Mary Cheh wants to make it legal for bicyclists for blow stop signs and stop lights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Cool story bro (sorry I just couldn't resist)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

This is unreal. Actual data demonstrates what we all know to be true with our own eyes: 86 out of 768 cyclists or only 11% followed traffic laws at red lights.

You see a lot of cyclists talk about how we need Dutch cycling infrastructure. What they don’t talk about is that the Netherlands has very stringent traffic laws for bicycles that includes significant fines. And that makes sense. If you want public resources, it comes with public obligations.

What is even more interesting is that DDOT data in that study indicates some important things. First the cyclist survey says that the vast majority of cyclists “feel” unsafe from cars but they only found cyclists and not cars engaging in behavior that was unsafe around cars. Second and relatedly, that installing protected bikes lanes actually increased accidents. but they are choosing to hide it.

And this is why Vision Zero doesn’t work. Because everything that is being done is actually inducing accidents by bicyclists and ignoring the source of accidents: bicyclists themselves.

I’ve been in two bicycle accidents in more than a decade of commuting by bike to work. The first one, I was in a bike lane and a car drove into the lane and hit me, because, the driver said, he hadn’t looked to see if anyone was there. (Very minor wrist injury to me, no damage to bike, his mirror may have been damaged, not sure, I didn’t bother to call police or anything). The second one, I crashed my bike into the ground intentionally to avoid hitting a kid who dashed out between two parked cars in the middle of a block. (Again no damage to bike, some minor blood and scrapes on me, kid unhurt because I didn’t hit her.) So in the actual data in my own life, I’d say bicycles were the cause of 0 percent of the accidents.

If you needed to do the actions as described, this means you were going too fast for the conditions present. So yes, you were at fault there.

The next time a cyclist takes responsibility for his/her actions will be the first time.

This is correct. The fact that the cyclist needed to crash instead of cause a collision indicates that they were traveling at speeds unsafe for the conditions.

Uh, no, it means that stopping quickly on a bike without swerving into traffic or hitting a stopped car sometimes means you fall down. I'd rather have been on my bike going 9 mph that day than in my car going 20 -- or, honestly, going 9.

I’m not sure I understand the point here. You want credit for not hitting a kid on your bike?

I don't want credit for anything. I was bringing it up to dispute the PP who says all bike accidents are caused by bikes. I don't even know if this counts as an accident, since, again, nothing happened except I wound up in the street with a few cuts, bruises, and scrapes and needed to get a new helmet -- no injury to anyone and no damage to anyone's property. But the point is, if a kid is going to jump out into the street in front of me, I'd always rather it be while I'm on a bike than in a car -- there's no way to safely crash a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

This is unreal. Actual data demonstrates what we all know to be true with our own eyes: 86 out of 768 cyclists or only 11% followed traffic laws at red lights.

You see a lot of cyclists talk about how we need Dutch cycling infrastructure. What they don’t talk about is that the Netherlands has very stringent traffic laws for bicycles that includes significant fines. And that makes sense. If you want public resources, it comes with public obligations.

What is even more interesting is that DDOT data in that study indicates some important things. First the cyclist survey says that the vast majority of cyclists “feel” unsafe from cars but they only found cyclists and not cars engaging in behavior that was unsafe around cars. Second and relatedly, that installing protected bikes lanes actually increased accidents. but they are choosing to hide it.

And this is why Vision Zero doesn’t work. Because everything that is being done is actually inducing accidents by bicyclists and ignoring the source of accidents: bicyclists themselves.

I’ve been in two bicycle accidents in more than a decade of commuting by bike to work. The first one, I was in a bike lane and a car drove into the lane and hit me, because, the driver said, he hadn’t looked to see if anyone was there. (Very minor wrist injury to me, no damage to bike, his mirror may have been damaged, not sure, I didn’t bother to call police or anything). The second one, I crashed my bike into the ground intentionally to avoid hitting a kid who dashed out between two parked cars in the middle of a block. (Again no damage to bike, some minor blood and scrapes on me, kid unhurt because I didn’t hit her.) So in the actual data in my own life, I’d say bicycles were the cause of 0 percent of the accidents.

