Charlotte’s “Booty Loop” is the biggest minefield of crash scene memories. I haven’t really experienced anything like the Booty Loop in other places I’ve lived. I’ve known business parks or industrial complexes that empty out at night, making the roads there ideal for evening training rides. The Booty Loop is a 3.2 mile loop in a busy residential area near a growing and popular business/restaurant/bar area. It’s the original location for the mega charity event 24hoursofbooty.

I find myself there several times a week. The beautiful streets are lined with ancient oak trees, Charlotte’s most prominent citizens’ mansions, churches and Queen’s College. On weekdays it’s a route into and out of town for many people. When the weather is nice, and sometimes when it isn’t, the streets and sidewalks are packed with all kinds of cyclists, runners and pedestrians. Put everything together and it’s a perfect recipe for all sorts of interesting interactions.

I’ve actually lost count of how many Booty Loop crashes we’ve handled. But I can say that they all have one thing in common – they all involve intersections. Despite the competition for space on the road, especially on Selwyn/Queens, where people park for Queens College and the churches and the road narrows to one lane, we haven’t had a case that involved a buzzing or even an unintentional failure to provide enough space while passing. I’m sure that’s happened there, but based on our own, very anecdotal statistics, it’s not what you have to worry about most when you’re out there on your bike.

What you DO have to worry about though, is the driver turning left without really looking, the one trying to shoot the gap (or what they think is the gap) in traffic without stopping in the median, the one on the cell phone trying to get to school or church on time and not stopping to look carefully enough before crossing the oncoming lane of traffic. The shoot the gap move is what happened to the client in one of our pending cases.

The crash scene we rode through at lunch on Wednesday, was at an intersection of the road with a bike/pedestrian path that runs parallel to the light rail. The driver came to a red light, stopped, then didn’t look right at the bike path before pulling out. Our client was right there and the two collided. Unbelievably the insurance company denied liability – our client was riding the wrong way on the sidewalk, they said. Great, if we’re on a busy road, we should be on the sidewalk instead. If we’re on a bike path, then we should be on the road. If you know this location (near Scaleybark station) you know that it’s by far the most obvious place to be on your bike – not on busy South Boulevard and certainly not on the crazy, mangled up sidewalk lined with parking lots on the other side. The path is a wide, dedicated path, with very few openings to the road. Our client did everything right – watching the driver until he was sure he was stopped. Guess we’ll be fighting that one.

Today another crash hit home for me, this time in Raleigh. When I lived in Raleigh, I used to leave my house just north of town and wind my way in and out of roads just inside the Beltline. Lassiter Mill Road was one of those roads. Last night a cyclist, Christopher Mangum, was killed by a left turning driver on Lassiter Mill. Then it turned out that it wasn’t just any cyclist. First I learned that he was a friend of a friend I used to ride with. And of course then I learned that he was a great guy, with three kids.

It’s so hard to hear about these tragedies, especially when you realize you have some connection to them, or they become personalized because you learn about the person’s family and you can better visualize what they’re going through. It reminds me yet again why I do what I do and that I need to work even harder at it.

Riding a bicycle is one of the most wonderful, liberating and exhilarating things you can do. And it’s good for the world. You and your family should be able to do it safely. And I want to be able to ride one day without seeing crash scenes everywhere.

http://www.wcnc.com/charlotte-today/Biking-in-Charlotte-202536591.html

Beaux Jones’ passion for cycling dates to his childhood, when he
realized the freedom cycling provided for navigating his tiny hometown.

Today, Beaux is an avid bicycle commuter and recreational
cyclist actively involved in Louisiana bicycle advocacy. As a lawyer,
he aims to protect and advance awareness of cyclists’ legal rights in
order to make bicycling safer and more commonplace.

Beaux was born and raised in Ruston, Louisiana. He is a graduate of
Davidson College in North Carolina and Louisiana State University Law
Center in Baton Rouge. Beaux sees his bike as a vehicle for
transportation, competition and happiness and believes that increasing
Louisiana’s cycling ranks will make the state a healthier, more
productive and more appealing place to live.

