Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
In the week since Alice Swanson was tragically killed riding her bike through Dupont Circle, there has been the usual back-and-forth between aggravated cyclists and aggrieved drivers. Cyclists accuse drivers of being two-ton road menaces, while drivers fire back by relaying long-worn tales of cyclists recklessly flying through red lights.
But in recent days cyclists have started defending their trade, looking to present their selective ignorance of traffic laws as perfectly justifiable. First up was the City Paper's Mike DeBonis, who wrote of being a "sensible scofflaw":
The whole fun and profit of riding your bike in the city is breaking the rules when safe and possible. That’s why I can get from my office in Adams Morgan down to city hall in 10 minutes or less during even the worst times of day traffic-wise. It’s what makes riding a bike around this city worthwhile.And what does he propose a sensible scofflaw can do? Run stop signs and red lights, go the wrong way down a one-way street and slide past cars in intersections.
More recently, The Atlantic's Megan McArdle penned a more nuanced defense of scofflaw cyclists by citing a difference between "moral" laws and "coordination laws":
Photo by zenfrisbee
Coordination laws, like driving regulations--where the laws themselves have no moral content, but are merely a convenient way to enforce a common standard--are different from things like laws against stealing. Indeed, so different that you don't even think of speeding as breaking the law, allowing you to get morally outraged at bikers without even thinking of yourself as doing exactly the same thing on the highways.Today TheWashCycle, the blog run by the Washington Area Bicycle Association (WABA), runs in the other direction with a wholesale and extensive takedown of the myth that all cyclists are lawbreakers:The reason cops don't ticket bikers when they fail to observe stop signs at uncrowded intersections, etc, for the same reason that they don't ticket people going 5 mph over the speed limit--those people do not cause many accidents.
Now then, I'm not trying to claim that cyclists don't break the law. Let me state clearly and upfront, they do. What I'm saying is that there is nothing unique about the frequency with which cyclists as a class break the law when compared with drivers or pedestrians. And even if cyclists broke the law more flagrantly, that would not negate the need to share the road.Yes, this is something of a tired argument, but it's good to see it flushed out. We don't really believe that the animosity between cyclists and drivers is as pronounced as some might make it seem, but it's important that both sides try and understand each other. At the end of the day, both cyclists and drivers are just trying to get to where they're going, so a little mutual respect and understanding would go a long way to cool tension between the two.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
And those that teleport to work?
Breaking the laws of physics is TOTALLY uncool.
I see just as many drivers break the law as cyclists do.
Also, the fact that someone has to actually state that traffic laws are not moral codes is already stating the obvious and isn't defending their position particularly well.
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?
Chances are you won't see a cyclist breaking DC hands free cellphone law!
I prefer to cycle backwards, thereby breaking all laws of common sense.
selective ignorance
Um, I think you want something like "selective adherence".
Here's a fable:
There's an airport. Most everyone there walks. But there are a few folks that ride those little roller skate shoes. There's an occasional collision, but for the most part things are A-OK.
One day, someone introduces the electric cart. This is a good thing. Elderly and disabled can now get to their gates.
But over time, speeds of the carts increase. People are in a hurry, you know. So speed limits are imposed. And traffic signals, lights, cross walks. (God help a walker that's outside of a crosswalk when a cart is approaching. Jaywalker!)
But all the signaling doesn't help much. Speeding continues to be a problem. As speeds increase, more folks choose to take the carts rather than walk. Really its the only safe way to get around. As fewer folks walk, the speeds of the carts increase.
Because they don't have to worry about people wandering around the hallways, the carts now run at 30 mph instead of the posted 10 mph. Occasionally someone points out that all this speeding is dangerous to folks trying to cross, or ride their little skateboards.
But a spokesman for the American Cart Association makes the point that cart speed limits are "artificially low", and that the latest carts can safely negotiate turns at 35-40 mph. Besides, any attempt at enforcement is only a sneaky way to "stick it to" carters.
Every once in a while, a walker, or skater gets run down by one of these carts. Clearly that's the fault of the cart-driver, because everybody knows carts are dangerous, and people need to be careful around them. And besides, you just can't be aware of every little thing that's going on around you.
Oh, and sometimes those guys with skates on just pop out of the Starbucks without even looking.
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.
thanks for bringing attention to this, martin, but i feel like your summary of debonis' rules for being a biking scofflaw is a little too summarized. sure, he says to do those things, but not wholesale. of course, if someone clicks through and reads his article, they'll see that, but i just feel i should restate here for the record: his rules include a lot of common sense, not just breaking the rules for the sake of breaking them.
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 like the idea of building a legal / moral reframing of biking road rules...interesting potential here.
And since I'm 20th c. normative grammarian: Perhaps it's good to see this 'fleshed' out?
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.
Now, let the comments about how some bike courier once came within three feet of running over your toes commence...
ibc -- nice cheat sheet, but it all involves vehicle-bike interaction, not pedestrian-bike interaction.
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...
i saw a guy texting while pedeling down some avenue recently.
"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.)
flapjack: can you stay on the line just a little bit longer?
(to fbi agent: we got her boys!)
alright, thanks for holding, that's all we need. will you be home for the rest of the day?...
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.
IMGoph - wouldn't you like to know...
Yes, this is something of a tired argument
I like how you summed up the whole post in just one little clause, there . . .
