Metro Police Training Presentation

Someone sent me this powerpoint presentation recently. It's the DDOT/MPD Pedestrian-Bicycle Safety training from April of 2007. Though several pages probably need the accompanying description to make sense, what is still here is pretty good. It's nice to know this kind of training is being carried out.

The presentation makes the point that when you're driving you see pedestrian and bicycle violations and when you bike or walk you see motorist violations. [When I ride with my wife in her car and we see a cyclist I joke to her about how they "should get off the road"]

The cycling portion runs on slides 32-38, 47-50. It includes a break down of the law (which you can also get from WABA's excellent pocket guide - I got one last weekend and learned I can legally talk on my cellphone when I bike. Now if I can just get the wind to stop messing with my calls) and when to and to target cyclists and motorists.

It's pretty balanced and educational. And I think it's instructive for cyclists to know what training the MPD has had. It might help diffuse any confrontations.

The one thing I didn't like was under the examples of pedestrian and bicycle violations is a cyclist taking the lane (slide 12), but without the speaker it's hard to say what this is about. Perhaps the point is that drivers think this is a violation - and many do - whether it is or not and this induces road rage.

Comments

[Chris]

Interesting. And amusing at times too. I got a chuckle out of two things: 1) the observation that the cyclist may be anti-authoritarian; and 2) that cyclists should not be targeted when hit by a door.

[iconoclasst]

Not so sure I like the attitude taken here.

Cyclists seem to be demonized [anti-authoritarian (read "libertarian socialist") lawbreakers]while the motorists section begins by telling us how much motorists love and respect cyclists, and how, try as they might to pay attention and keep an eye out for humans in their path, well, goshdarn it, sometimes they just can't help but mow down a cyclist (who is probably an anarchist, anyway). And that's not all.

Compare slide 39 to 35. The Targeting Cyclists slide (35) simply goes into the high (dollar?) value tickets--i.e., it tells constables which violations to watch for when a cyclist passes by. Now look at the Targeting Motorists slide (39) and see the sweet apologetic attitude it takes toward all those sensitive motorists out there who sometimes just "can't" or "may not" or "don't", etc. It tells constables, first, motorists are human and subject to error, with the obvious implication that perhaps some slack needs to be cut in their direction, and second, motorists may not know that when they BREAK THE LAW (see last bullet, slide 39) with reckless behavior, cyclists and peds around them may feel just a wee bit nervous. Never mind the concept that the listed behaviors (speeding, failing to yield RofW) are ILLEGAL and LIFE THREATENING.

Unlike with motorists (slide 47), there is no use of the apologetic fragment "may not realize" when discussing illegal behavior by cyclists, the presumption being that cyclists are willful lawbreakers who may not deserve much sympathy--break out the ticket book and keep a hand on your truncheon!

My favorite line (slide 68) is "Pursuit on bike or foot is acceptable to a point–-one or two blocks." Lets me know that I only have to lay it down for 3 blocks and I'm home-free, ha.

Though it does underscore some good points (e.g., slides 44, 50, 53-55; slide 59 is encouraging, the "high-crash" area slides are helpful), overall, as a cyclist, I'm not sure I can give this one the thumbs-up; the producers need to take a more sympathetic perspective toward nonmotorists if they really wish to imbue the cops with this sentiment.

[Chris]

Generally, I would agree with iconoclast's point. I would point out, however, that this part, while strangely worded, does at least acknowledge that there are some motorists out there who seem intent on inflicting damage: "an equally small number really appreciate the impact they can have on the safety and comfort of impact they can have on the safety and comfort of
those around them who are outside the protection of a steel cage."

Last night, incidentally, I witnessed a cop watching several motorists completely ignore citizens trying to cross at the crosswalk WHILE HE STOOD THERE STUFFING HIS FACE WITH FRENCH FRIES. I'm not sure why there should be an expectation for peds to cross at crosswalks when those very same crosswalks are generally ignored (at least in my neighborhood) by motorists and the police alike.

[washcycle]

I read the "high value" statement to mean the rules whose enforcement would do the most good. I didn't read it as having to do with money. But i couldbe wrong.

[Jeff]

I also read "high value" as enforcement that would result in the most good and not highest fine. $25 isn't much of a fine after all, but enforcing cyclists running red lights can keep certain drunk cyclist bloggers from being hit by cabs.

The folks at DDOT who created this are on our side. While the anti-authoritarian comment is funny, I'm sure what George meant by it is that a good number of cyclists -including some who respond to this blog- feel that the rules of the road don't apply to them. You can't have a "right to the road" without also taking the responsibilities that go along with it. Argueing the merits of whether its ok to run red lights just takes away from working towards retooling the laws and road design to give cyclists a more equal footing.

[iconoclasst]

Ouch, Jeff, that hurt.

If you notice, my reference to dollars was parenthetical and also had a question mark after it. What I was trying to do there was use a common convention (a "?") to make sure readers understood that it was a guess at best. Using "high value" is a strange way to describe safety (how about something like "high priority"?). No need to get personal or hostile; I prefer to experience that kind of stuff in person--just easier on the back and forth, you know?

