Wow, I predict this article will get absolutely no comments. /sarcasm

by Michael Perkins on Jan 22, 2010 10:25 am • link • report

There is too much sidewalk bicycle riding in Adams Morgan. So in places with heavy pedestrian traffic, I would be against it. As with downtown of course.

by Jazzy on Jan 22, 2010 10:33 am • link • report

Interesting points. Minor quibble: Is there really a need for DC to ban cul-de-sacs? I'm too lazy to check, but are there even any plans to put them in?

by TimK on Jan 22, 2010 11:06 am • link • report

Not to troll here, but has GGW ever discussed a cyclist code of conduct toward pedestrians? I've noticed that on sidewalks some (of course, not all) cyclists adopt the mentality of "I can go faster, get out of my way" which is just the attitude that cyclists object to in motorists.

by Steve S on Jan 22, 2010 11:22 am • link • report

I agree that using a hands-free device can be almost as distracting as holding a phone, but how would one enforce a law that made using hands-free devices illegal? Many cars have them built in these days.

by John on Jan 22, 2010 11:30 am • link • report

I agree with Steve S. Even though a bell never prevented me from getting hit, it does serve as a warning to pedestrians and other bikes on a sidewalk or trail when I am approaching them from behind. Perhaps requiring bike riders that use the sidewalk to have a bell would be an idea?

by Teo on Jan 22, 2010 11:53 am • link • report

Ok, I'll bite:

* 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10: Ok

* 6: Bells are important as a warning sign to other bikers and pedestrians. They are way easier to detect than "passing on the ..." fieushhhh.

*9: This is a non issue.

*11: I'd propose to just let these kinds of things fall under negligent driving in general. Just as car drivers can't use electronics, neither should bikers. Sorry folks no music while biking!

*12: This is a bad idea. Bikers do not belong on the side walk. They should preferably have their own lanes, but if those are absent, bikers should be able to mix safely with cars. If only because sidewalks are way narrower than the car-part of the road.

by Jasper on Jan 22, 2010 12:04 pm • link • report

There are a few culs-de-sac in DC. Banning them probably wouldn't change anything, but you never know what is coming down the pipe.

It may be difficult to enforce a hands-free law until after an incident when records can be checked, but even that should serve as a deterrent. Even making it illegal and never enforcing it will dissuade some drivers from doing it.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 12:04 pm • link • report

Regarding #11: I understand the impulse behind this, but it creates a situation of uncertainty that is dangerous.

My complaint as a driver about bikes jumping stoplights, blowing through stop signs, etc. has a lot more to do with behavioral predictability than with some kind of slavish, principled insistence that everyone follow the law for the sake of following the law.

My goal as a driver is to not hit any bicyclists. Because if I hit them, I'm going to hurt them ... I know that. And it worries the hell out of me, because I don't want anyone to be hurt, and I sure don't want to go through the rest of my life knowing that I hurt/killed someone on a bike.

If everyone follows the rules of the road (stops at stop signs, waits at red lights, etc.) then we'll achieve maximum predictability of every vehicle's behavior, which minimizes the chance that any two vehicles will collide.

On the other hand, if we say "well, bicyclists can choose when to stop at stop signs and when to roll through them" and we decriminalize the act of rolling through them, then there will no longer be an identificable pattern of behavior. Every single cyclist will be making his/her own decision in the moment about whether to stop or whether to roll, and I won't be able to predict what's going to happen and adjust my behavior to accommodate it. That does *not* enable me to drive safely!

I know that it's safer for bikes to have a head start at a stoplight, and I understand why. But if I'm rolling into that intersection from the crossways direction, and I can't predict whether the bike is going to stop, roll-stop, or not stop at all, that leaves me unable to make a safe decision.

Maybe we need a law that *requires* bikes to treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs. At least that way the bikes' actions would be predictable and we drivers would be better able to drive safely in their presence.

by mccxxiii on Jan 22, 2010 12:20 pm • link • report

re: 12 - while there may be non-urban areas where sidewalk cycling is a good idea, for the most part its dangerous to pedestrians (and cars, who may not see a bicyclist about to shoot onto the street in their path). That said, has any jurisdiction experimented with above-road (i.e. sidewalk level) bike lanes?

by grumpy on Jan 22, 2010 12:22 pm • link • report

@grumpy

Near MIT in Cambridge, MA there are above-road bike lanes that are clearly marked. That didn't prevent my girlfriend getting hit by a van turning into a driveway as she was biking past.

Also, while I wish I could feel safe biking down Columbia Pike in Arlington on the road, too many drivers speed, the road itself is in pretty awful condition, and the frequent bus stops are all hazards that make me feel more comfortable biking on the sidewalk during rush hour.

by Teo on Jan 22, 2010 12:26 pm • link • report

Question about sidewalk riding: what rules do bikes have to follow when they are on the sidewalk?

I find this seems to be a constant source of confusion. When I'm on a bike on the sidewalk I yield to pedestrians when necessary and watch out for them in general. Many others seem to think that you can ride as fast as you can on the street and walkers should get the hell out of your way.

Also, as grumpy pointed out, crosswalks aren't always designed so that cars should be able to see someone coming down the sidewalk at 15MPH, and you can't always see from the sidewalk what is going on on a perpendicular road. Clearer rules about biking on the sidewalk would be good.

by MLD on Jan 22, 2010 12:32 pm • link • report

I believe cyclists should have the right to decide what they consider "safe". I think its unfair to force bicycles to ride on the busy streets of DC if they don't feel comfortable doing it. There have been many times in downtown DC where I've rode on the sidewalk because I just don't trust the motor vehicles on the road to not kill me. Those areas also tend to have absurdly large side walks that make it really easy to stay mostly out of the way of people walking (yes, even during rush hour, you just need to slow down). If you are going to ban bikes from sidewalks it makes more sense to ban them in small neighborhoods where the sidewalks are narrow. Additionally, I'd like to point out that most biker/walker confrontations could easily be solved/avoided with a little common courtesy from both parties. Some of these laws just shouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately, maybe they are.

by Cody on Jan 22, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report

Banning bicycles from sidewalks in central DC was a 1960's era mistake- there should never be such a ban in place unless there is dedicated and auto-protected bikeways in place FIRST.

On the weekends, many downtown sidewalks are empty. At the very least the ban should not include weekends.

The city has really done very very little to build or put in place new bike lanes- except on rather out of the way streets. IN DC the main roads and avenues do not have bicycle lanes and there is only 1 dedicated auto protected bikeway in all of DC.

The continued banning bikes in the downtown business district is a ridiculous idea- and those - especially cyclists- who continue to support this obsolete rule are all on the side of vehicular cycling- and not everyday practical cycling. Ridning fast and " sharing the road" is the ever repeated mantra of the daredevil aggressive male racing and athletic cyclists who have stymied progressive bicycle changes in DC and elsewhere- they seem to fear that if dedicated cycling infrastructure is put into place they will be forced to use it and will not be able to go fast.
Too bad- no cyclists should ever have any NEED AT ALL to go fast in a civilized city with adequate cycling tracks apart from car traffic and safe for pedestrians.

Pedestrians would be safe if dedicated bikeways are put into place. The only people that will be upset are the bike racers/athlete types and some of the Virginia car commuters.

I couldn't care less about athletic cyclists in the city or car commuters.

by w on Jan 22, 2010 12:38 pm • link • report

@MLD, cyclists on the sidewalk have to yield to pedestrians and cannot create a hazard. They can't exceed the posted speed limit on the roadway or ride at an unsafe speed. They can't suddenly leave the sidewalk in front of a moving car.

