TheWashCycle

Ray LaHood at today's Rally

_DSC0082, originally uploaded by Eric Gilliland.

Donning the helmet and bike pin.

You can read more about the event itself at Streetsblog.

Abdul Chadli Ghost Bike

 A ghost bike appeared at the site where Abdul Chadi was struck and killed last week. 

11th Street NW Bike Lanes Extended

IMAG0010, originally uploaded by volcrano.

I earlier said that they stopped suddenly between O and P, but they've been extended up to Rhode Island Ave. Combined with the fake bike lanes - where back in parking was added to deal with Sunday church parking - they sort of connect all the way to Vermont Ave.

Ride to Thank Ray LaHood

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was again on NPR talking about cycling. This time on Talk of the Nation. Before going into it, let me remind everyone to come out today for a ride to the Department of Transportation to thank Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for his leadership on bicycling and pedestrian issues.

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood will greet bicycle riders outside USDOT headquarters to accept a thank you letter signed by over 275 organizations nationwide for the Secretary’s leadership on bicycle and pedestrian issues. LaHood has issued a new policy to make bicycling and walking safer and more accessible, setting the stage for creating livable communities that polls show Americans want.

Leaders from America Bikes, Safe Routes to School National Partnership and Transportation for America will bike down the new Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes on their way to USDOT. At the press availability, LaHood and representatives from three transportation organizations will speak and take questions from the media.

Cyclists are meeting up at 12:45 PM at Freedom Plaza. In case you missed it, the bike lanes on Penn aren't actually open.

Below the fold is the transcript edited for bike elements and brevity.

DC has Nation's Third Worst Drivers

Based on a study by GMAC insurance

The national average for the test was 76.2 percent, with below 70 considered failing, according to GMAC Insurance. D.C. drivers were third from the bottom, with an average score of 71.9.

Maryland drivers ranked 20th, averaging 78.2 percent, and Virginia drivers were 28th with scores averaging 77.5 percent.

Applying the test results nationally, almost 20 percent of licensed drivers, or about 38 million motorists, "may be unfit for roads" and wouldn't pass a state-issued written exam if taken today, the study said.

About 25 percent of participants admitted to driving while talking on mobile phones, eating and adjusting the radio or selecting songs on an iPod.

"Save our Trail" Rally and 5K

Pam Browning and team are out again, this time planning a 5K race and rally along the Purple Line corridor to "save the trail."

"We support better public transportation, but we don't believe that we need to destroy the most popular nature trail in the area to accomplish this," said Pam Browning, president of Friends of the Capital Crescent Trail.

I'm not sure this is technically a "nature trail" and this future section of the CCT is hardly the region's most popular, but let's move on to meatier subjects.

Her group said the rail line would require cutting 17 acres of trees and would "destroy" the trail's wooded feel.

That's up 3 acres from last year (was there a change in plans?) when during their 10k (I guess that was too ambitious) and rally they littered the trail with purple ribbons and didn't clean them up. About the 17 (nee 14) acres I wrote:

As for trees, 14 acres is the difference between the high-investment BRT and the low-investment BRT on the entire route. Between the low-investment BRT (the only one that doesn't use the Georgetown Branch) and LRT, it's more like 7-12 depending on which system you use, but the section in question appears to be about 9 acres (comparing the low BRT to the mid BRT both of which use the same route almost everywhere but in Chevy Chase) (See Table 4.10-1). So that's more like 8 football fields. The mitigation plan hasn't been defined yet, so it's unclear how much of that we'll get back, but clearly, trees will be replanted where possible. Perhaps, the entire right of way could be claimed by the county and extra trees planted to make up for the lost ones. Perhaps they could be planted on land the Country Club has encroached on.

When the Purple line is built, it will include a trail and it will be paved and connect to the Met Branch Trail in Silver Spring. It will also include bridge crossings at Connecticut and at Jones Mill Road.

And no one rides the Silver Line either...

Sam Ford with ABC 7 had a report last night about the Pennsylvania Avenue bike lanes. In it he, and Leon Harris, repeatedly note that no one is using them.

Leon Harris: "I've been up and down Pennsylvania Avenue and I haven't seen very many bikes out there."

Sam Ford: "Indeed, Leon, that been one of the issues; that there haven't been that many bikes here and it is a factor if this pilot program becomes permanent.

Between rush hours today we stood and watched these bike lanes - sometimes 5 to 10 minutes - and would see nothing rolling at all.

AAA reports that between 36000 and 39000 vehicle a day travel on Penn, but bike traffic....?"