The best analogy for dealing with this argument is this: When bikers break the law, they're playing with a sharpened knife; When drivers break the law, they're playing with a loaded gun. Thus we can demand more responsibility and enforce stricter laws on the driver than the biker.
There is no equivalance. One transportation device is simply much more dangerous than the other.
@Reid: You're joking, right?
I think there is ample responsibility to go around.
ibc -- nice cheat sheet, but it all involves vehicle-bike interaction, not pedestrian-bike interaction.
That's because there's no complexity to that scenario: as far as I'm concerned, a cyclist that hits a pedestrian is at fault.
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.
No, No, No, NO. The danger cyclist present is different because they present the danger to themselves. However, the law should be followed as it encourages predictablity. Predictablity is the only thing that makes roads safer. (Think about it, when you're shaking your head asking "What's with That Guy?" Mr. That Guy is probablly doing something unpredictable.)
As for bikers and their law breaking: I'm still accountable as a driver if I squish the begeezus out of you and prob'ly won't sleep well at night either. So what for your 10 minute commute??! Bikers Are Not Entitled to Their Momentum. Pedaling more after breaking will just encourage that physical fitness that's touted so much as a positive for biking. Break like a big boy and suck it up.
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.
Just to reiterate (I know its been mentioned in other posts), Alice Swanson was riding her bike in a lawful manner (right of way, in the crosswalk) when she was killed. Mentioning her death in conjunction with the scofflaw rider articles might make it seem otherwise.
"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!
As a cyclist, I would say that I(I cannot speak for others) usually don't stop for stop signs, but I do tend to slow down to make sure I am not about to get hit. I also run red lights, pretty frequently in fact, only when its clear in both directions because I dont want Johnny Cellphone to kill me with his Expedition. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, and I love cutting lines of cars when waiting for a red light because I like to be in front of the cars so that they can see me, also its like they are paying a lazy tax to me.
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...)
@Disco Stu: The danger cyclist present is different because they present the danger to themselves.
You are flat out wrong .. A wreckless cycler presents dangerous situations to everyone around themselves. They can easily cause an inadvertant accident in their wake, can hit and hurt a pedestrian and i don't know any car owner who looks forward to replacing their windshield and body work after a cyclist flies headfirst into their vehicle.
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!"
tater: this statement:
is crazy. honestly. i've seen a lot more cars "plow through" stop signs than coast through. i've seen bikes do both, but most bikers seem to slow down, at least give a cursory glance both ways, and proceed.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!
Chances are you won't see a cyclist breaking DC hands free cellphone law!
are you kidding!? I see this ALL the time. Actually, almost as much as i see drivers with cell phones.
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.
A correction: the Wash Cycle blog is not run by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association. While we help support the operation of the site we have no control over the content.
Eric Gilliland
Director
WABA
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.
"I think there is ample responsibility to go around."
What does that mean? Do you mean blame?
My point is that driving a car is simply a much more dangerous activity than riding a bike is. Thus we can hold those who choose to take part in this activity to a higher standard. When they choose to break the law, they put their fellow citizens at much more risk than when the bikers break the law. Thus there is no moral equivalance between a car scofflaw (e.g. speeding, rolling stop, speaking on the cell phone, running a red light, etc.) and a bike scofflaw.
car & bus drivers, bikers, and pedestrians all could improve their safety and attentiveness in the District. it's sad how many people die needlessly in the District every year in totally preventable accidents (i.e., bus driver not bothering to look before turning into two woman crossing street, with walk light; and so on).
The washcycle blog is sponsored by WABA, but not run by them. Nor does the blog speak for them directly. It's an easy misconception, but I want to make sure that I no one mistakes my positions for theirs.
we have a city hall?
bus driver not bothering to look before turning into two woman crossing street, with walk light
I see pedestrians all the time, not paying attention, sauntering through the crosswalk, eating iced cream, like they own the streets.
It doesn't surprise me that something like this happens.
Oh, and just this morning, I was getting out of my Yukon XL, and a *pedestrian* stepped on my foot.
Unbelievable.
monkeyrotica:
Oh really? Because I was actually hoping to just hitch my bike onto the back of your Rav 4, Ford Focus or whatever other really cool car you may own.
"What does that mean? Do you mean blame?"
It's really simple. DC streets are regulated for everyone using them safely (bikers and motor vehicles alike). With that comes responsible operating of your vehicle (regardless of type). Irresponsible cyclists are just as much at fault for the accidents they cause as any other vehicle operator. Blame comes to the person causing the accident - regardless of whether they are held liable or not.
As a pedestrian, I've nearly been run over by cars and bikes about equally in this city. However, I rarely have to watch out for cars while walking on the sidewalk.
Not to mention that there are far more cars than bikes being used. Bicyclists seem to have a higher percentage of bad apples.
Staying off side-walks and obeying red lights and stop signs when pedistrians are using them would be a good start.
I smack cars that nearly hit hit me; I'm getting to the point where I'll start doing the same for bicyclists.
erakh0, very well. I fired that off mostly in a haze, so I admit I didnt' form my thoughts completely. The danger to bicyclist is Mostly to themselves, but can cause great problems to others as well. That was kinda my point was reducing that danger.
