[lordofthemark]

@ursus 192455 wrote:

I have many times stopped to read the rules that are on the various companies’ scooters. I assume that these are not laws but things that the companies are doing to keep from being sued. I think that I have only once seen a scooter rider wearing a helmet, and other rules like don’t ride on sidewalks are also violated frequently.

Anyway, while on foot and waiting for a light to change, I noticed that a Lyft scooter had something in braille written on the stem. Does anyone know what I says?

Some are things that are not laws applying to all scooters, but rules applying to dockless scooters based memoranda of understanding with local govts. For example I think the laws for helmets for a scooter you own are the same as for bikes – not required for adults in va, md, or dc. But the MOUs require the companies to “not allow” helmetless riding.

[lordofthemark]

@ChristoB50 192182 wrote:

Is that meant to suggest her poor decision making (my view) was because she was on an ebike?
That particular mom certainly doesn’t hold a monopoly on poor riding decisions, by virtue of using an ebike rather than a pedal bike. I’ve witnessed (I’m sure we all have) plenty of what I’d consider head-scratchingly-stupid decisions made by plenty of other cyclists (either bike variety) with (and without) a child in tow…!

SteveC can certainly speak for himself, but I think he was trying to counter the argument that “ebikers are reluctant adopters of biking, more likely to be parents with kids along, etc, hence will be MORE law abiding and polite than existing (acoustic) riders”

Leaving aside the issue of the size of the n, someone who has to ride across the IOD as it currently exists is arguably not the most cautious person to begin with, regardless of what kind of bike they ride. Better infra is still a more likely way to bring out the cautious would be riders than ebikes are.

[lordofthemark]

The data for Europe though showed fewer infractions for ebikes.

So data mixed, overall no evidence that ebikes are better or worse in behavior so far (this could change as they get more uptake in the market) and no significant difference in on trail speed.

But more demand for trails, more usage of on road bike infra (often opposed on basis of light usage) more visibility for bikes on roads (“critical mass”) etc, etc. Sounds like a good case for encouraging more ebikes. Even on trails.

[lordofthemark]

I use both the Wharf PBL AND the Case bridge route.

Even going slowly, the Wharf route is usually faster for me than Case. I get used to dealing with peds and cars coming out of the driveways. Glad they fixed the hole, but wish they would restore the bike marking in the lane, which might help a tad with clueless peds. The worst part is really the part west of the fishmarket, where cyclists, scooter riders, and very clueless peds all mix. When the wharf is worst (Thursday and Friday PMs, generally) I do the Case route, and have gotten much better at ascending the swithback. Will try out the police HQ short cut again. The worst part of the Case bridge route for me is the approach via Capital Square Place and 9th. The speed bumps on CS Place are nasty, and I do get nervous about cutting through the development. And making the right from 9th to Banneker can be challenging. OTOH I like the new protection on Banneker.

[lordofthemark]

@LhasaCM 192123 wrote:

That doesn’t sound terribly high to me and strikes me as an attempt to scare people unnecessarily. I wonder: what percentage of non e-bike riders have had a “single-vehicle accident” in their lifetime?

For a completely unscientific but relatable counterpoint: we had 20 individuals submit entries during FS2019 for the London Bridge pointless prize. That’s 10% of that particular population in just one single almost 3 month period. Also: the Swiss study included “loss of balance (mostly related to low speed)” as a type of accident, so that would also cover anyone who hasn’t been able to unclip when stopping and fell over at least once in their lives.

My wife had one of those on the same ride where she broke her hand going under the Memorial bridge. She was not clipped in. BAN CABI!

[lordofthemark]

@Crickey7 192076 wrote:

I’ve seen no evidence that cyclists’ judgment in assessing traffic situations is any better than any other modal users. I think any notion that situation X will be okay if we just have more education is simply not realistic. People are people. You need clear, simple, and sometimes bright line rules to follow to ensure smooth flow and protect people. Again, the argument that cyclists should be entitled to an exemption from those rules rests on unsupported and unsupportable assumptions–or apply equally to all modes.

