TheWashCycle

Some cyclists run red lights, others do not and unnamed people are concerned about it

NBC4 transportation reporter Adam Tuss clearly didn't feel like doing any actual reporting this week, so he filed the auto-report on scofflaw cyclsts. It breaks down as you would expect:

1. More people are cycling.

2. Some cyclists are breaking the law (show footage of red light running and interview one self-admitted light jumper)

3. New bike lanes are going in on Illinois Ave NW (perhaps a little late) and "some neighborhood groups are concerned about cyclists obeying traffic laws." [Which groups? Who cares. We don't need to actually show you anyone who is concerned. There doesn't even need to be anyone. We're NBC4 and WE will tell you the news, OK?]

4. Then interview bike advocates agreeing that, yes, cyclists can do better - which is all the facts that you need to prove that cyclists are a menace and must not get any more bike lanes until they get their act together, because there was this guy who admitted to running red lights and he was all smiling about it and stuff. I mean seriously! And also there are probably people who are injured by these scofflaws, but I'm not going to bother looking it up because I'm still hung over from New Year's Eve. Blah blah blah, drivers are bad too, cyclists are trying to educate others, etc...

5. Collect paycheck. These things practically write themselves. See it below the bump.

I'd rather kill the feeling of aliveness that speeding creates, than kill a mother of three. Courtland Milloy feels differently.

Courtland Milloy, inspired perhaps by the current Presidential race, has a new factually challenged and ridiculous column today about Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE). Here are some of the highlights:

According to the task force, which met Monday, District residents get roughly 25 percent of the speed camera tickets. Maryland commuters get about 50 percent while Virginians and other visitors to the city get the rest.

Of course, for some, even that’s not punitive enough.

“As I’m sure you’ve guessed, [the Washington Area Bicyclist Association] strongly supports the expansion of automated enforcement,” Shane Farthling, executive director of the WABA, wrote in a letter to the task force. “Understanding that there are both public safety and political considerations on the matter, we hope to see the automated enforcement program used in a manner to promote the greatest overall impact on roadway safety for vulnerable roadway users.”

First of all, the first statement is not a measure of the punitiveness of the system, it is a breakdown of who is punished. So saying "even that's not punitive enough" doesn't really make any sense.

Second of all, it's pretty clear that Milloy is setting up cyclists as the bad guy here. Later he incredibly identifies one of the problems with ATE is that it doesn't solve all traffic problems.

Others complain that speed cameras don’t catch all traffic scofflaws.

Well, neither do police officers, but no one is calling for getting rid of them. Of course, he's talking about cyclists.

“Many of the new residents ride bikes, but many of us older residents need to drive cars to get to doctor appointments, jobs outside the city and attend church,” wrote Laura Gardner. “While we older residents try to creep through the city to avoid the cameras that you, Mr. Mayor, plan to put all over the city, the new residents speed through red lights and stop signs on their bikes WITH IMPUNITY! NO TRAFFIC TICKET FOR THEM.”

Well, without getting into the obvious "new resident"/"old resident" dog whistle or whether or not one needs a car to get to church, there are two other things at work here. First of all, when you're creeping through the city at 25-45 mph (depending on which road we're talking about) plus the 10mph cushion, you're still going faster than most cyclists' top speed. And second of all, cyclists do get tickets for their bad behavior. Of course, if the goal is safety then enforcing laws against dangerous driving is probably more important than dangerous cycling - though both should be enforced as needed.

But unlike scofflaw cyclists, who break the law sometimes for safety or need, and sometimes out of expediency, drivers - it appears - break the law for the sheer joy of it.

I enjoy driving fast. Not reckless driving, just cruising at speeds more appropriate for road conditions than the posted speed limit sometimes permits.

OK, so you like breaking the law. How adorable.

Lately, though, some jurisdictions have ramped up efforts to kill that feeling — to actually steal the joy of driving altogether — by “getting people out of their cars,” as D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) likes to say.

Why, drivers just want to enjoy the fun of breaking the law and here come the mean old cyclists who want to take that away just because they selfishly want to make it home without having their pelvises crushed. If "killing the feeling" is what it takes to avoid killing our neighbors, that seems like a fair trade to me. His claim that the "joy of driving" is being stolen is also pretty over the top. Cry me a river. What exactly is it about promoting roadway safety for vulnerable users does Milloy find objectionable?

