You can say as many times as you like that bike lanes make cycling safer but that doesn't make it any less false. What is not false is that cyclist skills training and cyclists following the rules of the road makes cycling safer. But personal responsibility is not in the lexicon of anny statists.

by JFJ on Jan 3, 2011 12:05 pm  

The third paragraph of this article unfortunately makes it sound as if biking on the sidewalk is always illegal. Actually, if you go to http://dc.gov/DC/DDOT/About+DDOT/Maps , you'll see that the rule is "no bike riding on sidewalks are permitted downtown" (basically defined as Mass Ave on the north, 23rd on the west, 2nd NE on the east, and D SW on the south). Everywhere else in DC, bikes are permitted on public sidewalks.

by tom veil on Jan 3, 2011 12:06 pm  

I've clarified that. It's illegal on the block including Strayer, whose campus director was the one saying this. Thanks, Tom.

by David Alpert on Jan 3, 2011 12:08 pm  

i use bikeshare as my main mode of transit, except when i take my daughter somewhere; then we ride the bus.

i've made 162 bikeshare trips since october, mostly from my home in adams morgan to my job in foggy bottom.

i like the level-headed tone of david and stephen's post, but i'll push it this way:

motorists bear the greatest responsibility in this debate because they wield the most lethal power: their vehicles.

telling a cyclist to "ride safe" in an ideologically (and infrastructurally) auto-centric society is knocking on an open door: we already "ride safe" because it's in our interest to do so. it keeps us alive. such admonitions, rather, should be directed to drivers: namely, to put themselves fourth, behind walkers, cyclists, and transit, which is a far more realistic message to drivers (even if they dismiss it) than for them to "drive safe," which is likely an invisible, unheard message at this point, so cliched it has become, and, in any event, an oxymoron: driving is statistically, historically unsafe. you simply can't "drive safe," but you can drive "less dangerously," which, I would argue, is a far better (for its attention-grabbing potential) message to put on the streets for motorists to see.

meanwhile, messages to cyclists should try a radical approach: encouragement. "thanks for riding"; "enjoy your time on our streets"; these are some examples.

what makes city streets truly safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists (in that order) are pro-pedestrian and pro-cyclist laws and infrastructure: just street laws should be in place to send you to jail if you kill a pedestrian or cyclist with your car; most major city streets should privilege walking, cycling, and transit over fast-moving private automobiles by installing bike lanes, bollards, bulb-outs, bumps, and everything else in the complete-streets dictionary.

it's not an equal debate; motorists are in the advantage. if we believe that putting motorists last, as i do, after walkers, cyclists, and transit, is for the greater good of a city like ours, then our remedies can't be even-handed. they should focus instead on protecting the most vulnerable first, those whose interests coincide with matters of justice and, just maybe, economic "growth."

by tony on Jan 3, 2011 12:38 pm  

You can say as many times as you like that bike lanes make cycling safer but that doesn't make it any less false. What is not false is that cyclist skills training and cyclists following the rules of the road makes cycling safer. But personal responsibility is not in the lexicon of anny statists.

I'm not a big bike-lane fan, but I've come around to the point of view that bike lanes--while less safe than vehicular cycling--get more folks onto the streets. Which, on the whole, makes cycling safer. So more power to 'em.

by oboe on Jan 3, 2011 12:48 pm  

And yet, most bike lanes in DC are 50-95% within the door zone of parked cars. Approved methods exist for striping dor zones in bike lanes. Doing so--like sharrows--would encourage more cyclists to ride farther to the left and communicate to motorists why they are doing so.

by JimT on Jan 3, 2011 1:33 pm  

And yet, most bike lanes in DC are 50-95% within the door zone of parked cars. Approved methods exist for striping dor zones in bike lanes. Doing so--like sharrows--would encourage more cyclists to ride farther to the left and communicate to motorists why they are doing so.

Doesn't general convention and the official word of the WABA encourage riding farthest to the right? It would seem that parked car doors would be a risk even if bike lanes were not installed.

by Scoot on Jan 3, 2011 1:44 pm  

As a motorist, I cannot think of any instance in which a bike lane in DC has impeded my travel.

