Home

Dissent on Bike Boxes Silenced by Greater Greater Washington.org

Debate Closed

We beat up Streetsblog for a comment moderation policy that stifles debate, but I will say this in Streetsblog’s favor – at least they simply silence you, they don’t try to rationalize it.

Greater Greater Washington on the other hand not only silences you, but does so under the guise that your conversation has become “unproductive” and leaves a comment to explain this.

According to David Alpert, the head of greatergreaterwashnigton.org:

This discussion became totally unproductive long ago. I’m closing further comments on this post.

This on the heels of a lengthy and completely civil exchange between me, two Streetsbloggers and someone named Tom who apparently agreed with me. The subject of discussion was whether or not bike boxes would be appropriate in preventing further accidents like the one that killed a bicyclist, Alice Swanson, in DC two days ago.

The need for bike boxes was noted by Mr. Alpert as one of the “important points” that came out of the discussion threads on a post he made following the accident.

I made the mistake of dissenting from the orthodoxy that bike boxes were definitely a part of a solution that would have prevented the death of Ms. Swanson.

I was very respectful in my discussion, and I advocated the same things we have consistently advocated on this site:

- More studies are needed to determine who is really at fault in order to address the root causes of these accidents and prevent them.

- Bicyclists should practice defensive driving and be subject to the enforcement of reasonable rules and regulations.

- Automobiles should be trained to drive safely around bicyclists.

- Bike boxes are not necessarily a safe solution, could potentially be dangerous, and more study is needed before we rush out to implement things that may only result in more carnage over the long run. To be specific, I said, “all the bike lanes in the world won’t help a bicyclist who runs a red light, or fails to wear a helmet.”

Here are my actual posts so that you can make sure I’m not casting it in a false light:

David -

Two of our site’s contributors commute by bicycle occasionally - I’m one of them - so we’re interested in ways to make bicycle commutes safe.

Our post doesn’t say right hook collisions are rare. It says:

“What percentage of right-turn accidents occur directly after the light turns green, i.e. when the bike goes straight and the driver hooks right?”

This is relevant because these are the types of collisions a bike box is trying to prevent.
If this percentage is low (I don’t know if it is or not), then you have to ask if it makes sense to spend money to create lots of bike boxes vice something more effective - better education, signal timing, etc..

I readily admit that I’m not a fan of bike boxes - because they encourage bicycles to move in front of traffic at the light. This is not a good idea.

If you pull up to the intersection while the light is yellow and decide to wander over into the bike box, you may get crushed by some idiot who is trying to make the light and not paying attention.

But the bike box encourages you not to check behind you because it lulls you into a false sense of security that doesn’t exist.

The bike box won’t stop the car, but it may very well stop bicyclists from exercising common sense and looking around because they will think of the bike box as a “safe” area.

I don’t know of any study that has proven that these things reduce danger to bicyclists yet, and one of the main criticisms I have seen is specifically related to the danger of this type of accident. If you have a safety study I would appreciate the link. If there isn’t a study proving that these are safer, I don’t think it’s wise to rush out to implement them everywhere until we know if they will reduce, or increase, the danger.

In my opinion, the best solution, and the one I posted about on this site last night, is to teach bicyclists defensive driving techniques around automobiles, and teach automobiles how to drive safely around bikes as part of driver’s ed.

At Commuter Outrage, we have also advocated for the licensing of bicyclists in urban areas as a way to legitimize them as a form of transportation and to ensure that everyone knows and follows the rules of the road. That would be a huge step toward making the roads much safer for bicyclists.

posted by Lewis Derkins on Jul 9, 2008 9:01 pm

Post 2

Squalish -

It’s funny you ask about statistics. I just recently wrote a post about some of the deficiencies of bicycles safety studies. In the interest of full disclosure - I was in a sarcastic mood when I wrote it - but I think there are many legitimate points in there.

You can read it here:

The basic synopsis is that all bicycle safety studies focus on the car as the perpetrator - and in many cases it is. However, if we’re really, truly interested in safety, we should be looking at it from the point of view that assumes some fault could belong to the bicyclist as well.

