Bicycling
Not stopping doesn't make every cyclist a "rogue"
Eric "War on Drivers" Weiss of the Washington Post went after (or should I say, declared war on) "rogue bicyclists" in last Monday's "Roads and Rails" chat.
Photo by BikePortland.org on Flickr.
Weiss starts out the chat objectively and reasonably. explaining to some irate drivers that their needs aren't the only ones:
Speeding up auto traffic is no longer the highest priority for the District anymore. Instead making streets safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and the growing number of residents in that corridor is more important.And later,
For urban planners, a congested area such as around the Verizon Center means it is successful. People want to be there. Do you think drivers in NYC would be taken seriously complaining about how traffic in Times Square slows down their commute?Unfortunately, Weiss veers off the road when he says, "Rogue bicyclists. ... want all the rights of being a vehicle and none of the responsibilities, such as stopping at traffic lights and yielding for pedestrians." A bike commuter writes,
As a regional bike commuter, I have been hit two times in the last three years by cars while in a marked bike lane. I don't count pushing matches with vehicles where I don't end up in the ER. Drive up or down 11th street one day and count the number of cars parked in the bike lane, average 1 per block, and the number of cars using the bike lanes as passing lanes 2-3 per round trip per day.Weiss is unsympathetic:
I commute by bus, bicycle and sometimes car. And while there are many cyclists who play by the rules, there are many others who don't. A bicycle is considered a vehicle under the law, and is entitled to many things. But I see a lot of cyclists who take advantage of the privileges but who consider red lights a suggestion, ride the wrong way down one-way streets and ride on sidewalks.I doubt Weiss commutes very often by bicycle, or he'd see all the violations the bike commuter does. Also, Weiss is wrong that riding on the sidewalks is illegal (outside downtown).
Yes, there are some bad bicyclists. We should enforce laws against them. However, forcing cyclists to wait for red lights, which makes little sense when they can safely proceed after stopping and looking carefully, only lets critics like Weiss paint all cyclists with the same brush.
A cyclist who darts through a red light without stopping and across oncoming traffic is doing something very dangerous. A cyclist who reaches a red light with a completely empty cross street, stops briefly, then proceeds is not. We should enforce the law against the former, and legalize the latter.
Via WashCycle.
 | 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
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
I think Weiss's comments are fairly accurate, although to be sure describe only a segment of bicyclists. (I too am a cyclist).
If you want to work on bicycle-focused revisions to traffic laws, how about stop signs? Make them yield signs for cyclists, since it is safer (and more efficient) to keep the speed above zero and roll through, if safe.
by ah on Feb 9, 2009 1:19 pm • link • report
by Jazzy on Feb 9, 2009 1:23 pm • link • report
by tt on Feb 9, 2009 1:32 pm • link • report
by SA on Feb 9, 2009 1:44 pm • link • report
I also agree to a point with ah, I think you should make a distinction between red lights and stop signs. Maybe it would make sense to eventually allow red light running for bikes, but I think it makes sense to start off with stop signs.
by Reid on Feb 9, 2009 1:44 pm • link • report
*Someone else may know for sure, but I believe that's south of Mass. Ave., west of N./S. Capitol, north of Independence, and east of 23d. Or thereabouts.
by ah on Feb 9, 2009 1:46 pm • link • report
by Matt Glazewski on Feb 9, 2009 1:55 pm • link • report
I should say that I definitely disagree with this statement. It's not equally safe for someone to propel 2,000 lbs of glass and steel through a red light as it is for a bicycle to do the same.
Driving a car through our streets even slightly outside the law is like waiving around a loaded gun; driving a bike in a similar manner is like waiving around a butter knife.
by Reid on Feb 9, 2009 1:58 pm • link • report
I think we can all agree that if there truly is no traffic at the cross street, it's undesirable to make a car wait to cross. The only trick is coming up with a policy and/or technology that improves the system at a reasonable financial/safety cost.
In general, the answer to that dilemma is the stop sign for quiet intersections or blinking red lights for less intersections that have less volume late at night. Some situations don't fit this, and that's when you end up waiting and yelling at the red lights.
The idea here is to come up with policies and technologies that are aimed at decreasing this burden on bikers instead of just pretending that they are cars. Bikes have at least three traits when compare to cars that would encourage us to consider having a more flexible position at intersections. Specifically, 1) bikers have better visibility at an intersection since they placed much farther forward on their vehicle 2) the energy/effort cost for a biker for stopping and starting + taking feet out of clips etc. is higher 3) bikers accelerate slower, meaning they impede traffic when the light turns green and they're at a higher risk because they're being passed and may struggle with getting feet in the pedals correctly.)
