Catherine notes that while hitting a pedestrian with a car in this city nets you just a $50 fine, biking the wrong way on a one-way street gets a $25 fine. That's madness. Cyclists probably shouldn't bike in the wrong direction (though the particular block where the tickets were handed out is an odd case where they should probably implement a special "wrong way" bike lane) but those who do so aren't endangering anyone but themselves. Conservative pundits who ram pedestrians with their car, by contrast, are rolling the dice with other people's lives.
« Immigration and Wages | Main | Looking for a Visionary »
Priorities, Please
24 Jul 2008 03:19 pm
Comments (62)
Cyclists probably shouldn't bike in the wrong direction (though the particular block where the tickets were handed out is an odd case where they should probably implement a special "wrong way" bike lane) but those who do so aren't endangering anyone but themselves.
Right. Obviously, no else could possibly be hurt if, say, a car swerves to avoid a cyclist going the wrong way down a one-way street.
Fine the biker and put Novak in jail. Leaving the scene of an accident is an incarcerating offense.
Sounds like all these fines should go up about ten times or more. To add, driving the wrong way down a one-way street is really deliberately breaking the coordination norms which make driving possible -- more or less like unilaterally driving on the wrong side of the road. Yes, the driver or cyclist in question does first and foremost put themselves at risk, but its the sort of unilateralism which produces chaos and risk for everyone around them.
The man that Novak ran over is going to sue the hell out of him, right? I sure would.
Conservative pundits who ram pedestrians with their car, by contrast, are rolling the dice with other people's lives.
As they encourage us to do the same with the environment and job safety and a steady drumbeat for war...
Right. Obviously, no else could possibly be hurt if, say, a car swerves to avoid a cyclist going the wrong way down a one-way street.
As a pedestrian, I'll also note that I sometimes get surprised by a cyclist coming the wrong way down a one-way street, since I tend to be more vigilant about who's coming from the correct direction.
I live in a neighborhood that's mostly one-way streets. This is a pedestrian-friendly setup, because it's easier to cross streets on which traffic only runs one way. People who live in the neighborhood get into the habit of only looking one way before crossing.
The nearest I've come to getting hit while crossing in my neighborhood is when a cyclist comes at me from the direction I'm not looking in. For a pedestrian, getting hit by a speeding cyclist is less serious than getting hit by a car, but it's still dangerous and potentially injurious.
I got a $100 ticket in DC for being in a safety zone illegally (got confused trying to get over to I-295 northbound). Maybe I should have hit a pedestrian instead. It would have been cheaper.
What Dusty said. More than once I've come really close to getting nailed by wrong-way cyclists.
Part of the reason I bike the wrong way on one-way streets is that particularly narrow two-way streets are even scarier. The two times I fell off my bike were times I was shoved onto a curb by cars trying to speed past one another while leaving no space on their right between me and parked cars.
Sounds like they let Novak off the big hook which was the hit and run.
As to bikers, it seems that the more "serious" they are, the more they feel that every road, sidewalk, and multi-use path is a private closed course. I was once run down by one who tried to passed inches to my left just as I stepped slightly sideways. No warning, no nothing, and he had a good 6' to my left where he could have gone around me. I still have the scars.
Most cyclists are normal and smart about what they do, but there always seems to be a few of these nitwit Lance Armstrong (give or take a nugget) wannabe's that are a danger to everybody.
I see cyclist pretty routinely running red lights and stop signs as well. It's pretty damned arrogant. And driving a bicycle on an urban sidewalk should be considered a serious offense.
On the other hand, most of the US does not have bike lanes and most wide suburban highways are just ridiculously dangerous to bike on. Riding on the sidewalk is sometimes a reasonable safety precaution in areas like this. On the off chance that a sidewalk is available on a big suburban highway, there are unlikely to be any pedestrians on it.
In the spirit of biker's rules of the road, what do you feel to be an acceptable punishment for the [large numbers] of bikers who insist upon riding on the sidewalk throughout DC?
Hmm, how about $0?