I'm sure cyclist do get tired of a*hole drivers and drivers tired of a*hole cyclists. That doesn't mean breaking laws is the answer, and I very much don't want a cyclist on my windshield.
HCE, it would rule if your smack could come in the form of giant oversized hand, like in the Foo Fighters video...
HCE--
I see your point and trust me, I'd much rather ride on the road, but on an up-hill stretch, on, say Connecticut Ave., when I'm biking at 5-10 mph or whatever (i.e., slow), it's either I get hit by a car that whizzes just inches away from me while going 50+ mph, or I ride on the sidewalk. If that means slightly annoying you, then whoops.
But keep in mind, I'm just as worried about pedestrians veering suddenly off their courses while they text as you probably are of me hitting you on a slow-moving 10-speed. Luckily, I watch where I'm going, as I have about as much interest in slamming into a wayward pedestrian as I do in ever being forced to commute in from Dale City in a Rav 4. None.
Again, everybody just needs to deal with it. I'm tempted to start riding a f*cking horse and buggy on the streets here to really mess with people.
@ The Anti DC:
I hop boxcars to work when I don't dust off the old thumb and hitch a ride naked except for a hockey mask and an axe. Don't trust them newfangled "bye-cyles." Two-wheeled deathtraps, they are. I'll stick with the tried and true steampunk monocycle, thank you very much. No visibility problems there. You end up looking like a sleek turd in a rotating butthole. OUTTA MY WAY! NO BRAKES!
I once saw a man fall off his bike while talking on a cell phone without his hands on the handlebars. He cracked his head open on the pavement (because he was cool and didn't wear a helmet) and we had to help him to a nearby building to get medical assistance. This doesn't have much to do with anything, I just wanted tell someone that story.
read this. that's right, bikers might be able to legally do what they usually do anyways soon. maybe that is something the DC council would be interested in copying, as we seem to do a lot of things that are similar to the city by the bay.
Again, everybody just needs to deal with it.
See, the problem is when people start "dealing with it" by sticking umbrellas and broomsticks in biker spokes when they ride past them on the sidewalk. God knows there've been times when Mr. Tailgating BMW has made me want to hit the brakes, get out of the car, stuck my d**k in his ear, shot a load, and cut his motherfu**ing head off. And that goes double for mommies in doublewide strollers. Granted, there's a whole f***king lot of courtesy that needs to be dispensed around DC from bikers and pedestrians and drivers. But what's the likelihood of that happening? That's up there with the chance of getting a glass of espresso and a cup of ice at Murky and not getting cockpunched.
BTW, I heard it from a little bird that there's a two-for-one seared ahi tuna "burger" discount for dcists at Junkpunchers: An American Brasserie. The coupon will also be honored at Junkpunchers less sophisticated, retarded Southern affiliates, Nutsack Whompins.
That's it, i'm moving to Idaho.
And by "little bird" I mean this Big Bird sock puppet with the googly eyes.
Monkey, your wheel is no match for my POGO STICK. Modern tom-foolery wheels. Never did cotton to'em.
Thanks for the tip, Monkey. Are they honoring the coupons at the Junkpunchers counter inside Royal Palace? I heard from a coworker today that the RP received a delivery of Honduran tuna today.
If you want to talk about something interesting, let's talk about how auto-centric signaling encourages (almost forces) "law-breaking" behavior among pedestrians.
So right IBC. When the city was asking for feedback on how to make it safer for pedestrians, I pointed out that problem with Dupont Circle. George Banyan dismissed my concerns because it was impossible to control the traffic flow.
But Dupont is one of those prime places that they could experiment with stopping all traffic to let pedestrians cross safely.
On the bicycle issue, back when I was bicycling to work, I used to obey all the red lights. And then faced the problem of the dangerous cars practically sideswiping me as I pedaled down H St at Lafayette Park. I found that if I stopped, checked for peds and cars and ran the red light, I was a hell of a lot safer from the maniacs. By the time they caught up with me, the next light was red.
As a scoff-law DC cyclist myself I whole-heartedly disagree. Just like pedestrians can jaywalk responsibly and irresponsibly there are responsible and irresponsible ways for bikers to break the law. I don't break for most stop signs (although I slow to less than 5mph most of the time) because at that kind of speed you can tell if there is any traffic around you and where it is. I respect red lights at intersections, but not where I can hug the sidewalk of an uninterrupted road (like going southbound by the zoo) because those lights are to keep vehicles that are several feet wide from weaving through pedestrians. Not really an issue when you're only a little over a foot wide. The same principle applies to one-way streets. You can't fit 7-8 feet of car down those with room to spare. 4-5 on the other hand fits nicely. I refuse to defend oblivious or inconsiderate bikers as I do oblivious drivers, but overall I think it's time to cut bikers some slack.
Most drivers do not know bikes are considered "vehicles" by the department of transportation and as such deserving of space on the road- just like cars. Just because they require less does not mean they should be disenfranchised, in fact just the opposite. We are moving into a time primed for city bicycling. Rising oil prices combined with dropping home prices make city living is more attractive, and the metro is getting more c
logged with each gas hike as it is. Add in the benefits of biking against American obesity and bike transportation becomes ideal. Now is a time to focus our attention on incentives for bikers and disincentives for cars. Offer classes on how to bike properly on the road (the safest place for any vehicle bike or car) offer tax rebates for bike purchases, increase driver awareness in drivers ed, add more "Share the Road" signs and mayeb throw in a few more bike paths and lanes (although DC does a good job with that already.) The time of the SUV is over, the sooner we embrace the era of the bike, the easier the transition will be.