If you needed to do the actions as described, this means you were going too fast for the conditions present. So yes, you were at fault there.

The next time a cyclist takes responsibility for his/her actions will be the first time.

This is correct. The fact that the cyclist needed to crash instead of cause a collision indicates that they were traveling at speeds unsafe for the conditions.

Uh, no, it means that stopping quickly on a bike without swerving into traffic or hitting a stopped car sometimes means you fall down. I'd rather have been on my bike going 9 mph that day than in my car going 20 -- or, honestly, going 9.

I’m not sure I understand the point here. You want credit for not hitting a kid on your bike?

I don't want credit for anything. I was bringing it up to dispute the PP who says all bike accidents are caused by bikes. I don't even know if this counts as an accident, since, again, nothing happened except I wound up in the street with a few cuts, bruises, and scrapes and needed to get a new helmet -- no injury to anyone and no damage to anyone's property. But the point is, if a kid is going to jump out into the street in front of me, I'd always rather it be while I'm on a bike than in a car -- there's no way to safely crash a car.

Weird example if you are trying to prove a bicycle is not the cause of an accident. You had a one-bike accident. Definitionally, as you were the only road vehicle involved it was an accident cause by you, a bicycle rider, on you bicycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

This is unreal. Actual data demonstrates what we all know to be true with our own eyes: 86 out of 768 cyclists or only 11% followed traffic laws at red lights.

You see a lot of cyclists talk about how we need Dutch cycling infrastructure. What they don’t talk about is that the Netherlands has very stringent traffic laws for bicycles that includes significant fines. And that makes sense. If you want public resources, it comes with public obligations.

What is even more interesting is that DDOT data in that study indicates some important things. First the cyclist survey says that the vast majority of cyclists “feel” unsafe from cars but they only found cyclists and not cars engaging in behavior that was unsafe around cars. Second and relatedly, that installing protected bikes lanes actually increased accidents. but they are choosing to hide it.

And this is why Vision Zero doesn’t work. Because everything that is being done is actually inducing accidents by bicyclists and ignoring the source of accidents: bicyclists themselves.

I’ve been in two bicycle accidents in more than a decade of commuting by bike to work. The first one, I was in a bike lane and a car drove into the lane and hit me, because, the driver said, he hadn’t looked to see if anyone was there. (Very minor wrist injury to me, no damage to bike, his mirror may have been damaged, not sure, I didn’t bother to call police or anything). The second one, I crashed my bike into the ground intentionally to avoid hitting a kid who dashed out between two parked cars in the middle of a block. (Again no damage to bike, some minor blood and scrapes on me, kid unhurt because I didn’t hit her.) So in the actual data in my own life, I’d say bicycles were the cause of 0 percent of the accidents.

If you needed to do the actions as described, this means you were going too fast for the conditions present. So yes, you were at fault there.

The next time a cyclist takes responsibility for his/her actions will be the first time.

This is correct. The fact that the cyclist needed to crash instead of cause a collision indicates that they were traveling at speeds unsafe for the conditions.

Uh, no, it means that stopping quickly on a bike without swerving into traffic or hitting a stopped car sometimes means you fall down. I'd rather have been on my bike going 9 mph that day than in my car going 20 -- or, honestly, going 9.

I’m not sure I understand the point here. You want credit for not hitting a kid on your bike?

I don't want credit for anything. I was bringing it up to dispute the PP who says all bike accidents are caused by bikes. I don't even know if this counts as an accident, since, again, nothing happened except I wound up in the street with a few cuts, bruises, and scrapes and needed to get a new helmet -- no injury to anyone and no damage to anyone's property. But the point is, if a kid is going to jump out into the street in front of me, I'd always rather it be while I'm on a bike than in a car -- there's no way to safely crash a car.

