New CABO Blog Post

[CABO]

New CABO Blog Post

---

Argument Against an Idaho Style “Stop as Yield” Law for Bicyclists Posted: 03 Feb 2010 05:07 PM PST There has been talk of legislation being introduced in California to emulate Idaho law, which allows stop signs and/or red lights to be treated as yields by bicyclists. This was posted by David Takemoto-Weerts on January 29 to the “Handlebar” listserve for the Davis Bicycles advocacy group. At the risk of becoming a pariah among local cycling advocates, I have to respectfully disagree with efforts to support the enactment of the “Idaho law” in California. And let me preface my comments by explaining that I am a daily cyclist (for over 40 years) who always stops at stop signs and always waits for the green light. However, I do admit that at stop signs I will often slow VERY perceptibly, almost to a full stop, before entering the intersection. While I know this violates the letter of the law, I also know that almost no motorists come to complete stops at stop signs unless there is cross traffic to wait for. I think this is acceptable, and apparently so does law enforcement, because virtually all of us who drive do the same – often in full view of traffic officers – and are never stopped for it. Cyclists need not be held to a higher standard than motorists in this situation. It’s akin to driving 70 mph when the posted limit is 65 mph. That minor “indiscretion” is clearly acceptable to virtually every police officer, judge and jury. Same goes with the stop sign situation. I know that some cyclists have been stopped and cited by police for not putting a foot down to the pavement at a stop sign, but those rare instances are the actions of abusive or ignorant officers and I don’t believe they are such common occurrences to warrant a “solution” like the Idaho law. The main reasons that such a law is often advocated by some cyclists are these: (1) it would decriminalize existing, common behavior among many cyclists, (2) cyclists would save energy by not having to stop and start at every stop sign, and (3) cyclists would save time by not having to wait for the green light at every encounter with a red light. The latter two reasons are tempting to some because the energy saved is our own – fatigue is reduced or at least delayed; and saving time when engaging in a travel mode that is not particularly fast as compared with motorized transportation may be enticing. The extent that stopping is a burden to cyclists is up to the individual. I’ve never considered it to be a problem. If I wasn’t fit enough to start and stop multiple times when riding, perhaps I shouldn’t be on a pedal-bike. And if the delay of waiting for a green light slows me down too much, maybe I should consider a faster mode. Most of us don’t choose cycling because it’s the quickest way from point A to B. All that being said, I do think a good argument can be made for replacing many stop signs with yield signs signalized intersections with roundabouts. It has also been argued by some that the Idaho law would create more predictable cyclist behavior. I think that’s illogical. At present when I observe a cyclist approaching a stop sign, I may be unsure what he is going to do. How would that be any different under the new law? I still wouldn’t know what he’d do. In fact, I’d be less sure. I guess I could just predict that whatever he did, he’d be within the law (assuming he really treated a stop sign as a yield sign and behaved accordingly – remember, there are legal and illegal ways to treat a yield sign). And, where there is a reasonable level of traffic enforcement for all modes (e.g. when one of the Davis bicycle officers is patrolling downtown Davis), it’s pretty easy to predict behavior by most cyclists. Here’s a scenario to consider: a cyclist approaches a red light (under the Idaho law). She stops, looks both ways, and decides to cross or turn left on the red light. Unbeknownst to her, motor traffic on her left or across the intersection has just gotten a green left turn arrow. Conflict (or worse) occurs. She wasn’t aware of that because many such signals are not visible to the cross traffic because there’s no reason for them to be when all traffic is supposed to obey them according to the same black and white rules.  I suppose you could argue that a prudent cyclist would not cross on the red light under the circumstance where there was cross traffic waiting to turn left across her path. But how many of us would make that determination under those circumstances? My observation of the “judgment” used by many cyclists when choosing to ignore stop signs or red lights is that they often make very poor and dangerous decisions. Making such behavior “legal” won’t reduce the danger to them or others. Another point to consider: the maturity and traffic experience to make the right decision to treat a stop as a yield or a red light as a stop sign safely is certainly within the grasp of many of us. However, as noted above, not every adult has such maturity, experience or good judgment. Most importantly – ANYONE, no matter what age and what level of experience, can ride a bike on public streets. Do you think that the typical 8-year old can make such decisions safely? I can imagine many kids emulating the behavior of adult cyclists under such a law and following careless cyclists into intersections under conditions in which the child will be in significantly more danger than the adult (visibility, speed, skill to avoid a collision, etc.). A uniform, unambiguous set of laws that apply to all road users is easier for a child to understand. Sometimes the argument is made that cyclists should get these advantages because they’re doing the “right thing” environmentally and such. One could also argue that motorists could save a lot of fuel, money and reduce emissions if they could do the same. The “bike advocate” counters that allowing motorists to behave in this manner is too dangerous because of the potentially significant injuries, even fatalities, which might ensue. So, if cyclists are allowed to engage in what may be riskier behavior (treating stops as yields, red lights as stop signs), the worst case scenario is that a few more cyclists may get hurt, but such incidents are only their own fault. How ridiculous is that? Imagine the reaction of the motorist who kills a cyclist, especially a child, who uses poor judgment under this law? And consider the costs to society of any serious injury. Furthermore, in a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, the pedestrian may be more likely to suffer serious injury. Will cyclists properly yield to pedestrians when “running” red lights and stop signs? In conclusion, I think cycling advocates should be very cautious about pursuing such a change in the California Vehicle Code. It runs counter to the principles of vehicular cycling and also violates one of the primary elements of traffic safety: predictability. It would be better if cyclists used their energy and resources to advocate for more education for cyclists and motorists, pushed for more rational policies about the installation of stop signs and traffic signals when yield signs and roundabouts may be the safer alternatives, and encouraged more enforcement by police officers better informed about traffic law as it pertains to cyclists. Is it REALLY all that onerous to stop at stop signs and red lights?

