Bicycling
What's our bicycle "social contract"?
With the frequent calls for cyclists to "start behaving," it's clear that a number of people driving and walking are unsettled by the conduct of at least some people on bikes. But people in cars speed all the time, and people walking cross against the light, and neither generates as many newspaper letters to the editor. What is the difference?
Photo by fromcaliw/love on Flickr.
One explanation is that people naturally notice infractions by others on different modes more than those on the same mode. People driving tend to see misbehavior by people walking and cycling rather than from other people driving, for example. Since relatively few people ride bicycles while a great many drive, the outraged letters would skew toward misbehavior by those on bikes and away from that by people in cars.
Felix Salmon proposed another interesting explanation a while back. Basically, he argues that we've developed a clear understanding of what to expect from people walking and driving generally, but lack that consensus for people bicycling:
The trouble all starts when you drop bicyclists into the mix. At that point, a whole new set of combinations comes into play, and as a city we haven't worked out how to make them work. In other cities, especially in places like Copenhagen or Utrecht, bicycles are ubiquitous and everybody knows how to behave on and around them. But we're not there yet.We expect that people on foot stay on the sidewalk most of the time, and cross when there's a walk signal or an unsignalized intersection, as the law says. We also expect that people on foot sometimes cross against the light if no cars are coming. That might not be legal, but it's generally commonplace and pretty safe. People driving might not like it, but they tend not to be too surprised when it happens and don't write angry letters to the editor about it.
Likewise, we expect that people driving will obey traffic signals and stop signs, and not drive up onto the sidewalk. We also expect that people driving may go a little over the speed limit, which can increase the risk of fatal crashes but is generally widespread. Likewise, people driving often don't stop fully at a stop sign, which adds a small amount of danger but not that much, and so it's generally tolerated.
But what do we expect from people biking? What should they do that's legal, and what are they going to do that's not technically legal, like people crossing on foot against the light or driving a bit over the speed limit?
As Felix Salmon noted, we're not in northern Europe where people riding bikes are everywhere. There, there are so many people on bikes that if 99% of them behave a certain way, people walking and driving are used to it and will generally expect it. Those that stray outside those boundaries will face criticism.
Here are a few examples of bicycling behaviors that are fairly common, and my opinion about whether they should be part of the bicycle "social contract" or not:
Okay: The Idaho Stop. Basically, people on bikes ought to treat intersections as people on foot generally do. If it's a stop sign, look carefully, and proceed if it's safe to do so. If there's a light, stop, look even more carefully, but it's still okay to proceed if it's safe and continuing wouldn't interfere with any people driving or walking.
Bad: Blowing through an intersection against the light without slowing down. This should go without saying, but some do it.
The "C maneuver."
Good: Riding in the middle of the lane. This is legal but most people riding bikes don't do it. If you're traveling on a bike down a street that doesn't have a bike lane, it's best to act like a car. Ride in the very middle of the appropriate car lane, as if you were in a car.
Most people on bikes ride on the right edge of the roadway. But this entices the people driving cars to try to pass them in the same lane. And if that person in the car turns right, they might "right hook" the person on the bike. Being in the center of the lane makes you very visible. If it's a one-lane street, people on any mode probably shouldn't be traveling that fast. If it's a multi-lane street, people in cars can go around.
Bad: Jumping the queue when it's not really necessary. If you're on a bike, and there's one car ahead of you at a stoplight with enough cross traffic that it's not safe to Idaho Stop across, why go around that car only to make the person driving it pass you again? Just wait behind the car, as if you were in a car yourself.
Okay: Jumping the queue when there are a lot of cars waiting. If there's a lot of traffic, cyclists are going to squeeze up to the front of the line. It's not necessarily safest and as an individual on a bike you might be best off waiting at the back of the line, but when there will be a fairly long wait to get going again after the light changes, people riding bikes are generally going to move up. That's not going to be reasonable to stop.
What do you think about these? What other bicycle behaviors should be part of the ideal "social contract" that will allow people on foot, on bikes and in cars to coexist peacefully, knowing what the others are likely to do and not do?
 | 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
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
by Rob P on Jan 5, 2011 1:47 pm • link • report
I'd add NOT riding on the sidewalk.
You're looking at this from biker-driver interaction; the real problem is bicycle-pedestrian. Much better than 15 years ago at the peak of the bike messengers downtown.
Getting everyone a bell and learning how to use it would be helpful.
by charlie on Jan 5, 2011 1:51 pm • link • report
by Casey Anderson on Jan 5, 2011 2:02 pm • link • report
You're right though about looking also at the bike-ped interaction--I'd say that even under the Idaho Stop, pedestrians still have ROW at crosswalks, but I could be convinced either way.
by Ted on Jan 5, 2011 2:02 pm • link • report
@charlie, I find that while biking, using bells and/or saying things like "on your left" has the impact of confusing pedestrians. They tend to turn towards you and move laterally in ways that are hard to predict. When, for some reason I am biking some place with peds (usually a bike trail) I tend, to pass based on the direction they are moving and projecting that they will continue in the same direction. Not a great result but certainly safer than confusing people.
by zt on Jan 5, 2011 2:04 pm • link • report
I half-disagree with the Idaho Stop point. Agree with the stop sign part...if there's no traffic, no big deal. But a red light is a red light. Unless you're making a right-turn-on-red, I see no reason why bicyclists can't stop and wait for the green (or if it's traffic-actuated, force the green).
by Froggie on Jan 5, 2011 2:05 pm • link • report
So: while the idea of creating social norms is perhaps a good one, the execution here is flawed. It seems to me that a more basic approach would be more productive. Start with what most people already do, and try to get everyone to agree on that. So: Idaho stops, as noted. Stopping at red lights (perhaps treating as a stop sign, as per Idaho law). Not riding the wrong way on one-way streets. For the rest of the more nuanced issues, perhaps a better solution is a simpler one, until bike infrastructure offers uniformly safe travel options (cf. Copenhagen): Just ride safely.
by reader on Jan 5, 2011 2:06 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jan 5, 2011 2:07 pm • link • report
This seems to be popular among the fixed-wheel crowd (guessing momentum, hard to accelerate, etc).
by m on Jan 5, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report
Sidewalk riding is still a gray area.
Bad. Riding on sidewalk when there is a usable bike lane or travel lane for bicycles.
Okay. Riding on a sidewalk temporarily to avoid a danger, like a delivery truck blocking the right lane and fast-moving cars in the left lane or to get into crosswalks to make a dangerous left turn that other cars are not letting you do the "car" way.
Okay. Riding on a sidewalk if you are a child or are with a child who is just learning to ride a bike. Sorry, but I'm not ready to let my kid onto the road, even with bike lanes. Cycle track is ok.
Okay. Riding on a sidewalk the opposite way on a one-way street. It's better than riding in the street or bike lane opposite traffic, which is a big no-no.
Sidewalk riding should always be slower than regular riding and the rider should be extremely vigilant of pedestrians, giving them wide berth.
One more on the Bad list: riding at night without at least a taillight. Sorry to require more equipment, but we have to let cars know we're there if we want them to not run us over.
by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 5, 2011 2:14 pm • link • report
I find most bike users in my neighborhood to considerate and safety conscious (more so than motorists, by the way), but a day doesn't go by when I'm not reminded of the quote by Douglas Adams, in Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul who noted "a moral high ground that cyclists alone seem able to inhabit"
I'd suggest not barking "on your left" or using your bell when passing me on a sidewalk. I don't honk at bikes going slow in traffic lanes; I wait patiently until it is safe to go around. I'd like the same courtesy when walking.
by TimK on Jan 5, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report
@Froggie; I'd agree that bike vs pedestrian is actually better than 15 years ago, but in no way I'd say it is near ideal. As someone who walks around the city 3-4 miles a day I am so glad winter is here and a lot of bikers have packed up.