If you are involved in a bicycle-related crash in Louisiana, you want
someone who understands your rights under Louisiana law. Contact
Beaux at 504-302-3285 or beaux@bikelaw.com. You will not pay any fees
unless money is collected on your behalf.

Beaux is also available to speak to bicycle clubs, advocacy groups,
and law enforcement personnel on bicycle safety and bicycle laws.

Monday morning my law partner Valerie Johnson and I lug all our crates of trial notebooks, transcripts, research, blown up exhibits and umbrellas (it was raining of course) from the parking deck, down the street to the courthouse, through security and up the prehistoric elevators to the 10th floor of the Wake County courthouse.

Now starts the most nerve-wracking, ok the second most nerve-wracking part of the trial (the first most is waiting for the jury to come back with a verdict – more on that later). What kind of jury pool will we get? Will all the witnesses show up on time? Have we thought of every possibly factual twist we’ll have to answer to?

As soon as we get there, we find out we have a different judge than we expected. Fine, except the new judge is known to bifurcate trials – meaning we have a trial on liability first, before the jury gets to hear details about damages and decide those. Also fine, except now we have to rearrange all our evidence and tweak our strategy – by tomorrow morning.

Before trial both sides made motions to exclude evidence that the jury shouldn’t hear. Among other things, we asked the judge to prevent the defense from saying anything about our client not wearing a helmet. Of course, he should have been wearing a helmet. But not having a helmet on had nothing to do with why the crash happened and it would just make the jury think he was just a careless person in general. That’s not basing their decision on the real evidence. In reality, our client is a very careful person and he’s been beating himself up for 3 years for having forgotten his helmet that night and deciding to continue his ride anyway. The judge says he wants to hear the evidence before deciding whether the helmet evidence comes in.

By the afternoon our jury venire (the pool of jurors we get to choose from) is ready and they file into the courtroom. Twelve are called to the box, given some brief instruction, and now we’re on. We have about 2 hours total (both sides) to find out everything we need to know about the twelve people who will be deciding the case we’ve been working on for about three years.

A daunting task.

Using most of our strikes, we end up with a pool of 4 woman (one of which is African American) and 8 white men. A couple of people ride bicycles on greenways and fire roads. One guy is a motorcyclist. The triathlete was dismissed by the defense. The judge dismissed the older skateboard/cyclist dude who said he couldn’t be fair to the defense. (Come on dude – keep an open mind. We need you!) It could have been worse – we could have ended up with the woman who thought it should be illegal for bicycles to be on the road. “I mean, in Ohio we had sidewalks and they could ride there.”

Jury selected sometime after 5pm and we all leave for the day. Opening statements in the morning. I wake up at 3:30 and after trying to sleep for a few minutes, figure I may as well work. After all, since we had to rearrange the trial, all of my witnesses are going to testify today and I’ll be ON almost all day.

After the opening statements we put on our first witness. Although not everything he says helps us, he may be the best witness I’ve ever seen – extremely likable, former Marine, fine upstanding man who was horrified to see our client’s crash.

The witness was sitting at an outdoor restaurant with friends in the area of town where our crash occurs. There are multiple eating and drinking establishments with lots of activity on a weekend summer night. He happens to look up and sees our client, on his bicycle, with a bright light on the front, coming down the hill toward him. He notices our client because he was riding “at a good clip.” He watches the bicycle all the way as it headed down the hill toward an intersection. Just then, he sees a black SUV making a turn very slowly in front of the bicycle. Our client, on the bicycle, yells out, locks his brakes and slams into the side of the car, smashing the rear passenger window and denting the door.

There are crowds of people out that night and everyone immediately runs to our client, still tangled up in his bicycle, and now bleeding all over the road. The SUV keeps going through the turn and people are yelling out, “get the license plate!” The driver pulls over and two young men get out of the car. Neither comes over to help our client, and the witness later sees them laughing and acting like nothing had happened. He notes the contrast to his girlfriend, who is sobbing because she thinks she has just witnessed a death.