Well we will soon have four states where we can see if giving this exemption to cyclists helps safety or harms it. Assuming the concern is about safety, and not about consistency among modes for it’s own sake.

As we have discussed before, we often give people judgement in traffic. That’s why yield signs are a thing, for example.

[lordofthemark]

@Crickey7 192070 wrote:

I don’t mind the debate, but the core principle, in my mind, is that cyclists are simply not a sufficient modal share that this would create an issue. If half of all traffic were bikes, this would be unworkable. I’m uncomfortable with otherwise generally applicable traffic regulation that are defensible on safety grounds being waived primarily because we’re too few to matter.

If bikes were half of all traffic, requiring them to come to a full stop at every stop sign would be unworkable, I think. Or we would have to have many fewer stop signs and replace them with yield signs. But that would be difficult because motor vehicles are more dangerous. Better would be mini roundabouts.

Of course I think that the world where bikes are 50% of traffic is a world where bikes are mostly going in protected bike lanes, fairly slowly, for fairly short distances. The Dutch model more or less. People riding 15 miles fast from the suburbs to the center city is NEVER going to be mainstream (probably not even with widespread ebike adoption) Not sure what intersection treatment for unsignalized intersections happens in those circumstances (signalized intersections will have bike specific signals, of course)

My concern is how we get there. The status quo, where the 60-70% or more of riders who Delaware stop signs, are conflated in the public mind with the 30-40% or so who Idaho reds, who are in turn conflated with the 10% or so of riders who are actually reckless, is making it more difficult to grow biking and bike friendly policies than it should be.

I would much rather have a world where WABA could teach how to be safe, based on the way they know riders will actually ride.

[lordofthemark]

@sjclaeys 191798 wrote:

Action shots of Bike Arlington Forum members looking at the proposed plan with great interest: https://www.arlnow.com/2019/06/26/county-plans-to-turn-army-navy-drive-into-pedestrian-bicycle-corridor/ As the article’s writer felt the need to immediately opine, the plan “might make traffic a little more congested”. Fortunately, this is Arlington and not the dystopia of Alexandria, so my hopes are still high.

I’ve certainly never said Seminary Hill/Seminary Ridge (assuming that is what you are referring to?) is NOT a suburban dystopia.

That said, don’t call this one a wrap just yet.

Edit- back when we were discussing “issues” in Westover, I said this about Alexandria

(much of Alexandria is not pedestrian friendly, but at least that’s recognized as a problem by City staff, by our more enlightened electeds, and by a growing part of our electorate)

Based on recent events, I can confirm that a growing part of the electorate sees a problem – the turn out for change has been heartening. Staff – well I think they do see the problem even if their solution was weak sauce. As for the elected, we will see what we will see.

And let me add – that Arlington is doing what it’s doing on Army Navy suggests good things are happening there (ditto the adoption of the bike master plan). Arlington as a jurisdiction may be doing better than it looked like to me in March.

[lordofthemark]

@scoot 191784 wrote:

Summary / TLDR:

The vast majority of RTOR drivers at King & Beauregard either don’t stop at all or else they block the crosswalk while stopped. It is true that most drivers cannot see sufficiently down King Street to identify a safe RTOR opportunity from behind the stop line. In this situation, most drivers opt to block the crosswalk while scanning traffic rather than wait for a green.

The only practical way to improve this problem in the short term would seem to be No Turn on Red. Even then, I would expect poor compliance with that signage unless heavily enforced.

Glad to see you confirmed my impressions (I do cross N to S, BTW, and often see peds doing so)

My suggestions

1. Implement No Right Turn on Red, with requisite enforcement

2. Enforce not blocking the crosswalk – that is a driver culture change we need even at places where no right turn on red will never be implemented.

3. Get the discourse to reflect that ALL categories of road users – drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and scooter users, engage in violations of the law, sometimes dangerous violations. Stop singling out particular classes of users (such as scooters or cyclists) as scofflaws, and using that to make unwarranted policy decisions. If there is a problem with our dockless program, explore ways to fix it before we consider ending it.

