Below is a snippet of the City of Seattle’s Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that its design of the protected bike lane, transit island, and pedestrian crosswalk (only a few yards north of the main crosswalk) had nothing to do with my client’s collision. In fact, the City blames my client, the pedestrian, for not walking precisely on the painted lines of the marked crosswalk. The City argues, this imprecise footing of the pedestrian, is “jaywalking” and is the reason why the bicyclist crashed into her.

In Seattle, pedestrians are generally expected to follow traffic signals and use designated crosswalks when available like intersections with lights or stop signs. Crossing the street at a location OTHER than a marked or unmarked crosswalk is generally considered jaywalking. However, Seattle has implemented a policy called “Pedestrian First” that prioritizes safety. This policy requires vehicles to give the pedestrian right of way at all intersection, marked or unmarked, regardless of whether there is a traffic control device.

In our fair city¹, “Pedestrian First” refers to an initiative in that the Seattle Department of Transportation has undertaken to prioritize pedestrian safety and improve conditions for pedestrians when crossing intersections. SDOT’s stated goal of the Pedestrian First approach is to create a safer and more accessible environment for people of all ages and abilities to walk and move around the city. According to SDOT’s own blog posts and publications, this initiative involves implementing various safety upgrades and changes to traffic signal patterns to enhance pedestrian visibility, increase crossing times, and reduce the likelihood of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.

In an SDOT blog post from July 2020, SDOT announced the completion of their Vision Zero goal to create 250 pedestrian-first intersections six months ahead of schedule. SDOT explains²,

These intersections are designed with a focus on pedestrian safety and have undergone safety upgrades to improve visibility and reduce the risk of accidents*. As a result of these safety upgrades, data showed a 48% reduction in the number of people hit by cars while crossing the street in these pedestrian-first locations. This achievement signifies a significant improvement in pedestrian safety and highlights the effectiveness of the pedestrian-first approach in Seattle.

“We’ve Completed Pedestrian First Crosswalk Safety Goal Six Months Early and Are Advancing a New Policy to Create More Automatic Walk Signals and Give People More Time to Cross the Street.” SDOT Blog, 23 July 2020. (*SDOT’s use of “accidents” goes against National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s admonition against this term because these are not acts of god but rather the result of human error.)

To further enhance pedestrian safety, SDOT introduced a new traffic signal policy. The policy includes small but meaningful changes to traffic signal patterns that aim to strike a balance between efficient traffic flow and pedestrian safety³. The policy sets target and maximum cycle length times for traffic signals based on street type designation. This approach ensures that pedestrians have sufficient time to cross the street safely without causing noticeable delays for motorists⁴.

Significantly, the Pedestrian First initiative in Seattle focused on creating pedestrian-first (surprise, surprise…) intersections and improving safety measures to reduce collisions involving pedestrians. Per SDOT: The term “pedestrian first” specifically refers to this effort and does not encompass all aspects of pedestrian infrastructure or policies in the city.

SDOT has explained that Pedestrian First is intended to prioritize pedestrian safety, create safer intersections, and enhance the overall walking experience in the city.

In a case that we are current litigating, we represent a pedestrian, Angelina Kolomiets, who observed the law and looked both ways (out of habit, she always looks both ways before entering a road) before crossing the bike lane. However, the bus shelter obscured her view as well as the bicyclist’s view. Nonetheless, because the pedestrian walked a few inches south of the painted crosswalk lines, Seattle City Attorney calls this “Jaywalking.” This is the City’s way of attempting to deny that its design of the transit island, crosswalk, and bike lane led to the bicyclist/pedestrian crash. As a result, Ms. Kolomiets sustained serious injuries to her head, brain, face, jaw, teeth, and body.

Guess what? The City engineer admitted at a deposition that the project team never calculated sight distances, though the engineer knew that the tapered (unstraight) bike lane created visibility issues for both bicyclists and pedestrians.

Here is when I asked the SDOT engineer about the late change to the then-new protected bike lane on Roosevelt Way NE in the University District.