As a cyclist, given the option, I always use roads with bike lanes -- it's faster and safer. "Dooring" is indeed a problem, although drivers seem to be slowly catching on that they need to look before opening their doors when parking adjacent to a bike lane.

by andrew on Jan 3, 2011 1:57 pm  

I've had an issue for years with the bike riders in general in DC. From what I have witnessed, they generally contribute more in the way of problems, i.e. riding the wrong way on one way streets, bobbing and weaving through traffic.

Also, I thought for years it was downtown=sidewalks ok; above Mass=no riding on sidewalks. Guess I was backwards. I do know that at the time I researched this, bike riders were supposed to abide by the rules for vehicles. They do not, but then, no one abides by any rules at all anymore. The cops should focus on enforcing this, right down to pedestrians who cross against the signal and hold up traffic and everyone's favorite - the lawless cab drivers.

But, all that aside - that bike lane on 15th is scary. If I rode a bike, no way would I ride in that lane. It's buried alongside a row of cars, and it's bad enough when making a left from the one way part of 15th to a one way going west (say, on to R) because you are totally not used to anyone trying to squeeze through there, but now that parking lane that's away from the sidewalk? Well, I wonder how long it will be before someone dies. I just can't say this is one of the District's best ideas.

by Velvet in Dupont on Jan 3, 2011 4:14 pm  

most cyclists are already riding responsibly

i find it weird that we can't just speak the truth about simple matters. it is true that most cyclists are 'riding responsibly'? of course, not -- if that were the case, they wouldn't be getting honked at, harassed, terrorized, injured, maimed, and killed so much. ditto for pedestrians and drivers. but drivers are not just irresponsible victims, they're also the most effective irresponsible perpetrators -- they impose their will against the relatively powerless, and they win, with devastating effectiveness.

so why target bikers? because it's easy, and you can do it with impunity, of course. you don't have to teach a bully which people to target -- it comes naturally to them -- they find the weakest people, and go after them. simple.

The resolution generated some backlash of its own, largely over a tone which seemed to imply all cyclists need to do better as opposed to emphasizing that most cyclists are already riding responsibly.

WABA's 'resolution to ride responsibly' was one of the most pernicious attacks on cyclists i've seen in a long time. i'm guessing we could go back in history -- maybe to the slavery years in America, or to Roman times -- and find some resolutions against 'uppity slaves' who needed to 'act responsibly.' good stuff.

But WABA is right that the "scofflaw cyclist" stereotype is interfering with further advocacy.

at some point, we all have to make a decision about which side of history we want to be on. it may be true that the 'uppity slave' stereotype 'interfered' with anti-slavery advocacy, but is that any reason to insist that slaves 'act responsibly' -- that they stop learning how to read and write, that they stop escaping, that they stop resisting their masters' sexual advances?

laws that forbade slaves from doing certain things, and laws that simply failed to protect slaves were all unjust laws in an incredibly unjust system -- all of these slaves who resisted were the 'scofflaws' of their day. And there were almost certainly groups/organizations/institutions back in their day, like WABA today, that publicly admonished those scofflaws to 'act responsibly'.

i'm with the least privileged, the powerless, the folks who, out on the road, are almost completely defenseless. i cast my lot with them, not the professional cycling 'advocates' who only imperil the most vulnerable road users even more with their reckless rhetoric.

by Peter Smith on Jan 3, 2011 4:26 pm  

People actually read The Examiner?

by Marian Berry on Jan 3, 2011 4:57 pm  

Agree that WABA seems to be choosing the "make nice with your adversaries" mode.

by Fred on Jan 3, 2011 4:59 pm  

David, thank you for updating the post!

by tom veil on Jan 3, 2011 5:14 pm  

@Peter Smith:
"i cast my lot with them, not the professional cycling 'advocates' who only imperil the most vulnerable road users even more with their reckless rhetoric."

