Cyclists run stop lights 1/70th as often as drivers. Let's make a big deal about it.

Washington Post transportation troll and Rick Scott impersonator Fredrick Kunkle wrote an article that piggy-backed on the NBC4 report that cyclists were running lights, triggering the red light cameras and not being ticketed for it. Now for something that has no element of shock or news to it (I mean didn't WJLA already break this story in 2014?), this story sure has had some legs. After all I wasn't positive that bikes triggered the red-light cameras, but I figured they probably were - and so did everybody else. Still, the mere transition of this speculation into fact seems to be newsworthy. Kunkle's story is in part about the story itself and the reaction to it and in part about how cyclists who run red lights are, in his opinion, children.

On the story front he wants this to be a cyclist-vs-drivers* "war" story, but really that's not the case in DC. Sure there is some animosity and among a few older, angry commentators it runs pretty deep, but mostly people get along on the roads. 

Anyway, to that extent, he interviews the inexplicable stat-memorizer John B. Townsend (the "B" stands for "Parking")

Townsend said he had little patience for the defense raised by some bicyclists that their traffic infractions aren’t hurting anybody but themselves, or that the more than 1,500 red light violations pale in comparison to the number of summonses issued to vehicles.

“Anybody who runs a red light with traffic going through it is not only putting his life in jeopardy, he’s putting others at risk too,” Townsend said.

True. But the vast majority of cyclists who run red lights - and those shown in the NBC video - do it when traffic is not going through. But it is rich to hear him talk of his lack of patience for bicycle scofflaws when he has unlimited patience for their brethren in cars. 

He takes especially strong exception to arguments from bicyclists that it’s so tricky to stop – on uphills, for example  – that it’s okay to sort of just pause before pedaling into an intersection.

“It’s a lie that it’s hard to stop at a stop sign,” he said.

It's not hard, in that I can do it 100% of the time if I choose to, unlike, let's say, cooking bacon without burning it; but it's easier to not stop at the stop sign. Which is the actual argument cyclists who support the Idaho Stop make. 

"Most motorists have agreed to share the road. Yet you have a warring faction that doesn’t want to obey the rules and excuses away everything.”

I don't know which faction is obeying the law, but it clearly isn't the drivers. They got 84,000 red light tickets in 2013 for goodness sake. That's a pace 70x faster than cyclists are triggering the lights [and (1) not every trigger gets a ticket (2) some triggers are likely for legally using the LPI (3) some triggerings are likely cyclists who entered on a green but couldn't clear the intersection before the red.] For every cyclist out there triggering a red light camera, there are probably a half dozen drivers sitting at a green light because they haven't looked up from their cell phone yet. 

During last summer's Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act working group, the BAC proposed banning all phone use by drivers - both handheld and hands-free. Townsend was among those most strongly against it, in part because he thought drivers wouldn't obey it and it would just become a way for the District to make more money. 

So which faction doesn't want to obey the law? I might nominate the group that includes thousands of people who've installed illegal license plate covers in the hope that they will keep the enforcement cameras from accurately photographing their plate during a violation? That's some nice hypocrisy there.  

Anyway, Kunkle then interrupts his interview of Townsend to add his signature flourish of made up facts and hack jokes from the late 1990's.

What bugs Townsend and a lot of other people about bicyclists most of all is their militancy, a sense of aggressive entitlement in flouting traffic laws. There’s a perception that for these Sons of Anarchy on Konas, sharing the road is passé, a holdover from the days when bicyclists were rare. Now these Lycra-clad hordes want to own the road. And the sidewalks, too.

Without any polling data about what bugs a lot of people about bicyclists, this is a pretty specific claim. Even Townsend doesn't say that. Methinks this is Kunkle's feelings.

The idea that cyclists don't share the road or want to own all of it is a little ridiculous; it's not like a cyclist can intimidate a car off the road like cars can. Cyclist only want the part of the road or the sidewalk that they're legally using, and a few feet around them to keep them safe. Finally, most cyclists I see in DC these days are not wearing lycra. The lycra-clad hordes are all the pedestrians in yoga pants. 

Earlier he'd thrown this out there

D.C. police spokesman appeared on camera to huff and puff about how running red lights on a bicycle is a safety issue. He said officers issue citations when they see this happening. (Show of hands — how often have you seen this happen?)

I've never seen an MPD police officer issue anyone a citation for ignoring a traffic control device, but that's not evidence that it's not happening. I've never seen squirrels make sweet love, but I'm pretty sure that based on the number of squirrels in this town that they are. A better way to assess if this happens or not is to go to MPD and ask them, but that would take time.

Time that Kunkle could be writing beauties like this...

