Chapter 12 gives us:

1201.9 - There shall be no prohibition against any person riding a bicycle or
personalmobility device upon a sidewalk within the District, so long as the
rider does not create a hazard; provided, that no person shall ride a bicycle or
operate a personal mobility device upon a sidewalk within the Central Business
District except on those sidewalks expressly designated by Order of the Mayor,
nor shall any person ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk in any area outside of the
Central Business District if it is expressly prohibited by Order of the Mayor and
appropriate signs to such effect are posted.

1201.10 - Any person riding a bicycle or personal mobility device upon a sidewalk shall
yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, and shall travel at a speed no greater than
the posted speed limit of the adjacent roadway; provided, that such speed is safe
for the conditions then existing on the sidewalk.

1201.11 - A person propelling a bicycle or operating a personal mobility device upon and
along a sidewalk or while crossing a roadway in a crosswalk shall have all the
rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances,
except that the bicyclist or personal mobility device operator must yield to
pedestrians on the sidewalk or crosswalk.

1201.12 - The operator of a bicycle or personal mobility device emerging from, or
entering an alley, driveway, or building, shall upon approaching a sidewalk, or
the sidewalk area extending across any alleyway, yield the right-of-way to all
pedestrians approaching on said sidewalk, and upon entering the roadway shall
yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on said roadway, to the extent
necessary to safely enter the flow of traffic.

1201.13 - No bicyclist shall suddenly leave a sidewalk and ride into the path of a vehicle
which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

You are ridiculous and an example of exactly what this blog is about. Instead of responding to two of the posters’ comments about their problems with what the WABA was doing, you respond by calling them brave and physically strong enough to use that mode of transport.

In a post above I said the following:

And I cycle to work 5 days a week. That’s why I’m so passionate about the way that the WABA is using Alice’s death for their political purposes. We don’t even know the facts around the accident yet. I have an idea: Cool off and wait for the accident report to come out before trying to use her death as prima facie evidence that we need to take x or y actions. If we truly want to honor her death, we should wait for the results of the accident report and advocate changes that would help prevent her death. Not contrive a solution based on our version of the facts based on our own existing biases.

Tell me Eliza, what’s wrong with what I said? It seems that you get on here and talk about how bad motor vehicles always are and your experiences. I agree, they are ridiculous and dangerous many times. But come on, one bike rider to another, you’ve seen plenty of our fellow cyclists making very dangerous decisions that put themselves and others in danger. I in fact saw a cyclist run down this poor girl just last week as she stepped off fo a sidewalk (with a walk signal). Pedestrians get horribly hurt by cyclists as well.

Unfortunately, I think you’ve gone into the deep end of cycling advocacy. If we want more protections for cycling we have to a) convince others and b) take responsibility for dangerous behavior routinely practiced by many in our ranks.

First of all, the accident that killed Alice Swanson and the attack on two bicyclists by Dr. Thompson are two completely different situations - so your comparison is a bit fallacious.

In Thompson’s case, we’re talking about known facts about an incident in which both sides are alive to tell their stories, and this guy has a history of doing the same thing. There’s not much question that Thompson is at fault and intended to hurt these people. I wouldn’t blame anyone from the pro-bike movement for issuing statements and calls for justice all day long in that case.

Alice Swanson’s case is different. There isn’t such a certainty about who was at fault, and so the automatic assumption and implication that the automobile is more responsible is really an inappropriate logical leap at best, and an unacceptable vie for political mileage at worst.

I also think that you confuse our “agenda”. It doesn’t seem to get much mileage from the pro-bike crowd that two thirds of our staff bicycle to work - one regularly, myself occasionally. But our only agenda is that people should be afforded with a variety of transportation options, they should be able to choose for themselves which method works best, and they shouldn’t have that forced on them by heavy- handed government.

The “annoying” reference you refer to isn’t meant to paint a broad brush that all bicyclists are annoying. It’s meant to say that no matter what Dr. Thompson thought these bicyclists subjected him to, his actions weren’t justified.

I will admit that we have written posts that have been critical of the bicycle movement and it’s attitude, but that is because we want objective policy decisions based on facts, not appeals to emotion. Unfortunately, the bicycle movement doesn’t always believe in the former, often practices the latter, and needs to be challenged on it, particularly in the area of safety. If we want safe streets for bicyclists, we need to do the investigation you’re talking about to determine the root cause of the accidents. No one is well served by simply cheerleading for the benefits of bicycles without an honest assesment of how to make them safe for everyone.