"I haven't seen any bikers since they turned it into two lanes," said one cabbie.

Planners will consider three factors, usage, safety and congestion. Clearly AAA and cab drivers are complaining about congestion, so I guess the message for bike riders might be "use it or lose it, and try not to have an accident"

Wow. I mean rarely do you get to see such a public display of utter incompetence. Sam, THE BIKE LANES ARE NOT OPEN YET. If you don't see cyclists using them (and at one point in the video you can see someone riding in the traffic lanes) it is because THE BIKE LANES ARE NOT OPEN YET.

That he doesn't know a pretty fundamental part of the story shows that not only did he not interview anyone from WABA, he didn't even interview anyone from DDOT. The only group he did interview is good old AAA-Mid Atlantic. Spokesman John Townsend latches on to the DDOT redesign excuse and makes it his own. 

"What then becomes the impact when cones are removed and you have traffic pouring into the bike lanes by mistake?" asked AAA Mid-Atlantic's John Townsend. "The design is confusing to cyclists; it's also confusing to motorists." 

Despite footage of a driver driving in the bike lane (even with cones, really? FAIL) I doubt you'd have drivers "pouring into the bike lanes." If a driver can't handle not biking in space that is illegal, that sounds like poor driving. He also drops the traffic count for Penn of 39000 cars a day. Considering that Penn still has two to three lanes in each direction, it seems more than capable of carrying that kind of capacity most of the time, what is that 1000 cars per lane per hour. Froggie, a ruling?

You can, by the way, contact ABC7 here and let them know that Sam must be spending all of his time at work playing minesweeper, because he sure as heck isn't doing journalism.

Here is what I wrote:

Last night Sam Ford reported that few cyclists were using the bike lanes on Pennsylvania. Is he aware that those lanes are closed? And that DDOT has specifically asked cyclists NOT to use them until they are open? Did he bother to interview DDOT? Why did he interview AAA, but not WABA?  If ABC 7 reporters can not be counted on to provide critical facts in a story (central facts really) or balanced reporting how can ABC 7 be trusted?

Also, he went down between rush hours? You mean like, when most people are at work and traffic is slow. Why not go at three in the morning? Oh and did I mention: THE LANES ARE NOT OPEN YET.

And what's with the" try not to have an accident" line at the end? Why don't you tell drivers not to crash into cyclists? Avoiding accidents is not JUST our responsibility. And most fatal crashes in the area that I've covered have been the driver's fault.

Sam, let Tom Sherwood show you how it's done.

When the lanes "officially" open -- they're being used by cyclists already -- the city will hold a grand-opening ceremony. 

See how he learned that the lanes aren't open and there will be a grand opening later. It's called journalism. That's why you're standing in the middle of Penn and Leon gets to sit in the studio. 

I wish the headline for Sherwood's story had been better than "New D.C. Bike Lanes a Bust," and I wish he'd dig deeper than the official story we're being told. 

the new bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue wound up too wide and too confusing to both cyclists and motorists.  Too many vehicles were swerving into the lanes thinking they were traffic lanes.  Some intersections were too confusing.

The city is scrambling now to narrow the lanes to make them look like traditional bike lanes. The city also is adding visual clues on the surface to alert cyclists and motorists.  District officials said it'll take about three more weeks to get it right.

But at least he didn't just spew out AAA-MidAtlantic's official line. And he actually interviewed a decision maker.

Ward 1 Council member Jim Graham, who supports the bike lanes, said the bike lanes have another impact.  He said they slow traffic in the neighborhoods.

The streets are there for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, Graham said.

So Sam Ford, I guess the message to you is that you should try not to be completely lazy and find out at least a little bit about something before you "report" on it. And try not to get fired.

Cycling Safety Does Start with Cyclists

GGW posted a letter by cyclist Adam Irish asking other cyclists to stop at red lights and stop signs. 

By neglecting the rules of the road, errant cyclists not only endanger their own safety, but the safety of drivers, pedestrians, and above all, other bicyclists.

If bicyclists want to be treated equally on the road, they need to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. A biker running a stop sign should be just as likely to get a ticket as a motorist doing the same. This is certainly not the case in the status quo.

Sure it is, neither is likely to get a ticket. 

One bothersome thing about this letter is that it lacks any facts to back it up. I know of no information about bike-bike crashes or fatalities (though I've looked extensively) so I doubt that Adam can back up the statement that cyclists risk the lives of other cyclists "above all".  Above all, and by a huge margin, when you bike like an idiot you endanger yourself.  Nor does he show a large correlation between illegal cyclist behavior and safety. I'm not saying there isn't one, I just think driver behavior is probably a bigger player in road safety (and even in cyclist safety). 