The SDOT engineer wants reassurance that I’m not blaming her. Truly, I’m attempting to understand what the main engineer (SDOT project engineer) thought about the potential issues with making the bike lane zig a little to avoid a utility pole:

When I ask the SDOT engineer whether she and the other SDOT engineers made sight distance calculations in this scenario, guess what her response was…

Seattle claimed that Pedestrian First was its plan to prioritize pedestrian safety. Really? Perhaps it’s more focused on prioritizing the Seattle Attorney’s office first? What do you think?

References:

1. The initiative called “Pedestrians First” was first conceived at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). ITDP is a non-profit organization that focuses on promoting sustainable and equitable transportation systems globally. ITDP has developed a set of interactive tools that measures walkability in cities around the world, and “Pedestrians First” is one of their initiatives aimed at improving walkability and pedestrian-friendly urban planning.
2. “We’ve Completed Pedestrian First Crosswalk Safety Goal Six Months Early and Are Advancing a New Policy to Create More Automatic Walk Signals and Give People More Time to Cross the Street.” SDOT Blog, 23 July 2020.
3. Id.
4. “Traffic Signal Policy.” SDOT Blog, 29 January 2021.
5. “SDOT creates 250 ‘pedestrian-first’ intersections early.” MyNorthwest, 27 July 2020.

The post When is a pedestrian jaywalking? first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

In the past year, I experienced losing vision in both of my eyes temporarily for months for acute retinal detachments.  I continue to experience issues due to my low vision. Walking or running are still some of my favorite activities, but I’ve injured myself a number of times (broken wrist, broken arm, orbital socket, etc.) due to crummy sidewalks and roads in Seattle.

While my vision has mostly returned, accessibility tools on my desktop and phones still help me accomplish tasks that I used to complete in a flash. If my vision had not returned to the current levels, getting to depositions, meetings, and site visits would require even more planning than what I now need post retinal detachments. 

Will you please take the Week Without Driving challenge? Before you hit click away know that this does NOT require you to give up driving!

The challenge is to make you ask:

• What if you couldn’t drive?
• What if taking the bus, riding a bike, walking or asking for rides weren’t a choice you could make, but a necessity?
• What would it be like getting around without driving yourself?

For people who can drive, and can afford a car, these questions aren’t ever an issue. But for nearly a quarter of the people in our state – people with disabilities, young people, seniors and people who can’t afford cars or gas, this is their every day.

I’m also asking our elected leaders and those running for office to join in this WWD Challenge too. The decisions our leaders and each of us make regarding transportation planning, policies and funding impact all of us.  IT’S OK IF WE NEED TO DRIVE! This is part of the point of this challenge! We want everyone to understand what ~20% of Washingtonians must struggle with every day when it comes to basic transportation needs.

This is an opportunity to learn. That’s why my friends at Disability Mobility Initiative at Disability Rights Washington would like to invite WSAJ members to participate in the Week Without Driving this September 19-25.

Below are the stories of David, Katie, and Miguel, who live in southwest Washington.

David P.

“[We] had the hundred-and-fifteen-degree weather. I do not have air conditioning; most people who live in low-income housing in Vancouver do not have air conditioning. And so, I was told I should go to a Cooling Center. But it was on a Sunday and C-TRAN does not have some buses running on Sundays. So, a lot of people like me who depend on public transportation had no way to get to a Cooling Center.”

David lives in unincorporated Hazel Dell just north of the city of Vancouver. David identifies as Deaf Plus, meaning he is a member of the ASL Deaf Community and has an additional ambulatory disability, which is not always visible. David mainly gets around by walking or by taking the bus. He recently graduated from Gallaudet University with his master’s degree in social work. 

One big barrier for David is not being able to afford a car to get jobs that require one. In order to get and keep a job, David needs accessible transportation. With a car, he could obtain a job, volunteer more, and socialize. Some Deaf events are late at night on weekends, and he would have no way home, so he is unable to socialize as much as he’d like. David believes there should be no transit fares, and that funds taxpayers put into the system should be enough. If riders show an honored citizen card, David thinks that should suffice for payment. David knows fares are a financial barrier for many people, so they stay home instead. He also thinks it is important to have covered shelters near grocery stores and apartment buildings on bus routes. There are no seated stops between David’s home and the transit center, which can make it very hard to keep groceries out of the rain when you are already tired of walking and standing and have no covered shelter for miles. Another barrier for the Deaf Community is when a bus driver makes verbal announcements. With background noises, he cannot always hear what is said. He has seen Deaf people visibly upset when they cannot get off at their stop due to a detour they were not informed about. David believes that any verbal announcements by the driver to all passengers needs to also be translated into text in the vehicle for things such as unplanned route changes. David would like the state to create and fund a free driving program for people who are Deaf to be trained professionally by local driving schools, and provide nonprofits grants to help Deaf and disabled low-income people ability to buy and maintain a used car.

