Below is a version of a letter (city not identified) that is being sent to some city governments in the area by the Safety Committee of Cleveland Bikes. If you would like to have a letter sent to your community, or if you are a city official concerned about these problems, please contact fredoswald_AT_yahoo_DOT_com.
XYZ City Council
12345 Sixth St.
XYZ, OH 54321
ClevelandBikes, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, was formed in 2003 to advance all forms of bicycling as economical and healthful recreation, sport and transportation. ClevelandBikes volunteers have years of experience with the critical issue of public education about cycling safety. ClevelandBikes volunteers are ideally positioned to serve as a resource to local governments throughout Northeast Ohio to ensure safe and effective roadways for everyone.
Members of the ClevelandBikes Safety Committee have studied local ordinances in over 60 NE Ohio communities and have rated these ordinances against an objective benchmark involving safety, uniformity and fairness. Unfortunately, there are serious safety problems with the bicycling ordinances of many communities, including XYZ, which currently has a rating of D minus, (on an A-F scale) based on the February 15, 2005 revision.
Effective September, 2006, the Ohio Revised Code requires that any local bicycle ordinances must not be fundamentally inconsistent with the uniform rules of the road prescribed by this chapter and that no such regulation shall prohibit the use of bicycles on any public street or highway except as provided in section 4511.051 of the Revised Code. In addition, No ordinance or regulation enacted ... shall be effective until signs giving notice of the local traffic regulations are posted upon or at the entrance to the highway or part of the highway affected, as may be most appropriate. (ORC §4511.07). Further, no local authority may require that bicycles be operated on sidewalks. (ORC §4511.711).
The XYZ ordinances include provisions that are inconsistent with state law and that significantly increase the risk of collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles. They encourage the dangerous mistakes of novices and discourage the best practices of knowledgeable cyclists. Even if never enforced, they would aid the defense of a negligent driver who injures a cyclist riding on the street. Such provisions also lead to teaching wrong information to children and discourage respect for the law.
Problem 1:
§ 1173.11(a) says (in part): "No person under the age of fourteen (14) years shall operate a bicycle on the roadways within the city, provided sidewalks are available." In addition, 1173.11(c) says "No person under the age of fourteen (14) years shall ride a bicycle or motorized bicycle, upon any public or private property used by the public for the purpose of vehicular travel or parking."
This ordinance is invalid pursuant to ORC § 4511.711. Furthermore, irrespective of its validity it is a bad idea. Bicycle safety studies, such as "Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections" by Wachtel and Lewiston, Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1994, show that the collision rate for sidewalk and sidepath bicycle operators is about twice the rate on the adjacent road. Other studies involving roads with higher intersection density and faster cyclists report a crash rate up to nine times as high.
Because of this danger, the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) specifically warns: "Sidewalks are typically designed for pedestrian speeds and maneuverability and are not safe for higher speed bicycle use. ... At intersections, motorists are often not looking for bicyclists (who are traveling at higher speeds than pedestrians) entering the crosswalk area, particularly when motorists are making a turn. Sight distance is often impaired..."
A sidewalk ordinance declares that every sidewalk in the city is a bicycle facility. However, sidewalks are designed for pedestrians, not vehicular traffic such as bicycles. Many sidewalks have safety defects that can cause bicycle crashes, thus exposing the city to liability. Why is the residential street on which a 13 year old lives, unsafe for cycling, especially if her parents have taught proper methods? In a Palo Alto, California summer program, groups of eight year olds were taught to ride safely on residential streets, ten year olds on up to 4-lane streets with moderate traffic, and 12 year olds on any non-freeway streets. Indeed, well-informed parents can teach these skills earlier than a school group.
We must instead teach both adult and child cyclists to ride properly on the street, following the normal rules of the road. This is the only method that allows the bicycle to be used as a safe and practical transportation vehicle. Younger child cyclists should be kept off the street just as they should not be allowed to cross the streets until they understand how to do this safely. But this must be determined by the parents. Moreover, the parents must learn to operate bicycles correctly so they can instruct their children.