You are subscribed to email updates from CABO To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

[Bob Sutterfield]

Any arguments of the form "it's no worse than what those other guys do" are unpersuasive.

The energy saved by not needing to accelerate from v=0 to v=2 is miniscule.  The time lost by introducing ambiguity at intersections can be significant.

The attraction in this proposal is probably less about conserving momentum and more about skill and confidence in re-starting from a stop, especially if foot-to-pedal fastening mechanisms are involved.  But many cyclists are unaware or clumsy at a Power Pedal start even with flat pedals, which makes them reluctant to put a foot down.  Thus, for their own convenience, they want to roll through intersections without slowing all the way to v=0.

This restarting convenience doesn't seem to me a strong enough argument for treating cyclists differently from other roadway users.  If convenience were a good reason for the law to differentiate between classes of roadway users, how about forcing cyclists to ride far to the right of a lane, for the convenience of motorists who wish to overtake?  (Oh wait, we already have 21202 and 21208...)

[John Forester]

It seems to me that much of this discussion ignores the required procedure for dealing with stop signs. I don't mean what the law says, I mean the physical realities of the location. The driver has to move to a position at which he can see the approaching traffic to which he must yield, and he must do this at such low speed that he is able to yield if the traffic requires it. If he doesn't move forward, he will never reach the appropriate position to be able to yield, while if he moves too fast he will be unable to yield if that is required.

That this is the reality of the physical location is recognized by applying the name of common California stop to this operation. Since motorists do it, I see no reason why cyclists should not do it. And, mostly, except for occasional harassment programs, that's what occurs. But I am unutterably opposed to attempts to write this into traffic law as a special law for cyclists, because that implies two things. That this is different from the California stop, and that it is some special right assigned to cyclists.

Bob Sutterfield wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.

