Missed connection

[baiskeli]

@mstone 62723 wrote:

wow, so he killed someone when he ran those lights?

Would you say the same if it were a motorist?

[baiskeli]

FYI, while trying and failing to find the law or policy on use of lights/sirens by DC cops, I found this in Virginia:

http://greateralexandria.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/ashleys-law-requiring-sirens-for-police-calls-passes-6

[dbb]

@jrenaut 62810 wrote:

This is a new one for me – inbound on the W&OD, coming up on a man walking his dog, I was about to ring my bell (far enough back to deal with unpredictable dog action) when I burped. The dog jerked its head around, alerting the man, who tightened up the leash a bit and I rode past.

So the Third Thursday Happy Hours include a trail safety (post beer consumption belching) component? Sweet!

[jrenaut]

@dbb 62870 wrote:

So the Third Thursday Happy Hours include a trail safety (post beer consumption belching) component? Sweet!

One more reason that beer is good for you.

[Tim Kelley]

Has anyone ever seen the white middle aged guy on the blue/white Trek Speed Concept TT bike wearing a white doo-rag but no helmet doing laps in the bike lanes between Courthouse and Ballston?

Also, does Under Armor actually make bike shorts, or are those just boxer briefs/compression shorts?

[mstone]

@baiskeli 62863 wrote:

Would you say the same if it were a motorist?

No: my problem with motorists running lights is that they tend to kill people–that’s already been established (so there’s no need to question whether it’s a problem). For police to prioritize ticketing cyclists for running lights (in preference to ticketing motorists for doing the same thing) could only be justified if the cyclists were somehow posing more of a risk to public safety, hence my question of whether the statistics were suddenly changing.

[nikki_d]

This morning I went on a recreational ride. Tomorrow I plan the same but may need to wake up earlier to have coffee to deal with the pre-9am weekday crazy out there!

To the driver of the truck with the unsecured scrap metal in the bed- OMFG! Either slow the hell down or tie that shit down! When it came flying out of your truck bed as you sped across the 14th St bridge, the cyclist and I passing each other were both a bit shaken and obviously relieved when the first bounce changed its course back to the car lanes and away from the bike/ ped access lane. Luckily the other drivers on the road appeared to have been sufficiently caffeinated to put their video game skills to the test in real life scenarios this morning and no one was hit by the multiple large flying pieces of metal.

To the woman that stopped in the middle of the Custis to adjust her iPod- 1. really?? 2. I mean, really?? 3. MOVE OFF THE TRAIL!! I would credit you with the sense to have at least stopped at the top, and not the bottom of a hill, but I really think that was dumb luck on your part because you were already riding with headphones in both ears, thought it was appropriate to stop your bike, dismount, put the kickstand down, and then stand there in the middle of the lane to deal with your all so critical iPod emergency.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 62893 wrote:

No: my problem with motorists running lights is that they tend to kill people–that’s already been established (so there’s no need to question whether it’s a problem). For police to prioritize ticketing cyclists for running lights (in preference to ticketing motorists for doing the same thing) could only be justified if the cyclists were somehow posing more of a risk to public safety, hence my question of whether the statistics were suddenly changing.

Okay, but no mention was made of prioritizing tickets or cyclists being seen as more of a risk than cars.

[Dickie]

@Tim Kelley 62873 wrote:

Has anyone ever seen the white middle aged guy on the blue/white Trek Speed Concept TT bike wearing a white doo-rag but no helmet doing laps in the bike lanes between Courthouse and Ballston?

Also, does Under Armor actually make bike shorts, or are those just boxer briefs/compression shorts?

Yep, I always see him while sitting on the patio at Liberty Tavern… in fact there are two of these guys. Rider two is always on a black racing bike with black shorts, no shirt, no helmet, and flip flops running lights and terrorizing everyone apparently in pursuit of doo-rag guy. I want to see them dance/duke it out West Side Story style at one of the Starbucks!

[Tim Kelley]

@Dickie 62917 wrote:

Yep, I always see him while sitting on the patio at Liberty Tavern… in fact there are two of these guys. Rider two is always on a black racing bike with black shorts, no shirt, no helmet, and flip flops running lights and terrorizing everyone apparently in pursuit of doo-rag guy. I want to see them dance/duke it out West Side Story style at one of the Starbucks!

Yeah, I’ve seen Rider Two as well. Blows stop lights to do intervals in the bike lanes and then makes a u-turn on Fairfax and does it all going the other direction.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 62908 wrote:

Okay, but no mention was made of prioritizing tickets or cyclists being seen as more of a risk than cars.

Mention was made of police attitude. IMO, the attitude should be made on a risk basis like I outlined and focus on maximizing benefit to the community. More, that’s the standard we should hold them to, and not excuse decisions made based on personal biases. In that context, questioning whether the cyclist was endangering someone does make sense. (I would not have had the same reaction to a simple “don’t endanger yourself by running a light stupidly” post as a “cops are justified in not protecting cyclists if some cyclists run lights” post.)

[baiskeli]

@mstone 62921 wrote:

Mention was made of police attitude. IMO, the attitude should be made on a risk basis like I outlined and focus on maximizing benefit to the community. More, that’s the standard we should hold them to, and not excuse decisions made based on personal biases. In that context, questioning whether the cyclist was endangering someone does make sense. (I would not have had the same reaction to a simple “don’t endanger yourself by running a light stupidly” post as a “cops are justified in not protecting cyclists if some cyclists run lights” post.)

No, I think you read things into it that weren’t there.

The comment was simply that cyclists shouldn’t run red lights. You have to work hard to find a way to quibble with that simple statement.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 62924 wrote:

No, I think you read things into it that weren’t there.

The comment was simply that cyclists shouldn’t run red lights. You have to work hard to find a way to quibble with that simple statement.

Actually, this is an easy one. You can trace back where this started, which was a comment to this:

@acc 62718 wrote:

This contributes to law enforcement’s attitude towards cyclists.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 62927 wrote:

Actually, this is an easy one. You can trace back where this started, which was a comment to this:

Sure, but I didn’t read that as saying that cops pick on bikes and let motorists who run reds off the hook, or that they should.

[Hancockbs]

@mstone 62921 wrote:

Mention was made of police attitude. IMO, the attitude should be made on a risk basis like I outlined and focus on maximizing benefit to the community. More, that’s the standard we should hold them to, and not excuse decisions made based on personal biases. In that context, questioning whether the cyclist was endangering someone does make sense. (I would not have had the same reaction to a simple “don’t endanger yourself by running a light stupidly” post as a “cops are justified in not protecting cyclists if some cyclists run lights” post.)

How about we simply ask that they uniformly enforce the law as written and make no subjective judgements and have no attitudes or biases about when and who to enforce it on? If we don’t like the laws, either get them changed or accept the consequences of disobeying.

[Author]

Posts