Bicycling
Understanding can help cyclists, drivers better share the road
I was recently bicycling down a DC street, and a driver honked at me. I was breaking no law and doing what bike safety advocates, such as those who teach the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's Confident City Cycling classes, say is safest, but this driver apparently had some misconceptions about how people on bikes ought to ride.
Photo by Transportation for America on Flickr.
Later, I was driving, and encountered a few people biking in ways that made me want to honk at them (though I did not). We're all told to "share the road," but we could all share better if we understand what is legal, and safe, to do.
I collaborated with Bob "Dr. Gridlock" Thomson for this past weekend's commuter page in the Washington Post. I suggested 5 things for drivers to keep in mind as they interact with cyclists on the road:
- Cyclists might be on the left side of the road (such as when turning left).
- Riding outside a bike lane is often okay (and, in DC in VA, always legal).
- If turning right across a bike lane, move into the bike lane first. More on this.
- Bicycles are faster than you might think.
- Don't honk.
Bob added 5 requests to cyclists, which I agree with as well:
- Be obvious, be predictable.
- Think like a driver.
- Wait for right-turning drivers (in other words, respect drivers doing the right thing to turn right across a bike lane as in #3 on my list).
- Obey traffic laws. (Though personally, I'd like to see us adopt the Idaho Stop.)
- Respect pedestrians.
You can read the whole thing on the Washington Post site.
A number of people brought this up in the Dr. Gridlock chat today. Most echoed a similar point best captured in this question and Bob's fantastic response:
Sunday's column regarding cars and bicycles sharing the street with each other did not address what I consider a major point. While I won't intentionally do something that would endanger a bicyclist, I find little reason to respect the "rights" of people who choose to ignore laws that I must obey. I live near a street with a bike lane, and regularly see riders who don't even slow down at a stop sign, and only hesitate at intersections with a red light. Why do they feel that laws they find inconvenient are no more than suggestions?Another great comment came in a little later in the chat:ROBERT THOMSON:
I completely understand how you feel and see the same things. But I think this is a slippery slope.Our goal in all "share the road" situations should be to survive and help other travelers survive. Along those lines: We don't have to prove our righteousness to total strangers who may be doing the wrong thing in traffic. We just have to do the right thing.
And there's too much of this dividing ourselves into categories of travelers. Like it's our category against all the other categories
— whether it's drivers, bikers, pedestrians — or Lexus drivers, pickup drivers, sedan drivers motorcyclists. What's the point? Cyclists and walkers know how rare it is to see a motorist stop
— rather than just slow down — for a Stop sign. Why wouldn't they have a similar bad opinion of drivers?
From my office, I can see the bike lane on Q Street, NW at 16th. Routinely, and I do not exaggerate, I see cyclists riding the wrong way on Q Street. More often than not, they are on BikeShare bikes (but not always) and generally don't have helmets on. I also see cars that veer into, and sit in, the bike lane on red lights.We're all selfish (says this driver/cyclist/pedestrian). I think everyone needs to watch out for everyone else. Being dead right on your bike is still being dead. And I would think that being the cause of the death or maiming of another human whether on the right side of the law or not would be a horrible thing to carry through life.
ROBERT THOMSON:
Yep. I think you've gotten to the bottom line.Travelers sometimes write in and say, "Dear Dr. Gridlock: Who's right in the following situation ... "
I love to discuss such issues, because it can raise our consciousness about traffic situations, but I worry about creating the appearance that under some circumstances, it's okay to hit somebody.
Travelers are never in season. As our commenter pointed out, the fact that you didn't get a ticket won't be much consolation if you wind up injuring another person.
 | 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.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
In some cases with a dedicated right turn only car lane, there is a transition point where the bike lane moves to the left of this right turn lane to minimize bike-car conflicts. Green paint may be used as well to accentuate this zone of conflict.
by Reza on May 14, 2012 3:45 pm • link • report
It's good to hear from cyclists and good to know you're trying to set a good example. But I don't believe that you and other cyclists should have the burden of being a category.
This is the bottom line. The dynamic here is that a) humans don't like people that irritate/inconvenience us; and b) by marginalizing those people, we get to cast ourselves in the role of victim, and thus feel freer to behave like a jerk.
