Bicycling
Do DC's cycletracks work well? DDOT has some conclusions
DDOT officials have said they are waiting to build the L Street cycletrack until they finished a study about the city's 2 existing cycletracks, on 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. Yesterday, they posted an executive summary of the study, though right now the site isn't responding; perhaps too many people are trying to get a look?
Photo by SLO County Bicycle Coalition on Flickr.
David C. summarized some of the key findings. The 2 cycletracks increased cycling on their streets enormously, and took cycling off the sidewalk. Crashes increased, but not as much as volume, meaning that each individual cyclist became statistically safer.
Many riders aren't following red lights in many cases. Sometimes the red light timing works very poorly for cyclists riding through, which encourages more crossing against the light. At the corner of 16th and U, where they also studied the new bike boxes and signal, drivers aren't properly obeying the lights either.
16th Street/U Street New Hampshire
- Motor vehicle intersection [Level of Service (LOS)] remained the same before and after the bicycle facilities were installed.
- Fewer than 20% of cyclists are using the bike box and bike signal as intended to cross the intersection.
- 82% of cyclists are stopping in the crosswalk instead of the bike box as intended. Though the bike box may still be effective at giving separation as only 15% of cars are stopping in it.
- 13% of Cyclists using the bike signal encounter motor vehicles who are running the red, but are able to navigate through.
- There was 1 more bicycle crash (5 vs. 4) at the intersection in the year after the installation than before.
Pennsylvania Ave cycletrack
- Bicycle volume doubled after the cycletrack was installed.
- Arterial LOS was similar for motor vehicles on Pennsylvania Avenue before and after the bicycle facilities were installed.
- Danish Bicycle LOS and Bicycle Environmental Quality Index (BEQI) analyses all show significantly improved operations for cyclists with the median bike facilities.
- Signal timing for bicycles generally works well between 10th Street and 15th Street, but results in large delays to cyclists between 3rd Street and 9th Street.
- Bike crashes went up 80% after the bike lanes went in (so, not as much as bike traffic went up).
An average of 42 percent of cyclists arriving on a red signal violated the signal.
- Most cyclists stopping at red lights stop in the crosswalk or median area rather than behind the white stop bar.
15th Street cycletrack
- After the two-way cycle track was installed, there was a 205 percent increase in bicycle volumes (from before conditions) between P Street and Church Street during the p.m. peak hour, and there was a 272 percent increase in bicyclist volumes (from before conditions) between T Street and Swann Street during the p.m. peak hour
- Motor vehicle counts show that volumes are up a little bit on 15th Street before and after the bicycle facilities were installed.
- Motor vehicle LOS was basically the same after the cycletrack was installed.
- Bicyclists experience less delay on 15th Street between lower E Street and I Street than between I Street and U Street.
- The number or crashes again grew, but not as fast as the number of cyclists did (so crash per cyclist went down).
- There are potential issues with the existing design, which uses the pedestrian signal to control cyclist movements.
- Over 40 percent of cyclists were observed running red lights.
- There are now fewer cyclists on the sidewalk.
DDOT is hosting a public meeting on Thursday, May 3, to present more details of the study and discuss the proposed L Street cycletrack from 25th to 12th Streets, NW. The meeting is at the Reeves Center, at the corner of 14th and U, in the 2nd floor community room.
A version of this article was originally posted at TheWashCycle.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
 | David Cranor is an operations engineer with NASA. A former Peace Corps Volunteer and former Texan (where he wrote for the Daily Texan), he's lived in the DC area since 1997. David is a cycling advocate and also writes the WashCycle. |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
I had a long night. I initially thought David was referring to himself in the third person and was waiting to read this site is too good for Breakfast Links.
by selxic on Apr 19, 2012 8:57 am • link • report
How serious are the crashes vs. before?
incidents of dooring?
by charlie on Apr 19, 2012 8:57 am • link • report
Otherwise most of the light-running by cyclists isn't really just cruising through the light, it's people going against the red once traffic is clear.
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 9:05 am • link • report
by David on Apr 19, 2012 9:10 am • link • report
I see many riders risk their lives crossing against the light. STOP DOING THAT. You're giving all bikers a bad rep.
Blocking a pedestrian crossing is illegal. Period. Unfortunately, this law seems to be ignored by pretty much anybody on wheels. The problem is that when cars block "bike space" (bike lanes, bike boxes), it makes it harder for bikers to get to an intersection safely. It is not an excuse, but it is an explanation. Bad behavior from anybody in traffic tends to breed more bad behavior.
I currently have three pet peeves biking:
1: Bikers ignoring lights. Again: STOP DOING THAT! As a cop once told me: Take a breather.
2: Cars ignoring the existence of bike lanes and riding "in the middle of the street" with their right wheel on or in the bike lane. This happens a lot no one-way streets with a bike lane like R St. Drivers, please don't.
3: Salmon bikers. You are insane. Get out of my way.
Anyway: DDOT is a bad DOT for delaying more bike lanes. By all measures, they're a great success. Why not continue a successful program?
by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 9:11 am • link • report
by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 9:16 am • link • report
by Robert on Apr 19, 2012 9:30 am • link • report
Salmon bikers
What's that?
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 9:38 am • link • report
What's that?
Bicyclists who ride upstream against the current (wrong way on a one-way street).
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 9:42 am • link • report
I love the creativity of American English and its ability to capture pretty much anything in a few syllables. Despite our long history with biking, there is no Dutch word for a salmon biker. The closest would be: "Een fietser die tegen het verkeer in rijdt", a biker riding against traffic.
Salmon biker. Much better.
[You see? I don't always bitch at this place :-D]
by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 9:54 am • link • report
As MLD said, most red light running is benign. That which isn't is due to poor design. Any human will run a red light at some threshold. Yes, even drivers. It's human nature.
If drivers were required to take a 5 minute breather at an empty intersection every 100 yards, they would run red lights.
Since, with signal timing, cyclists are often required to take a 1-2 minute breather at almost every single light they come across, they run red lights.
Same with pedestrians. Actually, it's worse for pedestrians in most suburban neighborhoods, because the pedestrian signals are often the kind where pressing the button is required to trigger the walk signal. So they're pretty much guaranteed to always have to wait for a light cycle.
