Bike wreck

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Bike wreck”.

by on October 13, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Lifestyle, Roads
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on October 13, 2014

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2014/10/13/bike-wreck/

Previous Post
Next Post
Leave a comment

74 Comments

1 2

  1. George C

     /  October 13, 2014

    Nancy,
    I hope Don heals quickly. As you mentioned, most drivers are courteous and give cyclists room. I think we need to step up our education campaigns, beginning with the teens while they are still in school. The difficulty is figuring out which educational methods will work best, especially in those situations where we don’t have captive audiences. As social media has overtaken print media it is harder to create effective campaigns that will reach all of our target audiences, especially when we don’t know which ones haven’t yet gotten the message.

  2. Terri Buckner

     /  October 13, 2014

    I had a similar experience as a pedestrian in front of the Hampton Inn in Carrboro a couple of weeks ago. A driver was pulling out and turning right into backed up traffic. He looked left and then pulled forward hitting me, the pedestrian walking on the sidewalk. Fortunately the backed up traffic meant he was going slowly and he was young and had very fast reaction time so while I was scared to death, I was not physically injured beyond my wrist which I stuck out to try and stop the vehicle.

    As bicyclists and pedestrians we should feel safe but we also have to do our part. I should have waited until I made eye contact with the driver before I crossed in front of him. Riding against traffic on a heavily traveled roadway is not smart either–drivers aren’t looking for bicyclists who are breaking the law. Bit cycles are vehicles and are required by law and good sense to obey all traffic laws.

    I disagree with George that this is an education challenge. The driver who pulled out onto Estes wasn’t at fault, Don and Nancy were and they made a conscious decision to break the law based on some kind of cost benefit analysis.

    What we need is to design roadways differently rather than designing them to expedite motorized vehicle movement. Carrboro has agreed to my request for a pedestrian sub-committee of their transportation advisory board to prioritize previously explored strategies to privilege pedestrian’s over cars and trucks. Their Go Slow plan for Main Street is excellent work but needs to be funded and implemented. Their signs reminding vehicles that pedestrians have the right of way at pedestrian crossings is another step that can be expanded to other areas of high usage.

    Carrboro also has the bike coalition that is trying to educate riders by giving out lights for night riding, helmets and safe riding tips.

  3. George C

     /  October 13, 2014

    Terri,
    In addition to lights at night, riders need to dress to enhance their visibility. My fluorescent yellow motorcycle jacket may not win any awards but it increases the likelihood I’ll catch a driver’s attention before they pull out or cut in front of me. Visability-enhancing clothing/jackets, in spite of their lack of fashion correctness, can increase a rider’s chances of avoiding a car-bike conflict. Not nearly enough cyclists seem to get this.

  4. Terri

     /  October 13, 2014

    Excellent point, George. Here’s info on the Carrboro Bicycle Coalition and all the facets of bicycle safety they are involved with.
    http://bikecarrboro.com/what-we-do/local-projects

    Unfortunately, bicyclists are one of the major hazards for pedestrians. I hope that with the Carrboro subcommittee we can begin to renew the old “Share the Road” program, and at the very least make bicyclists aware of pedestrians rights on the sidewalks.

  5. Nancy

     /  October 13, 2014

    A clarification, Terri. Cyclists riding on the street have to obey vehicular laws. Cyclists on the sidewalk don’t. And town ordinance allows bicycling on the sidewalk except in certain places downtown.

  6. many

     /  October 13, 2014

    Nancy, I am glad it was not more serious and you were near by a medical facility. I hope Don recovers quickly.

    You know of course your accident is an exact example of why the traffic laws in NC prohibit riding on the sidewalk and/or against traffic, and legally the driver would not be at fault. Based on your description, I surmise you were traveling at a fair clip. Looking left (well glancing really) is mostly enough to catch a slow moving pedestrian on a sidewalk but often not enough to register a faster moving bicycle. Driveway exits are often obscured forcing drivers to blindly poke their cars out on the sidewalk in order to observe oncoming traffic. The rush-hour has that name for a reason.

    Terri makes the salient point that greenways and bike paths need to be better designed so that making the choice to ride illegally is not the path of least resistance. Until the planners drive these realizations into designs for “walk-ability” and “ride-ability” dismounting and crossing safely would be the smart choice.

    BTW, the other main reason riding on the sidewalk is prohibited is that it is dangerous to pedestrians. There is an increasing friction between pedestrians and bicyclists in urban areas, so any good designs should consider inter-workings between that traffic as well.