"Conservative pundits who ram pedestrians with their car, by contrast, are rolling the dice with other people's lives."
Fucking Christ, Matt. You've become a liberal Sean Hannity. Of course Novak is a complete asshole, but your faux outrage loses all credibility when you start it off with "conservative." You've become a hack.
Rob Mac, you're still a nerd.
In my county it's very common for cyclists to ride on the "wrong" side of the road. This is partly because that's what they were taught to do when they were in school, and partly because they want to be able to see the car coming towards them. They know that for most drivers the "coordination norms" consist of trying not to hit anything larger than their own car, and not worrying about anything that's much smaller than their own car.
And here's where we must sadly reflect that the great "safety regulations" that have made the occupants of the car safer (also useful for keeping out fuel-efficient imported cars) have made the rest of us less safe.
Before Nader, there was a price to be paid for being a moron behind the wheel. Now the drivers and passengers believe that their triple airbags and restraint systems make it safe to run into stuff. What we used to call 'tail-gating' is now just the universal practice of slowing down when you see another car 15 feet in front of you (frantic hornblowing and obscene gestures are optional).
And usually while they're frying their brains with a cell phone. Driving in America has, so to speak, gotten way off track.
As one of those law-breaking cyclists who is so immensely popular on this thread, let me share a couple of insights with you:
1) You may think that cyclist 'snuck up' on you, but the truth is that 9 times out of 10 pedestrians with their backs to the cyclist cannot hear us saying (or hollering) 'on your left' or some other warning. That's not even counting pedestrians who are distracted by a cell phone or a conversation or just in some other world. I do my best to show courtesy in those situations where I can tell the pedestrian simply is not going to hear me until I am right behind them, but even then every so often I get berated by a pedestrian who is convinced I 'snuck up' on him.
2) Yeah, I run stop signs and so on. Why? Because - unlike a car - I am far smaller, far nimbler, far more aware of people and objects around me, and if I misjudge my actions, I am also far more likely to get creamed by an oncoming vehicle with no harm whatsoever to the other party. There's this mentality that 'it doesn't count when you're on a bike'. Yeah, I know that is not going to carry much weight with some of you and certainly not with a police officer. I'm just telling you how it is with many of us.
I am willing to make this deal though: if the police start vigorously enforcing the traffic laws against the countless drivers who regularly show near-fatal discourtesy and otherwise try to run me down because I am 'in their way', if those drivers start granting recognition that I have as much right to be on the road as they do and quit trying to kill me or harass me, then I will scrupulously obey every single traffic law even if I find myself at a stop sign at 3am with no oncoming traffic in sight for a 1/2 mile in every direction.
I am willing to make this deal though ...
So until the police start enforcing laws to protect cyclists, there's no need to follow laws that might protect pedestrians, such as not going the wrong way down a one-way street or not running a red light? Sure, we pedestrians can stand to be more observant, but, in a busy urban environment, with many sounds and many parties to watch out for, we're not always going to notice a cyclist who's somewhere he's not supposed to be. Which is also a reason for cyclists to not go the wrong way down a one-way street.
Just to add, yes, the police should be vigorously enforcing laws intended to protect cyclists. However, those laws include ticketing cyclists who are disobeying traffic laws, like going the wrong way down a one-way street.
Seriously, these bike discussions bring out the contingent law-breakers in droves. You really don't believe in the rule of law at all if you are going to start making your behaviour contingent on others in this way. The law not a pick and mix specific reciprocity game when I only pay my taxes if we elect Democrats or I only avoid putting poison in children's toys if they cut capital gains tax. I know you're enraged by all the ills of the world, including those on the road, but really by cycling the wrong way down a one way street or on the pavement you're just imposing risks and costs on others, by messing with the coordination norms required for moving fast in a vehicles, for your own selfish convenience.
9 times out of 10 pedestrians with their backs to the cyclist cannot hear us saying (or hollering) 'on your left' or some other warning.