Problem 2:
§ 1173.08, which is based on ORC 4511.55(A), requires riding as near to the right side of the roadway as "practicable". This is often misinterpreted to require riding as near as possible, and encourages cyclists to ride unsafely close to the curb. New ORC § 4511.55(C) adds the following paragraph to eliminate confusion. We recommend that XYZ add a similar paragraph to § 1173.08 to be consistent with Ohio law.
This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it is otherwise unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Problem 3: § 1173.07(a) says: "Every bicycle, motorized bicycle and motorcycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheel or wheels skid on dry, level and clean pavement." Skidding of the wheel is not a good indication of effective brakes. It is nearly impossible (and unsafe to try) to skid the front wheel as this implies. This provision is an outdated throwback to the days when most bicycles were equipped with only rear coaster brakes. We recommend that you simply adopt the ORC § 4511.56(D) requirement of "an adequate brake" to be consistent with Ohio law.
Problem 4:
§ 381.07(a) says: No person over the age of five years shall operate a bicycle within the City unless such person is wearing a protective helmet on his/her head, with the chin strap fastened under the chin. Such helmet shall be fitted to the size of the operator and shall meet or exceed the standards set by ANSI (American National Standards Institute) or SNELL (Snell Memorial Foundation). While Cleveland Bikes strongly recommends wearing a helmet (we use them ourselves), we do not support mandating helmet use because there are significant problems with such laws:
This ordinance is particularly objectionable because it apparently applies to adults, rather than just young children. Also, it applies to non-residents of XYZ, adding unfairly and without reasonable notice, to the duties of cyclists who are fully compliant with Ohio law, and who are just passing through XYZ. Further, it lacks a disclaimer for contributory negligence, such as the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes § 3510. "Pedalcycle helmets for certain persons".
Civil actions. -- In no event shall a violation or alleged violation of subsection (a) be used as evidence in a trial of any civil action; nor shall any jury in a civil action be instructed that any conduct did constitute or could be interpreted by them to constitute a violation of subsection (a); nor shall failure to use a pedalcycle helmet be considered as contributory negligence nor shall failure to use a pedalcycle helmet be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action.
Recommendations:
Traffic laws must be as close to uniform as possible - uniform for different classes of drivers and uniform between jurisdictions - and must be enforced uniformly, knowledgeably and fairly. Otherwise, traffic will be less predictable and thus less safe. The ordinances described above demand non-standard operation by operators of bicycles and they are inconsistent with Ohio law.
We suggest you immediately remove subsections (a), and (b) of § 1173.11 because they encourage dangerous practices and § 381.07(a) as it conflicts with the uniform traffic laws of the state and, lacking a negligence waiver, it could allow a negligent driver to escape liability for injuries caused. We also advise you to add the explanatory paragraph about the "near as practicable" rule and not to suggest skidding wheels in your ordinances.
Even better, we suggest you adopt the enclosed Model Municipal Bicycle Code as was done in Brook Park. We also urge you to begin a program to educate citizens and police about the proper methods of bicycle operation, using material such as the enclosures to this letter.
XYZ's ordinances could be made more citizen-friendly by exempting cyclists from many of the city's traffic calming rules. For example, the prohibitions against entering Elm St. (eastbound at its intersection with Smith Rd.) between 4 and 7 p.m. are clearly aimed at controlling the levels of noisy motor vehicle traffic on those streets. Thus, the purpose of these traffic calming rules is not defeated by exempting bicycles, which are silent, do not emit fumes and present minimal dangers to children and other street residents. This could be achieved by placing small signs beneath the larger ones saying either "motor vehicles" or "except bikes".
We would like to meet with you to discuss these concerns. As part of this meeting, we can show you a PowerPoint slideshow that shows how to safely ride a bicycle in traffic by following the standard rules of the road, as the driver of a vehicle. The program illustrates the techniques taught in a "BikeEd" bicycle driving course. Experienced cyclists who use these techniques have a safety record 5 times better than the average person. Our suggestions will make your laws consistent with the best practices of the safest cyclists, thus promoting safety for all and protecting the city from potential liability for mandating dangerous practices.
If you would like to do more to improve conditions in your community, please consider the Cyclist Friendly Communities Award Program of the Ohio Bicycle Federation. If you qualify, you will receive an award for the city, including a sign that announces the CFC status. We can provide more information at a meeting. Please also see www.ohiobike.org/obf-cfc.html or contact fredoswald_AT_yahoo_DOT_com.
We thank you for your consideration. Please let us know how you will deal with this important issue.
Sincerely,
|
/signature/ |
/signature/ |
Below are excerpts from official and professional sources that warn against mandating or encouraging sidewalk bicycle operation.
Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, 1999.
"In residential areas, sidewalk riding by young children is common. With lower bicycle speeds and lower cross street auto speeds, potential conflicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. Nevertheless, this type of sidewalk bicycle use is accepted..." [p. 20]
"...Sidewalks are typically designed for pedestrian speeds and maneuverability and are not safe for higher speed bicycle use. Conflicts are common between pedestrians traveling at low speeds (exiting stores, parked cars, etc.) and bicyclists, as are conflicts with fixed objects (e.g., parking meters, utility poles, sign posts, bus benches, trees, fire hydrants, mail boxes, etc.) Walkers, joggers, skateboarders and roller skaters can, and often do, change their speed and direction almost instantaneously, leaving bicyclists insufficient reaction time to avoid collisions."
"Similarly, pedestrians often have difficulty predicting the direction an oncoming bicyclist will take. At intersections, motorists are often not looking for bicyclists (who are traveling at higher speeds than pedestrians) entering the crosswalk area, particularly when motorists are making a turn. Sight distance is often impaired..." [p.58]The excerpt below is from Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, US Dept. of Transportation Publication No. FHWA-RD-92-073.
"Sidewalks are generally inappropriate for use by adults because they put the adult bicyclist in conflict with motorists using driveways, and with pedestrians, utility poles and signposts. Also, the cyclist is generally not visible or noticed by the motorist so that the cyclist suddenly emerges at intersections, surprising the motorist and creating a hazardous condition."
From the Traffic Safety Toolbox published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1993)
Sidewalk bike paths.
"From the late 1970s through the mid-1980s a number of communities signed some sidewalks or built new paths for bicyclists parallel to roadways. Several states even passed laws forcing bicyclists to use such facilities if they existed. Bicycle/car crashes increased dramatically in some corridors, especially at driveways, intersections, on bridges, and other locations. Sidewalk or paths parallel to a roadway force bicyclists to ride against traffic half of the time. In either direction, motorists are often surprised by the presence of cyclists [on sidepaths], since [motorists] are neither conditioned nor capable of searching these locations for traffic moving at 8-15 mph. Many pedestrians were also hurt, or complained that it was no longer comfortable to walk. Also, many motorists became less considerate of bicyclists who continued to use the often safer roadway sections.…in no case should a bicyclist be forced to use the sidewalk pathway. Never sign a sidewalk or parallel path as a bikeway, since many motorists who see these signs will assume that those bicyclists riding on the roadway section are not permitted to be there."
From the Traffic Control Devices Handbook published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Problems with Parallel Separated Paths
"It is frequently assumed that a separated parallel pathway along an arterial street or highway will provide a superior facility for bicyclists than the provision of on-street accommodations. While a parallel path may be aesthetically appealing, and may serve pedestrians well, the use of sidewalks or parallel separated paths for bicycle accommodation creates the following problems:""These paths will operate as sidewalks, and will be used in both directions, despite signing to the contrary. Bicyclists coming from the right will not be noticed by drivers emerging from or entering cross streets and driveways. See Figure 13 for diagrams that show these potential conflicts."
"Travel in the direction opposite the flow of traffic is particularly hazardous during hours of darkness, because bicyclists may be blinded by oncoming motor vehicle headlamps."
"At intersections, drivers will not be looking for bicyclists, who will be traveling much faster than pedestrians, to enter the crosswalk area."
