Bicycling
AAA says "share the road," AAA Mid-Atlantic hogs it
AAA Mid-Atlantic must not have gotten the memo: bicycles aren't a scourge to oppose at all costs.
Photo by Eric Gilliland.
May is National Bike Month, and the national organization put out a press release urging drivers to respect bicyclists. "AAA appreciates the continued efforts of stakeholders and transportation officials towards making roads safer for motorists and cyclists alike."
That's welcome, because many residents don't feel similarly. Michael Dresser, the Baltimore Sun traffic columnist, had to dress(er) down some readers who wrote to complain about "Lance Armstrong wannabes" and "packs of city dwellers" using "their" roads.
"Cry me a river," Dresser wrote. "[Bicyclists] do not impede traffic; they are an integral part of traffic. It has been thus since the dawn of the auto age." He also refutes the argument that cyclist don't pay taxes and (ironically, the letter writer who brought that up said cyclists should "have no more special privileges than pedestrians." Does this driver also think that every pedestrian should jump out of a crosswalk if he's approaching?
Despite AAA's pro-share-the-road stance and even the attempts by some of its local clubs to woo cyclists, AAA Mid-Atlantic remains one of the nastiest and most anti-everyone-not-driving groups.
Reacting to news that DDOT is building the Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes, AAA immediately got some knee-jerk, incendiary quotes into the hands of most local reporters, which they dutifully reprinted into relatively or fully unquestioning articles. Have these guys ever said anything nice about cyclists?
The worst is a "Weblink" from Fox 5, which only paraphrases a few AAA talking points and then provides a direct link for its presumably-irate readers to comment to COG.
Newschannel 8 starts out by quoting an angry driver, but at least finds a few pro-lane residents as well.
WashCycle calls the Post's article the "best of the batch," at least including a detailed response from DDOT and noting that bicycling doubled in eight years. However, WashCycle writes,
I wish they'd have interviewed someone who could make the point that bike lanes increase cycling and cycling reduces congestion, soTommy Wells jokingly Tweeted, AAA "likely lamented the big sidewalks too. [Pennsylvania Avenue] could have been 12 lanes wide."— as long as it's reasonable — bike lanes can reduce congestion; that Penn is massively overbuilt so it has room for bike lanes; and that even if there is a little added congestion it will be somewhat compensated by less pollution and CO2, improved safety and improved public health. But they didn't.
AAA Mid-Atlantic is, as usual, taking the reflexively anti-bicycle position without really backing it up. But they don't need to to get in the paper; they've realized that if they just say pithy things, they get quoted. No need to actually argue whether the lanes will slow down drivers' commutes, which DDOT says even the traffic models say won't happen as Pennsylvania in this area is wider than it needs to be.
WashCycle also notes, have none of these reporters heard of WABA?
Also to kick off National Bike Month, in the grand tradition of columnists writing about thinks they have no knowledge of, the Examiner's conservative "Beltway Confidential" David Freddoso blasted the upper 7th Street bike lane which didn't even take away space from cars.
Freddoso's bio says he used to work for Robert Novak; apparently he's trying to follow in his mentor's footsteps in more ways than one.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
or
"AAA Mid-Atlantic is, as usual, taking the reflexively anti-bicycle position without really backing it up"
Pot, meet Kettle...Kettle. Anyone who occasionally reads this blog could have substitued the words "drivers" and "anti-car" respectively above and it would have been just as true.
Lastly,
There is one issue DDOT has been overlooking as a manner of policy for the past 20 years when it comes to traffic analysis.
Every TIA DDOT has done for the past couple decades to catagorize potential/future LOS has assumed either flat or negative traffic growth.
DDOT continually said it made sense through the 80-90's as DC was shedding population, then again it made no sense to the rest of us since the DC Metro's overall population was skyrocketing and the District being the traditional job core was having to handle higher than inflationary traffic increases year over year just by virtue of the quickly growing suburbs.
It makes even less sense now that the Districts population has been growing rather than shrinking the past decade. We will see with the latest census how quickly.
To have anyone say the "roads are overdesigned" is completely wrong at worst or horribly short sighted at best when that ROW just taken from cars and given to cyclists would serve the public much more had it been dedicated over to bus only or street car lanes.
by nookie on May 4, 2010 10:43 am • link • report
What are the rules for such things?
by Mr. S on May 4, 2010 10:50 am • link • report
by charlie on May 4, 2010 10:55 am • link • report
Without going into tons of detail, cyclists are generally expected to adhere to the same rules of the road as drivers. There are some notable exceptions to this (like being able to use the sidewalk outside of the downtown core, and passing on either the right or left of a car, riding two abreast, etc.), but generally, cyclists are expected to stop at stop signs and red lights, not drink and bike, etc..
Obviously, in the real world, I think your observations are a good normative sample. Some (not all) cyclists flaunt a lot these rules a lot of the time. I am one of them. I am not directing this at you in any way, but I think the perception that seems to be common among many drivers is that these cyclists are breaking the law simply because they can and to keep moving.
While that certainly is a factor for some cyclists, in my years as a regular bike commuter and volunteer for bike-related organizations, I think that breaking those rules are less about convenience and speed and more about safety. Most new cyclists I meet cite accelerating traffic as the single scariest event they encounter on DC's roads. One way to avoid it is by using a clear intersection to accelerate as a bike does: much slower. By the time a cyclist is moving at a stable speed, the traffic s/he left behind is moving across the intersection, free of slower cyclists to prevent them from accelerating normally. The cyclist wins, both from the physical conservation of energy and being free of an intimidating, revving engine six inches behind your wheel; drivers win, because the street is free for them to accelerate normally.
I make no excuse for people who blow through a clear intersection at full speed. It is really stupid and should be ticketed by MPD more often.
I would also note that, as the city expands its cycling infrastructure, I would expect a lot of this scofflaw stuff to go away. If a cyclist is cannibalizing infrastructure designed and built for cars, it is reasonable to expect them to adapt in a manner that is safe and effective for them until the infrastructure catches up.
Good post, David.
by JTS on May 4, 2010 11:07 am • link • report
Drivers are driving less around the country. See the graph that was posted this morning.
