of the topics covered is rural riding. One member of the class has to do a presentation on the things one should consider when riding in a rural setting. And in both, the dangers of the rural setting was emphasized. But here’s the thing: 22% of deaths were on rural roads. The other 78% were in urban settings. Hmm…maybe I’ll ride more out in the country.

And the majority occurred on major roads, and away from intersections. Yes, we need to have “eyes in the back of our heads” to see what’s going on around us.

Be vigilant. Be careful. Be alert. But be there. Get on your bike. Ninety-eight percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are NOT bicyclists.

Complete Streets…and all that

Posted on October 18, 2021October 18, 2021 by ljleathem

Complete Streets. A movement. A philosophy. A way of looking at the state of things and creating new avenues of change.

Hmm…avenues of change. Figuratively, or literally?

Yes!

Complete Streets (figuratively)

What does it even mean? Well, to understand that, we need to go back…way back. History of transportation in 25 words or less: People walked. They started riding on animals and making carts. Bikes and roads came along. Then motor vehicles pushed everyone else off the road.

I did it, with one word to spare. The reality is that as each new mode came along, people were forced further and further off the road. Complete Streets is about changing the trajectory. We have historically looked at “throughput,” a term engineers and planners use to mean “how can we ‘improve’ the road so that we can get more cars through here faster?” In America, over time, the road became almost exclusively for motor vehicles. Pedestrians and other road users were shunted over to the edges, and only tolerated rather than acknowledged as legitimate users of the roadways.

And now, we’re taking another look. It’s far too late, but voices are beginning to be heard. There are simply too man y people dying on our roadways every year. We “accept” 30,000 to 40,000 lives lost every year as the cost of doing business. Thirty to forty THOUSAND mothers, fathers, children, sons, daughters lose their lives because we need to get to the shopping center, or across town, or to visit our relatives a few states away faster…

Complete Streets (literally)

So what are we doing? Taking another look at streets. Why are they designed the way that are? Does that street really need to have 3 17- foot lanes in each direction? Does the median need to be 100 feet wide? Using that example, we observe that the speed limit of 35mph is ignored by virtually all motorists. And why wouldn’t it be? The road is begging them to go faster! Would they go fast if the lanes were 10 feet wide, with a narrow median? Studies have shown that the answer is no. Yet, there is very little difference in throughput when lanes are narrowed down…

Hmm. So narrower roads do not really affect how many cars will pass, but slows them down in the process…Sounds like there may be an opportunity there. How about giving some of that space back to other road users, maybe? Like people on bicycles, people on foot…you know, the ones who were using roads before there were cars. It’d be greener, too. And it would take some of the motor vehicles off the road!

That’s one example of how Complete Streets can impact the trajectory. The idea is to look at all roadways, particularly when road changes/improvements are planned. In the design/redesign, think about all road users: how can we make this safe for anyone who needs to use this road, regardless of the mode of transportation? Is a separate bike lane needed? How about green space? What should the speed limit be?

Retrofitting is obviously harder than designing from scratch. But that’s the real world. We have to look at all of the existing roadways and figure out how we do a better job so that the cost of business comes down – WAY down. We CAN’T just keep killing people and saying its ok.

Two Sides of Changing a Flat

Posted on June 30, 2021June 30, 2021 by ljleathem

Which one do you want to hear first? Let’s flip a coin. Oh, it doesn’t matter because they’re both relevant.

Several years ago, the League of American Bicyclists revised the Smart Cycling curriculum. There were some things that needed to be updated. The focus before the revisions was on roadies. Spandex-clad, skinny-tired, long-distance road riders…With the revision, the whole point was to be more inclusive, with anyone pushing the pedals considered a bicyclist.

That was good, because, of course, not everyone driving a bike wants to do a century, or to race. Far more people use their bicycles for transportation and/or recreation, so the shift was appropriate.

One thing that fell off the plate left me wondering, though. The basic course taught by LCIs nationwide included basic bicycle maintenance. It included a bike check (the ABC Quick Check) designed to make sure your bike is ok before a ride. It also included brake and derailleur adjustments (that many folks may never attempt to do…). Finally, it included changing a flat.

All of those except the ABC Quick Check went away when the curriculum changed. All of those changes seemed OK to me, except…changing a flat. I, and several others, pointed out that everyone riding a bike ought to know how to do that. And…even in training to become an LCI, there was officially no requirement that someone know how to do that. We felt then, and I feel now, that there is an issue of (dare I say it) fairness, or equity, in that change?

In my experience, working with many LCIs over the years, more men than women know how to change a flat. And here’s where the two sides I mentioned earlier come in. Shouldn’t we equip all riders with that basic knowledge? Undoubtedly, some people riding bicycles will never do it themselves (bike shops will do it quickly, and at low cost). But there are some who will do it themselves, because it empowers them to take care of their vehicle, or because it frees them to go wherever/whenever without major concern. But if no one ever shows you how to do it, you’re at a disadvantage.

