February 2, 2007
DCist's Rules of the Road
As we reported yesterday, the District has released a brand-spankin-new city map including Metro stations, taxicab zones, snow and emergency routes and bicycle trails. And as the District Department of Transportation tells us, our fair city's bicycle lane offerings have increased from a mere 3 miles in 1999 to the 25 miles we enjoy today.
But the more that bicycles become a primary mode of transport, the more that drivers and cyclists alike will have to abide by a common set of rules. Until now, pretty much anything we have written on urban cycling has devolved into a screaming match between the driver that thinks that all cyclists are out to run red lights and eat little kids and the cyclist who thinks that all drivers are looking to add that extra helmet to their trophy room. Neither is true. Well, not really. The part about eating little kids is somewhat true.
So as a public service, here again we offer up our Official Rules of the Road for Cyclists and Drivers, first rolled out in 2005. The rules are simple and to the point, and you can even print them out, laminate them, and hold them as law against trangressors. Police don't often enforce these, so it's up to you, District cyclist or driver, to be the vigilante that these rules demand.
|
Man, I used to be a motorcyclist, and I can tell you helmets are a real good idea.
Why do the bikes get 6 rules and cars only 5? To make it more even, add
"#6: Turn signals are there for a reason, and it's not leaving the right turn signal on for 10 blocks, then turning left."
Why do the bikes get 6 rules and cars only 5? To make it more even, add
"#6: Turn signals are there for a reason, and it's not leaving the right turn signal on for 10 blocks, then turning left."
martin, as your roommate, i advise you to take cyclist rule numero uno to heart...
martin, as your roommate, i advise you to take cyclist rule numero uno to heart...
Why do the bikes get 6 rules and cars only 5? To make it more even, add
"#6: Turn signals are there for a reason, and it's not leaving the right turn signal on for 10 blocks, then turning left."
I hate bicyclists who want the best of both worlds: They want to be treated like vehicles, with their own lanes and rights and all that crap, but then they don't want to be treated like vehicles when it comes to being on sidewalks, observing one-way and stop signs, and generally behaving predictably.
Okay- I'll get flack for this- but cyclists going at walking speed (maybe carrying groceries or something) should be able to go on sidewalks, so long as they aren't offensive about it. Get a bell, make room for people, if it's crowded move to the street, etc. Yes, yes, I know cyclists aren't allowed on sidewalks in the central business district and of course shouldn't ride on sidewalks there.
I think the most important rule for bikes is that they should stop at red lights and stop signs. All too often, I see bikes go right through, and in the case of stop signs, without even looking to see if a car is coming from the other direction. It's dangerous to pedestrians AND themselves, and just utterly infuriates me.
Hey- maybe the 6th rule for cars would be something like "Don't squeeze by a cyclist on the left only to cut them off a few seconds later by making a righthand turn in front of them."
I wonder what the score is for yearly deaths caused by motorists to cyclists, and vice versa ... I heard it was something like 7-nil, and ugly score for any game.
Anyone have better information?
You can't use the bike lanes in D.C. because of all the double parkers, wish the cops would enforce and ticket violators more.
As much as I hate it myself, bikes are allowed legally on the sidewalks in DC outside of the downtown area.
Rob,
Bringing matters of the home into the blogosphere? How dare you?!?
I'd like to point out that my use of bike spandex is always covered by shorts or pants. Always. These rules are my Ten Commandments.
I've actually had more trouble with people walking on trails being totally baffled by the prospect of an oncoming bicycle, or an "on your left" when I am coming from behind them. But freezing up and forcing me manuver at the last second is kind of exciting, I guess (part of my ride is through a trail, I'm not an evil sidewalk rider).
I sometimes have the impulse of wishing for a trash truck to come flying through the intersection, on its GREEN and taking out the infuriating bicyclists who fly in front of me as I'm trying to cross WITH the light. Luckily for them, it hasn't come true yet.
In my time here I've found cyclists to be more annoying and deadly than cabs, buses or even muggers. They are a people with no laws, no rules and no sense.
I posted my own assessment of bike commuting in DC a week-or-so back, due to the warm weather's side-effect on the DC commute: there are tons of cyclists out right now!
