Every day on my way to work, I mentally compose a book as I ride my bike through the streets of DC. This book is aimed at the pedestrians and cars who seem ignorant of the basic physics of bicycles--the pedestrians who act as if my bicycle and I were a slow-moving car, and the cars that act as if we were a pedestrian. The book would be aimed at communicating one simple, but apparently incredibly difficult to grasp, concept: unlike a slow-moving car or a pedestrian, I cannot suddenly stop or reverse direction.
Today I composed Chapter Three: The Reason I Want to Get into the Right Lane is That It's Dangerous Over Here On the Left (And Not That I Have Failed to Sufficiently Appreciate the Grandeur of Your Magnificent Internal Combustion Vehicle). This is the follow-up to Chapter Two: If You Run a Red Light and Hit Me (Because I Can't Stop) I Will Die Even Though I Am Wearing a Helmet. Chapter Four will be the first of our many chapters aimed at pedestrians; I have tentatively titled it "Pedestrians Who Leap Out in Front of Me and Get Hit (Because I Can't Stop) Will Probably Get Hurt Worse Than Me, the Helmeted Bicyclist".
It's a work in progress.
You've much more courage than me. I do not feel safe riding a bicycle on anything except the least-trafficked residential streets, and sometimes not even then.
It's not courage; there's no other way to get from U Street to the Watergate in less than 30 minutes.
When the book describing one of your activities includes the phrase "I Will Die" in a chapter title, that's a really bad sign.
Chapter 1 of my book will be titled,"This system of roads and sidewalks was not designed with bicycles in mind, so any problem bicyclists encounter is a 'you' problem not a 'me' problem."
Though while I have no doubt that you personally are a safe and responsible bicyclist, I similarly spend time composing a volume with chapters like "Signals, One-Way Streets, and Stop Signs: Not Just For Other People" and "Side*walks*" :-) (This may vary by municipality, but in Chicago biking on sidewalks by anyone over 12, or at all downtown, is illegal. For all the effect it has.)
At the corner I work at (two one-way streets heading away from the center of the Loop, controlled by a signal, with fairly heavy car traffic) it can be a challenging game to locate a cyclist who's not breaking some vehicular traffic law. (There's plenty of jaywalking and bad driving too, of course. But odds are actually pretty good that a random car will obey traffic signals and street directions. Even pedestrians, while they're not great about waiting for signals mostly stay on the sidewalk and cross at intersections.)
It depends on your point of view. I'm sure some of the commenters here regard this as a feature, not a bug . . .
To be honest, I run streetlights and stop signs when there are no cars or pedestrians .. . but only when there are no cars or pedestrians, since as previously mentioned, I Can't Stop and Don't Want to Die.
The sidewalk thing here in DC is incredibly confusing; I've had cops tell me to get *on* the sidewalk, which in NYC is a major no-no.
I've always thought it was odd that bicycles are supposed to travel with cars rather than pedestrians given the following:
Weight:
Pedestrian - 100-300 lbs
Bicycle - 150-350 lbs
Car - 1500-6000 lbs (including SUVs)
Size:
Pedestrian - 5-6 feet tall
Bicycle - 6 feet long x 6 feet tall x 1-2 feet wide
Car - 10-20 feet long, 4-10 feet tall, 5-7 feet wide
Speed:
Pedestrian - 1-2 mph
Bicycle - 10-15 mph typically
Car - 30-80 mph
Armor:
Pedestrian - typically none
Bicycle - person act as armor for bicycle
Car - Steel frame with steel or plastic panels, often with passive and active restraints, crush zones, etc...
People on bicycles are a lot more like pedestrians than they are like cars.
EI
I have to say, the DC bicyclists showed some of the highest disregard for traffic law and personal safety that I've encountered yet (I haven't been to SF, though). Granted, I'm sure it was mostly couriers who blew through every stop sign and traffic light, but I recall seeing people ride 2 abreast a lot as well. I have some sympathy about dealing with pedestrians, because they weren't big on obeying traffic lights either. But they still need to be yielded to when they're in a crosswalk at the appropriate times (that's specifically for the guy who yelled at me as he blew through a red light as I was crossing the street).
That bike lane that turns into a right turn to get to New York Ave from (I think it was) 7th was a very bike unfriendly design, I will admit.
You could go across Calvert to Rock Creek Parkway--it's longer than going through the city but most of the trip is on a bike trail. And that would keep one more bike off the downtown roads where each one can clog an entire lane of traffic during rush hour.
No, I really couldn't; I live on U Street, not Adams Morgan. The closest street to me that runs into Rock Creek Park is Florida Ave, which intersects the park a few blocks above. . . the Watergate. Believe me, if there were a way to be off the streets, I would be.
And I always yield to pedestrians on crosswalks; it's the ones who jump out in front of me in the middle of the street that are dangerous.
glad to hear you figured out the biking thing. I was wondering what decidion you had made... though it sounds like it's a mixed blessing. You should write that book, really! If nothing else it would be a comiseration point for those of us that ride to work. fortunately I don't have to deal much with pedestrians... but you should get an electric bike horn to deal with them. Because so many people have music in their ears now, esp. on their way to work, bike bells just don't cut it anymore.
"Bicycle - person act as armor for bicycle" - EI
fell over laughing on that one.
I just moved to SF from Chicago. I live right by GG Park, and, at the end of the bike path on the Panhandle, someone has stenciled the outline of a car that says DEATH MONSTERS AHEAD. That about sums it up. I know a lot of people who are afraid to ride in the city because they think it's unsafe.
The problem is that things won’t get safer until there are more of us on the streets. The best we can hope for is that more and more folks in urban areas ride more regularly. I think it's the only way motorists will get used to the fact that bikes do have a right to the street. I also think more of us on the road will yield some better city bike path planning.
