Snow removal and salting priorities in Metro Detroit are based on maximizing vehicle mobility.

For example, the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) based their winter maintenance priorities on motor vehicle travel volumes. According to RCOC spokesman Craig Bryson, this priority is for safety — or more specifically, the safety of motorists.

The photo on the right is from the city of Southfield, Michigan where snow has been piled near a crosswalk. The streets are well cleared. Judging by the condition of the snow pile, it’d been there a while.

In this case, Southfield might as well keep the Don’t Walk signal on 24/7.

Related Posts

• Snow plowing Copenhagen-style
• It’s time for Bikes Lanes on Tienken
• MDOT Adding Paved Shoulders

They’re expensive, obnoxious, and as far as we can tell, somewhat ineffective.

As for the obnoxiousness, here are the instructions.

“Hello. You’ve activated the crosswalk signal.

“Wait for traffic to stop before you cross.

“To show traffic you want to cross, place one foot near the curb line.

“And remember to thank the driver as you are crossing the roadway.”

Why are pedestrians and cyclists instructed to thank motorists just for following state and low crosswalk laws? Shouldn’t that be a basic expectation?

In this case, their ineffectiveness may stem from their poor location outside of the driver’s view. This is especially the case on Grand River. Once the trees leaf out, it’s uncertain how much of the sign will even be visible. With Grand River being rebuilt, Lyon Township and the Road Commission for Oakland County have an opportunity to make this crossing safe through bump outs, a refuge island, improved street lighting and zebra striping.

It should also be noted that these signs were installed on the wrong side of the trail. They should be on the right not the left. Their location is being changed.

If we’re not mistaken, these were installed in the fall. Already a driver has taken one out. It’s being replaced.

And finally, while testing them on Grand River, a van never slowed when the sign was activated and we were trying to cross. It appeared they were texting.

Maybe we should thank those drivers that aren’t driving while distracted, too.

Related Posts

• Lyon Township Trail Update
• Lyon Township: Still trying to ruin a good trail
• MDOT announces grants for local trails

Distracted driving by motorists certainly has gotten much media coverage of late due to a recent national summit. The Detroit News reported yesterday:

Secretary Ray LaHood kicked off a two-day summit on distracted driving this morning, calling it a “menace to society” and a “deadly epidemic.”

LaHood wants to crack down on texting behind the wheel and other activities that take drivers’ focus from the road as the government issued a report that said 6,000 deaths last year were linked to distracted driving.

We agree. Distracted driving is a menace to society and the ones who are most likely to pay the price are the most vulnerable: cyclists and pedestrians.

What we haven’t seen in print is the role road agencies play in accommodating distracted driving. Groups like the Road Commission for Oakland County provide wider roads and remove roadside trees in the name of safety. This PBS article discusses recent studies that show these forgiving roadways in more built up areas actually decreases safety.

Unwilling to accept Responsibility

According to the AAA Foundation, motorists have a “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” attitude.

American motorists blame other motorists for unsafe driving, despite the fact many admit to doing the same dangerous practices themselves, according to a new report out today by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. For example, Americans rated drinking drivers as the most serious traffic safety issue, yet in the previous month alone, almost 10 percent of motorists admitted to driving when they thought their blood alcohol content was above the legal limit.

And that same AAA study found:

• 82 percent of motorists rated distracted driving as a serious problem, yet over half of those same individuals admitted to talking on the cell phone while driving in the past month, and 14 percent even admitted to reading or sending text messages while driving.
• Over seven out of ten motorists rated red light running as a serious problem, yet over half of those same individuals admitted to speeding up to get through yellow lights, and 5 percent even admitted to having run a red light on purpose in the past month.
• Nearly three out of every four motorists rated speeding as a serious problem, yet 40 percent of those same individuals admitted to driving 15 mph or more over speed limit on the highway in the past month, and 14 percent even admitted to having driven 15 mph or more over the limit on a neighborhood street.

Since this is a self-reporting survey, the numbers are likely under reported.

Need further proof? WCBS has video coverage of the distracted driving issue, which includes their reporter driving while reporting! (via Streetsblog)

Blaming Bicyclist Behavior

Clearly a significant number of motorists practice unsafe driving habits and either fail to recognize it or take responsibility for it. They are an unreliable source for opinions on road safety.

It seems this is lost on some bicycle advocates and organizations who tell us that bicyclists must earn the respect of motorists. This is pure nonsense.

Bicyclists that practice unsafe cycling or who break the “rules of the road” are not a menace to society. They rarely if ever cause harm to other road users. The safety priority needs to be placed on motorists and road designers.

We need to ensure our road agencies design safer, livable roads that require the driver’s attention.