Just plant your ass in the middle of the lane and don't worry about slowing down traffic (or horrible VA drivers). That's the best way to be seen and not get hit. If they honk at you take out your kryptonite and threaten to knock off their side view mirror. But, seriously it forces a car to actually go around you as opposed to flying by closely when you are hugging the right.
"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."
Then be prepared for gridlock.
It all depend on degree and attitude.
Everyone breaks traffic laws. Everyone. Car drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, drunks rolling home, etc.
Some are usually no big deal, depending on circumstance. Does anyone care that a cyclist slows then goes through a stop sign on a residential street at 10 pm with no traffic in sight?
But some are a big deal - cyclists running full speed through red lights during rush hours, drivers refusing to use turn signals, pedestrians rushing out into traffic.
And a lot of it is attitude. Some drivers are aggressive toward cyclists and do seem to act like they alone own the road. Some cyclists are hostile to anyone that doesn't see the exalted supremacy of their cyclist ways. Some pedestrians are just morons that don't seem to even notice cars or cyclists.
So, basically, we all have the capacity to be pricks.
And I can't really say there is a presumption of guilt in any scenario either. Of course, last time I checked we actually investigated accidents rather than assuming guilt.... but beyond that I can imagine quite a few scenarios where pedestrians would actually be at fault in a pedestrian/cyclist incident, just like a scenario where cyclists would be at fault in a cyclist/car incident.
Size of vehicle is not an indicator of fault.
I would be interested in knowing if anyone has reliable stats - on the number of cycling accidents compared against the ratio of cyclists to cars, how many of those had blame assigned, etc.
It seems a more productive debate could be had were the discussion broadened to the moral gravity of the activities themselves. True, motorists and cyclists alike respect and break traffic laws, yet this essentially self-evident claim ignores the more fundamental issue; namely, that motor vehicle use is unsustainable and, importantly, largely unjustifiable in an urban area. More time and energy should be devoted to convincing drivers to abandoning their oil-based transport in favor of a clean-burning (and no fill-up required) bicycle. Bicyclists may pedal through that stop sign, but their conscience decision in riding their bike clearly has the moral high ground. More bikes on the road means less cars, and a better (and safer) situation for all of us.
"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."
Then be prepared for gridlock.
Interesting. Perhaps you could elaborate on this, because the one doesn't seem to logically follow the other at all.
Sure.
DC traffic is screwed up as it is. If you add to that all vehicles going an unnaturally slow 25 mph on all streets then you have the same automobiles stuck much longer on city streets.
Same streets, cars on them longer. Fucking up long-established traffic patterns, light cycles, etc.
This ain't rocket science.
"Bicyclists may pedal through that stop sign, but their conscience decision in riding their bike clearly has the moral high ground."
Without reasonable qualifiers (of which I see none posted), that position is elitist and stupid.
I'm glad that you have a job and a personal life and a healthy body that allows you to go without a car.
But you seem to forget that not everyone is single,able-bodied, no kids, with a job or responsibilities that don't require a vehicle.
And how exactly would your carless existence even be possible if no one had a vehicle? Who would build your housing, stock your grocery and hipster coffee shops, deliver your Fedex and takeout, etc.
I'm all for people living car-free if they can. But not everyone can, and those of us that can't get a bit tired of being told were amoral shits because of our personal circumstance.
DC traffic is screwed up as it is. If you add to that all vehicles going an unnaturally slow 25 mph on all streets then you have the same automobiles stuck much longer on city streets.
You have no basis for that claim, and it's about 180 degrees from what you'd expect.
This ain't rocket science.
You remind me of President Bush, giving his weekly TV address about how we're going to tax-cut our way out of our deficit problems, patiently explaining that it's "Economics 101".
Sorry, but "cars traveling slower" would result in *less* traffic congestion, not more. The cars would travel more slowly, but the incidents that actually *lead* to congestion (i.e. slamming on brakes, driving erratically, etc...) would be greatly diminished.
You can wave your hands all you want, but aside from the breeze, you're not providing much of a public service.
The problem with bicyclers breaking the law is that they don't have 2 tons of metal and steel protecting them. The result isn't the same when two cars collide...
Cyclists need to pay MORE attention to laws and traffic than those in a car - otherwise it's THEIR life at stake, not the one surrounded by metal and steel.
"Sorry, but "cars traveling slower" would result in *less* traffic congestion, not more. "
That simply doesn't make sense.
Incidentally, are you still holding firm on your earlier assertion that if a cyclist running a red light is responsible for the accident he is in while running the light then gay men are responsible for any fag-bashing they are in if they leave a gay bar after drinking?
"More time and energy should be devoted to convincing drivers to abandoning their oil-based transport in favor of a clean-burning (and no fill-up required) bicycle."
Actually, if you wanted to be totally morally superior, wouldn't you walk? Somebody had to make that bike, probably in a sweatshop somewhere. And oil and other natural resources had to be used to make and ship the bike to you.
And at some point you'll have to get new tires, which require yet more use of oil and other natural resources.
