A new campaign aims to make helmets available for Biketown users

“….I don’t think anyone is attempting to “dissuade” anyone from using “basic safety measures”. …” bic

bic…any time bikeportland does a story about trimet, ODOT or other public agency presenting a safety campaign encouraging vulnerable road users to display some form of visibility gear when they’re out on the street in low visibility conditions… there is a huge objection raised by quite a number of people commenting to those stories, to the effect that they believe that such agencies should not be extending any such encouragement or advice to vulnerable road users.

This objection seems an awful lot like efforts to dissuade vulnerable road users from using the basic safety measures such as tail lights on bikes, flashlights and reflective gear carried or displayed on garments by people walking.

This idea, you believe people raising objections to the safety campaigns are asking for: ‘that the campaigns should either on their own, or simultaneously be directed to people driving to have them doing something they aren’t already doing, to somehow try have the vulnerable road users not using such gear, become visible in the headlights of a motor vehicle.’ ….doesn’t correspond with the comments I’ve referred to. Except perhaps, occasionally with some of yours, posted to these stories, and maybe those of two or three other’s comments, which never seem particularly serious in intent.

The objections are not to have encouragement made to people that drive, ‘in addition to’ that made of people as vulnerable road users….but ‘instead of’. And that, is a big mistake.

Will this comment of mine replying to yours, even be released from moderation, so you can read it? Perhaps not, and perhaps that’s what you and some of bikeportland’s readers would prefer. As I’m writing this I have six additional comments posted over the last couple days, still not released from moderation.

Readers of bikeportland, concerned about lack of availability of conditions on for safe use of the road by people using as vulnerable road users, are welcome to work to encourage people that drive, to do so more carefully than they already do, to be watchful of people biking, walking, and otherwise using the road outside of a motor vehicle, and that by lack of the use of visibility gear, may be very difficult for even people that are very good at driving, to see in the headlights of their motor vehicles in low visibility conditions…in fact, I heartily encourage any efforts to offer such encouragement, whether it be by safety campaigns similar to what public agencies offer, or other means.

Please do not though, do anything to discourage public agencies from producing the safety campaigns encouraging vulnerable road users to make efforts to have themselves be more visible to people that drive. Please do not do anything that might dissuade people from using the advice and knowledge that a bit of visibility gear could be of great benefit to them as a vulnerable road user, in enabling people that drive, to more readily see them in road situations where visibility conditions are poor.

wsbob–el biciclero’s reply matches my thinking.

One thing that’s a bit weird with your response is telling people they’re free to do their own campaigns aimed at drivers if they don’t like the ones public agencies are doing that are aimed at pedestrians and cyclists.

Of course everybody already knows that.

But why should people have to do their own? Don’t those public agencies belong to everyone? There are limited resources available for safety, so it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize those agencies for spending resources in a way that doesn’t address the main safety problems–which are not lack of lights and reflective clothes on people walking and biking.

As a side benefit, getting drivers to drive more safely will make driving safer, too. Putting lights on pedestrians isn’t going to have nearly the safety impact on drivers that say, discouraging texting while driving or slowing down at night will.

Well, I know the commute I used to take (in a different city) is way nicer than it was back when I did it. I know I’ve got some off-street options now that weren’t always available—improvements are being made. The biggest issue though, is still incompetent or indifferent drivers. I remember riding helmetless around the semi-rural area I grew up and drivers back then (’70s) gave us plenty of passing room (maybe because we were kids?), unlike today. In this respect, things are getting worse.

If I ruled the world (or was just Dictator of Oregon)—and perhaps some letters to legislators are in order—I would attack this problem from both ends. In simplified form:
1) REQUIRE (like many other states do) passing an accredited driver’s ed course prior to taking a driver’s license test, and make the driving test a true test (more difficult, higher passing score).

2) Crush the cars of egregious or repeat traffic offenders.

Until we raise the level of competence of drivers in general—by weeding out potentially bad drivers and removing proven bad drivers, you’re right—not much is going to change.

In the meantime, we have to stop training drivers to expect everyone not in a car to wear high-viz and reflective gear, carry some kind of bright light, and scamper out of their way when that stuff doesn’t appear to be working. We should instead be training drivers to look—not by encouraging people to walk around in the inky blackness wearing black hoodies—but by encouraging drivers to slow down and pay more attention, and, in the event of a crash, paying more attention to the driver and his/her vehicle instead of focusing on things like helmet use, or the wearing of reflective clothing, or the “dark and rainy” conditions. Focusing solely on the victim (unless the driver was obviously and egregiously breaking the law, as in the recent case of driver Schrantz), makes it seem like the VRU in such cases is the only one “doing it wrong”, while the poor driver, instead of being expected to appropriately use high beams, or slow down, or put down their phone, or get new tires, or buy a newer car with collision avoidance, or fix their windshield defogger or windshield wipers, or use their turn signals, or clean their windshield or headlight lenses, or not drive sleepy, or any number of other things that usually get ignored in favor of focusing on the victim and making excuses for why the driver couldn’t have avoided the collision in the first place. We have to stop expecting bicyclists and pedestrians to do everything perfectly—and to go above and beyond the law—while we give drivers huge amounts of leeway to operate in a sloppy, inattentive, and illegal manner.

“So, cyclists and pedestrians had better do what they can to help insure safety.
That does not even work as the latest pedestrian death in a lit up crosswalk show.”

I suppose I only hinted at writing letters to those who can change things. Perhaps the BTA Street Trust could undertake pushing just the one legal change: make driver’s ed mandatory. If we can make purchase of health insurance mandatory every year, surely we can make driver’s ed mandatory one time. Crushing cars could come later, but needs to be an option.

I’m still not disagreeing it would be prudent for bicyclists and pedestrians to “take measures”, but if wearing hi-viz, reflective clothes and using well-lit crosswalks doesn’t work either, what would you do? We can either do more of what doesn’t work, or try something new. What are we going to do when even flashing, glowing, reflecting, ever-brighter VRU visibility strategies grow less effective every day in the face of massively crowded streets, rising anger, incompetence, and distraction in drivers, and shrinking enforcement resources?