-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481    fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com

[Sauerwald Mark]

Bob I am not a traffic engineer, however, in my way of thinking, the purpose of the stop sign is to cause a pause in the flow of traffic to allow for an orderly resolution of potential conflicts within the intersection.   The key element is not so much coming to a stop, as providing a mental space for the drivers of the vehicles to negotiate the potential conflicts.   Since an automobile is most stable when stopped, a stopped auto is the best environment for the automobile driver to consider the situation in the intersection prior to proceeding.   The dynamics of a two wheeled vehicle are different however.   I bicycle is more stable when in motion, even when that motion is slow, than it is at a standstill.   This, coupled with the greater visibility afforded by a bicycle and the lower speeds mean that it is probably safer for a cyclist to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, allowing for the option of maintaining better control of the vehicle through the intersection than a stop would afford, in those cases where conflict resolution is evident.  Mark --- On Thu, 2/4/10, Bob Sutterfield <b...@sutterfields.us> wrote: The energy saved by not needing to accelerate from v=0 to v=2 is miniscule. .....

[pete van nuys]

Stop signs as Yields-- Yes!
Red lights as Stops-- No!

As an LCI I may be tarred and feathered for supporting Stops as Yields,
but let me weasel here and say, I teach full foot-down stops to every
student. I have to because capricious, predatory enforcement of Stops by
ignorant police is a growing occurrence. We don't all live in the Davis
bubble; my home town of San Clemente wrote cyclists over $20,000 worth
of tickets in 5 months last year, most for nothing more egregious than
rolling over the line at a jogging pace.

Only state law can define uniform legal cyclist behavior at Stop signs.
As it is, it is entirely up to the officer to define what's OK and what
gets cited-- hence my full foot-down stop instruction to my students.

Stops as Yields-- Yes!
My observation over 40 years is this: 100% of cyclists roll Stop signs.
Most do it most of the time. Many do constantly. Even Mr.
Takemoto-Weerts fesses up. That's uniform behavior-- motorists can count
on a cyclist NOT coming to a full stop pretty much every time. This is
not the same thing as the motorists' "CA rolling stop." It's
predictable, generally a 10 to 15mph straight through roll.

Focusing cops on the critical Yield behavior-- looking for cross
traffic, evaluating right of way, yielding to those who have it-- will
increase equitable enforcement. Fair, consistent enforcement works;
cyclists safe behavior will improve.

Reds as Stops-- No!
Pete Penseyres and the Oceanside advocates conducted 5 years of accident
evaluation which revealed that running reds and rolling Stops each
contributed equally, about 6.5%, to car-bike collisions.

But let's consider: What's the ratio of cyclists rolling Stops vs.
popping reds? (If anyone has real data, please share.)

In my considered albeit subjective opinion, it's about 10:1-- I observe
easily 10 times the number rolling Stops as boldly popping a red light.
But the stats show reportable collisions are equal. I have to conclude
popping a red is about 10-times as dangerous as rolling Stops.

So I'll support an Idaho Stops as Yields law in California, provided
it's not coupled with reds as Stops.

(I believe most red light running is caused by signals which don't
detect cyclists-- directly when the cyclist has to proceed against a
stagnant red, indirectly because cyclists use dumb signals to justify
running all of 'em. [Again, I don't have data.] But this behavior would
decrease substantially if cities would fix the damn lights!)

--
Regards,

Pete
949 492 5737

[pete van nuys]

I understand why John F. doesn't want bicycle drivers segregated from
car drivers, by a law which defines a "bicycle" stop differently than a
motorist California rolling stop. I respect that.

But correct me (and oh, I'm sure you will) if I'm wrong, but That Ship
Has Sailed.

In CA we're already defined as not vehicles, even recognized as devices
which are human powered. Classes of road users already have separate
rules, trucks for weight and speed, buses for their human cargo at RR
Xings, motorcycles with headlight laws, EVs for speed limit restrictions.

Toot, toot! Ship's gone... see ya'.

And when it comes to the CA rolling stop, police do not want to
acknowledge that it exists; they reserve the right to cite motorists who
fail to stop dead. The whole point of Stop signs was, and is, to make
the heavy, powerful "deadly weapon" which is a car,
itself
stop
dead.

Bicyclists are not heavy, powerful, or very deadly at all. They are
human powered. So here I would drag in all the arguments about momentum,
ya-da, ya-da, but you've already heard 'em....

There's no slippery slope here.
In the real world, at Stop signs,
cars stop almost, but
bikes almost never.