Gotta make sure no driver is ever inconvenienced in turning right (or left) by a stray pedestrian, though!
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 9:55 am • link • report
One is the signal timing -- there is chance to clear some of those ill-timed signals on green or yellow for cyclists who wait at the front of the crosswalk rather than the white line, not only because of the few feet of a head start, but because riders often lose a couple of seconds to pedestrians who hurry across the traffic lanes but not the cycletrack and wind up blocking it for the first few seconds of green.
Also, there is a learned behavior of advancing to the front of the crosswalk that comes from traditional bike lanes, where cars (double-parked, parallel parking, valet parking, etc.) and delivery trucks often block the bike lanes in the middle of the block. Many cyclists who are respecting [b]Jasper[/b]'s admonition to obey red lights nonetheless have learned to get a head start when the light turns green, enabling them to more easily avoid blocked bike lanes by moving into the auto lanes, without endangering themselves or inconveniencing the auto traffic.
by Arl Fan on Apr 19, 2012 10:06 am • link • report
With a car, you're driving a big dangerous vehicle with limited visibility: running a red light, even after stopping and seeing apparently no oncoming traffic, is rarely safe.
With a bike, you have much better visibility and your primary danger is to yourself. You're more similar to a pedestrian -- who I often notice crossing with no oncoming traffic, even if the signal is red.
That's the whole idea of the Idaho stop. Which may not be legal in DC, but I think it makes a big difference to the statistics. If 40% of cyclists are just blowing through the light, that's bad. If 40% of cyclists are making an Idaho stop and proceeding when it's safe, that might not be strictly legal but it's much less dangerous.
by Gavin on Apr 19, 2012 10:14 am • link • report
In my experience the vast majority of red light violations are from people who stopped first.
For the small number of people who do not stop and just cruise through, they pretty much all happen during the green left-turn sequence for cars, and fall into two categories:
1. Geared-up hardcore commuter cyclists who look behind them, see no cars coming in the left-hand lane to turn left across the cycletrack, and go through w/o stopping.
2. People who don't know how the cycletrack works, are looking at the green light and don't understand or see the green arrow.
The first set of people probably cannot be stopped from this behavior, and it's not that unsafe since they are very attentive. The second set need to be educated or the signals/signs need to be more clear.
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 10:23 am • link • report
by TM on Apr 19, 2012 10:25 am • link • report
By the way, what's not measured in the report is the fact that I can take my son, a grade schooler, on the track and feel safe. That's a unique experience and we have to preserve that and create more places for marginal riders to go in DC other than up and down 15th St.
We need East-West routes and not just downtown. The challenge will be that traffic signals in NW DC strongly favor north-south travel by cars.
by Ward 1 Guy on Apr 19, 2012 10:46 am • link • report
by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 10:57 am • link • report
You assume the lawbreaking that's being excused is "dangerous." It's not.
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 11:06 am • link • report
I love the cognitive dissonance from bikers excusing their own dangerous law-breaking while regularly fuming at similar offenses of drivers. You can't have it both ways folks.
Inarguable truth.
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 11:13 am • link • report
by Paul C on Apr 19, 2012 11:14 am • link • report
Seriously people, use the stop lines! You are endangering other cyclists that are turning or entering the bike lane from the cross streets by not doing so.
by Nicole on Apr 19, 2012 11:23 am • link • report
While I agree there's cognitive dissonance with regards to law-breaking, not so with the danger aspect. That is, if done safely, going through a red light is not dangerous. One technique I use is to make sure I'm "protected" by a pedestrian or another biker who is also crossing against the signal. That is, I make sure there's a ped/biker between me and oncoming traffic so if anyone gets hit, it will be the ped/other biker.
Second, the signal timing issue is bad on 15th southbound. Hopefully, that won't be a problem on L ST since the cycletrack will be one-way.
Third, I'm not a fan of the left turn only lane for cars on 15th. I think it would be safer and speedier for BOTH cars AND bikers if you simply couldn't turn left from 15th and the left turn lane was converted back to a thru lane.
Fourth, there was no need to delay the L ST cycletracks for this study. Build the cycletrack first and then tweak it if need be after the study. It was obvious that the 15th cycletrack was working at an acceptable (if not perfect) level.
by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 11:43 am • link • report
It makes me think that would be a decent place to put official "bike boxes".
by egk on Apr 19, 2012 11:49 am • link • report
As MLD put it. It's not illegal behavior I care about. If you're driving without proper registration, but you're doing so safely, I don't care. It's dangerous behavior I care about. So, no cognitive dissonance there.
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 11:51 am • link • report
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 11:54 am • link • report
Penn Ave is a special case, because the cycletrack shares space with the pedestrian islands. I've found that if I don't pull forward to the far edge of the crosswalk, pedestrians fill the space in front of me, blocking my path when the light turns. It's an unavoidable conflict, given the current design of the cycletrack: either cyclists preemptively take up space, or cyclists have to ask pedestrians to move.
by David R. on Apr 19, 2012 12:08 pm • link • report
by David R. on Apr 19, 2012 12:11 pm • link • report
In bike-lane streets such as R I notice that I've taken to stopping on redat cross-streets such as 14th not behind the crosswalk (at the stop line), but in front if it, basically in the space that is the parking lane on the cross street. Seems a safe enough place to be, out of the way of pedestrians and cars wanting to turn right. Anybody else?
I almost never stop behind the crosswalk, especially at intersections or lights that I'm intended to ride through after stopping and once traffic is clear. It also helps get a head start if there's a leading ped interval or you want to get rolling right on green ahead of the traffic. There's almost always enough room in front of the crosswalk that's technically perhaps "in" the intersection, but on streets with parking, you're still well short of where cars travel as the parked cars render that space unusable.
I just find that it makes me feel safer to stop ahead of the crosswalk rather than behind it. I never block the way of peds doing this, and only go through the crosswalk after making sure there's no one crossing.
by Steve D on Apr 19, 2012 12:17 pm • link • report
It is. Crossing a red light is dangerous. Period.
by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 12:19 pm • link • report
That is always true. Nothing is dangerous when done safely.
by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 12:21 pm • link • report
by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 12:26 pm • link • report
This discussion has been had 1,000 times on every bicycling site on earth. Suffice it to say the majority of your fellow cyclists disagree with that statement and we have already explained why.
