[dasgeh]

@OneEighth 10195 wrote:

On a related subject, does anyone know of insurance companies who will cover cycling?

We have Erie Insurance and have been very happy with both service and prices. I don’t know about liability/collision/medical, but our bikes are on our jewelry policy, which I believe has 0 deductible. We had Metlife the last time we had a bike stolen, and they paid for the current model year of the same bike (a carbon racing bike, so no small price difference) and paid for all the upgraded components. Very happy with that service.

[dasgeh]

I wonder if you could get interest by offering a course in/near large apartment buildings that are near CaBi stations, or in dense areas with CaBi stations. Sell it as an intro to making CaBi useful. Include a helmet in the price of the class.

[dasgeh]

I you bought the bike new from a bike shop, just take it back for a tune up. My understanding is that new cable stretch or something so that adjustment is normal. Besides, it’s always fun to go to bike shops.

[dasgeh]

If I remember correctly, every once in a while you’ll see something here or on washcycle about a jurisdiction or building replacing its bike parking… I wonder if you could contact them to see what they’re doing with their old ones…

I may be in the market for some myself, so if you find a way to get used ones, please update us. Thanks!

[dasgeh]

I had really hoped that the overpass/underpass solution was going to involve a direction connect from the MVT to the bridge (i.e. eliminating all the grade crossings). Are there developed plans for what it would look like?

As far as 5555624 not hearing those of us who cross Washington Blvd right by the bridge — that crossing is annoying, it’s just that we feel lucky we don’t have to cross the GW Pkwy.

I do think the best short term solution is better signage to tell cars to beware of crossings (flashing yellows, signs more than 10 feet before the crossing).

[dasgeh]

@Roscoe 9920 wrote:

The result is simply that the riders riding 2-abreast frequently cause a large traffic backup because they have CHOSEN to do something inconvenient for the people they should be sharing the road with. I see it ALL THE TIME. And of course since all the riders solo or in file seem to be doing just fine, this is just another example of people CHOOSING to be selfish and rude. Seems pretty much standard in this part of the country.

In your example, why are the cyclists the rude ones? Why not the drivers who control a multi-ton vehicle without requisite skill and confidence?

It sounds like you define rudeness as anything that impedes your personal progress, regardless of the underlying reason for the action. That seems pretty rude in itself, and shows that you have a pretty inflated sense of self-importance.

Sometimes you get caught behind slower moving traffic. Sometimes that traffic includes slower moving cyclists riding 2-abreast. That doesn’t make the cyclists or other causes of traffic slowing you down rude.

@Roscoe 9925 wrote:

So according to this, on some of the roads where i live in MD near the DC border……..cars can NEVER legally pass cyclists, since they would always have to cross a double yellow line to do so ? That sure doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me. If that’s the case, as an avid cyclist myself I would strongly advocate forbidding cyclists from the road.

I’ve been meaning to look up local traffic regulations, but I do think the norm is that double yellow line means it’s NEVER legal to cross it. So NEVER legal to pass cars driving more slowly than you, NEVER legal to pass trucks driving more slowly than you, NEVER legal for you to pass cyclists.

Do you mean that we should ban all forms of transportation that move slower than you from the roads? Or have a minimum speed limit? On residential roads?

@DismalScientist 9935 wrote:

If this were true, it would be illegal to filter through traffic if the cars were moving at all.

My understanding is that bikes can pass cars without regard to the 3 foot law. Yes, it’s a double standard, but I think it’s warranted.

@Roscoe 9936 wrote:

I guess I’m just different from you in that I would prefer people to voluntarily show others some courtesy instead of telling them to deal with my deliberate rudeness and go “advocate” a change if I didn’t like it.

Personally, I’d like you to voluntarily to show me (a cyclist who takes the lane when warranted) the courtesy of looking at the issue from my perspective. You seem unwilling to do so.

