Greater Greater Washington

"War on cars" lives as AAA knocks L St. bike lane

It's progress, at least. AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman John Townsend no longer says a new bike lane means "a war on cars." Now, in criticizing a bike lane on L Street NW, he says, "I'm not saying it's a war on cars, but..."


Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

Townsend is very good at getting quoted in the press. After taking a lot of flack for the "war on cars" meme, he seems to have found a way to have it both ways with Examiner columnist Harry Jaffe.

Townsend was objecting to the new L Street bike lane, which DDOT started installing this week. The lane will provide a protected path for cyclists from New Hampshire Avenue to 12th Street. AAA Mid-Atlantic apparently isn't happy that only 3 of the 4 lanes will be designed around cars, rather than all of them.

"[The bike lane] fails to recognize that the vast majority of people still rely on cars," said Townsend. Townsend's statement fails to recognize that the vast majority of street space is still devoted to cars as well. The few bike lanes DC has installed to date fall far short of allocating street infrastructure fairly.

Jaffe wrote:

As a cyclist, I am overjoyed. When the city creates a matching bike lane on M Street, perhaps in early 2013, I will be able to commute from home to work in dedicated bike lanes. But as a driver, I question whether it's fair to autos. I see it creating miles of traffic if cops allow double parking, and I fear accidents if cyclists and drivers don't respect one another. Bikers always lose.
He seems to be saying we shouldn't install any bike lanes because the city might not enforce the laws, or drivers might drive dangerously. Maybe bikers do always loseif we can't try to make streets safer for them because other people might misbehave.

Brian attended a lunch briefing yesterday with Martha Roskowski of the Green Lane Project and officials from the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). Jim Sebastian and Mike Godono of DDOT said that bicycle use on 15th Street NW has increased 272% since they installed the cycle track there, and 200% on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bike crashes have remained steady, in spite of the increased numbers of riders, and there have been no additional pedestrian or car crashes as a result of the protected lanes. According to DDOT's evaluation, the lanes' impact on car traffic on 15th Street and on Pennsylvania Avenue has been negligible.

The Green Lane Project supports cities building separated "cycle tracks," like the one on L. Unlike standard familiar bike lanes, separated cycle tracks place some kind of barrier between cyclists and other road users, such as plastic bollards, raised curbs, parked cars and more. The group believes that providing a protected space for bicyclists on the roadway will make streets safer and also entice the 60% of potential cyclists who are "interested but concerned."

Furthermore, by separating bicyclists from car traffic, these kinds of lanes will create a predictable place for drivers to expect to see cyclists. Separating bike traffic from car traffic will reduce conflicts between drivers and cyclists and allowing each kind of vehicle to travel at its appropriate speed. With more road users on bicycles, this should reduce congestion for drivers as well.

These reasons show why the bikes-vs-cars tradeoff Jaffe and Townsend set out is a false one. More people bicycling means that drivers have fewer other cars to compete with. Bikes take up far less space, even when they get a lane-wide cycletrack on a few roads. Bike lanes even get bikes out of drivers' way in many cases.

In a video report for NBC Washington that also plays up the conflict, Adam Tuss quotes a driver who complains about how he was driving down L Street "behind a bicyclist going 5 miles an hour dead in the middle of the lane, and traffic is backed up all behind him." Later, the same driver suggests ticketing bicyclists who don't use the bike lanes, and then, "I'm saying a lot of bicyclists don't follow the rules."

Actually, it's completely legal to drive in the middle of the lane, and in fact that's the recommended safest practice. Riding in a bike lane is also not required. Perhaps it's the driver who needs to learn the rules, but building this bike lane could move a lot of cyclists out of car lanes, just what this driver wants.

It's time to not just stop with the "war on cars" theme, but also its cousins, Townsend's "I'm not saying war on cars but ..." and "bikes are squeezing out cars" from Jaffe's headline.

WABA put out an action alert asking residents to email Mayor Gray, DDOT Director Terry Bellamy, and Sebastian to thank them for building the L Street bike lane. It can't hurt to also encourage them to quickly follow up with its planned twin on M Street. Please send them that message, and prevent the cars vs. bikes false choice from jeopardizing a very important project.

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

David Alpert is the founder and editor-in-chief of Greater Greater Washington. 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 now lives with his wife and daughter in Dupont Circle. 
Brian McEntee writes the blog Tales From the Sharrows, where he talks about his daily bicycle commute from Capitol Hill to American University or many other subjects. 

Comments

Add a comment »

"[The bike lane] fails to recognize that the vast majority of people still rely on cars,"

Surely he means region or nationwide because that's just not true in Washington D.C.

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 2:20 pm • linkreport

So we hve a whopping 56 miles of bike lanes now in DC. How many miles of car lanes do we have?

by Jasper on Oct 24, 2012 2:26 pm • linkreport

Townsend is doing what he does. No surprise there.

I feel sadness for Jaffe, though. The pull between his inner cyclist and inner driver must be driving him mad. Surprising to see that this contest between yin and yang was won by adopting the exact position his publisher would want. So his job stinks too by robbing him of free will.

by fongfong on Oct 24, 2012 2:43 pm • linkreport

"Perhaps it's the driver who needs to learn the rules"

I think it is funny that write this then linked a study from DDOT showing that a full 42% of cyclists ran their red lights.

Pretty funny indeed.

by PA Ave on Oct 24, 2012 2:50 pm • linkreport

@PA Ave- When you get the chance to write rules for cyclists that make sense for cyclists, we'll be happy to follow them all to the letter, just like drivers do today. Until then, get out there and ride and report back. I'll give slightly more f*#ks about your opinion after that.

by thump on Oct 24, 2012 2:57 pm • linkreport

I am all for ticketing cyclists who don't use the lane when one is available. Why would you not be for this? This drives me crazy.

by beatbox on Oct 24, 2012 2:57 pm • linkreport

Also, let's keep things in perspective. There are ~56 miles of bike lanes in the District. There are 3,541 lane-miles of roads. The L Street cycletrack will change one lane-mile from cars to bikes. The math isn't perfect, but this means that the amount of pavement in this town that we paint for bikes will go roughly from 1.58% to 1.61% -- three hundredths of one percent.

P.S. 60% of D.C. residents do not commute by car, according to the 2011 1-year ACS.

Great article, thanks David and Brian.

by JDAntos on Oct 24, 2012 2:59 pm • linkreport

@beatbox Totally, I can't stand cyclists on 14th Street who actually tell you to move out of their way when they're riding on the sidewalk right next to a bike lane.

by Steve S. on Oct 24, 2012 3:00 pm • linkreport

Do we know total numbers for the 15th St. lane? Seems like it's really crowded everyday. I stopped taking it south in the mornings in favor of 17th St. Is car volume that high that 3 lanes are needed? It might be time, based on the numbers, to give even more space to bicyclists.

by thump on Oct 24, 2012 3:01 pm • linkreport

There is no such thing as a "protected path" for cyclists. There are more dangerous paths and less dangerous paths. All bicycle facilities have been shown in numerous studies, to be more dangerous than the road. The only reasons cyclists support them are:

1. They're scared of riding in the road.
2. They haven't seen the studies.
3. If they have seen the studies, they ignore them because of #1.

The "predictable place for drivers to expect to see cyclists" is (as it has always been) in the roadway, as a part of traffic. It's when cyclists try to remove themselves from the roadway that they become less visible and potentially dead.

by Ian Brett Cooper on Oct 24, 2012 3:02 pm • linkreport

beatbox,

Because it's usually unworkable. There are plenty of situations that require you to get out of the bike lane. If someone is double parked, if someone is trying to back into a parking space, if there is a line of cars trying to turn right while you're going straight, if you want to turn left, and for older bike lanes: if the lane is too narrow for you to ride in with riding smack in the middle of the door-zone.

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 3:02 pm • linkreport

What's not pretty funny is the percentage of cars that exceed the speed limit and make right turns on red without stopping.

Until drivers start obeying the law we should ban them from the roads. There are plenty of parking lots that the can drive around.

by tom on Oct 24, 2012 3:02 pm • linkreport

Why would you not be for this?

Because sometimes we need to make a turn. Because sometimes there are obstacles in the lane (potholes, rough pavement, double-parked cars). Because sometimes we're faster than the rider in front of us and need to pass. Because sometimes it just doesn't make sense for us to use the lane.

There are 5 reasons for you.

by thump on Oct 24, 2012 3:04 pm • linkreport

Awww thumpy, did someone pee in your cheerios this morning?

Odd, I didn't know the expectation of stopping for redlights like every other vehicle and pedestrian on the street "didn't make sense". I guess I will use that excuse when I start driving my car on sidewalks. "Sorry officer, it makes sense for me!".

Hey, don't blame me for castigating drivers to learn the rules, then linking to a study by DDOT factually stating that 42% of cyclists using the facility ran their red lights.

Its called irony, and it is pretty tasty today.

by PA Ave on Oct 24, 2012 3:06 pm • linkreport

Ian Brett Cooper,

I presume you missed this story yesterday?

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 3:06 pm • linkreport

@Ian Brett Cooper
All bicycle facilities have been shown in numerous studies, to be more dangerous than the road.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the research that was posted on this blog just yesterday about the subject:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/

The idea that riding in the road is safest is outdated.

by MLD on Oct 24, 2012 3:09 pm • linkreport

PA Ave,

You keep citing that statistic but in the absence of that facility (the penn ave bike lanes) would the light running be expected to go up or down? What about on 15th street where there are cyclist specific signals?

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 3:09 pm • linkreport

Jasper wrote:

"So we hve a whopping 56 miles of bike lanes now in DC. How many miles of car lanes do we have? "

No lanes of traffic are limited to cars. The general traffic lane is a bike lane too.

Because of that, we have many more than 56 miles of bike lane in DC.

The only lanes of traffic limited to motorized transport is the freeway. DC has only about 20 miles of freeway..

by Ian Brett Cooper on Oct 24, 2012 3:09 pm • linkreport

beatbox wrote: "I am all for ticketing cyclists who don't use the lane when one is available. Why would you not be for this? This drives me crazy."

Well, first you would need to get a law for this. DC has no law requiring cyclists to use bike lanes. It might be smarter but it is not mandated.

by Kevin on Oct 24, 2012 3:12 pm • linkreport

beatbox and Kevin: What if the bike lane is in really bad shape? Should a cyclist have to ride on it anyway? What if it's clogged with leaves? blocked?

What if the cyclist wants to turn left? Proper traffic behavior calls for moving into the left lane and then turning left. A law like this would make it illegal to do that.

Cyclists should use the lanes when they are there most of the time, but there are plenty of reasons not to some of the time.

by David Alpert on Oct 24, 2012 3:14 pm • linkreport

I have read the report on the study. As I've said elsewhere, the study is most likely bogus, for a number of reasons which will become clear when the full report is actually published.

But even if it isn't bogus, it's only one study and it goes against what 85% of the studies that have been done suggest - that cycling infrastructure is inherently dangerous.

https://www.google.com/search?q=desegregated+studies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

But I expect the bike facilities crowd will go on ignoring such studies until they find out in person why such infrastructure is hazardous.

by Ian Brett Cooper on Oct 24, 2012 3:15 pm • linkreport

@PA Ave
Hey, don't blame me for castigating drivers to learn the rules, then linking to a study by DDOT factually stating that 42% of cyclists using the facility ran their red lights.

The study also notes that cyclists ran red lights in places with low traffic volume and unnecessary delay for cyclists.

Hint: Drivers used to break the law in this way ALL THE TIME, until we codified it. It's called right-on-red. People still do it all the time in places where it's illegal.

The reality is that the roads and rules are set up 99% for cars, so I don't know why you're surprised when cyclists break the law in a safe manner; things are set up in an entirely inconvenient way. Get on a bike sometime and try it.

by MLD on Oct 24, 2012 3:18 pm • linkreport

Ian Brett Cooper,

your google search link led to all studies about school desegregation. When I put the word "bicycle" in the middle the top 3 results all went to your site. Care to try again?

And do the studies that you have on your blog look at just the increase of crashes but not the increase of cyclists? It's easy to not have a collision when no one is cycling there.

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 3:21 pm • linkreport

@MLD,

What possible point is there in saying there was low traffic volume?

If I drove my car on the sidewalks downtown DC at 2:00am would I not be breaking the law?

If I ran a redlight at 2:00am when there was no one else on the road, would I not be ticketed by the automated camera or the police officer sitting there?

