Ok, I may be missing something, but it seems there are a few problems with DC's new bicycle law. First, there is no specific fine associated with the new section of code, so I would assume that it would be the $25 Improper Passing.

Second the law itself states that "...shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet" - It never mentioned a point on the bicycle to be measured. Is is the wheel? the outside of the handlebar? The cyclists shoulder?

Third, the district's burden of proof for a moving violation is "clear and convincing evidence." I would imagine that any ticket given would be open to easy challenge, due to both the ambiguity of the law, and the fact that it is clearly hard to eyeball 3 feet.

I think conceptually this is a good idea, but the law seems to be thrown together in such a haphazard way that would make it practically unenforceable. Unless of course I am totally missing something here...

by Local on Jan 12, 2009 12:58 pm  

that laser projection is AWESOME! i.want.now.

by IMGoph on Jan 12, 2009 1:12 pm  

I would be interested to hear what readers think about requiring bike helmets for the bike-sharing programs, such as SmartBike. I attended the TRB session yesterday on bike-sharing programs and someone from the Netherlands said that helmets are not as necessary in many European cities because of fewer automobiles, narrower streets (which serves as a traffic calming measure), and a greater culture of respect towards cyclists.

I suggested that people should wear helmets irrespective of the number of cars on the street. Many crashes result from causes other than automobiles and the rider doesn't need to be going at a high rate of speed to cause serious damage. Are there any suggestions to have bike-sharing programs require helmet usage?

by Ben on Jan 12, 2009 1:12 pm  

The bike lanes are great. Encouraging and even penalizing drivers who park in them is great. All the motions to protect cyclists are great.

I just wish there was as much attention paid to pedestrians and the pedestrian experience, slow and easy as it often is, on this blog as to the cyclists. There are more of us/them than cyclists. Back when I last complained about this, there was a response like just wait, we're about to do something on sidewalks. And sure enough, there was, but in the photo was, of course, bicycles! And as memory serves, the discussion was bicycle-centric. Aargh. Maybe it's because most of the people on this site are below 30 or 35? I have no idea.

by Jazzy on Jan 12, 2009 2:04 pm  

@Jazzy-

People on this site are envious of Beijing circa 1979 due to the fact everyone biked.

With O'bama in office, who knows, maybe that's how we'll wind up too!

by MPC on Jan 12, 2009 2:14 pm  

@MPC: given how much worse the air quality in Beijing is now than it was in 1979, there are probably a lot of people in Beijing who are envious of Beijing circa 1979.

by EdTheRed on Jan 12, 2009 2:39 pm  

Jazzy: What would you like to read about, specifically?

I'm happy to write about pedestrians. I'm a very strong advocate for pedestrian safety. I see almost everything we write about, like walkable development, contributing in some way to pedestrians. Every time I write about a curb cut the biggest argument against is pedestrians.

I mainly get article ideas from the news, from government hearings and meetings (like legislation before local governments, community sessions, etc.) and from tips sent in by readers. When the DC Council was debating the fine for not yielding to pedestrians, or Montgomery County doing its poor Road Code, I covered that. I asked ANC Commissioners about pedestrian safety before the election. Lately, though, there hasn't been much specifically about pedestrians, except for the general pedestrian issues surrounding development.

Do you have any specific suggestions for things that aren't getting covered? Please feel free to send in tips about articles on pedestrians. If you have ideas for a "Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act" DC should consider, or other specific thoughts, please feel free to send me a proposed article.

I'm not avoiding covering pedestrians. It's just that I cover what's around, and there's not a lot of news about pedestrians, excecpt, again, the development impacts on them.

by David Alpert on Jan 12, 2009 2:47 pm  

Jazzy, most of the issues discussed on this site are geared towards the pedestrian. It's just that some of the bicyclist issues are more clear-cut than some pedestrian issues.