@w, re: going fast on a bicycle. See this.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 12:45 pm • link • report

@w

And I don't care if you couldn't care less about athletic cyclists and car commuters. I think everyone who uses the road should be heard, and their points of view considered. Once you've heard their points of view, at least you can attempt to make a rational decision about whether or not to ignore them, but you need to at least take them into consideration.

by yip yap on Jan 22, 2010 12:52 pm • link • report

The emphasis rather than being on sidewalks should be on roads and putting all options on the table for making cycling safer for roadway cycling. It is just not safe to pedestrians to ride on the sidewalk. It's especially unsafe for small children and the elderly.

by Jazzy on Jan 22, 2010 12:58 pm • link • report

OK Jazzy, just how many pedestrians each year are injured/killed by sidewalk cyclists? If cyclists and pedestrians can't share space, which group do you feel should get off local trails like the Mt. Vernon trail? Is all sidewalk cycling dangerous, or are there areas where it makes sense? How long will it take until every road has the facilities you prescribe and what should cyclists do in the interim?

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 1:01 pm • link • report

when I cycle on a sidewalk- as I have been doing in DC for my entire lifetime, I always use a bell, and I never go fast, and always give the pedestrians the right of way.

Bike racers and aggressive males athletic cyclers seldom have bells on their bikes and they are almost always impatient and in a hurry. Iam in favor of a speed limit on sidewalk cycling.

I have no problem with that.

But the best thing would be to have separated bicycle tracks like they have overseas.

Too bad the commentors on this blog and other blogs remain ignorant or closed minded about these possibilities.

they seem to work very well whenever I have had the chance to go to Germany, Holland, or Denmark.

by w on Jan 22, 2010 1:04 pm • link • report

@ w: And how many people did you see biking on the sidewalk in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands?

Nobody: It is against the law.

The sidewalk is for pedestrians. That's even reflected in the word for sidewalk in Dutch and German. Voetpad and Fußweg, resp. Footpath. In French it's trottoir. You can recognize the verb to trot in there, which is definitively related to stepping, not rolling.

by Jasper on Jan 22, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report

When I reach my destination and I cannot just roll right up to the door, I get off my bike and walk it on the sidewalk. I do this too whenever I am going on a one way street. I get off the bike and walk it for that stretch on the sidewalk.

Sidewalk cycling isn't dangerous when there are no pedestrians present obviously. Not sure what you meant by that question.

Not cycling on the sidewalk is not all that hard.

Cyclists have ruined the experience of walking several trails for pedestrians, bell or no bell.

by Jazzy on Jan 22, 2010 1:37 pm • link • report

Well, look at that:

http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2010/hb752/fulltext/

VA republican legislator proposes allowing bicycles, mopeds and motorcycles to proceed on a red light if the way is clear and they've been at a full stop for 120 seconds.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 22, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report

Too bad the commentors on this blog and other blogs remain ignorant or closed minded about these possibilities.

I think you forgot one possibility: skeptical about its chance of getting funded.

I'm all for a *comprehensive* set of segregated bicycle paths that go everywhere one could possibly wish to go, as efficiently as a comparable trip on the existing roadways.

I'd also like an orchard of trees from which grow chocolate eclairs instead of lemons. Until either of those look likely to appear, I'll be buying my eclairs from the bakery, and riding to work on the road.

(btw, by riding on the sidewalk, you're not mitigating risk, you're just transferring it from you to pedestrians.)

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report

Jasper

you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT !!!

The bicycle tracks are almost ALWAYS on the sidewalks in all of these countries.If they are not, then there is usually a curb to separate the bikes from the cars.
Your knee-jerk comment is so TYPICAL it just isn't funny anymore.

You obviously have NEVER been to any of these places or you are just trolling.

by w on Jan 22, 2010 1:49 pm • link • report

Oboe

I never cause accidents on the sidewalks

as I said earlier- I have cycling on the sidewalks in DC my entire life.

EVERY vehicular cyclist I have ever known has been involved in a bicycle accident- most of the time with cars.

Americans need to wake up and study the success stories overseas and get their minds out of the gutters on this issue.

by w on Jan 22, 2010 1:52 pm • link • report

I never cause accidents on the sidewalks...

I mean this in the least contentious way possible--and I'm sure you're a skilled sidewalk cyclist--but I've heard the same line of arguments from drunk drivers.

I think it's pretty obvious there's an understood increase in risk to pedestrians, otherwise, there'd be no cycle-tracks, just sidewalks.

Like I said though, I've got no small-minded animosity towards your dream of cycle-tracks. Let me know when your funding comes up for a vote, and I'll hold a sign.

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 2:00 pm • link • report

I've recently moved to Bethesda, MD. Does anyone know who I should contact to send this list of recommendations to and who I should complain to about how dangerous Wisconsin Avenue is in the Bethesda Central Business District?

Thanks!

by James on Jan 22, 2010 2:04 pm • link • report

@ Michael P., 120 seconds seems like an eternity when you're waiting. There are intersection lights longer then 120 seconds?

by Bianchi on Jan 22, 2010 2:10 pm • link • report

#6-Equipment- Should a rear view mirror be required for bicycles? Currently, they are not. And a lot of cyclists who use mirrors have the mirror attached to their helmet or glasses. I use a convex (wide angle) mirror attached to the left end of my handlebar, I won't ride without it. I would suggest that rear view mirrors be made mandatory. But the Laws seem to imply that it's the motorist's responsibility to watch where his car is going...

#9-Two abreast riding- Sometimes a bicyclist is passing another bicyclist, and one of them strikes up a conversation. This is what's known as a Social Pleasantry. Motorists have their sound-proof cars, and have no idea. It is very rude to interrupt a conversation.

The drivers should learn to remember that the speed limit is the maximum speed allowed, and not the minimum. Ninety nine percent of cyclists have a car, but it always seems to be the case that when a motorist causes a problem, that said motorist has never ridden a bicycle. There's an old saying:"try walking a mile in the other mans shoes", well, try riding a bike yourself before you tell other people how to ride.

Novice cyclists: You all need to learn that the old pro cyclists have stronger muscles, and a lot more experience than you do. You might not be ready to make the left turn from the left turn only lane. Stop, dismount, and walk the bike through the crosswalks. I know, it takes three minutes, whereas the old pro made the left turn and was out of sight in five seconds.

There are a lot of websites that discuss bicycle safety.

by James Donohue on Jan 22, 2010 2:13 pm • link • report

Bianchi,

If I'm not mistaken this sounds like one of the new breed of "cyclist-friendly" laws that decriminalize running one of those "automatic" red-lights. That's the kind that only change when you're in a car.

by oboe on Jan 22, 2010 2:14 pm • link • report

the reason that we have no cycle tracks on the sidewalks is because our planners have not been up on what planners have been doing overseas for many decades- and it has been a huge success.

The injury rate for cyclists and for pedestrians in countries like Holland, Germany, and Denmark is a FRACTION of what it is in the USA, Australia, and the UK- where few places have dedicated cycling infrastructure.

These 3 continental countries also have a much much larger mode share of cyclists- and of walkers- than does the 3 English speaking and more car-oriented countries.

As far as money is concerned- think of how much money we are spending on health care for obese people who are too afraid [ rightly so] to cycle because it is almost universally seen as ben a DANGEROUS SPORT in the USA.

Also- go to No Virginia and see how much money we throw away on mixing bowls for yet more cars- and the ICC- which has no bicycle path alongside of it- because of ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We can spent thru the nose on all of these huge mega road projects and think nothing of it- but when it comes to a measley amount for separated bike paths- like they have in a POOR country like China- we somehow all think it is too expensive

by w on Jan 22, 2010 2:19 pm • link • report

@ w: You obviously have NEVER been to any of these places or you are just trolling.

How about growing up in the Netherlands for the first 29 years of my life. I never owned a bike there. I biked and transited everywhere. I lived within 20 km from the Belgian and German borders for 21 of those 29 years.

How long have you been there?

@ Bianchi: Yes. Try turning left out of the Giant parking lot on to VA-123 in Lorfax Heights.

by Jasper on Jan 22, 2010 2:48 pm • link • report

I never owned a bike there.
I never owned a car there.