Man...the effort folks will put into justifying something that is so clearly black and white (or in this case red or green) it boggles the mind.

And if you can find a DDOT study that shows 42% of drivers illegally turn right on red, or drive through their red light, please like it here.

by PA Ave on Oct 24, 2012 3:24 pm • linkreport

Of course the studies listed on my blog take into account changing numbers of cyclists. They are peer reviewed studies done by professional transportation researchers, unlike the study that appeared yesterday, which is done by health and wellness advocates with no training in transportation or collision evaluation.

by Ian Brett Cooper on Oct 24, 2012 3:26 pm • linkreport

Pa ave,
Ok so what do you propose should happen?

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 3:26 pm • linkreport

@Ian Brett Cooper
Tell that to Copenhagen, Amsterdam, etc

by nbluth on Oct 24, 2012 3:31 pm • linkreport

@Ian -- the full results of the Canadian study are available from the American Journal of Public Health. For non-members, you can purchase the study for $22. The methodology is sound, in my opinion.

by Greenbelt on Oct 24, 2012 3:35 pm • linkreport

Ok, mainly because I don't have time to read 24 studies (especially since my own experiences as a cyclist has always led me to prefer lanes with facilities, especially on busier roads) which ones say that the accident rate grew equal or faster than the rate of cyclists. Because there is plenty of evidence that as the number of cyclists goes up the chances for any individual cyclist to be involved in a collision goes down.

Bike lanes (especially things like cycle tracks) increase cycling overall.

Granted this is city wide so for individual intersections this may vary.

The point still being: the best way to make cycling safer is to have more cyclists. The best way to have more cyclists seems to be bikes lanes and their various hierarchy. If there was a way to do it without bike lanes I'd be up for doing it but until then.

And if you want to take any of these down then feel free. http://www.bikesbelong.org/resources/stats-and-research/statistics/safety-statistics/

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 3:36 pm • linkreport

@Ian Brett Cooper
I've been to your website before, several comments:
1. Several "studies" you link and put in your column are just literature reviews that cite other studies that you also add in your column.

2. Several studies you put in your column also have research problems, for instance a few of them measure the increase in incidents but make no effort to compare it to any increase in cycling. Particularly this applies to studies done by health professionals on a range of cycling topics: they look at one risk category (total cycling crashes) while ignoring that it may be offset by an increase in the number of cyclists AND the health benefits of more cycling. The reality is that the primary research done by DDOT on the 15th street cycletrack shows that incidents on the street went up slightly (and was statistically insignificant) but this was WAY outpaced by the 270% increase in the number of cyclists using the street. That's actual data from this city's real implementation. Seems like a net benefit to me.

I'm not sure what the goals are of your "ride in the road at all costs" mentality, but it sure isn't increasing the number of bicyclists.

by MLD on Oct 24, 2012 3:38 pm • linkreport

Kudos to DDOT here for trying something new, and setting aside a tiny chunk of road space for bicycles to make the city better and the roads safer for everyone. I don't think that's a war.

by JDAntos on Oct 24, 2012 3:38 pm • linkreport

I cannot find it right now but I was going to post the video of the NYC guy who got pissed off after getting a ticket for not being in a bike lane. He filmed himself running into (no helmet!) various things that people left in bike lanes, including taxicabs, garbage cans, construction scaffolds, even a police car.

That's why it's not the law that you have to ride in the bike lane.

by Michael Perkins on Oct 24, 2012 3:39 pm • linkreport

z"If I ran a redlight at 2:00am when there was no one else on the road, would I not be ticketed by the automated camera or the police officer sitting there?"

not in fairfax county, which has no automated cameras, and where there aren't that many police officers lying in ambush at 2AM.

but running red lights isnt really the most common driver infraction, speeding is. I would venture far more than 42% of drivers speed.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 24, 2012 3:39 pm • linkreport

@Michael Perkins

Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

by MLD on Oct 24, 2012 3:43 pm • linkreport

AWITC,

Re: what you said, its basically societal norm that keeps me (and everyone else) stopped at a red light even in situations where we could clearly roll through with little repercussion. Maybe this needs to be the case for cyclists (I disagree) but it's not like our driving culture in the USA is the gold standard.

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 3:46 pm • linkreport

This is what is happening in Toronto.

Rob Ford wants to get rid of the East-West bike lanes on Wellesley - Harbord and they are GREAT.

by Tracey Johnstone on Oct 24, 2012 3:51 pm • linkreport

AWITC,

Ok, fine, not in FFX county where there aren't apparently red light cameras.

Lets not lose the forest for the trees argument here. You know as well as I do, if a cop watched any car go through any red light at two in the morning, when he could even do so in relative safety do to the dearth of other vehicles, he would be pulled over. Plain and simple.

And if you can find a link to a DDOT stat that proves 42% of all drivers on a street are breaking some rule, feel free. Until then it is factless subjectivity.

by PA Ave on Oct 24, 2012 3:52 pm • linkreport

I'm all for bike lanes, and I use them when I can. Installing this cycle track seems like a great idea, and I expect I will use it myself. But I also agree with those who think bikes should be required to use bike lanes when they are available, deviating from the lanes only when there is an obstruction or to make turns. When I (only very occasionally) drive, it is annoying to be behind a slow-moving bike. Cars don't get to pick and choose and say "yes, there are a couple of lanes of roadway available, but I think I'll take the bike lane, or the sidewalk, because I prefer it." There is no reason why a bicyclist should be able to say, "I don't feel like using the bike lane, I'm going to take one of the car lanes instead." I recognize that the law currently is different; I think that law should be changed to make bike lane usage mandatory.

by Mike on Oct 24, 2012 3:53 pm • linkreport

I guess I will use that excuse when I start driving my car on sidewalks. "Sorry officer, it makes sense for me!".

Unintentionally hilarious that drivers make this exact excuse whenever they speed. Of course, speeding is pretty much the only law on the books that isn't essentially a codification of a driver's natural behavior. Drivers have basically one rule that isn't "exactly what I want to do" and can't even obey it 1% of the time (unless congestion forces them to).

by oboe on Oct 24, 2012 3:55 pm • linkreport

Alright, the "cyclists don't stop at stoplights!1!" canard is getting a bit tired. Last I checked, speeding is against the law, as is failing to signal, failing to yield, double parking, honking unnecessarily, and on and on...any one of which is broken by basically every driver (including me) every time they drive. Pedestrians also break the law constantly, but no one seems to be concerned about that.

I think we can all agree that all road users need to operate their vehicles in such a way that keeps them safe. Because laws are car-focused, obeying the law is almost always the safest thing for a driver to do. However, this isn't true for cyclists and pedestrians, who sometimes have to break the law to maximize their safety. For instance, it's generally safer for a cyclists to jump a red light (assuming traffic is clear on cross streets) than mix it up with cars that may be turning or merging once the light turns green.

If you don't like cyclists, just say so...the self-righteous indignation act just makes you look foolish.

by MM on Oct 24, 2012 3:56 pm • linkreport

@PA Ave- It's "thump". I honestly mean what I said..if you go out and ride, I'll take your opinions more seriously. I'll continue to ride in a way that keeps me alive.
If you want to argue that going up on the sidewalk in a car is safe, or keeps you safer, go ahead, but I doubt anyone is buying that or that going through a red light on a bike is somehow analogous.

by thump on Oct 24, 2012 3:56 pm • linkreport

Pa Ave,
You're still sticking to this and failing to illustrates why it matters in terms of whether we should provide bike lanes or not.

Mike,
I think you'd find that most cyclists stay in the bike lane unless their is an obstruction. Moreover, you can get caught behind anything slow moving on a road. Tractor, lost driver, someone who just feels like they have to be going slow. How is that different from someone on a bicycle who is probably easier to pass anyway?

by drumz on Oct 24, 2012 3:56 pm • linkreport

The reality is that the roads and rules are set up 99% for cars, so I don't know why you're surprised when cyclists break the law in a safe manner; things are set up in an entirely inconvenient way. Get on a bike sometime and try it.

Perhaps DDOT could pick a month some time in the not too distant future and "time" the PA Avenue lights to match a vehicle going 12 mph. Should be interesting to see what the auto compliance rate for red lights is then.

by oboe on Oct 24, 2012 4:00 pm • linkreport

"And if you can find a link to a DDOT stat that proves 42% of all drivers on a street are breaking some rule, feel free. Until then it is factless subjectivity."

have they ever bothered to do such a study? Of how many drivers drive at least one mile per hour over the speed limiit? Of how many fail to signal when turning?

Do they ticket if they see someone going through a red at 2AM - I dunno, I dont go through reds anyway. Of course usually thats not a problem - in ffx as elsewhere the lights are usually set for drivers. Where they are a particular inconvenience, they are often set to flashing at off hours.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 24, 2012 4:02 pm • linkreport

♥ protected bike lanes.

by renegade09 on Oct 24, 2012 4:06 pm • linkreport

Odd, I didn't know the expectation of stopping for redlights like every other vehicle and pedestrian on the street "didn't make sense". 

Let's just get rid of all traffic lights in that case and replace them with yield signs. Bicyclists will do totally fine in that scenario. It's drivers who will be killing each other.

Of course, I'm kidding but the point I'm making is that it's absird to design rules of the road entirely around the convenience of cars and then complain about bikers not following those rules. It's like putting in an absirdly low speed limit on a road and then complaining that everyone is speeding. Yeah, technically everyone ought to follow all the rules all the time but no one does when the rules don't make sense.

Bikers rarely if ever kill or seriously injure other people with their bikes. Yet the rules treat everyone the same regardless of the actual danger they pose.

by Falls Church on Oct 24, 2012 4:06 pm • linkreport

If I drove my car on the sidewalks downtown DC at 2:00am would I not be breaking the law?

If I ran a redlight at 2:00am when there was no one else on the road, would I not be ticketed by the automated camera or the police officer sitting there?

Man...the effort folks will put into justifying something that is so clearly black and white (or in this case red or green) it boggles the mind.

If you drove over the speed limit by even 1 mph, would you not be ticketed by an automated camera? Um, no you wouldn't.

Again, our existing laws are essentially a compact, agreed upon by the drivers of motor vehicles, as to what their behavior should be, then codified into law. Those things which drivers have decided they won't obey are then ignored.

Stop at red lights? Sure, other drivers are usually speeding, and I could get killed if I just ran through a light. We should have some sort of signal.

Speed limits? The speed limit is whatever 80% of drivers feel comfortable doing.

Right turn on red after stop? Right turn on red at 15 mph!

Everyone breaks the law in their own way. Of course, only one group (a sort of blinkered subset of driver humans) brays loudly about the behavior of The Other while remaining completely oblivious about their own behavior.

It's really quite bizarre. The only explaination is that "What drivers do" is "normative" behavior--regardless of the law or any other factors. And what any other user mode does (whether they're on foot, on a bike, on a skateboard, etc...) is "correct" in relation to "what drivers do".

by oboe on Oct 24, 2012 4:11 pm • linkreport

Also, peds in this country rarely if ever stop at a red light if there are no cars coming. You see this happen in places like Scandanavia and its absurd. You want to smack the ped upside the head when they're sitting there waiting for a walk sign with absolutely no cars in sight. That's not the way we do things in America, especially on the east coast.

by Falls Church on Oct 24, 2012 4:14 pm • linkreport

Of course usually thats not a problem - in ffx as elsewhere the lights are usually set for drivers

Let's not forget that highest expression of auto-centrism: the automated traffic signal that's designed to change if and only if a four-wheeled motorized vehicle trips the sensor.

Frankly if traffic engineers expect pedestrians to not jaywalk, and cyclists to not jaybike, they shouldn't spend quite as much time trying to come up with new and novel ways to train them to ignore traffic signals.

by oboe on Oct 24, 2012 4:15 pm • linkreport

@ PA Ave:I didn't know the expectation of stopping for redlights like every other vehicle and pedestrian on the street "didn't make sense".

Pedestrians break that law all the time. Cars turning right on red break that law all the time (they rarely stop before turning right). Bikers are merely joining the club and imitating everybody else's behavior.

Ian Brett Cooper:No lanes of traffic are limited to cars.

Legally true, but not IRL. Drivers do not share well despite the law. Come bike with me on Beach Drive, Key or Memorial Bridge during rush hour and see how well cars share. Or let's just bike along any uphill road with a speed limit >25 mph.

by Jasper on Oct 24, 2012 4:19 pm • linkreport

AAA Mid Atlantic is fighting a losing battle. Over the last decade or so DC has added several miles of bike lanes each year. I can't recall any of them being removed.

If we had too many bike lanes presumably some would get converted back to regular streets. It virtually never happens.

Every year the number of bikes in DC grows. More bikes means less car traffic, better air quality and more parking for drivers.

AAA Mid-Atlantic will not win this fight, but they are slowing down the increase in bike lanes. It is a shame.

by Turtleshell on Oct 24, 2012 4:29 pm • linkreport

Pedestrians break that law all the time. Cars turning right on red break that law all the time (they rarely stop before turning right). Bikers are merely joining the club and imitating everybody else's behavior.

True, though of the three user groups, only one is extremely dangerous to all other users.

by oboe on Oct 24, 2012 4:45 pm • linkreport

@ oboe:True, though of the three user groups, only one is extremely dangerous to all other users.

True. But which one it is still depends on who you ask.

by Jasper on Oct 24, 2012 4:48 pm • linkreport

True. But which one it is still depends on who you ask.

Sure, but only one group can be considered extremely dangerous without resort to breathless and epically complicated Wile E Coyote -esque scenarios.

(e.g. "Skateboarders are extremely dangerous: I once saw one once who selfishly wheeled into an intersection without looking, nearly causing a cement truck driver to heroically swerve, losing control and running over a busload full of elderly nuns and orphans, distracting the pilot of a passing helicopter, etc, etc...")

by oboe on Oct 24, 2012 5:13 pm • linkreport

Hahaha...I really have to laugh at the bakers dozen of subjective excuses reverberating around this echo chamber.

"Safer for me" "codification of drivers desires", "yeah well drivers speed".

The reason that this metric 42% of these cyclists ignored their red light" is because cyclists have it all to themselves, ESPECIALLY in comparison to vehicular traffic.

Cyclists admit they ignore traffic laws, fail to signal, ignore stop signs, go down one way streets the wrong way etc. Drivers speed, do rolling stops, pedestrians jaywalk.

But the rub is THE most straightforward "no reading between the lines" law out there is something that cyclist ignore with impunity. You either stop, or go and I have to say I could probably count on a hand the number of times a car pulled up to a full red light and just drove on through. Cyclists apparently do it 42% of the time.

@MM "I think we can all agree that all road users need to operate their vehicles in such a way that keeps them safe".

WRONG, and this makes my entire argument. Traffic laws are set up in a way to keep "EVERYONE" as safe as possible, cylists, drivers and pedestrians. Cyclists constantly castigate everyone for not sharing the road with them, then go out of their way to treat the road as their sole facility belonging only to them ignore the fact that they make up a tiny percentage of the road users, the smallest share in fact.

And lastly, unless it is otherwised posted, right on red is always allowed and has been for what...40 years. It is a commonsense law. If you disagree with it, I suggest taking it up with all 50 states, the District and Puerto Rico.

by PA Ave on Oct 24, 2012 5:24 pm • linkreport

This is some exciting goal post moving! Yes we have traffic laws to meant to keep everyone safe, but as continually pointed out this does not always reflect in reality and this sometimes we do what we have to do to get out of the way.

And do we really need to point out how people abuse right on red?

by Drumz on Oct 24, 2012 5:37 pm • linkreport

Traffic laws are set up in a way to keep "EVERYONE" as safe as possible, cylists, drivers and pedestrians.

This is so completely and utterly wrong I don't know where to begin.

You should begin by reading previous comments: the purpose of traffic laws and the design of our traffic system is set up almost entirely for the benefit and protection of cars.

Traffic laws are set up to keep cars out of each others' way, traffic signals are set so cars can move more efficiently through the city, and far more space on the road is given to car users (on a per person basis) than users of other modes.

You have blinders on if you think anything else is the case or that the way things are set up is remotely equally convenient.

As for right-on-red, it's been since 1980 everywhere EXCEPT New York City, because they actually understand that pedestrians should take precedence over cars there.

by MLD on Oct 24, 2012 5:38 pm • linkreport

And that still doesn't answer as to what you think should be done about these law breaking cyclists. Do you want to ban bicycles? Liscense them? Remove all bike lanes?

How do you propose that whatever you want to happen will increase law abiding?

by Drumz on Oct 24, 2012 5:41 pm • linkreport

@PA Ave: Ask and ye shall receive!

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irre0.html "Driver compliance with speed limits is poor. On average, 7 out of 10 motorists exceeded the posted speed in urban areas."

This one is less scientific, but I'll note that 44% of drivers polled ADMITTED to not stopping at stop signs; see poll of 1100 respondants at the bottom: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/02/who_stops_for_s.html Although I'd say that in my personal experience, most people roll through stop signs.

Anyway, I look forward to your response outlining why cyclists passing through empty intersections on red lights negates the utility of a bike lane. Or are you just trolling on a thread you know will attract a lot of cyclists?

by Andrew M on Oct 24, 2012 7:11 pm • linkreport

@PA Ave: "If I ran a redlight at 2:00am when there was no one else on the road, would I not be ticketed by the automated camera or the police officer sitting there?"

That's why stoplights in rural areas (like my home in NC) turn to blinking lights late at night. Folks used to stop at red lights for a few seconds, but would then continue on if no one was coming or if the light didn't change-- the late-night version of the Idaho law. Whether or not that was legal at the time, it didn't make any sense to force rural drivers to obey day-time traffic patterns late at night. Hence the blinking lights.

We need rules that make sense for bikes; but those of us who do bike also need to hold cyclists that *don't* follow common-sense rules with the same blood curdling if-you-do-that-again-I-swear-to-all-that-is-Holy-that-I-will-raise-your-taxes contempt that Washingtonians hold the left-side-standing escalator tourist.

The biking equivalant of that tourist is a salmon cyclist who forced me out of my bike lane this morning, or the slow biker that I had to pass three times (!) on the 15th street cycletrack a few days ago because I stopped at red lights and he didn't even slow down. I'm not going to claim that either of those incidents was dangerous, or anything more than a minor inconvenience, but I've had a few close calls with bikers who blew through stop signs (probably because they weren't expecting another bike to enter that intersection).

