Appearances Matter

Three recent incidents have converged to create the appearance that the MPD is not concerned about vehicular battery or homicide.

First was the Alice Swanson fatality on July 8th. On the Kojo Nnamdi Show, Eric Gilliland of WABA makes the point that in six weeks WABA has had "no information about the cause of the crash...the driver has not been ticketed - if he was indeed at fault" The lack of information is troubling since it makes it difficult for WABA to try and figure out how to prevent this from happening again. There has been little to no word on MPD's investigation into this incident. WABA has been unable to get any response - even a "We do not comment on on-going investigations" - from them. These things take time, and they're sensitive, but the lack of any statement creates the appearance that they aren't doing anything.

On July 23rd Robert Novak hit a pedestrian and drove away - only stopping after a cyclist prevented him from leaving.  Despite reports that the pedestrian was splayed across his hood - bringing Novak's claim that he "didn’t know [he] hit him" into question - Novak was given a $50 citation and sent on his way.

The next day, the MPD instituted a sting on wrong-way cyclists on New Hampshire Avenue NW.

Coming so close on the heels of the Alice Swanson tragedy, this sting creates the appearance that the MPD is blaming the victim - except of course she wasn't wrong way biking.  The MPD would have difficulty explaining why this sting at this location makes sense. In the last ten years there have been only 3 reported bike crashes at 16^th and U and 1 at 16^th and V. Did they do an analysis of traffic accidents and causes and decide that this location needed targeted enforcement? OK, they should release that.

If not it's arbitrary. Arbitrary enforcement is bad. First of all it's wasteful and second, it opens one up to claims of discrimination. Which is exactly how this appears. Why not a day of written warnings? Actually hitting someone and leaving the scene gets you a $50 ticket. Killing a girl - so far - gets you nothing. But break a rule that hasn't ever been enforced, in a place where it can't be shown to be needed and we'll hit you for $25. That does not look good.

It looks worse when DDOT puts out a plan showing that a contraflow bike lane is needed there. So the only difference between what these cyclists were doing and what DDOT plans is a line of paint. Not a legal defense, but it does make MPD's choice of location seem unscientific. I'm fine with a good targeted enforcement plan. But this isn't one. Show me why this law was chosen and this place and you've got me on your side. And it might be nice to couple it with some pro-bike enforcement, like ticketing drivers in the bike lane.

WABA is trying to schedule a meeting with MPD to talk about these very issues

WABA is in the process of scheduling a meeting with the Metropolitan Police Department to urge stronger enforcement of traffic laws and better education of police officers

MPD could learn alot from Lincoln, NE's Police chief

Sharing the road is not just polite, it's the law. Bicycles essentially enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles on the public streets. Motorists need to accord bicycles the same right of way, following distance, and passing protocol that they would another automobile. I see a lot of impatience here. Some motorists view a slower-moving bicycle as an obstruction. Any avid cyclist has their stories of Beavis & Friend flipping them the universal peace sign, crowding them to the curb, making a right turn directly in front of their path, launching a Big Gulp grenade, and otherwise pestering them with obnoxious and dangerous behavior.

Of course he has a unique perspective

I commuted to work by bike for a decade, back when running and triathlons were among my passions.

Thanks to AJ for that tip. They need to address these issues, lest they start to look like the sheriff of Larimer County, Colorado.

This spring, Alderden's traffic deputies stepped up their efforts to rein in those they saw as violators: cyclists who rode two abreast, requiring motorists to edge into oncoming lanes to avoid them.

Among those stopped in May were two riders from Boulder. They said Deputy Brian Ficker told them he didn't appreciate Boulder cyclists riding in his county and told them to return there or face a ticket.

State law permits cyclists to ride two abreast, as long as they don't impede the normal flow of traffic.

To Alderden, that meant they should move into single-file if a car approached.

Bicycle advocates, including the author of the bill, see it differently. It's OK for a car to drive around two cyclists, just as it might for a slow-moving farm vehicle, said state Sen. Greg Brophy.