Sorry. I was overwhelmed by laughing at w's certainty of my absence in the Low Lands.

by Jasper on Jan 22, 2010 2:50 pm • link • report

@James Donoahoe, I've tried the rear view mirrors. On my helmet they made me queasy and on my handlebar they weren't useful. I often spent several seconds staring at it trying to see what was behind me. If they work for you great, but for me they either make me sick or more dangerous.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 3:22 pm • link • report

For those who are curious, you can find pictures of commenter "W" here and here.

Holland, Germany and Denmark (oh and why you got leave out the Danish??) have lower rate for a variety of reasons. Dedicated infrastructure is just one them. Also, those numbers are consistent throughout the country, including non-urban areas that lack such infrastructure.

DC is planning for these type of facilities. 15th St. is just the beginning. Your ranting about macho/sport/male/road bike cyclists isn't helping build the goodwill that is needed to rally other cyclists to push for implementation. So really, pretty please, STFU already. Its getting very tired.

And for what its worth, your riding on the sidewalk is statistically more dangerous than mixing with auto traffic. Most crashes occur at intersections. Riding on the sidewalk puts you in a much more vulnerable position at intersections. And as other commenters have suggested, its a hazard and inconvenience to pedestrians. The same people we need as allies in helping get the type of facilities you feel are so desperately needed.

by jeff on Jan 22, 2010 3:34 pm • link • report

Jeff

You seem sort of malicious in your comments.
The idea of posting pictures of me online tells me something about your intent.
You are not interested in a civil discussion of the issue at hand- and you seem to be out to slander me.
I for one- do not wish anyone harm or hurt on this blog or any other venue.

Perhaps you could get a hold of John Pucher's study or read up on what Anne Lusk of Harvard School of Public Health has to say on dedicated separated bike facilities before you attack me personally .

I have had many run ins with very aggressive bike racers on the various trails in this area, and on the streets of DC. They are not particularly concerned about slowing down or considering others in their mad dash for speed.In addition to this- I have seen some awful accidents involving , again, mostly younger guys on racing bikes.

You might feel the same way when one these creeps sideswipes you on the Mount Vernon trail. I hope that it never happens to you.

by w on Jan 22, 2010 3:43 pm • link • report

Jeff

OK

I get it- the pictures are of the Simpsons character and a broken record.

Jasper- I absolutely do not believe that you have ever lived in Holland by the way that you talk. No one that I have ever known who has lived there has your mentality.

Henry Cutler, who owns Workbikes in Amsterdam, is a friend of mine and a big advocate of separating bikes from cars.

There is simply no other way around this issue.
You naysayers who want all of us to bike with the cars like John Forrester espouses can talk about this until you are blue in the face- and you will wind up a smear in the road one day when a suburban soccer mom in an SUV runs you down.

It happens in the USA a lot more than it should.

We could change this if only the people who plan for cyclists get out of their cars and off of their racing bikes and get onto practical everyday sit up posture bikes built for comfort and everyday usage.

Speed Kills !!!

by w on Jan 22, 2010 3:50 pm • link • report

W,

I am sorry you dislike bike racers.

But I don't understand your insistence that *anyone* who disagrees with you or wants to ride on the road must be a young male on a racing bike yearning to go superfast. This is simply not true (just ride down Columbia Road in Adams Morgan at rush hour to see all genders, fitness levels, clothing styles and bike types in the road) and you look foolish denying the reality of clear examples to the contrary.

By the way, jeff's links are only pictures of you metaphorically. :)

by Erica on Jan 22, 2010 4:00 pm • link • report

Erica

the truth is- and there are studies to prove this- that the sheer majority of cyclists in the USA are male .

This is not the case overseas.

I know what is real- and I go to Europe every year and I see it.

No need to lecture me about this.

Sad fact is- the USA is light years behind other civilized nations on cycling and how to make it safer.

by w on Jan 22, 2010 4:11 pm • link • report

I have read Pucher. I've even helped provide data for his work. His papers (and you shouldn't leave out his often co-author Buehler) go beyond just dedicated cycletracks, but also looks at policies, education programs and most recently- access to transit. Those facilities- and the related studies- don't exist in a vacuum, it takes much much more than that to build a bicycle culture of the levels that you speak of. And frankly, Germany's infrastructure isn't as well regarded as you cite. Pointing to Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Malmo or Odense would give your arguement a bit more teeth.

I have dealt with "idiot aggressive racer" on the paths, along with doddling, swerving newbie cyclists blocking the whole path. I'll take both 10 fold over aggressive drivers any day. What you're failing to see is that the people you criticize are your allies in getting the infrastructure you want. You should treat them as such. We're not stupid for not agreeing with you lock, stock and barrel everytime you bring up cycletracks on posts THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INFRASTRUCTURE OR STREET DESIGN.

If you live in DC, go to your councilmembers or ANC reps when there is street redesign projects that include these kind of facilities and voice your support. If you live outside the city, when we get them go to your elected officials and point to DC's great work. You'll get a lot further than moaning about how much better European designs are. In the meantime, I suggest signing up for one of WABA's Confident City Cycling classes. It will help show you riding in the street doesnt' have to be unsafe. Even in Copenhagen you sometimes have to share the road.

by jeff on Jan 22, 2010 4:12 pm • link • report

w, I'm reluctant to even weigh in here, because now I sound like a broken record, but I suspect much of the opposition to what you say stems from how you stating it. For example:

1. You seem to want to exclude many cyclists from the cause. Those who are athletic cyclists can be a powerful ally, and frankly there aren't enough cyclists out there for us to start excluding people.

2. There is a pervasive dogma to your position. You seem unwilling to change your opinions if you learn more. You seem unwilling to learn more, especially if what you learn contradicts what you already believe. You seem unwilling to listen to anyone who might think differently than you. You seem unwilling to try to learn about the position of others or to understand it. If someone disagrees with you, instead of trying to make a case for your position and talk with them rationally, you lash out, label them a heretic and retreat to your belief that you are alone in a world of car-loving, athletic cyclists who have never been to Europe.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 4:23 pm • link • report

WABA is mostly about vehicular cycling and I believe this to be an extremely dangerous way to cycle.

Again- I will tell you- I have bicycled in DC my whole life and I use the sidewalks as they are a hell of a lot less dangerous than cycling in the roads with cars.

My experience tells me this and I will never listen to people who are hell bent on self destruction- being sideswiped, being doored, having items thrown at you- all of this happens to those who bike in roads and attempt to "share the road".

As for david's comments

They are downright insulting and condescending.

Jeff- if you actually read Pucher's studies you would not be arguing with me at all. Pucher and a growing and more forceful movement of everyday cyclists is basically saying what I have said on this blog over and over.

We will NEVER get the mode share of the German cities, the Dutch cities, nor the Danish cities if we do not build separated auto-protected bike ways .

We will NEVER get elderly people, women, children and families riding bicycles in this country in greater numbers until we wake up to the FACT that most people- rightly so- view cycling as DANGEROUS.

It clearly is dangerous-that is- cycling with auto traffic- and the blogs and news reports constantly on cyclists both killed and maimed in just this area alone.

I have been to the bicycle planning meetings- and they are mostly populated by youngish males who are overwhelmingly athletic oriented in their bicycling.

Pucher has commented on this problem over and over- which goes to show that you are talking out of your alternative orifice, Jeff. You are not serious at all about what Pucher has to contribute.Your hostility is quite apparent.