Also, many of the pedestrian issues are more subtle than the bicycle issues. In general, advocating for human scale walkable mixed-use street grid communities is advocating for better pedestrian conditions.

With pedestrian laws, there are currently fewer shades of gray that can be immediately tweaked. Hence, the discussion of bicycle-specific topics. The pedestrian topics are part and parcel of the larger isses of the whole built environment.

by Cavan on Jan 12, 2009 2:53 pm  

Ben,

I don't think there's a legal mechanism for SmartBike to require helmet usage. I know they discussed it, but there wasn't a way for them to require it.

by Alex B. on Jan 12, 2009 2:58 pm  

Local, Good points about how difficult it will be to get the bikelane rule enforced. Additionally, while driving down one of our 1 way streets with a bikelane the other day, I observed that it would not have been possible to be 3 feet away from a bicyclist in the bikelane had there been one there. Adding the bikelane on these 1 way street has resulted in two lanes side by side which are just wide enough for a car and a bicyclist ... with at most 2 feet separating them. (Neither the car nor the cyclist have any room to spare to create the 3 foot distance the law mandates.) If the code is impossible to enforce, the end result will most likely be non-enforcement.

by Lance on Jan 12, 2009 3:13 pm  

I consider myself a pedestrian advocate. I am satisfied with the emphasis on ped safety and other ped issues covered on this blog.

But since you brought it up: Lower the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 on CT Ave NW north of Calvert; Add a mid-block ped crossing with a button to call a signal on CT Ave between Newark and Ordway NW; install a speed hump on Devonshire NW just east of the northward turn; extend all crosswalk times so slower moving peds can get all the way across before the lights change; put in more of those all-stop ped crossing signals like the one installed and removed up there on CT Ave; add several questions to the driving liscense exam that specifically address ped safety; build the hiking and biking trail in Klingle Valley; reopen the only ped entrance to RCP from Columbia Heights (a locked gate across a trail head at 16th and Arkansas); create more ped entrances to RCP.

by Bianchi on Jan 12, 2009 3:26 pm  

My primary concern with bike paths is their placement in the road between moving traffic and parked vehicles. Not only does this place the rider in danger from moving traffic but also in danger from a driver opening his/her door in the bike's path.

I have heard that some cities (specifically, I believe, Budapest, Hungry) place the bike path between parked cars and the curb/sidewalk. Not only are few passenger-side doors opened but also, if there was a collision, the biker would tumble in front of a stroller instead of a car. Is anyone aware of any cities that have implemented this road allocation policy in the US?

by bmv on Jan 12, 2009 3:39 pm  

Here's a pedestrian article idea, sorta. I live near a facility for people with disabilities so there is a lot of wheelchair and chair-scooter traffic (13th St. NW). Scooter riders sometimes use the road and sometimes the sidewalk. When it snows or is icy, these people are screwed and scoot in the roadway at great peril. Sometimes they have a working light, sometimes not. I wonder what the rules are and whether there are other places besides my street where this is an issue. I just pray to never have to read about an accident.

by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 12, 2009 5:43 pm  

I know exactly the spot: 13th and Upshure NW. I too have numerous times seen the chairs and scooters in the road.

by Bianchi on Jan 12, 2009 5:47 pm  

Does this law apply when there is a bike lane? I would suppose that if cars stay in the auto lane and bikes stay in the bike lane all would be well... My assumption was that this law applied when bikes and cars "share" a lane. Does anyone know the specifics of this law?

by Justin on Jan 12, 2009 5:55 pm  

David, thank you for mentioning the "3 Feet Please" jersey. This campaign isn't about whether the car is measured from the handlebars or the wheel, it's about saving lives, our lives by giving motorists a frame of reference for how much space they should give cyclists when passing from the rear. We ask them to share the road, but what does that mean? The "3 Feet Please" message is politely yet boldly delivered to communicate that an important part of "sharing the road" means giving the cyclist at least 3 feet of space when passing...of course more is always appreciated, but 3 will do. If motorists have a clearer and more specific understanding of what's safe and what's not, they may very well do what we need them to do...respect us by giving us space to enjoy our rides on the roads we share.

