Breakfast links: Once upon a time

by Erik Weber • May 6, 2011 8:46 am

Photo by stgermh on Flickr.

Time means change: The demographics of Shaw may be changing, but most long-time residents have seen far more positive elements to the gradual gentrification of their neighborhood than downsides. ... Oh H Street NE, the changes all started when a little music venue opened up. (WAMU)

The Mount Pleasant riots: 20 years ago, Mount Pleasant erupted in riots after an African-American police officer shot a drunk 30-year-old Latino man. Latinos in DC continue to struggle with relations with police to this day. (WAMU)

Landlords discriminate against poor: An investigation found that 15% of landlords involved discriminated against potential tenants using housing vouchers for low-income families, a violation of DC civil rights laws. (Examiner)

The consequences of DUI leniency: A Potomac man has been arrested three times for severe drunk driving violations, but has never had his license suspended or revoked. ... A woman who killed two men while driving drunk was recently convicted of manslaughter. She, too, had previous DUIs on her record. (WUSA)

MoCo ups traffic safety enforcement: Police officers from around Montgomery County launched Operation Safe Streets in Silver Spring yesterday, issuing 156 tickets for aggressive driving and 249 warnings, a majority to pedestrians. (Gaithersburg Patch)

CaBi clips: Women bought nearly half of the Living Social CaBi coupons. (Cycling Examiner) ... CaBi is also releasing new data soon, as bike share apps become more robust. There have also been very few incidents of vandalism. (WashCycle)

Charters as the internet of public education: Richard Layman compares public charter schools' impact on traditional public schools to the internet's impact on traditional newspapers. He fears public charters threaten public education. (RPUS)

McDonnell renews push for drilling: With memories of the BP disaster fading, Governor McDonnell is pushing again to open Virginia's coastal waters for offshore drilling, getting support from the US House which passed legislation that could reopen Atlantic waters for drilling. (WTOP)

Governments asking you about engaging you: Some Arlington employees are looking for ideas on ways the county can better engage the public. And DC's OCTO wants your input on the name for a campaign to combat the digital divide.

And...: Voting rights protesters wonder, "to plead or not to plead?" (DCist) ... Co-ops are most well-known in New York, but there are some in DC, too (Housing Complex) ... Laura Bush will fundraise to restore the National Mall. (WTOP) ... How as the Mount Vernon Triangle changed since 2000? (The Triangle)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

37 comments

Tags: links

Erik Weber has been living car-free in the District since 2009. Hailing from the home of the nation's first Urban Growth Boundary, Erik has been interested in transit since spending summers in Germany as a kid where he rode as many buses, trains and streetcars as he could find. Views expressed here are Erik's alone.

Comments
Add a comment »

The sad truth about any crime, whether it be DUI, spousal abuse, drug charges etc...anything but murder is this...

The laws are different for people with stature and money than they are for people without.

We all have anecdotal cases. This phd mentioned above living in Potomac, the famous journalist in Georgetown who was literally growing pot in his backyard. The "law" whether anyone would admit it or not is inherently more lenient to folks like this. Had this DUI guy been just your run of the mill late twenties plumber, or truck driver he would have lost his license for a year the very first time.

by freely on May 6, 2011 8:45 am • link • report

Hmm. Is a multiple DUI offender a multiple DUI offender if the previous cases, well, had been dropped?

by charlie on May 6, 2011 8:45 am • link • report

+1 freely

by Froggie on May 6, 2011 9:03 am • link • report

@Freely, good point, and a side effect of criminalizing this behavior it is just makes attorneys rich.

From what I know, having an expensive attorney isn't going to get you off a DUI charge in Maryland. Any attorney is going to be get some deal. So it isn't about superrich, it is just about someone who can afford $2500 for an attorney after being arrested vs. someone who can't.

by charlie on May 6, 2011 9:12 am • link • report

How is the fact that women bought half of cabi memberships remotely surprising or newsworthy?

by beatbox on May 6, 2011 9:44 am • link • report

37% of DC bike commuters are women, which is one of the highest in nation but well below 50%. So the fact that the CaBi deal was 50-50 could mean CaBi is pushing the ratio of genders among people biking more toward balance.

by David Alpert on May 6, 2011 9:47 am • link • report

@beatbox
How is the fact that women bought half of cabi memberships remotely surprising or newsworthy?

Because women are half as likely to be bicyclists of any sort (even infrequent ones) and one third as likely to be frequent bicyclists (several trips a month).

by MLD on May 6, 2011 9:52 am • link • report

Re DUI Cases,

Anecdotally I have heard in MD that their are a lot of thriving attorney practices that specialize in getting DUI charges reduced to a lesser charge if not out and out dropped.