We overcome a certain amount of cognitive dissonance generated when we act at odds with our self-image of being "a good person".
Hence the "While I would certainly never *intentionally* try to run over one of these Lance Armstrong wannabees, I'm not going to be obsessively paranoid (e.g. drive the speed limit, etc...) when many of those people don't even obey all the traffic laws, like wearing a helmet for instance!"
Everyone loves to identify and hate on a perceived Other. Whether it's people in Hummers, or people on bicycles. One thing history shows is that tribalism is the root of much evil and human misery.
by oboe on May 14, 2012 3:47 pm • link • report
Last week, I was riding from my house in Mt. Rainier to the new Heurich turf field off Ager Rd. to ref a soccer game. I took 34th from RI Ave to Queens Chapel, knowing that, although plenty of cars use the road, it's only 25 mph and I can easily do that (with illegal Idaho Stops). The nice lady (on her way home from church...at least that's the lot she was pulling out of) followed me the whole way about 5 feet off my back wheel (I was probably speeding myself). Between Varnum St. and Webster St. (a quite steep decline) she gunned it and passed me on a double yellow line (with plenty of distance) going roughly 40-45 mph. She attempted to stop at the next stop sign, locking the tires up in the process and skidding more than 5 feet. She didn't come close to a full stop. She did the same thing at the next stop sign. Both signs are in front of Thomas Stone Elem. School. I caught up to her at the red light at Arundel and 34th and asked her (more politely probably than I should have) if it was worth putting my life, not to mention the lives of anyone that could have been turning at the previous two stop signs in danger for the privileged of waiting the longest at the red light. Her response was a classic "F@*K YOU!".
I'm a driver far more than I'm a cyclist, but my own experiences tell me that's pretty much the default response to cyclists/pedestrians in the roads throughout the area by drivers.
And DAl...sorry that this is going to get you in trouble with the "GGW default position is that cyclists can do no wrong" guy from the Post. If you're that guy, I'll stop thinking drivers are the responsible party in bike/car incidents when all drivers everywhere stop speeding/texting/talking on the phone/cruising through stop signs/obeying at minimum the 3 foot rule/stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks etc. etc. You'll also have to prove that me and my bike are capable of causing somewhere near the damage of a moving motor vehicle. Until then, stow it.
by thump on May 14, 2012 3:50 pm • link • report
The Q st. salmons? Defintley honk worthy.
The endless excuses of cyclists -- oh, but I don't want to slow down because it hurts to speed up again -- are pretty silly. Just follow the rules. It isn't that hard.
What isn't said is that it is fun to break the rules. It is fun speeding. It is a rush to beat cars standing still. But it may not be a good idea....
by charlie on May 14, 2012 3:57 pm • link • report
Is there any data on the driving behaviors of people who live in more walkable areas and how that affects their driving? My assumption would be that people who live in these areas may be more respectful of peds/cyclists than people who live in less walkable places due to experience and exposure to "alternative" forms of transportation.
by MM on May 14, 2012 4:16 pm • link • report
As I said, out-group silliness is irrational, but part of how we're wired.
"Oh! Cyclists! How odd and inscrutable you are!
After all, it's so odd that these Cyclists make excuses for why they can't possibly go the speed limit! They're like no other humans I've ever met!"
Thanks for the injection of levity into the conversation--intended or not. :)
by oboe on May 14, 2012 4:17 pm • link • report
Maybe if you rode a bike on the street sometime you'd realize the reason people go through stop signs when it's safe and pass by stopped cars is to get as far away as possible from the 3000lb cars bearing down on them. I don't ride my bike because it's a "rush" to have to constantly be on alert for drivers doing dumb things, I do it because it's cheap, it's good exercise, and most importantly it gets me from A to B.
by MLD on May 14, 2012 4:18 pm • link • report
This is true. That's why it's important to remind us all that we're supposed to "share" the road. It doesn't belong (singularly) to pedestrians, cyclists nor drivers.
by HogWash on May 14, 2012 4:21 pm • link • report
Anecdotally, I would say it makes sense that when local institutions and authorities give cycling legitimacy, a lot of the nonsense people on bikes are subjected to from people in automobiles goes away. Go to many coastal vacation towns and it's assumed that many people will be on bikes. So you don't hear any nonsense of the form "If cyclists do X, then I will grant them legitimacy!" Drivers just understand that automobile traffic isn't the single legitimate use of the roadways, and they act accordingly.