For perspective, today a motorist ignored a bus stop sign and hit two school children in Rochester Hills. From a safety standpoint, this single crash is perhaps more egregious than the sum of all objectionable Michigan cyclist behavior — ever.

Any focus on bicyclist behavior must be redirected to the real menace to society.

Related Posts

• Secretary LaHood and US DOT 2010 goals
• Oakland County Roads are Not the Safest
• Monday Media Roundup

They’re wrong.

To jump to this conclusion, they divided the number of fatalities by 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The more miles driven on the expressways, the safer the rest of the roads look.

And in 2008, 27% of all Oakland County road fatalities were pedestrians and cyclists. To divide those fatalities by the number of vehicle miles traveled is clearly invalid — and it reflects the low priority the Road Commission places on road users who are not inside a motor vehicle.

What the Road Commission should be reporting is the fatality rate based on the population size.

Here are the 2008 fatality rates per 100,000 people (based on 2008 SEMCOG population estimates):

• Oakland County 13
• Macomb County 13
• St. Clair County 18
• Wayne County 20

These are not world class when compared with other countries.

The U.K.’s Department for Transport’s recent report “A Safer Way: Consultation on Making Britain’s Roads the Safest in the World.” (via How We Drive) compiles road fatality rates for many countries (See the above chart).

Our county rates show we are among the least safe. Oakland and Macomb counties are only marginally better than the U.S. average, yet double the Canadian average.

We’re apparently neck and neck with Bulgaria.

Oakland County clearly does not have the safest roads.

Related Posts

• Bicycle crashes increase for 2007
• How do you define “safe”?
• MDOT Transportation Enhancements

Despite the huge backlog in much-needed capital improvements, the Lansing State Journal is reporting that our state parks will not be receiving much economic stimulus funding.

Before all the details of the federal stimulus plan were known, the department put together a wish list of projects it could have ready to go in 90 days. The list included 586 proposals totaling $356.6 million, including more than $200 million and more than 300 projects involving park improvements. So far, only three DNR requests have got to the final round for consideration by federal officials.

Of course the stimulus money is going towards road projects. Our state parks have hundreds of miles of roads, many of which require repairs. However, the state considers these parks roads as “private” and not eligible for funding. These roads don’t even receive funding from the state fuel tax. This is just another fundamental reason why our state park operations are not sustainable.

Best Cars in a Crash (but not the safest)

Auto-centric viewpoints are common. Here’s one that’s often blindy repeated.

Forbes Magazine is reporting on the best cars in a crash and only considers safety from the viewpoint of those inside the car. A quarter of all road fatalities in Metro Detroit are pedestrians and cyclists. Which cars are safer for them? Large SUVs that take more lane width, have larger blind spots, have longer stopping distances, and are less manueverable?

Another problem with this type of article is it assumes a crash is inevitable. In a one-on-one situation, more manueverable, lighter vehicles are more likely to avoid a crash than their heavier counterparts.

This topic was well covered in an older New Yorker article. They review a study of fatalities per million cars which includes drivers, passengers, and the other crash victims. Mid-size cars were in found to cause the least number of fatalities.

Conservative Voice against Sprawl

We’ve spoken up against sprawl largely because it results in auto-centric communities that are often unsafe or impractical to bike or walk in.

Christopher Caldwell has this excellent op-ed in the Financial Times that points out the costly and inefficient economics behind sprawl:

In 1958, the great journalist William Whyte coined the term “sprawl”, in an article for Fortune. He noted with horror that, a mere two years after the Highway Act, already huge patches of once green countryside have been turned into vast, smog-filled deserts that are neither city, suburb, nor country. Developments were concentrated in random political no-man’s-lands near interchanges and exits. Road lobbyists and real estate developers colluded against meaningful regulation and planning, with the result, Whyte wrote, that “development is being left almost entirely in the hands of the speculative builder”.

Whyte warned that sprawl was not just bad aesthetics but bad economics. A subtler and more serious problem than blight was that, for local authorities, the cost of providing utilities and other services was exorbitant. “There is not only the cost of running sewers and water mains and storm drains out to Happy Acres,” Whyte wrote, “but much more road, per family served, has to be paved and maintained.” The infrastructure network that came out of the Highway Act had higher overheads than the one it replaced. It became a bottomless pit of spending.

Of course the Road Commission for Oakland County is paying the price for building a sprawled road network that it can no longer afford to maintain. They did no land use planning. And the Oakland County Commission has regularly selected road commissioners from the county’s sprawling communities, so this outcome is no surprise.

And the article even includes a nod to Detroit: “The encirclement of Detroit’s neighbourhoods by highways is often cited as a primary cause of its decline.”

Related Posts

• Oakland County Roads are Not the Safest
• The Potential Downside to the Economic Stimulus
• Bicycle crashes increase for 2007

If ever a county road needed bike lanes, this would be it. It would connect Livernois, the Paint Creek Trail, Stony Creek High School, and Sheldon Road (a main access point for the Stony Creek Metropark.)

We need cyclists to give their input to the Road Commission.

A public meeting is planned for January 21st from 4pm until 7pm in the auditorium at Rochester Hills City Hall, 1000 Rochester Hills Drive (south of Avon Road between Livernois and Old Perch roads).

According to the Road Commission, “Public input will help shape the ultimate project design.”

If you are unable to attend the meeting on the 21st, please submit your comments to:

The Road Commission for Oakland County
31001 Lahser Road
Beverly Hills, MI 48025
E-Mail: dcsmail@rcoc.org
Phone: 877-858-4804

If you can attend the meeting, the Road Commission will likely provide their normal technical brush offs.  Here are what you can expect:

Brush off: The Road Commission has a policy of not accomodating bikes on the road.

Answer: The Road Commission mission is “to provide the public with leadership in safe and convenient road.”  Bike lanes are the safest place a cyclist can bike.

Brush off: The Road Commission will build a safety path for bicycles.

Answer: Safety paths are wide sidewalks and are not safe nor satisfactory solutions for for bicyclists according to MDOT and AASHTO.

Brush off: On-road facilities aren’t safe.

Answer: Studies find that bike lanes are the safest place to ride a bike.  Wide sidewalks are the least safe.

Brush off: The Road Commission doesn’t have the money.

Answer: Ask them, “is there no money to make this road safe for cyclists?  Is there money to make this road safe for motorists?”  There is grant funding for non-motorized facilities. No less than one-percent of the Road Commission’s state road funding must be spent on non-motorized facilities such as bike lanes.

Related Posts

• Clearing snow Copenhagen-style
• MDOT Adding Paved Shoulders
• Bike Lanes in Macomb County

E.J. Levy recently sent me an article about Colorado State Highways and how many of them have paved shoulders 4 feet or wider — a great way to make roads safer for bicyclists.  Colorado has had a policy since 1999 to add these shoulders to their state highways.  Nine years later, 72% of their state highway roads have them.

I am not sure if this includes Interstates, where in Colorado they are sometimes open to biking (e.g. I-70, I-76.)

So what’s the story in Michigan? As of last year, 35.8% of MDOT trunklines had paved shoulders 4′ or greater.    That percentage does not include Interstates, which are not currently opening to Michigan bicyclists.

That’s 3,031 miles of state roads with wide paved shoulders.

According to Josh Debruyn, MDOT’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, “In the last two years, MDOT has added 365 miles of paved shoulder suitable for bicycling and the number continues to grow every year.”

We expect these to grow as well now that the Governor has directed MDOT to do more.

And don’t think paved shoulders are just for bicyclists.  They help roads last longer, provide a safe pull-off area for vehicles, and allow vehicles to pass bicyclists more safely.

Now if we could only get the Metro Detroit road agencies (e.g. Road Commission for Oakland County) to step up and make this same committment to bicyclist safety.

Related Posts

• MDOT Transportation Enhancements
• Clearing snow Copenhagen-style
• Who is the Menace to Society?

Bike lanes in Ferndale

here’s been much discussion on this web site concerning bike lanes.

In summary, bike lanes…

1. Have been found to be the safest place for bicyclists to ride.
2. Can be funded from a variety of sources dedicated to non-motorized transportation.
3. Are not a significant liability concern for road agencies according to the state attorney general’s office.

In addition, the Road Commission for Oakland County and Wayne County Road Division have undocumented policies that prohibit bikes lanes.

Now this Macomb Daily article notes that old school opposition to bike lanes is in Macomb County as well.

Robert Hoepfner, chief highway engineer for the road commission, has no complaint with bicyclists. But he is concerned about safety. Many county roads simply aren’t wide enough for the kind of designated lanes Forlini described, Hoepfner said.

If county residents want designated areas for bicyclists, “Then let’s build bike paths and make them safe,” he said.

Apparently Mr. Hoepfner has not done his homework. Bike side paths are significantly less safe than bike lanes. If he was truly concerned about bicycle safety, he’d be building bike lanes. And if a county road is not wide enough for bike lanes, widen it. There is non-motorized funding available for this.

There are no excuses for not providing safe cycling opportunities in Metro Detroit.

Related Posts

• Oakland County Roads are Not the Safest
• Bicycle crashes increase for 2007
• MDOT Transportation Enhancements

For example, the Road Commission of Oakland County refuses to acknowledge much less use best practices for bicycling facilities. They ignore the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) guidelines for bicycling facilities. They ignore Federal Highway Administration guidance. They ignore bicycling safety studies that show their policies have been consistently found to be unsafe.