[dasgeh]

Originally, my response was that I attribute a lot of the rude cycling the poor design of the transportation network. This leads to cyclists, pedestrians and drivers who are frustrated, and who have incentive to, e.g. run red lights, because not all of the lights are timed together (if they were, running one red would just put you stuck at the next one — not so in DC). Everyone faces frustrations – too narrow paths, blind corners – and has incentives to behave badly – drivers and cyclists with red lights, pedestrians with crosswalks (often the light timing doesn’t make sense for them, or the crosswalks are space too far apart, so they jaywalk) – which just makes everyone more frustrated. Frustration often manifests itself through rudeness. That’s my going theory at the moment.

Then I kept reading the original post. I don’t think side-by-side riding is always rude. In fact, I’d say around here, it’s usually the safer, more considerate option. Most of the lanes I’m familiar with around here aren’t wide enough to pass one cyclist safely in the lane, especially with the hazards often found on the far right side. I almost always take the lane. Given that I’m going to be taking the lane, if there’s a 2nd cyclist, it’s actually better for drivers for us to ride side by side.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 9859 wrote:

I don’t think I am quite that provincial. I think the majority of Arlington residents should prefer cars on the freeway rather than on the surface streets.

I believe there are quite a few of us Arlingtonians who realize that the cars on the freeway have got to go somewhere at some point, and therefore our preference is fewer cars, both on and off the freeway.
*This really should be qualified — (1) most people perceive they’re better off when they drive alone, because of the immediate benefits (flexibility, speed) and costs (mainly gas), however many people would not be better off if they rationally took into account longer term costs (car insurance, depreciation, safety risks) and (2) even those longer term costs don’t capture the true cost of driving to our society — if they did, the cost-benefit analysis for many would look very different.

@DismalScientist 9859 wrote:

I think the survey and the general question don’t seek and can’t seek a systematic solution. The question is what to do to a specific highway corridor. Because drivers can take other corridors, any action on one corridor can’t be a systematic solution.

Just because it’s not the perfect end-all-be-all solution doesn’t mean it’s not good, in that it makes transportation marginally better for some people. It’s certainly a problem that we don’t have a single systematic plan to address transportation in the region, but I am confident that Arlington’s actions have helped reduce the number of cars on the road. In regards to 66’s restrictions, I think that some people have been encouraged to carpool because of them. It’s not a complete solution, but it helps.

@DismalScientist 9859 wrote:

Bringing in more Metro may be a systematic approach, but since the Metro infrastructure in the corridor is already fully built out, this isn’t really an option when discussing this particular corridor.

I disagree that Metro can’t expand in this corridor. The Silver Line (to Dulles) could be extended further North into Arlington (under Lee Hwy?) and through Gtown, increasing rush hour capacity (imagine the Silver and Orange meeting at EFC then diverging again). It would be expensive, but if we stop throwing money at roads, maybe we could afford it.

To the earlier point about people acting outside of their self-interest [sorry – I’m too lazy to track down the quote], that’s not really what’s going on — there’s a collective action problem. We’d all be better off if everyone drove less. But each individual is “better off” when they drive alone*, and the individual is only making a choice for him/herself, we get a lot more people driving.

[dasgeh]

I’ve been watching little kids on Halloween parade. If that doesn’t make you smile, nothing will. But I missed a punch of points I’d like to respond to…

@baiskeli 9806 wrote:

Thanks for providing a countervailing view on this interesting issue by the way – a bunch of people agreeing on everything would be boring as heck.

Completely agree. I think this is a great conversation.

@DismalScientist 9737 wrote:

Growth in the area causes more traffic.

Actually, more cars on the road causes more traffic. You can get more cars on the road by many means. My argument is that building more road will put more cars on the road, and if that increase in the number of cars is greater than the capacity (in terms of # of cars) of the new road you build, then you end up with worse traffic.

More importantly for the discussion of I66, removing the HOV restrictions would almost certainly add cars to the road — right now you have people who agree to carpool only so that they can use I66. If 1 out of every 3 cars on 66 every morning is only carpooling because of the restrictions, then removing restrictions means 1/3 more cars on the road. If you add 1/3 more cars on I66 in the morning, I believe you’ll exhaust capacity, making it slow. If I-66 is slow, drivers will still drive on Washington Blvd to get around it. So you have the same number of cars through Westover, and more cars in Rosslyn and DC. Is that what you want?