As the number of cyclists increases on the streets of Washington, something of a similar transformation is underway. In 5 years or so, perhaps area drivers will be effectively trained to manage their expectations accordingly.
by oboe on May 14, 2012 4:23 pm • link • report
Once more, the only way I can interpret your honk correctly is if there is something dangerous happening.
by Canaan on May 14, 2012 4:34 pm • link • report
Deserves a honk?
Pretty much no one deserves a honk. The idea of the horn is that you should use it to alert someone that they need to react to avoid a crash. Of course, by the time you get to that point, the crash is usually already going to happen. I suspect if we removed horns from cars there would be fewer crashes total - not more. So, basicallyl, if you're honking to express displeasure, you're doing it wrong. That's what the middle finger is for.
@oboe
Everyone loves to identify and hate on a perceived Other.
Which is how I feel about the Chitauris.
by David C on May 14, 2012 4:59 pm • link • report
I bike all over the city. I've noticed motorists in wards 7 and 8 are generally more tolerate and respectful. Motorist almost always give me ample space when they pass and/or will give a friend toot so I know they are there. All of my near accidents occurred in the livable, walkable areas of wards 1, 2 and 6.
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 14, 2012 5:28 pm • link • report
A few years later, that car developed an expensive electrical problem that caused the fuse for the horn to blow any time you used it. So I basically drove a car with no horn for 2 years. I learned to get by without it. No cyclists ever swerved right into me. I had no accidents in that time (and was able to avoid the near-misses through good reaction time and paying attention, without using the horn). It's not really that necessary.
I agree that a friendly toot is more likely to startle me on a bike than anything. Believe it or not, unless you're driving a Prius like 5 MPH, I can actually hear you coming (from either engine or road noise, or both). I'm balancing on two wheels here, trying to watch out for potholes and sunken manholes and erratic drivers...the last thing I need is to be startled. And an unfriendly toot will not make me change my perfectly legal behavior. I consider this a point of understanding that we can use to improve relations.
by Ms. D on May 14, 2012 8:45 pm • link • report
I wish we could get away from the us vs them, and just focus on educating people to not be inconsiderate jerks on the road. A lot of us come from elsewhere. We know traffic can be more courteous. And for those locals that never leave DC: Duh, it does not have to be this way.
In stead of only seeing the faults of others, try to see the fault in yourself. Because we're all idiots too. We all regularly have little "oops" moments, where you run a yellow (or red), or cut a little close to someone. That's when other people think we're the idiots.
So, when you see other people make stupid mistakes, try to not replicate them yourself. For me, that means I will not ride my bicycle on VA-7100 (except on the adjacent bike lane), will STOP at stop signs (well, slow down on my bike), signal clearly, actually stop when turning on a red light, and let pedestrians cross the street without having to run for their lives. And I will STOP HONKING at every tiny inconvenience.
by Jasper on May 14, 2012 9:08 pm • link • report
use path. So why does the law require it?
by Lance on May 15, 2012 12:04 am • link • report
i would like to see you teach a 10 year-old cyclist how to think like a car driver.
by jeff on May 15, 2012 6:09 am • link • report
by @lance on May 15, 2012 7:11 am • link • report
Personally, I don't ring the bell unless I need to alert people to something, for the same reason as not wanting car drivers to honk. When I'm walking, if someone rings a bell I think it means that I'm doing something wrong or there's a problem or else they're one of the obnoxious cyclists who wants everyone to dash out of the way.
On a multi-use path pedestrians have the right of way, so cyclists should go around them safely, not bother them and make them move.
I'll ring the bell at pedestrians if they're just standing in the middle of the bike lane waiting to cross the road, for instance, and seem not to recognize that there is crossing bike traffic, but if they're walking along a place they're supposed to walk, no.
by David Alpert on May 15, 2012 7:40 am • link • report
It does annoy me when people ring their bell way too late, i.e. by the time you've figured out there's a bike coming they are zooming around you. And the speed demons who think their bell is a command for everyone to get out of their way.
