February 13, 2025 • 62 mins
Join host Tom Butler on this week's episode as he launches "Zwift Thursday," a fantastic way to ride virtually with other podcast listeners. Tom also shares his newfound love for bike swaps.
This week's special guest is Bob Anderton, an attorney with decades of experience representing injured cyclists. He shares his invaluable insights into the legal landscape for cyclists, offering practical tips and a unique perspective you won't want to miss. Tune in for an informative and engaging conversation about staying safe and enjoying the ride!
Links
VeloSwap - Denver: veloswap.com
Live In Peace - Palo Alto: liveinpeace.org/bikeswap
Stop Swap and Save - Westminster, MD: stopswapandsave.com
Fighting Traffic by Peter Norton: penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/
Thanks for Joining Me!
Consider becoming a member of the Cycling Over Sixty Strava Club! www.strava.com/clubs/CyclingOverSixty
Cycling Over Sixty is also on Zwift. Look for our Zwift club!
Please send comments, questions and especially content suggestions to me at tom.butler@teleiomedia.com
Follow and comment on Cycling Over Sixty on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cyclingoversixty/
Show music is "Come On Out" by Dan Lebowitz. Find him here : lebomusic.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Tom Butler (00:04):
This is the Cycling Over 60 podcast, season three,
episode 17,.
A Bike Law Firm and I'm yourhost, tom Butler.
I want to start out by invitingpeople again to join me on
(00:26):
Thursdays at 3 pm Pacific timefor something I'm calling Zwift
Thursday.
This is an opportunity to dovirtual riding together and to
chat on Zoom.
I don't think I will continueto do the virtual ride at the
same time when the hot weatherhits here, but for the next few
months I plan on beingconsistent with it.
Of course you need to haveZwift, but also to do the ride
(00:50):
you need to be a member of theCycling Over 60 Zwift Club.
You should be able to find theclub by pulling up the Zwift
Companion app and then searchingfor Cycling Over 60.
Once in the club, look for theclub events section and hit the
plus symbol to signify that youwant to attend the ride.
When the ride time comes onThursday, start Zwift up a few
minutes before 3 pm Pacific sothat you can be set and ready at
(01:13):
the starting line.
You should be able to see theride as soon as you log into
Zwift, but I'm not sure how longbefore the ride.
It starts showing up Most ofthe time I've gotten in about 15
minutes early and I see it thenone up.
Most of the time I've gotten inabout 15 minutes early and I
see it then.
I've done a group ride now afew times by myself, which is
good because I'm still trying tofigure everything out, but I
think I might be able toorchestrate the ride smoothly
(01:34):
this Thursday, maybe BecauseI've only done the group rides
alone.
I'm not 100% sure what thegroup experience will be like.
I do like the route a lot.
It's called Coast to Coast andI think it's going to be good
for a group experience.
It took me about an hour ataround one watt per kilogram,
and that's the pace that I planto typically go for the Zwift
(01:55):
Thursday rides.
The time estimate they give fortwo watts per kilogram is 50
minutes.
I believe I have set up theride in a way that if a group
wants to go off the front, youcan do so.
I would like to see twodifferent groups a slower group
and a faster group.
Now I'm not sure what all canbe contested on the route.
There is the Woodland Sprint,which I know can be tracked for
(02:17):
the group, also Jarvis KOM, butthere is the Jarvis Lap and the
Jarvis Sprint and I'm not sureabout those.
I will open up a Zoom chat roomduring the ride.
The best way to get the link tothe Zoom is to email me.
You can find my email in theshow notes.
Even if you aren't doing ZwiftThursday, feel free to pop in
(02:39):
the Zoom and say hello or ask aquestion.
Last weekend I went to the bikeswap that Cascade Bicycle Club
puts on in Seattle and I lovedit.
The experience makes me want totravel around and see other
bike swaps.
I would really like to see howit compares to bike swaps in
other areas.
I'm curious if anyone listeningknows what the biggest bike
swap in the US is.
I see that VeloSwap in Denverlooks like a great expo.
(03:03):
Also, if you go toliveandpeaceorg forward slash
bike swap, you can find a bikeswap that happened in 2024 in
Palo Alto.
That looks interesting and theymentioned that will happen
again in 2025.
I have to say I'm in love withthe idea of attending a Live in
Peace bike swap and it lookslike I'm just barely in time to
(03:23):
draw attention to what isclaimed to be the East Coast's
largest indoor bike swap andthat looks like I'm just barely
in time to draw attention towhat is claimed to be the East
Coast's largest indoor bike swap, and that's the 28th annual
Stop, swap and Save.
That is happening inWestminster, maryland.
Go to stopswapandsavecom forinformation and I'll put all
those links in the show notes.
I will wrap up this week'supdate with something I find
(03:44):
interesting.
I am now starting to push'supdate with something I find
interesting.
I am now starting to push moreweight with my upper body
workouts.
That means that I'm feelingreally fatigued after the
workouts.
One thing I've noticed, andthat I hope continues, is that
these hard lifting sessionsreally knock my blood glucose
down.
It is obvious that the liftingdoes more than riding for
(04:04):
immediate utilization of glucose.
I'm really curious what isgoing on that, even though my
upper body doesn't seem as muchmuscle mass as what gets pushed
when I'm cycling, there'ssomething about the intensity
that makes a difference in theglucose utilization.
I'm really looking forward tofinding someone to have a
conversation with this, someonewho knows a lot about energy
(04:26):
utilization and exercise.
In my opinion, one of the moreinteresting organizations in my
area is Washington Bike Law.
This is a law firm thatrepresents injured bicyclists
statewide and also advocates forsafer streets for people
(04:48):
walking and rolling.
I wanted to learn more aboutBob Anderton, the founder of
Washington Bike Law, and get hisperspective from years in
practice.
I reached out and Bob agreed tocome on the podcast.
Here is our discussion.
I'm joined today by bike lawexpert Bob Anderton.
Thank you, bob, for being here.
Bob Anderton (05:06):
Thank you for having me.
Tom Butler (05:08):
It is a real pleasure to have you here.
I am really anxious to get yourperspective on a few areas of
bicycle law, and let's start theconversation here.
What are your earliest memoriesof the bicycle?
Bob Anderton (05:21):
Well, this isn't going to really translate, but
I'm going to show you this photothat refreshes my recollection.
This is me at three years old,with the bicycle that Santa
brought me.
Tom Butler (05:32):
OK.
Bob Anderton (05:34):
And it had 20-inch wheels, which was, you know,
traditional small bike size BMXbefore BMX existed.
This is 1970.
And they're solid plastic tireswhich, as I got a little bit
older, I realized were kind ofawful.
And I have a vivid memory ofgoing on a walk with my parents
(05:58):
probably my dog and seeing thatsomeone had thrown out back in
the days of you could throw outwhatever you wanted in the trash
.
Someone had thrown out back inthe days, if you could throw out
whatever you wanted in thetrash, someone had thrown out
another kid's bike but that onehad, you know, real tires and
wheels, although they were flat,and so we grabbed it out of
(06:18):
somebody's trash, took it homeand I learned how to patch tubes
.
I think we might have evenpatched the inside of the worn
out tires, but it was way betterthan the plastic ones and I had
that bike for longer thanprobably I should have.
Tom Butler (06:36):
That's fantastic.
I love that, yeah.
What a great find.
Bob Anderton (06:41):
Yeah, no, it was.
I've been patching tubes eversince.
Now, of course, I have some ofthose tubeless tires that
supposedly don't get flats, andyou know they do.
Tom Butler (06:51):
Okay, and then you stuck with cycling as you got
older, and I'm wondering aboutthat progression and I've always
represented injured people.
Bob Anderton (07:03):
But I never had some kind of business model to
be a bike lawyer, I mean, I'dnever heard of such a thing.
But before I started my ownoffice, I worked, obviously, for
other folks, and one of thepeople that I worked for only
represented catastrophicallyinjured clients, only
(07:27):
represented catastrophicallyinjured clients, and so it was a
high level office where I kindof learned some of the tricks, I
guess, or whatever.
And then I also worked for anoffice that represented a lot of
people and they were smallercases and a lot of our clients
were immigrants.
And you know, honestly, Ireally enjoyed getting to know
(07:53):
folks that were different fromme and being able to make a
difference in their lives.
I mean, these were not bigcases, but they were big to the
clients and it really felt good.
And you know, as years went byI think I had practiced for
eight or nine years peoplestarted kind of naturally coming
(08:15):
to me and I started thinking,oh gosh, maybe I could have my
own office and I actuallythought maybe I would represent
kind of immigrant communitiesbecause I really liked it.
But it turns out I'm not reallyin any immigrant communities.
My grandmother came from Norwayin 1929, but I don't really have
(08:36):
that kind of connection andthere are lots of folks that do.
So that didn't happen.
I mean, there were a few people, they were great.
What I guess did happen is thatI was a bike commuter and I
started representing bike peopleand particularly bike
messengers and the King CountySuperior Court Well, actually I
(09:03):
think all of them I don't knowthat all the courts in
Washington, that's not true.
There are state courts thatstill require paper filing, but
pretty much if you're anattorney you can't even file
with paper.
So that job kind of went awayand so did those clients.
Even though we don't have bikemessengers anymore, more and
(09:29):
more people are riding bikes,particularly in Seattle, where
it's terrible to drive andunfortunately more and more
people are driving dangerously,which is bad for me as a bike
commuter and you as Tom oranyone listening.
We want the roads to be safe,roads to be safe, but you know
we've had, as a result, a lot ofclients and the offices
expanded to now where we havefour lawyers and support staff
(09:50):
where it was just me for a while.
Tom Butler (09:53):
What was the year that you started specializing, I
guess is the right word in bikeinjury cases?
Bob Anderton (10:01):
Yeah, I'm going to go a little into the weeds here
.
Technically, in Washington wedon't recognize specialties.
So lawyers say all the timethat they specialize, but you're
not really supposed to say that.
The one way to say it is thatthe practice is limited to.
But it doesn't really soundthat good.
What I can say is that when Istarted my office I think in the
(10:27):
year 2000, and it was calledAnderton Law Office Legally it
still is the Washington StatePower Association at the time
said you can call your officeanything you want, as long as
it's your name.
And later they've changed therules and they've said you can,
you can really call it anythingyou want, as long as it's not
misleading.
(10:48):
At some point a few years in Idecided to change the name, even
though legally it's a.
It's a DBA to Washington bikelaw and I think that's way
cooler.
You know what is Anderton?
No one, you know.
People are always fixing thatspelling, but everybody knows
(11:10):
Washington by claw it works.
Tom Butler (11:13):
Really, not too long after you opened your own
practice, you knew that you weregoing to do by claw, or did it
take a bit for that to develop?
Bob Anderton (11:26):
My wife was rather skeptical when I said I think
I'm kind of want to change,change the name, and at that
point I would say maybe abouthalf of our clients were people
who had been injured whileriding bicycles and at this
point that's.
I mean, we represent peopleinjured while walking or doing
(11:47):
something kind of related tothat, and we'll sometimes
represent former clients who arein a car crash.
But you know, it's probably inthe high 90% range that our
clients are bicycle-related.
I don't know, a couple yearsafter early 2000s I think, since
(12:10):
we didn't legally change thename, I don't have an easy way
to check.
Tom Butler (12:15):
Yeah, gotcha, there is a point.
It seems like that there's notthat many firms in the country
that have that kind of emphasis.
Bob Anderton (12:26):
Yeah.
Tom Butler (12:27):
What's that like being the only bike lawyer you
know, or one of I mean?