These attorneys are probably some of the most vocal opposition to reform of our DUI laws. Why ruin a good thing ....

As far as losing your license - that has never proved to be a deterrent to stopping one from continuing to drive.

by JeffB on May 6, 2011 9:58 am • link • report

@beatbox

As a previous post on GGW showed:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9885/women-how-comfortable-do-you-feel-biking/

Women biking is an important indicator of a city's bike-friendliness.

Relevant quote from the post:

The male-female ratio is no trivial factoid. Women are considered an "indicator species" for cycling. When the conditions are right, female cyclists multiply. When urban biking feels like a game of Pole Position, the ladies tend to find other modes.

by Falls Church on May 6, 2011 10:09 am • link • report

DUI enforcement is a joke. First incident without injury should result in a six month revocation of your license. Second incident w/o injury would be a year, third incident would be permanent revocation.

Hurting or killing anyone while DUI should result in permanent revocation, seizure of the vehicle and some jail time.

I cannot think of a single plausible excuse for DUI, it is a gross disregard for the safety of other human beings and is committed ENTIRELY by choice. If you have such disregard for the life and limb of other people, why should the state have any regard for your privilege to drive?

Set those regulations in stone as mandatory minimum sentences.

by Martin on May 6, 2011 10:15 am • link • report

@jeffB. Yes. As with Adam Englin's attempt in Virginia to turn running red lights into reckless driving, the real beneficiaries are traffic attorneys who can plead it down.

25,000 maryland residents with 3 DUIs.

by charlie on May 6, 2011 10:16 am • link • report

The problem isn't that the DUI penalties aren't stiff enough, the problem is that any decent lawyer can get a DUI charge thrown out, or reduced if even the slightest thing goes wrong for the prosecution. It is a very difficult to case to win if the offender has the money.

Still, most people just want to get it over with and take the PBJ for their first offense.

by Anthony on May 6, 2011 10:25 am • link • report

Not sure I understand the importance of the "more women ride Cabi" post either.

I put it in the same "first black church installs solar" category.

by HogWash on May 6, 2011 10:26 am • link • report

As we gradually get over the inherent prejudices against auto-protected , grade separated bikcycle infrastructure we will no doubt see an increase in the participation of women in regular everyday, non-recreational cycling for practical purposes. Anyone who doubts this needs to visit Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, or China.As it stands- the super-dangerous "share the road" mentality of the majority of transportation planners and cycling organizations in the USA , plus the backlash of seemingly "liberal" politicians in places like Brooklyn NYC tend to slow down this inevitable progress- but I have no doubt of it's eventuality. It is only logical that most rational people are risk aversive no matter what derisive language the vehicular cycling maniacs use to describe those who do not wish to "share the road" with equally insane car,bus , and truck drivers.

by w on May 6, 2011 10:52 am • link • report

@w:

As it stands- the super-dangerous "share the road" mentality of the majority of transportation planners and cycling organizations in the USA...tend to slow down this inevitable progress...

More sushi for the staving children in Africa:

by oboe on May 6, 2011 10:59 am • link • report

Haven't seen a link or a story on it - but Phil Mendelson showed up at the Ward 6 Dem-hosted Redistricting meeting last night and faced a lot of heat. Half a cheer for actually showing up.

That said, he was very wishy-washy, and steadfastly ignored the fact that the reunification of Fairlawn (Precinct 112, Census Tract 76.05) was the most rational single move the redistricting committee could make -- at one point saying "If that's all we give them [Ward 8], then they'll be very angry".

Please, Phil.. tell me more of how "angry" the Ward 8 residents will be by the redistricting committee sticking to its actual rules and guidelines for compactness contiguousness and continuity.

Laughably, he then turned around and cited those very qualities for NOT moving pieces of Ward 5 into Ward 7. And he was completely tonedeaf to the Kingman Park folk who showed up to let him know what they thought of his '01 decision to merge that piece with Ward 7. So apparently the rules only apply when Barry's whims aren't involved.

by Andrew in DC on May 6, 2011 11:26 am • link • report

@oboe ,who is in most other debates on this blog quite sensible and entertaining, WRT bicycle infrastructure @oboe seems to callously disregard the EXTREMELY obvious- that in any collision between a car and a motor vehicle, the car ALWAYS wins. In every country where large numbers of cyclists significantly reduce mode -share , there exists huge amounts of separated auto-protected cycling infrastructure. Just last week, a friend of mine was on her bicycle and was hit by a car- she is currently suffering brain swelling and we are not -as of the present time- certain of her outcome. I doubt very much that she will be cycling in the streets any more after this- provided that she even lives. Enough said- @oboe- I sure hope that you NEVER get into an accident while riding your bike in auto traffic . This is NOT A JOKE.