David, bells are not the same as car horns. The reason not to honk your horn is 1. it's REALLY LOUD to people outside the car (even a "friendly toot" is loud; the horn is designed to be heard inside other cars) and 2. you can hear the cars anyway!
by MLD on May 15, 2012 8:17 am • link • report
I know some drivers who honk "just to let the biker know they're there". While the intent from the driver is fine, from the biker it's undoubtedly received as "get out of my way". Same things with bells on bikes. The biker probably means no harm, but when I'm walking I instinctively think the guy behind me wants me out of his way so he's not inconvenienced.
by Tim Krepp on May 15, 2012 8:44 am • link • report
by Canaan on May 15, 2012 8:58 am • link • report
I frequently walk on trails, and I prefer that cyclists DO either ring a bell or say "on your left".
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 15, 2012 9:07 am • link • report
If you ever want proof that area drivers and area cyclists are the same creature, go observe bike traffic on the Capital Crescent Trail on a Saturday afternoon.
by oboe on May 15, 2012 9:26 am • link • report
I guess I would prefer a combination - ring your bell and slow down and pass with care. That's what I try to do at least. A ring 30 yards before you're getting to people at least lets them know that someone is trying to go around them.
Agree with you on the entitled nature of speedster bicyclists on the CCT though. *ding ding* means "Get the f*** out of my way" for them.
by MLD on May 15, 2012 9:57 am • link • report
by Susie Cambria on May 15, 2012 9:59 am • link • report
Anecdotally, I've noticed the same thing.
Regarding cyclist's bells, I'm with MLD and AWalkerInTheCity on this. And sorry, Tim...with cars, you can hear them coming ahead of time. Not the case with bikes, especially if one has headphones on. I see no problem with cyclists ringing a bell to alert peds that they're approaching.
@oboe: I think that's an unfair comparison between cyclists and drivers. In my experience, it's only a particular subset of area cyclists that are "the same creature" as area drivers.
by Froggie on May 15, 2012 10:09 am • link • report
by Lance on May 15, 2012 10:21 am • link • report
That's an example of a danger warning, not a "I'm honking just because I'm behind you" honk so it doesn't apply. The point is that people don't like it when you honk unnecessarily just because you're driving behind them or going around them, etc.
by MLD on May 15, 2012 10:36 am • link • report
@oboe: I think that's an unfair comparison between cyclists and drivers. In my experience, it's only a particular subset of area cyclists that are "the same creature" as area drivers.
I'm not sure I agree--at least if you mean its only competitive cyclists, or something like that. Selfish cyclists seem to be a pretty diverse lot. (Actually the scariest fellow cyclists on the trails seem to be middle-aged shirtless guys with flat pedals on mountain/hybrid bikes, but then maybe that's just my experience.)
But anyway, I would argue it's only a particular subset of area drivers that pose a problem to their fellow road users.
Call me a hopeless optimist, but I think things are actually getting better on the whole. I rode about 70 miles on Sunday: mostly in the Agriculture Preserve, then back into town on MacArthur, through Bethesda, then out Wisconsin to pick up Beach Drive, then onward to Rockville, and I was stunned that of all the countless drivers that passed me, none honked, yelled, threw anything, or acted like an jerk.
Maybe two passed within two feet, and none within one foot. Increasingly, it looks like drivers are starting to see cyclist on the roads as normal.
by oboe on May 15, 2012 10:59 am • link • report
Sure, but even that's a pretty low standard. The law says I should give an audible warning to pass, not do more than 15 mph, and that trail users should stay right.
Therefore, my legal responsibility is to ding my bell, keep it below 15 mph (+/- 5mph, or course), and if the pedestrians I'm passing aren't hugging the right-hand side of the trail, well, by God, they'll get what's coming to them. (Sounds like the mentality of some area drivers, no?)
by oboe on May 15, 2012 11:02 am • link • report
Ironically, a friend and I were cycling two weeks ago and he (Ward 4) said the same thing. Since I'd never biked in eons, I couldn't say ya or nay to his findings.
On another note, I vote JASPER as the first "Mixed Road Use" President!!!!!! Every word you wrote deserved applause. Not sure what's so hard to understand about those basic concepts.