Weird example if you are trying to prove a bicycle is not the cause of an accident. You had a one-bike accident. Definitionally, as you were the only road vehicle involved it was an accident cause by you, a bicycle rider, on you bicycle.

When you’re this in the weeds, you’ve already lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

This is unreal. Actual data demonstrates what we all know to be true with our own eyes: 86 out of 768 cyclists or only 11% followed traffic laws at red lights.

You see a lot of cyclists talk about how we need Dutch cycling infrastructure. What they don’t talk about is that the Netherlands has very stringent traffic laws for bicycles that includes significant fines. And that makes sense. If you want public resources, it comes with public obligations.

What is even more interesting is that DDOT data in that study indicates some important things. First the cyclist survey says that the vast majority of cyclists “feel” unsafe from cars but they only found cyclists and not cars engaging in behavior that was unsafe around cars. Second and relatedly, that installing protected bikes lanes actually increased accidents. but they are choosing to hide it.

And this is why Vision Zero doesn’t work. Because everything that is being done is actually inducing accidents by bicyclists and ignoring the source of accidents: bicyclists themselves.

I’ve been in two bicycle accidents in more than a decade of commuting by bike to work. The first one, I was in a bike lane and a car drove into the lane and hit me, because, the driver said, he hadn’t looked to see if anyone was there. (Very minor wrist injury to me, no damage to bike, his mirror may have been damaged, not sure, I didn’t bother to call police or anything). The second one, I crashed my bike into the ground intentionally to avoid hitting a kid who dashed out between two parked cars in the middle of a block. (Again no damage to bike, some minor blood and scrapes on me, kid unhurt because I didn’t hit her.) So in the actual data in my own life, I’d say bicycles were the cause of 0 percent of the accidents.

If you needed to do the actions as described, this means you were going too fast for the conditions present. So yes, you were at fault there.

The next time a cyclist takes responsibility for his/her actions will be the first time.

This is correct. The fact that the cyclist needed to crash instead of cause a collision indicates that they were traveling at speeds unsafe for the conditions.

Uh, no, it means that stopping quickly on a bike without swerving into traffic or hitting a stopped car sometimes means you fall down. I'd rather have been on my bike going 9 mph that day than in my car going 20 -- or, honestly, going 9.

I’m not sure I understand the point here. You want credit for not hitting a kid on your bike?

I don't want credit for anything. I was bringing it up to dispute the PP who says all bike accidents are caused by bikes. I don't even know if this counts as an accident, since, again, nothing happened except I wound up in the street with a few cuts, bruises, and scrapes and needed to get a new helmet -- no injury to anyone and no damage to anyone's property. But the point is, if a kid is going to jump out into the street in front of me, I'd always rather it be while I'm on a bike than in a car -- there's no way to safely crash a car.

Weird example if you are trying to prove a bicycle is not the cause of an accident. You had a one-bike accident. Definitionally, as you were the only road vehicle involved it was an accident cause by you, a bicycle rider, on you bicycle.

The other example I mentioned is, of course, being totally ignored by the people who think all bikes are bad and all cars are good, which was the time that a car drove into the bike lane while I was riding in it and hit me, and then the driver explained that it only happened because he hadn't looked to see if I was there. I guess that was my fault, too, since I was on a bike in a bike lane rather than in a car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

This is unreal. Actual data demonstrates what we all know to be true with our own eyes: 86 out of 768 cyclists or only 11% followed traffic laws at red lights.

You see a lot of cyclists talk about how we need Dutch cycling infrastructure. What they don’t talk about is that the Netherlands has very stringent traffic laws for bicycles that includes significant fines. And that makes sense. If you want public resources, it comes with public obligations.

What is even more interesting is that DDOT data in that study indicates some important things. First the cyclist survey says that the vast majority of cyclists “feel” unsafe from cars but they only found cyclists and not cars engaging in behavior that was unsafe around cars. Second and relatedly, that installing protected bikes lanes actually increased accidents. but they are choosing to hide it.

