Bicycling
Let's talk about enforcement
Councilmember Jim Graham is eager to create a DDOT bicycle-mounted enforcement squad. Depending on whom you ask, this squad might be designed to mainly enforce laws against cyclists, or to enforce laws against both cyclists and drivers. We need even-handed enforcement of dangerous behavior regardless of the type of vehicle. And we definitely need more enforcement.
19th between K and L at rush hour. Photo by dionhinchcliffe.
Both types of vehicle operators sometimes act dangerously. Both also frequently engage in annoying but not necessarily harmful behavior. For cyclists, blowing through a red light at a busy intersection is an example of the former, while slowing and proceeding through a stop sign without coming to a complete halt is one of the latter. For drivers, driving in the bicycle lane so that cyclists lack room to maneuver, or turning across the bicycle lane without entering it or looking, is dangerous. Overlapping the lane just a bit is wrong, but perhaps not quite so dangerous.
Recently I bicycled down the length of the Q Street bicycle lane from Dupont to Bloomingdale. I slowed and yielded at the many stop signs along the route, but didn't stop completely each time. But when I reached Rhode Island Avenue, I stopped to wait for a safe time to cross.
Meanwhile, nearly half of the drivers positioned their cars not in the center of the car lane, but in or closer to the center of the roadway, overlapping the bicycle lane. For most of the cars, this was annoying and could create a greater risk of getting hit by a parked driver opening a door. Some of the drivers, however, blocked the lane entirely, especially ones with wider vehicles, or parked in the lane, forcing me to merge into traffic to get around. One woman was sitting in her car in the bicycle lane while two consecutive parking spaces sat open just ten feet ahead of her.
Technically, not stopping at the stop signs or driving just a bit over the line into the bicycle lane are illegal. I didn't appreciate the latter, while some drivers find the former annoying. A bicycle enforcement squad could ticket all of these. That would be a waste of time. Instead, they should focus on ticketing cyclists who blow through lights dangerously and drivers who encroach upon bicycle lanes in dangerous ways.
We also need better enforcement of double parking downtown, especially at rush hour. The Downtown BID says that congestion, much of it caused by truck loading and other non-moving vehicles, creates a major obstacle to further economic growth. It's also a major obstacle to safe cycling and less stressful driving.
Not infrequently, I find myself along 18th and 19th Streets around rush hour. Almost every day, a big beer delivery truck parks on 18th Street between Massachusetts and N to deliver goods to Cafe Luna. 18th in this area is only one lane in each direction. It must be tough for Cafe Luna, being sandwiched between Connecticut and 18th with no alley, but that isn't an excuse for taking over a whole street at rush hour.
A lot of bicyclists, in particular, commute on 18th, where they share the lanes with cars which often pass them at close distances. When cars have to squeeze in both directions around delivery trucks, it's even more dangerous for bicycles. Couldn't Luna schedule their deliveries early in the morning or in the middle of the day? 18th is pretty empty then. Or better yet, let's put a midday loading zone on the east side of the street, where there's parking.
Delivery trucks, garbage trucks, and federal employee vehicles also use these major streets as their personal loading zones. Yesterday, I had to drive down 19th at the height of rush hour. 19th was packed with cars and taxis trying to change lanes around the various vehicles turning in and out of garages, at corners, and parked illegally. The left lane was blocked by parked vehicles, but the right side of the road was clear. I was in the rightmost lane. A driver, turning left, was trying to make his way out of the alley between M and L across the travel lanes. Trying to be a courteous driver, I let him in. He immediately entered the lane, stopped, parked, jumped out of the car holding a pink folder, and walked back across the street.
The car bore an official US Government (GSA) license plate. Where was he going? The passport office? Why did he have to exit the alley and cross the street all the way to the other side, only to then block the road to run his errand back on the opposite side? I and the other drivers had to then try to squeeze back to the left, and so did the cyclists, at least one of which I almost didn't see. Today, I was in the area again at rush hour, and there was another government vehicle parked in almost the same spot. This one belonged to the Architect of the Capitol.
It's amazing how many cyclists ride on these roads, given the numbers of parked cars blocking lanes, drivers switching lanes quickly, and general traffic. I sure wouldn't. If there's a place in DC that needs protected bicycle lanes, it's downtown. There should be at least one protected lane north and south on the Golden Triangle side and one on the Metro Center side, plus one east-west across both.
