[B' Spokes: Pretty cute video.]

---

[B' Spokes: This so need to go out whenever someone incorrectly asserts cyclists have to get out of the way.]

---

by Ryan Sigworth, Greater Greater Washington

...
Without enforcement, lawlessness runs rampant

There was no police officer to witness the incident. Police can't be be everywhere and catch everything. However, I've also seen MPD simply ignore dangerous infractions by drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians occurring directly in front of them.

Last weekend, while riding in the 15th Street cycletrack, a driver illegally turned left against the protected left turn signal at 15th and U Street NW, right behind my wife and me. By coincidence, a MPD patrol unit was directly behind this illegally turning driver but did nothing.

On the same trip, my wife and I witnessed two illegal U-turns on Pennsylvania Avenue right in front of police cars and officers stationed along the street for the marathon. At the time, there were lots of pedestrians and cyclists around but they refused to enforce against illegal driving right in front of them.

This is even more frustrating because this episode occurred during the regional Street Smart campaign, an annual campaign to raise safety awareness and increase enforcement. Mayor Vincent Gray stood with MPD Chief Cathy Lanier to announce DC's part of the program a week ago, alongside advocacy groups such as WABA. The Pennsylvania Avenue cycle track was supposed to be an area targeted for enforcement during this campaign.
...

The city doesn't need any more public safety campaigns, advertisements, lip service, and promises. We need results.


http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/18740/a-driver-ran-a-red-light-hit-me-and-fled/

[B' Spokes: This article got me thinking about what direction our 3 foot passing law with it's narrow highway highway exception (or is it when you can't pass legally exception) is trying to go? More respect for cyclists or less? Anyway a few highlights for this article:]

---

By ALAN DAVIES, Crikey

Cyclists are outraged a jury found a truck driver not guilty of dangerous driving causing the death of a cyclist this week. It’s time the law stopped treating cyclists as ‘mere obstacles’ to motorists.

...

It’s difficult to imagine another situation in which a driver needs to exercise greater care and wait for a safe opportunity to pass – a truck weighing at least 20 tonnes, and apparently boxed in by other vehicles so the driver couldn’t change lanes, bearing down from behind on a cyclist riding along a narrow, winding road. Yet under the law it now appears motorists can treat a cyclist with the same disregard as they would a witch’s hat and leave no margin for error by passing as close as they like.

[B' Spokes: Note that being boxed in would fall under the so called "can't pass legally" exception of our 3 foot law that seems is the intention of the legislature to allow (specifically testimony when a double yellow is present but if you make a general case that includes that it includes other things as well. But please note the subject of this exception is a "highway... is not wide enough" so I doubt the "can't pass legally" spin will hold up in court.]
...

Motorist almost universally assume they’re entitled to travel at the speed limit at all times. Our cities would be better places if instead there was a culture of driving according to prevailing conditions.

They would be more liveable if the driving culture also included consideration for the welfare of all other road users, and of those who live along or use adjoining land uses.

As I’ve said many times before, cars will be with us for decades yet. It’s therefore all the more important to ‘re-position’ driving as a highly conditional privilege not a presumed right.

...

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/05/08/are-cyclists-mere-obstacles-to-motorists/

Read more: http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-27635-the_many_merits_of_c.html

---

[B' Spokes: Such a shame this is not an everyday sight.]

Via Washcycle

...

Of course there are problems with this because it just counts raw numbers.

It doesn't consider if states with mandatory helmet laws have less cycling, and of course there is evidence that mandatory helmet laws do reduce cycling. So we have the numerator (injuries/deaths) but not the denominator (cyclists or miles biked). Here is another study that showed the same thing, but considered the change in cycling. 

 In recent years, many states and localities have enacted bicycle helmet laws. We examine direct and indirect effects of these laws on injuries. Using hospital-level panel data and triple difference models, we find helmet laws are associated with reductions in bicycle-related head injuries among children. However, laws also are associated with decreases in non-head cycling injuries, as well as increases in head injuries from other wheeled sports. Thus, the observed reduction in bicycle-related head injuries may be due to reductions in bicycle riding induced by the laws.

...

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/05/helmet-study-fails-to-consider-denominator-and-confuses-science-with-policy.html

B' Spokes: A public service announcement. ;)

http://www.active.com/nutrition/Articles/5-Ways-Chocolate-Boosts-Your-Workouts.htm

Bikeyface has another good post about biking. It's just about learning to do things, just like driving. Her steps:



So you can end up like this:



Read the full post here.