[lordofthemark]

Me, at the NE corner of King and Beauregard, turned to cross in the crosswalk across Beauregard

You: The passenger in the pick up or SUV (I don’t remember) with the window rolled down, blocking the crosswalk, waiting to turn on red, while the ped signal for the crosswalk you were blocking was “go”

Me; “Its illegal to block a crosswalk”

You: “so what?”

You are the perfect example of local motorist arrogance, and why its so hard for me to get worked up about scooter riders, bad cyclists, and the rest. I do intend to mention your behavior as an example, when speaking to public officials.

[lordofthemark]

The rider who found my dropped pannier (first time this has happened, I swear) on the sidewalk north of the fish market, and who caught up to me and handed it to me. You are a credit to bikeDC, and saved me a huge huge hassle. Thanks!

[lordofthemark]

@Starduster 191704 wrote:

We do. And have since a road safety awakening started in the 1950’s. Aren’t you glad?

But irresponsible drivers who don’t give a damn are their own slice of the safety issue. There are two threads rolling regarding Columbia Pike in Arlington that cut straight to this issue. How do you *recode the cultural software* so that this reckless behavior is no longer acceptable or *cool*?

I would be more okay with protecting irresponsible drivers from themselves if I didn’t regularly hear “We don’t need complete streets on road X, because most of the peds hit there were jaywalking” or “we shouldn’t add accommodations for cyclists because they endanger themselves by doing Y”

[lordofthemark]

@Starduster 191689 wrote:

WHO is in charge of WHAT on the Pike?

I will raise the ante further- in light of all this, *and* further issues west on the Pike, including *another* pedestrian fatality, this time at Four Mile Run, I will call for a reduction of the speed limit on Columbia Pike through Arlington to 25 mph. Here’s why- the right of way width was locked in place long ago, first by older buildings in the central section between George Mason and Courthouse Rd, then by all the new construction, built to the street. The rise of these mixed use buildings means more residents, higher density, more pedestrian and bike traffic in a limited space, all added to this major auto/bus commuter route.

If they say, “it can’t be done”, offer them East and West Broad St, Falls Church. Where Falls Church has made 25 work on a four lane street for decades now, ever since the Falls Church Police ran Volvo 244’s provided by Don Beyer.

When we ask for a road diet on Seminary, the Nimbys say you can lower speeds with enforcement only because Falls Church. Falls Church is a low crime jurisdiction with essentially one main street (which the police need to be on to get anywhere anyway). Seminary is not the same, and I imagine Col Pike isn’t either. Might still be a benefit to lowering the speed limit, but not nearly as much without changes to the road.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 191621 wrote:

They may exist in 50 years, but there’s no way they’ll be using a business model where the customer pays basically nothing, they lie around all over the place, they get replaced every few weeks, and the investors make billions. “

My expectation is that after a shakeout, the surviving companies will raise prices (which will also reduce total usage and the optimal fleet sizes, which will by itself resolve some of the complaints), that the vehicles will be redesigned to be more resilient, that there will be at least some docks (possibly with the semi dockless model discussed above), there will additionally be scooter/bike corrals (which local transport depts will like because they provide an excuse daylight intersections, otherwise hard to overcome the resistance to remove motor vehicle parking).

But then I thought Hillary would win, so don’t go by my opinion.

[lordofthemark]

It is not required to have a scooter symbol for the scooters to be legal in a bike lane.

It is however useful to encourage a community of new users, who are not familiar with the rules of the road, to use bike lanes. The bike riders who will use general travel lanes in preference to a PBL are already familiar with the law. And encouraging them to avoid the bike lane is hardly as pressing an issue as encouraging scooter riders to avoid riding on sidewalks.

Also with respect to practicality, there is a lot more room on the pavement in a bike lane than there is on a small sign.

So there is no contradiction whatsoever in my points above. Thanks for playing though.

[Author]

Posts