HB 1784 is a win-win for drivers and cyclists

June 2, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

If passed, the bill would allow motorists to exercise better, safer judgement

A bi-partisan bill to protect local cyclists is headed to the governor’s desk, and if signed, it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Sponsored by Ride Illinois, House Bill 1784 would do four things: Allow cars to pass cyclists in no-passing zones, when the circumstances are deemed safe and appropriate; amend and clarify the current law (625 ILCS 5/11-70), which would legalize cycling on shoulders but not require it; allow a rear red light instead of or in addition to a rear red reflector; and lastly, clarify the cyclist lane position law, which instructs cars to pass with more than three feet of distance when the lane is too narrow.

Semantics aside, the change represents a step in the right direction. Some laws are notorious for their dubiousness. They can be well intentioned but ill conceived, as when a limitation is more dangerous than the very thing it’s trying to prevent. The Idaho Stop is a perfect example. In this case, HB 1784 addresses at least one limitation that restricts motorists from making a proactive decision to stave off accidents.

As most drivers and cyclists know, there’s a bit of a quandary whenever a car approaches from behind a moving cyclist. The current law expects cars to maintain a certain speed while remaining within the restrictive borders of a no-passing zone. In that situation, most motorists veer generously to the left, putting additional space between their car and the cyclist.

Technically, that’s breaking the law. Drivers are subject to a traffic citation, and as a result, law-abiding drivers wind up clipping the very people they’re patiently trying to avoid—a completely preventable scenario.

In this instance, lawmakers appear to have recognized that cyclists are better off by allowing motorists to make a thoughtful judgment call, and it’s an example of how lawmakers should be evaluating regulations based on practicality and not theory. It’s a commitment to safety without compromising integrity.

Chicago, consider the FORS model

May 23, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Is an accreditation system the answer to the city’s side guard problem?

With historically high levels of gun violence and the ostensibly insurmountable pension debacle, the city of Chicago hasn’t had much to brag about over the last couple years, but this past fall Bicycling magazine decided to throw us a bone.

In September Chicago was selected as the most bike-friendly city in the country, placing ahead of stalwart contenders like New York, Boston, and San Francisco. The article cited a growing infrastructure: more designated bike lanes, improved roads, and the promotion of the city’s ride-share program known as Divvy.

But shortly after Bicycling ranked us number one, the city saw an alarming climb in the number of bike-related fatalities at the hands of large trucks. Also a several months ago: a woman was riding downtown when she was abruptly pulled under a large truck, leaving her broken body in its wake. The crash prompted a response from Chicago Reader reporter and Streetsblog editor John Greenfield, who chronicled a series of crashes in and around traffic-heavy areas that resulted in the untimely deaths of four young cyclists.

Greenfield happened to write about one issue I deal with extensively as a member of the Trucking Litigation Group’s Side Underride Guard Task Force: the implementation of protective side guards—long metal rods or panels that prevent riders and pedestrians from falling prey to deadly “right-hook” turns—and how Chicago’s City Council might respond.

The response so far? Tame, at best.

There were encouraging signs that might change. In 2016, Chicago announced it would participate in Vison Zero, the transportation safety initiative developed in Sweden in 1994, which, for Chicago’s purposes, hopes to eliminate all traffic-related fatalities by the year 2026. Chicago enacted a pilot program to test the effectiveness of side guards on city-owned trucks, yet its commitment remains tepid. The best the city has come up with, according Streetsblog, is a statement promising to work with “private industry to create recommendations for safety equipment, such as convex mirrors and truck side guards,” in order to prevent tragedies from happening in the future. Meanwhile, proactive cities like New York and Boston have enacted legislation mandating side guards for all city-contracted trucks.

For a major city with a large population of cyclists, the promise of tomorrow seems inadequate for the problems we face today.

Why so complicated?

Relatively speaking, side guards are not cheap. Installing side guards could cost a trucking company upwards of $1,000-$2,000, and, sadly, many fleets view paying out for speculative lawsuits as the cheaper gamble. And in case you haven’t heard, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago are still dancing around a budget catastrophe, so an expenditure like mandatory side guards on city-owned fleets is bound to be scrutinized. We may, however, look to Europe for one example of an incentive program that might encourage legislators, drivers, and businesses to do more when it comes to things like side guards.