Maybe at one time you were kindof seen as the only bike lawyer
, or again I'm thinking therewas a time when there wasn't
very many, or again I'm thinkingthere was a time when there
wasn't very many.
Bob Anderton (12:44):
Well, I would say that this area bike law is
something that is continuing togrow throughout the country and
there are lawyers who are, youknow, bike people and people who
are committed to making thestreets safer, and that's great.
There are also lawyers who justgenerally represent injured
(13:07):
people, and they have figuredout that bike people make good
plaintiffs, and there are acouple of reasons for that.
One is that most injury claimsare related to car versus car
crashes and a lot of timesthere's not a lot of visible
damage to a car and sometimespeople can be seriously injured
(13:29):
even if the car doesn't lookthat way.
But most people think, hmm, Idon't know, right, and you know,
are you faking this?
Why did you do that?
But no one ever says, you know,after somebody driving a big
pickup runs down a person on abicycle, like how could you
possibly be hurt in that crash?
(13:51):
It's like, oh my God, you'realive, you know.
So there's that.
There's also the fact that thepeople who tend to ride bikes
like I know a little bit aboutyour background as a way to
become more healthy, bicycliststend not to be malingerers and
(14:11):
in terms of personal injuryclaims.
That's something that insurancecompanies always like to accuse
people like oh well, yourclient wasn't really hurt, they
didn't really need thistreatment and they didn't really
want to get better, they justwanted to get a payout.
And we I don't think I've heardthat for a long time, because
our people it's more like maybeyou shouldn't go back on your
(14:35):
bike right away, like, make surethat you're actually going to
be okay to ride.
We want to be active and sothroughout the country, there
are more firms that are seekingto represent people who've been
injured on bikes, and you mayknow the statistics related to
(14:58):
Vision Zero.
I mean many places inWashington, in Seattle and
throughout the country.
We endorse this concept calledVision Zero the idea that there
are no serious injuries ordeaths on the streets by 2030.
But the data is the opposite.
Like more and more people arebeing seriously injured and
(15:21):
killed, so there's more work tobe done.
Even today, insurance companiesthey're like Washington bike
law, you just representbicyclists.
Is that even possible?
I'm like yeah, or they'll say,okay, yeah, this is the bike
(15:42):
case.
Okay, do you have a name?
Because they're kind of allthat.
So it's changed a bit over time, but it's, I don't know, it's
good.
Tom Butler (15:55):
Are there common accidents that you see, or is it
kind of all over the board?
Bob Anderton (16:01):
Let me back up and say we don't like the term
accident, and there's when I saywe, there's two sets of people
who don't like the term accident.
One is the people that want tohave safe streets advocates for,
like Vision Zero says, don'tuse that term.
(16:26):
Accident assumes that it'sinevitable, there's nothing you
can do about it and it's justsomething that you accept.
We've got to have the maximumvehicle throughput and some
people are going to die andthat's just how it is.
Vision Zero was supposed to getaround that.
Also, plaintiff's lawyers likeme.
Before I had heard any of thatwhen I was working for Tom
Chambers, who was the firm thatrepresented catastrophic injured
(16:49):
people, he said like don't everuse that word because it means
that nobody's at fault.
So we say crash or collisionand if you Google crash, not
accident, there's a wholewebsite dedicated to beating
that out of people.
But anyway, there are commontypes of crashes, whether you
(17:12):
call them accidents and mostpeople still say accident, it's
fine.
A lot of people call them likeright hooks, left hooks, a right
hook being where a driverpasses you and immediately
forgets that you ever existedand turns right in front of you,
cutting you off.
Often we see that with the bikelanes In Seattle we have a lot
(17:34):
of people who want to be goodpeople and they want to stay out
of the bike lane and then theyturn at the last minute and they
cause the crash.
It's actually OK to drive in abike lane so long as you yield
to people who are riding bikesthere and you're really going to
turn.
It's not OK to stop in a bikelane because you're just going
(17:57):
to drop something off or becauseyou want to go around stuff,
but you really should get in thebike lane before the last
minute if you want to avoidaccidentally cutting somebody
off.
I did say accidentally there,didn't I?
So there's the right hook.
The left hook is, you know, theoncoming vehicle that turns in
(18:19):
front of you, and it's just.
You know, the bicyclist cameout of nowhere, oh gosh.
And with that, for the most part, the law is the same.
Whether you're riding a bike ordriving a car.
I mean you have to yield to ifyou're going to turn left, right
.
Rear ending is something that alot of people are paranoid
(18:41):
about, but it actually happens alot less than I think you might
think, but we get them Alsoside swipes, people that are
driving and they forget aboutthat.
Their mirrors are sticking wayout there, or they're towing a
trailer and they're turning andit doesn't follow the exact same
path and it hits somebody likethat.
(19:01):
And then something that we doat Washington Bike Law that not
every bike lawyer or evenpersonal injury lawyer does is
we do take the unsafeinfrastructure cases, which tend
to be a lot harder becauseyou're not just going to the
driver's insurance company andsaying, hey, let's make up for
(19:21):
this harm.
We are often trying to actuallyprevent future crashes in a
place and we have some historywith back in Seattle with there
used to be hundreds, if notthousands, of sewer grates with
big openings that could swallow,you know, a road bike's tire
(19:43):
very easily and did If it goesall the way down to your forks.
You're not going to go overthat, you're going to go like
that.
For the most part, I thinkthose have been eliminated.
We still sometimes see them inparking lots and we always ask
please get rid of these so thatnobody else crashes there.
(20:04):
And sometimes they actually dothat and it makes me happy.
And sometimes they're like whothe hell are you?
We do what we want.
Other infrastructure cases wecall them speed bumps.
You see the sign speed bump,but Seattle does not have any
speed bumps.
On our public streets we havewhat are called speed tables or
(20:31):
elevated crosswalks, which arethe same degree of elevation but
the transition happens slowerand so people don't crash on
their bikes.
And we recently had a case thatwent to trial involving unsafe
speed bump.
(20:51):
Then that went up on appeal andit looks like after many, many,
many, many, many years, that'sactually going to get paid.
Another, and probably the thingthat we've worked on longest,
has to do with the missing linkof the Burke-Gilman Trail, which
had been literally decades andtrying to make the carnage stop.
(21:13):
And, as you may or may not know, that area underneath the
Ballard Bridge that you know,there are bike lanes on city
streets.
It's not part of the BurkeGilman Trail, but hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of peoplehave crashed there and finally
(21:36):
those tracks have been pavedover.
And that happened because ourclients, as part of their
settlement, got the city toagree to improve it so that
other people wouldn't suffer thesame fate, and I really
(21:56):
appreciate that.
They did that.
I think we all should, and Iappreciate that the city has
made those improvements.
I mean I think people do wantsafer streets, whatever side
they're on.
Nobody wants to defend theclaims and nobody wants to be
injured, but sometimes it's hardto get that kind of outcome.
(22:17):
It's rare, and so I'mespecially proud that that has
happened.
Tom Butler (22:40):
So those are the main kinds intersection, or
you've got tracks that arerunning almost perpendicular to
a road or whatever.
Bob Anderton (22:52):
I mean you hit that with a bike and that it
doesn't really feel like anaccident, that feels like you
know a problem just waiting tohappen right, and that's that is
baked into vision zero that thepeople that that design the
infrastructure should assumethat not everyone is going to be
perfectly attentive whilethey're driving, that people are
(23:16):
going to make mistakes butthose mistakes shouldn't result
in serious injuries or death,which means we've got to change
the kind of infrastructure.
And it's tough in Seattlebecause we've got some crazy
terrain to cover.
I mean, how many six-way,seven-way intersections and over
a hill and with bridges, and soI don't envy the job of the
(23:40):
engineers that have to figureout how to do this safely, and
we have seen a lot ofimprovements lately.
But they're in one little place, so you might have this
wonderful, super safe feelinginfrastructure that disappears a
block later and then you'relike, okay, now what?
(24:01):
So we've got a long way to go,but we're going in the right
direction.
You know, I'm happy that thingsare improving.
Tom Butler (24:10):
I'm interested in this aspect of you as an
advocate.
Uh-huh, you know, and I knowthat you support the Seattle
Neighborhood Greenways, andthat's an organization that
looks to make movement aroundthe city safer.
You, you know, talked aboutthat.
You represent pedestrians,represent people in wheelchairs,
(24:33):
a broader perspective of peoplethat are moving in other ways
than cars, and I'm wondering ifthere's a set of legal
challenges that are shared whenyou're looking at pedestrians or
people moving around a city inother than cars.
Bob Anderton (24:55):
Well, I guess the answer is yes.
I mean, people that are outsideof vehicles are much more
vulnerable than than people whoare inside.
When I say vehicles, a bicycleis considered a vehicle in
Washington, but it's not thesame, as you know, a Hummer, for
instance.
You know, not only are we, thepeople outside of cars and
(25:17):
trucks, more vulnerable to beingseriously injured or killed in
crashes, we have anotherdisadvantage compared to people
with cars and in cars and trucks, which is that when police come
to investigate the crash, oftenthey just assume that the
bicyclist came out of nowhere,because oftentimes the bicyclist
(25:38):
has already been taken away byambulance and the driver's like
it came out of nowhere, and thatmay be true from their
perspective because they justlooked up from their phone.
But there's also anotherproblem that people have,
(26:00):
besides being more physicallyvulnerable, and it's the way the
law works.
If someone is claiming that adriver is responsible for their
damages caused in a crash, theyhave the burden to prove that
the driver was indeedresponsible.
But if somebody has a headinjury or, worse, if they're
killed, they're not going to beable to testify to what actually
(26:22):
happened and, because they havethe burden of proof, they may
not be able to recover anythingeven from their own insurer.
You know, if you have UIM onyour car insurance, that means
underinsured motorists oruninsured motorists.
You have insurance for peoplethat don't have insurance.
A lot of people don't or don'thave enough insurance, and it
(26:45):
should protect you when you'reriding around on your bike.
But the legal theory is thatthe insurer stands in the shoes
of the tortfeasor.
So what that means in humanbeing speak is that if the
driver has a defense, your owninsurance company can use it
against you, and so yourinsurance company could say well
(27:06):
, how do we know that the driverwas negligent?
What do you know?
Nothing, and there were nowitnesses.
So you lose.
So that's why another kind ofoutside representing individual
clients, something that I'vebeen doing besides that.
That's a terrible sentence, butwhat I'm trying to say is I
(27:30):
have been advocating for a lawthat would create a civil
presumption of liability againstdrivers who are involved in
crashes with people walking orrolling for a long time, I think
since 2009 is when I reallystarted trying to make this
happen, and I'm super excitedthat this year 2025, we actually
(27:54):
have a bill before theWashington State Legislature
that I helped write that wouldactually do this.
It's House Bill 1518, which wasintroduced by Representatives
Julia Reed and Beth Dogglio, andit's actually set for a hearing
tomorrow, which is February 5th, so we'll see where that goes.
(28:16):
But if we were to pass apresumed liability law, it would
protect the most vulnerablepeople on our streets in two
major ways.
The first way is that and thisis what would be ideal it would
motivate people that have themost power to prevent those
(28:38):
crashes, to pay attention and tobe safer.
The second way is that if acrash does happen and frankly,
they probably will still happenit would make these disputes
(28:59):
over liability less likely,which means that claims should
be resolved more quickly, andthat means people might not even
use a lawyer or need to have alawyer a lawyer or need to have
a lawyer and it could actuallybenefit not just people but
insurance companies, becausethey would spend less money on
litigation and could spend moneyon just compensating the people
who were injured.
(29:19):
I mean, I can say a whole bunchof things on this bill.
I'm not sure how much you want.
