March 19, 2006
Opinionist: Don't Hate Me 'Cuz I Bicycle
Today's Opinion comes to us from proud biker and DCist's tech guru, Tom Lee.
You've probably never met me, but odds are that you have a grudge against me anyway. It's not that I'm a particularly objectionable guy. I'm generally pretty friendly, and if you and I were to run into each other I'm sure we could make some pleasant smalltalk about music or movies or the Redskins. But eventually my horrible secret would be revealed: you'd figure out that I'm a bicyclist. And if you're like most people, that's when your eyes would narrow.
It took me a while to understand that this was the order of things. I had always assumed that biking around in my helmet and reflective ankle strap made me an object of derision and/or pity — not hatred. I've only recently realized that bike riders are on every city-dweller's list of pet peeves. They shouldn't be.
It rarely fails: mention biking in the city and folks will either complain about cyclists riding on the sidewalk, cyclists running red lights or both. My favorite example occurred in a recent DCist comment thread: presented with news of a bicyclist being assaulted and robbed, a commenter noted that the crime was terrible but that, on the flip side, bikers really ought to be more careful about obeying traffic laws.
But I can't blame the commenter; for most people, the anti-bike reaction is nearly Pavlovian. In fact, when I told my girlfriend of five years and my best friend of fourteen that I'd be writing this column, both of them immediately began to complain about bikers. To their credit, they eventually backtracked and decided that I was an exception — one of the good ones, so to speak. Thanks, guys.
But the joke's on them. I'm every bit as bad as they imagine. Sure, I prefer to ride in the street, but when it's impassable, dangerous or inconvenient, I'll proceed — respectfully, carefully, slowly — among the pedestrians on the sidewalk. And if there's no traffic coming, I'll happily pass through red lights that I would patiently wait out in a car. So long as it's only my own safety that's at risk, I don't see why others should view it any differently than jaywalking.
Here's the thing: taxonomically messy thought it may be, it doesn't make sense to treat a bike the same way at all times. When it's moving in traffic or quickly enough to hurt someone, it ought to be treated and policed as a vehicle. When it's moving at the pace of a pedestrian, its rider ought to be treated like one. Neither approach is appropriate at all times and in all situations.
Some will doubtless say that I'm trying to have it both ways. Perhaps that's true. But the bike-haters' view of the situation is even less coherent. I hear plenty of complaints about riding on the sidewalk; but I also hear plenty of car horns objecting to my presence in the street, no matter how innocuous. It seems that most people wish bicyclists would stick to their designated — but also largely non-existent — bike lanes and paths. The apogee of this attitude may have come in last year's now-infamous Marvin Kalb commentary on WAMU's Metro Connection. In it, Kalb expressed his desire that cyclists stay out of Rock Creek Park, since they make it inconvenient for him to use the park as a shortcut on his drive to work. In Kalb's and many other people's minds, there really is no acceptable place for bicyclists.
But I'm afraid that until the unlikely arrival of adequate bike lanes and paths, you lot are stuck with us. So allow me to gently, politely ask that the next time you're irritated by the Great Bicycle Menace, you consider whether your safety has really been endangered. If it has, the biker unquestionably ought to be ticketed or otherwise punished. But if you've merely been startled or annoyed, consider bearing it in good humor. After all, a means of transport as clean, efficient and healthy as biking deserves more support than censure, don't you think?
|
Right on ... As a fellow biker, I couldn't have explained the pedestrian/vehicle dual personality better. Thanks for the post.
Great point re taxomony. Funny though -- I got nailed by a car the other day. Ouch.
Bikers - Please follow traffic laws (i.e. if I, in my car, cannot run a red light - nor should YOU) and then we won't hate you so much :) It's more a fear of being charged with vehicular manslaughter than hatred anyway.
Chiclet-
Sounds more like jealosy than fear of a man-slaughter charge...
Really, let's focus on what we *all* love to hate: Segway Scooters!
Growing up in France, it was hammered into us: bikes must follow all traffic rules. So it was a shock to come here and see the self-righteously anarchic bicyclist behavior.
The law says you can't ride on the sidewalk, and that you must obey traffic rules. Don't like it? Change the law. But good luck -- I think you'll find most people think those laws are reasonable and prudent, and that your current behavior is not.