Since writing this, WABA has come out with an alert on almost the exact same subject (above is my take, below is theirs)

On Friday, August 15, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) will meet with the DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to express concerns over recent actions by the department that are contributing to the sense that bicyclists and pedestrians are not being adequately protected on Washington, DC's roadways.  These actions include:

•    the failure to provide information about the investigation into the death of Alice Swanson;
•    an ill-timed enforcement program targeting cyclists; and
•    the failure to cite a driver for fleeing the scene of a crash.

Six weeks ago, Alice Swanson, a 22-year old cyclist, was killed at the intersection of 20th and R Streets NW.  Aside from an interim report issued by the department, no additional information has been provided by the department that might help prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.  WABA has been trying to get more details from the Major Crash Investigation Unit but repeated calls to the unit have remained unanswered. 

WABA also has serious concerns about the poorly timed and poorly informed recent sting operation against cyclists near 16th and U Streets NW.  With the timing of the enforcement stings so close after the death of Alice Swanson, the department appears to be blaming the victim and the tragedy of Ms. Swanson's death deserves a much more comprehensive approach involving stronger enforcement of traffic laws, and education efforts aimed at ALL roadway users.

WABA is also very concerned by the department's recent response to the incident involving a pedestrian who was struck in a crosswalk on K Street in downtown DC.  As widely reported in the news the driver was cited $50 for failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk - with no arrest or penalty associated with the fact that he had also fled the scene of this crash.  Under Title 50, section 2201.05 of the DC Code, the driver, if found guilty of fleeing the scene of a crash, would be subject to fines of not more than $500, or imprisonment of not more than 6 months.

Since the death of Ms. Swanson WABA has been working with the District Department of Transportation on designing improvements to the intersection where she was killed and also with the DC Council on legislative changes that would better protect those that walk and bike.  However, without better enforcement of traffic laws and better understanding of the laws by police and cyclists, the effects of these efforts will be minimized.  At the MPD meeting WABA will be specifically asking the police for the following:

1)    detailed information about the investigation into Alice Swanson's death
2)    better training of officers in bike and pedestrian laws
3)    distribution of WABA's "Pocket Guide to DC Bike Laws" to all law enforcement officers
4)    increased enforcement of traffic violations
5)    support for increased fines for drivers that strike cyclists or pedestrians

It is the policy of the District of Columbia to promote safe walking and biking and MPD's role in that policy is critical.  WABA will be sure to inform you of the results of the meeting.  If you have any questions or other concerns that you feel need to be addressed please email [email protected]

Comments

[Rocky6]

I couldn't agree more with criticizing the ridiculous MPD delay. Too nitpick, however, it has been more like four weeks, not six, since Swanson's death. No need for WABA to exaggerate there; a month-long wait is plenty for this information.

Further postponement just starts to raise questions about the department's investigative competence.

[Tom]

I think WABA should press to bring the Alice Swanson investigation to a conclusion.

I also think WABA should concentrate on the "B" in WABA. Since Eric mentioned in his interview on Kojo's show that riding on the sidewalk (which includes crosswalk's)is ill-advised for bicyclists I don't think that pedestrian safety is in WABA's sphere of influence. I personally have equal distaste for both cars and pedestrians. At least I can figure out what a car is going to do. The behavior of pedestrians is so random I expect them to get squished from time to time. I think the Novak accident was not typical of any behavior given to the fact that he subsequently was diagnosed with a brain tumor. I'm not sure if Novak will be doing much driving in DC anymore.

As far as the one-way street thing, I wish our advocates good luck in lecturing the police on what laws should and should not be enforced.

Even though riding two abreast is legal I don't know what advantage it is to the left sided cyclist. First, it puts the cyclist closer to being whacked by a driver who is reluctant to cross the center line. Second, it negates all the aerodynamic advantages of having a riding partner. What happens if there is a pot hole or some other road hazard that requires the rider to swerve? Two abreast just seems to be asking for problems. I guess if they wear a helmet it will be ok.

[washcycle]

I think the Novak incident is germane. The cops didn't take it very seriously. If they'll let someone hit a pedestrian and run away, do you think they'll do more to protect cyclists? No way. Pedestrians are the baby seals of the traffic world, and cyclists are ugly old purple burrowing frogs.

