Strict Liability Law

This is a hot topic in Scotland and the rest of the UK within the cycling community.

It is inconceivable in the US at this moment.

BBC Strict Liability Law

Basically, it explicitly affirms the simple, (maybe obvious?) but fading idea that the most powerful road users have the greatest responsibility to use the road safely.

This was once understood in the US at the outset of motorized automobile technology in public space as documented in the publication "Fighting Traffic: The Dawn Of The Motor Age In The American City" by Peter D. Norton.

It seems a no-brainer but opponents are obviously grumbling irrational fears aloud as they often and always do.

A codified standard of liability is a necessary and critical goal of road sharing. It won't happen without it.

Also, please check out this excellent lecture given by Peter Norton at Florida Atlantic University:

Peter D. Norton Lecture

Incredibly, predictably, motorists accuse cyclists of 'arrogance.'

Automobile Priority

Whereas the idea of a public right-of-way through private property has been around for hundreds of years, the idea that all of them should be given over to accommodate 200 sq ft of metal powered by an engine with the power of 3-400 horses is rather recent.

Even for the first several decades of common automobile ownership the saturation rate, particularly in urban areas was far below what it is today.

My city is 100% available to automobiles.

100%

Our addiction to convenience requires that we have as close to drive-up access for every conceivable service.
For the first time in human history we can spend an entire day, every day travelling hundreds of miles using our legs a total of 100 yards or less.

Most of my cycling friends are counting on increased participation to introduce the need for equal road access, safety and legal standing.

I have my doubts.

I know somewhere around 12 people who use a bicycle for primary daily transport:
Maybe 4-6 in the depth of a Lake Erie winter, 12-24 in nice weather.

Of those, and the additional occasional riders, I still see many of them riding 10-15 MPH on sidewalks, in the wrong direction, blowing through major traffic signals, terrified to death of sharing the proper roadway with their motorized travelers: (and for good reason.)

I am convinced that an increase in equality of access for pedestrians and cyclists will only come at the expense of that for automobiles.

This is more serious than many alternative transportation advocates realize. Automobile culture defines American culture more than anything else. If you think taking guns away is something, wait until you start removing automobiles from a small percentage of roadways, or even reducing speed allowances.

I predict even more cyclists and pedestrians will be killed, only this time 'accidentally on purpose.'

Buy and wear a camera.

Cleveland Complete and Green Streets Off and Running

Despite a pretty good thunderstorm I attended the public uncovering of Cleveland's Complete and Green Streets program tonight.

The Ordinance, (Through Bike Cleveland)


Disappointed.

Most of the strategies, while steps in the right direction, (god I hate saying that all the time,) are really nothing new.

Mostly it involves paint: paint to segregate bikes and cars.

Also, on average, the plans call for reducing 4 lanes to 2, 6 to 4, etc., with a left turning lane AND on-street parking. Gotta have on-street parking!

Bike lanes are sacrificed to on-street parking in almost all cases.

One of the bold claims presented that I found interesting, (so interesting I didn't believe it,) was a statistic from left field somewhere that 57% of people would (was it try?) use alternative transportation if they could.

BS.

It takes a long process to separate yourself from the power that an automobile provides.

The power to:

carry things
travel quickly anytime anywhere in comfort
scream at people safely, knowing that no one can hear you or do anything to you if they did
live where nobody should just so you don't have to put up with people you don't like

Extremely powerful.

I'd put the number of people who would actually give up such power for any considerable length of time at more like 10%.



Shockingly, and I'm not exactly sure, but I believe the consultant actually said that streets are primarily for moving cars after all. It was hard to hear.

This was after I spoke up and asked why 100% of Cleveland's streets are accessible to automobiles and were there any plans to change that.

He seemed a bit surprised and annoyed.

I pointed out the suburban examples of self contained, walking shopping 'villages' such as Crocker Park and Legacy Village.

Just doesn't matter it seems.

Rather than actually take a chance on restricting automobile access, this plan seems content to preserve the ability of all vehicles, (now bikes too,) to move through, get in and more importantly get OUT of Cleveland on a daily basis.