Katie

“It is important that I have a job so I can be a little independent and be a part of the community.”

Katie lives in La Center with her family. She has a job in Vancouver and isn’t able to drive or to take the fixed route commuter bus that goes from La Center to the Vancouver Transit Center. Because of her disability, it’s not safe for her to wait alone at the transit center, so she needs something that provides door-to-door service. Unfortunately, La Center is outside of the area where C-Tran, the local paratransit provider, offers service. Katie has been getting rides from her caregiver to her job, but that caregiver is leaving, and her family hasn’t been able to find a replacement. The disability services that Katie receives allow the caregiver to be reimbursed mileage for driving Katie to and from work, but not for the caregiver’s time, which makes finding someone more difficult. Katie looked for work in La Center, but there weren’t a lot of office-type businesses there that would be a good match for her skills, and so the only job she found, after a couple of years of searching, was in Vancouver. Katie really doesn’t want to give up the job — she loves being able to earn money and afford things that she wants. She wishes there was paratransit or another shared shuttle service that she could use to get to work.

Miguel

“When you are transit dependent, you can’t really just plan things as you go. You can’t just do things on a whim or have an emergency. You have to plan everything ahead of time and you don’t have much flexibility to do basic things like going to the store.”

Miguel is a Blind college student, and lives in Vancouver. He gets around by taking Lyft, Uber, fixed-route buses and paratransit. He commutes from Vancouver to Portland Community College, which takes him an hour and a half each way. Not being able to drive impacts Miguel’s entire life. His biggest barrier is not being able to schedule the paratransit ride in the same day period. Miguel would like to see improvements in the transportation system so that he does not have to spend most of his day commuting.

Will you join us and take the challenge? Sign up at weekwithoutdriving.life

As you’ll hear from elected leaders who joined us last year in this video,  They found the experience incredibly valuable and are encouraging other elected leaders, like you, to join us this year.

How Does the Week Without Driving Work?

You can get around however you want, but you can’t drive yourself in any car. This applies to all your activities — not just your work commute. And if you normally transport other family members or friends, it applies to those trips too.

This isn’t a disability simulation or a test of how easily you can find alternatives. We know that it is far easier to give up your keys if you can afford to live in a walkable area well served by transit or can outsource your driving and other transport and delivery needs to other people. Instead, we intend this as a learning experience to inform the decisions you, as an elected leader or policymaker, will make about land use, climate, health equity and transportation access and funding. We want you to have this experience so you can start to understand the barriers non-drivers experience in accessing your (and our) communities.

If you decide to, you can ask someone else to drive you, but make a note of how much you “owe” this person in their time, and if you felt obligated to support them in other ways (ie, doing all the dishes). If it’s a staff person, make a note of how much you pay them for this time. You can use ride-hail or taxis, but make a note of how much it costs you.

During the week, we’ll ask you to share your experience on social media. At the end of the week, we’ll ask you to reflect on and share what you learned from participating in the Week Without Driving.

If you have questions, contact me or Anna Zivarts, director of the Disability Mobility Initiative.

BTW: I’ve invited April Berg, Noel Frame, among others to join us in this Week Without Driving Challenge too! Please forward and invite as many people as you can. Thank you!

Note: Most of this content was provided by Disability Mobility Initiative via Kimberly Kinchen and Anna Zivarts. 💚💚💚

Catherine

The post Can you drive? About 20% in WA can’t… first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

Even the most seasoned bicyclists have sustained major injuries from crashes on badly designed roads in Seattle. KOMO News anchor Molly Shen delves into the issue that gave rise to Fleming Law clients’ lawsuit against the City of Seattle. Check back often for updates about this case and other cases of unsafe road planning/design/construction/maintenance.

