3rd District Race heats up...sort of...

Undoubtedly watching FAUX News

A Taos businessman, Rick Newton, has entered the race for the 3rd district House of Representatives as a Republican candidate.  According to the New Mexican, however, he first has to move there from 1st District Albuquerque.   According to the Los Alamos Monitor,  as well as the New Mexican, Mr. Rick Newton promises to, among other things, eliminate the IRS and replace the current tax code with a flat tax. If that was all, we could have a rational discussion.

He's coming back to get us

However, and again according to the two newspapers, he also wishes to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect our democracy from the perils of Sharia Law and amend the wording of the 14th Amendment to protect us from immigrant babies. Ok, there is room for debate on the intent vs. present use of the 14th Amendment, too.

But  amend the Constitution to proscribe Sharia Law? Sigh.... is it too much to ask the Republican Party to keep to real issues rather than having its candidates barrage us with nonsense that used to be in the exclusive domain of the lunatic fringe?  If there is a credible concern about religious fanatics endangering the Constitution, it comes from much more traditional sources than Islamic fundamentalists. Try the Moral Majority's descendants, for starters. Let's check our tinfoil hats in before the primaries, OK?

First New Mexico,
then the world

This morning we hear an NPR story about political groups in Mississippi wanting to define a human being as existing from the act of fertilization.  Hmm...how does one know whether an egg has been fertilized? Will every fertile woman in Mississippi  have to be constantly monitored for the presence of a fertilized egg so it can be registered with the government and given a "creation certificate"? Would Mom be monitored by Family Protective Services so once she has conceived, the fetus would be protected by Big Government? "I'm sorry, my dear, but you had two beers last night. We are taking your fetus into protective custody...."  Of course if little one-celled Johnny or Janie doesn't implant, how do we know? If we did know, would we have a postmortem and death certificate?

Reality in the 3rd District:  
Dar al Islam. 
Are you scared yet?

Small wonder comedians are having trouble getting jobs. Reality trumps comedy. Earth to GOP: if you want a viable two party election in the 3rd District, please come up with some candidates with credible platforms.

Hit from behind crashes

I just reviewed this post, which has been up for a dozen years and just flagged for inappropriate content. Kindly, Blogger, tell me what is sensitive or otherwise offensive to sensitive eyes and who reported it. I find this warning to be categorically absurd. I wish to speak to a human being about it after someone with actual credentials to criticize my post reaches out to me. To be specific, I was the Chair of the Los Alamos County Transportation Advisory Board during that time as well as a nationally credentialed League of American Bicycling Trainer. There is no obscenity or weird content here. Just a commentary on being hit from behind while riding a bicycle. You folks have my email. Kindly send me a phone number where I can speak to a human being.

Thanks, I guess.

Khal Spencer

Posting this here to save space on the LCI list.

Hi, Tricia

As a New Mexico resident, its a little frustrating to hear that we are to "avoid high speed roads" when in some parts of the country, there ain't a whole lot of choice.  In most if not all of New Mexico, even the secondary roads, when they exist, are high speed roads once you get out of town.  Commuters face that issue in Los Alamos. If you live in White Rock and work at the National Lab, you have a choice of two, 55 mph routes to work.

Once outa town, main NM state routes often are blessed with shoulders (complete with rumble strips) but with speed limits as high as 70 mph while lesser state routes are usually posted 50 mph or higher with two, 11 foot lanes and no or badly paved shoulders. There are blind curves, short sight line rises, and other goodies on minor routes that REQUIRE driver attention and make taking the lane on a bicycle problematic (operationally and politically) if a motorist is coming over a short sight line rise at 55 mph. The two (count 'em) roads out of Los Alamos county, NM 502 and NM4, are of the "main" and "lesser" type, respectively. 502 is a wide, fast four laner with clear sight lines. NM4, on the other hand, is an exhilarating little road for a cyclist with good descending skills through high speed switchbacks.

I cannot think of too many 100% effective defensive solutions to the class of hit from behind crashes where the root cause is driving while distracted, or too fast for conditions, etc., on a high speed road. One cannot, as John Allen once said regarding bike boxes, drive (a bike in this case) with one's eyes glued to the back of one's head. I think that attitude would just burn people out. Its supposed to be enjoyable, right?

This is a political issue and I think a lot of us are glad that the League is working with Ray LaHood (and hopefully the AAA) on this topic. The good news is that thankfully, we only get one or two cyclists per year hit this way in NM. I'll take that risk because its small and the alternative, giving up cycling on the open road for the first time in 32 years, would probably kill me first.

I guess my message to other LCIs is that we can ask cyclists to mitigate risk using the various techniques that Tricia, Preston, and others have suggested (operationally and fluidly defined proper lane position, bright clothing, 360 degrees of situational awareness, pay attention to visibility conditions during adverse times of day or weather, proper lighting at dawn/dusk/night, etc.). Those will greatly cut down one's odds, hopefully. But if distracted driving is increasing, the answer for that is to tell cyclists to work with their advocacy organizations on legislation that combats bad roadway behavior. That's not in TS 101, admittedly, but its one of those unpaid services that is time well spent.