  7. many

     /  October 13, 2014

    Nancy, I think you are incorrect, according to:
    https://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=19952&stateId=33&stateName=North%20Carolina&customBanner=19952.jpg&imageclass=L&cl=19952.txt

    Sec. 21-45. Applicability of traffic laws.
    Every person riding a bicycle upon a public street, bikeway or sidewalk shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by the laws of this state declaring rules of the road applicable to vehicles, this Code or other ordinances of this town applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except as to those provisions of laws and ordinances which by their nature can have no application, and except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

    Sec. 21-49. Direction of travel.
    The following bikeways are designated for two directional traffic:

    Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard (east side)—
    Estes Drive to 646 feet south of Estes Drive;
    Muirhead Trail;
    Glendale Trail.

    All other bikeways shall carry bicycle traffic only in the direction of the nearest adjacent traffic lane.

  8. Fred Black

     /  October 13, 2014

    Is this more “Nancy humor?”
    “And I don’t blame Aaron Nelson here, though I did wonder what kind of vehicle he drives.)”

    PS: Many tenants in that complex.

  9. Nancy

     /  October 13, 2014

    If what I’ve written were to be boiled down into a PowerPoint slide, here would be the takeaway: The vehicle that has the power to do more damage in an accident has more onus to use that power responsibly, even though the more vulnerable party has the most motivation to be careful. Many of us who are pedestrians or cyclists are also drivers at times. The recent accidents have made me more aware as a driver. I hope they make you more aware, too.

  10. DOM

     /  October 13, 2014

    Nancy –

    I’m glad Don’s (kind of) okay. As you say, coulda been a lot worse.

  11. Bonnie

     /  October 13, 2014

    I’ll add my good wishes for Don’s recovery.

    And a view that says every cyclist, motorist and pedestrian has to learn how to share the road safely. The solutions will require a combination of education and law enforcement in the short term, and better road infrastructure in the long term.

  12. anon

     /  October 13, 2014

    too bad there aren’t bike lanes in the road there. I’ve been tempted to go vigilante and paint them myself. Painting bike lanes/shared road symbols on the roads would be a big help and shouldn’t cost that much, otherwise people decide use sidewalks or unmarked (or poorly marked for bike sharing) roads? I know UNC and the Town of Chapel Hill and some big bike “initiative” last year but I haven’t seen any action yet…

  13. many

     /  October 13, 2014

    anon, That is an interesting idea and would get media attention (not suggesting you do it because it would be illegal).

    It’s too bad that so much of the funding Orange County and Chapel Hill needs for this and other kinds of transit infrastructure improvement are being siphoned off by TTA in the name of a 1.4 Billion dollar 12 mile LRT line that serves primarily well off Chapel Hill neighborhoods.

    In light of funding priorities and better alternatives to LRT, participation by state and/or federal agencies is doubtful. Yet the wasteful million dollar studies continue and costs keep rising.

    Re-targeting that spending is where you vigilante energies wold be best focused.

  14. Terri

     /  October 13, 2014

    Does anyone know how wide the lanes are on Estes? There’s solid research indicating that 12 foot lanes should be reduced to 10 foot lanes for safety. That would create 2.5 feet wide bike lanes on both sides of the road.

  15. Bonnie

     /  October 13, 2014

    Great point Many!

  16. Mark Marcoplos

     /  October 13, 2014

    Portland, OR is saturated with bicyclists. Not only do they have more bike lanes than most municipalities, but there are reminders everywhere that bikes are a major part of the transportation mix. There are signs everywhere, including many that had biking distances to landmark destinations. Some four-way intersections have crossing lights just for bikes. You just cannot avoid remembering that bikes are apt to be anywhere.

    Of course, better biking avenues and greater awareness results in more bicyclists which creates greater awareness. This should be our goal.

  17. Geoff Green

     /  October 13, 2014

    A hodgepodge of replies:

    In Chapel Hill it is legal to ride on the sidewalk, except where otherwise designated. In town it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk downtown Franklin Street, and I think not anywhere else. Many, as to section 21-49 regarding direction of traffic, that applies to bikeways. Sidewalks are not bikeways, per sections 21-41(b) and 21-20.1.

    In any event, while it’s perhaps arguable that what Nancy and Don were doing was illegal, they were breaking the law because obeying the law is terrifying and likely more dangerous. George mentions education and visibility, and those things can’t hurt, but a flourescent yellow vest isn’t going to help much when the driver isn’t even looking in your direction, and education only goes so far. The key problem is that the infrastructure in that part of town gives all priority to the motorist. Sidealks are narrow and close to the road, road lanes are wide (60′ width, 5 lanes, average of 12′ per lane), curb cuts are placed along the road maximizing vehicular access while minimizing pedestrian/bicyclist comfort (the sidewalk on the east side has a minimal buffer), and no bicycle facitlites whatsoever. One could argue that for the reasons Nancy mentions, it’s the most dangerous road, and most dangerous segment of the road, upon which to bike.

    anon, sharrow symbols might be helpful, but they do very little. There’s no really good study evaluating their effectiveness. If I’m remembering correctly, the upshot of the sharrow experiment on MLK (which was run by the Federal Highway Administration, along with UNC’s Highway Safety Research Center) is that cars passed more closely to the bicyclists in MLK’s wide outside lane. That doesn’t seem safer than me.

