In addition to being illegally parked those cars were breaking a no-idleing law I think. Isn't there a no-idleing law in DC? In any case what an a-hole bus driver. What if the bicyclist had lost her balance and fallen? What a friggen jerk. Can passengers report drivers like that to WMATA?

by Bianchi on Aug 5, 2009 10:43 am • link • report

Could bus drivers learn that, despite their resemblance to automobile drivers, they actually have a duty to drive in solidarity with bicyclists and pedestrians and not against them?

Solidarity comrades! Don't let the counterrevolutionaries infect our movement. We must crush them before the beginning of the rainy season. And to the man who brings me the head of the generalissimo, a dozen chickens.

by MPC on Aug 5, 2009 10:44 am • link • report

I sincerely hope you reported this driver to WMATA. Granted, they'll just shrug, so you should also say he was reading and doing his taxes, all while watching a bootlegged copy of Transformers 2 on a mini-DVD player. That should get him a sternly-worded email.

by Reid on Aug 5, 2009 10:47 am • link • report

http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/contact_us/ridercomment.cfm

Probably completely ignored, but who knows? Maybe if someone gets 300 complaints stacked up against them, they'll get a warning that if they get 500 more, they'll be suspended for a shift (with pay). I've personally made frequent use of this (most of it as a driver, but a few times as a metro user and twice as a cyclist), figuring that it can't hurt. And if (when?) the drivers I'm complaining DO kill or maim someone, I've left a nice paper trail for the lawsuit.

by Catherine on Aug 5, 2009 10:56 am • link • report

As an avid cyclist, I have found many of the WMATA bus drivers to be very courteous towards cyclists. I think that since their employment as a driver is dependent upon driving safely, they have a greater incentive to driving responsibly than drivers of private vehicles.

by Ben on Aug 5, 2009 11:07 am • link • report

A 4 bus brushed me on Pershing Drive in Arlington last month. When I caught up to him at the red light, showed him a picture of my son, and told him he almost killed me, he gave me the finger. Another cyclist he almost hit witnessed the entire exchange. I reported the incident, including time and bus number, I have yet to get a response.

by Brendan on Aug 5, 2009 11:17 am • link • report

Another account: I saw a 50s bus driver yesterday morning check his mirror and wave a bicyclist through in the bike lane before pulling off the curb.

by 14V on Aug 5, 2009 11:18 am • link • report

I'm sorry to hear this. I've definitely had a few negative run ins with bus drivers (particularly around Eastern Market), but I have to say that on the whole they are generally quite courteous to cyclists. I think communication is key, particularly when they are driving defensively. A thank you wave goes a long way!

by JTS on Aug 5, 2009 11:33 am • link • report

I've generally found bus drivers courteous drivers. Maybe we can all put them in a bike for a day to learn what the other side feels like. That being said, i dread buses when walking or driving -- big, noisy, and the diesel ones smell.

by charlie on Aug 5, 2009 11:49 am • link • report

As much as I love bicycling myself, we have to ask ourselves 'do bicycles belong on our crowded city streets during rush hours?' 'are bicycles a true alternative to other transportation alternatives? ... or should they be reserved for recreational uses only in an urban area?'

I'm not saying this to be antagonistic but to be realistic. When we had the one-off bicyclist using his/her bike to commute, it was no big deal. Motorists made allowances, bus drivers made allowances. Now that the number of cyclists has increased dramatically motorists and bus drivers are understandably less willing to accommodate bicylists who don't seem willing to abide by ALL the rules of the road ... including staying in ones lane and not overtaking other traffic from the right ... and coming to a complete stop at all stop signs and traffic lights. Cyclists understandably see the advantage of cycling slipping away if they must adhere to those same rules of the road and see the motorist (or bus driver in this case) as aggressive when they take counter actions to the cyclists illegal actions. I think some even see pedestrians as aggressive when they too start demanding that bicyclists, like buses and cars and pedestrians, abide by the same set of rules.

Bottom line being that cycling becomes a lot less reasonable (or even possible) when cyclists must stick to the rules like everyone else. And while when they were few others would make allowances for this misbehaving, now that they are many they won't. And of course part of the problem is 'is it even possible for a cyclist to really adhere to all the rules of the road?' (e.g., a complete stop at a stop sign is nearly impossible)

Again, I'm not saying this to be antagonistic but realistic. I grew up in a family with ties going back 4 generations to bicycling (my great grandfather founded the Bicycle Club of Bordeaux ... my grandfather and his brother were cycling racers). And I would never consider using a bicycle for commuting in an urban area like DC. I would neither consider it safe for myself or fair to that bulk of commuters who get where they need to get because they can follow the rules of the road. We have some of the best recreational bike trails in the nation in this area. I'm happy staying on those and using the city streets only during those times when it makes sense to do so. I also have a relative who died getting hit by a truck while cycling to work because she didn't have the good sense to do the same. l

by Lance on Aug 5, 2009 11:52 am • link • report

This is a good post. My personal experience breaks down about 50/50 as a bus rider: 50% of the time bus drivers are courteous, 50% of the time, they do things like the wedge. That is, they cut close to the cyclist and wedge him in between the sidewalk and the bus at the next stop. This also happens to me on a bike. Other times, they do honk. It's simple lack of experience I think, lack of courtesy, lack of ...whatever, empathy. It's rude and ignorant. But again, the other 50% of the time, they are fine.

by Jazzy on Aug 5, 2009 12:03 pm • link • report

Can't get wedged if you're riding in the middle of the lane. That's what I do.

by HM on Aug 5, 2009 12:13 pm • link • report

please, report the driver if you haven't already. this bus driver could have killed another human being with their recklessness.

by IMGoph on Aug 5, 2009 12:19 pm • link • report

Good gosh Lance, I feel FAR safer commuting in an urban area on the streets of DC than I EVER have in suburban areas where bikers are few and the roads are explicitly designed for high speeds, cars only, long radius turns for maximum speed, etc. While more bikers probably means more net accidents, the more bikers I see on the roads around me make me feel more safe and more accepted there. And the more there are, the more used to them drivers get.