Click here to read my musings. The basic gist is: I commute, and I obey all traffic laws, including stop signs. Seldom ever to I need to use the sidewalk, and if I do, pedestrians have the right-of-way (per code in most states and municipalities).
To other cycling commuters: it's not rocket science. The Uniform Vehicle Traffic Code covers all vehicles, bikes included.
I hate bicyclists who want the best of both worlds: They want to be treated like vehicles, with their own lanes and rights and all that crap, but then they don't want to be treated like vehicles when it comes to being on sidewalks, observing one-way and stop signs, and generally behaving predictably.
Ok, here's the deal: When I'm able to take a full lane, any lane, and ride in the middle of that lane at say, 10-15mph, without having drivers piss their little nappies in infantile anger, then we can talk about "best of both worlds." For the record, when I ride, I don't ride on the sidewalk, or the wrong way on one-way streets, or behave unpredictably, because that's a sure way to get hit by a speeding automobile.
(How do I know it's a "speeding automobile?" Because there's literally not a single car in the city that--minus the constraints of traffic congestion--goes *under* the speed limit in the city. If you can go to Rock Creek Park and find me a single auto going at or less than the posted 25mph, I'll give you one of those giant novelty cookies.)
One other tip: the ghettoization of cyclists into "bike lanes" is for the benefit of you--the driver--not the cyclist.
don't you prefer for people to be on bicycles rather than competing with you for parking, taking up more space on the road and helping to drive your gas prices higher?
it's dangerous out there on a bike so, please, cut the cyclists some slack.
of course we should follow rules and bike responsibly but i can't say when i do that, i ever get any high 5's from car drivers. usually, it just means they seem even more desperate to pass me way too quickly and much too closely.
There is aboslutley no reason for bicyclists to 1) Stop at Red Lights if there is no oncoming traffic 2) Follow One Way streets 3) Otherwise obey rules meant for 2000 pound killing machines.
Bikes are tiny, efficent and nearly impossible to kill someone with - therefore many of the rules needed to control massive automibles make no sense when applied to a bike.
What's up with those Segways being allowed on sidewalks? They can go 20 mph, and they have more mass than a bicycle. Is there some super-sophisticated Segway lobby that gets lazy or infirm people with spare cash exempt from safety regs? It just seems wrong.
Oh, and the only thing more noxious than not wearing a helmet are the pious, Cultural Revolution-esque admonishments to "always wear your helmet." Queue twenty irrational comments hoping for my imminent life-long disability...NOW.
You know, it's hard to win as a cyclist. Motorists don't want you on the road (even when you're obeying all the signs) because they view it as an inconvenience and think you're ALWAYS about to cut them off or make them slow down. I've had more than one driver make it a point to roll down his window and yell at me to get off the road when I was following every regulation to the letter. Pedestrians don't want you on the sidewalk because they're afraid of getting hit or having to move out of the way, and, just like motorists, being inconvenienced.
Are these generalizations? Sure. But certainly no worse than the generalizations that motorists and pededstrians make about bikers.
Look, here's the deal.
Some bikers are reckless assholes. Most aren't.
Some motorists are reckless assholes. Most aren't.
Some pedestrians are reckless assholes. Most aren't.
Maybe if everyone could knock off the petty annoyance and hyperbolic generalization for 5 minutes, we could eliminate having the exact same pointless flame war on every single bicycle thread on this site and actually have a useful discussion.
Sorry to break it to you, Ian, but the entire point of this thread was to ignite a pointless motorist/cyclist/pedestrian flamewar.
I think it's also important to acknowledge there are different subspecies of cyclist. I'll be the first to recognize that most of those going 15mph the wrong way on a crowded sidewalk deserve an umbrella in their front spokes.
As a bicyclist being surrounded by 2000 pound crushing machines, I take every advantage (within reason) I can to get ahead of them. That means I slow down for stop signs and red lights to make sure it's clear. If it is clear, I proceed through.
I don't inconvenience people. I probably infuriate people because they don't like being passed.
