Focusing on cycling-pedestrian conflict

Another issue from the BAC/PAC oversight hearing yesterday is that both Jack Evans and Tommy Wells spent a lot of time talking about how to protect pedestrians from cyclists, but almost no time on how to protect both groups from drivers.

Evans complained about cyclists who nearly hit him "on a fairly regular basis" while he's jogging with his dog. He's been hit "3 or 4 times" he claimed. [I've never been hit by a cyclist while running, but I suspect if I had, I'd know just how many times it had happened. I've been hit on my bike by cars 4 times in my life]. He continued to talk about how often he sees cyclists run stop signs and how fast they go on bike trails. He said we need more education, both cars vs. bikes and bikes vs. pedestrians, and we need to figure out how to coexist. So he talked about how to improve 15th for drivers (like him) and how to protect joggers (like him) from cyclists, but he never asked how to protect cyclists and pedestrians from drivers. Despite the fact that drivers are hundreds of times more likely to kill.

I kind of feel like cyclists and pedestrians know how to co-exist, and largely do; but there is obviously room for improvement. Perhaps more education would help, but I suspect Jack Evans and I would have different goals of that education.

Wells brought up the issue of sidewalk cycling in business districts like Penn Avenue SE and Georgia Avenue. He said at one point that "we do need to keep bicycles separated from pedestrians, especially on sidewalks." At the 44:30 mark he asks for the opinion of the two councils on banning sidewalk cycling in select corridors outside the BID.  Apparently there is some talk of banning sidewalk cycling on certain corridors.

I think Wells is making the same mistake about sidewalk cycling that Evans is making about 15th Street - measuring the wrong thing (and once again it is public sentiment).

The right things to measure are crashes, injuries, fatalities, pedestrian traffic volume, etc... and see if we are, in fact, having a problem caused by what is, currently, legal sidewalk cycling. Maybe what we need is a sidewalk cycling speed limit, or a vulnerable user law that dictates that when a cyclist and pedestrian crash, the cyclist has a presumption of guilt (and then we should extend that to drivers when they hit cyclists and pedestrians).

Banning sidewalk cycling on certain roads will require pavement markings on those sidewalks and banning it city or neighborhood-wide is an inelegant solution that ignores the root problem - if, of course, we determine that there even is a problem.

Expanding on the answer that I gave yesterday I'd say it might be appropriate in places, but we should pursue a policy that is more carrot and less stick. Instead of forcing cyclists off sidewalks and onto roads they clearly don't feel comfortable on, we should entice cyclists off the sidewalk with complete streets. Sidewalk cycling is a symptom of bad roads. Let's fight the root cause and not the symptom. (The representatives from the Pedestrian Advisory Council and Bicycle Advisory Council echoed this sentiment). The 15th Street cycletrack reduced sidewalk cycling by 12% (in an area where it is legal), so if you want to reduce sidewalk cycling, that seems like a pretty good way.

I might be willing to accept a ban on adult sidewalk cycling on streets that have a cycletrack or even ones with a bike lane. But otherwise I'd have to see the streets in question and would be reluctant to support those bans. Enforcement and education would be difficult if sidewalk cycling were allowed on one block, and banned on the next.

The Mayor has the power to ban sidewalk cycling on any street. It is telling that none have used it since the law was passed.

Later, Wells brought up this year's fatal bike/ped crash. But that crash happened in an alley. The problem was not sidewalk cycling, but making an unsafe turn (probably at high speed) in an area where sidewalk cycling was already banned. There are only 10 reported bike-ped crashes/year. And 1 fatal crash per decade. I am familiar with the details of two of the four fatal crashes I know of, and neither was on a sidewalk. So I'm not sure he's made a case that there is a problem a sidewalk cycling ban would fix.

It's possible that wide public dissatisfaction is enough of a reason to ban cycling in places. Some of our desire as cyclists to support the 3 foot passing law is that passing closely scares cyclists. Pedestrians have a right to live without fear too, and we need to consider reasonable ways to help with that. Wells notes that he hears a lot from seniors who are "terrified" of cyclists. But, it isn't clear even that there is wide public dissatisfaction with current sidewalk cycling bans.

Wells is clearly talking about only expanding the ban to certain streets and he talked about how important the sidewalk is to children learning to bike.

These two items, as well as 15th street, took up a lot of the councilmembers time. With the exception of a discussion about changing the contributory negligence laws and some talk about crosswalks there was no talk about the danger of cars. The imbalance between how much time was spent talking about how dangerous cyclists were when compared to how much was spent talking about how dangerous cars were, was disconcerting.

Wells does seem supportive of changing the contributory negligence law to comparative negligence, which is a very high (highest?) legislative goal of WABA. I kind of flubbed my answer about the issue, but I wasn't quite prepared to talk about it and I think I covered the basic idea. Wells asked Evans what he thought about contributory negligence, but Evans never answered the question.

 

Comments

[Tom]

If voters perceive a problem about something and complain, regardless if it is a stated goal of that something, it is the right thing for a politician to be worried about.

Unfortunately, politicians are not elected for the correct analysis of a problem and good policy. They are elected by being responsive to constituents.

Wells and Evans are probably not mistaken. They just have a different perspective.

[oboe]

Both Jack Evans and Tommy Wells spent a lot of time talking about how to protect pedestrians from cyclists, but almost no time on how to protect both groups from drivers.

Yes, but unfortunately auto traffic is like the wind or rain. Nothing can be done about it--it simply is. It's up to the marginal figures who live on the periphery of society--that is, the pedestrians and cyclists--to fight over the scraps left behind by the DC City Council's real constituents: out-of-state commuters.

Oh, also too: if you think Evans has any clue what "contributory negligence" is, or what it's implications are, well, all I can say is, kudos for your optimism.

[Jonathan Krall]

Are Evans and Wells aware of the discrimination that is so often experienced by cyclists in DC? When I read "Wells notes that he hears a lot from seniors who are 'terrified' of cyclists," I wonder how he would respond to someone who complained of being terrified of black people?

[Eric_W.]

@Jonathan: Love that comment.

As for me: I am terrified of cars, trucks and busses.

[Richard Layman]

It's unfortunate that I haven't been able to testify on these issues, at Mendelson's hearing or this one, because you're right that the overall issue concerns how streets are designed and managed, whether or not bicyclists feel comfortable riding on streets, and how the responsibility of the motor vehicle/driver in terms of the disproportionate consequence of driver error-rage-entitlement isn't properly weighed in laws, regulations, and enforcement.

And yes, relying on self-reported concerns for driving policy is a mistake, because by its very nature, it's going to be a set of skewed data.