by Jennifer O'Connell | Oct 15, 2019 | Auto Accident, Bicycle Accident, Brain Injury, Colorado, DUI, Motorcycle Accident, Pedestrian Accident, Personal Injury, Trucking Accident
Current State of Denver Roads
If you haven’t seen the signs or the persistent social media posts about Vision Zero, then you have definitely seen changing road shapes around the Denver Metro area. Extra bike lanes are going in, barriers between motor and bike lanes are building up, speed barriers are popping up, and speed limits are dropping. This is all part of Denver Public Work’s efforts to stamp out traffic collisions and deaths, bringing the later to “Zero.” According to the City and County of Denver, an auto collision has a 40% Chance of causing serious or fatal injury at 30 mph. That stat, however, skyrockets to 73% just by increasing the speed to 40 mph. In the Denver city limits, as of October 12, 63 people have died in collisions, and since 2016, 41% of those were due to speed. Fatalities have continued to increase every single year for the last nine years. Of the 63 fatalities so far this year, 2 were cyclists, 17 were pedestrians, 15 were motorcyclists, and 29 were vehicle occupants.
Denver Vision Zero has set a county-wide goal to have zero traffic deaths by 2030. Rather, though, than simply announce a lofty goal and simply flash stats on overhead announcement boards on the highways, the City and County of Denver have enacted an Action Plan to take proactive steps towards the goal. The first step involved analysis. Vision Zero members analyzed not only fatal collisions themselves looking for causes, but they also constructed a map of the areas within the county lines at which there were serious or fatal collisions over the last six years. You can find this map below or interact by clicking here. You can clearly note roads like Federal, Colfax, and 6th Avenue lighting up like a light-bright as hotbeds for major collisions. In fact, an ancillary map highlighting just the routes labeled High Injury Network zones (HIM), shows that while these roads account for only 5% of Denver streets, the account for 37% of fatal collisions and 40% of serious injuries. And county-wide, motor-vehicle collisions account for twice the number of deaths than homicide. In fact, traffic collisions are the #2 leading cause of hospitalizations in Denver County.
It is also interesting to note that Vision Zero identified that most collisions in these HIN routes are crashes happening near schools and in neighborhoods primarily comprised of lower income, disabled, and elderly citizens. In these areas, speed, aggressive driving, distracted driving, and impaired driving were the top causes of serious and fatal collisions.
What are the next steps in the Action Plan?
The five priorities within the action plan, laid out for the public here, are:
- Enhance City Processes and Collaboration
- Build Safe Streets for Everyone
- Create Safe Speeds
- Promote a Culture of Safety
- Improve Data and Be Transparent
How does this translate into increased safety and less traffic collisions?
To the city and county government, enhancing city processes and collaboration includes adding departments within local governments focused primarily on traffic safety, including studies, economic appropriation, and governmental reaction to tragedies. And the “building safe streets for everyone” phase is already visible in many neighborhoods. Vision Zero has already begun re-configuring streets and intersections to reduce speed, enhance bicycle and pedestrian detection, and improving light and visibility at crossings. A part of phase two is also significant enough to the effort for Vision Zero to make a separately delineated phase. Creating safer speeds city-wide has begun in several parts, with greater speed enforcement, lower speed limits in neighborhoods and school zones, and street design changes to create safer cycling and walking lanes and force lower speeds for vehicles though the use of barriers and speed bumps.
The next phase seems tricky, and it is the opinion of Queener Law that the city has failed already in some aspects of the promotion of a culture of safety. When e-bikes and scooters hit the streets of Denver, the city was behind the eight-ball with education and regulation. Since then, the city has tripped over itself, releasing multiple complicated ordinances for how these multi-modal measures should interact with other established traffic, and education of the community has failed in spade. Traffic collisions involving scooters and bikes have continued to rise. Vision Zero intends to correct those mistakes, and make better efforts to educate and make available alternate modes of travel outside of driving. It is the opinion of the Vision Zero team that multi-modal methods will not only reduce traffic, but they should also reduce traffic deaths, aggressive and impaired drivers from occupying the road, and give a broad range of safe methods of transportation to the HIN zones.
