If you listen to WASA's b.s., the pipes are just fine and the only reason there's any lead in a person's water is because they may have some lead piping in their home.

So you see, under WASA's view, it's not their hundreds of miles of lead pipes that the problem. It's the few feet of lead pipes in your house that's the real problem.

When it comes to FAIL, it's a close race between WASA and WMATA.

by Fritz on May 20, 2010 9:35 am • link • report

Ok, can we all agree on at least one thing vis-a-vis bikes v. cars issues?

If you are a cyclist, and there is a bike lane on the street you're on, use it, rather than ride in the car lane!

Let's all repeat that shall we:

IF YOU ARE A CYCLIST, AND THERE IS A BIKE LANE ON THE STREET YOU'RE ON, USE IT, RATHER THAN RIDE IN THE CAR LANE.

How hard is this? The bike lane is there for a reason - it allows us ALL to get along. Seriously. I have great sympathy for cyclists, being a former one myself, but today driving down 14th st today there was a total asshole of a cyclist in the car lane (middle one, rightmost one, back and forth) while ignoring the bicyle lane completely. THAT is the type of behavior that makes drivers hate cyclists. We CAN all get along when there is a bike lane. But ONLY if the cyclists use it.

And, no, the bike lane wasn't crowded at all (empty, in fact) and yes the cyclists actions blocked traffic and pissed off a lot of drivers, and no he wasn't wearing a helmet.

by AMF on May 20, 2010 9:53 am • link • report

@AMF:
Agreed, however there is that category of bicyclist that wants the same status as cars on the road and the only way to get that, in their mind, is to ride in traffic with cars regardless of a bike lane.

It could also be that they feel safer in traffic than in the bike lane. Same thing with the helmet. I remember reading a study where drivers passed closer and faster by a bicyclist wearing a helmet than one not wearing a helmet. It's probably similar for those bicyclists in a bike lane.

It could also be that this guy was just a supreme ass-hat who gives good bicylists a bad name.

by kidincredible on May 20, 2010 10:02 am • link • report

Neither wearing a helmet nor using a bike lane when it's present are required by law.

It may burn a hole in your tiny angry heart, but it doesn't change the fact that you're getting indignant about someone following the law.

I suspect your anger is oddly in abeyance when you see a car drive over the speed limit or roll through a stop sign.

by Reid on May 20, 2010 10:07 am • link • report

I was at Howard University's presentation of their proposal for Walter Reed. Their proposal, one of many submitted to the city, seems like a long shot.

by Eric F. on May 20, 2010 10:13 am • link • report

If Howard University Hospital moves to Walter Reed, can we return the site to its former use: as the site of a new stadium for DC United? Everyone would win then and it'd finally allow for redevelopment of the RFK site (probably as the Danny Dome).

by Jason on May 20, 2010 10:22 am • link • report

1. This bike lane is not open yet and is dangerous.

2. If you're turning right, you have to leave the bike lane in ride in the car lane on the right.

3. There is no such thing as a car lane.

4. The bike lane is in the door zone and as Jaime has told us, you should not ride in the door zone, because it is unreasonable to expect people to look for you.

5. Not every cyclist likes bike lanes. Some hate them. They call them suicide lanes. I'm not eager to force someone to ride in them if they don't want to.

6. Was the guy in question Hitler?

by David C on May 20, 2010 10:22 am • link • report

We could use that pedestrian bridge over East West Highway to enter the Blairs and points west.

by Redline SOS on May 20, 2010 10:22 am • link • report

And what's wrong with the old 'share the road'? I.e., a cyclist can use any lane but does so in a way that most minimally impacts other types of traffic. There was a time when cyclists generally stayed in the righthand lane unless they had a reason to go into a lefthand lane ... such as for making a left hand turn. And cyclists would at that point properly signal traffic behind them that they were going into that lane ... and only do so as they approached the intersection where they needed to make the left and after they'd coordinated their movements with the traffic behind them (i.e., either got a clear visual signal from the driver behind them that they were letting them by or waited until the driver had passed them.) Sharing the road meant coordinating your actions as a cyclist with those of the driver(s) sharing the road with you. And yes, it meant acknowledging that cars are bigger and heavier and capable of greater speeds than an individual sitting on a metal frame with wheels on it. It worked.

