Washington Area Bicyclist Association Opposes Speed Limits on Capital Crescent Trail
by Lewis DerkinsJuly 14th, 2008, 7:14 pm
The Washington Area Bicyclist Association has called for pro-bike supporters to come out to a public meeting being held tonight to debate the implementation of safety restrictions on the Capital Crescent Trail. The Trail is a popular bicycle and pedestrian trail that runs from Georgetown to Silver Spring, Maryland.
The Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail called for increased safety restrictions on bicyclists following a recent uptick in the number of serious accidents between bicyclists and pedestrians.
These accidents have not been widely reported, but there have been several accidents serious enough to warrant hospital stays. One of the worst happened last year when a bicyclist hit a pregnant woman, breaking her ribs and causing a wound on her head that required stitches. Her unborn son was OK, but the bicyclist wouldn’t know – he drove off.
Amidst this dangerous and growing trend, the Coalition proposed a 15 mph speed limit for bicyclists. Guess what the Washington Area Bicyclist Association’s positions is?
They oppose it.
The Director of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Eric Gilliland, sent a letter to Mary Bradford, the Director of Parks for the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission outlining his opposition. In his letter, Mr. Gilliland, states “the Speed is not, in and of itself a safety problem. Trail safety is dependant on educating all trail users on their responsibilities and how to properly act within the environment that is presented to them.”
In his call for supporters to rally to the cause, Mr. Gilliland states:
Trail safety is the responsibility of all people who use the trail, whether they are cyclists, runners, skaters or people walking their dogs. However, with the new safety plan cyclists bear the brunt and MNCPPC’s press release on the subject makes no mention of any efforts to educate all trail users on proper etiquette.
This is all interesting because just last week our friend Mr. Gilliland issued a call for safety in the wake of the unfortunate accident that killed Alice Swanson, a bicyclist in DC. In his speech, Mr. Gilliland stated, “We need to ensure that the laws and regulations that govern the use of our roadways properly protect the most vulnerable roadway users.”
Aren’t the most vulnerable users of the Capital Crescent Trail the pedestrians who do not weigh as much, stand as tall or move as fast as bicyclists? Don’t they deserve laws and regulations that protect them - the very same laws you were just advocating for when it was politically convenient for your cause?
Does a pedestrian have to die at the hands of a bicyclist before we accept common-sense safety regulations on crowded, mixed-use trails?
Wake up, Mr. Gilliland. You can’t have it both ways. In the wake of Ms. Swanson’s tragic death, you were correct to say that:
We all share in the responsibility for safe streets. All of us, drivers, pedestrians and, yes, cyclists.
Here’s your chance to prove you’re serious.
Posted in Bicycles, Laws, Politics, Speed Limit, Traffic Accidents |
Nice Post Lewis. I wonder what Mr. Gilliland’s response would be…
WABA does not oppose speed limits on the trail per se, but we do question both the effectiveness of a 15mph speed limit in congested areas of the trail, and the method by which the decision to install the speed limit signs was reached. Our letter to Mary Bradford said as much and was intended to start a dialog over safety improvements that will be effective and balance responsibility among all trail users, not to recommend specific improvements.
15mph is actually too FAST in some sections of the trail, but if a cyclist struck a pedestrian or other cyclist but was riding within the speed limit, speed would potentially be removed as a causal factor in the crash even though it very well may have contributed. The decision to impose a 15mph speed limit was also done without a analysis of the crash reports that might indicate the true causes of the crashes and without the input of users groups other than the Coalition for the CCT. Nor was research on best trail management practices that might help reduce crashes was not performed. There is no plan to install safety signage along the trail, nor is the behavior of other user groups addressed. The rumble strips that have been installed have both been installed too close to intersections to be effective and are very slippery when wet. The issue of widening the trail to separate users groups was not considered. Poor sightlines at at-grade crossings are not addresses. And finally, a speed limit effects only cyclists though all users of the trail share responsibility for safety and does not take into account that there are times of the day when the trail is lightly used.
In addition, your link to the sudden uptick of serious crashes does not actually show any information to that effect. If you have that data I would like to see it, but according to the Parks Department at last night’s meeting, they have not yet looked at the data.