Go Jasper, it's ya bday...it's ya bday...it's ya bday!
by HogWash on May 15, 2012 11:03 am • link • report
Both can be annoyances, startling, and prevent accidents,
by HogWash on May 15, 2012 11:06 am • link • report
Now can we talk about this strange trend of people walking and jogging in the bike lanes?
by Scoot on May 15, 2012 11:15 am • link • report
thats an advantage of the large number of drivers who are also cyclists (esp if they cycle on road, even occassionally) or even have family members who cycle.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 15, 2012 11:20 am • link • report
This leaves you with two options, convince the majority of trail users that they actually don't want me to use the bell and get the trail rules changed to remove the "signal when passing" rule; or just understand that a bell does not mean get out of the way, it's just a courtesy.
And before someone jumps in and says "That's how I deal with the horn" let me point out that the difference is that no one, and I mean no one, wants the "courtesy horn" when passing.
by David C on May 15, 2012 11:30 am • link • report
My greatest fear is someday hitting cyclist who is to my right in a place where I do not expect them. When I am in the right hand traffic lane, and there is no bike lane, I really do not tend to look to my right when pulling way from a stop sign or intersection. Several times I have been startled to start such a turn only to find a cyclist moving at speed on my right-hand side. My plea to cyclists is, “Please don’t pass on the right just because you can. Remember that drivers do not expect moving traffic where there is no lane.”
by sgfranks on May 15, 2012 11:30 am • link • report
Well, there is a certain argument that by jumping stop lights and stop signs a cyclist is actually safer. For one thing, unlike a car, a bike gets less stable at slow speeds, so maintaining some speed maintains stability. Another issue is that by getting out ahead of cars, one remains more visible and avoids the right hook. This is so well accepted that road planners are adding bicycle boxes and PLE's to make this legal. Now, if road designers concede that this is safer, and haven't done it more only because the money isn't there, then it may be that following the rules might make you less safe.
So, it isn't quite that easy. Both Paris and Idaho have weakened TCD rules for cyclists for this reason.
by David C on May 15, 2012 11:36 am • link • report
by goldfish on May 15, 2012 11:43 am • link • report
If you are stopped in traffic and are turning right, have your turn signal on well before you turn. Often I find people either don't signal when they turn or signal approximately 2 seconds before a turn. That's not enough time for anyone (car bike ped horse or whatever) to know you're turning. You're supposed to signal 100 feet before you turn.
Also if you are turning right you should probably be looking to your right as that's where you are going!
by MLD on May 15, 2012 11:44 am • link • report
by David C on May 15, 2012 11:51 am • link • report
There's also a certain argument that driving in a bike lane is safe since it injures no one. But I imagine it's still illegal..as in against the rules.
by HogWash on May 15, 2012 11:58 am • link • report
The "Idaho stop" is a euphemism.
by goldfish on May 15, 2012 12:03 pm • link • report
When it comes to a choice between obeying the rules, and being safe, most people are going to choose safe. It gets back to the difference in knowledge between people who ride a lot in traffic and drive an automobile a lot, on the one hand, and those who have never ridden a bike in traffic on the other.
It's funny how drivers who would never presume to lecture, say, a white water kayaker on the safest way to paddle suddenly become experts when it comes to cycling. They've got just as much experience in both.
by oboe on May 15, 2012 12:19 pm • link • report
This has nothing to do with the merits of the "Idaho Stop" and everything to do with poor practices.
by oboe on May 15, 2012 12:21 pm • link • report
I don't know about that. We set the speed limit 10 mph below 85the percentile speed, because of enforcement difficulty -- you don't write tickets to drivers going 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. So you allow the Idaho stop (which I have done myself many times) and you are effectively sanctioning that sort of bicycling behavior.
by goldfish on May 15, 2012 12:30 pm • link • report
At least in DC, I believe that practice is legal. So, while your point is well taken with respect to safety, it's also fair to point out that you SHOULD expect cyclists to be there.
