A couple of weeks ago, officers of the Berkeley Police Department were stationed throughout the city on streets with the highest rate of motorcycle accidents.
This operation came out of the growing issue of motorcycle fatalities in California. A CBS San Francisco article said that data has shown the causes of these accidents to be mostly:
Speeding
Unsafe turning
Driving under the influence
Inexperienced riding
If these are the causes of accidents, it would seem that police vigilance is not going to be the cure-all to our problem. Instead, the best way to decrease dangerous riding might be to improve the manner in which all motorists are driving out on the road. For motorcyclists, rider training is readily available to refresh your memory of the rules of the road. Such training is offered through the California Motorcyclist Safety Program, which can be contacted by visiting www.CA-msp.org.
The police may be able to catch and charge unsafe drivers and motorcyclists, but they can only address half the issue at hand with tickets and fines. It’s the motorists that will need to take on the challenge of safely sharing the road.
A recent study done by Canadian scientists from Health Canada, Environment Canada, and University of Ottawa warns cyclists of the health risks they take when riding in the streets.
Now, they’re not just talking about the everyday fear of being struck by a car, but specifically, the study shows that car pollution and tailpipe exhaust can cause heart problems in cyclists who share the road–and subsequently, the air.
In this study, the scientists attached heart monitors to 42 healthy, nonsmoking cyclists to measure their heart rates before, during, and after their cycling. They also attached air pollution-detecting instruments to their bicycles and assigned some to congested and others to uncongested roads.
It was discovered that those who traversed the more congested roads had a lower heart rate variability after their ride. Heart rate variability, as described in the SF Chronicle article about this study, is a way to indicate how efficiently the heart can respond to stresses like exercising. The heart of a person with a lower heart rate variability has a harder time responding than the heart of a person with a higher heart rate variability.
What is it about congested roads that make the air so toxic? According to the SF Chronicle again, the fine particles of pollution that escape through tailpipes are “small enough to lodge deep in the lungs. Tiny particles can also cross the blood-brain barrier, potentially harming the nervous system.” And the cars that are known to emit the most of these toxic particles are diesel buses and trucks.
So now that you are properly worried for your health, keep in mind some simple advice from these scientists: (1) Keep farther away from tailpipes, as the the small particles clump together the further they get away from the car, making them too large to lodge deeply in your lungs; (2) Avoid streets with heavy traffic.
While this advice might seem trivial, it is the common sense of it all that will keep you safe.
As those of you who follow us on Facebook may know, our very own Shaana Rahman recently wrote an article for Plaintiff Magazine in which she outlines 4 key tips to bike law and to representing cyclists.
As explained in the article, the attention directed on cyclist-motorist collisions–and the laws concerning them–is a direct result of the rise in urban cycling.
While I highly recommend reading the article itself, here is a brief summary of the 4 tips Ms. Rahman offers:
Remember that the California Vehicle Code applies to cyclists: “It is important to ascertain whether or not your cyclist was in a riding position that comports with the Vehicle Code.“
Get to know what type of cyclist your client is: “The best client will be someone who is an experienced rider, riding a bicycle that has all the requisite safety equipment, meeting the requirements of Vehicle Code sections 21201 and 21201.5 and who is wearing bright, reflective clothing (including a helmet) to maximize their visibility.“
Evaluate differently each of the 5 most common car-versus-bike collisions: “1) A vehicle making a right turn across the cyclist’s lane of travel; 2) A vehicle executing a left turn at an uncontrolled (or non-dedicated left turn) intersection; 3) Dooring; 4) The failure of the cyclist or motorist to stop at a red light or stop sign, and 5) A vehicle or cyclist passing on the right.”
Identify the other causes of the collision, including defective roadway collisions: “If you can identify a dangerous roadway condition, you will need to pursue a claim against any public entity that owned, possessed or maintained the roadway. If the public entity retained a private contractor to perform the road work which gave rise to the defect, the contractor will also be a defendant.”
If you are a regular reader of our blog or Facebook, or even if you have just been in the city streets, you are probably more than aware of how important bike law and safety is becoming. These tips, particularly the 4th, are critically important to follow when defending your client, not only to aid the individual, but to prevent future accidents from occurring by improving the condition in which our cyclists are riding.
Make it your mission to protect and speak up for these cyclists if you want to see some real change to our city.
Muni has recently decided to allow folding bikes aboard all buses and streetcars, excluding the historic cable cars.