I routinely biked in Arkansas where I lived years ago before coming to DC, and i felt far more unsafe there in a town of 30,000 riding my bike than I do here in DC. It's not without its dangers, certainly, but urban cycling to me feels far more safe than if I was to head out to Fairfax or Faquier County and start zooming down arterials. While bikers surely drive some drivers crazy, they're at least used to seeing bikes on the streets, and knowing, like GI JOE tell us, is half the battle.

In regards to the bus drivers, I've had a few dangerous encounters probably, but I feel for the most part like they're generally pretty courteous and understanding of the bikers, maybe because they are more used to them than others. Same goes for cabbies, who do some dumb things, but I feel like they avoid many collisions just by their tacit awareness of bikers due to seeing them all day long. The buses on 16th street tend to be better than the cars, on average, probably.

by Steve Davis on Aug 5, 2009 12:29 pm • link • report

@Lance - I used to agree with you on the need for cyclists to obey the rules of the road, but now I don't. "Rules of the road" were invented for motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are large, heavy, can move at speeds in excess of sixty miles an hour, and can kill dozens of individuals in a single incident. In addition, operating a motor vehicle requires practically no physical exertion, thus leading to ridiculous (if not observed) rules on things like "coming to a complete stop" at stop signs. It is ridiculous to say that a cyclist should come to a complete stop, with all the extra physical exertion this entails, all because some "rule of the road" says cars must do this--even though they do not do it either.

"Rules of the road" as they currently are would not exist if there were no cars, and they do exist primarily for the benefit of cars. So I don't think it makes sense to say that cyclists should follow all the "rules of the road." Similarly it is ridiculous to suggest that pedestrians should adhere to "rules of the road"--a pedestrian weighs 200 pounds and goes 3 miles per hour, and he is supposed to follow the same rules established for eighteen-wheel semis and 50 mph motorcycles?

As for the rest of your post, I guess you are saying that the road was built for cars and the damn cyclists are just inconveniencing everybody! Well, I can say that on the rare occasions that I have driven on the streets of this city, cyclists are just one of many inconveniences. There are parked cars, pedestrians, intersections with no left turn signals, potholes, cabs stopping for people, and more. The streets of DC are no autobahn. We've got to share them. I wish I were surprised that some people think the road should be handed over entirely to cars, even in the middle of a dense city. But I'm not. Some people just don't seem to understand that city streets work precisely because multiple users share them. Sure, bikes do not belong on the Beltway any more than cars belong on the Capital Crescent Trail. But suggesting that bikes should be barred from city streets because we've been slightly successful at getting more people to bike is, quite simply, sad.

by Omari on Aug 5, 2009 12:44 pm • link • report

As usual Lance, your post is full of grade D tripe.

1. Who the f*ck are drivers to "accommodate" bikers? Bikes have been around longer than cars, and they've been "accommodating" them more than necessary for over 60 years. It's time for drivers to realize that the roads are not built, maintained, and (lightly) policed for their sole benefit.

2. I will literally give you every cent I ever own if there ever comes a day when the average speed of cars in DC meets the speed limit. Don't even begin to talk about bike scofflaws until that day comes. A car driving over the speed limit is a thousand times more dangerous than a biker coasting through a stop sign (at speeds roughly equivalent to how fast most cars drive through stop signs).

Car drivers need to deal with bikers because they have no right not to. Drivers choose to operate a deadly weapon every day. They shouldn't complain that it's somebody else's responsibility to make their operation of it safe.

If you're uncomfortable biking to work, fine. But don't defame those that do, while ignoring the hoards of car drivers who routinely put bikers, pedestrians, and other car drivers at risk due to the mass conspiracy that is unpunished speeding and reckless driving.

by Reid on Aug 5, 2009 12:49 pm • link • report

I'm both a cyclist and a frequent user of the S buses on 16th street. That said, I do not think that 16th street is an appropriate route for commuting on a bicycle--I have done it once and I will never do it again.

There are two reasons for this. First, it is one of the heaviest traveled traffic arteries in NW DC. If you are commuting by bicycle on 16th Street, you are potentially endangering yourself while effectively slowing down and backing up an already VERY clogged street. Numerous times, I have been on the S bus traveling very slowly behind a single commuting cyclist riding down the middle of the right lane because the bus driver was unable to safely pass. By slowing down bus traffic (and all of the 50 some-odd commuters on the bus) you are effectively increasing your carbon footprint by not allowing the bus to reach optimum speed and frustrating your fellow commuters who are stuck behind you on a bus. It's both environmentally counterproductive and more than a little bit inconsiderate.

Second, there is a dedicated bike lane on 14th Street, just two blocks over. It is both much safer for cyclists to use, and has the added benefit of not slowing down traffic for commuters (bus commuters or otherwise) on 16th Street. Additionally, riding down the hill from Columbia heights to U Street is fun!

by Kevin on Aug 5, 2009 12:56 pm • link • report

I've been a bicycle commuter and I've driven transit buses(not for WMATA). It makes no sense for bus drivers to antagonize cyclists, or vice versa, because bicycle and bus will pace each other on any downtown route. They'd be dueling each other all the way along -- and they'll probably see each other again tomorrow, and the next day, etc. Not saying it didn't happen, though.

by mark on Aug 5, 2009 12:59 pm • link • report

We have to ask ourselves, "Do cars belong on our crowded city streets during rush hour?" I'm not saying this to be antagonistic, but realistic.

As a pedestrian, I think it would be far safer for those of us who live in densely populated neighborhoods if private cars were banned from the roads during rush hour, reserving this precious commodity for buses, cyclists, pedestrians, and perhaps (as much as I hate to say it) cabs.