(Adding to #3, one could certainly hypothesize that it's riskier for a biker to wait at a red light since they can be rear ended or cut off (if they're in a bike lane on the right) than go through a red light that they judge to be safe.)
by ae on Feb 9, 2009 2:01 pm • link • report
Anyway, why can't this city get more of the embedded traffic sensors that mean limited waiting at red lights anyway, at least when there's no cross traffic?
by ah on Feb 9, 2009 2:07 pm • link • report
by Jazzy on Feb 9, 2009 2:10 pm • link • report
I'm pretty sure those are called dead bikers.
In a fantasy world, where money was no object, we might have a separate set of signals/signage that had "All must stop" and "only motor vehicles will stop."
I think a fair amount, however, could be accomplished with a 2.5 mph "rolling stop" allowance for bikers in a yield situation where they would be responsible for damage they caused if they screwed it up.
by ae on Feb 9, 2009 2:13 pm • link • report
Bikers are bad:
Yes, there are many bikers who do incredibly stupid things. They drive on the wrong side of the road. They ignore red lights. They don't signal turns. They shoot from the road to the side walk and vice versa. They scare car drivers by shooting out of unexpected corners. They behave arrogant.
Car drivers are bad too:
They ignore speed limits by at least 10 mph. They ignore stop signs (I've got a cop at the stop sign in front of my home in suburbia). They ignore yellow lights. They don't use their blinkers. They ignore other users of the road in general and specifically pedestrians and bikers.
The difference:
Car drivers tend to kill other traffic users (and sometimes themselves), while bikers tend to mostly injure and kill themselves, while causing fairly limited damage to others.
I do not like the idea though of giving bikers special rights. Everybody should follow the same rules. No pigs are more special than other animals. Cops have enough leeway to determine whether or not to ticket bikers when they treat a stop sign as a yield sign.
by Jasper on Feb 9, 2009 2:13 pm • link • report
by Matt Glazewski on Feb 9, 2009 2:16 pm • link • report
Not special rights, targeted rules. Pedestrians and cars, wait for it, have different rules. If you don't believe this, try and get a jaywalking violation in a car.
Yes, cops, to their credit, tend to use their leeway not to ticket bikers when they treat a red light as a yield sign, but that doesn't protect a reasonable biker from an asshole cop having a bad day.
Really, the idea is to formalize the rules that, in general, are already accepted by law enforcement to protect bikers from 1) arbitrary actions by the occasional cop 2) the portion of the population that will view an action as morally wrong just because it was "illegal"
by ae on Feb 9, 2009 2:23 pm • link • report
Currently, the official line is "always stop" etc. etc., even if it puts all parties involved at greater risk. Most people won't accept this and seeing that many of the rules are unreasonable will start ignoring all of them.
by ae on Feb 9, 2009 2:27 pm • link • report
Behaving like a bodypart-hole is not something that is unique to cops. In fact, traffic brings out the worse to a lot of folks in traffic. You can't legislate against it.
Quite frankly, I think red light should not be ignored by anyone. It is very dangerous. I mostly treat stop signs a re yield signs (except for the one in front of my home). But I do that in my car too. Stop signs are a nuisance.
Last, show me how to walk in a car, and I'll try jaywalking.
by Jasper on Feb 9, 2009 2:32 pm • link • report
1. The intersection is a T and the bike lane continues without any crossing. This actually occurs 3 times on my regular ride and I don't even slow down. If cars are driving legally, there is no chance of an accident.
2. Some traffic lights are weight-sensored. (The one by me is on off-hours). Since I do not trigger the light, it will not turn green until I wait for a car to come behind me. I could turn into a pedestrian, but I don't think I should have to do that.
It's important to mention that the regulations and conditions, from the timing of the lights to the placing of signs, are entirely tailored to the needs of motorists.
Traffic engineers do not expect a motorist to obey a 25 mph speed limit on a wide, beautiful, open road (it's called the 85% rule. They set speed limits to what people are willing to tolerate.) For the same reason many bicyclists feel justified and safe in making subjective decisions on the law.
