Dr. Bikelock - Cyclists who refuse to get on the bike path

A continuing series where I attempt to answer bike related questions that Dr. Gridlock gets in his chats.

Q I want to share the road, really I do, but here's my question: is it okay for drivers to be even slightly annoyed when bikers ride on Rock Creek Parkway (Beach Drive) when there is a bike path just steps away? The parkway is a one-lane, winding road with no shoulder. Frankly, it's dangerous to come around a curve to traffic that is stopped due to a biker on the road. I mean, shouldn't cyclists be required to use the bike path when one is available? I think everyone needs to strike a balance in these situations.

Dr. Bikelock: Your feelings are OK. You may feel annoyed if that's what you'd like. You'll be healthier if not, but I'm not going to tell you what to feel. It might help to remember that that cyclist is one person who is not taking a parking space from you and represents hundreds of others who won't slow you down because they aren't in cars. Studies show that cyclists reduce congestion.

The bike path is actually a mutl-use path and it isn't really safe or suitable for fast cycling.

If you find that you're going so fast that you're out-driving your vision, then you need to slow down.

Requiring cyclists to use the bike path would actually make them less safe, so, no, they shouldn't be required to do so. You're more than welcome to use 16th Street as an alternative to Beach Drive if you find that Beach Drive is too slow or unsafe.

Dr. Gridlock: Bikers aren't required to use the path, and I know what they say about the trail: That it's in no condition to handle modern bike traffic and is at least as dangerous for cyclists as riding on the parkway.

Sharing the parkways is certainly an issue. The park service recently restated the often-ignored ban in cycling on the George Washington and Clara Barton Parkways. I've done several Dr. Gridlock columns presenting exchanges of views on this.

Here's a link to one: http://wapo.st/nOWYEi

Q.Dear Dr. "G"-- I'm happy to "share the road" with cyclists, IF they follow the rules. But when they whiz dangerously past me on the right when I'm properly stopped at a red light, and then they do a "fake-right-turn, fake-U-turn, fake-right-turn" maneuver at the crossroads to run the red light that I am stopped at, and then they glide on, blocking the road beyond the intersection when the light changes, I wonder who is sharing what with whom? If this cyclist had been in an auto, "road rage" would be the term for her/his behavior. "Share the road" can work, but we need rules. To be allowed on public roads, all bicycles should be required to have officially-issued licenses and large legible license plates. They should have warning bells and should use them whenever overtaking autos or pedestrians. The cycles and their riders should have lights and bright reflective markings at night. And they should operate on the public roads by the same rules as motor vehicles - including not cheating at lights and turns. Funny -- in the small town I grew up in, this was all required sixty years ago. "Share the road" can work. But it will NOT work if the cyclists want it all their own way. Alongside the President, I am an optimist -- but my optimism is so far a hope, not a reality. Cyclists, WABA, all -- hey, folks, be positive and do your share. Help set some rules -- visible, enforceable rules -- so the bad actors with two wheels can be identified, and the rest of the pedalers don't suffer. Thanks.

Dr. Bikelock: It's frustrating when other road users behave badly. Nonetheless, you're still required to share the road with them. This includes cyclists. There is no conditional element with it. You're legally obligated to share the road safely, regardless of others' behavior.

I don't think what you're seeing is road rage, but rather quasi-legal behavior. It might be bad cycling, but I don't see any signs of rage - except from you.

License plates on bikes would be an unworkable mess and would not solve the problem you claim to want to fix.

Bikes are already required to have bells, and if used at night, lights and reflectors. Forcing cyclists to ring bells when passing cars makes as much sense as forcing drivers to honk their horns when passing each other - or less, since most bells probably can't be heard inside a car.

Cyclists should behave in a safe and courteous manner. Not all do, but WABA has gone to great lengths to encourage them to do so.  I know most cyclists would love more enforcement of traffic laws, as long as it's balanced. Would you?

Dr. Gridlock: As I know the folks at WABA would say, cyclists are required to obey the same laws as drivers when they're on the public roads.