I do think that talking about "getting people out of their cars" isn't the right goal or the right way to frame it - it sounds like social engineering. I prefer the goal of freeing people from their cars - allowing people who would prefer to bike or walk to work the opportunity to do so; and the goal of more accurately capturing the negative externalities of people's decisions, but not of forcing people into choices they don't want. Along this line John Townsend of AAA adds:

“When you look at plans for the future of transportation in the District, much of the focus is on making cars optional in the city,” he said. “To make more room for pedestrians and cyclists, they want to make less room for cars. But most people in the city still get to work by car, and I don’t see them having any options in the foreseeable future.”

Of course, the ATE isn't about getting people out of their cars, it's about making the roads safer (and ironically reducing congestion) and Milloy and Townsend intentionally conflates the two to serve their purposes. Heaven forbid that we should make cars "optional," I prefer the days when cars were mandatory and the poor and unlicensed were screwed. That's the America I fell in love with. 

And townsend is wrong on the facts. Most people in the city do not get to work by car. Only 41% of DC residents do so. Milloy is wrong too.

In response to a growing backlash by motorists, the D.C. Council recently formed a “Safety-Focused Automated Traffic Enforcement Task Force.”

That is not the reason for the change. In fact, there are more people who contact Mary Cheh's office in support of the program than against it. Which is remarkable because people are more likely to complain than to support. 

Another deceptive part is this: 

Among the task force’s objectives is determining whether higher fines for speeding lead to improved driver compliance. There is much evidence to suggest that they do not. And yet, having raked in $66.7 million through the first three quarters of fiscal 2012 from speed and red light cameras, the city is gearing up to haul in an additional $86.2 million in 2013.

But the increased haul is not from increasing the fines, it would be from more fines from more cameras. In fact, the task force is mostly looking at lowering fines - something Milloy never mentions. He actually implies the opposite. 

The economic pain caused by the high-tech crackdown cannot be overstated.

Actually it can, and Milloy makes a nice run at it. 

One person talks about how driving is his livelihood and that he can't prove that he wasn't speeding a week after the event. That is a fair concern, but I suspect the rate of false positives is very low. If not, then perhaps the program should be shuttered, but Milloy and Townsend have no evidence that that is the case.

He later complains about "hyper-vigilant parking enforcement" as though suddenly doing one's job well is something to be belittled. What level of vigilance is correct? Where else should law enforcement only be mildly vigilant? And, while one can complain about speed limits being set to the wrong speed, because the system of setting them is poorly defined and explained, what is the argument against parking enforcement? You get to rent a parking space at a very low price, but you have to move your car before your time is done. There is nothing unfair about that.

As for a real argument against the cameras, we have Milloy's highly attuned scientific mind to rely on.

In my travels, I see speed cameras do more harm than good.

Well, that's all the research I need. Forget the data that MPD and others have that differ. I mean, for fuck's sake, Milloy can SEE the harm they do. Are you people blind? [If so, you'll be screwed when Townsend finishes creating a world where driving a car is mandatory, so who cares]

“Automated traffic enforcement” is what it’s called. Highway robbery is what it is.

Why is that if ATE were possible for cyclists and were deployed against only cyclists that I have the feeling that Milloy would cheer it on rather than find that a crime was being committed?

For the record, I support setting the fines lower - at the point where it stops changing behavior, and putting in more cameras - even if that means losing money. I don't think this should be used as a sin tax or a commuter tax. I think speed limits should be reviewed and the reasoning for their setting should be transparent and well-defined online. I think cameras should be used where they can improve safety - not where they can raise revenue - and that they should be reviewed periodically to see if they're achieving their goals. And yes, if they could apply it to cyclists I would be fine with them doing it where it would make people safer. 