And this is why Vision Zero doesn’t work. Because everything that is being done is actually inducing accidents by bicyclists and ignoring the source of accidents: bicyclists themselves.

I’ve been in two bicycle accidents in more than a decade of commuting by bike to work. The first one, I was in a bike lane and a car drove into the lane and hit me, because, the driver said, he hadn’t looked to see if anyone was there. (Very minor wrist injury to me, no damage to bike, his mirror may have been damaged, not sure, I didn’t bother to call police or anything). The second one, I crashed my bike into the ground intentionally to avoid hitting a kid who dashed out between two parked cars in the middle of a block. (Again no damage to bike, some minor blood and scrapes on me, kid unhurt because I didn’t hit her.) So in the actual data in my own life, I’d say bicycles were the cause of 0 percent of the accidents.

If you needed to do the actions as described, this means you were going too fast for the conditions present. So yes, you were at fault there.

The next time a cyclist takes responsibility for his/her actions will be the first time.

This is correct. The fact that the cyclist needed to crash instead of cause a collision indicates that they were traveling at speeds unsafe for the conditions.

Uh, no, it means that stopping quickly on a bike without swerving into traffic or hitting a stopped car sometimes means you fall down. I'd rather have been on my bike going 9 mph that day than in my car going 20 -- or, honestly, going 9.

I’m not sure I understand the point here. You want credit for not hitting a kid on your bike?

I don't want credit for anything. I was bringing it up to dispute the PP who says all bike accidents are caused by bikes. I don't even know if this counts as an accident, since, again, nothing happened except I wound up in the street with a few cuts, bruises, and scrapes and needed to get a new helmet -- no injury to anyone and no damage to anyone's property. But the point is, if a kid is going to jump out into the street in front of me, I'd always rather it be while I'm on a bike than in a car -- there's no way to safely crash a car.

Weird example if you are trying to prove a bicycle is not the cause of an accident. You had a one-bike accident. Definitionally, as you were the only road vehicle involved it was an accident cause by you, a bicycle rider, on you bicycle.

The other example I mentioned is, of course, being totally ignored by the people who think all bikes are bad and all cars are good, which was the time that a car drove into the bike lane while I was riding in it and hit me, and then the driver explained that it only happened because he hadn't looked to see if I was there. I guess that was my fault, too, since I was on a bike in a bike lane rather than in a car?

That one was also actually an accident, as opposed to an accident that didn't happen. A one-bicycle crash into the ground with no damage to anything and only minor injuries to the person on the bike seems, to me, like an accident that didn't happen, not one that did. You wouldn't say a car that didn't crash into anything had a one-car accident if it stopped suddenly to avoid hitting something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

This is unreal. Actual data demonstrates what we all know to be true with our own eyes: 86 out of 768 cyclists or only 11% followed traffic laws at red lights.

You see a lot of cyclists talk about how we need Dutch cycling infrastructure. What they don’t talk about is that the Netherlands has very stringent traffic laws for bicycles that includes significant fines. And that makes sense. If you want public resources, it comes with public obligations.

What is even more interesting is that DDOT data in that study indicates some important things. First the cyclist survey says that the vast majority of cyclists “feel” unsafe from cars but they only found cyclists and not cars engaging in behavior that was unsafe around cars. Second and relatedly, that installing protected bikes lanes actually increased accidents. but they are choosing to hide it.

And this is why Vision Zero doesn’t work. Because everything that is being done is actually inducing accidents by bicyclists and ignoring the source of accidents: bicyclists themselves.

I’ve been in two bicycle accidents in more than a decade of commuting by bike to work. The first one, I was in a bike lane and a car drove into the lane and hit me, because, the driver said, he hadn’t looked to see if anyone was there. (Very minor wrist injury to me, no damage to bike, his mirror may have been damaged, not sure, I didn’t bother to call police or anything). The second one, I crashed my bike into the ground intentionally to avoid hitting a kid who dashed out between two parked cars in the middle of a block. (Again no damage to bike, some minor blood and scrapes on me, kid unhurt because I didn’t hit her.) So in the actual data in my own life, I’d say bicycles were the cause of 0 percent of the accidents.

If you needed to do the actions as described, this means you were going too fast for the conditions present. So yes, you were at fault there.

The next time a cyclist takes responsibility for his/her actions will be the first time.

This is correct. The fact that the cyclist needed to crash instead of cause a collision indicates that they were traveling at speeds unsafe for the conditions.

Uh, no, it means that stopping quickly on a bike without swerving into traffic or hitting a stopped car sometimes means you fall down. I'd rather have been on my bike going 9 mph that day than in my car going 20 -- or, honestly, going 9.

I’m not sure I understand the point here. You want credit for not hitting a kid on your bike?

I don't want credit for anything. I was bringing it up to dispute the PP who says all bike accidents are caused by bikes. I don't even know if this counts as an accident, since, again, nothing happened except I wound up in the street with a few cuts, bruises, and scrapes and needed to get a new helmet -- no injury to anyone and no damage to anyone's property. But the point is, if a kid is going to jump out into the street in front of me, I'd always rather it be while I'm on a bike than in a car -- there's no way to safely crash a car.

Weird example if you are trying to prove a bicycle is not the cause of an accident. You had a one-bike accident. Definitionally, as you were the only road vehicle involved it was an accident cause by you, a bicycle rider, on you bicycle.

The other example I mentioned is, of course, being totally ignored by the people who think all bikes are bad and all cars are good, which was the time that a car drove into the bike lane while I was riding in it and hit me, and then the driver explained that it only happened because he hadn't looked to see if I was there. I guess that was my fault, too, since I was on a bike in a bike lane rather than in a car?

I would honestly recommend to stop responding to these people/person. They're not interested in listening or debating in good faith. Your attempts to respond/clarify are only helping their nonsense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

This is unreal. Actual data demonstrates what we all know to be true with our own eyes: 86 out of 768 cyclists or only 11% followed traffic laws at red lights.

You see a lot of cyclists talk about how we need Dutch cycling infrastructure. What they don’t talk about is that the Netherlands has very stringent traffic laws for bicycles that includes significant fines. And that makes sense. If you want public resources, it comes with public obligations.

What is even more interesting is that DDOT data in that study indicates some important things. First the cyclist survey says that the vast majority of cyclists “feel” unsafe from cars but they only found cyclists and not cars engaging in behavior that was unsafe around cars. Second and relatedly, that installing protected bikes lanes actually increased accidents. but they are choosing to hide it.

And this is why Vision Zero doesn’t work. Because everything that is being done is actually inducing accidents by bicyclists and ignoring the source of accidents: bicyclists themselves.

I’ve been in two bicycle accidents in more than a decade of commuting by bike to work. The first one, I was in a bike lane and a car drove into the lane and hit me, because, the driver said, he hadn’t looked to see if anyone was there. (Very minor wrist injury to me, no damage to bike, his mirror may have been damaged, not sure, I didn’t bother to call police or anything). The second one, I crashed my bike into the ground intentionally to avoid hitting a kid who dashed out between two parked cars in the middle of a block. (Again no damage to bike, some minor blood and scrapes on me, kid unhurt because I didn’t hit her.) So in the actual data in my own life, I’d say bicycles were the cause of 0 percent of the accidents.

If you needed to do the actions as described, this means you were going too fast for the conditions present. So yes, you were at fault there.

The next time a cyclist takes responsibility for his/her actions will be the first time.

This is correct. The fact that the cyclist needed to crash instead of cause a collision indicates that they were traveling at speeds unsafe for the conditions.

Uh, no, it means that stopping quickly on a bike without swerving into traffic or hitting a stopped car sometimes means you fall down. I'd rather have been on my bike going 9 mph that day than in my car going 20 -- or, honestly, going 9.

I’m not sure I understand the point here. You want credit for not hitting a kid on your bike?

I don't want credit for anything. I was bringing it up to dispute the PP who says all bike accidents are caused by bikes. I don't even know if this counts as an accident, since, again, nothing happened except I wound up in the street with a few cuts, bruises, and scrapes and needed to get a new helmet -- no injury to anyone and no damage to anyone's property. But the point is, if a kid is going to jump out into the street in front of me, I'd always rather it be while I'm on a bike than in a car -- there's no way to safely crash a car.

Weird example if you are trying to prove a bicycle is not the cause of an accident. You had a one-bike accident. Definitionally, as you were the only road vehicle involved it was an accident cause by you, a bicycle rider, on you bicycle.

The other example I mentioned is, of course, being totally ignored by the people who think all bikes are bad and all cars are good, which was the time that a car drove into the bike lane while I was riding in it and hit me, and then the driver explained that it only happened because he hadn't looked to see if I was there. I guess that was my fault, too, since I was on a bike in a bike lane rather than in a car?

I would honestly recommend to stop responding to these people/person. They're not interested in listening or debating in good faith. Your attempts to respond/clarify are only helping their nonsense

To be clear, you are trying to politely tell this person to shut up because they make it harder for you to gaslight people about cyclist behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

This is unreal. Actual data demonstrates what we all know to be true with our own eyes: 86 out of 768 cyclists or only 11% followed traffic laws at red lights.

You see a lot of cyclists talk about how we need Dutch cycling infrastructure. What they don’t talk about is that the Netherlands has very stringent traffic laws for bicycles that includes significant fines. And that makes sense. If you want public resources, it comes with public obligations.

What is even more interesting is that DDOT data in that study indicates some important things. First the cyclist survey says that the vast majority of cyclists “feel” unsafe from cars but they only found cyclists and not cars engaging in behavior that was unsafe around cars. Second and relatedly, that installing protected bikes lanes actually increased accidents. but they are choosing to hide it.

And this is why Vision Zero doesn’t work. Because everything that is being done is actually inducing accidents by bicyclists and ignoring the source of accidents: bicyclists themselves.

I’ve been in two bicycle accidents in more than a decade of commuting by bike to work. The first one, I was in a bike lane and a car drove into the lane and hit me, because, the driver said, he hadn’t looked to see if anyone was there. (Very minor wrist injury to me, no damage to bike, his mirror may have been damaged, not sure, I didn’t bother to call police or anything). The second one, I crashed my bike into the ground intentionally to avoid hitting a kid who dashed out between two parked cars in the middle of a block. (Again no damage to bike, some minor blood and scrapes on me, kid unhurt because I didn’t hit her.) So in the actual data in my own life, I’d say bicycles were the cause of 0 percent of the accidents.

If you needed to do the actions as described, this means you were going too fast for the conditions present. So yes, you were at fault there.

The next time a cyclist takes responsibility for his/her actions will be the first time.

This is correct. The fact that the cyclist needed to crash instead of cause a collision indicates that they were traveling at speeds unsafe for the conditions.

Uh, no, it means that stopping quickly on a bike without swerving into traffic or hitting a stopped car sometimes means you fall down. I'd rather have been on my bike going 9 mph that day than in my car going 20 -- or, honestly, going 9.

I’m not sure I understand the point here. You want credit for not hitting a kid on your bike?

I don't want credit for anything. I was bringing it up to dispute the PP who says all bike accidents are caused by bikes. I don't even know if this counts as an accident, since, again, nothing happened except I wound up in the street with a few cuts, bruises, and scrapes and needed to get a new helmet -- no injury to anyone and no damage to anyone's property. But the point is, if a kid is going to jump out into the street in front of me, I'd always rather it be while I'm on a bike than in a car -- there's no way to safely crash a car.