Despite all the bike lanes and new bike-friendly infrastructure that have transformed D.C. and other cities, bicyclists seem to act – actually, sometimes proclaim aloud – that they should be allowed to do as they please. They also say that if anybody’s going to get hurt, it’s them.

In short, some bicyclists sound like children.

No cyclist I know of thinks they should be allowed to do as they please, not even at the link that Kunkle provides. That link is to someone speculating as to why cyclists run red lights. First the author of that piece talks to an authority who says it's physics (which is what a lot of people claim. This makes sense since the whole Idaho Stop movement was kicked off by Joel Fajans, a physics professor at UC Berkeley, making that very case). 

At the typical riding speed of 10 mph to 12 mph, one stop-start is equivalent to biking an additional 300 feet. In that sense, if a bicycle rider commuting to work comes to a complete stop, say 15 times, he has “added” about a mile to the ride. Which makes it no surprise that some may try to cut that by running wisely selected lights.

That doesn't sound childish to me.

But then the author uses a study showing that men do it more often and young men more often than old and people who see others doing it and then people alone to jump to the "real answer" which we learn is (emphasis mine)

for a determined subset of cyclists, such violations are a form of payback for the way they feel marginalized by a transportation system created for and dominated by motorized vehicles. For them, running a red light is an injudicious act of defiance, 

OK, you can't say you're going to give the real answer to why a group does something and then claim it is true of a "determined subset," especially when it is total horse-malarkey. Which it is, because there is nothing in the article backing up the claim that such a subset exists.  

Still, it is because of this poorly-researched, hare-brained theory that Kunkle decides that some cyclists are behaving like children. Because they are saying things that none of them say for reasons that no one claims. 

The article then ends with a pretty good interview with Greg Billing who makes all the reasonable points about different risks, how WABA supports lawfulness (but also the Idaho Stop, I'll note. I see Billing as Eliot Ness at the end of The Untouchables. What will he do when alcohol is legal? He'll probably have a drink.) and how we can find common ground supporting better engineered roads. 

*Kunkle uses the word "biker" which I don't really feel like the bike-riding public uses. It's technically correct, but bikers ride motorcyclists in my opinion. 

Comments

[barry vance]

To me. Articles like this are only click bait. I imagine the majority of readers are either avid "bikers" or "biker" haters. Limited in between.

Like Courtland Milloy, I don't believe he believes most of the stuff he writes, but does it anyways for page hits. If that's true, in my opinion that makes the person so much worse.

Kunkle is clearly a tool and doesn't have his concerns in order when he's hating on cyclists going through reds. screw him.

[Jon]

At this point "biker" sounds like a slur to me. I try not to get caught up in arguments over what's PC or not but the choices we make with language are important.

And the argument that it's physically difficult to stop at stop signs so cyclists should be able to roll them has always annoyed me. I realize that many people cycle not for fitness or by choice. But for the many of us who DO make that choice and DO ride for fitness, to then turn around and ask that drivers make extra accommodations for us because stopping makes it harder just rubs me the wrong way.

[oboe]

"to then turn around and ask that drivers make extra accommodations for us"

There is literally zero "extra accommodation" being asked for here.

[DE]

It's like reading something from a Trump supporter. You can't take it seriously because it's factually challenged/completely made up and full of slurs or ad hominems, but so many people do seem to believe it and jump on the bandwagon that you sort of need to take it seriously, and now you're basically involved in a 4th-grade-level argument.

I am also uncomfortable with the physics argument for stop signs, but I'll admit that's why I usually don't unclip. It's less a rolling thing as I don't mind stopping my forward momentum and restarting. I'll always yield the right-of-way, but I really don't want to put a foot down if I don't have to.

[Crickey7]

The police enforce the law against cyclists. Just last week I was waiting at a red light when an e-bike blew the light. I waited, though, and as the light turned red in the other direction, I began rolling through the crosswalk. I got pulled over by a patrol car who had also seen the e-bike, and then got reamed out (but no ticket).

So the police can, in fact, enforce the law. Against those who break it least.

[Jon]

@oboe - a law change (like legalizing Idaho stop) or simply permission to break the law is definitely an accommodation. You can argue whether or not it's reasonable, but I don't see how you can argue it's not an accommodation.

[jeffb]

@jon

to then turn around and ask that drivers make extra accommodations for us because stopping makes it harder just rubs me the wrong way.

Very narrowly - the Idaho stop permits cyclists to roll a stop only when it would not interfere with cross traffic. So no direct accommodation needed.

No one responsibly advocates the anyone go thru stops in such a manner that it interferes with others right-of-way.

On a broader front I agree that, as a pedestrian and cyclist, I do want more accommodations made so that I can transport myself safely and conveniently.

