Safety First

With regard to the post below it is, of course, worth saying that engineering our cities so as to support the needs of all the users of our streets, rather than the desire of suburban commuters to move very quickly, is at times literally a matter of life and death. Take the example of Alice Swanson the 22 year-old bicycle commuter killed yesterday as she attempted to bike west on R Street through the intersection with 20th Street by a garbage truck that seems to have turned right without looking to see if anyone was in the bike lane moving forward.

This particular intersection is not an especially dangerous one, in my view, which goes to show that terrible things can happen even with decent traffic engineering. But it also serves as a reminder that at other, worse-designed elements of our streets, huge risks are taken every day with the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

Comments

Here is a "bike box" system that the city of Portland is implementing designed to prevent exactly this kind of thing (which is a huge problem here given the relative numbers of bikes & cars on the road.)

http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=46717

Essentially, it's a zone at the top (front?) of the intersection reserved for bikes and the cars have to stay behind it. It means that all of the riders going straight through the light end up in front of the cars, rather than to the side of them. I haven't seen this in action yet but I'm very curious.

Posted by B | July 9, 2008 2:55 PM

When you bike in a major city like DC, LA, NYC or SF, you are making a foolish decision and putting your life up for grabs.

Darwin says that dumb fucks die off.

So maybe there won't be any bikers left in a few years.

Whatever, if you think biking in a major city is a smart move, tell that to this girl's parents.

RIP

Smarten up.

Posted by Stop the Idiocy | July 9, 2008 2:58 PM

At least now DC residents have the option of brandishing handguns during an episode of road rage.

Posted by steve duncan | July 9, 2008 3:00 PM

While Ms. Swanson's death is unquestionably tragic, the news coverage indicated that her death was the first bicycle fatality of the year, and that there were two such fatalities last year.

By contrast, somewhere upwards of 40 people die in car accidents in a given year in the district.

Is it possible that some of the kerfuffle is because Ms. Swanson was a pretty white woman?

Posted by Karl | July 9, 2008 3:05 PM

Smarten up.

Go f yourself.

Posted by BFR | July 9, 2008 3:06 PM

As a Portland driver, I'm a huge fan of the bike boxes. They not only make you stop early and give some room for the bikes, but they also have a long lead-up green strip, which puts you on guard that you're entering an intersection with a bike lane to your right. Some busy intersections simply use the strips without the boxes, just to point out that bikes cross these streets, too.

After we had two bikers get killed in like 10 days by trucks carelessly turning right, I've become much more aware of this problem. The bright-green pavement really helps with that awareness.

Posted by ryan | July 9, 2008 3:31 PM

Darwin says that dumb fucks die off.

And yet you live. Ah, society's triumph over nature.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 9, 2008 3:32 PM

Karl, I think they're writing about her because she's the first bicyclist killed this year. And as someone who bikes around DC all the time (and happened to spend four years in college with Alice), I don't think it's particularly accurate or charming to characterize her as a "dumb fuck." Tragic, yes.

Posted by Conor Clarke | July 9, 2008 3:35 PM

This particular intersection is not an especially dangerous one, in my view, which goes to show that terrible things can happen even with decent traffic engineering. But it also serves as a reminder that at other, worse-designed elements of our streets, huge risks are taken every day with the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

This is a pretty specious argument. It sounds to me a bit like this:

On a relatively safe street, a quite rare event took place, which highlights the fact that many streets are not safe, and events like this aren't rare.

For a number of reasons, I am all for increasing bicycle and scooter commuting (and commute by scooter myself). I'm all for increasing both the safety and the convenience for people that choose these options. But they do entail some risk, as, frankly, does driving. This here is basically just pointless sensationalism.

Posted by Brad L | July 9, 2008 3:38 PM

I bike through the downtown of a major midwestern city nearly every afternoon. I'm not at all trying to victimize Ms. Swanson here, but you have to ride defensively, especially when approaching intersections. But even when doing that I've had to lock up the brakes when a driver decides - at the last second and wihtout signaling - to make a right turn. Unfortunately, that's reality.

I say this as someone who's been riding and racing bikes for about 15 years, so bike-handling skills are second nature to me. It's much harder for someone who's not quite as comfortable/confident on the bike to deal with adverse/acute traffic situations.