Like you and many other travelers, I've seen cyclists ignore those laws, especially at intersections. In fact, I'm surprised at your description of the elaborate technique for getting through the intersection. More often, the cyclists I see just blow the stop sign clean and ride straight across.

But to me, the bottom line is that if you believe in sharing the road, you share the road. You don't decide that one category of traveler is the official representative for the entire category and if that person violated the rules than no one else in that category is entitled to courtesy.

Comments

[Joe]

Now Dr. Gridlock is against bicycles on the road but by his logic we should also ban cars from the road as drivers annoy each other as well.

Anyone remeber the situation on McArther Blvd where the cop came flying up from behind and pulled a group of cyclists over say they did so because "they are becoming annoying"?

So much for freedom and respect. Now it dictate and ban. So when do we start banning peds from the bicycle trails because they are annoying or will bicycles be banned from bicycles trails because they are annoying to the peds?

Still waiting to see the speed limit and stop signs inforced on us poor abused drivers!

[Mike]

I'll support increased bicycle enforcement when drivers start getting license suspensions for entering a crosswalk while stopping. How hard is it to stop at the big white line? If you can't, you shouldn't be driving.

Most of the anti-bike complaints are just people bitching. In real life when someone starts a rant about "all the people on bicycles..." I answer with something like, "This one time, I saw this guy in a car, and he was driving like a dick. Please respond." Point is, people in all modes behave badly. If you're really interested in safety, start with targeting the behaviors that actually kill people (and not the ones that annoy you personally). How many people have been killed in the last year by bicyclists not obeying stop signs? How many have been killed by drivers speeding or not respecting crosswalks? Now, where should the enforcement be targeted?

[Arl Rider]

The letter-writer is right about the "right turn, U-turn, left turn" maneuver, however. It may be "quasi-legal," but I see it practiced at least twice a week by other riders, and usually to save thirty seconds at most. It's particularly dangerous because it requires the bicyclist to have awareness of far too many variables: the traffic light at which they're waiting; traffic both ways on the street perpendicular to the desired direction of travel (usually there is enough to prevent the cyclist from going through the red light directly), whether anyone is pulling out of a parking spot or driveway in both directions, and pedestrians in the crosswalk on both sides of the intersection at which the maneuver is performed. Cyclists are deluding themselves when they think they're doing this safely. And even if there are a few with the skills of a fighter pilot who can track all the potential hazards, they are inspiring other, less-capable cyclists to imitate them. And, increasingly, for drivers of motor vehicles to do the same thing. There are a lot of reasons to ride a bike rather than drive a car -- red light avoidance doesn't need to be one of them.

[Crickey7]

Amen, Arl.

There are two justifications given for running red lights (putting aside the relatively uncommon light sensor problem). It does no harm to anyone, and the less noble "because I can."

It's not the cyclists' call as to whether it's safe any more than it is any other road user. And the second, which is really the most common one, is just plain selfish.

[Michael H.]

One item puzzles me - why some letter writers focus so much on cyclists cheating on lights and turns. I see car drivers doing the same thing, all the time. Some drivers treat a red light as a stop sign when there isn't much car traffic around.

(Apparently, running through a red light is only dangerous if there are other cars around. It's not a problem if there are only pedestrians and cyclists in the immediate area.)

[GMB]

Amen, Arl and Crickey7.

I do wish Gridlock had pointed out that filtering was perfectly legal. In fact, if the cyclist in question had simply filtered to the red light, without running it, the driver would have been in the same situation.

Also, I would love to see a rule that bikes ring bells when passing cars, as long as there were a complementary rule that drivers in car must be able to hear a bike bell. I believe there are well respected studies showing that the sensory deprivation in cars leads to all sorts of driving problems.

Seriously, I wish Dr. Gridlock, who has the ear of so many drivers, would point out that drivers are much more protected, and physically separated, than cyclists, and they should take that into account when they are driving.