There are an impressive amount of bikes on the streets here, though the number of bikes was growing exponentially in Chicago over the last couple years. It’s definitely growing in popularity.
I do own a car, but I don't want to use it to commute because that would be slower and way more expensive. It’s a lot more fun to ride, even despite the risks, than it is to either sit in traffic or hang off a strap on the train or the bus. I'm looking forward to being able to commute via bike year-round. I don't have it in me to ride in the freezin' cold like some of the more hardcore folks in Chicago did. More power to 'em, but it's not for me.
When I was commuting in Chicago pedestrians in the Loop would always step out in front of me in the mornings. I would always speed up and head right for 'em, and they got the message. It's a dick move, I know, but I am traffic. And I also assume it’s going to hurt me a lot more to hit them, because I’m going to maintain my momentum.
I do blow through stop signs and lights, but only when there's absolutely no one there. I always yield to cars in those situations, even when they want to let me go. I don't trust 'em not to kill me. People in cars tend to resent people on bikes, so why take the chance?
Yes, we are slower. No, it's not our fault most bike lanes are a joke. Please also understand that, while we would like to be out of your way, we're also watching for folks in parked cars who are likely to open their doors right into us.
From another city rider...
Chapter 5: The Reason I Don't Ride Right Up Next to the Parked Cars Is Because It Really, Really Hurts When I Smash Into Somebody's Just Opened Door
Chapter 6: Yes, Yes, I Know The Rules, But Please Let Me Go First Through the Intersection Cause It's Harder For Me to Stop Than It Is For You.
Chapter 7. Oh, S***. There's A Taxicab.
In Holland, many of your chapters would be obviated by the Preface: If You Hit Me, You Will Pay, Because The Law Dictates That Automobile-Bicycle Collisions Are Always Considered The Motorist's Fault.
This has been another edition of Annoying Liberals Claiming Europe Is Better.
i think a lot of times it's safer as a bicyclist to break the law by (e.g.) crossing at a red light if there's no traffic. that way, you do more of your riding without cars around than you would if you waited for signal and took off with the cars (who invariably don't realize you're there, need space, etc.). and there are roads in downtown DC that are relatively untraveled compared to others, these are your friends, use them (and ware the metro bus).
Your chapter titles are waaaaaaay too long.
DJ Superflat and others have pointed out the simple truth that infuriates motorists and pedestrians but is completely obvious to anyone who's biked in the city: sometimes the safest thing to do on a bike is to break the rules. You can see further than cars and pedestrians can because you're higher off the ground, making many stop signs work more practically as "yield" signs. And the safest thing you can do is get the hell away from cars as quickly and often as you can. Sometimes that means running a red light (after carefully looking to see if it's safe to do so).
I know you drivers won't like this or believe me. Buy a bike, ride it to work for a month and see if your opinion doesn't change.
>"This system of roads and sidewalks was not designed with bicycles in mind, so any problem bicyclists encounter is a 'you' problem not a 'me' problem."
"Not designed with bikes in mind" != "Cyclists are not entitled to use it as much as any driver." A poorly designed system is EVERYONE's problem.
>i think a lot of times it's safer as a bicyclist to break the law by crossing at a red light if there's no traffic. that way, you do more of your riding without cars around.
Agreed, see point above. In the absence of bike lanes, and in the presence of dudes like Aaron, I find it's much easier to ride out of phase with traffic as much as possible.
The best way to save time would be to convince the Atlantic that it's wrong to require a bunch of people whose work can be done anywhere to all come down from a real neighborhood to a strange dead zone at the bottom of DC. The magazine could start an Atlantic Cafe around U St and put the 4 of you in blogging cages above the crowd.
The problem with the "it's safer for us to break the rules" approach is that it makes bikes unpredictable and scary to motorists and pedestrians. This doesn't do wonders for the chances of peaceful coexistence. I respect cyclists' standing on their legal right to the road, but respect for the law can't only go one way-- and the sense that it does may contribute to the passive-aggressive (or outright aggressive) behavior cyclists encounter. (Contribute to. Not justify.) Not stopping for an empty intersection strikes me as a pretty venial sin, admittedly, but pretty much by definition those aren't the events I see.
If the laws aren't appropriate for bicycles, then the laws need to be changed and the changes need to be publicized. It's not fair to make people have to guess what a bike is likely to do-- especially given their ability to approach silently from an apparently random direction.
(And just to be clear, this likewise applies to drivers who act as if their cars are made of styrofoam, pedestrians who start walking when drivers have a left-turn signal, etc. etc. There's plenty of rude and dangerous behavior to go around.)
Biking in Minneapolis is a joy because of our extensive network of bike lanes and dedicated trails.
BOOYAA!
Mike S, I understand that, but there doesn't seem to be much benefit to acting in a predictible way, since the cars seem to act as if the simplest action, such as going in a straight line when you have the right of way, is a crazy one-off event they couldn't possibly be expected to foresee. I was literally almost killed the other day by a guy who ran a red light at a traffic circle doing 40 mph; had I started across the intersection a half second earlier, he would have killed me. Today, some woman who had decided that a bike wasn't like a car decided that she had the right to pull out into traffic while I was riding past her front wheel. (Slowly, thank God, so I could stop). Then SHE GOT MAD AT ME, since of course bikes don't *really* have the right to be in the street. The fact is, we probably are safer riding out of sync.
As is, I'd love to go through some little-used route in downtown if someone can suggest one. All the roads I ever encounter are jammed.
Megan is scrappy. Although, I keep picturing the wicked witch riding through the sky when I think of her riding to work (or any female riding to work).