The police are free to enforce any law that they choose. But if they're picking them willy-nilly their wasting their time and my money.

I often ride two abreast so I can talk to the other person. I kind of hate the rule that you have to move out of the way. I mean I can still ride in the middle so what's the big deal?

[Jan]

For the last 6 months I've been following closely the issues of car and bike law enforcement in Portland on Bikeportland.org, and all of this happening in DC sounds eerily familiar. The slow investigations, odd and uneven bicycle and car laws enforcement, and non-response of the city police to inquiry of incidents where cyclists are killed is sad. I just don't think metropolitan police have much regard for cyclist safety in general - at least they don't show it at the most important times. Some constructive ideas for metropolitan police everywhere:

1. Be responsive to the public and the community. You serve the community, and your job is made much easier if the community trusts you and sees you as being responsive. It doesn't take a whole lot of resources to provide a written statement to a police intern to return calls to questions regarding incident inquiries, assuming the official persons responsible for being department "spokesman/spokeswoman" is too "busy".

2. Enforce laws that have shown to benefit current problems. If cyclists, motorists, or pedestrians are being killed, step up enforcement in those places where problems are occurring. A cyclist was killed while in a bike lane. Step up enforcement there if laws were broken by either cyclists or drivers, or else, at the very least, drivers blocking the bike lane.

3. Give warnings, written or verbal, instead of tickets in new enforcement action areas. Both cars, cyclists and pedestrians would be far more appreciative to learn that their actions are against the law, and would be MORE likely to obey those laws in the future. Giving tickets is kind of like yelling at someone - it doesn't get you very far toward your ultimate goal - working with the community rather than against it (see item #1 above). Giving tickets without warnings first just makes people angry against the police, and thus more antagonism against the police. Work with people, not against them, and everyone benefits.

Just some ideas.

[old guy]

Great post. But as I've said here before, I tend to have more problems with lousy cyclists than motorists. Riding two abreast is truly ill-advised and rude. Riding in the dark sans lights is illegal and should be ticketed. Riding on the left side around a blind curve ought to be criminal.

[Washcycle]

Why ill-advised? How rude? With you on the lights - though better than giving out tickets is giving out lights.

[Tom]

Rude? Maybe not. But definitely inconsiderate. Maybe I'm wrong but motor vehicles are allowed to use bike lanes in certain instances. When I come up to a bus or car dropping someone off at the curb and it slows me down on my bicycle, I get annoyed. I have to slow down and figure out how to get around this inconsiderate person.

Riding out in the middle of the road at a speed much slower than the speed limit for no particular reason may be a "right" granted by law, but it is inconsiderate to the others on the road (cars). Although your conversations may be brilliant and captivating, I don't think that the cars that are creeping along behind you share your sentiments. Putting your conversation on hold and tucking into a single file so a car can slip by may be more than you are willing to give, but to me it is just a small thing and is sign of goodwill between me and the motorists (a class of people that I sometimes belong to).

I'm real old school. I don't wear a helmet when I ride so I try to do everything in my power to not get hit by a car. That includes not irritating a driver who may be having an argument with his wife on his cell phone or for whatever reason just is hating life or is late for a job interview. Just as I hope drivers are trying not to irritate me. So, I give up the middle of the lane and position myself so cars can get around me. That means I don't always get to my destination as fast as I can but, I have almost always arrived with all my bones connected.

[ibc]

Riding out in the middle of the road at a speed much slower than the speed limit for no particular reason may be a "right" granted by law, but it is inconsiderate to the others on the road (cars).

Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't.

Sometimes I ride as far right as possible (while staying out of the door zone). Sometimes (as on Rock Creek Parkway) it's unsafe for autos to pass unless they can see there is no oncoming traffic. One way to ensure that autos are *not* going to pass unless there's no oncoming traffic is to take the lane. At that point, two are the same as one.

The thing is, the *cyclist* is going to decide which is which.

If that upsets you in some way, that's something you are going to have to work through, but really it's not my problem.

Cheers.