The next witness is our client. He testifies that he is an experienced bicyclist. He doesn’t race or compete or even like to ride very fast, but he’s ridden his bicycle across the country to raise money for a charity that helps former child soldiers in Africa. He was out that night enjoying the outdoors and some exercise. He chose the area of town for a ride because it was well lit and had a lot of activity on the road – pedestrians, mopeds and pedicabs – as opposed to somewhere outside of town where it was dark and there were only cars on the road.

He did a loop through downtown Raleigh and was headed back down the road to his car. He recalls turning onto the street up until about a quarter mile before the crash. Then his memory is completely blank. Since he had no memory (probably because of the trauma) he could only say that the fastest he would likely have been traveling would have been 20-25 mph, and that’s because it was a downhill.

He next recalls waking up in the hospital where he woke up to hospital staff pulling glass out of his neck and dropping it in a bucket; he received over 300 stitches.

The defense cross examines him on his lack of memory. Then they ask him if he was wearing a helmet. We object. The judge lets it in.
Our final witness is an expert crash reconstructionist. Our expert is a former police officer, former intersection designer, an engineer and also a bicycle and motorcycle enthusiast and competitive triathlete who teaches cycling safety and trains police officers.

Early on, we asked the expert to review the case and tell us his findings. At the time, we had a police report with multiple witness statements saying our client was “flying” down the hill and weaving in and out of traffic (much of the police report turned out to be wrong – more on that later). We wanted to know what the scientific evidence said about what happened so we could advise our client how to go forward. The expert concluded that the driver was at fault and our client was not.

A note about expert witnesses. When liability is questioned, I want to know what really happened. I don’t look around for an expert that tells me what I want to hear. That would be stupid. I’d go through a whole lot of trouble and spend a lot of money for nothing. It doesn’t do anyone any good to fudge reality. I want the expert to tell me what really happened, good or bad. Every expert I have worked with understands that and does it. Most of them don’t want to ruin their own credibility either.

In any case, the expert testified that, considering the speed of both vehicles and the distance of the bicycle from the intersection, it would have been impossible for our client to be able to perceive that the car was a threat, process the threat and react to avoid the crash. He just didn’t have the time. We showed the jury blow-ups of the scene of the crash and photos of the damage to the driver’s car to explain the expert’s testimony.

On cross-examination, the defense focuses on the police reports and witness statements in the case. The police report is one of the worst I have ever seen, drawn up by a Raleigh officer who is no longer with the force. Thank goodness. I know some great Raleigh police officers. He was not one of them. In my personal meeting with him right after this happened, he told me he was a triathlete, but hated riding his bike and didn’t think people should ride bicycles on most roads, including the 35 mph urban road where our crash happened.

The officer documented several witness statements that were flat out wrong. The worst – a statement from a witness who purportedly said our client was all in an out of traffic, weaving erratically. We spoke with that witness who said he never saw our client until immediately before the crash and didn’t see any weaving or erratic behavior. He was sitting at the same restaurant as our witness, but had his back to the direction from which our client was coming. He did say our client was riding very fast, “the fastest I have ever seen anyone ride a bicycle.” (based on what he saw the final instant before the crash)

The expert talked about witness perception of speed and how unreliable it is generally, and especially by someone who is standing still and even more especially of someone who is riding a bicycle. All three bystanders testified our client was riding very fast. Although no one said he was going over the speed limit, the defense argued he was going too fast considering the traffic and that it was dark out.

We weren’t planning on bringing up the police report with our expert, because it was terrible. But once the defense brought it up, we asked our former police officer expert to explain: what was the significance of the number “1” written next to the words “alcohol involved.” He explained that it meant that the officer suspected alcohol use by the driver. We were pretty happy that now we did not have to call a police officer to the stand just to explain what that box meant. Oh, our former RPD friend did not take our defendant driver to the station for a breathalyzer either.
That was it for our evidence. We were pretty happy with the result and I think the defense was feeling a little nervous.

The defense called three witnesses – the one I already mentioned, and another guy who was driving down the road in the same direction as our client. He didn’t come across that well, and didn’t score too many additional points for the defense; he did testify that our client was riding his bicycle “very fast” and “flying down the hill.” He also said our client had almost clipped his car and had come around him on the right. We scored a few points with him, including that there was quite a bit of space between his car and the intersection when the crash happened – meaning there was a wide open gap, during which the driver should have seen our client approaching.