That's right, they can't hear you. Because you don't have an engine, and shouting at people from down the street is a really bad way to get their attention. This is a reason not to ride on the sidewalk. (The fairness or otherwise of accusations that you "snuck up on them" is really beside the point.)
far nimbler
No actually you're not. You have crap acceleration and crap brakes, and you have to put your leg down when you stop. You are smaller though, it's true, so you have more exit options.
I know of at least one block in Chicago that's one-way for cars but has a two-way bike lane, so the setup you suggested is in practice some places.
I think the real issue here is that the ticket for actually hurting a pedestrian so that they are hospitalized is ridiculously low. A $50 ticket for Novak's offense would be appropriate when no one was actually hurt, but it should go up when real damage is done.
The fine from the authorities is only $50, but I reckon BN has significant exposure in a civil suit.
The civil suit isn't going to cause Novak any pain, because his insurance company will settle it. It sounds extremely unlikely that the damages will come close to the policy limits.
As usual, a lot of people commenting on a bike thread who know nothing about the specific situation. Matt's right, on this particular very short stretch of New Hampshire, cyclists have no safer options and don't pose too much of a threat to anyone else either. No one is suggesting that riding the wrong way on one way streets is generally a good idea. Moreover, as scythia pointed out about, biking on sidewalks is legal in 90% of DC. But, you know, keep ranting, morons.
For those cyclists who run stop signs - stop it. Seriously. I live by a college campus and I can't count the number of times I've nearly hit a cyclist because of this. I try turning right, but the cyclist is blowing through going straight - and sometimes gets angry at ME.
Many cities are investigating red-light-as-stop-sign, stop-sign-as-yield schemes for bicyclists. If you've ridden a bike in the city for any amount of time you know that this makes sense. If you haven't, you're speaking from a position of ignorance and I won't be able to convince you (sorry to say, but it's true). Personally, I obey those signals scrupulously when on a bike, but realize that doing so is fairly pointless. I hope that DC considers a change in the law soon.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for biking down the wrong side or direction of the street, though. In most situations in DC it's more appropriate (and legal) to take to the sidewalk if you find yourself needing to travel in the opposite direction of traffic. And of course when on the sidewalk you have an obligation to ride respectfully and carefully around pedestrians.
Tom writes:
-- Many cities are investigating red-light-as-stop-sign, stop-sign-as-yield schemes for bicyclists.
And how long until these become, in practice, red-light-as-yield, stop-sign-as-breeze-through-at-speed?
"Conservative pundits who ram pedestrians with their car, by contrast, are rolling the dice with other people's lives."
I think conservative is the most important word in that sentence. It's hard to imagine Matt's feverishly comparing speeding to firing a 22 in the air wildly if this had been a liberal pundit. Look, leaving the scene is really, really bad; Matt is hyperventilating about speeding, though, and those who 'ram pedestrians'. Accidents happen; it's not like it was intentional.
Re otto
Real men on bikes run stop signs and red signal indications and ride on tubulers.
Leave the prince of darkness (Sr) alone! Otherwise he will haunt your dreams. Or reveal the secret identity of your loved ones.
ndm: Your question betrays your poisonous attitude toward cyclists. We're not riding with the explicit goal of inconveniencing or irritating you, you know. First and foremost we're trying to avoid getting killed. Treating stops as yields and lights as stops is perfectly compatible with that priority; it supports it, in fact, as you get to keep your momentum (and maneuverability) and there's less risk of getting rear-ended by a car that just didn't see you (if you don't believe that can happen, ask Bob Novak).
Blowing through red lights without pausing and stop signs without looking, on the other hand, is a great way to get killed. Cyclists are simply not going to do it, despite how red-faced it might make drivers.
If you biked, you'd realize this. There are two things that are greatly heightened when you're on a bike versus the driving experience: your awareness of your surroundings and your sense of vulnerability. Both change the way you can and should navigate the streets.
Renato, if you ever run into me and try your standard argument, I won't be delighted.
Either we all follow the law or we don't (and that's Mumbai for you). I am endlessly amazed by the sense of moral superiority that these guys have, which is so often (as in Renato's rant) impervious to actual moral calculus.
I actually look forward to running into a lot of t the dickhead bicycle-averse posters here.
Tom responds "Your question betrays your poisonous attitude toward cyclists." No, my question merely reflects the way people tend to skirt traffic laws.
Tom continues:
First and foremost we're trying to avoid getting killed. Treating stops as yields and lights as stops is perfectly compatible with that priority;
Stopping at stop signs and obeying red lights is EVEN more compatible with that priority. But Tom kind of gives the game away when he writes the goal is to "keep your momentum."
Then Tom starts to make assumptions "If you biked, you'd realize this." What I do realise, is that both car and bike riders would be safer if they ALL obeyed the rules of the road. Neither bike riders nor car drivers like being inconvenienced by traffic rules, but car drivers rarely try to claim they have a right, indeed an obligation, to break the law.
Rock On,
No one is suggesting that riding the wrong way on one way streets is generally a good idea ...Moreover, as scythia pointed out about, biking on sidewalks is legal in 90% of DC. But, you know, keep ranting, morons.
Sorry, but there is no indication in Matthew's claim that "cyclists ... who [ride the wrong way on a one-way street] aren't endangering anyone but themselves" that he was referring only to cycling on one stretch of one road in one city, rather than to wrong-way cycling in general. So stop your own ranting, moron.
Yglesias should also consider that basically everyone who hits a pedestrian will be fined, while 99% or more of illegal bicycle trips down one-way roads will not be fined.
Mixner,
At least you are a consistent asshole, I'll give you that.
Die in a fire.
What I do realise, is that both car and bike riders would be safer if they ALL obeyed the rules of the road.
False. Sorry. Maybe in the aggregate, but not in every individual cases.
Momentum is important, BTW. By disparaging it, you prove Tom's point, and betray yourself as one who knows zilch about urban biking. Get a bike, ride around a city for a couple weeks, then come back and comment.
Mixner writes: Sorry, but there is no indication in Matthew's claim that "cyclists ... who [ride the wrong way on a one-way street] aren't endangering anyone but themselves" that he was referring only to cycling on one stretch of one road in one city, rather than to wrong-way cycling in general.
Here's the relevant quote:
Cyclists probably shouldn't bike in the wrong direction (though the particular block where the tickets were handed out is an odd case where they should probably implement a special "wrong way" bike lane) but those who do so aren't endangering anyone but themselves.
Mixner, anyone who's read more than five of your comments knows you have poor reading skills/take things out of context to artificially bolster your claims, but this is pathetic, even for you. Here's a tip: when you have to put more words in the brackets than you actually quote, it's probably time to look for a better citation.
I eagerly anticipate your madlibbed reply.
Its obvious that the cyclists are the ones being dickheads on here. But don't worry, I don't drive a car either. I got my license suspended for killing a kid on a tricycle while drunk. Maybe I'll take up biking!!
ndm: I don't want to belabor this, but don't you think it's at least conceivable that the traffic laws designed for cars may not be wholly appropriate for bikes?
I used to treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stops. It's nice to not have to stop, sure, but the main reason I did it was to get away from cars. If they're stuck at a light, they're not next to me, and therefore not endangering me. That's the the priority: get away from cars, or at least present yourself in a way that provides them with acute awareness of your presence and plenty of opportunity to avoid you.
I stopped doing the stop-sign-as-yield thing not out of any concern for my safety, but largely because of conversations like this one. After seeing commenters at DCist immediately blame the cyclist for the recent fatal accident north of Dupont (she turned out to not be at fault, incidentally), I decided I couldn't stand to give them the satisfaction any longer -- that if drivers' behavior around bikes is ever going to get better, we have to stop giving them the excuse that cyclists are worse. I don't feel any safer obeying the letter of the law; I feel less safe, in fact. But at least I'm not providing any grist for asinine anti-cyclist caterwauling.
BTW, when I say I want to preserve my momentum, it's for the reason I stated: so I can retain the maneuverability that might allow me, at the last second, to avoid an accident. FWIW, the last time I was hit (the first since high school) it occurred at a four-way stop after I had come to a complete halt, allowed a car to pass through the intersection, then proceeded myself, 100% in compliance with the law. It didn't help: the guy didn't see me and accelerated cleanly through my spot on the street, throwing me up on his hood and onto the ground (he didn't stop until someone blocked his escape -- no, it wasn't Mr. Novak). You'll have to forgive me if I have less than complete faith in traffic regulations' ability to preserve cyclists' lives. Until drivers become a less awful at dealing with cyclists, it's up to us.
Yes it IS a danger. I used to commute to work by bicycle. I rode on fast streets without bike lanes, basically hugging the curb while cars whizzed past me with less than a foot of clearance. So imagine how safe I felt when, as happened once or twice a month, I suddenly had to deal with another cyclist coming at me HEAD ON.
Bicycles are vehicles--their riders have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else on the road.
scythia, your reading comprehension skills are clearly extremely poor. But we already knew that. My criticism of Matthew's post was that his claim that cyclists who ride the wrong way down a one-way street "aren't endangering anyone but themselves" is false. I think it's pretty obviously false, in fact. They're also endangering pedestrians and drivers. As others here have also noted.
I gotta agree with Mixner on this one. If you take Matt's statement, he is clearly saying that, in general, cyclists who ride the wrong way on a one way street are not endangering anyone but themselves.
"Cyclists probably shouldn't bike in the wrong direction (though the particular block where the tickets were handed out is an odd case where they should probably implement a special "wrong way" bike lane) but those who do so aren't endangering anyone but themselves."
How could you read this sentence and gather anything else from it? He was definitely talking about this practice in general terms.
Mixner, the comment of yours I quoted was in direct response to Rock On's claim: No one is suggesting that riding the wrong way on one way streets is generally a good idea.
Mixner, the comment of yours I quoted was in direct response to Rock On's claim: No one is suggesting that riding the wrong way on one way streets is generally a good idea.
That wasn't the point in dispute. It was the suggestion that Matthew's comments were about cycling on only one particular stretch of one road in Washington, rather than about cycling in general.
scythia writes:
Momentum is important, BTW. By disparaging it, you prove Tom's point, and betray yourself as one who knows zilch about urban biking. Get a bike, ride around a city for a couple weeks, then come back and comment.
I love the way those who advocate that cyclists should be free to choose which traffic rules to obey believe they have unique insight into riding bikes around cities.
tom,
ndm: I don't want to belabor this, but don't you think it's at least conceivable that the traffic laws designed for cars may not be wholly appropriate for bikes?
You are free to use the political process to try and change the laws regulating cycling if you think they are bad laws. If you routinely flout those laws you should be prosecuted, regardless of how strongly you believe you are in the right.
And if you hope to win any serious public support for your cause, repeatedly displaying an arrogant disregard for the rule of law is probably counterproductive.
Re: I know of at least one block in Chicago that's one-way for cars but has a two-way bike lane, so the setup you suggested is in practice some places.
Ditto along the Inner Harbor here in Baltimore. Pratt St is one way eastbound, but there's a wide bike lane, partly barriered, that allows two way bike traffic. Main problem with it (other than the occasional cab or delivery truck that parks in it at driveways), is that it turns south into Federal Hill, when it really needs an extension several blocks west to Camden Yards and the light rail stop there. There's lots of space actually, since there's an enormously wide pedestrian mall alongside the road. This is one of the few places where I ride on a "sidewalk" (Though it's far, far wider than a normal sidewalk) as my neighborhood lies west and there's no safe route to take home otherwise.
As for the other sins of bikers: as a rule I always ride with traffic and not the wrong way on one way streets-- except for a street like my own residential street, which is very narrow (hence the one way), and far more likely to have children playing in it than cars travelling down it. Stop signs I treat like yields: I slow and check for traffic, and stop if something's coming (biking is all about preserving one's momentum, starting from a dead stop takes considerable oomph); stop lights I always stop for and rarely run afterwards-- though I've been known to do so in cases where there's absolutely no traffic in any direction, and the light holds ridiculously long. Such lights, IMO, shouldn't even exist.
By the way, anyone remember, say, 25 years ago, when it was common for stop lights at low traffic intersection to go on blink late at night, yellow for the busier road, red for the lesser one? Any ideas why this is rarely done nowadays? Seems like we are wasting a lot of gas sitting at stop lights on intersections that see maybe one car every ten minutes if that.
Also, nasty as a bike-pedestrian accident can be, both cyclist and pedestrian are equally at risk as both exerience the full force of the collision; neither is protected the way a driver in a car is protected if he hits one or the other.
Re: they're stuck at a light, they're not next to me, and therefore not endangering me.
Ive found its better to have the traffic pass me when it's still moving slow and fairly attentive after going through the intersection. So I don't mind waiting with traffic at stop lights. By the time they and I get up to speed they're up the road a ways and I have some space of my own.
I was hit by a bicyclist who ran a redlight just the other day. It was a big hassle since he was shaken up enough that bystanders called an ambulance and I had to wait for the police to come out to write a report. In this instance, the cyclist on my campus decided the light was optional at the same time I had a green left turn arrow. He was lucky in that he hit me instead of the other way around.
I would be more inclined to believe the cyclists above who say they accept the risks of tickets, injuries and worse if this guy hadn't started screaming about suing and insisting he needed an ambulance for the 800 foot trip to the emergency room. Thankfully the jackass was wearing a helmet and there were other people around to give statements.
I love the way those who advocate that cyclists should be free to choose which traffic rules to obey believe they have unique insight into riding bikes around cities.
I love how all the anti-cyclists get fainting spells at the notion that some cyclists don't rigorously uphold all traffic laws. Until you similarly get the vapours when car drivers exceed the speed limit, spare me the faux outrage.
I live in Toronto, which is mildly bike friendly, but taking steps to be more so. I bike by the "red light as stop sign, stop sign as yield" credo, and see a fair number of other cyclists do so as well. I've never seen a case where doing this has put a pedestrian or car driver at risk, because, frankly, cyclists risk serious injury themselves if they wantonly blow through reds or stops - and so they don't. I, and other cyclists, also occasionally go the wrong way down a one way, but invariably on residential streets. No sane cyclist would risk doing so on a one way through-way, unless they also play russian roulette.
Aside from children, I never see cyclists riding on the sidewalk, but that is probably a product of a city that has taken steps to improve conditions for cyclists.
"Aside from children, I never see cyclists riding on the sidewalk, but that is probably a product of a city that has taken steps to improve conditions for cyclists."
Dear McKingford:
You are luckier than am I, a fellow Torontonian, because I do sometimes see adults doing that, and too quickly. Nevertheless, I agree (as a cyclist but mostly in Edmonton, not Toronto) that these are a small minority.
In any case, these arguments can get pretty sanctimonious. Few of the motorists realize that bicycles obeying the rule of the law to the letter would also ride right in the middle of the lane and ignore the honking cars behind them (If you do recognize that, apologies). And bicycling in Edmonton long ago made me realize the essential sinfulness of humanity, since I saw so many lefty hippy bicyclists acting and talking as sanctimonious and entitled as the filthiet conservative motorist on the roads.
By the by, I follow (or followed) the red light means stop, and stop sign means yield rule myself. None of the cars I saw seemed bothered. When bicyclists are gliding slowly, they are actually moving very slowly indeed and are very flexible. The bicyclists who are being hit as they pass stop signs are almost all, I am sure, not slowing down and watching as they approach (as I did and most of the people on this list do), but are completely oblivious to the stop sign.
Bicyclists can see completely around themselves, and, unless they have earphones in their ears(a very bad idea), they can also hear approaching cars.
Adam
Adam
You may think that cyclist 'snuck up' on you, but the truth is that 9 times out of 10 pedestrians with their backs to the cyclist cannot hear us saying (or hollering) 'on your left' or some other warning. That's not even counting pedestrians who are distracted by a cell phone or a conversation or just in some other world. I do my best to show courtesy in those situations where I can tell the pedestrian simply is not going to hear me until I am right behind them, but even then every so often I get berated by a pedestrian who is convinced I 'snuck up' on him.
This is the only really bothersome part of the 'cyclist mindset' as it is demonstrated here. In almost every area where it matters, the slower person/vehicle ahead of you has the right of way.
It is this way in driving, sailing, boating, whatever, and for good reason: you can avoid them much more easily than they can avoid you.
So if you find that you are regularly startling people when you pass them on the sidewalk, regardless of your vocal assistance or their cellphones, then you should reconsider how fast/close you are when passing them. Chances are pretty good you actually are the one being an asshole. (And yes, pedestrians can usually tell the difference between a courteous/safe biker and a reckless one).
I wrote:
I love the way those who advocate that cyclists should be free to choose which traffic rules to obey believe they have unique insight into riding bikes around cities.
McKingford responded:
I love how all the anti-cyclists get fainting spells at the notion that some cyclists don't rigorously uphold all traffic laws. Until you similarly get the vapours when car drivers exceed the speed limit, spare me the faux outrage.
I obviously missed the lesson where we were told we were "anti-cyclists" if we thought cyclists should "rigorously uphold all traffic laws." Frankly, it is presumptuously stupid of cyclists - or anyone else for that matter - to ignore traffic laws intented to make life safer for ALL road users.
Regardless of their current status, nearly all cyclists will at some time or other be either pedestrians or drivers. All our lives would be improved if we obeyed those laws governing roads and our interactions with them. This is true for pedestrians and drivers just as much as cyclists.
There are two main reasons that bikers should not ride against traffic, both based upon the second (of two) rules of driving.
Rule two is: don't let anything hit you (rule one is don't hit anything).
The first reason is that if a bicyclist is coming toward you, in your lane, you cannot do anything to avoid the possibility that they might run into you. You stop, they can still hit you. Driving against traffic places others in a defenseless position. They can't practice defensive driving.
The second reason covers what happens if a driver, or pedestrian pulls into or crosses the street. They may look into the direction of the traffic flow, but fail to look the other direction, even inching out a little could clip a cyclist. Pedestrians crossing straight across the street may not think they need to look the other way, they look in the direction they are walking. A cyclist could hit the pedestrian, maybe they are pushing a baby around.
The violation here is to go against expectations. Conventions (subjective rules) provide the only useful basis for efficient sharing of the road. The rules, in isolation, are not logically defensible, but if everyone agrees to follow them, it makes life easy.
So cyclists can hurt others, mostly pedestrians.
My preference would be to use the expectations game to make things safer for cyclists: let them ride on sidewalks (but not at full speed), and get them to follow some driving rules. Direction of travel is important. Stopping at stop signs is not so important. Cyclists go so much slower than cars, and usually have a better view of the situation. But they still need to follow the two main rules, boiled together as: share the road, don't steal it.
Pedestrians should be able to do most anything as long as they follow the second rule. The "don't let anyone hit you" rule implies that you can't rely on others to take any action to avoid hitting you. It is a high standard, easier said as "don't put your safety into the hands of others."
I live in an area that doesn't appreciate either cyclists or pedestrians, the Seattle metro area. It is frustrating because the cost of safe "green" human powered traffic lanes is very low, but they are the last to be added and the first to be removed from any road project.
Posted by Dave Weigel | July 24, 2008 3:51 PM
Part of the reason I bike the wrong way on one-way streets is that particularly narrow two-way streets are even scarier. The two times I fell off my bike were times I was shoved onto a curb by cars trying to speed past one another while leaving no space on their right between me and parked cars.
If there is no space to pass safely within the lane, it is unsafe for the cyclist to hug the curb and encourage the motorist to pass unsafely.
And curb hugging as a habit also leads to more encounter with pedestrians, as experienced by Posted by LFC | July 24, 2008 3:54 PM:
I was once run down by one who tried to passed inches to my left just as I stepped slightly sideways. No warning, no nothing, and he had a good 6' to my left where he could have gone around me. I still have the scars.
Note that the incidents used to illustrate "problem cyclists" at stop signs or red lights involve a car turning across the path of a cyclist. But a cyclist entering an intersection should not be passing a car on the right, whether it is a red light, a green light, a stop sign, a yield sign or whatever. A habit of passing cars on the right heading into intersections will result in an accident, sooner or later. And that remains true even if there is paint on the road encouraging cyclists to do so.
On the one way streets ... there are many one way streets that can safely accomodate two way bicycle traffic. And those that can be, should be ... but the fact that "there ought to be a bike lane going this way" is an argument to take to city hall, not an excuse for riding the wrong way on a one way street. In a law-abiding society, you obey rules even when they represent an inconvenience.
There is a particular reason why having a bicyclist going the wrong way is a problem. It becomes really obvious when you move over as far as you dare to pass a bicyclist who is riding with traffic, and note that there is a wrong way meth head bicyclist also trying to pass at the same time. Bonus, the 'car' next to you is a Heavy Truck.
I, and other cyclists, also occasionally go the wrong way down a one way, but invariably on residential streets. No sane cyclist would risk doing so on a one way through-way, unless they also play russian roulette.
In that case, then, there are a lot of cyclists in downtown L.A. who are insane. Also a bunch who couldn't give a rat's ass about watching for pedestrians, either.
Posted by Adam | July 24, 2008 8:19 PM
In any case, these arguments can get pretty sanctimonious. Few of the motorists realize that bicycles obeying the rule of the law to the letter would also ride right in the middle of the lane and ignore the honking cars behind them
This is not a universal. For example, in Ohio, a cyclist is to ride as far to the right "as practicable". That means:
(1) As far to the right within the lane (and many dangerous curb-hugging cyclists ride further to the right, with their wheels on the edge of the lane and the right hand part of their bike jutting out into the shoulder/gutter).
(2) As far to the right as is safe. So as far right as practicable is where cyclists will ride in a position where it is impossible to pass within the lane, when it is unsafe to pass, or to the left of the sweep of an opening door of parallel parked cars.
Posted by Adam | July 24, 2008 8:19 PM
Bicyclists can see completely around themselves, and, unless they have earphones in their ears (a very bad idea), they can also hear approaching cars.
... and, of course, accidents happen when habits that work 99% of the time encounter the circumstance where they don't work. Effective cycling can be practiced by someone coming home from work after a hard day, and with the drive-home radio show on headphones on their MP3 / FM radio.
Tom: First and foremost we're trying to avoid getting killed. Treating stops as yields and lights as stops is perfectly compatible with that priority;
NDM: Stopping at stop signs and obeying red lights is EVEN more compatible with that priority.
That may not actually be the case. The so-called "Right Hook" (in which a car turns right over a bicycle going straight in the bicycle lane to the right, which recently claimed the life of a District bicyclist who was obeying all traffic laws), can sometimes be avoided by going through the stop sign or light early. By moving forward sooner, the bicyclist is in front of the vehicle making the right turn and therefore much more likely to be seen.
And I don't own a bicycle, BTW, so that's not just self-interest on my part.
To return to the subject of this thread, it appears that the man that fuckface Novak hit was an 86 year old homeless man who was living in a shelter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072402099.html?sub=AR
Comments closed August 07, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
In the spirit of biker's rules of the road, what do you feel to be an acceptable punishment for the [large numbers] of bikers who insist upon riding on the sidewalk throughout DC? This is a pretty common thing to see, and is a real danger to pedestrians. I think that there is oftentimes a tendency to dismiss or trivialize the need for bikers to follow traffic laws. What those look like is up for debate, but it seems like we need a better set of rules in general, and an enforcement mechanism.
Posted by Micah | July 24, 2008 3:30 PM