The thing about this argument, and I've heard it before, is that it is built on two, IMO, fallacies:

1. legal behavior=safe behavior
2. if cyclists follow the law then drivers will treat them with respect. 

Our goal in writing the law should be to make the first statement true. But there are times when legal and safe don't match up (like biking on DC-295, which may be legal, but probably isn't safe). There are also times when illegal and unsafe don't match up - like the Idaho Stop. It's illegal but safe (and possibly even safer than the status quo). So while I'm not telling everyone to run out there and break the law, if what you want is safe cycling than ask cyclists to ride safely, not legally. 

His second point is a bit stronger. I think the reputation cyclists have as scofflaws does hurt us. But I'm not sure how to change that. As I've noted before even legal behavior raises the ire of some motorists. I've even been yelled at to get on the sidewalk in places where it was illegal. Just the other day a driver yelled at me for not running a red light because I was blocking her from turning right on red (where it was signed as illegal). So, I'm skeptical that it would change the opinion of that many people. If drivers insist that we obey the law as much as they do, I think we're already there, and I suspect we actually follow it more often than they do. 

Until then, DC bicyclists need to take the initiative to obey traffic laws without enforcement for the sake of safety and courtesy. After all, they go hand in hand — just ask an infuriated driver or a cyclist who has met one.

I think cyclists need to take the initiative to bike safely and courteously, but not entirely sure the two go hand in hand (except that it is discourteous to bike dangerously. So all safe cycling is courteous. But some courteous moves have nothing to do with safety). To believe that cyclists are going to change their behavior - behavior that is probably pretty rational and safe - just to appease drivers (when what we really need is a change in the law) is idealistic to the extreme.  If getting cyclists to follow the law when it is only for political purposes were easy, someone would have pulled it off by now. 

Interview with Shane Farthing

GGW has an interview with new WABA Executive Director Shane Farther. Some highlights below:

The new director's priorities include improving outreach to communities that are or could be bicycling but are not sufficiently engaged with the rest of the city's bike community. "WABA needs to reach outside its core demographics in order to serve all different types of cyclists [and] I intend to make WABA more active outside its core geographic areas of influence," he said.

Farthing is also interested in renewing the organization's focus on law enforcement issues. Seeing that DDOT has made great strides in bicycling infrastructure, he believes that "the next major step for the District involves integrating cyclists in other ways, such as ensuring that safety laws are enforced and fairly applied." In addition to changing the contributory negligence standard, Farthing would like to see consideration of "other laws that are more tailored to the realities of urban cycling."

Yes. Getting rid of contributory negligence would be nice, and is he talking about the Idaho Stop? Farthing has a legal background and he thinks that can I help (I agree).

In any form of advocacy, I think that law is a key tool. It is law that provides the rules of the game, and one key goal of bicycle advocacy is a set of rules that are appropriate for cyclists and fairly applied. Having a clear knowledge of how laws are made, applied, and integrated into behavior informs strategic decision-making and provides another method, in addition to pure education and issue advocacy, to impact social behavior. Different situations call for different approaches, but I hope that the addition of legal advocacy to WABA's toolkit will make the organization more effective in pursuing its mission.

Though this blog probably focuses too much on facilities, because that's what I'm interested in, I recognize that the law probably plays a bigger role in making a bike-friendly city.

Cyclist's Ed in the Schools

Fionnuala Quinn, a FABB board member had a letter to the Post this week in response to Ashley Halsey's article about the conflict between drivers and cyclists. Quinn calls for more bicycle education in schools.

Comprehensive school bicycle curricula abound in Europe. I recently visited a Belgian program where 10-year-olds receive 30 hours of bicycle training during the school year. The students spend 20 hours riding in traffic, and they have to pass a four-kilometer road test. With this level of education, students are likely to grow up to have a much better understanding of bicycles in traffic, whether they are riding or driving.

The successful bicycling that can be seen in Europe is in part a reflection of a commitment to teaching the population how to share the right of way. We instruct our 16-year-olds on how to drive cars, so why not take a little time to learn about safe bicycling on our roads also? We would all benefit.

I think it's a great idea.

Another good idea would be to require the completion of a Smart Cycling course prior to getting a driver's permit. I love to throw this one out when people suggest that cyclists be licensed. In order to get a commercial driver's license you have to get a normal driver's license first; so in order to get a driver's license shouldn't one have to get a cyclist's license first?