And there's clearly plenty of capacity. At least one and sometimes two lanes of most major roads downtown doesn't even operate for most of rush hour, since they're blocked by government scofflaws or beer deliveries. Get all the double parkers to at least use the same side of the street, and we could create a protected lane like Manhattan's Eighth and Ninth Avenue lanes without taking away any actual capacity from cars or buses.
 | 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
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Residents organize for positive change in Bluemont
You raise some good points, Dave. One would hope any bicycle enforcement would be judicious and focus on the most egregious offenses, whether vehicle incursions or bicyclist misdeeds.
by ah on Apr 28, 2009 10:39 am • link • report
by Don Incognito on Apr 28, 2009 10:45 am • link • report
Look, bicycle enforcement is just another DC grab at revenue. I've seen many terrible bikers in DC but 99% of them don't deserve a ticket. You think the DC cops are smart enough to make judgments?
And yes, double parking is a pain but isn't the lesson that 1) it is already illegal and 2) the companies that double park deal with the tickets as a cost of doing business? Stricter enforcement may raise that cost, but I don't see it as changing their behavior.
by charlie on Apr 28, 2009 10:49 am • link • report
by anonymous on Apr 28, 2009 10:51 am • link • report
The cellphone talkers I think are the worst. Most of the times where i've had close calls, the driver is on the phone and will pull into the bike lane and stop or just cut me off. I think I'm gonna print a shirt with "Hang up and Drive!" on it to wear when I bike to work. I'm happy DC has the law and wish that Virginia would follow suit.
by Boots on Apr 28, 2009 11:09 am • link • report
by crin on Apr 28, 2009 11:15 am • link • report
by ah on Apr 28, 2009 11:16 am • link • report
by jeff on Apr 28, 2009 11:22 am • link • report
At certain intersections, better pedestrian traffic control would benefit everyone. tickets are probably not the answer.
by charlie on Apr 28, 2009 11:38 am • link • report
If the city wants to make good money, they should install speed cameras on North Capitol Street between Taylor Street and Michigan Ave. They'd make a bundle.
by Richard Layman on Apr 28, 2009 11:43 am • link • report
The roads won't get safer from more enforcement. In fact, laws don't make the roads safer. The roads will only get safer if we all drive safer. In a car, in a bus, on a bike, and even walking down the sidewalk.
by Jasper on Apr 28, 2009 11:57 am • link • report
by Rob on Apr 28, 2009 12:02 pm • link • report
the difference is that if a car coasts through a stop sign and judges incorrectly, other people can die. if a cyclist does the same, it's very unlikely that anyone other than himself is going to be injured.
while that's not a bona fide excuse for flaunting the rules, you simply cannot equate cars and bicycles with regards to driving laws. drivers have the ability to kill...cyclists only have the ability to kill themselves.
does that make cyclists "better" than drivers? no. are cyclists less responsible for following the laws? of course not.
but let's keep some perspective here. a car (which weighs a ton, can kill, has blind spots, and is simple to stop and re-engage) is alot different than a bike (which is light, can't hurt others in most cases, has no blind spots, and takes alot more effort to stop, dismount, remount, and re-engage).
i myself don't see anything wrong with an environment where people who choose to drive heavier, more dangerous vehicles are subject to more rules. why is that irrational?
by rob#2 on Apr 28, 2009 12:33 pm • link • report
by Nate on Apr 28, 2009 12:49 pm • link • report
by tt on Apr 28, 2009 1:13 pm • link • report
Now everybody get out of my f'in way!!!!!
by crin on Apr 28, 2009 1:46 pm • link • report
@tt: yes ... it would apply to the speed limit as well. No one changes their behavior when enforcing the rules is subjective to the enforcer. Again, you know what the rules are, follow them.
Funny how you all assumed that I was a driver in this discussion - at no time did I state that I drove to/from my job ... why the assumption that everyone who is against the behavior of cyclists is a driver?
by Rob on Apr 28, 2009 2:20 pm • link • report
I'll hop on that!
I bike to work (in a different city) and occasionally see people double-parked/parked in bike lanes. As this is extremely dangerous (and drivers seem to have no recognition of the hazard they're causing AND enforcement is pretty lax on this, I've decided that keying cars is the solution. Why not-- I stick as close as possible to where I should be riding, and if their car is illegally in the way of my hand...