Bike advocates including Bert Hill, chairman of the SF Bicycle Advisory Committee, have been lobbying for all bikes to be allowed onto Muni buses. Nevertheless, Hill and others see this as a step in the right direction. Spokesman Paul Rose of the MTA believes this policy will promote the city’s transit-first policy which, according to the Chronicle, “aims to get people out of their cars to cut down on air pollution and traffic congestion.”
However, Rose also warns that officials need to keep an eye on how this change will affect commuters. Because while Hill and other bike advocates have responded positively to this announcement, many comments on this article–by mostly non-biking commuters–are not nearly as welcoming. The topics of criticisms range from demanding bikers pay extra to complaining that bikes will overcrowd already overcrowded buses. Such comments included:
JuniperoSerra: Bad idea! Who wants to get dirt from their tires or grease from the bike’s chain on their clothes when these folks take their folding bikes onto a crowed [sic] bus or streetcar.
ender_of_sf: Things are bad enough on our too often overcrowded busses [sic] as it is, espeically [sic] during commute hours. Why do bike riders think the public transit should haul their vehicals [sic] around at no extra charge when they don’t feel like riding them.
sfnative650: So now some guy rides his bike up to the bus and everybody has to wait for him to fold up his bike? And then they get to trip over it trying to get in or out the bus? Looks like lawsuits here…Aren’t bikes to be ridden and not ride on a bus? How about the bus tow a trailer behind it so you can store your car and ride the bus?
qframer: I’m a folding bike rider. I love them. I am a member of bicycle advocacy groups, and I want transit options for bikes.
But this is INSANITY. There is no way I can fit comfortably in any Muni vehicle with my folding bike unless it is nearly empty. I can’t believe both Muni and Bicycle Coalition people put this much effort into something that will only build resentment toward cyclists.
In the past couple of weeks, there has been a lot of talk about how officials with the Golden Gate Bridge District are planning on imposing a biking speed limit of 10 mph on the regular path and to 5 mph near the towers. Highway patrol will be using radar guns to monitor passing cyclists’ speed. Violators will be fined $100.
GGB spokeswoman Mary Currie told the Chronicle that this plan is to prevent bike and pedestrian accidents that are, according to GGB officials, commonplace on the bridge. A study showed that in the past ten years, there has been a total of 164 accidents, 39% of which involved excessive speeding. The solo bike crash happened 5 times more often than collisions between bikes and pedestrians.
The GGB’s Board of Directors will vote on the approval of this new project on May 13th. If it’s approved, the limit would most likely be in effect by the end of the summer.
Cyclists’ Criticisms
So far, the response has been generally negative. Hunter Ziesing of local cycling group ZTeam calls the plan a “smart” idea, but thinks the fine is too high and the speed too slow.
However, most others are not so agreeable. In contrast to the safety concerns raised by the GGB officials, many cyclists are arguing that this speed limit is unwarranted and unnecessary. In another article by the Chronicle, recreational cyclist P.J. Gallagher, who often bikes the Golden Gate, calls this plan “a joke” because “it’s a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.”
Other cyclists have raised the complaint that it will be difficult for them to know what speed they’re travelling because most bikes are not equipped with speedometers. According to the study, the current average speed of cyclists on the bridge is 13-17 mph.
And even more have complained about the singling out of bicyclists when tourists are “the real problem” because, according to daily-commuter Lew Ketcher, “There are people coming right at you with a camera in one hand, looking out at the water. There are people stopping right in the middle of the path to take a picture.”
It’s too bad that, with money as the concern, tourists and unnecessary fines are the city’s best friends.
In light of the new Market Street bike boxes, the SFMTA has provided a handy infographic on how to safely use them:
In their press release, the SFMTA said that bike boxes are “designed to improve the visibility and positioning of bicyclists at intersections with traffic signals and to prioritize bicycles as they move through intersections. Bicyclists stopped in a bike box are easily seen by motorists, improving safety at intersections. Bike boxes provide a separated waiting area for bicyclists and can increase pedestrian safety by improving visibility and decreasing both motorist and bicycle encroachment into crosswalks.”
Also included in the press release was additional guidelines to using these bike boxes. Whether you bike, walk, or drive, it’s very important to know these rules.