    Terri, the width of the road (on Google Earth) is 60′ feet, give or take, meaning the lanes are about 12′ wide. Narrowing the lanes would have the benefit of slowing down traffic speeds. Unfortunately, a 2 1/2′ bike lane is not quite wide enough. The bare minimum width for a bike lane is 4′, and 5′ is recommended. Without removing a lane, then, you couldn’t do bike lanes on both sides. You could do a bike lane on one side with the extra five feet of space; however, that would force cars and bikes to share two 10′ lanes on the other side of a heavily trafficed commercial road, and that’s not something that a normal cyclist would feel comfortable handling. In any event, I’m not sure comfortable a typical, non-spandex wearing cyclist would feel on something like Franklin Street even with a non-buffered bicycle lane.

    The Chapel Hill Bike Plan was approved by Town Council in June. The bike plan lists the segment we’re discussing here as high stress (page 24). Ten segments are designated as top priority for receiving improvements; the segment being discussed here is not one of them. E. Franklin Street betweeen Boundary and Estes is, however (page 63). The limited right of way will make substantial impprovements challenging. It’s a good plan, and it should inform bicycle facility improvements for the next 5-10 years.

    Finally, Mark makes some good points, particularly about the virtuous cycle that building bicycle facilities can have. Other large cities like New York and San Francisco have also done an excellent job reconfiguring streets to better accomodate cyclists. Interestingly, the gold standard of on-road bicycle facilities is protected (buffered) bike lanes, and Portland actually trails in building those. For the state-of-the-art in bike facility design, check out the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

  18. Bruce Springsteen

     /  October 14, 2014

    It’s always interesting to see how easily humans put their wishes for what is real above what actually is real. This is especially true with regards to politics and religion. I want X to be true and therefore I will assume X is true.

    People act as if the laws of the state of North Carolina trump the laws of physics even though the laws of the state of North Carolina can change from day to day whereas the laws of physics never change.

    I don’t mean that only in the sense of heavy car beats light bike. I also mean it in the sense of human reaction time to various stimuli. Pretend things would be fine if drivers were “careful” if you like but that doesn’t change the environment in which the action is occurring nor does it change human physiology.

    That said, of course we ought to encourage drivers (and everybody else) to be careful but pretending drivers not being careful enough is the problem in the big picture is just ignoring reality.

    And in case someone reacts to that with “Change the rules to make it safer for bikers,” okay, that’s fine, but just go into that with the realization that that might put more cars on the road overall. Is your goal to reduce the number of cars or is it to reduce the number of cars that bikers in Chapel Hill / Carrboro have to contend with?

  19. Terri Buckner

     /  October 14, 2014

    Timely article from today’s Daily Tar Heel: http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/10/chapel-hill-works%20on%20cyclist%20street%20safety

  20. many

     /  October 14, 2014

    Spend some time in Amsterdam if you want a great example of what urban bicycle/motorized transportation looks like. Bicycles actually obey traffic laws and (gasp) signal their intentions! No wears bright colours to be seen while riding and no one wears a helmet. People chat on cell phones while riding (yes low attention span is everywhere). Large and important areas are car free – trams and bicycles only, it is actually easy and enjoyable to see the sights and visit – in the summer. The only conflict I saw was there appeared to be a growing tension between two wheeled mopeds and bicycles…………….humans will always find a conflict or invent one.

  21. Bruce Springsteen

     /  October 14, 2014

    Chapel Hill / Carrboro isn’t an urban environment and I get the impression that the people, especially those calling the shots, don’t want it to be.

    i have a rough idea what the laws are although I don’t know specifically, but it would be interesting to find out exactly what they are and then observe how strictly they’re followed. My guess is that they’re routinely ignored by both driver and biker. And it wouldn’t surprise me that if the laws were suddenly enforced everyone would be so annoyed with the result that they’d cry for a change in the laws.

    There are some people who unfortunately think they can do anything they want and have hostility towards everyone else but I suspect that most people just use whatever common sense requires in the moment to avoid an accident. If you’re driving (and if you have any sense) and you see a biker you don’t start ticking off the state of NC rules in your head, rather you just do whatever is necessary to avoid hitting the biker. Anything else would be foolish and counterproductive.

