FROM:  STEVE MAGAS, The Bike Lawyer

TASERED CYCLIST SETTLES LAWSUIT

On August 19, 2008, bicyclist Anthony Patrick, from Huntington, West Virginia, was Tasered by Lawrence County, Ohio Deputy Charles Hammonds and Chesapeake Police Department Dennis Gibson.  Patrick was riding his bicycle with another rider when Deputy Hammonds told Patrick to get off the road.  Patrick told Hammonds he had as much right to be on the road as the deputy.  A series of events unfolded thereafter which ended with Patrick be Tasered, arrested and charged with a series of “crimes” including “Riding a Bicycle on the Roadway,” resisting arrest, failing to obey a lawful order and other crimes.

Patrick retained a criminal lawyer and fought the criminal charges, filing a Motion to Dismiss.  After a hearing at which Deputy Hammonds was the only witness, the court issued a written opinion holding that the Deputy’s order to stop was “unlawful” as Patrick had done nothing wrong.  The court pointed out that cyclists have the right to use the roads and are permitted by law to ride side by side.  While the court stated that cyclists should act courteously towards other traffic, cyclists riding two abreast do not legally have to move to a single file line or otherwise give way to motorized traffic and it was improper for Deputy Hammonds to order Patrick off the road.  The Court also reaffirmed the landmark holding of Trotwood v. Selz, finding that a bicycle being operated at a reasonable speed for a bicycle is not “impeding traffic.”  After the Court’s ruling in Patrick’s favor, the Prosecuting Attorney dismissed all charges against Patrick.

Steve Magas, The Bike Lawyer, represented Tony Patrick in a civil rights lawsuit filed against Deputy Hammonds, Officer Gibson, the Sheriff, the Police Chief and the City of Chesapeake in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.  This case, Patrick v. Lawless, et al., included claims of excessive force, negligence, assault and battery, false arrest and false imprisonment, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.  Defendants denied liability and discovery proceeded, including the taking of several key depositions, and it was learned that key evidence – including a videotape from the scene of the Tasering -  had never been provided to Patrick’s criminal or civil lawyers.

All parties reported to the United States Federal District Courthouse in Cincinnati for a Settlement Conference with Judge Barrett on July 1, 2010.  Following several hours of negotiations, a settlement was reached.  While the settlement figure is confidential, Tony Patrick was very pleased with the outcome and feels justice was done.

Well, they don’t come right out and say that … but… let’s look at the numbers.

First, 716 deaths across the country.  Is that a lot?  Of course – ONE is a lot.  However, compared to the 1005 deaths in 1975, that figure is pretty good.  Further, there are a LOT more cars on the road today than 1975 so we’re seeing significantly fewer deaths [30% fewer] despite significantly higher “traffic density” [i.e., more cars per square inch]

Second, of those 716 deaths, some 40% occur in THREE states.  The Big Three are Florida [125], California [109] and Texas [53].   In Ohio, we had 17 deaths, or 2% of all cycling deaths nationwide.

Third, alcohol impairment was reported in more than ONE THIRD of all cycling fatalities.  By not drinking and riding, your risk of a fatal bike crash goes WAY down.

Further, most [69%] fatal crashes occur in urban, not rural areas.

So, if you get on your bike in Ohio, take some time to enjoy some of the thousands of miles of great rural cycling roads throughout Ohio and don’t have a few drinks along the way your risk of a fatal crash is approaching single digits, I suspect.

ENJOY THE ROADS

Be Careful!

Good Luck and Good Riding!

Steve Magas, The Bike Lawyer

The facts show that an officer gave a ticket to the defendant for going “79 mph” in a 60 mph zone.  He testified that he was trained and tested to guesstimate speed to within “3 or 4 mph” back in the Police Training Academy.  The case is silent on how often he is re-tested, but indicates that he has made “hundreds” of visual estimations since then.  It doesn’t say if his “estimations” were measured against radar.

He “estimated” the defendant’s speed to be 70mph and had a Doppler radar that showed 82!  {So just how good is his estimating ability???}  However, at trial the officer failed to produce his “papers” showing him to be certified in the radar so the conviction was based solely on his testimony and estimate of speed.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that the officer’s visual estimate was sufficient to support the conviction.  The reason?  He passed the OPOTA training course and was “experienced” at estimating speed.

I guess this will save smaller communities a lot of money in purchasing and maintaining radar and laser equipment, eh?

Steve Magas

Let’s Be Careful Out There

PS

You can read the decision here.

==== Here’s the complete decision for your reading pleasure ===

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Barberton v. Jenney, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2420.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be

made before the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-2420

CITY OF BARBERTON, APPELLEE, v. JENNEY, APPELLANT.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Barberton v. Jenney, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2420.]

A police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, certified, and experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.

(No. 2009-1069 — Submitted February 17, 2010 — Decided June 2, 2010.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 24423, 2009-Ohio-1985.

SYLLABUS OF THE COURT

A police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of law-enforcement professionals and the communities they serve, and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.

__________________

O’CONNOR, J.

{¶ 1} In this appeal we determine whether a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, by itself, is sufficient evidence of the vehicle’s speed to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D). Appellant, Mark Jenney, argues that it is impossible for a police officer to visually estimate the exact speed of a moving object. He asks the court to establish a bright-line rule that an officer’s visual estimation of speed, without other evidence to support it, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding.

{¶ 2} A rational trier of fact could find testimony by a police officer who is trained, certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy (“OPOTA”) or a similar organization, and experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed, that he estimated a vehicle’s speed to be in excess of the posted limit sufficient evidence to establish a violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore hold that a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of law-enforcement professionals and the communities they serve, and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.