My rule of thumb on the idaho stop is if there is no traffic at all at a light, then you can go. Any traffic means wait for the red.
Having small, bike only signals that would give bikes 5-10 seconds to accelerate would be amazing on a few routes.
by charlie on Jan 5, 2011 2:17 pm • link • report
That hits them doppler-style and they don't even register consciously what you're saying right away but it usually works so that by the time you whiz by them they get that it was a bike and not someone trying to steal their purse.
by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 5, 2011 2:21 pm • link • report
by m on Jan 5, 2011 2:23 pm • link • report
And this is why these norms are worth discussing. I think most people driving AND biking both think that the person on the bike is supposed to ride to the right. But that's not really correct.
As for riding on the sidewalk, my list would agree with Ward 1 Guy's. I'd also say that riding on the sidewalk is okay if the sidewalk is not very crowded, and the person on the bike should yield to every pedestrian.
Don't ride somewhere it would get in a pedestrian's way; if passing one, just ride extremely slowly until there's plenty of room to go around. Basically, the sidewalk is the walker's realm, and the person on the bike has to act like they're a guest.
by David Alpert on Jan 5, 2011 2:24 pm • link • report
by Fred on Jan 5, 2011 2:24 pm • link • report
by JimT on Jan 5, 2011 2:31 pm • link • report
by Vakil on Jan 5, 2011 2:37 pm • link • report
by jeff on Jan 5, 2011 2:40 pm • link • report
I would like to add that while I'm not a rider (mostly because I'm a big scareddy-cat), I am 100% pro cyclist, and I would hate to see my comment twisted around to mean that I am anti-bike. Whatever makes the streets safer for cyclists, makes the streets safer for me, a pedestrian, and a non-driver to boot. So please, stay off the sidewalks, do not salmon, and do not fly through intersections when you don't have the light. In return, I will treat you as a car and wait for you to pass if I'm crossing against the light and there are no other cars coming.
by Jess on Jan 5, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report
by Rom on Jan 5, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
by Dave on Jan 5, 2011 2:51 pm • link • report
When commuting during work hours, I would prefer it if cyclists didn't observe the Idaho stop and instead acted as if they were cars. This isn't Idaho - there are no streets that are truly quiet at rush hour, not even residential streets. I do roll through some stop signs if there aren't cars around (especially if there's a stop sign and I'm climbing a hill - I think it's the equivalent of a car rolling slowly through a stop), but I think stop signs should be respected at any time during rush hour and any time a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a stop sign. Cyclists should not ever blow a light at rush hour.
On weekends - I think the Idaho stop at stop signs and lights is OK if there are no cars or pedestrians. As someone else noted, Idaho stop means cyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a light as a stop sign. This should be coded into law and enforced.
I would say always signal your turns should be a norm. Unfortunately, some less confident cyclists might not want to take one hand off the bar. Additionally, most signals are made with the left hand; in the US, your primary brake (the front one, which provides 70% of the braking power) is typically the left brake. I actually reverse all my brakes so I can signal better. However, this is a problem that's probably due to a persistent misconception that the front brake will flip you over the bars. That would only happen with user error, but it is a persistent misconception.
Sidewalks: as the others have said, peds get priority on the sidewalks. It should be acceptable to allow bikes on the less crowded sidewalks if they don't impede pedestrian traffic. And cyclists will do it anyway, particularly the less confident ones.
Aside from that, I think that about covers the general norms that cyclists should observe. These will make it safe for cyclists to use the roads where appropriate, and garner respect from drivers. I note that WABA, during ride to work day, says that the organized groups (they organize rides to one destination from several points in the suburbs) will stop at all stop signs. I think that's a good start towards developing norms. The problem is, I think the more experienced rides already live in the suburbs. It's the people riding in from downtown that we need to educate.
by Weiwen Ng on Jan 5, 2011 2:54 pm • link • report
I'll also note that he's misdescribed the Idaho stop, which properly applied only at stop signs, not lights
by ah on Jan 5, 2011 2:58 pm • link • report
I love the bike lanes and I especially love bicyclists that love pedestrians! Crossing traffic circles is hairy enough! Be nice!
by Dan on Jan 5, 2011 2:59 pm • link • report
by Jeff on Jan 5, 2011 3:03 pm • link • report
by Tina on Jan 5, 2011 3:07 pm • link • report
1) The bike is traveling at approximately the same rate as pedestrian traffic, and
2) The sidewalk is not so crowded as to render lateral collisions likely.
I find that when I ride on a sidewalk in this manner, few if any complain, perhaps because few if any feel threatened or inconvenienced.
by Mark on Jan 5, 2011 3:09 pm • link • report
by Rob P on Jan 5, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report
This left a tar brush across all cyclists, even though as it has become more common place for mere mortals like myself the average cyclist behavior has much improved.
by John on Jan 5, 2011 3:14 pm • link • report
Also, this gets into runners'/walkers' social contract, but I don't care how much you love walking with your best friend, you don't have the right to go side-by-side on a 10 foot-wide trail.
I don't bike during the winter, so I don't know how it's been lately, but when the weather is warmer, I go from Glenmont to Metro Center. I would regularly encounter large groups of runners and walkers that would take up the entire trail with no concept that somebody might be coming the opposite direction.
Oh, and then there's the lady who stretches on the trail bridge at the bottom of the hill just past Calvert on the Rock Creek Trail. I encountered her multiple times.
Bikers may need to behave themselves on the roads just a *little* better, but runners and walkers need a lot of improvement on the trails. For what it's worth, it's almost never the elite/serious runners. Those people know what they're doing. It's the people who run five miles a week that cause the problems.
by Chris on Jan 5, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report
by Keith on Jan 5, 2011 3:34 pm • link • report
You gonna shut down this discussion, too? is it too off topic yet?...IT'S A BLOG! no one reads it! blogs and blog commentary are *therapy* for those who are too oppressed to have their concerns effected satisfactorily in daily life!
constructive intervention requires a face to face meeting, taking a stand, and pissing someone off. its the only way social change has ever occurred!!
but good thing you shut down that other discussion...iut could have gotten WAAAY OUT OF HAND!!!!! ha ha ha this made me laugh...thanks for that...
by mike on Jan 5, 2011 3:55 pm • link • report
If bikes are on the roads with cars, they need to follow ALL traffic rules and behave like cars. If they are on sidewalks they need to behave like pedestrians, including moving at the speed of pedestrians.
Bikers ARE NOT above the law, despite what they may think.
by k on Jan 5, 2011 3:58 pm • link • report
http://www.youtube.com/user/magnatom?blend=2&ob=1
by thump on Jan 5, 2011 3:58 pm • link • report
On my commute, I depend on the Jones Bridge Rd sidewalk in Bethesda/Chevy Chase. On busy days I'll pass 3 pedestrians over a mile stretch and I'm not sure a fast enough biker to ride on the streets where cars race around limit visibility turns and hills.
Also of note, be aware that bells are heard farther away than a voice, but are hard to localize. Ring a bell when you are 10-15s away so that have time to figure out where you are. If you're closer, you're equally likely to turn into you.