Thursday Afternoon Commute - Walk-Friendly

Good afternoon

• The FHWA released data comparing some of the country's bike sharing systems. While DC was #1 in annual members, CaBi came in just behind Minneapolis in the number of stations and bikes (though I think it's #1 again now) and way behind Miami in casual members. And of course, more expansion is planned and underway "This week, for example, county officials are installing one new station at North Queen Street and Arlington Boulevard near Fort Myer and another at North Barton Street at 10th Street North near the courthouse. Those two stations were approved last year, although installation was delayed for legal reasons."
• DC has been named one of 10 Gold level Walk-Friendly communities by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. "The designation goes to towns that promote walking and pedestrian safety through programs and policies." I don't think this is actually a cycling designation though. 
• MPD issues tickets to pedestrians and cyclists too. "D.C. police issued 500 tickets to pedestrians, and 3,000 tickets to bicyclists in 2011, Chief Cathy Lanier told WTOP on Thursday's "Ask the Chief.""
• SHA proposes modifications to Green Mile sidewalk along Wisconsin Avenue, that inlcudes narrowing it to 5 feet. This is to serve as a bike facility. 
• Montreal's Bixi is experimenting with a new pricing method for daily users. They get a key and are charged $5 (instead of $7) for each day they use it. Good for people who rarely use it, but don't want to deal with the kiosk - and they save $2 each time. Could be something we try here. 
• How DC area teams did in the National Bike Challenge
• State and federal funds will be used to create a corridor of hiking, biking and fishing areas more than 10 miles long from near Thurmont to north of Middletown in Maryland.
• Fairfax City, George Mason University and Fairfax County created the Mason-to-Metro Initiative, with recommendations to improve the bicycle and pedestrian sign system and map, and on-road bicycle facilities and trails. So, this fall, the city plans to install shared-use lane markings and signs on sections of Old Lee Highway. "Sharrows currently mark the bike lanes on George Mason Boulevard and University Drive between the university and Old Town Fairfax."
• Lots of pro cyclists are coming clean about their doping. 
• Puget Sound Wind Farm doubles as hiking and biking recreation area. "A bike ride among the bright-white towers seemed just the right pace at which to ponder their strange, mechanical beauty."
• I like the idea of this, but it will probably be too expensive and it would by like crack for NIMBY's - same as monorail. 

Tuesday Afternoon Commute - Wolves

Good Afternoon

• FoxDC an NBC4 cover last week's hit and run injury in Bethesda. Jodi Grant, the victim, looks as badly injured as you'd imagine. And lest you think the driver just didn't know about the crash "According to witnesses, the driver stopped briefly and drove away."
• Follow up on NYC's defensive cycling class. Better police enforcement is part of the solution, but so is the Idaho Stop. 
• Lance Armstrong noticing early on that other cyclists seemed to be doping. “I’ve only experienced one Tour de France and it was very, very difficult,” he said. “I’m certain this year’s going to be as difficult, if not more. It seems to be much more difficult this year for some reason. There’s a lot of guys that go much faster this year. I’m just as fit and feel just as good as I did last year, but my strength within the peloton has sort of gone down. A lot of riders are stronger.”

DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG

Monday Afternoon Commute - Slackwater

Good afternoon

• This is your usual Level 1, "cyclists are a menace" editorial. I like how current behavior is labelled a "recipe for disaster" followed by a sentence pointing out that it isn't actually a disaster. Perhaps people modified the recipe. Anyway, Ockershausen calls for cyclists to be licensed, required to wear helmets and follow the same laws as automobile drivers, as appropriate. She'll be happy to know that 1/3 of her wishlist is done. This is all followed with a lot of erroneous helmet data. She adds "It's time for cyclists to be held accountable in the same way motorists are." Done. Cyclists are basically not held accountable, just like drivers.
• This presentation about Arlington's Capitol Improvement Program has a lot of information about transit projects, at least one cool photo of the excavations done to build the new elevators at Rosslyn Metro and the first look at the new, stylish Clarendon metro plaza that I've seen. In addition there are some updates on cycling projects. Highlights:
  • The Boundary Channel Drive Interchange, which should create a new connection across the GW Parkway, will begin federally-required Interchange Modification Study in FY 2013
  • Construction of the Columbia Pike parallel bike boulevards will begin at the western end in 2013
  • Army-Navy Drive Two-Way Cycletrack funding 
  • Potomac Yard/FMR Trail Connection funding
  • CaBi expansion to Shirlington and Columbia Pike in FY 2013/14
  • Colored bike lanes in Pentagon City
  • Bicycle parking at Clarendon Metro
  • Bicycle parking at Ballston Metro
  • The removal of the last 2500 parking meters by 2016
• Alexandria begins installing CaBi stations. Photos here. Discussion here.
• Repairs to the Big Slackwater section of the C&O Canal National Historical Park will be completed soon and the park might reopen next month 

Friday Morning Commute - I don't think he'll be very keen. He already has one you see.