@DismalScientist 9737 wrote:

Freeways do not cause increasing traffic on parallel roads unless there is commercial and residential development along those roads and the freeways allow access to those roads.

You conclusion isn’t true in every circumstance. When the freeway is clogged (because of accident, construction, over capacity), it will increase traffic on parallel roads. If more people drive than the freeway can handle, then it gets clogged.

I think there are two main questions to consider:
1. Should we lift HOV restrictions on I66?
2. Should we widen I66?

1. I think the answer here is no, because it means a net increase in # of cars.
2. I say definitely not, not only because I think it will mean a net increase in # of cars in the long run (among other problematic growth patterns). Most importantly, it would cost money (even within the walls). Given limited budgets, any money spent to widen a road is money not spent on bike paths, Metro improvements, driver education, etc etc etc.

On a completely different note, does anyone out there know if there have been studies done comparing the public subsidy of roads (construction and maintenance) to the cost of fixed infrastructure for public transport. I’d be interested to know whether user fees for Metro cover the same types of things that drivers pay for (i.e. the trains, and their maintenance and operation), while the public subsidy covers that same types of things that the public subsidy of roads pays of (building and maintenance of tracks, stations, etc). Just curious.

[dasgeh]

@WillStewart 9733 wrote:

Since neither you nor the rest of us are lawyers (or judges), I think we’ve aired our opinions to the point of saturation.

Actually, I am a lawyer. Just padding my post count…

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist: I agree that Arlington’s deal with I-66 is only one part of the solution, but disagree that I-66 and its HOV restrictions cause the traffic problems in the rest of Arlington. I think if all we did is lift the HOV restrictions, more people would drive alone in/through Arlington. After a short transition period, there would be the same congestion on the side streets, and we would just have more cars coming off the arterials at their destinations.

We can’t pave our way out of transportation problems because, given growth and without other policies, the number of cars expands to fill the pavement you give them.

Also, your list of subsidies leaves out the biggest subsidy of all: free roads (and parking, in so many places) that primarily benefit cars (exclusively on roads like I-66 that ban bikes and peds).

I can think of lots of ways to spend the money they would spend widening I-66 to encourage cycling: build overpasses/tunnels to reduce grade crossing, install HAWK signals, launch a driver (and cyclist) education campaign, increase cycling tax credits (there’s already a small one for employer-provided cycling stipends, similar to the public transit one – hands up if anyone gets it), build more cycletracks, expand CaBi.

@WillStewart: Love the waistband analogy. Mind if I use it?

[dasgeh]

@WillStewart – I’m so glad you’re healing up well.

@CCrew – The actions of the driver in this accident (per the facts we’ve been told) were unlawful. First, our dear injured friend was IN the road, so clearly on the crosswalk, at the time of the accident, so he clearly had the rights of a ped. Second, the section of VA Code that applies to how a driver should behave isn’t governed by 46.2-904, but by 46.2-924. The pertinent part of that section reads “A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway: 1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;”. Third, the driver in question was in an interior lane (not next to the curb), and was stopped when WillStewart entered the intersection.

So to recap – cyclist in the road, clearly on the crosswalk, clearly a pedestrian crossing a highway at a clearly marked crosswalk; driver goes from stopped to moving, clearly not yielding the right of way.

@ Everyone else — I’m starting to get the impression that CCrew is alone in his resistance to logical interpretation of the law. I don’t like arguing with brick walls, especially if everyone agrees that the brick wall is wrong on this point. So unless someone speaks up in CCrew’s defense, I think I’m going to let all of the very good arguments and links to Va Code stand on their own. I’m also going to hope that if I’m injured in a crash, CCrew isn’t the only one nearby to help talk to the witnesses/cops.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 9661 wrote:

I live near Westover. Washington Blvd is bumper-to-bumper traffic from Lee Hwy to Glebe every morning. Is this happening because I-66 was built and magically caused this traffic? Obviously not. If I-66 had more capacity and was not restricted, any sane driver would stay on the freeway rather than take side streets as the vast majority of traffic on Washington Blvd. is clearly doing. I might be able to cross Washington Blvd. on foot two blocks from my house without waiting for a gap in the traffic every five minutes.