I mean, you have that option, right? So if you aren't taking it, aren't you morally inferior?
"More time and energy should be devoted to convincing drivers to abandoning their oil-based transport in favor of a clean-burning (and no fill-up required) bicycle."
Actually, if you wanted to be totally morally superior, wouldn't you walk? Somebody had to make that bike, probably in a sweatshop somewhere. And oil and other natural resources had to be used to make and ship the bike to you.
And at some point you'll have to get new tires, which require yet more use of oil and other natural resources.
I mean, you have that option, right? So if you aren't taking it, aren't you morally inferior?
Actually, if you wanted the lowest possible carbon footprint, you'd crawl into a culvert naked and die, thereby decreasing the surplus population.
That whole "encourage biking over driving" thing works alright in cities, less so in inner suburbs, and not at all everywhere else. We've deliberately built communities that are completely auto-dependent, so that you HAVE to get into a car and drive for miles to buy a loaf of bread. This will not change until people demand walkable communities and greated residential and commercial density. At that point, the whiner nimbys who don't want more "crowding" can move Lompoc or Oxnard and make room for the people who want to be able to walk to get a loaf of bread.
Also, hauling a keg of beer on a bike f***ing sucks, man.
And whatever happend to kids dealing drugs off bicycles? WTF are they doing that s**t out of a smelly, polluting icecream truck? Have they no respect for Mother Earth? Because every day is Earth Day. When you're stoned out of your gourd.
Incidentally, are you still holding firm on your earlier assertion that if a cyclist running a red light is responsible for the accident he is in while running the light then gay men are responsible for any fag-bashing they are in if they leave a gay bar after drinking?
Uh oh. I'm the last guy at the party, stuck button-holed by Hillman? Crap, how'd that happen!?!
"I'm going to run out and get some cigarettes; I'll be right back."
Chucka-chucka...
Hey, I'll be here. I got no life.
Yeah, but if the stoplight-running cyclist is gay and an agressive driver hits him, is it a hatecrime?
"That whole "encourage biking over driving" thing works alright in cities,"
And I'd argue that in that sense DC ain't a city.
Our public transit is great in what it covers. Metro really is pretty good.
But it doesn't cover everything.
And our bus system I'd say is just ok.
As for the last component - taxis - well, let's just say they suck ass for the most part.
Part of it is our relatively low population. We aren't nearly as dense as we think we are. Quite a few of our neighborhoods in DC aren't really as walkable as we like to think they are.
If your closest grocery that doesn't suck ass is 15 blocks away, that's not a walkable neighborhood.
We simply can't expect a city like DC to be transit-oriented to the level that NY or other cities are.
We simply can't expect a city like DC to be transit-oriented to the level that NY or other cities are.
And we'll never get to that level of transit until we have greater density, and we won't ever get that density until DC's height restriction is eliminated, or at least amended to allow for bigger buildings. Bigger buildings, more residential/commercial, more affordable housing.
"Yeah, but if the stoplight-running cyclist is gay and an agressive driver hits him, is it a hatecrime?"
It's not a hate crime if the victim is ugly. It's a public service.
"we won't ever get that density until DC's height restriction is eliminated, or at least amended to allow for bigger buildings."
I can easily imagine a new highrise (or, actually, midrise) downtown in Anacostia. Stunning river and city views, massive new income for the city, craptons of new jobs at all income levels.
But, no. That would take foresight and new thinking.
And that, Mister, we just can't have. Not when we have decrepit low land use public housing poor warehousing debacles we need to preserve.
and, may i add, all of these people who keep bringing up the example of the cyclist who speed through red lights downtown....you are not talking about regular cyclists here. you are talking about bike messengers.
just like taxi drivers should not be lumped in with other car drivers, due to their apparent gift for being able to break 25 traffic laws at once, so should bike messengers not be lumped in with other bikers, as they are an entirely different species as well.
@MikeB - wtf? i saw your shutterbug with fine taste in wheels (well, conventionally fine taste anyways) yesterday in dupont circle.
he was driving a shiny new black mercedes and was (disconcertingly) rolling up to the intersection of new hampshire and 18th. i was walking through the crosswalk and was squarely in the range of his camera telephoto lens. more disconcerting - this time he was peering through the viewfinder and not just pointing and snapping randomly.
i can tell the "if you see it, say it" paranoia barrage i'm faced with at work is starting to take effect - i halfway wanted to report it as suspiciously unamerican activity! unfortunately, doing everything but paying attention to the road while driving is pretty american.
"and, may i add, all of these people who keep bringing up the example of the cyclist who speed through red lights downtown....you are not talking about regular cyclists here. you are talking about bike messengers."
Not entirely true.
I see full speed red light running by cyclists that don't appear to be bike messengers pretty frequently.
But, then, I see cars running lights pretty frequently also, albeit usually not at full speed.
hillman: what's "full speed"? are we talking 20-25 mph? i just can't believe you see this that often. if so, you must be stalking some bicyclists.
IMGoph:
You have to understand, many of Hillman's statements aren't intended to be arguments, per se, but rather a kind of civic-minded epigram. The hyperbole is just kind of a garnish.