Good morning

• In a very bad opinion piece, the Times goes completely insane about DC's photo enforcement program. They're rooting for Congressional intervention - this is not the home rule paper. They hold up Kwame Brown as an example of how DC must think it's untouchable (I'm unclear on how his bad behavior, for which he has been convicted of a crime and removed from office makes us appear arrogant. It's hard to get more touchable than federal prison). But worst of all, they're upset that DC has created a commission to lower automated enforcement fines - because it's unfair to drivers. I guess they prefer the status quo? They're also upset that the D.C. Pedestrian Advisory Council and the D.C. Bicycle Advisory Council have a seat at the table, because they're "car-hating liberals". If they can name one PAC or BAC member I'll buy a subscription. But I'm sure they can't, so how they know what the members think is beyond me. And, it seems reasonable to me to include the majority of commuters (53% who walk or bike at least part of the way) in a discussion about road safety. They don't even like having AAA at the table. No, according to the Times the best people to make decisions about this are people who don't live here.
• This is not a sign of bad behavior, so much as a failure of our transportation network. 
• New covered bike parking at Pentagon City. 
• The advantages of an anti-harassment law.
• I'm sorry, but Arlington actually already has several of these. They don't light up I suppose.
• Details on the recently funded C&D Trail that will connect Chesapeake City to Delaware City. The project will convert the current gravel service road into a multi-use pedestrian and bicycle trail. Vehicular traffic will no longer be permitted, Geracimos said.
• Chicago just has to do everything New York does, and so after New York City delayed the launch of their bike-sharing system, Chicago is following suit. The system will not meet it's goal of a late summer launch and will instead launch next year.  And there is a little controversy brewing "According to news reports, Chicago’s inspector general is investigating the claims of an Alta rival that Alta had an unfair advantage in the bidding process. A spokesman for the inspector general would not confirm or deny that on Wednesday. Mr. Scales said Chicago’s transportation commissioner, Gabe Klein, was paid a $10,000 consulting fee to analyze Alta’s proposal for the New York program — which was a basis for the rival’s claim. Mr. Scales said that Mr. Klein had recused himself from the selection process in Chicago, and that the delay had nothing to do with any investigation of the rival bidder’s claims."
• Responses to the ethics of jaybiking.

 

Ethics and Jaybiking

Randy Cohen's article about the ethics of Idaho stop-style jaybiking (ISJ) led to quite a bit of discussion on the internet yesterday, and while I think Cohen's piece did make a weak defense of ISJ, the criticism misses the mark as well.

Cohen's piece goes a long way to make one subtle point.

But although it is illegal, I believe it is ethical....A fundamental concern of ethics is the effect of our actions on others. My actions harm no one.

He also claims that if meets the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant who's categorical imperative was "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" because Cohen wants everyone to behave as he does.

Now, I'm not sure if we can all agree that Kant's moral philosophy is so prevalent or accepted that it is all we need to decide the ethics of certain behavior, but nonetheless, it is Cohen's point.

Felix Salmon misses this. He focuses first on another line

“I flout the law when I’m on my bike,” he writes; “you do it when you are on foot, at least if you are like most New Yorkers.”

This, of course, is one of the weakest ethical defenses imaginable: if lots of other people are flouting the law, that doesn’t give anybody else the ethical right to do so, let alone the legal right.

Salmon would be right, if this were Cohen's defense. It isn't.  When Cohen writes that all cyclists should ride like he does, Salmon also misses the point of that and the reference to Kant.

The “should” at the end of this passage is utterly indefensible. At best, Cohen has demonstrated that he’s causing no harm to others (although I’ll take issue with that in a moment). But if Cohen is doing something illegal — which, by his own admission he is — then he needs something much stronger than “no harm to others” before he urges such behavior on all other cyclists.

What Cohen is arguing is that the Idaho Stop should be legal. That's the should. And in so doing, he's arguing that he's meeting Kant's first formulation that how he acts is what should be universal law. So he isn't arguing so much that people break the law, but that the law be changed. This is the point of the end of his column

Laws work best when they are voluntarily heeded by people who regard them as reasonable. There aren’t enough cops to coerce everyone into obeying every law all the time. If cycling laws were a wise response to actual cycling rather than a clumsy misapplication of motor vehicle laws, I suspect that compliance, even by me, would rise.

Cohen is saying the law should be changed, and until then he'll break it.

Salmon then stakes out an alternate position from Cohen's. Where Cohen argues that it is OK to break the law if it causes no harm, Salmon says it is OK to break the law only when following it causes harm. You may or may not agree with one of them.

Salmon then pulls out the old "If we follow the law, we can get the respect of drivers" appeasement strategy. But as he notes, what really annoys drivers is when cyclists are in the road in front of them and slow them down. My experience is that this, not ISJ, is what keeps us from getting "respect" from the minority of drivers who do the bulk of complaining. So if you really want to appease the fringe of drivers who fail to respect cyclists, you're going to have to get out of the road.

