Predictibly, drivers are complaining about the bikers being all unsafe and illegal and everything. The bikers are biting back. Who's more dangerous?
I commute by both bike and car, and it's no contest: cars. Bikers are keenly alive to their own safety, and tend to pay a lot more attention to the cars than the cars pay to them. Moreover, many drivers in DC seem to believe that it is against the law to be in a mode of transportation that goes more slowly than their own, and therefore complain about such "violations" as trying to merge into the exit lane of a traffic circle. Memo to drivers: whether it's a car or a bike, you're supposed to yield to someone trying to exit. Yes, I know that this means you'll get to your destination a full TEN SECONDS later, Princess Precious. We all have our crosses to bear; let this be yours.
Speaking as a car owner, the aura of entitlement around car commuters here is really amazing to behold. They're positively outraged that DC is moving to demand pricing for parking, and to close fast-moving arteries that shunt commuters to their destination at the expense of making the neighborhoods virtually unwalkable at rush hour. They don't even have the excuse of New York commuters--that their jobs and entertainment bring the city a lot of revenue. Government agencies don't pay any sort of taxes; nor do think tanks, NGOs, or most money-losing media organizations. And suburbanites tend to hang out in the suburbs at night, and shop their on weekends. In short, they want us to pay them for the privilege of hosting their cars 12 hours a day, and picking up the lucrative sandwich shop revenue which they apparently believe is the sole fiscal support of the city.
They are also terrible, terrible drivers. I don't know what it is about DC, but the city hosts a kind of driver that I have never encountered before: aggressive, yet hesitant. Usually you get one or the other.
The only thing about bike riders that rankles me is when they needlessly ride abreast and take up the whole road.
A couple of weeks ago, I came across a group of bike riders on South Congress in Austin riding abreast and taking up three whole lanes, blocking the whole road in one direction. They were lucky I only honked.
Actually, Megan[1], you're wrong. It's bikers ... motorbikers, most of whom rev their engines louder than my horn, and often, sirens, and the bikers are damn proud of it. Loud pipes save lives alright ... just not the lives of the folks that ambulances cart around or who needed to be alerted by my horn.
[1] Note the lack of the full name, underscored form of address. That's part of my move to start acting normally and be less weird. Also note the webpage, which puts a human face on me.
Megan, I think you should start eating meat again.
I think veganism is affecting your reasoning and writing ("shop their").
Everything you said may be true (I'm not in DC). What I can say is there are an awful lot of bike riders who don't believe that stop lights apply to them. There are several times when I've had the walk sign at a red light and walked into the road only to be nearly hit by a bike rider that is speeding through the red light as though the yellow jersey were at stake. It works both ways: if bicyclists want to be respected like other vehicles, they have to obey the same rules.
Right or wrong, is it surprising that drivers don't like bikers? Without bikers, drivers go faster and when they look in their rearview, they only have to look for relatively large objects. Then throw in an endowment effect (biking seems more common than it used to be). That's all cost and no benefit to the individual driver.
Ah, yes. This has been a continual issue in Philly for a long time. While I won't defend the drivers here (they suck, like most drivers suck everywhere), I will say that it's very, very rare to see a biker actually obey the rules of the road. Yes, even though you're on a bicycle, you are still required to come to a complete stop at stop signs and redlights. And yes, even though you're tiny enough to slide by me doesn't mean it's safe to come whipping by when I'm in front of you and about to make a turn.
I try to be aware of bikes on the road because I'm not a total jackass and I fully realize that most drivers do not take this view. That said, when you're riding a bike your safety is first and foremost your responsibility. You can't intentionally engage in blatantly unsafe behaviour and then get upset when something happens.
Q: What do you get when you take the average type-A road-raging butthead out from behind the wheel of a car and put him on a bicycle ?
A: An average type-A road-raging butthead on a bicycle.
I live in Virginia and I agree with Megan. I'm not saying the bikers are sinless (in fact, I do not ride a bike myself), but the drivers in this area, I think, are the worst in the nation. I've heard a lot of noise about how bad Boston drivers are, but in my admittedly limited experience in Boston, I just don't see it. I think the problem in the DC area (not just DC but also VA and MD suburbs) is twofold: first, you get drivers from all over the nation, not to mention other nations, all with different driving cultures, if you will, and expectations of what other drivers will do; second, you get a high proportion of self-important people in the DC area for whom it seems that their getting to their destination 10 second early more than counterbalances whether you live or die. They probably don't actually think that way, but they sure drive like it...
As someone else who both bikes and drives, all I can say is that most roads are hideously unsuitable for the peaceful coexistance of bikes and cars. Bicyclists hold up traffic or force frequent passings, tend to roll right through stopsigns, and can be hard to see. Drivers are controlling half-ton steel contraptions at 2-3x the speed of the bikes, need to merge through the bike lane in order to make right turns, and often don't see bikers or don't give them enough space to maneuver safely.
I bike on sidewalks and off-road trails whenever legal and practical (too rarely for my tastes), as I find it's much easier for bikes to share space with pedestrians than cars.
It isn't speed that is dangerous but speed differentials. There is no road design that can safely hand traffic with differentials greater than 20 mph.
Therefore safety requires that roads should be either totally closed to bicycles that cannot keep up with normal traffic or closed to any vehicle capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. Drawing pretty pictures on the pavement is an invitation to the cemetary.
If personal safety is really important to you, a sine quo non, than you should get a small 100cc motor cycle or motor scooter. I park mine next to my desk at work and still keep up with traffic. The ones with mufflers built for street use are very quiet.
Suburbanites do go into DC to do weekend things. But they go by Metro, so I guess that's beside the point.
Part of the problem in DC is that the design of the city is already auto-unfriendly, creating a higher baseline level of driver frustration.
"Aargh!! My usual street is closed! There are no legal left turns for another mile and a half, and it's going to take me three blocks to merge over to the right! A CYCLIST is making my left turn! Grrr!"
Suburbanites do go into DC to do weekend things. But they go by Metro, so I guess that's beside the point.
Part of the problem in DC is that the design of the city is already auto-unfriendly, creating a higher baseline level of driver frustration.
"Aargh!! My usual street is closed! There are no legal left turns for another mile and a half, and it's going to take me three blocks to merge over to the right! A CYCLIST is making my left turn! Grrr!"
"Drivers or bikers: who sucks more?"
Both of you! For pedestrians in DC, at least. I find it particularly annoying when bicyclists use the sidewalks. It vexes too when bicyclists fail to obey the posted signs. For example, on the walk between Arlington Cemetary and Roosevelt Island, there are some bits where the signs clearly tell bicylcists that they have to get off their bikes and walk them through the overpass or the tunnel or whatever. Never once seen one do it.
About car drivers from a pedestrian perspective, nothing need be said. They are a menace.
I live in Silicon Valley, which is a popular place to ride bicycles. I think the issue of riders vs the law is the same here as anywhere else in the US (but not in Europe or China): bicyclists believe that the traffic laws apply only to cars and motorcycles. Rare is the bicycle rider who will stop at a stop sign unless his well-being demands it. Rarer still is the cyclist who will wait for a red light to turn green.
All that said, the law-breaking bicyclist probably isn't going to kill an innocent pedestrian or driver.
"All that said, the law-breaking bicyclist probably isn't going to kill an innocent pedestrian or driver."