I bet you have a $ 2500 carbon fiber racing bike and a thousand dollars worth of bike clothes to go with it- and you take you bike out only on weekends.

get a Velorbis or a Workbike and slow down some.

you'll feel better and it will be a bit safer to boot.

by w on Jan 22, 2010 4:43 pm • link • report

OK, back to the original, non w bashing post:

One thing that really concerns me (and that w did bring up in his first comment) is that DDOT seems reluctant to stripe major thoroughfares. If you bike in the area b/t logan and dupont, there are ample bike lanes, but none on major commercial and commuter thoroughfares (except 14th). I'm thinking about P street, U street, and 17th to be specific. Regardless of the quality of the bike lane (and I believe we are all actually in agreement that the ideal situation would be do have dedicated cycle tracks everywhere, or woonerfs, or both), it remains more or less impossible to use bike lanes and, say, run errands or grab a bite to eat.

what i'm getting at is that DDOT has been magnificent at striping lanes on streets that connect these commercial corridors, but remarkably negligent in finishing the job on the streets all of us use the most. Nobody who isn't a vehicular cyclist like myself will use the fifth street bike lane when RIA and NYA are car sewers. Nobody gives a crap about the 15th street contraflow lane because it starts at the death star and ends on mass ave.

So, to DDOT: please grow a pair and start taking road space away from cars where people treat the street as both a transportation medium and destination in and of itself. A cycle track (or five cycle tracks) downtown means you can safely bike to work. one on U street means you can safely shop. Nobody would ever think of shaping a place that wasn't accessible to cars; we shouldn't think about places that aren't accesible to bikes/peds either.

Finally, WTF is so hard about switching bike lanes with parallel parking spots? It's an easy, relatively cheap way to create these protective barriers. Anything less really does set bicycle infrastructure up for failure, imo.

As for the w bashing, it needs to stop. But w: We're all on the same team here, w, whether you believe it or not. Please understand that.

by JTS on Jan 22, 2010 4:46 pm • link • report

JTS, well I think that is something DDOT needs to hear. U street came up years ago and they felt that by putting bike lanes on all of the parallel streets they would meet cyclist's needs. They've taken a position that cyclists don't want to ride on Avenue because they're too busy (which has driven some BAC members insane).

The creation of protected bike lanes with parallel parking is a new development (I mean even Portland just got their first one) and DDOT is interested in doing more, so I think we should encourage them as best we can and realize that it will take some patience on our part.

I would like to say that I did not intend to bash w, I was trying to let him know how his comments sound to someone else. If I was out of line, I apologize, but I meant for it to be constructive criticism.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 4:56 pm • link • report

@David C

Good to know. I didn't realize that this had come up before. I will reach out to DDOT (although who knows where those messages end up).

One other thought I had after I posted:

* DDOT (and/or the DCRA) really needs to STOP authorizing restaurants to have valet parking stands in areas with lots of bicycle traffic. While 14th street comes to mind, I believe 7th street NW is the most egregious example. The District Chophouse basically turns a dedicated bus/bike lane into a parking lot before a wizards game as everyone goes there for a bite first. Now, I'm all about enabling multimodalism and making it easy for consumers to spend money in DC, but there absolutely has to be a better way than turning over a bus/bike lane (or any bike lane) to a valet stand. It creates an incredibly dangerous environment that also impedes the flow of people. If anyone has any ideas as to how to rectify this situation, I'd be all ears (hopefully our overlords would be too, but I'm not holding my breath).

On w: believe me, I've torn him a new one in the past too, particularly when he starts ripping on WABA, an organization that everyday cyclists would be a lot worse off without. But i guess the thing is, when you distill everyone's vitriol, including his, we're all saying the same thing. Namely: better infrastructure is better. And more specifically: dedicated infrastructure is more desirable. He certainly takes a tone that often infuriates me, as a vehicular cyclist who has no issue riding on PA Ave SE uphill at the speed of traffic, but who also identifies with and wholly supports projects that make streets safer and more accessible. So I guess what I'm asking everyone, including w, is to realize that at the end of the day, bikes are bikes are bikes, and more of them is a good thing.

by JTS on Jan 22, 2010 5:09 pm • link • report

JTS:

Travel lane side bike lanes allow cyclists to maneuver around debris, open doors, more easily make left turns, etc. and still be retrofitted into existing street networks. To simply swap the order and move the bike lanes curbside would increase the hazards of the bike lanes and limit the cyclists ability avoid them. To allow enough room eats into the adjacent travel lane width which means just doing away with it. That hasn't been politically feasibly until recently. The stars are more or less aligned now, and 15th street should just be the beginning. DDOT has done some road diet and take away lanes. I agree though, it needs to happen more frequently and on more prominent roads.

by jeff on Jan 22, 2010 5:12 pm • link • report

live in this city long enough- and you all will inevitably lose a friend or aloved one to either a bike accident or a dooring.

I have seen this happen over and over in my 40 plus years of cycling here in DC.

Vehicular cycling is not the way to go. Im not saying you cannot do it- Im saying that we will never get ordinary non-athletes to get out of their cars if we keep up the bike racing elitist hegemony we presently allow to determine our planning .

If you folks think Im some sort of iconoclast against the prevailing male dominated racer /athletic bicycling population - then go to a NYC bike planning meeting- you will hear some real vitriol. There are some real racer haters out there. Im not against racers per se- just having racers make all of the decisions for all of us who bicycle. Im also of the opinion that we need a REAL Velodrome in this and in other USA cities. This could be a serious venue and make it safer for racers to practice. Mostly, I suppose- it is the wannabee racers that bug me. If I were a racer I would NEVER chance my skinny tires on a DC street anyway.

Someone has to take the fall and be a target I suppose.

And yes- JTS- DC is terrible and politically timid about any new bike ways on major roads. After all- we have representative MORON of Northern Viagara who wants to turn 14th street into another freeway. They are obviously petrified to place a bikeway on Pennsylvania Avenue because it will arouse scum like Rep MORON and incite cries of un necessary and frivolous spending on bicycles which, according to idiots Like him and other NoViagara people- is just a hobby or a sport event that should nbever be taken seriously as transportation.

Between MORON and the timid assed DC planners, the aggressive bike racers and vehicular cyclists and those who want only the young fit and fast to be on bikes- we have all of the odds stacked against us here in DC.

by w on Jan 22, 2010 5:32 pm • link • report

Jeff

why are you concerned about space?

DC has the WIDEST sidewalks of just about any large northeastern city.

Go to Pa Avenue and see- there are 100 foot wide sidewalks.

However there are no bikeways there.

They have BEAUTIFUL bikeways on the Unter Den Linden in Berlin- another major ceremonial avenue that has wide sidewalks. We don't know how to do this or are too afraid to try it in our great Capitol City.

by w on Jan 22, 2010 5:36 pm • link • report

Pucher and a growing and more forceful movement of everyday cyclists is basically saying what I have said on this blog over and over.

Your reading of Pucher's work is similar to just skimming the headlines of the NY Times. You can get a sense of what the news isn, but you miss all the details. Pucher will be the first to tell you it takes a wholistic approach to engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation to build a strong cycling culture. His papers are quite clear on that.

His work also exists in academia. I operate in the real world where politics, perception and funding factor in.

We will NEVER get the mode share of the German cities, the Dutch cities, nor the Danish cities if we do not build separated auto-protected bike ways .
We will NEVER get elderly people, women, children and families riding bicycles in this country in greater numbers until we wake up to the FACT that most people- rightly so- view cycling as DANGEROUS.

I, and all but two regular GGW/WC commenters agree with you. Will you drop it now? Perhaps now we can discuss how to overcome these barriers, both politically and socially.

It clearly is dangerous-that is- cycling with auto traffic- and the blogs and news reports constantly on cyclists both killed and maimed in just this area alone.

And people die from slipping and falling in the shower. That doesn't mean we should all stop bathing. Every daily activity has a certain assumed risk. There are ways to mitigate the risks of cycling, from proper education for all roadway users to strength in numbers- and even with cycletracks.

I have been to the bicycle planning meetings- and they are mostly populated by youngish males who are overwhelmingly athletic oriented in their bicycling.

Uhh....If 55yo bearded men are what you consider youngish, then sure, ok.

Pucher has commented on this problem over and over- which goes to show that you are talking out of your alternative orifice, Jeff. You are not serious at all about what Pucher has to contribute.

Do I need to get a photo of he and I together to prove to you that I support his work? You should learn to listen.