Salmon somehow tries to distinguish between jaybiking and jaywalking by arguing that peds fear cars. And cyclists don't? He seems to be arguing that because pedestrians don't want to walk down the middle of the street, it's OK for them to jaywalk - which is in contrast to his rule above that "it is OK to break the law only when following it causes harm."

Salmon writes of Cohen

Doesn’t he understand that in order for New York to work as a cycling city, cyclists will have to stop taking the law into their own hands?

Doesn't Salmon understand that Cohen wants to bring New York cyclist into compliance by making normal, safe cycling behavior legal?

Salmon also tries to argue the slippery slope. But Cohen has a reasonable limiting factor - he only does the things that cause no harm and that he thinks every cyclists should be free to do. That Salmon doesn't believe Cohen can do this is irrelevant. Who should I trust more on how Cohen behaves - Salmon or Cohen?

That Salmon then admits that he jaybikes removes all his ability to preach to us about how it

behooves all cyclists to adhere to the law as it stands, even if they’re convinced that they’re doing no harm.

At least Cohen follows his own rules.

Eric Jaffe dedicates much of his column on the question of why cyclists run red lights.

In an upcoming issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention the researchers cite three main reasons for the behavior: the need to turn, the failure of a signal to recognize them at an intersection, and the absence of others on the road.

Jaffee adds

As for breaking a law you don't agree with, readers are left to decide for themselves whether Cohen's actions are indeed ethical. Sure, some riders will exercise great judgment and save time. Then again others will make poor decisions and create more confusion (and, toward bike riders, resentment) than already exists on city streets. Some traffic laws may be inefficient or just plain wrong, but letting everyone on the road decide which ones to honor doesn't seem all that right.

But that's already the situation we have. Everyone decides which laws to honor right now. Most cyclists choose to not obey red lights and stop signs, and most police choose not to enforce it and some places have chosen to make that legal. Most drivers have chosen to obey traffic lights (but not stop signs). Considering how willing drivers are to break traffic laws, the question Jaffee should be asking is "Why don't drivers run red lights the way that cyclists do?" I think the answer to that has nothing to do with ethical drivers, but their knowledge that it's orders of magnitude more dangerous - to them - to do so. It is a matter of self-preservation, not high moral fiber.

And the argument that we shouldn't slip in to anarchy, where everyone decides which laws to follows, is not an argument against Cohen's position. Again, he has a limiting factor.

But there is another argument for why ISJ may, in fact, not be ethical. And that is that it does cause harm if done where it's illegal. One could make an argument that breaking the law - even a minor law like this that is basically unenforced and carries only a $25 fine in DC - tears at the fabric of civilized society and in so doing is net negative. That is hard to prove or disprove, but it's not unreasonable.

Of course, there is also the argument that Cohen hints at. Driving a car - because of all of it's negative externalities (safety, pollution, resource consumption, land use, health, etc...) - is unethical (unless, I suppose, you make offsetting payments to cover the costs of these externalities).Certainly those negative externalities exceed the tug at civil society that jaybiking represents.

Now of course, the choice is not between driving a car and jaybiking. Nor is it necessarily jaybiking and riding legally. The choice is between jaybiking, riding legally and travelling by some other means, likely with higher externalities.

If we could turn on a machine that would make it impossible for cyclists to run red lights and stop signs, would it be smart to do so? Would it be ethical? What we would be doing is reducing the utility of bikes, without any likely safety gain. Some cyclists would surely continue to ride under the new paradigm, but other cyclists would opt out. Total utility would very likely go down.

The laws we currently have are the closest we can come to that machine. Cohen is arguing that we should turn it off, and that it is more ethical to do so. And I have to agree.

Saturday Morning Ride - Grants for everyone!