  22. Terri

     /  October 14, 2014

    “you just do whatever is necessary to avoid hitting the biker”…. there’s the problem. It’s an assumption that puts drivers, those with the largest vehicles and the greatest possibility of doing harm, in complete control. It may not be what you intended but it is the attitude of most drivers (not just in Chapel Hill/Carrboro). In responses, bikers go on the offensive and do whatever they want to get where they want to go. There is no “share the road” mentality by either drivers or many cylists. These are attitudes created in the past and perpetuated by the dominant road design patterns.

    BTW, I disagree that Chapel Hill is not an urban environment. It may not be as densely populated as some would like, but it certainly isn’t rural, and it’s no longer a village, so it must be urban.

  23. anon

     /  October 14, 2014

    wonder why the shared bike logos on MLK are white.. seems like yellow (or red) would stand out more (and doesn’t really cost anything).. also, the shared bike logos are better than nothing … Lots of us have to use MLK and they appear and disappear almost at random between blocks, very annoying

  24. many

     /  October 14, 2014

    Bruce,

    I suggest that Chapel hill meets the definition of “urban” and “sub-urban” in the rural buffer, whether or not one wants to acknowledge it is another matter.

    What you seem to be describing is the “reasonable person” concept in common law. The problem is that if Nancy & Don were being “reasonable” in choosing to ride against traffic on the sidewalk because it was the least bad option and the driver was being “reasonable” in not expecting fast moving traffic on the sidewalk against traffic, then who was the more reasonable? (or in your words, least foolish and counterproductive).

    I suggest the fact the the CHPD did not ticket the driver in the MLK incident, suggests that from a criminal perspective, the car was the more “reasonable”, of course the DA might think differently. This view may or may not hold true in a civil case, although I posit a effective argument could be made that the choice not to dismount and/or the poor interface of the path to the urban street.was really to blame in both cases. Further, if what Geoff suggests is true, I can point to driveways in Chapel Hill that cannot be safely backed out of, or even exited by a motor vehicle.

    I do not think either was a “share the road” incident, more of a share the sidewalk vs. what is reasonable to expect, exacerbated by a hopelessly vague ordinance that is not well publicized and, as Terri points out, poor urban design of bike ways leading to bad choices.

    I am going to start selling dash cams.

  25. Bruce Springsteen

     /  October 15, 2014

    Terri,

    I don’t think my point got conveyed. You say that an attitude of “do whatever is necessary to avoid hitting the biker” puts the drivers in control. Putting it that way implies we have total freedom to decide who has control and that we’re choosing the drivers.

    But what I’m saying is that before we get to the point where we decide what should be legal or whatever, nature has already set the stage to some degree regardless of what we wish.

    A driver can hurt/kill a cyclist if he wants or if he doesn’t want but isn’t careful enough or even if he doesn’t want and IS careful. Meanwhile, a biker can’t directly do any harm to a driver no matter what. Cars are much heavier, travel much faster and are much easier to see both by virtue of their size and the environment where both cars and bikes travel (the roads).

    The problem is that people read the previous paragraph and assume the words come from a value judgement about cars and bikes. It’s not a value judgement, it’s just a statement of reality. It’s true regardless of whether people want it to be true or what they think about bikes and cars.

  26. Bruce Springsteen

     /  October 15, 2014

    Thanks for the comment, Many, but it’s too late tonight for me to get into it. Hopefully tomorrow night.

  27. Mark Marcoplos

     /  October 15, 2014

    Does Chapel Hill’s “form-based code” ensure viable bike transportation?

  28. Terri

     /  October 15, 2014

    Bruce,

    I think we’re saying the same thing….as long as we continue to design roadways from the assumption that moving motorized traffic quickly and efficiently is the primary goal, then all other traffic (pedestrian, cycles or whatever) will be forced to fit around those vehicles that have the power to do the most harm. That’s why I’ve been saying this isn’t an education issue–it’s a design problem. We need a new way of thinking about design going forward and we need strategies for fixing old designs that don’t work.

    Mark–the new form-based code doesn’t address road design so, no, it doesn’t ensure viable bike or pedestrian travel.

  29. Fred Black

     /  October 15, 2014

    Terri, can’t it be both? What is the design solution for a bike traveling north on the west side sidewalk of E. Franklin having to deal wit a car turning right on red off of Estes only looking left? Can’t we educate people to look both ways? I have seen this very example several times and with pedestrians too.

  30. Terri

     /  October 15, 2014

    Fred,

    Pushing this off as an education problem means it won’t change. I started biking/walking in this community more than 35 years ago. For years, I didn’t even own a car. I joined the Carrboro Transportation Advisory Board because it was a problem back then and nothing has really changed–it’s still a problem. From a systems perspective that tells me that we’ve failed to identify the correct problem. With the rapid turnover we have in residency here, education would have to ramp up to superhigh gear year around to have any impact. As Bruce said, the problem isn’t that drivers want to hit pedestrians or bikers. There’s just too many opportunities for mistakes, oversights, accidents because of road designs that are not compatible with the community goal of supporting walkability and bikeability,

  31. Terri

     /  October 15, 2014

    One more thing. The outreach efforts being taken by the Carrboro Bike Coalition are outstanding. They are working with the local police to distribute head lights, reaching out to kids, and making themselves very visible at public events. That’s the kind of education/outreach that is very helpful, IMHO.