Think Oscar Wilde meets Andy Rooney:
"DC ain't a city" or "I see full speed red light running by cyclists...pretty frequently"
is the equivalent of:
"The Emperor penguin is the most dashing of the Spheniscidae, but contrary to the beliefs of many, hasn't the nobility of the Gentoo."
or:
"There is no greater crime than drinking a daiquiri after 4 pm."
M.E., the iced coffee comment really brought it back around... Put a whole cap on the day. Nicely done.
Here's the thing. Ignoring the extreme examples, but considering bike as vehicle. I totally agree, but it's one or the other. If you're a vehicle you get lane rights and passing rights, but you'd better stop at the light. If I have to give space like a car to pass (which I do) and then come to a red light and have to break, then the bike gets to fly past? Nope. Momentum. BREAK. Then pedal. Then you can enjoy the benefits to your buns, and Hillman will be happy.
Utopia?
ibc: thanks for clearing that up. i was just going to call him grouchy, but i suppose that's not verbose enough for the commentariat :)
The real problem with the scofflaw cyclist mentality is that sooner or later, someone is going to get their asses shot. And this dude probably wasn't even a scofflaw, he was just on a bike and the other guy was in a car, and you know how well those types get along.
Hey, ME! Trolling the nation-wide local news feeds for sensational news? What are you, the local Fox affiliate?
ibc - No, but I did sell Vicodin to Rush Limbaugh. Does that count?
"hillman: what's "full speed"? are we talking 20-25 mph?"
I couldn't tell you for sure. Fast enough to say there is no appreciable decline in their speed. Depends on the type of intersection sometimes.
In fairness though I'd say the greater danger in DC is still cars running red lights. And why not? DC police simply don't give traffic tickets, and anyone that's lived here a while knows that.
"You have to understand, many of Hillman's statements aren't intended to be arguments, per se, but rather a kind of civic-minded epigram. The hyperbole is just kind of a garnish."
Could be some truth to that.
But I just can't help calling out stupid when I see it.
Like 'slowing down cars to artificially low limits produces less traffic gridlock', or ' if cyclists are responsible for accidents caused by their running red lights then gays are responsible for their own gaybashing if they get drunk in bars"
"Then you can enjoy the benefits to your buns, and Hillman will be happy."
Why you got to include a reference to cyclist ass and my happiness in the same sentence?
Have you been reading my craigslist m4m postings?
But I just can't help calling out stupid when I see it.
Well that's one renewable resource DC never has to worry about running out of. Shame we can't tax stupid, but there it is.
"Shame we can't tax stupid, but there it is."
Give us time. We're working on that. But I'd settle for just a hipster tax. Or at a minimum requiring hipsters to live like the rest of us for a couple days to add some real life common sense to their their appallingly limited life experiences and outlooks.
We already have a hipster tax. It's called "$9 happy hour beer 'specials' at Saint Ex."
I live very close to Rock Creek Park in MD, and it's annoying & worrisome when there is a biker in front of me - or more than 1. Most do not bike as close to the R shoulder or painted line as they could & SHOULD - quite often they're taking up most of the lane. It's worse when there's 2 - then they ride side-by-side & not single file, which is the safest way.
The law in MD says they MUST go single file if they are impeding traffic, but many do not do this. If a car pulls up behind you & you're side-by-side bikers, YOU ARE IMPEDING TRAFFIC. It forces me to pass them & cross over the solid yellow line in the middle, sometimes coming close to traffic heading the opposite way.
Hey bikers, PLEASE follow the law of the road in MD & stick to single-file biking, and hugging the R side of the lane as close as possible. My crossing over the yellow median line to pass you is dangerous to you, me & any drivers in the opposite lane !!!
"My crossing over the yellow median line to pass you is dangerous to you, me & any drivers in the opposite lane"
So you admit you are placing other people in direct danger just to get somewhere faster?
"It's called "$9 happy hour beer 'specials' at Saint Ex.""
Good point. But I must say their burger and sweet potato fries are pretty good. Must be the special hipster juice they soak them in. If you go in weird off hours the service is fast and reasonably friendly.
looloo: whether you like it or not, bikers have a right to use the lane. not just the right-hand-most 12 inches of it. if you frequently get stuck behind bikers on your route, might i suggest another route?
it's our lane, too!
Hipster tax? I'd have to say it's in coffee, but then we're back to Murky, and HEY he didn't pay for these hipsters! Crap.
m4m, Hillman? Hay, everybody knows Disco Stu don't advertise...
I live very close to Rock Creek Park in MD, and it's annoying & worrisome when there is a biker in front of me - or more than 1. Most do not bike as close to the R shoulder or painted line as they could & SHOULD - quite often they're taking up most of the lane. It's worse when there's 2 - then they ride side-by-side & not single file, which is the safest way.
The law in MD says they MUST go single file if they are impeding traffic, but many do not do this. If a car pulls up behind you & you're side-by-side bikers, YOU ARE IMPEDING TRAFFIC. It forces me to pass them & cross over the solid yellow line in the middle, sometimes coming close to traffic heading the opposite way.
Hey bikers, PLEASE follow the law of the road in MD & stick to single-file biking, and hugging the R side of the lane as close as possible. My crossing over the yellow median line to pass you is dangerous to you, me & any drivers in the opposite lane !!!
Your ignorance of the law is endangering other road users. Please make an effort to inform yourself of the relevant laws before you kill somebody. Please don't mistake this for the beginnings of an argument; I'm just cluing you in.
