|
 | |||
| Lopez Island | Orcas Island | Visitor's Guide | ||
| Email this page to a friend | ||
| ||||||||||||||||
|
RESPONSE TO STORIES |
Related pagesKnapp: Don't invite people to bike here Failing chipseal will be repaired beginning in May weather permitting | |
|
Response to Knapp: Don't invite people to bike hereDear Editor, posted 04/12/2007
I'm glad there is finally some talk going on about the unsafe road conditions for bicyclist. We are lucky enough to live in a small enough place where bicycling is a feasible transportation option. Personally, I live within 3 miles of my work, childrens schools, and most frequent other stops. We have bikes, bike trailers, and all the gear....yet unfortunately our route involves riding on San Juan Valley and Douglas road. I would never risk the lives of my kids by having them ride in the roadway where cars are speeding by at 50 miles an hour! With the current state of the world, it seems we could put the money and energy into creating bike lanes on a few miles of road, eliminating that many more cars and pollution- and encouraging a more active lifestyle for all islanders. Blythe Parker An Open Letter to Council posted 04/12/2007
The National Research Council attributed 4000 fewer highway deaths in 1974 to the fact that the nation had adopted a 55MPH speed limit on all its freeways. Then in 1987 when the speed limits went up again deaths on rural interstates increased by 25 to 30 percent. Speed does matter. Now that the community has raised the issue of lowering the speed limit to 35MPH if the County fails to act could a claim not be made in the following cases that the County is liable? - What if a flying stone from the chiprock surface of our roads is propelled into the eye of a cyclist or a pedestrian and she looses her eye as a result. Would it not be prudent on the part of her legal counsel to suggest that had a 35MPH speed limit been in force the rock would never have attained the velocity to reach her eye? - Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the combined velocity of the vehicles colliding. So if there was a head on collision on a county road at 45MPH the impact would be 65% greater than a head on collision at 35MPH. If the resulting injuries could be shown to have been lessened or prevented by a reduced force of impact could the County not be held responsible since it knowingly failed to lower the speed limit? - Assuming that the Senior Citizen driving the car over the blind crest or around the blind curve is still alert and not taking any pain medication to slow his responses, and assuming an average coefficient of friction between the tires and the road of .5, the ideal stopping distance at 35MPH is 82 feet. At 45MPH this increases to 135ft. That is an extra 50 feet in which to hit a pedestrian, cyclist or deer. Might a victim of such a collision not make a claim against the County for not acting when it was prompted to reduce the speed limits? Certainly the safest course of action would be to discourage vehicles of any sort but are we ready for that? In the meantime do we really want our decisions to be ruled by litigious considerations? What about just doing the right thing? Lets not forget our friend the turtle. He only makes progress when he sticks his head out. These are tough decisions. Keep up the good work.
Car-Free & loving it, Dear Editor, posted 04/02/2007
I suppose that it may be wise to limit liability by not inviting cyclists through advertisements; frankly that marketing is likely wasted money anyway, the cyclists will probably come without any encouragement. What really bothers me is that nobody seems to believe that an intentional policy to avoid adding shoulders on local roads constitutes an even bigger liability risk . I was shocked to read that "Previous county commissioners have deliberately ruled out paved shoulders as part of the islands' road system favoring aesthetics." Pardon me .... 'aesthetics' ??? .... we have narrow unsafe shoulderless roads because they look better ??? Wouldn't just one fatality cause one to revisit that logic? Two maybe? ... three ?... how many injuries/fatalities would it take? Shall we just assume that all visitors will favor aesthetics over safety and thank us for NOT supplying shoulders to safely separate bikes and automobiles? Even if there was nary a bicycle to be seen, a lack of shoulders seems to impose a safety penalty on motor vehicles as well, if motorists ever find themselves unable to get a compromised (inoperative) vehicle out of the way of fast traffic. There is simply no excuse for paving roads without shoulders. If someone wished to sue, couldn't this safety issue alone be sufficient grounds? Ron Lehman Dear Editor, posted 03/27/2007
