Good piece. I was nearly run over last week by a driver running a red light on Lake City Way while I crossed in the crosswalk in the middle of the road. For all the wailing about cyclists running lights, I'd wager that drivers running stop signs and lights outnumber the cyclists by at least 4:1.
Considering that roughly a third of the city's streets lack sidewalks, having something like 5% of the annual street maintenance budget committed to new sidewalks might fix that lack in a short 50 years. Or if the budget hawks don't like that, install red light cameras at each and every light. They'd pay for themselves in short order, raise income for street repair and sidewalk construction, and make intersections safer as a side benefit. It would even make having cyclist licenses reasonable, so that those cyclists running lights could join the ticket party.
OK, time for those of you that believe that the Right to Drive and to Park Shall Not Be Infringed to have your say. These bike/ped/car discussions are as jovial as the Range Wars.

Very good piece.

The City of Seattle talks a good game, but acts a totally different way in the field. Apathetic cops are typical.

Personally, I go overboard as a pedestrian. If a car is in the crosswalk, I touch it, usually a couple per day. If they're moving, I bang on it for safety's sake and to send a reminder. If they run a red light, if it's close enough I bang on it. This is probably not advisable. What amazes me is how often the driver gets indignant, as if my safety is somehow less than their (undamaged) fender. Screw them.

We need to crack way down. Driving dangerously is exactly the same as waving a loaded gun and should be treated as such.

Boy, do I get it. I have experience of pedestrians both as a driver AND as a pedestrian. When I can I stop for pedestrians crossing at unsignaled crosswalks wherever I can, particularly on arterials. Sometimes, though I find I come on pedestrians and it's a split-second decision as to whether to stop or not. What bugs me no end though, is pedestrians who cross MAJOR arterials such as Lake City Way in the middle of the block and don't even look to see if it's safe, assuming that they're invincible and impervious to those hurtling vehicles bearing down on them. And the parents with small children who jaywalk--oy veh--what is there to say about their their stupidity?

As a pedestrian I've been road kill and lived to tell about it. A number of years ago, I was crossing 15th NW at NW 85th on a dark, rainy night after grocery shopping to catch my south-bound bus. There was a driver waiting to make a right turn--on green, not on red. I thought we had eye contact. I ended up on the pavement in a heap. However, I was NOT hurt, my clothes were intact and so were my groceries. What I did do was get checked out by the EMTs and get this accident reported to the police. The driver got a ticket for about $250 for mowing down a pedestrian!!!!! (A good night's sleep and some ibuprofen meant I was at work the next morning.) My experience seems to be a miracle unlike a lot of right-turn accidents!

So, there are SO many factors in these accidents. (And apropros turns: I get spooked at people wanting to turn or go straight at T-intersections because the drivers point their cars so far into the street I'm afraid I'll get T-boned as I drive down the street!)

Crosswalks are a well-intentioned death trap.

Nearly every rule of the road ensures that drivers can drive along peacefully without other vehicles suddenly jumping out in front of them. And that's a good thing - when a car ignores a stop sign or fails to yield to traffic, a collision becomes highly likely, as anyone who studies traffic accidents can tell you.

Yet our traffic laws make a single dangerous exception when it comes to pedestrians by encouraging them to amble in front of moving traffic that otherwise has the right of way. The law bets pedestrians' lives on drivers' abilities to notice them and react in time. The laws don't make this same bet with cars for good reason - there's nothing to gain and plenty to lose, and they will certainly lose with some frequency. So why do we make this bet with pedestrians, given that they are harder to see and more vulnerable?

As someone who walks quite a bit, let me share a survival tip. Never walk in front of moving traffic, even if the law gives you that right.

While crosswalk compliance is just one small part of the puzzle, if motorists are trained to drive attentively enough to comply with crosswalk laws, they will also be paying enough attention to avoid many other common accidents caused by sloppy, inattentive, or distracted driving.

Every driver at fault in an accident, no matter how small, or convicted of a potentially-serious traffic violation, should have their license suspended, and be required to re-take both the written and the driving test before regaining their license. Far too many motorists forget what little they knew about pedestrians' rights, and assume that motorists always have the right of way.