The highlight of the trial was the defendant’s testimony. I think I can safely say that he was the most arrogant, entitled, 20 something I have ever seen. The defense attorney really had no choice but to put him on the stand, since he was the driver, but he made sure to get his testimony done as quickly as possible. Then came our turn. It was Valerie’s turn to cross examine. (She was the secret weapon because she is one of the best cross examiners I have ever seen.) In the driver’s deposition, over a year ago, I had asked him what the distance was between him (at the intersection) and the next oncoming car. He had said 50 yards. He said it four times during the deposition. At the end, his attorney asked for a break to speak with his client. When they returned, the attorney asked the driver (who works in commercial real estate) whether he’d be more comfortable estimating distances in car lengths versus yards. He said yes and then said the next car was 3-4 car lengths away. At trial he said 4-5 car lengths. After pointing out how sure he had been about the 50 yards, Valerie asked him what distance he decided it was now, he said, “we’re all constructing our testimony here today.”

She also questioned him about his testimony that he drank one beer while at his home with his friend (the passenger , whose family owned the SUV) between 7:30 and 10:30. The friend tossed the driver the keys to the SUV. They never could get their story straight about why the friend put the driver behind the wheel. At trial, the driver (remember he is in his 20s) said it was because he was picky and didn’t like to park his Lexus in the parking deck. We figured it was because the friend had a DUI pending in another county and they decided the friend had more to risk if they were pulled over. The judge didn’t let us tell the jury about the pending DUI though. By the time the driver left the stand, he was ruined. He was obviously lying and he NEVER said he looked before turning left. The jury had to believe he was negligent. They also had to like our client and dislike the defendant driver.

The contrast between the spoiled defendant and his friend and our client was stark. Our client is a sweet, humble, soft spoken guy, also in his 20s. His wife and parents watched the whole trial and were every bit as salt-of-the-earth as he is. Everything he and his wife have, they have worked hard for themselves.

With that, the defense rested. Nothing left to do but closing arguments and then the case was in the jury’s hands.

The next morning, all three attorneys argued for a total of about an hour and half. I think the jury already believed the defendant was negligent. As to our client’s negligence, I knew the bicycle speed perception was our biggest problem. I talked about most peoples’ perception of bicycle speed – either driving near a cyclist riding way below the speed limit or seeing bicycles riding on a greenway at 10 mph. Of course the witnesses would say the bicycle was riding faster than anyone they had ever seen. In reality, for someone who knows how to handle a bicycle, 20-25 mph on a downhill is no biggie. Think how slow 25 mph feels while you’re driving your car.

There was so much more. I had to explain a lot about riding a bicycle. Every juror looked me in the eye and was paying attention. A few were nodding.

The defense attorney got up next and tried to shoot down all of our arguments. He said our client’s motive for riding fast was “showboating” for the crowd outside the restaurants. It was such a ridiculous and unlikely scenario I had to try not to laugh.

Valerie got up next and talked about the rules of the road and how important it is for someone driving an SUV to LOOK before turning, especially in an area full of pedestrians and vulnerable road users.  Her closing was compelling and powerful.  (If she ever gets tired of law, she should become a preacher, I think)

Then the judge read the instructions and the jury was sent out to deliberate. This is the MOST nerve-wracking part of the trial, as I mentioned earlier. You sit and wait uneasily and try to distract yourself, try to joke around a little to ease the tension. Then whenever there’s a knock on the jury door, your heart starts pounding. Usually it’s a question (can we see the exhibits? Can we break for lunch?) so you settle down again. We had a few of those.