  32. Fred Black

     /  October 15, 2014

    Terri, I not pushing it off as an education problem at all, I asked why can’t we employ two efforts, and how a design would impact the situation that I described. Curious as to what you think.

  33. Nancy

     /  October 15, 2014

    Also curious that bicycle mobility is given so little thought in development decisions, even though a third of the members of Town Council are or were cyclists.

  34. Terri

     /  October 15, 2014

    I’m not sure I understand your scenario Fred. “What is the design solution for a bike traveling north on the west side sidewalk of E. Franklin having to deal wit a car turning right on red off of Estes only looking left?”

    Do you mean the cyclist is traveling on the wrong side of the road like Nancy and Don were doing? (I thought E. Franklin was an east – west orientation…)

    Either way, cars turning right on red are a problem for pedestrians and cyclists regardless of which direction either are going. Heck, drivers turning right on red often race to turn in front of cars going straight through.

  35. Fred Black

     /  October 15, 2014

    At Estes Terri, E. Franklin is going north. Is it against the law to ride on the sidewalk against the traffic? It’s done routinely and that’s part of the problem. Sorry you reject education.

  36. Terri

     /  October 15, 2014

    Fred, I have invested thousands of dollars and years of training into being a competent educator. I don’t reject education–I just don’t think it’s the answer to structural, design problems.

  37. bonnie hauser

     /  October 15, 2014

    I agree that its both – education and road design. We can all do more to learn how to share the road safely. That includes the 50,000 or so drivers/cyclists who are not reading the blogs. Road design will take longer – and given the plans for E-F, Obey Creek and downtown, its the perfect time.

    Law enforcement is also a problem – although from what I’m reading, in town, its sometimes safer to break the law than to comply with it. If traffic laws are enforced, behavior will change.

    The county of course is completely different. Road speeds of 45-60 MPH and no bike lanes per se. Cyclists regularly block traffic and fail to stop for signs or emergency vehicles. Motorists tailgate and crowd cyclists when they pass. Given the vulnerability of a cyclist, its hard to imagine why they take so many risks.

    Different problems that are often blurred. Personally I’m glad that we are discussing it.

    No matter what – Accidents will happen. Maybe we can lower the risk.

  38. Terri

     /  October 17, 2014

    Press Release from the Town of Chapel Hill
    Chapel Hill Addresses Cyclist and Pedestrian Safety Improvements
    Posted Date: 10/17/2014
    Chapel Hill residents will begin to see immediate action steps this month targeted to improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety including new flashing lights at mid-block crosswalks, safety signage, and a step-up in traffic education and enforcement activities.

    Town Manager Roger Stancil has established a new interdepartmental staff group that combines law enforcement, planning, traffic engineering, Chapel Hill Transit, parks and recreation, and public outreach representatives. The team is championed by Police Chief Chris Blue with project leaders Police Sgt. Celisa Lehew and Len Cone, Go Chapel Hill community outreach coordinator. The group has identified a number of immediate actions to identify problem traffic spots and improve safety. The staff team will also join efforts with such groups as the Town’s Transportation and Connectivity Board, and the Bicycle Alliance of Chapel Hill (BACH ).

    “We are determined to improve cyclist and pedestrian safety in Chapel Hill,” said Town Manager Roger Stancil. “Our Town employees share responsibility for community safety, regardless of their job roles. When they work together to design solutions, we can expect excellent outcomes. We also intend to work closely with our residents toward these shared goals.”

    Immediate actions by the Town will include the following:

    • Install push-button activated flashing lights at four un-signalized mid-block pedestrian crosswalks on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and East Franklin Street. The existing mid-block crosswalks (total of seven) were installed in 2010, and the Town maintains them through an encroachment agreement with NC Department of Transportation. This will occur during the first week of November.

    • Launch a WikiMap, an interactive crowdsourcing application that allows users to view an online map and post comments to identify unsafe areas and concerns. The data will become available for Town staff to review, collect, prioritize and provide response. This will be launched in October.

    • Place “High Crash Area” digital signs near areas where a high number of traffic accidents have occurred. Chapel Hill Police have found that the placement of signs in past outreach efforts have reduced accidents by as much as 50 percent. This will occur in October.