The FORS factor

Around 2008, the Transport for London took an interest in the number of cycling and pedestrian deaths associated with large trucks and decided that something needed to change. That led to a voluntary system called FORS (Fleet Operation Recognition Scheme), a European Union-wide accreditation program that promotes industry-wide best practices and, more importantly, provides incentives for companies that choose safety over convenience. For every best-practice, including the implementation of side guards, participants earn a set of ranks, and much like the LEED accreditation in the United States, the FORS badge stands out as a symbol of commitment and integrity.

“A major reason for the scheme’s successful uptake in London has undoubtedly been client driven, with businesses now using FORS in contracts with their supply chain,” according to a FORS information page. “A growing number of companies require fleet operators to demonstrate a commitment to sustainable fleet activities in order to tender for work with them.”

The stats from FORS are noteworthy. In 2015, FORS-designated Silver and Gold companies reduced total collision by 17 percent and minor injury collisions by 34.5 percent over 2014, according to statistics published by the group. More than 50 percent of FORS-accredited drivers are less likely to be involved in driving offenses related to hours of service. On top of it, trucking companies like D&P Hauling and ESG continue to publicize FORS accreditation updates and upgrades, much like a company like Amazon touts best-selling books on its website. When you consider that any good business partly relies on its reputation, FORS seems like a good option, even for skeptics.

In my home state, the Illinois Department of Transportation already anticipates that over the next year traffic deaths will rise to its highest levels since 2014, a consequence of more drivers on the road, more distractions, and less spending on crash prevention.

A significant percentage of those fatalities are likely to be commercial vehicle-related crashes, and in those cases, the legal implications far exceed any amount that it might cost for something as practical as side guards. It seems logical to reward those people and companies—whether it’s an accreditation badge or some kind of recognition—who take the matter seriously.

Why is my car safer than a 30-ton tractor trailer?

May 19, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

It’s time to demand the same safety standards found in most conventional vehicles

One thing’s indisputable: today’s technology is highly sophisticated and, in many ways, a necessity for most of the world.

When my wife and I bought our last car, we accounted for the essentials: seat belts, airbags (front, side, etc.), standard daytime running lights, and antilock brakes. Then it got interesting. We looked closely at the back-up camera, the blind spot detection system, the rear and forward collision warning systems, adaptive cruise control, and lane departure warnings—advanced features that have been fine-tuned over the last several decades with the explicit purpose of keeping people safe.

Which begs the question: Why are my car, other cars, crossovers, and SUVs adhering to and employing better safety standards than 30-ton tractor trailers?

According to the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, which based its findings on roughly 120,000 large truck crashes, 55 percent of truck accidents were initiated by the truck. Even more alarming: 87 percent of those crashes were the result of carelessness—fatigue, poor driving, speeding, tailgating, etc. And more still: Over 22 percent of truck crashes occurred when the truck rear-ended another vehicle; 32 percent happened when the truck drifted from one lane to another lane or off the road entirely.

These types of crashes are significantly more preventable if we demand the same types of advances found in most conventional cars.

Take rear back up cameras, for example. A 2010 study by the NHTSA found that 228 deaths and 17,000 injuries resulted from cars backing into people. As alarming as that reads, consider that nearly 44 percent of those crashes involved kids under the age of 5, and that a pickup truck or an SUV was four times more likely than a car to kill someone. Thing is, rear-end backup cameras will be required for all new cars beginning May 2018. To date, no such standard is in the works for commercial trucks.

The theme here: the bigger the vehicle, the more dangerous the outcome. If a pickup truck with a rearview mirror is four times deadlier than a car, imagine how the numbers correlate to a tractor-trailer. If you’ve ever sat in the cab of a semi-truck, you know that blind spots are extensive. You know that large trucks don’t have rear-view mirrors. You know that side mirrors have no practical use. In fact, the trucking acronym for maneuvering in reverse is called G.O.A.L., which stands for “Get Out And Look.” (In an ideal situation, the driver uses a spotter to direct them properly.) Installing a back-up camera could go a long way to reducing those stresses and preventing unnecessary accidents.

This isn’t an issue of truck companies coming up with science-fiction-level tech to solve a problem. This isn’t even an issue of calculating the cost-benefit analysis. Active/adaptive cruise control for trucks (a system that adjusts a truck’s speed based on the vehicle in front of it) runs as low as $2,100. It’s not free, but as someone who’s represented families who have lost loved ones because a truck rear-ended a car, I can assure you it’s significantly less than what a truck company ends up paying for a lawsuit. Simply put, it’s a poor business decision for the trucking industry to ignore better safety practices for the sake of saving a few bucks.