It's a good illustration of a larger point, too - interactions on the road work best (or only work) when people behave in a predictable manner. Doing something unpredictable is much more likely to result in an accident. So, drivers need to be aware of what cyclists are allowed to do, and expect it, and cyclists should remember that even though somethign is legal, others may not expect it, and act accordingly.
by dcd on May 15, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report
I agree, even if it's illegal. I made a statement arguing against the notion that it's just as "understandable" that cyclists might disobey the rules as it is for drivers. I don't understand the point of your rebuttal here.
It's funny how drivers who would never presume to lecture, say, a white water kayaker on the safest way to paddle suddenly become experts when it comes to cycling.
If we're talking about knowing the "rules" (which I was) everyone can be an expert.
by HogWash on May 15, 2012 1:11 pm • link • report
Is there? Who is making such an argument?
by David C on May 15, 2012 1:24 pm • link • report
OK, that doesn't sound good, but from the look of the intersection, he couldn't have possibly "suddenly appeared from behind a parked car." If you didn't see him until he "suddenly emerged" how do you know he didn't have the ROW?
by David C on May 15, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report
Because he did not stop.
by goldfish on May 15, 2012 1:33 pm • link • report
Seems like the cyclist appeared from behind the row of parked cars, then proceeded through the stop sign without stopping. While there was traffic around. You and I both know that's not how Idaho Stop works.
I know you're a tireless advocate for biking but you have to at least acknowledge that there is dumb behavior out there instead of trying to nitpick some technicality which probably doesn't exist. I see dumb behavior every day on my rides (by cyclists, drivers, pedestrians) and I'm sure you do too.
by MLD on May 15, 2012 1:38 pm • link • report
While this is obviously true, any field that's non-trivial enough to reward expertise is filled with cases where the experts ignore the "official" guidelines in favor of what works. This particularly true in the case of fields where the official "rules" are designed to maximize efficiency over safety.
You seem to want to argue that laws must be obeyed because laws are there to keep us safe. But that seems to beg the question. People with expertise (expertise you admit you lack) have weighed in repeatedly that this is not the case.
Again, if there were official regulations in place that purported to keep kayakers safe, but there was general agreement among the most experienced kayakers that those regulations in fact made things more dangerous, I would assume the domain experts knew what they were talking about.
I certainly wouldn't point to the fact that these controversial regulations exist as evidence that they increase safety.
by oboe on May 15, 2012 1:44 pm • link • report
I agree, even if it's illegal. I made a statement arguing against the notion that it's just as "understandable" that cyclists might disobey the rules as it is for drivers. I don't understand the point of your rebuttal here."
let me help - if, as a driver, it helped my SAFETY in a significant way to move into a bike lane, I probably would. However in my experience, folks who drive in bike lanes, do not seem to be doing so for reasons of safety.
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 15, 2012 1:46 pm • link • report
I'm just trying to understand if this is actual dumb behavior or situational blindness. It sounds like the former. But if he didn't see the cyclist until he was in the intersection then it could be the latter. When someone says a cyclist "suddenly" appeared, I always get skeptical. That usually means they weren't paying attention.
by David C on May 15, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report
1. Goldfish's timeline is correct. He/she began to pull out, then a cyclist suddenly emerged from behind the parked cars 50 feet away and proceeded to cover that 50 feet before goldfish completes the turn and thus requiring goldfish to hit brakes.
2. Goldfish's timeline is off, but the facts are correct. The cyclist emerges from behind the parked cars, then goldfish starts to pull out into the intersection, then the cyclist blows the stop sign and gets in front of goldfish, then goldfish hits the brakes.
3. Goldfish's timeline is off and the facts are wrong. The cyclist emerges from behind the parked cars and stops (or nearly stops) and waits his turn, the car next to the cyclist goes and the cyclist goes with it(but slower), goldfish pulls out after the car, but doesn't see the cyclist until he is "suddenly" in front of goldfish, goldfish hit the brakes and decides that the cyclist must've run the stop sign since he didn't see him.
1 is clearly improbable. 2, while demonstrating bad cycling, leaves goldfish with some of the blame. And 3 puts the blame on goldfish.
When goldfish saw the cyclist is thus very relevant.
by David C on May 15, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report
I saw him before he entered the intersection, while he approached it at speed, after he emerged from behind an illegally parked, tall panel truck just east of the intersection. If I had not him until he was in the intersection, I would have him him and his two kids. BTW another bicyclist right behind him also blew through the stop sign.