Let's cut right to the chase here: When you are riding your bicycle, are you a pedestrian? Most people would consider a bicycle to be a vehicle, and as such it's not something they would find in a crosswalk.

Interesting perspective... I travel Boren daily and most times I hit the Boren / Pike, Pine, University intersections, jaywalking is a very common occurence. It seems like the problem has become worse since McSchwinn became mayor. Pedestrians routinely START entering the intersection while the walk light is flashing red. Yesterday I had two people start to walk across the street as the light turned yellow. Frankly, SPD isn't doing enough to crack down on the jaywalkers. I do stop and follow the traffic laws as a motorist, but I'm going to drive through the intersection if I have a green light, even if a grungy Occupy Seattle participant is still strolling through.

I take what I think is a more Seattle-appropriate, passive aggressive approach to drivers who think that the crosswalk is their own private parking space by walking behind them. Usually that's safer, since you never know when someone will make a right turn after having watched for oncoming cars but not pedestrians. Sometimes they pull so far into the crosswalk that I could not go in front of them without having to Frogger my way through traffic.

On only one occasion that I can recall (in Seattle, too) has a driver apologized for blocking my path under this scenario. Sometimes they barrel away while I am behind them, as though fleeing the scene of a crime (which, technically, it is). Usually there is no reaction at all, but even so, I take great satisfaction in knowing that they will be consumed by guilt and, perhaps, will better respect crosswalks in the future.

The policy of going after jaywalkers might not make the best sense from a strict technocratic point of view, but there is good political reason behind it. Motorists, who comprise the majority, will resent any policy that is perceived to target them for the benefit of a minority, as is so clearly demonstrated by the dreary cars vs. bikes debates, affirmative actions policies, and so on. I now live in Nashville, where there are few pedestrians to begin with and no apparent effort to punish jaywalking, perhaps under the belief that a pedestrian's self-preservation instinct is a better motivator than the threat of a ticket. The apparent anarchy on the streets demonstrates this not to be the case.

Thank you for writing about this issue.

As a bicyclist and a lawyer representing bicyclists, I have seen that individual Seattle police officers vary wildly in their understanding of how the Rules of the Road pertain to bicyclists and their willingness to enforce them. Some officers are great, while others add insult to injury mailing tickets to bicyclists hit in bike lanes and crosswalks.

The City has held multiple road safety summits with the Rodney King goal of having us all get along. The problem is that we are not all similarly situated: while bicyclists annoy many drivers, too many drivers kill and injure bicyclists. At least we should all be served by police officers who understand and fairly enforce our laws.

This article is evidence that the Seattle Police Department should provide additional training to its officers regarding pedestrian and bicyclist rights on our roads.

And to pay for that additional training, Bob, perhaps the city should license bicycles.

Jaywalking is a sign of a healthy city. New York, Rome, Boston, whatever.

But right of way is still right of way. Pedestrians should only enter the street if they can cross in time.

Yesterday, around midday, when it was clear and sunny out, but chilly -- about 40 degrees -- I drove from Queen Anne to the Ballard Fred Meyer. I intended to use the Ballard Bridge, but traffic was backed up because one lane of that bridge was closed for maintenance, so I took Nickerson over to the Fremont Bridge and crossed the Fremont Bridge instead.

The Fremont Bridge, and streets leading to it on both sides of the boat canal, is one of the major bike routes in Seattle. I saw zero bicycles anywhere on Nickerson, the Fremont Bridge, or anywhere else on this trip, including the Burke Gliman Trail, which I crossed between Leary Way and the Fred Meyer parking lot.

On this entire trip, in beautiful sunny weather, I counted over 600 motor vehicles and ONE bicycle, which happened to be on Lower Queen Anne.

Why do we keep wasting millions of dollars on bike infrastructure in Seattle when almost nobody rides a bike in Seattle in the fall and winter, even on clear, sunny, albeit cold, days?