That's not to say some bicyclists are not totally reckless ...
by Daniel Nairn on Feb 9, 2009 2:40 pm • link • report
Inquiring minds want to know.
by david on Feb 9, 2009 2:41 pm • link • report
Also, if pedestrians cannot legally cross when the light cycle is red for that direction, why should bicycles be allowed to? Bicycle advocates should continue to fight for their own lanes and better rules/enforcement for their protection. Arguing for exemption from traffic lights is a self-defeating and divisive tactic. Bicyclists should also not go to war against their otherwise greatest ally, pedestrians (other non-motorists), by invading pedestrian space - all sidewalks, downtown or otherwise, should be reserved for what they are named after - walking! No bicycles or segways should be allowed, only wheelchairs for the disabled should be permitted.
by Jeb on Feb 9, 2009 3:01 pm • link • report
FWIW -- I would argue it shouldn't be technically illegal for a pedestrian to cross against a red at an empty intersection either. It's already effectively legal anyway, since no one ever gets a ticket for it. A cyclist or pedestrian can get close enough to an intersection to see whether there are any cars coming without actually physically moving into the intersection. A car cannot do this in nearly all cases. That's the reason. Period.
by Nate on Feb 9, 2009 3:19 pm • link • report
You're saying cops should be trained to let cyclists ignore the letter of the law?
How is that not weirder than just changing a bad law?
And, ae, just what is it about stopping at a red light and staying stopped until the light turns green that "puts all parties involved at greater risk"?
I don't know what ae had in mind, but certainly the point about cyclists starting more slowly applies. This is a hazard to the cyclists, and potentially to the cars that swerve around them into other lanes. (I've heard a lot of honking indirectly related to my presence in this way.)
If there's no cross traffic, why not let the cyclist start a minute ahead?
by jack lecou on Feb 9, 2009 3:19 pm • link • report
If the "unfair" cop is following the law of the land, he's going to win. In fact, he may be a good cop who's just enforcing what he rightfully sees as the law. However, since most cops don't see it quite this way, it's arbitrary.
The law should be reasonable and predictable.
On the "jaywalking" issue, that's exactly my point. The law sees pedestrians and cars differently because they are different, but sees bikes as cars because... well I don't know.
And, ae, just what is it about stopping at a red light and staying stopped until the light turns green that "puts all parties involved at greater risk"?
First, I stated above that it was a hypothesis, but I certainly feel more exposed waiting at a red light (particularly at night) then having crossed a street where I can see there is no traffic.
I don't have the data on the risk related to waiting at a light versus crossing at an intersection they deem safe, but I think it's worth noting that it's not a "0 vs. Something above 0". There are risks in both situations.
Some thoughts you could consider:
1. The recent Dupont Circle death, where a biker was killed after waiting for green. [I'm not saying that this biker necessarily could have safely crossed, but showing that there is risk caused do to the transition.]
2. Ever see a car rear ended at a stop light? Well, that would really really hurt a biker. [For instance I heard one incident involving a motorcyclist that got run over because his bike stalled and the tractor trailer forgot he was in front]
3. The risk associated with the slow acceleration / awkwardness that bikers face when starting up. Cars that swerve around bikers or end up tailgating them right before they miss a clip and fall.
I don't think anyone here is calling for an "exception" from red lights / stop signs. They want reasonable laws that aim at getting everyone through an intersection as safely and efficiently as possible.
I think it's fair to say that we would all be better off if many (not all) red lights/stop signs could be magically treated as yields by bikers. Exactly whether that could be allowed through technology/policy isn't quite as clear.
I think way too many people get caught up in the OMG Running Red Lights is evil and against the law (which for cars in 99% of situations it is) instead of asking why we developed those specific traffic policies/features and whether something else could work better for bikers.
To put it another way, if we eliminated cars and started building roads exclusively for bikes, you would start getting a pretty different transport system. (A lot more clover leafs I'd guess) since everyone would hate stopping and because merging is easier on bikes. You'd also see more over/underpasses since bridges wouldn't need to hold so much weight and so on.
by ae on Feb 9, 2009 3:24 pm • link • report
by NotInTheCoolCrowd on Feb 9, 2009 3:31 pm • link • report
To jack lecou's comment I'll add that unlike cars bikes are less stable at slow speeds, so at slow speeds cyclists are at greater danger - and thus so are others.
to ae's excellent points about why it is easier for bikes to safely run a red light I'll add that cyclists have better hearing - not being in a sound controlled box, are higher than most drivers for better vision, and can turn more quickly/bail more easily (even going on to the sidewalk) than a motorist can.