Actually, there was a pedestrian killed by a bicycle rider on the Upper West Side some ten years back, and my seven-year-old daughter was knocked over and badly bruised and cut by a bicyclist a few years back. In both cases, the bicyclist was a delivery man riding on the sidewalk. Taken all in all, I can't say that the bicyclists around here are more law-abiding then the automobile drivers, though they are admittedly less dangerous.
My girlfriend and I argue this all the time. I'm a cyclist who hates the italian bike hat wearing, entitled, messenger poseurs who don't respect any road rules. I like the idea of critical mass, but hate its agressive, dipshit manner of execution in virtually every city I've ridden. But let's be brutally honest, they pose little threat to drivers (aside from their insurance rates, in the event that a driver is found at fault). A bad driver, however, poses a threat to everyone.
One thing in drivers' favor is a higher (but not high enough) rate of enforcement for traffic violations. Now if they only get around to mufflers for custom cars and choppers.
As a D.C. transplant for many years, I used to think that Virginia drivers were careless, and Maryland drivers were reckless - or in other words, Virginia drivers were dumb, and Maryland drivers were stupid. Not anymore. Now everybody is careless and reckless (not to mention dumb and stupid).
Who, me? Well, I learned to drive in suburban New York City, so I'm exempt. I'll say this much for New York City drivers - they may be terrifying, but at least they're somewhat predictable. And I hate surprises when I'm driving.
"Government agencies don't pay any sort of taxes; nor do think tanks, NGOs, or most money-losing media organizations."
Actually, they pay huge amounts of local income taxes to D.C., withheld from the paycheques of their employees.
"Actually, they pay huge amounts of local income taxes to D.C., withheld from the paycheques of their employees."
This is a false statement. The income taxes go to the State for which the employee claims residence. Mostly Maryland or Virginia.
Now the Federal Government does pay DC a subsidy. But there are a lot of arguments as to whether or not this covers the lost property tax revenue and the inability to charge a commuter tax.
As a pedestrian, I've learned a long time ago that bicyclists could give less than a $#@% about my safety. Especially if I'm trying to cross a street at the crosswalk and they have a red light or a stop sign.
On a related topic, have you seen Brad Templeton's robocars discussion:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/
and his analysis of why transit is less energy efficient than cars:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
I'd love to hear the Megan angle on it.
There is no doubt at all that drivers in DC are the worst in the entire country - DC drivers are totally unpredictable, VA drivers drive like they don't know where they are going, and MD drivers just ignore every rule that they can. No one ever uses a turn signal, either. I can't count the number of times I've been in a line of cars and the one entering the intersection apparently intends to go left and hold everyone up but doesn't bother to use a directional so people have an opportunity to steer around them.
I hate driving in DC - give me Manhattan any day.
sol,
Actually, traffic studies have shown that the critical speed differential is 15 mph, not 20. Various studies were done at Research Triangle Park that clearly showed that accidents increased with speed differentials above 15 mph, and there was no increase in accidents based on speed alone. (Accidents at higher speeds tend to have more fatalities, but there aren't more of them.)
And the speed differential works in both directions; i.e., it's a "U" shaped curve, so as long as you are traveling within 7.5 mph of the average speed of traffic, your chances of having an accident are as low as they can go.
From my limited DC experience, I agree with Megan, but small, easily killed minorities are often less annoying than other groups. Here in Boulder, we have an excellent combination of bike lanes and separate multi-use (bike + ped)paths. The paths typically have tunnels or overpasses at major intersections, so they are like bike freeways. In addition, cars notice bikes here. It is rare for a car to annoy me, much less scare me.
Like many jurisdictions, the authorities here do not consider bicycle traffic violations to be a priority, though few other locales have gone as far towards granting total immunity. A goodly fraction of cyclists have responded by either becoming ani, or by freely expressing their preexisting anal tendencies. Contrary to Megan's view, they are not keenly alive to their own safety. Such concerns are beneath them. The rest of us must care for them, since they have a toddler's traffic sense combined with boundless self-esteem.
The sheriff and many others justify cyclist immunity on the grounds that it is hard for a cyclist to kill someone. Stealing your neighbors' newspaper or leaving dog doo on their yard is also unlikely to kill anyone, but being crapped upon is not fun for the crappee.
As a runner, I've got to say I have no problems with bikes. I've had a lot of problems with cars. If I'm waiting for a light to turn green, as I should, legally, I'll have to sprint across the first twenty feet of road. Why? Because the drivers in the right-turn lane think they take precedence over me. Wrong. I have the right-of-way. But it's make your stand and be paralyzed for life after being vindicated in court, or letting these outlaws have their way.
There is also a problem on the pedestrian campus with autos almost running down walkers in cross-walks with signs clearly posted showing that drivers do _not_ have the right-of-way.
In both instances, the prevailing attitude seems to be 'might makes right'.
Finally, I _despise_ people who talk on cell phones while they're driving, and if it were in my power to do so, I'd lay them up in the county jail for a good thirty days for a second offense, ninety days for a third . . . no exceptions. Driving is a dangerous task involving heavy machinery. Show a little respect. And courtesy.
Bikers are keenly alive to their own safety, and tend to pay a lot more attention to the cars than the cars pay to them.
I didn't realize that the definition of "sucking" was "not being keenly alive to [one's] own safety."
This is always a strange debate. Since I've been a driver, am now a pedestrian, and have never been anything but a recreational bike rider, I can't really comment on how horrible it is or isn't to be a cyclist navigating around cars and pedestrians. One of the reasons I've never seriously considered biking around my city is that it seems like there's a very high risk of being hit with a car door, flattened by a car, etc.
That said, I take issue with this:
Moreover, many drivers in DC seem to believe that it is against the law to be in a mode of transportation that goes more slowly than their own, and therefore complain about such "violations" as trying to merge into the exit lane of a traffic circle. Memo to drivers: whether it's a car or a bike, you're supposed to yield to someone trying to exit. Yes, I know that this means you'll get to your destination a full TEN SECONDS later, Princess Precious. We all have our crosses to bear; let this be yours.
I realize that the inherent frivolity of this discussion makes it tempting to construct straw men and then ignite them, but this is silly. As a motorist and pedestrian I've never been annoyed with cyclists who simply obey the rules of the road while driving more slowly than me. I think most cyclists are aware of their surroundings and are considerate of drivers and pedestrians. What bothers me are cyclists who, for example, run red lights at high speeds while I'm walking through a crosswalk, yell at me for turning in front of them when they blindside me coming the wrong way down a one-way street, etc.
This shouldn't be a "cars vs. bikes" argument--it should be a "people who pay attention and obey the law vs. people who don't" argument. Cyclists are more at risk than motorists for obvious reasons. I have complete sympathy for cyclists I know who've been nailed by drivers opening doors into the bike lane, run off the road by drivers who don't check their blind spot, etc.
To draw a too-long post to a close: Even posing the question "Who sucks more?" is counter-productive, since instead of encouraging everyone to drive/ride defensively and obey the law, it encourages a fruitless argument over who's a bigger jerk. It makes it more likely that people will be carrying grudges on the road when they should be primarily concerned with safety.
dantonj,
Retracted.
Roads are made for cars. It's OK to feel entitled if your mode of transportation is the reason that the road is there in the first place.
Cyclists tend to break a lot more rules. They run stop signs, ride on crosswalks, and so on. They are rarely cited for doing any of this, but a car would be. It's just as unsafe, more so since a cyclist is less protected from an accident.
I don't have much sympathy because I'm not a cyclist. I had a bike, but a car didn't see me and I hit it at 25 mph. I was on a jury for a trial where a cyclist got run over on Main Street. After that, I stopped riding my bike.