    • Increase both education and enforcement activities to improve safety and raise awareness. People may receive helpful information, warnings and in some cases, tickets for traffic violations. Officers may cite motorists for failure to yield to pedestrians within the crosswalk and cite pedestrians and cyclists for crossing against the signals or crossing outside the crosswalk. Fines and court costs for these violations begin at $213. This begins immediately.

    • Trim hedges and clean other debris at intersections where high growth impedes view for travelers and clean foliage away from sidewalks and signs. This begins immediately.

    In addition to the above, the Town is also looking into a number of new measures — such as painting green bicycle lanes, painting bicycle boxes at intersections and lights, adding signage across town, and improving its public outreach. Many of these efforts are included in the Chapel Hill Bike Plan, which was adopted by Council in June 2014. A major goal of Chapel Hill 2020, the community’s comprehensive plan, is to provide safe connections among neighborhoods, schools, commercial areas, parks, rural bikeways and farms, and business and art/dining/entertainment hubs that promote healthy exercise and environmentally friendly modes of transportation.

    Addressing travel safety is a collaborative team effort in Chapel Hill. The following Town departments work to create safe spaces for travelers — including pedestrian, cyclists and motorists — and to educate people about safe road behavior, and enforce traffic laws:

    Chapel Hill Police Department
    Contact: Sgt. Celisa Lehew, 919-968-2760, clehew@townofchapelhill.org
    The Chapel Hill Police Department partners with the UNC Department of Public Safety, the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and the NC Department of Transportation to provide public safety education and outreach. Officers regularly conduct outreach and enforcement as a reminder to obey traffic laws, share the road and keep safe.

    Chapel Hill Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division
    Contact: Kumar Neppalli, 919-969-5093, kneppalli@townofchapelhill.org
    Traffic Engineering focuses on infrastructure including signal lights, pedestrian countdown signals, stop signs, speed limit signs, pedestrian crosswalks, medians, and bike lanes. Traffic controls regulate the speed, volume and flow of traffic. The neighborhood traffic-calming program provides residents an opportunity to present a concern for traffic safety.

    Communications and Public Affairs
    Contact: Catherine Lazorko, 919-969-5055, clazorko@townofchapelhill.org
    Community engagement specialists assist with outreach efforts of all departments of the Town, as well as those of the NC Department of Transportation campaign “Watch for Me NC.” Messages are dispersed throughout the year via the website, news releases, social media, occasional advertisements, and at festivals and special events.

    Go Chapel Hill!
    Contact: Len Cone, 919-969-5065, lcone@townofchapelhill.org
    Go Chapel Hill helps determine ways to leave our cars at home and lead a more active and healthy lifestyle. The program encourages basic strategies to reduce our carbon footprint, save money, reduce traffic congestion and begin days in a healthier way. http://www.gochapelhill.org/

    Chapel Hill Planning Department
    Contact: David Bonk, 919-969-5064, dbonk@townofchapelhill.org
    The Planning Department’s long-range transportation effort works to integrate considerations of bicyclist and pedestrian needs into all facets of transportation planning and programming. Work is underway to create a more connected, bikeable community through the recently adopted Bike Plan. Through the Sidewalk Construction Program the Planning Department prioritizes sidewalks that need improvements to strategically improve sidewalks when funds become available.

    Chapel Hill Transit
    Contact: Brian Litchfield, 919-969-4908, blitchfield@townofchapelhill.org
    Chapel Hill Transit is the public transportation provider that serves Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and supports efforts to create safe environments for all modes of transportation, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. Chapel Hill Transit buses are equipped with sturdy exterior racks that can hold two bicycles. Transit communicates messages to improve safety when people approach and exit Town buses http://www.chtransit.org

    Parks and Recreation
    Contact: Bill Webster, 919-968-2819, bwebster@townofchapelhill.org
    Parks and Recreation is dedicated to providing recreational opportunities in a safe, maintained and inviting environment. The total land area of Chapel Hill is 21.3 square miles, and about 11 percent of this is dedicated to parks and open space. Since the Town Council adopted an open space plan in 1965, there are now about 1,200 acres of park, open space, and greenway easements totaling 12 miles of trails.

    PARTNERS
    NC Department of Transportation-Watch for Me NC
    Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board
    UNC Department of Public Safety
    UNC Department of Public Policy
    Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
    Town of Carrboro
    Visitors Bureau
    Bicycle Shops, Clubs, Alliances

    Chapel Hill is working to make the community a safer place to walk, cycle and drive. For more information, visit: http://www.townofchapelhill.org/index.aspx?page=1128

  39. Bonnie

     /  October 17, 2014

    Terri –
    This is great. Impressive rapid response from
    Chapel Hill. Thanks for sharing.