The flow of people (notice I didn't say traffic flow) in the center of the city would be greatly improved, as cyclists, who take up far less space than individually inhabited cars could take to the roads in a dedicated lane, and buses and other higher occupancy vehicles could travel more smoothly with less gridlock.

Again, not being antagonistic, but realistic...

by David T on Aug 5, 2009 12:59 pm • link • report

David T: Please run for mayor.

by Sue on Aug 5, 2009 1:08 pm • link • report

It's amazing that so many people do not understand the legalities of operating a bicycle in this area. It is perfectly legal to pass a car in their lane, on DC streets. I quote: When passing, "Allowed to pass on left or right, in the same lane or changing lanes, or pass off road." This is only untrue when the car is in a dedicated turn lane.

Please go here, Lance, to educate yourself on proper road rules for bicyclists. http://www.waba.org/areabiking/bikelaws.php
specifically, the bicycle code describes in detail the conditions under which a bicycle can pass a moving or stationary vehicle, in their lane, in section 1201.3, b&c.
http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/frames.asp?doc=/ddot/lib/ddot/information/bicycle/laws/18_dcmr_12.pdf

This is not the wild west, and bicycles are not allowed on the road as some sort of suffrage on the part of auto drivers. The DC government's explicit stance on cycling is that it is good for the district and to be encouraged. You can find the exact verbiage in the link above. That's why we have a bicycle code (Title 18-1200).

You might also want to review these common citation mistakes made by the DC police. http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/frames.asp?doc=/ddot/lib/ddot/information/bicycle/laws/bicycleenforcementscenarios.pdf

by CJ on Aug 5, 2009 1:48 pm • link • report

David T.--regardless of the merits of your proposal, it is certainly not realistic.

DC's street layout has little in common with european cities with very narrow side streets from which cars can feasibly be banned or significantly limited.

As for the rush hour proposition--the streets with the greatest congestion generally are *not* neighborhood streets, but rather major thoroughfares. Indeed, in many cases DC already limits access to some side streets in closer-in neighborhoods with no left turn/no entry signs during rush hour to reduce/eliminate the cut-through problem.

by ah on Aug 5, 2009 1:55 pm • link • report

I'm not going to agree that Cyclists should stay off 16th, but 14th which runs parallel to it does have bike lanes from Walter Reed to Massachusetts (with one gap that will be fixed this year, Vishnu-willing).

I've dealt with good bus drivers and bad bus drivers. But bad buses are so much worse than bad drivers because they spend so much time over on the right hand side where I am (moving back and forth) and they're so big and we're often passing each other over and over again. Still, mostly I find good bus drivers.

It used to be the bus drivers would honk as a "courtesy", but DDOT did some training to teach them that cyclists already know that you're behind them so the honk is unneeded.

Also Lance, bikes don't cause congestion. Many studies show they reduce it. So getting people to stop biking in the urban core will make driving worse, not better.

by David C on Aug 5, 2009 2:06 pm • link • report

ah, thanks for beating me to the punch with David T. Additionally, he fails to see that realistically, we can't all be biking to work. And the problem with biking is that 'bikes don't play well with others'. Bottom line isn't 'who was there first' (refering to Omari's comments) or 'what should be in someone's self-focused opinion (referring to Reid et al.) but to what is. And the reality of 'what is' is that we couldn't get everyone to work on time and efficiently(as well shown by mark in his post) UNLESS bikes learn to 'play well with others'. And as CJ shows us, that isn't possible ... Bikes require a whole different set of rules in order to operate effectively ... Which just doesn't mix well with the fact that all others including pedestrians, motorists, and buses follow a separate, but common, set of rules. Bottom line is bikes don't play well with others, and realistically when they start to screw things up badly enough, they'll probably be banned at certain times and/or from certain streets. There's no 'should' or 'wish' or 'that'd be the right thing to do' here ... just some hard reality.

by Lance on Aug 5, 2009 2:12 pm • link • report

Lance, I have to disagree that buses, at least in DC, follow any set of common rules. I suspect that the reason buses and bikes don't mix well here is that a large number of operators of both vehicles at best minimally adhere to the traffic code.

I am sympathetic to bus drivers who must (a) negotiate a large vehicle and (b) do it on a set schedule. But there is little excuse for regularly running yellow and red lights, especially when that means blocking a crosswalk and/or cross traffic. And just as little excuse for changing lanes without any regard for traffic in that lane.

by ah on Aug 5, 2009 2:17 pm • link • report

ah,

I agree with you that buses (and cabs) often don't follow the same set of rules. However, unlike bikes, they can follow the same set of rules ... And with better enforcement they would be. However, as CJ's post makes clear, bike's can't .. And the law has tried to correct that problem by making a whole set of different rules for bikes to follow. And while I would like to hope that that would solve the problem (i.e., 'complementary' rules ... ying and yang), I don't think I see that as the case in real life. In real life a rule which trys to mesh the different worlds in which bikes and 'everyone else' operates (or at least 'can' operate in if following the rules) doesn't usually work out. Examples are the rule that allows bikes to go to the right and overtake traffic in a way that isn't legal for anyone else. Often the result is a dead cyclist ... and no, it's not because the motorist was at fault, it's because the laws of physics don't allow this meshing to occur in practice like they do in the minds of those who think out these great schemes. The bike lanes are another example. It is far far safer for a bicyclist to be operating in the middle of their lane and then politely get over a little bit to allow a motorist to overtake them in the same sense a motorist would overtake another car. In that case the same rules are applying for everyone and they work.

by Lance on Aug 5, 2009 2:31 pm • link • report

"And the reality of 'what is' is that we couldn't get everyone to work on time and efficiently(as well shown by mark in his post) UNLESS bikes learn to 'play well with others'."