As bad as it is for bikers in the U.S (especially compared to Europe), it is paradise compared to Latin America (I'm in Costa Rica). Bicycles get absolutely no respect, and the main roads have no shoulder whatsoever. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of people rely on bikes, not cars, to get around. Despite the exponentially more dangerous conditions here, I have yet to see anyone with a helmet.
Megan and Matt, I think you've summed up the problem nicely. Ideally, bicyclists would feel confident that obeying the rules will allow them to proceed safely. After all, this works for pedestrians and motorists. But in practice those two groups don't know how to behave around bicyclists a sufficiently large portion of the time that playing by the rules isn't an optimally or even satisfactorily safe way for cyclists to proceed.
The only real solution is to encourage bike use: provide more bike racks, lanes and trails. Maybe provide tax incentives to businesses that provide showers to workers, or maybe vouchers that can pay for maintenance or equipment at bike shops. Whatever it takes -- if you get enough bikes on the street cars and pedestrians will learn how to deal with them safely. At that point it'll be appropriate to start penalizing cyclists for breaking traffic laws. But until the law and their own safety are occasionally in conflict, there's not going to be much hope of getting bikers to mind their Ps and Qs.
I recently had to take my boyfriend to the ER when he biked right into the edge of an opening car door *because* he had stopped at a stop sign. When he came out of the intersection, he was squeezed between parked cars and moving traffic, so the door of the construction van opened into his chest before he had time to react.
Common Sense and Common Courtesy...
that is what it is all about
it is not clear to me why the driver of a speeding car can run a red light while talking on the cell phone while honking at the bicycle who is in the right
not sure if that makes any sense
good luck with your book
I blog on these issues with the same level of clarity each day
once you get your bike lanes, you'll have a new problem -- runners use them, and run the wrong way on them.
DC Bike laws: http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/dclaw.htm
1201.9: There shall be no prohibition against any person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk within the District, so long as the rider does not create a hazard; Provided, that no person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within the Centra1 Business District except on those sidewalks expressly designated by Order of the Mayor, nor shall any person ride e bicycle upon a sidewalk in any area outside of the Central Business District if it is expressly prohibited by Order of the Mayor and appropriate signs to such effect are posted.
1201.10: Any person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall yield the right-of way to pedestrians, and shall travel at a speed no greater than the posted speed limit of the adjacent roadway, Provided, that such speed is safe for the conditions then existing on the sidewalk..
Fines, 2602: Seems all fines are $5.00 (J-walking is $20!) - http://dmv.dc.gov/pdf/title-18/CHAPTER_26.pdf (note: opens to pdf)
Whenever I take (walk or bike) any of the DC region's multi-use bike/pedestrian paths (e.g. along the George Washington Parkway), I'm the only one I've ever seen actually obey any of the traffic signs. Bicyclers appears to be the worst offender of traffic regulations on the road.
Mike S. wrote:
"it can be a challenging game to locate a cyclist who's not breaking some vehicular traffic law. (There's plenty of jaywalking and bad driving too, of course. But odds are actually pretty good that a random car will obey traffic signals and street directions."
Sam wrote:
"Whenever I take (walk or bike) any of the DC region's multi-use bike/pedestrian paths (e.g. along the George Washington Parkway), I'm the only one I've ever seen actually obey any of the traffic signs. Bicyclers appears to be the worst offender of traffic regulations on the road."
I call BS. You are just assigning more value to the rules cyclists typically break than to the rules auto operators break. For example: what fraction of auto drivers break the speed limit? What fraction of auto drivers actually come to a FULL stop BEHIND the white line at stop signs or when making a right turn on red? Finally, what fraction of auto drivers pass cyclists legally?
I find that the mistakes mosts cyclists are making are cautioned against here (mostly chapters 2-4):
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/pamanual.pdf
Good luck.
And then there's "The proper response to me shouting 'On your left' is not to move to the exact middle of the sidewalk, stop walking, and look behind you."
Given that when, you are on the road, you are to be treated as a vehicle; and when you are on the sidewalk, you are supposed to go no faster than pedestrians, I don't think it's especially unusual for pedestrians to treat you like a car.
We're not making some sort of justice claim here; the reason to treat us differently from a car is that if you jump out fifteen feet ahead of either a car or a bike going 15 mph, the car will probably miss you, but the bike will probably not.
Chapter 9: ". FY, I take the lane whenever I want, and now move over to one of the other three lines. OMG!"
"At that point it'll be appropriate to start penalizing cyclists for breaking traffic laws."
You don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey. That's not the way the legal system works. If you want to ride on the street, then obey the traffic laws. If the laws endanger you, then lobby to have them changed. But you don't get to pick whether you follow the law. Sorry, but you don't.
To those posters pointing out that it works the other way around too (i.e, someone could write a book cursing out irresponsible bicyclists), let me add my voice.
Crossing Broadway at 57th (NYC), I just got hit by a bike. It wasn't going fast, so I wasn't hurt, but I was pretty pissed. The walk signal was white, so I'm walking across the street with the other pedestrians, and this guy runs right into me (he was dressed in biking shorts and a helmet, but was looking off to the side, since he just ran a red and was, I guess, making sure there weren't any cars crossing yet).
He mumbled an apology. I pointed to the walk signal, said something to the effect of "yeah, this is a cross-walk," then quickly walked away before I got too angry.
Next time I hope he's not watching where he's going, I hope he runs into a concrete barrier or something. Try apologizing to that.
