Hmm, how about a pedestrian ambassador to ask cyclists to stop and let pedestrians pass in the crosswalk where there is a posted stop sign? (Instead of expecting pedestrians to wait in the middle of the street).

by Steve on Aug 3, 2009 3:47 pm  

why is he cycling on a stupid athletic bicycle when he could be on a sit up posture bicycle that is much safer and more ergonomic?

Too many of the WABA crowd are racing/atheltic cycling - oriented and not focused on everyday practical bicycling for living without a car.

If WABA made dedicated and physically separated bikeways a priority- as it is being done in New York City- and has been done for decades safely in much of Europe and China- this kind of effort and the danger this guy is putting himself in would not be necessary.

by w on Aug 3, 2009 3:53 pm  

Not only did I see Ben on his bike, but I actually saw this picture being taken as I had just gotten on the bus you see in the background.

Props to the bike-mounted photographer!

When I testified last year in support of the 3 foot passing rule, the need for more Smart Bike Stations, and the idea that we should have Bicycle and Pedestrian Boulevards where the Iowa-Stop (Roll on Stop Signs, Stop and Proceed at Stop Lights) for cyclists, I was mocked in later testimony by someone who lived in Adams Morgan, telling the Committee, "I've never been hit by a car, but I've been hit three times by cyclists."

Different user groups use the roadways and sidewalks in different ways. As both a cycling and a pedestrian advocate, I often find myself caught in the middle. But, in truth, there is no middle ground here: Pedestrians have the Right of Way over cyclists.

It's easy for cyclists to think that they are completely in control, no matter how fast they are going. Cyclists need to be courteous and careful in their travel. Many who advocate that cyclists should behave exactly as automobiles believe that only by acting predictably in the roadway can we all truly be safe. When cyclists do things that are unpredictable, it's hard for motorists and pedestrians to feel safe.

I think one of the great things about the Ambassador program is that it gets the conversation between user groups going. I'm sure Ben heard some choice phrases from passing motorists who were probably not very courteous.

by Phil Lepanto on Aug 3, 2009 4:01 pm  

vehicular cycling is a recipe for death.
Every vehicular cyclist that I have ever known has been involved with some kind of accident involving cars.

Bicyclists in this country need to move AWAY from vehicular cycling and adopt the more sane approach that is seen in Denmark, Germany, Holland and China- where cyclists seldom , almost never have to risk being caught in traffic with cars.

Cycling in the USA is too suburban- and it is basically a sporting practice for young males- and it is not safe for people who are risk aversive.Where cycling is an everyday event, and not some kind of show -off competetion thing, speed is not important- and the lower death and accident rates prove this over and over again.

We need new thinking in the USA.
And it needs to start with the cyclists.

by w on Aug 3, 2009 4:49 pm  

Great idea, w. It's too bad that there isn't comprehensive infrastructure in place to facilitate such a mode shift.

This is a chicken/egg problem. Yes, we need new thinking in this country, but it isn't going to start with cyclists because the only ones who consistently ride are vehicular cyclists. They aren't uber concerned with adding cycle tracks and dedicated bike lanes because they are just fine riding in traffic.

The infrastructure won't come until risk averse cyclists start riding, and they won't start riding until the infrastructure is there. Until then, WABA deserves a lot of credit for transforming its approach to cycling advocacy.

But again, vehicular cyclists do a great service to the region by being on the roads all the time, slowing down traffic, giving money, and raising awareness, so I feel that the criticism is unwarranted.

by JTS on Aug 3, 2009 5:08 pm  

@w

I'm sorry, but your continued prattle about European cycling facilities has no relationship with reality.

I don't know what Holland you're talking about, but it is NOT the same Holland that my family lived in. I can speak authoritatively about the Hague, because that's the city I know best, but it's not unlike the rest of the country. Cyclists DO ride on the street in the Netherlands, every day, because they have to in order to get anywhere useful. Separated cycle tracks follow only the major streets, and then not all of them. Side streets generally don't even have marked bike lanes.

Nor does your characterization of WABA jibe with what I know of WABA staff and volunteers. There are racers, yes - and also people just riding to get around.

by David R. on Aug 3, 2009 5:20 pm  

A question for all those out there who use DC's bike lanes:

How do you avoid car doors when using the lanes? Seeing how the lanes are right up against the passenger side of parked cars, it seems like a recipe for disaster. So is there a secret, or do you just hope for the best?

by Daniel on Aug 3, 2009 5:30 pm  

@Daniel 5:30pm:

http://thechicagobicycleadvocate.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-to-avoid-getting-doored.html

says it better than I could.

by Stephen Miller on Aug 3, 2009 5:37 pm  

Also, one thing not mentioned in that link: Riding at the "far edge" of the bike lane keeps you within the lane but (mostly) out of the dooring zone.

by Stephen Miller on Aug 3, 2009 5:39 pm  

Does the ambassador's bike have an audible warning device? Does you bike? DC law requires such a device.