What Motorists Should Know
When the traffic signal is red, motorists must stop behind the white stop line behind the green bike box. Motorists should not stop on top of the bike box, but rather keep it clear for cyclists to use. Right turns on a red signal will not be allowed at these intersections.
When the light turns green, motorists and cyclists may move through the intersection as usual, with cyclists going first. Motorists turning right on green should signal and watch for cyclists to the right.
What Bicyclists Should Know
When a traffic signal is red, bicyclists must enter the bike box from the approaching bike lane and stop before the crosswalk.
When the light is green, bicyclists should proceed as normal through the intersection. Bicyclists should be aware of right-turning motorists, especially while in the crosswalk and the intersection.
What are your thoughts on these bike boxes? Do they seem more helpful than potentially harmful?
In the most recent issue of the American Motorcyclist Journal, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was dubbed the Motorcyclist of the Year. This title was given to Schwarzenegger because of the impact he has made on the future of motorcycling through the signing of Senate Bill No. 435, a bill intended to address excessive motorcycle sound via an eco-friendly agenda.
The First Step: Customizing Bikes with CARB-Approved Pipes
Almost 4 years ago, in 2007, Schwarzenegger signed a similar bill legalizing dealership installations of California Air Resources Board (CARB)-approved emissions-related parts on new motorcycles, making these customizations compatible with “anti-tampering” rules which only allow the sale of factory-condition motorcycles.
The AMA’s Ed Moreland criticized the CARB law’s blind spot, noting that “the law didn’t mandate specific equipment. It didn’t restrict design or tuning creativity. It set an achievable sound level, and left it to the motorcycling community to meet it.” And because the community has not been responding to the government’s subtle prod, they are now subject to their forceful push in the form of Senate Bill No. 435.
The Follow Through: Senate Bill No. 435
This bill-turned-law “requires all California-registered motorcycles and exhaust systems built in 2013 and later to display a federal Environmental Protection Agency label somewhere on the exhaust itself, certifying that the exhaust meets federal sound standards.”
Though this law sounds potentially beneficial to the environment and people’s ear drums everywhere, several criticisms and concerns about its overall efficacy have been brought up, which, according to the article, are agreed upon by a range of people involved in motorcycling, “from lawmakers to motorcyclists’ rights organization leaders to business people.” They are summarized as follows:
Availability and Cost: Only a few aftermarket manufacturers currently offer the EPA-labeled pipes–pipes suited to a small class of specific motorcycles. And the cost to receive EPA certification will delay the availability of pipes for more bikes by more manufacturers. As a result, can we expect enough riders to buy quieter pipes?
Enforcement: The EPA label can still be on a modified exhaust that exceeds sound regulations whereas a pipe without a label could still be quiet enough to meet the law’s standards. And the location of these labels can be difficult for law enforcement to see, which might lead to an increase in unwarranted tickets–tickets that cost up to $100 on the first offense and up to $250 for subsequent ones. It is important to note that “a violation is considered a secondary offense, which means a police officer can’t stop a motorcyclist solely because the officer believes the rider is breaking the sound emissions label law.”
Reactions
AMA President Rob Dingman insists that the AMA has “been saying for years that if the motorcycling community didn’t police itself on excessive sound, then the government would, and we wouldn’t like the results.” But Denis Manning of BUB Enterprises, a Northern Californian motorcycle exhaust systems company, believes that, despite their initial frustration, motorcyclists will eventually see the benefit of replacing their pipes to comply with the law.
In the end, the AMA’s stance on this issue is that only properly trained personnel can determine whether or not a motorcycle complies with sound laws through sound level tests based on an agreed-upon testing procedure.
The American Motorcyclist Association recently published a chart of 2010’s national on-highway safety issues. Out of a total of 1074 issues, 439 were for “Distracted/Inattentive Vehicle Operation” which includes:
Cellphone usage: Restricting or prohibiting use
Bans: Text messaging, internet use, drowsy driving
Hands-free:Use of cellphone
Distracted/Inattentive driving
Restricting video displays
After crash: Police reports to include distracted-driver info, enhanced penalties
This is an increase of 135 cases compared to last year’s 304 (source). This jump shows a vast lack of knowledge on motorcycle laws.
If you are one of these motorcyclists who are unfamiliar with the laws, the AMA has a helpful database that could help you ride safely in every state: State-by-state motorcycle laws
On Saturday November 13th, 21 people of the Saddletramps Motorcycle Club were riding 80 miles outside of San Diego on Route 98 when a man in a Dodge Avenger swerved into them. Four of the riders and the driver’s companion in the passenger seat were killed instantly.