Here's the good news...I believe it's working.

Thanks again,

Joe Mizereck

joe@3feetplease.com

by Joe Mizereck on Jan 12, 2009 6:18 pm  

D.C. law also says you can't park with 10 feet of a fire hydrant.

by Adam on Jan 12, 2009 7:03 pm  

I mean no disrespect at all, but I can’t believe you have to ask that question, David!

I can see how Cavan would believe what he wrote, but I don’t. I could go into a long rambling piece about an overfocus on development here, but I won’t. Basically for me, it’s a question of emphasis, and cycling gets tons more in this blog, explicitly so, than pedestrianism.

So, since you asked:

The long wait times at traffic lights – what’s happened in the last few years? People used to be able to push a button and the light would change in a reasonable amount of time. Now nothing. Those little contraptions still might be on a lamp post, but as far as I can tell, they don’t work.

For all the talk about penalizing drivers for veering over two millimeters into the bike lane, what about drivers not yielding to pedestrians in the zebra walks? Or did I miss that?

Toy with the idea of pedestrian supremacy for a day. Just play with it.

I don’t mean to start an aggressive conflict between two opposing sides who amp up the disagreement with every exchange, and attempt to find an endrun at every opportunity, but …a bicyclist on the sidewalk is NOT a pedestrian’s best friend.

Think what and who your allies are if you are a pedestrian: BUSES. Thousands of topics just with the buses. But there’s not enough money, glamour, etc there for numerous postings, I guess.

I haven’t seen many if any entries on being disabled in this city.

Though speeding no doubt is a problem some places, I just don’t get that annoyed by it a lot (from time to time yes), though yes yes, it’s dangerous. What bothers me much more so than speeding (DC is a town with pretty slow drivers, is my overall impression, which is a good thing, I guess) is aggressive driving, a car swooping behind you within a foot or two. That should be illegal! Hey! Kind of like this blog entry, but for pedestrians.

There was something in this blog about a pedestrian who was hit in Chinatown recently. But just a day or two or three before that, or around the same time, a pedestrian was KILLED in NW, but there was nothing on this blog about it.

But by far, the biggest one is the closing of public sidewalks due to construction. It’s illegal and should always be stopped.

Lots lots more, but that was just kind of off the top of my head.

by Jazzy on Jan 12, 2009 7:28 pm  

DC law also says you can't park closer than 5 feet (on either side) to an alley or driveway. But I'm always amazed how someone will park so that they're sticking out a few inches into the alley or the driveway, and then go out to see how far they're sticking out ... before walking away ... thinking they're "just a bit outside the rules" ...

by Lance on Jan 12, 2009 8:06 pm  

I'm against mandatory helmet laws especially for SmartBike.

1. The efficacy of helmets is at least somewhat in doubt.

2. A helmet only protects the user and only once the collision or fall has happened. People should have the right to take risk - even stupid risk.

There is greater consensus around sunscreen, than bike helmets and the use of it by everyone would have a much larger positive impact on health than 100% helmet use, but would you really support a law for it? What about dental floss? Safety goggles? Gloves? Where do you draw the line?

For SmartBike, requiring helmet use - without providing helmets - would really cut back on use. People have the right to be stupid.

by washcycle on Jan 12, 2009 10:02 pm  

Yes, people have the right to be stupid ... but that should be reflected in their insurance rates.

by Lance on Jan 12, 2009 10:28 pm  

washcycle, since you're so willing to take personal responsibility, I assume that you'd also forgo health insurance or Medicare if you crash on a bicycle. As to the suggestion that "A helmet only protects the user and only once the collision or fall has happened," that is the explicit purpose of a helmet. A helmet serves to protect against head trauma in case of a crash. Similarly, a seatbelt in a car only protects the driver/passenger if an accident or sudden breaking occurs-- which is precisely why you use (I hope) such a device.

