Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

x close
The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Extra Fizz: Bike Bills Move Forward in Olympia

News   January 15, 2010 at 2:17 pm Erica C. Barnett

http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/2835100256_d0bf3b9471_o.jpg

Two bills supported by cycling advocates are moving forward in the state legislature.

The first, the so-called “vulnerable users bill,” would enhance criminal penalties for people who carelessly hit and injure a cyclist, pedestrian, wheelchair user, skater, farm equipment operator, or someone riding on an animal. The bill has been softened significantly from last year’s version, which would have made it possible to jail certain drivers who injured vulnerable roadway users like cyclists.

The new version—sponsored, like last year’s by Sen. Joe McDermott (D-34)—would enhance the state’s negligent driving law so that anyone who kills a vulnerable user while committing second-degree negligent driving will, within one year, be required to complete a traffic-safety course and perform up to 200 hours of community service. Additionally, anyone guilty under the new law would have to pay a fine of up to $5,000, have their license suspended for 90 days, and show up for a hearing to prove they’ve completed all the terms of their sentence.

The second bill would require the state Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to consider the benefits of non-motorized transportation projects when evaluating which projects are worth funding, instead of limiting itself to “congestion relief,” code for more roads. Although Cascade Bicycle Club policy director David Hiller initially called the idea “seditious” in Olympia’s pro-car political climate, the proposal actually appears to be gaining some momentum. In addition to the usual bike stalwarts (Hans Dunshee, D-44, Geoff Simpson, D-47, Brendan Williams, D-22, and Jim Moeller, D-49), the bill’s co-sponsors include Marko Liias, D-21 and Jay Rodne, R-5. That bill will get a bill number on Monday.

The vulnerable users bill, meanwhile, has a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 26. Hiller rates its chances of passage at “about 50-50,” adding, “I don’t have four ‘Nos” yet [on the eight-member committee], but I’ve only got four “Yeses.” The “maybe” is presumably James Hargrove (D-24), one of five Democrats on the committee.




  • joe

    bill numbers pls

  • joe

    bill numbers pls

  • http://www.worldchanging.com Alex

    About time someone took bikes seriously in this state.

  • Mahtli69

    The Vulnerable Users bill is ridiculously stupid. It is basically criminalizing accidents. It will do nothing to prevent vulnerable users from being injured or killed, so what’s the point?

    The second one sounds better, though I have no idea what it will actually do. It all sounds very subjective, and will require one additional rubber stamp before WSDOT does whatever they want to do anyway.

  • Mahtli69

    The Vulnerable Users bill is ridiculously stupid. It is basically criminalizing accidents. It will do nothing to prevent vulnerable users from being injured or killed, so what’s the point?

    The second one sounds better, though I have no idea what it will actually do. It all sounds very subjective, and will require one additional rubber stamp before WSDOT does whatever they want to do anyway.

  • Fred

    Will this mean trucks drivers that collide with cars will be jailed? SUVs that hit subcompacts? Fat people that knock over skinny people?

  • Fred

    Will this mean trucks drivers that collide with cars will be jailed? SUVs that hit subcompacts? Fat people that knock over skinny people?

  • http://www.totcycle.com/ Julian

    Is killing a pedestrian or cyclist while texting and eating breakfast and making an illegal turn an “accident” to you? The bill aims to criminalize the sort of negligent driving that keeps killing 400,000 people per year in the US, regardless of how much ‘safer’ cars are engineered. When people start to realize that those fatalities are not just the cost of doing business, or unforeseeable, unpreventable “accidents” is when those numbers will start to drop.

  • http://www.totcycle.com Julian

    Is killing a pedestrian or cyclist while texting and eating breakfast and making an illegal turn an “accident” to you? The bill aims to criminalize the sort of negligent driving that keeps killing 400,000 people per year in the US, regardless of how much ‘safer’ cars are engineered. When people start to realize that those fatalities are not just the cost of doing business, or unforeseeable, unpreventable “accidents” is when those numbers will start to drop.