I honestly don't think that *all* vehicular laws should apply to bicyclists, because they are COMPLETELY different vehicles. Bicycles can't go everywhere cars can go, cars can't go everywhere that bicycles can go.
And here's where I get unreasonable in the eyes of motorists:
I'm out there on top of a 20 pound piece of metal, you're inside a 2000 pound piece of metal. I'm using my own power to get me from point A to point B. I'm not polluting the environment. I feel like bicyclists, in some sense, deserve to be able to go through red lights if it is clear and nobody is being inconvenienced. This creates an incentive to ride bikes and get people out of cars! Usually, I can get from one point in the city to another much faster by bike than by car/metro/bus.
remember that often, cyclists are ALSO drivers. we understand traffic laws, we understand what its like to be stuck behind a cyclist on a busy road. the reason that cyclists take liberties with traffic laws is that we are inherently in more danger than any other vehicle on the road. most of the liberties we take are in an effort to eliminate or avoid interaction with cars, often times to the benefit of the driver of a motor vehicle- we don't want to deal with you and you don't want to deal with us. in a city like this its impossible for either one to co-exist and have ALL of the things we each want. i will say this though, when you are a cyclist in an urban and suburban area- you notice the 'auto-pilot' that many drivers go into while driving much more, as it is a constant threat to your life. drivers seem to have a sense of oblivion while driving, which, as far as i am concerned is a much deeper problem than cyclists v. drivers because it endangers everyone.
Most bikers are also drivers, or have been at some point. They know what it's like to be behind the wheel. Almost all drivers, however, do not know the perspective of a bike commuter, courrier, etc.
From my perspective on a bike, D.C. is a city almost totally dominated by the automobile, especially downtown. It is so starkly clear to any true city dweller that D.C. needs more bike facilities/infrastructure and less for the automobile. So, there should be at least 6 rules for drivers here :)
Does the city plan to do any public education on the rules for bike lanes? A lot of folks -- both cars and bikes -- don't seem to have any idea that the lanes are there. I've seen bikes going down the left side of the street when there's a lane on the right. Cars often try to make the bike lane into the second lane of car traffic. Some public education might take care of this, especially if it was backed up with some enforcement.
There is aboslutley no reason for bicyclists to 1) Stop at Red Lights if there is no oncoming traffic 2) Follow One Way streets 3) Otherwise obey rules meant for 2000 pound killing machines.
And you wonder why bicyclists are so disliked... It's the old saw "I'm better than everyone else and thus the rules don't apply to me!", said with enough righteous indignation as to make Bill O'Reilly blush.
Who blows through a stop sign without actually looking? Seriously, it's a matter of self-preservation (which seems to be more important to cyclists than motorists, based on general observation). Of course you look.
Most of this conversation is utterly useless to me because it demonstrates the inability of some (certainly not all, or even most) motorists to put themselves in the place of a cyclist.
However, I do want to point something out about bike lanes:
Cyclists are perfectly aware of the presence of bike lanes. Sometimes we don't use them, and that usually for a good reason. A good many bike lanes in this city are drawn too small to protect from getting "doored." Others simply shouldn't be there -- check out the new bike lanes at Thomas Circle and think about how most people drive through circles (does anybody use turn signals? will anybody look to their right at the bike lane to make sure there's no bike there before turning?) and you'll know what I'm talking about. It's an accident waiting to happen. I take the middle of the right lane of motorized traffic and flowing cleanly with traffic (and not slowing traffic down either). Thomas Circle is an extreme example, but it does provide an illustration of some of the things to take into consideration before you just assume that bikes belong only in a bike lane.
If all you bike riders are such great and wonderful people and obey all the laws and are doing us all such a favor by not driving your car into the city, then why the hell are so many of you out there with NO lights on your bikes and wearing dark clothes with no reflective material.
Stop lecturing me as a driver and start talking to other bike riders about proper behavior. I'm sick and tired of bikes suddenly appearing out of the darkness at night, making illegal moves that would get me a ticket, and then lecturing me and calling my car a 2000 lb killing machine.