As you point out, if it turned out your friend wasn’t guilty, you wouldn’t want him punished. Well if it turns out that no one is at fault here, then we need to look realistically at how to prevent these accidents. Standing up to tout the achievements in bike lane mileage and parking isn’t really talking about what happened here. If what would have really saved Alice Swanson is a defensive driving class for bicycles, we need to know that. We don’t need to assume that a driver is “getting off the hook” before we look at the facts.

http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/07/15/dr-thompson-put-him-behind-bars-shred-his-drivers-license/

I like the part about how annoying cyclists are! I am sure Alice Swanson’s family would be so comforted by your take on the events following her death, since you are so clearly without bias or an agenda.

Thanks for your comment. I’m not assuming anything about Alice Swanson. I’m not saying she would have agreed or disagreed with WABA’s actions following her death. My problem is with the politicization of her death. A memorial is appropriate, but a highly politicized event with a ghost bike and pro-cyclist soundbytes and thinly veiled assumptions about who was to blame is inappropriate in my view.

For example, why did WABA need to call for a police investigation? Whenever an accident occurs that results in a death, the police always investigate. They want to find out what happened. This is standard operating procedure. Why did WABA feel the need to stand there and call for this investigation, as if the police weren’t going to investigate? The thinly veiled presumption here is that the driver was at fault, and that the police are planning to let him off the hook. Hence Eric Gilliland’s preemptive statement (in the press release) stating that “all too often drivers are let off the hook when their negligence leads to serious injury or death of a cyclist or pedestrian.” He doesn’t come right out and issue blame, but the itinerary of his words tell us all we need to know about his presumptions. This is much more than “flowers and kind words for a dead woman.” This is the politicization of her death, which we find objectionable.

Your example about the handgun is also instructive. You write: “I would in no way be offended if I looked down from my sparkling cloud and saw gun safety advocates pointing out the needless tragedy of my death.” Actually, I would be very offended if the gun safety crowd used my death as an example of why their particular policy prescriptions need to be enacted, since I disagree with most of their prescriptions. And even if I was in lock step agreement with the gun safety crowd, I still wouldn’t want them standing at the place where I was shot, making speeches and turning me into a political football. I don’t know these people. They don’t know me. They’re not standing there talking about my family or my work or my interests. It’s all politics.

As to the “horrid comments,” I agree that there’s some pretty tasteless stuff in the above comments, especially the Hitler/Stalin comments and a few other things. However, I’m not going to take any of it down. This is an open forum and we allow people to come on and express their opinions about our posts. Unless they engage in profanity, obscenity, bigotry, libel, threaten violence, or anything else that is so objectionable that it warrants removal, we let them post whatever they want to post. We do not endorse any of the comments on this site, other than our own.

You don’t know what Alice would have wanted any more than any body else does, so it’s kind of ridiculous to fault an organization like WABA for memorializing her when she died doing something that is directly related to their mission.

I can think of worse things than flowers and kind words for a dead woman. For starters, all the horrid comments posted here, particularly the accusation that cyclists and advocates are taking a “garish joy” in her death when they are in fact calling for improved safety measures that might have saved her life.

None of us can speak for the dead. But, let’s theorize for a minute. It’s been nine years since I was a fresh faced college graduate but as someone who is still generally considered smart, talented, attractive, and beloved by her family, friends and coworkers, I think that if I was killed while riding my bike one of the only things that would ease my parents’ pain would be to know who was at fault, whether it could have been prevented, and what might be done in the future to make sure it never happens to someone else’s child- none of which can really be determined without a police investigation, which is what WABA called for.

To test my theory, I just called my mother. We spoke for a while about a family friend who was killed in a tragic motorcycle accident when he was in his early 20s. A full investigation was conducted and no fault was found with anyone, however it was important to his family to know, insofar as anyone is ever able to know, whether or not something could have been done to prevent it. Does a stop sign need to be in place? Is a traffic light obscured by a tree branch? Once those things are determined, steps can be taken to ensure everyone’s future safety.

Those things don’t happen in a vacuum. An investigation isn’t a condemnation. If my body was found with a bullet in it and someone was standing right there with a smoking gun, I would expect that the police would investigate this. And if it turns out the person was my friend, spinning the pistol around a finger cowboy style to make me laugh and in the process accidentally killed me, it would not be my wish for my friend to go to jail. However, I would in no way be offended if I looked down from my sparkling cloud and saw gun safety advocates pointing out the needless tragedy of my death.

