Post Opinions on Cyclists

The Post had a couple of opinion pieces on cycling yesterday.

First, from their Close to Home feature, Diane Gibbs of Washington is tired of close calls with cyclists.

Recently, I was crossing an intersection near my home. I had a green light, plus the walk sign. Suddenly, a bicycle shot down the hill, ran the red light and missed me by a hair.

Another day, a cyclist almost hit me while I was waiting for a bus on the sidewalk.

On another occasion, a young man hit my friend and knocked him to the ground. This cyclist never asked whether my friend was hurt. Instead, he said: "Oh, mister! Do ya think my bike is damaged?"

As described these all represent bad behavior. Though seeing a bicycle on the sidewalk is not exactly italics worthy. Still it doesn't quite explain the hyperbole she ends with.

We all wonder sometimes how we will die when our time comes, and over the years I've thought about it. But leaving this Earth because of a bike? Who would have thought?

Certainly people are occasionally killed as a result of being hit by a cyclist, but it is pretty rare. In New York City between 1996-2005 it happened 11 times. [3 of those involved a pedestrian crossing against the light]. In the same time 1933 pedestrians were killed by cars. So you're about 175 times more likely to be killed by a car. Even if you count the bicycle mode share at 11% and auto mode share of 33% for New York City (which probably undercounts bicycles) that only drops the per capita risk for being killed by a car to 58 times that of a bicycle.

Her letter is mostly a rant, but she does have one call for action.

The mayor's office says there is a law barring bicycles from the sidewalks downtown, but they do not have to stay in the street in other areas of the city. I wish somebody would change that.

And I hope no one does [LA, btw, is studying it]. Though a pedestrian was recently hit and killed by a cyclist on the sidewalk in Toronto, I've never seen any evidence that sidewalk cycling is particularly dangerous for pedestrians.

A cyclist legally uses the sidewalk

The second, Pedalmania in the District, from the Editorial section is a pro-biking editorial that basically says that the Post is happy that biking is on the rise.

A travel survey by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board in 2007-08 found that 3.3 percent of District residents commuted to work on bicycles -- up 50 percent in 15 years.

Bicycling offers wide-ranging benefits for cyclists and non-cyclists alike. It eases congestion, uses space efficiently -- 10 bikes can fit in a single car parking spot -- and offers health benefits to everyone: those who burn calories on their bikes and non-riders who also benefit from decreased pollution and traffic.

They have a list of proposed improvements that are needed.

Theft remains a problem, as does sharing the road with cars. A lack of helmets at the SmartBike racks makes safety a concern, especially as an effort builds to expand the program. The next few years will bring continued challenges -- adding new bicycle lanes, maintaining trails and encouraging developments such as cycle tracks with physical barriers to separate cyclists from traffic.

What's heartening is that they never mentioned how "cyclists have to start following the law like drivers do." Of course that didn't keep the commenters from mentioning it, or things like "bikers interfere with traffic movement" and "With these added facilities, we can insist on licensing of bicyclists and make sure those who drive on the sidewalk, through red lights, through pedestrians, etc. are held responsible for their actions."

Richard Layman wrote about this too, noting that part of the early drive for the Metropolitan Branch Trail came from the Post. He states

Today's editorial would have been far better had it called for stronger responsibility requirements for automobile drivers.

I have to agree. They sort of ignored the role that drivers have in this. There was also a real lack of specifics in the article - they didn't real call out for any thing and the only specific item is impractical and not particularly important.

I'm not sure that a lack of helmets at the SmartBike racks is a safety concern (you can bring your own helmet after all) and frankly I think sharing helmets with every other SmartBike user is probably a health concern and definitely an ick concern.Otherwise I agree that reducing theft and continued progress on the bike plan, as well as an new bike plan when this one expires, are things that are needed.

Richard Layman also linked to a couple of articles on Idaho, including one on the Idaho Stop.*

Although cycling commuters here often bemoan the city's ineffective bike lane system and criticize the lack of public bicycle parking, nary a word is spoken about the state's progressive bicycle traffic laws. Thanks to some forward-thinking state legislators a couple of decades ago, Idaho's bike laws are the envy of cyclists throughout the country.

The concept is a simple one that allows bicyclists to keep their momentum without ever taking the right-of-way from motorists: basically, stop signs are treated a yield signs, and stop lights as stop signs. Bicycles can legally blow through stop signs as long as it isn't another driver's turn. And at red lights, bicycles must stop, but can proceed if the intersection is clear

Rather than each faction exerting ownership over the pavement, cyclists should know and follow all the laws, while drivers should concede that bicycles are different from cars and should therefore be subject to different laws. Stopping at empty intersections is cumbersome for drivers and cyclists alike — but cyclists aren't likely to kill pedestrians with their carelessness.

By drawing a legal line in the sand between cars and bikes, allowing them different rules in the same environment, Idaho's bike laws ultimately foster a mutual respect between drivers and cyclists.

*Great name for a band by the way.

Update: GGW covers this subject as well.

Photo by M.V.Jantzen

Comments

[Eric_W.]

I had to check the front page to make sure whether I was reading the Washington Post when I read the editorial. I was stunned!

I did not see the other letter but this seems to be more of the usual hyperbole which is not concerned with facts.

Why don't they write in when cars try to run them over? Accepted fact of life? "Could have happened to me" syndrome?

Oh well.

[MVMike]

"Oh, mister! Do ya think my bike is damaged?" Seriously, that's the only thing the biker said. Frankly, I doubt it -- who speaks like that? Who would ask someone they knocked down if they thought their bike was damaged? Frankly, the fact that this seems me doubt whether any of the other encounters "documented" in the first article occurred.

[Brendan]

As a bike commuter, I hate to admit it, but I too really dislike cyclist who bike on the sidewalk. Not only are many inconsiderate of pedestrians, most important to me, if more biked on the street, there would be a greater demand for bike lanes and safer all around for bikers.

Obviously, the post article is ridiculous, but I appreciate part of the sentiment.

[Washcycle]

In general I'm with you, but all depends. Fast biking on a crowded sidewalk is very bad form. But there are times when the sidewalk is appropriate.

Frankly I don't see bad sidewalk biking too often, but then I don't bike downtown during the day much. I think Eric is right, the bike that almost kills you is like seeing an egret downtown. The car that almost hits you is like seeing a pigeon - and thus not noteworthy.

[Foo]

"I hope no one does it" -- um... Alexandria has banned sidewalk cycling.

[Washcycle]

I should've clarified it as "I hope no one does it in DC."

[Doodah]

As an aspiring triathlete, I both run and cycle on the Mount Vernon Trail, and I occasionally will cycle on the same sidewalks on which I run to get to a safe route. As a part time cyclist, I would hate to see increased restrictions on how I ride – but as a part time runner, I find myself sympathizing with the pedestrians in this post.

Most of the riders who pass me either lack courtesy, are ignorant of, or simply disregard etiquette and the law – very few of them give an audible warning prior to passing. A cyclist does not know when a runner or pedestrian will change course to avoid an obstacle, turn around, or for any other reason.

Safety, courtesy, and the law demand that cyclists yield to and communicate with pedestrians on mixed-use trails and sidewalks. But the majority of us, in my experience, fail to do so, and I’m afraid that will result in greater restrictions on how we operate.

[ibc]

A cyclist does not know when a runner or pedestrian will change course to avoid an obstacle, turn around, or for any other reason.

This is very true, but I hate to point out that if you are running (or walking) on a multiuse path, and you suddenly veer off into the left lane (without checking for overtaking traffic) you are to blame for any collision.

The first rule of using these trails is "Keep Right".

[Doodah]

But my point was that it's in our best interests as cyclists to excercise courtesy as we share the road with pedestrians. After all - they have the same right to the trail that we do.

While I agree that

The first rule of using these trails is "Keep Right,"

according to the National Park Service, the second and third rules are:

"Bicyclists must give an audible warning before passing"

and

"Speed limit is 15 mph."

Even if it were the primary issue here, I'm pretty sure an at-fault determination would involve more than just the first rule. The bigger picture is whether we can continue to operate without incurring more government restrictions or more aggressive enforcement.

[SJE]

What is the problem with licensing cyclists?

[Washcycle]

I think the better question is what is the benefit? We don't generally license behavior unless we first determine a need so I'd put the onus on those who want to license to make their case first.

But, we usually license for one of three reasons:

1. To generate a user fee - such as a fishing license

2. To create barriers to entry in a market - such as interior decorating licenses in some states or a license to make NFL gear or a liquor license

3. To ensure that people entrusted with a certain power have demonstrated the ability to use that power responsibly. This includes driver's licenses, a medical license, pharmacy license etc...

I assume one would give a cycling license under #3. But I just don't think cyclists have that much power or need to demonstrate the same level of responsibility. Drawing the line between driver and cyclist makes more sense to me than between cyclist and pedestrian. We let 5 year olds ride bikes, so how much power/responsibility do we really imbue in it. [True we let kid hunt too, but a hunting license is mostly a user fee]. Additionally most cyclists have a driver's license - does that not qualify them to ride a bike?

That being said, I could support a cycling license if:

1. In kindergarten kids get instruction on cycling and take a test that gets them a user's permit. This entitles them to ride anywhere with an adult and in reasonable places alone.

2. Kids continue to get instruction every year after that and around 10 they can take another set of tests to get a cycling license.

3. You must have a cycling license to get an automobile learner's permit or driver's license. If you're waving in from out of state, you have to get a cycling license within 6 months or lose your driver's license.

4. You don't need a driver's license to bike.