I think Chapter Two should have a subchapter entitled: If You Roll into the Street Without Looking Both Ways as You Ignore a Stop Sign and Hit Me, I Will Probably Die Even Though I Am Wearing A Helmet
Personally, I'm amazed that bicyclists drive as if they had never ridden in a car in their lives. They act as we car drivers had perfect vision of everything happening around us (we don't, remember?) And are paying constant attention to our side mirrors (we aren't, remember?) And can read the minds of you bicyclists (we have no idea what you can and can't see, or can and can't do.)
If the worst happens and I hit another car at 20 mph, the chances of significant injury are near zero. I can't hit a bicycle at 2 mph without risking killing you. I don't want to do that!
I wish you'd drop this silly death wish and stay on sidewalks with pedestrians, and use crosswalks like pedestrians. You are just as vulnerable and don't belong in the street with cars.
Ummm . . . in most cities we're legally required to stay on the streets . . . and you're legally required to monitor your side and rear as well as your front.
"Ummm . . . in most cities we're legally required to stay on the streets..."
That, even if true, is a remarkably broken system. For reasons pointed out better by some of the people above, bikes are a lot more like pedestrians than they are like cars.
Putting a bike on the road slows traffic down dramatically and puts the bicycler's life at risk (if he or she is hit by a car). Putting a bike on the sidewalk slows the bicycler down slightly and risks some bruised elbows and dirtied clothes. It's not ideal, but it beats the hell out of the alternative.
If you're going to ignore one law in your entire life, this is probably the one.
At the end of the day, the calculus is simple. Yes, the world would be a better place for bicyclists if they could ride in the roads and be safe. But even if that were practical, such a system would advantage a tiny minority at tremendous cost to everybody else. I hate to say it, but standing behind the veil of ignorance this problem becomes remarkably simple...
Bicyclists need to stay on the sidewalk.*
Holy freakin' tripe!
Jesus jumping christ I can't believe no one has told you how INANE this post is. And for this blog, that's an accomplishment.
I still don't understand why you can't stop quickly. Did you get one of those crazy american fixed gear things with no brakes?
My bike stops perfectly well, at least as well as a normal car driven by a normal person who has to put the phone down and replace their drink in the holder before they can stomp on the pedal.
And as for riding my bike on the footpath, my theory is: ride on footpath, risk a $20 fine, ride on (some) roads, risk death. It's an easy decision to make.
Oh, I can stop the bike just fine. It's just that if I'm going at something akin to the speed of traffic--and I'd better be, if I don't want to get run over--I myself will maintain a good bit of momentum. And since I'm not actually attached to the bike, that makes it fairly likely that I will, after the bike has stopped, continue forward over the handlebars until I hit something, such as the pedestrian who has leaped out at me, or perhaps an oncoming car. A friend recently broke a rib experiencing just such an unexpected radical deceleration.
If I wish to stay attached to my bicycle, I need a bit more stopping radius than a car driver, who has four brake drums and a seatbelt.
But I invite you to try it yourself. Cruise down a hill in your car, and then your bicycle, both at say 15-20 mph. Then jam on the brakes of each as hard as you can. But do it in the car first, because after you do it on the bike, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be in any shape to drive.
It takes a special kind of disregard for ones life to ride a bicycle between the curb and a row of cars stopped at a light only to have all of those cars pass you again once the light turns green.
This kind of thing makes sense if there is a nice, wide bike lane, but I've watched bicyclists squeeze by a row of cars all stopped at the light as though completely oblivious to the fact that every single one of these cars is going to have to pass the bicyclist again...
While it is the legal right of bicyclists to ride on the streets in most cities, there are many relatively narrow and/or bumpy streets where it is still stupid to do so. But that doesn't seem to stop them IMHO.
And when they do block traffic, those cars that are forced to go slow produce more emissions...
EI
I see widespread failures to respect the rights of others, drawing into question the viability of a free society. How can a society remain free if Megan daily runs a gauntlet of people who show such disregard for her right to bicycle to work?
I'm sure this experience is drawing Megan's attention to the widespread limits in human capacities to run models of others. For a free society to succeed those brain models must be sufficiently sophisticated so as to allow each human to adjust their behavior to avoid violating the rights of others. Even worse for the cause of liberty, those brain models (simulations if you will) must be coupled with a goal-seeking algorithm that heavily weights the goal of avoiding rights violations of others.
A good post as Halloween approaches. Reminds me of a short novel, an obituary actually, in the Dallas paper. This man with a Spanish surname had been riding down Industrial, yes we have zoning in Dallas and the street couldn't have been more aptly named, and was run over and killed. There was a tone of anger in the obituary because it seems he had earlier been hit and hospitalized riding the same street; should have been dues paid and lesson learned by the motorist? Bike lanes have probably less moral appeal in this car city than dog lanes. Might as well try Bangkok or Bagdhad.
And when they do block traffic, those cars that are forced to go slow produce more emissions... -- EI
Yeah, that problem of bicycles blocking cars from proceeding in traffic is a really serious problem.
Pedestrians, too. I mean, during the three seconds one sometimes has to pause to allow a pedestrian to cross the street, one is burning that much more gasoline!
Megan,
I'd urge you to reconsider Rock Creek. Even if it does add some minutes to your commute, it sounds like the payoff in peace of mind (not to mention the scads of uninhaled exhaust) would make it worthwhile.
Rock Creek is lovely nearly all year and gorgeous in spring and fall. And don't forget to enjoy it on the weekends, especially where it's closed to traffic. It's a great treat to ride on the roadway w/o any threat from vehicles. (I hope that's still the case. I've been out of DC for 15 years.)
All that said, Rock Creek has been the site of some grisly crimes - often against single women. So keep your eyes open there, too.
