do you have bike safety concerns?
Jonawebb posted this link in another thread, but HV suggested it might deserve higher visibility, and I agree.
If you want to tell “them” about your concerns about bike safety, bike infrastructure, etc., here is a chance to do so:
You can tell PennDOT and the State Transportation Commission what your transportation priorities are. And they will, of course, listen, as Jonawebb said in his earlier post.
Ped/Bike concerns are currently showing strong (you can compare your answers at the end).
The audience for this survey are the members of the State Transportation Commission, a group handpicked by the Governor to monitor and address transporation needs in the Commonwealth.
I made special note of the lack of sidewalks on Banksville Road. I can’t tell you how often I see people walking IN TRAFFIC or in the weeds because there are no sidewalks. I thought with all the construction they did on Banksville last year, they’d throw in something for the pedestrians, but NO.
I added a couple of comments to the first panels:
Stronger requirements for maintaining Class C operator’s license, esp changes since last renewal. Nurses have to prove they are current since last renewal. If a nurse kills a patient because of non-current skills, s/he loses license.
Preservation and renewal
While reconstructing pavement, please reconfigure lanes for bicycles.
Related: League of American Bicyclists lays into USDOT’s draft strategic plan: “Old Solutions From a Passing Generation: USDOT’s Proposed Strategic Plan Falls Short”.
There are 18 broad safety strategies over two pages and the word “speed” doesn’t appear once. The primary USDOT commitment to reducing bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries is: “Encourage states to adopt policies and programs that improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety.” Seriously, it says that.…Health and physical activity is almost totally absent as an issue, which seems shocking in this day and age. Equity is mentioned in passing. The whole document seems intent on preserving a status quo that isn’t delivering for current generations, let alone new or future generations of Americans.
(emphasis in original)
Comment is open until…wait for it… SEPTEMBER 10. Two weeks, that’s it. See here for LAB’s comments & suggestions for your own.
I guess I better get my pen busy.
Safety should not be a goal of any road project or transportation maintenance plan, but rather a pre-condition. The distinction is critical. To have safety as a mere goal means it’s a thing you strive for, instead of something that’s flat-out-assured before you push a pencil, a lever or a shovelful of dirt.
The other side of it, and I’d better give this a good solid scouring before I say anything to them, but I’ll air it here, is that I am sure they are all about maintaining congestion free roads, disrupting traffic as little as possible, getting cars and trucks to and from efficiently.
I dispute this approach. I think we really want the opposite, to make it slower, make it harder to get around *by car* *so that* safety is assured when getting around by any other means, like crossing a street getting off a bus, like bicycling.
* Road diets
* “Twenty Is Plenty” campaigns in residential areas
* Dropping every speed limit on every non-superhighway by 5 mph
* Getting rid of multiple lanes
* Stricter conditions for getting and keeping a driver’s license
In short, pretty much everything they wanted to do in 1972, do the exact opposite. My guess is that all these white-haired senior managers all got their driver’s licenses in or about 1972 (I got mine in 1976 and I’m 54), so their entire mindset, their whole philosophy of life, their entire careers, is built on how things worked back then. I use the year 1972 because it was just before the 1973 Arab oil boycott, the first time in over a generation (WW2 rationing) anyone had to think about gasoline.
And that’s what we’re up against.
stu, i’m right there with you, and you had better get your pen ready, and get that ink flowing.
i think one way to emphasize the importance of the need for a paradigm shift on their part is to focus on the need for transportation to move people as opposed to automobiles. the overwhelming majority of cars and trucks i see on the road are carrying a single person.
we need roads that cater to people, especially residents and resident businesses, rather than trying to move cars through said areas as quickly and efficiently as possible. this is what they don’t get. it’s not hard to see why; there is a whole giant state of mostly not-urban-centers for which penn dot is trying to design traffic flows. the problem is when they take the breezewood solution and try to apply it to penn ave or west carson street.
Done! I compared my responses to others–pedestrian/bike safety is currently the number 1 concern among all respondents (of course, there are only 149 respondents).
This thread also made me realize that I’m not really concerned about bike safety after all. My bike is very safe–it’s never hurt me beyond a few superficial scrapes and bruises, and it’s never hurt anyone else at all. What I’m concerned about is the safety of the motorized missiles people pilot around our streets and roads.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.