I see nothing contradictory with our call for more driver and cyclist education in the case of Alice Swanson, and our call for more cyclist, runner and skater education on the CCT. Are speeding cyclists a problem on the CCT? At certain times and under certain conditions I would agree. Is a speed limit sign that even the police admit will be impossible to enforce the answer? It might be part of the answer and one that our organiztion would likely be willing to accept but only if that is the the end result of a much more detailed anaylsis of the problem.
Eric Gilliland
WABA
Mr. Gilliland -
First, I commend you for coming onto the site to engage in the debate. Many pro-bicycle organizations refuse to respond to legitimate criticism or questions, so it is refreshing to see someone from a local organization with the courage to come on the site and explain his positions.
I’m also glad to hear that WABA is interested in safety data on these incidents. I have also advocated for more bicycle safety studies on this site, and believe me, I know the one article I cited is scant “evidence”. However, the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail mentions increasing accident rates all over their website, so something is going on here.
As an occasional cyclist, I am of the opinion that if we are interested in safety, no one’s interests are served by relying on “common knowledge” or studies that don’t really prove causation or arrive at the underlying factors that lead to accidents. To this end, I agree with you that further research into the matter is needed.
But I still disagree with you that a speed limit is something that requires study before we should implement it.
I’m sure you would agree that a pedestrian is more vulnerable to injury from a fast moving cyclist than vice versa. So how will governing the speed of cyclists not help this problem?
I agree that 15mph might be too fast in some areas, but that seems to imply that a speed limit is reasonable and would provide safety to pedestrians if set at the correct speed - it seems that the only question is how high or low should the speed limit be?
As any driver knows, a speed limit does not give you blanket permission to travel as fast as the speed limit regardless of road conditions, and police can, and do, ticket for reckless driving when road conditions are too hazardous to drive the speed limit. The same rules could easily apply to bicycles.
I disagree that this will be impossible to enforce - police simply don’t want to. But those communities all have bicycle patrols that could easily integrate this into their routes. Crash analysis at accidents can often point to speed, and you could even install speed cameras like we have for cars if you were serious about it. That’s a cop-out (no pun intended) on the police’s part to say it’s unenforceable. So are speed limits on most roads for most people - that doesn’t stop us from having them.
I would agree that other options - like widening the path to seperate cyclists and pedestrians should be considered - but in the interim, a speed limit seems like a very reasonable measure until the studies you and I call for can be completed to tell us the optimal solution and give us time to implement it.
No one would doubt the effectiveness of speed limits in reducing accidents on DC’s roads, so why should we not believe they would help here?
My main question is - what harm does it do bicyclists to have to obey a speed limit when everything we know about speed limits tells us they make transportation safer? Why should bicyclists oppose them until a study proves this is unreasonable?
I’ve posed this question in Streetsblog to be met with denial about its premise:
On paths shared by pedestrians and bicyclists, why the need for speed on the part of bicyclists?
http://www.forgotten-ny.com
Mr. Derkins,
Even if the Coalition sites increased crashes I wonder if increased usage is taken into account. We know that cycling is on the increase, but if the number of crashes is increasing by a commensuate percentage then if the trail becoming less safe? The best data we have for DC shows that while the percentage of people commuting to work by bike doubled between 2004 and 2006 (and I suspect it has double again in the time since) the number of crashes and fatalities has remained steady. While all crashes and fatalities are troubling, the trend is good.
I agree that in a bike/ped crash it is more likely that the pedestrian will suffer more. But we do not yet know the causes of the crashes and while a speed limit may be an effective way of reducing the severity of crashes, other measures (education efforts and engineering solutions) are needed to prevent the crashes from occuring in the first place. I see this in much the same way as I see the use of mandatory helmet laws as a way to increase the safety of cyclists. While certainly effective in reducing injuries in a crash, they do not prevent crashes from happening in the first place.
Enforcement is a tricky issue. In this case it takes warm bodies with radar guns to properly enforce, but the Park Police admit that their staff is limited. It would also require cyclists to have speedometers in order to properly judge their speed. I think that signs saying “your speed is…” might be troublesome as there will be people who will use such devices to see how fast they can ride.