Oh for christ's sake. Even if bikes slowed a few people's commute by a whole minute or two, they couldn't come close to the inefficiencies created by pure-automobile congestion. Again, you're holding bikers to some ridiculously perfect standard rather than asking for a modicum of sacrifice from car drivers. To suggest that we will have an epidemic of late workers simply because there's a few more bikers on the street is incomprehensibly idiotic. Pure automobile-based congestion is plenty able to waste thousands of man-hours a day without us needing to pin the blame on those few man-seconds wasted not killing your fellow citizen on a bike.

This is a question about what should be. It is a question about what we want the city to be, not what we feel obliged by the mistakes of the past to have it be.

It's not that bikes are incompatible with buses, pedestrians, and cars. It's that single occupancy cars are incompatible with buses, bikes, and pedestrians.

by Reid on Aug 5, 2009 2:36 pm • link • report

Have to chime in with the early commenters and say that, as I biker, I am usually highly impressed with the courtesy and attention that metrobus drivers pay to cyclists. The story told here is an exception to the rule. Bus drivers usually are more deferential to cyclists than we deserve, honestly.

by jeff gerhard on Aug 5, 2009 3:04 pm • link • report

Lance, I don't see how bikes "can't" follow the same rules as cars/buses. They can. There are, however, some exceptions to the rules that may make sense regarding bikes (e.g., Idaho stop). Others may not, such as the overtaking on the right rule.

by ah on Aug 5, 2009 3:26 pm • link • report

wow Lance, what are you smoking? Exactly _nothing_ in my post illustrates that bikes can't operate on roads with motorists. In fact, there is a bike statute to codify this very practice, which states, "1201.1 Every person who propels a vehicle by human power or who rides a bicycle on a highway shall have the same duties as any other vehicle operator under this title, except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter"

It then points out three very specific differences for bicyclists when operating on DC roads. there are similar differences for Motor bikes, and many more for commercial vehicles. Do you think we should ban either of those from the road?

Your argument is patently ridiculous. I've posted multiple links to DC statute and regulation that explicitly recognizes the value of _increasing_ the number of bicycles on the road. I've also pointed out where you were incorrect in your supposition that bicyclists are breaking laws. They are not, when they pass stationary vehicles. That is allowed under current law.

The way you set up these strawmen, I can see why your posts get derided so much.

by CJ on Aug 5, 2009 4:10 pm • link • report

AH,

Regarding the regulation of personal vehicles during rush hour, I'm only aware of one municipality that has regulated bikes on city streets, Beijing. But many many european cities limit the access of private automobiles. They do it in several ways, and a few of those methods would work just fine in DC. Athens doesn't restrict individual roads, but it has a permitting process for daytime, weekday vehicle operation in the city center. Why wouldn't that work here?

by CJ on Aug 5, 2009 4:14 pm • link • report

When I last lived in DC, I used to ride a bike a lot (I lived in Chinatown and didn't have a car). When I was in college, I drove transit buses for several years. Cyclists have an awful tendency to get really close to the right side of the bus and pass on that side when traffic is slow. There are two mirrors on the side of each bus: a fish eye for viewing traffic and a flat mirror that I almost always pointed down to see where my back tire was for the pivot (imagine turning the tight corners of DC 25 feet past when the driver's seat passed and you'll see why the mirror has to do that). When you're passing a bus on the right, look up at that fish eye to make sure you can see the driver -- if not he CAN'T see you. It scares the living bejesus out of you to see a bike come out of know where for the exact reason a lot of people are so indignant on this board: the driver knows you could have just gotten killed. Happened several times to me and once or twice it really pissed me off because the guy on the bike was being plain dumb.

by dino on Aug 5, 2009 4:20 pm • link • report

couple of things:

1. I biked through the intersection of Alabama of Pennsylvania SE today, as I do everyday. Only today, a horrible car accident had occurred (apparently in the presence of many DC health officials - go figure). Traffic was a complete mess, cops everywhere, jaws of life, like 300 ambulances, etc. I rode extremely cautiously down the remainder of Pennsylvania to the capitol.

2. Despite that, on 11th and K later on my commute I was being tailed by a guy in a pick up truck who was honking his horn and yelling at me because he wanted to beat the red light. feeling pressured, I ran the red light. I also dodged a group of pedestrians, one of whom looked like a DC activist type who screamed "share the road a**hole!" A warranted response to my intransigence. for sure.

3. Shaken up from both incidents, I remembered I had to stop at the starbucks on 7th and Penn to pick up a laptop from my roommate. Biking up 7th on the way home, I was nearly run over by a woman in a merecedes convertible on a cell phone as she cut into the bus/bike lane and ran a red light (for the umpteenth time).

4. I ran a red light at 7th and New York because there was no perpendicular traffic and, from experience, I know that running that red light is safer for me because I can slowly accelerate and take on the hill from New York to N at vehicular speed by the time the lights turn green and the stream of cars shoot up 7th.

5. I arrived home a complete mess.

Why did I relate this story to you? Well, for one, to express solidarity with the numerous bikers on this blog who have similar harrowing experiences every single day (solidarity, brothers and sisters!). and two, because I hope that this anecdote illustrates the realities of the car/bike relationship in DC for you non cyclists. Did I "break the law" without any reason to do so? Absolutely. Was I pressured to break it by cars looking to do the same? Absolutely. Did I see cars break the law? Of course! Either way, I hope you can understand why I did what I did (I'll do something similar tomorrow, no doubt).

Where people like Lance and I disagree is on the remedy. No situation will ever be perfect, but Lance's solution is to ban bikes. that's fine, but I can tell you that the laws will still be broken. I see it as a great example of why comprehensive, independent cycling infrastructure has emerged as a necessary component of any responsible city planning. Separate, but equal. Separate, dedicated lanes; equal, in that those lanes are created by chipping away at car sewers (which calms down traffic, as many studies have shown). Ultimately, we as a city and region have to ask ourselves whether we want to embrace multimodalism, and if we really believe that adding exclusive vehicular capacity is really the answer. It may be, but judging from what 495 probably looks like right now, I'd say bike free zones aren't necessarily going to be the bee's knees for the Hummer set.