As the number of bikers in DC thankfully increases, we do need to be a little more aware of how our behavior may affect others.

by Steven Harrell on Oct 24, 2012 7:28 pm • linkreport

Oboe: "Of course, only one group (a sort of blinkered subset of driver humans) brays loudly about the behavior of The Other while remaining completely oblivious about their own behavior."

Take out the parenthetical, and you're describing 99 percent of the cycling crowd that comments here.

by anon2 on Oct 24, 2012 8:04 pm • linkreport

I say 99 percent because of Steven Harrell's post. He at least acknowledges the very high number of bad cyclists on the road today.

The others here seem to worry that they'll be kicked out of the secret club if they admit that, yes, there are tons of bad apples in the cycling crowd.

by anon2 on Oct 24, 2012 8:07 pm • linkreport

@anon2 -- I think that plenty of cyclists acknowledge that there are bad actors out there, including some who will blow through red lights, ride on the sidewalk, etc. The difference is that many drivers/pedestrians don't see the masses of us who are following sensible laws, but rather focus on the minority who don't.

Another item that causes some of the difference of opinion is the issue of rolling through stop signs. Living in Georgetown, I have several 4-way stops on my daily commute. If there are no other cars coming, or if I'm next in line, it's rare that I come to a complete stop, rather decelerating from 8-10 mph to 2-3 mph as I approach. While this is not a dramatic slowdown, it is still going a lot slower than most cars, who will brake from driving at 20-25 mph to roll through the sign at 5 mph, never coming to a complete stop.

The problem is that this standard behavior (completely in line with how cars approach the intersections) gets lumped in by anti-cycling folk with the jerks who blow through a red light into traffic, as one big pile of scofflaw cyclists.

by Jacques on Oct 24, 2012 8:18 pm • linkreport

@ PA Ave: I could probably count on a hand the number of times a car pulled up to a full red light and just drove on through.

Then you've never been in Rosslyn during rush hour. You can probably count on one hand the number of cars that actually make a full stop before turning right on red. If you go to any major intersection in DC, you will see cars blocking pedestrian crossings while attempting to make a turn on right.

It is a commonsense law.

It is so enormously common sense that the US is the only country in the world where you can make a right turn on red. Incidentally, the US is also one of the countries with the lowest number of people cycling. Right-turns on red are in fact very dangerous if you have bikers and pedestrians around. I experience this daily.

by Jasper on Oct 24, 2012 8:31 pm • linkreport

Anon2,

I don't know why I'm responsible for the actions of other cyclists or how I would handle it if I was.

Now I could go on about bad apple drivers but what's the point? Same goes for quibbling about how many cyclists break laws. The actual question is what do you think should be done? Personally, I think providing better infrastructure to make cyclig safer is a good start.

by Drumz on Oct 24, 2012 11:30 pm • linkreport

I find it funny that, in the absence of cyclists, drivers usually complain how other drivers work (not full stop, blocking box, no turn lights when turning, parking 4-6:30 at major roads, cabs lack of rules....just go to a major street and count the number of honking cars)...but that's part of the daily driving

Now when a bicycle is present suddenly the major risk is a little two wheeled vehicle at 5% the weight of a car, with a person without any protection doing the same things as above, ....and suddenly the cars are under attack....I don't get it

I drive everyday, take metro/bus, cycle and walk frequently and for every bike I see not following the road "car" rules I see hundreds of car drivers doing the same (me included)....how is then a bike not doing a full stop an issue?

by re on Oct 25, 2012 8:09 am • linkreport

@ PA Ave: "Man...the effort folks will put into justifying something that is so clearly black and white (or in this case red or green) it boggles the mind."

I assume that, with this comment, you are referring to the bleating on numerous recent threads from drivers who receive speed camera tickets, right?

"I can't possible be expected not to exceed the speed limit by less that 11 mph! The speed limit was set too low/traffic was moving too fast/the camera is set in a place so as to deliberately entrap drivers/it's a violation of my due process rights to not have an actual police officer have to sit there and pull over cars one-by-one and ticket them, dammit!"

by dcd on Oct 25, 2012 9:13 am • linkreport

The others here seem to worry that they'll be kicked out of the secret club if they admit that, yes, there are tons of bad apples in the cycling crowd.

If you can point to a single cyclist who will argue that "cyclists don't break the law" I'll give you a cookie. You can't. And that's my point.

On the other hand, you see lots of folks commenting here who seem to believe that drivers obey the laws--of course, you have to ignore speeding, signaling, stopping before turning right-on-red, etc, etc...

The entire driver human argument hinges on the premise that cyclists are some sort of uniquely law-eschewing group. When we point out that all drivers break laws all the time, that is a refutation of that point. It's not an argument that cyclists are particularly law-abiding.

As far as "bad apples" goes, that's entirely subjective. There've been strong arguments made that cyclist behavior is actually quite safe in comparison to "law-abiding" behavior. But that's tangential to your point.

by oboe on Oct 25, 2012 9:40 am • linkreport

@PA Ave:

Oh, one other thing. Perhaps you could explain:

Cyclists constantly castigate everyone for not sharing the road with them, then go out of their way to treat the road as their sole facility belonging only to them...

I'm curious how jay-biking merits this description any more than jay-walking does. In my experience, jay-biking can just as often be more courteous to other road users as the opposite. Or are you thinking of that one time that cyclist made you slow down one time?

by oboe on Oct 25, 2012 9:46 am • linkreport

Pretty clear to that these conversations (at least here) don't accomplish very much. Pro-Bikers will be painted as anti-car (which some are) and pro-car'rs will be painted as anti-bike (which some are). Both sides will present enough evidence to conclude:

"Yeah that might be true but look at what the other side does."

It's terrifically unproductive but always a call to arms for both sides to feed the beast.

Good grief!

by HogWash on Oct 25, 2012 9:51 am • linkreport

Pretty clear to that these conversations (at least here) don't accomplish very much.

I disagree. I've found these conversations--and the contributions of others--to clarify my thoughts on these matters.