I believe you’ve misunderstood my (and others’) argument. It’s not that I-66 caused the traffic. It’s that if capacity on I-66 were raised (by removing restrictions, widening or both), then more people would drive more cars. In the short term, I agree some of the drivers on Washington Blvd would move to I-66. But in the long term, people who today take the Metro or carpool would say “oh, it’s marginally easier, so I’ll drive alone more often”. Even worse, people moving into this area will see the cheaper house prices out West and decide to move there, thinking they can drive to their job. Eventually, the higher capacity I-66 will be just as full. And the additional drivers will spill over to Washington Blvd. We’ll be in the same situation we’re in today, except there will be even more cars out-and-about, and those cars will eventually leave arterials and park, drive through Rosslyn, drive around the District, or whatever. More cars = more hazards for us cyclists.

I live on Washington Blvd. I completely understand the desire to have the cars magically disappear from my neighborhood. But the way to do that isn’t to spend money on streets. It’s to spend money on things that will lead to fewer cars – easier carpooling, better buses, better Metro, more cycling, more smart growth.

[dasgeh]

CCrew – I believe you are incorrect in 2 important respects:

@CCrew 9654 wrote:

Vehicles are required to stop for a ped in the crosswalk. That we agree on. The thing is, Ped #2-10 that enters the crosswalk does so in disobedience of the traffic control device (the stop sign).

(Assuming there is a stop sign there, and it meets the definition of a “traffic control device in VA Code, which I haven’t researched) The stop sign requires that the cyclist stop. He did. He proceeded. He did not disregard approaching traffic as he proceeded, because traffic was stopped.

@CCrew 9654 wrote:

If what you say is true, then an endless succession of pedestrians spaced 20 feet apart can legally hold up traffic forever. […] The car isn’t required to stop because someone *might* cross after them.

The situation here and my interpretation of the law would not allow for an endless succession spaced 20 feet apart to hold up traffic. If peds were spaced so much apart, the first peds would completely pass the cars, making it safe and lawful for them to proceed, before the next peds would be in the intersection. On the other hand, if there are, say, 10 peds walking together, once the first enters the intersection, yes, the cars should remain stopped until all cross. Do you disagree that is the lawful result?

In this case, it seems that ped entered, cars stopped. While ped was still in the crosswalk, cyclist stopped and proceeded to enter the crosswalk. Some cars remained stopped. One did not. The one that did not was not yielding the right-of-way to the cyclist crossing such highway. The driver of that vehicle did not “stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously”.

The reason I think it’s important to discuss what the responsibility of drivers is here because we’re probably all drivers and we may be victims of or witnesses to accidents. As a cyclist, I don’t trust drivers to know and follow the law. But when I drive, I try to follow the law, so I like to know it. And I hope that if I have the bad fortune to be a victim or witness to drivers violating the law, I’ll be equipped to help law enforcement evaluate the situation in compliance with the law.

CCrew, I only hope that when you’re behind the steering wheel or a witness/victim to an accident, you don’t act on your incorrect interpretation of the law.

[dasgeh]

Thanks, eminva!

@DismalScientist – I think one of the ways you can lessen the number of cars on the road is to make driving miserable. Another is to make it expensive. Once people realize that their default (driving) isn’t great, they start looking around for alternatives. If the alternatives aren’t readily available, they try to make them available. Look at the expansion of public transport in Fairfax County since the 1970s (as one anecdote). I’m pretty sure there’s lots of research out there on this, but there’s logic behind it.

As a last thought – where do you think all of these cars would go if I66 were widened? It’s easy to say “DC”, but (1) that’s not true and (2) the road and parking network in DC is already at capacity and there’s no extra space to dedicate to it. More congestion = more frustrated drivers = more road rage. I’d say 75% of the danger in my commute is caused by frustrated/impatient drivers, and I honestly believe that if they were more relaxed they would be more responsible. (E.g. not run stop signs to speed up to a stopped line of cars).

[Author]

Posts