Bike-sharing programs should provide helmets with the rental of a bicycle. Helmets are not a major expense in the overall cost of a bike-sharing program and would greatly enhance safety when riding in an urban environment.

by Ben on Jan 12, 2009 10:38 pm  

Ben I would suggest that you should take care of your own business and keep your nose out of others. The dutch guy at the meeting should go home if he is scared of our streets. Just because he is from the Netherlands does not mean he has any more insight than native born American cyclists who have developed the skills to ride safely on American streets.

But if your intention is to kill bike sharing, press on.

by Tom on Jan 12, 2009 10:39 pm  

Like Bianchi I feel compelled to add my 2cents about roads near me that have crazy speeding drivers and need some bike lanes. How about 6th st NW between Mass and Rhode Island. 2 lanes in each direction encourage 45mph rally car racing and cars parked on the curb with doors opening into speeding traffic. Add some bikers and peds and you have a real urban speedway mix.

How about back in angle parking on one side, one through lane in each direction, designated left hand turn lanes and signals, timed lights (similar to Connecticut ave by Chevy Chase circle) and a bike lane in each direction. Wave the magic wand and make this section of DC roads greater!

by C on Jan 13, 2009 12:35 am  

@BMV

They tried a protected bike lane in NYC, along with a ton of bikelanes they have added there recently. It is better.

Bikelanes are a death trap though. I advocate for driver/biker education and bikers being offered their place in a lane. It is in the DC traffic code that a bike can occupy any part of any lane. The idea is to be courteous and not slow traffic.

Bikelanes have the understood benefit of encouraging people to ride; more people riding encourages sharing of the road. I never feel safe in bikelanes. They trap you into dangerous situations, and when they end they leave inexperienced city riders with a choice between the sidewalk (pedestrian collisions) and uncertain auto behavior. Proper education can teach riders to establish themselves in the lane and be aware of vehicle behavior (watching mirrors, making yourself seen, signals, and learning the way people drive) while proper driver education can teach drivers to look for bikes, and be aware that they may split lanes or be on either side of the car.

*Mid-Block U-Turns Kill*

by IanBarry on Jan 13, 2009 2:19 am  

Tom- nobody is suggesting putting these bike-sharing programs out of business. I am just suggesting that the use of helmets, especially when riding in an urban environment, is probably as important as well-marked and wide bike lanes. Even experienced cyclists crash and a rider does not have to be going fast if their head hits the hard asphalt to cause serious injury.

by Ben on Jan 13, 2009 6:21 am  

Ben,

A seat belt is different from a helmet. Because a seat belt keeps a drier in front of the steering wheel, studies have shown that it gives the driver a greater chance of regaining control of the car once the collision has occurred and reducing the seriousness of it. Furthermore it keeps others in the car from becoming deadly projectiles that could kill other passengers or hit the driver and cause them to further lose control of the car. So that is different. Plus the efficacy of seat belts is not in question.

As for insurance and medicare, that is a slippery slope. Once you decide that you can tell people how to behave because you're on the same insurance program, well then, so can they tell you. They could tell you to eat less red meat, to not drink (or to drink exactly 6oz of red wine a day), not to work in certain places etc...They could make you wear a NASCAR style crash helmet and jumpsuit when you drive - which is quite analogous, since bike helmets were originally only used by racers.

I would recommend that someone who rides a SmartBike wear a helmet, but I'm not going to force them to.

And as far as providing helmets. Do you really want to wear a helmet some stranger just sweated into for 25 minutes? Who's going to clean those between rides? I look forward to the rampant city-wide outbreak of lice.

by washcycle on Jan 13, 2009 9:14 am  

Washcycle:

Since the SmartBike operates on the basis of a yearly membership, one very easy way to encourage helmet usage is to give members a discount on the purchase of a helmet at local bike stores.