As for Idaho stops and red lights, if the social contract means no one would bat an eye if a pedestrian jay walked, then a bike can slowly jay cycle. If you need to go faster than a pedestrian to make it across the street safely, then you shouldn't be doing it.
by Dan on Jan 5, 2011 4:03 pm • link • report
I do announce "on your left" if I am on a sidewalk (where I ride slowly), but it's not effective (I often pass with one foot on the ground to demonstrate caution). And on trails, where I go faster, signaling before passing is essential, because too many people will spin around or shift without warning. Though it does seem women are more likely to respond to "on your left" by moving left, whereas men are more likely to move right. And couples will pull apart, with the man then pulling the woman to the right after she skoots to the left!
by M.V. Jantzen on Jan 5, 2011 4:10 pm • link • report
by Mike B on Jan 5, 2011 4:20 pm • link • report
Personally, I consider all stop sings to be yield signs. But red lights are red lights. They are not to be crossed. No biking on the side walk either. Going against a one-way is ok, if the one-way is wide enough. Bikers should stay in the right traffic lane, unless that's a turning lane. At traffic lights, it's perfectly fine to stand in front of cars to get a head start.
For safety reasons, you should always ride 1/3 from the left of a lane when in car traffic, just like motorbikes do. This way cars can not pretend you're not there. You can move to 1/3 of the right when allowing cars to pass.
The mixed-use trails around DCare too narrow. Dogs on a leash and bikes don't mix very well on such narrow trails, even if the dog owner and the biker try to be responsible.
by Jasper on Jan 5, 2011 4:26 pm • link • report
Bikers should stay in the right traffic lane, unless that's a turning lane.
Do folks in the Netherlands ever have to turn left?
:)
by oboe on Jan 5, 2011 4:35 pm • link • report
by rosenrosen on Jan 5, 2011 4:36 pm • link • report
Unless you're making a right-turn-on-red, I see no reason why bicyclists can't stop and wait for the green (or if it's traffic-actuated, force the green).
Just want to point out that most signals are synchronized for auto traffic speeds (albeit poorly). This means that if you're on a bicycle, you'll often hit every single light in sequence, and some of them are quite long.
One could make the argument that that's just the price of riding a bike, and cyclists should have another 30-90 seconds added to their trip time for every single block, even if no traffic is coming, but you probably won't get many takers in the real world.
(This is the same reason you see so many jaywalkers in DC, btw. Signals are there solely to ensure the efficient flow of autos, and pedestrians are expected to subsist around the margins. So you get things like a) 15 seconds to cross eight lanes of traffic; and b) pedestrian signals configured such that the pedestrian is expected to proceed to a tiny median, then wait for a second signal to be allowed to cross from the median to the other side.
Most folks who primarily drive never even notice their privileged status in this regard, by the way. It's a bit like the "white privilege" phenomenon. (At the risk of re-igniting the great "slavery" bruhaha of a previous thread).
by oboe on Jan 5, 2011 4:47 pm • link • report
I lost a lot of sympathy for bikers when I almost hit one on Mass Ave near Union Station a few days ago. I waited at a red light and then accelerated into the intersection after the light turned green behind two or three other cars. Before I knew it, a bike was right in front of me. I braked and swerved, barely missing him and nearly being rear ended. The idiot had run the red light (blatantly) and was trying to cross a heavy stream of cars at a busy intersection.
Man, some random jerk acted like a jerk, you almost killed him (and almost dented your bumper), and now you've "lost a lot of respect for cyclists."
If anyone wants a more stark example of the irrational prejudices that develop between various travel modes, you need look no further.
Hey! I lost a lot of respect for pedestrians when some guy stepped out from between two parked cars and I ran him over! All you all need to watch where the F you're going!
by oboe on Jan 5, 2011 4:56 pm • link • report
I think I'd always given cyclists in the city a little more leeway regarding traffic rules figuring most were experienced and protective of their own safety. (A person without cycling experience would have to be crazy to try to navigate city traffic!)
I was mostly okay with cyclists merely pausing at stop signs or passing through intersections when no one was around because I (perhaps naively) assumed that cyclists would use good judgment, actions that many on this thread acknowledge and condone. So yes, a very scary incident with a cyclist has changed my views. Cyclists should be held to the rules of the road, just like cars and pedestrians. I think this holds true even if it means cyclists have to stop frequently to wait for 30 or 60 seconds at a light or stop on a hill. Others shouldn't be responsible for their erratic and unpredictable actions because they don't feel compelled to follow standard traffic laws.
If riding a bike is inconvenient when following the law, perhaps people should reconsider their mode of transportation. No argument for convenience overrides safety concerns, IMO.
by k on Jan 5, 2011 6:02 pm • link • report
They're timed for free-flowing auto traffic speeds. During commuting hours most cars are going from one to the next, or close to it.
by ah on Jan 5, 2011 6:06 pm • link • report
In general, if its legal, I will ride on the sidewalk but I agree that all riders should act as guests on sidewalks. Mups are NOT bicycle superhighways if pedestrians are allowed on them and pedestrians ALWAYS have the row! Pedestrians are the more vulnerable people there just like cyclists are in roadways.
But I think it's crazy for sidewalks to be legal to ride on and I would support it being banned even though I luv luv luv jumping curbs. Its crazy to put cyclists on sidewalks as if they belong there.
But Idaho stops all the way, lights. signs, whatever. If its safe to get across the road, it is safe to get across the road so why not? Did I mention that I thought jay walking was legal b/c I learned to cross the street in DC?
But regardless of your relationship with the laws, and mine is rather tenuous at best, safety first. If you get smacked and it's your fault, you're an idiot. If you do the smacking and its your fault, you're a jerk and you probably owe someone money. You definitely owe them an apology.
Most other places I've been in the world treat the most vulnerable with the most respect. What does it say about us that we do the opposite?
b
by badassador on Jan 5, 2011 6:29 pm • link • report
The key here is what you mean by rules of the road. Do you mean the letter of the law? If so, your assumption that drivers and pedestrians obey the letter of the law is false, and you are creating an unreasonable double standard for cyclists.
Or by "rules of the road" do you mean socially accepted, courteous, responsible behavior - whether it's legal or not? As David notes, our society has evolved "social contract" - a set of unwritten, unspoken rules - about how to behave on the street when walking or driving, but not for when you're on a bike. As more people hop on their bikes, these rules will develop and become widely known.
The solution here isn't to "throw the book" at cyclists but to create a set of socially accepted standards.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with someone on a bike, but that's an argument against that person's judgement, not the judgement of all people on bikes.
Captcha: safety, Mortan
by Stephen Miller on Jan 5, 2011 6:43 pm • link • report
you say
"If riding a bike is inconvenient when following the law, perhaps people should reconsider their mode of transportation. No argument for convenience overrides safety concerns, IMO."
What about if the laws or circumstances surrounding the laws make bike riding unnecessarily inconvenient (and within inconvenience I include the inconvenience of the inability to feel safe while riding your bike)?
by Canaan on Jan 5, 2011 8:34 pm • link • report
because, ideologically, we live in an automobile-centric society. to rephrase an axiom, it's the material conditions of people's lives, stupid!
change the laws and transform the infrastructure so citizen cycling is not just the normal, but the privileged, mode of transportation, along with transit and walking, and you won't need lists like this.
but, in the meantime, sure.
by tony on Jan 5, 2011 8:43 pm • link • report
They're timed for free-flowing auto traffic speeds. During commuting hours most cars are going from one to the next, or close to it.