The traffic lane in Rock Creek park is *not* wide enough for a car and bike to share a lane. This means that the cyclist is not only legally entitled, but *encouraged* to ride in the center of the lane. If you can't pass safely--which in this case means in the left lane--wait until you can.
If you can't deal with this legal reality, I'd suggest you stick to Connecticut Ave, rather than endangering other road users in A NATIONAL PARK.
Oh, and fewer exclamation points. It makes you look unhinged.
Well, then there's that whole 25 Mph actual speed limit on Rock Creek Parkway that gets you tailgated going 35... See! it's true: entitlement and lawbreaking ARE universal.
Well, then there's that whole 25 Mph actual speed limit on Rock Creek Parkway that gets you tailgated going 35...
I have to drive out to Rockville three times a week, and I've started taking Rock Creek Parkway, and setting the cruise control at 25 mph. It's been quite enlightening.
I think if more drivers did this (especially cyclists when behind the wheel of a car) there'd be far fewer meat-heads grousing about cyclists "illegally" blocking traffic, etc...
When you're driving 25 in a car on RCP, you're going almost the same speed as the cyclists. And it's much safer coming around a corner and seeing an oncoming car passing a cyclist if you're both doing 25 than if you're both doing 70.
both doing 70
Sorry, I meant if your speed differential is 70 (i.e. both moving at 35 mph)
I'm in theory on the scofflaw-bikers' side. Bikers running red lights might result in an accident, but it would probably be smaller in scale to the carnage that a car running the same light would create. Bikers are (mainly) endangering themselves, so the (potential) accident is less deadly. In addition, bikers are more sensitive to what's going on around them--they have fewer blind spots and can hear cars approaching--so they're better equipped to make the judgment about whether it's safe to cross the intersection.
But in practice, I never go through a red light on my bike. And I bike every day on 14th street. I stop at each red mainly to get some respect for all of us bikers. I think, if I show that I respect the same laws that cars have to follow, maybe drivers will start respecting me as a biker a little more.
All of us who are on the road are prone to road rage. I think that going through red lights intensifies this rage that drivers feel towards bikers more than anything else that bikers do.
I tread the gray areas for everything else. I weave through gridlock to stop at the red light in front of everyone else. I go on sidewalks (yeah, in the CBD) for a few feet when coming out of the office. I change lanes to go around buses or to avoid cars stopped in my bike lane. But for red lights, I let the drivers have that. It's not that hard to stop, plus it makes sure I stay alive a little longer.
I guess I see the logic in all the bikers' claims for why they don't NEED to stop at red lights, but that doesn't mean they have excellent reasons why they SHOULD run them. If the "10-minute commute" argument is the best reason to run red lights, then please consider, speed is the same reason cars drive dangerously around bikes and wish they didn't have to share the road with them.
"I have to drive out to Rockville three times a week, and I've started taking Rock Creek Parkway, and setting the cruise control at 25 mph. It's been quite enlightening."
Why am I not surprised that you are a member of the Speed Limit Morals Police?
One of the major causes of accidents and traffic tie-ups on larger roads is the Speed Limits Morals Police.
"I think, if I show that I respect the same laws that cars have to follow, maybe drivers will start respecting me as a biker a little more." Good luck with that.
While at first I don't favor the idea; i see merits and think ibc could be on to something with 25 mph limits (improved fuel efficiency overall, air quality improvement, less steet and car maintenance, fewer accidents), but i would hold-out until i see the research studies first before endorsing the idea since i know i am a selfish driver. Maybe i'll give it a try on rcp.
I had a friend who rode her bike back and forth to College Park and was hit by cars twice once recieving a concussion. While i know that the drivers were at fault and liable i thought at the time and still do that she was at fault for lack of common sense. I hope she is doing well.
Hillman: and one of the major causes of bickering in the comments is a lack of real statistics put forward with an authoritative air.
That said, I don't have a substantial opinion on the 25 mph idea, except for two points. One, although the civil engineers who worked out the speed limits clearly messed up a few times, they probably know more than we do about the traffic flows in the city, and they probably worked out a more efficient system than we can put together here. And two, 25 mph would make us the least gas-efficient city ever, and would likely contribute to worsening the air quality. MPG & GPM Chart
erahk0: Thanks. I am hopeful.
But about your friend, why do you say she had no common sense? Did she bike on University? Did she bike dangerously? Is it just because you think College Park is unbikeable? Or that all bikers lack common sense?
"But about your friend, why do you say she had no common sense?" One time she was struck at night; Both times no helmet.
Knuckle:
I'd say that most speed limits in DC are arbitrarily set, most often dictated by complaints from residents.
There's a crapton of fairly large streets in DC with ridiculously low speed limits, and no one wants to be responsible for resetting them.
As for lack of real stats, you have a point.
But my years of driving show that quite often when you get into some sort of traffic bottleneck you sit through it, then when you get to the front it's caused by two doucheknobs at the front, both insisting on being the Speed Limit Morals Police and going exactly the speed limit, side by side (or just one, if it's a one lane road).
I've had several cop buddies tell me the same.
Virginia is particularly bad, as the Speed Limits Morals Police have an especially strong chapter in that state.