Posted by Kurzleg | July 9, 2008 3:42 PM

"it is, of course, worth saying that engineering our cities so as to support the needs of all the users of our streets, rather than the desire of suburban commuters to move very quickly, is at times literally a matter of life and death."

What do suburban commuters have to do with an incident involving a bicyclist and a garbage truck?

(admittedly a silly question with an obvious answer: nothing. But its still valuable to point out the utter irrelevance of facts or logical consistency on this site).

Sk

Posted by Sk | July 9, 2008 3:46 PM

What do suburban commuters have to do with an incident involving a bicyclist and a garbage truck?

Right, because obviously garbage trucks are the only vehicles that are potential dangerous to bikers.

Posted by skiddie | July 9, 2008 3:56 PM

many years ago i was hit, on my bike, by a woman making a right turn. my bike went underneath and i went into the windshield. i wasn't hurt but when i pulled my bike out from under the car, the front and rear axles were touching.

that, and the fact that multiple cyclists in my area have been killed by hit from behind by trucks with loads that hung out into the shoulder, means i don't ride any more. it's dangerous enough in a car.

Posted by cleek | July 9, 2008 4:24 PM

Right, because obviously garbage trucks are the only vehicles that are potential dangerous to bikers.

Which illustrates that sometimes you gotta to make cold calculations when involved in public policy.

Assume the numbers given above are correct. That this is the first cyclist death of this year and that there were two last year. So it looks like 2 deaths a year. (out of a resident population of 600K and a close metro pop of about 900K - i.e. people who could bicycle from home into the district.)

So how much should the government spend to 're-engineer' the cities? $200K? $1 Million? $10 million?

How much is one life worth?

100K? 1 million? 10 million?

And could that money be spent elsewhere for greater benefit?

Yes, this simple analysis discounts cost of injuries from 'near misses'. That is not my point.

Public works projects are not about "support the needs of all the users of our streets." They're not even about supporting the needs of any majority or minority of the users of the streets. They're about supporting the majority of the public.

Supporting certain projects of bike lanes, light rail, hov, whatever, may be a wise spending of funds for maximum public benefit. and sometimes not. But to trying to please *every single constituent* leads to disastrous public policy.

Posted by Kolohe | July 9, 2008 5:05 PM

Riding bikes in cities is dangerous. Mostly because drivers do not know bicycle has the same rights as a car. Also drivers just do not look for bicycles.

Denmark is installing RFID readers at intersections that have had problems with bicycle and car crashes. The bicyclist puts a RFID tag on the bicycle and it sets off flashing Bicycle lights.

I was a Bicycle messenger in Baltimore Md for six months. Always be aggressive in traffic, and assume the cars can not see you. If a car starts to come into your space hit it with the palm of your hand as loud as you can. You want the driver to think a collision has occurred before you are hit. This will get the driver to instinctively hit the brakes.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | July 9, 2008 5:21 PM

Bike boxes are a good solution, as long as they're enforced. Given the indifferent attitude to cycling most east coast cities have, I doubt they will be.

Posted by Joel | July 9, 2008 6:11 PM

Matt said the driver probably didn't see her. He's much too kind. He had to pass her in order to turn in front of her, and as a longtime cyclist, I know that most cars do see you, they just figure you'll have to stop for them if they turn.

People who work and drive all day, such as garbage truck drivers, are especially heedless and impatient, figuring everyone should get out of their way, especially pedestrians and cyclists.

I hope her family cleans the company out, or the local government if the government owns the garbage truck directly.

Posted by Adam Herman | July 9, 2008 7:18 PM

This is one reason why bike lanes carved out from normal streets are mostly useless. This kind of accident (bicyclist cut off by vehicle turning right) is the most common dangerous interaction, and this type of bike lane does nothing whatsoever to help. It may lull inexperienced cyclists into a false sense of security, and may also induce cyclists to ride too close to parked cars, where doors and pedestrians are a serious problem.

The bike box system is helpful at lights, but you don't need a bike lane to implement it.

Posted by matt wilbert | July 9, 2008 9:11 PM

Oh, cripes. Frankly, my experience is that bike riders want streets reengineered mainly to support *their* desire to "move very quickly." Just yesterday, while driving in the left of two lanes, I pulled up to an intersection just as a yellow turned red. Just after that yellow turned red, a biker coming up in the outer lane on my right hit the intersection and, without so much as slowing down, proceeded to make a left turn, around me, on a red, in an intersection busy enough to have cross traffic both ways. This seems to be the norm around here, which is why I don't have to reach back further than yesterday to find a personal example, and frankly, it's been pretty typical of bikers in all the towns I've lived in.