Relevant Background {¶ 3} On July 3, 2008, Officer Christopher R. Santimarino was in a

marked patrol car running stationary radar at southbound traffic on State Route 21 in Copley Township, Ohio. The posted speed limit in that location is 60 miles per

2

January Term, 2010

hour. Santimarino observed Jenney driving a black SUV in the left lane of Route 21 in moderate to heavy traffic. Santimarino determined that Jenney was traveling faster than the posted speed limit, initiated a traffic stop, and issued Jenney a citation for traveling 79 miles per hour in a 60-mile-per-hour zone in violation of R.C. 4511.21.1

{¶ 4} The case proceeded to trial in the Barberton Municipal Court.

{¶ 5} At trial, Santimarino testified that he had been employed as a patrolman with the Copley Police Department for 13 years. He testified that he was certified by OPOTA and had been working in traffic enforcement since 1995. Santimarino testified that as part of his OPOTA training, he was trained to visually estimate the speed of a vehicle. In order to be certified by OPOTA, Santimarino was required to show that he could visually estimate a vehicle’s speed to within three to four miles per hour of the vehicle’s actual speed, which he did. Further, Santimarino testified that since becoming a police officer in 1995, he had performed hundreds of visual estimations. Santimarino testified that based on his training and experience, he had estimated that Jenney’s vehicle was traveling 70 miles per hour on July 3, 2008.

{¶ 6} Santimarino also testified that in addition to his training and experience in visually estimating vehicle speed, he was trained and certified to use the Python brand Doppler radar unit that he was using on July 3, 2008. Santimarino testified on direct examination that after he visually estimated the speed of Jenney’s vehicle, he observed that the radar unit indicated that Jenney’s

1 In issuing the citation, Santimarino inadvertently failed to check any of the boxes specifying under which subsection Jenney was charged, but the trial court permitted the state to amend the citation to allege that Jenney violated both R.C. 4511.21(A) (operating a motor vehicle at a greater speed than is reasonable and proper under the circumstances) and 4511.21(D)(6) (operating a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding the posted speed limit). On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of the city’s motion to amend the citation. Barberton v. Jenney, Summit App. No. 24423, 2009-Ohio-1985, 2009 WL 1139347, ¶ 4. We declined to review Jenney’s proposition relating to the amendment. Barberton v. Jenney, 123 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2009-Ohio-5031, 914 N.E.2d 204.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

vehicle was traveling at 82 miles per hour.2 Santimarino could not produce a copy of his radar-training certification when defense counsel requested he do so on the day of trial.

{¶7} Santimarino also testified that Jenney was traveling at an unreasonable speed for the conditions, given the other traffic in close proximity to his vehicle.

{¶8} In light of both his visual estimation and the radar reading, Santimarino initiated a traffic stop and issued Jenney a citation for traveling 79 miles per hour in a 60 mile per hour zone in violation of R.C. 4511.21. Santimarino testified that he reduced the rate of speed to 79 miles per hour to “give [Jenney] a break on the personal appearance in court,” which is required for speeds 20 miles per hour or more over the speed limit.

{¶ 9} At the conclusion of the city’s case, Jenney moved for an acquittal pursuant to Crim.R. 29, arguing that the city had failed to meet its burden of proof. The trial court overruled Jenney’s motion. Jenney then testified that before he was pulled over, he had been traveling in the right lane of traffic, not the left lane as Santimarino had testified, and that he had been traveling at the speed limit, 60 miles per hour.

{¶ 10} The trial judge found Jenney guilty of traveling over the posted speed limit. Based on Santimarino’s visual estimation, which the trial court found to be his “strongest” testimony, the court amended the citation to state that Jenney was traveling 70 miles per hour in a 60-mile-per-hour zone and imposed a $50 fine plus court costs.

{¶ 11} Jenney appealed his conviction to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court had erroneously permitted the city to amend the traffic citation and that his conviction was not supported by sufficient

2 Santimarino testified on cross-examination that the radar unit indicated that Jenney’s vehicle was traveling at 83 miles per hour. This difference is immaterial to our analysis.

4

January Term, 2010

evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Jenney argued that the radar results were not admissible because the city had failed to establish a proper foundation for admission. Jenney maintained that without the radar results, the city had failed to present sufficient evidence of his speed and his conviction could not stand. The court of appeals held that because Santimarino could not produce his certificate to operate the radar unit on the day of trial, the state had not proved that he was qualified to operate the radar unit and the trial court had erred in permitting him to testify regarding the radar results.3 Id., ¶ 8. However, the Ninth District held that the admission of Santimarino’s testimony regarding the radar results was harmless error because his visual estimation of the vehicle’s speed was sufficient to support Jenney’s conviction. Id., ¶ 9.

{¶ 12} We accepted review of Jenney’s discretionary appeal to determine whether a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, by itself, is sufficient to support a conviction for violation of R.C. 4511.21(D). Barberton v. Jenney, 123 Ohio St.3d 1406, 2009-Ohio-5031, 914 N.E.2d 204. We hold that a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of law- enforcement professionals and the communities they serve, and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.

Analysis {¶ 13} The trial court found appellant guilty of “traveling over the speed

limit.” Pursuant to R.C. 4511.21(D)(6), “[n]o person shall operate a motor

3 The city did not appeal the Ninth District’s decision that the radar results were inadmissible. Because the issue is not before us, we do not consider whether Santimarino’s testimony regarding his training and certification in operating the radar unit was sufficient evidence to prove that he was qualified to operate the unit.