My experience with bottlenecks downtown is that it's usually jackasses who ignore the "Don't Block the Box" signs and enter gridlocked intersections on a green light, knowing full well it won't clear until long after the light has gone red, thereby tying up the cross street.
In the suburbs, it's people slowing down to look at someone changing a tire by the side of the road because, given their suicidally dull lifestyles, actually exerting the mental and physical capacity to change a tire must be completely fascinating. "Why, he's CHANGING IT WITH HIS OWN HANDS! Watch how he uses that spanner to tighten that NUT!"
The other cause of bottlenecks is me gawking at women in booty shorts, ass pants, slit skirts, or hooker heels.
hillman: sure, there are plenty of district streets that are engineered for higher speeds...they're straight lines!
connecticut avenue could have speed limits of 70 mph north of the taft bridge...but there are people and neighborhoods there, not just cars.
are you suggesting that we have a ton of streets that need higher speed limits? sorry, even with the worst traffic, you can still drive around this city without the congestion of a mexico city or a lagos. cars don't need any more help around here.
"I'd say that most speed limits in DC are arbitrarily set, most often dictated by complaints from residents." How do you know this, i have the impression that speed limits are mostly regulated by dDoT with a few streets ~Reno Rd. getting residential input. I thought most neighborhoods complain and petition for one-way streets, & traffic calming devices like speed-bumps and rumblestrips.
There's a crapton of fairly large streets in DC with ridiculously low speed limits, and no one wants to be responsible for resetting them." Again I think dDoT is responsible for these. Instead of raising speed limits i would say that timing of traffic signals and adding more left-turn signal lights would be more effective. I think dDoT has been tweeking the timing of traffic signals and crosswalks for several years now.
"So you admit you are placing other people in direct danger just to get somewhere faster?"
Actually, no, politboro, I'm impeding traffic myself when there are several cars backed up behind me. The biker taking up the entire lane in front of me is making me go 10-15 mph & I'm backing up car traffic behind me. And when I cross the yellow line to safely pass, the cars behind me do the same. Don't think I'm the only one out there doing that.
And ibc, since when does using 3 exclamation points in an email qualify me as "unhinged" as you say? You yourself used some ALL CAPS in your email which a lot of people would find excessive.
Also ibc, I specficially said Rock Creek Park near Rockville. RCP in MD is not, not, not a national park - in MD it is run by the MNPPC. Get your facts straight.
And also, please post the road law for Rock Creek Park in MD that specifically "encourages" bikers to take up the whole lane, because I don't see it.
I can't use Conn. Ave as an alt much of the time as you suggest - I literally live within 1/3 a mile of Beach Dr in MD, I must cross it every day to get home. And I use it to get into Kensington & Rockville neighborhoods.
I stand by what I said. Rock Creek Pk has a separate bike path off the road. Fine if you don't want to use it b/c of potholes, strollers, whatever, but you *have* to follow the rules of the vehicular roads if you snub the bike path. The road is not your *only* choice. If bikers complain about us drivers, then I suggest bikers use the bike path that is there for them where they won't have to deal with us "ignorant" and "endangering" drivers except at crossings...
Ibc, notice the lack of exclamation points in this email. However, I'm a former patient of St Elizabeth's, so I guess that makes me "unhinged" without the exclamation points...
And also, please post the road law for Rock Creek Park in MD that specifically "encourages" bikers to take up the whole lane, because I don't see it.
I think you want article 3 of SB-551 (which passed in 2005):
"Exceptions to the Ride to the Right Rule
Senate Bill 551 expands the conditions under which a person operating a bicycle is not required to ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable to include:
(1) when avoiding pedestrians or road hazards;
(2) where the right lane is a right turn only lane; or
(3) when operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side.
The bill also states that all exceptions to this rule only apply when a person is riding a bicycle below the speed of traffic at that time and place. SB-551 brings Maryland law in line with similar language adopted by other states and the Uniform Vehicle Code."
Pretty much the same as in DC... So you may want to put some pretty music on, chill out, and enjoy the scenery on your jaunts through the park.
The road is not your *only* choice. If bikers complain about us drivers, then I suggest bikers use the bike path that is there for them where they won't have to deal with us "ignorant" and "endangering" drivers except at crossings...
Hmm. Well, you don't see me complaining. I'm just telling you what the law is. Most of the cyclists you're encountering seem pretty happy about the situation. It's folks like yourself that seem to be worked up about the whole thing.
Ibc, notice the lack of exclamation points in this email.
You are to be commended for your restraint.
The biker taking up the entire lane in front of me is making me go 10-15 mph
Oh, and by the way, in my experience your numbers are way off. I'm not saying you're intentionally exaggerating the numbers to support your point; perhaps it does seem that way when you're exceeding the speed limit by 10-15 mph.
But *very* few cyclists on RCP are going less than 15 mph. 17-20 is more like it.
Remember, the "speed limit" is not a lower limit, it's an upper limit.
Thx.
There is a video on u-tube called “Unsafe Cyclist in Montgomery County Maryland” it shows that bicyclist violating the law. The bicyclist act as thought they are above the law ... call the police, Council and demand ticketing and impoundment of bikes the same way they do cars... http://www.grc.dc.gov/grc/cwp/view.asp?a=1206&q=447541&grcNav_GID=1421&portal_link=hr