Cheers,
It's got nothing to do with the extra minutes; if I get on the nearest road that runs straight to rock creek park, it reaches the park at exactly the point where I have to exit the park in order to get back on the streets. In other words, there is no route through the park for me.
brooksfoe, I'm talking about bicycles that are riding on the street and taking up too much of the lane for cars to pass. I have had this happen several times during rush hour where a single bicycle can cause a traffic jam on a heavily used street that is not very wide.
What he was doing was legal, but stupid and rude.
EI
You know, you could really try and push for something akin to Chicago's bike traffic adocacy group (the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation). You can contact executive director Rob Sadowsky (rob@biketraffic.org) about DC resources - or even about coordinating a DC-like system. Rob (who I've had the pleasure of meeting) is very experienced about the problems bike safety in urban areas, and his interests are national, even if his job is local. He'd certainly give you a few minutes of his time if you were looking to do something other than write a book that just contained titles n all.
I have to agree with a previous poster who said that it never really made sense that bikes had to be on he street as opposed to the sidewalk. To me it seems infinately safer for cyclists to be on the sidewalks, espceially in DC where in many parts of the cities there just aren't a ton of pedestrians on the sidewalks. I can understand why you wouldn't want bikes on the sidewalks in New York though. Too many people!
During my stint at VDOT I became acquainted with the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) (http://www.waba.org/) as they came to every public hearing for every road improvement project. Inevitably they wanted bike lanes added to all projects. Which is all very well and good, except for 2 things. 1) All widenings included a multi-use trail one one side of the road, and a sidewalk on the other, rendering a bike lane redundent and rarely used; and 2) the addition of bike lanes (in suburbia, at least), means wider roads and additional land acquisition, which is uniformly opposed by the neighbors who would be losing the land in the first place.
By the way, Megan, maybe you should check out WABA's site. They have a class on how to bike around the city and not get killed.
I am confused as to why someone would suggest that bikes belong on the sidewalks, where during rush hour the average walking commuter is going no faster than maybe, MAYBE, 2mph. When I'm on a bike, I can go the same speed as car traffic, why in the world should I be contained to a sidewalk where I am forced to move at a snail's pace. The whole point of bike commuting is that it A. its cheaper, B. its better for the environment, and C. in most cases in DC, it's faster! I have a 13 mile commute one way each day, two miles of which are in downtown DC. Both metro and driving take longer than biking. I do agree however, that since we are a vehicle, we must obey traffic laws. It's just dumb not to.
How about: I Don't Want to Hit You Either, Please For the Love of God Stop Blowing Thru the Light?
Really, as a regular car driver in DC it scares the begezus out of me for daredevil bicyclists to blow through the signals. Therefore, I'd have to say that I reject all of these well intended bike comments to the tune of "it's really ok for us to break the rules when we decide to..." It makes your drive path unpredictable and dangerous. The rule should be followed or changed.
So, all these fun considerations of momentum? Works bothways: suck it up and stop for the light. Just think, all that harder pedaling to start up once again will contribute to your figure. AND to you having a figure at all.
Li, perhaps that pedestrian was startled? "on your left" is fine, but gives a pedestrian who wasn't expecting to be passed little time. That person could just be as clueless as any other. People (car, bike, walker) are not omniscient. All you can do is make yourself seen and be as courteous as possible, but defensively expect that the other person is distracted. (The unpredictability of bikes also includes when they'll decide to be on the road and when the sidewalk...)
As a DC cycling veteran, I think one thing is absolutely clear: Motorists are taught, I believe, from a very early age, one A Very Important Rule:
Do Not Hit Things.
There's a corollary to that rule:
Do Not Hit Things Smaller Than You. It's Probably Going To Be Your Fault.
Motorcycles, for example, though equipped with excellent acceleration, are unsafe vehicles to be close to on the road. Yet most motorists think they ought to treat the motorcycles as cars. So when they swerve suddenly, motorists wave their fists in (an unjustified) rage. Motorcycles have to react to changes in the pavement, and when people get hit while riding them, 80% of the accidents wind up with DEATH.
DC is a place where motorists are convinced that Things Ought To Be Ideal. As in, "I am in a hurry, and you shouldn't be in this lane. So I'm going to drive like a maniac." That hardly takes into account the fact that there are cyclists on the road, ones that can die, and their life is more important than the meeting you're running late for.
"The proper response to me shouting 'On your left' is not to move to the exact middle of the sidewalk, stop walking, and look behind you."
Yes, that's been a really well-thought-out system, and very user-friendly to the intended audience. It's hard to understand why more people don't use it.
Personally, I find as a pedestrian that having an unseen party unexpectedly shout at me 1-2 seconds before passing never surprises, confuses or paralyzes me. It's also naturally the case that hearing "LEFT!" bellowed out of nowhere prompts an obvious reaction to move to the right.
Whatever, you're totally right. You have the benefit of conditioning which allows this response to occur. Not everyone has the same background, so the reponse can be encouraged but not expected. However, it does go to show that systems can generate predicablity, for everyone's benefit. Applying rules, like stopping... oh drat, I've just become a killjoy bore...
"Believe me, if there were a way to be off the streets, I would be."
Remove the tires from your wheels and ride on the powerlines above.
I drive and bike in DC on a regular basis. I bike far more often than I drive (basically for anything under 3-4 miles), because biking is faster and more enjoyable than driving. Driving in DC is a nightmare a really solid amount of the time, and I therefore understand the extreme frustrations of those who have to do it daily. That said, I drive more than enough to know that the rage some drivers pile on the bicyclist is no more than misdirected anger at the overall driving-in-DC experience.
When I drive in DC I cross paths with a bicyclist maybe 5 times per trip, and am inconvenienced by that bicyclist approximately never. It's just not that big a deal. When I bike DC, I cross paths with hundreds of cars, and am inconvenienced maybe once per couple of trips – also not that big a deal. However, I am put in fear of death a few times a month by a motorist doing something wholly unreasonable.