I looked at a study in New York and drew some conclusions with the numbers that you don’t often see - basically I tried to show the flip side of the coin.

I don’t claim that it rises to the level of academic research, but that’s the whole point of the post - we need more serious research into bicycle safety and the root causes of accidents. Statistics on bike boxes, lanes, delayed signals, etc…would naturally be a part of that.

At the end of the day, all the bike lanes in the world won’t help a bicyclist who runs a red light, or fails to wear a helmet like 97% of the fatalities in the New York study. You’ll just end up with streets that make it more convenient for more bicyclists to kill themselves.

We need to look closely at these accidents and really determine the best way to address them. Just as terms like “accident” have a way of absolving guilt, so do studies that automatically view drivers as the perpetrators absolve bicyclists of the responsibility of safe riding.

Everyone has to share the road and follow its rules.

posted by Lewis Derkins on Jul 9, 2008 9:16 pm

Those are all very valid and reasonable points, and some commentators took me up on the debate. There was actually a productive back and forth for a while, and then along came Streetsblog. Someone named Dane posted an ad hominem attack which a guy named Tom picked up on and refuted. Below is the entire thread so you can see the substance of the discussion compared to the original comments I made.

Dane’s original comment:

The problem with Lewis and his blog is that he’s got so many facts and assumptions wrong from the very beginning, he’s making so many willful and careless misinterpretations, he’s coming from such dishonest and deceitful place in his work, that it’s not even worth arguing with him. He wants you to fall into that rabbit hole. If you’re arguing with him, you’re not doing the work that you do. And I think that’s his goal.

Lewis’s two posts above are examples of that. I could spend the next 45 minutes explaining how Lewis has built his entire argument around his own misinterpretation of the intent of NYC bike boxes. I could dig up the Copenhagen intersection safety studies from a couple of years back that led to a number of cities trying out bike boxes. I could point out and pick apart the utterly baseless points he’s made above — like this one: “the bike box encourages you not to check behind you because it lulls you into a false sense of security that doesn’t exist.”

But I’m not going to spend my time doing that. Instead, I’m going to provide GGWash readers with an understanding of how the CommuterOutrage.com editorial process works. It goes like this:

1. Read a post on Streetsblog or one of the many other authentic, high quality, sustainable transport-oriented blogs currently up and running. Let’s say the post is about bike boxes.

2. Do some Google searches about Bike Boxes to learn what they are. Now you are an expert.

3. Create your own interpretation of what bike boxes are intended to do. This is key! To really do a proper Lewis Derkins post you must start your 2,000 word treatise with a faulty assumption. Do NOT pick up the phone and call a professional planner or anyone who has worked in the field or actually striped a bike box on a city street.

4. Now, based on that initial faulty assumption, “debunk” bike boxes. Whatever you do: Don’t use any actual data or information or even personal experience using bike boxes in your “analysis.” Just swift boat those bike boxes as hard as you can. Throw enough stuff at the bike boxes that they seem to be non-credible and the people who advocate for bike boxes appear to be “weenies.”

5. Now find a transportation policy blog with an actual readership. Jump in to their comments section and link back to your own story.

Tom’s replies (he posted two consecutively):

Dane,

Why don’t you did up those Copenhagen studies and argue your point, instead of trying to debunk Commuter Outrage by attacking their “editorial process.”

I’ve read many posts on Commuter Outrage that I agree with, and many I disagree with. But if you think they’re some kind of anti-bike hitsquad, you’re wrong. They’re actually highly intelligent, and present the “other side” to the debate quite well. And the vast majority of their posts have nothing to do with bikes.

I also enjoy how you claim the Lewis has “got so many facts and assumptions wrong from the very beginning,” is “making so many willful and careless misinterpretations,” and is “coming from such dishonest and deceitful place in his work,” but offer no proof of any of these assertions.

That’s pretty weak, Dane.

2nd comment

Two more things, Dane.

Why are Google searches an inherently faulty method of research? A Google search is the quickest, most efficient, most cost effective way to learn about a topic. Professional reporters (I know many) do Google searches all the time to learn about topics.

