"Make Us Bicyclists Look Good"

Last Monday I took the day off - as the end of the "leave year" (accumulated vacation time) is approaching, I have more than I can "carry over" so I am having many three day weekends. The weather was slightly odd for November since it got up to 70 degrees (F - around 19-20 C). I did a counterclockwise circuit, riding north along the Potomac and then heading up near Rosslyn on a trail that runs along I-66. In Rosslyn while waiting at a light to cross, I looked down and found the stenciled message below.


This means you!

This is an area that I am not crazy about riding in, but since it isn't a very long part of what is otherwise a ride I enjoy, no worries. The reason I don't like it is that after miles of riding on trails, here it is necessary to ride on the sidewalk - although there aren't many pedestrians. This location, where Lee Highway crosses Fort Myer Drive, feels like as a cyclist one is intruding on the automotive bliss (or hell) the the drivers are experiencing. Because of a curve in the road for the oncoming one way traffic, a person would be crazy to venture to cross three lanes of traffic that can come zipping out of D.C. So there is time to contemplate this statement painted on the sidewalk.

I have blogged about my views on the "cyclists should model model behavior" before. I don't care much for it as a priority - to summarize my thinking.


Another Flickr user in DC has a similar photo

To me, this statement - "make us bicyclists look good" - begs the question, look good to (or for?) who? (Or whom, I suppose.) And for what purpose? Make us bicyclists look good to the motorists so they will respect our law-abiding nature? (And not run us over.) Really? Keep in mind almost all of these same motorists are from time to time committing all sorts of small traffic infractions (exceeding posted speed limits, not making full stops at stop signs, talking on cell phones, texting, on and on).


The classic Disney cartoon portraying motorist behavior

This 1950 Disney cartoon, with Goofy portraying the crazed "Mr. Wheeler" when behind the wheel and the calm "Mr. Walker" while on foot, demonstrates the reality I see - most drivers, looking for an advantage in getting down the road more quickly themselves, aren't spending mental energy toting up a positive karma scores for cyclists when they see one who is 100 percent law abiding. If you get in their way, they'll remember that - not in a good way, of course - but if you stay out of their way, they are down the road. Bye!

Negotiating for Cyclist Safety - the NYTimes Editorial View

Today the NYTimes has an opinion piece titled, "Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclist?" It takes a meandering approach to the subject, so summarizing it accurately isn't something I am going to try to do, but a few aspects jump out at me.

It's a step in some direction (whether forward or back may vary depending on one's perspective) that someone has published something in a broad circulation publication that says we have a car culture that tolerates cyclists getting killed on a pretty regular basis with no legal consequences for motorists who are at fault, unless the motorist flees (hit-and-run) or was drunk. And he ties this to the obvious point that in car-cyclist crashes, "only cyclists have much to fear." The apparent answer to the question in the title of the piece is, "yes, generally it is OK to kill cyclists with your car." That's radical, even for the NYTimes.

In fact, it reminds me of one of the reoccurring rants from Bike Snob NYC, who in recent months has revisited the lack of culpability for motorists who kill cyclists often. But Mr. Snob brings approaches the subject with several differences that I think are significant.

For one thing, Mr. Snob usually brings in the pedestrians, and points out that the better way to think of this problem isn't "all powerful (and protected, in several senses) motorists vs vulnerable cyclists" - he adds in the vulnerable pedestrians. Because when you look at the highway statistics, what you see is that motorists kill a lot more pedestrians than cyclists. The way to look at this is to use the "Complete Streets" model - not reducing the conversation to "a vs b" when it really should be a discussion of what serves all the road users so that none are at high risk is better, and to his credit, that is the way Mr. Snob approaches it (even though he is not particularly pedestrian oriented otherwise).

I find it exceptionally annoying that the NYTimes' author drags into his discussion that he sees cyclists routinely "ignore traffic laws" - that much of the problem must come from that. This seems to come up all the time - those scofflaw cyclists, it's all their fault. Strictly speaking, the scofflaw aspect only means that the cyclist is at fault when the cyclist (let's say) doesn't stop for a light and gets into an accident. That one breaks certain laws from time to time and then is in an accident that is the motorist's fault does not absolve the motorist because the cyclist can be presumed to have been breaking laws frequently elsewhere.