Though it really helps us make progress when you make blanket statements like that instead of acknowledging that perhaps people engage in this behavior because road design makes cycling unnecessarily inconvenient in places. I would think that you of all people would understand that the lack of bicycle infrastructure/priority (like the kind they have in your homeland) is what causes much of the lawbreaking behavior.
But feel free to keep lecturing about how we're in GRAVE DANGER when we spend 7 seconds crossing a one-way street against a light because there aren't any cars to be seen.
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 12:27 pm • link • report
Nothing is dangerous when done safely.
Jasper, do you see your two statements as contradictory at all?
by Falls Church on Apr 19, 2012 12:29 pm • link • report
by Rob on Apr 19, 2012 12:54 pm • link • report
by Tina on Apr 19, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report
Pernicious question-begging.
:)
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 1:28 pm • link • report
Jasper's point is that the same people acknowledging the tendency of cyclists to break the law are indeed the same ones who suffer aneurysms when drivers perform similar acts that aren't "dangerous" but illegal.
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report
So of course it makes total sense to drivers, who can't understand why anyone (cyclist or pedestrian) would do differently.
If the road environment were skewed towards cyclists and pedestrians in the same way it is towards drivers today, we probably would have radically fewer traffic lights. We'd have 4-way stop signs everywhere.
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 1:36 pm • link • report
And the next batch of vehicles will be better. They'll do the same things and more, but do it cheaper - and they'd be better if the Senate would stop viewing it as a jobs program. We'll send manned missions to asteroids and LaGrange points and someday Mars (the first two probably in my lifetime) and that wouldn't be possible as long as Shuttle sucked up all the money.
For me it is like High School graduation. There is some melancholy there as you realize that a part of your life is over and you're leaving some people and things you love, but mostly there is excitement because you expect the next part to be even better.]
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 1:38 pm • link • report
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 1:38 pm • link • report
And my point is that they don't. Cyclists don't complain about illegal but non-dangerous behavior. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can point me to an example, so we aren't arguing about some phantom behavior.
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report
MLD wrote: You assume the lawbreaking that's being excused is "dangerous." It's not.
David C wrote: As MLD put it. It's not illegal behavior I care about. If you're driving without proper registration, but you're doing so safely, I don't care. It's dangerous behavior I care about. So, no cognitive dissonance there.
Jasper wrote: It is. Crossing a red light is dangerous. Period.
I agree with MLD and Jasper. As has been discussed here and elsewhere ad nauseum, it's always "illegal" but it's not always "dangerous." If I stop at a red light, look both ways and there is no traffic coming and then proceed I am not putting myself or anyone else at risk.
I get that it irks some law-and-order types, both on bikes and in vehicles...but I can live with that.
by Kevin on Apr 19, 2012 1:43 pm • link • report
Sure, check any story about driving (or parking for that matter) in a bike lane. Obviously, this won't be a good example for you as you'll likely move the goal post.
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 1:44 pm • link • report
I love being accused of a crime before I commit it. It makes me feel like I'm in Minority Report.
Can you give me a specific example, with a link? The above feels like a bit of a dodge.
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 1:56 pm • link • report
I am still in search of good information on the cycletracks but this has been an interesting read.
by elerule on Apr 19, 2012 1:56 pm • link • report
by Tina on Apr 19, 2012 1:59 pm • link • report
Ahh, that old strategy again hunh? As intelligent as you come across, I shudder to think that you are so out of sync with the rest of the cycling/transit community and don't know that driving and parking in bike lanes causes migraines for those who have to use them. I'm surprised you don't know the level of consternation it causes.
Ok, not really surprised but still...
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 2:15 pm • link • report
Sure, but in order for it to be dangerous, a cyclist must be affected right? Much like the idea of a cyclist running a red light isn't dangerous as long as it "seems" safe to do so.
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 2:20 pm • link • report
Yes. The old strategy of trying to understand what it is you're talking about. Just like the Ruy Lopez, it's an old strategy for a reason.
Driving or parking in a bike lane is dangerous. And cyclist are affected by it. That is why I complain about it.
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report
And I'm with Jasper on this: the law is the law, and it applies equally. And the cognitive dissonance he pointed out is quite real.
Here's a tip: want the law to change (e.g. make the "Idaho stop" the rule of law, or make bike boxes a standard in street design)? Then advocate for the law you want and be prepared to defend your stance with clear logic and as little whinging as possible! Until the law actually states that cyclists can perform "rolling stops," run red lights, stop in the crosswalk, et al, there is no higher ground, moral or otherwise, to be had by saying that "the law doesn't make sense for [my group of road users], therefore I don't follow it."
So stop the circular firing squad stuff (which is all that this back-and-forth commentary is) and work to change the law! Sure, it will be a lot of work, but it will be positive, rather than a lot of noise that eventually amounts to no change at all.
Just my $0.02 - YMMV.
by randomduck on Apr 19, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report
No it isn't, for the reasons stated above. As you've given no reasoning for your declaration, I remain unconvinced.
Then advocate for the law you want and be prepared to defend your stance with clear logic
Already doing that. But there is really only one CM who would be willing to vote for it at this point. And no amount of logic seems to work on the others.
Until the law actually states that cyclists can perform "rolling stops," run red lights, stop in the crosswalk, et al, there is no higher ground, moral or otherwise, to be had by saying that "the law doesn't make sense for [my group of road users], therefore I don't follow it."
I'm not looking for higher ground. I just want to be left alone on it. Unfortunately some people want to label all cyclists as scofflaws for this and somehow less than drivers for it, while ignoring the many intricate ways in which drivers also break the law - making us all scofflaws I suppose. Except that when I break the law, I only break the law - I don't endanger or inconvenience anyone else. The same is not true of many other violations. So while the law is the law, not all crime is equal. And there is moral high ground in saying that the crime I commit (jaywalking and jaybiking) are not as bad as other crimes (such as manslaughter or hit and run).
So stop the circular firing squad stuff (which is all that this back-and-forth commentary is) and work to change the law!
Can't I do both?
rather than a lot of noise that eventually amounts to no change at all.