Finally, we hear THE knock. A verdict. The jury files out, takes about a year to get to their seats. The foreperson hands the verdict envelope to the judge, who pulls it out in slow motion, reads it about a hundred times, and finally, hands it to the clerk to read. It seems like ages have passed.
The clerk reads the verdict. I’m paraphrasing a little and leaving out names:

1. Did the defendant’s negligence cause the collision? Answer: Yes

(Whew – they HAD to find that)

2. Did the plaintiff’s own negligence contribute to the cause of the collision? Answer: Yes

(Crap)

We are one of four states in the country that still have the law of contributory negligence on the books. As you can see if you have read this, it sucks. In any one of the other 46 states, the jury would have had to apportion fault and the damages would have been reduced accordingly, but a finding of some fault by the plaintiff would not have barred him from getting anything. In North Carolina, any fault, even 1%, by the plaintiff ends the case and the plaintiff gets nothing, even if he’s quadriplegic.

I don’t know what the jury would have done with a fault apportionment. I would like to think they would have apportioned a greater percentage of fault to the defendant, who refused to admit ANY responsibility whatsoever for the crash, and told the jury that in his testimony. Thanks to this ridiculously harsh law, our client is stuck with all his medical bills. And since it was the passenger’s parents’ car that was smashed in the collision, the driver’s Lexus is still pristine. Good for him.

The Summit was held all day Friday, October 12 and half of Saturday, October 13 at NC State’s McKimmon Center in Raleigh. Friday consisted mainly of breakout sessions on numerous topics, including community involvement, infrastructure, planning and education. Since we’re trying to plan Charlotte’s first large scale Open Streets event, I attended the presentation on Open Streets planning, which included a case study of Durham’s successful event series. Here is the agenda for the whole program: http://ncactive.org/sites/default/files/2012-NC-Bike-Summit-Agenda.pdf 

I also attended Education Strategies and Campaigns, where we heard from Steven Goodridge and Lt. Tim Tomczak of the Raleigh Police Department about educating and training police officers on how to properly enforce laws affecting cyclists. We also heard from Deb Thompson of  The Adam Little Foundation about that organization’s broad-based efforts to educate drivers and cyclists on how to share the roads safely.

It’s difficult to pinpoint the most inspiring session of the Summit, but if forced to choose, I would probably say the brainstorming session on Saturday. In that session, all attendees sat in one room together and brainstormed for one hour each of three topics: (1) NCDOT Master Plan development (2) Health and Wellness (3) Policy & Politics focus group.

We advocates often complain about the fragmented nature of cycling advocacy. Shouldn’t all of our many local groups all be united somehow under a larger umbrella? Why? (1) Power in numbers in influencing lawmakers (2) distributing resources efficiently by not duplicating efforts and (3) improving our efforts and gaining ideas by learning from other organizations – what has worked well and what hasn’t. Of course it is still important to focus efforts locally and on local issues, and local groups should maintain their autonomy and missions. But those efforts would become more effective by drawing on the strength of a larger organization.

I believe the Summit was the first step in that direction. For the first time in North Carolina, we talked about uniting and had the players there necessary to commit to that effort.

For another report, see: http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/index.php/site/blog/4257/

BIKE LAW (BL): It’s been a real pleasure watching you work and lead the PCC for the last four years. And my understanding is that you are moving on.

Rachael Bronson (RB): I am. Thank you. It’s been a really wonderful experience for me personally and professionally. I have learned so much, and it’s been really exciting to take on new partnerships, to develop projects, and to be able to work with talented people like you and try to make an impact in the state.

BL: Tell us where you’re going.

RB: I am moving to get a Masters in Civil Engineering at the University of Colorado at Denver. I’m going to shape my program in traffic engineering and mold it in the direction of bicycle/pedestrian transportation studies. In addition to coursework, I’ll be doing research on campus with some pretty interesting guys studying something called Transit Resiliency, but it’s a little more on the planning side than it is engineering.

Rachael Bronson

BL: You’re going to Denver to do civil engineering. And it just so happens you’re going to a place where it’s wonderful to ride a bike, right?

RB: Correct.

BL: That’s just coincidence.

RB: A wonderful coincidence. There are over a hundred miles of separated bike paths in the Denver metro area. That doesn’t even include bike lanes and shared roads.

BL: What do you think has been your greatest success? What has been your greatest example of really doing something that you’re proud of with PCC?

RB: I’ve done a lot with a little. The PCC is small, but our impact is big, and I’ve been able to maximize our abilities. In my time with the organization, I fostered continued relationships and built new partnerships. I’ve brought new people to the table, different people with different approaches to things, and through this I’ve built some innovative projects that serve us all extremely well.