[Michael Graff]

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 07:49, Bob Sutterfield <b...@sutterfields.us> wrote:

The attraction in this proposal is probably less about conserving momentum and more about skill and confidence in re-starting from a stop, especially if foot-to-pedal fastening mechanisms are involved.

It depends.  There seem to be several motivations, depending which cyclists you ask or observe.

One angle is not wanting to take feet off pedals or deal with restarts.  But it's already common practice that almost nobody makes a full stop.  The "Hollywood Stop" or "California Roll" is the norm for all drivers.

Another angle is not wanting to slow down at all.  I often see cyclists maintaining speed, and cadence, when going through stop signs.

There's no particular speed that qualifies as "yielding".  One could yield at 2 MPH or at 15+ MPH.  It's unclear from the various stop-as-yield proposals whether they intended a 2 MPH yield or a full speed, steady cadence yield.

[Serge Issakov]

Is there any reason to be clear about that?  As long as they're yielding, why should speed matter?

 

--
Bicyclists are drivers!

[Dan Gutierrez]

Pete wrote: " I understand why John F. doesn't want bicycle drivers

segregated from car drivers, by a law which defines a "bicycle" stop
differently than a motorist California rolling stop. I respect that."

.
This is the crux of the issue. A legislative change creates far more new
problems (ambiguous ROW, unclear fault assignment in crashes, difficulty in
recovering civil damages) than any it may appear to solve. The problem we
are having is one of enforcement (are we seeing a consistent pattern?), and
like the passing law and FTR law enforcement, prejudiced police will use any
law as a tool against cyclists if they are not taught to do otherwise. We
don't need a legislative fix for what is rightly an enforcement (actually
enforcer education) problem. Laws by themselves don't change police
behavior; training and the attitudes of their superiors do, but only if
those creating the standards and running the PDs treat cyclists as full and
equal drivers worthy of the same level of respect as drivers afforded to
motorists.
.
Pete continued: "But correct me (and oh, I'm sure you will) if I'm wrong,

but That Ship Has Sailed. In CA we're already defined as not vehicles, even
recognized as devices which are human powered. Classes of road users already
have separate rules, trucks for weight and speed, buses for their human
cargo at RR Xings, motorcycles with headlight laws, EVs for speed limit
restrictions."

.
No Pete, we have on set of basic movement laws, particularly one set of laws
governing traffic controls. Weight, speed, and other categories are
different aspects of the methods of conveyance, but drivers [21200 includes
cyclists as driver rule followers], (notice that that we are talking about
drivers not methods of conveyance!) follow one set of driver rules (except
when bicyclists suffer discrimination from 21202 and 21208). I would ask
you to please discipline yourself to distinguish between the movement rules
the drivers follow, and any special regulations that are associated with
methods of conveyance. Ignoring buses and other professional drivers of
very large vehicles, those acting as drivers for personal transport (car,
bike, motorcycle, horse drawn carriage, etc.) don't have different
movement/traffic control regulations; this is a good thing!
.
So I maintain that it is quite inappropriate to confuse differing attributes
of the various methods of conveyance with the single set of driver movement
rules, particularly the rules for traffic controls, and then use this as
justification for creating more special bicyclist laws. 21200 is the only
law we need to govern our movements; the others invariably lead to us being
though of differently (as in less legitimate), and treated worse than other
drivers.
.
.

- Dan Gutierrez -
Long Beach, CA
(562) 244-4145 Cell
(310) 336-3075 Office
(800) 616-4714 Pager
Dan.Gu...@Charter.Net

Organizational Affiliations
Local:
Long Beach Cyclists, Technical Advisory Committee Chair
Aerospace Cycling Club, Founder and Current President
SouthBay Westside Transportation Mgmt. Assoc., Board Member

State:
CA Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations (CABO), District 7 Director
CABO Education Committee Co-Chair http://www.cabobike.org/
Caltrans District 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee, Policy Chair

National:
League of American Bicyclists (LAB), Certified Instructor, LCI #962
http://www.bikeleague.org/
Dual Chase Productions LLC, Co-Creator http://www.dualchase.com/
Dual Chase video hosting at Cyclist View http://www.cyclistview.com/
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax

--
Regards,

Pete
949 492 5737

--

[Michael Graff]

What I mean is the word "yield" doesn't specify a speed.  But there's quite a difference between slowing to a near stop vs. maintaining full speed and cadence.