Think about the numbers - If a driver passes maybe 5 bikes per trip and a cyclist passes hundreds of cars per trip, which is more affected by the small portion of each population that acts unpredictably? Add in the likely consequence of a car on bike collision and understand a cyclist's resistance to the criticism of our conduct. Cyclists are watching out for cars AT ALL TIMES because they don't want to be killed, and most of the time a driver won't even know that a cyclist is nearby.
We the cyclists do the best we can to avoid getting in the way of cars – because it's better and safer for us. Sometimes we do get in the way, and we're sorry. We keep out there because we get from Dupont to Chinatown in 7 minutes and don't have to worry about parking. Sorry about that too, we don’t mean to rub it in your face – it's just a fact. We'd appreciate a little more room and a little less misdirected anger, but we’re doing fine, thank you.
If you are riding so fast that you cannot safely stop at a red light or stop sign, you're going too fast.
I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist stop at a red light or stop sign unless a car was about to hit them, otherwise they blast through and scream obscenities at the pedestrians who have a legal right to cross.
As a pedestrian, I've never had a close call with a car, but several times I've nearly been hit by a cyclist who felt the rules did not apply to them. One woman was recently killed by a cyclist blasting through an intersection, going the wrong way on a one way street.
The book for you is John Forester's Effective Cycling (the DC library doesn't seem to have a copy).
The aforementioned WABA website lists a free "Confident City Cycling" class on October 13, billed as the "LAST CLASS for 2007!"
On the stopping thing, try pushing yourself back off the seat when you squeeze the brake levers.
Oh, and "Then jam on the brakes of each as hard as you can" would be a serious mistake. Once your front tire is skidding or your back wheel is off the ground, you're braking as much as you can; locking the wheels won't help. Try using a lighter grip on the front brake than the rear. If you do feel yourself going over the handlebars, tuck your head down and try to land on your back. I know from personal experience that arching backward, and trying to fly, doesn't work.
I'll recommend my book to Li: As a Pedestrian, I Don't Have a Rearview mirror
I have no sense of directional hearing. Your bike horn could be coming from any direction, so I haven't a chance of guessing which way I should dodge without freezing in place, pulling my dog's leash to make us both as small a target as possible, and looking around for you. And I'm also fairly unlikely to make out the words 'On the left' in time to do anything about it. If you hit me, I will probably curse and cry. But god help you if you hit my dog--I will sue the bejeezus out of you.
Of all the bad ideas advanced in these comments, the worst by far is that cyclists might somehow be safer on the sidewalks than in the streets. It is simply false to think that bicycles on the sidewalk are avoiding cars. They interact with cars at every cross street and driveway, and they do so at right angles to traffic and with poor visibility. There is a lot of research on this subject. For example, Wachtel and Lewiston (1994) found: "Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections. Wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists are at even greater risk, and sidewalk bicycling appears to increase the incidence of wrong-way travel."
Many intuitions about bicycle safety are wrong. We fear being run down from behind far too much and being struck by turning cars at intersections too little. The idea that running red lights makes us safer is a great example of rationalizing the selfish and convenient. Accept a couple of extra minutes obeying the law and ride like a grown-up. Speaking as a Chicago bicycle commuter in his mid-50s who is, after many years, alive and uninjured, safety lies in predictable behavior, good lights, always staying out of the door zone, and following traffic rules. Taking a little time to read something like Forester is an excellent idea.
another chapter:
"pedestrian: my anticipated course already takes into account your anticipated course, so freezing and then dancing side to side increases, rather than decreases the chances i hit you (though there's no reason you should know or trust this)."
as for the "follow the rules" post immediately above, you also note that we risk being struck by cars at intersections, which is why i get away from cars at intersections -- by running reds when safe -- as much as possible. if you've ridden as long as you say, you should recognize the wisdom of this move.
I suppose part of the idea is having a smaller carbon footprint. And where there are bike lanes or where there are 2 lanes roads where the cars can, because of little traffic, generally conveniently shrink down temporarily to 1 lane a bike is reasonable. Otherwise it seems like a Vespa type vehicle is better. Traffic accidents would seem likely to increase with the variance of the speed of congested traffic and variance in the number of lanes, the latter is relevant because essentially on a road, two lanes either way say for example, a bicyclist randomly introduces a fifth lane. A person on a bike does not have the 'horespower' to accelerate fast enough to keep in the car traffic flow nor the center of gravity and brakes to stop nearly as quickly as the car traffic.
Why the devil don't you buy a motorcycle? They're dangerous, but in your circumstances, they're comparatively safer than a bicycle. You can stop and accelerate much faster than on a bike.
In your situation, you have no reasonable guarantee of safety. Driving a CAR is fairly dangerous. Something like 40,000 people die in traffic accidents every year. Our complaint that other drivers should not run red lights or drive drunk is certainly justified, but does nothing to increase our relative safety. Every time we get in a car, we are accepting that implicit risk to our safety.
Even greater than the risk of death in a car, is the risk of getting into an accident. A driver has the reasonable expectation of never dieing in an auto accident. He does Not have the reasonable expectation of Never getting into a wreck, even he drives responsibly and defensively.
We are sufficiently confident of the inevitability of accidents, that we Require auto insurance, and would consider a person who drives without it irresponsible. (There are something like 3 million auto accidents involving "injuries" annually.
