Bicycling
Breakfast links: Frustrated about driving edition
The great bike lane debate continues: Friday's post on right hooks and Alice Swanson reignited the debate over bike lanes. Do they make cyclists safer (by giving them dedicated space) or less safe (by moving them next to traffic where turning cars can hit them)? Infosnack HQ found this thoughtful paper on the issue.
Inconvenient for you isn't "dangerous": The Post's Dr. Gridlock sides with MoCo transportation engineers who narrowed Arcola Avenue (near Georgia and Unviersity), adding pedestrian refuges and bulb-outs. The changes make a dangerous intersection safer for pedestrians, but irritate some drivers that liked to go fast on the former shortcut.
Logan ANC hotheaded about Zipcar: Last Wednesday, the Logan Circle ANC voted to recommend removal of a Zipcar lot at 14th and Corcoran because Zipcar hadn't landscaped it as promised and a Zipcar rep hadn't yet shown up to discuss the issue. Later in the meeting, once the rep arrived and answered questions, the ANC withdrew the resolution. 14th and You is disappointed in the ANC for its hasty voting on this issue and on the racially-tinged single sales ban.
Evans illegally parked in crosswalk: Channel 9 has the story about Councilmember Evans' car sitting in a crosswalk across from the Verizon Center during Saturday's game. Via ANC2C02 Forum.
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future







by Adams Morgan on Sep 8, 2008 9:55 am • link • report
by Adams Morgan on Sep 8, 2008 10:00 am • link • report
They make a lot of sense, and I haven't seen worse traffic on either road they've appeared on, but I wish the County would make them into planters or something that at least looked useful to people who'd rather believe otherwise.
by dan reed on Sep 8, 2008 11:10 am • link • report
by Curious on Sep 8, 2008 11:13 am • link • report
by Adam on Sep 8, 2008 12:00 pm • link • report
Maybe another answer would be some sort of a motion-sensor, where the presence of a bike in the lane would be signaled to the driver by a bright flashing light.
by Reid on Sep 8, 2008 12:37 pm • link • report
Problems occur when the cyclist tries to use the pedestrian's walk signal or otherwise not follow the rules of the road.
by Lance on Sep 8, 2008 1:10 pm • link • report
It's not "easily" solved that way. It requires the bike to find a space between cars, which isn't possible much of the time, whether the cars are moving or stopped. You're essentially saying that bike lanes cannot exist in an intersection.
I agree that bike boxes can help bikes when there's a red light, but they're useless when traffic is moving. As long as cars don't realize that they're crossing a lane when the turn right across a bike lane, bikes will be at danger.
by Reid on Sep 8, 2008 1:57 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Sep 8, 2008 2:13 pm • link • report
"It's not "easily" solved that way. It requires the bike to find a space between cars, which isn't possible much of the time, whether the cars are moving or stopped."
I guess it never crossed your mind that by law the cyclist (like all traffic) is supposed to stop behind the last car already waiting at the light ... and proceed only after the light has turned green AND the cars in front have moved off?
Another reason why painted bike lanes don't work ... Being in his/her own little corner, the biker is left in limbo as to when they have a legal right to go through the intersection ... And the motorists sitting at the same light have all the rights in the world to simply ignore the cyclist that isn't part of the traffic in a legal sense.
by Lance on Sep 8, 2008 4:27 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Sep 8, 2008 4:48 pm • link • report
You're still not getting it, are you. You're not supposed to "pull in between them". You're supposed to wait your turn ... just like everyone else ...
