Duluth’s Northland News Center, which is a site for Duluth’s CBS, NBC, CW and ‘MyNetwork’ affiliate television outlets, provokes today’s big headsmack with their article “BICYCLE RIDING DEATHS UP IN MN.”

While the article does include some fatality statistics for the state, I’m relatively sure that the safety message being put out by Susan Koschak, the chair of the Statewide Non-Motorized Advisory Committee, didn’t include the OMG YOU WILL ALL DIE tilt. The DPS official quoted also is quoted on safety, although the fatality figure (average of 8 cyclist deaths/year) is a DPS number.

Just as a comparison, DPS reports 72 motorcyclist deaths in 2008, and 416 car accident deaths in 2009. Obviously, working towards 0 in all columns is important, but you rarely see the attachment of OMG DANGER! attached in the same way to these other modes of transport.

Northland News also inserts a “use bike paths!” comment, even though DPS and MNDOT share the 8 principles of the Share the Road Minnesota campaign, all of which focus on appropriate and legal use of roadways by cyclists.

I’m blaming this all on Northland, as the state agencies quoted are typically right on and supportive of the Share the Road principles and Minnesota statutes on bicyclists. Education of all roadway users – and not breathless sharing of noncontextual fatality statistics – is the key to cyclist safety on the roads. All a headline of this nature does is forward a not-especially-subtle bias against cyclists’ road rights.

Wired Magazine are ‘crowdsourcing’ reviews, asking people to try their route and see what comes out of the system. It’s a generally savvy crowd, so they aren’t assaulting Google (or their data sources) for errors.

Meanwhile, others are claiming Google is providing hazardous directions. The notable in this category is the NY Post, who found that Google’s data on NYC bike routes is not accurate. Commenters on this article are embracing the general run of bike-hater joy, discussing running bikers off the roads, how this is all a liberal conspiracy, etc. You know, the usual.

As someone who works with Google services every day (for money!), I’ll say that I come closer to the opinions of the Wired folks. It’s a beta project. The pedestrian walking routes instructions have also been notably erratic (routing people onto highways, onramps, sidewalk-free zones). There are prominent buttons to provide feedback. Garmin and other GPS instructions haven’t been 100% either.

GPS services and Google Maps are always going to be limited by their data sets. I think anyone going somewhere unfamiliar, or coming in from out-of-town, needs to view Google Maps as a guide. Talking to a good local bicycle shop, or a local bicycle club, will ever be your best bet for getting the real (and most current) poop on local bike routes, including road construction, reality of what traffic levels are like, and even if they’re scenic or not. No online data set will ever match the know-how of the local cyclists!

• The Winona Bridge, about which I have written a billion times following its brief closure in Summer 2008, is now scheduled for ‘rehabilitation’ in 2014. Everyone gets to take their chances on this fracture-critical structure until then.

• A Complete Streets bill is under consideration in Minnesota. I recommend against even going NEAR the comments on the linked article, as they are full of standard-issue hatred of bicyclists and the same tired arguments about licensing, taxes, and etc. that we have heard many times before.
• City of St. Paul is starting pothole patching this week. Hooray. I think we’ve all encountered a few doozies lately. MPR’s user-driven pothole map is pretty epic.
• The National Bicycle Summit is next week in Washington DC. I’ll be there! Watch this space for coverage of the sessions, plus I’ll also provide a summary of the bills we’re advocating for on Capitol Hill – the Active Community Transportation Act of 2010, the federal Complete Streets bill, the Urban Revitalization and Livable Communities Act and the reauthorization of Safe Routes to School.

Photo Credit: US Census Bureau PIO

• Drivers are 8 times as likely to get in an accident while texting than those, you know, paying attention
• Driver distraction was reported to have been involved in 16 percent of all fatal crashes in 2008
• An estimated 22 percent of injury crashes were reported to have involved distracted driving

(Source: USDOT data)

Now, Oprah’s on the scene. Monday’s Oprah show put a spotlight on distracted driving and its dangers. The Department of Transportation blog offers links to the transcript of the show, as well as a link to the safety pledge Oprah is asking people to sign.

Distracted driving is a huge issue in Minnesota and nationally. The DOT has been focusing on it as an issue, and the Minnesota Trucking Association is now running an educational campaign to their members.

Minnesota already has a no-texting-while-driving law; many other states do as well. Like the drinking age, this is an issue that needs to be legislated on a state-by-state basis, but the federal checkbook may provide pressures to pass legislation. Now with Oprah on the scene, expect to see more press on these efforts to legislate what should be common sense.

Factors cited that create anger include running red lights, texting and e-mailing while driving, putting on makeup, eating, or talking on a cell phone.

One thing worth noting is that per the study methodology, the telephone surveys were performed between January and March 2009. This winter’s road conditions would have been enough to provike road rage in anyone. Still, it’s a fine reminder to cyclists that distracted drivers are a hazard to all around them, and cyclists need to be even more aware of them than even others in automobiles.

We have another fine example of this genre over at the Strib again. The comments, especially, contain a fine run of the usual: Get on the sidewalks, what of the nice trails we paid for so you would get out of our way, you only obey laws when you feel like it, roads are less safe than trails. More haters on parade, egged on by even reasonable comments from people who know their bicycle laws.

