Another Letter on 15th Street

Alan Roth of Washington, thinks 15th Street still has problems. His first complaint is that cyclists aren't staying in the right lane.

The large, bright white lettering on the far left lane warns drivers turning left to watch for bicycles and pedestrians, but it also seems to signal northbound cyclists that they should ride in that lane, too, rather than in the far right lane, where much less visible lane markings allegedly "encourage" them to ride.

northbound cyclists seem clueless about where they're supposed to ride. I know because I nearly took one out on a dark, rainy night this past week.

There are many reasons why a cyclist might have been in the left lane. Perhaps they had just recently turned onto 15th and hadn't found a chance to safely move over. Maybe they were going to turn left soon. Maybe they were in that lane passing other traffic and hadn't gotten a chance to move back. Regardless, cyclists aren't confined to the right lane. And being in the left lane, considering all the reasons why that might be prudent, does not seem like a cause for almost taking one out. Perhaps Mr. Roth should slow down, it sounds like he's outdriving his headlights.

His second complaint does not match with his solution.

The new design certainly doesn't eliminate the chances of "dooring" a cyclist. And the photo accompanying the story showed ample room for the curbside bike lane to be made bi-directional as long as cyclists ride single file. DDOT ought to do that.

Perhaps you can never "eliminate" the chances of "dooring", but this lane does make dooring unlikely. At 9' a cyclist can easily ride outside the door zone, and heading towards the parked cars, drivers are more likely to see the cyclist before getting out - or so goes the theory. But making it bidirectional means you have two, 4.5' bike lanes and that would definitely put a cyclist in the door zone. It sounds like he just wants cyclists out of his road.

Comments

[Elmer Fudd Gantry]

Do you and this website impulsively dismiss any criticism regarding cyclists or a bike lane? Mr. Roth could have almost taken a cyclist out while taking a left onto 15th street. None of us know the circumstances. But you assume that you do. Perhaps you and this website should do a little more listening and a lot less advocacy. I know you are thrilled to have your pet project contraflow lane installed, but all is not hunky dory on 15th street. And I agree with you that Mr. Roth's second complaint is not legitimate. Unless, of course, a cyclist is going the wrong way in the contraflow.

[Chris]

Wow, that seems kind of angry (and I'm a cyclist who thinks that bike lanes in general - contraflow or otherwise - are ill-advised).

[Washcycle]

Do you and this website impulsively dismiss any criticism regarding cyclists or a bike lane? No. For example, if Mr. Roth had said the cyclist wasn't using lights or reflectors, or was going to wrong way, then I would've agreed that the cyclists was misbehaving.

Mr. Roth could have almost taken a cyclist out while taking a left onto 15th street. That isn't what he described. He described almost taking out a northbound cyclist using the left lane. If what you descried had been the situation than that might have been cause to reevaluate the bike lane.

I agree that 15th could be better and linked to a very good post on GreaterGreaterWashington on how to improve it. I'm not sure making the lane bidirectional is the way to do that. Removing another lane of traffic, separating the parked cars from the CF bike lane with two feet of raised curb and adding a northbound bike lane is probably the best solution short of making the road two-way.

[Elmer Fudd Gantry]

Please read the letter again. Mr. Roth never states which way he is going. Only that the cyclist is going northbound. He also never mentions if the cyclist does or does not have reflectors. All we know that it was dark and rainy and a cyclist was traveling northbound in the left lane.

My problem here is that a citizen takes the time to write into the Post about his concerns and the WashCycle leaps to conclusions about his driving habits. (No, I not also Mr. Roth)

WashCycle @10.50 I agree with everything you said in the last sentence.

Also, your readers will be happy to know that DDOT cleaned the bike lane this morning and it wasn't even street sweeping day. They had the street sweeper out there and two gentlemen raking leaves and acorns. I have to give credit where credit is due. I was impressed.

[Chris]

They were cleaning it up for the mayor's unveiling, nothing more.

[Washcycle]

Well, DDOT is having a ceremony with the Mayor as we speak, so that is probably the reason for the extra service.

So Mr Roth was either going Northbound or crossing the road. He could have been driving southbound I suppose but as that is illegal and dangerous I'll assume he wasn't. If he were crossing the road it wouldn't matter if a car or a bike were in the left lane as he has to yield to both of them. I don't see how a cyclist riding in the left lane - which is legal under many circumstances - has anything to do with the new configuration except that he seems to think (and he has no way of knowing this) that cyclists are attracted to the paint, which makes very little sense.

So yes, either Mr. Roth failed to yield to the cyclist or he was driving too fast/not paying attention. There is absolutely nothing in his letter that indicates that the cyclist was doing anything dangerous.