Change starts with discussion and consensus building. Which is what we're trying to do here.
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report
The "cognitive dissonance" doesn't exist. Cyclists complain about illegal behavior (both from drivers, pedestrians, and other cyclists) that they perceive as dangerous. It's only drivers who point to benign behavior by cyclists (and pedestrians) as a reason to deny them their right to ride in the streets ("He wasn't even wearing a helmet!").
Now you can take argue that "jaybiking" is not benign, but that's a different argument than that cyclists are hypocritical or self-deluding.
Why on Earth would we expend useless energy to try to "change the law"? People with a grudge against cyclists in the street would simply move to the next class of minor transgression. Mindful jaybiking is as safe as mindful jaywalking. Let me know when pedestrian rights groups spend the bulk of their time advocating to make jaywalking legal.
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 3:00 pm • link • report
No. One is a generic statement that is generically true. The other is a verbal joke. The fact that people have crossed the Niagara falls in a barrel and survived it, does not mean that it is safe to cross the Niagara falls in a barrel.
Likewise, the fact that many people cross red lights and survive it, does not mean its safe. Generally, when a light is red, there is cross traffic. It is unsafe to cross through a red light when there is cross traffic.
@ MLD:This discussion has been had 1,000 times on every bicycling site on earth. Suffice it to say the majority of your fellow cyclists disagree with that statement and we have already explained why.
the majority of your fellow American cyclists disagree. In the Netherlands, few people cross red lights. It is not generally accepted. I doubt it is in Belgium, Germany and other places on earth.
Also, I never said it was gravely dangerous. Just dangerous.
[@ David C: I know. There are good reasons to shut it down. I read about all the other cool stuff NASA is doing, and am amazed. Unfortunately the general public does not know about Cassini-Huygens or Herschel, however scientifically relevant and amazing they are. Just like nobody knows about anything ESA does. Even Hubble is just a pretty picture maker to most. Only the moon landing and space shuttle launches made worldwide news and inspired little nerds.
You mentioned something about a lack of interest for space shuttle launches. I can assure you that every single one made it to the Dutch evening news. If it worked out with the time-difference and scheduling, many launches and landings were broadcast live. This was not the case for ESA /Arianne launches.]
by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 3:06 pm • link • report
A million times this. Many here seem to think that if we can A) just manage to get the set of "all humans who have ridden or will ride bicycles" to become the embodiment of All Human Virtues, then B) all other people will stop being self-absorbed assholes.
It probably goes without saying, but neither of those two things is likely to happen.
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 3:06 pm • link • report
Right. And if no biker is there to be inconvenienced by a driver blocking the bike lane then no biker is going to complain about it. All those photographs of cars blocking bike lanes (and the complaints about it) are from bikers who were trying to use the bike lane.
by Tina on Apr 19, 2012 3:18 pm • link • report
1. Er what pedestrian rights groups? Are there any in this area? Not volksmarch clubs, or whatever, but groups that advocate for walking the way the bike groups advocate for biking? Do tell.
2. Even if there were such groups, I doubt they would advocate for that, not only because it might be futile, but more importantly because I suspect that many if not most concerned pedestrians would be leary that such a change in the law is a good idea. I've certainly never heard the equivalent to the jaybiking discussion
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 19, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report
You are completely missing the point by selectively quoting me. You are right, American and Dutch cyclists disagree on this matter. Do you know WHY they disagree? It's because the Netherlands has designed its infrastructure to be convenient for cycling. We have not. That is the root cause of why people here run red lights when it's safe.
You seem to imply that in the Netherlands people don't run red lights just because they're better/more upstanding/more virtuous than Americans. That's wrong. It's about the built environment - not the virtuousness of the people.
It is unsafe to cross through a red light when there is cross traffic.
Correct. And if you went out and actually looked at what's going on, you'd see that this almost never happens. That's why we don't have a problem with it - because it's not unsafe behavior.
@Tina
All those photographs of cars blocking bike lanes (and the complaints about it) are from bikers who were trying to use the bike lane.
See that's where you're wrong; most of the pictures of blocked bike lanes are taken by my squadron of autonomous bike lane enforcement drones.
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 3:21 pm • link • report
{insert hurt feelings here}
Dude, nobody's picking on your nor oboe for that matter. Jasper made a simple point wrt to the hypocrisy of those who challenge any sort of "nondangerous" acts by drivers while justifying similar acts by cyclists as reasonable. He attacked no one. He singled out no person. Yet, you feel put upon? If you aren't one who runs red lights then nothing Jasper said applies to you.
If riding/parking in bike lanes is considered dangerous even if no cyclists are present, the same applies to running a red light. Not sure why you take this reasonable logic so personal.
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 3:22 pm • link • report
Who said this? And how on Earth could someone observe a car parked in a bike lane to complain about it unless they were present to see it?!
Shrodinger's bike lane blocker!
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 3:27 pm • link • report
I do run red lights. So you were saying...
If riding/parking in bike lanes is considered dangerous even if no cyclists are present
How can you park in the bike lane and know that cyclists aren't present? Unless you stand by your car waiting for a cyclist to come by and move it out of their way... And to the best of my knowledge, no one is complaining about drivers driving in the bike lane when no cyclist is present. It's mostly when a cyclist - such as myself - is present that I complain about it.
Also, let's not make this personal, OK? I haven't done that to you. Please remain respectful in your comments.
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 3:30 pm • link • report
I don't know where you bike, but where I bike (in DC and Arlington), crossing reds is suicidal.
by Jasper on Apr 19, 2012 3:33 pm • link • report
Well, for one, there aren't such groups because "pedestrian groups" tend to just be neighborhood groups. And there are two types of jaywalking that occur: one, across major arterial streets and highways (usually in the suburbs) with extremely high speed limits. This is the sort of place that pedestrians are often killed.
The other type of jaywalking that takes place is downtown, and in the neighborhoods. This type of jaywalking is so universal as to go completely unremarked upon.
As far as the "jaybiking discussion" goes, I'm not sure what you mean by "I suspect that many if not most concerned pedestrians would be leary that such a change in the law is a good idea"--after all, this thread demonstrates that many (though not most) cyclists are leery that such a change in the law is not a good idea, right?