Under the NYTimes writer's logic, this dopey cyclist who is "running" (slowly) a red light is inciting motorists

This fixation on getting cyclists to "obey the law" can be seen in news publications often - yesterday, for example, the "Kearney View" (of Nebraska) has an opinion piece Follow Safety Codes Bicycling on City Streets that is a very politely stated reminder from a motorist that cyclists have rules that they need to follow - but based on the two-times wrong statement that "unsafe cycling puts everyone on the road in danger." Uh no - it isn't all on the cyclists and it isn't the same risk for everyone.

The NYTimes writer closes with this: "So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect. And every time you get behind the wheel, remember that even the slightest inattention can maim or kill a human being enjoying a legitimate form of transportation."

For me, this "we cyclists can (or gotta, more like it) earn the motorists' respect!" approach is just baloney. The only legislative change advocated for in the piece, stronger penalties for motorists who kill cyclists, is made dependent on that "obey laws/earn respect" mantra.

I am reminded of the Norwegian video that looks at motorist-cyclist interactions that I blogged about recently. The video carefully avoids strong suggestions of fault and rather draws out the often ambiguous nature of cyclist-motorist interactions. It is a "be careful out there" message without the "be legal" argument thrown in.

If we want to focus on passing laws to improve this situation, I think budget laws that direct more resources to Complete Streets style infrastructure is more important long term. And short term.

Hmm.

Kickstarter Your Solution to Cycling's Dangers

I wasn't intending to do consecutive posts on Kickstarter bicycle-related projects, but I bumped into a news item that brought another example of a bicycling related Kickstarter to my attention:

"Rideye is a black box for bicyclists-There are ways to get from point A to B other than driving a car. There’s the bus, walking, or bicycling . . . The most dangerous method of the aforementioned list though, is riding your bike."

Rideye solves this by providing evidence of motorist bad behavior for your future court case- you know, after you are injured. The story goes on (since it a "coolest gadgets" site) to talk about the many technical attributes of the device (that I'm not much interested in - and I'm not going to address the "most dangerous" statement, which is based on ???).


This oversubscribed Kickstarter makes a compelling argument for a product to insure your safety - well, actually not so much

The device's main claim to being a "black box" rather than simply a GoPro Hero clone is that it has a crash sensor that stops the recording (in the event of a crash ~) - this may seem superfluous except that since the device records in a 2.5 hour loop, if it didn't shut off when there is a crash, it could easily record over your evidence. (I personally find this the weakest aspect of the whole idea - if I'm going to video what happens on the chance of an accident, I for sure want video of what happens after the accident, like audio of the driver when he/she jumps out of their car and shouts, "oh my God, I didn't see you! It's all my fault." Oh well. You don't get that with this because it will have shut down.)

I get the idea that if a motorist does something illegal and you record it on video you have some better chance in court, but I don't get how that helps with safety in the usual sense. While aviation blackboxes are in part about assigning blame they are mostly about trying to prevent future crashes by understanding past ones. How a blackbox that helps assign blame helps making a particular cyclist who buys one more safe is not at all clear. The Kickstarter states, "Last year my friend was seriously injured in a hit-and-run doing the thing he loved most, and I promised him he would never have to ride with that fear again." If by having a camera to record your crashes you somehow feel better protected against the physical injuries you might suffer, there is some logic working there that I don't get. At all.

Not to say that video isn't useful for legal cases involving cyclists who are involved in accidents that are not their fault - it can be. There is a very long (and depressing) blog post on GreaterGreaterWashington that described in detail how a cyclist used Metro DC police video to show he was not at fault (and despite police assumptions that he, the cyclist, was at fault). So if you want to have video of you riding for that reason, for evidence, that's great - but it does nothing for safety. The Kickstarter's statement, "Let's make cycling safer for everyone" is simply baloney.