by Lance on Sep 8, 2008 5:10 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Sep 8, 2008 5:24 pm • link • report
For example ... using your example. I recognize that you are correct that there are times when it is near impossible for a cyclist to "get in line" at a red light as there is just too much traffic to be able to blend into the traffic as the light is turning red. (I'm assuming the bicyclists was riding to the right of the lane and not in the middle because of he/she was unable to keep up with traffic). In that circumstance a bicyclist gets "forced" to glide to the right of stopped cars and essentially gets "forced" to break the law that the drivers there are abiding by. A simple nod of the head to the first car waiting at the red light is usually sufficient to get acknowledge to that driver that you know you are "not in the right" but are asking their permission to place yourself ahead of all the waiting cars. It's a simple thing to do, and the right thing to do if you think about it. But how many times have you seen bicyclists just "claim" that spot. And how is that any different than someone jumping in front of you in line at the register at the super market? Yeah, common sense forces a bicycliest to break the law ... but the least the bicyclist can do is acknowledge that they are breaking the law and jumping ahead of others who aren't breaking the law and are waiting their turn.
by Lance on Sep 9, 2008 1:30 pm • link • report
by Bianchi on Sep 9, 2008 2:13 pm • link • report
I am speaking as both a driver and a cyclist and I will repeat again that way too many DC cyclists don't know how to cycle. Yes, they know how to pedal ... but that is the extent of their cycling abilities. And THEY give a bad name to the rest of us good cyclists. Assuming you are a good cyclist, I would think you'd agree with me rather than try to change the subject ...
by Lance on Sep 9, 2008 3:10 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 9, 2008 3:22 pm • link • report
Finally, the biker at the corner of CT & R avoided getting crushed becasue he either had the experience to be aware of the danger or he just got lucky. Thank goodness! If more motorists were more aware of bikes tragedies like the one that took Alice Swanson could be avoided. When i ride I am excruciatingly aware of my vulnerability. This awareness and all I do to protect myself is not enough. I rely on motorists to have a desire to avoid killing me.
by Bianchi on Sep 9, 2008 3:43 pm • link • report
by CP on Sep 9, 2008 3:52 pm • link • report
Secondly, I am seeing arguments about how bikes ought to merge from bike lanes into the vehicular lanes of traffic to stop at lights. Because the bike lane is an actual traffic lane, bikes are allowed to use it even if there are stopped cars in the vehicular lane next to them. If you were driving and saw five cars stopped at a light in the left lane, and no cars stopped in the right lane, you would have no compunction about driving in the right lane to pull all the way up to the light before stopping. Why is it different for bikes? As long as the cyclists are aware of their surroundings and ready to stop in case a car suddenly turned right from the front of the line, there is no law being broken, nor is it contradictory to common sense.
by Melissa on Sep 9, 2008 4:31 pm • link • report
We (or at least 'I') were talking about situation where there areN'T separate bike lanes. The issue of what to do where there IS a separate (painted) bike lane is a whole other kettle of fish 'cause if there are rules governing that situation, they certainly aren't well known.
by Lance on Sep 9, 2008 4:38 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 9, 2008 4:43 pm • link • report
by Melissa on Sep 9, 2008 4:49 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 9, 2008 5:26 pm • link • report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_splitting
by Lance on Sep 9, 2008 5:33 pm • link • report
According to the summary of bike laws posted at WABA.org, "Passing Cars: Allowed to pass on left or right, in the same lane or changing lanes, or pass off road."
DC's Municipal Regulations, Title 18, Chapter 12, Article 1201.3(c). "If a lane is partially occupied by vehicles that are stopped, standing, or parked in that lane, a person operating a bicycle may ride in that or in the next adjacent lane used by vehicles proceedings in the same direction."
Unfortunately, I do not know (nor have time today to look up) any information about motorized vehicles lane-splitting; I am just referring to human-powered bicycles.
by Melissa on Sep 9, 2008 5:59 pm • link • report
by Lance on Sep 9, 2008 10:37 pm • link • report
Just wanted to point out that the speed limit on the parkway portion of Rock Creek is 35 in some areas (most of the section between Calvert and the boat house parking lot. From there to the entrance to West Potomac Park it's 25, if I remember correctly. On Beach Drive, it's 25.
Whether it's 35 or 25, that's a perfectly reasonable road to be riding a bike on. With one caveat: douchenozzles operating autos are not exceeding the speed limit.
Or course, that's always the rub, isn't it.
by ibc on Sep 30, 2008 12:52 pm • link • report
Add a Comment