Giving cyclists separate lanes that aren't really separate ... (only separated by paint) plays off a false assumption .. that is, that 'all vehicle modes are created equal'. They're not. And thus an environment based on false assumptions get created. We give cyclists the same right as a vehicle that is inherently much more powerful, and heavy, and dangerous ... and then wonder why they lose out when they were 'just exercising their rights'. Some rights cannot just be created out or thin air. A cyclist will always lose out in a collision with a car ... even if they were 'in the right'.

The system we had, where there was a tacit acknowledgement that people in cars 'were in charge' worked because it put the onus on people in cars to cede their 'rights' to cyclists as a 'courtesy'. And cede they did. As a cyclist cars would always let me get into that left lane when I asked and cars would look out for me ... and yes, even nicely toot their horns to let me know they were behind me and that I should be careful not to stray into their path. And it worked. I knew my place, and they respected that and treated me with respect.

Now we have a set of 'equal rights' put in place not based on anything other than laws, and we have a system that isn't working. We have cyclists who think they can keep up with traffic, who aggressively lay claim to their rights, and who do nothing 'share' the road in a manner that the driver will graciously 'let the cyclist by' because noblesse oblige.

We've created an adversarial and unsustainable relationship between cyclists and drivers that will only get worse as the numbers of cyclists increases. And why? Just so a cyclist can pretend they have all the rights as a motorist? Until a cyclist can figure out a way to have a motorist suffer the same consequences in a crash as a cyclist is liable to suffer, that isn't happening.

by Lance on May 20, 2010 10:22 am • link • report

Seems like if they able to build 1400 residential units, and develop more around rte. 7 and 28 then maybe they won't feel it so necessary to build more six lane roads.

And it would seem like a boon to have all the "town center" developments in loudoun close together. With enough street connectivity between places like Dulles town center, Kincora, and Loudoun one you could create a very viable district.

Or you could just build what amounts to a glorified mall...

by Canaan on May 20, 2010 10:24 am • link • report

Reid,

I am not sure why you are such an inherently angry person, but you are exactly the cyclist we are all talking about.

Cyclist are constantly clamoring for consideration by drivers. You can look back at a number of these biker/car discussions over the past week, but while you demand extrodinary consideration for your own convenience and safety, you PURPOSELY go out of your way deny it to everyone else by "NOT" using the bike lane when it is provided to you.

And since you are such rigidly law abiding citizen, I am assuming your bike is properly registered with the DC Gov and has an approved bell mounted to it. No? Imagine my surprise.

Finally, yes...drivers who too do rolling stops or otherwise flaunt the law piss me off too.

by nookie on May 20, 2010 10:27 am • link • report

@Reid:

Well, not riding in a bike lane when it exists *should* be the law. But that's just my opinion, I suppose.

I really do not understand how this is controversial, at all. I'm not advocating anything other than that which would allow and enable us ALL to get along. How is this weird or wrong or angry? If there is a bike lane, please use it. That's all I'm saying.

And, no, I don't have a "tiny angry heart" but thanks for adding petty insults to the debate. That helps. In fact, I actually watched bemusedly while the various drivers and cyclist got all in each others faces, flipping each other off, and so forth.

What I don't understand is why a cyclist would NOT use a bike lane. It was empty. He wasn't turning. It seemed pretty clear to me that it wasn't more or less dangerous to do so.

Ceteris paribus, he was just being an asshole.

And that is part of the problem in the drivers and cyclists debate. There are assholes on both sides of this issue, and I do believe that the majority of them are drivers not cyclists. But ANY asshole-ish behavior cuts off potential avenues of compromise and agreement.

Again, I am sympathetic to the cyclists. I am a former one, who would love to get into it again. I wish I could bike to work.

But I was NEVER an asshole like this guy was, and I REALLY don't understand WHY he was.

It hurts, not helps, the cycling cause.

Thanks,

AMF

BTW, do you have a citation that supports your claim that not riding in a bike lane when it exists is not required by law. That seems odd, to me. Maybe we need to get that done.

by AMF on May 20, 2010 10:27 am • link • report

@AMF

Please save your caps-lock button for your ANC representatives and Councilmembers. Write to them and urge them to build more separated cycle tracks like the one on 15th St NW. That is the only way you will get cyclists out of 'car lanes'.

Many cycle lanes require cyclists to travel in the door zone, which means they would have to put their lives at risk to speed your morning commute. Other cycle lanes (e.g. Columbia & Adams Mill NW) put cyclists in such dangerous road positions that they should never be used.