  • morning fizzy

    400,000 per year – wow. maybe 100,000 are bicyclists.

    it is already the case that if you are driving with disregard for the safety of others, you can be charged with vehicular homicide – you are already civilly liable for any accident that is even partly your fault.

  • morning fizzy

    400,000 per year – wow. maybe 100,000 are bicyclists.

    it is already the case that if you are driving with disregard for the safety of others, you can be charged with vehicular homicide – you are already civilly liable for any accident that is even partly your fault.

  • http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/MyProfile?oid=1499875 Mahtli69

    @5 – If you want to save lives, design better roads and intersections. Give bikes their own right-of-way, out of car traffic. Eliminate uncontrolled crosswalks, and stop pretending that cars and pedestrians can safely coexist.

    400,000? I think you added a zero.

  • http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/MyProfile?oid=1499875 Mahtli69

    @5 – If you want to save lives, design better roads and intersections. Give bikes their own right-of-way, out of car traffic. Eliminate uncontrolled crosswalks, and stop pretending that cars and pedestrians can safely coexist.

    400,000? I think you added a zero.

  • GregSea

    @7 Sounds great. But doing that on a large scale in the short run would cost a lot of money – so you’re a big supporter of new taxes to … Yeah right, I thought not…

    @6 Actually no. You can practically speaking only charge people with “vehicular homicide” if they are drunk or otherwise severely impaired – talk to your local DA some time if you don’t believe me

    This sort of law is common in the sort of society that beats us on transport and health cost and performance metrics. Works there, might help us out here.

    And what are you afraid of? Bummed that you might have to actually pay a fine if you kill a cyclist or pedestrian while driving recklessly? Not exactly a fear to brag about – which I suppose explains all the red herrings you all are throwing around like so many Pike Place salmon …

  • GregSea

    @7 Sounds great. But doing that on a large scale in the short run would cost a lot of money – so you’re a big supporter of new taxes to … Yeah right, I thought not…

    @6 Actually no. You can practically speaking only charge people with “vehicular homicide” if they are drunk or otherwise severely impaired – talk to your local DA some time if you don’t believe me

    This sort of law is common in the sort of society that beats us on transport and health cost and performance metrics. Works there, might help us out here.

    And what are you afraid of? Bummed that you might have to actually pay a fine if you kill a cyclist or pedestrian while driving recklessly? Not exactly a fear to brag about – which I suppose explains all the red herrings you all are throwing around like so many Pike Place salmon …

  • Matt

    I would support bills such as these, if there were companion bills which made cyclists more responsible for their actions as well.

    If they run red lights, blow through stop signs, knock over pedestrians, weave in and out of traffic, talk on cell phones or are involved in an accident, shouldn’t they be as liable as a person driving a car?

  • Matt

    I would support bills such as these, if there were companion bills which made cyclists more responsible for their actions as well.

    If they run red lights, blow through stop signs, knock over pedestrians, weave in and out of traffic, talk on cell phones or are involved in an accident, shouldn’t they be as liable as a person driving a car?

  • kurisu

    @9 Uh, they are already. The bicyclist who knocked over and severely injured a small child near Pike Place while running a red light was charged with vehicular assault.

  • kurisu

    @9 Uh, they are already. The bicyclist who knocked over and severely injured a small child near Pike Place while running a red light was charged with vehicular assault.

  • Al

    Cyclists are already subject to tickets, fines, arrests and jail time if the legal infrastructure finds them so guilty. Sure, vehicles are already subject to these same laws and ramifications, but due to the sheer number and size of motor vehicles they do much more damage overall than cyclists and pedestrians when involved in an accident.

    Note that the subject of this road bill is not discussing tickets for red light running here, but specifically a vulernable road user which is different than a person driving a motor vehicle protected from minor accidents and mishaps, “This group can be defined in a number of ways. What is always important is the lack of external protection and in many cases also the task capacity… there is also often a difference in speed with other road users.” http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Vulnerable_road_users.pdf

    In a minor accident a pedestrian, wheelchair user or cyclist is vastly more likely to have major injuries or death in a collision with a motor vehicle. Those drivers who cause injury due to negligence or aggressive driving should feel the burden more since they bear the burden of a vehicle capable of doing extreme damage or cause the death of a vulnerable road user.