by w on May 6, 2011 11:40 am • link • report

in the above, I meant to share -reduce mode share of auto usage.

by w on May 6, 2011 11:42 am • link • report

@anthony; huh? DUI cases are simple for the prosecution. You have a BAC report, then bring charges. The only real question is whether diversion should be given for first time offenders, and that has a lot to do whether there were other moving violations at the same time (speed, red light), and how high the BAC level was.

by charlie on May 6, 2011 11:43 am • link • report

@w:

Again, folks like yourself are laboring under a couple of fallacies: countries like Denmark and Holland added cycling infrastructure in a slow process of accretion. The Norsemen didn't build this stuff when they got back from the raid on Lindesfarne. And the governments didn't just one day build it, at which point everyone went out and bought a bicycle.

As more folks rode their bicycles, there was increased political pressure for infrastructure. But those folks rode their bikes largely in the streets. Then in bike lanes. Then on separated infrastructure.

The problem with the Copenhagenized (and your) take on it is that you're blaming folks for utilizing the infrastructure that exists. People ride in the streets because that's what's there. If you work off of the W & OD, and work in Georgetown--or live in Georgetown and work in Bethesda--you just might be able to get from home to work on nothing but dedicated infrastructure.

But what little infrastructure we have in DC is there because people have been riding in the streets for decades; not in spite of those people. We'll get more infrastructure as the number of cyclists go up. That means more cyclists riding in the streets. Even then we'll have to ride on streets--because there's really no such thing as comprehensive dedicated cycling infrastructure. Not even in Amsterdam or Copenhagen. Certainly not outside of those cities. (In fact, you and I went over this a month or two ago: you claimed there was comprehensive cycling infrastructure in Holland that "shadowed" all roads. But it's pretty trivial to find suburban routes where that's not the case.)

And finally--and I know this sets your teeth on edge--but if you're going to ride in the streets, knowing the basics of what you call "vehicular cycling" will keep you safer. Certainly it's kept me safer. Stay out of the door zone. Use hand signals. Stay visible. Take the lane if necessary. Etc...

Poor kids in Africa eat rice and beans because that's what they have. Telling them to eat sushi because it's yummier fails to grasp the reality of the situation.

I hope your friend makes a speedy recovery.

by oboe on May 6, 2011 12:04 pm • link • report

@w: Your friend's terrible accident is yet another reason why I am no longer on my bicycle. Plus admissions here, here, and here that bike lanes do not improve safety.

by goldfish on May 6, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

Your friend's terrible accident is yet another reason why I am no longer on my bicycle. Plus admissions here, here, and here that bike lanes do not improve safety.

Sweet! I got a cite!

Anyway, two things: it's not surprising that bike lanes don't radically improve safety, because all things considered, cycling is a pretty safe activity.

Secondly, I'm not sure my opinion on bike lanes and the safety effect is absolutely authoritative.

by oboe on May 6, 2011 12:16 pm • link • report

@oboe -- given what was presented in the other, more "authoritative" cites, your opinion is as good as anyone's.

by goldfish on May 6, 2011 12:34 pm • link • report

@oboe, @w - just a little tidbit: By the 1970's crash/road death rates and car use were approximately the same in those west europe nations w mentions as in the US, with the trend rising, just like it has in the US. There was at that time a very deliberate decision made by those nations to reverse the trend. It took a lot of time and it happened gradually as oboe says. But making that change from ~1975 to 2011 was deliberate and backed by political will etc.

by Tina on May 6, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report

charlie: its really not that simple. The defense can make the state prove the tester was certified, the machine was recently calibrated. You have to prove that the test was properly administered. The state(at least Maryland) has had a difficult time keeping track of its paperwork.

It also gets much harder to prosecute if the defendant refused field sobriety tests(which many do). Then you have to prove probable cause for the officer to take them into custody for a breath test. Obviously some cases are easier than others. But if it was a borderline case, you have a good lawyer and you know how not to incriminate yourself it can be a difficult case to prosecute.

by Anthony on May 6, 2011 1:00 pm • link • report

@Anthony; come on. while DC and Maryland seem to have issues calibrating their machines, the actual "challenge" is just a letter.

And no. If you refuse a field test, that is probably cause, then they can refuse a breath test as well. Facts and circumstances then determine guilt. Refusing a breath test means automatic license suspension (administrative penalty) for a year.