Tom Butler (29:25):
How likely do you feel that it's going to go
through?
Do you have a sense of that?
Do you feel like a lot of thethings have already been argued
over the years, or is therestill a lot of stuff to try to
educate or inform legislatorsabout?
Bob Anderton (29:43):
Well, I'm doing my best to get the word out, but
this is the first time that thishas been in front of the
Washington state legislature and, as far as I know, if this is
passed into the law, it would bethe first time in the United
States.
Now there are many countriesacross the world where it's much
(30:05):
safer to be walking or riding abike the world where it's much
safer to be walking or riding abike and those countries usually
have either presumed liabilityor strict liability.
With presumed liability, whichis what we're talking about here
, you would be able to rebutthat presumption.
It's not like the driver isautomatically responsible.
They're just presumedresponsible and since they don't
(30:27):
tend to lose their memory, theycould prove that they weren't.
With strict liability, it'sjust they're responsible.
But those countries not only dothey tend to have either strict
or presumed liability, theyalso tend to have better
infrastructure, have betterinfrastructure.
So it's a little hard to provecausation.
(30:49):
So I would like to say justlook at the data.
It's so clear, we just need todo this.
But it isn't that clear becauseoften these changes happen at
the same time or it's been thelaw for so long.
(31:10):
It's just hard to nail down thedata I've tried.
The flip side is that I thinktomorrow we're going to hear a
lot of speculation about whatthis would do, including that
it's a war on cars.
I'm probably afraid, as you'veheard before, it isn't, and we
(31:33):
actually drafted this bill toinclude a presumption against
bicyclists who are involved incollisions with people walking.
Frankly, I don't think that'sreally needed.
It happens a whole lot lessoften and people tend not to be
as seriously injured.
But because that tends to bethe first line of defense
(31:57):
parking maybe by me the firsthow will this reduce free
parking for cars?
And then the other one is it's awar on cars and it's neither.
It's really something that itwill make our streets safer and
our legal system fairer, and Ireally hope that we can pass it
(32:19):
this year.
But if we don't, you know I'vebeen at it for a long time I
will keep pushing it.
Ultimately, I think that if wehave the law and people know
about the law, it really willreduce the number of serious
injuries and deaths, and then Ican retire.
I've done this for over threedecades.
(32:43):
I'm ready.
It's fine.
Tom Butler (32:47):
As you're talking about it.
There's something that's cometo my mind, and maybe this is a
hard question to answer.
I don't know, but do you feellike, when you're out there
talking to different types ofpeople, whether it be drivers or
city officials or lawenforcement or whatever drivers
(33:11):
or city officials or lawenforcement or whatever that
there's an?
Element that people in the USthink well, streets are for cars
?
Bob Anderton (33:18):
Oh for sure, okay, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, there is a great book byPeter Norton which I have in the
other room because I can'tremember the title, but it
really really changed mythinking about it.
It's really a historicaloverview of the introduction the
mass-produced automobile in theUnited States and how it
(33:40):
completely changed what streetswere for.
I mean, you may have heard, hey, kid, go play in the street,
and that's a joke now, butbefore the Model T that was not
a joke.
The streets were a public areathat people would gather and
walk freely wherever the heckthey wanted to walk, because you
(34:03):
could hear the horses comingand they're coming at like eight
miles an hour.
You just move over.
But when cars would race aroundthe corner upwards of 30 miles
an hour, there was carnage inthe street and there was a huge
backlash against cars.
They were talking aboutlimiting speeds, prohibiting
them entirely in urban areas.
(34:25):
This led to the formation ofthe American Automobile
Association, which actually cameup with the phrase jaywalkers
and I did not know this, but atthe time a jay was pejorative,
it was like a hick, a countrybumpkin, somebody who didn't
know how to act.
Jaywalkers were people thatjust crossed in the middle of
(34:47):
the street and so they wereblamed for being run down.
So yeah, there's definitelythat idea here, but it's also
been like that in places likeAmsterdam or Copenhagen in the
1960s and they changed.
We can change.
Not everybody has to ride a bike.
(35:08):
I ride an e-bike often becauseI'm getting older and my knees
don't always work so well.
But even if you have balanceproblems, they're trikes and
heck.
Everybody walks.
Everyone benefits from a morepedestrianized environment.
Nobody likes having a streetdominated by cars, but everybody
(35:34):
likes to be able to go up withthe rock star parking and drop
their car off and go right in.
I recently saw an illustrationabout why our perceptions are so
weird and I don't know if I candescribe it.
But basically, if you go to ashopping mall, there's lots of
parking right, there's acres ofparking, but actually you might
(35:58):
park what is the equivalent of acouple blocks away.
It just doesn't feel like itbecause you can see you're going
to Sears or whatever's left inthose places.
You're going to Sears orwhatever's left in those places,
and whereas if you got to walka couple blocks downtown you
think what's going on?
This is an outrage.
But yeah, no, there's lots of.
(36:18):
I've got a lot of different funreading related to street use
and parking.
That's not really part of mypractice, right, but it's
definitely something that I'vecome to appreciate that we do
look at this in a way that wethink is self-serving.
(36:42):
Like I want to have freeparking.
I don't want to pay for parkingSome of these, you know, I'm
not going to pay $40 orsomething to park in a parking
garage.
I don't want to pay for parking.
I'm not going to pay $40 orsomething to park in a parking
garage.
I'm just going to keep goingaround the block until I find
the free parking.
There was some kind of study Idon't know the exact findings,
but it was a significantpercentage of downtown motor
(37:02):
vehicle traffic is peoplelooking for free parking.
So, and you know, now inSeattle we have variable pricing
based on demand, which isprobably smart, right, I mean
the idea even if you are chargedwhat seems like a significant
amount for street parking, itstill undervalues what the land
(37:23):
is worth and there arealternative uses that could be
better.
But then you know we need tohave a way for people to get
around.
Not everybody's going to ride abike, so you know we got to
have safe and effective placesto walk, to bike, mass transit,
and then you don't need your caruntil people are going to do
(37:44):
whatever's easiest, and I findthat it's easiest for me to ride
a bike.
I mean, I'm here in downtownSeattle, I live in West Seattle.
My commute has some wonderfulparts along beautiful water and
some terrifying parts where I'veliterally seen people killed,
and it's getting better all thetime.
(38:04):
I'm glad to be here now, butyeah, we I don't even know what
the question was at this point,but it's, it's streets.
Streets are weird.
People in the United States dohave a, I think, an incomplete
view of the history of streetsand I think we tend to
(38:32):
undervalue the human component.
And it's just like this war oncar rhetoric.
It's like isn't the goal to getpeople around safely, not to
provide subsidized privatevehicle parking everywhere,
because that gets in the wayalso?
(38:52):
So, but you know, I could ranton and on about that.
Tom Butler (38:57):
So let's let's you know, I have to be, you know,
open with myself.
I have to be real to myself.
You know, open with myself.
I have to be real to myself.
You know I, my perspective, hasreally opened up since my
daughter and my son-in-law movedto Seattle and they are a one
car family or one car couple.
(39:18):
And just having them educate meon, dad, you know, take the
light rail, throw your bike onthe light rail and you don't
need to come into town with yourcar.
And uh, cause I would come intoSeattle and I would be looking
for parking and driving aroundlooking for parking and you know
(39:39):
, I just have to admit that it'stough to get out of that
perspective.
Bob Anderton (39:42):
You almost need to have and I don't mean to shame
people who do that.
I mean I do it too right.
I mean we all do it right.
Nobody wants to pay for it,everyone wants it to be easy.
But this goes back to, like the, the duty to build safe
infrastructure.
You need to build stuff thatworks for people.
People are going to dowhatever's easiest for them, and
(40:06):
if it's easiest to drive,people are going to drive if
they can.
I mean, and you know, somepeople will sacrifice and you
know, take the train with yourbike and then transfer to the
boss and do this whole thing.
But you know, if they can driveand have free parking, ain't no
way they're going to do that.
We've got to do better becauseultimately, as we have increased
(40:31):
density, it doesn't matter ifyour car is electric or if it
burns coal you are using at anytime, and so if you want a city
that functions, you really gotto have fewer cars.
(40:51):
And we're seeing that in placeslike Oslo, norway, where a few
years ago we went to visitfamily and we found a hotel
online and we didn't realizethat it was right on the edge of
where there's no car.
So one side of when we left thehotel.
It was great.
It was a car-free part of thecity, but on the other side it's
(41:14):
the belt line that goes around.
So our hotel was like terrible.
You know, car, car, car, car,car, car, car, car, because
people drive there too, but theyjust don't drive in the city,
because they've made the policydecisions to build a city up for
(41:35):
people, not for cars, and Ihope we'll see more of that here
.
Tom Butler (41:59):
And we are, but it's slower than I'd like change,
whether it be kind of the legallandscape.
You know, like this, this billthat you're advocating for and
you helped author, you know theshifting mindset of the city
even do you think Washington isin a place, seattle's in a place
(42:19):
to, to maybe lead the way withsome of this change?
Bob Anderton (42:23):
I hope we are.
I mean, I think it remains tobe seen, with this presumed
civil liability law, whetherthat's going to get passed this
year.
We've got budget issues thatpeople I think are primarily
focused on, and in the city, youknow, I think we have an
increasingly conservative citycouncil and mayor, and this may
(42:46):
come as a surprise to those ofus who do ride bikes regularly.
Washington is one of the bestplaces in the country to ride a
bike and there are some crazydrivers out there who are
yelling and screaming at you andseemingly intentionally trying
(43:06):
to run you down or at leastscare you, but it's a lot fewer
than other parts of the country.
So it's a little bit depressing, honestly to answer your
question that yes, we areleaders, because I think we're
still not where we ought to be,but I do think we are improving
(43:29):
in lots of different areas andmore and more people you know
are willing to try riding,walking.
I think there's still areduction in the mass transit
use since the pandemic andunfortunately, people are still
driving like they're the onlyones on the road Not everybody,
(43:51):
but you see them, right, I mean.
So, yeah, it's kind of a lot ofpeople who just don't see it.
It's not on the map.
I mean, there's a lot of stuffgoing on.
It's not on a lot of people'smaps.
(44:13):
It doesn't mean they're badpeople, but it's hard to like
your question about how streetsare used.
I mean, I was doing this for atleast 20 years before I read
the book and was like, oh my God, it's true.
I mean, look at the street,like most streets, like half of
(44:36):
it is dedicated to parking, likeit's an incredible amount of
resources that are used to storeprivate cars that are not even
being used, and we couldallocate those resources
differently, but we choose notto, and it's not even that we
choose not to.
It's just not on the map, and soit'd be good to put it on the
(44:58):
map, even if you don't want topay those exorbitant private
parking rates, which is why weneed better transit, we need
safer infrastructure for walkingand biking, and then you feel
safer.
There's a lot of folks thatdon't feel safe riding a bike
today.
I mean, I'll tell you, a coupleof years ago I got rid of my
(45:19):
road bike, and that's not to saythat you can't safely ride a
road bike, but so many times I,you know, get stuck in a little
groove between pavement partswith my little 23 millimeter
tires and it's a little scary.
You know I switched to a gravelbike even though I made fun of
(45:40):
them at first, and you know it'snice to have bigger tires, low
rolling resistance.
It feels a lot, a lot safer.
Tom Butler (45:49):
Now your firm has been recognized by the League of
American Bicyclists and alsoCascade Bicycle Club, and can
you talk about that, about thatrecognition and what that's
about?
Bob Anderton (46:03):
The League of American Bicyclists is the, I
think, the oldest bicyclerelated organization in the,
certainly in the country, andWashington Bike Law was the
first law office recognized as a.