Now, if you're expecting some sort of resolution to the argument between cycling/ped advocates on the one hand, and folks who would actually entertain the idea that there's literally a "War on Cars" on the other, you may be expecting too much.

by oboe on Oct 25, 2012 10:00 am • linkreport

Pretty clear to that these conversations (at least here) don't accomplish very much. Pro-Bikers will be painted as anti-car (which some are) and pro-car'rs will be painted as anti-bike (which some are)

Well, then, I guess we should all just stop talking then. Nice job trying to silence GGW, HogWash.

by JustMe on Oct 25, 2012 10:07 am • linkreport

"Pretty clear to that these conversations (at least here) don't accomplish very much"

actually I think we learn a lot about the specifics of biking, driving, bike infrastructure, etc.

Certainly the discourse on this continues in other venues, from the AAA to the Examiner to the WaPo. GGW adds another set of voices.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 25, 2012 10:11 am • linkreport

"Bikers will be painted as anti-car (which some are) and pro-car'rs will be painted as anti-bike (which some are)."

Most cyclists in this region own cars and drive more or less regularly, so its hard to imagine that most are "anti-car"

Also many drivers who do not cycle seem to want cyclists in seperated lanes, away from the main travel lanes - I presume they would be pleased with the new cycle tracks.

Lets recall - this post is not about being pro or anti car or bike - its about supporting or opposing the L Street cycle track. That Mr Townsend believes thats a problem for drivers, does not mean all drivers (including ones who never cycle) agree.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 25, 2012 10:14 am • linkreport

There are at least a few streets in DC that render Townsend's arguments dead in the water. Northbound 15th, between K and Mass, there are two ostensbly open lanes, and one parking lane, with no dedicated bike lane. Frequent double parking renders one of the open lanes unusable, narrowing the traffic to one lane, with lots of cars coming and going from garages and alleys; it's a mess. Another example, I St downtown. It's a one way street, no bike lane and it is almost always jacked up because AAA members can't seem to handle it. 12th south of Mass and 7th St south of NY Ave, too, are usually good and f'dup. Can't blame bikers or bike lanes for those, either. The same mayhem goes down everywhere in this city. People take chances to gain personal advantage, intentionally or not, and the fallout delays or at least annoys everybody. Maybe the point is, to quote CJ from Grand Theft Auto III: "Don't blame me; blame society."

by rosenrosen on Oct 25, 2012 10:17 am • linkreport

This "war on cars" bit is one reason why I dumped AAA in favor of Better World Club. I also have three bicycles and one car, which i am using less and less.

by Jeff Anzevino on Oct 25, 2012 10:30 am • linkreport

I'm for fair play but as a pedestrian and a driver I find the thumb your nose attitude of cyclists and pedestrians in this city to be obnoxious. The pedestrian has the right of way rule is fine and I agree but the pedestrian also has to take some responsibility. You can't simply walk into the street from between parked cars and expect a car that is only several feet away to screech to a halt. Whatever happened to look before you cross. As for cyclist, they are in a class by themselves. Some of them do use turn signals and obey the rules but the majority do not. The other day, going down CT Ave. a cyclist was riding between two lanes of moving traffic. He was wearing no helmet and was within inches of the car on his right and his left. Who would have been to blame if he had hit a rut in the street? Not him. I think that if we are moving in the direction of more cyclists on the road then there needs to rules/laws to follow. Cyclists cannot ride against traffice, weave in and out, not stop at red lights, hop from sidewalk to street, etc. Fair is fair.

by mcd on Oct 25, 2012 10:33 am • linkreport

"The other day, going down CT Ave. a cyclist was riding between two lanes of moving traffic. He was wearing no helmet and was within inches of the car on his right and his left. Who would have been to blame if he had hit a rut in the street? Not him"

I'm not sure what you mean by not him. he was clearly riding dangerously. There are some very reckless and/or ignorant cyclists out there (and ditto for drivers and pedestrians).

I'm all for more education on how to cycle. In the Netherlands its part of the elementary school curriculum IIUC. It should be here.

There are certainly rules and laws to follow.

Im not sure what this has to do with the L Street cycle tracks though.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 25, 2012 10:43 am • linkreport

@mcd,

The other day, going down CT Ave. a cyclist was riding between two lanes of moving traffic. He was wearing no helmet and was within inches of the car on his right and his left.

Just recently I read an article about a driver who was driving around in the middle of Logan Circle. So I'll ask you, as a driver, what do you have to say for yourself?

by oboe on Oct 25, 2012 10:53 am • linkreport

@Oboe, "I disagree"

We're not breaking any new ground here.

I've found these conversations--and the contributions of others--to clarify my thoughts on these matters.

Much like how a pastor uses the responses to his sermons (amen corner)to reiterate how much of a man of God he is.

JustMe Well, then, I guess we should all just stop talking then. Nice job trying to silence GGW

Fortunately, we all can see that you had no disagreement w/the substance of what I said. You just chose to attack me for pointing out the obvious under the guise of concern for free speech.

@AWalk ...So its hard to imagine that most are "anti-car"

Which is why I never said such. In fact, I stated "some are." Of course you ignored that because it would require reading what I wrote for comprehension (something you clearly failed to do) instead of criticism...

by HogWash on Oct 25, 2012 11:01 am • linkreport

The other day, going down CT Ave. a cyclist was riding between two lanes of moving traffic. He was wearing no helmet and was within inches of the car on his right and his left.
.....
---Just recently I read an article about a driver who was driving around in the middle of Logan Circle. So I'll ask you, as a driver, what do you have to say for yourself?

Here's to bolstering the substance of what I said.

by HogWash on Oct 25, 2012 11:04 am • linkreport

Of course most people drive: we built all these paths for the cars, and allow drivers to act like they own them. If they cannot share, we need to take some of it away so others can enjoy the roads they paid for

by SJE on Oct 25, 2012 11:41 am • linkreport

"Which is why I never said such. In fact, I stated "some are."'

You said some cyclists are anti car, and some drivers are anti bike - which, given the ambiguity of 'some' (1% is some, and 99% is some) does not explicity make an equivalency - but to me implies equivalency.

I think there is no equivalency. Of all cyclists in the region, a minority are carfree (and given the cost of owning a car, almost everyone who owns one uses it) and of that minority, an even smaller minority are ideologically anticar. Whereas the vast majority of drivers don't cycle (even when they have an old bike in the basement) and a very significant number are hostile to cycling.