LCIs who can stomach the political world should be active in pushing for higher standards of motor vehicle operator safety as well as teaching cyclists to ride correctly. Andy Clark, Ray LaHood, BCNM, BikeABQ, the New Mexico Motorcycle Assn., and the Duke City Wheelmen Foundation need all the help they can get.

Khal Spencer


-----Original message-----
From: Tricia Kovacs xxxxxx@xxx.net
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 06:19:07 -0600
To: lci-group@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [LCI Group] Question regarding bike crash statistics

 Dear Khal,
One of the avoidance techniques suggested by Mionske in Bicycling and the Law is to avoid high-speed roads, in particular rural roads at night or  at dawn or dusk when motorists may be blinded. I do teach that these  roads under these conditions can increase the likelihood of hit from  behind, but I don't think cyclists should have to avoid them. We also  teach that cyclists who ride in adverse conditions (rain, darkness) have
 lower crash rates than fair-weather riders. Mionske also suggests not to drive a bicycle drunk. Well, that's a given.

I also use a mirror and recommend that other cyclists use them, but the  reason I said "I won't go there" is because I didn't want to bring up  the mirror discussion again.

I do agree with you that driver distractions seem to be on the rise, and  that's why I have been interested in learning whether these types of  crashes are increasing. Recently, on several occasions I have noticed motorists drifting left of center when approaching me from the opposite direction, and when I look at them while passing, I see that their eyes are on their laps. I read somewhere that distracted driving laws (or
bans on texting while driving) have actually increased crashes because motorists are hiding their phones in their laps. Steve Magas here in  Ohio (and co-author of Bicyling & the Law) is doing a study of all bicycle fatalities over several years to determine the cause and fault of each crash, which should be very interesting.

Tricia

Arizona: "The Birther State"

These people are beyond hopeless. Note: According to this morning's news, the Gov. of Arizona vetoed this bill.
Editorial, The New York Times

Memo to Arizona Republicans: Papers, Please

Published: April 14, 2011

 "The Republicans who control the Arizona Legislature are back at it. The Senate just passed a bill that would bar presidential candidates from the ballot in Arizona unless they submitted extensive paperwork proving they were natural-born Americans..."

That ain't a particularly well disguised attack on President Obama. I guess we can print these in Phoenix:

And now, for a word from our sponsor on our latest war...

Ok, now we are bombing Libya? And Europeans can't even figure out who is in charge.

What was Yogi Berra's expression: This feels like deja vu all over again. But at least it can take our minds off the Japanese nuclear reactor crisis.


First of several hydrogen blasts at the Fukushima nuclear complex.

Fortunately, the light at the end of the tunnel in the Fukushima crisis seems to be something less horrific than the oncoming train.


And now for something worth revisiting.

Cerrillos and St. Francis Bike Trap

The New Mexican had an article a few days ago about NM-DoT putting up the bicycle vs. railroad tracks hazard sign (see below) because more than a few cyclists are crashing hard upon crossing the tracks at Cerrillos and St. Francis. This intersection is a huge issue, given that it basically bisects much of Santa Fe and carries a tremendous amount of traffic.

Basically, even under more optimal conditions, you have to maneuver yourself into position in order to cross railroad tracks with your front wheel as close to a right angle to the tracks as you can. That means taking the lane and using it to optimize your approach to the tracks, esp. on Cerrillos. As one commenter, an LCI, alludes below, and I concur, its not even likely that a considerable number of cyclists (most?) can do this maneuver at this intersection, given the angles and heavy traffic. See the comment at the end.

At any rate, take a look at the video.But this is one intersection where I would be wise to advise many cyclists that unless you are pretty sure of yourself, to dismount and use the ped crossings, at least if you are headed Southwest (?)on Cerillos or turning left from Cerrillos to St. Francis headed south. Or, if turning left, delay the left as long as possible to minimize getting your wheel parallel to the tracks.


How to Properly Cross Rail Tracks on your Bike from Streetfilms on Vimeo.

Note: Click on the pictures below to see them at full size.

Looking North on St. Francis (sidewalk and road). It doesn't look too bad. The tracks are not parallel, but not a terrible angle.

 

West on Cerrillos (sidewalk and road) and its bad. The tracks cross at a very high angle to your approach. The two left turn lanes are to the left (in the pic) of the RR crossing X sign. It looks to me like the sidewalk is just as dangerous--you have to veer left to avoid that idiotically placed sign, thus steering close to parallel to the tracks. And I'd bet anyone a beer that the sign planted in the middle of the sidewalk is an ADA violation. Someone needs to call a lawyer.

The new Beware of Death sign.

Although this sign is good as far as it goes, i.e., that it alerts cyclists to use caution, NM DoT needs to do much better. This sign does not show cyclists how to deal with the situation or how hazardous it is. Nor does this treatment take into account that NMDoT and the RailRunner have made cycling through the heart of Santa Fe hazardous. But if you have to ride here, consider dismounting and crossing the worst parts of this intersection as a pedestrian. Or, check out the sign and the technique shown in the video I embedded, courtesy of Streetsfilms and the Cascade Bicycle Club. I doubt their sign is MUTCD compliant, but not sure this sign is either.