I see bikers pretty much like I see religious people.
I can appreciate the good that the "good ones" do, and I fantasize about the "bad ones" flying off the Key Bridge and to a horrible death in the Potomac.
I agree the author, and I do believe it is a case of bicyclists with bad habits making a bad name for anyone who rides a bicycle. It's completely dangerous and wrong for someone on a bicycle to blow through a half dozen stop signs during rush hour, but if it's at 11PM when there are no cars, i could care less. I'm just sick of coming to a stop at a stop sign, with my right blinker on, I begin to turn and I'm passed on the right hand side by someone doing 15 or 20 on a bike. I mean, you could at least pay attention to my blinker and see that I'm turning, and that when you come down off the sidewalk and pass me less than a foot from my mirror it's difficult.
Same goes with cutting in between cars at a busy intersection such as M street/Key Bridge at 5 PM. I don't really want to have to decide should I swerve into oncoming traffic and potentially kill several people or just hit the guy on the bike.
I understand that a lot of people use bicycles to get to and from work/school/etc and I respect that. I didn't own a car for the first three years I lived here and either walked, rode the bus or used a bicycle.
I've noticed it's usually these people who think they are Lance Armstrong, who are out on their $2,000 bike wearing their bicycle racing clothes (and no backpack or anything, so I can't help but assume they are not going to/from work or anything) zooming around like it's the Tour de France. Why not just go on a bike trail instead of Connecticut Ave?
I've probably just become paranoid after a guy on a scooter ran into my car as I was making a left turn at a 4-way stop. I had my blinker on and started to turn and he blew through the stop sign and ran into the side of my car mid-turn. At the last minute I saw he wasn't going to stop so I stopped, and my car wasn't even moving when he ran into me.
Of course, a nearby woman walking her dog started screaming at me for being such a horrible driver, and the guy on the moped was yelling at me becuase, as he said, he doesn't have to stop at stop signs and I should be more careful.
EuroTrash - you're an idiot. It is perfectly legal for bikers to ride on the sidewalks in DC (other than in the Central Business District, a small section of DC).
See Rule 1201.9
http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/frames.asp?doc=/ddot/lib/ddot/information/bicycle/pdf/18_DCMR_12.pdf
Thanks for posting the DC bike code Chris (though I don't like your tone so much). Section 1203 is interesting ... has anyone actually registered their bike? I never knew that was a possibility, and certainly not a requirement.
DHS: The CityPaper had a good piece on the mandatory registration a while back. You can read it here. Short version: the cops make it difficult and pointless to register -- the law exists to allow them to seize your bike at their whim.
Wow, great post. Couldn't have put the bikers dilemna any better. We aren't like cars or walkers, but at times we can be like both.
Also, I find making the choice to ride the sidewalk or stay on a busy and dangerous street difficult just because I don't want walkers to give me dirty looks. When I do choose to ride on the sidewalk, I ride slow and often times get off my bike if it is busy.
"And if there's no traffic coming, I'll happily pass through red lights that I would patiently wait out in a car. So long as it's only my own safety that's at risk, I don't see why others should view it any differently than jaywalking."
Cool. So running a red light with my car is just like jaywalking? Hate to tell you, but running a red on a bike is the same legally as running a red light with a car. I hope you get a big fat ticket just like the bozos that run red lights with their cars. Why are you above the law?
And as for only your own safety at risk, that's nonsense. If you should one day get hit as you run a red light (say, some car speeding around a turn and you don't see it), the driver of the car that hits you is going to have to deal with the guilt of injuring you (or worse), and perhaps get rammed by the car(s) behind him getting hurt as well.
Why do so many have so much indignation for bikers? Bikers, drivers, and walkers all do illegal things. Most of the time its drivers who are running red lights and nearly hitting walkers/bikers. If a biker runs a red he is not likely to kill people. Cars, however,probably will.
I fail to see how asking cyclists to follow the rules of the road and to stay off sidewalks (where it is illegal in many areas, and should be illegal in all areas) is anti cyclist.
If anything I think it's pro cyclist. I'd love more cyclists on the road, less (hopefully none at all) violence against cyclists, and drivers to better respect cyclists, but I think it's a two way street.