Ha! You just compared people to "uppity slaves" and you're saying OTHER people are using "reckless rhetoric"? Pot, meet kettle.

by mch on Jan 3, 2011 5:14 pm  

@Peter Smith

I agree with your analysis, but the slavery simile is a bit much.

by David R. on Jan 3, 2011 5:38 pm  

Tony...spot on.

by thump on Jan 3, 2011 10:38 pm  

@ Peter Smith-
Using slavery as an example of your point is not just a bit much- it is way over the top and I find it objectionable.

by KevinM on Jan 4, 2011 7:47 am  

@Peter Smith: I think there should be a slavery corollary Godwin's rule. Your hyperbolic post is an example.

by goldfish on Jan 4, 2011 9:48 am  

@Scoot. Sorry for the delayed reply. Actually, the DC Court of Appeals has ruled that a cyclist who rides in a parking lane that has parked cars would be contributorily negligent for doing so. So the bike lanes are often in the same place that the Court said would make one negligent(albeit for reasons other than parked cars).

Painted sharrows generally encourage the cyclists to ride at least 4 feet from parked cars, i.e., one's tire needs to be about 5 feet to the left of a car. In an online chat, Gabe Klein indicated that cyclists are generally aware where they need to ride, which would generally mean that the left side of the bike lane is for bikes, the right side is for car doors. But many people don't realize this.

by JimT on Jan 4, 2011 3:48 pm  

Ha! You just compared people to "uppity slaves" and you're saying OTHER people are using "reckless rhetoric"? Pot, meet kettle.

i admit that i am not generally offended by the whole "ZOMG, [insert politician name here] named something which shall not be named!" meme.

I think it's a great way to make sure we don't ever talk about anything that's important, but i wouldn't expect anyone to take that line of 'criticism' seriously.

i guess there will always be people who are 'outraged at the outrage' instead of being outraged at a system which daily produces widespread and grievous harm.

I agree with your analysis, but the slavery simile is a bit much.

ok - so which one is _not_ 'a bit much'? i'll use it from now on.

Using slavery as an example of your point is not just a bit much- it is way over the top and I find it objectionable.

ok - so 'using slavery', talking about slavery, typing the word 'slavery' -- all of these things are apparently off-limits and/or 'objectionable' to you -- why?

cyclists are not (always) forced to ride bikes (they do, for instance, have the freedom to starve to death) like slaves were forced to be slaves, nor are cyclists generally raped and tortured like slaves (though, the rape/sexual assault does happen, and the beatings often come pretty close to torture), but cyclists are regularly/daily harassed, terrorized, injured, and often, maimed and killed, and occasionally even murdered. and they are subjected to all this not because they did anything wrong, but because they ride a bike. so, while i did not compare cyclists to slaves, there are actually some important similarities between the two classes -- namely, they were/are some of the most vulnerable people in society, and that brings devastating consequences, not just for the direct victims and their loved ones, but for society as a whole.

so you go ahead and be outraged at the outrage, and i'll continue to point out the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is.

@Peter Smith: I think there should be a slavery corollary Godwin's rule. Your hyperbolic post is an example.

got it -- never mention Nazis, and never mention slavery. any other words/phrases/facts/concepts we need to take off the table?

for instance, i think torture is about as 'unspeakable' a crime as i could imagine, and we've largely succeeded in taking it off the table, over my objections, but maybe that's a good thing? maybe we should make it official policy here at GGW -- a list of banned words/ideas/phrases/etc.? who's in?

maybe we should just switch to Newspeak?

or maybe we can all stop just being outraged at the outrage and just speak a little plain, frank speech for a change?

by Peter Smith on Jan 4, 2011 4:01 pm  

@Peter Smith: The point of Godwin's law was, this is the point where you can killfile the thread, because the following discussion will be off-topic.

When you yell "fire" in a theater you don't expect dispassion. Similarly, when you mention slavery the comparison should be reasonable and not hyperbole (as was yours). Otherwise the flames that arise will drown out any thoughtful responses.

by goldfish on Jan 4, 2011 4:37 pm  

Communication involves not only speaking forcefully but also understanding how other people will interpret that speech. There is a difference in magnitude between the wrongs of slavery and the wrongs of anti-cyclist hostility. Speaking as if the two are equivalent turns people away. You might call this "being outraged at the outrage"; I'd call it asking for tact, sound rhetorical skills, and a sense of proportion.

by David R. on Jan 4, 2011 5:49 pm  

To Tony and Peter Smith:

The issues you framed could not have been addressed more appropriately! Thank you for taking the time to write about these issues. Youre right on!!

by Michael Ross on Jan 4, 2011 5:57 pm  

@Peter Smith: The point of Godwin's law was, this is the point where you can killfile the thread, because the following discussion will be off-topic.

i disagree, but whatever the original observation that was Godwin's 'law' -- it quickly morphed into something insidious.

Godwin's law is invoked by those who wish to shut down debate:

However, Godwin's law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[8] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.[9]

that's conservative/libertarian folks and liberal folks, both. everybody hates Godwin's law.

There is a difference in magnitude between the wrongs of slavery and the wrongs of anti-cyclist hostility.

how about the magnitude between attacking 'uppity slaves' 200 years ago and attacking 'scofflaw cyclists' today? where does that sit on the 'outraged at the outrage meter'? y'all outraged folks seem to forget that America back in the day is not America today -- we're a much more civilized place today, if you can believe that. that makes the case for the appropriateness of my simile/metaphor/whatever even stronger. imagine America today without the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, the gay rights movement, the workers' right movement, the environmental movement, the social justice movement, etc.

You might call this "being outraged at the outrage"; I'd call it asking for tact, sound rhetorical skills, and a sense of proportion.

tact - that's what i'd like to see from WABA. but, you know, at the end of the day, i could care less about tact -- offend whoever you want -- just don't endanger the lives of cyclists even more than they already are on a daily basis. it's very simple. just don't do it. don't endanger the lives of poor people and the most vulnerable people in society more than they already are. is that asking too much?

i don't know if my rhetoric skills are very good or very bad, but they certainly manage to elicit a reaction -- both very positive and very negative, so either my rhetoric skills vary widely from post to post, or people just have different opinions about things.

and the 'sense of proportion' words are just too ironic, considering the WMATA Resolution Against Cyclists that started this whole thing. see tony's post above for more.

by Peter Smith on Jan 4, 2011 7:36 pm  

Peter Smith! you go, man!!!

the problem here is that the powers that be always assume they can control the background of the debate; that they can set the agenda, in a cloaked manner, and still control "responsible" debate on a given topic...and when metaphors and background conditions get brought into the light of the foreground for what they usually are -- means to preserve the privilege of the powerful -- even the liberals get nervous!!...

Your right to press these issues however they turn out...

moreover, i dont think most folks have the educational background to even understand the relevance of your bringing these comparative cases to bear on bicycling. but the USA is nothing if not a bastion of combining two evils: arrogance and ignorance.

by Michael Ross on Jan 4, 2011 10:05 pm  

@ Peter Smith-
Anybody who thinks that there is even the slightest similarity between the vulnerability of slaves and bicyclists has lost their mind and does not merit any further consideration whatsoever. You must have bumped your head somewhere along the way. There is no correlation between the "devastating consequences brought on by each- while their is an occasional fatality from an accident involving a bicyclist, I don't recall there ever being a lynching of a cyclist. You have conveniently forgotten or discounted the atrocities committed by American white people against slaves in this country, and that is why these types of comparisons are off limits and objectionable. Don't for one second think that blacks have forgotten; don't for one second think that we have somehow arrived in a "post-racial" society, because we have not. The nerve of you...

by KevinM on Jan 5, 2011 8:19 am  

@Peter Smith -- I recently visited the slave quarters at Mt Vernon. Their lives were absolutely subjugated: they lived in abject poverty within sight of George Washington's splendor in rough, sex-segregated bunkhouses (even families) with shared beds, and they did not get the benefit of their own labor. I dare say, you have no idea what you are talking about!

To compare that with the inconvenience and danger that bicyclists put up with is absurd. That the slave quarters looked like a Jewish concentration camp is no accident. So I say again, Godwin's law.

by goldfish on Jan 5, 2011 9:06 am  

@Peter and whoever else agree with his concept...
There is a huge difference between cyclists and slavery. First of all, cyclist are not subjugated to anything other than being aware and cautious of their surroundings regardless of the bike lanes. Just like any other city here in the US., cyclists, pedestrians and drivers must be aware at all times of their surroundings and not act mindless or aloof- without a sense of direction and common sense, due to infrastructure arrangements or designated lanes. Yes those lanes are designated for the cyclist and yes, the construction of some of those lanes should've been better planned. However, if the city is not able to make the immediate adjustments at the time, then the best thing for cyclist to do is to keep in mind to either use an alternative route or to take precautions while riding. However, cyclists basic human rights are not being infringed upon. Cyclists actually have the basic rights and liberty to travel freely, either locally or abroad. Where as slaves had no rights, no liberty, no freedom. They were abused daily, degraded constantly, and disregarded and devalued. They were killed for trying to pursue freedom or to be made an example to others as a fear tactic to prevent other slaves from fleeing in pursuit of freedom or for fighting for basic human rights. When was the last time you've heard of or read about a cyclist being lynched for trying to get from Point A to Point B? When was the last time that you've heard of or read about a cyclist that was purchased for a price and forced to work hard labor or any labor just because s/he was a cyclist? When was the last time a cyclists was beaten severely or raped because they were cyclist? Do you now understand why using the slavery concept when referring to cyclists is unacceptable? Give it some thought and let it marinate in your mind for awhile.

by LuvinDC on Jan 5, 2011 9:53 am  

LuvinDC:

There are any number of good histories of slavery...your account above isnt one of them.

Actually, it could be argued that slaved were BETTER treated than were wage- workers under conditions of early Capitalism...despite the latter being juridally "free"...

by michael on Jan 5, 2011 10:10 am  

What is the "WMATA Resolution Against Cyclists"?...

I think Peter was pressing the point that bicyclists are like slaves in many fundamental ways: NOT that slaves and bicyclists are somehow interchangeable with regard to their treatment, even when constrained by historical context.

Take a step back and ask: what is a "slave" today? Does the concept merit attention? Does it help understand present social practices that can lead to and sustain the oppression of certain groups? I say yes; for the same reasons Cornell West has argued that "niggerization" accounts for and explains why 9/11 happened in the USA.

Bicyclists today in DC are like (here comes an analogy) most African-Americans in DC, especially in areas near to, and east of, the Anacostia River: they are simply ignored, marginalized, "niggerized," and exploited, especially when the need arises to justify the existing status quo. Given the juridical freedom each individual possesses in the USA, group oppression gets hidden behind procedure and bureaucracy; so it is assumed that if "they" -- in this case bicyclists -- dont take advantage of the offerings available, it is because "they" can be blamed for lack of proper adherence to "their" "place" in the social landscape...and to act otherwise is to be "uppity." (See *The Situationist* blog on the Web, run by the Harvard Law School, and in particular see the article by Hanson on "blame frames"...)

So, unemployment is 40 percent in Anacostia; the schools graduate barely 45 percent of kids; the population of the DC jail is almost all black men; the infrastructure is poor to nonexistent (there is not a single bike shop in Anacostia), etc.. All of these factors and more affect the possibilities of achievement and expression for black folk in DC. Given the current status of these marginalized black folk, especially men, do they meet the contemporary definition of "economic slave"?

Similarly, on all those CAR streets, where any other form of transport is an afterthought, and all of the car transport that is SUBSIDIZED by the big bad federal government, and driven (pun intended) by the dictates of corporate America...doesnt all of this amount to treating the bicyclist as a "transportation slave"?

DC and VA and MD POLICE have NEVER (go check!!) given a ticket or cited a car driver for aggressive driving towards or threatening a bicyclist. NEVER! YET EVERY BICYCLIST has a story to tell about being abused to the point of endangerment on the car roads. (Do the research...find out for yourself.) That the car-road laws are not enforced (speed limits? what kind of f_____g moron thinks speed limits mena ANYTHING?...ha ha ha....), doesnt help matters for bicyclists either.

Artists make lousy slaves, so a bumper
proclaims. Democracy in 2011 demands each citizen (not consumer!) be an artist. Try being creative enough to hold your thoughts *in your time*; that is, can you see what is oppressive today that will only be seen as oppressive a hundred years from now? Recall that a hundred years ago, women were too emotional to be allowed to vote...

So, Peter...thanks for challenging the status quo...

by Mike on Jan 5, 2011 10:40 am  

@Mike --
Nowadays people can choose how to get around. Nobody is holding a gun to the head, or a noose around the neck, of those on bicycles. Thus, the comparison of bicyclist to slave is invalid.

BTW, slavery still exists, more closely analogous to the historical form, even though it is illegal. Again, it is nothing like riding a bicycle.

by goldfish on Jan 5, 2011 10:54 am  

goldfish:

if you insist on using YOUR definition of slavery, then of course youre right.

if you want some insight into why bicyclist amy feel like slaves, this requires using OTHER definitions...definitions are tools...some work for certain purposes...others tools work for other purposes.

the notion that "people can choose how they get around" is simply too loose a tool to gain much traction in explaining why bicyclists are "niggerized" pace West; and why some might feel that bicylicts are treated like transporation slaves in 2011 America.

if you want to learn more contact me and I can refer you to some reason to help broaden you mind, and life...

if you just want to rehash and reuse old worn out definitions, and keep using worn out tools....well, run for Congress, as this seems to be what the stupidity of the average American values...

by mike on Jan 5, 2011 11:17 am  

goldfish:

by the way, washington's slaves, by careful historical analysis, were not in the least held in abject poverty...washington's treatment, IN CULTURAL CONTEXT seems to have been exemplary.

by Mike on Jan 5, 2011 11:21 am  

In context, yes George Washington treated his 184 slaves well. He even freed one of them, William Lee, his personal valet, upon his death.

But Washington knew of the incomparable injustice of slavery and despite his reputation, lied about it. He probably foresaw the war fought over it, and tried to avoid wrenching destruction. But does that justify his own support for slavery? No, because other parts of the US did not have slavery, and Washington certainly knew that it was possible to live a very comfortable life without the greatest moral failure of the US democracy.

by goldfish on Jan 5, 2011 11:56 am  

goldfish:

you seem to be making my point, not disagreeing...

I need to know how you define "knew" and "lied." I dont think these terms are as clear as you seem to think...

besides, life isnt just about the "known," but the "had" and "felt"...see Dewey's 1929, The Quest For Certainty...

the greatest moral failure in US democracy is institutionalizing an economic aristocracy. if you dont understand that youre an idiot.

goldfish, youre not smart enough to discourse with me as an equal on this subject: if youd like some help understanding these issues email me offline: bicycleutopia@gmail.com

by mike on Jan 5, 2011 12:04 pm  

My cutting-and-pasting is bad. the links are:
Washington lies: http://www.avengingtheancestors.com/releases/black-eye.htm
Civil war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

by goldfish on Jan 5, 2011 12:05 pm  

Mike: Washington knew, plain and simple, that slavery was wrong. And he lied in that he vowed never to buy another slave, but he accepted one for partial payment as a debt.

And calling me an idiot is over the line.

by goldfish on Jan 5, 2011 12:10 pm  

Once again- ANYBODY comparing slavery to bicyclists is just not in touch with reality.

by KevinM on Jan 5, 2011 1:20 pm  

@mike- changing the definition of slavery in order to justify you twisted logic is a tactic born of desperation. That is so lame. I am tempted to believe that you are not really that st*pid but that you are instead just pullingour proverbial legs.

by KevinM on Jan 5, 2011 1:41 pm  

OK, I've let this thread go on hoping maybe it would move away from slavery and back to something actually about bike policy and the media's reaction, but it appears that is not going to happen, so I am closing this thread.

by David Alpert on Jan 5, 2011 1:45 pm