The problem is that motorists don't think that bicycles should be allowed on the street because they think of them as children's toys and any sane person should be able to see that bicycles have no place on sidewalks. Bikes are not wanted anywhere. Bike lanes seem like the perfect solution to this but they are consistently blocked with idiot motorists who apparently can't read or comprehend symbols.
Yeah, the Cultural Revolution was pretty much a whole country full of people giving each other suggestions. "You should plant your trees farther apart"; "don't drink your milk too fast"; "try to get more sleep." That was pretty much the problem.
"the ghettoization of cyclists into "bike lanes" is for the benefit of you--the driver--not the cyclist."
Hey, IBC:
Nobody is requiring cyclists to use those bike lanes. It's not the law. We're not being ghettoized. In reality, those bike lanes are there to make those of us cyclists who are less experienced or more timid feel safer. This is supposed to help our fellow travelers have the courage to ride their bikes, instead of drive. Really, these bike lanes are put there to liberate and empower us all!
And they could do an even better job at that, if it was possible for a thoughtful person to ignore the fact that these lanes are:
At the side of the road where dangerous debris is most likely to accumulate,
Where cars double park for "just a minute",
Where car doors suddenly spring open,
Where ipod wearing pedestrians dart out from between parked SUVs into traffic, and
Where cars cut across your lane while making right-hand turns.
That shouldn't be too hard to do. After all, now those thoughtful people who aren't comfortable sharing a lane cars have lanes (almost!) all to themselves.
Didn't someone say something about public education and enforcement?
Oh, and most cars actually weigh closer to 4000lbs than 2000. Even a Mini Cooper weighs in at over 2500 pounds, without fuel or driver. A big cyclist on a heavy bike with a full waterbottle weighs 1/10th that.
Bicycles aren't allowed on downtown sidewalks? Where are all the cops whenever some dumb ass bike messenger is fucking around on his cell phone while nearly plowing into a crowd of pedestrians?
copperredd - Why not try and argue that those rules should apply to bikes instead of making personal attacks?
Where are all the cops whenever some dumb ass bike messenger is fucking around on his cell phone while nearly plowing into a crowd of pedestrians?
Dave, bike messengers are better at riding their bikes than you are at anything you will ever do. Don't worry about them, they will get out of your way.
Politburo:
Those laws *do* apply to cyclists. It always brings a smile to my face when I see a cyclist getting a traffic ticket.
...[W]hy the hell are so many of you out there with NO lights on your bikes and wearing dark clothes with no reflective material. Stop lecturing me as a driver and start talking to other bike riders about proper behavior.
Ever exceeded the speed limit?
Take the bus. It's faster than your 10-speed Huffy, not to mention safer.
This whole conversation depresses me. Howzabout you all (and I mean ALL of you, driver, cyclist and predestrian alike) consider what you personally do to put the drag on the whole system rather than worrying what others are doing? Then you could change what YOU do, and that will mean one less ass causing problems.
I doubt it would get rid of every asshat driver or moron cyclist out there, but it sure as heck would reduce their ranks.
The bus is most certainly not faster than me on bike, Sufjan.
Plus my bike's tires don't spontaneously combust, like Metrobus.
Howzabout you all (and I mean ALL of you, driver, cyclist and predestrian alike) consider what you personally do to put the drag on the whole system rather than worrying what others are doing? Then you could change what YOU do, and that will mean one less ass causing problems.
Very Broderistic of you. The issue, though, is that most cyclists already make those kinds of calculations, every day. Drivers by and large, don't. In fact, their sense of entitlement is so complete, they don't even see it as entitlement.
They've already turned one of the great urban parks ("Rock Creek Park") into a superhighway five days a week. It's a bumper-to-bumper line of cars, all moving 15-20 mph faster than the speed limit. An experiment: ride your bike on Rock Creek Pkwy between the Watergate and Independence Ave (the parkway that passes between the Kennedy Center and the Potomac) at any time of day. Or between Klingle Road and 24th Street on Beach Drive. It's not dangerous when you take the lane, but you will never see the level of entitlement from bikers that you see from motorists.
(Unless what you mean by "drag on the whole system" is "efficient flow of automotive traffic" in which case, my comment doesn't really address yours.)