It is into this dynamic, and into a heavy traffic flow that you interject yourself. A motorist's strategy for maintaining his safety is:
A. Drive responsible.
B. Drive defensively.
C. Trust the odds that he won’t be hit most of the time by irresponsible drivers.
B. Rely on the protection that the car offers when he is hit.
Your strategy is the same as the above, except you cannot rely on the bicycle's protection. This means that those minor accidents--which drivers accept will happen once or twice in the course of their life--could easily be fatal in your case.
Also, the ability to extricate oneself from the negative consequences of Other people's bad driving is compromised on a bicycle. So, you can't Avoid the accident, but you can see it coming and have plenty of time to experience Abject Terror.
Moreover, it seems like the odds of getting into Any accident would be higher in your case. People aren't looking for and don't expect to see cyclists. Also, as people are less experienced driving around cyclists, they are more likely to make some sort of mistake. The fact that they Shouldn't doesn't increase your relative safety.
So, as I understand it, the current strategy employed to forestall Megan's Untimely Demise is to depend on the Stupid and Thoughtless not to do something thoughtless or stupid, and involve her in an accident. Hmmm... I don't like that strategy. It reeks of... me having to find another blog in a few years.
MY strategy allows for an increase capacity for defensive driving (they brake faster, move at the speed of traffic, and accelerate quickly) and greater visibility (everyone hears motorcycles coming). That's why, a vote for the SV 650, is a vote for life.
And they have a Tiny carbon foot print.
And chicks on bikes help eliminate negative stereotypes about women. You're doing your part in the fight against global warming, but you Could be promoting sexual equality as well. Don't you believe in sexual equality?
Oh well, don't die.
Or maim.
Are you a motorist who advocates a "Bikes Belong on Sidewalks" point of view? If so, please read the following:
If you are in any way sedentary and/or overwieght and/or obese, YOU BELONG ON A BIKE OR ON THE SIDEWALK. Get the F#@% out of your car and move around under your own power. (Do you even have any personal power?)
YOU are part of a national epidemic of obesity and myriad related health problems that are costing ME and everyone else REAL MONEY by driving up national health care costs and insurance premiums.
By the way: DRIVING to the gym for a 30 minute workout three times per week still means that you live a sedentary lifestyle. Get out of your car, tubby.
Yeah, I don't have much patience for all the "if bikers just followed the rules, they wouldn't be in danger" comments, probably because I got hit by a car in the crosswalk of an intersection about 2 weeks ago. I was with the light but the guy didn't see me because he wasn't looking for me. I saw that he wasn't looking and braked as hard as I could, but we still collided. The equation is pretty simple: large suburban beats small girl on bike. I go through that same intersection every time I ride to and from work and I now have a mantra I repeat as I get near it: please see me, please see me, please see me. Have any of you car drivers out there ever had to pray that a bike would see you so that you wouldn't get hit and/or killed? Yesterday, my husband almost got hit in the same intersection- by a cop. 2 minutes after that another guy blew through a red light and came within inches of hitting me. So again, I ask you cars: if you had a 1.5 mile commute, how many times during that commute would you reasonably expect to be hit or killed? Because I have at least 3-4 spots in my 1.5 mile trip where I fear for my life or safety.
If you're asking why I keep riding, it's real simple: while others are sitting in traffic cursing their commute and those around them, I'm cruising along with the wind, saving time and money and pretty much feeling like a kid again. I guess car people (oh, and I drive as well as ride) just get jealous because when you commute by car you only put things into your commute. When you commute by bike, you get something out of your commute.
Suki: "I have at least 3-4 spots in my 1.5 mile trip where I fear for my life or safety."
With such a short commute, could you take a slightly longer route which avoids those spots?
"When you commute by bike, you get something out of your commute."
You go, girl!
dj superflat comments on my post: "you also note that we risk being struck by cars at intersections, which is why i get away from cars at intersections -- by running reds when safe -- as much as possible." I used to do that and I understand why people do it. I was afraid of the passing cars. I would be riding down the street as whoosh whoosh whoosh cars went by on my left. Running the light was a way of having the road to myself for a minute while the cars waited for the light to change. This is not, therefore, a technique for avoiding the genuine danger of intersecting traffic, but a technique for avoiding the overrated danger of overtaking traffic. It is not logical to say that intersections are dangerous, so one should get away from them as fast as possible by running the light. The danger is not proximity to an intersection, it's getting though it without being hit. Entering the intersection when opposing traffic has the right of way maximizes the danger.
Part of my reasoning process, at least, is the humble realization that we all make mistakes sometimes, and if I am going to err one time in 10,000, let it be in a way that doesn't kill me. For example, if I swerve left in traffic because I fail to appreciate that a car is approaching from behind, my speed, though less than that of the car, at least reduces the relative difference. I have been in the driver's field of vision as he approaches, and he has a fighting chance to react and avoid me. I may get away with a scare or a glancing blow. If I make my one in 10,000 mistake by thinking the field is clear for running a light, the driver is completely taken by surprise with no time to react and I take the hit perpendicular to my trajectory, with a speed differential equal to the car's full speed. In short, being wrong about whether it is safe to run a light is just about the worst possible way of being wrong, so it is best to avoid the opportunity for making that mistake.
There are plenty of other reasons to obey traffic signals. Where I live, morning rush-hour bike traffic is actually becoming dense. I used to take notice if there were three or four other bikes at an intersection with me; now I sometimes see a dozen. What might be reasonable for the oddball cyclist scuttling around trying to stay out of the way of cars doesn't cut it as we gain in numbers.