    My column on sharing rural roads just went up. The issues are different but the risks as high. Glad this important topic is getting attention.

    http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2014/10/17/4241203/bonni-hauser-share-the-road-goes.html?sp=/99/586/885/905/

  40. Deborah Fulghieri

     /  October 18, 2014

    I’m glad Don is healing and hope bike riders will be safer from here on in.

  41. Fred Black

     /  October 18, 2014

    And I’m glad that they will not ignore the education piece!

  42. many

     /  October 18, 2014

    All very nice, except there is still a lack of education and clarity on the Chapel Hill ordinance.that allows bicycles on sidewalks.

  43. George C

     /  October 19, 2014

    As a motorcyclist who has often ridden the Orange County roads that Bonnie mentions and has often had to overtake both single cyclists and large groups I have tried to use certain behaviors. First, I usually give at least 4 foot clearance as I overtake (although state law only calls for 2 feet) because the cyclist might slip and fall towards me. Second, I always try to imagine that I’m the cyclist and think about how I would want to be passed. I respect their life and their right to have it continue. I’m not sure that kind of respect can be taught. I’d like to think it’s something you acquire as you grow up. We can encourage it, we can demand it. But unfortunately some people will never have it or show it. And the only thing we can do is try to avoid them and hope they don’t eventually kill us or someone else.

  44. Bonnie

     /  October 20, 2014

    George – “I respect their life and the right to have it continue”. It’s not that easy. There are so many cyclists on the road, people are taking alternate routes or changing their daily patterns. For people who live in the county, it’s a daily annoyance.

    Recreational cyclists are impeding traffic and competing with cars, trucks and school buses going 45-60 MPH on roads that were not designed to share. Our EMS and Fire Departments are disgusted because the cyclists aren’t even pulling over for them.

    Passing a single cyclist is easy, passing five, not so, Passing ten,impossible. There’s few roadways with the required very long line of sight.

    Some things can be fixed with education, respect and cooperation. From what I can tell, our cycling statues have been designed for town streets and fall short in the practicalities of sharing rural roads.

    Finally – like everything else. – respect is a two way street.

  45. Bruce Springsteen

     /  October 20, 2014

    I almost wrote last week about how things will change as far as bikers go when self-driving cars come become common. There was a column in last weeks CHN about them but I’ve been reading about them for years.

    The response in this weeks CHN was depressing. How can people be so against a new technology that is so obviously going to make the world a better place? We’ve come up with a new technology that is going to save lives and money but because not every single detail is currently worked out we’re going to rail against it? Are you kidding me?

    I think a new term should be coined in politics. “Regressive.” It pertains to people that not only are against progress but want to actually make things worse. Unfortunately it would apply to many in this area.

    The advent and gradual introduction of self-driving cars are the perfect opportunity to us to SHAPE the future rather than run from it.

    These things are on the road now and guess what…they can drive better than you and me. And the technology is only going to get better, not only with regard to safety but with regards to efficiency.

    It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone could react to this as anything other than a massive good.

  46. Terri Buckner

     /  October 20, 2014

    Bruce,

    I sat in on a webinar last week on the security challenges with ‘the internet of things.’ Self driving cars can be hacked! Their braking systems, driving mechanisms, tire pressure, virtually every part of the vehicle where there’s a sensor.anyone looking for an entrepreneurial opportunity, this is it.

    Re: bicycle safety. Education only works when a) the student doesn’t know the information and thus cannot apply it and 2) when the instruction is accurate and useful to the student. I can’t imagine that either bicyclists or drivers don’t know the rules. They do know; they chose not to apply them, like Don and Nancy chose. It’s the reasons for choosing to ignore known rules that are important. Like Bonnie said, the bicyclists are functioning as tourists in an area where some residents are trying to work. It’s a use conflict.

    But the information Bonnie is distributing isn’t 100% accurate either. Bicyclists are not required to pull off the road for faster moving to vehicles can pass. And if they don’t pull over for emergency vehicles they can be ticketed the same as a motor vehicle.

  47. many

     /  October 20, 2014

    Terri, I think that the rules are not at all clear. There are conflicts and vast undefined areas of the “rules”. The truth is the information you refer to often isn’t clear and thus people can’t always apply it. Sometimes the the student learns the hard way.

    The rules allow bicyclists and motorists alike to interpret them to their own perceived advantage and sometimes peril. County roads are not a gymnasium or a race track.

    The intent of the rules should be safe transportation at the speed the conditions permit. Slower moving vehicles should move to the right as a matter of courtesy and because its the law, just as it is the law to slow down when overtaking a slower moving vehicle and giving them adequate room.

    I think George C will acknowledge that it is much easier to give 4 feet of room on a motorcycle than it is driving a logging truck.

    It’s not supposed to be about who “can” or “has the right”. Sadly, some insist on twisting the gaps in the rules and lawyers seeing opportunity to exploit the inefficiencies are circling. At some point I predict mommy and daddy government will need to step in and tell the gangs of bicyclists what should be obvious, that large groups are excessive and dangerous on twisty rural roads.