BL: So you’ve broadened the so called stake holders? Brought new people to the table, right?

RB: Yes.

BL: Because I think the bike advocacy world can get a bit “grey haired men in the sandals” pretty quick.

RB: Right. And that is certainly an important constituency, but bicycling is amazing in that it is a lot broader than just representing one kind of person. It encompasses people of all ages and abilities. It’s the equal opportunity provider.

BL: I always think the challenges for the bike movement is that we are representing people who don’t yet know that they want to be represented. In other words, unless we have the infrastructure, like the Cooper River Bridge Lane, people who would bike aren’t going to. Folks didn’t see themselves as users until they became users, which is kind of bizarre.

RB: And they didn’t become users until they saw their friends and family using the bridge and then were able to envision themselves getting out and riding.

BL: Yes. It’s Field of Dreams. “If you build it, they will come.” The problem is that until you build it, a lot of people aren’t going to ride their bike in what is sometimes a really unsafe environment.

RB: Right. Absolutely. People want, and need, a safe place to ride. And the more we serve those needs, the more likely people will be to get out and ride—to opt to go by bike instead of by car, the more likely they will be to recreate on bike rather than take spin classes at the gym.

BL: Tell me about a specific project that you did. Obviously the Safe Street Save Lives is a really creative project that had not only a private/nonprofit partnership, but also one that went to a public state level as well. Tell me about that.

RB: Safe Streets grew out of the need for better understanding about the South Carolina bike laws, which were updated in 2008. After the reform to the laws, which was a legislative campaign that the PCC took the lead on, we saw the opportunity for a public awareness campaign. Although we had these progressive laws, the general public did not know how their rights and responsibilities had changed. So, in partnership with you, Bike law, we developed four incredibly creative video public service announcements about bicycling on South Carolina roads. Along with the videos, we launched a website and developed printed materials to promote the campaign. In the first year of the campaign, we relied on social media, public service airtime, and our constituents to grow the campaign and message.

BL: But it’s gone to a higher level, right? You applied for and got a good bit of state funding to take the message out through conventional media.

RB: We pretty quickly realized that there was only so far that the campaign could grow on its own. So, we applied for funding from the South Carolina Department of Public Safety to help us grow the campaign, and we were successful in getting those funds.

BL: What is the grant? People don’t know. Even though there was a lot of press releases and press coverage about it, a lot of folks don’t know what the grant was, so just tell us the numbers and who’s paying.

RB: The grant is from the state Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which was developed in 2007 by the SC Department of Transportation. Bicycling safety is a part of that plan, and because of that, funds have been allocated to bicycle safety efforts. So, we submitted a proposal to the managers of that plan, the Department of Public Safety, to gain funding and grow the Safe Streets campaign, ultimately to weave our bicycle safety message into the public realm. The biggest chunk of the funds, which is about $50,000, is being used to buy television ads, online ads, Facebook ads, advertising which will broadcast the videos and the campaign message. Our approach is to penetrate the three screens that we interact with on a daily basis—the computer, the television, and the mobile device—and to use these outlets to spread our message.

BL: What is the total amount of money?

RB: The grant totals $75,000, on top of which we’ve received a lot of in-kind support.

BL: Lots of good stuff. So what were the lessons?

RB: The biggest lesson for me is that of investment. In the first year of the campaign, we were largely relying on social media and public service airtime to broadcast the message. That’s all well and good, we got some interviews and we did get some good publicity, but you really have to bring some money to the table to be able to make it happen.

BL: Right. I think the bike community misses that a lot. The bike advocacy world is largely amateur-driven. Many people don’t realize that in addition to smarts, passion, and energy, it really takes money.

RB: Absolutely. And we need to remember that we are competing with a lot out there. We become so entrenched in the movement that we lose sight of how we fit into the bigger picture. We need to be mindful of the fact that our issues aren’t the only ones on the table. This is an important political lesson for us to keep in mind as we work to advocate for policies and funding that support better bicycling.

BL: But the movement is changing to include, like you said from the beginning, a greater constituency than just recreational cyclists.