We appreciate the fact that Craig Bryson, Public Information Officer for the Road Commission for Oakland County responded:

The Road Commission for Oakland County has no objection to bikers. We simply have no money available to make costly improvements to roads to allow bikers. We cannot afford to simply maintain smooth pavement on the roads or even begin to address the massive congestion that clogs our roads everyday. It would be very difficult to justify spending scarce resources on bike facilities when we can’t maintain the existing roads. If you are proposing additional funding just for bike facilities, we’re more than willing to listen.

However, Craig isn’t correct. It’s not about the road money.

The primary roadblock to safe biking in Oakland County is the Road Commission’s policy of not supporting safe, AASHTO on-road bicycle facilities. Instead, Road Commission policy only supports bicycle facilities on wide sidewalks (so called “safety” paths) which are not recommended by AASHTO, MDOT, and others. They are not recommended for one main reason: studies find them much less safe for cyclists than on-road facilities like bike lanes.

It should be noted that we have twice asked the Road Commission for their documentation and justification for this policy. Their sole response was “[we] have not been able to find it yet.” According to that same official, this policy was set 19 years ago by a risk management committee. That tells us the policy was based on limiting the Road Commission’s perceived liability. [Note that MDOT and the Michigan Attorney General's office has weighed in on this issue recently. We'll cover it in a future news entry.]

Even if one believes that money is the issue, there are significant sources of funding available specifically for bicycling facilities, including but not limited to Transportation Enhancements, CMAQ, private grant sources (e.g. Bikes Belong), and Act 51 funds.

And speaking of Act 51, it requires Road Commissions to spend not less than 1% of their road funding on non-motorized facilities. In the past, the Road Commission for Oakland County used a loophole in the state law to count the paving of gravel roads as a bicycle facility. Bicycling advocates have since changed state law and removed that loophole, so that should free up Act 51 monies to pay for legitimate bicycle facilities.

But perhaps what we find offensive about the money excuse is it puts the safety of bicyclists below other road users. Does the Road Commission for Oakland County ignore nearly all safety issues for motorists due to a lack of money? Of course not.

Besides, how can the money excuse have any justification given the Road Commission’s goal “Quality Life through Good Roads — ‘We Care’”? When I’m riding on an Oakland County road with no safe accommodation for cycling, “We Care” is not what pops into my head.

For cyclists, their mission statement is even more egregious:

What will it take to get the Road Commission for Oakland County to live up to their mission, become a leader in bike safety, and start using existing funding to support safe bicycling on the many roads they manage?

Footnotes:

1. The Road Commission uses the term Good Roads in their goal — a term that was coined and promoted by cyclists in the late 1800s.
2. In 1893, bicyclists led by Edward Hines created and helped pass the state law that allowed county road commissions in Michigan.

Related Posts

• Safety Paths: Not Safe for Cycling
• Clearing snow Copenhagen-style
• Cycling for Cities: A Detroit Perspective

The primary safety solution from many groups is to wear a helmet. But, according to research, wearing helmets is not the best way to improve bicycling safety. Creating safe bicycle facilities, increasing bicycle use, and educating users are the best means for improving safety. The results from the Netherlands support this. It’s one of the safest places to bike in the world yet almost no one wears helmets.

What do you call a cyclist wearing a helmet in the Netherlands? A tourist.

One study summarizes the six priorities that Germany and the Netherlands use to make biking so safe:

• Better Facilities for Walking and Cycling
• Traffic Calming of Residential Neighborhoods
• Urban Design Oriented to People and Not Cars
• Restrictions on Motor Vehicle Use
• Traffic Education
• Traffic Regulations and Enforcement

The big challenge in Metro Detroit is many road agencies and municipalities don’t know what better bicycling facilities are. For example, the Road Commission of Oakland County refuses to acknowledge much less use best practices for bicycling facilities. They ignore the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) guidelines for bicycling facilities. They ignore Federal Highway Administration guidance. They ignore bicycling safety studies that show their policies have been consistently found to be unsafe.

And similarly, many cities have followed the Road Commission’s lead. Rochester Hills and West Bloomfield have pursued wide sidewalks (ironically called “safety” paths) despite the overwhelming evidence that these are not safe options for cyclists.

If we truly want safe cycling, we need to start by forcing our local road agencies and municipalities to use best practices and provide safe non-motorized transportation options for cyclists. This should be our primary campaign. And that message needs to come from cyclists, citizens, AAA, medical professionals, health experts, the Traffic Improvement Association (TIA), and others.

This doesn’t mean helmet use should be discouraged. Helmets can lessen injuries when cyclists are hit. But it’s much better to prevent those “hits” in the first place.

Related Posts

• Cycling for Cities: A Detroit Perspective
• Who is the Menace to Society?
• Pedestrian and bicycle safety data analysis