The ideal solution is to have a lot of bike trails, but that's not always possible.
The answer to "who sucks most" in the DC area is pedestrians. They're worse than squirrels. There are a lot of pedestrian deaths in the DC area, and they're lucky there aren't more. The way pedestrians try to cross Veirs Mill Road in between intersections, I'm surprised someone isn't killed every day.
Though bike paths feel safer than lanes on the street, I saw a report that they aren't. Intersections with streets were the problem, I think. If you ride, you may find the various safety studies revealing. The bikecentennial had some good stuff. No cite; gotta go to a concert.
Megan, I agree completely, other than when bicyclists won't stop at stop signs. Cyclists sometimes give my reflexes more credit than they deserve.
This country needs a serious national education program about the rules of the road and bicycles, especially now with $4 gas and bikes becoming a logical way to get around.
For one, people need to get it through their thick skulls that a bicycle has as much right to a lane as a motorbike or car. You cannot try to squeeze by a bike in the same lane, that's dangerous and illegal.
I'm going to be killed one day due to the number of drivers I flip off when they pull shit like this in New York.
I can't comment on being a cyclist, although I'm sure it isn't fun in DC, but I would offer up a comment on DC area driving.
Back when I was a young, bright eyed college intern, all the other college interns and I would go out to lunch. We had New Yorkers, Chicagoans, some people from Tulsa - all types. The New Yorker made the best assessment of DC traffic I've heard: basically, that DC had the worst traffic because they didn't have a common driving culture. In his native NYC, people had bad driving habits, but they had the same bad driving habits. You could predict what they would do, and react accordingly. DC has no such common driving knowledge, and it can drive you up a wall. Add to that a city designed to raise your blood pressure, and you have an explanation for the Metro.
Toronto is making serious efforts to be bike friendly. Outside of winter, it makes a lot of sense. I'd like to join their ranks, even though for driving the children to their extra-curriculars and for some of my numerous airport runs I'll still need the car.
But I won't, because I don't want to join their ranks given that:
I have yet to see one (1) biker in Toronto that stops at a stop sign. And I have yet to see one (1) biker in Toronto who is predictable (for example, not switching from vehicle-on-road mode to now-I-use-the-ped-xing mode without any warning whatsoever).
I'll be in a terrible predicament if and when I run over a biker, and I suspect that all my great and careful and defensive driving will not preempt this event. It will objectively be the biker's fault, and nobody will believe it.
Bikes are not an impediment to car traffic. They are traffic. Historically, cyclists led the way in getting streets paved--the "Good Roads Movement." Automobiles took advantage of infrastructure improvements initiated by cyclists, not the other way around.
Who cares about cars?
This morning it was so cold that my fingers couldn't select the gears properly. That's the biggest threat to my bike riding. Well that and tyre punctures from terrorists smashing glass on the road.
(YES they are terrorists. If they were sabotaging any other transportation system we would be locking them up in remote island prisons, so why not glass smashing tyre wreckers?)
Saw this in New York once. A bike messenger ran a red light in front of Grand Central Station, hit a pedestrian in a cross-walk inches away from me, fell down, then got up and started to scream at the person he hit. I thought he was going to attack that person but everyone in the cross-walk screamed back at him as we helped the pedestrian get up so the clown backed off.
And yes, I ride and drive and observe exactly the same set of rules for both. I'm not willing to assume that anyone sees me (learned that the hard way riding motorcycles) and I'm certainly not willing to put my life in someone else's hands. If I get wiped out it isn't going to matter much who was wrong.
As a sometime bike commuter (and ex-racer), I have been known to skip the occasional stop sign and to scoot across the intersection before the light changes.
Why? To get out of the intersection as quickly as possible. It's the place where I am most vulnerable, and therefore the place I want away from as quickly as possible. I've never (to the best of my knowledge) made anyone swerve or brake by doing this, but you'll have to take my word for that.
Do I suck? I prefer to think of it as enhanced inhalation.
The very first comment here is exactly what is wrong with drivers. In most places cyclists have as much right to a lane as a car. If one is in front of you and going too slow, then TOO BAD. And making a joke about how they are lucky you didn't run them over just proves what a jerk you are. Joking about maiming and/or killing someone is sick.
Cyclists are ACUTELY aware that they risk death by biking. A car vs. a bike is a lopsided collision. Cars buzz by cyclists and its scary to be on a bike. Sometimes the safest thing to do is to "take the lane" aka, ride in the middle of the lane to prevent cars from trying to skirt past you. And frighteningly, many drivers think this justifies their thoughts of running someone over with 2 tons of steal.
Even the most pro-car / anti-cyclist people change their tune within ten minutes of metropolitan cycling. Its scary, and yeah, sometimes you have to be "rude" to cars, but its your life and your safety thats at risk.
I will admit that cyclists break many traffic rules, but, often it is the safest thing to do. A fast majority of cyclists have a very strong sense of what the safest option is. Its hard not to when all you've got is a piece of cloth between you and the numerous 2 ton metal machines itching to slam into you. Other cyclists are just jerks, but there are also jerk drivers.
All I have to say in conclusion is how many drivers get hit by a bicycle running into them?
And cars, please please please check your mirrors when you turn or change lanes. Cyclists are easy to miss. All these drivers that complain of cyclists probably come close to hitting 10 a day without even realizing it.
PS> I am a cyclist AND a motorist and I think doing both has made me better at each.
Drivers or bikers: who sucks more?
Bikers.
Yes, it is legal to ride a bike through rush-hour traffic, but it is extremely inconsiderate. The road system -- and the social constructs associated with it -- are built for motor vehicles. Throwing a bike into the mix causes enormous inconvenience to the people around you and creates a significant risk of accidents. For that reason, it shouldn't be done unless the bike can be ridden separately from normal traffic.
Want motorists to pay more attention. Bike naked.
FWIW (and probably no surprise) Boulder is a terrific bike town. Tons of bike paths and most major streets have bike lanes.
Unquestionably drivers. And I say that with pure confidence as someone who hasn't biked anywhere in years. And I no longer would commute that way, even at riflepoint.
You see, at some time in the recent past, someone took phonebooths and motorized them, gave them wheels, and placed the controls in the hands of hapless telecommunicators. Defensive driving has never been the same.
Of course, this is an unfair hyperbolic description, and it's only -- as with lawyers -- nine out of ten motor vehicle operators who have given the rest a bad reputation. The other one in ten is either nervously distracted by the other phoning nine, or surfing the internet, talking to Tom-Tom, etc.
Another co-driver/biker here. Having seen it both ways, I have no respect for the "rights" of cyclists who act like they own the place and violate street signs to the direct risk of pedestrian or driver safety -- yes, driver safety, as the car that swerves to miss you when you run the red light might well hit a curb, streetpole, or another car.
On the other hand, I've seen plenty of drivers who either go out of their way to be rude to cyclists, or at the very least, repeat utter garbage like this:
John Lynch wrote: Roads are made for cars. It's OK to feel entitled if your mode of transportation is the reason that the road is there in the first place.
Dan wrote: The road system -- and the social constructs associated with it -- are built for motor vehicles.
This is absolutely false. The road system is designed for, and paid for by, the taxpaying public, and is fit for whatever uses the public deems it fit. In most jurisdictions one will find plain statements in the road statutes and driver's ed materials indicating that most roads are available for use by both cars and cyclists. If you don't like it, vote for change; if you feel that cyclists are causing safety problems by not upholding their end of the bargain (obeying the signage), lobby for stricter police enforcement.