My mother can’t speak for Alice’s mother, but she did say that if it were me, she would be pleased that WABA would be advocating for safer roads on my behalf. She also agreed with me that it’s terribly hypocritical to condemn an organization for putting words or opinions in the mouth of a dead woman when most of the posters here are in fact are doing the same thing by assuming that Alice Swanson would object to her memorial and to WABA’s continued commitment to safety. Loophole!

I would say, “shame on you,” but I’ve always despised that phrase and the people who employ it. It’s about on par with “we can do better as a nation.” Ick.

Sarah
7 day a week cyclist
former 22 year old
& daughter and sister and friend for life

I bike to work once per week at best because it’s hot as BLEEP here in the summer and nasty as BLEEP the rest of the time.

I can’t show up to work looking like a used jock strap, so the bike doesn’t always work for me.

FYI - when I do ride, I have to negotiate very dangerous roads, and I empathize with bike riders. But that’s exactly why I don’t feel that we need any solutions that encourage them to be less cautious - like bike boxes etc…

I think A Human has a good point - we need to treat bicyclists as vehicles and share the road - a big step toward this are some of the bicycle regulations we have advocated for on this site and the drivers education which we have also advocated for.

NoVA Commuter is right, we need to stop the name calling and start having a real discussion about how to prevent these accidents. George is also right, we all need to start looking out for each other.

The garbage truck was to the left of the cycle which was in a marked lane (yes a bike lane is a ‘real’ vehicle lane). No right of way to turn in front of a vehicle to the right.

A tragedy. A great loss for her family, the community and our society.

Suggestion - those who drive exclusively - please get on a bike, at least once, and try riding in the same situations you are expressing thought about. You really do need to see and experience from the other persepective.

I put on 10,000+ miles a year on my SUV. I also put on over 1,000+ on my two bikes. Until I began biking 9 years ago, I didn’t fully comprehend the dangers and the need to improve conditions to share the road with everyone.

WABA and others simply want to make it safer for human beings to have the option to cycle around this city and area in a manner where cyclists and drivers respect one another and are fully aware of the rules and reponsibilites that go along with being on the roads.

No, I was not happy with WABA’s staged event. As a prior poster indicated - changes is generally the result of an over-reaction to an event that we wish never happend in the 1st place - witness the current pedestrian safety initiatives in MoCo that only came about after many similar tragedies. No one pays attention until something bad happens. And the victim ends up becoming the ‘poster child’ to something s/he never wished for.

I’m stumped by the cyclist who said that they disagree with WABA’s goals - waba.org - what of the following do you disagree with?
“Mission - The mission of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association is to create a healthy, more livable region by promoting bicycling for fun, fitness, and affordable transportation; advocating for better bicycling conditions and transportation choices for a healthier environment, and educating children, adults, and motorists about safe bicycling.”
“Goal - A fully integrated transportation system. One that links transit, trails, bicycling, and walking facilities to connect the places you live, work, and play. Make your community a place you can ride anywhere you want to go—safely.”

Reference: DC DMV Municipal Regulations regarding bicycles: http://dmv.dc.gov/info/title-18/chap12_pdf.shtm

Bikes must adhere to the same rules as cars, and must also yield the right-of-way to pedestrians. The only time a cyclist has the right-of-way over a motor vehicle is when crossing a street in a crosswalk.

No one should speak for a dead young woman. Iconoclast, I don’t know who you are, but you have no business speaking for her. You assume a position on behalf of someone who is not here to spell out their wishes. Please show some respect.

I also think disparaging someone for taking their bike to work only once a week is just plain stupid. The hardest part of the journey is the first step, and any effort should be encouraged, even if its once a week.

The great Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson had a very distinct philosophy on how to encourage righteous behavior in his congregation. He stated “If I encourage, they will come closer. If I chastise, they will move away”.

Think about it.

G-d Bless.

See you at IHOP.

Mr Kaag.

You should really read comments much more closely. I didn’t say that you believed that bicycling deaths MUST happen to bring about change. I simply said Meaver wasn’t absolutely off base when he compared your view that, ‘it’s sad that it takes a death before necessary change occurs’ to Hitler’s and other’s views that deaths must happen for change to occur.

And I cycle to work 5 days a week. That’s why I’m so passionate about the way that the WABA is using Alice’s death for their political purposes. We don’t even know the facts around the accident yet. I have an idea: Cool off and wait for the accident report to come out before trying to use her death as prima facie evidence that we need to take x or y actions. If we truly want to honor her death, we should wait for the results of the accident report and advocate changes that would help prevent her death. Not contrive a solution based on our version of the facts based on our own existing biases.