Using a crosswalk as a pedestrian should have two requirements, coming to a full and complete stop and looking into oncoming traffic to act as a human yellow light for two seconds so that traffic can pass or come to a reasonable stop. The people who don't break stride or look left and expect a car to stop on a dime deserve a good blast of horn.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/11/portland_state_students_find_5.html

From a study of red-light behavior of motorists and bicyclists in Portland, Ore:

"Their findings (PDF): 56 percent of bicycle riders ignored stop signals, compared with 7 percent of motorists."

So, how many moving violation citations have been issued to bicyclists year by year?? Any research into "Tickets for Bikes" or do we not have such a policy?

Yesterday and this AM was ice fog. Sorry about not seeing any bicycles on the street, but ice fog negates riding a bicycle.

Oh, Thursday morning, I rode from the Bicycle Tunnel to Capital Hill all on back roads. No cars at all. Why do we waste money on roads up there when there isn't any cars using them? Also parking, I see tons of people parking on the roads without paying for it. Until everyone who parks on the road pays for parking, no more money for road maintenance.

dbreneman writes: Let's cut right to the chase here: When you are riding your bicycle, are you a pedestrian? Most people would consider a bicycle to be a vehicle, and as such it's not something they would find in a crosswalk.

You're right, and that misconception is another sign of our low standard of driver training and crosswalk compliance.

The law itself couldn't be clearer -- bicyclists have the same rights in crosswalks as pedestrians, period, end of sentence. Yet most motorists don't know this, and even those who know it often don't respect it.

star80 writes, I do stop and follow the traffic laws as a motorist, but I'm going to drive through the intersection if I have a green light, even if a grungy Occupy Seattle participant is still strolling through.

Take your pick, obey the law or drive through an occupied intersection, you can't do both at the same time.

A green light says you have the right to enter the intersection when it is clear and safe to do so. It doesn't override your legal obligation to yield at an occupied crosswalk.

That a jaywalker is breaking the law does not authorize you to do the same.

So, how many moving violation citations have been issued to bicyclists year by year?? Any research into "Tickets for Bikes" or do we not have such a policy?

With their budget as tight as it is, I would hope SPD bases their enforcement priorities on actual public safety threats. As annoying as jaywalkers and cyclists running stop signs can be, neither group kills as many Americans as 9/11 every single month. That distinction belongs to motorists.

I hope I live long enough to see a day when scofflaw driving is such a small issue that police have time for pedestrians and cyclists. But I'm not holding my breath.

There is a duality in Seattle's pedestrian code: the pedestrian has the right of way at all street intersections, right? OK, so why do we have crosswalks at street intersections? it's as if a pedestrian has double indemnity at the crosswalks and is protected minimally elsewhere. Most laws are not posted in that fashion; "no right turn" and "ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TURN ($500 fine for violation"). I think some people would argue that the crosswalks with the flashing lights actually reduce the protection of pedestrians at mere street intersections because reasonable people (who are unfamiliar with the law) could assume that pedestrians have the right of way ONLY at crosswalks.

Using a crosswalk as a pedestrian should have two requirements, coming to a full and complete stop and looking into oncoming traffic to act as a human yellow light for two seconds so that traffic can pass or come to a reasonable stop.

The law already has most of that -- see part 2 below.

RCW 46.61.235
Crosswalks.

(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

(2) No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.

There is a duality in Seattle's pedestrian code: the pedestrian has the right of way at all street intersections, right? OK, so why do we have crosswalks at street intersections?

Painted crosswalks serve two functions:

1. A reminder to motorists that pedestrians are expected, and that motorists should be prepared to yield even if a pedestrian isn't visible in the roadway.

2. A warning to pedestrians that they should cross within the crosswalk markings, which are often more restrictive than an unmarked crosswalk would be.

But you're right, without adequate training and enforcement, marked crosswalks can decrease the safety of unmarked crosswalks. (The same is true for cars -- putting stop signs at every intersection makes the remaining uncontrolled intersections more dangerous because motorists get used to not having to look and think at every intersection.)

I don’t see any mention of pedestrians hit by bicyclists. There were several this last summer and a woman was killed by a cyclist in Renton.