The saddest part about this may be the lack of awareness. Given the prevalence of driving safety technology, it would likely surprise most people to learn that multi-million-dollar trucking companies, with fleets of trucks covering millions of miles of road each year, don’t utilize existing technology to prevent injuries and fatalities. Isn’t it time they should?

WATCH: IIHS video shows devastating effects of side underride crashes

May 16, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

A new study advocates for a federal mandate

We’re starting to sound like a broken record. Side underride crashes are devastatingly gruesome, and the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety is showing us why.

Evaluating side guards for the first time, the IIHS rolled out new video showing two types of crashes—one in which the truck is outfitted with a protective side underride guard, the other without. The results are dramatically different.

The footage shows two 35-mph crash tests involving a 53-foot long-dry van trailer and a standard mid-size car. The first test features a typical fiberglass side skirt intended only to improve the aerodynamics of the truck. The second test focuses exclusively on the AngelWing side underride protection device designed by Airflow Deflector, Inc.

As the video makes clear, the fiberglass side skirt does nothing to prevent the car from sliding under the truck, which in turn severs the sedan’s roof and shatters the windshield. The skirt may save the truck company some money on fuel, but it’s worthless from a safety standpoint.

By contrast, the AngelWing side guard absorbs the impact of the oncoming car and prevents it from sliding under the truck. Also important to note: the side guard allows the car to deploy its airbags while keeping the seat belt harnesses intact. Not only does it stop the car from riding under the trailer, but it also triggers the car’s own safety features.

Both crashes are severe but the difference is striking. The first test sees the sedan run into the trailer and keep going, wedging it beneath the trailer. “In a real-world crash like this,” according to the IIHS study, “any occupants in the car would likely sustain fatal injuries.”

The reconfiguration of North/Damen: What to expect at tonight’s public meeting

May 9, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

More red light cameras? A radical redesign?

For years, the intersection of North/Damen/Milwaukee has been a tried and true hazard for pedestrians and cyclists. It’s heavily congested, awkwardly designed, and densely populated—a combination of cars, buses, and foot traffic spilling out from the surrounding nightlife and the Damen Blue Line. It’s also the site of dozens of accidents that occur annually.

Recently, for example, a 76-year-old man in a motorized wheelchair was thrown from his chair when a truck hit him as he crossed the intersection. Luckily, he sustained non-life threatening injuries, but his case wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last.

The Chicago Department of Transportation hosts a public meeting tonight to talk about reconfiguring the much-fraught intersection, and it’s the first time the public will have an opportunity to provide critical feedback for what could be a turning point for the future of Chicago’s six-point intersections.

Here are some ideas that could come up, ranked from ostensibly the simplest to the most difficult modifications and implementations.

Eliminate left-hand turns from Damen and North Ave.

Steve Vance of Streetsblog proposed the relatively simple, but exponentially beneficial elimination of left-hand turns by drivers coming from Damen and North Avenues. Vance pointed out that the change could potentially free up about ten feet of roadway “for bike lanes in each direction, wider sidewalks, or a combination of the two.” It would also allow people crossing the street to feel protected from inattentive or impatient drivers, who often jump the gun at the sight of a yellow light.

Vance even went as far as suggesting that right-hand turns should also be eliminated, and while that may be a stretch, it’s indisputable that doing so would allow for a much safer intersection.

Consider more red light cameras

Chicago drivers have had issues with Chicago’s red-light camera enforcement. And there’s no question the city has bungled its operation to a degree. But there’s also no question that red light cameras deter drivers from making hasty decisions.

A study in 2016 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that cities with active red-light camera programs experienced 21 percent fewer fatal red-light running crashes, and 14 percent fewer fatal crashes of all types at signalized intersections. The study also found that of the 79 cities with active camera programs between 1992 and 2014, roughly 1,296 lives have been saved.

What’s more, red-light cameras receive a great deal of public support. A 2012 survey conducted in D.C. found that 87 percent of residents supported red-light cameras.

Establish prominent road markers and “smart” traffic lights

If you’ve been hanging out in Wicker lately, it may feel as though the roads could use a drastic makeover. That’s because they could. As it stands, the traffic signals and road indicators are relatively modest in size and scope.

