Read on Twitter
Live tweeting some highlights from the @DenBicycleLobby meetup with Prof. @greg_shill - Talking about his paper- "Should the law subsidize driving". Greg lived in Denver in 2013-2014. Didn't have a car when he lived here.
Driving is both a public health and a climate crises problem. Noted that "secondhand driving" is an issue. Even if you don't drive, you are exposed to the air pollution.
Over 100 people are killed per day by car crashes. Serious crash injuries from cars occur once every 7 seconds. Early data showing during COVID, crash deaths and crash rates are both increasing.
Emissions- an additional 58,000 people are killed each year by car emissions (tailpipe and non-tailpipe). They come from tires, brake pads as well as the engine. Causing, asthma, heart disease, brain damage.
Total of ~94,000 American killed each year by car crashes and emissions.
Equity- there is a disproportionate amount of this damage that is done on communities for color and poor families. So many of these communities live near interstates that were built through their neighborhoods.
In the last decade- deaths of pedestrians have gone up by 50%. 6,227 in 2018 alone. One explanation is that the size of vehicles has gone up. Pedestrians 2-3x more likely to die when hit by SUVs and pickups. Children 5-9 4x more likely to die.
Federal safety regulators have known about this for years. But continue to lecture pedestrians to make eye contact with drivers instead of making meaningful changes.
CLIMATE CHANGE- Operating emissions from cars are the 1# source of Greenhouse Gases in the US. That's just from the car moving, does not include the manufacturing of the car or construction of the roads.
Cars are very inefficient ways to move people. When the population increases, the amount of miles people have to drive actually go up more. VMT growth is outpacing population growth in Denver.
The level of driving is too high. The cost of driving is too high, both direct and externalities. Individuals can't opt out of this car network because it is needed to get around for many right now. So collective action to provide more sustainable networks for travel is required
Higher performing solutions to driving crashes are outlawed by states often. EG- Red light cameras (TX), Light rail projects (IN), Speed cameras (NY - expect NYC a little last year).
At the system level, things like parking quotas, exclusionary zoning, make it challenging for other networks and affordable housing. For example, there are 1.6 million parking spaces in Desmoines, IA for les than 275,000 people. The space is used for cars.
85% of pollution (PM2.5 emissions) from cars are not from the tailpipe, it's from brake dust, tire dust etc.
The law- Unlike 44 countries, the US auto regulations have not adopted rules protected people outside the car. Insurance requirements for body injuries are very small relative to the cost of medical expenses from crashes.
Subsidies- You can get a $7500 tax credit for a $100,000 EV, but nothing for a $2500 ebike that is more efficient.
Tort law- we have a special criminal offense for homicide by car. There are no parallels to that for any other weapon or device other than cars. If someone throws a hammer out the window, it's homicide. But we have a special car homicide law that has lower penalties
history behind it. Prosecutors having trouble getting convictions for driving because jurors wouldn't convict fellow drivers. So they lowered the bar.
How can we do better? Have certain parts of a city that have very few calls, or at least have interventions on the streets where people bike to make it better.
Great example- NYC outlawed smoking, and everyone thought bars would all go out of business. Ends up people came to bars more because it was more enjoyable.
Presenting the positive vision is more helpful to present, than the anti-vision of the status quo.
Q&A time. Q- Some people are starting to use the law to hold cities accountable for unsafe design. A- states, and cities have a lot of immunities. In one case, a court found (and expanded by high court), against a government.
At a high level, NY courts found if a city knows that a design is dangerous, they could be held liable. Lots of intricacies to this, over simplifying. Greg has a paper he wrote on this.
Another interesting question is injunctions- could someone sue for a city to fix a poorly designed street?
A few cases in LA, similar to the NYC case, settled for very large sums.
GS- A lot of what needs to happen for advocacy to work is winning hearts and minds.
"Every single powerful person in America drives. This is something they [leaders] don't see."
The fact that very few people vote in local government elections means that there is an opening for advocacy groups to make a difference
American spend more time in traffic than almost any other country. Drivers in US have extremely high death rates compared to OECD peers.
This car supremacy in the US kills a disproportionate amount of Blacks, Latinos, and Wheelchair users. A systematic problem parallels other systematic problems.
Q- what laws would help with this problem? A- Scott Weiner's laws in California are good examples to look at. Look at other states at a national view or talk to @BikeLeague to see what is working elsewhere.
Q- why do prosecutors not push high charges when crashes kill people? A- prosecutors are reluctant to take on uphill battles to convict drivers. Focus of advocates should be hearts and minds with neighbors, changing the law and system is tougher. Get neighbors to push pols
Q- what surprised you in your research. A- I'm surprised at all the restrictions for sustainable transport. Don't track red/blue lines. You just don't see national politicians encouraging people to ride the bus. Pollution, injuries per year also shocking to him.
The health costs also surprising. Mild TBI from a car crash (car/car) could reduce IQ by 14 points. And also cause long term PTSD.
Q- Some cities use MUTCD to say they can't do shared streets or open streets. Is that valid? A- When mounting a defense, easy to say you did something in line with the standard. Some adopt MUTCD wholesale. But, it's a manual, they don't have to abide by the letter of it.
Fear of liability when they depart from the MUTCD. Not a crazy fear. But departing from that manual is more of a political question. But NACTO guidelines could just as easily be cited.
It's not the engineers that put engineers in the position of power. It is politicians that put engineers in positions of power. The best way to change that is having politicians that change the direction of the engineers. - paraphrasing here
The political angle is key to change mind and raise the salience of these issues. Widening the sidewalk or adding a bike lane is not a big priority for most citizens. If 5% of people are very loud about their parking being removed, it really impacts the politics of it.
Talked about the importance of bike lane networks going in as opposed to individual bikes lanes (way to go DOTI), as a much better way to allow people to travel in a city.
That's it. This was my best job to get down Greg's ideas, so not necessarily a representation of Greg's ideas.