That said, we do need to keep a careful eye on things. None of the proposed cycle lanes would seem to encroach on any of our traffic-clogged arteries.
by andrew on May 4, 2010 11:08 am • link • report
by ah on May 4, 2010 11:13 am • link • report
And are the traffic cones going to remain on Penn Ave for the bike lanes?
by Fritz on May 4, 2010 11:18 am • link • report
Excellent point. Pedestrians jaywalk where the timing and placement of signals and crosswalks maximizes auto throughput, but is irrational from a pedestrian perspective. Of course, since drivers see only driving as the only legitimate use of public space, you hear a lot of nonsense along the lines of "If only [cyclists or pedestrians] were to follow these rules that were written for the benefit of drivers, everything would be fine."
Cyclists--in general--don't break the law to piss off drivers (though auto driver vitriol is a mystery, other than perhaps free-floating anger at the commuting life), just as pedestrians don't break the law to piss of drivers--they break the law primarily to increase their own safety, and because of the distortions of auto-centric traffic design.
by oboe on May 4, 2010 11:50 am • link • report
Can I say, there are times I love my councilmember?
by oboe on May 4, 2010 11:52 am • link • report
I think the point here is not to take from auto infrastructure and advocate every bike amenity without regard to other modes, but to bring cycling into the fold as a legitimate means of transportation. The bias in mainstream media is decidedly pro auto, so having a popular blog like this advocate for the little guy is great. If you want your opinions reinforced, feel free to peruse the links provided above.
by dano on May 4, 2010 11:55 am • link • report
So while it's not legal (yet), doing something like responsibly running a red light on your bike can and often does serve everyone's interests the best, in the long term. Laws don't necessarily correspond to community standards of responsible and predictable conduct on the roads.
It's been my experience that police generally ignore cyclists (including myself) running red lights in a responsible way. Although it's certainly up for debate whether this is them having bigger fish to fry or is evidence for them recognizing that some laws the nominally apply to cyclists don't make sense in their current form.
by Dave on May 4, 2010 12:18 pm • link • report
GGW provides this info often for other organizations. Please do so too for AAA-Mid-Atlantic. I'll be happy to use my member voice to tell them to behave. Who knows, it might work. I'll be happy to point out that while I appreciate their road-side assistance and tourist info, I am a biker as well. I'd be very happy to point out that sister organizations of AAA do get it. For instance, the Dutch AAA, is even called the ANWB: The All Dutch Wheel-riders Union. While they mostly advocate for cars, they also focus a lot on the health aspects of biking and the need to good continuous bike paths. They recognize that if more people would bike to work, there would be less traffic jams.
by Jasper on May 4, 2010 12:19 pm • link • report
by urbaner on May 4, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report
by dcd on May 4, 2010 1:19 pm • link • report
[note: I am in no way affiliated with AAA motor club.]
by aaa on May 4, 2010 1:40 pm • link • report
You obviously don't know what a TIA is or what it measures.
Dano
You said "DC's job is not to serve Rockville or Fairfax, its to serve the residents of DC."
If that were true then there would be no need for the metrorail to be in DC at all, nor VRE etc. Why? Because DC's population is only 600K, only 250K of them work and pay taxes. The Metro, both rail and bus is completely unneeded for such a small population. However the DC metro's population is 5.5 million and and 2 times the population of the District commute into DC every day for work.
You want to ignore the effects of the overal metro population and its effects on the District when it suits you, and use them when it doesn't.
The Districts population has fallen by ~35% over the past 3 decades but the suburbs population has grown 14% in the past decade alone and doubled over the past 25 years.
As I said, giving over such prime ROW for a bike lane is certainly not serving the larger public interest when you could have put given it over to dedicated bus or streetcar lanes.
Oboe
"Cyclists and pedestrians don't break the law to piss of drivers--they break the law primarily to increase their own safety, and because of the distortions of auto-centric traffic design"
This is probably the dumbest and most naive thing I have seen written on a blog in a long time.
1. Defending anyone purposely breaking the law for any reason is just completely inane and shows your unhidable bias against anything car related.
2. People don't break laws because it is safer, they do it because they are lazy, in a hurry, oblivious etc. In a metropolitan area where there are signlaized pedestrian/traffic intersections at the end of every block, there is no way to possibly construe jaywalking against traffic mid block as "safer". Nor is there anyway to paint cyclists blowing through stop lights as safer to anyone, let alone the biker. That ofcourse doesn't stop them.
We can all give anecdotal examples of drivers guilt of using cell phones and doing rolling stops at stop signs etc., but I have only seen a driver come to a stop light, slow (or not), then blow through it purposefully twice in my life, and both times it was while watching "Cops". Yet I can count on two hands the number of bikers I've seen in the past year approach a stop light and stop and wait for it to turn green like all the cars have to.
As I've said numerous times before, cyclist want all access and rights that cars do but never want to follow the same rules.
by nookie on May 4, 2010 1:53 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 4, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report
Cars want all the access and rights that bicycles do but never want to follow the same rules.
by tt on May 4, 2010 2:00 pm • link • report
although they really need to paint something more in the way of directions. Right now there are about 16 lines between the traffic lanes, bike lane edges, left turn lanes, center median (why do they still need that) and so forth. It's not entirely clear which lane you're supposed to be in as a cyclist.
by ah on May 4, 2010 2:03 pm • link • report
can we find examples of where these improvement benefit everyone?
Example:
1: the DOT mandated LED countdowns on cross-signals. As a driver, they give me warning of what the next 2-3 lights look light and an additional indicator of whether start to break gently.
2. Trucks: getting more large trucks out of city centers will help everyone, although there are costs with that.
My issue with bike lanes is
1. Bikes in DC will always be out non-commuting traffic, and building bike lane for commuters is a waste
2. Not sure how bike-lanes benefit drivers -- with the low levels of traffic they aren't going to get cars off the road. They may not cost a lot, but they do use up most of a lane.
The big benefit to something like the Penn Ave is is you get bikers off smaller streets that is a win for drivers. Something like Eye st, which is very crowded, doesn't seem appropriate.
