Blame the victim

A driver illegally crosses a double yellow line to pass, and fatally hits a bicyclist coming the other direction. Of course, the CHP says the driver was not at fault:

The accident unfolded after a vehicle moved toward the center of the road to pass one of the racers, CHP Sgt. Andy Hill said. As the driver moved to pass, she failed to see a second racer, riding near the middle of the road in the opposite direction, Hill said. The car was traveling about 35 mph and the bicyclist about 30 mph when they collided, according to the CHP.

“Unfortunately the (victim) was not riding on the far right side of the lane. He was riding in the middle of the road where the yellow line is,” Hill said. Hill said both parties contributed to the collision. Cyclists are required to ride as far to the right as possible, he said, while cars are required to have appropriate space before passing. Authorities have not identified the driver, a 35-year-old woman from Esparto. No charges or arrests have been made.

It is disappointing (but not all that surprising) that the CHP misinterprets both the 3-foot passing law and CVC 21202. CVC 21202 permits cyclists to move to the center of the lane for any number of reasons: to avoid hazards, or when the lane is substandard width. As in so many car-bike collisions, the police in this case found creative legal interpretations to absolve a driver of her dangerous and illegal behavior.

Read Full Post »

PTC Deadline Excuses

On May 8, 2011, a PATH train overran the platform Hoboken, striking the bumping post at the end of the track. Of the 70 passengers on-board, 30 passengers plus two crewmembers were hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries. An NTSB investigation concluded that PTC would have prevented the accident:

PATH has submitted its PTC implementation plan to the FRA, and the FRA has approved the plan. The proposed PATH PTC system would enforce an absolute stop for trains approaching the platforms at Hoboken station. The NTSB, therefore, concludes that the PTC system proposed for implementation by PATH would have automatically alerted the engineer to the train’s excessive speed; and if the brakes were not applied, while operating in automatic mode or manual mode, the PTC system would have automatically applied the brakes to stop the train and prevent the collision.

PATH suffered a similar kind of accident in 2009 at Journal Square.

It has been more than four years since the Hoboken crash, which is sufficient time to install the PTC system. The Port Authority, however, is dragging its feet:

PATH officials have joined officials from 21 passenger and commuter railroads and seven freight railroads asking the U.S. Senate to extend a Dec. 31 deadline to implement an automatic speed control system.

PATH officials warned that they could be forced to reduce or suspend service if the deadline isn’t changed and the Federal Railroad Administration fines railroads that haven’t complied.

“The delay in meeting the deadline in no way, shape or form jeopardizes the safety and or quality of service that PATH provides to 265,000 daily riders,” said Michael P. Marino, PATH director and general manager in a Sept. 17 letter to a U.S.senate committee.

Since the passage of a 2008 law that mandates PTC, PATH has “zero accidents” that would have been preventable if PTC were installed, Marino said.

Not only are PATH officials endangering riders, they are also lying to Congress.

Read Full Post »

Tricycles: threat or menace?

The helmet fear-mongers go full-retard:

For the past decade, we’ve drilled into children that when they ride a bike, they need to wear a helmet. Now scientists say it may be too late: Tricycle riders should be wearing them, too.

Using data collected from 100 emergency rooms for the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, researchers found that boys are more likely than girls to turn up in the emergency room. Two-year-olds seem to have the most accidents, although there were tricycle injuries for children up to age 7. The most common broken bone was the elbow and the most common injury overall was a cut to the face.

In addition to helmets, the authors suggest kids wear elbow pads, and that parents supervise their children while they ride.

Even better, just make them wear bubble-wrap.

Read Full Post »

CHSRA concrete nightmare in Bakersfield

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) published photo-simulations for the proposed train alignment in Bakersfield. Trains would run on a humongous elevated viaduct through neighborhoods in the northern half of the city. Highway planners used to build nightmares like this in the bad old days of 1960’s urban renewal. This is the same thing, the only difference being that there are rails and wires on top instead of asphalt and cars:

Old Town Kern

Here is another image:

Garces Memorial Circle

At least there will be some awesome infill transit-oriented development around the new Bakersfield station, right? Sorry, but no — the station would be surrounded by a ridiculous amount of surface parking:

There is no rationale for these aerial structures. Note that the original plan (in 2005) was to put the station on the periphery and keep tracks more at ground-level. That would have greatly reduced costs and neighborhood impacts. Since everyone will be be driving to the station anyway — as evidenced by the huge parking — a peripheral station location would not impact ridership.

Locating suburban HSR stations on the periphery is also typical European practice. Sadly, some so-called experts are too clueless to figure that out.

Read Full Post »

Sierra Club still opposed to bike trails

Plans for a comprehensive system of bike trails in the East Bay have long been stymied by the EBMUD (the East Bay municipal water district). That is because EBMUD has an absolute ban on bike riding on its trails. For the past 50 years, only hikers and equestrians have been permitted on the trails. There are huge gaps in the bike network as a result.