That is what the Idaho stop will do -- bicyclists thinking that stop signs are optional. And tragedy.
by goldfish on May 15, 2012 2:09 pm • link • report
by goldfish on May 15, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report
Someone stepped on my foot the other day, while I was walking in a crowded area of Dupont Circle. Therefore, it's obvious that a law should be passed that requires all pedestrians to walk no further than 4" from the right-most side of the sidewalk unless they're in the act of taking a left turn (say, into a store).
After all, if we simply pass laws to prevent people from doing clumsy or stupid things, no one will ever do anything stupid or clumsy.
Good for you for driving at a reasonable speed, and exercising due care. It's something of a lost art.
by oboe on May 15, 2012 2:24 pm • link • report
As for the Idaho Stop, the only study I've seen on it shows that Boise got marginally safer when compared to Sacramento (which was chosen because of similarities) after the Idaho stop was passed. So, your anecdote about "the time someone did the Idaho Stop wrong" while compelling reading and a story I'm sure I'll be telling for years, does not amount to much of an argument against it.
by John Galt on May 15, 2012 2:29 pm • link • report
by David C on May 15, 2012 2:29 pm • link • report
I honestly don't remember if he was parked or just standing and unloading. Illegally parked vehicles are everywhere.
No, the root cause here is that the bicyclist did not stop, and never intended to stop.
by goldfish on May 15, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report
Or maybe not. My guess is: Illegally parked trucks? A-OK act of nature. Nothing to be done. Do you want to destroy commerce?
Idaho Stop? Inevitable tragedy in the making. Must stop this at any cost. Ban bikes from the road until we have 100% compliance!
:)
by oboe on May 15, 2012 2:37 pm • link • report
as this...
You seem to want to argue that laws must be obeyed because laws are there to keep us safe.
You seem to want to argue points that I never made. Do you have a reference for your belief that I argued such?
That said, by design, laws ARE there to keep us safe. That's not really debatable. Whether disobeying them (like the pro-cyclist argument here) keeps us safer is arguable.
My point is the same as it has always been, let's stop making excuses. In this case, you all are constantly rationalizing why its understandable cyclists choose to disobey the laws while not allowing any room for any other mode. Hence, "well not coming to a complete stops helps keep the bike stable."
by HogWash on May 15, 2012 2:56 pm • link • report
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. But what we have here is a situation where visibility was reduced by an illegally stopped vehicle AND a cyclist did the Idaho Stop wrong, but all we ended up with was a near miss. At my work, we don't even prepare for two-fault scenarios - they're too rare. But if even in the face of a two-fault scenario there was no damage done, then it doesn't make me think that making the Idaho Stop (of which this was NOT an example) legal will result in an uptick in crashes.
by David C on May 15, 2012 3:20 pm • link • report
Not true. I believe that other modes can break certain other laws and have no drop in safety - or possibly even an increase in safety. For example, driving with expired tags is just as safe as driving with up-to-date tags. And most jaywalking is safe. Admittedly, I can't think of an example for driving or walking where breaking the law is safer than not.
Do you have an example in mind?
by David C on May 15, 2012 3:23 pm • link • report
Not yielding to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk on the GW Parkway?
by oboe on May 15, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report
Something must clearly be in the water because I kid you not, I was getting ready to post the exact them.
Situation: during the 1hr I spent LOST trying to get from DCA to Rte 66, I noticed a pedestrian crosswalk (somewhere near Theodore Island?). As a runner was approaching, my oboemeter kicked in and I began to slow down UNTIL I realized that the several cars behind me didn't and apparently had no intention of following suit. So I sped on.
That would've been an instance where breaking the law was safer than not. I would also add turning right on Red to that list as well.
BTW, I felt like a tourist or something and for the life of me couldn't understand how I kept getting turned around when I was only headed to Tysons. No joke, I was lost for an hour.
by HogWash on May 15, 2012 3:43 pm • link • report
Of course, in this case, the risk is just shifted onto more vulnerable road users. Another example would be me, riding my bike at 15 mph on the sidewalk in the crowded downtown core of DC. I'll admit, it's a bit dangerous for those sad, shuffling folks on foot, but I've got places to be.