My position vis-a-vis jaybiking is pretty much the same as it is for jaywalking: I don't really care if it's legalized, but the current state of affairs is just fine by me. Any adult of even average intelligence can safely jaywalk. It's largely safe--certainly no more dangerous than crossing with the light as right-turning drivers try to force their way through.
For my part, I stop at pretty much every red light. Usually I'll even stand there for 20 or more seconds. But if there's no traffic coming, I proceed through the intersection--whether I'm on foot or on bike--just as 90% of adults do.
The fact that jaybiking really seems to get folks' dander up in a way that most jaywalking doesn't seems to be a symptom of anti-biking sentiments more than a clear-eyed evaluation of the thing itself.
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 3:38 pm • link • report
Tweet! Begging the question.
"You're a hypocrite because you complain about behavior you consider dangerous, but not about behavior you don't consider dangerous!"
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 3:41 pm • link • report
Since you asked. My ride is usually west on East Capitol Street in the morning. I have run pretty much every single one of those lights (after stopping). Most of them are one-way, which is trivial. Then I get to the Capitol building, where I take a left turn (running that red light after stopping). Then I run the red light at Independence at the top of the hill, and proceed to the light at the bottom of the hill. I usually stop for that light, unless there's no traffic, in which case I'll stop, then run it.
The I ride from Independence to 15th Street, either jumping the light early, or running them, depending on traffic conditions.
I wait patiently for the green left-turn arrow at 15th. And I also wait for the green at the bottom of the hill at Maine Ave, since most of the cross traffic is 20+ mph over the speed limit.
Been doing this for about 8 years now, and can tell you from experience it's considerably safer than obeying the letter of the law in each case.
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 3:50 pm • link • report
dangerousillegal/discouraged/seen as bad form etc. even if no cyclists are present, then the same applies to cyclists running red lights.no one is complaining about drivers driving in the bike lane when no cyclist is present
Yes they do. Check the story about Vincent Orange parking in the 15th street cycle track. I don't recall people saying they were affected by Orange parking there. Yet, they complained.
It's mostly when a cyclist - such as myself - is present that I complain about it.
What a gem! I've yet to find many complaints by those who dislike the practice of cyclists charging (safely) through red lights. But somehow, a poster making a comment on a blog about cyclist dissonance means that people are "picking on" cyclists - those who want to be just "left alone?" Well, uhm..ok.
Also, let's not make this personal, OK? I haven't done that to you. Please remain respectful in your comments.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 3:57 pm • link • report
Sorta. You're a hypocrite because you complain that a driver driving in the bike lane is dangerous irrespective of conditions on the road, but not when cyclists bore through red lights under the same conditions.
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 4:03 pm • link • report
[My comment has been pre-deleted because it would violate this site's comment policy.]
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 4:04 pm • link • report
Dude, if you park in a cycletrack, eventually a cyclist will come along. Which is what happened. Who do you think took the picture of it? So they were complaining about him parking there when cyclists were trying to use it.
I've yet to find many complaints by those who dislike the practice of cyclists charging (safely) through red lights.
Dude, here's one.
But somehow, a poster making a comment on a blog about cyclist dissonance means that people are "picking on" cyclists
Dude, never used the phrase "picking on" so not sure why it's in quotes. But yes, saying accusing me of cognitive dissonance is in a way an attack on me.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Dude, this: "{insert hurt feelings here}... Dude, nobody's picking on your nor oboe for that matter. Yet, you feel put upon?"
Dude, this is not about me being overly-sensitive or whatever it is your implying, Dude.
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Apr 19, 2012 4:09 pm • link • report
I bike in DC, and I bike along the 15th Street cycletrack all the time (see comment #3 wayyyyyy up at the top there) from K to V. Between K and V there are FOUR signalized intersections (out of 10 total) that I would consider "suicidal" to bike through: Mass Av, RI Av, P St, and U St. Rarely do I see people go against the red at those intersections. People do regularly go against the red at the other intersections. Five (of six) of the other ones are one-way streets; it's very easy to see when no traffic is coming.
Where do YOU bike that you see this rampant epidemic of people on bikes making bad decisions every day?
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 4:14 pm • link • report
I agree that "hypocrite" is undully harsh in this instance. "Hypocrite" is not Greek for "will not agree with me". What you seem to want to say is:
"You think drivers parking in bike lanes is dangerous; and that cyclists not always obeying red lights is *not* dangerous. I disagree."
See, no need to even use the word "hypocrite."
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report
Well let me phrase it differently then - I can't imagine a major discussion of jaywalking in which concerned pedestrians got bent out of shape because someone complained about jaywalking in any form, or talked about how it was safe - even folks who might jaywalk on a very quiet District side street (btw, thats usually to save time - as far as I can tell most intersections where right turning cars are a problem to pedestrians are ones where traffic is heavy enough to make crossing against the light quite dangerous)
I suspect this is in part because of the anticyclist animus which does exist (not to say theres no antipedestrian bias, but its less extensive), and which puts cyclists on the defensive. Folks may denounce jaywalkers, but no one suggests banning them from the most appropriate place for them (normally a sidewalk) while of course some folks do use jaybiking (whether of the safe or unsafe variety) as an argument for keeping bikes of roads.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 19, 2012 4:23 pm • link • report
Most jaybikers would probably find all the hand-wringing quite comical, just as most jaywalkers would.
by oboe on Apr 19, 2012 4:28 pm • link • report
Honestly, I would have done the same as that Danish jaybiker. At times, I've biked across Capitol Hill at night and encountered about as many stop lights as moving cars. I wouldn't call crossing those reds to be "suicidal."
by Payton on Apr 19, 2012 4:47 pm • link • report
It all comes down to the basic theory that car drivers get pissed when they see somebody cruising ahead on a bike of all things and think "my car can go 65+MPH so why can't I drive 60MPH to my destination along this street it's just unfair!"
That's an exaggeration (but not by much), but I know I feel the same urge to keep moving and feeling frustrated by stoplights, etc. when I'm behind the wheel.
by MLD on Apr 19, 2012 4:50 pm • link • report
Thanks for causing me to choke on this atomic fire ball. You're a hoot!