I bet you have a $ 2500 carbon fiber racing bike and a thousand dollars worth of bike clothes to go with it- and you take you bike out only on weekends.

Yeah? I'll take that wager.

get a Velorbis or a Workbike and slow down some.

No thanks, I prefer my Brompton and ANT. Dave C can verify my longing for a Christiania cargo bike though. FYI, if you read Henry's blog you see where he states his favorite bike is an old custom mtb. He also reminiscences about his track racing days.

Go to Pa Avenue and see- there are 100 foot wide sidewalks

They're not a 100 feet for one. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised what is talked about for Penn. If only you'd brave those awful bike planning meeting with aggressive young males you'd already know.

Between MORON and the timid assed DC planners, the aggressive bike racers and vehicular cyclists and those who want only the young fit and fast to be on bikes

There you go W! That'll show 'em! They'll ALL come running to your side now!

by jeff on Jan 22, 2010 6:12 pm • link • report

@w

"You are not interested in a civil discussion of the issue at hand-"

Perhaps you should go back and read you posts before accusing others of not being civil.

by dcd on Jan 22, 2010 6:15 pm • link • report

why are you concerned about space? DC has the WIDEST sidewalks of just about any large northeastern city.

Why do you want to take space away from pedestrians? Would you rather take lanes out of the road? Why do you hate pedestrians so much W? Are you a secret troll from the auto/highway/oil lobby? This smells a lot like COINTELPRO!

by jeff on Jan 22, 2010 6:16 pm • link • report

Here are my comments.

On point #1, we need to reform our liability laws to place the responsibility for avoiding crashes squarely upon motor vehicle drivers. This means laws such as those in Canada or The Netherlands that automatically deem motorists liable unless they can prove that they are not. I've put Ontario's law at the end of my comments.

Points 2-7, I agree with.

Point 8, I disagree with. In the overwhelming majority of the world, a cyclist has a right to use any part of the right lane. And to use the left lane as well for a large number of reasons such as passing slower traffic, avoiding hazards in the right lane, etc. On two-lane roads or roads without lane markings, cyclists have a right to use any part of the right half of the road.

For places that drive on the left, substitute "left" for "right" in the above paragraph and it remains true.

All forms of "keep right" laws should be replaced with "right to use complete lane" laws.

Point #9: When is it ever "necessary" for someone to pass? If it really was necessary, your car would be equipped with a siren and flashing lights. If your car is lacking those pieces of equipment it is never necessary for you to pass anyone. Just follow along behind safely.

Point #10: I agree, but it doesn't go far enough. How about ensuring that secure cycle parking is installed at all bus zones or other attractions?

I'll abstain on points 11 and 12.

by Kevin Love on Jan 22, 2010 6:38 pm • link • report

Here is Ontario's liability law:

"When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle."

From section 193 of the Highway Traffic Act. Source:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK281

by Kevin Love on Jan 22, 2010 6:41 pm • link • report

@Kevin Love, I see your point about riding right, and originally that's where I was. But commenters convinced me that there may be roads where requiring cyclists to ride right made sense - i.e. where the road has only one, wide lane in each direction. If it was that important then the state could sign it. So the default would be no ride right rule with a few exceptions, where great effort was needed, where ride right was required. It seemed reasonable to me. By "necessary" I meant, it is necessary for the cyclist to move if the driver is going to pass safely (because there is no other lane for them to use); not that it was necessary for the driver to pass.

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 7:18 pm • link • report

The Virginia General Assembly is in session, and our lobbyist Bud Vye is there at every committee meeting, etc., where he feels he can make headway on bike-ped issues. You can read his daily Legislative Reports to see exactly how these laws get made or shot down.

It would help immensely if blogs like GGW would follow efforts in progress, and be ready to help publicize and rally support for bills when they're in committee. Anyone can rant about what needs doing, but there's no one around to help with the actual doing when the time comes.

In Virginia we're really the only ones doing bike-ped advocacy at the state level. We could really use everyone's support. Please consider joining or donating. At least put a link to us on your bike club website.

by Virginia Bicycling Federation on Jan 22, 2010 9:48 pm • link • report

Good point. VBF is pursuing many of these goals in Virginia and One Less Car is doing the same in Maryland. To James who asked who in Bethesda to contact about this list, I would recommend One Less Car who can put you in contact with your state legislators. Montgomery County has little control over these items (though they do have input into M-NCPPC and trail closures/snow removal)

by David C on Jan 22, 2010 11:51 pm • link • report

David C wrote:
"... I've tried the rear view mirrors. On my helmet they made me queasy and on my handlebar they weren't useful. I often spent several seconds staring at it trying to see what was behind me. If they work for you great, but for me they either make me sick or more dangerous."

Here is the mirror I use, Please note that it extends from the left end of the handlebar far enough that I can actually see behind me, and not just look at my clothing. Also, it is convex, which make objects look slightly smaller, but gives a wide field of view. The plastic box on my handlebars is a ten inch cube, for reference:
http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/hotbike/23_21A.jpg

by James Donohue on Jan 23, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report

Apparently if I ride my bike in the street and disagree with w enough, it will magically transform overnight from a 6 year old hybrid beater into a $2500 carbon fiber beauty! SWEET! Also, I will suddenly acquire the athletic abilities of Lance Armstrong. Pretty damn cool! On the other hand, I guess I'll also have a gender switch... feeling a little nervous about that...

by Erica on Jan 23, 2010 2:04 pm • link • report

Last year I lost a friend to a bicycle accident where a car slammed into him.

Had he been using his bike turn signals he would not have been hit.

Every safety bike expert agrees that having turn signals on your bicycle would save thousands of lives and countless
injuries. Wake up folks.

by Richard on Jan 23, 2010 4:57 pm • link • report

Richard wrote:
"Every safety bike expert agrees that having turn signals on your bicycle would save thousands of lives and countless
injuries."

Kevin's comment:
Wow! Talk about ignoring the bull in the china shop. The safest place in the entire world to cycle is in The Netherlands. I've never seen a single set of bike turn signals there, and the people are rather casual about using hand signals.

What did the Dutch people do that saved tens of thousands of lives? They tamed the cars. They did the following (in no particular order, but I believe that these changes should be enacted in law in the USA):

1. A road network where cycling is the fastest and most direct way of going from point A to point B. Cars tend to have to take more circuitous routes that go much farther and take much longer.

2. Extensive zones from which cars are banned.

3. Must be at least 18 years old to get a driver's license.
Just this one reform would save thousands of lives in the USA. The US federal government used its financial clout to get all the states to raise their drinking age to 21. The same clout can be used to get all the states to raise their minimum driving age to 18.

4. The road test for a driver's license comprehensively tests a wide range of traffic situations and requires a much, much higher level of skill to pass than anywhere in the USA.

5. The USA is not on the list of countries with which The Netherlands will exchange drivers licenses. Canada is (but not all provinces).

6. If one is over the age of 70, to get a driver's license requires a comprehensive and highly detailed medical exam.

7. A driver who hits a cyclist is legally liable to pay for all damages unless he can prove that the cyclist deliberately caused the crash.

8. A driver who injures or kills a cyclist is going to jail. Immediately. Probability of making bail before the trial is very low. Probability of criminal conviction is very high. If the driver failed to take all defensive driving measures to avoid the crash, the driver is criminally negligent. There are many cases in which the cyclist (particularly child cyclists) failed to obey a traffic signal and the car driver was still found criminally negligent and civilly liable.

9. Comprehensive cycle education in elementary schools.

10. Cycle routes preserved during road maintenance. Car routes not preserved during road maintenance.

11. Extensive 30 km/hr zones.

12. "Home Zones" in which pedestrians and cyclists have right of way over all cars, all the time, everywhere.

13. Elimination of "cut-through" car traffic from residential neighborhoods by semi-permeable barracades across roads that cyclists can go through, but car drivers cannot.

I'll stop at 13 to show that I'm not superstitious!