Also, why should Lewis have to “pick up the phone and call a professional planner or anyone who has worked in the field or actually striped a bike box on a city street” in order to truly understand “what bike boxes are intended to do”? If you read the Commuter Outrage post on bike boxes, they reference the government marketing document instructing commuters what a bike box is and what it’s meant to accomplish. The intention is spelled out very clearly in the marketing document, which they link to and quote from.

A guy named Lars jumps in:

Wow, Dane’s analysis is spot on. The first anti-streetsblog article I read was intriguing, but now I find C Outrage to be wrong on the facts over and over so I stopped reading them. Except of course when they make comments on other better and more factual blogs then their own.

Back to Dane:

Tom,

Lewis has not presented any actual information to show that bike boxes are unsafe for cyclists. Nothing. Zero. Which is why he is not worth responding to or taking seriously or spending time on.

The Portland bike box document is not particularly informative or technical. Portland also seems to be using bike boxes in a way that is somewhat different than the way NYC uses them. That document doesn’t particularly apply to NYC.

Typically, the person making the accusation or doing the “debunking” is the one who needs to present evidence and make the case if they want to be taken seriously. Lewis fails to do this. When challenged, Lewis (and, in this case, you) then insists that the challenger dig up evidence to refute Lewis’s basless claims. That’s not how it works in the real world. If Lewis’s blog wants to be taken seriously, he needs to back up his claims with real data and information. He consistently fails to do this.

There is a pile of academic and governmental literature on bike boxes, lots of it coming out of Europe in 1993 and ‘94, and then more coming out of the US a few years later. It’s not all glowing reviews and claims of tremendous safety improvements but it’s all pretty positive and encouraging. Lewis has, apparently, read none of it. If he is actually interested in the issue, he’ll find this material pretty easily on his own. But Lewis isn’t actually interested in the issues, is he? What is his particular interest, I wonder?

Over to Tom again:

Dane,

I have no idea what Lewis’ “particular interest” is, other than the fact that he seems to be a DC-area commuter who is tired of settling for poor transportation policies. But you seem to know a lot about Lewis and the way he thinks and operates. What is your particular interest here? Why do you refuse to address his specific points, and instead make unproven generalizations about his blog?

Moving on to your comment that “typically, the person making the accusation or doing the ‘debunking’ is the one who needs to present evidence and make the case if they want to be taken seriously.”

That may be true in some cases, but not in this situation. Bike boxes are a very new concept in the U.S. They are definitely not a tried and true practice. If the government wants to spend thousands of tax dollars (which we all pay through our income taxes) on bike boxes, it’s the government’s responsibility to prove to us, the tax-paying citizens, why these bike boxes are worth the investment.

For instance, the city of Portland is spending $150,000 on bike boxes, according to the Jan 2008 New York Times article linked in the Commuter Outrage post. $150,000 is a lot of money. You can fund three schoolteachers for that amount. The city of Portland should justify to its citizens why this expenditure is necessary. Local government should not be in the business of trial and error policy-making, which it seems to be doing in Portland.

If you’re correct that there’s a “pile of academic and governmental literature on bike boxes, lots of it coming out of Europe in 1993 and ‘94, and then more coming out of the US a few years later,” why don’t you show the rest of us how to access that information, so we can all review it and comment on it.

Or should we just take the word of “professional planners,” or those who’ve “worked in the field,” or those who’ve “actually striped a bike box on a city street,” or “Streetsblog or one of the many other authentic, high quality, sustainable transport-oriented blogs currently up and running”?

And then Mr. Alpert came along and ended the discussion before I could put my two cents in and defend myself.

This discussion became totally unproductive long ago. I’m closing further comments on this post.

For the record, here was the retort I was drafting before dissent was silenced:

Dane –

Thank you for your ad hominem attack that addresses absolutely none of the points that I make.

The closest you come to a real rebuttal is when you claim that I have presented no evidence that bike boxes are unsafe – thank you, I think I made that exact point myself when I said that I haven’t seen any studies one way or the other and I would appreciate links to any.