I think what are we called Abike?
Somewhere?
I have a something bikefriendly business back in 2009.
(46:27):
Since then, we continue to getthe recognition.
We are now up to platinum level, which is the highest level
that they can give.
It's higher than the city ofSeattle or the state of
Washington, not that it's acompetition.
In 2013, washington Bike Law wasthe first organization any
organization, law office orotherwise to be recognized by
(46:49):
Cascade, mostly because I knewthey were going to do it and I
was like, oh yeah, well, we'lldo that.
They're not doing that anymore.
So it was kind of one and done.
But we still have this kind ofblue glass thing says we're that
you know it's great to berecognized.
Were that you know it's greatto be recognized.
(47:10):
But I think, more importantly,the people at Washington Bike
Law really are committed tomaking our streets safer for
everyone and you know we'retenacious.
We're keeping at this becausewe care about our clients and
the bigger picture.
So if we get recognition,that's cool.
Thank you, I mean I'll put iton the wall.
(47:32):
You probably saw it on thewebsite.
We're going to put it out thereand it's nice to have someone
else say, yeah, you do what yousay you do, but we got that
because we do it.
Tom Butler (47:46):
And we're going to keep doing it, whether we get it
or not.
Well, I'm not looking forspecific legal advice, but I'm
wondering can you talk about,like, maybe, typical stages or
typical flow or somethinginvolving the stages or the
progression or whatever of abicycle incident progression or
(48:09):
whatever of a bicycle incident?
Are there things that cyclistsshould do to effectively
communicate with their attorney?
What are some of the things youthink about in the progression
of things?
Bob Anderton (48:15):
Sure, well, I think when you originally put
this together, you were talkingabout a lawsuit, and one thing
that I want people often kind ofrefer to an injury claim as a
lawsuit, but actually mostclaims never result in a lawsuit
.
It's negotiations with aninsurance company, and if a
(48:37):
claim can't be settled with theinsurance company, then the
insurance company is going toappoint a lawyer to represent
the person accused of beingresponsible for the crash and
then they would pay any verdictup to the policy limits of that
person's insurance.
(48:57):
Because of this, usually thefirst thing that happens after a
crash is that the driver'sinsurance company is going to
try to get a hold of the otherperson involved and lock them
into a set of facts.
They want to take a recordedstatement and that might be your
own insurance company if it's aUIM or uninsured or
(49:21):
underinsured motorist claim andyou do have a duty to cooperate
with your own insurance company.
But if your own insurancecompany, and especially the
other person's insurance company, can use what you say against
you, they're definitely going todo it.
So I mean, I guess,fundamentally it's important to
tell the truth, but even morethan that, it's better not to
(49:42):
give a statement until you'rementally able to do this, and we
would usually recommend thatyou talk with a lawyer.
I mean, that's sort of thestandard lawyer advice is talk
to a lawyer.
Surprise, but you know a lot ofpeople don't.
But the problem with giving arecorded statement is that if
(50:04):
your claim isn't settled and youfile a lawsuit, then what
happens you were asking aboutthe steps in a lawsuit is a
discovery, which is the formalexchange of information, and
discovery includes depositions,where you have questions asked
of you under oath.
But if you already have arecorded statement, then they
(50:25):
kind of have what we call twobites at the apple.
They have more opportunities tocatch you in some kind of
inconsistency.
Which is why the first thing Isaid was the most important
thing is to tell the truth.
That's kind of the step.
One is that statement, I guess.
The other thing is ofteninsurance companies try to
settle claims quickly and onething I'm not sure how widely
(50:48):
distributed you are.
The statute of limitations isthe legal period in which
somebody has to settle a case orthey have to file a lawsuit,
after which they don't have anyrights right, and that time
period varies in differentstates.
In Washington, though, ifsomeone is accused of
(51:11):
negligently causing a crash, youhave up to three years to
settle a case or file a lawsuit,so it's a lot of time, and I
think a lot of people don't knowthat.
And insurance companies kind ofpressure them into some kind of
lowball settlement and theymight say well, we'll pay up to
(51:32):
a certain amount if you needthese medical bills.
And I think if you takeanything away from what I'm
saying now, it is especially ifyou're not going to use a lawyer
, you're going to try to settleyour case on your own.
A lawyer, if you're going totry to settle your case on your
own, don't do it right away.
Make sure that you're reallyback to where you were before
the crash, before you settle,because you're not going to get
(51:52):
the full value from theinsurance company and once you
settle it's over.
So I guess that's helpful forpeople who are not represented.
And then I think you also askedabout how should people
communicate if they do have alawyer.
And one thing that I know Ialways get kind of weirded out
(52:18):
when I know that a professionalis charging me a lot of money
and I want to kind of like gether done.
Pretty much anybody whorepresents that is, any lawyer
who represents injured peopledoes so on a contingency fee.
So the lawyer would take apercentage of whatever they get
you.
That varies a little bit, butit's fairly standard as opposed
(52:41):
to an hourly fee.
And people should remember thatif you get a lawyer, make them
earn their keep.
They want to get you the mostmoney because that's how they
get the highest fee.
You want to get the most money.
So talk to them.
If you have questions, ask.
If you get something in themail or an email and it's
(53:06):
referencing this crash, don'trespond to it yourself.
Send it to the lawyer.
Ask what is this?
Should I respond?
We tell people this and yetthey respond all the time on
their own.
It's like, oh, don't do that,everybody to do that.
(53:30):
So, and I guess if I could blowmy own horn, as it were, there
are lots of different sort oftypes of law firms.
There are sort of the generalpractice firm, which knows a
little bit about everything andwill do whatever, and there's
also firms that only representinjured people.
They're going to know theanswer to most of the kind of
questions that you might have.
And then there are officesbesides Washington Bike Law, but
(53:52):
Washington Bike Law is one ofthem that this is what we do.
We represent injured people,from bike crashes mostly, and
sometimes walking.
We see the same stuff over andover again, so I'm not claiming
to be the smartest person in theworld, but once you've seen
something enough, you probablyknow where to go and, hopefully,
(54:12):
how to get there in the bestway.
I guess this doesn't reallyanswer how do you effectively
communicate with your lawyer?
But more like, how do youchoose someone to represent you?
So, besides that general rule,you want somebody that you feel
comfortable with, becausesometimes these things will drag
on longer than you couldpossibly imagine.
(54:32):
I mean, I just got an emailfrom a client.
She's like yeah, you know,we've been working on this for
over five years.
If somebody makes you nauseousto even hear their name, like,
maybe that's not who you shouldwork with.
Tom Butler (54:47):
You have a lot of experience, like you've said.
You've seen a lot of things,and what are the most important
safety precautions that cyclistsshould take to minimize the
risk of accidents?
Bob Anderton (54:59):
This is a great question, thank you.
You know, I think I mentionedthat I used to regularly
represent bike messengers andyou know kind of punk rock kind
of folks, and it seemed likemost of them had this mindset
that drivers wanted to hit themand so their response was Assume
(55:22):
that they were invisible andjust avoid it, pay a lot of
attention.
And a lot of them also reallytook steps to be invisible
wearing all black and taking offtheir reflectors.
So I think it's both it'sprobably better to be aware and
visible.
But in terms of what specificsteps somebody can take to avoid
(55:48):
getting hit by so many of theinattentive drivers out there, I
have a specific recommendationand that is a helmet light and
particularly in the winter, whenit's dark here in the Pacific
Northwest and that's to behonest, I don't, it feels too
(56:10):
dorky to wear it in the summer.
So I have a winter helmet, butthis thing and I have some fancy
schmancy bike one.
But my sister, who's a nurse,she got one on Amazon for like
six bucks or something and itbasically does the same thing.
It's visible in the back, socars see you, but more
(56:31):
importantly in the front andwhat this does, and it's not
required right Legally, to rideit during the hours of darkness
in Washington, you need a frontheadlight and you need a rear
reflector.
You don't even need a rear light.
That's not to say you shouldn'thave a rear light you should,
but legally you don't have tohave it.
You definitely don't need tohave a helmet light.
(56:52):
But what a helmet light does iswhen you turn right, you have
light where you're looking.
So it's helpful when you'regoing around a corner or
something like that.
But, more importantly, you canlook at drivers and you can see
if they're looking at you andI'm here to tell you they're not
Right.
(57:12):
And suddenly they're like, whatthe hell is that light?
And they look up and they don'thit you.
I mean I can't tell you howmany times I feel like this has
saved me and it's it's great.
You shouldn't, we shouldn'thave to do this, but it's
helpful beyond preventing aninattentive driver hitting you.
(57:34):
It's just helpful to see likeyou can hit a pothole, you can
run off the road.
I mean there's no reason not todo this, especially because you
can get them.
Get them them cheap.
So I think that's a little bitdifferent than the usual.
You know, don't wear black andand all the things that you hear
um.
Tom Butler (57:55):
So that's I like that.
I mean, it's such a practicalthing and, again, like like you
said, you've experienced it yeahit, it feels so much safer.
Bob Anderton (58:07):
At some point in the last few weeks I got a bunch
of helmets and I realized I hadon a helmet that didn't have a
light and I had a harder timeseeing and I felt I look at
drivers, I'm telling you thathere that you can't see on a
podcast, but you know, I givethem the stink eye but and
there's no response and it'sbecause my headlights not on.
(58:30):
So yeah, that's cheap and easyway to to be a lot safer.
Tom Butler (58:37):
Do you have any bike adventures planned for the
future?
Bob Anderton (58:41):
You know I think I mentioned that I kind of
consider myself a utilitarianbicyclist.
So you know I have lots ofaspirations of mountain biking
and gravel biking and doingthese things, but the truth of
the matter is pretty much neverhappens.
So I would say that myadventures are getting to and
from work, and that's quite anadventure really.
(59:03):
So it's just, that's my, that'sthe plan, just keep, keep
riding.
It's, it's, it's easy, it's themost efficient way for me.
It and it has kept merelatively fit, even though
that's pretty much all I do.
And that's, that's a good.
Tom Butler (59:23):
Well, and your commute is beautiful.
I mean, if people don't knowthe Seattle area, I mean what
you're talking about as far aswhat you're riding there's, you
know, it's really beautiful andyou get to see Mount Rainier
probably a lot during yourcommute, and the sound and
everything.
(59:43):
So you could find a lot ofplaces that weren't as
picturesque as as that commute.
Bob Anderton (59:49):
For sure.
Also, alki was one of the firstparking protected bike lanes in
the country.
Tom Butler (59:55):
Okay.
Bob Anderton (59:56):
Most of it doesn't have it, but we, uh, I guess
that would be South at the endof the beach there's a parking
protected portion, so yeah it'sit's great and it's also
terrible in places.
Tom Butler (01:00:11):
Bob, thank you so much for taking the time to do
this.
I found it to be awesome, Ifound it to be valuable.
Really, you know, theperspective that you have
because of what you've done foryears is, I believe, just a
really unique perspective and Ireally appreciate you sharing
that with the podcast listenershere.
Bob Anderton (01:00:31):
Well, thank you, it's been fun.
Tom Butler (01:00:33):
Fantastic.
Talk to you later.
All right, I am thrilled that Igot to share that conversation
on the podcast.
Bob has had such an interestingview of the changing cycling
landscape over the years.
If Washington is there to be anexample for other states to
(01:00:57):
follow in creating excellentcycling conditions, it's because
there are a lot of people likeBob who contribute to this being
a unique place to ride.
There are a lot of people likeBob who contribute to this being
a unique place to ride, and Iwas able to do my part this week
by participating in bikelegislation lobbying activities
in Olympia.
This was my first exposure toengaging in grassroots advocacy
for bike safety.