See, no need to even use the word "hypocrite."
Well I think the use of the word is acceptable as long as it's not being used to describe someone else. So in my response, I shouldn't have repeated the word you used.
Still laughing at your predeletion.
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 4:52 pm • link • report
Sorry Oboe, I realize I should not have used the term "hoot" to describe your humor.
Hopefully you won't respond by incessantly repeating the word.
by HogWash on Apr 19, 2012 4:57 pm • link • report
This is not necessarily true. You also have to account for the accident record of the riders who were not using the cycle facility beforehand. If none of them got into accidents beforehand, then the bike facility is statistically less safe. You can't simply assume that, because ridership increased by a factor of two, twice as many cyclists would have got into accidents in the year before.
This is one instance in which the maxim that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" may hold true.
As things stand, all you can say is that this bike facility made accidents more likely. To say that it's safer is a patent falsehood, especially given the fact that it introduces known safety problems that no bike facility advocate seems willing to address.
by Ian Cooper on Apr 19, 2012 4:58 pm • link • report
http://www.capa-dc.org/
by Tina on Apr 19, 2012 5:16 pm • link • report
thanks. now I just need to find one in NoVa
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 19, 2012 5:25 pm • link • report
Huh? No one was using the cycle facility beforehand. It didn't exist. So the cyclists they accounted for ARE the ones who were not using it beforehand.
If none of them got into accidents beforehand, then the bike facility is statistically less safe.
Where were these people riding that they had no accidents? Many of them probably weren't even cycling, frankly.
You can't simply assume that, because ridership increased by a factor of two, twice as many cyclists would have got into accidents in the year before.
Sure you can. We're reporting crashes per capita, which went down. It's reasonable to believe that a reduction in crashes per capita means greater safety. Perhaps you could give me an example of this counter-intuitively.
Is there some reason to believe that cyclists are moving from more safe areas to less safe ones? It's possible, but it is less credible than to believe the opposite.
This is one instance in which the maxim that "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" may hold true.
No it really isn't. There is nothing deceptive here.
As things stand, all you can say is that this bike facility made accidents more likely.
Again, no. You can say there were crashes. And you can say that there were fewer crashes per capita. But you can't say crashes were more likely unless you're talking about more likely per square foot.
To say that it's safer is a patent falsehood
The numbers and the people appear to disagree. You're welcome to disagree with them, but that is far from it being a patent falsehood.
it introduces known safety problems that no bike facility advocate seems willing to address.
Actually the known safety problems are right there in the report.
by David C on Apr 19, 2012 5:48 pm • link • report
This is a great example of your assertion that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics."
The number of reported bike crashes on 15th street has increased, but that is not "all you can really say": [Deleted for violating the comment policy] the number of bike rides in that corridor has also increased [deleted].
In reality, "all you can really say" is that the average 15th street cyclist today is less likely to be involved in a collision than the average 15th street cyclist prior to the advent of the cycletrack. That is a quantitative fact, not a massagable statistic.
[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]
by Steven H on Apr 19, 2012 8:17 pm • link • report
That same Sunday morning ride also includes part of the 15th St. cycle track. I always thought that the "stop for pedestrians" signs meant that I could keep going at dead-end streets if there were no pedestrians? Am I wrong? If I am, that is infuriatingly stupid. There is no cross traffic. I should be able to keep going if there are no pedestrians (legally) crossing.
Overall, the number of cyclists I see using our new(ish) bike facilities, and the courtesy of drivers I have seen when there are no bike accommodations is encouraging. There are stupid bikers, drivers, and pedestrians, but, overall, my observations and this study clearly indicate that our facilities are working well. They keep everyone moving (for the most part), encourage alternate forms of transit, improve safety, and give people another way to experience our city. I'm happy and am excited for more and better bike facilities, and improvements to our existing infrastructure.
by Ms. D on Apr 19, 2012 11:40 pm • link • report
My hunch is that your hunch is correct, but since you like a good brain tease, here would be a hypotehtical in which Ian would be correct.
In this alternative universe, 15th street just was a bit more treacherous than other streets. Maybe because it was one-way with several lanes, cars went faster. But cyclists liked to salmon on that road as well.
Once the cycle track came, people went out of their way to use it. The cycle track had no real impact on safety. THe people who already used it had a slightly lower accident rate, the people who had used a different north south road experienced a slightly higher rate than they had, and they also biked a bit more because for some the cycle track was a detour.
I doubt that is the case here, but the basic concept that motivates Ian's critique is always worth considering.
by Jim Titus on Apr 20, 2012 12:45 am • link • report
Ian does have a point: just because the average 15th street cyclist is less likely to have an accident now as the average 15th street cyclist was a few years ago does not necessarily mean that the cycletrack is responsible for the decreased per capita rate of bike accidents.
I was always bad at stats, but couldn't those numbers also mean that the average 15th street cyclist is a better, safer cyclist than he or she was before, irrespective of the infrastructure? That could happen at least one of three ways: 1. the cycletrack induced more experienced bikers to divert to 15th street from parallel routes, thus improving the lot of the average 15th street cyclist (to the detriment of the average 16th street cyclist); 2. as more inexperienced bikers get out on the streets, either they wisen up with experience, or cars learn how to navigate around them safely; or 3. there weren't enough cyclists on 15th street before to do an accurate before/after comparison.
Since similar stats hold up for all of DC's cycletracks, as well as most of the new cycletracks popping up across the country-- and they don't all share 15th streets short-comings-- then it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that this new infrastructure is responsible for some of the decreased accident rates.
On the other hand, aren't these numbers similar city-wide? I was under the impression that cycling numbers were up everywhere, and that accident numbers were up-- and per capita accident rates down-- as well. Is this all because of new infrastructure, or is some of it just safer cyclists and/or drivers?
by Steven H on Apr 20, 2012 12:47 am • link • report
All three facilities had serious operational deficiencies built into them from the start. 15th St. was too narrow and uses ped signals, Penn Ave. uses the pedestrian refuges and crosswalks, and the bike boxes aren't clearly marked with poor sight lines of the signals. The worst being the bike box experiment because it is an official FHWA experiment which could jeopardize using bike boxes and signals in other places.