Finally, Vision Zero does not intend to rest on the current data and act accordingly. They are making a promise to the community to continue the analysis and make honest reports to the public of the successes, failures, or stagnation of their efforts. Many more details of the Action Plan are available here. And Queener Law occupies a position on the Mobility Council for the Downtown Denver Partnership, an organization that tasks itself with advising local leaders of what our community members are thinking and feeling about the government’s actions with regards to safety. Take a look at what the local government has planned for your neighborhood, and let us know your thoughts. Queener Law will take them back to the Partnership and push for the government to be advised. We will ensure the government hears us, and therefore hears you, about our collective safety. Traffic collisions are not an inevitability. How do you think we can prevent them?
by Jennifer O'Connell | Mar 18, 2019 | Bicycle Accident, Colorado
More than a Ticket — Colorado Protects Its Vulnerable Riders
You’re at the end of a long day, just a few miles from your home, your couch, and your family, and a driver veers into the bike lane, cell phone in hand, and now your favorite specialized bike is laying on the shoulder, wheels in a position that could make a Cirque performer cringe. But that’s not even the biggest problem. Your son has practice tomorrow, but you’re not going to be able to coach the team. You are on your way to urgent care with what you have a sneaking suspicion is a sprained ankle and what you hope is not a torn rotator cuff. The road rash is just a secondary issue you’ll deal with in the shower.
Now, on top of missing work for the next two weeks and sitting out of sports practice, you have to hunt down the incident report, field calls from insurance companies, try to find a replacement for your old-faithful ride — all while juggling doctor’s appointments and physical therapy. And what happens to that cell-toting multi-tasker who got this joyous ball rolling? Their insurance covers the repair bill for the scratches to their paint, they pay their deductible, and they maybe, just maybe, mail a small check into the city for a traffic ticket for carelessness. But in the state of Colorado, that may be about to change!
Senate Bill 19–175, proposed this session in the state legislature, could officially criminalize carelessness that results in serious bodily injury.
If the bill passes, it will become Colorado Revised Statute 42–4–1402.5, which will make it a class 1 traffic misdemeanor to cause “serious bodily injury” to a “vulnerable road user” while engaged in “careless driving.” Sounds like a lot of quid pro quo, so let’s break it down:
Careless Driving: CRS § 42–4–1402 defines careless driving as operating a motor vehicle “in a careless and imprudent manner, without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, and use of the streets and highways, and all other attendant circumstances.” A solid “kitchen sink” technique of defining a legal standard. But authorities have used “careless driving” to encompass things like speed, failure to obey the Move Over laws, cell phone usage, and other general methods of distracted driving.
Vulnerable Road Use: Now this part is clearly articulated in a lengthy — sometimes oddity encompassing — recitation contained within the bill itself. It includes:
- Pedestrians
- Workers on the roadway or on utilities along the roadway
- Emergency services using a right-of-way
- Peace officers outside their vehicle or in a right-of-way capacity
- Persons leading an animal or riding an animal
- Cyclists, tricycle riders, and assisted bicycle occupants
- Farm vehicle users
- Skateboarders
- Roller skaters
- Scooter riders
- Moped and motorcyclists
- Animal-drawn vehicles
- Sleds
- Electric personal assistive mobility devices
- Wheelchairs
- Baby strollers, and Non-motorized pull wagons
Serious Bodily Injury: Section 18–1–901 of the Colorado Revised Statues defines “serious bodily injury” as an injury in which “either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, involved a substantial risk of death, a substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or breaks, fractures, or burns of the second or third degree.” Yet another conglomeration that legislatures are so good at constructing. For as long as Colorado has been a state, arguments have occurred over what degree of injury is required to be deemed “serious.” Breaks and fractures are clearly defined, but what about a major sprain, a torn ligament, a concussion or a back injury? All of these fit within the parameters of an injury that could cause a protracted loss or impairment of function, and it is out position that if you are a vulnerable road user who is stuck with any of these types of wounds, you will have zero doubt as to your qualification for “serious bodily injury.”
So now what? What happens to the culprit? Under the new bill, CRS § 42–4–1402.5 would allow police to investigate and charge careless drivers with a Class 1 Traffic Misdemeanor open to the following penalties:
- Attend a Driver Improvement Course
- Community Service of up to 320 hours
- Restitution to the Injured Party
- One-year suspension of Driver’s License
These are much stiffer penalties than the previous fines associated with careless driving citations. Because this is a truly criminal offense, and because we all have the right to be protected against unreasonable and unlawful punishments, everyone charged under this section will have the right to defend themselves. True accidental collisions will not apply to this new proposed statue.
Co-sponsor of the bill, Representative Dylan Roberts, told the Meghan Lopez of The Denver Channel that “[y]ou have to be found guilty of careless driving, so if it’s truly an accident, you’re not going to be liable under this bill.”
