|
Dallas County Considers Bike
Event Insurance Requirement
Bob Mionski discusses in
VeloNews
Memo to Dallas County from attorney Jeff Goodman
Top 3 things you can do:
1.
Write a letter to the editor. (can be done online)
2. Subscribe
to the IBC E-mail Updates. (we may need send out action alerts on this
issue)
3. Join IBC.
(numbers speak to strength)
Three cheers for the public input process. Our
system of self-governance allows the citizens to ask questions and
challenge the validity of our laws. Last week, during a public input
meeting in Dallas County, bicyclists did just that. Dallas County voted to
continue the public input session until our questions had been answered.
They did not vote on the first reading of the
ordinance that has been proposed by ISAC to supposedly offer counties
protection from the less than rare instance of a bicycle lawsuit.
If you haven't kept up, in 2004 a cyclist was
killed in Crawford County. The lawsuit alleged the county failed to
maintain it's roadways, but also failed to supervise and warn of dangers.
The cyclist killed was the 9th crash at the same location within 2 hours.
Two cyclists were flown from the scene by helicopter. It is also reported
a deputy was assigned to the location to warn riders, but after 30
minutes, he left and took his orange warning cones with him. Crawford
County settled out of court for $350,000 and paid a $5,000 deductible.
The proposal to protect counties follows repeated
failed efforts to gain immunity from Iowa Legislature. The Dallas County
board said there could be some strategy to have a patchwork of confusing
local ordinances across the state, forcing the legislature to issue a
uniform law, just as they did with anhydrous ammonia for meth, or sex
offender laws. But one lawsuit in 36 years? Does that really constitute an
epidemic that needs new laws?
Watch the meeting for yourself at
Kim West's YouTube page.
What is glaringly obvious is the lack of knowledge about bicycle risk
management and tort liability. Instead of education and understanding,
fear has been perpetuated. There is a quote from the news section of the
Iowa County Engineers Association Service Bureau:
According to the Emergency Responders the
cyclist lost control of his bicycle when he left the paved surface and
encountered the granular shoulder.
Will we be sued again? Probably not! However,
this certainly legitimizes counties passing an ordinance regulating such
events and continuing to seek legislative reform.
We need education on bicycle risk management. The
risk of lawsuit implied in this passage is low, yet fear bicycle crashes
despite the rarity of damages or negligence remains.
To close, I want to emphasize two of the points
made at the meeting. There are 92 counties shrinking in population and 7
growing. The counties are growing because the quality of life is high and
there are things to do. By limiting activities, such as bicycling, we
limit the quality of life. At some point, residents continue to live and
locate their businesses in counties for quality of life reasons. Those
residents and businesses pay taxes. If we downgrade the quality of life,
will those businesses and residents move away?
Finally, our government balances protection of the
people with quality of life. There is a trade-off with every law passed.
When the Interstate speed limit raised to 70, convenience and commerce was
balanced with public safety issues. The Dallas County Board of Supervisors
should be commended for noticing that trade-off between the rights of the
everyday citizen who chooses to ride a bicycle and the protection of the
county from a rare lawsuit from issues of negligence. However, every
county needs to possess the wisdom to know they just don't know enough
about this issue and to provide themselves with education to make an
informed decision not burdened by fear or exaggeration.
|