I don't believe that many cyclists are doing their part to respect drivers and to respect pedestrians, but I don't think that makes me anti cyclist.
I just became a biker in DC. I immediately noticed that cars do not respect bikers as other "cars." In other words, they do not recognize us at 4 ways stops, etc. It is because of this that following traffic laws are inconvenient and dangerous. The biker is more at risk since other drivers do not give us the courtesy as they do other drivers.
Couple of points:
Bike lanes simply aren't safe. Invariably, bike lanes are against the side of the road, where debris (dangerous for tires, cause crashes) accumulate, or against a "parking lane", where careless people open car doors into (very dangerous). Also, either location puts the cyclist against a curb or a parked car, which cuts off a potential avenue of escape should something go wrong.
Multi-use trails are even worse. Most all are narrow and encumbered by pedestrians (who are often two or more abreast), rollerbladers (who weave back and forth), and canines. All of these present a huge safety hazard to a cyclist going over ten mph. Also, many trails are rough, have blind corners, and get covered with loose dirt and/or gravel.
For commuting and/or fast riding, taking the lane on the public road that's legally due to a bicyclist *should* be the safest choice. It probably would be, if cyclists were accorded proper status by people in motor vehicles. But if only a relative very few drivers don't respect cyclists' right to take *a whole lane*, then there's a problem, and cyclists will often a) ride on the sidewalk or b) behave in a way that appears erratic and unpredictable, but often is a form of self defense.
Plenty of blame to go around, here. My rule as a cyclist was simply to assume other people couldn't see me/didn't care, and not to get in anyone's way.
Couple of points:
Bike lanes simply aren't safe. Invariably, bike lanes are against the side of the road, where debris (dangerous for tires, cause crashes) accumulate, or against a "parking lane", where careless people open car doors into (very dangerous). Also, either location puts the cyclist against a curb or a parked car, which cuts off a potential avenue of escape should something go wrong.
Multi-use trails are even worse. Most all are narrow and encumbered by pedestrians (who are often two or more abreast), rollerbladers (who weave back and forth), and canines. All of these present a huge safety hazard to a cyclist going over ten mph. Also, many trails are rough, have blind corners, and get covered with loose dirt and/or gravel.
For commuting and/or fast riding, taking the lane on the public road that's legally due to a bicyclist *should* be the safest choice. It probably would be, if cyclists were accorded proper status by people in motor vehicles. But if only a relative very few drivers don't respect cyclists' right to take *a whole lane*, then there's a problem, and cyclists will often a) ride on the sidewalk or b) behave in a way that appears erratic and unpredictable, but often is a form of self defense.
Plenty of blame to go around, here. My rule as a cyclist was simply to assume other people couldn't see me/didn't care, and not to get in anyone's way.
to Mark:
"For commuting and/or fast riding, taking the lane on the public road that's legally due to a bicyclist *should* be the safest choice. It probably would be, if cyclists were accorded proper status by people in motor vehicles. But if only a relative very few drivers don't respect cyclists' right to take *a whole lane*, then there's a problem, and cyclists will often a) ride on the sidewalk or b) behave in a way that appears erratic and unpredictable, but often is a form of self defense."
My question is, how should drivers react to someone on a bike who wants to take up a whole lane, but is going 10mph down say Key Bridge or Wisconsin Ave during rush hour?
We all drive, or at least most of us drive. But I'd bet that a fraction of all motorists have ever had the experience that cyclists go through when they take to the streets of D.C. Put yourself in their shoes before you make judgements about their behavior.
To Dave:
The law would require you to put on your turn signal and check your rear-view before making a lane change and passing...
But, hey, if it's rush hour, you're probably being *passed* by cyclists going 10mph, while they split lanes between effectively-parked cars.
Okay, enough making fun of you. Really, how would you react on 495 to someone going, say, 55 in the right lane?
The author has done a great job highlighting the problem with bikers who try and share the road and largely dismissed it as tough cookies for drivers until we completely overhaul the bike path network. Bikers tend to take the rules of the road into their own hands, and rely on personal judgement as to whether or not to follow the laws. The question I would like to pose is this: what would happen if drivers did the same? I often come to stop lights where it would be perfectly safe for me to cruise through the intersection. Sometimes there is no traffic in an oncoming lane, which could serve as a perfectly safe passing lane for me. I live near a lot of one-way streets, and it would often be safe and faster if I went the wrong way to avoid making a trip around the block to get to a parking spot. I'm a smart guy. I'm a fantastic driver. Why shouldn't I be allowed to make these calls on my own?
