CM Alexander is not quite sure why we have bike lanes

GGW recently took upon themselves the heroic effort of trying to pin down who on the DC Council does and does not support extending the barriers along the Pennsylvania Avenue protected bike lanes to the two blocks nearest city hall. [The rumor, never substantiated as near as I can tell, is that these two blocks were not included to accommodate the wishes of the council]. During a twitter chat following the article, Councilmember Yvette Alexander wrote:

 

@zwirnm @ggwash Bikers sometimes don't use the bike lanes and that should be enforced as well!

— Yvette M Alexander (@CMYMA) August 7, 2015

which led GGW's Aimee Custis to point out that cyclists are not required to ride in bike lanes - so there is nothing to be enforced. Alexander then asked

 

@WABADC @AimeeCustis @zwirnm Well, why have them?

— Yvette M Alexander (@CMYMA) August 7, 2015

Oh boy...I'll just note that WABA has invited her along for a ride to show her the value (and limitations?) of bike lanes.

I usually use the bike lanes on Penn, but when it's crowded I sometimes move over into the all-traffic lanes, bike lane traffic is moving too slow, and cars are going slower allowing me to easily keep up.

Comments

[afeman]

The responses aren't exactly helpful.

[contrarian]

If you look at the history of some of the older bike infrastructure in the region -- I'm thinking the MacArthur Boulevard trail and the Rock Creek trail -- they weren't things done for cyclists but things done to cyclists. They were built to "solve" the "bicycle problem" so that roads would be clearer for motorists. So it's a little understandable that someone with only a casual interest would think that is the purpose of bike lanes as well.

What's more alarming is that we have a councilmember with only a casual interest!

[Acyclistintheportcity]

A long exchange can educate a pol. See supervisor Cook in Fairfax.

[SJE]

Sadly, this sort of narrow vision is pretty common. Especially if cycling is not something that happens much in her ward (7). I think she'd be more receptive if she understood that bike lanes make things better for drivers and for the poor, and the cycling is not just rich white thing.

[SJE]

BTW: the tweet was deleted from her stream

[DE]

My first reaction was "save me jeebus," but then I thought it was a useful question. There are a lot of people who probably don't know what their purpose is and why they aren't always used, so it's useful to think about it to have a ready answer if it's asked again.

[washcycle]

If only someone would answer the question, preferably in widely read local, free publication.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2015/03/04/gear-prudence-why-dont-cyclists-use-available-bike-lanes/

[DE]

That was a good GP. I think what I mean is, if someone stated to me, "why have the bike lanes at all if cyclists don't use them," I would have to stop and think a bit. (But I'm not always quick on my feet in conversation like some are.) So, having thought about it in advance, I now could list at least three good reasons.

[cyclistinthecity]

CM Alexander has no clue. She said that 'bikers should ride in bike lanes so that they don't get doored.'

I don't think that any explanation is needed on this blog.

[Smedley Burkhart]

Question of where cyclists "should" ride and whether they have a right to obstruct people going to WORK has come up on a racing oriented sailing site I frequent way too much. You'd think that people highly practiced in the art and science of going nowhere slowly at great expense, who have frequent talmudic disputes on rights of way, and whose pleasure often puts them in the way of people trying to make a hard living, might understand, but you'd be about 30% wrong.