And riding one's bike in the street can be very dangerous!
by oboe on May 15, 2012 4:00 pm • link • report
by oboe on May 15, 2012 4:04 pm • link • report
I get that turning right on red could be no more dangerous than waiting until t's green - but safer? How's that?
by dcd on May 15, 2012 4:49 pm • link • report
I ahve to dodge the crazies every morning when they all refuse to stop at 17th & New Hampshire NW. Cycling down NH, looking up to see if there is any traffic coming on 17th, not stopping and then I have to figure out if the 5 cyclists are going to swerve around me or run into me.
So while idaho stop may be great for cyclists, there are a few pedestrians who would like cyclists to follow the DC law and STOP.
by greent on May 15, 2012 5:00 pm • link • report
by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on May 15, 2012 6:10 pm • link • report
by Sterno on May 16, 2012 8:18 am • link • report
This doesn't seem to follow at all. The lack of some cyclists exercising due care when pedestrians are present is dangerous to pedestrians. Two different things.
It's a bit like the argument that "cyclists treating lights as stop signs will get people killed!" Only if one considers stop signs are a public menace.
by oboe on May 16, 2012 9:27 am • link • report
The lack of some cyclists exercising due care when pedestrians are present is dangerous to pedestrians
Different phrasing, same meaning.
"excercising due care"... you mean like following the law?
Stop signs are not optional. Red lights mean stop. Due care is easy, if you follow the law.
by greent on May 16, 2012 10:39 am • link • report
Likely because it is such a trivial issue. In all the time that I've been following Struck in DC and biking issues, I don't know of a single reported crash between a sidewalk cyclist and a pedestrian. It does happen, but it is rare and never particularly serious.
I spend every day dodging bikes at high speed weaving through pedestrians as they zip down Meridian Hill on 16th Street.
There are a lot of people "dodging" cyclists. I've spent quite a bit of time as a pedestrian in this town and I've never had to "dodge" a cyclist - except for the time I stepped out in front of one by accident. I have had cyclists pass me on the sidewalk. I wonder if you're confusing the two.
The fact is that crashes between cyclists and pedestrians are uncommon. A ped is 6 times as likely to be in a reported crash with a car as with a bike per unit of exposure (which accounts for the fact that there are way more cars). And once in a crash, the damage is far less.
This makes sense. A cyclist has some skin in the game. Crash into a ped on your bike and you have a pretty good chance of suffering a serious injury or even death. Crash into a ped in your car and you'll have some paperwork to deal with.
People seem very worried about perceived near misses. Perhaps if you have a lot of "near misses" but no crashes, you should re-calibrate your near miss detector as it is too sensitive.
by David C on May 16, 2012 11:23 am • link • report
No, these two things are not the same at all.
Stop signs are not optional. Red lights mean stop. Due care is easy, if you follow the law.
Au contraire; stop signs are optional. Haven't you noticed? No one stops for them unless there's a conflict.
And you can be within the law, and still not exercise due care. For example, whatever the law says, a person can drive the speed limit and still be reckless, say if children are playing.
At a certain point, a proliferation of laws absolve us from responsible behavior.
by oboe on May 16, 2012 11:44 am • link • report
Laws that make it easy for cyclists to ride in the street benefit pedestrians as much as they do cyclists. Of course, many people want cyclists on the sidewalk when they're behind the wheel of their car, and want them on the street when they're on foot.
by oboe on May 16, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report
This is by far the most frequent cause of car-bike crashes. It's not just a matter of passing on the right because the cyclist "can" - the far right side of the right lane may be the only place the cyclist can travel. If it's a busy road, the cyclist will be pushed to the right to stay clear of the traffic flow.
With the start and stop on city streets, the cyclist quite often ends up on the right side of stopped traffic, or coming up on a line of cars that has just gotten the green light. The stopped motorist may be completely unaware of the two-wheel traffic on his right, yet that is legal and may be the most logical place to be.
Still, I have become extra-vigilant in these situations and generally handle it by trying to maneuver behind any cars, instead of to their right. When beyond the intersection, I go back to the right.
by Jack Love on May 16, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report
by Sterno on May 17, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report
by David C on May 17, 2012 3:58 pm • link • report
Add a Comment