Obviously I don't actually do this. I'm just another internet tough-talker. But I do firmly believe that I (and other cyclists) have the right to do this.
by Skiddie on Apr 28, 2009 3:08 pm • link • report
by ontarioroader on Apr 28, 2009 3:36 pm • link • report
well, hold on. I see your point and it's certainly a valid one. Of course, a cyclist could absolutely hurt or even kill a pedestrian if they're moving fast enough. but that's not what we were discussing. we were talking about coasting through a stop sign, not running one outright. a cyclist "coasting" through stop sign, for the sake of this argument, is probably going no more than 5mph. That not exactly going to do alot of damage. On the other hand, a car that is moving through an intersection, even at 5mph, is still a huge piece of steel that if any other car hits, is going to cause serious injury to everyone invloved.
as a cyclist myself, i am def guilty of coasting through stop signs. but i, and most cyclists for that matter, see it as a way to avoid dismounting, not as a way to thumb their noses at the rules. ie...i only continue to move fast enough to keep from having to dismount. that's less than 1mph.
again, this distinction in no way absolves cyclists from ignoring the laws. but let's be honest, laws are there for safety. and cars can inflict alot more damage than bikes. it's not fair to compare the two in every instance. i have nothing against drivers at all. i was one up until two years ago when it became too expensive for me. i respect people's right to drive. but i also recognize that they are more likely to hurt me than I them. it's just a fact.
as for your statement that we all assumed that you were a driver, I'm not sure where you're getting that. only 4 people commented after you and none of them suggested anything about you at all. unless i'm reading this thread wrong.
by rob#2 on Apr 28, 2009 3:38 pm • link • report
That's absolutely not true. You're thinking "immediate ramification". In real life you'd have immediate and consequential ramifications. You're blowing through a stop sign on a bike can easily cause a driver --- who had the right of way --- to veer into a pedestrian (or other motorist) and kill them ... as well as themselves. Imagine if a head between 2 cars occurs because you as the cyclist thought the world revolved around your needs and desires.
by Lance on Apr 28, 2009 3:38 pm • link • report
Again...I stress the importance of terms here.
"coasting" and "blowing through" are not the same thing. You cannot use those terms interchangeably. We're talking about two totally different scenarios here.
by rob#2 on Apr 28, 2009 3:44 pm • link • report
First off- create areas that are separated on the downtown sidewalks for cyclists and segways so that we are not put in danger and the pedestrains have their own danger free spaces.
two- prioritize cycling over auto use- and re-design the intersections to the advantage of the cyclist- as is done in Holland and Germany.
Third- get rid of the ban on cycling on the sidewalks downtown where there are no biketracks. DC has gigantic sidewalks and there is no reason on earth why a painted or bollarded bike way cannot be put on the safer sidewalks.
Fourth- time the lights at all intersections to allow bicycles to go first.
We need to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to encourage and not dissuade people from walking, biking or taking transit.
Fifth- get super aggressive about all car infractions. delivery or worker vehicles should not be infairly targeted- but harshly discourage all single driver vehicles not used by handicapped, elderly or the infirm.
by w on Apr 28, 2009 3:44 pm • link • report
by Chris Seay on Apr 28, 2009 3:47 pm • link • report
In addition, you cyclists are so stuck up with your massive sense of entitlement, and self-importance, but someday you will get your comeuppance when I run you over with my Yukon XL.
(Did I forget anything?)
by ibc on Apr 28, 2009 4:14 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Apr 28, 2009 4:18 pm • link • report
by Joey on Apr 28, 2009 4:35 pm • link • report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvoweling
by Jasper on Apr 28, 2009 5:12 pm • link • report
Of course there's law-breaking to go around - but the most important to overall public safety is the behavior of car drivers. Hands down.
by Neb on Apr 29, 2009 2:02 pm • link • report
And that's the point that bears repeating. It makes it all the more ludicrous that every blog posting or article on this topic generates at least 50% of its comments arguing that we should tackle all forms of law-breaking equally.
After all, it certainly is sad when someone gets raped and murdered in this city, but I was walking to work this morning and saw someone throw an empty soda bottle on the ground. All of us need to follow the law rapist, or litterer.
It's a way of drawing a not-so-subtle false equivalence.
by ibc on Apr 29, 2009 2:45 pm • link • report
The problem is that the rules were written many years ago in a policy environment that never envisaged cycling as a mainstream transportation option, and thus do not take the differing characteristics of bicycles and cars into consideration. It is as if car drivers were asked to follow rules that were appropriate for horse-drawn carriages. OK when autos were a rare novelty on the roads, but as they became a greater and greater proportion of the transportation mix, the rules had to be changed. I suspect there must have been a period of informal transition before official (re)writing of the traffic code.
For those who think cyclists are inherently entitled jerks, please reflect that many of us also drive cars, and would never dream of "blowing through" or even coasting through a red light when behind the wheel. Different vehicle, different amount of danger.
by Erica on Apr 29, 2009 7:16 pm • link • report
by Washington Traffic Laws` on Apr 30, 2009 4:16 am • link • report
by contrarian on May 4, 2009 9:16 am • link • report
by ksu499 on Jul 6, 2009 8:46 am • link • report
Add a Comment