In terms of sharing, I am tired of my mirrors being broken by bicyclists. Third one in ten years. $250 a pop. That raises everyone's insurance and I don't see bikers paying for that.
by charlie on May 4, 2010 2:15 pm • link • report
Cars want all the access and rights that bicycles do but never want to follow the same rules.
And let's not forget the famous thread a few weeks back in which Lance conceded that cars hardly ever come to a full stop at stop signs, or when turning right on red, but that's okay because they slow down enough to determine if the coast is clear.
:)
by oboe on May 4, 2010 2:46 pm • link • report
Perhaps the cyclists take it easy on me because I know the secret handshake, but I've never had a side-view mirror broken by a cyclists. Three times in the last decade by cars--and one three month old car plowed into and knocked up onto the curb by an auto driver--but never by a bicycle. In fact, I've never heard of this happening to anyone I know either.
Or is this just the sort of thing where you're baking, the yeast never rises, and you think to yourself, "Damned cyclists!"
by oboe on May 4, 2010 2:50 pm • link • report
DC has lots of trails and bike routes in areas where you're allowed to bike along the sidewalk, especially near the river. As a biker and driver I much prefer these off-street routes, but there are so many places you cannot get to without biking on the street. For these areas bike lanes are great for drivers and bikers because they separate them. The big problem is that they have little impact unless there's enough of them to make navigating the city on a bike ideal. Just check out Copenhagen. They have bike lanes on pretty much every street and everybody uses them. At least if you hate getting stuck in traffic in your car you'd have the choice to use a bike to get around.
As far as bikers running red lights and other dangerous traffic violations go: if DC cops gave out more tickets for things like that then maybe it would stop a bit. Drivers and bikers alike who act like they're the only ones on the road don't deserve to use it. Personally I don't see why a driver should require a license to use the road and a cyclist shouldn't. It's a privelege, not a right.
by bruce on May 4, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report
I was unaware that the 6 lane road was built specifically for cyclists. "Rolls eyes".
I can promise you, without a doubt or reservation that when Connecticut avenue (6 lanes) was enlarged and paved to its current size and alignment in the 1930's that it wasn't done so with giving cyclists full equal access in mind.
And I would argue that people going drastically below the speed limit on six lane roads (cyclists) are more dangeous to the overall public and a greater threat than people exceeding it by 5 or 10 mph. See how we can all make strawmen?
As I said before, we could all give anecdotal evidence of people jaywalking, cars rolling through stops (which cyclists all do as well) but purposefully blowing through redlights more often than stopping (and then trying to somehow try justify it on blogs) is soley the domain of cyclists, unless you count the random shirtless redneck trying to get away from the po-po on Cops
Again, the main point of my original post, which was reiterated in the second which none of you have admitted is that this is a horredous misuse of public ROW on a street like PA avenue, that would be better spent on dedicated bus or street car lanes.
by nookie on May 4, 2010 3:54 pm • link • report
If that were on my commute, I'd take the bridge. Eyeballing it on Google Maps, it looks to be about, what, 1500 ft from intersection to intersection? So you take the lane, do your 15-20 mph, and
If you're driving, why on Earth would you be afraid you'd hit the cyclist while passing? You wouldn't be passing. You would sit in behind the cyclist, and take the 45 second delay in stride like an adult.
by oboe on May 4, 2010 4:02 pm • link • report
Perhaps you could explain how this works, cause I'm not getting it. Do you mean the scofflaw drivers, in their attempt to recklessly get around other road users might lose control of their vehicles and run over someone?
Didn't they teach you in drivers ed, you slow down, wait for an opportune time to pass, then you pass. It's not rocket science.
by oboe on May 4, 2010 4:05 pm • link • report
...is soley the domain of cyclists...
Which is of course, why irrational driver supremacists focus, laser-like on it every time. After all, if it's something that drivers can't do safely, but cyclists can, it must surely be the root of all evil.
Next up: Scofflaw cyclists park on the sidewalk! How come I can't park on the sidewalk??? When cyclists stop parking on the sidewalk, then and only then, will I respect their rights to the road.
So silly.
by oboe on May 4, 2010 4:12 pm • link • report
Call AAA and tell them you're switching to Better World Club! I think you'll find BWC much more in line with your values, and they even offer bicycle roadside assistance!
by Matthias on May 4, 2010 4:56 pm • link • report
Don't tell me you've never heard of police giving out tickets for going too slow? C'mon...
People going too slow are an impediment to traffic, hence the ticket. A 6 lane road built for cars ( I notice you didn't contest that so you are admitting I am right) is not for Sunday driving, it is for getting the maximum volume of traffic through in the shortest safest time, which is why going slower than the speed limit is a serious impediment, and while tickets are given out for it.
It is also likely why I saw (rightfully I might add) the NPS Police pull up behind a cyclist going north on RCP last Thursday at 5:30 at a snails pace right down the middle line of two lanes (4 lanes of rush hour traffic with a paved bike path not 5 feet away, I mean gimme a freaking break)and order him over the horn to get on the path.
And yes, it is soley the domain of cyclists, just like speeding (which you yourself have a laser focus on) is usually the sole domain of drivers.
I realize you feel strongly about cycling but you'll never be taken seriously if you can't see there are two sides to every scenario and that cyclists "gasp" carry as much responsibilty and fault as drivers do.
by nookie on May 4, 2010 5:30 pm • link • report
Yes, I know there are differences between biks and cars. I am not blind. However, I also know that I pay for a portion of the roads through my vehicle registration and taxes on gasoline. Bike riders pay neither of those fees, yet share at least some portion of the road.
Registration would also allow the police to more effectively police bike riding. If I blow through a red light, a camera will catch me, or a cop might see me, and if he can't pull me over, he has my plate, and thus me. Why don't bikes have license plates then?
As for the insurance issue. A friend of mine was hit by a bike while walking (not in DC). Bad accident. She spent time in the hospital and the bills were astronomical. But who should pay? Her HMO? Why should the bike rider who caused the accident get off without paying a dime? She could have sued him, but wouldn't a system in which the bike rider carried some form of insurance be better? Given the low incidence of these types of accidents, I doubt coverage would cost much, but it would take of victims when things do happen.