Jeb, if motorists are going to hate us for obeying laws that are different than theirs than hatred is the only possible outcome. Laws for bicyclists and motorists are already different and always will be. I've heard motorists complain that it's "not fair" that cyclists can pass them on the right in a bike lane and "cut" to the front of the line. How will we address that sense of fairness? The status quo isn't working and for cyclists to ask to change the law shows that we actually DO think the law applies to us.
Sidewalk cycling is still a critical tool in a cyclist's toolbox. LAB certified instructors will teach you that if you take the confident city cycling course. I wrote about it here.
by washcycle on Feb 9, 2009 3:44 pm • link • report
by a pedestrian, sometimes biker on Feb 9, 2009 3:47 pm • link • report
"all sidewalks, downtown or otherwise, should be reserved for what they are named after - walking! No bicycles or segways should be allowed, only wheelchairs for the disabled should be permitted."
Please please understand the need for wiggle room on the sidewalks. There are areas, downtown or otherwise, where any bicyclist who is not an absolute pro really needs to be on the sidewalk. Cases in point: Conn Ave NW north of Florida Avenue - If you are heading northbound in the afternoon it is really nice to have that option, particularly as cars really aren't looking for you. Second: Pennsylvania Ave SE across the river (my bike commute). I invite you to try that one (two HUGE hills and a five lane road) and not eagerly anticipate the next available curb cut so you can get the hell away from speeding commuters who treat that street like a highway. Heck, on Pennsylvania Ave SE, there aren't even sidewalks on one side of the street, so if you are heading west, you need to ride on a sidewalk against traffic. No other option, unless you are an excellent rider. Plenty of other examples of this throughout the city (wisc ave in gtown, georgia avenue)
Also, what about slower or elderly riders who have adopted a cycling lifestyle? They shouldn't be forced to deal with screaming traffic as they make their way up a hill. I'm with you on pedestrians being our biggest allies, but there is minimal interference on sidewalks. Cyclists almost always ride more slowly, aware of the human obstacles sharing the path.
Now, onto the red light thing. Sometimes NOT running is certainly the more dangerous option. While I understand that Pennsylvania Ave SE east of the river is a somewhat unique example, if I didn't blast through a select series of red lights on that road, I'd be a dead man.
While I'm at it, Pennsylvania Ave SE is a terrible, terrible street. Standstill traffic one way almost all day long, and Suitland Pkwy/Branch Ave does the exact same thing for traffic. I am so worried everytime I see a school bus drop off a bunch of kids near that street...
by JTS on Feb 9, 2009 3:48 pm • link • report
If pedestrians have to be subject to such ridiculous tickets in the name of keeping intersections safe for everyone, then bicyclists should certainly have to play by the same rules - especially because bicyclists are road vehicles, while pedestrians are only in the road temporarily in a tightly controlled space (painted crosswalk).
by Jeb on Feb 9, 2009 3:49 pm • link • report
I sometimes ride home through downtown late at night. No way am I stopping on a deserted street and standing still for 45 seconds. I do that during rush hour.
by Ward 1 Guy on Feb 9, 2009 3:52 pm • link • report
This may be true for a cyclist's point of view, but not from a pedestrian's.
by Jazzy on Feb 9, 2009 3:56 pm • link • report
The argument is frequently made that a cyclist is only putting himself at risk, whereas a car puts others at risk.
If you ride through a red light and a car was coming - that presumably you did not see- the car will try to avoid colliding with you, which could cause any amount of collateral damage as he swerves and possibly loses control.
This risk is just as high if you are on a bike or in a car, and in fact may be higher because it's harder to see a bike and the driver may have less time to react.
There is no rational reason why, if we as a society believe that cars should not be allowed to stop and proceed through a red light if the road is clear, that bicycles should. The whole point of an intersection with a light is that it is not adequately controlled by stop signs. If you think a bicycle can proceed safely then there is no reason a car cannot do so also.
by Jamie on Feb 9, 2009 4:02 pm • link • report
Sure, but are you saying that the relationship there is as bad as one between a slow bicyclist on a major thoroughfare and rush hour traffic? Bikes are vehicles, yes, but they simply can't operate 100 percent of the time on the streets of a city that remains very affable to vehicular traffic. It's easier for the young and strong to deal with this fact; not so for seniors or slower people.