But now the water agency is reconsidering the ban. Last month, it held a public hearing — and as usual, the Sierra Club is vehemently opposed:

A total of approximately 45 people spoke. The Sierra Club came out very quickly against making any changes at all through Stormin’ Norman Laforce. If it weren’t for the fact that we needed to listen respectfully and smile we would have laughed him off the stage. He is thoroughly ridiculous. The lady that followed him from the Sierra Club, a former director of EBMUD, Ms.Burke, was equally ridiculous. They have no idea at all.

By and large even the people who would not have supported access to cycling suggested that absolute closure was unreasonable. They were simply concerned against all of the usual horror stories about mountain bikers, the need for enforcement, and the challenges that these created. I think that these were all fair criticisms.

Mary Selkirk, a former director who voted to exclude mountain bikers in 1996, spoke of regretting her decision as patently unfair. This was huge. She had real gravitas.

However the greatest proportion of people who spoke suggested the value of mountain biking especially in terms of generating good health and good trail use practices in our youth. The contact with nature and our tendency to be stewards, the need for unblocking closures that inhibit the entirety of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. People spoke in terms of hoping for flexibility and the potentials for evaluating as things unfolded.

The ossified leadership within East Bay Sierra Club chapters has grown increasingly bizarre in its policy positions. They have opposed bike lanes and transit-oriented development. They have even endorsed anti-BRT candidates for Berkeley City Council.

Their actions are completely at odds with policies adopted by the Sierra Club’s National Board of Directors. Indeed, the “official” Sierra Club policy specifically encourages bike access on trails where safety and environmental quality are not compromised. When will the National organization start requiring local chapters to comply with Sierra Club policy?

Read Full Post »

Disabled community furious over new $100 million train station designed without level-platform boarding

The city of Roanoke, Virginia is restoring rail service, after a 35-year hiatus. This requires building a train station, which will cost $100 million. Despite ADA and FRA regulations on level-platform boarding, this 21st-century train station will not have level-platform boarding:

When passenger train service comes to Roanoke in 2017, riders will board from an old-fashioned, low platform that requires climbing stairs or using a lift to enter the car, according to tentative plans subject to federal review.

Planners setting up Roanoke’s train service say a standard low platform will meet Roanoke’s site-specific needs and comply fully with the Americans with Disabilities Act because of the availability of mobile lifts. But planners didn’t publicize the proposal when they approved it 14 months ago, and now that members of the disability community are in the loop, they’re upset. Advocates for the disabled say such an approach will shortchange today’s diverse ridership and there is a better option: a raised platform.

If, instead, Roanoke ends up with a low platform as tentatively planned, its advance in modern transit would be coupled with a throwback to early passenger railroading. Roanoke’s old passenger train station, now a museum built in 1905, had a low platform that’s only a step up from ground-level boarding. “It would be a wasted opportunity to build a low-level platform at a location like that,” said Kenneth Shiotani, an attorney at the National Disability Rights Network, speaking of Roanoke.

Low-platform are a throwback to the steam era. In fact, one of the reasons VA Dept. of Rail designed the station with low-platforms was to accommodate an oversized steam train from a nearby transportation museum. The FRA really needs to start enforcing its level-platform rules, and not prioritize historic museum trains over modern transport.

Read Full Post »

Toronto’s new airport express train doesn’t take bikes

The cost for a one-way trip on the new Pearson airport express train service (UPX) is a whopping $27.50. At that price, few are interested in riding, so the trains are practically empty. You would think with all that available space, Metrolinx might at least allow bicyclists to ride, but noooo:

It’s got Wi-Fi, luggage storage and plush seating. One thing Toronto’s new airport train doesn’t have is bike racks. Gary Dienesch found that out at the end of a 10-hour flight following a 1,000-km bike tour of England and Scotland. At the UPX terminal at Pearson, however, they were told that they couldn’t board unless the bikes were boxed in the same way airlines require.

“I know you can take your bike on the GO and the subway. You just hold your bike. It’s not a long trip (from the airport) to downtown so we would just hold our bikes like we would on the subway,” said Dienesch. He doesn’t think bike racks on the UPX are necessary, particularly when the trains aren’t crowded. “I’ve seen it done everywhere else. It’s not a big thing to do. I pay taxes, I’m paying for this. There should be a very good reason for me not to be able to use it and there isn’t a good reason because they’re doing it everywhere else.”

“Unlike GO trains, there is no dedicated or appropriate space to store and secure an unpacked bicycle,” said Alex Burke of Metrolinx, the provincial agency that operates the UPX.

Metrolinx ordered the same crappy DMU rolling stock for UPX that SMART plans to use. So that gives you an idea of the level of dimwittedness.

Read Full Post »