I see that my two anti-spam words are "watchers jacking."

by Kevin Love on Jan 23, 2010 6:56 pm • link • report

mccxxiii upthread captures the unwisdom of proposal 11 to legalize red-light running:
"...if I'm rolling into that intersection from the crossways direction, and I can't predict whether the bike is going to stop, roll-stop, or not stop at all, that leaves me unable to make a safe decision."

This problem is bad enough if I'm driving a car. It's even worse when I'm riding a bike through a green light and might not even _see_ a crossways biker about to run the red light into my path because he's behind cars stopped for the light. (Such people don't seem to look for other bikers at all. I presume they watch for cars, but maybe they just listen for them.)

by davidj on Jan 24, 2010 5:37 pm • link • report

"His papers (and you shouldn't leave out his often co-author Buehler)"

Virginia Tech, yo!!

by spookiness on Jan 24, 2010 8:50 pm • link • report

I agree with all but #12. Having ridden bikes for transportation for most of my long life, I feel the best approach is to keep bikes off sidewalks for the most part. As noted, crosswalks are statistically the most dangerous place for cyclists and it just really doesn't work where pededstrians are present. Allowing bikes on sidewalks also diminishes the urgency to make roads more bike friendly. Focus on traffic laws and separate bikeways so that cyclists won't feel they have to join peds in order to survive the commute.

Also, as for equipment requirements, I believe only lights and/or reflectors should be required and only if riding after dark. If cyclists can be trusted to decide where in a lane to ride, they should be trusted to decide what equipment they should have on their bikes. Forcing me to have a bell on my bike doesn't force me to use it, so it's not making anyone safer. More regulation means more costs for equipment and for enforcement.

by fc on Jan 24, 2010 9:17 pm • link • report

Many people have been opposed to #12 because they believe it is dangerous for cyclists and/or pedestrians.

First of all, there are some places where sidewalk cycling makes sense. Some situations include: when climbing a steep hill, when a road has a very low bicycle level of service, when riding in the opposite direction along a one-way road (experienced cyclists only), when looking for bike parking or to avoid standstill congestion (such as a road blocked by an accident). Even LAB teaches sidewalk cycling as part of it's Smart Cycling Classes. Are you telling me you NEVER ride your bike on the sidewalk? Ever?

The argument that sidewalk cycling is dangerous is something that is widely accepted as "fact" though there really isn't that much evidence to support it. Wachtel and Lewiston is often cited as evidence, but what it showed is that riding on the sidewalk against traffic is dangerous (so riding with traffic on your right instead of your left). The risk for riding with traffic in the roadway is 0.8 and with traffic on the sidewalk is 0.7. Against traffic it goes up to 1.5 and 3.0 respectively.

Another study usually cited is the City of Toronto study, which showed that in 30% of crashes sidewalk cycling may have been a contributing factor. However that study notes that the sidewalk is where less experienced/less confident cyclists and cyclists under 18 ride and that both of these groups are overrepresented in these sidewalk crashes. Cyclists under 18 made up 53% of those crashes.

"Cyclists who reported that they often ride on sidewalks exhibited higher crash rates, even on roads, than those who said they never ride on the sidewalk."

And it actually has data that contradicts the "sidewalks bad" belief.

"Collisions in which the cyclists were riding on the roadway tended to result in slightly more severe injuries (and many more fatalities) than those in which the cyclists were riding on the sidewalk or within the crosswalk area"

If crosswalks are such a serious problem, what are cyclists on a trail to do when they reach an at-grade crossing?

I will admit that fast cycling is more dangerous on a sidewalk than in the street, which is why riding in the street is better; but it's not like sidewalk cycling can't be done safely. I think it is foolish to rigidly stick to a belief that ALL sidewalk cycling is bad and that in no case, on no road, is someone safer riding on the sidewalk than in the street. I bike an awful lot, and I use sidewalks pretty regularly though a minority of the time.

And the idea that cyclists and pedestrians can share space on trails, but suddenly, on sidewalks, it puts pedestrians at risk is also difficult to prove. I'd like to see a study showing that cycling on the sidewalk is dangerous for pedestrians. I have never been able to find one.

by David C on Jan 24, 2010 11:10 pm • link • report

@w: You are not interested in a civil discussion of the issue at hand- and you seem to be out to slander me.

Is the following an example of civil debate?

Jasper- I absolutely do not believe that you have ever lived in Holland by the way that you talk. No one that I have ever known who has lived there has your mentality.

I have mentioned my Dutchiness many a time here. If you refuse to believe me (What do you want? A copy of my passport?), then you can not be interested in serious debate. I will put you on my "ignore list" (akin to Colbert's "dead to me" list) next to lance, where you are still joined by MPC, but he's only there temporarily.

It was nice trying to debate you.

PS You still haven't told how much time you've spent in Holland, Germany and Danmark.

@jeff: (oh and why you got leave out the Danish??)

Sorry. Never been there, so I don't know what they're doing. Furthermore, I am kinda miffed that most Americans keep mixing the Dutch and Danish up. I understand that it's hard to keep the Low Lands apart, but let me explain.

The Low Lands are kinda like New England. We're leftish, happy and well organized, with a nasty streak of vengeance towards someone thinks they can tell us what to do. That's mostly because we've been invaded so much.

Holland is where you have Amsterdam, bikes and gay marriage. Belgium is the schizophrenic one where they can't decide whether they wanna talk Dutch of French, but where is doesn't matter 'cuz they've got the best beer, chocolate, lace in the world. And Tintin. Oh yeah, NATO and the EU have their HQs there. Luxembourg is the tiny one where they still have an actual grand-duke in charge who's doing such a good job, nobody would want a normal democracy.

Now up north in Europe, there's Scandinavia. They're kinda like Minnesota meets Alaska. Cold and dark in winter and light and cool during summer. But also truly socialistic. Ridiculous taxes, but you get a lot back for it. Norway's the one that has oil, no national debt and a literacy of 100% (no, not 99.999%). Sweden's the one in the middle with moose, Ericson and the hottest princesses you can imagine. Finland is the formerly semi-commi one, colder and darker than the others, but also home of the largest and best cell phone maker in the world: Nokia. You know, that company sells so many phones that they can refuse to deal with the ridiculous demands of cell phone companies in the US. Last, Danmark is the one that's attached to Germany. They're lighter, but also wetter than the other ones. And more right wing. But still very kind. And they more or less own Greenland.

So: The Dutch are part the the Low Lands, while the Danes are Scandinavians.

by Jasper on Jan 25, 2010 10:04 am • link • report

for all of you USA mostly male jock type aggressive minded bike racers and speed demon kamikazzees who love to cycle with the cars and yet claim to know all about how people cycle in Europe;

http://www.slowbicyclemovement.org/

by w on Jan 25, 2010 11:39 am • link • report

MPC, but he's only there temporarily.

Hey, I ain't no spring fling...with me it's all or nothing.

by MPC on Jan 25, 2010 11:50 am • link • report

wrt #4 You can call the State of Maryland's Complete Streets legislation weak, and it's true that actually doing it is dependent on the administration in office, and their interest and willingness to follow the rules, but I would say under the O'Malley Administration, the State Highway Admin. is relatively great on this, whereas many of the county DPWs are not.

I'd rather work with SHA on a state road in dealing with this, than many of the local DPWs.

The change that needs to be made in state enabling legislation is requiring that the local DPWs have to do the same thing as SHA.

Note that Montgomery County has a law requiring the capital budgeting process include consideration of pedestrian and bicycling access as part of all road capital improvement projects. (Whether or not the MCDOT does a good job with this is another issue, see previous paragraph.) Most counties in the state do not have equivalent policies.

by Richard Layman on Jan 25, 2010 12:02 pm • link • report

I think one of the key problems with Maryland bike laws is missing from your list of needed improvements. Right now bike lanes are places where cyclists MUST ride and automobiles MAY drive.

There is no law against a motorist driving in a bike lane.