As a car owner, I am required to periodically get my car inspected. Part of that inspection is a check of the required safety features (lights, horn, etc).

Should we require mandatory bike inspections?

by metronic on Aug 3, 2009 6:29 pm  

My audible warning device is usually me screaming "holy sh*t!" whenever I'm overtaken on the 7th street bus bike lane by a speeding Acura with illegal tinting.

Mandatory bike inspections to be paid for how, exactly? By a user fee on bikes? You'd kill cycling overnight. Enforcement by what, a license plate? MPD has enough trouble not ticketing drivers for running red lights.

We can have these conversations when cycling stops being a pariah activity and becomes a commonly used medium by a plurality of district residents. This can only happen when DC realizes the huge and numerous benefits a cycling population affords the city and invests in high quality, segregated infrastructure to facilitate increased usage. Until then, cyclists can continue to fight for the transportation scraps despite being an overwhelmingly positive force in the transportation community.

I'm not sure where the animosity is coming from. Ben West is simply advertising stated laws. This wouldn't even be necessary if the city was actually enforcing them. Heck, if the city was enforcing them, things would be a lot smoother too. No inexperienced cyclists cutting into lanes of traffic and slowing everyone down, no delivery trucks parked on a lane and taking up half a traffic lane as well. I mean, seriously, the number of times I've watched police witness blatant traffic violations and do nothing about it...you should check out 395 as it ends and becomes an authorized vehicles only/do not enter street. Cops literally just sit there and watch a queue of cars drive right through the do not enter sign and do nothing. ever! How many times have you seen police in admo stand around as visibly drunk kids load into a sedan with OOS plates? Cops: I'm not criticizing you (ok, I am), I want you to exercise some of that good old strong arm of the law force!

same goes for bikes! I say ticket the sommmunabetch if he pedals through a red light like a mad man (but pass the idaho stop law, please).

So many conversations on this blog would not be necessary if cops simply enforced the law. Remember the post a while back about crosswalks and how cars never stop? Other cities that have this law don't have nearly as high a rate of intransigence because enough tickets have been handed out that people follow the law (except when people from MD are visiting). Ben West isn't protesting cars; he's doing the police's job for them! argh!!!![oa24i90-23

yada yada yada {/rant}.

by JTS on Aug 3, 2009 7:27 pm  

Perhaps w's energies would be better spent trying to get better enforcement of existing laws and less telling other people how and what to ride. Without a sea change in how local jurisdictions maintain the facilities I don't have a lot of confidence in "cycle tracks" being adequately maintained. In DC, outside the BIDs, they wouldn't ever be cleaned, since DPW couldn't get a mechanical sweeper in there. Imagine a very long, low-slung trash receptacle full of wind-blown detritus, grit and sediment.

by Paul on Aug 3, 2009 7:40 pm  

"Bicyclists in this country need to move AWAY from vehicular cycling and adopt the more sane approach that is seen in Denmark, Germany, Holland and China- where cyclists seldom , almost never have to risk being caught in traffic with cars."

This statement is hilariously wrong. Holland has already been covered. Meanwhile I lived (and biked) in Germany and while bike facilities are better on average than they are here, you still find yourself in the road very frequently - though drivers are much more courteous.

Meanwhile, the idea of China being some sort of bike utopia is laugh-out-loud wrong. Go and try to ride a bike in Beijing and get back to us then.. (or you can just watch the episode of No Reservations where Tony Bourdain attempts to do this.)

by Phil on Aug 3, 2009 7:59 pm  

...since DPW couldn't get a mechanical sweeper in there. Imagine a very long, low-slung trash receptacle full of wind-blown detritus, grit and sediment.

Not necessarily. The NYC cycle tracks do fit street sweepers.

by цarьchitect on Aug 3, 2009 8:54 pm  

Stephen, thanks for the link.