Yeah, that anti-authoritarian comment is a real riot, ha-ha-ha! Really puts cops in the right frame of mind to go out the door to show compassion to the first cyclist they see.

Who here argued the merits of running red lights on a bike? In another post, yes, but bringing that up here, in conjunction with that first remark, seems a bit personal.

As for people who don't feel that the rules of the road apply to them, you might want to first take a look at motorists.

[Jeff]

That wasn't an indictment of your character, just a friendly jab at a bone-headed move that could have happened to any number of us, myself included (though without being drunk as an excuse). Glad you were able to tell the tale.

I'm not trying to single you out specifically, I just feel it can be hypocritical to argue that because you can bike on the road, and besides drivers don't respect cyclists anyways, that its ok to run red lights. Not that you think that, but it is a common sentiment (and an anti-authoritarian one at that). Overall its a red herring. Cyclists, Pedestrians and Automobiles all use the street network differently from one another, and to attempt to apply many of the same regulations and infrastructure design to fit all uses is bound to fall short at times, and I think as advocates thats where we should focus the debate.

[washcycle]

On e thing I thought about the difference in the way the slides talk about cyclists and drivers is that most cyclists know what it's like to be a driver, but most drivers have no idea what it's like to be a cyclist.

[guez]

Jeff: Iconoclasst *does* think cyclists are entitled to run red lights. (See http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2007/10/alexandria-to-t.html ) You can decide for yourself whether this is hypocritical.

[iconoclasst]

Jeff, no worries.

guez, thanks for being helpful, but you need to read more carefully. Here, I'll give you a little help in return by prudent use of caps. From my post above:

"Who HERE argued the merits of running red lights on a bike? IN ANOTHER POST, YES, but bringing that up here, in conjunction with that first remark, seems a bit personal."

Hope that helps, and in the future, try not to be so zealous in you attempts to pile on.

[Michael Ross]

Hi Jeff,

Practically speaking, I KNOW, and so do you, that the laws of the road DON'T apply to bicyclists. This is not surprising for well known reasons concerning transportation and land use in the USA, and a host of other relevant historical reasons (esp. economic and political reasons).

Last year for me was typical: about 15,000 miles via bicycle -- and many of those miles I spent riding through stop signs and red lights, often waving at cops in their cars while doing so. How many tickets? Zero.

Cultural attitudes trump "laws" every time (again, a well known anthro/psych fact...), esp. where the culture in question cant fund its dictates appropriately (the main issue here being that the kind of person who would become a Cop, primarily given the payscale, is not smart enough to be much more than a rule-follower -- and to enjoy enforcing the "strict-father morality" almost universally ascribed to by cops....).

When bicycling is taken seriously and Im meaningfully accounted for on the roads -- which are still defined as public spaces -- I'll obey the rules of the road. Until then, let me take this opportunity to express myself using my well honed Phd vocabulary: the authorites (sic) can go to f---king hell!

Im with Iconoclast on this issue -- his comments were well said.

[Jeff]

"When bicycling is taken seriously and Im meaningfully accounted for on the roads -- which are still defined as public spaces -- I'll obey the rules of the road."

I see it as a chicken and egg scenario with perception of cyclists. You could easily change that to read "I'll respect cyclists and meaningfully account for them on the road when they obey the rules of the road." You don't like stopping at stop signs when its clear? Neither do I, but don't mourn about your loss of respect on the road, organize to change the law. Idaho allows stop signs to be treated as yield signs, why can't dc? Riding around with your middle finger in the air isn't going to get you the respect your after.

We need to go riding again though Mike. My old email account self destructed and I lost yur contact info. Drop me a line at jeffrypeel at g mail dot com

[iconoclasst]

WC, I'm hoping that most motorists know what it's like to be human and made of flesh and bone. That's all it takes. Motorists know that a person on a bike is vulnerable, much more so than a person belted into a steel cage--it's axiomatic. It all comes down to respect for life. Motorists have to see cyclists as people, and people in a comparatively fragile situation. Instead, they seem to see them as willful daredevils who know the risks and thus should expect to deal with threats to life and limb. Basically, a "they made the choice, so f*ck 'em" attitude.

Jeff, laws don't create respect. Hell, they often don't even create compliance. As proof of that, witness what little respect many motorists have for right-of-way pedestrians using crosswalks--motorists stop in the crosswalk, blow the horn to hurry people when the light changes, turn right on red through a flock of walkers, etc., often with a cup of coffee or cellphone in one hand (another law not enforced), and rarely with the threat of a ticket looming nearby. For a more concrete example, look at the bike-and-bus-only lane on 7th Street anytime of day and you'll directly experience the failure of laws to protect people. (Once I actually asked a cop who was driving in that lane what he was doing in it, and the brazen sophist had the nerve to seriously state that he was driving along to keep motorists out of it--then continued on in the lane. Break the law to serve it--makes sense, right?) Every time I ride in that lane, I have to point down at the huge lettering that tells motorists they shouldn't be in it, and every time they pass me and hop right back in it. Often times I notice the presence of police cars parked nearby. There's your law working for you. Laws work, yes, but mostly for whatever strong majority prevails--in this case, that majority is made up of motorists. What's more, motorists don't even respect other law-abiding motorists--witness the "me-first" attitude many take at all-way stops, even if they weren't the first ones there.