Really, though, it comes down to principle. If you want to "share the road," then you need to "share the responsibility."
by urbaner on May 4, 2010 5:48 pm • link • report
by Paul the safety guy on May 4, 2010 6:02 pm • link • report
In my 15 years of utility riding in DC I have never been ticketed for going too slow. It's never happened to me, and I ride pretty much exclusively on the road--all the time. Now if there's a rideable shoulder, I take it. It doesn't happen often, but if it makes sense to take a multi-use path, I may take that (Georgetown to Bethesda's a good example).
If there's no reasonable alternative, I take the lane.
See I think the disconnect most drivers have is well illustrated by your response: *I* know how to share the road. I keep right when possible; I try to minimize my negative impact on other road users. On the other hand, you seem to think that sharing the road means that you get to pick my route, and make decisions about my personal safety. You don't.
Most of the advocacy stuff here I find interesting, but don't have a critical stake in it one way or the other. I ride on the roads, and have never had a problem. And I've got a pretty thick skin, so the occasional childish honker doesn't really bother me all that much.
by oboe on May 4, 2010 6:09 pm • link • report
Although some are taking the issue a little to far when they are disrupting the flow of traffic and causing problems for the other vehicles on the road.
Agree with this. No one should intentionally disrupt the flow of traffic gratuitously. I think the problem arises when we assign ulterior motives to others.
Bottom line is, it's not my responsibility to take a 30 min detour so that you can save 30 seconds. And I don't mean that as a moral assertion. It's a statement of legal fact.
by oboe on May 4, 2010 6:40 pm • link • report
Just something to think about to put a little common sense into this conversation. Bikes can be on sidewalks because they CAN operate safely on them. Bikes can be in slow moving city traffic because they CAN operate safely on them. Bikes can be on the sides of suburban and rural roads, because they CAN operate safely on them. Bikes don't belong on roads built for cars traveling at high speeds, because they CAN'T operate safely on them as part of the 'regular traffic pattern'. It's common sense not only from the standpoint of 'impeding the flow of traffic' but from the perspective of the cyclist and their own safety. To not observe that simple common sensical rule is flirting with disaster.
And Oboe, no, the bottom line is that if we were to depend on bikes alone to move everyone from point A to point B around a metro area where average commutes probably exceed 20 miles coming and another 20 miles going, we may as well shoot the old people, the fat people and everyone else who's not a fit 20 something and with the good fortune to work, play, shop a short bicycle jaunt away from their hipster homes.
Cars are the great equalizer and the means of getting millions of people to millions of different destinations on any given day. Bikes aren't going to do that. And for you to think you have the right to disrupt thousands of lives so that you can 'play bike' is absurd.
by Lance on May 4, 2010 10:04 pm • link • report
Take it up with the courts. I'm not hear to argue whether they law should be changed. Just telling you what the law is.
by oboe on May 5, 2010 12:30 am • link • report
True enough. But speeding, more often than obeying the speed limit (and then trying to somehow try justify it on blogs by claiming that slow driving is the greater threat) is soley the domain of drivers. This would make us even, except that speeding is a factor in 1/3 of all traffic fatalities and running stop lights by bicyclists accounts for less than 0.5% of all CYCLIST fatalities. So it really isn't the same thing, is it?
Focusing on legal activity to achieve safety is like focusing on offensive yards to win a football game. The two aren't unrelated, but they aren't the same. The evidence out of Idaho is that allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and stop lights as stop signs makes roads safer. So don't talk to me about illegal behavior cyclists do - I don't care. Talk to me about dangerous behavior road users do, because that's what concerns me.
by David C on May 5, 2010 12:50 am • link • report
by Jasper on May 5, 2010 7:00 am • link • report
I think that law was actually repealed in the last few years, though I may be wrong.
by oboe on May 5, 2010 8:05 am • link • report
Please link to the source of your stats below.
"This would make us even, except that speeding is a factor in 1/3 of all traffic fatalities and running stop lights by bicyclists accounts for less than 0.5% of all CYCLIST fatalities."
And I am not sure there is any common ground to be had when someone like yourself justifies breaking the obvious traffic law like running a red light, and then thinking it isn't dangerous.
I really hope you don't find out the hard way that blowing through a redlight on your bike "is" uincredibly dangeous, for pedestrians, cars and bikers when you end up as someones hood ornament.
As I said, please link to the stats you used.
by nookie on May 5, 2010 8:40 am • link • report
as someones hood ornament.
Hey! Common ground!
I think we all agree that "blowing through a red light is dangerous" especially in crowded intersections. Fortunately--aside from the occasional courier with a death-wish--cyclists don't do that.
Most cyclists I see who run red-lights (myself included) stop, wait to see that no cross traffic is coming, that no pedestrians are at risk, then ride on through. Just the way any sane person does on foot. No adult stands at an empty intersection waiting 45 seconds for a "Don't Walk" signal to change.
If it were "incredibly dangerous" to jaywalk or jaycycle, you'd think there'd be some numbers that bore that out somewhere. Again, statistics may show that stop-light running accounts for less than 0.5% of cyclist fatalities, but when facts collide with a driver's fundamental sense of fairness, facts must yield.
by oboe on May 5, 2010 9:11 am • link • report
Ah. Hadn't heard. I guess I can then take of my DC registration sticker.
@ nookie: Please link to the source of your stats below.To quote Shaggie: "It wasn't me." It was David C.
by Jasper on May 5, 2010 9:35 am • link • report
Speeding is a factor in 1/3 of all traffic fatalities
Running stop lights by bicyclists accounts for less than 0.5% of all CYCLIST fatalities.
You have to scroll down a bit for the second one. And I have a correction. The second stat is less than 0.5% of all crashes - not fatalities.
by David C on May 5, 2010 9:40 am • link • report
by David C on May 5, 2010 9:46 am • link • report
And the DDOT numbers, also incredibly old (considering cyclists like to tout bourgening cyclist numbers) but they also point out that cyclists are more likely to be at fault than motorists 31% vs 26%, which considering the massive exponential difference in the number of cars on DC roads versus bikes is astounding in itself.