I was thrilled to learn moreabout the process and I'm sure
(01:01:20):
I'll do more of it in the future.
Bob mentioned a book on thehistory of roads and cars.
I will put a link in the shownotes to the book.
It's called Fighting Trafficthe Dawn of the Motor Age in the
American City, and it's byPeter Norton.
I plan to dive into it soon.
I have about a week and a halfnow to get ready for this year's
first group ride.
I have to say I'm feelingnervous about being ready Now,
(01:01:46):
whether you are training for aspecific ride or not.
I hope next week brings youwhatever you seek as a cyclist,
and remember, age is just a gearchange.
This is the Cycling Over 60 podcast, season three,
episode 17,.
A Bike Law Firm and I'm yourhost, tom Butler.
I want to start out by invitingpeople again to join me on
(00:26):
Thursdays at 3 pm Pacific timefor something I'm calling Zwift
Thursday.
This is an opportunity to dovirtual riding together and to
chat on Zoom.
I don't think I will continueto do the virtual ride at the
same time when the hot weatherhits here, but for the next few
months I plan on beingconsistent with it.
Of course you need to haveZwift, but also to do the ride
(00:50):
you need to be a member of theCycling Over 60 Zwift Club.
You should be able to find theclub by pulling up the Zwift
Companion app and then searchingfor Cycling Over 60.
Once in the club, look for theclub events section and hit the
plus symbol to signify that youwant to attend the ride.
When the ride time comes onThursday, start Zwift up a few
minutes before 3 pm Pacific sothat you can be set and ready at
(01:13):
the starting line.
You should be able to see theride as soon as you log into
Zwift, but I'm not sure how longbefore the ride.
It starts showing up Most ofthe time I've gotten in about 15
minutes early and I see it thenone up.
Most of the time I've gotten inabout 15 minutes early and I
see it then.
I've done a group ride now afew times by myself, which is
good because I'm still trying tofigure everything out, but I
think I might be able toorchestrate the ride smoothly
(01:34):
this Thursday, maybe BecauseI've only done the group rides
alone.
I'm not 100% sure what thegroup experience will be like.
I do like the route a lot.
It's called Coast to Coast andI think it's going to be good
for a group experience.
It took me about an hour ataround one watt per kilogram,
and that's the pace that I planto typically go for the Zwift
(01:55):
Thursday rides.
The time estimate they give fortwo watts per kilogram is 50
minutes.
I believe I have set up theride in a way that if a group
wants to go off the front, youcan do so.
I would like to see twodifferent groups a slower group
and a faster group.
Now I'm not sure what all canbe contested on the route.
There is the Woodland Sprint,which I know can be tracked for
(02:17):
the group, also Jarvis KOM, butthere is the Jarvis Lap and the
Jarvis Sprint and I'm not sureabout those.
I will open up a Zoom chat roomduring the ride.
The best way to get the link tothe Zoom is to email me.
You can find my email in theshow notes.
Even if you aren't doing ZwiftThursday, feel free to pop in
(02:39):
the Zoom and say hello or ask aquestion.
Last weekend I went to the bikeswap that Cascade Bicycle Club
puts on in Seattle and I lovedit.
The experience makes me want totravel around and see other
bike swaps.
I would really like to see howit compares to bike swaps in
other areas.
I'm curious if anyone listeningknows what the biggest bike
swap in the US is.
I see that VeloSwap in Denverlooks like a great expo.
(03:03):
Also, if you go toliveandpeaceorg forward slash
bike swap, you can find a bikeswap that happened in 2024 in
Palo Alto.
That looks interesting and theymentioned that will happen
again in 2025.
I have to say I'm in love withthe idea of attending a Live in
Peace bike swap and it lookslike I'm just barely in time to
(03:23):
draw attention to what isclaimed to be the East Coast's
largest indoor bike swap andthat looks like I'm just barely
in time to draw attention towhat is claimed to be the East
Coast's largest indoor bike swap, and that's the 28th annual
Stop, swap and Save.
That is happening inWestminster, maryland.
Go to stopswapandsavecom forinformation and I'll put all
those links in the show notes.
I will wrap up this week'supdate with something I find
(03:44):
interesting.
I am now starting to push'supdate with something I find
interesting.
I am now starting to push moreweight with my upper body
workouts.
That means that I'm feelingreally fatigued after the
workouts.
One thing I've noticed, andthat I hope continues, is that
these hard lifting sessionsreally knock my blood glucose
down.
It is obvious that the liftingdoes more than riding for
(04:04):
immediate utilization of glucose.
I'm really curious what isgoing on that, even though my
upper body doesn't seem as muchmuscle mass as what gets pushed
when I'm cycling, there'ssomething about the intensity
that makes a difference in theglucose utilization.
I'm really looking forward tofinding someone to have a
conversation with this, someonewho knows a lot about energy
(04:26):
utilization and exercise.
In my opinion, one of the moreinteresting organizations in my
area is Washington Bike Law.
This is a law firm thatrepresents injured bicyclists
statewide and also advocates forsafer streets for people
(04:48):
walking and rolling.
I wanted to learn more aboutBob Anderton, the founder of
Washington Bike Law, and get hisperspective from years in
practice.
I reached out and Bob agreed tocome on the podcast.
Here is our discussion.
I'm joined today by bike lawexpert Bob Anderton.
Thank you, bob, for being here.
Bob Anderton (05:06):
Thank you for having me.
Tom Butler (05:08):
It is a real pleasure to have you here.
I am really anxious to get yourperspective on a few areas of
bicycle law, and let's start theconversation here.
What are your earliest memoriesof the bicycle?
Bob Anderton (05:21):
Well, this isn't going to really translate, but
I'm going to show you this photothat refreshes my recollection.
This is me at three years old,with the bicycle that Santa
brought me.
Tom Butler (05:32):
OK.
Bob Anderton (05:34):
And it had 20-inch wheels, which was, you know,
traditional small bike size BMXbefore BMX existed.
This is 1970.
And they're solid plastic tireswhich, as I got a little bit
older, I realized were kind ofawful.
And I have a vivid memory ofgoing on a walk with my parents
(05:58):
probably my dog and seeing thatsomeone had thrown out back in
the days of you could throw outwhatever you wanted in the trash
.
Someone had thrown out back inthe days, if you could throw out
whatever you wanted in thetrash, someone had thrown out
another kid's bike but that onehad, you know, real tires and
wheels, although they were flat,and so we grabbed it out of
(06:18):
somebody's trash, took it homeand I learned how to patch tubes
.
I think we might have evenpatched the inside of the worn
out tires, but it was way betterthan the plastic ones and I had
that bike for longer thanprobably I should have.
Tom Butler (06:36):
That's fantastic.
I love that, yeah.
What a great find.
Bob Anderton (06:41):
Yeah, no, it was.
I've been patching tubes eversince.
Now, of course, I have some ofthose tubeless tires that
supposedly don't get flats, andyou know they do.
Tom Butler (06:51):
Okay, and then you stuck with cycling as you got
older, and I'm wondering aboutthat progression and I've always
represented injured people.
Bob Anderton (07:03):
But I never had some kind of business model to
be a bike lawyer, I mean, I'dnever heard of such a thing.
But before I started my ownoffice, I worked, obviously, for
other folks, and one of thepeople that I worked for only
represented catastrophicallyinjured clients, only
(07:27):
represented catastrophicallyinjured clients, and so it was a
high level office where I kindof learned some of the tricks, I
guess, or whatever.
And then I also worked for anoffice that represented a lot of
people and they were smallercases and a lot of our clients
were immigrants.
And you know, honestly, Ireally enjoyed getting to know
(07:53):
folks that were different fromme and being able to make a
difference in their lives.
I mean, these were not bigcases, but they were big to the
clients and it really felt good.
And you know, as years went byI think I had practiced for
eight or nine years peoplestarted kind of naturally coming
(08:15):
to me and I started thinking,oh gosh, maybe I could have my
own office and I actuallythought maybe I would represent
kind of immigrant communitiesbecause I really liked it.
But it turns out I'm not reallyin any immigrant communities.
My grandmother came from Norwayin 1929, but I don't really have
(08:36):
that kind of connection andthere are lots of folks that do.
So that didn't happen.
I mean, there were a few people, they were great.
What I guess did happen is thatI was a bike commuter and I
started representing bike peopleand particularly bike
messengers and the King CountySuperior Court Well, actually I
(09:03):
think all of them I don't knowthat all the courts in
Washington, that's not true.
There are state courts thatstill require paper filing, but
pretty much if you're anattorney you can't even file
with paper.
So that job kind of went awayand so did those clients.
Even though we don't have bikemessengers anymore, more and
(09:29):
more people are riding bikes,particularly in Seattle, where
it's terrible to drive andunfortunately more and more
people are driving dangerously,which is bad for me as a bike
commuter and you as Tom oranyone listening.
We want the roads to be safe,roads to be safe, but you know
we've had, as a result, a lot ofclients and the offices
expanded to now where we havefour lawyers and support staff
(09:50):
where it was just me for a while.
Tom Butler (09:53):
What was the year that you started specializing, I
guess is the right word in bikeinjury cases?
Bob Anderton (10:01):
Yeah, I'm going to go a little into the weeds here
.
Technically, in Washington wedon't recognize specialties.
So lawyers say all the timethat they specialize, but you're
not really supposed to say that.
The one way to say it is thatthe practice is limited to.
But it doesn't really soundthat good.
What I can say is that when Istarted my office I think in the
(10:27):
year 2000, and it was calledAnderton Law Office Legally it
still is the Washington StatePower Association at the time
said you can call your officeanything you want, as long as
it's your name.
And later they've changed therules and they've said you can,
you can really call it anythingyou want, as long as it's not
misleading.
(10:48):
At some point a few years in Idecided to change the name, even
though legally it's a.
It's a DBA to Washington bikelaw and I think that's way
cooler.
You know what is Anderton?
No one, you know.
People are always fixing thatspelling, but everybody knows
(11:10):
Washington by claw it works.
Tom Butler (11:13):
Really, not too long after you opened your own
practice, you knew that you weregoing to do by claw, or did it
take a bit for that to develop?
Bob Anderton (11:26):
My wife was rather skeptical when I said I think
I'm kind of want to change,change the name, and at that
point I would say maybe abouthalf of our clients were people
who had been injured whileriding bicycles and at this
point that's.
I mean, we represent peopleinjured while walking or doing
(11:47):
something kind of related tothat, and we'll sometimes
represent former clients who arein a car crash.
But you know, it's probably inthe high 90% range that our
clients are bicycle-related.
I don't know, a couple yearsafter early 2000s I think, since
(12:10):
we didn't legally change thename, I don't have an easy way
to check.
Tom Butler (12:15):
Yeah, gotcha, there is a point.
It seems like that there's notthat many firms in the country
that have that kind of emphasis.
Bob Anderton (12:26):
Yeah.
Tom Butler (12:27):
What's that like being the only bike lawyer you
know, or one of I mean?
Maybe at one time you were kindof seen as the only bike lawyer
, or again I'm thinking therewas a time when there wasn't
very many, or again I'm thinkingthere was a time when there
wasn't very many.
Bob Anderton (12:44):
Well, I would say that this area bike law is
something that is continuing togrow throughout the country and
there are lawyers who are, youknow, bike people and people who
are committed to making thestreets safer, and that's great.
There are also lawyers who justgenerally represent injured
(13:07):
people, and they have figuredout that bike people make good
plaintiffs, and there are acouple of reasons for that.
One is that most injury claimsare related to car versus car
crashes and a lot of timesthere's not a lot of visible
damage to a car and sometimespeople can be seriously injured
(13:29):
even if the car doesn't lookthat way.
But most people think, hmm, Idon't know, right, and you know,
are you faking this?
Why did you do that?
But no one ever says, you know,after somebody driving a big
pickup runs down a person on abicycle, like how could you
possibly be hurt in that crash?
(13:51):
It's like, oh my God, you'realive, you know.
So there's that.
There's also the fact that thepeople who tend to ride bikes
like I know a little bit aboutyour background as a way to
become more healthy, bicycliststend not to be malingerers and
(14:11):
in terms of personal injuryclaims.
That's something that insurancecompanies always like to accuse
people like oh well, yourclient wasn't really hurt, they
didn't really need thistreatment and they didn't really
want to get better, they justwanted to get a payout.
And we I don't think I've heardthat for a long time, because
our people it's more like maybeyou shouldn't go back on your
(14:35):
bike right away, like, make surethat you're actually going to
be okay to ride.
We want to be active and sothroughout the country, there
are more firms that are seekingto represent people who've been
injured on bikes, and you mayknow the statistics related to
(14:58):
Vision Zero.
I mean many places inWashington, in Seattle and
throughout the country.
We endorse this concept calledVision Zero the idea that there
are no serious injuries ordeaths on the streets by 2030.
But the data is the opposite.
Like more and more people arebeing seriously injured and
(15:21):
killed, so there's more work tobe done.
Even today, insurance companiesthey're like Washington bike
law, you just representbicyclists.
Is that even possible?
I'm like yeah, or they'll say,okay, yeah, this is the bike
(15:42):
case.
Okay, do you have a name?
Because they're kind of allthat.
So it's changed a bit over time, but it's, I don't know, it's
good.
Tom Butler (15:55):
Are there common accidents that you see, or is it
kind of all over the board?
Bob Anderton (16:01):
Let me back up and say we don't like the term
accident, and there's when I saywe, there's two sets of people
who don't like the term accident.
One is the people that want tohave safe streets advocates for,
like Vision Zero says, don'tuse that term.
(16:26):
Accident assumes that it'sinevitable, there's nothing you
can do about it and it's justsomething that you accept.
We've got to have the maximumvehicle throughput and some
people are going to die andthat's just how it is.
Vision Zero was supposed to getaround that.
Also, plaintiff's lawyers likeme.
Before I had heard any of thatwhen I was working for Tom
Chambers, who was the firm thatrepresented catastrophic injured
(16:49):
people, he said like don't everuse that word because it means
that nobody's at fault.
So we say crash or collisionand if you Google crash, not
accident, there's a wholewebsite dedicated to beating
that out of people.
But anyway, there are commontypes of crashes, whether you
(17:12):
call them accidents and mostpeople still say accident, it's
fine.
A lot of people call them likeright hooks, left hooks, a right
hook being where a driverpasses you and immediately
forgets that you ever existedand turns right in front of you,
cutting you off.
Often we see that with the bikelanes In Seattle we have a lot
(17:34):
of people who want to be goodpeople and they want to stay out
of the bike lane and then theyturn at the last minute and they
cause the crash.
It's actually OK to drive in abike lane so long as you yield
to people who are riding bikesthere and you're really going to
turn.
It's not OK to stop in a bikelane because you're just going
(17:57):
to drop something off or becauseyou want to go around stuff,
but you really should get in thebike lane before the last
minute if you want to avoidaccidentally cutting somebody
off.
I did say accidentally there,didn't I?
So there's the right hook.
The left hook is, you know, theoncoming vehicle that turns in
(18:19):
front of you, and it's just.
You know, the bicyclist cameout of nowhere, oh gosh.
And with that, for the most part, the law is the same.
Whether you're riding a bike ordriving a car.
I mean you have to yield to ifyou're going to turn left, right
.
Rear ending is something that alot of people are paranoid
(18:41):
about, but it actually happens alot less than I think you might
think, but we get them Alsoside swipes, people that are
driving and they forget aboutthat.
Their mirrors are sticking wayout there, or they're towing a
trailer and they're turning andit doesn't follow the exact same
path and it hits somebody likethat.
(19:01):
And then something that we doat Washington Bike Law that not
every bike lawyer or evenpersonal injury lawyer does is
we do take the unsafeinfrastructure cases, which tend
to be a lot harder becauseyou're not just going to the
driver's insurance company andsaying, hey, let's make up for
(19:21):
this harm.
We are often trying to actuallyprevent future crashes in a
place and we have some historywith back in Seattle with there
used to be hundreds, if notthousands, of sewer grates with
big openings that could swallow,you know, a road bike's tire
(19:43):
very easily and did If it goesall the way down to your forks.
You're not going to go overthat, you're going to go like
that.
For the most part, I thinkthose have been eliminated.
We still sometimes see them inparking lots and we always ask
please get rid of these so thatnobody else crashes there.
(20:04):
And sometimes they actually dothat and it makes me happy.
And sometimes they're like whothe hell are you?
We do what we want.
Other infrastructure cases wecall them speed bumps.
You see the sign speed bump,but Seattle does not have any
speed bumps.
On our public streets we havewhat are called speed tables or
(20:31):
elevated crosswalks, which arethe same degree of elevation but
the transition happens slowerand so people don't crash on
their bikes.
And we recently had a case thatwent to trial involving unsafe
speed bump.
(20:51):
Then that went up on appeal andit looks like after many, many,
many, many, many years, that'sactually going to get paid.
Another, and probably the thingthat we've worked on longest,
has to do with the missing linkof the Burke-Gilman Trail, which
had been literally decades andtrying to make the carnage stop.
(21:13):
And, as you may or may not know, that area underneath the
Ballard Bridge that you know,there are bike lanes on city
streets.
It's not part of the BurkeGilman Trail, but hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of peoplehave crashed there and finally
(21:36):
those tracks have been pavedover.
And that happened because ourclients, as part of their
settlement, got the city toagree to improve it so that
other people wouldn't suffer thesame fate, and I really
(21:56):
appreciate that.
They did that.
I think we all should, and Iappreciate that the city has
made those improvements.
I mean I think people do wantsafer streets, whatever side
they're on.
Nobody wants to defend theclaims and nobody wants to be
injured, but sometimes it's hardto get that kind of outcome.
(22:17):
It's rare, and so I'mespecially proud that that has
happened.
Tom Butler (22:40):
So those are the main kinds intersection, or
you've got tracks that arerunning almost perpendicular to
a road or whatever.
Bob Anderton (22:52):
I mean you hit that with a bike and that it
doesn't really feel like anaccident, that feels like you
know a problem just waiting tohappen right, and that's that is
baked into vision zero that thepeople that that design the
infrastructure should assumethat not everyone is going to be
perfectly attentive whilethey're driving, that people are
(23:16):
going to make mistakes butthose mistakes shouldn't result
in serious injuries or death,which means we've got to change
the kind of infrastructure.
And it's tough in Seattlebecause we've got some crazy
terrain to cover.
I mean, how many six-way,seven-way intersections and over
a hill and with bridges, and soI don't envy the job of the
(23:40):
engineers that have to figureout how to do this safely, and
we have seen a lot ofimprovements lately.
But they're in one little place, so you might have this
wonderful, super safe feelinginfrastructure that disappears a
block later and then you'relike, okay, now what?
(24:01):
So we've got a long way to go,but we're going in the right
direction.
You know, I'm happy that thingsare improving.
Tom Butler (24:10):
I'm interested in this aspect of you as an
advocate.
Uh-huh, you know, and I knowthat you support the Seattle
Neighborhood Greenways, andthat's an organization that
looks to make movement aroundthe city safer.
You, you know, talked aboutthat.
You represent pedestrians,represent people in wheelchairs,
(24:33):
a broader perspective of peoplethat are moving in other ways
than cars, and I'm wondering ifthere's a set of legal
challenges that are shared whenyou're looking at pedestrians or
people moving around a city inother than cars.
Bob Anderton (24:55):
Well, I guess the answer is yes.
I mean, people that are outsideof vehicles are much more
vulnerable than than people whoare inside.
When I say vehicles, a bicycleis considered a vehicle in
Washington, but it's not thesame, as you know, a Hummer, for
instance.
You know, not only are we, thepeople outside of cars and
(25:17):
trucks, more vulnerable to beingseriously injured or killed in
crashes, we have anotherdisadvantage compared to people
with cars and in cars and trucks, which is that when police come
to investigate the crash, oftenthey just assume that the
bicyclist came out of nowhere,because oftentimes the bicyclist
(25:38):
has already been taken away byambulance and the driver's like
it came out of nowhere, and thatmay be true from their
perspective because they justlooked up from their phone.
But there's also anotherproblem that people have,
(26:00):
besides being more physicallyvulnerable, and it's the way the
law works.
If someone is claiming that adriver is responsible for their
damages caused in a crash, theyhave the burden to prove that
the driver was indeedresponsible.
But if somebody has a headinjury or, worse, if they're
killed, they're not going to beable to testify to what actually
(26:22):
happened and, because they havethe burden of proof, they may
not be able to recover anythingeven from their own insurer.
You know, if you have UIM onyour car insurance, that means
underinsured motorists oruninsured motorists.
You have insurance for peoplethat don't have insurance.
A lot of people don't or don'thave enough insurance, and it
(26:45):
should protect you when you'reriding around on your bike.
But the legal theory is thatthe insurer stands in the shoes
of the tortfeasor.
So what that means in humanbeing speak is that if the
driver has a defense, your owninsurance company can use it
against you, and so yourinsurance company could say well
(27:06):
, how do we know that the driverwas negligent?
What do you know?
Nothing, and there were nowitnesses.
So you lose.
So that's why another kind ofoutside representing individual
clients, something that I'vebeen doing besides that.
That's a terrible sentence, butwhat I'm trying to say is I
(27:30):
have been advocating for a lawthat would create a civil
presumption of liability againstdrivers who are involved in
crashes with people walking orrolling for a long time, I think
since 2009 is when I reallystarted trying to make this
happen, and I'm super excitedthat this year 2025, we actually
(27:54):
have a bill before theWashington State Legislature
that I helped write that wouldactually do this.
It's House Bill 1518, which wasintroduced by Representatives
Julia Reed and Beth Dogglio, andit's actually set for a hearing
tomorrow, which is February 5th, so we'll see where that goes.
(28:16):
But if we were to pass apresumed liability law, it would
protect the most vulnerablepeople on our streets in two
major ways.
The first way is that and thisis what would be ideal it would
motivate people that have themost power to prevent those
(28:38):
crashes, to pay attention and tobe safer.
The second way is that if acrash does happen and frankly,
they probably will still happenit would make these disputes
(28:59):
over liability less likely,which means that claims should
be resolved more quickly, andthat means people might not even
use a lawyer or need to have alawyer a lawyer or need to have
a lawyer and it could actuallybenefit not just people but
insurance companies, becausethey would spend less money on
litigation and could spend moneyon just compensating the people
who were injured.
(29:19):
I mean, I can say a whole bunchof things on this bill.
I'm not sure how much you want.
Tom Butler (29:25):
How likely do you feel that it's going to go
through?
Do you have a sense of that?
Do you feel like a lot of thethings have already been argued
over the years, or is therestill a lot of stuff to try to
educate or inform legislatorsabout?
Bob Anderton (29:43):
Well, I'm doing my best to get the word out, but
this is the first time that thishas been in front of the
Washington state legislature and, as far as I know, if this is
passed into the law, it would bethe first time in the United
States.
Now there are many countriesacross the world where it's much
(30:05):
safer to be walking or riding abike the world where it's much
safer to be walking or riding abike and those countries usually
have either presumed liabilityor strict liability.