How many people here think it is a good idea for DC to look at integrating, in some places, the bicycle lane as an extension of the sidewalk. I know that is not possible in some cases, but it could be worth looking at. It works quite well in Europe. But, a lot of times here in Europe, the bicycle lane is on the side of the street where these are no parked cars. They restrict parking to just one side of the street, esp. one way streets, while the bike lane users don't have to worry about riding next to parked cars. If there are parked cars, then the bike lane is usually on the sidewalk. The traffic lights have signals for bikes, pedestrians, and cars. Since most people are exiting cars on the left, having the bike lane on the pedestrian side would reduce that threat. What do you all think?
Off topic since we're mostly talking about commuting and errand running, but cycling enthusiasts in this city need more that a few miles of Beech drive one day a week. I'd love to bike, say, GW parkway. Or a velodrome. Or something like that. Both the trails and the streets are at or beyond capacity- they are way too congested for fast recreational riding, let alone serious amateur racing.
Um, Rock Creek Parkway has been a "superhighway" since the 1930s. And bikes simply do not belong on the parkway itself. That's why there is a separate paved bike path.
Umm:
The separate paved path you refer to isn't really appropriate for the kind of biking enthusiasts do. It's 1) poorly paved, 2) often covered by mud/loose debris 3) narrow with blind turns 4) not maintained as well as a road 5) multi-use, it's shared by such diverse users as zig-zaging rollerbladers, toddlers, and dogs and 6)has other, innumerable, practical flaws. Rock Creek is far more appropriate. It's a well maintained recreational route. That's the purpose it exists. GW Parkway would be even better...
Otavio: It's an interesting idea. One that would require a paradigm shift in thinking. Coexistance and traffic calming through less defined areas of use, rather than good old American segregation.
It's probably a tough sell in a city so proud of granite curbs, but might be tried if the right test area could be found. Where would that be, though? G'Town? Adams Morgan? People West of the Mississippi go to war over water. East of the river they go to war over parking. You're raising the idea with a relatively friendly crowd at DCist. Getting the Bob Levy's and Marc Fishers on board would be tougher.
In addition to echoing what Mark said about bikes on Rock Creek Parkway -- i.e., not only are they perfectly appropriate there, park rule explicitly permit bikes on the Parkway. I would point out that most of Rock Creek Parkway has a posted speed limit of 25 mph (indeed, that's the case for most streets in DC). Though I realize that this isn't generally observed, when I'm on my bike on Rock Creek Parkway, I'm usually going somewhere around that speed. Often, I'm exceeding that speed limit. Thus, motorists who feel somehow "stuck" behind me are the ones in the wrong, not me.
Maybe a public campaign promoting speeding cameras in Rock Creek would chasten a few of the scofflaw motorists. :)
Yep, Mark and Chris are correct. I suspect "Umm" is just being provocative. And these aggrieved drivers like copperred and Lori need to take a look at their speedometers before they open their yaps about cyclists scofflaw tendencies. I don't think I've ever seen a car going 25 or less in Rock Creek. I see cyclists stop at red lights and stop signs all the time.
That's a silly statement. If I said that most drivers stop at stop signs, that would be cause for alarm because it should be a universal behavior. The admission from Chris is telling, that not only is he riding at the speed limit, he often exceeds it. So it seems that no one is completely in the right, because bikes are required to do the little things too like obey speed limits, but more importantly obey stop signs and traffic lights as well. I don't care if you pause and check for oncoming traffic.. that light applies to you as well, alright?
Well, yeah, it does apply to cyclists as well. In a very real sense, lots of cyclists violate the rule of law very often. But, and this isn't a legal excuse, just a statement of practicality, when a cyclist breaks the law the consequences to other's life, limb, and/or property are almost always potentially far less than when a motorist does. Cyclists simply don't have the nearly same destructive potential. F=M*A, after all.
So, by all means, be annoyed at and concerned by scofflaw cyclists. But be an order or two of magnitude more of those at scofflaw drivers. It's obvious one should when one considers who is more likely to cause damage to whom, and who is more likely to suffer the ill-effects of distraction or bad judgment.