One of the presenters at the TRB session said that one significant challenge for bike-sharing programs is liability issues and the difficulty of municipalities getting insurance coverage for these programs. This has led to many of these programs being funded and managed by private companies instead, such as J D Decaux in Paris or Clear Channel here in DC. If these program operators could get lower insurance rates through the encouragement of helmet usage, they will have a reason to provide users with an incentive for the use of helmets.

by Ben on Jan 13, 2009 10:58 am  

Jazzy: I don't know what to say to your comment, other than that you seem to be reading a different blog than I'm writing. I've written about yielding to pedestrians, bulb-outs, and more. And buses? I would have been less surprised if you'd said I write about buses too much.

The city dealt with closing sidewalks for construction a year ago or so. Now it's not allowed for new projects. Topics like that can come up again if there's something new to write about. Like I said, please feel free to submit specific tips or even articles. The bike blogosphere is pretty active, which is why a lot of bike stories come up. It'd be great to have more pedestrian blogging. I can't do it all by myself. Please help light a candle instead of cursing the darkness and send in some specifics for articles when you find them.

by David Alpert on Jan 13, 2009 11:25 am  

Here's some pedestrian safety information from Parade magazine (guess I've been in the city too long-I'm reading Parade...)

8. Cross the Street Safely

The three deadliest days for pedestrians are Jan. 1, Dec. 23, and Oct. 31.

http://www.parade.com/news/2009/01/how-to-survive-the-worst.html

by Bianchi on Jan 13, 2009 11:46 am  

If you're talking about encouraging helmet use, I'm with you. Mandating, and I'm not. The BAC proposed the same idea, sending helmet coupons with a new SmartBike card.

by washcycle on Jan 13, 2009 11:54 am  

@BMV:

The separated bike lanes are not always safer than regular bike lanes. They require separate infrastructure at intersections and the maintenance needs are different. Here's a great chart on when separated bike lanes are the best option - usually roads with high numbers of automobiles moving at fast speeds. http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11a/bike_lane_chart.jpg

by Stefanie on Jan 13, 2009 6:36 pm  

@ Ben: Most European countries require or at least encourage usage of helmets. In the Netherlands though, the suggestion to encourage helmet huge was received with a big laugh. The Dutch refuse to wear a helmet. They prefer to make traffic safer. Over the last 20 years, bike lanes have not only been colored red, but also physically separated from car lanes (often by sacrificing a car lane).

http://www.ventraco.com/cms_c01/UploadData/images/52/0/fietspad_waterland.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Vrijliggend_fietspad.JPG/350px-Vrijliggend_fietspad.JPG

Whereas it is obvious that a physical separation makes things safer, it has amazed me how much coloring a bike lane helps. It really creates a psychological barrier for car drivers. It is my strong recommendation to any authority creating a bike lane to color the asphalt.

by Jasper on Jan 14, 2009 10:13 am  

I understand the argument that bicyclists deserve their space in the road, and that cars just need to deal, but in practice this means bicyclists need nerves of steel. There's a reason you don't see many women or older folks riding in traffic. And who would let their 10-year-old ride two miles to school in a 2 foot wide sharrow?

I pretty much gave up cycling once I left my 20s. After a while I got burned out on the close calls and getting worked up about all the shitty drivers trying to kill me. Some days I'd get to the office ready to punch somebody. That's no way to live.

So I was on the fence about this until I came across David Hembrow's blog. Here he is on the idea of subjective safety (and more).

John Pucher on Cycling for Everyone is also really persuasive.

If we're serious about climate change, obesity, mobility, social justice, and plain old quality of life, we'll stop debating how much defense cyclists need against cars (helmets, lasers, weird clothes, etc) and get real about building bike infrastructure.

by chrismealy on Jan 14, 2009 2:24 pm  

i think having bike lanes is an awsome idea!!!

by paige carney on Feb 20, 2009 10:39 am