Regarding bike lanes in Beijing, I believe they were originally built to keep bikes out of the way of cars, instead of the other way around. But they do function well, in a chaotic sort of way.

by Daniel on Aug 4, 2009 9:29 am  

You know what? This guy is awesome. He constructed that sign wagon thing and then towed it in to town, knowing full well that everyone was just going to s*** all over it and find any excuse at all to hate on it. So here's to you, mr bike ambassador sign towing man. You have shown way more initiative then I have this morning

by Realmenofgenius on Aug 4, 2009 9:48 am  

Hey, everybody, calm down. I think the roadies, the commuters, the bike lane advocates and the vehicular drivers need to sit down for a good 'ol fashioned Obama beer summit. It always cracks me up when cyclists get testy with each other...it's completely counter intuitive. We've got to have more camaraderie, based on the contribution we make to ourselves and society by using our bikes.

by Kenney on Aug 4, 2009 10:00 am  

I think that some people are confused about vehicular cycling. Heck, maybe I'm the confused one. I'm primarily a bike/metro commuter (half and half) but I've been staying with relatives while my apartment is being fixed, and car commuting from there.

I understand it like this: if you are riding on a road that cars are also allowed on, it is safer to operate your bicycle as if it were a car. Meaning, for example, when approaching a red light with a line of cars waiting, stop your bike behind the last car in the queue, not ride up to the front alongside the cars (avoids door problem, right hook etc). Another example (something I saw this morning on North Capitol and H): not pulling a U-turn on N. Capitol Street FROM THE RIGHT LANE. Some idiot crossed 3 lanes of traffic (two with a "go straight" green light, one with a line of cars waiting to turn left--cut off the left turning car (me), who if it hadn't been ME, who is very careful to watch for cyclists and not an aggressive driver at all, he could have been run right over.

Cycling "like a car" when you're in traffic IS safer, or at least that's how I understand it.

Now, if you think that vehicular cycling means advocating for riding in traffic rather than on bike trails, then I can see why you think it's dangerous. It IS more dangerous than bike paths (but less dangerous than sidewalk riding). But to get around this town as a cyclist or motorist, you have to use the roads. Sticking to bike trails is like cars trying to stick to major highways. They just plain old don't go where you need to go.

by Catherine on Aug 4, 2009 11:00 am  

Can this guy please come and ride up and down Walter Reed Drive in Arlington a few times? I swear there are people over there who believe the painted bike lane is a car lane.

This is great. Educating the public, raising public awareness, all while innocently riding down the street. Great.

Daniel -

on the issue of car door avoidance. It's sort of like worrying about choking on a peanut. It does happen, but mostly it's not a reason to not ride a bike. The benefits far outweigh the costs of riding. I will say one thing, though - be sure to wear a helmet. It always ceases to amaze me when I see people riding to work through rush hour traffic and they have no helmet on. That's crazy.

by Josh S on Aug 4, 2009 11:08 am  

I'm going to start wearing a shirt to work each day that says "GET YOUR G D BIKE OFF THE SIDEWALK!!!"
hopefully I'll get a nice writeup and the cyclists will "get to know the laws"

by andy on Aug 4, 2009 11:53 am  

@andy

And those laws are that in the District anyone may operate a bicycle on the sidewalk except within the Central Business District, which is pictured in yellow here:

http://washcycle.typepad.com/bikemap/

Now, it's not really a good idea to ride a bike on the sidewalk because of the "right hook" problem (vehicles turning right from the street do not expect and cannot see a bicycle coming off the sidewalk into the intersection). I'm also not claiming that all cyclists listen to the CBD ban. But just making sure that you do know that it is allowed in most of the city.

by Catherine on Aug 4, 2009 12:02 pm  

Every bike ridden in DC should have to be registered (with an appropriate fee), display a license plate of some sort, and be inspected to ensure compliance with all applicable laws (including audible warning devices, lights, etc).

If you want bikes treated the same as cars, then fine, lets treat them the same. I have to pay to register my car, I have to display plates, my car has to be inspected. So should your bike.

Would this kill cycling in DC? Maybe, maybe not. But, if cycling is so great as some people allege, then I am sure that a few minor inconveniences like registration and inspection would not spell the death of this activity.

by metronic on Aug 4, 2009 12:24 pm  

@metronic

I kind of get what you're saying (I'd love to be able to report some crazy @^#& cyclists I encounter as a cyclist, pedestrian and driver), but you seem to be overlooking one key fact:

It's not a matter of "if [we] want bikes treated the same as cars"---that's already how it is. The laws give bikes the same right-of-way as cars. You may not like it, but you have to follow it, or you could get in trouble. It's not contingent on getting bikes registered--it already IS.

Again, I'm with you on frustration with the bad cyclists (see above posts), but just because some of them are $*($)@, doesn't mean that you can ignore the law as it applies to your interactions with them.