This may be true for many suburban arterials in the area, and even some in the city. But for many of the streets that cyclists tend to favor, this type of gridlock is not the norm.
by oboe on Jan 5, 2011 8:55 pm • link • report
the notion of a "social contract" presumes that each and every sovereign subject shares a theoretically level playing field with everyone else. its use here thus makes little sense, in the asymmetrical context of transit modes in the u.s., where one mode and class, the private automobile and motorists, in terms of the resources they enjoy and the reigning laws in their favor, completely dominate the other mode and class, the bicycle and the citizen cyclist.
in other words, there can't be a social contract between motorists and cyclist, just as there couldn't be one historically (at least any social contract worth its name) between, say, women and men (until the suffrage movement) or whites and blacks (until the 1960s)--and, as we know, relations of race, gender, and the "contract" are still disputed today.
so what's the right metaphor? here are a few:
what's our bicycle "reform movement"?
what's our bicycle "non-violent protest"?
what's our bicycle "tea party"? (oh.)
what's our bicycle "revolution"?
by tony on Jan 5, 2011 9:01 pm • link • report
casey anderson's point about more drivers becoming more familiar with bicyclists is apt I think. The people on DC streets in cars who yell about getting on the sidewalk tend to not be driving cars with DC license plates. MD and other states are far more common on such cars.
by Richard Layman on Jan 5, 2011 9:29 pm • link • report
it doesn't make any sense.
the root 'education' problem as i see it is that it is drivers and pedestrians who need to learn how to share the streets of DC with the new users of the streets, cyclists. even in the cases where drivers and walkers _do_ know about "The Streets/Transportation Social Contract" (which includes all modes), they all-too-often fail in their contractual duties. so, educating walkers and drivers is the first part -- enforcement through social norms/shame comes later.
it is actually bikers who are best-informed about all modes of transport, because anyone who bikes has also and probably still does drive, walk, and take transit. the reason we so often hear such ignorant comments from non-bikers about biking is because there is no possible way for a non-biker to appreciate what it is like to ride a bike. just the fact that we cyclists have to explain why we don't like to stop at stop signs and red lights shows how deep the ignorance among non-bikers runs.
so, let's build The Streets Social Contract and use it as an educational tool for the people who most need it -- people who don't bike.
i think most folks try to live by The Golden Rule, so that would take care of most issues, but the ignorance among non-cyclists is where the problems start.
we might still quibble about the exact details of how all the modes should interact, but none of it can be controversial if you a) know what biking is like, and b) agree that walking and biking should be prioritized, in that order, above motorized transport. done and done.
NY Mag did and etiquette guide that includes subways and taxis, but not necessarily all the other transportation stuff.
Spacing Toronto did a 'Rules' issue.
i have a problem with many of the proposed rules-for-cyclists, and many of the comments, but a few jumped out:
1) traffic lights are primarily to allow us to conduct motorized transport in the city, specifically car, truck, and bus transport, and we need to continue to de-motorize the city. if the only motorized transport we allowed was trains, we could get rid of just about every traffic light in the city. suggesting that bikers or pedestrians or anyone else should stop at red lights or any other (motor) traffic control device 'just because' is not an answer. there _could be_ a valid reason -- like maybe crossing is dangerous for the walker/biker and/or other people, but i personally don't know what that reason could be if it's not 'danger'.
2) bus drivers leapfrogging cyclists is the worst -- they roar past you, cut you off and stop short, pushing you out into the lane or forcing you to stop, putting you at risk of getting hit from behind, etc. insane.
3) all of the talk of 'pissing off' drivers and making them angry and whatever is pretty compelling, in part b/c it's true -- we cyclists know that if we make a driver angry, accidentally or otherwise, whether we are doing nothing wrong or otherwise, those drivers could decide to ruin and/or end our lives, just because they can. so, we often, if not always, ride in fear -- often grave fear. it's a terrible situation, and it needs to change, and establishing some social norms for drivers (and door-ers, and walkers, etc.) would go some way towards addressing this very serious problem.
walkers and bikers up! motorized transport down!
by Peter Smith on Jan 5, 2011 9:57 pm • link • report
Furthermore, there are actually many instances in American law, especially property law, where a stricter law eventually comes around to match social convention either in the letter of the law or in matters of enforcement. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more and more laws tailored specifically to cyclist conventions. The Idaho Stop is an example.
by Eric Fidler on Jan 5, 2011 10:40 pm • link • report
by Jeff on Jan 5, 2011 10:46 pm • link • report
@TimK, I'd suggest not barking "on your left" or using your bell when passing me on a sidewalk. I don't honk at bikes going slow in traffic lanes for every person who asks that cyclists not do this, there is someone else out there complaining that cyclists never announce themselves when passing. "On your left" is not a call to "get out of my way" it is a warning because bikes are so quiet they can surprise you.
@Vakil, but, per capita, no one is as irresponsible as DC cyclists. The numbers don't back that up. Drivers are more often responsible for crashes with cyclists and pedestrians.
@Jess, in DC biking on the sidewalk is usually legal - in NYC it never is. And I see plenty of people jogging in the bike lane.
by David C on Jan 5, 2011 11:20 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jan 5, 2011 11:33 pm • link • report
Saying excuse me wont always work in the cases of the deaf or blind what do you suggest then ?
What about when wheelchairs are present they can take up the whole sidewalk sometimes especially on streets/roads/avenues with narrow sidewalks (R.I. Ave, NY Ave, North/East/South Capitol Streets at some parts)
by kk on Jan 5, 2011 11:48 pm • link • report
" ...If you do the smacking and its your fault, you're a jerk and you probably owe someone money. You definitely owe them an apology."
The apology thing already seems impossible to most people i've met so far. The money thing get's solved by the law anyway.
by rags on Jan 6, 2011 2:16 am • link • report
by JimT on Jan 6, 2011 6:58 am • link • report
by crin on Jan 6, 2011 7:20 am • link • report
In my view, we are still in an auto-centric society, and so cyclists should whenever possible ride in designated bike lanes and/or trails, and then on sidewalks. Only when neither of those options is available should a cyclist use the roadway. When using the roadway, cyclists need to recognize that they are not equal to the vehicles, and thus take care to stay out of the way and allow vehicular traffic to proceed appropriately. No- I am not saying that drivers of cars get to ignore cyclists.
Another problem is, cyclists don't want to slow down and share the sidewalks safely with pedestrians. Using a bell or even calling out "on your left" should be used only to alert the pedestrian that the cyclist is approaching, however most cyclists seem to think that their warning is a call for the pedestrian to get out of the way. When I approach a cyclist in my car, I always give a short toot of my horn, but only just to let them know that I am passing. Of course, I always get a scowl from the cyclist, as if I am expected to ride along behind them for as long we are on the same road.
Until there is political consensus to build cycling infrastructure that allows for safe and speedy cycling all around town(which consensus does not exist at this time), cycling is not the alternative to driving that some of you wish it to be. Meanwhile cyclists must learn to slow down, share the sidewalks safely with pedestrians whenever possible, and quit whining.
by KevinM on Jan 6, 2011 7:33 am • link • report
by Jessica on Jan 6, 2011 7:54 am • link • report
http://www.waba.org/resources/laws.php
by Mitch Wander on Jan 6, 2011 7:55 am • link • report
by movement on Jan 6, 2011 8:36 am • link • report
Umm . . . you ARE expected to ride along behind them if they are taking the lane (as they are permitted to do) on a single lane road.
by dcd on Jan 6, 2011 8:54 am • link • report
1. I think your prioritization of which paths cyclists "should" use is completely wrong. "Don't be on the road unless you absolutely have to!" Not right.
2. I often find that pedestrians wrongly thing that my bell means "get out of my way" when really I only mean to announce my presence. But you are right that SOME cyclists on the sidewalk ride way too fast. It's not "most" though.