Please also remember that every cyclist that forgoes driving a car reduces the volume of traffic, and frees up parking spaces for motorists like you.

by renegade09 on May 20, 2010 10:32 am • link • report

AMF

From the Pocket Guide to D.C. Bike Laws by DDOT and MPD

"There are no regulations in DC which state that bicyclists must use a bike lane when one is present"

The reason cyclists choose not to use a bike lane when one is present or not to use a trail when one is present is that they feel that riding in the road is safer. So, what you are asking is that he ride some place where he feels less safe, for your convenience. You don't really rank your convenience over his safety.

If there were two lanes, how was he holding up traffic? Couldn't people pass? And why did he keep switching from lane to lane? Was it to pass cars?

by David C on May 20, 2010 10:33 am • link • report

@David C

You make some good points. However, in this situation, I can assure you that

"1. This bike lane is not open yet and is dangerous."

This was the finished section - there was no construction debris, barriers, etc...in the area I saw it happen in.

"2. If you're turning right, you have to leave the bike lane in ride in the car lane on the right."

Cylist in question was not turning at all, just going straight the whole time I observed.

"3. There is no such thing as a car lane."

Ok, so? Relevance?

"4. The bike lane is in the door zone and as Jaime has told us, you should not ride in the door zone, because it is unreasonable to expect people to look for you."

I actually agree with this, having been 'doored' myself. Point in cyclists favor. But, isn't it just if not more dangerous to bike in front of and in and out of cars, as well?

"5. Not every cyclist likes bike lanes. Some hate them. They call them suicide lanes. I'm not eager to force someone to ride in them if they don't want to."

Irrelevant. I don't like stop signs, or traffic lights sometimes. I still have to obey them. Even if it wasn't illegal for me to roll through a stop, it would still be dangerous for me to do so. Ergo, I do not.

"6. Was the guy in question Hitler? "

Again, I don't see how these comments help the debate. I thought I was being rather tame in my post. And, again, I am very sympathetic to the cyclist cause. I don't usually care if they go through a red light or stop sign if it is safe, I give them a wide berth on the road, I always look before turning or opening my door, etc... Although, now I am seeing what uncompromising fanatics they might be...

by AMF on May 20, 2010 10:34 am • link • report

RE: Howard and Walter Reed

Not trying to hijack the thread, but there used to be a website that listed the top 10 or 15 "vacant" or underused properties in the District. Does anyone know what it is?

by charlie on May 20, 2010 10:38 am • link • report

@AMF

I would say riding in the door zone on the right of traffic is less safe than riding in the middle of a regular lane. We bicyclists don't get run over by people approaching from behind while we're in the middle of a lane, we get run over when people cut us off while making a right turn, or when people door us, etc.

by MLD on May 20, 2010 10:39 am • link • report

Renegade and David make fair points, to be sure. At a certain point, it does come down to my convienence (as a driver) over forcing a cyclist into places where he feels less safe.

I get that, I do.

So, the point then becomes how to enable cyclists to be safer. And, your point about urging the city leadership to "to build more separated cycle tracks like the one on 15th St NW." is a perfectly valid one.

I'll get on that.

So, while I'm doing my part in that regard, why don't we all just acknowledge that some people on both sides of the debate are assholes, and that limits the possibility for a healthy compromise.

And, with that, I'm out of this conversation. It is clear to me this is not a topic that can be effectively debated on the interwebz. How surprising.

by AMF on May 20, 2010 10:42 am • link • report

"3. There is no such thing as a car lane."

Ok, so? Relevance?

You called it a car lane. Calling it a car lane is saying that bikes don't belong there.

But, isn't it just if not more dangerous to bike in front of and in and out of cars, as well?

What do you mean by "in and out of cars"? Do you switching lanes regularly? Was he staying in the roadway? If so, then no, it is not more dangerous. Or at least not significantly so. There is evidence that shows that bike lanes are more safe and others that show they are less safe - the jury is still out.

"5. Not every cyclist likes bike lanes. Some hate them. They call them suicide lanes. I'm not eager to force someone to ride in them if they don't want to."

Irrelevant. I don't like stop signs, or traffic lights sometimes. I still have to obey them. Even if it wasn't illegal for me to roll through a stop, it would still be dangerous for me to do so. Ergo, I do not.

Actually, relevant. Unlike your example, biking in the roadway is both legal and safe. Should we prohibit someone from doing something they want to do, if the only reason is that someone else doesn't want them to do it? I say no. Freedom wins.

With the Hitler comment, I was trying to add levity.

by David C on May 20, 2010 10:43 am • link • report

Why are we spending money on these bike lanes in the city when the bikers don't want to use them? This is some sort of ill conceived joke on the tax payers while the governments get to pat themselves on the back for being progressive. Bikes should be in the street. Not on the sidewalks either. Mandatory safety training too if you want to ride in traffic; they should be treated and regulated just as any other viable mode of transportation is. That levels the field in the eyes of everybody when we all share the road and respect that everybody else on the road is equally prepared to be in traffic.

by Lou on May 20, 2010 10:45 am • link • report

@AMF

With regards to the legal non-obligation to use cycle lanes...I believe in DC (I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can dig up the relevant bit of code) the rule is that cyclists must ride as far to the right as is consistent with safety.

Therefore...if the cycle lane is adjacent to a line of parked cars, the cyclist by law should always be in the main 'car lane', because it is never safe to cycle in the door zone.

If there is no line of parked cars (or other circumstance affecting safety), then the cyclist by law should be in the cycle lane. This is what you want, and it seems totally reasonable to me. If there is a perfectly good (safe) cycle lane, then cyclists should use it.

by renegade09 on May 20, 2010 10:46 am • link • report

Why ISN'T a helmet mandatory for bicyclists? Seems rather analogous to the mandatory use of seat belts in cars; namely, that it's for your own good in case of accident.

by Fritz on May 20, 2010 10:46 am • link • report

Fritz, seatbelt laws were only found to be constitutional because they helped a driver stay in front of the steering wheel and kept passengers from hitting other passengers. In so doing, they helped the driver regain control of the car and lessen the severity of crashes and prevented passengers from becoming deadly projectiles. So, my wearing a seatbelt protects other people and thus the state has an interest in me wearing one.

The better analogy is motorcycle helmets. Not sure how motorcycle helmet laws have held up constitutionally.

by David C on May 20, 2010 10:52 am • link • report

@Lou:
I saw a car driving on University Boulevard this morning.

Why did we spend all that money to build the Beltway if cars aren't using it?

See how that's a non sequitir? I provided a piece of anecdotal evidence (one car) and then drew the conclusion that all cars act that way.

The fact of the matter is that many, many cyclists use bike lanes, and bike lanes increase the number of cyclists. That's generally a good thing.

by Matt Johnson on May 20, 2010 10:53 am • link • report

AMF "I actually agree with this, having been 'doored' myself. Point in cyclists favor. But, isn't it just if not more dangerous to bike in front of and in and out of cars, as well?"

It should never be dangerous to cycle in front of cars. If you are driving in such a way that you are making a cyclist in front of you unsafe, you are breaking the law. Period.

by CJ on May 20, 2010 10:54 am • link • report

But by whatever standard you use to get to mandatory bike helmet laws, I could also get to mandatory motoring helmet and flame-retardant motoring jump-suit laws that requiring every person who gets in a car to wear a NASCAR style outfit.

by David C on May 20, 2010 10:55 am • link • report

Actually, relevant. Unlike your example, biking in the roadway is both legal and safe. Should we prohibit someone from doing something they want to do, if the only reason is that someone else doesn't want them to do it? I say no. Freedom wins.

Just in case AMF's still around. Obviously, this is the crutch of the matter. The bottom line is, you can't debate this stuff (on the Internet, or anywhere else) because you're getting at folks' legal choice of where and how to use public resources. If I tell someone to get the hell out of Rock Creek Park if they're using it as a commuter route, I may be an asshole, they may be an asshole, we can argue all day long about what "appropriate" use is.

But at the end of the day, *I* don't get to dictate *your* behavior, so long as you're well within the law and your rights. This is doubly compounded when the crux of the matter is your infringing on my convenience.

The only reason cyclists engage on this stuff is because, in general, they're actually acutely aware of other users' convenience, just not raising it above all other considerations.

by oboe on May 20, 2010 10:57 am • link • report

Jason,

You're right! Howard University Hospital sits on the former site of Griffith Stadium. Here's a 1941 aerial photo.

Howard is very reluctant to give up any land and I don't see them giving up the current hospital site for anything unaffiliated with the university.

by Eric F. on May 20, 2010 11:02 am • link • report

It should never be dangerous to cycle in front of cars. If you are driving in such a way that you are making a cyclist in front of you unsafe, you are breaking the law. Period.

We need to get Jamie over here to explain that, in this situation, ,it's actually the cyclist's fault for indulging in risky behavior. After all, everyone knows that drivers pass cyclists unsafely. My head hurts.

by oboe on May 20, 2010 11:03 am • link • report

@Matt, it's not a non sequitur, you just missed the point. If cars and bikes, both being modes of transportation, were required to share roads and both were required to be trained in interacting with the other, the need for separate but equal bike lanes would be alleviated. The problems between bikes and cars mostly comes down to trust, and refusal to alter behavior. I can drive down 95 surrounded by cars a few feet away all doing 70 with no problems. Watch bike races where hundreds of bikes zip along feet or less apart without any problems. This is because of trust withing the homogeneous groups. But put the two together and you get chaos, because neither group wants (or is required) to alter their driving styles. The longer we treat bikes with kid gloves the longer the mistrust and every-mode-for-itself attitude continues.

by Lou on May 20, 2010 11:11 am • link • report

@DavidC: Sure, seat belts, motorcycle helmets...either way, it's the state telling people they MUST do something that they may not like, but is in their own best interest.

So then, why no similar requirement for all cyclists? I think it's only kids under a certain age that are required to use them. Why not extend it to all cyclists since there's a pretty clear rationale in protecting people's heads?

"It should never be dangerous to cycle in front of cars. If you are driving in such a way that you are making a cyclist in front of you unsafe, you are breaking the law. Period."

And that about sums it up - if a cyclist feels unsafe, it's the car's fault, not the cyclist's behavior. And if there's ever an accident involving a car and bike, it's the car's fault. Period.

That's the kind of attitude that won't win any converts to the cause and will only piss off people who insist that ALL traffic laws are complied with, not only those that people like.

by Fritz on May 20, 2010 11:13 am • link • report

This thread is exactly what angers many about cylists. DC tax dollars are funding bike lanes, like the one on 15th that cost 200k. If cyclists are going to use it, why fund it?

by Peter Lemonjello on May 20, 2010 11:16 am • link • report

Why are we spending money on these bike lanes in the city when the bikers don't want to use them?

This is the key question--is there some reason the lanes aren't desirable? Why not fix that?

I suspect that if cyclists to a large degree don't use lanes supplied for them, it will significantly erode public support for more lanes, which do take away from lanes available for cars. It's one thing to give up a lane for bikes--it's another to give up a lane for bikes but then still have bikes in the other lanes as well.

by ah on May 20, 2010 11:19 am • link • report

Just a personal story on bike lanes:

I don't ride the fenced off 15th Street bike lane a lot, but yesterday, heading south there, I encountered a middle-aged jogger and his leathery wife. They were running the wrong direction, of course, and taking up most of the lane. I only had a second to react. When I gave him a funny look, he told me to "buzz off." I've never seen cyclists in other cities tolerate this, so I hope DC cyclists won't either.

As a jogger myself, I would never even consider running in the bike lane. If you ever tried running on the bike lane on the Williamsburg Bridge in New York, you'd get slaughtered and berated to the point of tears.

/end story

by aaa on May 20, 2010 11:19 am • link • report

Right, but cyclists are going to use it. In fact, most will. Just not all of them. For example, I'm not going to be riding in the middle lane of Pennsylvania Ave if I have to take a right turn, now will I? That would be silly!

by oboe on May 20, 2010 11:19 am • link • report

it's the state telling people they MUST do something that they may not like, but is in their own best interest

And I oppose it in every case. It is a slippery slope when the government can tell you what to do when they think it's in your best interest. Where does it end? Drinking? Overeating? Being married is good for your health, should we mandate marriage?

The answer to why there is no bike helmet law, is that their is not the political will to pass one.

by David C on May 20, 2010 11:22 am • link • report

Bike lanes are there for the cyclists who will use them. And there are a lot of those. Some cyclists will not. We should be OK with that.

by David C on May 20, 2010 11:24 am • link • report

@peter @ah

If you build safe separated cycle tracks, like the one on 15th St, people WILL use them. But most cycle lanes are just a line of paint in the door zone. They aren't worth the paint.

DC taxpayers got a bargain with the 15th St cycle track. It will reduce road fatalities and speed traffic, with a high potential to also reduce crime and increase property values. The important thing is to build on this success and build more dedicated cycle tracks around the city to create a network of safe cycle lanes.

by renegade09 on May 20, 2010 11:26 am • link • report

As a jogger myself, I would never even consider running in the bike lane. If you ever tried running on the bike lane on the Williamsburg Bridge in New York, you'd get slaughtered and berated to the point of tears.

Yeah, I run pretty often, but do it on the sidewalk. I don't mind joggers who run in the direction of traffic, and keep right, but the one's who run against traffic present a problem, because you never know if they'll pass you on the right or left.

So I usually feign inattention, stare straight ahead, and hold my line so they get to choose (i.e. get out of the way)

by oboe on May 20, 2010 11:29 am • link • report

@AMF

You say the part of the Pennsylvania Ave. bike lane at issue was finished, because you did not see any barriers or construction debris.

Can you be sure, or were you only seeing it from your "windshield perspective"?

Last week I rode the new bike lane, thinking it looked finished enough. But near the east end one of the street lights had not been reprogrammed yet, and I was given a green light to go straight at the same time drivers were given a green light to turn left across my line of travel. I've since learned this is one of the minor glitches that haven't been corrected yet before the opening. I'm staying out of the bike lane until DDOT says they are done and it is safe.

Don't be so quick to judge what is safe for bikers from inside your car.

by Wayne Phyillaier on May 20, 2010 11:43 am • link • report

@Eric F.: I think that if Howard puts a rider in to such a deal that they'd own the land and they'd force DC United to be tenants with Howard's football team (which plays in a high school-style field as it is), I think they'd change their tune. Selling that land would put a LOT of potentially at-risk children through college.

Of course, Howard could be greedy like Princeton (owners of a 50,000 watt FM station doing college radio in the midst of commercial stations) and just sit on money, punting the hypothetical futures of students.

by Jason on May 20, 2010 12:08 pm • link • report

I am not in favor of mandatory seatbelt laws either. If people want to be stupid in ways that don't affect other people's health, I say go for it. Natural selection in action.

by Nate on May 20, 2010 12:27 pm • link • report

@Wayne Phyillaier

I was referring to the bike lanes on 14th st, not Penn.

by AMF on May 20, 2010 12:39 pm • link • report

The 14th St and 11th St bike lanes are plenty wide to be both in the lane and out of the door zone. I think using those lanes is just plain courteous, whether it's required by law or not, so that's where I ride.

by jcm on May 20, 2010 1:44 pm • link • report

@jcm, the problem though is that as they get wider, they start looking more like a car lane and cars start using them. Then people start talking about putting up a barrier between cars and bikes. It's just a comedy of errors at this point, but pretty standard for DC really.

by Lou on May 20, 2010 1:53 pm • link • report

Nate, I think you have a somewhat flawed understanding of natural selection.

by Jazzy on May 20, 2010 2:07 pm • link • report

Post blog has an article about DDOT apparently not opening the Penn Ave bike lanes because the lanes are taking up too much space.

If that's the case, shouldn't someone have noticed that minor detail when they started painting the lanes?

by Fritz on May 20, 2010 2:36 pm • link • report

I'm not getting into the flameage,just want to set some facts straight.

1) The requirement to register bikes in DC was repealed at least 3 yrs ago.

2) DC law does not make use of bike lanes mandatory. Google 'DC code' or check DDOT's site.

3) Some bikes lanes are worse than others. The ones in commercial areas can be very hazardous.

4) When you look up the DC code,you'll also note that DC allows bikes the full use of a lane under many conditions. Many streets in DC meet these criteria.

5) Bicycle helmets are not motorcycle helmets. I've been doored,almost right hooked,wiped out in snow,and crashed out in polo. I've always worn a helmet,and never put a scratch in one.

by dynaryder on May 20, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report

@AMF, sometimes you need to turn left, in which case you have to get out of the right-side bike lane and get over so you can turn left.
@Fritz-seveal studies provide data indicating bike helmet laws reduce ridership. Reduced ridership in turn reduces safety because biking becomes safer with greater numbers of bikers, with or without special bike lanes. I'm not arguing the merits, just pointing out the existence of this interesting data.

by Bianchi on May 20, 2010 4:26 pm • link • report