OK, many of you may not find talking about the assignment of liability particularly fun, but it is more relevant considering the recent report that three months after the passage of Austin’s 3 foot safe passing ordinance, APD has issued no tickets under the new law. For those of us riding on the streets, we know that there was not a sudden outbreak of courteous driving and whether APD considers this a priority or not, the police simply cannot be all places at all times.
Copenhagenize had a post this week with this video about the concept of strict liability which has been widely adopted in Europe and may account for the reason bikes, pedestrians, and cars interact more harmoniously in these countries.
Essentially, strict liability says that since a car is many times more powerful than cyclists and pedestrians and that the consequences of car accidents with this group are so deadly, the default assignment of liability in these accidents falls with the motorist.
Some find this concept radical, but I think it would go a long way towards dispelling the cavalier attitude may drivers have about speed and attentiveness. Our attitudes towards the liability of drivers is one of the reasons people drive so carelessly in the US. If you get into a wreck, you have a protective steel cage keeping you safe from all but the most extreme accidents. Even if you are at fault, the most you walk away with is a ticket and the deductible on your insurance. It has just been accepted that there will be a certain percentage of accidents and much of safety focus has been on air bags and roll cages, not reducing accidents. I think of it as similar to the tolerance we used to have for drunk drivers.
It is time to restore balance to our streets and respect the vulnerability of certain users. In other videos I have shown from great cycling cities, there is a culture of the city that defers to these vulnerable users in traffic interaction. The fact that so many people bike and walk is surely part of this attitude but also having legal consequences for actions gives a societal backing. Technically, motorists in the US have the same responsibility to give right of way to these road users, but as we all have experienced, without real legal repercussions and with roads built to the advantage of cars and disadvantage of others we continue to see a disregard for our fellow un-carred citizens. Strict liability offers an interesting way to create the more balanced approach.
Related posts:
on Feb 5th, 2010 at 11:46 am
“Sudden outbreak of courteous driving”? The law didn’t mandate courteous driving. It mandated a minimum passing distance of either 3′ or being in a different lane, and made a few things illegal that were already illegal.
And perhaps it’s just me, but I’ve definitely noticed drivers giving me more space when they pass. Perhaps few have passed at less than 3′, but only a few, and certainly far fewer than before. And a lot more people are giving way more than 3′ than did before.
Tickets or not, the law seems to have made a difference.
on Feb 5th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I will see your anecdote and raise you one more. I haven’t noticed any difference in the amount of space drivers give me when passing. Especially not UPS trucks, which seem to buzz me every single time. And turn right on red when there is a sign prohibiting it. And pull out in front of me. And pull into the bike boxes on Speedway. I hate UPS trucks, but maybe I just get to experience the same driver again and again.
In my experience, cars give me more space when passing on decent roads without bike lanes (like say Grover) than on decent roads with bike lanes (like say North Loop).
To know whether the law made a difference, you would have to have someone study passing distances before and after in some kind of organized way. I doubt anyone has done so, and we can’t go back in time now to gather the before data.
on Feb 5th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I didn’t claim it was a scientific study, it’s just my experience. And even if my experience (or passing distances in general) were somehow scientifically documented and proven, that still wouldn’t prove that it was the new law that made the difference.
As for your comments about bike lanes, well, if you’re in the bike lane, they can legally pass you at any distance they like, as long as they stay out of the bike lane. But even when I’m in a bike lane, I’ll often see drivers changing lanes to get even further from me, even though the law doesn’t require this. I saw it before, but it happens even more now it seems. (Perhaps I smell bad?)
But the change really sticks out when I’m taking the lane on two lane roads. Rather than passing me by straddling the center line, drivers seem to more often go to the other side of the road to pass.
As for drivers turning right on red, pulling out in front of you, pulling into bike boxes, etc. — again, the new law doesn’t cover that, so I really wouldn’t expect much of a change there. The new law *does* cover them buzzing you, but it’s permitted if the truck and you are in different lanes (yes, it’s a flaw in the law.) If it really bothers you, you should make notes of plate numbers and other details and report them to the police (they’ll probably take a report, though I doubt they’ll do more) and UPS.
on Feb 7th, 2010 at 12:06 am
“I think of it as similar to the tolerance we used to have for drunk drivers.”
Well said, Elliot. I hope with hard work and education, we can effect a similar change in attitudes.