I know that he never mentions reflectors or lights. I was trying to give an example of when I would not dismiss criticism of a cyclist. Perhaps my typo of "has" instead of "had" confused you.

[Elmer Fudd Gantry]

All I am saying is that if it was dark and rainy, and he was taking a left onto 15th, or crossing 15th (all assumptions here), he might creep out looking for car headlights and not see a cyclist whom he expected to be in the far right northbound lane. If that's the case, it was just dark and rainy and no one's at fault. The cyclist can be in the lane as you point out and Mr. Roth needs to cross. It just shows that their are design flaws with the current configuration. No one really knows the scenario. All I am asking is that you not jump to conclusions regarding someone's driving habits because it smacks of advocacy before all else. He has concerns and voiced them to the Post, that's all.

I am not anti-cyclist. I casually ride my bike all the time. I just really don't want to have to perform CPR on someone in front of my house. You and I agree on the safest and best options for cyclists, motorists, pedestrians and neighbors. Like you, I just want what is best for everyone. Unfortunately, it's the most expensive for the city.

And thank you for the info on the ceremony. I wasn't aware of that.

[Elmer Fudd Gantry]

Oh yeah. Sorry if I sounded angry. I didn't mean to. I'm really a nice guy, or at least that's what my mom tells me.

[Contrarian]

Please read the letter again. Mr. Roth never states which way he is going. Only that the cyclist is going northbound. He also never mentions if the cyclist does or does not have reflectors. All we know that it was dark and rainy and a cyclist was traveling northbound in the left lane.

Since 15th street is one-way, I'm going to take the logical leap and assume that that the driver was not complaining about the driving of others while going the wrong way on a one-way street.

The author makes it clear what he's advocating for: he wants "the curbside bike lane to be made bi-directional as long as cyclists ride single file. DDOT ought to do that." He doesn't want to share the road with cyclists, and points to his own inability to avoid them as a reason.

We need to challenge the trope that it's somehow difficult for drivers to avoid running over cyclists when they find themselves behind one. I'm sorry, that's a rationalization. If you don't like being stuck behind slower traffic, admit it. If you truly find yourself frequently having near-misses with cyclists you need to take yourself off the road.

[Contrarian]

All I am saying is that if it was dark and rainy, and he was taking a left onto 15th, or crossing 15th (all assumptions here), he might creep out looking for car headlights and not see a cyclist whom he expected to be in the far right northbound lane. If that's the case, it was just dark and rainy and no one's at fault.

Except this is an intersection controlled by a traffic light. Someone has the red and someone has the green.

I guess I should stop being surprised that some people just can't envision that a cyclists could have right of way at an intersection. When a driver violates a cyclist's right of way is it always "no one's at fault"?

[Elmer]

Alright, last post. What about Swann street, or Caroline? There's no light at those intersections.

[g]

I bike north on 15th and turn left on R st, as do many other cyclists (since R st has a bike lane).

I generally ride north on 15th in the rightmost lane, and move over to the left sometime in the block or block and a half before R st, when there is a break in the traffic. When the street had 4 northbound lanes, it never seemed like a problem to have several bikes traveling for a block or so in the left lane before the turn, which also had "extra" space near the parked cars.

Now, with only 3 northbound lanes, taking the left lane feels both more disruptive and more dangerous, as cyclists continuing north are in the right most lane, leaving the center lane for fast-moving auto traffic.

Not sure what the best solution is. Stay right on 15th & then cross with the R st traffic? A 2-way contraflow would solve "my" problem, but maybe would introduce a similar one for those who want to make right turns of 15th.

[Washcycle]

There are two times when a driver would almost hit or hit a cyclist and not be at fault. 1) The cyclist did not have the right of way 2) The cyclist did not take the necessary precautions to be visible - such as biking at night without a head light and rear reflector.

We do not know anything about 2 except that it was night, but since the author didn't mention it, it becomes unlikely that lack of lights were involved. But we know the cyclist had the right-of-way. If a cyclist has the right of way and a driver almost hits them, then the driver made a mistake. It is no more complicated than that. A caveat to this would be an engineering design flaw, which is what I suppose you are arguing. But I feel confident that a driver pulling out from Caroline can see well enough to see an oncoming cyclist in the left lane.

The driver did not claim that he couldn't see the cyclist due to parked cars. He claimed the cyclist was in the wrong place. And he is incorrect.

[Brendan]

Ambiguity and complexity are the biggest dangers to the urban cyclist.

My experience so far is the same as g at 12:04.