Another way to look at it would be: You're playing with your kid in a park. Two dogs are illegally running wild off-leash. One is 15 pounds, the other is 150 pounds. Which is the greater potential threat?
I don't think anyone here is saying that cyclists aren't required to do the "little things" like obey speed limits and stop signs, and I will be the first to admit that sometimes, while I'm on my bike, I will go through a traffic light (though I never blow through a light without checking - nor does any cyclist I know). I think the point is that the consequences of a cyclist going through a traffic light is not as great as a motorized vehicle doing the same. Can we at least have that admission?
The real idiotic thing here is that the true reason drivers get so pissed at cyclists for traveling through stop lights and other things is that they are being beaten by someone on a bicycle. As mentioned before there is self preservation involved here so anything a cyclist is doing better damn well (for their own good) not be putting them in harms way. I'm not advocating that cyclists should be able to fly through lights and disobey the laws, but I am saying that jealousy over something like this is just ridiculous.
Bikes are there, get used to it. Don't hit them or worry about what they are doing to put themselves in harms way; that is not your issue to deal with. Worry about what you are doing and stop getting overly pissed off about things that have little to nothing to do with you or your commute.
I'm sure there are drivers out there who get jealous of bikes being able to rip through stop signs, but those are probably the same people who get jealous of other drivers who ignore the same laws with their cars and seem to get away with it. But I'm not sure the whole 'pragmatic' thing of bikes being less dangerous because they're small is accurate. Cars can come from unexpected places, such as cross streets, parking lots, etc., and the presence of ANYthing crossing illegally, including cars, bikes, and pedestrians, can cause oncoming traffic to collide, swerve into other traffic, or otherwise react in a dangerous way. Face it, your presence can be a danger, regardless of how small and 'harmless' you think your vehicle is. I can safely affirm that I am never jealous of bikes when they are doing the right thing. But I can say that I am extremely frustrated and annoyed when they try to justify their lawbreaking with nonsensical rules invented for their own benefit.
Thanks, Mark, for responding to my comment. It seems that most of my ideas would require a paradigm shift in thinking. I guess we'll have to wait until the next century! I hope that DC will at least give it a test somewhere. It may prove to be effective!
Thanks, Mark, for responding to my comment. Well, I guess that many of my ideas would require a paradigm shift of thinking then! I guess we will just have to wait until the next century. I do hope that DC will at least test it out somewhere. It may prove to be effective for safety.
But I can say that I am extremely frustrated and annoyed when they try to justify their lawbreaking with nonsensical rules invented for their own benefit.
Sure feels nice to get all worked up about those red-light rolling cyclists and jaywalking pedestrians. But as I pointed out above, if you drive, or have driven in the city, you regularly exceed the speed limit. I'd love to hear your rationalizations!
"don't care if you [think you're a competent driver, and think the "conditions" justify it].. that [speed limit sign] applies to you as well, alright?"
Otavio:
I hope we needn't wait till the next century. It seems we may be on the same page on some of these issues. I've lately wondered why there isn't a more well-formed coalition of interests pushing to undo some of the priorities of 1950's era city planning- things from streetlight design and traffic planning. Everything in the old city core and its former outlying population/commercial centers might benefit from re-examination from a non-motorist's perspective.
Otavio: You might contact Terry Lynch. He's interested in such things.
As someone who drives a lot and bikes a little, I see both sides of the biker vs. driver argument pretty clearly and I come down firmly on the side of bicyclists. Since I've been riding in DC over the last six months or so, it's become abundantly clear to me that the small bit of consideration that bike riders ask of drivers isn't much.
On one of the Hill's narrow streets there's no reason for me to force my way around a bike so I can get to an intersection 5 seconds faster and if I'm going to be behind the bike, why not ride 15 feet back instead of five? As for the bikes blowing through lights and stop signs, who gives a flaming fuck? When I'm a car I stop at lights, on a bike I roll 'em when appropriate; I really don't get the drivers who are tripping about this.
Some of the driver's beefs are legit though; bicyclists should use lights and common sense dictates you shouldn't ride around at night without reflective or light-colored clothes on.