New DC Law Treats Cyclists More Like Pedestrians

@KLizotte 67170 wrote:

Additionally, if street construction projects block bike or pedestrian paths, the city is required to provide a suitable detour.

I’ve been talking to Shane Farthing and whoever was running the WABA Twitter account yesterday about this. Depending on who you ask, the wording here changes. I’ve seen it worded the way it is here, and it’s now my understanding that this wording is not only misleading, but really far from what the law actually does. What the law actually does is let the mayor decide whether DCRA handles this as part of issuing the permits, or whether DDOT handles this as part of rules of public space usage. So it doesn’t establish as law that there must be a detour, it just sort of starts the ball rolling on how to make that happen.

So, my guess is we’ll have some sort of guidance in 8-12 months, 5 months of everyone ignoring the guidance with no consequences, and then sometime in mid-2015 you’ll see a few fines handed out.

@KLizotte 67191 wrote:

I’m ambivalent about this law because I think it is really going to confuse motorists and peds about what we should or should not be doing.
…
Just last night I was taking the lane and waiting for a light to change when the guy behind me kept blowing his horn and gesturing that I belonged on the sidewalk.

I don’t think it’s going to confuse anyone that wasn’t going to be confused (or claim to be confused) anyway. E.g., it won’t matter a whit to banging-on-the-horn guy, nor would anything else short of you not existing. It will hopefully prevent police harassment of cyclists who weren’t endangering anyone anyway.

And I suggest you don’t read the comments, they’re mostly by banging-on-the-horn-guy, who doesn’t care what the law says as much as “cyclists”.

Oh, and everyone should have a bell.

@jrenaut 67200 wrote:

Agreed, I put the bell on for ME, not for anyone else. But, like helmets, thinking everyone should have one and thinking that the law should require it are two very different things.

Also agree. I find that I am more likely to use the bell since I tend to get a dry throat and can barely croak out “passing on your left.” I guess that’s just and indication that I need to drink water more frequently on my rides.

@nikki_d 67428 wrote:

I find the bell a lot less effective on city streets than I do on trails. On the streets, yelling “Hey dumba@@! Pay f—-ing attention!” is much more effective. Especially with the earbud wearing, electronic device staring, federal zombies that ALWAYS walk in front of me on 4th St SW into my right away of way because somehow that crosswalk at 4th & C St SW makes them invincible and the “don’t walk” certainly does not apply to them. They don’t notice bells at all. (No, I am not bitter about this in the least either.)

To be clear, the purpose of the bell is for politely passing; it should not be considered an emergency warning device. For that, perhaps an airzound?

There are times when bells are more effective, and times when they’re less, depending on ambient noise. But at least they’re not required!

@PotomacCyclist 67454 wrote:

I had read that one problem with the current regulation re bells is that is was mostly used by police to target suspicious-looking characters, not to promote and enforce traffic safety. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of anyone getting stopped for not having a bell, except when the police had a suspicious feeling about the cyclist for other reasons (warranted or not).

Correct. This is the problem with such “safety” laws: the chance of the police enforcing it, consistently, is near zero, but the potential for abusive enforcement is fairly high. In some cases it’s still useful to enact legislation even in the absence of predicted enforcement, for the purpose of establishing liability, but I don’t see that in this case.