Good morning

• US DOT announced several discretionary grants for the DC area (Including roadway work to make room for the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial and a program to implement dynamic pricing and a reservation system for commercial vehicle parking. It will encourage freight travel at off-peak times and enable tour bus operators to find parking, as well as use parking revenues to support transit services). 
  • In DC, "TCSP funds will be used to plan for improved bicycle and pedestrian access improvements near rail stations in Washington, DC to support housing and employment development." and "TCSP funds will help upgrade streetlights and sidewalks on Kennedy Street and improve safety at key intersections." The second one may not be directly bike related to biking, it depends on what the safety improvements are. 
  • There's also money for Maryland's Chesapeake & Delaware (C&D) Canal Recreational Trail, bike lanes near the Rockville Metro station and design upgrades for Army Navy Drive in Arlington (which likely includes the cycletrack).
• Hyattsville purchased 180 bike racks that it plans to install this year when they'll also build "25,700 linear feet of bicycle lanes, mainly along Nicholson Street, 40th and 41st Avenues through central Hyattsville, and trails through southern Hyattsville connecting to the planned extension of the trolley trail.... A final list of bicycle rack locations is being finalized and will likely be released next week." That's just phase one. "Phase one of the project will be funded through a $110,00 Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development Community Legacy grant." Another 40,000+ miles of bike lanes are in Phase II and III.
• It appears the experimental zig-zag lines on Belmont Ridge Road in Ashburn that are meant to warn drivers of the W&OD Trail crossing are slowing drivers down and getting them to yield more.
• On Thursday, county officials broke ground on the Broadneck Pennisula Trail. The trail will eventually connect the B&A Trail to Sandy Point Park. It might be part of the American Discovery Trail.
• Last week, Maryland announced the winners of 28 Bikeways Programs. This week they're announcing - piecemeal it appears - six Transportation Enhancement Program winners. The Three Notch Trail in St. Mary's County got $1.4 million to go with the $470,000 last week. "The new five-mile pedestrian and bicycle trail will extend from MD 5 in Mechanicsville to MD 236 in New Market." And the Easton Rail Spur Line Trail got $826,500. "The trail will extend 2.4 miles and connect to an existing bike trail along MD 33 (Saint Michaels Road.)  Crossing MD 322 (Easton Bypass), the trail will continue over the Tred Avon River and meander through an open space area within Easton Village." Can't find any information on the other four winners. 
• See if you can find all the things wrong with this letter. [More from the Southern Maryland letter-to-the-editor bike fight]
• "if my only goal is to save other bikers from injury and death, should I follow or break the rules?"
• The International Cycling Union joins in on the Armstrong doping case. "In a testy exchange of letters made public Friday as part of the court case, the International Cycling Union (UCI) proposed that it appoint an independent panel to determine whether the charges against Armstrong have merit." And this is pretty damning:
  • “By our count, of the 21 podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005, only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation. Yet, only a single one of these riders had a positive test with the UCI.”"
• Helsinki's low line looks really cool. It reminds me of a similar trail in Minneapolis.

Saturday Morning Ride - Not all of them move over

Good Morning

• Cycletrack as construction staging. 
• The CCCT, while saddened and disturbed by the recent attacks, wants to remind everyone that the trail is safe and gives strategy suggestions to keep it safe. 
• While much of this letter is true, I'm not sure why it's directed at cyclists. Isn't it also true of drivers and, with some exceptions, pedestrians?
• Members of a London cycling group were arrested during their monthly ride because they tried to "pedal their way through the security cordon around the Olympic Park." The ride normally passes through that area.

Wednesday Morning Commute - Remedial

Good morning

• Bike lanes were added to Shady Grove Road from Interstate 270 to Darnestown Road and to Forest Glen Road from Maryland Route 97 to Brunett Avenue as part of Montgomery County's repaving projects. They also improved the pedestrian crossing of Forest Glen at Sligo Creek. 
• Work will soon begin on a Columbia Pike improvement project. This work, separate from the Streetcar work, will add bike racks and wider sidewalks. 
• Midtown Manhattan is now requiring some cyclists who receive tickets to take a remedial cycling class. "It comes amid broad agreement among bike advocates and the Transportation Department that compelling riders to obey traffic signals, go with traffic and stay off the sidewalk is critical to improving the image of cycling and ensuring the long-term health of New York City’s expanding bicycle network....The two most common offenses have been riding on the sidewalk and not using the bicycle lane." 
  • More serious offences are merely ticketed, but these lessor offenses require a day of class-work plus a day of community service. So that's pretty messed up in my opinion. 
  • I used to teach defensive driving when I was in college, and I think the program is very useful, but I liked the way Texas did it better than this. First of all it was optional. You could either pay the ticket in full; or pay a small fee, take the class and have the ticket vacated. Which means that people in the class had chosen it - even if it was under duress (and there were others there just to get their insurance bill reduced). Second of all, I don't even think it should be illegal to ride outside the bike lane, so I really don't support giving it a more onerous punishment. 
  • I've suggested DC do this, but as an optional way to void a ticket. Like I used to tell my defensive driving students - Robert DeNiro still takes acting lessons. And drivers ticketed for bike related violations (even speeding) should be allowed the option too. 
  • I really can not believe that NYC still requires cyclists to use the bike lane when one is present. How do they get to be a Silver Bicycle Friendly Community with that rule?