Maybe the long and convoluted discussion of a bike-ped specific crossing (see below for examples of discussion) should actually get some serious consideration. The bottom line is that for cyclists, this critical intersection is unsafe at any speed.

 St. Francis-Cerrillos crossing: Too late to do it right?
Plans for Overpass Go Badly

11-17-10 Addition: Comments from Tim Rogers, BPE consultant with the Santa Fe MPO and former NM BPE Coordinator:

1.  Khal: I did not see any comment about the NEW signs blocking the sidewalk, which they do, particularly on approach to the skewed sidewalk crossing. I have commented to Tom Trowbridge of NMDOT on this.

I have stopped many times to watch cyclists use the sidewalk and have seen two go down plus one close call - by someone who had been verbally warned by me. I have seen or heard about ambulances at the spot picking up cyclists more than once. All four members of the "car-free family" have gone down there. I have heard additional testimony to BTAC and anecdotal evidence such as what you have posted. So there is no doubt in my mind that the actual number of persons who have gone down on the sidewalk alone is in the hundreds. There could have been a huge improvement through City's current at-grade trail project by creating a perpindicular link to this sidewalk, but it seems as far as the city is concerned it is NMDOT's problem. I live six blocks from here and unlike the designers, I will have to use whatever is built.

I will make the claim that I know AASHTO bike guidelines and AASHTO and FHWA pedestrian safety design better than anyone in the state. Unlike anyone involved in this project, it is 100% of my professional focus. I have crossed this intersection on foot or bike more than a thousand times. I have visited the intersection with national pedestrian safety and trail design consultants. I asked both the city and the consultant to be part of the design process over a year ago and never heard back until there was a final design for an at-grade trail that does not address this, takes a circuitous route to avoid having to purchase right of way, and includes no improvements at ADA ramps or crosswalk.  Apparently the intention is for cyclists to dismount to cross, which is not an approach support by any guidance.

There is a lot that could be done very easily if the city chose to discuss options. To have been excluded from this process and then see that they have broken ground with this design frankly turns my stomach.

2.  Believe it or not the skewed rail and the overpass/underpass are almost completely unrelated except where this at-grade connection is concerned.  The overpass/underpass is for the Acequia trail to the north, not for ped or bike movements at the nearby intersection which there is no way it can logically serve in any convenient way.  So it only solves skewed rail issue for acequia trail users, who should never really have had to cross the rail in the first place.  The overpass/underpass would never be recommendable if there were no direct trail alignment for it to serve.

That said, the at grade connections to signalized crosswalks at St F and Cerrillos are needed in any case (with or without grade separated trail crossing), which I have always advocated for (with improvements) and that is what the city is building right now (albeit not with any improvements to road crossing.

Skewed rail on sidewalk is an easy fix that city is missing by pursuing the easiest (for them) at-grade trail alignment, which is well north of the tracks where the grade separated alignment should be someday, along acequia and then along St. Francis Dr. itself, which is not only longer than the direct rail line route but longer than the existing hazardous sidewalk route.

If they had thought of this segment as the Rail Trail, which it is, they could have pursued ROW to hug the north side of the rail line, the most direct alignment to the intersection, and then they would have created an easy opportunity to create a pedestrian link directly across rail to sidewalk so people using that sidewalk could cross the rail at a perpindicular angle.  All using the same existing concrete pad that is part of the sidewalk today.  (That reason alone should be enough to simply purchase the ROW which is useless to owner - NMSD - anyway.)  They would be creating a superior alignment to get to the crosswalks from the Railyard Park, with no rail crossing, which is an indirect solution, AND they would be able to directly solve the sidewalk problem for bikes, strollers, wheelchairs etc., for anyone that still happens to use the sidewalk.  This concept has been on our web site since last December (see http://santafempo.org/long-range-mtp-update/bikeways-planning/ , Bikeway Planning Presentation, Inset B) all of which I would have been happy to work with city and/or consultant on in the year-plus since I offered my assistance.

OK, then they could eradicate the remaining sidewalk between the rail and the intersection so that there would be no skewed sidewalk crossing anymore.  That in fact MIGHT in turn create some space for pavement along Cerrillos Rd. to create a kind of escape area so that on-road cyclists could cross the rail at a perpendicular angle too, as shown on your blog and in AASHTO guidance on this issue.  That concept is complicated by the impending right turn onto northbound St. Francis but in any case it is well beyond the scope of anything that the city or its consultants might have thought about under the current project.

If possible, that all would at least address two out of three of the skewed rail problems, but especially the worst, the sidewalk.  The third problem, which is harder to address, is for eastbound cyclists on Cerrillos.  Although NMDOT put up a sign on northbound St. Francis Dr. too, the approaches to the rail on St. Francis Dr. and on crosswalks along St Francis Dr. are far less significant because the skew is really not so bad there.  I have not heard of anyone falling because they were riding on or along St. Francis Dr.