In the first few seconds sample Rideye camera records copious evidence that will cause no end of legal troubles if he later crashes

Where I live and ride (Virginia and also ride in D.C.) we have contributory negligence - in fact, we have pure contributory negligence, which means that if my negligence as a cyclist contributed to the accident even 1 percent, I may be unable to get $ from someone whose 99 percent of negligence caused me harm. So if I was going to use this device, it would be important to record my own legally pristine cycling behavior at all times, or else what's the point? In the above "sample video" at 22 seconds, the cyclist rides between a parked car and a car in a traffic lane - so if the car door opens or something else happens, what is the defense? "The space was wider than my handlebars, so going into it at 12 to 15 mph made excellent sense."


From Russia, without the slightest love, a bike crash video from a bike cam - it's ok, he survives apparently with no serious injury

As a completely different way to think about this, I would point out that for cars, Russia leads the way with dashboard cameras used in this sort of blackbox let's-record-possible-evidence-in-case-we-crash kind of way. (And to my surprise, I found the above example of a bike cam video from Russia, too.) Doesn't this validate the Rideye Kickstarter? Well, sure, if you want to agree that for cyclists America = Russia. And based on the GreaterGreaterWashington blog post, maybe that is true. But keep in mind what the situation is in today's Russia - if you don't have video evidence, the first problem you have is with police bribery (not the courts) - in other words, you want to have video evidence so that you don't get in a bidding war with other drivers over how the accident is described by the Russian traffic cops. "But officer, my video shows . . . " And of course none of this Russian dash board cam stuff has improved the safety as far as how Russian drivers operate their vehicles even one iota - search "russia dash cam crash compilation" in Google if you don't believe me. (Also, you can look at the relevant portion of the entry in Wikipedia about Russian transportation - hey, didn't I get a master's degree about transportation in that country? No, since it was 30 years ago it was about Soviet transportation, so a different country. But . . . same Russians.)

Is it really that bad here? And is this really useful for cyclists?

Personally my impression from comments on the videos is that mostly people look at this and compare it pricewise to GoPro Hero products - they want video of their cycling, not possible evidence.

Dear Abby, Cyclists, and the Law

In a recent column titled "Bicyclists need to follow the laws, too," the syndicated advice maven Abigail Van Buren (who it turns out is her daughter, who owns the rights to being Dear Abby, per Wikipedia) answers a typical complaint of the "those lawbreaker cyclists!" type.

The thing is copyrighted, so I can't reproduce it here. The Chicago Times has it here if you want to read it.

The main point of the writer is, "Bicyclists are supposed to abide by the vehicle codes, too, but they rarely do — and that includes not wearing protective gear." The writer then list some illegal acts of cyclists, such as texting while riding and failing to stop at stop signs. So what is her question to Abby? "How many lives must be destroyed or lost before the police start enforcing penalties for the danger these people cause to others?"

Abby doesn't offer a guess as the number. Of lives that will be lost. Or offer anything of use or related to reality. On this planet, anyway.

In the typical meme of contemporary journalism (of a sort) she suggests that perhaps the lack of enforcement is a conspiracy - that police are instructed to go out and fail to enforce traffic laws for cyclists. She asks for law enforcement officials reading the column to comment on that aspect.

I guess one should give Abby credit for possibly being concerned about the lives of the cyclists, since she seems to think many of them are suicidal for wearing dark clothing when riding and even riding after dark! Apparently typical state laws concerning bicycle lighting requirements are unknown to Abby. She more or less ignores the danger that the writer is referring to, which is to those others than the cyclists.


Due to a law non-enforcement conspiracy, this scofflaw cyclist is not being ticketed for crossing against the light - but it's OK with Dear Abby; he has protective gear and a high visibility vest on.

As cyclists who ride a lot know, often enough the way law enforcement works is to have goal-oriented projects, which can and do include, "go out and write X many tickets for cyclists at location Y." I myself got a $50 ticket on Hains Point for running a particular stop sign. (Which was fine - we don't have an Idaho bicycle stop law here.) The Park Police officer told me, "my boss told me to go out and write tickets for cyclists failing to stop at this stop sign so I can't give you a warning." He thanked me for not complaining but didn't stop writing the ticket.

So there is some good and some bad to Abby's response - she doesn't appear to buy into the "scofflaw cyclists are a huge threat to others" point that the writer makes (that's good) but then appears to open a new subject, which is that cyclists who get into accidents may well bring it upon themselves by not wearing the right color clothing (which is absurd). And she suggests that the police are under orders not to ticket cyclists (presumably out of some kind of political correctness?) which is hilarious.

Hmm.

Cycling & the Law, 1890s

I was reminded that JSTOR now makes available U.S. journal articles published before 1923 that are in the public domain -- I searched on "bicycle." I was very surprised by the number of articles retrieved in legal journals about bicycle cases. I also found a review of the book The Road Rights and Liabilities of Wheelmen, (by George B. Clementson, of the Wisconsin Bar. Price 5o cents. Chicago: Callaghan & Co., 1895). The review states, "The bicycle as a means of locomotion has evidently come to stay. This essay is therefore opportunely published to define the status of the wheel and to give information to riders of their rights and duties in respect to the public highway. Mr. Clementson has made a successful and exhaustive collection and digest of the decided cases and where there are none upon important points he has ably reasoned from analogy. We commend the book to every wheelman."


This bucolic view of cycling doesn't represent all the potential legal ramifications . . .

It is possible to see the full book that has been digitized from the University of Michigan in Hathitrust.
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001611925

The road rights and liabilities of wheelmen, with table of contents and list of cases.

Preface - The bicycle as a practical vehicle is comparatively recent. Only within the last decade has this means of locomotion and travel assumed an importance which justifies the statement that it is to-day one of the principal agents of passenger transportation. Its comparative novelty of course precludes the wheel from very extensive notice, as yet, by the courts. Yet bicycle law is not lacking, and is constantly receiving accessions. Many important questions in regard to the rights and liabilities of bicyclers are daily arising, and a solution of these is frequently sought by resort to the judicial tribunals. Few of these suits ever reach the courts of last resort; and in consequence the reported cases are not rich in bicycle law, though they contain enough upon the subject to pretty clearly define the status of the wheelman.

Notwithstanding the absence of much case law, the book runs on for 200 pages. The amount of discussion of which roads are available to riders and why alone makes one feel like perhaps the problems we have now aren't so bad.

The State of Cycling in Russia, June 1897

Американский обзор езды на велосипеде в России 1897

From The Wheel and Cycling Trade Review - an extended overview of cycling in Russia, primarily with an eye to business opportunities selling American bicycles in Russia. What is the market? Who is riding? Why? And so on. The list of regulations governing cycling in Russia are, to say the least, daunting. The Czar's empire took second to no country in this area.

I have reproduced the text of the entire article here as well as including an image of part of the article as it appeared in the original publication (on rather brown paper ~).

In the Land of the Czar

Washington, D. C, June 11, 1897. Consul-General Karel, at St. Petersburg, has transmitted a special report to the State Department concerning cycling in Russia. Mr. Karel prefaces his report by saying that as so many inquiries have reached his office concerning the state of the bicycle trade in Russia he thought that a report to the department on the subject would not be inappropriate.

Of course, on account of the severe climate, bicycles can be used only in the summer.

Very little riding is done until after May 1st. Before any person is permitted to ride he must first pass an examination before some cycling association, of recognised standing and secure a certificate of proficiency. When this is obtained the applicant must present himself before the proper city authority, and by exhibiting his certificate will receive a permit to ride. The permit is issued without any charge, but all riders must pay a certain amount in revenue stamps and must provide themselves with a book of rules and regulations, which is sold by the city and costs about $1.13. The permit is good for one year and dates from May 1st.

Upon the payment of another fee a registered number for the bicycle is issued. This number is in plain white figures on a red plate and must be fastened to the machine both on the front and on the back, so as to be clearly visible to the police and public in case any mishap occurs or there is any breach of the regulations.



The regulations provide that:

1. Only "low" wheels, or safeties, shall be ridden, and that each rider shall always carry his permit guaranteeing proficiency. Before the permit is issued the rider must file with the City Governor a photograph of himself, to be used in cases of trouble.

2. Every bicycle must be furnished with a bell and at night with a light, and the numbers spoken of must be in sight; that on the front, so as to be seen from either side of the wheel and that on the back, from the rear or the front.

3. Every rider must carry with him at all times, and must show to the police when required, his book of regulations.

4. Fast riding is prohibited.

6. All riders meeting pedestrians, vehicles, or other riders must keep to the right.

6. When passing pedestrians or vehicles going in the same direction riders must keep to the left.

7. When approaching corners or when near pedestrians riders must ring their bells, but bells must not be rung needlessly.

8. If horses take fright riders must get off their wheels and lead them, and when in crowds must do the same.

9. Wheelmen may not ride abreast, and where there is a party of them there must be at least fourteen feet of space between the riders.

10. Riders must not ride or lead their wheels on the sidewalk,

11. Riding in bicycle costume without a coat is prohibited.

12. Riding on certain streets named by the City Governor is not permitted.

13. Any violation of any of these regulations causes the rider to forfeit his permitand it cannot be renewed for another year.

Previous to February 1st, 1897, women were prohibited from using the wheel, but now the restriction has been removed. There are in St. Petersburg four bicycle clubs and in the suburbs three more. In all there are about 7,000 cyclists in the Capital.

Wheels are imported in large numbers, principally from Germany, England and the United States, the proportion being in the order named.

There are five factories in Russia which manufacture bicycles, two being in St. Petersburg, one in Moscow, one in Warsaw, and one in Riga. There are a number of smaller concerns hardly large enough to be called factories where wheel parts after being imported are assembled.

Two of the factories spoken of are English, that at Warsaw being the establishment of the Singer Cycle Co:, and that at Moscow of the Humber Works.

Wheels made in Russia sell for from $42 to $67, the German wheels from $77 to $92.50, the English wheels from $82 to $128.50, and the American wheels from $103 to $128.50. Although the American wheels are the most expensive, they are preferred on account of their superior finish and their greater durability. Only the high-grade American wheels have been imported.

The whole number of wheels imported in 1896 was 10,609. The duty on finished wheels is about $9.26 per wheel; on unfinished wheels in parts, is about $6.18 each.

Examples of bicycles in an 1895 Russian book

Another earlier 1895 American look at Russian cycling.

Helmets & Choosing to Ride a Bike

The National Bureau of Economic Research, a think tank, has a new report about helmet usage and safety - "Effects of Bicycle Helmet Laws on Children's Injuries." Here is a summary:

Cycling is popular among children, but results in thousands of injuries annually. In recent years, many states and localities have enacted bicycle helmet laws. We examine direct and indirect effects of these laws on injuries. Using hospital-level panel data and triple difference models, we find helmet laws are associated with reductions in bicycle-related head injuries among children. However, laws also are associated with decreases in non-head cycling injuries, as well as increases in head injuries from other wheeled sports. Thus, the observed reduction in bicycle-related head injuries may be due to reductions in bicycle riding induced by the laws.

The report is interesting and some of what it says is of more general interest than just helmet usage by children. They aren't impressed with the rigor of previously done studies looking at helmet use by children (there are only two) and they take care to compensate for those errors. Their results suggest that the main reason why helmet laws reduce head injuries is more about reducing the amount of bicycling than by better outcomes from accidents thanks to wearing helmets. The last paragraph of the report concludes:

The findings from this paper indicate that while bicycle helmet laws are widespread and thought to be effective, the net effect of these laws on health outcomes is actually not straightforward. It is clear that there are offsetting behaviors and unintended consequences of these laws, and these effects need to be considered by policymakers.

My daughter some years ago, learning to ride and wearing a helmet - of course

While a rather indirect statement, the "effects" that they think "policymakers" (ie, legislators, mostly in state legislatures) should consider would be whether helmet laws are useful overall if the result is as much to reduce bike ridership as the means by which injuries are reduced. It seems hard to imagine anyone seriously advocating eliminating already established helmet laws for children (defined in a wide variety of ways, as the report notes) or opposing new ones, but it certainly seems worth looking at a study like this when considering mandatory helmet laws for adults.

Police Unity Tour on GW Trail

Sunday, mid-day - despite the excellent weather, not really that many riders out - any many were part of a local event supporting a national "Police Unity Tour" (by bike). The riders had event numbers on their clothes.


Came up upon this fellow heading north on the GW trail near National Airport


Riding with gun

I guess maybe this is a work-related activity? I don't see the need for this guy to be riding with his sidearm. I wasn't able to work out what jurisdiction he was from.

Overdue Bicycle Parked at Library Branch

Bicycle parked at Aurora Hills Branch Library, Arlington VA

You can't leave your bike locked up at one location for more than five days, or it gets removed. To where is a bit vague.


Tag on bicycle parked at Aurora Hills Branch Library, Arlington VA

I guess we won't have any books published like Bicycles Locked to Poles with its photos of bicycles in New York City (in various states of disassembly, mostly attached to poles with chains as heavy or heavier than the bikes themselves).

Bad Street Crossing for Bikes

Hoping traffic clears, then he'll finish crossing

This kind of thing is crazy - this cyclist, having seen this intersection before, assumes that the traffic pattern is the same every day. The cross traffic has the green light. Traffic from the left clears and then, usually, traffic from the right. So if you go out as he has done and wait in the middle, it should be possible to get across once the traffic from the right clears (without waiting for a green light, that is).

But what are motorists to think of this? They have the green light, and there you are in the middle of the road. There is no center island. And sometimes the traffic pattern doesn't work out and traffic ends up coming from both directions at the same time, and there you are, in the middle of the road with no place to hide.

Annual Dillons Bus Photo Op

Dillons bus driver demonstrating his "split the lane" right turn technique

This is just lazy driving, in my view. But I only drove a city bus for 12 years so what do I know.

Anyway, as with a year ago when I saw some less than excellent driving from these people, I took a photo and then I wrote an email:

This was taken with a cell phone camera, so the quality is not terribly good. This is proceeding west in Independence Ave SW, just approaching the intersection at 7th SW. This would have been around 4:30-4:40? Today. I don't wear a watch.

This is a common practice with Dillons buses making this turn - splitting the two right lanes. Here you have a photograph illustrating what I see often enough. It's just sloppy and dangerous - and completely unnecessary! This bus is turning into three lanes, so if the bus was entirely in the right lane on Independence it would be no problem to swing around the corner even if the nearest southbound lane has a vehicle in it. The bus ain't that long.

The only reason for this approach is to make it simpler to intimidate pedestrians by having four-five feet to turn in the direction of the crosswalk to the right without actually going into the crosswalk. I grant you, waiting until the crosswalk clears if the bus stays patiently in the right lane, where it belongs, isn't much fun - but what this driver is doing is putting the problem in the lap of everyone in two lanes behind the bus. Do you want your buses sideswiped? This is asking for it.

I was on a bicycle, by the way, and had plenty of room to ride right by (on the left) and from my personal perspective this is great since he blocked traffic and I got on down the road. But otherwise it's awful.

The last time I took a picture of a Dillons bus - the "open the door with a full lane open to the right so the passengers can get run over" technique

Police Ticketing Sunday Bikers, Haines Point

View Larger Map

Sunday morning at 9 am I took off to Haines Point in Washington DC to do some laps of the trianguler peninsula along the Potomac River. I have seen U.S. Park Police writing tickets at this same location, the junction of Buckeye Drive and Ohio Drive, before on a weekday afternoon but not on a weekend. Anyway, every time I went past on my laps, they had someone different (sometimes groups) stopped. I don't know if they were giving tickets or just warnings, but I suspect they were writing at least some tickets. It can be a $50 ticket if they write one. On my last time through, a bit after 10 am, there were two Park Police vehicles parked up on the median strip in plain sight and they were still pulling cyclists over.

Rights of Cyclists on the Road (1895)

From page of Cycling for Health and Pleasure, published in 1895:

Rights of Cyclists on the Road. — The right of the cycle on the road is the same as that of other vehicles, — neither more nor less, — and is so held by the courts. Wheelmen have, in some places, been put to considerable labor and expense to establish this fact; but have done so with uniform success, chiefly through the efforts of the League. Of course, when the cycle makes its first appearance in new regions, the blind conservatism which seems to be inherent in human nature is apt to breed prejudice against it; but moderation and experience, with firm prosecution of any case of infringement of rights, will soon put things on a right basis.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Keeping in mind that this was before there were cars on these "highways" mentioned, it goes on to say:

In many localities wheelmen have been accorded advantages much in excess of their rights. They have been granted the privilege of using side paths and even paved walks; no objection has been made to their coasting on crowded hills, and forcing other vehicles from their track; and they have been permitted to ride at racing speed, even on crowded highways. Such concessions have had the effect of making many wheelmen very careless of the rights of pedestrians, and of those of drivers of wagons and carriages, while asserting their own rights and privileges to the full. By so doing they have intensified the prejudice already existing in some quarters against the sport, and have aroused the prejudice of others whose rights have been infringed by being rudely driven from their path, or portion of the road, by the necessity of giving ample space to some reckless rider. It is not only bad form and worse manners to act in this way, but it is most wretched policy, for it injures the whole body of wheelmen in the eyes of the public.

Where roads are bad and wheelmen are permitted to use side paths, they ought to reciprocate the privilege accorded them by extending every possible courtesy to pedestrians, never warning them off the path by bell or whistle, but rather, by riding slowly and requesting the pedestrians to kindly allow their passage, and thanking them when they have done so. There are many cyclists who are thoughtless in these matters, and there are others who pretend to believe that it is pusillanimous to extend such courtesies ; but they ought to remember that they are on a path only by courtesy, and are bound, in common decency, to return that courtesy.

In summary, cyclists have equal rights, but they should behave reasonably towards others. And if they have been accorded special rights, courtesy is to be expected.

New Stop Sign, GW Bike Trail

New stop sign added for traffic coming off the 14th St Bridge (from DC) - sorry, lousy phone camera photo

A new stop sign has been added where traffic coming from DC on the 14th St Bridges meets the north-south George Washington Parkway bike trail. They have also added some helpful (I suppose) directional information - "trail north" and "trail south" for example.

The stop sign is in a somewhat unorthodox location - instead of being on the near side of the intersection, to the right, it is across the intersection, in the middle. I don't see that this clarifies the situation and it may just confuse things.


My favorite - "dismount before crossing"

For bike traffic northbound, there is a "dismount before crossing" sign, apparently pertaining to the humpback bridge a 100 yards on. The Park Service seems to have lots of these "dismount" signs to put up (to no purpose). Also, the sign is on the left side rather than the more conventional right side (presuming I am understanding who it is intended for correctly).

Aside from all this signage, this intersection is a mess for the kind of mixed cycling/walking/running going on here. Neither the north-south trail nor the one coming from the 14th St Bridge are wide enough.

Park Service Says, "Dismount!"

Sign added to bike trail April 7, just before the governement was expected to close

I think this is very odd - Thursday morning two trucks of U.S. Park Service personnel were pulled up along the bike trail to install this sign. Is this really important?

The southbound cyclist, before this sign, would arrive at a stop sign and one that also demands a dismount - I have never seen anyone do so. The trail crossing is zebra striped and looks like a cross walk to the drivers leaving National Airport - the traffic is one way, from left to right in the picture. What generally happens is that cyclists slow, the cars slow, sometimes the car stops and wave the cyclist or cyclists on, sometimes not and then the cyclists stop.

Providing a notice (now two!) that dismount is required just makes cyclists into scofflaws in this instance. There are, I think, some locations where dismounting is sensible, for example the crosswalk across S Shirlington Rd after going under I-395 on the bike trail. The crosswalk has lights to attract attention of drivers that are activated by a button and it seems reasonably for cyclists to dismount here (and a lot safer).


Couldn't they have planted more trees instead?

Idaho Rolling Stop Law Video

Excellent video about the Idaho "Rolling Stop" law for cyclists for use in Oregon as an advocacy tool.

Bicycles, Rolling Stops, and the Idaho Stop from Spencer Boomhower on Vimeo.

Makes it clear how the law operates in Idaho and what is allowed - and prohibited. Also, points out that this law increased the fines for violations.