Bike lanes that only restrict cyclists but not motorists are useless for cyclists. I see no reason to have such lanes at all. Get the cars out of them or dump them altogether

by Ed in Baltimore on Jan 25, 2010 2:09 pm • link • report

I have been a car-less cycle commuter, clad in embarrassing Lycra, flying down the middle of the street.

I am now a steadily fattening transit- and car-commuter.

I think basic decency (along with several if not all world religions) requires that we all try to help each other whenever possible. I would hate to injure or kill any person, even including the most aggressive, surly, irritating cyclist.

However: Some cyclists are just that--the ones who ride in the middle of the road while going slower than the minimum speed limit. The ones who ride two abreast.

I'm more than happy to share the road--but for gosh sakes, let me pass if I need to. Don't block me just because I'm an "evil" motorist and you're Saint Lyrca of Campagnolo, saving the world because your tiny carbon footprint is in the shape of an SPD cleat.

When I was a bike commuter, I prided myself on the fact that I could ride as fast as the cars. (I used to pass buses uphill.) And on streets where I could not, I got out of the way.

If cyclists would only do likewise, a huge amount of opposition from motorists would disappear.

by JB on Jan 25, 2010 4:30 pm • link • report

@JB, there is a lot of misconception and projecting in what you've just written.

Some cyclists are just that--the ones who ride in the middle of the road while going slower than the minimum speed limit.

There is no minimum speed, not for cyclists at least.

Don't block me just because I'm an "evil" motorist
It really isn't about you. They aren't judging you or really even thinking about you They're thinking about your car and how they don't want to get clipped by it. Cyclists - at least the ones I know - do not block drivers with the intent to punish or out of spite. They take the center of the lane because they believe - and experts and authorities on the subject back them up - that riding in the center of a narrow lane is the safest way to ride. They are not trying to inconvenience you, but inconvenience is the unfortunate byproduct of riding safely. Most cyclists will gladly get out of the way of drivers if passing can be done safely and there is no other way for drivers to pass. No one likes having a car (or worse, a line of cars) hanging off their back wheel.

and you're Saint Lyrca of Campagnolo, saving the world because your tiny carbon footprint is in the shape of an SPD cleat
Ah yes, the 'self-righteous' label that drivers love to hang on cyclists. How do you know they think they're better than you? Do you ask them? All of them? Maybe they don't even believe in global warming. Maybe they're just trying to lose weight. Or they can't afford a car. Or they lost license after being busted for drunk driving. Maybe they desperately wish they were in a car but can't be. Whenever I hear drivers complain about the self-righteousness of cyclists I think it has a lot more to do with their feelings of guilt than it does with actual moralizing from cyclists on the road. So JB, stop beating yourself up. I'm sure you're a good person who's doing their part to fight global warming some other way.

where I could not [go as fast as cars], I got out of the way. Again, that is too low a standard. The standard needs to be, where you are not going as fast as cars AND you can be passed safely if you move over AND there is no other lane for drivers to pass you in. Asking cyclists to get out of the way when it is not safe is asking them to put your convenience ahead of their safety, and you aren't really asking them to do that are you? If you say yes, I might change my mind about you being a good person.

by David C on Jan 25, 2010 5:22 pm • link • report

"There is no minimum speed, not for cyclists at least."

There is a minimum speed for every road; it's sometimes marked, sometimes not. I am 99% sure it applies to all vehicles.

"Ah yes, the 'self-righteous' label that drivers love to hang on cyclists..."

OK, fair point, I guess. I will admit that I was pretty self-righteous as a cycle commuter. Maybe it was just me. But given the comments on this blog from a lot of cycle commuters, I do get the sense that the self-righteousness to which I alluded is not uncommon.

As to not being able to afford a car: If someone is on a $2000 bike, they can afford a car. The people who are riding because they have no other choice are usually on the sidewalk, to be honest. They're certainly not in the middle of the road, refusing to move over.

And true, not all cyclists refuse to move over. But some do. I hope they realize that this is self-defeating.

Alas, I regret that I misspelled "Lycra."

"The standard needs to be, where you are not going as fast as cars AND you can be passed safely if you move over AND there is no other lane for drivers to pass you in."

I agree with the *letter* of what you're saying--but I can remember few roads whereon it would be unsafe for a cyclist to let me by. (On such roads, of course I would not want them to endanger their safety.) However, if it's truly that narrow a one-lane (each direction) road, with cars parked on the side, then I'm probably not driving very fast anyway and thus wouldn't mind the cyclist being in front of me.

I feel like I actually cut cyclists a lot of slack. As a pedestrian in downtown DC, I often see cyclists on the sidewalk--which may or may not be legal, depending. But I don't want them to get killed on the crazy DC streets, so I don't really object.

Maybe I am projecting. But I honestly don't think so. All I'm saying is that if cyclists want drivers to cut them some slack and show consideration, it works both ways.

I do appreciate the reply.

by JB on Jan 25, 2010 7:47 pm • link • report

However: Some cyclists are just that--the ones who ride in the middle of the road while going slower than the minimum speed limit.

Ah, the infernal self-absorbed cyclists, with their sense of entitlement, out for a ride, not to get where they're going, or to enjoy the weather, but to personally thwart you. And by going "slower than the minimum speed limit" no less! How selfish they are... (Where exactly are these cyclists failing to maintain the "minimum speed limit"? I-70?)

Dialing down the snark a bit, what most of the pro-cyclist commenters are trying to get across is that the road isn't "car space", and what you perceive as provocative behavior is actually a combination of a) self-preservation and b) going about one's business. All this BS about what the cyclist is wearing is just that: BS. It's a thin cover for bullying, aggressive, and cowardly behavior. And I'm sad to say, but you hear it regularly in comments like yours. These people aren't blocking *you* any more than the waves are trying to knock *you* over when you go to the beach. They're certainly not trying to teach the world about how saintly they are. It displays a staggering narcissism to think they are.

The basic issue is this: *no* change in cyclist behavior is going to reduce the "huge amount of opposition from motorists", because that opposition is a reaction to cyclists mere existence in what a small minority of auto drivers--a minority with a massive sense of entitlement--believe to be *their* road.

What will reduce the small, remaining motorist opposition is that, eventually--with enough exposure--they'll get their sharing skills up to speed, like big boys and girls.

by oboe on Jan 25, 2010 7:50 pm • link • report

There is a minimum speed for every road; it's sometimes marked, sometimes not. I am 99% sure it applies to all vehicles.

It's about hear that I stopped reading, realizing that you were just trolling... You had me there for a while, though.

by oboe on Jan 25, 2010 7:53 pm • link • report

Or "here," as the case may be.

by oboe on Jan 25, 2010 7:55 pm • link • report

I'm not entirely sure how riding a bike is self righteous, yet putting your family in an SUV which makes them safe, but at the expense of the rest of the driving public (and national security, and the environment) isn't. What? your family is the most important thing in the world? Who do you think you are? That Escalade gets 8 mpg and flips! a lot!

I think that the phrase people should probably attribute to cyclists more often is "occasionally very frustrated." If you get a loogie on your windshield or your side mirror mysteriously disappears, it's not because some cyclist is trying to send a holier-than-thou message, it's because you, unfortunately, were probably but the most recent motorist to do something entirely negligent of the fact that, as oboe said, the road isn't just "car space." and happened to just push some dude on a cargo bike over the edge. And FWIW, my experience has been that women cyclists tend to flip out faster (or 'get self righteous,' in the parlance of our times). It's probably because they are far more risk averse, so things that I routinely dismiss - like illegal U turns - probably scare them more.

99 percent of the time my interaction with cars is fine, even positive. But there are days like today, where someone flicks a cigarette butt out of their car and it lands in my jacket, then five minutes later I nearly get run over as a guy runs a red light. Those are days when an obscenity is prone to fly. Which is mysteriously fine to do when youre driving and some other idiot does something stupid. weird how that usually works.