The legislature appears to have made it a priority to protect malicious or overuse of this statute, while balancing the importance of protecting the outlined vulnerable road populations. Just last week, an officer and a utility worker were killed in road accidents. Several motorcyclists were either injured or lost their lives. And no need for exaggeration here: cyclists and pedestrians are struck at a seriously alarming rate. In a state like ours where people are especially conscious of more environmentally friendly and healthy modes of transportation, not to mention mobility methods that allow us to enjoy the world-class weather, keeping an eye to safety protections is especially vital.
As this bill makes its way through the legislature, feel free to contact us with questions or in a search for more information about how this statute could affect your commute and safety.
by Queener Law | Dec 7, 2017 | Bicycle Accident, Tennessee
Two-thirds of hospitalizations and approximately 75 percent of fatalities that are caused by bicycle accidents are a result of head injuries. According to extensive research, one of the most effective ways to prevent head injuries in cycling accidents is to wear a helmet. Historically, helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by about 50 percent, and the risk of severe face, head, and neck injury by approximately 33 percent.
Bicycle Helmet Laws in Tennessee
In Tennessee, it is unlawful for any person under the age of 16 to operate a bike or be a passenger on a bicycle without wearing a protective bicycle helmet that is properly fitted and secured. It is also illegal for parents and guardians to permit children under 12 years of age to ride bicycles without helmets. Additionally, it is unlawful for businesses to rent or lease bicycles to kids under 16 unless they have a helmet in their possession at the time of the rental or one is provided with the lease. When serious injuries or fatalitiesoccur, parents, guardians, and businesses who violate these laws may be able to be held liable for the damages that are suffered.
There are currently no laws in place in Tennessee that govern the use of bicycle helmets by adults. Society has been thoroughly educated about the benefits of wearing a helmet when cycling, and although wearing a helmet lowers the odds of a serious head injury occurring, many adults still choose to ride unprotected. The risk of severe complications from head injuries caused by bicycle crashes increases with age, however, and adult cyclists should wear properly fitted helmets as well.
Choosing the Right Helmet
Smart decisions lead to safer outcomes. Cyclists should follow certain guidelines when choosing a helmet:
- Snug Fit –A helmet should fit snugly and not move when the head moves forward to back or side to side. Trying on a variety of helmets is suggested to assure a good fit.
- Good Ventilation – A helmet should have good ventilation to increase comfort, particularly in hot temperatures.
- Comfortable Weight – Although helmet weight does not vary tremendously, slight weight variations can make a difference in comfort levels.
- Enjoy Wearing – It is important to pick a helmet that is easy to wear, as it is more likely it will get use all of the time if the rider is happy with it.
by Queener Law | May 30, 2017 | Bicycle Accident, Tennessee
Children are particularly vulnerable to series head and neck injuries due to bicycle accidents, therefore, the Tennessee passed a mandatory bicycle helmet statute (“the Act”) to require all children under 16 years old to wear helmets while operating a bicycle. However, the Act does not mandate helmets for anyone 16 and over; therefore, the protections are only partially extended.
The Legislature found that fewer than five percent of children nationwide wear helmets despite extensive evidence that they prevent or obviate serious disability or death if an accident occurs.
Definitions
The Act includes all bicycles, including multi-seats and tandem-operated bikes. However, it specifically excludes tricycles. The Helmet Law covers both the operator and passengers on a bike. Therefore, a child riding a bike operated by an adult would be required to wear a helmet.
Special Rules for Children
In addition to the helmet rule, the Act also created a second safety requirement for children under 40 pounds or under 40 inches in height which obligated them to ride in separate seats with restraints (i.e. belts). Therefore, bikes marketed with spare seats who want to cater to children must include safety belts.
Penalties
For adult offenders (i.e. parents who do not put helmets on their kids) the fine is two dollars. However, if within a year of the offense, the accused purchases a helmet and provides proof – they may recover the fine or avoid paying it entirely. Children are not fined or punished for failing to wear a helmet.
Effect on Adults
While anyone 16 and over is excluded from the Helmet Law, the failure to wear a helmet in an accident may be considered by the court as evidence that any award of compensation should be reduced. The courts take the position that plaintiffs who are partially responsible for the accident or their injuries should have their compensation reduced to reflect the plaintiff’s contribution to their injury.
Concerning bicycle accidents, if an adult fails to wear a helmet and suffers substantial injuries in an accident (injuries that could have been reduced by a helmet), the court may consider that as evidence that his damages should be reduced. Moreover, this presumption is reinforced when the Government passes laws or publishes reports that find wearing helmets is safer and affords greater protection.
However, Tennessee specifically excludes the use of failure to wear a helmet or safety restraint, as evidence in any civil trial.