Other gripe: 7th NW b/t Penn and NYA has a dedicated bike/bus lane northbound. It is so dangerous/terrifying to bike up that route and have a car cut out in front of you and gun ahead on that lane. This needs to stop.
by JTS on Feb 9, 2009 4:13 pm • link • report
I am saying cops should be trained to be fair, polite and decent people while they enforce the law. In being fair, polite and decent, they can decide to ticket you, give you a warning, or let you go. Not every breach of the law gets tickited/fined. punished.
@ae: "The law sees pedestrians and cars differently because they are different, but sees bikes as cars because..."
Because they share the same road? Unlike pedestrians who have their separate sidewalks?
You ask for reasonable laws. I think we need reasonable cops.
@ NotInTheCoolCrowd: "was I in the wrong to pass them on the right,"
No. You can pass cars and bike alike on the right.
"People should ALWAYS wear helmets when on a bicycle!!"
No, they shouldn't need to. Traffic should be safe enough without helmets. It is in other countries. If they can do it, why can't the US?
@ JTS: "Please please understand the need for wiggle room on the sidewalks."
What you are saying is that road design is so poor that it is better to endanger and scare some pedestrians with bikers than to scare the bikers and cars alike by putting the bikers on the road.
I'd say we just need better road design. While we're waiting for that, I'll give bikers a cautious pass on the sidewalk, *but* *only* if they realize they now are the faster heavier participant in traffic and treat pedestrians like they'd like to be treated by cars: with due respect.
[wonkish]
@ Ward 1 Guy: "The physics of starting/stopping/acceleration, visibility, and collision are different for bikes than cars, so the rules and norms should be different."
As a physicist, I have to disagree. Physics applies equally to everyone and everything. Physics does not know whether you are a biker, a solar system or a quark.
The destruction due to physics being applied to everyone and everything may vary, but that's not due to the physics. It has to do with the differing material properties of humans, bikes, cars and roadways.
[/wonkish]
by Jasper on Feb 9, 2009 4:14 pm • link • report
by Brendan on Feb 9, 2009 4:43 pm • link • report
his most salient point, is that DC is pushing pedestrian-friendly policies over car-friendly ones, and that it's not balanced. That may be true, but when you have an unbalanced system to begin with, you need to answer it with an equal push back the other way.
I find Weiss to be sadly typical of most drivers in DC...they find their "rights" and their "conveniences" taken away and given to we, the people. What they fail to recognize is that when we, the people, venture our to nearly 95% of the country, it's the pedestrian that's inconvenienced.
Moreover, you can see suburban drivers adjusting to the city all of the time, like my favorite: the angry foot and a half lurch-to-brake moves into parking garages. It's not really their (or Weiss') fault. Our parents and us have grown up in a world where the car ruled (Heck, I'm from Miami...the car OWNS Miami.) Now, they are having to deal with the change in perspective and focus, at least in cities that are attempting to refocus and redistribute their urban equity. Up until this time, it's pretty much been "traffic is backed up...must build wider road or highway." To draw a line in the sand and say "no, you must either go elsewhere or take transit...or walk, fatty" is to take a stand and to reclaim our cities, one crowded block at a time.
by Aaron on Feb 9, 2009 4:47 pm • link • report
If we're going to rely on reasonable cops, why not make everything illegal and then allow them to arrest people whenever they find they've done something they consider unreasonable.
If you don't think it makes sense for bikers to have the legal option to yield at a red light, then say so. I think it's certainly a defensible policy, even though I disagree with it. Don't try to convince me that you really think bikers should go through red lights, but that it should be illegal. At least not without explaining.
Oh, and on the "on the same road" issue... I'd like to note if you go on "bike paths," you'll usually find pedestrians, rollerbladers, bikes and horses all have different rules. (And that bikers yield to pretty much everyone.)
by ae on Feb 9, 2009 5:21 pm • link • report
F=ma
Newton's Second Law applies to bikes as well as cars, but you might notice that the variables are a bit different from mode to mode.
by David Ramos on Feb 9, 2009 5:46 pm • link • report
If there were no motor vehicles, would there still be stop lights?
by washcycle on Feb 9, 2009 6:31 pm • link • report
"On 10 December 1868, the first traffic lights were installed outside the British Houses of Parliament in London, by the railway engineer J. P. Knight."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light
by Lance on Feb 9, 2009 6:39 pm • link • report
Here's more
http://www.didyouknow.org/trafficlights.htm
Traffic lights were used before the advent of the motorcar. In 1868, British railroad signal engineer J P Knight invented the first traffic light, a lantern with red and green signals. It was installed at the intersection of George and Bridge Streets in front of the the British House of Commons to control the flow of horse buggies and pedestrians.
Motorcars were introduced to the US in the late 1890s and the need for traffic control soon became obvious. A number of people came up with ideas for traffic control. In 1910, Earnest Sirrine of Chicago, Illinois filed for a patent (no 976,939) for what is considered the first automatic street traffic system, using non illuminated words STOP and PROCEED.
by Washcycle on Feb 9, 2009 6:45 pm • link • report
by Rich on Feb 9, 2009 8:30 pm • link • report
Because we live in a democracy where we all decide together what the rules are.
"If you don't think it makes sense for bikers to have the legal option to yield at a red light, then say so."
I think I did when I said "Quite frankly, I think red light should not be ignored by anyone. It is very dangerous." in my comment from 2h32.
"Oh, and on the "on the same road" issue... I'd like to note if you go on "bike paths," you'll usually find pedestrians, rollerbladers, bikes and horses all have different rules. (And that bikers yield to pretty much everyone.)"
Not so much. The rules there are that everybody needs to share the road. And quite frankly, it doesn't happen that nicely. There are plenty of speeding bikers that pay little attention to the slower pedestrians. And likewise, there are plenty of obvious pedestrians not looking for faster bikers. And I've been in both groups.
@ David Ramos:
Actually, I think you mean that p=mv, or F=dp/dt and that the concept of (in)elastic collisions is relevant. Sorry.
@ washcycle, Rich:
I do know that there are different rules, and that there are practical purposes for that. However, I think it's also important to keep the rules as much the same as possible, just to keep things simple. People have a hard time mastering traffic rules as they are. We don't want to make them more difficult.
by Jasper on Feb 9, 2009 9:46 pm • link • report
Word on that. I used to commute by bike to work, taking H street NW in front of the White House for a few blocks. I learned the hard way that it was safer for me to use the red light as a stop sign than have cars sitting on my ass as I slowly accelerated at the green light.
by lou on Feb 10, 2009 1:25 pm • link • report
um, no. you're proving his point- that cyclists see themselves as having the right to ignore the laws that they find inconvenient. i don't get to drive my car through a red light jsut because there's no traffic in either direction and it would be "safe to proceed". This is the double standard that cyclists have. Yes there are awful drivers out there as the commenter pointed out. I have my own grudges against the jerks who use a lane of traffic as their own personal parking lot. but that has nothing to do with the cyclists who run red lights, stop signs, who fail to signal, and who take up a street lane when there is a clearly marked bicycle lane that is empty. Your legitemate greivances against some drivers don't justify blatantly breaking the traffic laws.
by jendc on Feb 10, 2009 3:48 pm • link • report
your gripes against cyclists can be applied in equal measure to drivers. some are fine; many flagrantly violate "little" laws. not using turn signals, rolling through stop signs etc.
I think both sides make salient arguments, and this comment thread obviously won't rectify the situation. I do believe, however, that bicyclists in the washington area remain at an inherent disadvantage; vehicular traffic still dominates city streets, most of it from out of town. Therefore, I do not think this argument should be portrayed in a fair/unfair "this is a double standard" light. While I will not defend the actions of some cyclists, I don't pretend to adhere to every law. In some limited situations, it is simply safer to violate a traffic law as a bicyclist.
If we lived in a city that had bike sensors at big intersections and dedicated lanes on major thoroughfares that many cyclists rely on to get to work, I'd be with the car/law and order people here. We don't, and without spending a lot of time on a bike, a lot of drivers miss how trying (and dangerous!)it can be for some riders to tackle a hilly street from standstill with no bike lane and a line of blaring traffic behind them. Even for those of us that regularly commute across the city and have done so for years, parts of the district are extremely challenging. Sometimes that head start gives you peace of mind.
That said, I am firmly with drivers when it comes to cyclists rolling through lights on streets with bike lanes or where many pedestrians are crossing.
by JTS on Feb 10, 2009 4:43 pm • link • report
"that has nothing to do with the cyclists who ...take up a street lane when there is a clearly marked bicycle lane that is empty. Your legitemate greivances against some drivers don't justify blatantly breaking the traffic laws."