If you think laws are going to make motorists see nonmotorists as living, breathing, feeling beings, who might die under their wheels while they're distracted by a cellphone conversation, well, prepare for imminent disillusion. Something happens to people when they get behind the wheel, and it's not good. It's the bravery of being out or range, of being sealed in a cage, safe and remote and--perhaps most nefarious--unengaged from the outside world.

I don't know what the answers are, but I do know that making excuses for drivers or simply making new laws isn't going to do it.

[guez]

Iconoclasst,

I actually agree with a number of your points, here. The 7th street lanes are indeed a farce, and they make your point quite well: because the majority of motorists use that lane, even well-intentioned motorists have to violate the law if they want to make a right turn (otherwise they end up crossing a lane of moving vehicular traffic). I have two points to make, however:

1) Of course laws don't have any magical efficacy *by themselves*. The key is enforcement, which is what the whole presentation was about to start with. Is fair, effective enforcement possible? I don't know. But this is what the presentation is trying to encourage. Perhaps it could have been more even-handed, but at least it makes an effort.

2) Your arguments (and this is the point I have been trying to make all along, albeit somewhat clumsily) ARE anti-authoritarian. That doesn't make you wrong per se, but it's a little silly to claim that laws don't work and that it often doesn't make sense for cyclists to obey them, and THEN complain about being labeled as disrespectful of authority. Furthermore (and here is where you disagree with me), I believe that the (yes) anti-authoritarian culture among cyclists makes it harder for them to lobby for respect on the road.

For the record, I never intended to make things personal or "pile it on." I was trying to point out (to Jeff) that was a substantive disagreement among us on the question of the applicability of the rules of the road to cyclists. I do admit, however, that I may have been a little "zealous" in the heat of debate. Sorry about that. Okay?

[guez]

Sorry to follow up on my own post, but I wanted to add something. I completely agree with Michael Ross's point about culture, and how it trumps laws. The problem, as I see it, is that culture of the road is broken, BOTH among motorist and cyclists. As long as both sides refuse to change until the other does, the situation will continue to deteriorate. George's presentation, as I understood it, was a laudable attempt to *change* the culture by creating a dialogue between law enforcement, motorists, and cyclists.

[iconoclasst]

guez, again, you need to read more carefully. I never said *I* had a problem with being labelled anti-authoritarian. I AM anti-authoritarian (well, no shit?), and I have my reasons, many of which are rooted in direct experience, and yes, some of which involves unfair--let me be more spedcific here, *selective* law enforcement. I was making a point on behalf of those cyclists (arguably most) who are not anti-authoritarian, but who are nevertheless lumped in with me and my ilk in this slideshow presentation. Cops are authority figures (one could argue *the* archetypal authority figures); it doesn't take a genius to see that labeling cyclists as anti-authoritarian is the same as saying "anti-cop", which is tantamount to saying "enemy".

As for your number 1, if fair law enforcement was the goal of this presentation, I think it came up far short of that goal, for reasons I've already discussed. There's absolutely no good reason why that presentation couldn't be PRO-cycling. I mean, what would be the harm of describing cyclists as self-sufficient, environmentally conscious, upstanding citizens who care about the world and the lifeforms that inhabit it and are trying to make a difference, even if this isn't true for the majority of them? All it could do is foster better relations for all involved. But instead, we get apologies for distracted drivers and cyclist all but described as wanton scofflaws who don't realize the hardships motorist must endure when they drive.

We (cyclists) face enough threats on the road every time we put ass to saddle without being misrepresented in negative fashion.

No hard feelings on my end.

[iconoclasst]

Interesting article:

http://www.lcc.org.uk//index.asp?PageID=1057

Same bullsh!t, different country...

[guez]

Iconoclasst,

Thank you for the clarification. You make many valid points and we could certainly argue until the end of time about who is misrepresenting/ misreading what.

I agree that the tone of the presentation could be more cyclist-friendly. Rather than try to portray cyclists in terms of their progressive values, however, it might be more effective to use politically neutral, civic language, along the lines of: "Many cyclists are law-abiding citizens who depend upon their bikes as primary transportation to work" or "Many law-abiding cyclists feel that they motorists are insensitive to their safety," etc.

Let's not forget that George Branyan is a good guy: an avid cyclist that led a commuter convey to bike-to-work day last year. Rather than turning his efforts into more ammunition in the cyclists-vs-motorist wars, it would be better to engage in a constructive effort. You do praise aspects of the proposal (see I'm not as careless a reader as you think). Nonetheless, the general tone of your original post (with its "ha" and "That's not all") is pretty dismissive. Since you speak as a cyclist on behalf of cyclists, you should hardly be surprised if others respond to the tone as well as the content of your posts.