One solution is to consider a “smarter” approach for getting people’s attention. In Bellevue, Washington, for example, the city has worked with a system of intersection signals that adjust to traffic conditions in real time, known as adaptive signals. According to an article in Time, Bellevue is the standard for which every city should strive to become. Back in 2010, officials in Bellevue began instituting a system called SCATS (Sydney Coordinative Adaptive Traffic System), “a series of wires embedded in city streets that tell the signals how much traffic is moving through the intersection. When traffic is heavier, the green lights stay on longer. Less traffic means shorter greens.”

Costly? Yes. A long shot? Probably. Worth considering? No doubt.

Enforce small infractions/hire regular traffic cops

There’s an inherent risk whenever the city trots out a member of the CPD’s traffic division to direct heavy traffic. For one thing, the officer on duty is putting his/her life at risk. Washington D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood was once patrolled by Joseph Pozell, a volunteer traffic cop who manned the intersection of M Street and Wisconsin Avenue—one of the most notorious traffic spots in all of D.C.

One sunny, crystal clear day, as Pozell was directing traffic, he was struck by an inattentive driver and killed. It prompted the city to institute even stricter enforcement of the intersection.

The Pozell tragedy notwithstanding, traffic cops can do what stop lights cannot: enforce traffic and keep people from making bad decisions. It’s worth considering what might happen if the city considered assigning a traffic officer to Damen/North/Milwaukee during rush hour. And if a traffic cop isn’t the answer, what about crossing guards?

Consider a radical redesign

Is it time for Chicago to consider more roundabouts? The intersection is probably large enough, and the purpose would effectively expand on Vance’s proposal: to eliminate left-hand turns. A roundabout might also slow traffic significantly and give drivers a clear path to their chosen direction. But a redesign comes with significant costs and could likely prove to be a logistical nightmare. Still, I would argue that there’s no such thing as a bad idea.

IDOT: Chicago cyclists crashing into car doors jumped significantly

April 27, 2017 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

New data shows that “dooring” rose by more than half from the previously reported year

The number of local cyclists crashing into car doors is on the rise, according to new data released by the Illinois Department of Transportation, as reported by the Chicago Tribune.

Described as a wake-up call by city officials, the report from the IDOT revealed that more than 300 doorings were reported in 2015, a 50 percent increase from the previous year. The data also shows that 203 doorings were reported in 2014, down from 270 in 2013, though crashes in 2012 and 2011 occurred more than 330 times.

Dooring is one of the most significant dangers impacting cyclists in major cities, and it continues to wreak havoc even for experienced riders. As told by several people interviewed by the Tribune in response to the new report, cyclists expressed that they’re prone to dodge car doors in highly congested areas, even opting to veer into oncoming traffic to avoid a crash. Some may consider that the lesser of two dangers, but it can also be the deadlier choice.

Despite more than 100 miles of protected bike lanes that the city has installed since 2011, the number of crashes involving cyclists has grown exponentially in recent years. State data shows that 1,720 crashes occurred in 2015, up from 1,634 in 2014. In 2013, the city saw 1,720 crashes involving cyclists, but fewer in 2012 and 2011.

How to combat the issue

As stated above, the city has taken proactive measures to improve the number of protected bike lanes in and around the city. That’s a good start, but it can’t be the end. Much of the issue can be attributed to a lack of driver education and awareness. It’s an unconscious habit to open doors without thinking about cyclists riding nearby, so it stands to reason why we don’t enforce laws that would have people thinking twice.

One of the proposals that we believe is a plausible solution is to strongly enforce laws that deter drivers from blocking bike lanes, or impose stricter fines to deter them from doing so in the first place.

It’s also incumbent upon riders to know that bike lanes do not simply guarantee safe passage. Cyclists are just as responsible for sticking to traffic signs and proceeding at cautionary speeds to minimize any chance of a crash.

Using the “Dutch Reach”

A more simplistic approach might be to consider the “Dutch Reach,” put in practice by those in the Netherlands in which drivers and passengers reach for their car door’s handle by using heir right arm instead of their left, thereby turning their bodies in a position that encourages them to spot traffic from behind. The habit is taught from a very early age, and it’s even enforced during driving tests. It’s already catching in cities like San Francisco.

Michael Charney, a doctor based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, began an advocacy program to encourage U.S. residents to adopt the “Dutch Reach.” His website, dutchreach.org, comes with a bevy of resources for understanding how effective the method is, and why it’s more about changing habits than anything else. Among other things, you can find advocacy toolkits, news, and several digital resources to learn more.

And for good measure: Outside Magazine produced this video to give you a decent visual.