So, /rant, have a great evening, everyone.

by JTS on Aug 5, 2009 5:54 pm • link • report

Speaking of reality, lets look at other cities where cars are a lower share of the transport mode vs those with high % of cars. LA has lots of freeways, lots of cars, and lots of people....stuck in jams, going nowhere.

Plenty of European cities have given higher priority to bikes and other forms of transportation, and the traffic is much better.

by SJE on Aug 5, 2009 8:27 pm • link • report

y experience is that the great majority of bus drivers are courteous. The ones that aren't, though - REALLY aren't. I have been abruptly cut off several times, i.e. riding in the bike lane at 15 mph or so and had to come to a screeching halt as the bus driver pulled over right in front of me, either vindictive or oblivious to the fact that there are often cyclists in the bike lane.

@Kevin (who thinks cyclists shouldn't be on 16th street) - I live on 16th street, so it's hard to avoid, especially as I have to go through Adams Morgan en route to work. I don't know what the volume of traffic on 14th is, but the flow is much less smooth, the clusterfuck around DCUSA at Park creates chaos, frustration, and rapidly accelerating vehicles, and the bike lane is a nice idea but seems to become the official "I'm just going to pull over and put my flashers on" lane during afternoon rush. 15th street is one-way, and there are no parallel through streets to the west since 18th dead ends at Columbia. So, yeah, 16th street wouldn't be my first choice for riding but I do need to get home!

by Erica on Aug 5, 2009 8:33 pm • link • report

SJE: Look at NYC -- best public transit of any city in the US, but traffic is still a mess. And London is no treat. And Beijing is chock-a-block with bikes, but a total traffic mess.

I don't think you have cause and effect closely connected.

by ah on Aug 5, 2009 8:40 pm • link • report

CJ-I'd like to understand the Athens approach, and the others. I'm familiar with London's core "tax/fee" and don't have a problem with it. And I'm familiar with lots of side/pedestrian streets in downtowns of Europe, but those are generally very small areas, kind of like blocking off the white house area.

by ah on Aug 5, 2009 8:42 pm • link • report

"No situation will ever be perfect, but Lance's solution is to ban bikes."

No, that is not my 'solution'. That is the topic I've opened up for discussion. My feelings are that by promoting increasing bike traffic in congested places like the Washington metro area, AND insisting on 'separate but equal' regs, cyclists are sure formula to inviting a ban. For many many reasons, bicyclists will always be a minority and not in any position to dictate 'how things should be.' Truely being a part of traffic, and acknowledging that someone in a 2 ton car will always carry more weight (no pun intended) is a far better way of ensuring that cyclists are free to use (nearly) all roads. Bring it to the level where the average motorist can drive through at normal speed enough of the time or where the average pedestrian can't safely cross a street without having to stop in their tracks for a cyclist crossing against a light or a stop sign, and you're sure to invite restrictions on the use of bicycles.

If I have a 'solution' for anything, it's for preserving the current liberties which bicyclists enjoy.

by Lance on Aug 5, 2009 10:19 pm • link • report

typo:

s/b: Bring it to the level where the average motorist canNOT drive through at normal speed enough of the time

by Lance on Aug 5, 2009 10:20 pm • link • report

"Was I pressured to break it by cars looking to do the same? Absolutely. Did I see cars break the law? Of course!"

Funny, we must be living in two different universes. Other than cabs (and yes buses), I rarely see motorists breaking the law here ... Unless you count those times that they yield to an errant bicyclist not ceeding a stop sign or red light. I think you're trying to justify your breaking the law on a regular basis. That's usually what law breakers do. They try to minimalize their actions by thinking 'but everyone breaks the law'. Well, sorry, but the vast bulk of motorists (unlike, sadly, a significant proportion of so-called 'cyclists') don't. And I say so-called, because they give a bad reputation to the rest of us. And truthfully, it is an American phenomenon ... the number of untrained and inconsiderate cyclists. Honestly, you don't see that in Europe. Motorists give cyclists respect there ... because every cyclist there, by and large, earns it. There's no trying to justify one's bad behavior.

by Lance on Aug 5, 2009 10:36 pm • link • report

Lance: that sounds like "windshield perspective" to me.

Do you know why motorists give cyclists respect in Europe? because cyclists are given huge amounts of infrastructure to support the habit. try driving in amsterdam; you get overrun by...wait, nothing. they are all in a huge, protected dedicated bike lanes with their own signals, so your car lanes are completely free of bikes, and motorists can travel with no problems. So you're right, you don't see that in Europe. You also don't see Alice Swanson situations in Europe either.

by JTS on Aug 5, 2009 10:46 pm • link • report

Lance, you don't see drivers break the law here? Huh, then I wonder who's paying that "nearly $1 billion" in speeding fines from 2005-2008?

by David C on Aug 5, 2009 10:59 pm • link • report

having had a bike practically pick me off while (legally) crossing Rhode Island Ave on the W side of Logan Circle today, I think it would help if the bikes followed the rules of the road.

by Rich on Aug 5, 2009 11:01 pm • link • report

unlike, sadly, a significant proportion of so-called 'cyclists'

What do mean by "so-called" and those scare quotes. What are they?

by цarьchitect on Aug 5, 2009 11:49 pm • link • report

@Lance who said "For many many reasons, bicyclists will always be a minority and not in any position to dictate 'how things should be."

The way "things should be" boil down to 2 rules: 1. Don't hold the actions of other cyclists or drivers against me, and 2. Don't TRY to kill me.

That bus driver on Pershing came at me with intent. I was on the right of a solid white line, putting me in a semi-empty parking lane. He veered over to scare me and then moved back towards the double yellow after he did so. Then he did the same thing to the cyclist 100 feet in front of me. He used his bus as a weapon. His motive is that we had already passed him twice (legally on the left) as he was pulled over for a stop. In his lack of training or inexperience (he was under 30) he probably perceived us as the reason why he was running two minutes late on his schedule.