We can dispute how many drivers are anticycling - however I think its very clear that hardly any of the folks who defend cycling, who argue for bike lanes or cycle tracks, etc, etc are anticar. Which implies that your concern about lack of substance due to anticar and anticycling sentiments is misplaced - at least wrt to anticar sentiments.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 25, 2012 11:50 am • linkreport

@HogWash,

I look forward with anticipation to your contribution to this thread.

by oboe on Oct 25, 2012 11:53 am • linkreport

"Here's to bolstering the substance of what I said."

Oboe is not anticar - he used sarcasm to show the illogic of saying all cyclists are responsible for the reckless behavior of a particular cyclist (cited in the earlier anecdote)

Exactly why such behavior is relevant to a post about the L Street Cycle track is not clear to me. The best I can surmise, some people see cycle tracks as encouraging biking in general, and believe that unless and until cyclists are better in their observance of traffic laws, no encouragement to cycling should be given.

I think given that A. such infrastructure is safer B. More cycling reduces all kinds of health problems, like cardio vascular disease C. There are much better tools for encouraging safer cycling (like education) than holding back infrastructure D. Many of the infractions mentioned by drivers as reasons to not encourage cycling, are not in fact unsafe actions

that that argument is incorrect (and has been debunked multiple times).

Reiterating that it has been debunked is not anticar. Given how it derails any discussion of cycling policy, I think the use of sarcasm to refute it is justified.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 25, 2012 11:57 am • linkreport

Basically what AWITC said. You can wring your hands over all the back and forth but until then I'll simply keep supporting the new bike lanes and when someone comes out and talks about scofflaw cyclists I'll put out why that's dumb and continue to ride. Eventually the city will have very comprehensive bicycle facilities and people will still keep going on and I'll be riding anyway.

by drumz on Oct 25, 2012 12:02 pm • linkreport

Oboe is not anticar - he used sarcasm to show the illogic of saying all cyclists are responsible for the reckless behavior of a particular cyclist (cited in the earlier anecdote)

Again, you choose to read in order to criticize what I said..not to comprehend and then respond. I reposted comments from two posters who engaged in the "you do it too" tactic. That is, I won't allow you to criticize my side for doing xyz because I have another example of your side doing xyz. Is that not what I said in my very first post? Of course it is.

But what you chose to get out of it is that I believe most cyclists are anti-car and that OBOE is anti-car. It didn't matter that I appropriately quantified my comments and stuck to my original point and never cast aspersions on anybody here. You simply saw my post, dismissed the substance and decided to extend your criticism.

Nothing you've said disputes the notion that conversations like this are now fruitless. Outside of needing affirmation from the chorus, that is.

by HogWash on Oct 25, 2012 12:49 pm • linkreport

That's because many think that the whole argument about cyclists breaking laws is absurd. Absurd in that it doesn't really mean anything to how the city should approach cycling. Absurd in that it also doesn't reflect the reality seen by many people everyday. Absurd in that its meant to show cyclists the error of their ways if they would only realize that they are breaking laws. Absurd in the numerous false equivalencies and outright lies needed in order to approach any coherent statement on the behavior of cyclists, who are all acting independently anyway.

by drumz on Oct 25, 2012 1:10 pm • linkreport

Is there anything more fruitless than repeatedly posting, "These threads are fruitless!!"

(Answer: this post - but you get my point anyway.)

by dcd on Oct 25, 2012 1:18 pm • linkreport

jeez, that's a lot of comments. all i want to say is that i tried the new lane on L street yesterday. now, given: i only was on it for 3 blocks or so, all west of the intersection w/ New Hampshire ave. but i found it really unsafe-feeling. there was no barrier (ie, parked cars) and the lane is on the left side of the street, which i think cars are probably not prepared to deal with. i definitely didn't feel safe, esp as we approached New Hampshire and the truck ahead of me was planning on making a left turn directly across my path. frankly, that's exactly why i'd choose to ride in traffic and NOT on a bike lane. but maybe i missed something?

by Amanda on Oct 25, 2012 1:28 pm • linkreport

"Nothing you've said disputes the notion that conversations like this are now fruitless"

Hog, do you have any opinion about the desirability or likely impact of the L street cycle track?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 25, 2012 1:41 pm • linkreport

Ian,

That's a pretty dismissive attitude about cyclists who choose to ride in a way other than you do. If you like vehicular cycling that's great, but there is no need to treat those who see things differently (and there are plenty of studies that back up their take out there) as cowards or idiots.

There's another reason to use bike facilities by the way. And that's that one can go faster. Trails often allow you to keep moving for miles without stopping. Bike lanes allow you to filter past traffic. So, your list is both wrong and incomplete.

Look, I disagree with you. But I don't think there is anything wrong with you because you think differently than I. I'm just asking for the same respect.

Mike (and others who want cyclists to stay in bike lanes),

Some cyclists, like Ian, don't like bike lanes and don't think they're safe. That's why no one should be forced to use them. I disagree with Ian, but I respect his ability to make the safest choices for himself.

by David C on Oct 25, 2012 3:54 pm • linkreport

If you care about safer streets, you should drop AAA and move over to BWC -- Better World Club. They serve drivers AND cyclists, and instead of lobbying against safer streets, donate a percentage of their profits to the safer streets movement.

We all need to defund AAA, and use Better World Club.

www.betterworldclub.com

by Rob on Oct 25, 2012 4:53 pm • linkreport

I ride between lanes of stopped cars all the time. It's legal in DC, and given the twice-daily mess that drivers inflict on all other road users, I really don't see why I should pay in terms of lost time for their poor modal choice.

by Crickey7 on Oct 25, 2012 7:39 pm • linkreport

@Crickey7

Lane-splitting while traffic is moving is illegal I believe.

Doing it while traffic is stopped is not. But the story specifically said between moving traffic. That's really unsafe.

by MLD on Oct 26, 2012 9:32 am • linkreport

Ian is really the Richard Layman of bike riding in the middle of the road.

by JustMe on Oct 26, 2012 5:22 pm • linkreport

@IanBC-here's another study with results that contradict your assertion: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicyclefatalities.pdf

by Tina on Oct 31, 2012 4:10 pm • linkreport

Most people don't realize that AAA is a single-issue lobbying organization much like the NRA, which fights for narrowly defined interests over the public good. Alternative organizations like Better World provide the same roadside assistance protection without the noxious lobbying.

by IquitAAA on Nov 1, 2012 7:05 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or