TheWashCycle

WABA asks cyclists to ride responsibly

In the wake of the recent death of Quan Chu after being hit by a cyclist who then left the scene, WABA is reminding cyclists of their responsibilities on the road, and asking them to pledge to be more responsible. Cyclists are asked to pledge to be responsible, to respect the rights of road users, to better follow the law, to yield to pedestrians, and to help make cycling easier and safer for all. I think this is a great step for cyclists to take. We have to recognize that we play a part in road safety as well, not just for ourselves but for others too. And while I have sometimes been critical when we've been held to a higher standard than other road users, it doesn't hurt to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

As Daniel Hoagland of WABA put it

it's not true that most cyclists are scofflaws, but understands why that's a widely held belief.

"The ones who do break the law are the ones who are most visible and they're certainly the ones who will be most remembered by motorists who are sitting patiently at a red light when a cyclist blows through past them," Hoagland says.

"They're the ones who reflect on the rest of us and we just want cyclists to take that into account when they're deciding what to do at the next intersection."

To further drive ride home the message, WABA will be hosting a New Year's Resolution Ride on Jan 8th.

We at WABA are resolving to ride more responsibly and we want everybody who rides a bike to join us in this effort. Using the road responsibly isn't about laws or lane markings, it's about respecting other road users. We all have the right to use the roads, but with that right comes the responsibility to use them respectfully. Help WABA and your fellow DC area bicyclists make the roads safer and more fun for everybody by riding more responsibly in 2011!

Nobody wants to be that person who hits and injuries someone else with their bike, and besides being the right thing to do, riding responsibly is certainly in your own best interest. Responsible riding, by the way, involves staying on the scene - and rendering assistance if necessary - if you are involved in a collision.

Hope to see you at the ride, and riding responsibly in 2011.

Update: More from the WABA press release:

“WABA is always working in the community and in area schools to provide safety education for cyclists and pedestrians,” says WABA Executive Director Shane Farthing, “but we felt that rather than avoiding the difficult issues raised by the death of a pedestrian due to a cyclist’s failure to yield appropriately, we should address the issue of riding responsibly as an opportunity to better educate WABA's members, other cyclists and our community as a whole.”

Tour de Links - Dope

Maillot Jaune: A study out of Australia show that in 87% of car-bike crashes, the driver of the car is at fault.

The helmet camera study found that of the 54 incidents recorded, more than 88 per cent of cyclists travelled in a safe and legal way.

Conversely, drivers changing lanes and turning left without indicating or looking were the cause of more than 70 per cent of the incidents...

Podium: Contador's team is standing behind him for now, while Spain's beef producers stand behind their product. Meanwhile, investigating Lance Armstrong is fraught with political hurdles.

Podium: Some NYC city hall employees use the bike lanes they advocate for.

Podium: A doctor on Huffington Post argues that helmets should be mandatory for cyclists and motorcyclists. He quotes the same bad research that everyone else quotes. Except that now, helmets are 95% effective - no citation given. And only 8% of cycling fatalities were wearing helmets in 2008 (it was 9% and it's still likely wrong). But as with all the other doctors who weigh in on this, he doesn't take the time to understand these "facts". His logic could also be used to require helmets on motorists or pedestrians; or for mandatory sunscreen or condom use laws. A better article would have been "Head injuries, why motorcyclists and bicyclists should wear helmets" backed up with real, up-to-date cited science. As it is, he's saying "trust me, I'm a doctor." Which makes me want soda.

Maillot Vert: NYC starts a campaign telling road users "Don't be a jerk". In it there is information that John Pucher is doing a study of cycling and transportation in several cities, including DC.

In Chicago, Dr. Pucher said, taxi and bus drivers are required to take courses on safe driving with cyclists.

In Portland, motorists ticketed for cycling-related violations can take education classes in lieu of paying a fine. Paul Steely White, the executive director of Transportation Alternatives, would like to see similar practices adopted in New York.