Here’s the other side. I’ll illustrate with a story. On a long charity ride, my (adult) daughter got a flat. Several of the men in our group jumped in to fix it. They assumed 1) she didn’t know how to do it, or 2) she would take too long. My daughter, having been taught to do it, told them all to back off (it was fun to see!). She quickly and efficiently changed the tube, and we went on.

So now we see the issues. We don’t teach people to do it, and then even if we do, we assume they can’t (or they aren’t good at it). How about we give people the skills they need, and then let them decide how to address the problem?

Another “Oops!”

Posted on June 4, 2021June 4, 2021 by ljleathem

I’m sitting in a car dealership, having recall work done. The perfect opportunity to start going through stuff on the computer and cleaning things out/reorganizing/deleting, etc. In digging through the files, I find an old post on bicycle safety from 2020 (wow! pre-COVID) that I apparently never put up. But it’s worth taking a look at it. I wrote it after going on a bike ride with local police officers. And my goodness, that day, they got to experience first-hand some of the craziness that people on bicycles experience ALL. THE. TIME. So I’ll just go ahead and put this out there.

You should think about this in light of all the new bike infrastructure now being built around town. Of course, it’s meant to make roads safer for all users. The whole “Complete Streets” philosophy entails making roads safer for ALL road users, rather than just getting motorists from Point A to Point B faster (which has been the operating principle of road design for quite some time). However, motorists are saying that bicyclists “taking over my streets” and “getting in the way of traffic” and “slowing me down” are just wrong. And they’re taking it out on anyone who disagrees with them…see the road rage incidents mentioned below against bicycling groups that include police officers!!!

Read on…

At the end of January, several LCIs/ride leaders met with officers from New Orleans Police Department’s First District for a bike ride. The inspiration for the ride came when Clark Thompson spoke with Captain LeJon Roberts at a neighborhood association meeting. To Capt. Robert’s statement , “We should go for a bike ride,” Clark responded, “OK. When?”

And so last week, Clark and I, and three other LCIs (Janneke van der Molen, John Strange, Scott Verdun) led a group including about a dozen officers (including Capt Roberts) on a bike ride through the CBD during evening rush hour. Blue Bikes provided bicycles to officers who needed them. The ride included a bit of the French Quarter, Baronne St, Loyola and Tulane Avenues, Galvez, Canal, and Broad Streets, and the Lafitte Greenway/Basin Street.

The officers were split into small groups, riding in plainclothes, so as not to attract any special attention. A mere three blocks from the start of the ride, one group experienced road rage as a motorist told us to quit blocking the street (in not so friendly terms). As soon as we crossed Canal, another group encountered a taxi driver blocking the bike lane, who, when approached and asked to move, threatened the ride leader (it didn’t hurt that Capt. Roberts was in that group).

On reaching Tulane and Loyola, because on the high volume of traffic, we elected not to move to the left lane to turn onto Tulane. Instead we did a two-stage turn, crossing Loyola and Tulane, then waiting for a green light to proceed on Tulane. The light turned green and a motorist gunned it to get in front of us and turn right, almost hitting an officer in the process.

We stopped along the way to discuss what we had seen, and to alert officers to upcoming challenges. We could not have planned for a better (worse?) outcome, as several incidents brought home the reality faced by bicycle drivers every day in the Big Easy…it’s not so easy for people on bicycles. The incidents I mentioned (and others along the way) brought a new level of awareness to the officers. We leaders could see/hear the “Aha!” moments on the ride.

At least this group of officers has a better understanding of how much different roads look when you’re under your own power on two wheels, rather than in a big metal box with the power of a gasoline engine. Capt. Roberts told us that he wants everyone in the First District to experience bicycle safety (or in this case bicycle “un-safety”), and that he will bring it up as something that should be done across the city.

And by the way, the next day, officers were in front of the business where the taxi driver was blocking the lane, handing out $300 tickets.

Small steps, big results. We’ll take it.

For more about These Guys’ efforts in law enforcement, see my post Bikes and the Law or Bicycling and Traffic Law 2018.

More minds changed…

Posted on April 24, 2020December 19, 2020 by ljleathem

In this time of the world being “on hold,” I’m digging up random things. I found this post that I wrote mid-summer, last year. Somehow I neglected to post it. So it’s old, but you didn’t know that!

Different towns, very different programs. We taught the same material, showed the same videos, said the same things. But the days were very different.

In one session, there was mild interest, but little interaction, and almost no one participated in the afternoon on-bike clinic. Our experience shows that the classroom session, as expected, gives the “intellectual” understanding of the issues, problems and concerns regarding traffic law and bicycling. But participants who then join us for a bike ride around town after the classroom session get it to a degree that others don’t.