[Greenbelt]

I think drivers who complain on public forums or editorials that they have to swerve into oncoming traffic because of slow-moving bikes in their lane should be automatically ticketed for driving faster than road conditions reasonable allow. It's a direct admission of guilt, it seems to me.

[oboe]

I love this feature! And it's considerably more difficult to give this sort of advice than it looks! Here's my effort:
Q: " I want to share the road, really I do, but here's my question: is it okay for drivers...blah, blah, blah..."

Mr U-Lock: "Slow the fuck down."

Love how drivers recognize that reckless driving is a safety issue, they just assign culpability to the wrong party. 'I usually exceed the speed limit by 15-20 mph in our local *Park*, and I find it very dangerous when I come around a corner and see someone on a bike blocking my way."

Whatever. Grr.

[oboe]

But to me, the bottom line is that if you believe in sharing the road, you share the road.

Also, no this is not conditional on whether you "believe" it or not. If you want to exercise the privilege of driving on the public roads, you share the road. Period. I thought we learned this in preschool.

[Crickey7]

Actually, I noticed that, too. The motor vehicle laws are not Tinkerbell. Drivers must share the road whether or not they believe in it. And their annoyance at having to do so, per LW1, is absolutely okay. Lots of things annoy me.

[washcycle]

There are two justifications given for running red lights (putting aside the relatively uncommon light sensor problem). It does no harm to anyone, and the less noble "because I can."

Crickey, we've had this argument before, so I know that you know that that isn't true. Some cyclists think it makes them safer. It basically creates the same situation that a bike box or a leading pedestrian interval creates. Data out of Idaho shows that it is at least no less safe than always following the law (and there is a UK study that might show that waiting at the light is less safe) and possibly more safe. You're entitled to your own opinion about which is more important, a marginal and debatable increase in safety vs. the moral righteousness of always obeying traffic control devices and/or a different perception of safety, but don't mischaracterize it.

[Crickey7]

I'm not sure I buy that many cyclists do it because it results in a net increase in safety, though I think many feel it comes with no net loss of safety. And I cannot imagine how one could construct a study showing that taking one's bike across lanes of moving traffic--as I have seen dozens of cyclists do--is safer than waiting. Finally, I think you've got the moral righteousness hat on the wrong head. I belongs on the head of those who think they are the arbiter of traffic laws. I believe in the equality of road users, not superiority of any.

[washcycle]

I cannot imagine how one could construct a study showing that taking one's bike across lanes of moving traffic--as I have seen dozens of cyclists do--is safer than waiting.

Well, you're selecting a subgroup of red-light running behavior for starters.

But the study compared women cyclists to male cyclists because women tend to adhere to the law more. And they found that women were killed/injured at intersections more than men (due to right hooks mostly) even though men were killed/injured in more red light running situations. The results are not conclusive IMO.

Is righteousness a bad thing? I would say that the laws for different types or road users should be different (as they are), that responsibilities are not equal (drivers have a greater responsibility in light of their greater power) and that rights-of-way belong to the slowest/most vulnerable users. So, I'm not sure how "equal" that is.

[oboe]

I cannot imagine how one could construct a study showing that taking one's bike across lanes of moving traffic--as I have seen dozens of cyclists do--is safer than waiting.

Sure, if you could, you'd agree. You cannot, so you don't. :)

As far as the moral thing, I think you're both right to a certain extent. Crickey7 has consistently argued that by following traffic laws to the letter every time, cyclists are somehow girded from criticism. IOW, we're taking the moral high ground.

[washcycle]

Right, oboe hit my point. Following the law gives one the moral high ground. That's what I meant by moral righteousness.

[Christopher Fotos]

Requiring cyclists to use the bike path would actually make them less safe, so, no, they shouldn't be required to do so.

If you're biking too fast to use the multipath safely, then you just need to slow down.

[jj]

But the study compared women cyclists to male cyclists because women tend to adhere to the law more. And they found that women were killed/injured at intersections more than men (due to right hooks mostly) even though men were killed/injured in more red light running situations.