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

vehicle * * * upon a street or highway * * * [a]t a speed exceeding the posted speed limit * * *.” Jenney does not dispute that he was operating a motor vehicle on a street or highway and that the posted speed limit was 60 miles per hour. The only element of the offense that Jenney challenges as not being supported by sufficient evidence is the speed at which he was driving.

{¶ 14} “ ‘ “[S]ufficiency” is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.’ ” State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed.1990) 1433. “In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy. Whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law.” Id. In reviewing a challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 113, quoting State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492, paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶ 15} “Visual observation has long been held a valid means of determining the speed of a moving vehicle as long as the witness has a reliable opportunity to view the vehicle.” State v. Harkins (Aug. 5, 1987), 4th Dist. No. 431, 1987 WL 15492, at *3. A majority of the appellate districts that have considered the issue have held that an officer’s testimony that in his opinion, a defendant was traveling in excess of the speed limit is sufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding. Kirtland Hills v. Logan (11th Dist.1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 67, 69, 21 OBR 71, 486 N.E.2d 231; State v. Dawson, 5th Dist. No. 03- COA-061, 2004-Ohio-2324, ¶ 21-23; Cincinnati v. Dowling (1st Dist.1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 198, 199-200, 521 N.E.2d 1140; State v. Gellenbeck, 12th Dist. No.

6

January Term, 2010

CA2008-08-030, 2009-Ohio-1731, 2009 WL 975746, ¶ 19-20; Columbus v. Bravi (Mar. 5, 1991), 10th Dist. No. 90AP-1135, 1991 WL 33095; State v. Wilson (Nov. 20, 1996), 9th Dist. No. 95CA006285, 1996 WL 668993, at *1. In so holding, many of these courts have considered the testifying officer’s training and experience visually estimating vehicle speed. Dawson at ¶ 21-23 (noting that the trooper had received training at the Ohio Highway Patrol Academy on how to accurately estimate the speed of moving vehicles, had passed the test at the academy, and had been a trooper for four and a half years); Dowling at 199-200 (noting that the officer was trained in visually estimating vehicle speed and had 29 years of experience); Gellenbeck at ¶ 19-20 (noting that the trooper testified regarding his training to accurately visually estimate vehicle speed); Kirtland Hills at 69 (noting that the officer’s testimony regarding his visual estimation was based on his knowledge and expertise).

{¶ 16} Jenney relies on decisions by the Second, Third, and Eighth Districts to support his argument that an officer’s visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, alone, is insufficient to support a conviction pursuant to R.C. 4511.21(D). See Middleburg Hts. v. Campbell, 8th Dist. No. 87593, 2006-Ohio-6582, 2006 WL 3630780; State v. Saphire (Dec. 8, 2000), 2d Dist. No. 2000 CA 39, 2000 WL 1803852; State v. Meyers (Dec. 29, 2000), 2d Dist. No. 2000 CA 49, 2000 WL 1879104; State v. Westerbeck (June 19, 1987), 3d Dist. No. 17-86-18, 1987 WL 13063.

{¶ 17} The Eighth District held that an officer’s visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, alone, is insufficient to support a conviction for speeding, stating that “the mere educated guess of the arresting officer as to the speed of a vehicle is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction.” Campbell, 2006-Ohio-6582, ¶ 15.

{¶ 18} Although Jenney’s reliance on the Eighth District’s decision in Campbell is sound, his reliance on the Second District’s decisions in Saphire and

7

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Meyers and the Third District’s decision in Westerbeck is misplaced. After its decisions in Saphire and Meyers, the Second District held that testimony regarding an officer’s visual estimation of speed, alone, may be sufficient to support a conviction for speeding upon an adequate showing of the officer’s training and ability to accurately visually estimate the speed of vehicles. State v. Konya, 2d Dist. No. 21434, 2006-Ohio-6312, 2006 WL 3462119, ¶ 7-8, 14. In Konya, the court held that based on the trooper’s 12 years of experience in law enforcement and extensive training in visually estimating the speed of vehicles, along with the fact that he had had an unobstructed view of the vehicle in question for more than a mile, his testimony was sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the defendant’s speed. Id. Similarly, the Third District recently explained that its decision in Westerbeck is limited to cases in which the officer’s testimony is “too vague and indefinite for a finding of guilt,” stating that courts that have interpreted Westerbeck as holding that visual-estimation testimony is insufficient as a matter of law have misconstrued its holding. State v. Harris, 3d Dist. No. 9- 09-03, 2009-Ohio-2616, 2009 WL 1579250, ¶ 13, fn. 3.

{¶ 19} The Eighth District stands alone in holding that an officer’s visual estimation of the speed of a vehicle is insufficient to support a finding of guilt, and we agree with the courts that have found the opposite. Rational triers of fact could find a police officer’s testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified by OPOTA or a similar organization, and experienced in making such estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s speed. Independent verification of the vehicle’s speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding.

{¶ 20} The officer’s credibility remains an issue for the trier of the facts. State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 120, quoting State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 39 O.O.2d 366, 227 N.E.2d

8

January Term, 2010

212, paragraph one of the syllabus. “Because the trier of fact sees and hears the witnesses and is particularly competent to decide ‘whether, and to what extent, to credit the testimony of particular witnesses,’ we must afford substantial deference to its determinations of credibility.” Konya, 2006-Ohio-6312, ¶ 6, quoting State v. Lawson (Aug. 22, 1997), 2d Dist. No. 16288.