[washcycle]

ibc, you sort of wrote my response for me. I never want to block traffic just to block traffic. If I can ride to the right and be safely passed, that's what I'll do. But if I can't then what's the difference between taking the lane and riding two abreast? I will note that I don't recall ever breaking the law on this one. I move over to single file in the middle of the lane - giving the car a longer line of cyclists to pass.

[Tom]

Ok wash you win. I can't hit a moving target. You said that you ride two abreast so you can talk to your buddy. That in most cases is not safety related. I said for no reason at all. I too will ride in the middle of the road to avoid delivery trucks, potholes and also cross lanes to make a left turn. That is for a purpose. Most driver will respect that.

The difference between riding two abreast and taking the lane is functional. You take the lane for safety reasons and stay in the lane until the hazard passes. Riding two abreast is usually for social reasons and has no bearing on safety. I thought you would know that.

I think that I was clear that I don't think you were breaking the law. Just flaunting your rights, which is not necessarily nice.

ibc: It's how the driver deals with the fact that you are riding two abreast and blocking traffic that I'm worried about. Just look at the two abreast cyclists in LA who got in the pissing contest with the doctor who slammed on his breaks. I sure the thought going through the bikers mind as he sailing head first toward the Mercedes rear window was: "I'm glad I exercised my rights. If only this driver had taken the confident cyclist course. He'd know he was a bad man for getting angry at me."

[washcycle]

Tom, you asked what the advantage of riding two abreast was and I said you can talk to your buddy. I said nothing about blocking traffic (but did say I don't like having to change my configuration) and neither did you.

But then in your next comment you mentioned "the cars that are creeping along behind" me. So it's clear we were no longer talking about the same situation. You were talking about riding two abreast with a car behind you and I was not.

So I talked about what you were talking about. Biking two abreast with a car behind you. Of which I feel there are two scenarios - you can safely get out of their way or you can not.

In the second case, I'm going to take the center of the lane and so will my buddy. How am I now blocking traffic less than by biking two abreast?

The law in DC is that you can ride two abreast unless a car is behind you. So while I concede you never claimed it's illegal, it is - and that's why I discussed it.

I apologize if my lack of clarity appeared to you as though I were dodging or putting words in your mouth. I intended to do neither.

[ibc]

It's how the driver deals with the fact that you are riding two abreast and blocking traffic that I'm worried about.

I'm still not sure what you're on about. I've been riding for 20 years in an urban environment, and never been assaulted physically.

For every "mad LA doctor" story you can find, I can find a dozen other senseless assaults over ice cream cones, parking spaces, or whatever the hell else the human mind can get exercised over.

Let's put it this way: I'm not going to remove the Obama bumper sticker from my car because some asshole shot the Arkansas chair of the Democratic party. I'm not going to wait until everyone in a parking lot has found a space before daring to park in my own.

And I'm not going to let the statistically insignificant chances of my perfectly reasonable and legal behavior pissing off some anger-management case keep me from going outside.

Anyway, by your logic, if the remaining cyclists had beaten the living shit out of that guy--another likely outcome given the circumstances--I doubt we'd be making up silly quotes to put in his mouth as his teeth were getting knocked out.

Sorry, the only reason people have an issue with side-to-side riding is that the lane is too narrow to pass in. That's the case with pretty much every lane in the city I live in. So if you want to pass me, you can wait until it's safe to do so. At some point, you can't let cowardice rule your life.

[old guy]

When I decry riding two abreast, I'm mainly referring to shared paths. You have an eastbound lane and a westbound lane. When you use both going eastbound, it's dangerous for everyone and rude to anyone who wants to pass.

More generally, why ride 2 abreast except to converse? Conversing is to give less than 100% attention to cycling. For my part, cycling is dangerous enough when I'm 100% focused.

Finally, when soneone is riding to my left, it constrains somewhat my options for avoiding trouble. I've also witnessed Fred #1 on the left drift right as Fred #2 on the right drifts left with both going down. Funny but for the young woman behind them who sustained a serious neck injury, thus ending a promising racing career.

Give tickets or lights? I don't see them as alternatives. Do both. Educate too.

[ibc]

Not to be flippant, but I think people that ride two abreast on multi-use paths and can't even stay in their own lane should be shot...