Maillot a Pois Rouge: An airless bicycle tire and a light, but powerful e-bike win "Best of 2010" awards from popular science. "The Serenity consists of a solid tube-like core made from a foam-type material, and an exterior rubber tread. No air means there are no pressure adjustments to make and, even better, no flats. It’s lightweight and long-lasting, and you can add a new tread without having to replace the whole tire."

Maillot Blanc: Sen. Mitch McConnel used an earmark to help build a bike path in Louisville, KY.

Lanterne Rouge: A NYC artist has an interesting project "She is halfway through an ambitious project to capture downtown denizens riding on two wheels down each of the approximately 200 streets below 14th Street." Quick, somebody in DC copycat her.



Not everyone is in love with CaBi

Jorge Gardala-Maria of the GW Hatchet writes an article asking if Capital Bikeshare is such a good idea.

He's worried that people who use CaBi will be irresponsible and cites examples of cyclists riding legally, though probably not safely, on the sidewalk; without helmets and while drunk.

But he actually doesn't have any proof that CaBi "contributes to the prevalence of riding without helmets." I see many CaBi riders who do wear them (myself included) and many non-CaBi users who do not. So, I think that is a fear, but not a fear based in fact. He also doesn't ask the question of whether the benefit of "contributing to the prevalance of riding" doesn't outweight the risk of doing so "without helmets".

In addition to worrying about cyclists riding on the sidewalk, he's worried about them riding in the street, since not everyone is as experienced as he is.

After riding my bike from sea to shining sea - literally, from San Francisco to D.C. - I learned traffic patterns, like where it's safe and not so safe to ride on the road, and other important skills to know for riding on the busy streets of D.C.

I spent 67 days riding my bike this summer and there have been times when I still don't feel comfortable with D.C. drivers, so it flustered me how some CaBis feel so confident riding next to traffic. These skills don't come with the simple click of the "Join" button on the Capital Bikeshare website, and unfortunately many never get that message.

Maybe they feel confident because they also have extensive riding experience, and most of there's is not in the wide open spaces of America's flyover states but in cities or even in DC?

He's also worried about drunk biking, which is a legitimate concern (really, not cool) but the source of his worries are some rumors he heard.

So, while I echo his concern for safe, courteous cycling, I think it has more to do with people and little to do with CaBi. You should not limit your good behavior to when you're on one of DC's red and golds.

 

I'm not sure you know what "right of way" means

During a Dr. Gridlock chat last week a cyclist wrote in about an aggressive driver who honked at them and threatened to run them off the road on the K Street service lane. The cyclist asked why the driver would be in that lane among other questions. To which Dr. G responded that, basically, you can't understand crazy.

Well, Hugh O'Neill of DC wrote in with some serious windshield perspective based advice.

Surely the cyclist must share some of the blame for not yielding the right of way to the motorist who was legally using the service road. The cyclists actions were not only selfish, but even dangerous.

He or she could have taken the moral high ground and engaged in safer behavior by pulling aside, instead of being apparently annoyed and pigheaded by refusing to yield to the bigger and heavier automobile.

Jim Sebastian of DDOT and Glen Harrison of WABA both point out that the cyclist was legally using the service road. And I would argue that O'Neill was wrong about the driver. If you're honking at a cyclist (or anyone really) in front of you to get out of your way and driving in an aggressive and threatening manner, that probably is not "legally using the service road."

Both O'Neill and Harrison make the point that a cyclist should probably avoid a driver like this, and if that means pulling over where it is safe to do so, then maybe that is a good idea.

But O'Neill's point that the cyclist was at fault is really blaming the victim. Would you call a kid who refuses to give up his lunch money to the school bully "selfish and dangerous?" Perhaps Mr. O'Neill does not know that this is a joke.

Tour de Links and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Maillot Jaune: Bike funding is down this year. Off last year's record highs, but still very high compared to the average.

Podium: More about the election "John Schadl, [James Oberstar's] spokesman, told OpenSecrets Blog that the change in leadership will cause a shift away from decreasing a dependence on foreign oil and increasing incentives for alternative types of transportation, such as biking and high-speed, inter-city rail systems. 'There is little vision in the Republican party for those things,' he said."

