And those that teleport to work?

Breaking the laws of physics is TOTALLY uncool.

It doesn't really matter if I'm a driving, biking, or pedesting -- I usually don't follow traffic laws.

But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to yell at others, right?

I prefer to cycle backwards, thereby breaking all laws of common sense.

Chances are you won't see a cyclist breaking DC hands free cellphone law!

Or taking photos. Seriously. On Vermont Ave. at lunch I saw a guy driving a nice black Mercedes firing off random pics with his SLR and telephoto lens. Fortunately he wasn't actually looking through the camera's viewfinder. Just randomly pointing the camera at groups of pedestrians on each side of the street.

The main problem with McArdle's logic, as some folks point out in her comments section, is that her whole argument hinges on the question: "Which of you has never gone above the speed limit?" when really the questions should be: Do you obey red lights, stop signs, etc. because that's where bikers, drivers or pedestrians can cause the most trouble if they're not obeying.

Personally, I don't care if you break the rules, jaywalk, run a stop sign etc. Just don't be stupid about it.

Oh, and before all the purple-faced vituperation can begin in earnest, here's a link to DC bike law cheat-sheet so we're all on the same page as to what is--and is not--illegal.

http://tinyurl.com/dcbikelaws

Now, let the comments about how some bike courier once came within three feet of running over your toes commence...

I ride my bike to work. My primary concern is visibility to motorists. I make sure people know I am there, but I try not to get in the way unless necessary for safety reasons (ie, a car cannot possibly safely pass me). I will slow down at stop signs but rarely actually stop. I will usually stop at red lights, but I will go through them if the road is clear of both cars and pedestrians.

The fundamental difference between a bike breaking the law and a car breaking the law is that a car is a two ton object which can potentially inflict massive injury or death. While a bike can do the same, the probability of it happening is extremely low, as bikes almost always travel at far lower speeds than cars.

I've taken pictures while driving (I do it all the time). And used a cell phone. And sent text messages. And eaten my yogurt with a spoon. And changed lanes without signalling. And not stopped for pedestrians in a crosswalk. Wow, it really feels good to admit all that. I'm glad we're getting things out in the open here...

"Which of you has never gone above the speed limit?" when really the questions should be: Do you obey red lights, stop signs, etc. because that's where bikers, drivers or pedestrians can cause the most trouble if they're not obeying.

Not sure you typed what you meant to type here. I don't think Meghan was asking cyclists if they exceed the speed limit, but rather the drivers.

Asking *auto* drivers "Have you *ever* driven below the speed limit on an unobstructed road?**" is absolutely the most relevant question. We all decide which laws to ignore; it's just that cyclists ignore laws--laws they're acutely aware they're breaking--that often *seem* more troublesome. When in fact the laws that autos ignore *are* more dangerous, and drivers seem oblivious to the fact that they even break them.

Excessive speed is a factor in almost every deadly auto accident.

(** The honest answer to the question--when posed to an auto driver is "No.", btw.)

Yes, perhaps drivers break the law as often as cyclists do, but cyclists (when they do break the law) tend to do so in a way that is begging for an accident.

Example: Cars and bikes both run stop signs -- although cars tend to coast through them while a lot of bikes plow through them.

Example: When I bike, I wait like any other car at a stoplight. I don't squeeze up to the front. The front driver could decide to make a right turn and hit me. (It happens.) It also spooks a driver if you're biking up alongside him to go straight while he's trying to turn right legally. It's harder for cars to "jump in line" the way bikes do, so that's one breaking of the law you're less likely to see among cars. And it's one that's more likely to result in collision.

Yes, this is something of a tired argument

I like how you summed up the whole post in just one little clause, there . . .

@Reid: You're joking, right?

I think there is ample responsibility to go around.

ibc - then maybe it was a bad choice of words on your part, or a bad reading on mine, when you said "Now, let the comments about how some bike courier once came within three feet of running over your toes commence..." Seemed to imply you were talking about the ped-bike connection. Sorry if I misread.

MikeB,

sorry for the fuzziness.

I think that unless there's compelling evidence to the contrary, a cyclist should beshould be held legally liable when they collide with a pedestrian.

I also think that unless there's compelling evidence to the contrary, the driver of a motor vehicle should be held legally liable when they collide with either a pedestrian or a cyclist.

Also there should be a zero-tolerance enforcement policy for speeding in the District. If I were District Emperor, I'd require speed limiters on any car that would be operated in the city and set the speed at 25 mph.

"The fundamental difference between a bike breaking the law and a car breaking the law is that a car is a two ton object which can potentially inflict massive injury or death."

This statement is missing the point entirely. While the biker may not kill someone else by breaking traffic laws, he probably does increase the possibility that he, himself will be killed. And it's really unfair to put that guilt on the driver who hit you. Even if the biker is not injured, the car may be damaged, which costs a lot of money to repair or may affect insurance rates. Bikes have to follow the same rules to prevent these things from happening. C'mon we all know this!

What's f*cked up about all of this is that the minority of drivers who complain about cyclists on the street are the same assholes who would complain if we passed them on a sidewalk, in a the rare instance, of course, that they'd be getting any exercise.

Well, if you don't want me on the road and you don't want me on the sidewalk, where the hell am I supposed to go? Uh-huh.

So, deal with it. If you cut me off, or otherwise act like a jerk to me, expect to hear about it (that is, if you even can from your air-conditioned cocoon in which you listen to your zany morning talk radio program).

And in the spirit of fairness, if I run a red light and make you slam on your breaks, then by all means yell at me. Nay, go ahead and hit me.

But don't you dare yell at me for taking advantage of the position you put me in by refusing to respect me on the road or on the sidewalk. (Thank God, most drivers and pedestrians aren't that dumb though or there'd be all out rumbles every day...)

If you want to talk about something interesting, let's talk about how auto-centric signaling encourages (almost forces) "law-breaking" behavior among pedestrians.

There's a stretch of Connecticut Ave between just north of Dupont Circle and just south of the circle where the pedestrian signals are a complete and total f-ing travesty.

The one down near California Pizza Kitchen features a crossing of 75 yards of traffic lanes with an 8-second walk signal. Or there's a few on Dupont Circle proper, where the signals give you 10 seconds to get to the 18" wide concrete median, only to strand you out there for another 50 seconds while the side view mirrors of delivery trucks go whizzing past your nose.

Of course, when a pedestrian is run down one of these days, we'll get to hear from all the car drivers about how "I see people jay-walking there *all* the time!"

Forget hunting some Orc. I'm hunting me some scofflaw cyclist! Are you with me, Legolas? Legolas? What are you doing to Gimli? Don't crush that dwarf! Hand me the pliers!

Well, if you don't want me on the road and you don't want me on the sidewalk, where the hell am I supposed to go? Uh-huh.

Isn't it obvious? Drive to a bike path somewhere. In other words, they don't care *what* you do, as long as they're not inconvenienced by your perfectly legal behavior.

That's why the counterarguments are so scattershot, uninformed, and internally inconsistent.

Well, if you don't want me on the road and you don't want me on the sidewalk, where the hell am I supposed to go?

I think you answered your own question there.

Handbaskets and fast trains departing every hour. Step right up.