If you take down the stop signs, you probably have a blind intersection, with a 15 MPH speed limit:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/speed_limits.htm

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22352.htm

Is the point to treat all stop sign intersections as unsigned blind intersections?  Or is the point to decriminalize 2 MPH near-stops?

[John Forester]

I thoroughly disagree with the statement that a full speed, steady cadence movement into an intersection could be a yielding movement. The process of yielding requires observation of the approaching traffic, which requires time, coupled with the ability to stop if the traffic requires it. The physical layout in which this could be accomplished at normal speed would be rather rare.

Michael Graff wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.

[Michael Graff]

I meant full speed for an ordinary cyclist, not full speed for a motorist or fit cyclist.  The cyclists I typically see go through a stop sign without slowing are going 10-15 MPH, within the range of legal speed if it were an uncontrolled, blind intersection.

[John Forester]

However, Michael Graff ignores one great difference between an uncontrolled intersection and a stop-signed intersection. At the uncontrolled intersection, both directions of traffic are limited to 15 mph. At a stop-signed intersection traffic in the protected direction may be any speed at all, and, in any case, its drivers understand that they are under no obligation to slow or to pay any particular attention. (That is, until traffic from the inferior street makes a mistake about yielding.) Therefore, the driver on the inferior street has to look much further along the superior street to see traffic to which he must yield, and he will also require more time to get out of its way. Both circumstances dictate a very slow crawl past the point of observation.

[Michael Graff]

True.  Treating a 2-way stop as an uncontrolled blind intersection is a lot different from doing the same at a 4-way stop.

That's just one more complication when trying to figure out what yield-instead-of-stop proponents intend cyclists to do.

[Serge Issakov]

But wouldn't treating a stop as a yield at a two-way stop be no different than how one would treat a yield at that intersection?  That 2-way stop case seems less problematic to me.  

What I don't get is how this works at 4-way stops.  There is a good reason we don't see yield signs and stop signs at the same intersection, yet that's exactly what would be created out of a 4-way stop in which a cyclist is coming from one of the directions.  Is FCFS still in effect? Does an approaching cyclist yield to a motorist already stopped?  Or does the stopped motorist stay stopped to allow the cyclist to roll through his yield?  Who is at fault if they collide?  Regardless of what the answer is, will 7% of the population know what it is?  Or will it be 8%?

Serge

Bicyclists are drivers!

[John Forester]

Well, of course, that is why many traffic engineers believe that we
should replace many 2-way stops with yield signs.

Now, 4-way stops are a different kettle of fish. I thought nothing of
them, in particular, until I found that I had routed some of my
children's classes through a 4-way stop. The kids just fouled up traffic
for minutes, because they couldn't figure out what to do. The next
classes were routed so they didn't encounter the 4-way stop.

As for what a cyclist would do if, in Idaho, he approached a 4-way stop
with significant traffic? I don't know and don't want to try to figure
it out. I think he should obey the standard procedure, slow right down
until he can figure out who's first, or on first, or whatever, and
negotiate his way.

[pete van nuys]

John F. wrote:
As for what a cyclist would do if, in Idaho, he approached a 4-way stop
with significant traffic? I don't know and don't want to try to figure
it out.

I believe a cyclist approaching such an intersection would Yield to cars
already at the Stop sign, because they fulfilled their obligation to
stop. The cyclist is not yet in the intersection, cannot use the ROW
therein, therefor cannot claim it.

Hesitancy on the part of any road user in that case constitutes a
relinquishment of the ROW-- just like CA drivers trying to work out an
uncontrolled intersection when the signals are not working. Guess what?
Drivers have to rediscover each other as human beings, eyeball each
other, try a little courtesy. Not quite as smooth as a roundabout, but
possible none the less.

And, of course, the cars are the bigger animal, so prudence has to color
the judgment of the cyclists. A generation in the future cyclists would
be smarter because the dumb ones would be killed off.
I love Darwin.

