TheWashCycle

Jail time for hitting cyclists?

You probably heard about the cyclists hit in Chicago by drunk drivers -- for fun.

Now, Adam Voiland of the DC Bicycle Transportation Examiner has brought up the crime-and-punishment point: Should motorists get jail time for hitting cyclists? If this is an issue you care about, Voiland shared the text of the original action letter provided by the Active Transportation Alliance of Chicago.

One of Voiland's points got me thinking:

Regardless of whether the assailants spend significant amounts of time in jail (and, given the precedent not publishing them sets, they ought to get a minimum of six months of the two to five years that are possible), I do hope the state has the sense to ban the men from driving again any time soon.

(Emphasis added). While this advocacy action expresses the general outrage against the ruling (and you gotta admit, hitting cyclists for fun is pretty low on the acceptable-societal-behavior totem pole), I want to know, can they still drive? Making sure it's known that hitting a cyclist makes you lose your license for some amount of time would certainly incentivize people to be more careful on the road.

Post-Bike-Week Letters to Dr. Gridlock

In response to Dr. Gridlock's Bike-to-Work Week blitz of articles and postings, he got some letters about biking. They're mostly negative (and the one positive one wasn't in the print edition).

The first was from a cyclist who says that knowing how to change a flat is not necessary for bike commuting. 

I have contingency plans (well, ideas and experience) for what to do if my bike breaks down on my five-mile route between home and work in downtown Washington. For one thing, I'm always within 2.5 miles of one or the other, not a terrible distance to walk in a pinch.

Sometimes I've simply walked the bike to a convenient place, where I could lock it and fetch it later. At least twice I've hailed a taxi and put my bike in the trunk. I don't carry a cellphone, but that certainly helps under some scenarios, particularly riding home. I carry a pump in my backpack and have used it when there's a very slow leak to ride to a drop-off point or even make it to home or work.

It helps to know the nearest bike shop along my route, as well as Metro stops and parking garages with bike racks. The latter are especially important in case of lightning.

Most important, when my tires are getting bald, I replace them rather than trying to squeeze a few more months out of them. That has really cut down on flats; I can't remember the last time I had one.

I do know how to change a flat, but I have the same philosophy for repairs I can't do. Metro adding bike racks to the front of the bus is what finally got me to bike to work. I figured that if something bad happened, they could be my SAG wagon. I've used it maybe a half dozen times. 

The second letter is about wrong-way cycling. I agree that it is almost always a bad idea, but I don't think it is actually one of the "most common" violations by cyclists. Still, cyclists should not ride the wrong way.

The third letter was from a 60 year old man who's been hit by cyclists three times in the last 18 months. On each occasion he was on the sidewalk in the CBD where sidewalk cycling is illegal. Adding insult to injury, the cyclists were reportedly unconcerned, and in two cases hostile. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior. It's the unholy trinity of illegal, unsafe and rude. Don't do that.

We could dump a bunch of letters on Dr. G about bad driver and bad pedestrian behavior, but I think that would do more harm than good.

Cycling Safety Does Start with Cyclists

GGW posted a letter by cyclist Adam Irish asking other cyclists to stop at red lights and stop signs. 

By neglecting the rules of the road, errant cyclists not only endanger their own safety, but the safety of drivers, pedestrians, and above all, other bicyclists.

If bicyclists want to be treated equally on the road, they need to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. A biker running a stop sign should be just as likely to get a ticket as a motorist doing the same. This is certainly not the case in the status quo.

Sure it is, neither is likely to get a ticket. 

One bothersome thing about this letter is that it lacks any facts to back it up. I know of no information about bike-bike crashes or fatalities (though I've looked extensively) so I doubt that Adam can back up the statement that cyclists risk the lives of other cyclists "above all".  Above all, and by a huge margin, when you bike like an idiot you endanger yourself.  Nor does he show a large correlation between illegal cyclist behavior and safety. I'm not saying there isn't one, I just think driver behavior is probably a bigger player in road safety (and even in cyclist safety). 