WABA should really amp up the pressure to not just do these facilities, but to do them right the first time.
by jeff on Apr 20, 2012 9:37 am • link • report
It seems to me that launching something and then making fixes is far better. We can see what works and what doesn't, in a much more real world way than doing some detailed study before the facility is there, and it's pretty cheap to make changes.
by David Alpert on Apr 20, 2012 9:40 am • link • report
@ Steven H just because the average 15th street cyclist is less likely to have an accident now as the average 15th street cyclist was a few years ago does not necessarily mean that the cycletrack is responsible for the decreased per capita rate of bike accidents.
True, but that is the most likely explanation. If we expect A to cause B, and we do A and then B happens, that's pretty strong evidence of cause and effect.
Now it's true that there could be another explanation. If crashes per capita went down at the same rate everywhere city-wide then that would indicate a different cause. Perhaps it's better education, or Capital Bikeshare (which could also be part of the explanation for increased use) or Safety in Numbers or ...many things. What this does seem to lack is a control - some similar street that didn't get a cycletrack. That would make this more compelling.
by David C on Apr 20, 2012 9:51 am • link • report
Completely agree with this. Just as countless pedestrians endanger themselves with thoughtless jaywalking, people on bikes do the same. They shouldn't.
But for all this talk about how jaybiking hurts the cause of cycling advocacy, it's amazing how little criticism we hear of cyclist behavior on mixed-use trails. For my money, if you want to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the general public, it starts on the trails. The number of close passes at 20 mph, or cyclists buzzing children without slowing down is the real public relations disaster, here.
Car commuters are always going to hate cyclists; runners and pedestrians are our natural allies, but they're needlessly alienated by cyclists acting like--well, drivers.
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 9:56 am • link • report
OK then. Let's ALL do it!
It's been duly noted, there is no reason to sit there wasting your time, for a light with no traffic and no camera.
Whether you're on a bike (heck, ESPECIALLY when you're on a bike), or a pedestrian, or driving a car, doesn't matter.
Let's all save time because stopping at red lights is now optional.
by ceefer66 on Apr 20, 2012 9:57 am • link • report
Red lights are what allow drivers to operate their vehicles at speeds inappropriate to an urban environment. Unless the operators of motor vehicles obey traffic signals, they have a history of killing large numbers of people.
The same is not true for pedestrians, cyclists, etc... This might be too obvious to even mention, but that's why pedestrians (and cyclists) ignore traffic signals. And why it's not a big deal.
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 10:43 am • link • report
"The same is not true for pedestrians, cyclists, etc... This might be too obvious to even mention, but that's why pedestrians (and cyclists) ignore traffic signals. And why it's not a big deal."
------
OK. fine.
The next time someone on a bike runs a red light and gets wiped out by a truck, we can all say it's not the truck's fault because the cyclist was simply exercising his/her right to ignore a traffic signal that was irrelevant to them.
Thanks for clearing it up.
To hear you say it, along with the oft-expressed right to use the road, cyclists now have a "right" to ignore the rules. Talk about a sense of entitlement.
Where does it end? I've lately seen some cyclists assume the "right" to lean on cars that don't belong to them when they find it necessary or convenient to stop at a red light.
According to some who have commented here, red lights merely serve as an opportunity to take a breather. And from what I've seen, to some cyclists other people's cars are a tool to help serve that purpose. And you wonder why "car commuters hate cyclists"?
Where does it end? What's the next "right" cyclists are going to appropriate for themselves? The right to come into someone's house along their route to relieve themselves and take something from the fridge?
by ceefer66 on Apr 20, 2012 11:38 am • link • report
Of course we can say that. Why would anyone say otherwise?
To hear you say it, along with the oft-expressed right to use the road, cyclists now have a "right" to ignore the rules.
Nice strawman. He never said that cyclists have a "right" to ignore the rules. You should reread what he wrote.
And without that the rest of your comment is irrelevant.
by David C on Apr 20, 2012 11:59 am • link • report
It's never a big deal until something happens..much like driving in a bike lane.
by HogWash on Apr 20, 2012 12:07 pm • link • report
No it is nothing like driving in a bike lane.
Driving in a bike lane primarily puts other peoples lives as risk. Driving in a bike lane is significantly more dangerous than jaybiking. And there is no benefit to driving in a bike lane (except over on East Capital near RFK where aggressive drivers do it to jump in front of other drivers which is wrong for a couple of extra reasons). And cyclists don't complain about driving in the bike lane unless there is also a bike in the bike lane.
So, they're nothing alike at all.
by David C on Apr 20, 2012 12:43 pm • link • report
@David C
"Nice strawman. He never said that cyclists have a "right" to ignore the rules. You should reread what he wrote."
-------
It is not a "strawman". Perhaps you should follow your own advice and re-read his post.
He implicitly said that rules, red lights in particular, are irrelevant to cyclists - "the reason we have red lights is for the convenience of drivers. No automobiles? No red lights needed..." is a direct quote.
After a rant implying that cars being "don't belong in an urban environment", he goes on to say that since traffic signals are for all practial purposes unneccesary for bikes and pedestrians, it is - in his words - "not a big deal" for a bike (or pedestrian) to ignore a traffic signal.
"And without that the rest of your comment is irrelevant"
Your opinion. Worth about...well let's just I'm not concerned.
It is clear to anyone who reads oboe's post that he resents automobiles (this isn't the only time he's made that clear) and thinks they have no place in his idea of an urban environment. Fine. But the reality is they are here. Just like bikes. And the rules are for everyone's safety and apply to everyone. Drivers and pedestrians are required to obey the rules. That's why we have traffic signals like red lights and walk/don't walk signals and why we have crosswalks. So are cyclists.
Now if oboe - or any other cyclist - thinks the rules don't apply to them - and that ignoring them is "no big deal", then let them be prepared to deal with the consequences of their ignoring the rules.
Like it or not, a bicycle is no match for 2 tons of steel. And that 2 tons of steel can't stop on a dime, not even at the citywide speed limit of 25mph.
So when a cyclist runs a red light and gets killed, the idea that the car is capable of travelling "at speeds inappropriate to an urban environment" will be irrelevant. Dead is still dead.
by ceefer66 on Apr 20, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report
Noticeably, my opinion was not posted pending your approval.