{¶ 21} At the time of the traffic stop, Santimarino had been employed as a patrolman with the Copley Police Department for 13 years. He is trained to visually estimate vehicle speed to within three to four miles per hour of the vehicle’s actual speed, he is certified by OPOTA in visually estimating vehicle speed, and he has performed hundreds of visual estimations since becoming a police officer in 1995. Santimarino testified that based on his training and experience, he visually estimated that Jenney was traveling 70 miles per hour at the time of the traffic stop. Santimarino’s testimony was sufficient to support Jenney’s conviction for traveling at a speed above the posted limit in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D). Further, the trial court found Santimarino’s testimony credible, and based its finding of guilt on the officer’s visual estimation, noting that his testimony on the estimated speed was his “strongest” testimony.

{¶ 22} Given Santimarino’s training, OPOTA certification, and experience in visually estimating vehicle speed, his estimation that Jenney was traveling 70 miles per hour was sufficient to support Jenney’s conviction for driving over the posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D).

Conclusion {¶ 23} A police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is

sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D) without independent verification of the vehicle’s speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization that develops and implements training programs to meet the needs of

9

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

law-enforcement professionals and the communities they serve, and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed. Given Santimarino’s training, OPOTA certification, and experience in visually estimating vehicle speed, his estimation that Jenney was traveling at 70 miles per hour was sufficient to support a conviction for driving over the posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D). We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and uphold Jenney’s conviction and fine.

Judgment affirmed. PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

O’DONNELL, J., dissents. BROWN, C.J., not participating.

__________________

O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. {¶ 24} I respectfully dissent. {¶ 25} While a police officer who is trained, certified by the Ohio Peace

Officer Training Academy, and experienced in estimating a vehicle’s speed may, as any other expert witness, offer an opinion of the speed of a moving vehicle during testimony in a court proceeding, I do not agree that such testimony per se is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding. Like any other witness, a police officer’s credibility is to be determined by the jury or other fact- finder. State v. Diar, 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 120, quoting State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 39 O.O2d 366, 227 N.E.2d 212, paragraph one of the syllabus (“ ‘[T]he weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of the facts’ ”). In fact, jury instructions given regularly by trial judges advise that a jury is privileged to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. See, e.g., State v. Group, 98 Ohio St.3d 248, 2002-Ohio-7247, 781 N.E.2d 980, ¶ 120

10

January Term, 2010

(citing jury instruction stating that jurors may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the testimony of any witness).

{¶ 26} Thus, I would assert that a broad standard as postulated by the majority that a trained, certified, and experienced officer’s estimate of speed is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for speeding eclipses the role of the fact-finder to reject such testimony and thus such testimony, if found not to be credible, could, in some instances, be insufficient to support a conviction.

__________________ Michelle Banbury, City of Barberton Law Department Assistant

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. John Kim, for appellant.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, and Emily S. Schlesinger, Deputy Solicitor, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General.

__________________

11

LaHood, in his blog, said, “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized…”

You’d a thought he had announced he was a closet Communist.

According to CBS News, “…Not so fast, say some conservatives and industries dependent on trucking. A manufacturers’ blog called the policy “nonsensical.” One congressman suggested LaHood was on drugs.”

The new policy is definitely a move in a new direction.  Previous Transportation Secretaries seemed to have trouble spelling the word “Bike,” let alone adopting policies that didn’t write bikes off the road!  So what possible benefits to our country can there be in riding a bike?

Let’s see:

1. Decrease dependence on foreign oil.  Commuters in the Dayton and Cincinnati Cycle Clubs have personally commuted more than 1.5 MILLION miles since 1995, saving over 60,000 gallons of gas!

2. Every mile ridden is better for the environment than a mile driven.  Reduction of greenhouse gas emissons.  A bike that replaces a car for all travel is equal to planting 170 trees! The Dayton & Cincinnati bike commuters have avoided the release of more than 37 tons of pollutants into the air since 1995.

3. Economically efficient.  Cycling has a lower cost per mile than any mode of transportation except walking.

4. Personal benefits to the rider include better health, improved fitness and the sheer joy of riding a bicycle!  Getting kids on bikes will lower childhood obesity.

5. Finally, bicycles do little to degrade the environment people live in. They create no noise, no stink, no pollution, and no congestion. They do not require massive highways or extensive parking areas. In a collision, they are unlikely to kill, and a cyclist can more easily avoid a collision.  You can fit 12 bikes in a single car parking space.

Right now, more than 55 MILLION Americans ride bikes.  Bicycling and walking account for nearly 10% of the trips we take, and 13% of traffic fatalities but get less than 2% of federal transportation funding.  Out of those figures pedestrian fatalities FAR exceed bicycle fatalities – 4500 to 700.  

Can the bicycle change the world?  Clearly, encouraging more bicycle use can HELP the world be a better, cleaner, healthier, more fun place filled with healthier, energetic and happier people!  To me, that qualifies as changing the world for the better!

“…When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.  Here was a machine of precision and balance for the convenience of man.  And (unlike subsequent inventions for man’s convenience) the more he used it, the fitter his body became.  Here, for once, was a product of man’s brain that was entirely beneficial to those who used it, and of no harm or irritation to others.  Progress should have stopped when man invented the bicycle…” Elizabeth West, Hovel in the Hills

Soapbox Cincinnati is an online E-zine that features news and stories about Cincinnati, financial stories, neighborhood stories, restaurant stories and… a weekly guest blogger.  I was asked to be the Guest Blogger during Bike Month!

You can read my online blog posts here.