Posted by NK | July 9, 2008 10:26 PM

No, riding a bike in cities is *not* dangerous. This is clearly born out by the statistics.

"Public works projects are not about 'support the needs of all the users of our streets.' They're not even about supporting the needs of any majority or minority of the users of the streets. They're about supporting the majority of the public."

Exactly, that's where money for public works should go. I'm not sure exactly what your point is, since that's completely irrelevant to the question of cyclists rights, traffic calming, law enforcement, and other issues.

Posted by ibc | July 9, 2008 11:04 PM

"Oh, cripes. Frankly, my experience is that bike riders want streets reengineered mainly to support *their* desire to 'move very quickly.'"

Get ahold of yourself, Gertrude. I'm sorry you had to see that, but I'm not quite sure what that has to do with a girl run over in a bike lane while proceeding legally through a green light.

I see cars every day driving 10-15 mph over the speed limit in an urban environment. This is probably 90% of all cars in the city, and it's *infinitely* more dangerous than what you've described.

So I think you need to edit your comment from "riders want streets reengineered mainly to support *their* desire to 'move very quickly'" which is absolute fucking horseshit, to "riders want to exercise their rights to ride on the street without petulant shitwits in automobiles forcing them off the road."

Your welcome.

Posted by ibc | July 9, 2008 11:15 PM

I'm not a cyclist, but just walking around Manhattan as a pedestrian I've often had to jump out of the way of cars rapidly turning onto streets through intersections I was trying to cross, when I had the right of way. SUV drivers seem to be the worst offenders, followed by taxi drivers.

The city politics blogger Larry Littlefield (http://www.r8ny.com/) once posted that when walking around New York its safest to jaywalk and cross the street anywhere but at the intersection, to avoid getting hit by vehicles rapidly turning right, and this has been borne out by my experience.

Bike lanes carved out from normal city streets strike me as useless too. The bicycle should be viewed as a vehicle form of transportation, that can't really coexist with engine powered vehicles and can coexist with pedestrians about as well as engine powered vehicles. Bike lanes carved out of normal city streets reflect thinking that cyclists are just gussied up pedestrians. Ideally there should be a network of routes for bikes through cities, less dense then the network of auto routes, running through parks, industrial zones, and some streets and avenues turned over to cyclists and busses and from which privately owned cars are banned.

Posted by Ed | July 10, 2008 3:55 AM

I hate bike lanes. The safest way to ride is to make yourself obnoxiously visible, ride in a car lane, taking the entire lane up. Riding in a bike lane is good way to get doored. You're invisible to cars and pedestrians (who are mostly oblivious to the dangers they face). The sense of entitlement to the road is shared by everybody, including cyclists, but cyclists are more aware of everything.

Take up a full lane, ignore the honking behind, be prepared to be cut off at any moment. Don't ride in a bike lane thinking you're safe, because you are in terrible danger. I've never been doored, technically, but a friend of mine was, and I had the unfortunate choice of basically falling over him or swerving out into sixth avenue traffic. A cab missed his head by like a foot. Neither of us was hurt beyond a bruise, but lesson learned.

Posted by phil | July 10, 2008 7:54 AM

All you hippie bicyclists need to smarten up and stop playing with your little toys around big machines like dumptrucks.

Whine all you want, but any rational person knows that riding a bike in a major city is just asking for it.

Maybe if the Bicycle Fascists like Yglesias weren't hyping their ill-conceived anti-congestion proposals so much, this poor girl wouldn't have made the dumb decision she did and would still be alive.

Fact is, bikes have no place on the road with motor vehicles. They are dangerous and a threat to everybody.

Stop the madness!

Posted by Smarten Down | July 10, 2008 3:38 PM

If someone driving an economy-sized car had been struck and killed by a dump truck, would Smarten-down also inveigh against small cars? I mean really, where does it all end? Do we all end up driving tanks for safety?

Posted by JonF | July 10, 2008 6:28 PM

I agree with Smarten Down... motor vehicles are dangerous and a threat to everybody.

Posted by Medium Dave | July 10, 2008 6:45 PM