Lets see "me" prove a biker running a redlight is dangeous? Are you serious? Fine, 50% of all bike/car collisions that have happened the past month in the district was because the biker ran the red light (hit NBC 4 Van on April 1). My, how short your memories are.
The fact that you guys have to defend a clear unmistakable act of breaking the law in an effort to make a lost point, only proves that you are wrong. Something you would realize if you simply thought about it like a rational person. It would be like someone justifying that speeding in a car was "safer", and we all know how much creedance you would give that argument.
by nookie on May 5, 2010 10:32 am • link • report
I am not a professional statistician, but this seems somehow wrong to me. Could you elaborate?
50% of all bike/car collisions that have happened the past month in the district was because the biker ran the red light (hit NBC 4 Van on April 1).
Not sure I follow. Are you saying there have been two bike/car collisions, and that fifty percent (i.e. 'one') was because the biker ran the red light?
by oboe on May 5, 2010 10:53 am • link • report
What is your overall objective ot point nookie? Its hard to tell. It just seems like ranting vituperative against bicycling and any effort to improve safety conditions for people who bike and the drivers who probably want to avoid hitting them.
by Bianchi on May 5, 2010 11:07 am • link • report
The massive exponential difference in the number of cars on DC roads versus bikes is entirely irrelevant here. Car-bike collisions involve only the car(s) and bike(s) involved in the collision. They do not involve all the other cars and all the other bikes in the DC metropolitan area.
Or are you trying to argue that bikes are more likely to collide with cars than with other bikes because there are more cars on the road than bikes?
In addition, comparing the 31% of collisions for which the bicycle rider was at fault to the 26% of collisions for which the car driver was at fault is comparing apples and oranges. The DDOT report includes all bicycle collisions, including collisions that did not involve cars and for which it was therefore impossible for a car driver to be at fault. (It looks like about 30% of the bicycle collisions involved pedestrians, for example.) To show that bicycle riders are more often at fault in bicycle-car collisions than car drivers -- which, I infer, is what you are trying to argue -- you would have to compare at-fault percentages for bicycle-car collisions only. As far as I can tell, the DDOT report does not provide the data for such a comparison.
Alternatively, to show that bicycle riders are more often at fault in collisions in general than car drivers, you would have to compare the at-fault percentage for bicycle riders from the DDOT report, for all bicycle collisions, to the at-fault percentages for car drivers for all car collisions.
I don't have the data for the at-fault percentages for car drivers for all car collisions, but since a car driver is likely be at fault in many car-car collisions, and a car driver is extremely likely to be at fault in collisions with natural objects (for example, the tree that a car ran over on its way into my front yard a few weeks ago; the tree did not jump out in front of the car), I'm guessing that the percentage of car collisions for which a car driver was at fault is going to be higher than 31%.
by Miriam on May 5, 2010 11:48 am • link • report
Alright, I'm already getting bored by this discussion, But what has significantly changed in the last 20 years that invalidates this data?
And how about this study out of NYC from 2005, it shows that in only 13% of crashes are cyclists solely to blame (drivers are in 35%, both in 6% and the other 45% are unknown). And of that 13%, ignoring traffic control devices is only cited as the cause in 8% of those crashes. That's for both lights and stop signs, which means lights alone is probably less.
And the DDOT numbers, also incredibly old (considering cyclists like to tout bourgening[sic] cyclist numbers) but they also point out that cyclists are more likely to be at fault than motorists 31% vs 26%, which considering the massive exponential difference in the number of cars on DC roads versus bikes is astounding in itself.
Well, you can't both dismiss old statistics and use them to support your claim - or you can, but it appears hypocritical. Also 31% vs 26% is hardly overwhelming. It's such a small sample size that they could easily be within the range of error. Your last point about the ratio of bikes to cars (1:13 fyi) is irrelevant. The ratio of bikes to cars in bike-car crashes is probably very close to 1:1 is it not (occasionally drivers will hit many cyclists at once, unfortunately)?
As Bianchi points out, the finding of blame by the police is somewhat questionable. Looking again at the NYC data, cyclists are found to be at fault in 42% of all fatalties (vs 20% for drivers) but only 13% of crashes (vs 35% of drivers). And in fatalities, failure of cyclists to obey traffic control devices is the overwhelming top factor. Why this disconnect? If cyclists are to blame in a minority of crashes, why are they to blame for a plurality of fatalities? It could be that when cyclists behave badly, they usually die, but when drivers behave badly cyclists usually survive. But I don't see how that could be true. It's more likely that when the cyclist dies the driver says "they ran a stop sign" and with no one around to contradict it, that is how it gets reported. Even the study notes "In contrast to bicyclist deaths, a higher proportion of serious injury crash factors were assigned to motor vehicle drivers than to bicyclists, and only a small proportion (6%) were documented to be the result of both motor vehicle driver and bicyclist factors. Because both the bicyclist and the driver are available to recount the events leading up to the crash, the assignment of contributing factors for serious injuries might be more accurate than among fatalities."
50% of all bike/car collisions that have happened the past month in the district was because the biker ran the red light (hit NBC 4 Van on April 1).
This is a flawed proof. You have a sample size (2) that is too small to be of value. By the same token 0% of bike crashes in the District in January were because a biker ran a red light. So in January was it safe? I also don't think you're right. I think there were probably more crashes in the District than just two.
The fact that you guys have to defend a clear unmistakable act of breaking the law in an effort to make a lost point, only proves that you are wrong. Something you would realize if you simply thought about it like a rational person. It would be like someone justifying that speeding in a car was "safer", and we all know how much creedance[sic] you would give that argument.
The difference is that speeding isn't safer. That it is illegal to run lights and signs is unmistakable. That it should be legal for cyclists is my point.
I don't want the rights of drivers but none of the responsibilities. I want the rights of cyclists and the responsibilities of cyclists. And there is no reason why those rights/responsibilities should be identical.