There is a reason DUI cases are like shooting fish in a barrel. The entire system is streamlined. You do need to hire an attorney, though, as many state prosecutors will refuse to talk to a pro se defendant before trial for settlement purposes.

by charlie on May 6, 2011 1:12 pm • link • report

@Tina:

Good point. Though in city, and close-in suburbs, we may be doing much better than the overall numbers suggest.

It's interesting that Texas and Florida seem to battle every year for the most dangerous states for cycling. Given that suburbia is much more dangerous for pedestrians, it's not unreasonable to assume that American suburbia drives up our overall numbers, making urban cycling appear to be more dangerous.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-danger12.html

The point I think 'w' and similar folks miss is that all of these improvements came from a growing political will. And that political will grows as people, well, ride their bicycles. More cyclists, safer environment, more cyclists, more infrastructure, more cyclists.

The alternative is that everyone go home, hang up their bikes, and wait for the infrastructure. That or ride on the sidewalks where all evidence shows, you're in much greater danger of being in a serious accident.

by oboe on May 6, 2011 1:16 pm • link • report

@w - I'm not sure I get your argument. Is this it:

"Cycling on roads with cars is dangerous. Cyclists should only ride on protected tracks. If there aren't protected tracks, we should stop riding. If we all stop riding, the city will install lots of protected tracks for us to ride on."

Is that is? Because if so, we're gonna have to disagree as to how effective that strategy is likely to be.

And I too am very sorry about your friend.

by dcd on May 6, 2011 1:16 pm • link • report

I dont agree that cycling in the road is inherently safe. I know many more people in bike/car accidents than ped/car accidents. Regardless of the stats though, cycletracks certainly feel a lot safer and perception matters. My wife will add miles to her 22 mile RT bike comute to go along the mall and get direct access to the 15th st cycletracks. Which reminds me, where the hell are those L and M cycletracks Mayor Gray?

by falls church on May 6, 2011 1:17 pm • link • report

@oboe, yeah.

by Tina on May 6, 2011 1:35 pm • link • report

Regardless of the stats though, cycletracks certainly feel a lot safer and perception matters. My wife will add miles to her 22 mile RT bike comute to go along the mall and get direct access to the 15th st cycletracks.

Exactly. If I'm in a hurry, I take Mass Ave between Union Station & 15th. If I'm not, I take Penn Ave to 15th, then up the cycletracks. While I'm skeptical one is "safer" than the other, I know which I find more relaxing.

While humans are notoriously bad at intuitively assessing risk, we're pretty good at determining what's "pleasant." :)

by oboe on May 6, 2011 1:44 pm • link • report

yes- it is true that Amsterdam, Berlin, and Copenhagen were all once very car oriented and it took years to implement the excellent bicycle infrastructure all 3 cities now have. This also does not mean that this same effort would be impossible here in the USA.
There are VERY GOOD and palpable reasons why you see lots and lots of women,elderly, children and families riding bikes in these 3 cities- that is-they all 3 have excellent separated auto protected bikeways. There is NO DISPUTING THIS FACT at all. All that one has to do is to travel there and see it.Year after year I hear the same arguements from people like @oboe and when they actually GO THERE and see it they stop the bickering.
You also do not see many people wearing helmets, and vitually no one wears that idiotic and un-necessary and expensive racing wear- you see people in NORMAL CLOTHES on SIT UP bicycles, and you see LOTS & LOTS of them. This is all because they are NOT THREATENED BY AUTO TRAFFIC . Again-for the doubters- here are some of Henry Cutler's photos he sent to me-he was astounded that anyone in the USA would actually try to go against this kind of thing or to ridiculae anyone supporting dedicated separated bikeways. They are all over Amsterdam- and they are almost always on the SIDEWALKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/henryinamsterdam/3938679734/in/set-72157618188509480
http://www.flickr.com/photos/henryinamsterdam/4795360771/in/set-72157624148503333/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/henryinamsterdam/5683704248/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/henryinamsterdam/5683703772/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/henryinamsterdam/5683703418/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3116492360/in/faves-henryinamsterdam/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/2655781114/in/faves-henryinamsterdam/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3077610470/in/faves-henryinamsterdam/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3242280800/in/faves-henryinamsterdam/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3241409351/in/faves-henryinamsterdam/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3259135502/in/faves-henryinamsterdam/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3276574113/in/faves-henryinamsterdam/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3278786331/in/faves-henryinamsterdam/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3293466336/in/faves-henryinamsterdam/

by w on May 6, 2011 2:46 pm • link • report

This is getting to be a bit comical, but okay, it's a slow Friday:

...no one wears that idiotic and un-necessary and expensive racing wear...

http://www.skits.nl/page/wielrennen/

http://www.knwu.nl/verenigingen_stichtingen/zoek_vereniging.html

Just because general purpose cycling is popular in n. europe doesn't mean club cycling is less popular. Quite the contrary.

he was astounded that anyone in the USA would actually try to go against this kind of thing or to ridiculae anyone supporting dedicated separated bikeways

It is quite astounding. Or it would be astounding if there were any sort of widespread opposition among cyclists. But there's not. If there's more than ten people in the country who regularly ride and are actively plotting against bike infrastructure, I'd be stunned.