The thing about this argument, and I've heard it before, is that it is built on two, IMO, fallacies:

1. legal behavior=safe behavior
2. if cyclists follow the law then drivers will treat them with respect. 

Our goal in writing the law should be to make the first statement true. But there are times when legal and safe don't match up (like biking on DC-295, which may be legal, but probably isn't safe). There are also times when illegal and unsafe don't match up - like the Idaho Stop. It's illegal but safe (and possibly even safer than the status quo). So while I'm not telling everyone to run out there and break the law, if what you want is safe cycling than ask cyclists to ride safely, not legally. 

His second point is a bit stronger. I think the reputation cyclists have as scofflaws does hurt us. But I'm not sure how to change that. As I've noted before even legal behavior raises the ire of some motorists. I've even been yelled at to get on the sidewalk in places where it was illegal. Just the other day a driver yelled at me for not running a red light because I was blocking her from turning right on red (where it was signed as illegal). So, I'm skeptical that it would change the opinion of that many people. If drivers insist that we obey the law as much as they do, I think we're already there, and I suspect we actually follow it more often than they do. 

Until then, DC bicyclists need to take the initiative to obey traffic laws without enforcement for the sake of safety and courtesy. After all, they go hand in hand — just ask an infuriated driver or a cyclist who has met one.

I think cyclists need to take the initiative to bike safely and courteously, but not entirely sure the two go hand in hand (except that it is discourteous to bike dangerously. So all safe cycling is courteous. But some courteous moves have nothing to do with safety). To believe that cyclists are going to change their behavior - behavior that is probably pretty rational and safe - just to appease drivers (when what we really need is a change in the law) is idealistic to the extreme.  If getting cyclists to follow the law when it is only for political purposes were easy, someone would have pulled it off by now. 

Communication is a Two-Way Trail

Dr. Gridlock had some follow-up letters on the subject of bell use by trail cyclists. The first writer notes that while cyclists need to announce their pass, others need to make sure they can hear that; and that everyone needs to show each other courtesy

A few months ago, I rang my bell when coming up behind a person walking a dog. To make sure the person knew what was happening, I also shouted, "passing on your left, please." Instead of making sure that the dog remained on a short leash, the person let the leash out, and the dog cut across the trail. I had to swerve and ended up crashing.

All cyclists need to exercise care and courtesy and put safety first. But we can't make the trail safe by ourselves. Pedestrians must use care and courtesy, too, if we all are going to be safe.

The second writer thinks they've noted a pattern - women warn and men don't. Dr. G has noticed a different distinction.

The only distinction I've noticed among cyclists is this: I've had very good experience sharing pathways with commuting cyclists. Almost every one I've encountered knows what he or she is doing, communicates with walkers and treats them courteously.

The third writer complains not only about passing cyclists but also passing runners, and even thinks that bicycles should be classified as vehicles and limited to the streets (at least until he gets in his car and wonders why the cyclists are using that perfectly good bike trail)

He ends with a pair of letters, one from a cyclist who'd like to see more enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists,

Cyclists who claim the rights of drivers must accept the responsibilities as well.

and another from a cyclist advocating the Idaho stop. Obviously I agree with the second letter writer more than the first (I don't want the same rights or the same responsibilities). Dr. Gridlock missed the point I think

I'm not convinced that just because cyclists can see and hear traffic better means they will act more responsibly than drivers do when traffic is present. I wouldn't lift the speed limits just because many drivers speed, and I'm not sure I would ease the stop laws for one class of travelers. It would rely too much on their personal judgments.

The point is not that they will act more responsibly, but that they will have more information and that this behavior is safer for cyclists than it is for drivers. And the law should not be changed because so many cyclists break it, but because doing so makes cycling easier with no loss of safety (in fact, evidence out of Idaho indicates that it makes cycling safer) - the same can not be said for waiving speed limit laws. Traffic laws are filled with reliance on personal judgment and they always will be - until we have robot-driven cars.