    Again, I argue that the fact that the driver was not ticketed in the tragic accident on MLK, is a very good indication of who was at fault, however as Geoff points out the ordinance is far from clear on the subject.

    I know this is three year old data but I think the text and statistics on sidewalk and directional riding on pages 65-67 are very educational and would be the basis of any law or ordinance that has bicycle safety as it’s goal: http://www.nhtsa.gov/links/StateDocs/FY11/FY11HSPs/NC_FY11HSP.pdf

    Not puling over for emergency vehicles is a problem with all vehicles, but hard to prosecute unless the emergency vehicle is a police car, ironically though the ambulance may well be going to the scene of another “bike wreck”.

  48. George C

     /  October 20, 2014

    Bonnie,

    You said “For people who live in the county, it’s a daily annoyance.” Well, I suggest you learn to live with it. Those roads don’t belong to the people who live in the County any more than they belong to folks who live in the municipalities. It’s that attitude that is creating the problem. The attitude that “you have no business being here so get the hell out of my way”.

    You also stated “Passing a single cyclist is easy, passing five, not so, Passing ten,impossible.” Well, guess what. Passing nine cars stacked up behind a slow moving car or tractor is also damn near impossible. You have to suck it up and just accept the fact that you might get to your destination a few seconds or, god forbid, a few minutes later. We have too many folks who think the world revolves around their schedules. The one think I liked about moving to the south was that folks here didn’t seem as quite strung out as folks in New England or California. I guess some folks never get unstrung.

    “Recreational cyclists are impeding traffic and competing with cars, trucks and school buses going 45-60 MPH on roads that were not designed to share. “. I’m not aware of many Orange County roads that have 60 mph speed limits and any school bus going more than 45 mph is, in my mind, probably exceeding the driver’s capacity.

    As for impeding EMS vehicles, I could go on and on about all the times I’ve seen drivers fail to yield. I find cyclists no less courteous that car/truck drivers and, in many instances more so. I’ve had many cyclists riding in line wave me on when they could see a clear passing area before I could.

    I could go on and on but it would do me no good to continue because it’s obvious that you don’t believe that cyclists have any right to be on “your roads”. I guess they can at least be thankful that the State doesn’t agree with you.

  49. Terri

     /  October 20, 2014

    Many,

    In the county, the rules are clear. Vehicles all follow the same rules and bicycles are vehicles. Law enforcement has chosen not to enforce the rules for decades so what you may mean is that it’s hard to know which laws, and under which circumstances, the sheriff’s office will enforce is not clear. Riding in side-by-side packs is against the law. I’m not saying it should be that way, only that it is. Slow moving vehicles are supposed to move to the right side of the lane, not pull off the road altogether. Courteous cyclists and motorists follow those rules.

    In town, the only lack of clarity is which sidewalks bicyclists are allowed to ride on. Back in my day as a cyclist, Chapel Hill had stenciled markers on those sidewalks we could ride on (like W. Franklin).

    I agree with everything George said. Bicyclists are part of urbanization, even in rural areas. It’s a fact of life and understandable, many farmers feel imposed upon. But I’d bet they also feel imposed upon by urban dwellers like Bonnie who decide they want to live in a rural environment and causes changes in less obvious ways. Cyclists are easier to pinpoint as problems.

  50. many

     /  October 20, 2014

    Terri, We agree in principle. However there still seems to be a great deal of ambiguity in the law.

    For example I think the main problem is the lack of clarity about which direction riding on the sidewalk is permitted, if you look at the Ch-Hill ordinance it is not clear, but common sense, police investigation and the accident statistics I pointed to would say the reasonable rider would ride with traffic. I see no such law against riding side by side, but safety and security would be enhanced for both parties if rather than a law, reasonable people would ride in much smaller groups, get right when being passed and people would pass with the same care and respect they would expect if they were in the other persons vehicle. If you count the number of bicyclists in those in packs it is pretty clear that they represent the majority of riders and thus do not obey the the laws of courtesy and common sense.

    In my estimation the farmers on tractors are far more courteous in this regard, perhaps because it is their community. I have never seen nine cars stacked up behind a tractor, in fact I have rarely seen one, so that is a specious argument.

    I think painting people that point out issues as having a “you have no business being here so get the hell out of my way” attitude do not help reasoned discussion. As George points out bicycles are a fact and I know no one that has any problem with the reasonable and safe riding. However, I see far too many of the “A” type cyclists who think the world revolves around their schedules and that the road is “theirs” to believe it is a one sided or a regional problem.

    It would be nice if the adults could work it out, but history is not encouraging .

1 2