Metro still doesn't need to ban bikes today, but it will

Updated from this 2010 post.

As usual, bikes will be banned on Metrorail all day on the Fourth of July. As usual, it will be a totally unnecessary, and even counterproductive, precaution. Metro's policy is that

Bicycles are not permitted on Metrorail on July 4th or other special events or holidays when large crowds use the system.

Large crowds, huh?

In 2009 631,206 people used Metrorail on the Fourth of July, making it the 5th busiest Saturday in Metro history at the time. I'm not sure how many rode last year, but it was fewer than 782,000 (last year's top day).  630,000 sounds like a lot, but on an average weekday in 2008, Metrorail had 727,684 trips. That number is down to 712,843 in 2009, but it still shows what baseline capacity looks like.

So, the Fourth isn't actually that busy. Not busy enough to ban bikes ALL day. Of the thirty-one busiest days* in Metrorail history, not a one is a Fourth of July. Of those 31 days, bikes were only banned for #1, #8 and #29. Busiest Day #2 was on April 2, 2010 when Metro recorded 891,240 rides. Metro banned bikes only during the morning and afternoon rush (like any other normal workday) and yet no one seemed to have a problem with it. How come we can allow bikes on Metro when we have nearly 900,000 trips, but not on a day with 650,000 trips?

And 5 days after that 2nd busiest day, Metro performed 867,674 trips - on a Saturday, making this the busiest day without any bike ban at all, in Metro history. There were no bike related safety incidents that day. 

It might be reasonable to ban bikes for some time around the fireworks, when Metro is crazy, but why at 9 am? Considering how much financial trouble Metro is having, it doesn't really make sense to turn away paying customers. 

Comments

[Crickey7]

Auto insurers still apply it in Maryland, which I know firsthand. My kid was, at a guesstimate, 85% responsible for a fender bender earlier this year. The other drivers was still liable for his damage, costing him his deductible and raising his rates. I, of course, got nothing out of this denial (I had to cover my own deductible and my rates will rise). All in all, I'd rather the other driver had recovered, since it wasn't his fault in the sense people mean the phrase.

[jeffb]

@Crickey7

On the other hand I've heard contributory negligence described as one step short of no-fault.

With everybody covering their own damages you eliminate the costs and time wasted in arguing over who is at (or more at) fault. In theory this is supposed to lead to lower insurance costs.

So maybe the other driver in your situation is paying a little more than they would have under comparative. But they have benefited all the while from lower insurance premiums. And next time maybe they'll be the one 85% at fault.

No-fault seems a good way to go *provided* all parties share a relative equal amount of culpability and risk.

[SJE]

Last week there was a guy with a kayak on Metro. No bikes allowed, but kayaks OK

[SJE]

JeffB:
No fault is simple and works if there is no information assymetry,similar levels of risk, culpability, and harm.

That is not appropriate for e.g, when a bad driver can come behind a cyclist and permanently disable them.

[jeffb]

@SJE
I agree.

If I recall accurately under Pennsylvania's no-fault system one could opt out on a case by case basis if a certain damage threshold was reached.

But for unprotected road users If I were king for a day I'd radically change things so that regardless of fault the motorist's insurer would cover the damages.

My thought is that the injuries suffered by people using the public roads almost entirely stems from one class of road users - motorists. If there weren't any cars how many people would get hurt?

So, in fairness, motorists, as a class, should bear the burden of the damage they are inflicting with one way being a required non-motorist coverage.

[Ren]

Good points. I remember my first holiday experience with a bicycle on metro 12 years ago. I had been volunteering in an Old Town museum and with the presence of a lightning storm, decided to take metro home. The station was not the least bit crowded and I had not considered that bicycles were not permitted. The station managers ejected me back into the lightning with the cruelty of a Disney movie and I gave up my gig volunteering there not long thereafter.