Anyway, what about requirements for specific standards for commuter bicycles and rider’s protective gear allowed on streets to be shared with automobiles. Bikes should be constructed and tires specified for maximum stability. Adequate front and rear lighting arrays should be standardized. And safety gear, particularly helmets, should be upgraded to levels similar to motorcycles. Whatever the reasons for the evolution of bike gear, it is woefully inadequate in the inevitable accident with a car.

You can’t drive your nitro-fueled funny car to the grocery store and you shouldn’t be riding your exotic, needle-tired bicycle either…especially in the rain.

Less damage and injury…everybody wins.

Maybe your car should be limited to a few hundred pounds. Or, more realistically, maybe speeds should be limited to a good running speed.

I'm not suggesting that, but it makes more sense than jmrolls.

All traffic laws in Seattle seem to be underenforced. I for one would love to see more tickets handed out to motorists, pedestrians and cyclists...too many in each group seem to think that the laws are only for other people to obey.

"a woman was killed by a cyclist in Renton"

That's it, "A Woman".... how many died from being hit by cars?
http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-iframe-usa#lat=37.435607202745395&lon;=-98.81468125314737&zoom;=4

for an interactive map that shows most if not all traffic deaths from 2001 to 2009.

One bicyclist hit a pedestrian.. Can you count the number of dead pedestrians by auto? It's in the thousands.

If serious numbers of people ever choose to commute on bicycles you're going to see a lot more of this. There are some remarkable body armor products today, much of it in Europe. Helmet laws have proven their value in reducing head injuries. Anyone who was serious about their personal safety would make these choices. If regulations require lights, etc. then there will have to be some standardization so as to administer to inspections on a large scale. It’s a ways off, but it will happen.

-GaryP I was replying to –mhays about safety issues for people who ride bicycles. I think it’s important. I also believe that the article is correct in its assumptions about inconsistent enforcement no matter who hits who. Obviously more people are injured by cars than any other mode of transport. Thanks for the URL.

To JPutnam: you appear to refer to the Municipal Code of Seattle when stating that cyclists 'have the same rights as pedestrians.' You omit that the Code actually reads that cyclists have the same rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES as pedestrians while in a crosswalk; in other words, if signalled to stop, walker and cyclist alike are REQUIRED to wait for the green walk signal before entering the crosswalk. Sadly, and often with grave consequences, this fundamental rule is trampled by many. As for classifying people as 'drivers' or 'pedestrians,'or 'cyclists,' I have concluded from many years observing my fellow citizens that the guy who blows through a stop on his bike will likely be a jerk when on foot or behind the wheel of a car. I think the statistics on police citations for pedestrian violations demonstrate, notwithstanding the author's claim, that there is a culture of righteous entitlement on the part of many - an entitlement to step or ride into a crosswalk when it is clearly unlawful. Who has not witnessed the gridlock near major bus stops downtown when passengers disgorged from buses enter lemming-like a crosswalk where the signal clearly requires them to wait? I will fault police in this case for not issuing MORE citations. A heightened sense of civility and adult behavior - enforced, or encouraged by a benign police response - will do more for safety on our streets and crosswalks than any grievance group's narrow focus.

Thank you for covering this. Eric, I've always enjoyed your writing, but this last week has been tremendous. The south County piece was fascinating and gave me both a tangible sense of what changes in those communities are like and new information I found useful. And this piece elevates something critical we all see daily but rarely say out loud. Thank you for your good work.

Anyway, what about requirements for specific standards for commuter bicycles and rider’s protective gear allowed on streets to be shared with automobiles.

Without any additional safety standards, peer-reviewed public health research shows bicycle commuting reduces the risk of premature death by 40%. (That's a combination of factors, of course -- fitness benefits of cycling and avoiding many of the health complications of driving are more significant than the difference in accident risk. But overall, bicycle commuters are at substantially lower risk of premature death than drivers.)

With that in mind, enforcing additional safety standards for commuter bicycles would seem like a much lower priority than enforcing existing safety standards for motorists, since motorists are more likely to die and more likely to kill others.

If serious numbers of people ever choose to commute on bicycles you're going to see a lot more of this. There are some remarkable body armor products today, much of it in Europe. Helmet laws have proven their value in reducing head injuries.