Oh, and for real: stay out of the bike lane. It's there for ALL our benefit (it keeps you away from us, and us from slowing you down: we all win if they're used correctly!)

by Catherine on Aug 4, 2009 12:55 pm  

There's a difference between treating bikes the same as cars for traffic law purposes (which is sensible because it protects the safety of all road users) and treating them the same for all other legal and administrative purposes (which is ludicrous, cars are much more dangerous and harmful than bicycles so it makes sense for them to be regulated more closely.)

by Phil on Aug 4, 2009 1:50 pm  

@Catherine - I both live and work downtown in the CBD, so I am very aware of the laws - and also the many very obnoxious bike riders on the sidewalks that I see while going back and forth on a daily basis. I used to be a long distance runner when I was younger and very quickly learned that pedestrians on the sidewalk are NEVER looking out for anything faster than walking speed (and they shouldn't have to!) and that even for a runner, someone without mechanical conveyance, a crowded sidewalk is completely inappropriate. I am so amazed at all of the clueless, very self-important bicyclists (and segway-riders now) that for some reason have never figured this out. As my several posts on this blog whenever "bicycle rights" come up - it is a personal peeve of mine.

by andy on Aug 4, 2009 2:11 pm  

Andy, I agree completely--I just just putting it out there because some people don't know the rule, that's all.

by Catherine on Aug 4, 2009 3:17 pm  

"Oh, and for real: stay out of the bike lane. It's there for ALL our benefit (it keeps you away from us, and us from slowing you down: we all win if they're used correctly!)"

The bike/bus lane on 7th Street, by the Verizon Center does NOT serve drivers. It creates massive traffic back-ups to Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues and chokes a major artery from Downtown DC to Silver Spring. Drivers, who will always outnumber bikers in every US city, DO NOT WIN, with this poorly devised bike lane.

For this reason, it is nearly universally ignored by drivers and the MPD.

by metronic on Aug 4, 2009 5:32 pm  

Au contrare (sp?), believe it or not, MPD was ticketing drivers in the bike/bus lane on 7th today (about an hour ago). I eat my words. hopefully they keep it up.

by JTS on Aug 4, 2009 5:57 pm  

I used to be a regular car commuter in DC (and actually am again for this week). I know those stretches of Constitution and Pennsylvania very well. The bike lane has nothing to do with them being congested. How to I know this? First, they're major roads that lead to other, even more major roads. They will be congested no matter what. (Constitution backup is just sheer volume conjestion made worse cars wanting to turn left onto 15th to get to VA or 12th to get onto the SE SW Freeway--PA is pretty much the same thing plus the fact that for SOME reason it dead-ends on the 1600 block. Wonder what on Earth that's about!) Second, the bike lane you're talking about is, as you pointed out, completely and utterly ignored. 100%. So how exactly is the bike lane, which is actually used as just another lane of traffic for cars, backing up traffic? It's not used as a bike lane it's used as a car lane.

What would you prefer? Having a few designated streets with lanes slow moving vehicles, lowering or eliminating the probability of these slow moving vehicles on other streets, or having the slow moving vehicles equally likely to be on any street? Because what I suspect you really want (no bikes on the street, and hey, how about no buses to stop in front of you, and while we're at it, how about just everyone moves out of your way like Moses parting the Red Sea) just aint gonna happen.

Let's say I work at 14th and K and come in over the Memorial Bridge from Arlington. I ride up the Mall (out of your way). The shorter, "best" way to go would be just straight up 14th. But I'm not going to do that because it's really busy and it's a major artery and I personally don't think that it's nice to take up a lane on a major artery during rush hour. So I go up the "bike lane" on 7th, back towards 14th on the sidewalk along Mass (which is permitted in that part of the city--it's outside the CBD, then down 13th because, again, it's a smaller and less busy road. I'm doing this partly for my safety but honestly I think 14th would be just as safe (traffic moves slowly enough and I'd just take the whole lane, remaining highly visible), but I think that that would be a jackass kind of move, plus 7 blocks to go up 7th isn't that bad.

And even though the bike lane is routinely ignored there is at least SOME protection and I'm certainly the one in the right. It's only the REAL hothead losers who get angry at a bike in the bike lane. I almost even feel bad for them, it must be hard living with that kind of hostility.

Anyway, my point is that without the bike lane to help with that decision, I might just go up 14th. No bike lane on 14th, but no bike lane anywhere else either. Drivers get angry either way, so may as well save some time, right? And lots of other cyclists would just chose the shortest route, and then there really would be cyclists on every road (the horror). A halfway decent bike lane network could at least funnel the majority of cyclists onto particular streets, which you can avoid.

And, an aside, I'm really surprised to hear that MPD was giving out tickets today. I think this is a good thing.

by Catherine on Aug 4, 2009 8:53 pm