I’ve written about this all before – Toys, Letters & the Bullying Response being the most notable case. As Bob Mionske has said, even if every cyclist stopped at every stop sign (which is a good plan, mind you), you’d still get the misguided squawking about bicycles not belonging on roads.

As bicycle advocates, we’ve got miles and years to go before we reach full acceptance.

He was apparently unaware that the Cervelos some of our group were riding definitely had higher value than his panel van, and that we bicycle riders are productive members of society who help pay for the roads we were using.

Spring in Minnesota! Hooray!

The personalization is considered a territorial marker. Boundaries between the personal space and the public space occur. As a result, these drivers are more prone to defend their right-of-way, and are far more prone to name-calling, tailgating, getting out of the vehicle to argue or using their car to block or ram another.

The study also says that it doesn’t matter WHAT the personalization is – so even people who have Wellstone stickers or ‘SLOW DOWN – Respect People & Neighborhoods!’ stickers are potential road ragers.

I can’t say I’m surprised by this, given that I’ve experienced having a hybrid with world peace stickers try to run me off the road near the U of M.

More troubling than the pure gooey grah of such exposes is the viewer feedback on such hard-hitting journalistic glories. Skimming the comments, we have the usual cast of characters:

• Cyclists don’t pay for roads and facilities and should show more gratitude to all those people who do pay for them by using them and staying out of the way. I’ve commented on this previously. Hey, the 7 bikes in our garage weren’t free, and we didn’t steal them either.
• Related silliness: It would be so much safer if we had mandatory sidepath rules or allowed sidewalk riding. (Note: commenter doesn’t call it a mandatory sidepath rule, but that’s what a cycling advocate would call several of the commenter proposals).
• Usual insertion of rants that cyclists ‘obstruct’ vehicular traffic. Bicycles ARE vehicles under state code! The interpretation being given by the intrepid commenter on said statute is that even when following the rules, bicycles impede traffic and thus are in violation of 169.222, section 4c.

There are a number of quality comments, such as the observation that Minneapolis bicycle paths are 10mph zones (and in mostly dreadful shape), and pointing out that while ignoring signals is both illegal and dumb, use of a lane and use of a road is fully legal in Minnesota. Even some of the cyclists, though, are espousing the bicycle as chiefly a toy that should be used in ‘play areas’ (aka paths), rather than considering steps towards traffic calming and vehicular cycling.

Many League Cycling Instructors discuss the need not just for cyclist education, but for better education for ALL road users. Comments like the ones on the ‘news’ story cited above emphasize it. The only question I have is if there’s an openness to learning, or if an attempt to teach will just drive these people to further bile?

Yeah, it’s a little hard to follow the logic path there, but it’s some sort of progress. Chicago politics is a bad place to apply logic, traditionally.

The ordinance has some interesting elements, including fines for turning left or right in front of a bicyclist, passing a bicyclist with less than three feet of space, and opening a vehicle door into the path of a bicyclist. It also establishes a fine for double-parking in a marked shared lane, and increases the fine for driving, standing or parking in a bicycle lane.

If enforced, it could provide some quality revenue for the city. (Come now. It’s Chicago. All fine-worthy offenses are about city coffer enhancement. Ask any Chicagoan!) Enforcement is a key question, of course: Just as many states already have 3-foot buffer rules as I referenced earlier today, there is little precedent for enforcing them. Enforcement requires the education and cooperation of the police force. It’s quite easy for a police force to quietly not bother, particularly in a city of the size and nature of Chicago.

I’m a little wary of too many ‘special’ rules applied to bicycles, as when proper road planning and vehicular cycling principles are applied, a lot of special rules shouldn’t be needed, and existing rules may be sufficient if enforced. Beyond that, many special rules are municipally-specific, which can make keeping track of them as a road user of any type a challenge – and creates specific challenges for educating road users in such regulations. Some of the special regulations can be especially vexing, such as certain of the right-turn/left-turn rules proposed in the Chicago ordinance – given some of the, uh, creative engineering on certain of the city’s bike lanes, compliance with the rule and enforcement of the rule may be a dual challenge.

I’m fairly sure that if one were to look into Chicago ordinances on parking, double-parking, parking outside of parking zones, and causing an accident by opening a door in traffic even when parked in a parking zone are all already ticketable offenses. Large cities tend to have large (and strict) parking codes by necessity, and any of the above offenses would be detrimental to traffic flow, regardless of bicycle involvement.

Speaking of which, the City Transportation Commissioner is promising a summer crackdown on cyclists who violate traffic laws. He points out that laws are already on the books that allow for such enforcement – standard traffic rules. Once again, it gets into the idea that you need to have your police involved in the enforcement. Red light cameras in Chicago have been doing a good job of reducing motorist red light violations, but I’ve seen no stats on what’s happening with cyclists in violation, if anything.

Might be interesting to watch. If you tap into any articles in the Chicago mass media on the cyclist death in the alley cat race (it’s been well-established that the rider wasn’t just taking an ‘orange’ light, but was outright blowing a signal at an intersection that good sense would suggest wouldn’t be worth blowing for victory in a street race), there’s a lot of typical surliness about ‘unregulated’ cyclists. While some of this comes from the idea of bikes as toys and the bullying response, it really isn’t appropriate for cyclists to presume special rights on roadways, even those with bicycle lanes. Traffic laws need to apply to all, and be followed predictably by all, else public safety is at risk.

(Source: Chicago Sun Times)