I thought the first post should be somewhat historical, the second currently factual and the third futuristically optimistic… at least that was the plan… here’s the first post…

=========

THE DNA OF THE MODERN CYCLING ADVOCATE

Picture this – New York City on Memorial Day. In the midst of a huge “Bike Boom,” tens of thousands of New Yorkers are riding their bicycles through the city on a gorgeous summer day. Cosmopolitan magazine decides it would be a good idea to hold a car race on the streets of NYC that day… and they’re off… six cars racing each other through the streets!

Mr. Henry Wells is doing well in the race but he starts to wobble and crashes into the vehicle operated by Ms. Evelyn Thomas. Ms. Thomas suffers a fractured leg and is carted, unconscious, by ambulance to the Hospital.

Sounds like another day in paradise, eh? Well, it was… except for three significant facts…

1. This bike/car crash occurred on Memorial Day in New York City in 1896…
2. This was the FIRST recorded automobile accident in the U.S. and 
3. Evelyn’s vehicle of choice was a Columbia…. BICYCLE.

Yes, friends, by 1896 that new fangled contraption, the motorcar, was already causing a ruckus on the streets. The same streets shared by pedestrians, folks on horseback, carts, buggies, wagons, bicycles and now … cars.

To understand why today’s cycling advocates fight so HARD to protect our right to ride on the roads you have to understand where our DNA came from. Each strand of “Bike Advocacy DNA” contains bits of tens of thousands of incidents like the one in NYC in 1896.

By 1896 “Bicycle Advocacy” was already in full swing. The League of American Wheelmen [now the more politically correct League of American Bicyclists] was founded in 1880 and reached a MILLION members very quickly. The League was the driving force behind the “Good Roads Movement” – a powerful political movement that focused on electing officials who could get roads PAVED … so commerce could move freely and, oh yea, so bicyclists would have a place to ride!  

Cyclists did so well promoting their cause that the very first Vehicle Codes ever written, in Ohio and around the country, recognized the bicycle as a “vehicle” and permitted the operation of bicycles on the roadway.  That right was re-affirmed here in 2006 when the Ohio legislature unanimously passed the “Better Bicycling Bill.”

May is National Bike Month. On May 19, 2010 the Ride of Silence was again held around the world and dozens of cyclists braved the weather to converge quietly on Fountain Square for a short ceremony. The Ride of Silence honors and remembers cyclists killed & injured the previous year while promoting awareness of road cycling. 

There were 716 cycling fatalities nationally in 2008 — trending down, down, down from a high of 1005 deaths in 1975. The Ride of Silence adds strength, unity, dignity and honor to the Bike Advocate’s DNA.

We continue the fight to protect our right to ride on the public roadways – the same right Evelyn Thomas exercised from the seat of her Columbia back in 1896. The need to protect that right is stronger than ever today and we’ll keep fighting…we’re not going anywhere…

“Cycle tracks will abound in utopia…”~~ H.G. Wells, A Modern Utopia, Chapter 2, Sec 3 [1905]

STEVE SPEAKS/WRITES AT BIKE MONTH EVENTS

May is BIKE MONTH, of course…and I was very excited to be invited by Yay Bikes to speak in Columbus during their Bike Month event!

We had a very nice turn-out on a not so nice evening.  Many folks rode in for the presentation.  I spoke for about an hour on “Protecting Your Right To Ride” – complete with slides and 8×10 glossy photographs with circles and arrows and  a paragraph on the back of each one… as Arlo Guthrie used to sing…  You can read about it here.

I’ve given a similar presentation several times now.  People, even long time cyclists, are often surprised to learn that the VERY FIRST CAR CRASH recorded in the United States involved a man driving a car and hitting a woman on a bicycle!  Yes, friends, in 1896, during the first big “Bike Boom” Evelyn Thomas went down in history as the first cyclist to be hit by a car in the U.S. – at least as far as reported crashes go.

This happened on Memorial Day in New York City and, to me, is one of the very first strands in the DNA that makes up the very core of today’s Bike Advocates.  This DNA has been toughened up through the years by a number of other significant events – The Good Roads Movement, the passage of the very first Vehicle Codes which incorporate the “bicycle” as a “vehicle and much, much more.

The fight goes on today.  More than ever the people who want to relegate cyclists to “paths” and special “lanes” are ready to knock us off the roadways in a heartbeat – all in the name of “protecting” cyclists.

In Florida, the debate goes on.  The legislature is trying to pass a bill that would MANDATE that cyclists use the small bike lanes painted on the far right edge of the roadways.  Cyclists have asked the governor to veto the bill

Florida is Number ONE in cycling deaths and is one of the Big Three, along with California and Texas.  Of the 716 cycling fatalities in 2008, the Big Three states accounted for 287 of them – or a whopping 40%!  I guess you can  lower your risk of being killed on a bike by 40% by simply NOT riding in Florida, California or Texas, eh?

Bike Month also brings the annual Ride of Silence.  This somber event is held all over the world and features cyclists riding on the roadways, slowly and silently, on a relatively short ride to honor and remember those injured and killed on the roadways over the past year.  The ride is also designed to raise awareness in the motoring public that we’re out there, and that we have a legal right to use the roadways.

Last year, the Cincinnati event was featured on the front page of the Enquirer.  This year, from what I can tell, we got no newspaper coverage at all… although the TV News did cover the event.  I was asked to speak at the Fountain Square event, where three different groups of riders met.  We had an excellent turnout again and, fortunately, there were NO names on the Cincinnati list of “fatalities” this year…

One of the topics for discussion last night was SB 174, currently percolating in the Ohio Senate.  At 3pm on “Ride of Silence Day” several members of the Ohio Bicycle Federation were in Columbus to present proponent testimony in favor of the bill!

The “writing” portion of today’s post relates to this site – Cincinnati’s SOAPBOX.

Sean Rhiney asked me to be a contributing Blogger for the next week, so I’ll be submitting 3 blog posts to contribute to the Soapbox history.  My first post will involve a similar lesson to the one posted here – the History of Cycling Advocacy and the DNA of the Cycling Advocate.  The second, I think, will focus on Criminal Motorists & other hot button issues.  The third will entitled “Can The Bicycle Save The World?”

Tune in next week and check out the BLOG tab!

Good Luck and Good Riding!

Steve Magas, The Bike Lawyer

Looking for bicycle accident or crash statistics?  They can be hard to find sometimes.

NHTSA has a LOT of publications to look at.  FINDING them has always been difficult, though.

Now it’s easy.

A  simple chart, found here, allows you to review an organized list of “Traffic Safety Fact Sheets.”  These “Fact Sheets” discuss crashes involving bicycles, motorcycles, trucks, children, alcohol and other issues.  Each issue is dealt with separately – and the list is organized by year.  Each year’s report also contains some historical data so you don’t necessarily have to read every report to get the flavor of trends and numbers.

For example, the 2008 Bicycle sheet can be found here.  This sheet gives you traffic crash/fatality/injury statistics for cyclists in 2008, but also reviews 10-year trends.

The 2008 figures are 6% lower than the 1998 death totals.  69% of cyclist deaths occurred in urban areas [compared to 50% in 1975].  The “typical” cyclist killed on the roadway would most likely be a male [87%] with an average age of 41.  The crash killing this cyclist would have occurred at a NON-intersection [64%] between the hours of 5pm and 9pm [28%] during the months of June [9%] or September [12%].  Of the various age groupings, the largest number of deaths occurred in the  45-54 year old age group  for both men [161] and women [19].

With regard to cycling deaths by state – the “Big Three” led the way.

Florida – 125
California –  109
Texas – 53

Next we have New York [42] and North Carolina [32].  No other state had more than 30 fatalities.

Florida’s deaths have definitely been followed closely by Florida’s cycling advocates. One has started a webpage which maps the deaths.  You can check it out here. Around the country cycling advocates continue to be up in arms over the treatment cyclists receive from motorists, police and the media.  From Portland, OR to Portland, ME you can dial up dozens of stories in the news through a quick Google search which detail harsh, unfair or blatantly criminal behavior towards cyclists.

One good way to keep up on these stories is through a Facebook group called “Cyclists Against Reckless Drivers” or through the “CARD” webpage.  CARD’s founder, Steve Donaldson, updates the page daily with stories from around the world.  CARD is a major proponent of the passage of “three foot laws” which would require cars to give AT LEAST three feet of clearance when passing cyclists.

Another Three Foot proponent is Joe Mizereck, founder of the Three Foot Please webpage.   Joe puts his time, energy and money where his heart is – keeping this page running through contributions and the sales of his 3 Foot Law jersey.  You can see mine in the pic below. I’ve been using it as a prop during my recent speeches at O.D.O.T. conferences and for the JDRF riders.

In Ohio we’re still pushing for SB 174, introduced by Sen. Teresa Fedor.  The bill would require a minimum of three feet as a safe passing distance.  While not perfect [how do cops look at a situation and determine if the 3' distance was met?] it’s as good as the current law ["safe distance"] while providing an outstanding educational tool to help teach motorists about how to pass bikes safely!

Keep on riding!

Steve Magas

The Bike Lawyer

That’s changed now.

Ray LaHood, U.S. Transportation Secretary, is officially a “friend” of cycling in my book.

In an era when politicians expect high praise for giving lip service to dedicating a 2 mile trail for cycling which real bike advocates struggled for 10 years to build LaHood is a breath of fresh air.  His comments at the National Bike Summit were truly incredible.  He stood on top of a table and told more than 500 bike advocates that the federal government was actually interested in BIKES.  What a thing!

Here’s what LaHood had to say on his BLOG [- yes, the US Transportation Secretary has a blog!]

“Somewhere in the frenzy, I managed to thank summit-goers for being such effective advocates for livable, sustainable, bike-friendly communities.

Well, that was fun, but the dust has settled and I have news. The crowd’s enthusiasm was so contagious, the idea of introducing a major policy revision in that setting quickly evaporated.

Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”

These comments from Sec. LaHood did not go unnoticed.  Opponents of cycling quickly mounted an attack.  However, the “sea change” announced by LaHood is under way. The “major policy revision” discussed above is a Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accomodations which was signed on March 11 and announced at the Summit on March 15.  I’ve reprinted it below.

Opponents quickly jumped to attack LaHood’s comments.  THey ridiculed the words “sea change” and argued that there was no way cars and trucks and busses could be treated “equally” with mere bicycles.  LaHood quickly countered by noting that the POINT is NOT “Bikes Rule/Cars Drool” but rather that bikes should have a seat at the table of transportation policy discussions… “After all I didn’t say they should the the only voice… just a voice”

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the “sea change” announcement is “dumb and irresponsible” and “nonsensical.”

I like LaHood’s comeback –  According to CBS News, he said “I’m not going to apologize for any of it . . .I think this is what the people want.”

You Go Ray!

Keep on Riding!

Steve Magas

The Bike Lawyer

+++++++

United States Department of Transportation
Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation
Regulations and Recommendations

Signed on March 11, 2010 and announced March 15, 2010

Purpose

The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is providing this Policy Statement to reflect the Department’s support for the development of fully integrated active transportation networks. The establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid project developments. Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable, family-friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use. Legislation and regulations exist that require inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects into transportation plans and project development. Accordingly, transportation agencies should plan, fund, and implement improvements to their walking and bicycling networks, including linkages to transit. In addition, DOT encourages transportation agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements, and proactively provide convenient, safe, and context-sensitive facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and utilize universal design characteristics when appropriate. Transportation programs and facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive, and people who choose not to drive.

Policy Statement

The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide — including health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life — transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes.

Authority

This policy is based on various sections in the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in Title 23—Highways, Title 49—Transportation, and Title 42—The Public Health and Welfare. These sections, provided in the Appendix, describe how bicyclists and pedestrians of all abilities should be involved throughout the planning process, should not be adversely affected by other transportation projects, and should be able to track annual obligations and expenditures on nonmotorized transportation facilities.

Recommended Actions

The DOT encourages States, local governments, professional associations, community organizations, public transportation agencies, and other government agencies, to adopt similar policy statements on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation as an indication of their commitment to accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the transportation system. In support of this commitment, transportation agencies and local communities should go beyond minimum design standards and requirements to create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible, and convenient bicycling and walking networks. Such actions should include:

• Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes: The primary goal of a transportation system is to safely and efficiently move people and goods. Walking and bicycling are efficient transportation modes for most short trips and, where convenient intermodal systems exist, these nonmotorized trips can easily be linked with transit to significantly increase trip distance. Because of the benefits they provide, transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes. Walking and bicycling should not be an afterthought in roadway design.
• Ensuring that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities, especially children: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should meet accessibility requirements and provide safe, convenient, and interconnected transportation networks. For example, children should have safe and convenient options for walking or bicycling to school and parks. People who cannot or prefer not to drive should have safe and efficient transportation choices.
• Going beyond minimum design standards: Transportation agencies are encouraged, when possible, to avoid designing walking and bicycling facilities to the minimum standards. For example, shared-use paths that have been designed to minimum width requirements will need retrofits as more people use them. It is more effective to plan for increased usage than to retrofit an older facility. Planning projects for the long-term should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the provision of future improvements.
• Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated, and limited-access bridges: DOT encourages bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on bridge projects including facilities on limited-access bridges with connections to streets or paths.
• Collecting data on walking and biking trips: The best way to improve transportation networks for any mode is to collect and analyze trip data to optimize investments. Walking and bicycling trip data for many communities are lacking. This data gap can be overcome by establishing routine collection of nonmotorized trip information. Communities that routinely collect walking and bicycling data are able to track trends and prioritize investments to ensure the success of new facilities. These data are also valuable in linking walking and bicycling with transit.
• Setting mode share targets for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time: A byproduct of improved data collection is that communities can establish targets for increasing the percentage of trips made by walking and bicycling.
• Removing snow from sidewalks and shared-use paths: Current maintenance provisions require pedestrian facilities built with Federal funds to be maintained in the same manner as other roadway assets. State Agencies have generally established levels of service on various routes especially as related to snow and ice events.
• Improving nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects: Many transportation agencies spend most of their transportation funding on maintenance rather than on constructing new facilities. Transportation agencies should find ways to make facility improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists during resurfacing and other maintenance projects.

Conclusion

Increased commitment to and investment in bicycle facilities and walking networks can help meet goals for cleaner, healthier air; less congested roadways; and more livable, safe, cost-efficient communities. Walking and bicycling provide low-cost mobility options that place fewer demands on local roads and highways. DOT recognizes that safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities may look different depending on the context — appropriate facilities in a rural community may be different from a dense, urban area. However, regardless of regional, climate, and population density differences, it is important that pedestrian and bicycle facilities be integrated into transportation systems. While DOT leads the effort to provide safe and convenient accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists, success will ultimately depend on transportation agencies across the country embracing and implementing this policy.

Ray LaHood, United States Secretary of Transportation

APPENDIX

Key Statutes and Regulations Regarding Walking and Bicycling

Planning Requirements

The State and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning regulations describe how walking and bicycling are to be accommodated throughout the planning process (e.g., see 23 CFR 450.200, 23 CFR 450.300, 23 U.S.C. 134(h), and 135(d)). Nonmotorists must be allowed to participate in the planning process and transportation agencies are required to integrate walking and bicycling facilities and programs in their transportation plans to ensure the operability of an intermodal transportation system. Key sections from the U.S.C. and CFR include, with italics added for emphasis:

• The scope of the metropolitan planning process “will address the following factors…(2) Increase the safety for motorized andnon-motorized users; (3) Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; (4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life…” 23 CFR 450.306(a). See 23 CFR 450.206 for similar State requirements.
• Metropolitan transportation plans “…shall, at a minimum, include…existing and proposed transportation facilities (including major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors that should function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system…” 23 CFR 450.322(f). See 23 CFR 450.216(g) for similar State requirements.
• The plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) of all metropolitan areas “shall provide for the development and integrated management and operation of transportation systems and facilities (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities).” 23 U.S.C. 134(c)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(c)(2). 23 CFR 450.324(c) states that the TIP “shall include …trails projects, pedestrian walkways; and bicycle facilities…”
• 23 CFR 450.316(a) states that “The MPOs shall develop and use a documented participation plan that defines a process for providing…representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, and representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan planning process.” 23 CFR 450.210(a) contains similar language for States. See also 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(5), 135(f)(3), 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5), and 5304(f)(3) for additional information about participation by interested parties.