This is not to say that all cyclists never flagrantly break the law. We all know this. There's no reason to debate that one further. We should talk about it more when more people get out of their cars. We're still a pretty small, albeit a vocal and usually pissed off, minority.

It's not about being better than you, it's about making a decision that one thinks is good, and has been told is good, only to find that there is really very little granted to you in the way of public road space to help you do it safely. Does that make sense?

by JTS on Jan 25, 2010 10:10 pm • link • report

I saw a guy on a bike almost get hit by a car today in Chinatown. It had turned green and the biker was half-way across the intersection when a guy speeding in a Jeep decided he needed to run the red light and make a left turn. People like that make me want to carry a bag of pebbles with me. Not big enough to break a window or hurt the person, but big enough to chip some paint or make a dent. Childish, I know, but so is running a light and nearly killing someone because you're too good to put on the brakes and wait 45 seconds until it turns green again.

by Teo on Jan 25, 2010 10:28 pm • link • report

as long as there are no dedicated separated bikeways on Independence Avenue I will continue to bike on the wide- 10- and up to 20 foot wide sidewalks. It is FAR less dangerous than riding in the road with speeding cars, no matter what all of the "vehicular cycling" crazies in this blog say about statistics and the likes thereof.

Simply put- the athletic and vehicular cycling people are fascists- they are really people who want only an elite that is capable or pretends to be capable of riding with the cars to bicycle.

this is INCREDIBLY SELFISH and excludes most of the rest of the population.

They do not want anyone else except for their preening and slick looking lycra clad bozos riding a bicycle.

I read over and over from you people making fun of those who actually want to bike but are fearful of taking chances.

WELL LET'S MAKE IT SAFER SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE CHANCES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by w on Jan 26, 2010 10:01 am • link • report

>Some cyclists are just that--the ones who ride in the middle of the road while going slower than the minimum speed limit.

The reason cyclists ride in the middle of the lane is so cars don't try to pass by them without adequate room. If there isn't a bike lane, it's safer to ride in the middle than to try to squeeze onto an inadequate side area.

But if the time you gain by speeding around me is more important than my life, I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If not wanting to die makes me "self righteous", I guess that's what I am.

by BeyondDC on Jan 26, 2010 10:17 am • link • report

Simply put- the athletic and vehicular cycling people are fascists- they are really people who want only an elite that is capable or pretends to be capable of riding with the cars to bicycle

I was going to say something snarky about this being yet another example of w's reasonable, thoughtful, and considerate style of arguing.

But then I realized that "the athletic and vehicular cycling people" don't have any concrete reality. They're sort of imaginary hobgoblins, who are proxies for all the more mundane forces that buffet us, and over which we have no control (e.g. a bullying boss, credit card bills, loveless marriage, etc...)

Freud talks about this at great length.

by oboe on Jan 26, 2010 1:15 pm • link • report

one can easily tell from the commentors here, that many of them either are young or do not have children.

Why would any self-repecting parent who loves their children subject them to bicycling in a road with auto traffic?

Obvoiusly children are not being considered here- nor are the people that are not comfortable with "sharing the road" with cars. I happen to be one of these people.

I have been cycling in DC for over 40 years and have had no accidents on my bicycle because I ride slow and avoid cars.

There is no reason at all that we cannot have separated bikeways - places where the majority of people who wish to cycle can bike w/o fear of physical insult. It would not be expensive when considering the costs of other forms of transportation.

Elderly people who would like to cycle cannot cycle in the roads with moving auto traffic either. OK- maybe there are some fanatics who try to do this- but they a re a very tiny number.

It is plain to my eyes and ears that the people commenting here are not interested in makingcycling safer and easier for people other than the young adults or for those physically in perfect shape.

This is very sad.

You should not be attacking me- you should be questioning yourselves and your own lack of comprehension of the grander possibilities..

by w on Jan 26, 2010 1:28 pm • link • report

@w

Give it a rest.

by Teo on Jan 26, 2010 1:30 pm • link • report

I ride a bike and I have a car too. 99% of cyclists have a car, buit the percentage of motorists who can ride a bike is somewhat less. It's importatnt to look at the issue from both sides.
A number of cyclists have mentioned that racing a bike is dangerous, and it is actually safer to ride slow. A cyclist can pull to the side of the road easier at 12MPH than at 42MPH. Now, in theory, the cyclist travelling at a rate of 42MPH should be safe from being hit from behind, but that theory doesn't work in the real world, on account of speeders.
There are some dangerous motorists out there. Some try to run the cyclists over on purpose. Some don't care if the cyclist is doing the speed limit. Others are on drugs or on their cell phones.
Hopefully, someday every car will be controlled by a GPS guided robot driver, which will be wired to the cars computer so as to disallow driving over the speed limit. Cyclists could be issued a GPS device which would warn of the approach of any automobile.
Bicycle racers get frustrated by anything which would affect their "best time". Mine was ten miles in nineteen minutes and thirty six seconds, which is a little faster than the 30MPH speed limit, on average. That was when I was younger, and I don't think I'll ever go that fast again.
I mentioned that I drive too, and I never seem to have any conflict with other cyclists when I drive.

by James Donohue on Jan 26, 2010 2:30 pm • link • report

to me my bicycle is primary transportation

I have no car and do not need one at all

by w on Jan 26, 2010 2:36 pm • link • report

Teo

I will not "give it a rest" since there are so many closed minded people and someone has to stand up to them.

by w on Jan 26, 2010 2:41 pm • link • report

obviously my words and concepts are disturbing to most of the people around this area.
This is a good thing- it hopefully has gotten your attention since you disagree so wholeheartedly that you all feel it is necessary to attack me .

by w on Jan 26, 2010 2:43 pm • link • report

@w

With all due respect, you are the one attacking everyone on this site. To you, we're all a bunch of 20 year old, macho, speed bicyclists who hate cars and pedestrians equally and would prefer a world where we could speed around a town composed entirely of bike lanes for fast bikers, with cars, slower bikers and pedestrians forced to stay out of our way.

Almost every comment you post is the same as the other one. Namely, you have been biking for a long time, on a sidewalk, and think everyone should be able to do so until dedicated bike lanes are installed everywhere and bikes are forced to go a certain speed that you think is safe. You clearly have a hatred of bikers that are in better shape than you, can afford better equipment than you, and prefer to ride on a road at a higher rate of speed than you are comfortable with. We get the point.

Personally, I bought a hybrid Schwinn from Target for about $200 because that was all I could afford, I am about 10 pounds overweight, and I only bike on the weekends when it's above 60 degrees outside because I don't have gloves to protect my hands from the cold and I'm too lazy to get in the shape necessary for me to be able to bike to work every day. And yet, I find your comments insulting because not only do you clump me in with these mythical bicycling uber-mensch, you are of the opinion that anyone that disagrees with you is either one of them, or too close-minded to realize that you are clearly right and we are all clearly idiots.

I enjoy this site because there is an exchange of ideas where people try to learn from each other. You, on the other hand, aren't trying to teach us anything other than how much better your world view is and how dumb we are for not agreeing with you.

I guess I'll have to start an "ignore" list of my own. Congrats, you're the first on it.

by Teo on Jan 26, 2010 2:58 pm • link • report

@w:

Why do you say your words and concepts are disturbing to most of the people around this area?

by eliza on Jan 26, 2010 3:23 pm • link • report

mccxxiii and davidj are the only one I've seen address what is, to me, the most critical issue. Bicyclists MUST obey the rules of the road. "Everyone should have a voice" is all fine and dandy IF you're going to to obey stop signs, stop lights, signaling rules, and everything else. Until then, I have minimal respect for the issue. When bicyclists realize that they are required to obey the rules of the road like everyone else, I will start caring about their opinions.

(Mind you, I care about their lives and safety already - I'm not saying I think it's okay to hit bikes, just that they need to be responsible users of the road.)

by Meredith on Feb 13, 2010 8:03 am • link • report