[Dan Gutierrez]

Pete wrote: " Hesitancy on the part of any road user in that case

constitutes a relinquishment of the ROW-- just like CA drivers trying to
work out an uncontrolled intersection when the signals are not working.
Guess what?
Drivers have to rediscover each other as human beings, eyeball each other,
try a little courtesy. Not quite as smooth as a roundabout, but possible
none the less."

.
I'm sure people made these same objections when traffic controls were first
invented. These types of interactions are a last resort, for when traffic
controls fail due to power outages, etc., but the whole point of traffic
controls is to avoid self enforced FCFS behavior at uncontrolled
intersections.
.
Again I think we should be focusing on two issues regarding stop signs:
1) They are often overused by local authorities (cities and counties)
2) Police use stop sign enforcement as a form of lone cyclist harassment,
similar to citing lone cyclists for 21202 when no other traffic is around.
They also use these laws to harass groups.

Serge wrote: "Fine. So what can we do besides licensing to effectively
create motivation for the masses to get the education about bicycle
driving?"
.
Mass education first requires education of those who are the gatekeepers for
mass education. This includes legislators, state agency employees, etc. I
believe pedestrian and bicycling skills should be a part of every
schoolchild's education, so children learn how to walk and bicycle safely
before they interact with peds and cyclists from behind the wheel of a car.
.
I believe we have to keep education legislators, reporters, public and
agency staff. It's a long slow process, but with assistance of friendly
legislators, just as we saw with AB1581, it is possible to force
recalcitrant agency staff if necessary.
.
.

--
Regards,

Pete
949 492 5737

--

[Serge Issakov]

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Dan Gutierrez <Dan.Gu...@charter.net> wrote:

Serge wrote: "Fine.  So what can we do besides licensing to effectively
create motivation for the masses to get the education about bicycle
driving?"
 .
Mass education first requires education of those who are the gatekeepers for
mass education.  This includes legislators, state agency employees, etc.  I
believe pedestrian and bicycling skills should be a part of every
schoolchild's education, so children learn how to walk and bicycle safely
before they interact with peds and cyclists from behind the wheel of a car.
 .
I believe we have to keep education legislators, reporters, public and
agency staff.  It's a long slow process, but with assistance of friendly
legislators, just as we saw with AB1581, it is possible to force
recalcitrant agency staff if necessary.

 

I guess it depends on how change usually occurs in our society... top-down or bottom-up. 

It seems to me that politicians in particular seem to be most responsive to those who either represent a lot of votes, or those who represent a lot of money (which translates into votes, eventually).   They seem to be much more reactive than proactive.  The impetus for change has to come from those with votes or money.

But we represent neither votes nor the money to which they react.  The bicycling community overall seems to be big enough to have some political clout, but their main focus seems to be segregated cycle facilities.  

We agree it's a long slow process, but I think a lot of it has to occur within the bicycling community itself.  We have to figure out how to get many  more bicyclists to experience the "ah-ha" moment often coupled with a suddenly developed new apprehension for door zones, bike lanes and driveway intersections.  I think we're more likely to make progress at the top sooner if we first make more progress at the bottom, if you will.

Serge

--
Bicyclists are drivers!

[Jason Meggs]

Thank you, Pete!

I fully agree. As a researcher I have studied Boise, the capitol city
of Idaho where the stops as yields law has existed successfully for
over 25 years. Cyclists in Boise are safer than those in comparable
cities which differ primarily in lacking the stops as yields rule.
After the law went into effect, overall injuries declined 14.5%. Stops
as yields codifies sensible, existing behavior and makes intersection
behaviors MORE PREDICTABLE.

As for red lights, not all reds are the same. I would like a copy of
the Oceanside study. One must control for inexperienced cyclists, and
differing intersection types. Differing experiences will exist in
urban v. suburban areas. Allowing cyclists to choose when it is safe
to cross at a red (which is already allowed, if the light does not
detect a cyclist) is not expected to change safety outcomes, but would
protect sensible cyclists from exorbitant citations and other harms
when they are not warranted.

Jason N. Meggs, Mcp, Mph