But no individual, acting apart from popular consent, has a right to "decide" that bikes don't belong on the road, just as s/he has no right to "decide" that certain other drivers don't belong on the road, or to "decide" that the city has no right to block off roads for a parade or other event and overrun the barricade, etc.
Public-access infrastructure is part of civilization's collective bargain. If you want to own the road, either convince the collective to go along with you, or construct it yourself on private property and go nuts.
rE: I have yet to see one (1) biker in Toronto that stops at a stop sign.
I suspect you have, assuming you frequent busy instersections where the non-stopping road is likely to have traffic oncoming. That or you have seen a lot of cyclist corpses on the pavement.
Re: Yes, it is legal to ride a bike through rush-hour traffic, but it is extremely inconsiderate.
Where I live at least the rush hour traffic will not be going any faster if I am not present on a bicycle in it. It isn't bikes that create congestion and backups, its other cars, plus poorly timed signals and, occasionally, road work.
And look at it this way: every biker you see is not a driver also contributing to the traffic jam you're in. You can pass a bike much more easily than you can another car.
When I lived in Northern Virginia, I used to bike on the sidewalk until I got to the bike trail. Lame, I know, but after almost being hit a few times, I figured it was safer. (And I always would get out of the way for pedestrians long before they had to even think about me.)
Also, I will say that I got so many whistles and catcalls there in an individual ride than I've gotten riding anywhere else in total. It really made the whole experience more daunting.
I live in a very bike friendly neighborhood in Austin (most of the traffic on the street is non-car), but someone was even killed here a few years ago by a driver.
I'm from California, where drivers go fast and break the law without shame, but generally do it in a "safe" manner. DC drivers shock me - I've never seen such crappy driving. I saw at least one U-turn on the Key Bridge each week when I used to live in Rosslyn & walk to Georgetown. And don't get me started on the inability of anyone in NoVa to merge well.
Drivers are worse. I'd say maybe a higher % of bicyclists are inconsiderate idiots, but cars can do much more damage and how many bicyclists do see who are distracted by drinking coffee, eating breakfast, shaving (3 things I do all the time), puting on make-up, talking on the phone etc. etc.? And bicycle road rage just isn't that scary.
Seattle has the same problem, only internationally. With such a huge contingent of foreign born drivers, a number of them from third-world countries and/or drive on the right countries, it's bloody impossible to get consensus on shortcuts to lessen the impact of the godawful driving infrastructure. They can't even handle rain.
I think it's like lymphatics and arteries as highways in the body. They carry things that don't go together well; so 'suck' if they are put together. Ideally new rights of way would be created and there would be separate bike roads or paths.
Roads are made for horses. Fuck cars.
Uhh, you need to start that sentence with "most". It only takes one counterexample to disprove a rule, and believe me I've encountered more than one immortalist/suicidal bike rider. And then there's the absolute legion of the clueless, who use our ever-expanding network of bike lanes by keeping their tires firmly to the white line separating it from the main traffic lane.
SoV,
OK, but there are plenty of people who exhibit the same level of inattentivity when talking to their passengers; why are they any less a risk to the rest of us?
Or maybe I should have just let JB say it all:
Yes. Exactly. Kudos!
I'm glad I don't live where cyclists are numerous. In the South, even the "suburban" South, it's too rural for bikes to make much sense.
Kirk Parker complains: "And then there's the absolute legion of the clueless, who use our ever-expanding network of bike lanes by keeping their tires firmly to the white line separating it from the main traffic lane."
Many bike lanes I've seen are too narrow and force bicyclists into the "door zone" -- the dangerous area where the rider risks getting hit by a suddenly opened door from a parked car. It is the "clueless" bicyclist who stays in the middle of such lanes; the clued-in rider stays safely to the outside, or if necessarily, outside the bike lane entirely.
Government agencies don't pay any sort of taxes; nor do think tanks, NGOs, or most money-losing media organizations.
Sure, governments don't pay taxes, but don't the rest pay property taxes and sales taxes?
Cars should have to pay to use the roads (and I say this as a car driver). Roads and bridges amount to one giant subsidy for car owners and manufacturers, as well as oil companies. While I have nothing in particular against such companies (and oppose screwing them over with "windfall profits taxes"), drivers and/or companies should contribute directly to the cost of the roads that others don't or can't use as much. We'd start to see more bikers and more bikers' lanes.
Re: Cars should have to pay to use the roads
See: Gasoline taxes. (I assume you mean "drivers" not the cars themselves). And since the roads don't fall upon us like manna from Heaven, they can only be built and maintained with taxpayer money, which is to say the money of the people who drive on them. The gas tax actually works rather well for this toom, since the more you drive the more you pay. (And yes, even non dricers should be paying something for roads since they benefit from them too.)
JonF
The economic problem is that the real costs of using a road are:
- variant with the cube of the axle weighting. A truck twice as heavy causes 8 times as much damage to the road. Fuel taxes don't allow for that
- the biggest cost you impose on other road users is the congestion time cost. That's almost invariant with the amount of gas you burn
So, gas taxes are a blunt-ended and economically inefficient way of regulating road use compared to tolls.
Consider the UK. Gas taxes approximately $5US/ gallon (your gas $1-1.10/ litre, ours $2.50/ litre). Yet we have some of the worst traffic congestion in Western Europe-- as bad as southern California, in parts. Too many cars, and no place to put new roads.
High gas taxes make people drive more fuel efficient cars, but it doesn't, in an economically efficient way, regulate traffic.
Electronic road tolls directly tie road usage, and time of day of usage, to the costs you impose on other road users.
Bikes don't bother me when I'm driving. I can see them just fine, and I know they have a right to use the roads too. But I've had serious trouble with bikes when I'm on foot. One hit me once -- no lasting damage, but it was far worse than anything a car driver has ever done to me. I've also been forced to jump out of the way, sometimes at great inconvenience, by bikers who seemed to think their vehicles were manufactured without brakes.
If you are going to ride a bike in the city, please get one where you sit reasonably upright and facing forward. The problems seem to be caused by people who bike in a racing posture, bent over the handlebars.
"Aggressive, but hesitant." Couple that with a strong drive to assume that whatever interpretation of the rules is most convenien to them is correct.
Writing as an old bureaucrat, that is a combination of staff attitudes that told me when a section of the bureaucracy was badly run. (Works for big corporations as well as for governments.) If those attitudes are general in Washington commuters, the Federal Government has even more of a mangement problem than any of us supposed.
The data seem to indicate that users of cell phones might as well be driving with a brewski in their hand and four under their belts:
"We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit" of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states, says study co-author Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology. "If legislators really want to address driver distraction, then they should consider outlawing cell phone use while driving."
And - of course - when these cretins almost hit me, it's my fault :-(
Bikers don't usually stop at stop signs for the same reason cars shouldn't fully stop. Most stop signs simply shouldn't exist, they should be yield signs or nothing at all. They waste a whole lot of energy and don't make you safer/more aware.
Of course, the transition cost is probably impossibly high, but their shouldn't be stop lights either. We only need two signals, Yield and Don't Yield.
As for bikes, any car turning needs to be aware that they may need to yield to through traffic, which may contain pedestrians and bikers.
Ideally, we should get ride of cross traffic intersections. We should have over passes and turn ramps that merge into traffic. Might not be feasible to do on many roadways, but foot and bike paths could easily go over roads.
The data seem to indicate that users of cell phones might as well be driving with a brewski in their hand and four under their belts:
And - of course - when these cretins almost hit me, it's my fault :-(
So, gas taxes are a blunt-ended and economically inefficient way of regulating road use compared to tolls.
And quite frankly, toll roads suck and cause traffic. I remember when I had business in Orlando, I swear I spent more time waiting in the lines for toll booths (even fast trak have to slow down considerably) then driving. I would much rather have the roads paid for from my gas taxes and other taxes I pay then deal with tolls.
Don't they drive on the right in Seattle? :-)
It takes a while to make the switch. I was reaching for the turn signal with the wrong hand for weeks after four years of driving in Japan.
On topic, DC drivers are pretty bad. You would have half the traffic problems if the slower drivers would just keep to the right. If you can figure out how to do that, please teach Pennsylvania.
Anecdote: A couple of years ago I was driving down Connecticut Avenue on a weekend, doing about the speed limit (25), when I came up behind a couple of bikers doing about 10. They were riding single file, not in the middle of the lane, but far enough out that I couldn't pass them till there was a gap in the oncoming traffic. When there was, I passed, but had to stop at the next traffic light (which I could have made if I had been able to maintain the speed limit).
While I was sitting, the bikers came up on my right, cruised through the red light, and got ahead of me again.
This exact scenario repeated itself for four consecutive blocks.
As a DC resident who owns neither a bicycle nor a car, I'll cast my vote for drivers as the suckier.
Bicyclists are slightly more likely to ignore the rules of the road than drivers, but drivers more than make up for it by being far more common and far, far, more dangerous. And far more likely to trespass on the natural habitats of the pedestrian -- crosswalks and sidewalks -- than any bicyclist.
I think we can conclude from this heads or tails question that both bikers and drivers suck some of the time. So I agree with everyone. What is our next question? original or extra crispy? tomato versus potato?
And by the way, having driven in NYC and NJ, the worst drivers I have encountered are in Arizona. In NYC you get crazy driving, but it's people taking calculated risks as in, "I think I can make it...I see you, and I am gonna do it." In Phoenix people just kind of pull out into busy roads without even a glance. And forget bicycling or walking. Nobody does either, ever.
So one could say the drivers suck here by default.
I dont really like your blog. For some reason somebody shares it everyday.
There is no debate for this.
Bicycle (lbs) + rider (lbs) = 200lbs?
Car (lbs) + driver (lbs) = 3,000 lbs. Sometimes 20,000lbs.
This is why you can go to a store and buy a knife, but need a license to buy a gun. Killablility.
They both suck, but when a driver sucks, it has FAR FAR worse consequences.
Cyclist sucking = dented car, cyclist hurt.
Driver sucking = lots of people dead. Different order of magnitude.
So lets debate next which is worse, litter or nuclear waste.
Re: Hesitant yet aggressive drivers
I think a lot of it has to do with how many transplants DC gets as well as the insane amount of people who drive while talking on the phone (every time I'm nearly run down or wait for a car to clear an intersection so I can cross it, I see someone on a cell phone). The second one is self explanitory (general lack of attention sometimes leading to them cut people off, not stop when they're supposed to or sometimes slowing down for no apparent reason). The first one because DC draws transplants from areas like Chicago and New York which are famous for aggressive drivers, but also people from the South and Midwest where drivers tend to be (but certainly aren't always) the more hesitant drivers.
As someone else who both bikes and drives, all I can say is that most roads are hideously unsuitable for the peaceful coexistance of bikes and cars.
Late to the party here, but I'd like to chime in and state that one of the ways SF has done well i/r/t transit policy is putting the city's main bike lines on streets parallel, but one street removed, from the city's main arteries.
So there's no bike lanes on Van Ness, but there is one just over on Polk. None on Mission, but one on Howard. None on Geary, but one on Post. And so on.
This would seem to be common sense to me, but every time I travel I'm stunned by the number of bikers I see struggling down busy streets.
As a sometime bike commuter (and ex-racer), I have been known to skip the occasional stop sign and to scoot across the intersection before the light changes. Why? To get out of the intersection as quickly as possible.
Bingo. If bikers obeyed all the traffic regulations that motorists, traffic would be moving a lot slower--for both parties.
In urban environments where it's crazy to cycle, you get crazy cyclists. In urban environments where drivers think cyclists are implicitly giving them the finger and drive accordingly -- I'm looking at you, American South -- you get cyclists who do give drivers the finger.
That's to say, in areas where the car (and I say car here, not driver) is the dominant species, the handlers of cars generally play a large part in shaping an area's bike culture.
Re: assertions that roads were built for, paid for, by cars.
Road building and maintenance comes out of general revenue. The gasoline tax does not raise enough money to cover even maintenance. See The Economist a few years ago, or a paper by the economic think-tank Resources for the Future (rff.org). Therefore, as a high income individual who often bikes (albeit on a path), I am subsidising the drivers on the road.
The rest of the developed world taxes gas a heck of a lot more than here. When the gas tax is several dollars a gallon, maybe I will rethink my position.
Re: assertions that roads were built for, paid for, by cars.
Road building and maintenance comes out of general revenue. The gasoline tax does not raise enough money to cover even maintenance. See The Economist a few years ago, or a paper by the economic think-tank Resources for the Future (rff.org). Therefore, as a high income individual who often bikes (albeit on a path), I am subsidising the drivers on the road.
The rest of the developed world taxes gas a heck of a lot more than here. When the gas tax is several dollars a gallon, maybe I will rethink my position.
Bikers have gotten a hundred times worse in the last 10 years. Here in Washington DC, there is a road called McArthur Avenue. It is curvey and people drive 50+ mph on it. It also has a beautiful wide bike path that must have cost millions to build. Yet, bikers continuelly ride two abreast on McArthur and hold up traffic. Their attitude seems to be screw you I am saving the planet. It is just unbelievable. You build them a bike path and they still hold up traffic.
As a motorcyclist I hold bicyclists who do things like ride in between stopped cars and run stop signs and red lights in particular distain. Just because you are on a bike, doesn't mean you are not in danger or not subject to the rules of the road. Motorcyclists get tickets for that kind of crap. Bicyclists get to give people smug looks.
I'm an avid daily bike commuter who lives in DC and I ride a fixed gear (that is, I only have a front brake and my rear hub doesn't free-wheel, so I'm at the mercy of my legs), which gives me an irrational feeling of superiority over even other bikers with multiple gear options. I am extremely vigilant and hyper-aware of my surroundings, particularly because I don't wear a helmet and I'm bound into my bike with cleats that can only be released with a semi-awkward twist of the ankle, but I was also an incredibly sensitive and fluid driver who, while breaking many petty rules such as speed limits, was always aware of my surroundings and traffic conditions because of the dangerous hulk of steel I drove. I drove daily for nearly 15 years before dumping my car and relying only on myself or public transportation. DC is a very pedestrian- and biped-friendly town, but I can't decide who's more dangerous and who ranks as my enemy number 1--people behind the wheel or pedestrians sealed off in their iPod or cellphone, or walking down the street with their face in a novel, apparently all color blind to traffic signals and all taking ridiculous chances themselves against oncoming traffic. I guess it's the type-A personality rushing to get to the think tank, or perhaps too much time spent in an ivy league institution having entitlement bestowed upon ones self or even too much time spent in some college town where those in their metal bubbles were sneered at and demeaned for polluting the pavement. We actually have many systems by which we can all get along on the road, from bike lanes to traffic signals to posted signs instructing us what to do. That doesn't seem to stop the idiot with the Maryland tags from deliberately running up on me to run me down or to chase me down Connecticut Avenue screaming and swerving as if to broadside me. Of course I forgive the taxicabs who lack the extra sets of eyes to watch the road and the sidewalks for potential fares and I reluctantly grant the same permission to diplomatic tags--they simply couldn't be expected to fathom our rules or really to even bother with them--they're immune to such annoyances as the law of the road. I will be more aware today after hearing that a cyclist was killed yesterday in Dupont Circle--a tragedy no matter the fault or circumstances. Let's all hope this story raises greater attention to the need for all commuters to share what is rather limited resources for space.
While I was sitting, the bikers came up on my right, cruised through the red light, and got ahead of me again.
This exact scenario repeated itself for four consecutive blocks.
Every time I see someone post a story like this, I have to wonder, did anything occur to you when it happened a second, third, fourth time? Did you just get annoyed that you had to keep passing the bikes to get to your next red light?
Perhaps your perspective would be different from the saddle of a bike. Which is to say, maybe you'd wonder why the hell that car is working so hard to pass you just to get to another red light?
The point is that if they were over far enough for him to pass, he wouldn't have hit any of the red lights.
aslkdjf dslkjfl
I think part of the solution is an enhancement of engineering solutions such as the Portland style leading box where bikes can wait during a red light. Other solutions such as pedestrian/bike signals and leading pedestrian intervals can help give precedence to bicyclists and pedestrians.
It might cause a few seconds of delay for the motorists, but it is the kind of solution our transportation policy folks should be encouraging.
Anyone listening Mr. Mayor?
The point is that if they were over far enough for him to pass, he wouldn't have hit any of the red lights.
Exactly. The lights on Connecticut are timed so that if you are going the speed limit, you shouldn't have to stop at all.
And my complaint wasn't that they didn't pull over -- there wasn't room. The thing was that every time while I was waiting at the light, they rolled right through it and got ahead of me again.
As a former biker in DC, let me point one thing out: sure, many cyclists don't obey traffic signs and some go against traffic on one way streets (very stupid), but pedestrians cut us off too.
I can't count the number of times a large group of pedestrians have started to cross against the light because no cars are coming. Never mind the fact that I have a green light.
Drivers, bikes and pedestrians need to be more mindful of one another. And city planning can help.
Yes, it is legal to ride a bike through rush-hour traffic, but it is extremely inconsiderate. The road system -- and the social constructs associated with it -- are built for motor vehicles. Throwing a bike into the mix causes enormous inconvenience to the people around you and creates a significant risk of accidents. For that reason, it shouldn't be done unless the bike can be ridden separately from normal traffic.
This is what kills me. "Extremely inconsiderate"? Seriously? I'm trying to get to work, just like you. So--and I mean this sincerely--go *fuck* yourself. If you hit me, you better fucking *kill* me. Cause it's not that far to the next red light in the city; and when there's a car/bike confrontation, it's *not* always the bicyclist that's the loser.
Bikers have gotten a hundred times worse in the last 10 years. Here in Washington DC, there is a road called McArthur Avenue. It is curvey and people drive 50+ mph on it.
Yep, and the posted speed limit is, what, 35?
It also has a beautiful wide bike path that must have cost millions to build. Yet, bikers continuelly ride two abreast on McArthur and hold up traffic. Their attitude seems to be screw you I am saving the planet.
Until some ass-wipe passes within inches of your left shoulder, their attitude is "I sure am enjoying being out for a ride." Or "Looks like I'll make it to work on time this morning." How the hell do you know what their attitude is?
It is just unbelievable. You build them a bike path and they still hold up traffic.
I'm glad the option's there; but it's circuitous, often potholed, and unsafe to be ridden at speeds over 15 mph. Because the people sharing that multi-use path are children, joggers, etc...
Anyway, for my part, I'm going to continue to ride McArthur, and I'm going to continue to try to make things as convenient as possible for other road users, out of principle.
As far as your part, why not slow the fuck down and do the speed limit instead of pissing and moaning about cyclists?
I have been riding my bike to work for the last 15 years in Sacramento and Silicon Valley and I never risked a driver’s life but just 2 days ago I was almost run over by a guy racing into a shopping center. Just a mile down the road a deputy sheriff killed 2 cyclists not long ago. As for traffic lights, many times the sensors do not pick me up; I can stand there for ages, so I just cross the junction when I can. When I stand in traffic light near giant cement truck and I know the light will change in few seconds I jump the gun if I can to avoid turning in the blind corner of the truck. Most drivers do not want to kill me, or so I hope, but I wish drivers will be more attentive.
Speaking as a motorist, I admit that I've overshot a few stops, momentarily scaring bikers. I felt bad about it, and now I sloooow down.
Same with joggers. How do THEY fit into this equation?
Sheeessshhh!!! Now if only vitriol were LITERALLY flammable, we'd have the solution to the energy crisis right here.
For anyone who can count, how many people are there, generally, per car commuting to and fro? Generally, that is?
One. OK.
How many people are there on a typical bicycle?
One. OK.
How many bicycles can safely fit into the street-space it takes for a car to operate safely?
Two? Five? Ten? More than one or two, anyway?
OK.
There's a saying that applies here:
'One less car.' Frequently found on cyclists' t-shirts. Think about that, drivers, next time the roads seem too crowded. With cars.
Meanwhile, EVERYBODY on THIS list needs to take a deep breath and slow down. Play nice, in the street above all!!!!!!
I scanned the comments and find it interesting to note that there is no mention of the intersection of the upward spiraling price of gasoline and the search for alternatives that don't cost as much. One of which is/will result in possibly more biking ... a lot more. I suspect the demands to share the pavement will only increase and yet there is no talk of that. How that will occur is beyond my powers. It appears from comments here and elsewhere that all that is being debated is the relative bad behavior on the part of bikers and/or drivers.
And my complaint wasn't
that they didn't pull
over -- there wasn't
room. The thing was
that every time while
I was waiting at the
light, they rolled
right through it and
got ahead of me again.
Poor baby! How about this, I ride on a street with a bus line, and the bus stops every couple of blocks. I catch up, even if I'm riding very slowly, and I pass the bus while it's stopped. All perfectly normal and legal. Then it passes me, and repeat. So?
Or, I'm riding with traffic, and working to move quickly, and by chance I'm arriving at a signal just as it turns green in my direction. I slip by a few cars, legally, carefully, and take the lead for a few moments, then they pass me, carefully, legally, and the same thing may repeat again, and again.
And? That's just life. Road etiquette says EVERY vehicle must yield way to any other in a conflict situation. In this case, as you overtake another vehicle - car or bicycle, same thing - you must take the usual precautions. Same goes for the cyclist. Where the bicycle came from at that moment of overtaking - that 'history' - is irrelevant.
I don't mean this to be an argument, but drivers do, in very many cases, need to understand and practice this more than they do. And not get hot just 'because'. Because, for example, they are overtaking that same dratted bicycle they just passed a ways back.
I live and bicycle daily in Turin and Milan, Italy. There's plenty of traffic. One difference though. The cyclist you might be p-o-ed at may be your grandmother around here. Or some gorgeous dish. Or me. No matter, people stay out of each other's way. And stay cool. It makes a difference you can feel. Sure, you keep your eyes wide open, from your bicycle. On all eleven corners of your head. Stay out of trouble by anticipating, checking, triple-checking ahead, sides, behind.
I have to observe that Milan and Turin traffic are mostly cool. That is, so someone swishes by CLOSE - if you've stayed awake, so you're solid about things, you see that they are just doing what is skillful and sportsmanlike, NOT trying to annoy you or express frustration with you.
Hey, big life lesson from Italia: getting hot under the collar just makes you hot and bothered, is useless otherwise. The bureaucracy, weather, traffic - whatever - never care!
Stay cool, everybody.
roac:
Awwwww! Poor driver lost precious seconds (minutes, maybe) by waiting at some red lights. For this, cyclists should either (1) ride dangerously close to parked cars, from which doors can suddenly spring open, thereby ruining a lot more than a few minutes' worth of driving, while also tempting drivers to pass dangerously close to them, or (2) give up cycling as a means of transport. This kind of weak, entitled thinking on the part of drivers is execrable.
Moreover, since Connecticut Avenue has multiple lanes going each direction for msot if not all of its length, I find your story -- which suggests only a single lane was available -- to be more than a little suspect. But in any event, your having waited at a few red lights is such a trivial inconvenience when measured against the safety of others who have a perfet right to travel the road.
John @ 4:39PM said: "As a motorcyclist I hold bicyclists who do things like ride in between stopped cars and run stop signs and red lights in particular distain [sic]. Just because you are on a bike, doesn't mean you are not in danger or not subject to the rules of the road. Motorcyclists get tickets for that kind of crap. Bicyclists get to give people smug looks."
Just for the record, riding in between stopped cars is explicitly legal for bicyclists in DC. See http://www.waba.org/areabiking/bikelaws.php: cyclists are "[a]llowed to pass on left or right, in the same lane or changing lanes, or pass off road."
Additionally, I strongly agree with others who have stated that getting to the front of the line at stop lights when possible improves safety because it reduces the likelihood of "right hook" style accidents. If I can safely jump the light change by a second or two, this further improves my visibility, and is also a courtesy to drivers since it allows them to accelerate off the light at a more normal pace.
I'm a four tool guy. I bike, drive, walk and sometimes run. I find it hard to pick a winner in this bike/car debate.
We are all imperfect beings and sometimes we are attentive and proper in our behaviors. Sometime we all (bikers and drivers) have our lapses and do not pay attention and get too close to a bike or enter an intersection going too fast on a bike or any of a million things that can get us and others killed or hurt. Let's admit that both are wrong sometimes and right others. I have been both a good and bad driver and a good and bad bicyclist and I live to tell about it.
I ride a bike to work everyday on bike paths, sidewalks and busy city streets. Each has its own challenges and I don't feel any safer or more at risk in any of these environments.
I just hope when the good person I'm sharing the road, path or sidewalk with is not having an inattentive moment when I'm around. As I'm sure they are hoping about me.
So in the words of Rodney King, "can't we all get along". I don't think bikes or cars are going to disappear from the roads so it is in both of our interests to learn to share the road safely.
My question for cycling in turin and sebastian dangerfield: Do you, or do you not, think bicyclists should stop for red lights? Yes, or no? If not, why not? (And I fully take the point about getting a head start at the light to beat the right-turners. I used to ride a bike myself.)
Well, there's also the question of "are you really saving fuel?" if you cause several cars to stop. Starting from a rolling stop uses up to 6 times less fuel than a rolling stop, avoiding a stop all together saves much more. If on your 6 miles commute you cause several (say 10) cars to stop, you are wasting more fuel than you would have used on the drive.
Rolling stop uses up to 6 times less fuel than a full stop.
And stops are where you use the most fuel.
roac:
First off, The issue you raise now -- whether cyclists should stop at red lights -- is a different issue from the primary complaint in your (quite possibly embellished) anecdote. Your complaint was largely about cyclists having the temerity to use up a greater portion of the travel lane than you feel is appropriate, thereby slowing you down. True, you added in yur story that the cyclists cruised through the red lights, thereby getting ahead of you in your car, but that would happen regardless, as bikes usually ride up to the front of a queue of cars at a red light -- which is perfectly legal in DC -- thereby getting the jump on cars after the light changes.
But on the pressing moral queestion of whether cyclists should stop at red lights. Of course they should. (Megan, by the way, isn't suggesting that they don't stop; she suggests that they treat red lights as four-way stops.) And cars should obey the speed limits, yield to pedestrians in cross-walks, yield to cyclists when cyclists have the right-of-way, and not crowd cyclists out of a lane. But in the real world, we know that infractions of these rules are legion. And on balance, cyclists getting the jump on cars at a red light is a lot less pernicious than many of the awful things that drivers do every minute of every day.
The common stop light/sign behavior of cyclists is only illegal because it's against the (current) law. How's that for a tautology? :)
I say change the DC laws for cyclists. Idaho has already, and similar changes are being considered in San Francisco. For DC, the Idaho law (below) would need to be modified to require yielding to pedestrians in addition to vehicles and traffic.
TITLE 49 MOTOR VEHICLES, CHAPTER 7, PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES, 49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS.
(1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may
proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to other traffic.
The issue you raise now -- whether cyclists should stop at red lights -- is a different issue from the primary complaint in your (quite possibly embellished) anecdote
Christ, now the guy is calling me a liar. There is something to be said for bringing back dueling.
If you will look at my post, I never hinted that these guys should have moved over. There was no room for them to do so, as I acknowledged.
You have corrected my memory by reminding me that Connecticut is two lanes in each directions. In order to pass, I had to wait for a gap in traffic in the left lane, not the oncoming lane.
I've only really seen car vs. bike in NYC, but my experience is that the delivery guys ruin everything for the safe bicyclists. It seems like that for every safe cyclist who actually wears a helmet, pays attention, follows traffic laws, etc. there are 10 guys delivering food that ride (helmetless) all over the road, totally disregarding every traffic signal and convention.
Even for attentive drivers, it's easy to miss a bicyclist coming towards you in a city environment. It's many times worse when they're driving the wrong way on a one-way street, running red lights, and wearing clothes that blend in with their surroundings.
So for the non-retarded bicyclists out there who hate drivers: start bitching at the Chinese food delivery guys too. Most drivers don't blindly hate cyclists, but there are plenty of idiots out there that are turning people against you.
Huh? Weren't roads made for horses? Pretty sure there were roads in DC before there were cars.
You certainly suggested that the cyclists were doing you a grave injustice by taking enough of the lane in front of you that you could not pass within that lane -- which injustice can only be corrected if the cyclists were either to move dangerously close to the parked cars or simply abandon the road altogether to avoid inconveniencing you. And, now that you have acknowledged the reality that cyclists on Connecticut Avenue could not have forced you to wait for a break in oncoming traffic in order to pass, but only to wait for an opportunity to pass in a left-hand lane going the same direction, I'm afraid that your already weak claim to have been sorely abused by the cyclists for having the temerity to ride in front of you has been rendered entirely risible.
I'll have Zell Miller get back to you on the issue of dueling.
Bicyclists are safer when they occupy the same space as cars, and move through traffic like a car. Read _Effective Cycling_ for more information.
An acknowledgement: As a result of the foregoing discussion, of which I am as sick as anyone else, I paid attention to bikers while waiting for my bus last night, and made the following observations:
There are a lot more of them than I had realized (probably a dozen in 10 minutes, southbound on 19th Street).
They were all working to keep up with traffic, and succeeding. I didn't see that any driver was impeded in the least by sharing the road with the cyclists.
Given the above, I say: Yay for bicycle commuters. I wouldn't have the guts to do it, probably not even when I was young, but then I've never been skydiving either.
(Incidentally, I think people who commute by car over long distances and/or in crowded conditions are also nuts.)
Late to the party, but will still throw in my 2p. Never experienced DC on a bike, but am a daily bike commuter here in Chicago. When I moved here I was at first quite nervous about cycling in Chicago traffic as drivers here seem to treat all traffic laws as general suggestions anyway. But to my pleasant surprise I find Chicago quite bike friendly. Our Majestic Mayor has been very pro-bike and there has been a lot of enhancements to the roads that aid bikers - I think we do a similar thing to what someone mentioned above that puts bike lanes near, but not on the major car routes. The biggest thing, though, is that for the most part Chicago drivers seem to generally respect cyclists - they are aware of them, give us space, keep out of the bike lanes (at least when bikes are present) and don't cut us off at intersections.
For the record I try to be respectful of cars and pedestrians, but I do treat stop lights as four-way stops, and stop signs as yield signs. And to be clear - I do this for reasons of safety. Intersections are the danger areas, and the more quickly I can move past them, the better for all concerned.
Re: Electronic road tolls directly tie road usage, and time of day of usage, to the costs you impose on other road users.
The costs you impose on other drivers are also imposed on you by the same other drivers, so no one's getting away with anything unfair there. I find your POV incomprehensibly bizarre.
Re: And quite frankly, toll roads suck and cause traffic.
I've always been amazed that the inhabitants of the Chicago area don't riot and tear down the toll boths on I-295 (I think that's the bypass route number). The toll booths turn the whole freeway into a gigantic parking lot during rush hour. How much gas and is wasted, how much CO2 is spewed unnecessarily into the atmosphere because of that idiocy? Yes, they've gone to "open road tolling", but enough people still have to stop to pay cash that the gridlock effect remains. Toll booths in high traffic areas should never be placed athwart a freeway-- if a road must be toll, the toll booths should be located at off ramps only (see: Ohio Turnpike for an example). Only very rural and low-traffic roads (e.g., I-77 south of Charleston WV) should have tolling right on the roadway istelf.
Gee that's such a tough question, "Who sucks more?" Could it be the people who pollute our air, detroy the planet's habitats, drive up our health insurance (because they're obese, sitting in their cages yakking on the walkie-talkie toys they never got as children? How 'bout the people who demand that state and national priorities serve cars, roads and the oil industry with the taxes we all pay? Maybe the good folks who cause us to start and fund wars, and to lose the goodwill of everyone around the planet? Or perhaps the people who blight our cities and byways with ugly heaps of noisy, toxic gas-spewing metal, who kill how many tens of thousands of one another every year? Nah, let's blame bicyclists instead, since they feel that because they perpetrate none of the above, and so allow themselves, at risk only to themselves, to run a stop sign once in a while. The real offense here is that they make car drivers so obviously jealous. (These whining car drivers, of course, always come to a complete halt at lights, stop signs, and "right turn on red" corners.) This whole discussion pepetuates the "wink-wink" that car drivers are anything but de facto miscreants.
Face it. If you drive a car, you are the problem: you cause pollution, war, global warming, budget deficits, bad health, and incivility. Check out the hostility on this list, and on the roadways. Meanwhile, we cyclists are smiling at one another, and laughing at you. You've run and ruined the country for long enough. Admit your misery and change your life.
I live in DC and I challenge any car driver to race me, on my $25 bicycle, between any two points in the District.
The good news is that with the price of fuel--even though we'll fight literally to the death to keep cheap, subsidized Mid-East oil coming--means we are going to see a lot fewer SUVs, traffic jams and traffic deaths, along with a lot more bicycles on the roads. Eventually, suburbanites will cough up a fraction of their fair share of paying for public transportation, of which car drivers are already long the biggest beneficiaries. Finally, all those unhappy suburbantites will move back into civil, civic, city communities. Those ridiculous lawns and driveways in the Virginia suburbs will make great spots for growing food locally. Now, suburbanites will naturally blame everyone but themeselves for their poor choices, but they'll come around. The real question we're left with is how to profit from these inevitabilities?
Bitter, sad, angry drivers, I welcome your hatred.
DC is not a bike friendly city in comparison with some place like say, Seattle, in that drivers are much less likely to yield to bikers in DC. That being said, my experience in both cities is that DC bikers (bike messengers) are much less considerate than in Seattle. I've nearly hit bikers in DC a couple of times due to biker's bad choices (trying to pass me on the right shoulder as I'm trying to make a right turn, for example). Of course these are nothing but anecdotal observations on my part.
I only have experience on the East and West Coasts, but I’d say in general the bigger the city, the more aggressive the drivers. For example, drivers in Boston and New York seem more aggressive to me than DC drivers). That being said, I find that west coast drivers are much less aggressive on average than east cost drivers.
But which drivers are the worst is obviously highly subjective. It may drive you crazy that east coast drivers yield less to bikers/pedestrians and don’t think twice about tailgating somebody at 85MPH on an urban freeway. On the other hand, this is what I’ve grown up with, so the drivers in Seattle make me crazy for the opposite reasons… they are so slow and cautious, it’s hard to pass people because they don’t hesitate to take it easy in the fast line, and the pedestrians and bikers sure have a sense of entitlement with respect to the road.
I don’t know which is better, but they are certainly different. I suppose I tend to think that busy urban roads should be used primarily for motorized vehicles. Build dedicated bike lanes if you want to encourage more biking.
DC is not a bike friendly city in comparison with some place like say, Seattle, in that drivers are much less likely to yield to bikers in DC. That being said, my experience in both cities is that DC bikers (bike messengers) are much less considerate than in Seattle. I've nearly hit bikers in DC a couple of times due to biker's bad choices (trying to pass me on the right shoulder as I'm trying to make a right turn, for example). Of course these are nothing but anecdotal observations on my part.
I only have experience on the East and West Coasts, but I’d say in general the bigger the city, the more aggressive the drivers. For example, drivers in Boston and New York seem more aggressive to me than DC drivers). That being said, I find that west coast drivers are much less aggressive on average than east cost drivers.
But which drivers are the worst is obviously highly subjective. It may drive you crazy that east coast drivers yield less to bikers/pedestrians and don’t think twice about tailgating somebody at 85MPH on an urban freeway. On the other hand, this is what I’ve grown up with, so the drivers in Seattle make me crazy for the opposite reasons… they are so slow and cautious, it’s hard to pass people because they don’t hesitate to take it easy in the fast line, and the pedestrians and bikers sure have a sense of entitlement with respect to the road.
I don’t know which is better, but they are certainly different. I suppose I tend to think that busy urban roads should be used primarily for motorized vehicles. Build dedicated bike lanes if you want to encourage more biking.
I lost all sympathy I ever had for bicyclists when one ran over my foot on the (fairly crowed) sidewalk while going at moderate speeds and made no attempt to stop, forcing me to body check him or else jump into traffic to keep him from doing it again with his rear wheel. He then had the audacity to call the police, and scream and curse at the cop when he was ticketed for riding on the sidewalk. To say nothing of the other times it almost happened, but I was able to jump out of the way. You cyclists want sympathy, try doing some self-policing. Otherwise, expect pedestrians like me to keep secretly cheering when a smug cyclist gets paid for their carelessness.