  • Al

    Cyclists are already subject to tickets, fines, arrests and jail time if the legal infrastructure finds them so guilty. Sure, vehicles are already subject to these same laws and ramifications, but due to the sheer number and size of motor vehicles they do much more damage overall than cyclists and pedestrians when involved in an accident.

    Note that the subject of this road bill is not discussing tickets for red light running here, but specifically a vulernable road user which is different than a person driving a motor vehicle protected from minor accidents and mishaps, “This group can be defined in a number of ways. What is always important is the lack of external protection and in many cases also the task capacity… there is also often a difference in speed with other road users.” http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Vulnerable_road_users.pdf

    In a minor accident a pedestrian, wheelchair user or cyclist is vastly more likely to have major injuries or death in a collision with a motor vehicle. Those drivers who cause injury due to negligence or aggressive driving should feel the burden more since they bear the burden of a vehicle capable of doing extreme damage or cause the death of a vulnerable road user.

  • josh

    Cyclists are already just as liable as motorists for any damages they cause.

    What’s different is the scale of risk. Motorists in the U.S. kill as many people as 9/11 every single month. That’s why motorists are required to carry liability insurance, and why that insurance costs so much.

    Cyclists so rarely injure people or damage property that you can’t even *buy* bicycle liability insurance from most companies — it’s included at no extra cost in homeowners insurance, or even your basic $10/month renter’s insurance policy.

  • josh

    Cyclists are already just as liable as motorists for any damages they cause.

    What’s different is the scale of risk. Motorists in the U.S. kill as many people as 9/11 every single month. That’s why motorists are required to carry liability insurance, and why that insurance costs so much.

    Cyclists so rarely injure people or damage property that you can’t even *buy* bicycle liability insurance from most companies — it’s included at no extra cost in homeowners insurance, or even your basic $10/month renter’s insurance policy.

  • JAT

    @5 “…stop pretending that cars and pedestrians can safely coexist.”

    Do you really believe this? How do you get to and from your car, and are you injured every time?

    Since every motorist is at times a pedestrian, and (with apologies to that small minority who are non-ambulatory) every resident of the state is a pedestrian put at risk by cars, maybe we should restrict them to the only roads where there aren’t pedestrians, i.e. the freeways.

    In the alternative, we could simply demand that vehicle operators (and I include cyclists in that group) do so with more care and consideration for the presence of others. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

  • JAT

    @5 “…stop pretending that cars and pedestrians can safely coexist.”

    Do you really believe this? How do you get to and from your car, and are you injured every time?

    Since every motorist is at times a pedestrian, and (with apologies to that small minority who are non-ambulatory) every resident of the state is a pedestrian put at risk by cars, maybe we should restrict them to the only roads where there aren’t pedestrians, i.e. the freeways.

    In the alternative, we could simply demand that vehicle operators (and I include cyclists in that group) do so with more care and consideration for the presence of others. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

  • sigh

    Vulnerable user’s bill…you mean SB 5838? Introduced last year, died in committee, and re-introduced by resolution (like all bills that did not have a final vote on the floor in the previous year of the biennium)? That bill? Same one?

    Please understand how the process works when reporting, and try to explain it properly. A great book on the process is Sine Die by Ed Seeberger.

  • sigh

    Vulnerable user’s bill…you mean SB 5838? Introduced last year, died in committee, and re-introduced by resolution (like all bills that did not have a final vote on the floor in the previous year of the biennium)? That bill? Same one?

    Please understand how the process works when reporting, and try to explain it properly. A great book on the process is Sine Die by Ed Seeberger.

  • http://www.worldchanging.com/ Alex

    About time someone took bikes seriously in this state.