In a second session, there was real interest, and a lot of interaction among participants and instructor, and EVERYONE participated in the on-bike clinic. They genuinely began to understand what the world looks like from the perspective of the saddle. They realized that things do not look the same as when they’re driving in a large metal box that protects/insulates from the outside world. As one officer said after the road ride, “It’s amazing how much more you can see when you’re on a bike!”

During another road ride, officers experienced the lack of care some motorists have for other road users: I was riding at the back of the group. We were riding lawfully, two abreast in the right lane, when a motorist decided to pass us in the same lane. We were taking up most of it – so he moved over just barely enough to sneak by us. The left lane was unoccupied. Nonetheless, he passed so close to me that his passenger-side mirror came within about three inches of hitting my left arm.

…The best part of the story? I’m riding next to a police officer, in uniform, with the word “POLICE” in reflective, capital letters across his back! Karma’s a bitch, though. The light just ahead turns red, and the motorist has to stop. His window is open. We pull up on his right side and proceed to discuss idiot drivers who think it’s ok/funny to do stupid things like almost run over a group of bicycle riders with police officers in the group. Of course, he wouldn’t look in our direction. The officer was not local, so could not ticket the idiot, but I think it was probably a good thing his windows were down – he looked like he had an accident in his pants!

The light changed, and off he went, rather quickly. I think he was just glad to get away from us once he realized what he had done.

During the course of those rides, I saw a change in how the officers view the world. In the first case, their eyes saw more things, and saw them differently. In the second, they saw how people driving motor vehicles treat other road users, and began to understand why people driving bicycles may feel threatened whenever they get on their bikes to travel.

And that was the point.

What’d You Say?

Posted on April 15, 2020December 19, 2020 by ljleathem

OK, I’m not starting with a quote. “But wait, you always start with a quote!” I’m not starting with a quote because what’s most important here is one word: “accident.” I was inspired to write this post having read an article about language, and how it shapes our understanding…Here’s the reference.

TL:DR – The way we talk about crashes is changing. There are few accidents but many crashes.

“What’s the difference?” you may ask. The word “accident” has a certain connotation. When we hear that word, we believe that it “just happened,” that nothing could have been done to prevent it. The reality is that there are VERY FEW “accidents.” There are literally MILLIONS of crashes every year in the United States alone. In virtually all of them, one (or more) of the operators involved could have done something to avoid the crash. And there’s been research to show that the way we talk/hear/write about a crash has a dramatic impact on our perception of the event.

We read about the bicyclist who was run over by a truck making a right turn in front of a bicyclist…and the article says that the bicyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet. Yes, let’s pretend that a helmet would have prevented the death of a person who was run over by a vehicle weighing up to 80,000 pounds. Let’s forget that the truck driver unsafely turned right in front of a bicyclist legally traveling in a bike lane. The bicyclist WASN’T WEARING A HELMET. As if that would have made a difference!

But that statement changes our perception of the crash…blame is shifted to the bicyclist instead of the truck driver who failed to yield to the bicyclist; who did not merge into the bike lane prior to turning; who did not adequately check for traffic around the vehicle perimeter. No, the bicyclist shouldn’t have been there.

Or how about the motorist/pedestrian crash where the pedestrian is crossing the street in a crosswalk. And the reporter says that traffic is snarled in the whole area while the investigation continues. Subtly, we process that as though the pedestrian was the cause of all the tie-ups. The reality is that the pedestrian had the right-of-way, and the motorist ignored the law (and the person in front!) or “didn’t see the pedestrian” (were you looking…really looking?). But it sounds like all the motorists are being inconvenienced because the darn pedestrian went and got himself run over…

And then there is the official spokesperson for the law enforcement agency, who almost always makes sure to include that bicyclists should always wear helmets and conspicuous clothing…but never mentions either the rights of the pedestrians and bicyclists or the responsibilities of the motorist to be aware of his/her surroundings.

I have one request…and then I will end my semi-rant. Please pay attention to language when you read (or hear or write) reports of crashes. Be sure that the report accurately represents what happened. Try your best to approach it with an unbiased eye/ear. And be sure that the language does not force you to accept a view of the event that may be inaccurate.

This is changing, but very slowly. Crash investigators I have talked to seem to be more aware of the issue; they typically don’t call incidents “accidents.” They call them crashes. But there’s a lot of noise out there. We see road signs (even on some automated signs from state highway departments!) talking about accidents. News reporters talk about traffic accidents. Insurance companies and trial lawyers do the same. We need to do better.

I’ve talked about crashes in other posts. If you’d like to read on, try these: “Losing my balance…and finding my calling,” “GET OFF THE ROAD!,” “No. NO!,” “It was a crash…it was no accident,” “I just crashed! (hypothetically)“