When the Transportation Commission meets in December, it will be my last as its Chairman. I am pleased to say that our Commission made progress in moving Alexandria down the path to sustainable transportation policies. The most important of these was the City’s Complete Streets policy, which we originated. It also happens to be our biggest piece of unfinished business.
The Complete Streets policy calls for ALL users to be accommodated whenever a project is considered. If a new street is built or an old one repaved, the City’s Department of Transportation and Environmental Services must look into making it usable for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit, rather than just cars. The idea is to make streets safe for something other than a Hummer.
Why is this so important? Ask citizens of this City to name the important issues and most of will start off with these two: 1. Education; and 2. Traffic Calming. Both are linked to Alexandria’s kids, who are every family’s top priority. Better schools address the former; the Complete Streets policy can help with the latter.
But what of the raised voices over development projects that consumed entire forests of newspaper and days of public hearings? Clearly, voters sent an unambiguous signal that such debates weren’t their top priority, for they failed to support candidates who based entire campaigns on them. Indeed, elections are the ultimate form of public outreach, as they show whose opinion has broad support and whose opinion is merely loud.
What must happen now is for another unambiguous signal to be sent, but this one should go from the Mayor and Council to City staff. Complete Streets must be put on a higher priority, and never be treated as an afterthought. When a street is repaved, don’t automatically re-stripe it just as it was. Check to see where bike lanes can be added to calm traffic and protect cyclists. Look for crosswalks where ramps for the disabled need to be installed. Fill the gaps in sidewalks so our kids don’t have to walk in the street to reach the schoolbus stop. To do otherwise is to invite tragedy, and nobody will be impressed by fixes made after it’s too late.
Kevin H. Posey, Chairman
Alexandria Transportation Commission
This culture is blind to alternatives. This culture thinks its doing THE CYCLISTS a favor!!! HA HA HA HA..im already out of the car. Im not fat. I dont waste time or money. Im highly educated. etc etc. My life is already aesthetically rich you morons...I dont care what you do...although...let me guess: lets perpetuate a failed structure that requires subsidy to exists and function. Please, do tell, what books and research do you have to back ANY of your tired, ignorant claims? And what comparative cases can you offer?... Typical Americans: talking out of their ass...
Slow traffic moving at a consistent speed does not typically get hit from behind. Rear end collisions are caused by overtaking traffic following too close and the overtaken traffic doing something that overtaking driver's do not anticipate, like suddenly slowing down. People who say that sharrows don't work are people who don't understand how rear end collisions happen in the real world.
As for inclement weather, well, there's gear for that. a rain coat, some decent fenders and a simple hat go a long way. A huge portion of Portland Oregon (not known for it's nice weather) has found a way to commute by bike. In fact, even with the near-constant rain, Portland has managed to decrease vehicular traffic. As for Alexandria screwing the pooch on development issues, what else is new?
I'm fortunate to have a health-club on the first floor of my building, and a bike rack in the garage under my building, so I'm able to shower and change when I get here. As for the kids, I leave the house with my 7 year old riding his bike behind me, and my 5 year old in the bike trailer attached to my bike. We ride up to my son's school, and I drop him off (chaining his bike to the bike rack at school). We then continue to my daughter's pre-school and I drop her off. I then double-back home and leave the bike trailer in our garage, and then hit the trail by myself to get to the office. A few years ago, when both my kids were at a pre-school in Old Town, I used to cart them up there, leave the bike trailer at their pre-school, and then hit the trail for DC to go to to work. Again, it's not for everyone, but it's doable.
After I drop him off, I ride to the metro and take the metro to work. No special biking clothes and usually not casual clothes. I've done this in a suit. It works fine. One thing I do avoid is biking with him at dark. But onto your two concerns and how more intelligent traffic planning could address those two concerns. First, bikes and bikes with kids makes you wince (I'm glad you are concerned about biker safety). More bike lanes, sharrows, and signage will encourage more consistent and predictable cyclist behavior and make cyclists more visible to motorists, thus lowering the risk of accidents. Second, you are concerned that not everyone can bike. That's fine - "Complete Streets" doesn't contemplate a biker utopia where everyone must bike and ditch the car (sorry Michael and McBrinn, keep on dreaming). Rather it advocates an inclusive approach that addresses the needs not just or motorists but of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and bus commuters, etc.