I notice that instead of providing the facts and data that you arrogantly dismiss other people for not providing, you have actually provided no links to any of the studies that you claim support your argument.

If I’m not worthy of engaging because I don’t have enough facts and figures, why should anyone engage you when you don’t have any either – or are we supposed to assume that everyone just believes your information like you do?

For the record, there are links to plenty of facts, sources and statistics in all of the posts I’ve linked to. In fact, my posts also link to the studies I use and walk you through the methodology I use to derive my conclusions – you have yet to even link us to a single study for examination of your argument, and Streetsblog isn’t exactly a fountain of knowledge when it comes to Bike Box statistics.

I don’t make any faulty assumptions about what bike boxes are supposed to do, I didn’t even write the post you’re referring to. My colleague wrote it, and I checked out Streetsblog to see the other side. Based on the limited information I have seen from both sides, I wouldn’t personally use a bike box for the reasons I elaborated – it doesn’t matter where they’re used.

I love how you say I make a faulty assumption about the use of bike boxes – I said:

“They encourage bicyclists to move in front of traffic.”

If you look at this Streetsblog post on bike boxes guess what you see? A BICYCLIST IN FRONT OF A TRUCK – exactly what I said is potentially unsafe at a yellow light. Guess what else it shows – the bicyclist who is “teaching us how to use it” NOT CHECKING BEHIND HIM BEFORE MOVING INTO THE BIKE BOX. How’s that for evidence? It shows the exact two things that I said could be dangerous in the instructional video on how to use them, and it doesn’t even mention that you should look behind you to avoid speeding cars entering the intersection. Do cars need to run people over before that provides enough “evidence” that those common sense criticisms are valid?

Of course, if you were truly interested in bicycle safety, you would simply respond with facts that correct my “willful and careless misinterpretations.” But you’re not interested in making it safer to bicycle – that’s why you level personal attacks with no factual support and encourage everyone not to consider a point of view other than Streetsblog. Drink your kool-aid. Share some with Lars.

Now the real questions – what is unproductive about this debate? These are opposing ideological sides vying to prove their points. Though there is disagreement on the effectiveness of the arguments, both sides remain fairly civil and articulate their grievances.

By contrast, Mr. Alpert allows other discussion threads to descend into profanity without calling an end to the “debate”. (see comment 6 – notice it’s pro-bicycle, so it’s okay)

What difference does it make to Mr. Alpert if we are unproductive? What is so “productive” about a spontaneous outpouring of grief for Ms. Swanson that is free of opinions that don’t express skepticism? Her death was tragic, but don’t we owe it to her to have a real discussion about the most effective way to prevent the same thing from happening to someone else?

In reality, Mr. Alpert isn’t really interested in safety any more than Dane is – he’s interested in advancing a pro-bike agenda by piggybacking on overwhelming (and appropriate) sympathy for a dead woman to make calls for new bike amenities without exposing himself to question. He conveniently uses sympathy as a pretext to silence those with whom he disagrees, as if the only “productive” discussion we could have would include new bike infrastructure and car restrictions without any critical examination of the true benefits of these proposals – or their potential danger to bicyclists.

That’s OK. I understand, Mr. Alpert. Just as Dane gave you his assumed version of the Commuter Outrage editing process, let me see if I can sum yours up:

David Alpert is 3rd from the left

1- Post coverage of a tragic accident, whip up an emotional frenzy of grief and sympathy, and encourage people to propose pro-bicycle “solutions” to stop the carnage.

2- Allow discussion until someone begins challenging this fragile little world that you’ve constructed for yourself where bicyclists get everything they want because they’re not as big and heavy as cars.

3- Don’t respond with facts, figures, statistics or studies that answer legitimate questions you get from skeptics.

4- Stop accepting comments before the debate turns against you and excuse yourself by claiming that the discussion is “no longer productive.”

Don’t the people who are engaged in the debate usually decide when the discussion is done, or did I wake up this morning in Communist China and not realize it?

Related Posts

• Bike Box?