With presumed liability, whichis what we're talking about here
, you would be able to rebutthat presumption.
It's not like the driver isautomatically responsible.
They're just presumedresponsible and since they don't
(30:27):
tend to lose their memory, theycould prove that they weren't.
With strict liability, it'sjust they're responsible.
But those countries not only dothey tend to have either strict
or presumed liability, theyalso tend to have better
infrastructure, have betterinfrastructure.
So it's a little hard to provecausation.
(30:49):
So I would like to say justlook at the data.
It's so clear, we just need todo this.
But it isn't that clear becauseoften these changes happen at
the same time or it's been thelaw for so long.
(31:10):
It's just hard to nail down thedata I've tried.
The flip side is that I thinktomorrow we're going to hear a
lot of speculation about whatthis would do, including that
it's a war on cars.
I'm probably afraid, as you'veheard before, it isn't, and we
(31:33):
actually drafted this bill toinclude a presumption against
bicyclists who are involved incollisions with people walking.
Frankly, I don't think that'sreally needed.
It happens a whole lot lessoften and people tend not to be
as seriously injured.
But because that tends to bethe first line of defense
(31:57):
parking maybe by me the firsthow will this reduce free
parking for cars?
And then the other one is it's awar on cars and it's neither.
It's really something that itwill make our streets safer and
our legal system fairer, and Ireally hope that we can pass it
(32:19):
this year.
But if we don't, you know I'vebeen at it for a long time I
will keep pushing it.
Ultimately, I think that if wehave the law and people know
about the law, it really willreduce the number of serious
injuries and deaths, and then Ican retire.
I've done this for over threedecades.
(32:43):
I'm ready.
It's fine.
Tom Butler (32:47):
As you're talking about it.
There's something that's cometo my mind, and maybe this is a
hard question to answer.
I don't know, but do you feellike, when you're out there
talking to different types ofpeople, whether it be drivers or
city officials or lawenforcement or whatever drivers
(33:11):
or city officials or lawenforcement or whatever that
there's an?
Element that people in the USthink well, streets are for cars
?
Bob Anderton (33:18):
Oh for sure, okay, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, there is a great book byPeter Norton which I have in the
other room because I can'tremember the title, but it
really really changed mythinking about it.
It's really a historicaloverview of the introduction the
mass-produced automobile in theUnited States and how it
(33:40):
completely changed what streetswere for.
I mean, you may have heard, hey, kid, go play in the street,
and that's a joke now, butbefore the Model T that was not
a joke.
The streets were a public areathat people would gather and
walk freely wherever the heckthey wanted to walk, because you
(34:03):
could hear the horses comingand they're coming at like eight
miles an hour.
You just move over.
But when cars would race aroundthe corner upwards of 30 miles
an hour, there was carnage inthe street and there was a huge
backlash against cars.
They were talking aboutlimiting speeds, prohibiting
them entirely in urban areas.
(34:25):
This led to the formation ofthe American Automobile
Association, which actually cameup with the phrase jaywalkers
and I did not know this, but atthe time a jay was pejorative,
it was like a hick, a countrybumpkin, somebody who didn't
know how to act.
Jaywalkers were people thatjust crossed in the middle of
(34:47):
the street and so they wereblamed for being run down.
So yeah, there's definitelythat idea here, but it's also
been like that in places likeAmsterdam or Copenhagen in the
1960s and they changed.
We can change.
Not everybody has to ride a bike.
(35:08):
I ride an e-bike often becauseI'm getting older and my knees
don't always work so well.
But even if you have balanceproblems, they're trikes and
heck.
Everybody walks.
Everyone benefits from a morepedestrianized environment.
Nobody likes having a streetdominated by cars, but everybody
(35:34):
likes to be able to go up withthe rock star parking and drop
their car off and go right in.
I recently saw an illustrationabout why our perceptions are so
weird and I don't know if I candescribe it.
But basically, if you go to ashopping mall, there's lots of
parking right, there's acres ofparking, but actually you might
(35:58):
park what is the equivalent of acouple blocks away.
It just doesn't feel like itbecause you can see you're going
to Sears or whatever's left inthose places.
You're going to Sears orwhatever's left in those places,
and whereas if you got to walka couple blocks downtown you
think what's going on?
This is an outrage.
But yeah, no, there's lots of.
(36:18):
I've got a lot of different funreading related to street use
and parking.
That's not really part of mypractice, right, but it's
definitely something that I'vecome to appreciate that we do
look at this in a way that wethink is self-serving.
(36:42):
Like I want to have freeparking.
I don't want to pay for parkingSome of these, you know, I'm
not going to pay $40 orsomething to park in a parking
garage.
I don't want to pay for parking.
I'm not going to pay $40 orsomething to park in a parking
garage.
I'm just going to keep goingaround the block until I find
the free parking.
There was some kind of study Idon't know the exact findings,
but it was a significantpercentage of downtown motor
(37:02):
vehicle traffic is peoplelooking for free parking.
So, and you know, now inSeattle we have variable pricing
based on demand, which isprobably smart, right, I mean
the idea even if you are chargedwhat seems like a significant
amount for street parking, itstill undervalues what the land
(37:23):
is worth and there arealternative uses that could be
better.
But then you know we need tohave a way for people to get
around.
Not everybody's going to ride abike, so you know we got to
have safe and effective placesto walk, to bike, mass transit,
and then you don't need your caruntil people are going to do
(37:44):
whatever's easiest, and I findthat it's easiest for me to ride
a bike.
I mean, I'm here in downtownSeattle, I live in West Seattle.
My commute has some wonderfulparts along beautiful water and
some terrifying parts where I'veliterally seen people killed,
and it's getting better all thetime.
(38:04):
I'm glad to be here now, butyeah, we I don't even know what
the question was at this point,but it's, it's streets.
Streets are weird.
People in the United States dohave a, I think, an incomplete
view of the history of streetsand I think we tend to
(38:32):
undervalue the human component.
And it's just like this war oncar rhetoric.
It's like isn't the goal to getpeople around safely, not to
provide subsidized privatevehicle parking everywhere,
because that gets in the wayalso?
(38:52):
So, but you know, I could ranton and on about that.
Tom Butler (38:57):
So let's let's you know, I have to be, you know,
open with myself.
I have to be real to myself.
You know, open with myself.
I have to be real to myself.
You know I, my perspective, hasreally opened up since my
daughter and my son-in-law movedto Seattle and they are a one
car family or one car couple.
(39:18):
And just having them educate meon, dad, you know, take the
light rail, throw your bike onthe light rail and you don't
need to come into town with yourcar.
And uh, cause I would come intoSeattle and I would be looking
for parking and driving aroundlooking for parking and you know
(39:39):
, I just have to admit that it'stough to get out of that
perspective.
Bob Anderton (39:42):
You almost need to have and I don't mean to shame
people who do that.
I mean I do it too right.
I mean we all do it right.
Nobody wants to pay for it,everyone wants it to be easy.
But this goes back to, like the, the duty to build safe
infrastructure.
You need to build stuff thatworks for people.
People are going to dowhatever's easiest for them, and
(40:06):
if it's easiest to drive,people are going to drive if
they can.
I mean, and you know, somepeople will sacrifice and you
know, take the train with yourbike and then transfer to the
boss and do this whole thing.
But you know, if they can driveand have free parking, ain't no
way they're going to do that.
We've got to do better becauseultimately, as we have increased
(40:31):
density, it doesn't matter ifyour car is electric or if it
burns coal you are using at anytime, and so if you want a city
that functions, you really gotto have fewer cars.
(40:51):
And we're seeing that in placeslike Oslo, norway, where a few
years ago we went to visitfamily and we found a hotel
online and we didn't realizethat it was right on the edge of
where there's no car.
So one side of when we left thehotel.
It was great.
It was a car-free part of thecity, but on the other side it's
(41:14):
the belt line that goes around.
So our hotel was like terrible.
You know, car, car, car, car,car, car, car, car, because
people drive there too, but theyjust don't drive in the city,
because they've made the policydecisions to build a city up for
(41:35):
people, not for cars, and Ihope we'll see more of that here
.
Tom Butler (41:59):
And we are, but it's slower than I'd like change,
whether it be kind of the legallandscape.
You know, like this, this billthat you're advocating for and
you helped author, you know theshifting mindset of the city
even do you think Washington isin a place, seattle's in a place
(42:19):
to, to maybe lead the way withsome of this change?
Bob Anderton (42:23):
I hope we are.
I mean, I think it remains tobe seen, with this presumed
civil liability law, whetherthat's going to get passed this
year.
We've got budget issues thatpeople I think are primarily
focused on, and in the city, youknow, I think we have an
increasingly conservative citycouncil and mayor, and this may
(42:46):
come as a surprise to those ofus who do ride bikes regularly.
Washington is one of the bestplaces in the country to ride a
bike and there are some crazydrivers out there who are
yelling and screaming at you andseemingly intentionally trying
(43:06):
to run you down or at leastscare you, but it's a lot fewer
than other parts of the country.
So it's a little bit depressing, honestly to answer your
question that yes, we areleaders, because I think we're
still not where we ought to be,but I do think we are improving
(43:29):
in lots of different areas andmore and more people you know
are willing to try riding,walking.
I think there's still areduction in the mass transit
use since the pandemic andunfortunately, people are still
driving like they're the onlyones on the road Not everybody,
(43:51):
but you see them, right, I mean.
So, yeah, it's kind of a lot ofpeople who just don't see it.
It's not on the map.
I mean, there's a lot of stuffgoing on.
It's not on a lot of people'smaps.
(44:13):
It doesn't mean they're badpeople, but it's hard to like
your question about how streetsare used.
I mean, I was doing this for atleast 20 years before I read
the book and was like, oh my God, it's true.
I mean, look at the street,like most streets, like half of
(44:36):
it is dedicated to parking, likeit's an incredible amount of
resources that are used to storeprivate cars that are not even
being used, and we couldallocate those resources
differently, but we choose notto, and it's not even that we
choose not to.
It's just not on the map, and soit'd be good to put it on the
(44:58):
map, even if you don't want topay those exorbitant private
parking rates, which is why weneed better transit, we need
safer infrastructure for walkingand biking, and then you feel
safer.
There's a lot of folks thatdon't feel safe riding a bike
today.
I mean, I'll tell you, a coupleof years ago I got rid of my
(45:19):
road bike, and that's not to saythat you can't safely ride a
road bike, but so many times I,you know, get stuck in a little
groove between pavement partswith my little 23 millimeter
tires and it's a little scary.
You know I switched to a gravelbike even though I made fun of
(45:40):
them at first, and you know it'snice to have bigger tires, low
rolling resistance.
It feels a lot, a lot safer.
Tom Butler (45:49):
Now your firm has been recognized by the League of
American Bicyclists and alsoCascade Bicycle Club, and can
you talk about that, about thatrecognition and what that's
about?
Bob Anderton (46:03):
The League of American Bicyclists is the, I
think, the oldest bicyclerelated organization in the,
certainly in the country, andWashington Bike Law was the
first law office recognized as a.
I think what are we called Abike?
Somewhere?
I have a something bikefriendly business back in 2009.
(46:27):
Since then, we continue to getthe recognition.
We are now up to platinum level, which is the highest level
that they can give.
It's higher than the city ofSeattle or the state of
Washington, not that it's acompetition.
In 2013, washington Bike Law wasthe first organization any
organization, law office orotherwise to be recognized by
(46:49):
Cascade, mostly because I knewthey were going to do it and I
was like, oh yeah, well, we'lldo that.
They're not doing that anymore.
So it was kind of one and done.
But we still have this kind ofblue glass thing says we're that
you know it's great to berecognized.
