« Choose bike boulevards over bike lanes around H Street, NE | Main | Bicycle Route »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Advocates have been begging for better enforcement for years! WABA tried to have an MOU with MPD, the BAC supported CM Graham's bike mounted TCO's doing enforcement while also pleading for a full traffic enforcement divison at MPD and the new Director has written several emails to CM Mendelson regarding the poor quality of enforcement and training of MPD officers. All requests either never came to fruition or were simply ignored.

Cyclists and pedestrians are dying for better enforcement.

I think you make some really excellent points that I hope somehow reach the same audience as the Post's editorial.

The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. If you want to encourage cycling, its not just about CaBi and bike lanes, but enforcing the traffic laws that protect everyone. Focusing on one death by a cyclist, and ignoring the numerous deaths from cars: so numerous that we don't even think its news, but OMG SOMEONE GOT KILLED BY A CYCLIST! Its so rare that it makes the news. More people in region are killed by LIGHTNING (including at least one cyclist)

There will be a backlash and we (all of us who ride) will persevere. The numbers will out, but it will take some steel in the spine to make it through the BS-storm. We are still dealing with a city that considers painting the bike lanes a different color as a bridge too far.

this is so well put i want to buy you dinner! seriously! where can i send the money? what rstaurant do you want to take the partner to this holiday season?...let me know... you should be rewarded and recognized for the public service you offer.

i doubt any one will listen...because bigots dont, and by definition, *cant* listen, as they dont have the concepts necessary: to be heard is to be responded to. that the POST could write that editorial indicates they are blind to the relevant issues, and bigoted in their point of view.

oh well. this doesnt take away from your excellent commentary!

and the commentary(s) on your commentary are excellent as well!!

re enforcement, MPD, DDOT -- there's scraps of evidence out there that bike facilities/infrastructure increases bicyclist traffic code compliance. So if one thinks scofflaw bicyclists are a problem requiring intervention, then DDOT's work is contributing to the solution (just not by the preferred tool of the angry mobs, enforcement)

It was a disjointed editorial, as if they had two ideas for separate editorials on different days, and then just decided to paste them together.

But I think that the Post editorial does offer a strategic opening to call for enforcement in a non-divisive way. The problem, as we all know, is that resources are too little for serious enforcement of traffic laws that the population has no intention of obeying. The cameras only work well for red lights and expressways and quasi expressways.

Stings tend to be PR events, that do little to change long-term behavior. Fine, ticket cars going through crosswalks or passing cyclists, or cyclists riding in the left lane for a few days. Behavior does not change.

Conceivably, an effort to police ourselves would work, but aside from left-lane riding, it tends to be a low priority.

One idea I would like to see--which maybe we would see if we had another 4 years of Gabe Klein or someone like him. Give DDOT officers authority to enforce certain infractions on certain priority roads. And then have zero tolerance for any infractions by anybody on those roads. Then cyclists and drivers alike could factor that into their decision making.

Do I feel like getting there a little faster with the former bike messengers and drivers who seem to be from Boston? Or do I feel like riding with cyclists and drivers who all seem to be from Germany?

I feel a little like both, depending on the day and how I feel, Jim! :D

Although you do a good job at pointing out the downsides of the editorial, Washcycle, I'd point out that it focuses on the responsibilities of cyclists, in part, "to prevent the kind of backlash against cycling that has occurred in other cities."

In other words, I don't think there's that huge a gap between your point about the "angry mob" and the point of the editorial.

Chris, That reads to me as "concern trolling". It's not written by a cyclist who has to dodge cars in bike lanes. It's not written by someone with Alice Swanson in mind. It's not written by someone who has read struck in dc. It's written by somebody who thinks cyclists need a crackdown, or at best, someone who wants the approval of the angry driver.

Neil, are you talking about my post or the editorial itself? I can assure you that I'm a daily bike commuter and I share all of the concerns and have all of the experiences you have. Washington Post editorials are almost always "on the one hand, on the other hand," and I'm just trying to look on the bright side.

The washington post editorial page is staffed almost entirely with disingenuous douchenozzles. This piece is just Exhibit Z.

"Want to make the DC area's transportation infrastructure multi-modal? Well, the first thing you have to do is crack down on Hispanic boys on BMX bikes who kill elderly Asian people in alleyways!"

Fucking Hiatt-based imbecility at it's finest.

So "an increased emphasis on the responsibilities of cyclists" is paraphrased as "a crackdown on bad cycling"? How is this helpful?

1) You have to read the whole thing for context. To do otherwise is cheating.

2) I tire of justifying my actions or words to you guez, and it's kind of arrogant to constantly demand it. I don't answer to you. If you think it causes harm, why don't you make that case.

Washcycle,

It was a rhetorical question. And I did read the whole thing. I don't consider "enforcing the traffic laws, which apply to bicycles as well as cars" as a crackdown.

And one more thing: where in earth did you get the idea that I was demanding that you justify yourself? I expressed a disagreement. It's up to you whether you want to respond. You don't have to refute everything.

The Post asked for more enforcement of the law specifically for cyclists. How does this differ from a crackdown?

You actually didn't express a disagreement. You asked a question that implied that I was somehow causing harm with my opinions (which of course, you never backed up).

You asked me to defend my opinion as helpful. Isn't that the exact definition of "justify"?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader