Good morning
- Take the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Survey.
- Alexandria has a new bike map.
- Arlington is asking people to commit to sharing the road with a program targeted at cyclists and pedestrians telling them to be Predictable, Alert and Lawful.
- Scofflaw driver, on his way to talk to God, yells "F*** You" at innocent police officer. I'm sure God approved.
- Meanwhile, red light cameras actually do reduce red light running.
- WABA unveils it's Women and Bicycles logo
- PG County presents the Southern Green Line Station Area Plan. "The site most likely to see revitalization in the short term is near the Naylor Road station, Gore said, where State Highway Administration officials appear ready to move forward with a “streetscape” plan to improve pedestrian and bicycle access. "
- Assault/abduction on the W&OD trail.
WABA--heart wheels? Really? I hope this focus grouped well. That just looks painful. Although I am willing to be convinced by others who recognize some metaphor I am missing. A heart for a frame is metaphorically rich and doesn't conjure up painful memories of taco'd wheels.
Posted by: Early Man | February 01, 2013 at 08:04 AM
The question with red light cameras is whether they make the intersection safer. Simply reducing red light running isn't indicative of this—people who slam on the brakes in order to avoid getting a ticket raise the risk of causing a rear-end collision. On wet or icy streets, also, they can lose control.
Posted by: antibozo | February 01, 2013 at 08:24 AM
That "F*** you" article is satire, right?
Posted by: Jon Renaut | February 01, 2013 at 08:41 AM
They did one study on that in DC, antibozo. Accidents increases significantly, but the number of injuries requiring hospitalization also decreased. Conclusion: more fender-benders, fewer T-bone crashes.
If the goal is safety, that qualifies. If the goal is reducing property damage, it does not.
Posted by: Crikey7 | February 01, 2013 at 09:17 AM
Crikey7, thanks; i think i remember seeing that study. It's the sort of thing that has to be assessed periodically, however, IMHO. And i think the dcist article is remiss in failing to mention the matter.
Posted by: antibozo | February 01, 2013 at 09:25 AM
One study is not enough, ideally. But as we are seeing, the results are likely to hold up.
Posted by: Crikey7 | February 01, 2013 at 09:52 AM
At long last, after months and even years of abuse at the hands of Washington, D.C.’s speed-trap Nazis, I fought back. Mere feet from one of D.C.’s finest, I let him have it. I said — no, screamed — the two magic words, and right in his face.
"After years of abuse (and countless hundreds of dollars in fines) I finally FOUGHT BACK by clenching my tiny fists in feckless anger, and yelling!"
Jesus, this guy is the modern conservative movement distilled in a bottle.
Posted by: oboe | February 01, 2013 at 10:10 AM
'Tis the mismeasure of a straw man:
" that red light-running decreased significantly at four Arlington intersections outfitted with red light cameras in 2010."
At an absolute minimum the cameras should reduce running at the camera-equipped intersection; the true measure is whether it reduces red light running at NON-camera equipped intersections.
Anecdotally: Connecticut & Nebraska - camera; one block south Connecticut & Fessenden - no camera; more than 50% of the time when I am at Fessenden & Connecticut I will see at least one car go through a cold, dead-red light. Rarely do you see that at Nebraska.
Posted by: ken | February 01, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Thanks for linking to Arlington's PAL info. One clarification, the campaign is directed equally towards all road users whether they are biking, walking AND driving (notice I did not label them into rigid categories, since most people do 2 or 3 of these at some point).
Check out the tips and let us know what you think, either here in comments or to [email protected]. If you like what you see, everyone is encouraged to share the PAL link, logos, graphics, etc. There is a toolkit on the PAL page to make this easy to share.
Posted by: Chris Eatough, BikeArlington Program Manager | February 01, 2013 at 01:12 PM
Enforcement and fines need to go way up to begin to effect cultural change in regard to light-running. The default behavior is to assume there is no penalty, then get mad on the rare occasion that there is.
Posted by: Mike | February 01, 2013 at 01:54 PM
Leave it to a bunch of chicks to build bikes with wheels that won't even turn.
Posted by: Chauvinist | February 01, 2013 at 03:01 PM
I wondered about the logo. What do women think about it? Is it too pandering, like painting a razor pink; or does it work for you? Or do you only like it if you're a Linda Ronstadt/Shirley Muldowny/Anna McGarrigle fan?
Posted by: washcycle | February 01, 2013 at 03:41 PM
Jon: the scary thing is that article wasn't satire. That is exactly the way many people in this area feel.
Posted by: dynaryder | February 01, 2013 at 07:53 PM
I think the logo is even more awkward than the name.
Posted by: Nancy | February 02, 2013 at 11:48 AM
Some related news (some of it old) about red light cameras:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/01/san-diego-red-light-cameras-filner-halts/
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/08/local/la-me-0608-red-light-20110607
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/03/new-study-says/
Posted by: antibozo | February 02, 2013 at 11:02 PM