Excuse me if my experience makes me think that your whole position on this is unfair, dictatorial, ignorant, and absurd.

by Brendan on Aug 6, 2009 7:50 am • link • report

Lance,

Look to the cities of Copenhagen (which in the 70s was as car-dependent as any US city is today), which now has a 33% bike mode share; 33% cars, and 33% mass transit. Amsterdam, too of course. And Paris -- who would have thought that cycling would become such a popular option in Paris? But it has. And one of the primary common factors among all of these cities (besides the excellent separated infrastructure planning that eliminates dangers like dooring and getting killed by right-turning drivers)is that the laws are written so that s/he who is operating the more lethal vehicle is the one liable for any accident. Thus, the cyclist is liable for injuries to the pedestrian; car for injuries to cyclist or pedestrian; truck or bus for injuries to car, cyclist, or pedestrian etc, regardless of who is at fault. Because of this, drivers are far more aware of other vehicles and people on the roads. Also, cell phone bans are in effect and are strictly enforced with hefty fines, unlike here in DC. On top of that, public school systems teach bicycle education classes to 8 year olds, and mandatory driver education classes include educating drivers on how to operate around cyclists, pedestrians, and bicycle infrastructure. On the of the biggest failings of our bike planners and bike advocates who want to increase bike infrastructure and mode share is that they expect drivers to automatically know the rules governing the newly painted bike lanes and symbols indicating a shared road. Without some sort of public education campaign, we will continue to have these hostilities between drivers and cyclists.

European cities have shown that bikes and cars can co-exist peacefully, with exponentially lower accident, injury, and death rates than here in the US. But they didn't do it just by slapping down some infrastructure; they engaged the legal system, produced public awareness and education campaigns, and involved the school systems and neighborhood associations.

by Ellen on Aug 6, 2009 9:57 am • link • report

Ellen, you make some great points. I have mixed feelings though about holding liable the operator of the more lethal vehicle irregardless of fault. This could lead to some very irresponsible behavior on the part of 'less lethal' vehicles. For example, a bicyclist could engage in illegal behavior such as running a traffic light ... since it'll be the motorist who (unjustly) gets blamed for something they couldn't avoid. I'm also not sure the situation you describe is 'progress'. It sounds very similar to what the French experienced directly after 'the War' ... during what were lean and economically depressed years. I remember my grandparents expressing their joy when they would visit back in France in the 70s that people weren't 'stuck on bikes any more, but could afford cars instead.' And I assure you that those with the means continue to use cars. This whole social engineering that is going on there works on the premise that 'we have only so much space for cars, so let's reserve for those with the means, and make everyone else second class citizens ... having to use mass transit and bikes.'

So, I agree with the gist of what you said about training. That is absolutely essential, and what we are missing here. I just don't think government involvement in who should be eligible to drive and who is forced to ride transit (or bike) is a good thing. We should all be afforded the opportunity to have the flexibility and reach that only the motorized personal vehicle affords. It's only right and fair.

by Lance on Aug 6, 2009 10:46 am • link • report

Why stop at cars? I think everyone should have the opportunity to have the flexibility and reach that only a helicopter can afford. It's only right and fair. When I see everyone flying around DC in their own personal helicopter, then I'll know that we've achieved a truly egalitarian society. Tear out the roads and put in heliports I say!

by David C on Aug 6, 2009 10:50 am • link • report

AH: I agree that the existence of bikes etc does not make traffic better, per se. My point is that making it effectively car-only doesnt solve the problem of traffic, as LA shows. Thus, to move more people faster, you need them to take less space: car pool, smaller car, transit, walk, bike, motorbike, etc.

by SJE on Aug 6, 2009 11:03 am • link • report

Lance,

Please do your research on those who are cycling in Paris. The statistics belie your assertion. It is not only the "second class" citizens, but precisely that part of the population that you would classify as the 'first class' citizens (professionals, cadres, government bureaucrats) who would otherwise be in cars, and stuck in traffic. With the upgraded infrastructure and massive public education campaign, Parisians of all income levels are finding that it is more efficient, less stressful, and less expensive (yes, even those first class citizens do watch their wallets) to ride bikes. All of postwar Europe, not just France, went car crazy in the 1960s and early 1970s, thanks to the Marshall Plan and reconstruction of industries, and the American example. More people could indeed afford cars, until the oil shock of the 70s caused oil shortages, the cost of individual transportation to skyrocket, and the car industry to collapse. Subsequent concern about energy independence and pollution led most of these cities to pursue alternatives to the car, via light rail, undergrounds, and dense urban cores. In the European cities of the 60s, it was still possible to travel by car within a city relatively quickly and with minimal traffic jams except at rush hour. When I lived in Paris 20 years ago, during rush hour it was impossible to go 2 miles in Paris in less than 30 minutes by car. 10 years ago? That trip could easily take 50 minutes.

So, don't bill this as an elitist issue.

In addition, the European laws of 'the one with the most lethal vehicle is responsible' work because no cyclist, unless they are suicidal, are going to willingly throw themselves in front of a car because 'it doesn't matter, it'll be his fault'. Who cares whose fault it is if you've been maimed or killed? The instinct of self-preservation is a powerful thing. Conversely, a driver protected by a ton or two of steel or fiberglass is less worried about getting injured in a run-in with a bicycle and thus having an 'incentive' for them not to have an accident has proven quite effective.

by Ellen on Aug 6, 2009 11:09 am • link • report

"This whole social engineering that is going on there works on the premise that 'we have only so much space for cars, so let's reserve for those with the means, and make everyone else second class citizens."

I can understand this line of thinking. I know that many use this as grounds to oppose the gas tax and congestion charging. Despite what people say, in many ways they are regressive taxes that impact the poor first (assuming, of course, that the poor have similar living patterns as the rich, which they don't).