[Jon]

@jeffb - so what you're arguing is that it's not drivers making accommodations, but rather society or the legal system or whatever. That's a fair point, I agree (figures after just saying word choice is really important, I use the wrong one)

[Adam]

The "accomodation" in question is free. Cyclists moving through red lights without interfering with traffic imposes literally zero cost to drivers. The same is true of "jaywalking," a crime that was invented by the car lobby.

I think this issue, like so much of politics, is all about relative status signaling. Drivers feel slighted that they have to wait (in their death machines) while others are able to carry on with normal life. Misery loves company.

[washcycle]

Crickey, say it ain't so. I count on you to be my example of a cyclist who rigorously follows the law. I need to contemplate things for a while now.

[washcycle]

In order of frequency, these are the things I have been yelled at drivers for.

1. Taking the lane/being in their way
2. Lane-splitting
3. Not wearing a helmet.
4. Breaking the law.

So, i think it's BS that the thing that bothers drivers most is scofflaw cycling (but admittedly this is just my experience).

(I've also had people yell positive things at me like "You can do it", but I'm not listing them)

[washcycle]

"the argument that it's physically difficult to stop at stop signs so cyclists should be able to roll them"

Like I said, I don't think that's the argument. The argument is that it's easier to roll through them, that it's no less safe to do so and that - since we want to encourage more biking and less driving - it's a good policy to allow it.

People can disagree with those conclusions, but it's not fair to reframe someone else's argument.

[DE]

I get the helmet wearing thing a couple of times a year too. I feel so proud now that I'm in the same company as WashCycle.

I've been yelled at for being in the lane, but what's more common and what I hate far more is being buzzed. (Sometimes they go together.)

I've had a horn blow or two from behind when proceeding after a stop early mornings in the city when no one was coming, but never a yelling at. Although once an officer admonished me through his window(I hadn't seen him), and I apologized and he went on his way.

[washcycle]

The worst part of the buzzing is that it disproportionately happens when I'm half a block from a car stopped at a red light. They aren't going to get anywhere faster by getting around me, so it was for nothing. I want to explain this to them when I catch up to them.

Or it happens when the left lane is empty.

[Crickey7]

I loathe Kunkle. He thinks he's terribly clever, but he's just a dick.

[contrarian]

The worst part of the buzzing is that it disproportionately happens when I'm half a block from a car stopped at a red light. They aren't going to get anywhere faster by getting around me, so it was for nothing. I want to explain this to them when I catch up to them.

Or it happens when the left lane is empty.

This squares exactly with my experience. When traffic is heavy people are too busy concentrating on their driving to play foolish games.

[contrarian]

As to the question of whether cyclists get ticketed:

I seem to recall reading the numbers of tickets issued during one of the "smooth operator" ticket blitzes, and the number given to cyclists (and pedestrian) was an order of magnitude greater than their share of road users.Something like 20% of tickets for 2% of road users. And something like half of all tickets written by MPD are done during those blitzes.

[oboe]

So, i think it's BS that the thing that bothers drivers most is scofflaw cycling

This.

If everyone who ever threw a leg over a top-tube obeyed every single traffic law forever, a subset of entitled drivers would still lose their shit. It's not about the law. And, no, being a "good cyclist" won't fix the car culture.

[Ampersand]

Regarding what makes drivers angry - a few weeks ago I took the lane where double-parkers had blocked the bike lane. I was probably riding around 15 mph. A cabbie maybe 20 feet behind me laid on his horn, then swerved around my left (into the oncoming traffic lane as there was oncoming traffic), then back in front of me where he came to a stop because of a line of cars stopped at a red light. I passed him literally five seconds later, but slowed down long enough to have this exchange:
Me: "Good thing you swerved around me so you could stop at this red light five seconds sooner!"
Cab: "Stay out of the road! Ride to the right side!"
Me: "I would, except the lane was blocked, and in any case I don't have to. You can wait a few seconds."
Cab: "No, bikes don't belong in the middle! Stay to the right!"
Me, as I rode away: "OK, how about f@*# you."
Cab passengers I didn't notice until then: "OOOOOOOH"

[Jon]

You know, for the most part I agree with all of you. We may differ on some specifics, but for the most part we're coming from the same place.

But it really brings it all home when you're coming up 11th NW to an empty 4 way stop, and you come to a stop (no foot down but as much of a stop as any driver ever does) and coming the other way is a DC bike cop who looks neither left nor right and pedals straight through without so much as a pause.

[Zack Rules]

You know what is missing from these stats is how much the police run the red light on camera, I am sure it is much higher than cyclists.

http://wjla.com/features/7-on-your-side/investigation-local-cops-caught-by-speed-cameras-evade-tickets

I was reamed out once too but than again, the cop failed to signal and use his seatbelt.