Podium: BART adds bike parking in a crowded station "The latest step in BART's efforts to improve facilities for bicyclists is a set of spiffy double-deck racks that can hold 64 bikes inside the 19th St./Oakland, Calif., Station. Previously, the only option for bicyclists who wanted to store bikes near the station were the city-owned racks located outside on the street level, which were often filled beyond capacity." Meanwhile LA has continued discussion of it's bike plan because bike advocates are unhappy with it. 

Maillot Vert: Floyd Landis is to be tried for computer hacking. And Lance Armstrong's teammates continue to be interviewed about his use or non-use of steroids.

Maillot a Pois Rouge: Political commentator Fred Barnes thinks Americans would rather be in their cars. "People hate traffic congestion. But they want to get out of their cars about as much as they want to get stuck behind a bicyclist who rides at a donkey’s pace before running through red lights and stop signs." Streetsblog disagrees. So do the facts (where given a choice, many people choose not to drive) and polling data "According to public opinion research by Transportation for America, 57 percent of Americans would like to spend less time in their cars."

Maillot Blanc: An interesting read, much of which I agree with, except for this line (emphasis mine) "But in stark contrast to motorists, nearly all of whom follow nearly all the rules, most cyclists seem to treat the rules of the road as strictly optional." Which even he contradicts later by writing about how drivers park in bike lanes, cut cyclists off, fail to signal, etc...And Bikesnob adds "Salmon makes many excellent points, but I was dismayed to see he fell into the same trap (or, in his case, net) as most other people who try to address this issue, which is to suppose that drivers and cyclists and pedestrians are somehow “different,” or that their nature is somehow determined by their vehicle. Excluding for the moment the fact that many people are pedestrians and cyclists and drivers at various points in the day, a considerate person is a considerate person and an idiot is an idiot, and both will behave as such regardless of how they are propelling themselves at any given moment."

Lanterne Rouge: Some really bad bike lanes. And the "I didn't see him" defense works again.

Two wrongs don't make a right

Lee Cooper wrote in to Dr. Gridlock to complain about two cyclists who buzzed him (?) as he walked on the left hand side of the Wilson Bridge path. Cooper's belief that one should walk on the left is a common one (and one that sometimes carries over to cycling) but it's wrong.

I have always assumed that just as on a road with automobile traffic, it is safest to walk to the left as close to the shoulder as practical, but facing traffic, whether cars or bikes are coming at you, so that you can see vehicles approaching and take evasive action in an emergency.

Dr. Gridlock corrects Cooper, and lets him know that on a trail, users should stay as far to the right as is safe. Regardless of Cooper's mistake, he wasn't treated well by two cyclists

But in an encounter with two bicyclists on this path, they disagreed with my view by using aggressive hand gestures as they approached and expressing contempt for me while they passed close enough to force me to stop in my tracks on the left shoulder.

I can see why the cyclists would be angry, but the best policy is to slow way down and pass with a wide berth. Perhaps politely inform the user of the rules.

Tour de Links

Maillot Jaune: San Francisco has been installing bike lanes - after a four year lag - now that they've finished their court-ordered Environmental Assessment. Meanwhile a clean tech company may not build an HQ in Santa Monica because they are required to build a bike lane on the road through the site.

podium: Bicycling and health

podium: New York gets a safe-passing distance law that doesn't define the safe distance.

Maillot Vert: A positive cyclist-driver interaction ends with the driver deciding to buy a bike.

Maillot a Pois Rouge: A drunk driver who injured a cyclist got 18 months in jail. Another drunk driver who killed a cyclist was "sentenced to concurrent, enhanced, partially aggravated terms of fourteen and thirteen years for manslaughter and aggravated assault respectively and to 180 days in jail for the DUI offenses." She tried to argue that her blood test violated her right to counsel because the first blood draw occurred before she talked to him.

Maillot Blanc: BikePortland asks whether an expansion of highway funding could help cyclists.