Weird example if you are trying to prove a bicycle is not the cause of an accident. You had a one-bike accident. Definitionally, as you were the only road vehicle involved it was an accident cause by you, a bicycle rider, on you bicycle.

The other example I mentioned is, of course, being totally ignored by the people who think all bikes are bad and all cars are good, which was the time that a car drove into the bike lane while I was riding in it and hit me, and then the driver explained that it only happened because he hadn't looked to see if I was there. I guess that was my fault, too, since I was on a bike in a bike lane rather than in a car?

I would honestly recommend to stop responding to these people/person. They're not interested in listening or debating in good faith. Your attempts to respond/clarify are only helping their nonsense

To be clear, you are trying to politely tell this person to shut up because they make it harder for you to gaslight people about cyclist behavior.

What about the cyclist behavior in the situation where the cyclist got hit in the bike lane?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

I couldn’t agree more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

Probably the dumbest I’ve read. Nothing is ever bikers’ fault, is it? Let’s all have a pity party for the ward 3 fat guys in spandex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

Probably the dumbest I’ve read. Nothing is ever bikers’ fault, is it? Let’s all have a pity party for the ward 3 fat guys in spandex

What does "fault" even have to do with making a transportation system? And how does it matter how they're dressed? It really does bother you that people you perceive as lower-status are given equal treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

Probably the dumbest I’ve read. Nothing is ever bikers’ fault, is it? Let’s all have a pity party for the ward 3 fat guys in spandex

What does "fault" even have to do with making a transportation system? And how does it matter how they're dressed? It really does bother you that people you perceive as lower-status are given equal treatment.

Just a few posts up a cyclist was demanding brownie points for crashing his bike instead of hitting a kid and he blamed the kid for his accident. You people are absolutely mental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

So where do those anti-cyclist feelings come from? Here's my theory: humans are social animals, and all social mammals have the notion of a hierarchy, a pecking order. It's hard-wired, it's not in the rational part of our brains but in the instinctual part. And there are some people who feel that when they're driving their four-ton Canyonero and they come upon a cyclist upon a 20-pound bicycle, that person ought to be their social inferior because they are physically smaller. And deeply rooted in that mammalian notion of hierarchy is the idea that lower-status members of the tribe have to get out of the way of higher-status members. So when they're driving along and some cyclist not only doesn't get out of their way, but goes around them, they feel a righteous indignation. And when those low-status members of society are treated not like the low-status members they are but as equals or even superiors -- with their own facilities and special rules -- that's just a bridge too far. And the thing about the mammalian, instinctual part of the brain is that it triggers strong emotional reactions.

Now, in our political culture we cherish the fiction that all men are equal, so you can't just go around saying "low status people are being treated like equals!" There are some cultures where that would be sufficient, but ours isn't one of them. In our political culture, you have to cloak your self-interest by professing concern for the common good. So if you're against something, it's because you care about "safety," or "the environment" or "equity."

So this is why you get these ridiculously convoluted arguments from the bike haters. They know they can't just say, "I hate them because I'm bigger than them and they don't get out of my way." (Although some will resort to that when the veil of their arguments is pierced.) So they rail against cyclists and how cycling is unsafe, bad for the environment, unfair to minorities, bolloxes up traffic, whatever. And as other posters have noted, facts and logic don't get them out of that position, because it was the mammalian brain, not facts and logic, that got them into it.

Probably the best analysis of the politics of bike lanes I’ve ever read.

Probably the dumbest I’ve read. Nothing is ever bikers’ fault, is it? Let’s all have a pity party for the ward 3 fat guys in spandex

What does "fault" even have to do with making a transportation system? And how does it matter how they're dressed? It really does bother you that people you perceive as lower-status are given equal treatment.

Just a few posts up a cyclist was demanding brownie points for crashing his bike instead of hitting a kid and he blamed the kid for his accident. You people are absolutely mental.

Yep we're nuts. You should stop talking to us