I think, if we ever get close to European levels of bicycle commuting in the U.S., our equipment regulations will have to be more like those in Europe -- no mandatory helmet laws, for example, and regulation of the maximum intensity of bicycle lighting.

Mandatory helmet laws have proven effective in increasing public health costs, on net, because they discourage people from cycling. (See, for example, The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws by Piet de Jong, Macquarie University Actuarial Studies.) This isn't to say helmets are bad -- there's no question helmets are good for safety. But mandatory helmet laws do more harm than good, and more of them are being repealed than enacted around the world today. Bicycling without a helmet is more dangerous than bicycling with a helmet, but either is safer in the long run than driving to work.

German standards for bicycle headlights and tail lights are some of the strictest in the world. One of the regulations that most surprises Americans is the limit on the maximum brightness of bicycle headlights. But the truth is, overly-bright bicycle headlights, especially with a round beam pattern that throws much of the light upwards, are a glare hazard to others on the road. Many bicycle headlights on the market today would be illegal if used on a car or motorcycle, but the law against projecting light into the eyes of oncoming traffic doesn't apply to bicycles. It doesn't cost much to add optics that control the beam pattern of a bicycle headlight, but few companies do in the U.S. because no states require it.

Body armor is a bit of a red herring in discussions of bicycle commuting. Its use is vanishingly small outside downhill mountain biking, and it has very little utility for road cyclists. The same is true for full-face helmets, let alone motorcycle-weight helmets. They have very little benefit to commuter bicyclists, and their cost and discomfort would cause far more health damage by discouraging cycling than the benefits could possibly justify.

I guess we'll see. The mandatory use of helmets for motorcycles was eventually adopted over time in spite of rebuttals similar to yours…same for daytime use of headlights. Elective use of evolving technology for protective gear is yet to be determined but there’s no reason to believe that a case won’t be made for that. Another reality is that most avid cyclists who are pushing the envelope for change really have no idea what is ultimately going to be required or preferred to get the masses up off the couch and out into the traffic. Bike commuting evolving from novelty to mainstream will no doubt be part economics, part environmental awareness, part marketing, and who knows what else? Who would have guessed that you “Meet the Nicest People on a Honda” would put tens of millions of motorcycles on US roads?

My concern about safety gear is based on the physical reality of bicycles and cars operating in close proximity. Accidents are inevitable and they are horrible.

I am really beginning to think that Seattelites' mom's don't teach them how to cross a street when they are young. I recall mine invoking some basic physics about large, heavy moving objects, how far they must travel to stop, looking both ways, getting squished like a bug, etc. It has held me in wonderful stead.

If you are pedaling you are not a pedestrian. If you pedal into a car crossing your direction you are a moron.

If you are a pedestrian and step in front of a car going 25 without giving it enough time to stop, you are a a moron who gets squished like a bug. Just physics.

I don't think anybody's parents teach traffic safety anymore. I grew up in a semi-rural area, and it was drummed into our heads that you ride a bike with traffic, and you walk facing traffic. Now I see people (even adults) seemingly picking a side of the road at random, and some even cross into the car's path to get to the other side of the road when they see a car coming. Perhaps it's this total ignorance of traffic safety protocols that leads so many people to make up their own rules as they go.

And don't even get me started on the finger-wagging self-appointed traffic cops who sit at 4-way stops signaling everyone else to go out of turn ahead of them, like Mickey Mouse commanding the heavens in "Sorcerer's Apprentice." I hope there's a special place in Hell reserved for those imbeciles.

"Re Safety Gear on bicycles"

Show me a full face helmet and body armor that you can ride in that would have saved either bicyclist in Kirkland. It doesn't exist. Remember it has to keep you alive after 3,000 lbs of car crush you.

I've looked at full face helmets, and met one rider who does wear one. He had a jaw injury and his doctor told him that if he wanted to continue to ride, he'd need to wear one. But I tried on one of those helmets and it restricts my peripheral vision too much, and the protective foam on the side and front is too warm for my vigorous and long commute ride.

I did find protective gloves, they won't save me from a car, but they will save my hands in a crash.