Prohibition of Route Severance

The Secretary has the authority to withhold approval for projects that would negatively impact pedestrians and bicyclists under certain circumstances. Key references in the CFR and U.S.C. include:

• “The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists.” 23 U.S.C. 109(m).
• “In any case where a highway bridge deck being replaced or rehabilitated with Federal financial participation is located on a highway on which bicycles are permitted to operate at each end of such bridge, and the Secretary determines that the safe accommodation of bicycles can be provided at reasonable cost as part of such replacement or rehabilitation, then such bridge shall be so replaced or rehabilitated as to provide such safe accommodations.” 23 U.S.C. 217(e). Although this statutory requirement only mentions bicycles, DOT encourages States and local governments to apply this same policy to pedestrian facilities as well.
• 23 CFR 652 provides “procedures relating to the provision of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on Federal-aid projects, and Federal participation in the cost of these accommodations and projects.”

Project Documentation

• “In metropolitan planning areas, on an annual basis, no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the program year, the State, public transportation operator(s), and the MPO shall cooperatively develop a listing of projects (including investments inpedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) for which funds under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 were obligated in the preceding program year.” 23 CFR 332(a).

Accessibility for All Pedestrians

• Public rights-of-way and facilities are required to be accessible to persons with disabilities through the following statutes: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) (29 U.S.C. §794) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12164).
• The DOT Section 504 regulation requires the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to monitor the compliance of the self-evaluation and transition plans of Federal-aid recipients (49 CFR §27.11). The FHWA Division offices review pedestrian access compliance with the ADA and Section 504 as part of their routine oversight activities as defined in their stewardship plans.
• FHWA posted its Clarification of FHWA’s Oversight Role in Accessibility to explain how to accommodate accessibility in policy, planning, and projects.

I think the short answer is a resounding YES!!!

Do you remember 1975?  I do.  I was a high school senior.  I worked for a buddy of my dad, drilling holes in marble rectangles that would eventually be used to make bowling trophies. I got a Penny per hole.  I saved enough to buy my first “real” bike – a yellow Schwinn Continental.  I think I spent $110.00, plus tax, on that bike – or more than 11,000 holes drilled [not counting the ones I got docked for because they broke during the drilling process!]

Back in 1975 there was a huge BIKE BOOM underway.  People were riding – a lot.  KIDS were riding a lot.  Before my 10-speed Continental, I had a big, heavy bike with those Sturmey Archer 3-speed shifters and the huge, metal “paper boy” rear baskets.  I took that bike all over the little town of Mansfield, Ohio.

Statistics for that era reflect those memories.  In 1975, there were 1003 cyclists killed on U.S. roadways.  Of those, it was a 50/50 split between urban and rural settings. Men were killed 7 times more often than women.  However, I think word “men” is inappropriate.  You see, in 1975, 67%  of the cyclists killed on U.S. roadways were under the age of 16!

Yes, 2 out of every 3 cyclists killed were kids in 1975.

Statistics for bicycle crashes show us that since 1975 the demographics for bicycle crashes have completely flip-flopped.  In 2008, NHTSA published its “Traffic Safety Facts for Bicyclists and Other Cyclists,” taking a close look at more recent trends.  NHTSA’s numbers show that 716 cyclists were killed in 2008 – slightly more than 2007, but in line with a 10 year trend of less than 800 cyclists killed each year since 1998.

Cyclist fatalities still accounted for 2% of all highway deaths in 2008.  That number has been between 1-2% ever since the first statistics started being kept in the 1930s.

The Kids vs. Adults comparison is most interesting.  In 1998 the average age of a cyclist involved in a fatal crash was 32.  In 2008, the average age was 41.  Compared to 1975, when 2/3 of all cyclists fatalities involved kids under the age of 16, it is clear that the entire cycling demographic has changed.

You see it everywhere, I’m sure.  In your neighborhood – with your kids.  Do you kids wander around town on their bikes?  Probably not.

For me, as a teenager in the mid-1970′s, it was nothing to leave the house in the morning on the bike and MAYBE come home for lunch.  My and my buddies would be riding all over – from ball diamond to park to ice cream stand.  For, I am certain, a variety of reasons that just doesn’t happen any more.

One downside of this is that kids miss out on learning the absolute JOY that comes with the freedom of being on a bike.  Kids miss out on being able to MOVE from place to place without a play date and without waiting for Dad or Mom to take them.

Can we develop a SAFE way to encourage kids to ride again without exposing them to the statistical population of cycling fatalities? I guess that is one of the many challenges facing the bike industry, bike safety experts and those encouraging our country to RIDE.  Those 1975 cycling fatality statistics were littered with dozens of “dart out” cases – kids jumping from sidewalk to roadway, without paying attention to traffic. Safe Riding means teaching everybody – Kids & Adults – about the Rules of the Road and how to ride safely in traffic.

I wonder if, in ten years, the average age of cycling deaths will go up to 52?  Does that mean our aging population is still riding, but we’re losing the newer, younger riders?

Is cycling SAFE?  YES!  Millions of safe miles are ridden every year.  Fatallities are trending DOWN from the mid-1970′s highs.  Considering Ohio’s 88 counties, dozens of clubs, tens of thousands of miles of roads and millions of riders, those are pretty good numbers.

Good Luck and Good Riding!

Steve Magas
The Bike Lawyer

To read more check out the following from NHTSA:

2008 Crash Stats STATE by STATE