The post KOMO News: hazardous Seattle roads leads to serious bicyclist injuries first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

Seattle software developer was walking to his job, when a driver hit him with their car near the Fremont Bridge. He lost weeks of work and time to enjoy with his family for the entire summer and fall of 2019.

After the injured pedestrian was taken to the hospital, his family contacted Catherine Fleming to represent him. Although prepared to go to trial, the driver’s insurance settled for $490,000. The settlement covered his $34K in medical bills and also compensated him for his pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment with his family. He is fully recovered physically, but will always relive the trauma whenever he walks near the site where he was injured.

The post Confidential pedestrian v. driver – $490,000 first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

My favorite is the interactive map that allows multiple folks to comment on known and hazardous road conditions.

Try it! Document issues about problem spots with SDOT.

The post SDOT wants to engage! first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

In her mild mannered way, she’s successfully pushed for safer roads, rail and communities. Sure, AOC has a flashier way that grabs people’s attention. Maybe Maria Cantwell is too busy for social media as Chair of the Committee of Science, Commerce and Transportation. (Hey, I caught you snoring.) Not a super sexy topic? It is to me. And Sen. Cantwell holds significant power in her role. Let’s talk more about how she’s helped and, more importantly, how else we want her to help us make our communities safer.

Love her or hate her, Washington Senator Maria Cantwell is more than a figurehead for Washingtonians.  Personally, I appreciate her softer spoken style. Most of my career, people point out that I’m not as loud as my male counterparts. Is that so wrong? Sen. Cantwell’s results is proof that one doesn’t need to speak loudly to make a big difference. #QuietIsBetter #SaferRoads

The post Who needs AOC? WA senator for safer roads and rails first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

If you ride your bike anywhere in Seattle, you know about road hazards. Potholes, major elevation changes, and streetcar tracks are all bad news. These road hazards cause bicyclists to fall before they can do anything to stop it.

Aside from a stream of buses that often share bike paths, Seattle bicyclists must contend with drivers turning in front of them, drivers pulling into park in curb lanes, and maneuvering in spaces that don’t offer much separation from pedestrians. On top of this, Seattle bicyclists must avoid altogether or cross over streetcar and railroad tracks at the precisely correct angle. One might wonder how this is bike friendly. We do. We have for years and are constantly working to improve safety for everyone who travels these roads.

But the fact remains that Seattle roads with streetcar tracks create dangerous conditions for bicyclists and people who use wheelchairs, walkers, canes, or strollers.

Is this a new development? Not unless you consider something more than 10 years old “new”. Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) knew about this extreme danger as far at least as far back as 2007, years before it began construction of its First Hill Streetcar line. SDOT engineers, planners, and consultants emailed and discussed the issue they faced as the number of crashes and injuries grew resulting from bike tires getting trapped in streetcar tracks for the South Lake Union Trolley (SLUT… yes, that’s what we called it before “SLU Streetcar”) tracks.

By 2010 a number of bicyclists hired attorneys and sued the City of Seattle. These cases were consolidated  (often done to streamline the court’s packed docket) and were set for trial in Seattle.

Fast forward a few years later. The attorneys for the injured bicyclists thought that the internal memos and emails from SDOT planners and engineers sufficed to establish the City’s negligence because the City had known that the tracks were dangerous. This is where the SLUT cases fell apart for the injured bicyclists.

In response to those attorneys’ argument, the City attorneys countered convincingly before King County Superior Court Judge McCarthy:

“We never disputed the tracks were a hazard,” said Rebecca Boatright, assistant city attorney who handled the case. “The legal question was whether we fell short of any engineering standard in designing a road with a streetcar.” (Seattle Times)

Judge McCarthy‘s ruling, dismissing the case, sent a chilling message: The City did nothing wrong and did not fall short of engineering standards despite its knowledge that placement of SLUT tracks on the curbside lane was dangerous for bicyclists. The dismissal of SLUT cases was a death knell for bike vs. streetcar tracks cases in Seattle. For over a decade, bicyclists who wanted to fight the City for injuries sustained because of streetcar tracks were out of luck, on their own with piles of medical bills and doctor’s visits for months or longer. No attorney was willing to take these types of cases. Bicyclists and road safety advocates knew that the dismissal of the SLUT cases was a huge setback for any other bicyclist who might want to sue the City for similar reasons.