So I've gone with a construction worker type 3 vest (use on 55+mph roads) and lights that can blind oncoming drivers, but aimed low, and on my helmet so that I can momentarily attract the attention of the driver. We don't make highway construction workers wear body armor, just hard hats, and mine is already better than theirs.

Meantime because of my riding, I've lost 10lbs of weight, and my resting pulse is 55. With a reasonably low blood pressure as well. That cuts my chances of a heart attack, or stroke, or getting type 2 diabetes. In addtion the cost of commuting is less than driving.

I know you didn't want to hear that I save money, the planet, and am healthier and that because of it you think bicyclists are elitists snobs. Well I am elitist, but I'm not a snob. Nearly anyone can join the ranks of cyclists, it just takes a bicycle and the desire to try it. Once you get regular about the exercise the endorphin high will keep you at it even in the cold and the wet.

boblgumm, what about educating drivers, who often don't even know that an unmarked intersection is automatically a crosswalk? What about cracking down on speeding, since accidents become dramatically more severe with each additional few MPH? What about cracking down on red light running, a huge source of accidents?

You're right about looking both ways and giving cars time to stop. Also, make sure they're actually stopping before being in front of them.

Regarding biking as well as walking, good points have been made by others about the fitness benefits greatly outweighing any danger. Anecdotally, you see the US's obesity epidemic in every parking lot, but much less on sidewalks and almost not at all on bike lanes.

Very enlightening, and sad to see such disregard for others. It sounds like some police officers need to be replaced. Unfortunately, they’re protected by their union and its seniority rules.

I guess we'll see. The mandatory use of helmets for motorcycles was eventually adopted over time in spite of rebuttals similar to yours…same for daytime use of headlights. Elective use of evolving technology for protective gear is yet to be determined but there’s no reason to believe that a case won’t be made for that.

Helmets are good. Mandatory helmet laws harm public health, shorten lifespans, and increase government health costs and transportation spending.

The same can't be said for motorcycle helmet laws or requiring daytime running lights on new cars.

Driving motor vehicles does not have the health benefits of cycling. (In fact, some of the health benefits of bicycle commuting are really just avoiding the health impairments of excessive driving.)

Laws that make driving slightly more expensive or motorcycles slightly less enjoyable do not have the same fiscal or health impact as laws that discourage non-motorized transportation.

My concern about safety gear is based on the physical reality of bicycles and cars operating in close proximity. Accidents are inevitable and they are horrible.

Experience in Europe shows otherwise -- well-trained drivers and competent cyclists can safely share city streets with suitable speed limits and enforcement.

Some level of accidents is inevitable, but that level is far below what we see today. Most collisions today are not true "accidents," they involve willful negligence by people who speed, refuse to yield, do not signal turns or lane changes, or distract themselves from their primary obligation behind the wheel -- avoiding collisions.

Meanwhile, experience in the U.S. and in Europe shows that death from heart disease and diabetes are also not inevitable; that epidemic obesity is not inevitable; that regular exercise delays, prevents, or even reverses osteoporosis and other degenerative diseases often thought of as inevitable parts of aging.

Those, too, are all horrible ways to die. And pretending that cars are safer than bicycling or walking increases the risk of all of them.

Pedestrians routinely START entering the intersection while the walk light is flashing red. Yesterday I had two people start to walk across the street as the light turned yellow.

Most people spend more time driving than walking city streets these days, which, in my experience, leads them to think of pedestrian signals like traffic signals.

A yellow light is a warning that the light will soon turn red, and it will be illegal for a driver to enter the intersection on red. But entering the intersection on yellow is still perfectly legal for a driver.

People treat the flashing "don't walk" signal the same way as a yellow light in a car, assuming it's a warning that when the "don't walk" becomes a steady red, then it will be illegal to enter the crosswalk. (By law, a flashing "don't walk" signal really is the same as a yellow light for a pedestrian, but most pedestrians don't seem to realize a yellow light means different things for vehicles and pedestrians.)

Add to that the number of people who routinely keep driving when the light turns red -- at many intersections, its normal to see two or three cars continue through after the light turns red. Apply that same arrogance to pedestrians, along with treating a flashing "don't walk" like a yellow light, and you have pedestrians continuing to enter the crosswalk after the "don't walk" is a steady red.

