News comes from our pals at Bikeportland.org of another attempt to pass a "pedestrian hand signal" law in the Oregon Legislature for 2009:
http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/02/safety-advocates-will-try-again-for-new-hand- In short, the legislation would change the law. Right now, Pedestrians actually have to put a foot out in traffic before a driver has to stop for them. If the law passes, pedestrians would be allowed to use a hand signal (sort of like "stop") before stepping into traffic, to get the driver's attention. Or something like that. Better yet, this isn't a requirement, but an "option", another "tool" that the pedestrian has to stay safe.
Let me see if I understand. I'm using a crosswalk, and I'm a pedestrian. Any driver ignores me under those circumstances, and he or she has just screwed up the Inviolate, Holy Writ of the Drivers' Manual: The Pedestrian Has The Right Of Way. Mess with that and you are legally toast.
So now I should put my hand out first, and see if I get noticed? When drivers are already supposed to be keeping their eyes peeled for me anyway? The rationale here is totally messed up. It suggests that although I have the right of way in theory I simply can't expect to have it in practice unless I make the driver notice me first. Besides the hand signal, let's add a requirement that pedestrians will have to wear day-glo orange vests and light-up arm and leg bands too. Because while the book may say we have the right of way when we're on foot, it's still a car's world out there, folks. All the laws in the world won't change that.
As for the hand signal being another tool to keep me safe from inattentive car drivers, well, I prefer a lawyer.
My mind boggles that the Bicycle Transportation Alliance would put their time and resources behind this measure.
I thought the BTA was all about effecting real change -- not only in protecting and expanding protections for bike riders and pedestrians, but in expanding where we can safely walk and ride, and making it easier to do so.
Last month the BTA stated support for the idea of requiring bicyclists to have operating licenses. Vehicle insurance for bicyclists surely wouldn't be far behind. Here's yet another misguided idea that shows more and more the disconnect I've been feeling where the BTA is concerned.
Want change? mean it? Then let's see the BTA and other bike-ped advocates throw their weight, clout and resources behind these ideas instead:
1. Make it more expensive and more inconvenient to drive a car in the city. Promote urban density with attractive, affordable housing, limit parking spaces and subsidize vouchers for bicycle purchases and/or increased use of public transit. Tell governments to stop subsidizing the costs of gasoline and super-highway maintenance and let consumers see the real costs of owning and driving automobiles everywhere. Instead, subsidize and expand sustainable public transit in every city and town so the transition from a car-dependent infrsastructure won't be as painful. Just transfer the subsidies from one to another.
1a. Instead of giving tax-breaks to multinational corporations, give them to small and middle-sized businesses and rebuild a commercially-viable Main Street in every city and town. Keep more jobs local and stop subsidizing the high costs of bringing goods and services in from so far away.
2. Create more truly car-free streets (and not just for two or three lousy days a year. Are you listening, PDOT?). Install more traffic-calming devices and lower speed limits in residential areas -- and really enforce them. Take streets that used to open to cars and de-pave them a little -- leave space in the middle, but turn the sides of the paving into bio0-swales or other green features that reduce CO2 emissions and help keep our groundwater cleaner.
3. [Borrowing this idea from at least half a dozen other people who said it before me.] Instead of bailing out the Big Three, let's offer all those workers who'll be laid off some government-sponsored re-training (think on the scale of another New Deal here) and pay them to rebuild and expand our nation's rail system -- both for passengers and freight. (I know, I know; train travel takes longer. So let's think big and simply give American workers more paid time off so they can have the time they need to travel more sustainably?)
Okay, I'm getting fairly far afield here. But the point is that I have grown impatient with advocates who don't dream at least as big as I do, who advocate for stuff as radical as the stuff I envision. The BTA's latest foray into legislation is ineffective at best and play-it-safe pandering at worst, and frankly I believe they can dream bigger than that. I know I do, every single day.
I guess I'm simply not cut out for politics. And a good thing, too.
http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/02/safety-advocates-will-try-again-for-new-hand-
In short, the legislation would change the law. Right now, Pedestrians actually have to put a foot out in traffic before a driver has to stop for them. If the law passes, pedestrians would be allowed to use a hand signal (sort of like "stop") before stepping into traffic, to get the driver's attention. Or something like that. Better yet, this isn't a requirement, but an "option", another "tool" that the pedestrian has to stay safe.
Let me see if I understand. I'm using a crosswalk, and I'm a pedestrian. Any driver ignores me under those circumstances, and he or she has just screwed up the Inviolate, Holy Writ of the Drivers' Manual: The Pedestrian Has The Right Of Way. Mess with that and you are legally toast.
So now I should put my hand out first, and see if I get noticed? When drivers are already supposed to be keeping their eyes peeled for me anyway? The rationale here is totally messed up. It suggests that although I have the right of way in theory I simply can't expect to have it in practice unless I make the driver notice me first. Besides the hand signal, let's add a requirement that pedestrians will have to wear day-glo orange vests and light-up arm and leg bands too. Because while the book may say we have the right of way when we're on foot, it's still a car's world out there, folks. All the laws in the world won't change that.
As for the hand signal being another tool to keep me safe from inattentive car drivers, well, I prefer a lawyer.
My mind boggles that the Bicycle Transportation Alliance would put their time and resources behind this measure.
I thought the BTA was all about effecting real change -- not only in protecting and expanding protections for bike riders and pedestrians, but in expanding where we can safely walk and ride, and making it easier to do so.
Last month the BTA stated support for the idea of requiring bicyclists to have operating licenses. Vehicle insurance for bicyclists surely wouldn't be far behind. Here's yet another misguided idea that shows more and more the disconnect I've been feeling where the BTA is concerned.
Want change? mean it? Then let's see the BTA and other bike-ped advocates throw their weight, clout and resources behind these ideas instead:
1. Make it more expensive and more inconvenient to drive a car in the city. Promote urban density with attractive, affordable housing, limit parking spaces and subsidize vouchers for bicycle purchases and/or increased use of public transit. Tell governments to stop subsidizing the costs of gasoline and super-highway maintenance and let consumers see the real costs of owning and driving automobiles everywhere. Instead, subsidize and expand sustainable public transit in every city and town so the transition from a car-dependent infrsastructure won't be as painful. Just transfer the subsidies from one to another.
1a. Instead of giving tax-breaks to multinational corporations, give them to small and middle-sized businesses and rebuild a commercially-viable Main Street in every city and town. Keep more jobs local and stop subsidizing the high costs of bringing goods and services in from so far away.
2. Create more truly car-free streets (and not just for two or three lousy days a year. Are you listening, PDOT?). Install more traffic-calming devices and lower speed limits in residential areas -- and really enforce them. Take streets that used to open to cars and de-pave them a little -- leave space in the middle, but turn the sides of the paving into bio0-swales or other green features that reduce CO2 emissions and help keep our groundwater cleaner.
3. [Borrowing this idea from at least half a dozen other people who said it before me.] Instead of bailing out the Big Three, let's offer all those workers who'll be laid off some government-sponsored re-training (think on the scale of another New Deal here) and pay them to rebuild and expand our nation's rail system -- both for passengers and freight. (I know, I know; train travel takes longer. So let's think big and simply give American workers more paid time off so they can have the time they need to travel more sustainably?)
Okay, I'm getting fairly far afield here. But the point is that I have grown impatient with advocates who don't dream at least as big as I do, who advocate for stuff as radical as the stuff I envision. The BTA's latest foray into legislation is ineffective at best and play-it-safe pandering at worst, and frankly I believe they can dream bigger than that. I know I do, every single day.
I guess I'm simply not cut out for politics. And a good thing, too.