Taking up a lane is not illegal in D.C., even if there is an empty bike lane.
Even if every cyclist were to obey every law, motorists would still be angry, because cyclists would be violating their numerous imaginary laws.
What you call a "double standard" I would call merely a different standard. There should be a different standard for cyclists and motorists. Would you not agree? Or do you think that motorists should be allowed on sidewalks outside the CBD and cyclists allowed on the interstate?
All we're disagreeing over is where to draw that line that differentiates the two.
by Washcycle on Feb 10, 2009 5:12 pm • link • report
I've personally thought that as a bicyclist I could use the roads on an equal basis with drivers ... and have never had a problem doing so. Everyone's been curteous, and everything has always been just fine. But then, I've never attempted (or wanted) to use my bicycle for anything other than recreation. I've never been using my bike to rush to work or get to an appointment. It sounds like more than a few of the affected cyclists here have. So, the question remains, can we safely mix cyclists and motorists in a situation where both are litterally rushing to get to work, make an appointment, get somewhere ... ?
This is a question worth pondering. And if we can't ... What is the solution?
by Lance on Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm • link • report
Oh, and while we're piling on: you *do* exceed the speed limit every time you drive. Also I'd wager you're one of the 99.99% of drivers who don't stop for pedestrians waiting to enter, or entering a mid-block crosswalk. (I'm not asking; I'm telling).
This "blind-spot" is pretty much universal among drivers. "Cyclists are scofflaws, but I follow the laws." You ignore the laws you find inconvenient. As does every other driver. So go fuck yourself and your "double standard." There is literally *no* automobile operator who has any room to talk about scofflaw cyclists.
by ibc on Mar 3, 2009 7:36 am • link • report
I find your concern trollery touching.
by ibc on Mar 3, 2009 7:39 am • link • report
i find it interesting that you called my entire arguement false, but only managed to pick apart one piece of it. So it's not illegal for bikes to ride out of a bike lane? fine- I'll give you that one. Still doesn't change the substance of what I said about everything else.
@ibc
wow. aren't you articulate! I'm so chastened by your not-at-all-dickish-and-arrogant personal assumptions.
by jendc on Mar 4, 2009 5:06 pm • link • report
1) "cyclists see themselves as having the right to ignore the laws that they find inconvenient." - No, cyclists are asking to change a law that they find inconvenient. If they truly felt they had the right to ignore it, why would they bother trying to change it? I suspect cyclists ignore the law no more - and maybe even less - than drivers. Cyclists just ignore different laws.
2) 'i don't get to drive my car through a red light jsut because there's no traffic in either direction and it would be "safe to proceed". This is the double standard that cyclists have.' - As I tried to point out, it's not a double standard, it's a different standard. Because bicycles are different. Due to reasons stated by ae and myself above, it is my position that it is far safer for a cyclist to cross against a light than for a motorist to do so. So your point that you, as a motorist, can't go when it's 'safe to proceed' is moot because it so rarely is. If drivers could safely run red lights don't you think they would? Or do you believe drivers have a high respect for the law?
3) "Yes there are awful drivers out there as the commenter pointed out. I have my own grudges against the jerks who use a lane of traffic as their own personal parking lot. but that has nothing to do with the cyclists who run red lights, stop signs, who fail to signal, and who take up a street lane when there is a clearly marked bicycle lane that is empty. Your legitemate greivances against some drivers don't justify blatantly breaking the traffic laws."
It's unclear which commenter you're talking about. But largely I agree with your point. Two wrongs do not make a right. But who said that it does?
by washcycle on Mar 4, 2009 5:32 pm • link • report
It's just as easy to make the above argument. If you accept the argument for bikes, there's no reason not to accept it for cars.
by J.D.M. on Apr 25, 2009 3:16 pm • link • report
But it isn't. As stated above by ae "1) bikers have better visibility at an intersection since they're placed much farther forward on their vehicle" and by myself "cyclists have better hearing - not being in a sound controlled box, are higher than most drivers for better vision," and are more maneuverable than drivers. Then we can add that bikes have less mass, move at slower speeds.
You may be able to make the case that it isn't dangerous for drivers, but it will be more difficult, not "just as easy." And even if it were, that would not change the fact that we should change the law for cyclists. It would just mean that we should change the law for cyclists and drivers.
by washcycle on Apr 25, 2009 6:58 pm • link • report
Add a Comment