I admire your knowledge -jputnam but your mixture of apples and bowling balls sprinkled with global factoids about whether "collisions" are "accidents" and why accidents aren’t “inevitable and horrible” in Europe don’t really address the issue. My concern is injuries and their prevention. You say “helmets are good” but then say mandatory helmet laws harm public health, shorten life spans and raise health costs etc..? And what does fitness and your opinions about heart disease, diabetes and osteoporosis have to do with safety equipment for people riding bicycles in close proximity to cars unless you’re an insurance company? Regarding de Jong, you know there are also schools of thought about helmets increasing costs because preventing a death requires expensive medical and rehabilitation procedures. Seems like most of your angle is that anything imposed on free-range cyclists that might possibly irritate them should be avoided, or they might choose to what…stay home? I think cycling will evolve to include more and better protective products that may or may not be mandatory. Hopefully they may reduce or prevent someone’s injury during that “inevitable/horrible/accident/collision.”

Like I said…we’ll see.

It's not about safety gear that irritates bicyclists, it's about what works. I contend that even a soldiers bullet proof vest/body armor will not protect a bicyclist from an auto collision. Bicycle helmets protect us from a regular fall where it's just the pavement we hit at bicycle speeds. Motorcyclists wear thicker helmets because they go faster. Perhaps a wrist guard would be worth wearing but thinking that there is a something that will allow bicyclists to survive the impact of a 3,000lb vehicle isn't in the realm of current physics.

As a pedestrian I see people standing at crosswalks all the time just waiting for drivers to stop. Me I don't stand there waiting, I know the law I have the right of way so I step into the street and make the cars stop, and abide by the law. I figure I am out in the weather they are in a car so the least they can do is be law abiding and stop to let me cross.

Cops never ticket drivers for not stopping at crosswalks, in fact I have had many cops not stop for me at a crosswalk themselves. But they ticket for jaywalking here like it is a felony.

You know the law, you have the right of way, so you step into the street and make cars stop.....Eric, you are an accident waiting to happen.

There is a soft material that may take a hit and help prevent injury.

http://youtu.be/Bgn08OMIAG8 (d3O)

That may make bicycle and Motorcycle armor work.

I commute daily from 25th Ave E across Capitol Hill to South Lake Union. I usually walk my bike up Mercer and across 23rd Ave. E. on my way to work. The drivers on 23rd are not in the slightest aware that I have the right to cross the street - I would be surprised if even 1 in 100 drivers stopped. When my kids were in Middle School, they had to cross this street to get to school. For awhile there was a crossing guard with a flag, a crosswalk at 23rd and Thomas, and a big yellow sign alerting drivers that people were crossing the street. Still, it was a challenge for the kids to get across. Parents lobbied for a light - but the city chose to remove the crosswalk and the warning sign, saying those made the crossing MORE dangerous, because if one lane of cars stopped, the next lane would keep going and kill someone. I would LOVE to see some enforcement on 23rd! Dozens of drivers fail to yield to ME every single day - and most of them are driving much faster than the 30 mph speed limit. OR even better - do a road diet on 23rd, slow down the speeders, make crossing the street an ordinary event, not something you have to get up your nerve to attempt.

One of the problems is WA law is unclear who has the right of way.

If you are already in the crosswalk, cars are supposed to leave at least a lanes distance before turning.

However, the law also says that pedestrians are not supposed to rush into a crosswalk in front of a moving car and expect it to stop.

In my opinion we should remove the right turn on red privilege at all intersections above a certain traffic volume.

Did our mom and dad not teach us to look both ways before crossing? And then, to look again and again while we cross? Daily, I see pedestrians in Seattle step into the street, into traffic, looking straight ahead without looking either way before entering the roadway or crosswalk. One more thing -- what is going on with the growing number of walkers and runners using the street when there are sidewalks available to walk and run on?

P.S. If we require drivers who hit a pedestrian or bicyclist to take a class, shouldn't we also require a bicyclist or pedestrian who is hit to also take a class in safe crossing? Yes. The answer is yes.