3. The reason we get pissed when you "toot" your horn at us is that its 10,000 times louder to us than it is to you. Horns are REALLY LOUD when a car 10 feet behind you uses it. I can hear your car without a horn, it has an engine.
by MLD on Jan 6, 2011 9:05 am • link • report
"When using the roadway, cyclists need to recognize that they are not equal to the vehicles, and thus take care to stay out of the way and allow vehicular traffic to proceed appropriately."
Actually, when using the roadway we are in fact equal to the cars by law. That said, I try to give way to faster moving traffic when possible, because I think it's the polite thing to do. I do the same in my car on the interstate.
"Meanwhile cyclists must learn to slow down, share the sidewalks safely with pedestrians whenever possible, and quit whining.
Slow down and quit whining is good advice for both cars and bikes alike. Sharing the sidewalk is not, and is illegal in much of the city.
by jcm on Jan 6, 2011 9:10 am • link • report
I speak from personal experience, which is anecdotal, of course. I'm a cautious cyclist because I expect cars to ignore me, so I rarely put myself in a position to be threatened by cars. I do ride in the middle of the lane when there is no bike lane, and this gets jerk drivers like movement angry at me, but I stay far enough over that they can't pass me dangerously close. So, maybe the statistics show otherwise, but I see far too many cyclists flouting the rules in ways that endanger themselves, drivers and pedestrians. Perhaps cars show up in the stats more because they are more capable of doing damage?
@movement If you don't like being "stuck" behind a cyclist while driving in the city, I have a suggestion for you. Take the Metro.
by Vakil on Jan 6, 2011 9:15 am • link • report
Operators of bicycles have the same rights as do operators of other vehicles and in the additional rights granted by this chapter.
There's probably some other stuff you aren't aware of as well.
by jcm on Jan 6, 2011 9:19 am • link • report
When using the roadway, cyclists need to recognize that they are not equal to the vehicles, and thus take care to stay out of the way and allow vehicular traffic to proceed appropriately. Bicycles are vehicles. By this same logic, when cyclists are on the sidewalk, pedestrians need to recognize that they are not equal to the bicycles, and thus take care to stay out of the way and allow bicycle traffic to proceed appropriately. Is that your position? Why should cyclists have to defer to cars because they're bigger, but to peds because they're smaller. That's illogical.
Another problem is, cyclists don't want to slow down and share the sidewalks safely with pedestrians. So they should stay off the road to stay out of the way of drivers but go slow on the sidewalk. If we are to only go at a walking pace on the sidewalk at all times, what is the point of biking?
most cyclists seem to think that their warning is a call for the pedestrian to get out of the way. Unless you're Dr. Xavier, I'm left to wonder how you know what cyclists think.
When I approach a cyclist in my car, I always give a short toot of my horn, but only just to let them know that I am passing. Please, please, please do not do this ever again. It only serves to startle and/or enrage cyclists. You're in a car. If you are under the impression that you are some sort of quiet ninja in your car, you are mistaken. We can here you coming - for a long time. Give us three feet and no toot is necessary. It will usually be interpreted as a "get the hell out of my way horn" since 99.9999% of drivers are capable of safely passing without such a toot and that will make us angry.
Until there is political consensus to build cycling infrastructure that allows for safe and speedy cycling all around town(which consensus does not exist at this time), cycling is not the alternative to driving that some of you wish it to be. I'm sorry, are you not aware that every bike law passes in DC unanimously. That the Secretary of Transportation stood on a table and announced that making streets safe for cycling was a priority. That DC is pulling out car parking and traffic lanes to put in bike parking and bike lanes. If that is not a consensus, what is?
Meanwhile cyclists must learn to slow down, share the sidewalks safely with pedestrians whenever possible, and quit whining. Says the person who just whined for four paragraphs. I'd say drivers must learn to slow down, share the roads safely with cyclists whenever possible, and quit whining.
@Jessica, you said you saw more sidewalk cycling in DC than in NYC. I was explaining why - namely that it is legal in DC and where it is not in NYC; not that NYC cyclists are more conscientious - a claim I have never heard before. Not all sidewalks are narrow, and some have 0 people on them. I use two sidewalks as part of my commute, both up steep hills with high-speed car traffic. I almost never see a ped on these. I'm not going to stop that since it keeps me safe. The problem with blanket rules is that they don't allow for the many many exceptions.
by David C on Jan 6, 2011 9:34 am • link • report
I'm saying how do you say excuse me to a deaf person whom can not hear you or a blind person who will hear you but will not know where you are. The deaf person or blind person and or guide animal could move a different way than you are expecting causing you to hit/bump them
Saying excuse me does not equal the other party hearing you this also is true for a person who has bad hearing or earphones on.
I for example never cut in front of anyone i'll just wait and perhaps walk around them when reaching a curb where there is more room so I would never come in contact with them.
If the road is one way in the other direction why not just take another road and not be in conflict with pedestrians.
I believe that if you can not do something safely in this case walk, drive or bike you should not be doing it all and that you should do what ever the largest majority in the specific area does unless absolutely necessary and then respect them.
I also believe that the streets + sidewalks are designed totally wrong for the different ways people may circulate (people walking,people in wheelchairs, bikers and drivers)
by kk on Jan 6, 2011 9:43 am • link • report
by Matt on Jan 6, 2011 10:08 am • link • report
@David Alpert: Maybe the honking rule ought to be elevated to the "social contract" since best practice when overtaking a cyclist is different than what laws sometimes advise for overtaking a motor vehicle.
@kk If you don't want to say "excuse me" to people for the reasons you have mentioned, I doubt you will do significant harm. But there will be better feelings all the way around if at least a significant fraction do in situations when common courtesy would suggest doing so. Common courtesy generally does not mean shouting "excuse me" from 20 feet away, but rather saying so quietly when you are nearby. While people may on occasion use that phrase as an indirect request to give way, it is more correctly what one says after having found their way, to acknowledge the trespass and to beg forgiveness.
by JimT on Jan 6, 2011 10:23 am • link • report
*Said with no sarcasm or mean spirit intended, I just really don't understand (isn't it sad that I have to qualify so as not to get snapped at?)*: Can someone explain to me why this would be acceptable behavior? No one in the comments has seemed to contradict it, but it seems really unsafe to me. Why should a cyclist be permitted to jump the line - if traffic is heavy enough that there are a lot of cars, should a cyclist really be scooting between them/around them to get up front? I feel like that puts the cyclist in a place where it is unlikely they'll be seen, possibly between two cars and not really in a lane at all, and at the mercy of someone turning right to guess that you're in their blind spot and will soon be shooting out and in their path. I could understand this a little more if the light was at the top of the hill and the cyclist was taking the red light to go slowly up the hill, but otherwise it just seems rude and unsafe. It sounds a lot like when motorcycles squeeze between lanes when there is traffic on the highway. Just because you're small and you can fit doesn't mean its safe or that you should.
In my opinion, if there is heavy traffic and bikes are sharing the road, they should act more like cars. Unless there's a bike lane, its the safest thing.
Unrelated, but should be added to the list: If you're cycling when its dark, have some kind of reflective material or lighting on your bike, or don't wear all black. Better yet, both! I desperately don't want to hit you, but when I can't see you at all, its hard.
by elysian on Jan 6, 2011 10:44 am • link • report
Cyclists should respect one-way streets and should recognize that bike lanes on one-way streets are also one-way with traffic unless specifically designated otherwise. I'm thinking in particular of 9th Street NW from New York Avenue south to Pennsylvania. For much of that stretch, there are two general-purpose lanes to the left, then a bike lane to the right of those, then a bus lane to the right of the bike lane. I've seen a few cyclists riding the wrong way in that bike lane and I'd call that sort of behavior suicidal. No driver is looking for you there, especially not as you pass the big car park where the old convention center used to be (and that's even more so after a game at the Verizon Center). This goes back to my point above about common sense.