As for your main point that this is a this is "a horredous[sic] misuse of public ROW on a street like PA avenue, that would be better spent on dedicated bus or street car lanes." The center would be a bad place to put bus/streetcar lanes, because buses on Penn need to stop on the right (you can't put raised platforms in the middle because of the parade restrictions). The only way to do that is to take out the parking lane on the right. If that is what you're advocating, then shockingly, we're in agreement. But that won't require them to remove the bike lanes in the middle.
by David C on May 5, 2010 12:24 pm • link • report
by Matt on May 5, 2010 10:37 pm • link • report
Hey, us too! Perhaps you could ask yourself why some cyclists aren't using available bike lanes--or at least look for a reason beyond "they're self-absorbed a-holes." :)
I look forward to your die-hard support for traffic-calming measures so we can get those timid cyclists off the sidewalks and into the traffic lanes.
by oboe on May 6, 2010 10:00 am • link • report
by Matt on May 6, 2010 10:35 am • link • report
IÂ’m the Social Media Manager at AAA Mid-Atlantic. IÂ’d like to respond to the press weÂ’ve been receiving painting us as anti-bike or anti-cyclist as a result of a press release we sent out on the new bike lanes in Washington, DC. Though I donÂ’t personally bike to work, I value the rights of others to bike for leisure or as a commuting option. Concerned that AAA Mid-Atlantic was not acting in the best interest of its Members, I emailed Ron Kosh, our VP of Public and Government Affairs, alerting him to the issue and asking "Was AAA Mid-Atlantic really anti-bike"? I wanted to share RonÂ’s response with all of you.
“AAA Mid-Atlantic does not oppose bike lanes in the nation’s capital. We are fully supportive of the fact that the District of Columbia has 44.7 miles of bike lanes and 56 miles of bike trails.
AAA also supports additional bike lanes including lanes on major city thoroughfares where practical. However, a meaningful and thoughtful planning process should follow when doing so. That process should include: 1) a published mobility analysis and full traffic impact study, 2) an environmental impact study, and 3) completion of a public comment period.
AAA Mid-Atlantic believes that “Share the Road” situations can safely and effectively be created between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians as is already evident on many streets in the city.
DDOT must, however, have the best interests in mind of all citizens: including motorists, cyclists and pedestrians when implementing any change that has such significant impact on mobility in the city.”
From my perspective, what AAA Mid-Atlantic did wrong was write a press release that caused our position to be misunderstood. Additionally, we allowed a few days to pass before we responded to clarify that we are definitely not anti-cyclist. In fact, we are sponsors of Ride Your Bike to Work Day and offer community programs on Bike Safety.
I hope this will allay any concerns some of you have had on this issue. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please comment back or email me at ksnedaker@aaamidatlantic.com. Thanks so much to all of you for taking the time to tell us how you feel on this issue. ItÂ’s incredibly important to us receive this kind of feedback and we truly appreciate it!
by Kim Snedaker on May 7, 2010 2:19 pm • link • report
While I appreciate the above post from the AAA sharing the "proper" views of the main organization as well as the AAA Mid-Atlantic, the voice of Lon Anderson, particularly in an Op-Ed he authored on the Cleveland Park Listserv, does nothing to alleviate my concerns or the concerns of many residents in the District of Columbia.
As a result of the releases and correspondences, I have personally canceled my membership to the AAA (of 15 years) in favor of an alternative that makes its pro-transportation (including bicycles) views the cornerstone of its organization.
I would suggest that the AAA very closely examine its views, lobbying stance and practices very carefully and derive an alternative plan, if it wants to maintain any sense of standing with those who share an apparently different worldview than Mr. Anderson.
by Andrew on May 7, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report
Thanks for your reply.
Despite the unfortunate comments, AAA Mid-Atlantic's position on this is that we are not anti-bike so much as DDOT making these changes without a published mobility analysis & full traffic impact study, an environmental impact study, and completion of a public comment period. Which, at present, is not the course of action.
As a 100+ year old membership organization, I can assure you that the relationships we have with our members and all residents of the Mid-Atlantic region, are at the core of our mission as a company. To lose your membership after 15 years is unsettling to us. I'm sorry we let you down.
by Kim Snedaker on May 7, 2010 5:21 pm • link • report
Thanks for the reply. Please let me give you two examples of where Mr. Anderson's so-called "war on motorists" fail.
1) He states that there are concerns the AAA and its 80,000 mid-Atlantic members have regarding the increased fees proposed in the District. My question: How many of those 80,000 members are paying dues for the AAA lobbying and PR machine, and how many are simply subscribing to roadside service? As a former AAA member, my views on these issues were never polled and I certainly do not appreciated being used by the AAA as a number to back its misplaced views before elected policy makers.
2) Mr Anderson suggests, the District is making mistakes by increasing fines for 71 moving violations, such as speeding, running a red light, running a stop sign, turning from the wrong lane and passing a stopped school bus and by expanding the use of speed and red-light cameras to generate an additional $16 million in revenue.
I would submit that if the AAA provided education for motorists and lobbied for increased finding for traffic enforcement there would be no need for those motorists to pay the proposed increased fines. To the contrary, to suggest that pedestrians, bicyclists and other motorists should tolerate such dangerous behavior is simply irresponsible. However, that seems to be the prevailing thought: motorists should be able to break laws for minimal penalty in the name of their self-interests.
As I mentioned previously, I will no longer tolerate my dues to be used so irresponsibly by the AAA. I suspect as many other District residents are learning more about the AAA positions and apparent values, the membership numbers will continue to decline. Either the AAA needs to better embrace the changing attitudes of area residents or else it will find itself marginalized as a voice and service provide for the community.
Until I see significant changes in spokes people and policy, I will assume the status quo, as articulated by Mr. Anderson to remain.
by Andrew on May 7, 2010 10:38 pm • link • report
We also support the building of "safe, convenient and well-designed" bike facilities in the nation's capital and other cities throughout the region, We believe the streets belong to all users.
The District Department of Transportation recently submitted a plan to build barrier-protected bike lanes on five streets in downtown DC.
According to the CLRP project description form that DDOT submitted to the TPB, the plans include a pilot project to build bike lanes down the center median of Pennsylvania Avenue NW from 3rd Street NW to 14th Street NW.
To accomplish this, DDOT will remove two traffic lanes in the "Federal Triangle" area, the "heart of the Nation's Capital."