Again, our problem with the Parks safety plan for the trail is that it was a bandaid solution implemented for the sake of expediency without the necessary research done. We all have the same goal here: a safer trail. As easily as they installed speed limit signs, other types of signs that address behavioral issues such as “warn when passing”, “dont ride two abreast”, “dont ride/run/skate with headphones” could have been installed, but were not.
We just want to make sure it’s done the right way. If nothing else, our involvement in this matter has started what I think is a healthy debate about trail safety and user responsibility, the need for safer roads for more experienced cyclists so as to to take pressure of crowded trails, and the need for more trails over all.
Eric
WABA
Mr. Gilliland –
I agree that it is important to look at the rates of crashes as well as the raw numbers, and I think more study would help to solidify the exact nature of the problems, their causes, and potential solutions.
However, I disagree that speed limits are comparable to mandatory helmet laws in that they only lessen injury without contributing to the prevention of accidents. One of the benefits of a lower rate of speed is a longer period of time for the bicyclist or pedestrian to react to a dangerous situation. If you come around a curve at 15 mph to find pedestrians stretched across the road, you have double the time to react and take defensive action as you have if traveling at 30mph.
So I think that speed limits would be effective to help prevent accidents and increase safety for both bicyclists and pedestrians, and I don’t think that bicyclists lose out on that much overall if we implement them. I wouldn’t strictly enforce the speed limits any more on the trails than we do on the highways; I would prefer to see them used as a rule of thumb to allow you to gauge how safe your actions are, and to afford some measure of enforcement if a cyclist is acting in an unsafe manner. I don’t really think speedometers are required for bicyclists – I think most people who ride can tell how fast they are going and whether it is close to the limits or safe for the road conditions. I think enforcement would mainly consist of warnings for people who are going a little too fast, and citations for only the worst offenders. Where to draw that line is obviously a potential slippery slope, but police officers do it every day on the roads. I don’t see why trails should be any more difficult.
I don’t think enforcement is as big a deal as the park police make it out to be – why should they be the only ones to police the trail? The trail passes through Georgetown, Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and Silver Spring – and all of those police departments could contribute resources. This is what happens on the GW Parkway – you see park police, but you also see police from Arlington, Alexandria and the State Highway Patrol. All can enforce the law. We’re not talking about some huge enforcement blitz, but the occasional presence of a bike patrol might do wonders for compliance.
Now, I completely agree with you that this effort needs to be extended to others who use the trail. I think that signs instructing pedestrians, skaters, rollerbladers or anyone else would also be helpful. Establishing a common framework of rules that everyone agrees to abide by would help everyone anticipate the likely actions of others they encounter and increase safety overall, and I agree that the failure of the Coalition to take this into account is a glaring omission – it shouldn’t simply be a pig-pile on the bicyclists.
I also completely agree that your participation is helpful to get the ball rolling on needed research, and to make sure we don’t just implement a band-aid solution.
We have been critical of some of your statements in the past, but one thing I’m in 100% agreement with you on is the need to educate everyone – including pedestrians, automobiles and cyclists - about the rules of the road and their responsibilities as safe users. I think I speak for the staff here at Commuter Outrage when I say that we would like to see you flesh out this proposal more and tell the public exactly what that means and what you would like to see.
I am also interested to hear your thoughts on our proposal to license bicyclists in dense urban areas with high ridership like DC and New York.
This is obviously a tricky issue – we don’t want to penalize bicyclists and effectively disincentivize cycling – we want people to continue to choose the most effective mode of transportation for their needs, and we want that to be fair for cyclists. But I think there is a legitimate case to be made that this would increase overall safety for everyone on the roads, provide a mechanism to enforce the rules for everyone, and legitimize bicycles as vehicles that belong on, and are entitled to use, the roads.
We are working on a post to flesh this idea out, but I wouldn’t envision a heavy expansion of bureaucracy, or significant expense to the cyclist, and I think it would help everyone in several ways:
- It will ensure that everyone using the roads knows, understands, and has an incentive to obey the rules of the road – which will help decrease accidents.