Because gridlock would ensue. So I don't do these things, nor do the vast majority of other drivers. As a result driving is a generally safe because it is generally predictable. I raced go-karts and sports cars for 10+ years, and the first thing I was taught as a new driver was to follow a predictable line around the track, even if I was way slower than the other cars. Why? Because faster drivers were responsible for safely executing a pass. For the safety of both the passee and the passer the expectation was for the passee to maintain a predictable path around the track.
That predictability is just as crucial to a functioning system of roads, and it is exactly the lack of predictability that makes many bikers "dangerous". When I'm on the road I can expect my fellow drivers to obey traffic laws (again, most of the time), and I use that expectation to safely operate my vehicle in their midst. But with bikers, I have no idea what they are going to do. Some signal, but most don't. Some follow signage, but most don't. It is always the responsibility of drivers to safely navigate around bikers on the road, but that task is made massively more difficult when bikers refuse to follow the rules that apply to all who share the road.
So my plea to the author and to the bikers is to stop taking matters into your own hands. If drivers trusted their instincts instead of traffic laws the result would be devastating. If you want to be treated with respect on the roads, you should recognize you're part of a community and act that way. And drivers, you should do the same. Despite their terrible choice in clothing (I've never had a desire to dress up like Dale Earnhart, so I've never understood the bikers need to emulate Lance Armstrong), bikers have full rights to the road. Lay off the horn.
Mark: That's true, but if a bicyclist wants to have the lane to themselves, does that mean then when cars are stopped in traffic or at a light, the bike should remain in it's lane, like a motorcycle would? Or is it okay for the bike to weave in and out of traffic?
I suppose the question I was asking is more fitting on a road that is only one lane. Because I am more than willing to either pass (when legal and safe) or just hang behind the bike... but I get frustrated when I'm being tailgated by people who honk their horn wanting me to cross into oncoming traffic to pass, or speed up enough to "scare" the bike into moving over. Then I get passed by people swerving over and cutting me or the bike off... I would have to say to the bike, if you can't keep up with the speed of traffic than stick to the sidewalk. Most of the time speed of traffic isn't more than 15-20mph...
semi o/t: can anyone recommend a good bike shop in/around the district?
To Dave:
Thanks for not taking obvious offense at my (late night) jest.
Anyway, if I were on that bike stopped at a light, I would be off to the side, knowing that a line of impatient and accelerating cars will soon try to pass me quickly. Probably, I would move to the front of that line of cars waiting for the light, and would attempt to get a head start through the light so that, by the time the cars reach me, they would have spread out a bit. Doing this would require me to split the lane between the cars stopped at the light and the cars parked against the curb- which is illegal for me to do but, I think, safer then waiting in "my place" like a car and may also require me to run the light, which is also illegal but, IMO, sometimes safer. Riding on a crowded sidewalk is dangerous to both pedestrians and to me. I don't like to do it.
Face the facts drivers, you're not going to get anywhere quickly in DC. I love it when geeks get mad that I can blow thru a red so they gun it when it goes green. Only to sit at the next red as a fly past them.
I think the ruling idea for biking on sidewalks is
from the first part of 1201.10
"Any person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians,"
that would mean by the letter of the law, i would think, no zooming down sidewalks "ON YOUR RIGHT" style "Coming through" type biking. Sure, common courtesy may be the way for pedestrians to go and step to the side when seeing someone riding toward them, or hearing them coming from behind them, but i think that this section of the code states the most that the sidewalks belong to pedestrians.
This is not to be an ass, i sympathize with not getting the respect in the street (yo), where, in my opinion, bikes actually belong. I'm just saying i don't think bikes on sidewalks should be part of a commute, or a walk on a sunny sunday. Even though, the rest of 1201.10 reads "...and shall travel at a speed no greater than the posted speed limit of the adjacent roadway; Provided, that such speed is safe for the conditions then existing on the sidewalk." (which seems to contradict breaking for pedestrians, if you are going 24 miles on hour down the sidewalk).
harDCore,
You sound EXACTLY like the kind of bicyclist that every pedestrian in DC fears. I hope you're looking for us as you "fly past" cars sitting at a red.
I was driving to work this morning and stopped at a 3-way stop and was just about to pull out when some bicyclists came cruising through the intersection, not stopping at the stop sign, causing me to slam on my brakes as I was about to pull out. Then he rode by giving me a snide look. Follow the traffic laws, people. I don't want to hate all of you bikers, I really don't, but you just make it so easy.
i'm not sure i understand the problem peop,le have with bikers disobeying the law.
1. if you hit them while they are breaking the law or you have the right of way, you prolly wont get hurt and they will. plus its not your fault.
2. so you gotta stop or slow down. so what? stop or slow down, its not that big of a deal.
3. if all the bikers drove, it'd take you longer to get anywhere because of increased traffic.
4. 90% of the city streets were not made for cars. you may say, catch up with the times on that, but i'd say welcome to the city.
and no, im not a biker. i drive.
To give context, most of my city biking experience is in the older, denser, parts of the city. Apart from that, Beach Dr (in Rock Creek) is great for biking, but cars use it like an expressway. Also, the Mt. Vernon Trail (whcih goes past National Airport) is great for fast recreational biking, but it's often crowded.
I think healthy fear of anything faster and more massive than you (F=MA) is smart and, also, so is respect and consideration for anything slower and lighter than you. Since bikers and pedestrians are both extremely vulnerable, obviously neither should tempt fate.
Bicyclists should stay off of the sidewalks unless the road is too dangerous to be on. In that case you shouldn't be riding on that road. I do most of my riding in the Northwest occasionally venturing into Northeast and Southeast and I can say that if you are scared to be riding on a particular road due to the speed of traffic or the conditions of the road, there's usually a better road to be riding on. It's up to you to be smart about where you ride. That being said, pedestrians have no business complaining about how we ride ON THE STREETS. And, drivers can just stew in their traffic and listen to their books on tape for all I care. Sometimes it surprises me that people fail to recognize that bikes are part of the solution and not the problem. And then I remember what country this is.
"Sometimes it surprises me that people fail to recognize that bikes are part of the solution and not the problem. And then I remember what country this is."
So, self-righteous AND anti-American? And you wonder why people hate bikers ;)
I commute 25-30 miles by bike every day year around, and this allows me to eat like a sumo wrestler and drink oceans of beer without putting on an ounce. So chew on that you lame fatasses stewing in gridlock ;-).
(And, for the record, I do stop at stop signs and lights, unlike a lot of the cars I see every day)
Not really anti-American... I've seen enough of the world to know that America's love affair with the car is pathological. We are becoming a country of strip malls and suburbs and we're fighting a war in the middle east that looks suspiciously like a war for oil... all to ensure the uniquely American right to an SUV and a McMansion in the burbs. If feeling disgusted by that state of affairs is anti-American, well I guess that's the way it is.
I generally have no problem with bikers exccept for in Rock Creek Park. On the weekends if you are riding your bike use the trails. The two land road is way too curvy and narrow to accomodate both cars and bikers. Especially if you are going along at a leisurly pace. What is wrong with the trails?
The Rock Creek trails are NOT bike trails. They are dangerous at any speed greater than about 8 mph, and are heavily used by joggers deafened by iPods and people walking leashed dogs. Beach Drive is a designated bike route, and cars MUST slow for bikes until it is safe it pass (this is actually true on all D.C. streets, but it is ESPECIALLY so on Beach, where drivers are explicitly warned again and again that bikes share the road).
CBC, what's wrong with you driving your car on a parallel roadway like 16th street or Connecticut Avenue?
Mark: "all of you bikers...."
I think it's plain that this is a broad generalization. Just like humans are challenged to think of other groups of people as diverse within the group so that we avoid things like sexism, racism, and classism, it would serve us well to not categorize all cyclists as "the same."
Tom Lee: "Here's the thing: taxonomically messy thought it may be, it doesn't make sense to treat a bike the same way at all times."