Both driving in a bike lane and jaybiking can be dangerous..benefits of doing either aside.
by HogWash on Apr 20, 2012 1:15 pm • link • report
So again, none of your ramblings follow from his comment.
by David C on Apr 20, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report
A lot of things can be dangerous, and thankfully not all of them are illegal.
But this doesn't change the fact that driving in the bike lane and jaybiking have very little in common. You have had to draw a very large circle in order to get them both in.
by David C on Apr 20, 2012 1:26 pm • link • report
The next time someone on a bike runs a red light and gets wiped out by a truck, we can all say it's not the truck's fault because the cyclist was simply exercising his/her right to ignore a traffic signal that was irrelevant to them.
If you're referring to the recent case where the cyclist was wiped out by a right-turning truck while trying to ride straight through a red light then, yes, obviously that wasn't the truck's fault. Of course, we've seen even more instances where cyclists were killed or injured by right-turning trucks while the cyclist had the right-of-way.
Other mishaps strict compliance to traffic signals won't prevent: things falling on your head from windows, attacks by wild dogs, etc, etc...
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 1:27 pm • link • report
One last thing: the right of cyclists to use the public roadways has been upheld by our nation's judicial system. So your, or my, opinion on what would be in a perfect world isn't particularly relevant.
Also, cyclists have no more "right" to ignore red lights than pedestrians have a "right" to do so. Nor do drivers/cyclists have the right to turn without signaling. Or exceed the speed limit by 5 mph.
They're just things that--for whatever the reasons--most people in our society just accept and don't bother dwelling on.
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 1:32 pm • link • report
But this doesn't change the fact that driving in the bike lane and jaybiking have very little in common.
I apologize for being confused. From what I understood yesterday, I thought it was illegal for a cyclist to run through red lights. Got it now.
Driving in the bike lane is illegal and running through red lights (cyclists) isn't. I've been operating under the wrong assumption. I can see why you say the two don't have anything in common.
by HogWash on Apr 20, 2012 1:36 pm • link • report
Nor do I think people should be exempt from the consequences of their actions. Obviously if a cyclist is negligent in running a red light, they will suffer the consequences. That's sad, but the way of life.
But this faith in the power of the laws to protect everyone at all times from any misfortune is a little naive. My scrupulous obedience to red lights is not going to protect me from ceefer66's "two tons of Detroit Steel" than mindfully ignoring it.
Horseplay on the Metro platform isn't illegal, but might result in falling in front of a train. Likewise, if I haven't slept in a few days, but really need to drive somewhere and I fall asleep and run into a concrete bridge abutment, I'm perfectly in accordance with the laws, but just as dead.
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 1:43 pm • link • report
Now I'm confused. Just so I understand your argument:
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 1:51 pm • link • report
Apology accepted.
Driving in the bike lane is illegal and running through red lights (cyclists) isn't. I've been operating under the wrong assumption. I can see why you say the two don't have anything in common.
I said they have very little in common. There's a difference
Look jaywalking is illegal and can be dangerous. Walking around downtown randomly firing a machine gun at crowds is also illegal and can be dangerous. But the two have very little in common. Would you not agree?
Jaybiking and driving in the bike lane are as similar as jaywalking and randomly firing a machine gun at strangers.
by David C on Apr 20, 2012 1:52 pm • link • report
except in New Jersey
http://www.drivers.com/article/643/
or just google on "Maggie's Law"
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 20, 2012 1:52 pm • link • report
Just for the record. I own a car, drive in the city, and find it useful.
I also own a chainsaw and a meat cleaver, but don't expect to be permitted to juggle them in a crowded bouncy castle at a children's birthday party.
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 1:54 pm • link • report
Selling unpasteurized milk and keeping the torsos of strangers you've murdered in your icebox are both illegal. Therefore, they are also very similar.
(For the more literal-minded among us, I'm not comparing driving in a bike lane to cannibalism; just pointing out that many dissimilar things are illegal.)
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 1:57 pm • link • report
except in New Jersey
You learn something new everyday. OK, *I* learn something new.
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 2:00 pm • link • report
Driving with so little sleep isn't much better than driving while talking on a cell phone, or (AFAIK) driving slightly over the legal blood alcohol limits.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 20, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report
by oboe on Apr 20, 2012 2:24 pm • link • report
Well sure I would. But considering that most things we discuss here revolve around the mixed modes of transit use and at best how we can take steps to incorporate/respect them as part of our daily norm, the idea of a person walking and shooting everyone falls well outside our common parameters.
OTOH, cars in bike lanes and cyclists running red lights have much more in common than your "firing gun" analogy.
The former generally leads to discussions about how these modes work together...or better should. The latter, well the latter doesn't relate to mixed use at all.
Oh wait, you did say walking.
by HogWash on Apr 20, 2012 2:48 pm • link • report
Start one!
Maybe these folks can assist: http://americawalks.org/
by Tina on Apr 20, 2012 4:37 pm • link • report
Seriously, I'm getting back into cycling, and intend to join FABB (Fairfax Advocate for Better Bicycling) - many other bike advocacy groups do walking advocacy too, and I will look into doing that - I note there is a group in Arlington called WalkArlington, which seems to be under the auspices of the County Govt.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 20, 2012 4:54 pm • link • report
Like you've never gone a *little* over the speed limit or pulled a rolling stop.
by Ms. D on Apr 21, 2012 12:42 am • link • report
Except this stuff isn't new. There have been decades of best practices and design criteria used in European countries. NYC had shown best practices several years earlier as well. DDOT knew going in what would work and what wouldn't. Cyclists (myself included) had complained about many of the "findings" from the get go. Advocates shouldn't be so grateful for "this will do for now" attitudes from the city, and GGW shouldn't defend that. This has never been about learning how to design these well, it's been about political will to do them right even when it costs more money and/or space from automobiles. It's time for folks to step up and demand more of DDOT.
by Jeff on Apr 21, 2012 11:04 am • link • report
"I do run red lights. So you were saying..."
-----
To be honest, I was a bit confused by the tone of your response to my comments. Now, I get it.
by ceefer66 on Apr 22, 2012 2:46 pm • link • report
Add a Comment