This area is located in Washington's Central Business District (CBD). It is one of the largest employment areas in the nation and the entire metro region. An estimated 350,000 persons work in the area, including those employed in two of the most famous buildings in the world, the White House and the U.S. Capitol, situated on opposite ends of Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Over the years, gridlock in the "federal triangle" and, therefore, downtown Washington, has been "exacerbated by the closure of two major east/west streets near the White House, Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street, for security reasons," traffic studies have shown. In terms of traffic volume, downtown Washington is one of the busiest travel and traffic corridors in the city.
Therefore, of necessity, the transportation network in the Federal Triangle, located between Pennsylvania Avenue, Constitution Avenue and 15th Street must safely and efficiently accommodate all modes of transportation, including Metro rail riders, Metro bus riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, tour bus passengers, taxi passengers, and motorists, and those with disabilities.
As a critical first step, we also believe that bike lanes should be added in such a way as to not undermine the safety of bicyclists and in such as way as to not put operational pressure on traffic and transit users, as well.
This underscores the need for and the importance of using sound traffic impact and safety studies and what has been rightly called "good engineering judgment" in building bicycle facilities, especially in retrofitting bike lanes on existing streets.
This is why we are calling for an open and honest discussion of the best way to accommodate and operate bike lanes in Washington that safeguards the lives, ensures the mobility and motivity of all users, and facilitate traffic flow in light of proposed adjustments to existing geometric and traffic characteristics.
For the sake of all, we need studies on the operational and safety effects of adding marked bike lanes to the center of Pennsylvania Avenue. At a time when empirical studies of gridlock in the region, and downtown Washington, continue to show "more severe congestion that lasts longer and affects more of the transportation network," we need to work together in a collaborative effort to find the best of all possible solutions for all users and not to exacerbate congestion woes.
That's why we must have a careful study of the best outcomes in Downtown Washington's transportation future.
In 2006 Transportation Planning Board appoved plans to build 247 miles of new bike lanes in the Washington metro area and to add 482 miles of multi-use paths to the region by 2030.
In 1997 the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed a special tool for evaluating and designing on-street bicycle facilities on both existing roadways and planned roadways. Known as the the Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI), it was derived from rigorous statistical analysis of the responses to a large scale survey of cyclists.
Two years later, in 1999, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) published the "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities." It stated "the public agency and community support for bike lanes as a reasonable accommodation of bicyclists has been growing in many American cities."
We encourage DDOT to share with the public the following: (a) data on roadway geometric and traffic characteristics, including peak-hour volume computations, motor vehicle speeds, the percentage of tour buses, taxis and trucks, right turn volume, etc.
(b) its statistical analysis and description of the compatibility of the facility with cycling activity, including the Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI) and Passing Event Model (PEM).
(c) its empirically based studies on the impact on the decision on the safety and mobility of cyclists and motorists under present and future traffic conditions, and
(D) its projections of operational level of the bike facility for both cyclists and motorists.
For safety sake, is that too much to ask?
by John B. Townsend II on May 9, 2010 1:00 am • link • report
This information and messaging is not consistent with the words articulated by others associated with the AAA in an official capacity. Rather than having underlings refer to those messages as "unfortunate comments", I would submit that your communications staff sensationalizes government activities ("District's War on Motorists") to the extent that it loses credibility.
Further, your comments do nothing to address the two examples (of many) I mention in my post from Friday evening. 1) How does the AAA qualify or distinguish the support of its lobbying effort from those members who are simply subscribing to a road service membership? and 2) How does advocacy against raising fines for unsafe motorist behavior do anything to aid in making our streets safer from those who are operating the largest, fastest vehicles in a dangerous manner?
It seems antithetical to communicate the message of safer streets yet oppose raising fines for running red lights or speeding in a callous "war on motorists" message.
by Andrew on May 9, 2010 6:47 am • link • report
Instead of writhing in fits of apoplexy over AAA Mid-Altantic's concerns about the speculatory data DDOT used to justify adding bike lanes to the center of Pennsylvania Avenue, one of Washington's busiest tour bus routes, we should all take a deep breath.
We should all ask if the placement of the bike lanes was carefully considered and whether the design puts cyclists in a more dangerous position.
Let's see, fewer than 1 percent of us regularly bike to work, according to the January 2010 edition of Governing magazine. Bicyclists comprise 2.5 percent of the daily commuters in DC, which is much higher than the national average. Yet we are removing 25 percent of the travel lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue in non-peak hours and even a higher percentage of the lanes during peak-hours when the a steady convoy of five-ton tour buses is heading for the exits.
God forbids, but it sounds like a fatal accident waiting to happen. I refer you to the article "Scandal of our deadly cycle lanes," which can be found on the Observer website.
It quotes one Roger Geffen, the campaigns manager at the national cycling body, the Cyclists' Touring Club,
He told the newspaper "a cultural shift was needed so that local authorities considered cycle lanes more carefully. They had 'been left to the most junior planning officers, and we need better guidance on dealing with major junctions."
We are also guilty of mouthing pious sounding litotes, saying one thing by denying its opposite.
Though we say motorists must "Share the road" with us, we are becoming the road hogs.
We are the ones making knee-jerk, incendiary statements.
Though we say on a related website and blog "the new protected bike lanes on Pennsylvania Ave will have no impact on vehicle level of service according to a study by the District Department of Transportation," we all know no such study exists. This is why TPB is calling on DDOT to produce such a study before its next meeting on May 19.
Instead of using weird science to achieve desired outcomes, we need real science. As the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center notes, "To determine whether bike lanes or paths are effective in reducing bicycle accidents not only with other bicyclists and pedestrians but also with motor vehicles, a cohort study design might be implemented comparing two groups of riders–those using a bicycle lane/path (exposed) and those not using the lane/path (unexposed)–and their respective accident incidence rates. This would, however, require large groups of cyclists. The cohort study might also be conducted in which the cohorts are roads versus paths and the rate of crashes calculated for each. This approach would require reliable data on usage of bicycle paths and roads, such as miles traveled."
by Jessica Scales on May 9, 2010 6:22 pm • link • report
I am neither a traffic engineer nor an urban planner, so I can't address the quantitative points of your argument. However, I do have to say as a tour guide, I'm not sure why you are singling out tour buses. Pennsylvania Avenue is heavily trafficked by us, but I would say rather less so than Constitution, Independence, Massachusetts, and 17th/H ST NW (in roughly that order). Still, we do use it fairly often.
But, unlike the four routes I mentioned above, Penn is almost always comparatively free of traffic stoppages. I have no qualitative data to point to, but speaking from personal experience, Pennsylvania is by far the most wide open of the five with the least traffic. There's plenty of room and space to add bike lanes. It's certainly not going to get in our way. Nor has it since they've been added.
And on that point, there's no reason a tour bus can't share the road just as a car, bike, or pedestrian can. Sure the bus is larger, and I urge pedestrian and bikers to keep our blind spots in mind, but I've been on hundreds of tours without hitting anymore, and I'm shooting for hundreds more. Most (but admittedly not all) of the drivers I've had are very familiar with DC and are very conscientious of their safety records.
Also, most student tours don't leave the city until 8-9 pm. Generally, chaperones don't want to get back to the hotel too early, nor do we want to sit in traffic. So there's no "higher percentage of the lanes during peak-hours when the a steady convoy of five-ton tour buses is heading for the exits". You may be thinking of commuter buses, which would be higher in those hours.
by TimK on May 9, 2010 8:08 pm • link • report
• Rider stress
• Collision history
• Average daily traffic volumes
• Gap Closure
• Cost/Funding
• Connectivity
• Implementation complexity
Another factor is "expected community reaction." Studies have shown "Other bicycle improvements that require removal of travel lanes and/or parking facilities are expected to have a lower degree of community support." To this end, AAA Mid-Atlantic is doing us a favor by rightly ringing the alarm bell to tell us in rushing to build the build lanes we might be putting the cart before the horse, or in this case the bike lane before the rider, putting him or her into harm's way. It is a thankless task. For doing this, AAA Mid-Atlantic has been wrongly and wantonly cirticized for raising legitimate safety concerns.
In its plan to add Pennsylvania Avenue, DDOT should make sure it is implented in such a way as to improve the safety and/or comfort of bicyclist. It is my hope that it is
following the standards developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Far from opposing bike lanes, AAA Mid-Atlantic is simply asking the District to weigh the best practices for implementing them for the benefit and safety of all users. That's my two cents' worth.
There's one more to consider. As the nation's capital, the District's transportation infastracture contains an odd network of streets, roads and highways, that few outside or within the District understand. Unlike in other cities, federal roads dot the landscape as well as non-federal roads and local roads. This is best understood when a snow emergency occurs, wherein the federal roads are given priority treatment. One such roadway is Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
One of the most famous addresses in the world is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, the White House. When the Pennsylvania Avenue Project was undertaken by First Lady Laura Bush in 2204, it was the colloborative effort of "dozens of federal, local, and civic agencies that worked with the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), as well as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)." It resulted the creattion of a safe and beautiful pedestrian space on the Avenue.
Other segments of this avenue are unique in several senses. For example, the "Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site" is part of the National Mall and Memorial Parks. As the National Park Service notes, "The Avenue is more than just another city street; it is, rather, America's Ceremonial Way." That is because Pennsylvania Avenue has been the site of a quadrennial inaugural parade for over 200 years, since Thomas JeffersonÂ’s second inaugural on March 4, 1805.
Concerns have been raised about the questionable provenance of adding bike lanes smack-down the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet there has been little discussion about the risks to bicylists or whether the federal government was consulted or briefed on the idea.
Beyond this, imagine the outrage if the federal government were to unilaterially close traffic lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue without first consulting and seeking input from DC officials, including Mayor Fenty, members of the District council, DDOT officials, who maintain the roadway. This happened several years ago when the federal govenment closed a two block swath of the avenue in front of the White House for security reasons.
In this case, it is DDOT that is doing this without consulting the National Capital Planning Commission or the Federal Highway Administration.
What's good for the goose is not necessarily what's good for the gander.
by Jake Allen on May 9, 2010 8:36 pm • link • report
Your Ad Hominem attacks on AAA Mid-Atlantic on your website is a disservice to bicyclists everywhere. You are attacking a group that is simply voicing a logical concern about the best way to safely build bike lanes in the District. But you wouldn't know it by your diatribes.
As a member, I was upset at the organization after reading your blog.
Unlike you, I picked up the phone and called John Townsend. Not knowing what to expect, I found him willing to listen to my disappointments. After venting at him, I finally allowed him to speak. He patiently reassured me that AAA Mid-Atlantic does not oppose bike lanes. Like the national organization, AAA Mid-Atlantic has a "pro-share the road stance."
In our conversation, Mr. Townsend explained that nowhere in the press release does AAA Mid-Atlantic state opposition to the bike lanes.
He is simply calling for a rational and reasoned discussion of the best practices that ensure the safety of all users.
As stated in the news release, he pointed out, "Some planners are still debating the best approach for adding bike lanes to existing roadways."
We should all be concerned about this.
In the past, AAA Mid-Atlantic has encouraged area motorists to sign a pledge to drive within the speed limit on area streets and roads, and to always watch out for people who are walking and cycling in the region. It supported the DC Neighborhood Pace Car Program, a community safety initiative sponsored by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association and the District Department of Transportation.
Its website is replete with pro-bike advocacy, information and videos encouraging all motorists to respectfully share the road with cyclists.
http://www.aaamidatlantic.com/Foundation/CommunityPrograms/BicycleSafety
http://www.aaamidatlantic.com/Foundation/CommunityPrograms/BicycleSafety/Video1
http://www.aaamidatlantic.com/Foundation/CommunityPrograms/BicycleSafety/Video3
http://www.aaamidatlantic.com/Foundation/CommunityPrograms/BicycleSafety/Video2
I remain a loyal member of AAA Mid-Atlantic.
by Jake Allen on May 9, 2010 10:00 pm • link • report
The press release was clear - AAA opposes any bike lanes in DC that take lanes away from cars. If that's not what they meant, they need to issue a correction.
by Ron Alford on May 9, 2010 10:51 pm • link • report
by former AAA Mid Atlantic contractor on Feb 15, 2011 4:41 pm • link • report
Add a Comment