First, thanks for this column and the discussion it's raising. Second, this brings up a really good point that highlights what I mentioned above. Because our laws and our culture are constructed in such a way to make everything as "simple" as possible, they leave no room for any shades of grey in our dualistic (and proverbial) black-and-white, either/or thinking.
This means that cyclists can't fit easily into the pedestrian category or the automobile category, but our laws, our infrastructure and our minds want (even require) cyclists to fit neatly into one of the categories we've already defined.
But the task of making sure everyone gets what they need from life is not neat and tidy, it is truly messy business. Bicycles, as a type of transit, are an entirely different mode than our laws, infractructure, and minds can comprehend.
Really, it's a larger human task for us to shift out of tendency toward the easy, the neat, and the general and live with each other in the messiness and difficulty that lets more people than just ourselves thrive.
No solutions proposed, because another flaw of our culture is the need for immediate gratification and immediate solution (it's easier), not to mention that changing laws and minds just plain takes a long time.
Mark: "all of you bikers...."
I think it's plain that this is a broad generalization. Just like humans are challenged to think of other groups of people as diverse within the group so that we avoid things like sexism, racism, and classism, it would serve us well to not categorize all cyclists as "the same."
Tom Lee: "Here's the thing: taxonomically messy thought it may be, it doesn't make sense to treat a bike the same way at all times."
First, thanks for this column and the discussion it's raising. Second, this brings up a really good point that highlights what I mentioned above. Because our laws and our culture are constructed in such a way to make everything as "simple" as possible, they leave no room for any shades of grey in our dualistic (and proverbial) black-and-white, either/or thinking.
This means that cyclists can't fit easily into the pedestrian category or the automobile category, but our laws, our infrastructure and our minds want (even require) cyclists to fit neatly into one of the categories we've already defined.
But the task of making sure everyone gets what they need from life is not neat and tidy, it is truly messy business. Bicycles, as a type of transit, are an entirely different mode than our laws, infractructure, and minds can comprehend.
Really, it's a larger human task for us to shift out of tendency toward the easy, the neat, and the general and live with each other in the messiness and difficulty that lets more people than just ourselves thrive.
No solutions proposed, because another flaw of our culture is the need for immediate gratification and immediate solution (it's easier), not to mention that changing laws and minds just plain takes a long time.
I'll 2nd MM in saying Rock Creek trails aren't fit for bike riding. They're narrow and in poor repair, and used by too many children, joggers w/earphones, dogwalkers, etc. Rock Creek is a Parkway- bikes belong on it, and not on the trails. If that slows down a motorist's commute to a degree they find unacceptable, that motorist might consider taking another route, same as I would as a cyclist if I considered a road to be too crowded or dangerous.
JR- You've read The Geography of Nowhere"?
Sheesh, sorry for the identical double post, folks. I'll exercise patience with the "post" button this time.
As a cyclist, I hit myself every time I see posts like this. Why? Because staying within the law as a cyclist is not only correct, but easy.
Take the infamous "I'm a biker so I can ignore red lights" attitude. It's idiotic. If you're at a red light and no one is there, take a right on red, do a u-turn, and take another right on red to keep going. Total elapsed time: 5 seconds. Legal? Sure.
The sidewalk issue is pretty clear-cut: don't ride on the sidewalks. Cyclists, bike-lanes or no, have the right to as much space as a car in regular traffic. The fact that most bikers stay near the right side of the road is simply good etiquette, not where they have to go. And if a cyclist can take up as much room as a car, there should never be a need to ride on the sidewalk.
Riding up one-way streets? No.
Ignoring stop signs? No.
Riding on the opposite side of the road? ARGH! No!
Every road in DC, with the exception of the major highways, is available for people on bikes, including rock-creek parkway. Instead of viewing bikes as "taking up part of the road" they should be viewed as a "really slow car". Would you demand that elderly drivers turn in their registration? Of course not. So just signal and pass.
Will bike messengers ignore the law? Sure. So do taxis occasionally. But the idiot without a helmet riding on the sidewalk is a far greater risk to the safety of pedestrians than the messenger guy who's weaving in and out of traffic. Why? Do the math: hitting a pedestrian with a bike could do some serious damage to them. Conversely, the only one who stands to be injured from running red lights and darting through traffic are the messengers themselves. I have far more respect for their cycling ability than the people