Riding on the wrong side of a two-way street is a bad idea as well, though I can see some situations where it might not be the worst idea--residential neighborhoods when you're riding with your kid, for example, if the kid is not yet coordinated enough to check over his shoulder for traffic.
My bottom line, regardless of mode of transportation (car, bike, pedestrian), is to use some common sense and consider who else is out there. If I'm on vacation in my car somewhere and I want to drive somewhat slowly to look at the sights, I'll keep an eye on the traffic behind me and I'll pull off to let people go by if several vehicles start to stack up. I recognize that the local residents are not on vacation and they have someplace to be such that it's not appropriate for me to hold up traffic. If I'm on a bike and I cannot maintain sufficient speed up a hill, for example, such that I would hold up traffic, I'll likely pull over, get off the bike, and walk it up a hill, regardless of whether I have the "right" to crawl up that hill in the lane of traffic. I'd rather not hold up the motorized traffic that doesn't have the same problem, especially when I'm in a more vulnerable position on the bike. If I'm a pedestrian, I'm not so arrogant as to ignore the flashing "Don't Walk" sign because I recognize that when that sign is up, it's the time for drivers to complete their turns. It seems to me that if we'd all think about how all users of the streets relate to each other, things would be a lot more efficient than they are with all the "up-yours" sniping that always permeates these debates (including some of the comments in this thread).
by Rich on Jan 6, 2011 10:49 am • link • report
On the filtering question (aka queue jumping). First of all, it's legal. Second of all the thinking is that drivers may - if it safe - pass cyclists in the same lane, so cyclists should be allowed to do that as well. It is generally safe, but your point about possible right hooks is valid. Cyclists need to make sure not to put themselves in that position. On the flip side. Cyclists are often safer if they start to cross ahead of cars so that they can get their speed up and be more stable - unlike cars, bikes are instable at low speeds. Being in front of cars also makes cyclists more visible. Finally, we want to encourage cycling and by letting cyclist move faster we do so - this alone is not justification, but it is a nice element.
by David C on Jan 6, 2011 10:59 am • link • report
"Personally, I ride in the manner least likely to get me killed. What that means depends on the context: on some streets, taking the lane is safest. On others, it means riding to the right as per the law so drivers don't get po'd and aggressive."
While many cyclists are quite aware that riding in the center of the lane is legal, actually pulling this off in traffic typically means encounters with many, many aggressive drivers who almost appear out for blood. Speaking as someone who's been hit by a car in a classic right hook impact (in fact an illegal turn from a straight only lane) I can say that there's a point where physical safety outweighs legality when you're a soft human on a 20-30 pound bike surrounded by distracted and often extremely aggressive drivers piloting vehicles weighing tons.
Drivers are 100% convinced you have no right to do that. As a commuter cyclist and part time racer over the years who barely drives THE number one thing people say to me when they find I'm a cyclist is something about cyclists impeding them in traffic and how much it pisses them off. They believe they have exclusive dominion over the road. There is no other single way to piss off drivers and earn their disdain for cyclists as a whole than to do this all the time. I've met several cycling advocates who do this constantly even when safety is not a factor (of course, I'm not saying that there aren't times when it's required for preservation of life and limb) just to "make a point".
by pete on Jan 6, 2011 11:31 am • link • report
1. In DC cyclists are considered motorists on the road and must obey the law. That said, cars/buses etc also need to respect that cyclists can ride in the center of a lane without feeling like they are going to get clipped, rear-ended, or screamed at.
2. Trail riding is a touchy subject. Everyone who uses a trail needs to be well aware that it is a multi-purpose trail and respect every use of it. As a cyclist I find that letting people know that I am passing has prevented many potential accidents and walkers/joggers appreciate it. To the walkers/joggers and cyclists, if you are on a trail, please do NOT crank up your music so loud that you cannot hear people coming and then yell at the passer for scaring you.
3. Riding bikes in the "business district" in DC on the sidewalks is illegal during rush hour. Who would want to ride on the sidewalk in DC anyway - too many people!
4. It is required by DC law that cyclists use a head light and tail light when it is dark outside. This is just common sense!
My concern for everyone is that, as someone else mentioned, a few dangerous cyclists give all cyclists a bad reputation. I always ride as safely as possible and do my best to be considerate of drivers and pedestrians because I DO NOT WANT TO GET KILLED. When I ride alone, I take up more space on the road so that I am visible. When I ride in large groups of cyclists, we try to maintain a "two-up" rule meaning we are no more than two people abreast on roads that will allow cars to pass us safely. If we are on a single lane road, we generally ride single file for our own safety.
What vehicles do not realize is how hard it is for a bike to stop quickly and safely when reacting to the many crazy drives in DC who have to be somewhere immediately because they are already 10 minutes late. Cars have a really big safety shell that protects them if they hit a cyclist. Cyclists have a layer of spandex and a helmet!
No matter how this discussion goes, simple respect for ourselves and each other will greatly improve how we behave on the road.
by Erin on Jan 6, 2011 11:34 am • link • report
Unfortunately, many bicyclists advocate for bad policy and behavior because they are blinded by their expectation that we should all agree that they're superior to other modes.
by keho15 on Jan 6, 2011 11:42 am • link • report
They were about to go through the intersection. Realized they were going to get hit. Took a right turn to make it look like they meant to do it. Then U turn to get back on track.
by Charles on Jan 6, 2011 11:51 am • link • report
by David C on Jan 6, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report
The thing I worry about the most while riding in this city are Metrobuses. It's just dangerous to ride in the middle of the road in front of one. One time a metrobus literally ran me off the road by tailgating the rear end of my bike, speeding up and finally forcing me into a construction zone on the shoulder. Next time this happens I'll be sure to take down its number and to report the offense.
by Scoot on Jan 6, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report
That being said, I'm old enough (and have enough kids) not to put myself in dangerous situations. The biggest complaint I hear from my non-bicycling friends is that they are repeatedly slowed-down by bicyclists, especially those that they pass, then have to pass again, when the cyclist pulls ahead of them at a stoplight. In other words, it's not the law-breaking issue that bothers these motorists, it's the fact that a bicyclist has caused their trip to last longer. I understand. People around here have terrible commutes. Cyclists need to understand that everyone is not as lucky as they are.
by Mark on Jan 6, 2011 12:37 pm • link • report
Furthermore, as a poster pointed out, the lights are designed for Auto-flow traffic, when 10 cars are stuck behind a cyclist this significantly impedes the flow. On certain roads (say on Mass Ave during rush hours) this can add significant time as cars miss lights, get stuck in intersections, etc. All this contributes to the horrible traffic conditions during rush hour.
I suppose more than anything it's a respect thing for me.
by DC Driver on Jan 6, 2011 1:51 pm • link • report
1. Moving to the front eliminates the risk of a right hook by a car turning without use of blinker. This is a significant risk.
2. If you choose to stop behind a line of cars, you can either occupy the lane or go to the side. If you occupy the lane, you tend to annoy car drivers who think you have no business being in the middle of the lane. You also have to match your start-up speed to the start-up speed of the car in front. That can be difficult over any significant distance. If a gap opens up, car drivers get annoyed.