It's a pretty big jump to say there is a cause/effect relationship between women being more law-abiding cyclists and saying that is the reason they are disproportionately killed/injured at intersections. There are likely many other differences in the behavior/characteristics of male & female cyclists, as well as many differences in their treatment by drivers. (eg distance of passing, inaccurate assumptions about cyclist speed, fear of reprisal for dangerous driving, etc).

[washcycle]

jj, agreed. That's why I add a lot of doubt into my mentioning of it. But one could find it compelling and one could think it creates a good reason for jaybiking. One that is not mentioned by Crickey and one that I've heard cyclists mention many many times - namely that jaybiking is safer. That is my overall point on that.

[washcycle]

Christopher Fotos, there may not be a speed at which the path is safer than the road.

Besides there are multiple factors here.

The ban makes things far less convenient for cyclists and adds to crowding on the trail which can't help other trail users. It may very well make things less safe on whole. In return it creates a tiny reduction in inconvenience for some drivers.

That hardly seems like a good trade-off.

I see what you're trying to do and you must think you're terribly clever but there is no double standard here. For starters bikes, unlike cars, become less stable at slower speeds, so "just slowing down" does not mean the same thing.

[Crickey7]

Your criticism bounces off my helmet of righteousness.

[dynaryder]

I've seen the right-uturnright maneuver referred to as 'swooping' a light.

And I'd just like to vent about my favorite drivers' behaviors,which I literally see every day I ride. First we have the DC Stop. That's where a car makes a complete stop at a stop sign and proceeds when the way is clear,but the car behind them follows them through. This is especially fun when the first car goes straight but the second car makes a turn. Then there's the Follow the Leader. That's where a car goes halfway into the intersection at a light to make a left turn. Then when the light turns red,and oposing traffic stops,they make their turn. Then they're followed through the red by the car behind them,and sometimes by the third car behind that one. And on about a dozen occasions I've seen the second car actually come up the inside of the first car in an attempt to cut them off and get in front of them!

The fact is there are far,far more drivers violating the law,and they kill and injure far more people than cyclists. They are certainly not the people who get to cast the first stone.

[Brendan]

Number of times I've been rear ended while stopped at a red light: 1

Number of times I've been hit doing a righty-uey-righty: 0

Good enough for me.

I really don't care what drivers say anymore. If you appease the most cranky one and he goes away, it just uncovers the next most cranky one. It's never ending.

[SJE]

I'd also note that
(1) RCP is a NATIONAL PARK, for the edification and enjoyment of all, not highway. Note all the picnic tables.
(2) RCP also has potholes, fallen branches and trees, turtles, deer, occassional flooding etc. If you are driving fast, you are an idiot
(3) RCP has a 25 mph maximum speed limit, so most of the faster cyclists are going near the maximum speed.
(4) The multi-use path is even more windy than the road, has more debris, and is more likely to be flooded or covered with wet leaves, snow and/or ice-all of which are hazardous. More cyclists might use the path if it were less dangerous.

[Crickey7]

I'd add that there are numerous muggings and worse committed on the multi-use path that never, ever happen on the road. Aside from the mud, hairpin turns, roots and drop-offs, you also have a number of locations where bad people can lurk unseen right off the path.

[oboe]

Re: "numerous muggings on the muti-use path"

This is further evidence of the arrogance and entitlement of pedestrians. They think just because they have a near-zero carbon footprint and are getting around on their own two feet, they can do whatever they like! Perhaps it's time to start requiring license plates for folks on foot.

[dayglo]

@Arl rider:

It's right turn, U-turn, RIGHT-turn. You just turned around and headed home!

[antibozo]

FYI, it used to be customary, or at least commonplace, for drivers to honk their horns when passing (other cars). I believe there are still laws requiring this in some places, though obviously they are not enforced.

[C-Sqrl]

AntiB, I believe they still do that in California. At first I thought they were upset since that's the only time drivers honk around here. Then I noticed that's just what they do when passing.