RB: It is indeed. And recreational bicycling certainly has its place, but more and more people are discovering bicycling for its transportation benefits, particularly in a state like South Carolina where our weather is moderate, where the terrain is relatively flat, and where our urban centers are easily bikeable.

BL: And I think it’s interesting that recreational cyclists are increasingly becoming more advocacy minded, but it’s still a tug sometimes, right?

RB: Yes, it can be a tug, but many are realizing that in a state like South Carolina, we cannot sit back and just expect these changes to happen overnight. We must be involved, we must advocate for our vision. The exciting thing is that anyone can be a part of this positive change, simply by getting on their bike.

BL: If I gave you the controls for a day. If I gave you the purse-strings, the legislative pen, and the engineers drafting table, what’s the first thing you would do to change South Carolina bicycling culture?

RB: Without a doubt, I would put a line item in the state budge for bicycle transportation and for infrastructure.

BL: And a lot of times we (the bike community) feel the pressure of not really changing the culture all that much because we don’t have the ability, at least in the short term, to do that. I think we’re too tough on ourselves.

RB: Yes. And although some of the challenges that we face are cultural, I do strongly believe that if we had more financial resources in this state to devote to bicycling, much of the resistance that we face would fall to the wayside.

BL: It’s a very intelligent, wise, and very astute observation and again, I think what the PCC is trying to do, what Charleston Moves is trying to do, what all the state recreational groups are trying to do more and more is to try to make that happen by just putting cycling on the front the burner. At least on the stove. And everything we do is designed ultimately to get a greater allocation of resources and a greater seat at the table. But I think unfortunately, I think we are probably pretty early in that multi-generational process.

RB: Yes we are. We have a ways to go. But you’ve got to start somewhere.

BL: In the last four years I’ve seen ten times more people riding to work down King Street in Charleston. More people want to ride.

RB: More people do want to ride, and more people are demanding it than ever before. It is where we are going.

BL: I think you’re entirely right. I would love, I’m 45, I would love to be 25 on a bike these days, because I would have more friends than I did when I was 25 on bike, because there are a lot more people out there doing it, but the PCC folks my age and older, right? Does it do a good enough job capturing that energy of the next generation? Should it?

RB: We do need to do a better job at capturing the energy of that next generation, that’s my generation, but we are a really hard generation to engage. We do care about these things, but we’re not contributing our money and our time. There is a small group of folks in their twenties and thirties that are contributing and the rest are just benefiting from the fruits of their labor.

BL: From my vantage point, it has been a real pleasure to watching you work. You have a wonderful touch about you, you’re very intelligent, you make people feel good, and you have been able to bring more people to the table.

RB: Well thank you Peter, I really appreciate it. It’s been an incredible experience. We’ve got some really dedicated bicycle enthusiasts in South Carolina, you are certainly among those, and I am so proud of the work that we accomplished together.

Wish we could sponsor more events?  So do we! Tell your friends about us and let us handle your case for you. Most importantly, we know what we’re doing.  We also give back to the community – the cycling community.

Gloria Carson brought instant perspective to the meeting as she talked about the death of son, Adam Little, killed two years ago by a distracted motorist with a bad driving record. Adam’s death embodies the fear we all have from close calls or intentional buzzings and Gloria conveyed that so poignantly to us all. It became almost a brainstorming session as cycling representatives and government officials discussed ideas for improving cycling safety. Among other items, we discussed a poster campaign through DMV offices for identify hand signals, using a simulator to incorporate motorist/cyclist interactions into on the road testing and Department sponsored PSAs.

We also learned more about the State’s intent to put together a comprehensive State-wide bike/ped plan: A request for proposals was issued a few weeks ago: http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/highway/roadway/eng_coord/pd/Bicycle_Pedestrian_04_05_12.pdf and a Plan is to be available by the end of the year for public comment. Officials expect the plan to provide uniformity throughout North Carolina for Bike/Ped planning with the end result of getting more people on bikes and providing safe places to ride. We were very encouraged that Mr. Morris invited us to provide input into the plan and we will communicate to you all as things develop.