Year after year I hear the same arguements from people like @oboe and when they actually GO THERE and see it they stop the bickering.

I'm not sure you actually *do* understand the arguments me and my ilk are making. I'd love it if DC were Amsterdam. It's not. Until it is, I can't ride this lovely network of segregated bike infrastructure. (Even if it were, you'd still need to ride in the street on occasion. Hello? Is this thing on?)

Posting all these lovely photos of european bike infrastructure is just cruel. Again, you're argument is essentially that poor people shouldn't eat Mac & Cheese, they should eat sushi--after all it's healthier. Why must they be so obstinate!!!

For God's sake poor people don't eat this:

Eat this:

You are a cruel, cruel person, @w.

by oboe on May 6, 2011 3:23 pm • link • report

if you love it so much why are you so damn resistant and why do you make statements that show that you are a pure vehicular cyclist?

Maybe there are racing clubs- so what?
they are a drop in the bucket when compared to the HUGE numbers of women in dresses and men in suits seen on bikes every single day in places like Berlin.
Why are people like you so GODAMN CLOSED MINDED???

by w on May 6, 2011 3:30 pm • link • report

...and why should we sit down and accept third rate bicycle infrastructure here in the USA when we know that it can be done in a much better way- and for not that much money?

by w on May 6, 2011 4:08 pm • link • report

Actually seems to me that you're the closed-minded one. Building a completely separated network isn't currently feasible YET. But you would have us build NOTHING currently because it's not perfectly exactly what you want. That's the wrong approach.

You wrote:
yes- it is true that Amsterdam, Berlin, and Copenhagen were all once very car oriented and it took years to implement the excellent bicycle infrastructure all 3 cities now have. This also does not mean that this same effort would be impossible here in the USA.

You're right, it's not impossible, and we don't think it's impossible. Actually, WE are advocating for the exact same method that those cities used to get to where they are now. They started with bike infrastructure like lanes, etc. and that helped attract more people to biking, and as more people started using bikes they demanded better and better bike infrastructure, and the result is what you see in those cities currently.

I want there to be completely separated bike paths. Someday that will happen, but only if we have a critical mass of people who bike to make it happen. Right now every improvement in biking infrastructure we make encourages more people to bike, getting us one step closer to the ultimate goal.

by MLD on May 6, 2011 4:27 pm • link • report

@w:

if you love it so much why are you so damn resistant and why do you make statements that show that you are a pure vehicular cyclist?

I travel quite a bit. When I travel from DC to Atlanta, I take an airplane. The reason I do this is that I can get there in under five hours, including trip to the airport, security, etc...

Now, I like trains. I support the construction of a high-speed rail network across the country. Think it would be a great idea. In fact, when I travel from DC to NYC, I often take the train. That train service is much worse than what you get elsewhere in the world, but hey, whaddya going to do.

But...what I don't do is take the train from DC to Atlanta. This is not because I want to undermine the establishment of HSR in the US. It's not because I'm blind to the sublime pleasures of HSR in Japan. While I love looking at photos of Japanese HSR, it doesn't really do much for me because I am not *in* Japan. No, the reason I don't take the train between DC and Atlanta is that it would take roughly 72 hours to get there.

The other thing I don't do is stop traveling between DC and Atlanta until an HSR link is established between the two.

Now, I ride my bicycle quite a bit. When I do ride it around the city, I generally ride in the streets. The reason I do so is that it's much, much faster, and roughly as safe as riding on city sidewalks. Occasionally, I'll be lucky enough to be going from point A to point B with dedicated cycling infrastucture between the two. It's nice. Wish there was more of it.

What I don't do is ride on the sidewalk where there's no dedicated cycling infrastructure. Firstly because it's been proven to be less safe than riding in the streets. Secondly, because unless you're risking the safety of pedestrians, it's painfully slow.

I'm not quite sure where in this story my line of argument is susceptible to rebuttal by a few dozen links to a small part of urban Holland. But I'm willing to accept the notion that I may be wrong. In any case, I think you're seeing John Foresters behind every curtain and under the bed.

Oh, I thought you'd enjoy this shot of Amsterdam, too: