Bicycling
People riding bikes aren't jerks, they're just like you
Expanding bicycle infrastructure requires political support. That means showing residents and elected officials that cyclists are not some strange, alien species, but fellow people just like them.
Photo by somervillebikes on Flickr.
Since people who ride every day are currently a small portion of the population, advocates must work with those who don't ride bikes to show why expansion is in the local community's best interest.
There are, of course, issue-based arguments, supported by facts and numbers. We hear these arguments all the time: cycling is good for the environment, good for public health, good for congestion reduction, and good for the bottom line. Even most bike lane opponents won't disagree.
But there's another line of argument that bike advocates employ less often. It's an empathetic appeal that demonstrates that cyclists are just like you. They're everyday citizens, getting around town. Failure to show this reality to decision makers, the press, and the public at large can have adverse consequences. In the absence of a positive or even neutral image of cyclists, an alternative, more explosive narrative can gain steam.
This negative narrative has two parts. First, because there is not much of a social contract between cyclists and other road users, it's easy to believe that cyclists are reckless scofflaws who don't deserve respect because they don't give respect. Cyclists become aliens on two wheels who run red lights and play chicken with you as you try to guess their next unpredictable move. This thinking transforms cyclists into something that is nothing like you.
The second part comes into play when governments begin providing bike lanes or other provisions for cyclists. It starts to look like the road is being taken away from responsible users like you and given to a reckless minority. This is where the backlash begins, as citizens speak up against this perceived injustice.
There is an alternative to this acrimony, though. DC bike advocates are already making the case that people riding bikes are no different than anyone else, and deserve a safe way to get around.
It's hard to underestimate the importance of Capital Bikeshare in showing the general public how hopping on a bike can become an easy part of everyday life. The bikes are comfortable, steady and ubiquitous. The only things that would make it even easier to use for the general public are more stations and integration with SmarTrip.
It's easy for non-cyclists to imagine taking CaBi for a short trip across town. Once they do, they're more likely to see the importance of bike lanes.
It's also important to cultivate advocates from every DC community who can talk to their community leaders about why they should support cycling. Shane Farthing cited this as one of his priorities when he took over at WABA.
Keeping DC's black population involved with cycling is especially important in order to keep bike infrastructure from becoming a wedge issue, as it did during the recent mayoral election.
A negative narrative can lead to opinions about cycling like that of ANC 8C03's Mary Cuthbert, who told the Washington Post that "we don't need no bicycle lanes." A more positive narrative, on the other hand, can build upon the advantages that good cycling infrastructure brings.
A great example is the outlook from Edgewood residents near the Metropolitan Branch Trail who now have a safer connection to downtown. Anybody can hop on a bike, no matter their race, income, gender or age. Let's work to keep it that way.
Finally, cyclists must become known as road users in good standing. While it garnered some controversy within the cycling community, WABA's Resolution to Ride Responsibly strikes a better tone than a similar effort being undertaken by New York City's DOT, called Don't Be a Jerk.
The New York campaign reinforces the idea that cyclists are dangerous road users in need of reform, instead of everyday people trying to safely get around town. While WABA's pledge and its related ride held on Saturday could have been more affirmative by noting the many cyclists who are already responsible road users, it's a step in the right direction. After all, it's not often you see transportation advocacy organizations ask their members and supporters to behave responsibly.
DC deserves credit for staying civil instead of devolving into a bike lane war, but there are steps we can take to ensure the discourse about cycling is as good as, if not better than, the facilities being installed. Demonstrating and recognizing that people on bikes are just like us is an important first step.
Stephen Miller works for Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, which does work to promote the Metropolitan Branch Trail.
 | Stephen Miller lived in the District from 2008 to 2011 and is now a student at Pratt Institute's city and regional planning masters program.   |
Comments
- Lower camera fines? Sure, once we have more cameras
- Favoring local residents would undermine charter schools
- Ride The Tide of light rail, Virginia Beach
- Latest data shows plenty of car-free living in DC
- Pepco Benning Road site is perfect for the NFL or FBI
- Gray administration holding up Reservation 13 for Redskins
- Will Green Area Ratio green DC or just hinder urban living?
by SJE on Jan 10, 2011 11:05 am
I'm sure most of these folks live in relatively unbike-able suburbs, but the bikeability of the beach communities is something they view positively and like. But, what's possible and easy and fun at the Beach is somehow not mentally transported back home for the other 50 or 51 weeks of the year.
Somehow an expectation needs to be created that what's possible one week a year could actually be possible throughout the year.
by jnb on Jan 10, 2011 11:11 am
I disagree. "Don't Be A Jerk" has an element of good humor to it. And it captures nicely the core of responsible cycling. I slow-roll stop signs if there isn't anyone coming. I'll treat a red-light as a stop-sign, just as I would on foot. I won't ride on the sidewalk at above a walking pace. That's because it's "jerk" behavior. Salmoning is acting like a jerk.
No reason to rehash why folks found the WABA piece to be offensive. We covered that ground pretty thoroughly.
by oboe on Jan 10, 2011 11:13 am
I'm thinking current cyclist behavior will simply come to be seen as somewhat normal, and thus predictable and non-controversial...
by oboe on Jan 10, 2011 11:16 am
Yes, flat roads and slow traffic will make biking a lot easier. Obviously, there are parts of DC that are hilly, but the slower traffic? Bike lanes help, but it is increasing both the perception and reality that the streets are safe for all to use.
by William on Jan 10, 2011 11:18 am
by monkeyrotica on Jan 10, 2011 11:23 am
It encourages me when WABA or the generally bike-friendly NY DOT work to improve biking behavior. It's the kind of thing I'd like to see AAA get (more) involved in.
Good article
by TimK on Jan 10, 2011 11:26 am
Correct, riding your bike in DC is not "a day at the beach." But if the sand, sea, and level grade can't be transported, the slightly more "chill" attitudes and expectations could be. That's the important technology transfer I'd be hoping for.
by jnb on Jan 10, 2011 11:27 am
by MB on Jan 10, 2011 11:54 am
I think there's a strange blindness to the number of black and Latino cyclists already on the road -- maybe it's a NW thing, but I see plenty of non-white bikers around already. (They are almost all men, though.)
Everyone of every race living in NW without a car faces the same transport/geographical situation that makes biking an attractive solution. And it's also a very economical solution: I can imagine that a Latino dishwasher living in Mt. Pleasant can earn back the price of a cheapo $150 bike pretty quickly in foregone bus fares, not to mention the fact that it's probably more convenient to hop on a bike to get back home than wait for the S bus late at night. Better bike infrastructure would benefit working class riders just as much as it benefits the 20-something white hipster commuting from Columbia Heights to the Hill.
by M on Jan 10, 2011 12:02 pm
Group hug!
by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 10, 2011 12:02 pm
Oh ... I think it is a mistake to make facilities equivalent to a pedestrian/cycling friendly street. For many streets -- think about the bicycle boulevard concept -- if you had a choice to design the street for slower speeds or put a bike lane there (or both), we would be better off with slow traffic sans bike lane.
by Geof Gee on Jan 10, 2011 12:57 pm
I do have my doubts about whether that's possible -- given that some of these battles are about spending public money -- but I like the gist of what you are saying.
by Eugene Bicyclist on Jan 10, 2011 1:17 pm
by Cycling for Beginners on Jan 10, 2011 2:01 pm
by Fritz on Jan 10, 2011 2:07 pm
One of the basic points is the creation of neighborhood-ward-district infrastructure and programming plans, as part of sustainable transportation elements created for community plans.
by Richard Layman on Jan 10, 2011 2:24 pm
Just kidding -- this was a great piece. Very affirming. I'm going to be extra nice on the road going home tonight.
by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 10, 2011 5:15 pm
I understand that paths and the Trail get busy on weekends. If you are an avid biker with skill, then please, go ahead and use the road instead of the path. But, if there is no one on the path next to MacArthur Blvd, please use it. It will be faster and safer. Little things like this really drive the tensions between drivers and bikers. For drivers like myself, choosing to ride on the road instead of an adjacent path is an act of bravado, not of courtesy. I don't honk at bikers; I just pass and move on. Both sides will need to move closer together for this new era of transportation to work somewhat harmoniously.
by thesixteenwords on Jan 10, 2011 5:20 pm
TSW, have you ever tried to ride that sidepath on MacArthur? It's a useless and dangerous mess. Further, it puts the cyclist in more danger (with multiple intersections) than simply safely riding in the road where he or she has every right to be. It's like wondering why you think you should have any right to ride in Greenbrier/Rosaryville/Frederick Watershed when they've constructed a perfectly nice little place for you to play at Wakefield.
*The most hilarious/sad example of this was an argument a local MTB board a while back involving a driver shuttling some bikes up a mountain, and a rider riding up that mountain. The driver got impatient with the rider, tried to blast around him, and ended up in a ditch. Consensus of the MTB forum? The rider shouldn't have been on the road. *facepalm*
by MB on Jan 10, 2011 5:32 pm
by Fred on Jan 10, 2011 6:04 pm
Now let me restate my point. There is a need for mutual understanding. You have a right to be on a road. Note that my comment didn't say, "get off roads where you have no other choice. I don't want any bikers." I just personally feel that it is safer for everyone on MacArthur for experienced bikers to use the path WHEN it isn't crowded. When it's crowded, I fully agree with using the road if you are faster than the family crowd.
So, to recap, I made the point that a) we each need to give a little, b) I offer a compromise solution on MacArthur, and c) you respond by saying that I have no empathy. I thought the idea was to show that bikers aren't jerks...
by thesixteenwords on Jan 10, 2011 6:58 pm
what changes things is a change at the base (in this case, the urban infrastructure, still massively tilted toward motorists and their cars) and at the superstructure (the laws to punish harshly motorist violence).
once the relation between motorists and cyclists stops being so horribly asymmetrical, people won't need to keep telling us cyclists to "behave" or to remind motorists that we're human, too.
by tony on Jan 10, 2011 9:10 pm
Let me guess, you just finished your first sociology class of the semester, taught by a washed-up Marxist.
by MPC on Jan 10, 2011 9:49 pm
My New Years Resolution is to avoid being drawn into these kinds of pointless arguments, so I'll let it suffice to say, people have their own reasons for riding on MacAurthur. It may be, in your opinion, faster, safer, or what have you, to ride on the trail that runs alongside. For others, it's clearly not. I'm in the latter camp. So I'll keep riding on the road (which actually has quite good sightlines, btw, if you're not egregiously speeding).
As someone pointed out earlier, if hunters and equestrians were to try to convince you to stay out of the Watershed because Schaeffer is "perfectly suitable" for your mountain biking needs, there'd probably be a strong--if juvenile--impulse to tell them to go stuff themselves.
If the multiuse path running parallel to MacArthur were sufficient, cyclists would use it. They don't; so it's not. It's that simple.
by oboe on Jan 10, 2011 11:14 pm
by Doug on Jan 10, 2011 11:59 pm
by Emily on Jan 11, 2011 7:20 am
by Kevin Love on Jan 11, 2011 7:46 am
@oboe-If the path is not suitable, what could be done to make it suitable? If it could be made safer and more useful, I'd like to know, so I could contact either Roger Berliner or Brian Frosh about it.
by thesixteenwords on Jan 11, 2011 9:49 am
by mehrenreich on Jan 11, 2011 10:50 am
If the path is not suitable, what could be done to make it suitable? If it could be made safer and more useful, I'd like to know, so I could contact either Roger Berliner or Brian Frosh about it.
Sure: you'd want something that's essentially a third lane of traffic. With good sight lines, and where pedestrian and stroller traffic is banned. I'm not particularly fast, but when I'm riding out that way, I'm averaging 18-20 mph. There's just no way that can be made safe for moms pushing strollers, roller-bladers, kids on Barbie bikes, etc, etc...
Which means that, for someone cycling at a brisk pace, the safest and most responsible place to ride is in the standard traffic lane. Obviously that marginally reduces the convenience for drivers, but that can't be helped.
I think there's a certain element of cognitive bias going on with drivers along that stretch, where they attribute some kind of "Critical Mass" motivation to cyclists where none exists. Those cyclists eschew the path because doing so is the safest and most responsible choice.
As far as...
The county has provided a number of trails suitable for mountain biking. I use them, since I pay for them anyway.
...we might just as well re-frame this as "The District has provided a number of roads suitable for vehicular traffic. I use them, since I pay for them anyway." The problem is, it's very difficult to "triage" other folks' choices. Very easy to be parsimonious about how far other folks' rights should extend.
by oboe on Jan 11, 2011 11:05 am
by JimT on Jan 11, 2011 11:45 am
I think the problem that many new adult bike users will face (like myself) is not really knowing the bike riding rules and needing to take the time and the energy to learn them.
I'm not sure I understand the problem. I would imagine about 99% of CaBi subscribers hold driver's licenses. Since the "rules of the road" for bikes is essentially the rules for the road for cars, plus a few extra perks, it doesn't seem to me there'd be a whole lot of education required.
If you're on the road, operate like a car, but try to keep right except to pass or turn left. If you're on the sidewalk, operate like a pedestrian (including moving at the same speed as--or slower than--pedestrian traffic).
That's it!
by oboe on Jan 11, 2011 12:38 pm
Every Fall I see a new crop of sidewalk ninjas around Tenley;college age kids on bikes without lights or reflectors buzzing down the sidewalk like it was the street,and weaving through peds. Many of the ones that do make it out onto the road are gutter bunnies that ride an inch off the curb no matter what the conditions. I guessing they're used to riding around small towns,or haven't ridden since they were kids,so they don't know any better. I almost never hear and bell,and in 6 years I've heard less than a half dozen total verbal warnings. So there is def a need for educating new riders.
by dynaryder on Jan 11, 2011 3:41 pm
Ok, I see your point.
This reminds me of a passage from a book I received for the holidays:
(from "Bike Snob")by oboe on Jan 11, 2011 8:23 pm
@oboe, I have one last question about MacArthur, just so I get the full picture. I understand why you want an on-road lane, check. There is enough room on both sides to make that work. But, the reason you bring up the need for this modification is because of heavy, slow traffic on the route. On the weekends, this route is heavily used by slow bikers. Many skilled bikers will then need the lanes you mention. During the weekdays, particularly the weekday commute, that path is totally empty. Is it because of a mandated slow speed, as mentioned by some poster? Is there a lot of debris? Thanks.
by thesixteenwords on Jan 11, 2011 8:43 pm
by MB on Jan 11, 2011 8:55 pm
It's similar to the section of the Rock Creek Parkway between the Calvert Street Bridge and the Kennedy Center. Riding on the parkway would be the responsible thing to do, because there's no way that you can safely ride that section of multi-use path at speed and not endanger joggers, walkers, roller-bladers, etc... Of course, the fact that 99% of drivers exceed the speed limit by 15-20 mph over the already excessive 35 mph speed limit makes that unsafe.
by oboe on Jan 11, 2011 10:00 pm
"become aliens ... who run red lights and play chicken with you as you try to guess their next unpredictable move."
Then maybe we are very similar because this is exactly how I view the suburban commuters that run into me, door me, and make me feel like I am trying to survive the wild west everytime I try to get home from work.
by Alex on Jan 11, 2011 10:42 pm
Add a Comment