Why did Judge McCarthy rule against the injured bicyclists who suffered only because of the unsafe road design around South Lake Union?  We’ll discuss that in another blog post.

Thankfully, one attorney did not give up. Catherine Fleming advocated for years on behalf of bicyclists injured after streetcar tracks trapped their bike tires. Catherine’s hard work led a heightened recognition of the serious dangers that the City’s design created. She also obtained a record award, requiring the City to study and rethink modifications to improve safety in some of the most troublesome spots with streetcar tracks.  She’s not done, though, and is more passionate than ever about advocating for safer streets, not just for her clients but for everyone.

Check back and learn more about the ongoing dangers that Seattle streetcars pose for bicyclists and pedestrians.

If you want to learn more about a different road safety issue in Seattle, let us know on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter!

The post Part 1: Seattle street cars and bicyclists first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

For years, the folks who aren’t crazy about bike commuters have complained about Seattle spending too much money, space and resources to its Bicycle Master Plan (BMP). The BMP has served as the main reference for SDOT to plan and design bike projects in the City. The goals were great and lofty. Let’s reduce greenhouse emissions, make it safer for people to get around on their bikes, and make the City more livable.

SDOT has not executed its plan perfectly. Alarm bells go off when the same problems leading to serious bicyclist and pedestrian accidents persist. However, my friends at Seattle Greenway, Cascade Bicycle Club, Seattle Bike Blog, and I  (among many other concerned advocates) are now sounding alarms in a big way. This is because the new Seattle Transportation Plan (STP) is developing with lightening speed (hard to imagine, I know) without prioritizing bicyclist safety as follows:*

• No real transparency – public engagement/outreach should have occurred at the earliest stages. Now, as it’s poised for final approval, we still don’t know enough details.
• Priority is given to freight, transit, and pedestrians –   Hey, these are all important. We are all pedestrians. But walking isn’t practical to get from Magnolia to Capitol Hill for a meeting (especially on a super soggy day). But what about all the years SDOT has devoted to its BMP?
• This means –>STP does NOT include planning to move more people on bikes through the City, leaving gaps between bike paths so that people must find their way to the next bike path.–> Not safe and not consistent with the City’s promise and goal of Vision Zero and Safer Streets.
• Drivers. STP is all about the drivers.  Again, I get it! I drive a lot too. But that’s because my work involves representing injured bicyclists and pedestrians along with injured drivers. So, I have a keen awareness of how unsafe many spots are in the City for bicyclists.
• What about the two E’s…Emissions and Equity?  As it stands today, the STP sidesteps multimodal conflict by removing the BMP! Say what? People from less well off communities in the City and their transportation needs are not figured into the equation. And Seattle now wants to whistle by the graveyard and avoid the issue of how freight, transit and drivers will contribute to great emissions for all.

The above is the reality right now and are precisely why advocates like Clara Cantor and Gordon Padelford (and me) are very concerned. Recall that SDOT has talked about its vision for a safe, connected, more bike-friendly roads. But with its new STP, SDOT’s silence to the BMP is deafening. This matters, especially now as companies are opening up their offices and workers are hitting the road in droves. Seattle Bike Blog​‘s latest post beautifully explains why this matters…now.

What can you do? Speak up! Tomorrow’s Seattle City Council Transportation Committee begins at 9:30 am\ Sign Up to give a verbal public comment here. Sign-up opens at 7:30 am. 

• Meeting Details and Link to agenda
• Watch the meeting live via the Seattle Channel (no opportunity to give public comment)
• **Thanks to Clara Cantor, Executive Director of Seattle Greenways, for sharing essentially all of the key points in this blog post!! ❤️👏👏

The post Seattle’s latest transportation plan, “STP3” first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

Only a year ago, SDOT’s head transportation engineer, Dongho Chang, cited City’s designs as harmful to people. While still at SDOT, Chang provided his perspective about the spike in pedestrian injuries on our roads. The explanation wasn’t just about the increase in population and heavier vehicles.