If you're on the side of the road and the line of cars extends behind you, the additional cars are less likely to notice you. That increases the risk of them hitting you.
My preferred solution: Go to the front of the lane. Edge out enough toward the center and front so that the first car clearly sees you, and, ideally, enough so that cars across the street also see you. Accelerate hard as soon as the green light shows (while keeping a wary eye out for cars blowing the just-turned-red cross light). A bike can easily accelerate faster than a car for half the street width (bike has much lower mass than car). With fast acceleration, you avoid the risk of right hooks as well as left-turning cars. Get to the extreme right of the lane within your first few pedal strokes so that you don't impede the acceleration of the cars behind you.
I think this approach to a car queue at an intersection is the safest and also creates the least impediment to cars. One obvious caveat:
** Don't try this if you can't or don’t want to accelerate faster than a car over the first few meters. **
One issue:
What about the risk of annoying car drivers who don't understand that this technique is meant to help them see you, and to keep you out of their way? I haven't noticed car drivers getting annoyed at my doing this. If a driver responded with signs of serious hostility, I would get off the road immediately, and if the hostility was violent enough, note the driver's license plate and consider reporting him or her. Over time as car drivers get used to this technique, they should recognize that it helps them.
by cyclist on Jan 6, 2011 1:58 pm • link • report
I don't feel bad about motorists who are basically mad because of mode envy - they see the cyclist getting there faster by pulling to the front of the line, going around obstructions instead of waiting, etc. (This group includes my wife, by the way, who hates urban cyclists even though she married one).
I feel mode envy when it's stinging cold out and the motorist next to me at a stoplight at the bottom of a steep hill is cozy in her bucket seat with a steaming cappuccino and 180 hp engine waiting for her gentle tap of the foot to trigger the vehicle into action.
We all make trade-offs.
by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 6, 2011 2:05 pm • link • report
Furthermore, as a poster pointed out, the lights are designed for Auto-flow traffic, when 10 cars are stuck behind a cyclist this significantly impedes the flow. On certain roads (say on Mass Ave during rush hours) this can add significant time as cars miss lights, get stuck in intersections, etc. All this contributes to the horrible traffic conditions during rush hour. Yes, slower vehicles slow traffic, but in general getting more people on bikes improves traffic. Imagine you were the only person who drove, do you think your drive would be faster or slower. I suspect it would be way faster.
I suppose more than anything it's a respect thing for me. The trick is to realize that no one is showing you disrespect. They are trying to do what is safest. It is not about you and it is not done to you. For every mile you are behind a cyclist there are dozens of miles where they are on trails, in bike lanes, on shoulders, in the pulses between traffic or on roads you would never drive on. The problem is you see the cyclist who is slowing you down, but not the drivers that don't exist because they are cyclists on trails.
by David C on Jan 6, 2011 2:14 pm • link • report
by Jess on Jan 6, 2011 2:24 pm • link • report
by David C on Jan 6, 2011 2:57 pm • link • report
by Tracey on Jan 6, 2011 3:12 pm • link • report
My idea was developed from the "scramble" pedestrian intersections that we've recently introduced in Toronto to much fanfare.
by Ian Howes on Jan 6, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report
Now, here's the thing:
1. It's not like I passed him and decided to stop right in front of me. I was there first, and he came later.
2. He actually had plenty of room to make that turn if he really wanted to--it was a one way street with a marked bike lane and virtually no traffic. I'm glad he didn't because, frankly, I think its rude and dangerous for vehicle to do that to cyclists, whether there is a bike lane or not. Not to mention illegal, since I believe motorists are required to make turns from the lane closest to the curb whenever possible (in this case, the bike lane, which I happened to be currently occupying)
3. If I had been a motor vehicle, I don't think I would have received that treatment. The driver would have had to simply wait until the other vehicle proceeded through the intersection before making a right turn. But because I was a cyclist, apparently the rules no longer applied.
So what's the deal? This isn't the first time that drivers have honked their irritation at having to wait an entire 45 second signal light cycle to make a right turn when I've had the audacity to not move my bicycle out of "their" way.
by Kate on Jan 6, 2011 4:18 pm • link • report
Motorists are required to make turns from lanes closest to the curb assuming those lanes are designed for motor vehicles; bike lanes don't count :)
by Scoot on Jan 6, 2011 5:10 pm • link • report
@Scoot: In fact, drivers should merge into the bike lane before completing a right turn. This cuts down on right-hooks.
by Stephen Miller on Jan 6, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report
by David C on Jan 6, 2011 5:25 pm • link • report
Most of my riding on the street is defensive in nature. I move up the queue and do Idaho Stops to maximize the amount of time and space that I am separated as best as possible from cars.
It's not until you ride on a trail (maybe not MVT) that you realize how much of your energy spent riding is dealing with
defensive concerns.
KevinM makes a point that I actually agree with. Bicyclists can't compete physically with cars in terms of weight or speed. That means for me that I work to minimize the opportunity for conflict with cars. Sure we can take the lane as bicyclists, but that doesn't mean it's always the smartest, safest, or most defensive course.
WRT the lack of bike infrastructure that KevinM discusses, we have to be very careful to differentiate when we talk between DC (or center cities generally) and the suburbs in general. With the grid street network in DC, you have a massive inventory of parallel streets that fully support bicycling, whether or not there is significant bicycle-dedicated infrastructure present. This isn't the case for the suburbs, making trips on bicycle there much more difficult. Except when I do planning projects in the suburbs, I am referring to the city when I write/comment on this issue.
Sure vehicular cyclists will ride in most any condition (I saw a guy riding today on the 400 block of NY Ave. NW which surprised me. The issue is how to support the 60% of the U.S. population willing to ride, but not comfortable enough because of safety concerns to do so regularly.
by Richard Layman on Jan 6, 2011 5:43 pm • link • report
by George D on Jan 6, 2011 7:41 pm • link • report
by JJJJJ on Jan 7, 2011 2:15 am • link • report
With the amount of auto congestion on the city's roadways, unless you "filter" two other things happen: a) you're far enough back from the light that you can't actually make it through the light cycle, and b) any cars behind you will be stuck not making it through the light either.
On a lighter note, my favorite driver complaint is "That cyclist keeps passing me! And I've had to pass him back, like, five times now!!!"
Always makes me want to ask, "Why the Hell do you keep passing the cyclist then?" Ah, right, because the posted speed limit is a minimum, not a maximum. ;)
by oboe on Jan 7, 2011 9:49 am • link • report
by Leilah on Jan 7, 2011 9:53 am • link • report
by David C on Jan 7, 2011 10:58 am • link • report
WABA and others advocate riding as far right as practicable. VA code states that cyclists: "ride as close as safely practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway" with several exceptions including: "3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right curb or edge;" This is the case in most states.
As David Alpert noted in a comment above (I suggest you read the comments), most streets in the District are substandard width. The AASHTO bike guide indicates the appropriate width for a shared lane is greater than 12 feet and preferably 14 feet. Riding too far to the right is much more dangerous than taking the lane; cyclists avoid the door zone, are visible to motorists approaching from behind and from in front, and it reduces the chances of a motorist trying to share a too-narrow lane.
Here's the VA code:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-905
and the AASHTO bike guide:
http://www.sccrtc.org/bikes/AASHTO_1999_BikeBook.pdf#page=26
by Bruce Wright on Jan 7, 2011 11:20 am • link • report
Ok, I know everyone's aware that riding from the sidewalk into an intersection is certainly a dangerous proposition for many reasons and interactions with pedestrians are a BAD thing.