I do feel we could do better in some areas to improve the safety of bikers. The first area - and I know you have heard this many times - is in your chip sealing processes. Having rocks launched at us by passing cars is far more a concern as these missles are constantly being kicked up. A second issue would be that when road projects come along that included in those projects would be "rideable" shoulders. They should be wide enough to accommodate bicycles, walkers, joggers, etc. so that they are not in jeopardy from passing vehicles. For we "dreamers" it would be nice to have separate paths - but that is most likely not going to happen in the near future. What keeps these improvements from happening always seems to be "funding issues". Am I wrong, or are Capron Funds (road funds) still going into the general fund? If so, if they were spent where they should be spent, couldn't we create a safer biking environment? So, lets not talk about eliminating or discouraging bicycling, lets talk about how to make it safer. Kerwin Johnson Dear Editor, posted 03/27/2007
In all the years I have been renting bikes here, we have had only one incident involving one of our rental customers and a motor vehicle. It happened on Lopez Island about 15 years ago, and the motor vehicle operator was drunk. The cyclist was not actually hit, but was forced into the ditch. Nearly all bicycle accidents in the islands occur due to cycist error: underestimating speed in a corner, hitting a patch of gravel in a turn, inattentiveness, that sort of thing. Life for cyclists would certainly be easier if more roads had shoulders like Roche Harbor Road, but we get by. By law, cyclists must ride on the right, WITH the traffic, single-file. This gives drivers a longer view of the cyclist ahead, and reduces the speed by which they pass one another. Bicycling is a huge industry in the county, not just for my business, but for restaurants, hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, gift shops, art galleries, you name it, cycling tourists spend money there. Pretty much gone are the days of the "trespassing, hippy biker;" today's cycling tourist is generally well-to-do, expects to rent good equipment or will bring his/her own high-quality ($1000-$4000) bike, is staying in a nice place and eating in nice restaurants. And contributing to our economy. Gene Knapp's comment about not promoting the San Juans as a cycling tourist destination, is a foolish notion. It would be cutting off our economic nose to spite our face. All for the "possibility" that someone may hurt themself and sue the county. Of course this is possible. It's also possible I could get hit and killed by a motorist while cycling home on Roche Harbor Road tonight. Does that mean my survivors are going to sue the county? Hardly. Paul Ahart Dear Editor, posted 03/22/2007
Having bicycled all over the country, San Juan Island is an ideal place for bicycling for many reasons such as the low traffic, low speed limit and overall conditions and beauty of our country roads. Every place in the US that is renowned for bicycling has a blind spot or two along the way. San Juan Island is no different. But we have not had trouble with bicyclists and they bring a huge amount of tourism to the islands every year which create jobs for our residents. Hotels, restaurants, stores, etc. As far as I know, no tourists have ever been killed cycling on our islands and I have lived here for almost 20 years. There have been a small number of incidents along the way in the history of San Juan Island but it was not because of the cyclists or conditions of the road. It was due to conditions of the driver and they could have harmed a walker, jogger, building...etc. Does Knapp support getting rid of those things too? If the police are doing their job with catching people speeding and drivers are doing their job by being cautious, and bicyclists doing their job by taking the safe routes (i.e., not bicycling along Beaverton Valley Road where the dump trucks are) then people should stay safe. Asking our tourism board to not invite people to bike here shows lack of knowledge on the subject and is irresponsible. Thanks, Angie Krieger Dear Editor, posted 03/22/2007
That means that any motorist that hits me is liable and again because of the laws is required to have motor vehicle insurance. I fail to see how the county would be liable for said accident. The issue of adequate shoulders (or bike ways) is a much battered concept for SJC. Until we see the future for what it could become as we burn through the last years of the petroleum age, the efforts to give cyclists their due space and distance will be in the hands of each and every driver. I have to observe the same laws as a motor vehicle even though I take less space and pollute a lot less. I also drive a motor vehicle so I am well aware of the issue from both sides. Gee, maybe we should have the visitors bureau push for visitors to bring their cars and that would certainly make the ferry system happy not to mention help fill the roads with more motion and air polluting vehicles.
Bruce Gregory |
|
|
SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2008 |
|