Here's a situation I see once a week or so. I approach a four-way stop with a car waiting in the cross street. It's his turn, so I stop and wait, but he doesn't move. Often there is a car next to me also waiting for the car with the right of way to go. Then whoosh, a bike passes me, blowing the stop sign. That's why the car was waiting -- he knows cyclists don't stop. Sometimes there's another bike or two behind the first one and we all wait. By that time, the pattern of taking turns is disrupted and order at the intersection breaks down. Another situation, far less frequent, arises when I'm passing through an intersection on a green light. I can see the cars stopped in the cross street and feel perfectly secure when a bike pops out from between the waiting cars and the curb. He's looking for cars and doesn't see me approaching. I've never collided, but I've had close calls. Finally, I constantly see bikes frighten pedestrians in crosswalks by cutting across their paths way too fast and way too close when the pedestrians innocently believe they have the right of way. We can be as bad as drivers about losing a few seconds at the expense of someone else's safety and comfort. I certainly admit that their infractions of the law are far more dangerous than ours, but we hate them for their selfishness and discourtesy as well as their recklessness. We should do better.
Oh, I can stop the bike just fine. It's just that if I'm going at something akin to the speed of traffic--and I'd better be, if I don't want to get run over--I myself will maintain a good bit of momentum. And since I'm not actually attached to the bike, that makes it fairly likely that I will, after the bike has stopped, continue forward over the handlebars until I hit something,
If you need to stop that suddenly, stop messing around with those poor excuses for brakes. Get off the bike seat, put your heels on the ground and a little ahead of you with your full weight on them, and slide to a stop while holding onto the handlebars to stay upright. Heck, I learned that in 4th grade (along with, if you take the whole 3 blocks downhill from school without touching the brakes, you're going to be in trouble when you've got to stop at that T-intersection).
But motorists, keep in mind that stopping and starting is inherently more difficult on a bicycle. Cars don't try to tip over in a normal stop, bikers have to expect it and catch it. Cars go when you just push the accelerator, it takes a lot of effort to get a bike started - and it's wobbly until you build up some speed. Running red lights is idiotic, but there's a darned good reason bikers like to keep rolling through a stop sign if traffic allows.
Finally, both bicyclists and motorcyclists have a huge problem with car drivers that look right at them and then drive like they don't see them. One of my friends was killed on a motorcycle when a car going the opposite direction made a left turn right into him, and another one spent six months in the hospital after crashing into the side of a car that left-turned right in front of him. In both cases it was daylight and the motorcycle had the right of way and was perfectly visible through the windshield. If I interpreted the statistics correctly, this sort of scenario is the most common cause of fatal accidents to sober motorcyclists. (As for the even higher death rate of drunken riders in accidents they cause, I think of it as evolution in action...)
Megan, here's another chapter for you:
I'm In The Left-Turn Lane Because I'm Turning Left, Dickhead, So Stop Honking
And for those people (none of them cyclists, I notice) who recommend riding on the sidewalks-- it doesn't solve any problem for the cyclist. The greatest danger for a cyclist is intersections, particularly left-turning and right-turning cars who don't see the cyclist. Cyclists who ride on the sidewalk are invisible to drivers.
Say a sidewalk cyclist is approaching an intersection. She's going straight, so she has the right of way over approaching drivers who plan to make a left turn. She proceeds through the intersection, but the left-turning driver doesn't see her because drivers don't look for traffic on sidewalks. BAM! The left hook! Cyclist down.
Or, the sidewalk cyclist is again approaching an intersection. A driver comes up behind her, planning a right turn and getting in the right turn area. If the cyclist were on the road where she belongs, she would have moved left to avoid the right-turn area, allowing right-turners to get on her right side. But she isn't; she's on the sidewalk, and as she proceeds through the intersection the right-turning car doesn't see her. BAM! The right hook! Cyclist down.
Savvy cycling commuters don't ride on the sidewalk. Savvy cycling commuters also stay out of the "door zone" by not riding too close to parked cars. Inexperienced commuters, riding too close to parked cars, will get hit when driver opens a door without looking.
No one has mentioned the possibility of enforcing the traffic laws. I know it offends many people to get a ticket, and there is no greater evil today than offending someone, but it has been done in some places.
Someone above had the idea that cyclists will behave after they get great bike lanes and respectful motorists. Nope: I live in Boulder, with great bike lanes, separate paths that can function as bike freeways, and bike-aware drivers. A great many cyclists still ignore the rules. The problem is that traffic laws are not enforced against bicycles. On a bike, run the light or straddle lanes right in front of a squad car; it's OK. With maybe 1500 miles/year on the bike, it's been a few years since my last close call with a car, but I encounter more idiot cyclists than I can count.
To a fair extent, traffic enforcement is weak in most of the country, with predictable results. If those DC motorists Megan describes had any real chance of being ticketed for running a red, she wouldn't see it so often. Over time, the laws drift into irrelevance, to be replaced by a simple rule: the most selfish person has the right of way.
It seems no one has mentioned a simple fact: It's faster to bike in DC than it is to drive to the same place. Then another good point: in rush hour, there are so many cars on the road that having a bicycle in front of you isn't going to make you any more late, especially if that cyclist is obeying the laws and trying to keep up with traffic.
I am a young cyclist, but I try and make sure I follow all the traffic laws in the areas that I bike (I have seen too many accidents.) This menas stopping at lights and stop signs, etc, because I believe that bikes are vehicles and if we take the road, we need to respect the rules. Other than getting buzzed by cars repeatedly as they pass far too close on my left, I haven't had a problem following the rules. Having cut my commute time in my own area from 15 minutes in a car to 5 minutes on a bike, it's not that big of an issue.
Keep on, Megan!
ledger - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
pills , diet pills, weight loss pills , best diet pills , cheap pills , buy diet pill online , sleeping pills , prescription diet pills
top flomax discount
top flomax discount
top lamisil discount
top hoodia discount
top glucophage discount
top glucophage discount