Remember: This PBL is on a roughly 5% descent and bicyclists can’t help but pick up momentum. The PBL also jogs a bit, or, as an SDOT engineer explains in a deposition, it “tapers”. (See previous blog post for the details). Thus, engineers should consider sight lines and visibility issues, which the City didn’t in this project.

Our Opposition to the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment points out that SDOT failed to make even basic sight distance calculations. Below is a view that a bicyclist on the descent down the Roosevelt PBL. Notice the bus shelter to the left that sits north of the pedestrian crosswalk that my client walked across?

The post The City of Seattle & King County shouldn’t blame the pedestrian. first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.

Did you know that bike-only insurance is available to all people who ride bikes in Washington State, even if you do not have a motor vehicle? Yes! It’s true. If someone hit you while you were riding your bike, you could still get coverage for medical bills and/or property damage with standalone bike insurance. This kicks in as an additional layer of coverage for those who are involved in a bike crash even if drivers stay at the scene and provide their insurance info.

This series of blog posts are inspired by a bright Seattle bike shop owner. In December 2022, he had reached out to me and asked me: “Why don’t we have standalone bike insurance?”

Well, as you know by now, “We DO have it.” Yet, his great question made me realize that a lot of intelligent bicyclists in the Seattle/Bellevue metro area and other more dense regions of Washington state are not aware of the option of purchasing bike insurance, including liability and personal injury protection for themselves in case they were ever involved in a bike crash.

I polled folks for a few hours on Twitter and found that the majority of respondents did not have bike insurance and didn’t seem to think they needed it.

So I had a conversation with a super informative insurance rep from Markel, the main insurer for bikes/bicyclists in this country and throughout the world.

The takeaways: there are a variety of bike-only insurance policies available including

• Bike damage
• Liability coverage up to $300,000 in the event you are found at fault and sued.
• Vehicle contact protection up to $25,000 for bodily injury, if you are hit while on a bicycle.

Markel Insurance underwrites these and other polices, often offered through Velosurance, State Farm, and other insurers. 

Listen to the entire (short) conversation below to get more details:

The post #BikeOnlyInsurance: Get insured before you get injured in a hit & run. 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.

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.

When we make regular payments for our insurance premium, we believe that  our insurance company will be there for us when we need them most.  Right?  After all, isn’t that why we spend thousands of dollars every year on insurance? Like a friend, we expect our insurance company to respond in good faith.

Unfortunately, when clients call me about their initial experiences after a serious car crash or bike crash (yes, car insurance often covers your accidents on a bicycle), they are confused and disappointed. They ask me why their insurance company of many years is suddenly acting like a stranger, refusing to pay medical bills or is delaying an investigation about their accident. These actions often are considered “bad faith” because insurers are supposed to act in their insureds’ best interest. The issue is that these insurance companies are usually multi-billion dollar companies that need to show impressive numbers to their shareholders. Sadly, insurance companies are more interested in making and keeping money rather than paying it out in the case of legitimate insurance claims.

Fortunately for policyholders, Washington has some of the strongest laws in place to protect against insurance bad faith. As a brief introduction, we have the Washington State Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Most of the issues people have with their insurance companies arise from an insurance company’s:

1. Failure to Investigate the Claim: Insurers in Washington  have a duty to investigate claims in a detailed manner to make an evaluation.  If an insurer refuses or delays for over a month its investigation, then denying coverage this is typical conduct of bad faith .
2. Persistent Lack of Communication: Insurers should communicate with policyholder in a prompt manner. If you were just involved in a bad accident, and you already called your insurer, your insurance company should contact you within a day or so to provide you with guidance on how to recover. If you find yourself calling and leaving voicemail with no response or unhelpful responses, this also is a sign that your insurance company is handling your claim in bad faith.
3. Unreasonably Delays in Processing: As mentioned above, your insurance company should process your claim without unneeded delay. After all, you need to put the matter behind you and get the claim resolved ASAP. If an insurance company drags out the process for months on end, this is yet another sign of insurance bad faith.
4. Outrageously Low  Settlement Offer: Most Insurance claims are resolved through settlements. Insurance companies notoriously offer a lowball number because many policyholders do not know better to retain an attorney because they are concerned that hiring one will lose them money. In fact, insurance companies routinely shift the settlement amount to a higher range as soon as they are dealing with an insured’s attorney. If you were badly injured in a car accident, had to take time off from work , and needed to buy a new car or pay a large bill for repairs, you are better off having your attorney represent you in order to get the best result.
5. Refusal to Pay a Valid Insurance Claim:  When an insurance company flat out refuses to pay a valid claim, this Is bad faith. With enough evidence of IFCA violations, your attorney can obtain additional damages on your behalf under IFCA and the CPA.

There is a reason why we hear the term “ bad faith” in the context of insurance companies. Even highly educated and sophisticated individuals do not realize that their own insurance companies are not looking out for their policyholders but are focused on increasing their profits and revenues.  Please remember this if you or anyone you know is ever in a situation that requires making an insurance claim.

If you have questions, please feel free to reach me via email at cf@sbxcleminglaw.local.

A Korean version of this appeared in SeattleNon 12.30.2021. 

The post Is your insurance company acting in bad faith? first appeared on FLEMING LAW | Top Personal Injury Attorney: Seattle Bike | Pedestrian | Road Crashes.