Photo by Mr. T in DC

Dr. Gridlock Defends Cyclists but Has Never Biked to Work

On Dr. G's chat yesterday, there were quite a few questions about cycling (as he led off with Bike to Work Day) and most of them were slanted against cyclists.

One reader asked

Why are so many rescources[sic] being devoted to bikers (i.e. the new bike lanes). It is not fair that a few bikers have to inconvience[sic] the thousands of of drives.

And Dr. G replied

That's a question I know many drivers are asking, because the transportation departments are trying to boost the number of bike lanes to make their streets more bike friendly.

I know what the transportation departments would say: Remember when HOV lanes seemed like a crazy idea? Now they're crammed with carpoolers. (As well as cheaters.)

That's the idea with bike lanes. They're not being set up because there's such a huge number of cyclists now. The governments want to encourage more people to get on cycles. for commuting as well as for just general getting around. The main way to do that is to make cyclists feel safe on the roads.

Which I thought was a good answer

Next...

Bikers should be licensed and ticketed if caught on cameras running lights, stop signs, etc.

Dr. G didn't take the bait and instead wrote

I had an interesting letter noting that in Idaho, cyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. The letter argued that other states should follow this example, because it's more realistic. What do you think?

No one replied to his question. But I'll put him at two for two.

This reader has a legitimate complaint

I am a pedestrian and Metro Rail commuter from the Ballston area to near Franklin Square downtown. This morning, yet again, I had to dodge a bike rider as I was using a crosswalk when I had the light. This one was going through the crosswalk and then hitting the curb cut through to now use the sidewalk, I mean the sideRIDE, to continue his trip. I am all for people using bikes, but I have close calls all the time with riders who decide to ignore the traffic signals and fly through intersections. Please, please, PLEASE obey the signals.

I'd say the problem is less ignoring the signals, and more failing to yield the right-of-way. Dr. G writes

Hard to argue with what you're saying, and it's certainly rare -- extremely rare -- to see a cyclist obeying the traffic laws. (I'm pretty sure, by the way, that Franklin Square is in the part of downtown DC where cyclists are banned from the sidewalks.)

But generally, and unfortunately, I find that all kinds of travelers will obey only those laws that they are forced to obey, either because they're afraid they'll get hit by another traveler or because they think they'll get a ticket

Another good answer, IMO. When asked if he would bike to work on Friday he replied. 

I was thinking about it. Haven't done it yet. Friday is a busy day for me, because it's the day I write "The weekend and beyond" for the Get There blog, the Sunday Dr. Gridlock column and the "Dr. G's tips" feature for the Sunday Commuter page. So I try to avoid fieldwork on Fridays.

But it is tempting. I've been a strictly recreational cyclist -- never experimenting with using a bike to commute. Bike to Work Day is a great thing because it lets people like me experiment with bike commuting in the safety of a convoy.

Wow. He's never ridden a bike to work? Seeing as how 1-2% of the people in the region do, he should commit himself to biking to work at least 2 days a year, just so he can relate. BTWD gets him halfway there. He might even like it. Dr. G, no on reads the weekend and beyond so you can just skip that (or run last week's) and you're there. Seriously, I can find you someone who will ride the whole way with you and keep you safe.

Anyway in the end he promised to write more about bike lanes, bike travel and sharing the road. Ok, but not too much. That's my gig.

Warning Might Have Prevented Cyclist-Pedestrian Crash

In the aftermath of the Constance Holden tragedy, Dr. Gridlock ran a letter from Gretchen Cook about a collision she had with a pedestrian on Memorial Bridge.

I approached a runner going in my direction. I contemplated giving a passing warning, but I was giving him such a wide berth, about four feet, that it didn't seem necessary.

But the jogger made an abrupt U-turn without looking, and our collision sent me over my handlebars and into the stone walk, breaking my ribs and a few bits of my bike, including the new bell I had bought but didn't use.

There was no mention of pedestrian injuries, which I hope means there were none.

I understand where Cook is coming from. I've actually had other trail users yell at me for ringing my bell or announcing myself. To some what is meant as a courtesy sounds more like a car horn (which we all know means "get out of the way"). And riding on a busy trail, and announcing yourself constantly, is something of a drag. Also, I know some people who feel that if you need to announce that you're passing to be safe, then you're passing too close/fast. So at times, I have done as she did and just passed carefully and quietly.

Now at four feet, I don't think Cook is guilty of passing too close. And perhaps announcing your passing is more like using a seat-belt. If you do everything right, you still need a seat-belt, because another driver might not do everything right.

And that is kind of what happened here. I agree with Cook that the runner shares the blame here. I've run those trails and I would never just turn around without making sure it's clear. To do so is dangerous. But had Cook announced her pass - as is the rule - this could have been avoided too. And Cook acknowledges this. 

The story also highlights something I like to point out when people talk about cyclists treating pedestrians the same way drivers treat cyclists. And that is that I doubt that is true. If a driver hits a cyclist or pedestrian, they'll have a very bad day, but they'll almost surely walk about physically unharmed. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian or another cyclist they realize they'll probably be hurt [And I seem to remember reading that in bike-ped crashes the cyclist is hurt worse, but I can't remember where I read that, so do not treat it as fact]. Cyclists are significantly more incentivized to avoid hitting a pedestrian (or anything really) than a driver is, and I theorize that it must make drivers at least somewhat more cavalier. 

A week later, Susan Spock responded that not announcing passing is a very dangerous endeavor.

As a frequent walker on the Capital Crescent Trail, I often must contend with bikers who fail to signal when passing. I can assure you that it would be much more annoying to be hit by a bike than to have to listen to a bell. Sadly, I am often spared that annoying ring, because at least 75 percent of the bikes passing me on the trail fail to signal in any way.

Part of the problem with the CCT is that it is just too narrow. If you look at this FHWA study you can see how a trail with high ridership and 11' or even 12' of width can have a very low level of service. The CCT is 10 feet wide and has very high use.

Another part of the problem is cyclists who don't pass safely. And a third part is pedestrians who don't behave predictably.

Photo by M.V.Jantzen

Dr G's 4/12/10 Chat

Dr. Gridlock wrote this, in response to a bike commuter who was surprised there weren't more out that day. It was just hours before Constance Holden's death

It was a great morning to be biking or walking in dowtown DC. Everyone seemed so calm. I did see one motorcade coming south on 14th Street NW near Franklin Square, but there was so little traffic, the motorcade didn't seem very disruptive.

Hope it stays that way, but there could be a lot more motorcades this afternoon while people are heading home.

And another, unrelated exchange

Bike Clubs Invade Fauquier

Could someone please tell the local bike clubs that lead rides in the Va burbs that they need to tell their members and riders to follow the rules of the road and to think? Riding three abreast and playing Tour De France upsets those of us who live out this way. And Please break your packs up into smaller groups. We don't mind sharing the road but come on now, having eight of you all around the a blind corner consulting route instructions could be fatal if I was driving any other car but a 911GT3 with carbon fiber rotors and pads. And then to give me grief. Excuse me I was not blocking the road. Those of us in Middleburg, Upperville, Warrenton areas have had it so don't be surprised if you have to share the road with very slow moving farm equipment bleching [sic] diesel fumes taking up the whole road. Elitist snobs.

Robert Thomson writes:

I understand the frustration among drivers. Don't let that frustration get the better of you and make a bad move around the cyclists out of impatience. This could have more serious consequences than a few minutes' delay.

Fundamental Attribution Error

Psytenance writes about the Fundamental Attribution Error and how it applies to transit users vs. drivers, but I think it could as easily be applied to cyclists. The fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency for people to over-attribute the behavior of others to personality or disposition and to neglect substantial contributions of environmental or situational factors. So when drivers imply that cyclists ride because they're environmentalists, or Lance-Armstrong wannabes or self-righteous, they're attributing the decision to personality instead of assuming that cyclists are making a rational decision. And when cyclists state that drivers drive because of car culture or laziness, they're making the same mistake. 