"At approaches to intersections, parked vehicles interfere with the visibility of bicyclists to road users. Also, at driveways sight distances on sidewalks and sidepaths are often impaired by buildings, property fences, vegetation, and other obstructions."
"Stopped cross street motor vehicle traffic or vehicles exiting side streets or driveways may block the sidepath or sidewalk."
"These paths are typically not safe for higher-speed use. Due to the speed differential, conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians are common. Fixed objects such as parking meters, utility poles, sign posts, bus shelters and benches, trees, hydrants, and cross-sloped sidewalk ramps also pose a hazard to bicyclists."
"The development of extremely wide sidewalks or sidepaths does not necessarily add to the safety of bicycle travel, as wide sidewalks and paths will encourage higher speed bicycle use, magnifying the potential for conflicts at intersections and driveways, and conflicts with pedestrians and fixed objects."
"Many bicyclists will use the roadway instead of the sidewalk or sidepath because they have found the highway to be safer, more convenient, or better maintained. Bicyclists using the roadway are often subjected to harassment by motorists, who feel that in all cases bicyclists should be on the sidepath or sidewalk instead."
"There is the potential on sidewalks for bicyclists to accidentally ride off the curb, possibly causing a fall or collision with traffic on the roadway. While pathways may reduce the possibility of such collisions by using the recommended 1.5 m (5 ft) separation between the path and the roadway, such pathways will still be vulnerable to most of the other problems listed here."
"Experience has shown that the use of STOP or YIELD signs on sidewalks and pathways to reduce conflicts at driveways and cross streets has little or no benefit. Bicyclists will not comply with unreasonable restrictions on their right of way, especially if the adjacent roadway has no such limitations. This may also breed disrespect for other traffic control devices that are far more important for traffic safety.
Excerpt from Policy and Procedure for Bicycle Projects, Ohio-DOT, 1988,
"BICYCLES ON SIDEWALK TYPE BIKE PATH"
Sidewalk or sidewalk-type bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and
highways will not be approved by ODOT for the following reasons:
Street Smarts by John Allen is a 39 page booklet about cycling in traffic. Street Smarts is very suitable for transportation professionals, police, teachers, scouts, etc. Rubel Bikemaps distributes printed copies, see www.bikemaps.com/bss.htm. In Ohio, it is distributed as Ohio Bicycling Street Smarts by the Department of Public Safety; and in Pennsylvania as part of the Bicycle Driver's Manual.
"Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning" has an excellent discussion of issues that should be understood by everyone who plans for cycling. www.massbike.org/info/dilemma.htm.
Effective Cycling Video, 41 minutes, $25 from League of American Bicyclists, phone (202) 822-1333 or email to LAB, bikeleague@bikeleague.org.
"Bike Ed Classes (formerly called Effective Cycling) are a good way to learn cycling techniques. The basic class is called Road-I. There are several other variants (Road-II, "Kid's" classes, Commuter, etc.) Courses can be customized specifically for transportation engineers and planners. This should be an education requirement. You can find a nationwide list of certified instructors at: www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/ and Ohio instructors at www.ohiobike.org/Cycling-Information.html
John Forester's Books: Planners, engineers and others whose professional activities impact cyclists should be familiar with the books by the founder of Effective Cycling. It will take some effort to get past the bitter, confrontational style of the author but then you can learn from a real expert. The books are Effective Cycling, MIT Press, 1993 and Bicycle Transportation, MIT Press, 1994.
Do you make these eight common bicycling mistakes? Flyer distributed by the Ohio Department of Transportation. Note that one of the mistakes listed is "Riding on busy sidewalks".
From A to Z by Bike: The comprehensive guide to safe bicycling for kids and adults, 32 page booklet distributed by the Ohio Department of Public Safety.
A Kid's Eye View, Bicycle safety video for parents, produced by Wisconsin DOT, 11 minutes, ($10) from the League of American Bicyclists, phone (202) 822-1333 or email to LAB, bikeleague@bikeleague.org.
If you have comments or questions, contact fredoswald_AT_yahoo_DOT_com. Last Revised 6/10/07