Unfortunately, most people are very bad at risk assessment and this is a prime example. Saying "accidents happen" is silly. Accidents happen for a variety of reasons but most of them are avoidable. http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/ http://cyclingsavvy.org http://www.bikeed.org http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php#101 Effective Cycling by John Forester, ISBN 0262560704 Cyclecraft by John Franklin, ISBN 0117064769
Seriously, that's your argument. This is about risk assessment, a concept which you don't seem to be able to grasp. You are assessing risk using the "affect heuristic" which is inherently flawed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_heuristic When you take proper precautions, the risk is extremely low, like the risk of getting hit by a meteor.
You're just guessing. I actually know.
If you couldn't figure that out on your own I'm pretty sure you have no business being on the roads.
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/ http://cyclingsavvy.org http://www.bikeed.org http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php#101 Effective Cycling by John Forester, ISBN 0262560704 Cyclecraft by John Franklin, ISBN 0117064769
So, no. I know exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to elaborate rather than link to things repeating what I've just stated, than feel free. Otherwise, throw some more reflectors on.
You need to understand all sorts of crossing conflicts, screening risks and ways to avoid them including proper lane positioning (far right is usually not safe).
As for the anger, I don't think it is always constructive, but I certainly understand it. In Alexandria we are told, again and again, that we want people to drive less and ride more. Yet, when it is clearly time to put those words into action, as with the striping of new roads, we instead see that the bike lanes stop on the wrong side of the Alexandria city limits. After a while it feels like we are being lied to. Then we are told as in some comments, that we are somehow arrogant for wanting to be able to ride safely on the roads. If by "arrogant" you mean "scared s--tless and praying not to be hit by a car while riding on Glebe because we are in a hurry to get where we are going and the safe routes are way out of the way" then yes we are rather "arrogant." And would like to be less so.
Right hooks are are also pretty common. Bicyclists who are riding in the middle of the lane almost never get right hooked. Bicyclists who ride to the far right are usually the ones who are victims of the right hook. Again, motorists are required to pass safely and right hooking a bicyclist is an illegal unsafe pass, but bicyclists can prevent it from happening in the first place. It is essentially the bicycling equivalent of defensive driving. It compensates for much of the misbehavior of others.
I had ridden around 80,000 miles before I got the training. I learned a lot and it changed my whole attitude on the road. I went from being frequently scared to almost never scared. You need to let go of your arrogance.
In the meantime, I invite you to to read about how the state of Idaho adjusted traffic laws to keep the focus on safety rather than on anger (on all sides) over cyclists making rolling stops at stop signs: http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/3/7/Origins-of-Idahos-Stop-as-Yield-Law
My only point was when a city decides to "complete the streets," you make pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchairs, and transit users just as important as motorists. If motorists are expected to obey the law, shouldn't jaywalkers & most importantly bicyclists? In the last few weeks alone, I have seen over a dozen near misses with cars as bikes crossed through stop lights and stop signs.
The generally accepted thinking supported by various studies is to separate transportation modes and introduce better enforcement. If you don't want pedestrians to be hit by cars, build a sidewalk. If you want to keep bikes and cars from tangling, put in a bike lane. To make sure everyone behaves, train your police officers on proper enforcement and insist they actually do it. As for whether biking or walking is used by enough people to be worth encouraging, the answer is an obvious yes. Just check out he Mount Vernon Trail during rush hour, and that heavy use is in spite of our weak feeder infrastructure. It's been observed throughout the US that building supporting infrastructure encourages use of a given mode. Alas, that is why car traffic is so bad all over: it's what transportation planners used to encourage almost exclusively. Thankfully, we've realized what a colossal mistake that was. See our polluted skies, Middle Eastern wars, and freeway-bisected neighborhoods for examples. Complete Streets is just a new label for something we should all be familiar with: common sense.
Let us please be sensible. Most people who ride bicycles typically also spend time walking or driving cars. And studies show that all types of road-users break the law at about the same rate for about the same reason--they are trying to get where they are going in a way the believe to be safe and affective. The difference is that speeding is considered "normal" and rolling through stop signs at speeds faster than drivers roll through stop signs is _not_ considered normal. IMO, this is another reason we need education. If bicycle safety education were more universal, then people on bicycle would ride more consistently, expectations would be more realistic, and enforcement would be more effective. Finally, I rarely see people "blow right through" stop signs. To do so is dangerous. What most people do is slow down and then proceed when they think it is safe. And, no, they don't always use great judgement. But, as Mr. Posey says in his comment above, that does not mean they should not be given safe facilities.
Motorists aren't any better at obeying the law than bicyclists are. You don't really care about bicyclists rolling stop signs anyway. It's just an excuse to rationalize your irrational hatred of people who are different from you and who you think shouldn't have a right to inconvenience you by existing. Seriously, grow up.