It is, in my opinion, a statement about empathy and how hard it is to understand the actions of others. Of course this doesn't apply to taxi drivers - those guys are just crazy.

Bike Items That Have Little to Nothing to do With DC (10/18/09)

Kylie Bruehler attends the funeral of her parents, both of whom were killed when a driver veered onto the shoulder and hit them.

More "it was just an accident" coverage from Texas

The local news reports that “investigators say there are no charges on the driver. They believe this was an accident and that somehow the driver lost control of his truck.”

Texas’ governor recently vetoed a law that would mandate a safe passing distance for cyclists, saying it was unnecessary.

A San Antonio writer says that cyclists are treated like "deer on the road." Since then the Bexar County District Attorney has decided to consider charges.

A pedicab driver and a taxicab driver get into a fight in NYC. Pedicab driver loses. But they both look like jerks to me as they manage to get everything wrong.

• Honk=Wrong
• Throw Coffee=Wrong
• Hit pedicab=Wrong
• Attack Driver=Wrong
• Fight in Street=Wrong
• Ride Away=Debatable
• Give Finger=Wrong

Bostonist has photos from their Tweed Ride.

The Tour of Missouri bike race generated $38.1 million in revenue according to a study by the Lt. Gov.

About 500,000 spectators watched the tour at one of the 11 host cities or somewhere along the 600-mile route, which passed through many communities in Missouri.

Copenhagenize has a five part series on "The Fear of Cycling" by Dave Horton. (tip FABB)

Fears of cycling are socially, geographically and historically variable, which is to say that they will depend on who you are (man, woman, child, young, old, black, white, fat, fit), where you are (Copenhagen, Brussels, Mumbai, town, countryside, road, cycle path), and when (day, night, rush hour, weekend, winter, summer, a century ago, now, the future …). Over time, some of these fears will also tend to become culturally embedded, and therefore hard to change. But it’s worth trying to change them.

Not about biking, but about football, helmets and head injuries(and dog fighting). It's a LONG article, but good.

What most people don’t realize is that we are decades, if not forever, from having a helmet that would fix the problem. I mean, you have two men running into each other at full speed and you think a little bit of plastic and padding could absorb that 150 gs of force?”

Time writes about Green Highways

The idea is to retrofit roadways with charging stations and tailor routes to low-speed, limited-distance electric and muscle-powered vehicles, including EVs, hybrids, bicycles, scooters, horses and Segways. The basic law: stay under 35 m.p.h., unless your vehicle is crash-tested and certified for higher speeds. Of course, good old gas guzzlers are welcome too, as long as they go slow.

Bike Portland writes a post that really does have a lot to do with DC. Jonathan Maus writes about how businesses think that removing parking and limiting car access, to give more space to bikes, is bad for business. Sounds like K Street where the business groups along the route are opposed to Alternative 3 that takes away parking and adds space for bikes and transit.

The thinking goes like this: Car access equals business success. However, there are recent academic and real life examples that seem to prove that bike access is good for business.

Also out of Portland, an article about how the police and cyclists have reached an agreement about how to better enforce the law.

Bicyclists who blow through stoplights at busy intersections probably should be stopped and cited or warned, depending on the circumstance. On the other hand, group riders are usually "good-humored fun seekers" who don't mean to tick off cops.

Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express News.

Smooth cycling at Sunrise Century, despite threats

A little while ago I posted a story about how someone put up fliers asking drivers to exert their rights by disrupting a Colorado bike ride. Seems no one listened.

Despite threats that some drivers might blockade the return leg of the Boulder County Sunrise Century bicycle ride on Saturday, cyclists, event organizers, drivers and law enforcement said cooler heads prevailed.

Colorado State Trooper Mark Bannister, one of 13 officers assigned to patrol the 100-mile route, said there were no bike-vs.-car conflicts reported all day.

“All the people in Ward were real friendly and waving at us,” one cyclist said. “They were all sitting in front of the fire station waving at us. It was great.”