The Complete Streets bill is made up of H.F. 2801 and S.F. 2461.

Per the bills – and general definition of Complete Streets from a national policy perspective – Complete Streets considers the needs of all users moving along and across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings.

In the case of Minnesota’s Complete Streets legislation, Complete Streets applies to every road construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation project funded partially or completely by the state.

Federal bills to create similar consideration for federally-funded road projects is still pending as S. 584 and H.R. 1443. Minnesota’s Senators – Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken – have both signed on to S. 584 as co-sponsors. H.R. 1443 is currently co-sponsored by Reps. Keith Ellison (MN-5) and Tim Walz (MN-1). Minnesota’s other Congressional representatives have not yet signed on as co-sponsors. While this is not necessarily a sign that they do not support the legislation, if you live in Districts 2, 3, 4, or 6, consider writing a letter of support to your Congressperson.

SF 2453 and HF 2616 amend Minnesota Statutes 169.06, Subd. 9 to insert the words “bicycle or” into the existing law that allows motorcycles an affirmative defense for proceeding through a red light if the motorcycle is unable to trigger the signal to change to green.

Subd. 9. Affirmative defense relating to unchanging traffic-control signal.
(a) A person operating a bicycle or motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light has affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions:
(1) the bicycle or motorcycle has been brought to a complete stop;
(2) the traffic-control signal continues to show a red light for an unreasonable time;
(3) the traffic-control signal is apparently malfunctioning or, if programmed or engineered to change to a green light only after detecting the approach of a motor vehicle, the signal has apparently failed to detect the arrival of the bicycle or motorcycle; and
(4) no motor vehicle or person is approaching on the street or highway to be crossed or entered or is so far away from the intersection that it does not constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) The affirmative defense in this subdivision applies only to a violation for entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control
signal against a red light and does not provide a defense to any other civil or criminal action.

The big things to keep in mind is that a full stop is required, and it needs to stay red for an unreasonable time. Cyclists need to use some sense when defining ‘unreasonable.’ Motorist distance on the cross-street is also a consideration.

Jumping the red after resting for 2.2 milliseconds is not the intent of this new rule, and has a risk of increasing cyclists’ reputation for ignoring traffic signals and laws. Use the law in good faith!

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.

I really don’t have anything in for Edina. The articles covering their attempts to try to be bicycle-friendly just make it so easy.

Apparently, a bike lane is more detrimental to property values than a lot of on-street parking in front of a home:

“I just don’t know how anyone can justify having a bike trail in my front yard as an asset to my home,” she said.

Of course, as we might expect, there’s so much more to quibble about:

The street is so busy that residents sometimes have trouble backing out of their driveways.

In that case, on-street parking is likely to block the view when backing out more than a bike lane. Also, if the lane is supposed to be great encouragement to cyclists, the traffic flow of the street is likely to discourage that right back down.

The goal of most of the proposed improvements to W. 70th is to calm traffic and have it move at a more appropriate pace. Surely that helps beautify a street and improve living conditions?

As I’ve said in the past, I think the idea that bike lanes automagically create bicycle-friendliness is wrong. All you have to do is read some of the quotes of the Edina people in the articles to prove my point.

They found that as children under 15 years of age were required to wear helmets, the youth mortality rate from bicycle accidents decreased significantly.

I would throw in as an important adjunct that parents who strap the helmet on their kid and then don’t wear one themselves provide poor role model behavior to their kids. Adults are prone to all sorts of accidents that may have little to do with skill and more about happenstance (or even just ‘riding with kids, who are less predictable’). Concussions are no fun, and even non-serious head knocks can be awfully bloody. Watching the adult role model bleed profusely from a head wound is unlikely to be a great formative experience for a child. Or so I’d guess. I’d suggest avoiding field study of this, anyway, per my mother’s classic rule: Blood belongs inside the body.

Apparently, MNDOT is using creosote-treated wood for the crossing. Exposure to creosote can cause irritation of the skin, and eating it is an especially bad plan.

MNDOT points out that it’s a river crossing, so metal is a bad plan. No one has suggested that bridges are meant to be crossed, not camped out upon or eaten.

Me, I still think bikes can do just fine on the pavement of the bridge proper, as I have every time I’ve ever crossed that bridge on a bicycle.

It’s rare that my work life as an Internet Alpha Geek has this kind of overlap into the stuff I discuss here on Ride Boldly!

This is, of course, false. Two objects moving toward each other at any speed will have a more forceful collision than two objects traveling in the same direction. It is also illegal road use in Minnesota.

Which doesn’t explain why when I saw a dude on a bike going the wrong way in the shoulder of Central Avenue shortly after it crosses under US10 in Blaine the cop he rode by had no reaction. That part of Central is a crapshoot at best, but going against traffic there is like waving a neon sign that says I WANT TO DIE K THX.

The optical illusion is described as “a flat piece of blue, white and orange plastic that is designed to look like a 3-D pyramid from afar when applied to the pavement.” There is a claim that they require little maintenance after application, but none of the tests have been run in places like Buffalo or Minneapolis, where winter is rough on roads and road markings.

I have no idea how the illusion varies from different vehicular cockpit positions, or from a bicycle of any kind.

It is also noted that as motorists realize the fake bump is there, the calming effect wears off for regular users of a route. Still, NTHSA are continuing tests, because they require no engineering and are really cheap, thus I have a feeling they really want to see data that justifies using them.

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.