Were that you know it's greatto be recognized.
(47:10):
But I think, more importantly,the people at Washington Bike
Law really are committed tomaking our streets safer for
everyone and you know we'retenacious.
We're keeping at this becausewe care about our clients and
the bigger picture.
So if we get recognition,that's cool.
Thank you, I mean I'll put iton the wall.
(47:32):
You probably saw it on thewebsite.
We're going to put it out thereand it's nice to have someone
else say, yeah, you do what yousay you do, but we got that
because we do it.
Tom Butler (47:46):
And we're going to keep doing it, whether we get it
or not.
Well, I'm not looking forspecific legal advice, but I'm
wondering can you talk about,like, maybe, typical stages or
typical flow or somethinginvolving the stages or the
progression or whatever of abicycle incident progression or
(48:09):
whatever of a bicycle incident?
Are there things that cyclistsshould do to effectively
communicate with their attorney?
What are some of the things youthink about in the progression
of things?
Bob Anderton (48:15):
Sure, well, I think when you originally put
this together, you were talkingabout a lawsuit, and one thing
that I want people often kind ofrefer to an injury claim as a
lawsuit, but actually mostclaims never result in a lawsuit
.
It's negotiations with aninsurance company, and if a
(48:37):
claim can't be settled with theinsurance company, then the
insurance company is going toappoint a lawyer to represent
the person accused of beingresponsible for the crash and
then they would pay any verdictup to the policy limits of that
person's insurance.
(48:57):
Because of this, usually thefirst thing that happens after a
crash is that the driver'sinsurance company is going to
try to get a hold of the otherperson involved and lock them
into a set of facts.
They want to take a recordedstatement and that might be your
own insurance company if it's aUIM or uninsured or
(49:21):
underinsured motorist claim andyou do have a duty to cooperate
with your own insurance company.
But if your own insurancecompany, and especially the
other person's insurance company, can use what you say against
you, they're definitely going todo it.
So I mean, I guess,fundamentally it's important to
tell the truth, but even morethan that, it's better not to
(49:42):
give a statement until you'rementally able to do this, and we
would usually recommend thatyou talk with a lawyer.
I mean, that's sort of thestandard lawyer advice is talk
to a lawyer.
Surprise, but you know a lot ofpeople don't.
But the problem with giving arecorded statement is that if
(50:04):
your claim isn't settled and youfile a lawsuit, then what
happens you were asking aboutthe steps in a lawsuit is a
discovery, which is the formalexchange of information, and
discovery includes depositions,where you have questions asked
of you under oath.
But if you already have arecorded statement, then they
(50:25):
kind of have what we call twobites at the apple.
They have more opportunities tocatch you in some kind of
inconsistency.
Which is why the first thing Isaid was the most important
thing is to tell the truth.
That's kind of the step.
One is that statement, I guess.
The other thing is ofteninsurance companies try to
settle claims quickly and onething I'm not sure how widely
(50:48):
distributed you are.
The statute of limitations isthe legal period in which
somebody has to settle a case orthey have to file a lawsuit,
after which they don't have anyrights right, and that time
period varies in differentstates.
In Washington, though, ifsomeone is accused of
(51:11):
negligently causing a crash, youhave up to three years to
settle a case or file a lawsuit,so it's a lot of time, and I
think a lot of people don't knowthat.
And insurance companies kind ofpressure them into some kind of
lowball settlement and theymight say well, we'll pay up to
(51:32):
a certain amount if you needthese medical bills.
And I think if you takeanything away from what I'm
saying now, it is especially ifyou're not going to use a lawyer
, you're going to try to settleyour case on your own.
A lawyer, if you're going totry to settle your case on your
own, don't do it right away.
Make sure that you're reallyback to where you were before
the crash, before you settle,because you're not going to get
(51:52):
the full value from theinsurance company and once you
settle it's over.
So I guess that's helpful forpeople who are not represented.
And then I think you also askedabout how should people
communicate if they do have alawyer.
And one thing that I know Ialways get kind of weirded out
(52:18):
when I know that a professionalis charging me a lot of money
and I want to kind of like gether done.
Pretty much anybody whorepresents that is, any lawyer
who represents injured peopledoes so on a contingency fee.
So the lawyer would take apercentage of whatever they get
you.
That varies a little bit, butit's fairly standard as opposed
(52:41):
to an hourly fee.
And people should remember thatif you get a lawyer, make them
earn their keep.
They want to get you the mostmoney because that's how they
get the highest fee.
You want to get the most money.
So talk to them.
If you have questions, ask.
If you get something in themail or an email and it's
(53:06):
referencing this crash, don'trespond to it yourself.
Send it to the lawyer.
Ask what is this?
Should I respond?
We tell people this and yetthey respond all the time on
their own.
It's like, oh, don't do that,everybody to do that.
(53:30):
So, and I guess if I could blowmy own horn, as it were, there
are lots of different sort oftypes of law firms.
There are sort of the generalpractice firm, which knows a
little bit about everything andwill do whatever, and there's
also firms that only representinjured people.
They're going to know theanswer to most of the kind of
questions that you might have.
And then there are officesbesides Washington Bike Law, but
(53:52):
Washington Bike Law is one ofthem that this is what we do.
We represent injured people,from bike crashes mostly, and
sometimes walking.
We see the same stuff over andover again, so I'm not claiming
to be the smartest person in theworld, but once you've seen
something enough, you probablyknow where to go and, hopefully,
(54:12):
how to get there in the bestway.
I guess this doesn't reallyanswer how do you effectively
communicate with your lawyer?
But more like, how do youchoose someone to represent you?
So, besides that general rule,you want somebody that you feel
comfortable with, becausesometimes these things will drag
on longer than you couldpossibly imagine.
(54:32):
I mean, I just got an emailfrom a client.
She's like yeah, you know,we've been working on this for
over five years.
If somebody makes you nauseousto even hear their name, like,
maybe that's not who you shouldwork with.
Tom Butler (54:47):
You have a lot of experience, like you've said.
You've seen a lot of things,and what are the most important
safety precautions that cyclistsshould take to minimize the
risk of accidents?
Bob Anderton (54:59):
This is a great question, thank you.
You know, I think I mentionedthat I used to regularly
represent bike messengers andyou know kind of punk rock kind
of folks, and it seemed likemost of them had this mindset
that drivers wanted to hit themand so their response was Assume
(55:22):
that they were invisible andjust avoid it, pay a lot of
attention.
And a lot of them also reallytook steps to be invisible
wearing all black and taking offtheir reflectors.
So I think it's both it'sprobably better to be aware and
visible.
But in terms of what specificsteps somebody can take to avoid
(55:48):
getting hit by so many of theinattentive drivers out there, I
have a specific recommendationand that is a helmet light and
particularly in the winter, whenit's dark here in the Pacific
Northwest and that's to behonest, I don't, it feels too
(56:10):
dorky to wear it in the summer.
So I have a winter helmet, butthis thing and I have some fancy
schmancy bike one.
But my sister, who's a nurse,she got one on Amazon for like
six bucks or something and itbasically does the same thing.
It's visible in the back, socars see you, but more
(56:31):
importantly in the front andwhat this does, and it's not
required right Legally, to rideit during the hours of darkness
in Washington, you need a frontheadlight and you need a rear
reflector.
You don't even need a rear light.
That's not to say you shouldn'thave a rear light you should,
but legally you don't have tohave it.
You definitely don't need tohave a helmet light.
(56:52):
But what a helmet light does iswhen you turn right, you have
light where you're looking.
So it's helpful when you'regoing around a corner or
something like that.
But, more importantly, you canlook at drivers and you can see
if they're looking at you andI'm here to tell you they're not
Right.
(57:12):
And suddenly they're like, whatthe hell is that light?
And they look up and they don'thit you.
I mean I can't tell you howmany times I feel like this has
saved me and it's it's great.
You shouldn't, we shouldn'thave to do this, but it's
helpful beyond preventing aninattentive driver hitting you.
(57:34):
It's just helpful to see likeyou can hit a pothole, you can
run off the road.
I mean there's no reason not todo this, especially because you
can get them.
Get them them cheap.
So I think that's a little bitdifferent than the usual.
You know, don't wear black andand all the things that you hear
um.
Tom Butler (57:55):
So that's I like that.
I mean, it's such a practicalthing and, again, like like you
said, you've experienced it yeahit, it feels so much safer.
Bob Anderton (58:07):
At some point in the last few weeks I got a bunch
of helmets and I realized I hadon a helmet that didn't have a
light and I had a harder timeseeing and I felt I look at
drivers, I'm telling you thathere that you can't see on a
podcast, but you know, I givethem the stink eye but and
there's no response and it'sbecause my headlights not on.
(58:30):
So yeah, that's cheap and easyway to to be a lot safer.
Tom Butler (58:37):
Do you have any bike adventures planned for the
future?
Bob Anderton (58:41):
You know I think I mentioned that I kind of
consider myself a utilitarianbicyclist.
So you know I have lots ofaspirations of mountain biking
and gravel biking and doingthese things, but the truth of
the matter is pretty much neverhappens.
So I would say that myadventures are getting to and
from work, and that's quite anadventure really.
(59:03):
So it's just, that's my, that'sthe plan, just keep, keep
riding.
It's, it's, it's easy, it's themost efficient way for me.
It and it has kept merelatively fit, even though
that's pretty much all I do.
And that's, that's a good.
Tom Butler (59:23):
Well, and your commute is beautiful.
I mean, if people don't knowthe Seattle area, I mean what
you're talking about as far aswhat you're riding there's, you
know, it's really beautiful andyou get to see Mount Rainier
probably a lot during yourcommute, and the sound and
everything.
(59:43):
So you could find a lot ofplaces that weren't as
picturesque as as that commute.
Bob Anderton (59:49):
For sure.
Also, alki was one of the firstparking protected bike lanes in
the country.
Tom Butler (59:55):
Okay.
Bob Anderton (59:56):
Most of it doesn't have it, but we, uh, I guess
that would be South at the endof the beach there's a parking
protected portion, so yeah it'sit's great and it's also
terrible in places.
Tom Butler (01:00:11):
Bob, thank you so much for taking the time to do
this.
I found it to be awesome, Ifound it to be valuable.
Really, you know, theperspective that you have
because of what you've done foryears is, I believe, just a
really unique perspective and Ireally appreciate you sharing
that with the podcast listenershere.
Bob Anderton (01:00:31):
Well, thank you, it's been fun.
Tom Butler (01:00:33):
Fantastic.
Talk to you later.
All right, I am thrilled that Igot to share that conversation
on the podcast.
Bob has had such an interestingview of the changing cycling
landscape over the years.
If Washington is there to be anexample for other states to
(01:00:57):
follow in creating excellentcycling conditions, it's because
there are a lot of people likeBob who contribute to this being
a unique place to ride.
There are a lot of people likeBob who contribute to this being
a unique place to ride, and Iwas able to do my part this week
by participating in bikelegislation lobbying activities
in Olympia.
This was my first exposure toengaging in grassroots advocacy
for bike safety.
I was thrilled to learn moreabout the process and I'm sure
(01:01:20):
I'll do more of it in the future.
Bob mentioned a book on thehistory of roads and cars.
I will put a link in the shownotes to the book.
It's called Fighting Trafficthe Dawn of the Motor Age in the
American City, and it's byPeter Norton.
I plan to dive into it soon.
I have about a week and a halfnow to get ready for this year's
first group ride.
I have to say I'm feelingnervous about being ready Now,
(01:01:46):
whether you are training for aspecific ride or not.
I hope next week brings youwhatever you seek as a cyclist,
and remember, age is just a gearchange.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.