He understood that Seattle’s road design issues were leading to serious pedestrian injuries, “Our street design is harming people …conforming to the rules is hurting and killing people outside the vehicle in urban cities where people are the priority.”

The now WSDOT engineer has a similar wish as I and virtually every road safety advocate in Seattle. We want the City to walk the walk and execute on its promises. Don’t just tell people that the City prioritizes pedestrian safety. Show us by taking more traffic calming measures.  As Chang mentioned: “The alarming trend [in Washington] really highlights the fact that we need to think about how we ensure that if someone does make a mistake that it’s survivable.”

SDOT has talked a lot about the Seattle Transportation Plan, which now supersedes the Bike Master Plan (BMP) and other SDOT plans. Yet, its focus seems heavily shifted towards moving freight and cars. This is a red flag. Engineers should focus on what best protects pedestrian and bicyclists, along with drivers. “Excess traffic lanes” that encourage speeding, does not need to exist as “conditions dictated by engineering” (per Chang).

Washington law requires the City and every municipality in this state  to design, plan, construct and maintain roads that are reasonably safe for all travelers. Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn.2d 237 (2002). SDOT owes a duty to provide well designed streets that prioritize pedestrian and bicyclist safety.  It is not for us to carry the burden of SDOT’s persistent application of outdated transportation engineering rules. Walk the walk, SDOT. More to come. #SDOT #WalkTheWalk #SaferSeattle #FlemingLawSeattle

The post Dear SDOT: Please walk the walk! Don’t just talk about your commitment to safety! first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

Seattle recently reported its new and improved proactive approach to pedestrian safety (to use FHWA’s language.  Below are excerpts of a 2020 City of Seattle Dept. of Transportation (SDOT) report:

…the number of overall traffic-related fatalities continues to trend downward. However, pedestrian and cyclist crashes have remained relatively steady. To meet
the growing demand while improving safety, the City developed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis (BPSA), a robust approach to modeling pedestrian and
bicyclist safety. [Emphasis added.]

BACKGROUND ON SEATTLE’S BPSA
The City of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) first implemented the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis (BPSA) in 2016 as a data-driven approach for understanding where, how, and why crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists happen. [Citation omitted.]

Phase 1 laid the foundation for conducting the statistical analysis. It included pedestrian and bicycle crash data from 2007 to 2014, as well as roadway, demographics, transit, lighting, traffic signal presence, and pedestrian and bicyclist volume data.

Note, however, a 2020 SDOT study includes the below graph, which seems to challenge its conclusion about pedestrian accidents remaining “relatively steady”.

Does SDOT’s graph here really show that Seattle is “holding steady” with pedestrian accidents? Hint: The orange line is spiking up.

Here’s what we are seeing at Fleming Law: Pedestrian injuries are growing at a rapid pace, even with the pandemic. Clients have come to us to represent them against negligent drivers, bicyclists, and cities. Cities and all Washington municipalities have a

…well-established duty to maintain their roadways in a condition safe for ordinary travel. This duty is not limited to the roadways themselves, and does not exempt municipalities from responsibility where the unsafe condition is caused by a roadside condition like vegetation or other sight obstructions. See e.g., Wuthrich v. King County, 91555-5 (Jan. 28, 2016).*

Municipalities are negligent when they fail to meet their duty to design, construct, and maintain roadways that are reasonably safe for all travelers in Washington State.

Important takeaway: When SDOT knows that major hazards for travelers arising from its design and construction of a road, an injured pedestrian (or bicyclist or driver) has a legal claim for damages against SDOT.  As our own pedestrian/bicycle injury attorney Catherine Fleming has seen with her clients, recent designs have have led to catastrophic injuries, In particular, clients we represent have suffered as the result of unsafe road design and maintenance that include protected bike lanes, bus stops, and marked crosswalks.

While people continued to get hurt or killed because of unsafe roads in Seattle, we need SDOT to quicken its pace and intensify its focus to provide adequate means for all of us to get around this city.

* I am proud of my colleagues at my former firm, Keith Kessler and Ray Kahler, both in Hoquiam, WA, who helped cement the law on behalf of Mt. Wuthrich.

The post Dangerous crosswalk for pedestrians: Roosevelt protected bike lane first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.