Lanterne Rouge: Naked may be indecent, but what's wrong with pants and pasties? Whoever called this in, may want to stay away from Philadelphia's Lemon Hill.

Laurent Fignon, a two time Tour de France winner, has passed away. They all look weird without their helmets on in the above photo.

Former astronaut, and former DC area resident, William Lenoir died last week in what appears to be a single-bike crash.

Bleg: Biking on the mall advice

A reader writes in that they are new to biking and bike on the Mall to get to work. She finds that pedestrians on the sidewalks and paths either don't move when she rings her bell or calls out, move the wrong way and/or give her a nasty look. She's tried many different calls and ringing early or late. But many don't move even when they see her coming at them. She is not interested in biking on Independence or Constitution because she's new to cycling and those don't feel safe to her.

I don't bike on the Mall (in part for the reasons she mentioned), but does anyone have any advice for her? If you bike commute on the Mall, how do you safely and courteously handle the crowds? The only thing I can think of as advice is "patience," but it hardly seems satisfying.

Jail time for hitting cyclists?

You probably heard about the cyclists hit in Chicago by drunk drivers -- for fun.

Now, Adam Voiland of the DC Bicycle Transportation Examiner has brought up the crime-and-punishment point: Should motorists get jail time for hitting cyclists? If this is an issue you care about, Voiland shared the text of the original action letter provided by the Active Transportation Alliance of Chicago.

One of Voiland's points got me thinking:

Regardless of whether the assailants spend significant amounts of time in jail (and, given the precedent not publishing them sets, they ought to get a minimum of six months of the two to five years that are possible), I do hope the state has the sense to ban the men from driving again any time soon.

(Emphasis added). While this advocacy action expresses the general outrage against the ruling (and you gotta admit, hitting cyclists for fun is pretty low on the acceptable-societal-behavior totem pole), I want to know, can they still drive? Making sure it's known that hitting a cyclist makes you lose your license for some amount of time would certainly incentivize people to be more careful on the road.

Post-Bike-Week Letters to Dr. Gridlock

In response to Dr. Gridlock's Bike-to-Work Week blitz of articles and postings, he got some letters about biking. They're mostly negative (and the one positive one wasn't in the print edition).

The first was from a cyclist who says that knowing how to change a flat is not necessary for bike commuting. 

I have contingency plans (well, ideas and experience) for what to do if my bike breaks down on my five-mile route between home and work in downtown Washington. For one thing, I'm always within 2.5 miles of one or the other, not a terrible distance to walk in a pinch.

Sometimes I've simply walked the bike to a convenient place, where I could lock it and fetch it later. At least twice I've hailed a taxi and put my bike in the trunk. I don't carry a cellphone, but that certainly helps under some scenarios, particularly riding home. I carry a pump in my backpack and have used it when there's a very slow leak to ride to a drop-off point or even make it to home or work.

It helps to know the nearest bike shop along my route, as well as Metro stops and parking garages with bike racks. The latter are especially important in case of lightning.

Most important, when my tires are getting bald, I replace them rather than trying to squeeze a few more months out of them. That has really cut down on flats; I can't remember the last time I had one.

I do know how to change a flat, but I have the same philosophy for repairs I can't do. Metro adding bike racks to the front of the bus is what finally got me to bike to work. I figured that if something bad happened, they could be my SAG wagon. I've used it maybe a half dozen times. 

The second letter is about wrong-way cycling. I agree that it is almost always a bad idea, but I don't think it is actually one of the "most common" violations by cyclists. Still, cyclists should not ride the wrong way.

The third letter was from a 60 year old man who's been hit by cyclists three times in the last 18 months. On each occasion he was on the sidewalk in the CBD where sidewalk cycling is illegal. Adding insult to injury, the cyclists were reportedly unconcerned, and in two cases hostile. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior. It's the unholy trinity of illegal, unsafe and rude. Don't do that.

We could dump a bunch of letters on Dr. G about bad driver and bad pedestrian behavior, but I think that would do more harm than good.