Just remember that social engineering is a fact of life, both here and in Paris, Dakar, wherever. Nowhere is it written that the natural evolution of modern man will place him in an environment that makes him completely reliant on sophisticated engineering and thousands of pounds of metal. The modern transporation infrastructure we have today is based entirely on decades of federal land grants, subsidies, 'cash for clunkers,' and land ownership policies that often had more than one impact (highways = decentralization of population/military in the event of a nuclear attack from Soviets; 'cash for clunkers' = cash infusion to auto companies to induce R&D spending, cash infusion to dealerships to mitigate unemployment). Either way, they too are forms of social engineering. If congress can see the wisdom in killing the F-22 program because it was designed for an adversary that no longer exists, perhaps its time we revisit transportation policies that were, in many ways, engineered by the Pentagon 50 years ago.

But I believe it is far more preferable to plan (engineer) a society where people are not required to invest tens of thousands of dollars in their own personal mobility. Sure, they are welcome to, but I would venture to guess that most people today would welcome a suburbia with easy walkable access to goods, jobs and services. I know those in the city would welcome an 'engineered' environment that moved people most efficiently in the cleanest fashion possible.

So yes, call it social engineering, call it development policies, call it what you will. This isn't new to America.

by JTS on Aug 6, 2009 11:30 am • link • report

Other than cabs (and yes buses), I rarely see motorists breaking the law here ... Unless you count those times that they yield to an errant bicyclist not ceeding a stop sign or red light.
What alternate DC universe are you living in where the majority of drivers never exceed the speed limit - never double park - never drive in a marked bus or bike lane - always stop at a yellow light when it is safe to do so - and yield politely every single time to pedestrians in the crosswalk? Please, tell me how to move to this magical wonderland, because I would like to do my commuting there!

As for We should all be afforded the opportunity to have the flexibility and reach that only the motorized personal vehicle affords
I work on Embassy Row, which is poorly served by transit. My building lacks sufficient parking for everyone who works there and there is no private parking nearby. If bicycles are not included in DC's transport planning mix, then I am forced to buy a car and park it... um... somewhere? (at great cost if it were available at all) and do not have the "opportunity" to use the mode of transportation best suited to my circumstances and FREE of cost. I have only the "opportunity" to spend thousands of dollars a year on a second-best solution. It is not always true that cars provide the most flexibility and reach. Providing too much opportunity for cars takes away opportunity for other forms of transport.

by Erica on Aug 6, 2009 11:57 am • link • report

My two cents is that most metro busdrivers have been very courteous to me on my bike, even though I am probably an annoyance to them, makign them wait until I clear hte bus stop pedaling slowly uphill, sneaking up on them on both sides, etc. One did squeeze me because I was trying to pass on the right and I fell briefly. HE stopped his bus, got out, and filled out an accident report. I begged him not to because I was fine adn the bike was fine, but he insisted and I had to wait there for an hour until his supervisor came. I guess he acted professionally. So overall, they are pretty good.

We cyclists do need to recognize that they have limited sight lines and act accordingly.

Restricting cyclists from certain roads during certain times when there is a parallel safer alternate route seems reasonable, but that should be done very judiciously. Most of it is self-enforced. I avoid Mass Ave NW (between covnention center and Dupont) at all costs during commuting hours, even though the diagonal would be faster. It's just death on cyclists.

Still, I like David T's post about bannings cars! We need a tongue slightly in cheek icon for those who take everything too seriously.

by Ward 1 Guy on Aug 6, 2009 11:59 am • link • report

Erica, Are you suggesting that a bicycle could be a commuting alternative to you here all year round? Unlike Europe, you'll maybe have 2 - 3 months in the Spring and 2 - 3 months in the Fall where it is neither too cold to ride, or to hot to prevent you from showing up at work smelling offensively to all. For the average person, full time reliance on a bike for commuting purpose isn't possible ... And I'm not even touching on the externalities created for all other commuters by slow moving, and too oftentimes non-law abiding, bicyclists ...

by Lance on Aug 6, 2009 12:14 pm • link • report

Lance,

Again, do your research. Danes cycle in all extremes of weather, and yes, even in the cold and snow. It's a question of having the appropriate clothing, not to mention infrastructure in place (in Copenhagen, the bike lanes get plowed first, then the streets). That infrastructure here in DC could include showers at workplaces so that employees can clean up after cycling to work in the DC heat and humidity. On top of that, commuter cycling at a reasonable speed will not produce the smelly co-worker you seem to be so afraid of; gonzo speed cycling will. Also, as our winters are milder on average, in terms of precipitation, than either the Netherlands or Denmark, or Germany, the 'you can't cycle for 2-3 months in winter' argument simply doesn't hold water.

If Erica's most economical and efficient means of transportation to get to work is the bicycle, then why shouldn't she be afforded the same infrastructure requirements that car drivers are afforded? (yes, we subsidize the roads, parking spaces, etc, although most Americans think roads are a God-given, not taxpayer-given, right).

by Ellen on Aug 6, 2009 12:23 pm • link • report

Yes biking is a solution all year long. It does not get too cold to bike - you just need warmer clothes. I do it. It does not get too hot - I take a shower before work.

Slow-moving? In congestion where a slow moving vehicle might be a problem, bikes usually move faster than cars. As for non-law abiding bicyclists, the externalities create by them are far lower (in total and per capita) than those created by the non-law abiding drivers - which are at least as common if not more so.

by David C on Aug 6, 2009 12:25 pm • link • report

Lance --

I bike year round, except on days when it's icy (and I don't like to ride in the rain but I will, depending). Nothing prevents it. If you worry about smell, ride slower, you won't sweat as much. Or get more bikestation facilities with showers (oh, the DC bikestation won't have showers...).

If you wear the right clothes (including face protection) it doesn't get that cold either. I don't like it when it's in the teens but it is definitely doable without going to great lengths to add clothes--although not wearing a face mask is uncomfortable on downhill runs (i.e., North Capitol southbound past Harewood Street towards Michigan Ave.)

I like riding in the snow because drivers, especially SUV drivers feel so empowered by their big vehicles, when instead, it's better for bicyclists because automobile drivers are so afraid of the snow that they don't drive to begin with, making the road far more open...

Rather than tell other people how to do stuff, why don't you challenge some of your own beliefs, and travel differently (i.e., on bicycle) as an experiment...

Many average people could rely on bicycling for a majority of their daily trips, provided they choose where they work and where they live carefully (I am willing to ride 7-10 miles maximum to conduct a trip), supplemented and complemented by transit. Not being willing to try is something else entirely.

P.S. while I think the situation described in this entry is terrible and the driver should be reprimanded and/or fired, generally I think that WMATA bus drivers have one of the toughest jobs around--driving and sometimes having to manage unruly passengers, in situations with little or any support. I know it's a job that I would be terrible at and one that I appreciate--so I always try to thank the driver when I leave the bus.

by Richard Layman on Aug 6, 2009 12:30 pm • link • report

Erica, Are you suggesting that a bicycle could be a commuting alternative to you here all year round?

Yep, I've been a bike commuter since I moved to the DC area five years ago - all year round. My commutes have ranged from 3 miles to 10. I am lucky enough to have an enlightened employer that provides showers at work. As for the cold, it's really not that bad as long as you dress appropriately. DC doesn't have slick ice-covered streets or foot-deep snowbanks in winter so it is safe enough.

Occasionally, if it's truly miserable out, I will choose to take a cab. This is maybe 20 times/year so the cost is far less than maintaining, parking, and fueling a car for the whole year, just to service that small minority of awful days.

My commute is either on wide streets with plenty of passing room, bike lanes, or streets where the speed of traffic during rush hour is about 5 miles an hour, so I'm definitely not slowing anyone down. Provoking envy because I can pass them while I'm in the bike lane and they're stuck behind another 5,000 cars, yes.

I am not super athletic or exceptional in any way. I just grew up in places where bike commuting is normal. I don't think it's right for everyone, but it's right for more people than they know. Try it, it is not as scary as it seems. :)

by Erica on Aug 6, 2009 1:14 pm • link • report

If Richard Layman and Erica's comments fell in love, got married and had kids, that would be my opinion (I don't think for myself ever)

So, bike lanes!! (Slow day at work) Look at how all of these streets are free of bikes!! Cars can ride together unimpeded by pesky cyclists.

1. Kobnhavn,(2), (3, note that it is plowed and adjacent to BRT),(4)

2. St. Petersburg, Florida

3. Paris, (2), (A Bus-Bike Lane, the way 7th Street NW must look to be effective)

Can DC DDOT bigwigs reading this thread want to take these for a frame of reference from now on, please? please? (shot taken on G St NW)

GGW community: have any other good ones?

by JTS on Aug 6, 2009 1:16 pm • link • report

@lance

1) Why the continued focus on abiding laws. I'd wager that most every automobile driver breaks a law every time they get in their car. Are you also posting in every car related story about how they should be banned for not abiding by the laws? And yes, I stand by my theory that just about every motorist rolls through a stop sign or exceeds the speed limit every single time they drive their car.

2) Many of us ride our bikes year-round. More people that you would probably imagine do not own a car at all. For us, we're not out for a leisurely stroll. This is how we get to work, buy groceries, and get our kids to the park. The idea of banning bicycles, which have had road access longer than cars have, is unreasonable.

by JeffS on Aug 6, 2009 3:10 pm • link • report

Who cares? Bikers are liberal snobs who think that just because they're making an "enlightened" and "eco-savvy" decision to ditch their cars that everyone else must bow down to them. Forget that.

by Quinn on Aug 6, 2009 4:42 pm • link • report

JTS, I wish I had a dime for every commercial vehicle double parked in a bike lane. I've never stopped to take their picture though.

by Ward 1 Guy on Aug 6, 2009 5:49 pm • link • report

yes, Quinn, me and my 150 dollar bike are elitist and I am a snob because I want to make it easier for people to not have to go thousands of dollars in debt to own a car that has a life expectancy that is about 1/3 of the average bike. We really hate the unenlightened peasantry because they drive. I am so snobby because I see a correlation between our defense priorities and auto dependence, and wish to change that.

that's it. you see right through me and the ten percent of americans who don't drive to work every day.

@Ward 1 guy: dc.mybikelane.com a little much, but pretty funny. I'm not a contributor

by JTS on Aug 6, 2009 6:03 pm • link • report

America is full of fat lazy people who would rather drive 2 blocks to the corner store to purchase/steal a pack of cigarettes/beer/pop than throw their leg over a bicycle,, or should I dare say, WALK.

I would be willing to bet $ that the inconsiderate bus driver falls into this stereotype as easily as Lance does, correct, Lance?

Cash for Clunkers, what a friggen waste of resources, just like 50% of the humans wandering this planets surface.

Task for all to do today: Ask sveral motorists that you know this question, "Are you a bad driver?" Again I will bet $ that 99% say NO. With that many good drivers in this country its amazing that there needs to be rules of the road/traffic courts/liability insurance/traffic cops/etc.

Cage drivers suck/blow

by Ron on Aug 7, 2009 2:25 pm • link • report

I think bike riders need to be a little more understanding about how traffic works. The needs of the many (those riding the bus) do outweigh the needs of that one bicyclist who wants to have special treatment on the rode. Cyclists need to follow all the rules of the road that cars are bound to, they also need to realize that there simply may be some roads and routes that ought not to be traveled during rush hour. Take side streets or something! I've seen cyclist after cyclist go through lanes, even run red lights, and a few that have nearly taken me out (as a pedestrian)--so I'm really not all that sympathetic to their complaints about a few rude bus drivers.

by Matthew on Oct 14, 2009 9:21 pm • link • report