But, I've always wondered about that oft quoted "Studies show it is much safer for a cyclist to ride in the street" thing. The studies that I'm aware of (and I'm not aware of many nor am I an expert) are both pretty old. See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm and http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz2.htm
Humor me here. Are there any studies like this that have been done in the current era where everyone owns a cell phone, everyone texts, and everyone has GPS to distract them? The things I've seen in traffic on my bike, my motorcycle, and my car have proven to me that almost no one pays attention and drifting in your lane and many times out of your lane is quite common. Of course some people might be afraid to ride in traffic.
by pete on Jan 7, 2011 11:26 am • link • report
by David C on Jan 7, 2011 11:35 am • link • report
Absolutely. Generally speaking, if you're visible, you're safe. And there have been several studies done that show that the further a cyclist is from the curb, the more clearance space they're given by a passing auto.
by oboe on Jan 7, 2011 11:40 am • link • report
"by David C on Jan 6, 2011 5:25 pm"
In Virginia, where there's a bike lane, there's usually a sign prior to each intersection admonishing turning drivers to yield to bikes. I frequently use the bike lane on Beulah Street (east of Springfield) and I've noted those signs many times. I don't rely on them, though. If there's a driver coming up behind me and I suspect he won't yield, I either pedal faster to get ahead or I slow down. As I've said before, I see no benefit in being "dead right."
by Rich on Jan 7, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report
Well said. As we all know there's a huge difference between what the law says and what actually happens on the road. In fact, even though it technically illegal for the woman who hit me to take a right turn where she did, she did it nevertheless. And to assume that drivers know the laws regarding cyclists even when many barely have a grasp of it concerning their own vehicles is a recipe for disaster. I've given up quoting laws to people because of the simple fact that THEY DO NOT CARE.
Almost no one is given a ticket for traffic infractions (driver or cyclist). If you were to note all of the infractions you see each day and then do the numbers you'd probably find you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than receiving a traffic ticket (if you exclude egregious movie car chase type driving).
by pete on Jan 7, 2011 12:49 pm • link • report
Also, many signals can't detect bicyclists. If a motor vehicle doesn't come by to trigger the signal, a lone cyclist may never get the green. In cases like that, I can understand why a cyclist may choose to run the red after stopping and yielding.
by Z. Fechten, P.E. on Jan 7, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report
I generally say "on your left" when I pass pedestrians or slower bikes as a courtesy to the people I pass. I'm giving them advance warning so I won't startle them as I pass. I don't expect them to get out of my way -- I wait until it's safe, and then move to the left lane to pass -- but I want them to refrain from inadvertently stepping to the left, and into my path.
When I say "on your left" some people actually say "thank you." Once, when I didn't say it, an older couple on the bike path scolded me.
It's also necessary to slow down, and to use a friendly tone of voice; but saying "on your left" in the right way is not inherently obnoxious.
by Mitch on Jan 7, 2011 7:00 pm • link • report
That said, there's plenty of bad behavior all around -- drivers, pedestrians and riders. What would help is some predictability. I respect that bikes have the rights of vehicles when on the road, but I think that means they have to respect the laws. Idaho stops don't seem safe to me at all -- they certainly don't look safe. And while filtering sometimes inconveniences me as a driver, I understand and accept it as a convention IF there's some order to it. During rush hours at a red light, the bikes come filtering through on the left and right of vehicles in the right line. It's more like swarming and just adds to the perception of chaos.
There have been a number of generalizations on this site from all sides. While I don't bike in DC, I believe more of it is better for us all. Two main rules would seem to eleviate much of this: be safe and be considerate of others.
by Kenneth on Jan 7, 2011 7:23 pm • link • report
It really all does come down to the Golden Rule. I don't leap out in front of other people and make them suddenly brake. Nor should you. A driver who suddenly stops for a cyclist barreling through a red is understandably infuriated, but a cyclist who suddenly stops for an opening door or for a "right hook" turn (a driver who makes a right turn across a cyclist's path) is equally infuriated -- even though the driver may not realize that they've done anything wrong. That ignorance does not excuse the driver, and really does not excuse said driver screaming invective at the cyclist (usually my experience).
Re: "audible warning" on sidewalks. I usually use a bell, just out of courtesy, but sometimes people just freak out. In Japan (where bikes usually ride slowly on the sidewalk and pass on the right), pedestrians have a predictable and instinctual reaction to a bell, and the results can be hilarious.
Re: "filtering" for keho15 and elysian. I do this because it pre-empts anyone from right-hooking me. If I can position myself ahead and to the left of the right-turners and ahead and to the right of the go-aheaders, then I'm in a good spot out of everyone's way. As with cyclist, I don't know why you drivers wouldn't want me out of your way -- I really am trying to help by doing this.
by Payton on Jan 7, 2011 8:20 pm • link • report
by Paul Johnson on Jan 10, 2011 11:11 pm • link • report
by Jon on Jan 11, 2011 8:00 am • link • report
by John on Jan 11, 2011 3:46 pm • link • report
Consider: people think (and the law treats) cyclists are equivalent to motor vehicles. This is rubbish. The only way bicycles are similar to motor vehicles is that they have wheels - that's where the similarity ends. The mass of motor vehicles is 100 to 1000 times greater than a bicyclist. Their size is 10 to 20 times larger. Their top speed is far higher, while their maneuverability is significantly reduced.
Furthermore, cyclists have naturally far greater awareness of the traffic situation, with out the obstructions to vision and hearing that motorists in their vehicles take for granted. The ability of cyclists to negotiate naturally unpredictable traffic situations - even if all the traffic were other cyclists - is greater and more flexible. On top of all this, the amount of damage that an accident with a cyclist can cause is far less than with a motor vehicle.
To illustrate: http://www.youtube.com/v/n-AbPav5E5M&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US
In sum: contrary to the common presumption, cyclists are not "vehicles" in the USA-street-legal meaning of the word. Cycling is nothing like motoring. Until the laws can respect that fact, one can hardly expect free-thinking cyclists to obey them.
To repeat, most of traffic laws and control devices were designed, created, produced, or put up to benefit motor traffic - to ease motor traffic congestion or increase safety for motor vehicle operators. Motor vehicles and their drivers need the regulation because their mode of transport is heavy, not very maneuverable, requiring lots more physical space (for mobility and parking), does not allow good awareness of traffic situation (being in a car interferes with your vision and hearing), and can cause a huge amount of damage in collisions because of their momentum (speed times mass). None of these factors characterize cyclists.
Nevertheless, the success of the Idaho "Stop as Yield" laws notwithstanding, it is practically impossible to get cycling friendly laws passed in a democratic municipality, where cyclists are a minority (and that would be just about every municipality in the country). The majority will always be motorists, and they will vote any such nonsense down. It's almost like motorists in a traffic jam would rather see you in a car in front of them, rather than on a bike, passing them by.
My answer to those who advocate meek submission to motor traffic laws: let's not dumb-down cycling to the level of motoring.
The above being said, I always advocate that cyclists ride in a safe, courteous, considerate, and civil (even if not legal) manner.
PS
Can a city get used to "lawless" cycling? Yes. I ride frequently in Manhattan, and motorists and police alike pretty much ignore, even expect, cyclists to ride like pedestrians walk. "Jaywalking" is an institution in Manhattan, where creativity, wit and efficiency are prized human qualities.
by retro_cycler on Jan 14, 2011 3:03 pm • link • report
Links to the full details can be found through http://www.bikecharlottesville.org.
Please spread the word.
by Heather Higgins on Jan 18, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report
by Isaac on Sep 2, 2011 4:04 pm • link • report
Add a Comment