Though the driver, Carlos Ramirez, was later arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence, Carl Smith, president of the motorcycle club, does not blame him for this tragedy.
What caused Ramirez, who was going 5 miles under the speed limit, to swerve into the motorcyclists was a Honda Civic that sped past him, forcing Ramirez off the road.
Smith doesn’t blame Ramirez, despite the allegation that he was driving under the influence. He considers Ramirez a victim because his companion died.
“It looked like he overreacted, but the guy in the Honda Civic was at fault,” said Smith, who estimated the Civic was going 95 mph when it passed the motorcycles.”
However, California Highway Patrol Officer DeeAnn Goudie remarked that had Ramirez gone off to the right, he would have landed safely in the sand.
It’s unclear whether or not he was under the influence at the time of the accident and whether or not it was a contributing factor to the deaths and injuries of the motorcyclists.
Matthew Gramly, a partner at Rahman Gramly LLP recently fought and won a case concerning El Cerrito bicycle helmet laws. Check out the press release below.
********
April 8, 2009
Press Release
Bet You Did Not Know that El Cerrito has a Helmet Law for ALL Bicyclists?
On the morning of November 5, 2008 Michael Schaller, a Berkeley resident, boarded BART with his bicycle and rode to the El Cerrito station.As he had done each day for the past year, Mr. Schaller, exited the train in El Cerrito with his bike to cycle the short distance to his office.As he rode his bicycle (in a striped bicycle lane) an El Cerrito motorcycle police officer stepped in front of him and asked, “Where is your helmet?”Mr. Schaller, who was aware that the California Vehicle Code only requires that helmets be worn by cyclists who are under 18 years old, was surprised at being stopped.As it happens, the El Cerrito Police Department was in the middle of a two-day “enforcement campaign” in the area of the BART station, the sole purpose of which was to cite bicyclists not wearing helmets.
Mr. Schaller was issued a citation for violating El Cerrito Municipal Ordinance Section 11.64.100 (c), which reads, “It is unlawful to ride a bicycle as an operator or passenger without wearing a safety helmet.”The citation carried a fine of $127.Mr. Schaller, who prior to receiving his citation had been unaware of the helmet-related ordinance, chose to fight this citation and hired the San Francisco law firm of Rahman Gramly LLP to represent him.
Matthew Gramly, a partner with the firm of Rahman Gramly LLP, represented Mr. Schaller at the March 24, 2009 hearing in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.Mr. Gramly argued that the City failed to post any notice about their helmet law, as required by El Cerrito’s Municipal Code Section 1.10.010, the citation should be dismissed.Mr. Gramly also argued that as the California Vehicle Code is at odds with the City’s helmet law, the California law should pre-empt the local ordinance.
The police officer who issued the citation testified that despite many years as an officer, he could not recall ever having issued another citation under El Cerrito’s helmet law.
After taking the matter under submission, on March 26, 2009, the Court determined that Mr. Schaller was not guilty and the citation was dismissed.Mr. Schaller and his attorneys were pleased with the result, however, Mr. Gramly noted “My partner and I represent many cyclists and as a result of the often devastating injuries we see, we encourage all of our clients to wear protective gear, including helmets. The issue for Mr. Schaller was one of fundamental fairness.”
Be warned.El Cerrito has a helmet law and they are enforcing it.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. RAHMAN LAW PC is unable to identify which statute of limitation will apply without a thorough review of your potential case. Therefore, the information contained on this website does not constitute legal advice. Statutes of limitation change as new laws are passed. You should consult with a lawyer immediately to fully evaluate your case.
You should not act or rely on information in this website without seeking the advice of an attorney. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.
RAHMAN LAW PC does not offer any guarantee of case results. Past success in litigation does not guarantee success in any new or future lawsuit. The information contained within this website does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
To the extent the State Bar rules require us to designate a principal office and/or single attorney responsible for this site, RAHMAN LAW PC designates Shaana Rahman as being the attorney responsible for the site. Ms. Rahman can be reached at 177 Post Street, Suite 750, San Francisco, California 94108, 415.956.9245.
By sending an email through this website (rahmanlawsf.com), you are providing us with your email address and permission to contact you via email. You may unsubscribe to our email communications at any time using the link provided in the email communication.