- It would allow everyone on the road to anticipate how everyone else will act – which will also decrease accidents.
- It could serve as a way to mandate the education for road users that you have advocated for.
- It would allow some mechanism to enforce and penalize unsafe behavior from all parties – this wouldn’t just go against bicyclists – if their rules of the road were codified, drivers who break them could be held to account for it in situations where they now walk away. This could help bicyclists recover for damages in accidents.
- If integrated with bicycle registration, it would help prevent bicycle theft, and help to return stolen bikes to their owners.
Now there are obviously downsides, and in our post, we want to address the issue from a balanced point of view, but I’m interested to hear your initial thoughts on the matter. I suspect you won’t be in favor in the absence of research, but I think it is worth asking a leading pro-bicycle advocate what his initial thoughts, concerns and objections are.
By the way, feel free to call me Lewis or Derk - we’re an outrage site after all, not a tea party.
Interesting discussion, and to correct some of the comments above — we did investigate best management practices on trails, did a user survey (with the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail), and concluded that 15 mph on busy multi-use trails was a commonly used standard. It is, in fact, what the posted signs on the nearby Mount Vernon Trail state: “15 mph” (there’s one near National Airport, if you want to check it out.) I’ve got data from all over the country and Canada, but interested parties could probably google “bicycle speed limits” or something similar to verify this. Some multi-use trails keep it at 10 mph or lower, but they seem to be primarily recreational trails, not those shared with commuters. So we opted for the higher limit — which may still be too fast, as some have pointed out, in crowded spots. Personally, I just returned from Sacramento CA and spent some time on their trail — same multi-use pattern but, so far, I’ve found no trail that is even as remotely crowded as ours.
Congestion and popularity of this trail are definitely issues, and if I were advocating for the bicycling community, I’d be pushing for more trails dedicated to bicyclists alone. It’s a shame there are so few options, and sharing space is really tough. For everybody.
We’re looking into the rumble strip matter and will likely make some adjustments based on our experience with them thus far. Plus, we are investigating various street crossing options for the more dangerous road/trail intersections.
The comment about no signage is incorrect, there are signs on the CCT, as well as notices in the kiosks at the trail head, about the duties and obligations of all the users, including pedestrians. It is demonstrably not a “pig pile” on just one group. We’re educating the walkers, too. Placement of signage has to be carefully done so another obstacle along the path is not created. More signs should be there shortly. Plus, I handed out the educational inserts for trail users and bicyclists at the recent meeting and bicycles are only one of the user categories mentioned — pedestrian behavior and consciousness of what’s around them is also discussed. The discussion among the pedestrians and bicyclists at the meeting was rather spirited, I must say, and some quite irate pedestrians challenged some of the bicyclists regarding their experiences on the trail. They don’t like being yelled at to get out the way or move off the trail to let the speedier cyclists through. This is not the Tour de Bethesda. Other users see the trail as a nice place to walk — yes, even aimlessly. We’ll continue to work on awareness among all users. It should be clear, however, that the faster party must acknowledge the presence of the slower user and adjust behavior accordingly, just as we expect automobile drivers to behave when encountering a bicyclists on the roads.
Finally, good data on CCT ped-bike accidents are hard to come by. Why? Because most are never reported. Would you know to call the Maryland-National Capital Park Police emergency number 301-949-3010? Probably not. (We’re posting that, too, wherever we can.) Would you call 911 for a collision? County police? Or would you curse the offending party, clutch the sore spot, and go home or to the emergency room first? (Then tell your friends or show up at a meeting to complain.) So much of what we hear comes to us anecdotally or by simple observation along the trail. We’re working on making that statistical link better, but we need all those who observe an incident to simply let us know.
By the way, park staff has recently joined with National Park Service staff to coordinate efforts as they wrestle with similar issues on their portion of the CCT in D.C. Expect some more joint education and outreach programs, much like the public notice we have enjoyed, as we try to continue making this beautiful resource available to all and SAFE. I like what was said above about enforcement — the writer has our views on this exactly right.
I do thank all for their comments — it isn’t easy and shared, thoughtful suggestions are always welcome. Even on an outrage site. We’re paying attention.