[jabberwocky]

…Are the comments there always that stupid? I’m not familiar with that site. :confused:

[jabberwocky]

For the record, my best battery life from my 800 was doing the Kill Bill Century from Reston in 2011. I think I was out for 13 or so hours, and it was just about dead when I got home. Like anything that uses li-ion batteries, the capacity will slowly degrade over time, but mine is several years old and still works well enough on longer rides.

I think the battery life is good enough for 99% of normal rides. External USB batteries are readily available and inexpensive if you need to boost it for something crazy.

[jabberwocky]

@Tania 108793 wrote:

I’d love to be able to download a pre-existing Route By Dirt.

I download Dirts (and other) road routes often to follow on solo rides. I actually upgraded from my old Edge 305 to the 800 solely for that reason. Note that while Garmin wants to sell you their maps, the openstreetmap database is superior and available for free online.

[jabberwocky]

I’d say one of the 500 series if you just want recording (cheaper and smaller), or an 800 series if you want real time navigation. I’ve had an Edge 800 for several years now and have been very happy with it.

@jrenaut 108791 wrote:

My worry with used is that the battery life won’t be great. Can you replace the batteries?

The batteries are built in, but the battery life on the Garmins is generally pretty excellent. My edge 800 easily lasted for 10+ hour rides when new. You can also hook up external power if you’re doing uber endurance stuff (its just a mini-usb charger, so any phone/usb external battery works fine to charge it, or you can ape Dirt and run a generator hub with a USB hookup and ride forever and ever).

[jabberwocky]

@kwarkentien 108585 wrote:

I’ve been told that e-bikes are legal on bike trails but there may be a speed max.

I think thats the case for general transportation infrastructure (e-bikes are basically considered bikes if they have less than a certain amount of power, and motorcycles if they have more than that). But I’m pretty sure the area MUPs flat out say “no motorized vehicles” without any exemption carved out for e-bikes.

There have been several e-bike threads on the forum where this has been discussed. We also have several folks here who commute on them. The rules are one thing, but I’d agree you’re focusing on the wrong thing here (the bike, rather than the dickwaffle riding it).

[jabberwocky]

No, motorized vehicles technically aren’t allowed at all.

[jabberwocky]

Sure, plowing with the blade a bit above pavement doesn’t leave you with a clean surface, but its a massive improvement over what they used to do, which was nothing. I commuted on the W&OD year round up until I lost my previous job in 2010, and the really frustrating thing was knowing that sections would be a rutted icy mess for weeks unless the temps warmed up long enough to melt it all off. Plowing most of it off may mean people need studs, but its at least rideable pretty quick.

[jabberwocky]

@vvill 107713 wrote:

Just ask Fairfax County Schools

I tried, but as soon as I said the word “snow” they screamed “DONT SUE US!” and closed schools.

[jabberwocky]

IME, this is the problem with wool socks. They are warm and retain their insulative value when wet, but don’t dry quickly. I always try and remember to toss an extra pair of socks in the bag if its going to rain on the ride in. Putting on wet socks is awful.

[jabberwocky]

@dasgeh 107107 wrote:

I would add that, in addition to your points, we’re looking to minimize the harm inflicted when “casual lane infractions” happen. In other words, slowing down traffic so that when someone does make a mistake, the risk of death or serious injury is lowered.

True. And also probably differentiate between deliberate acts (like “I want to make a right turn in 1/4 mile but I’m stuck in traffic. I’ll just drive up this bike lane to get there!”) and accidental stuff (I’m moving at low speed and checking a text an drift over into the adjacent lane). A cursory look online says curbs may be worse in the second case, because a car bumping into a curb can actually be pulled into it. But in cases where someone wants to be a special snowflake and have their own personal lane, a curb is obviously better protection than bendy posts (though I think people underestimate how easy it is to drive over your average curb).

I dont have a lot of experience with the post-protected separated lanes. Do cars go through the posts frequently?

[jabberwocky]

@lordofthemark 107093 wrote:

In contrast to white paint, which one can cross at speed without damaging one’s car. That is my point. A car going over a curb at a low speed is a lesser danger to pedestrians or cyclists than one going at high speed, ergo curbs ARE protection, whether that is the intent of putting them in or not.

The question is whether we are looking to protect against casual lane infractions (like, people drifting over while distracted, or trying to cut into/across a bike lane to avoid traffic or similar), or whether we are looking to protect against more violent accidents (like someone losing control of their car).

In the first case, I really don’t know how much better a curb is than posts. Its a better physical barrier (in that its slightly harder to drive over a curb than a flex post), but its also a less apparent obstacle (so someone who isn’t totally paying attention might run up a curb before they would go through something more obvious like flex posts). I personally put them about equal, but thats pure conjecture on my part and it would be interesting to know what the data actually says.

The second case, both are about equal, in that they do basically nothing. An out of control car will go over a curb with almost zero loss of momentum, and will obviously go right through flex posts.

[jabberwocky]

I think anything that improves things is good. Paint is (generally, if done in a non-stupid way) better than nothing, flex posts/curbs are better than paint, fully divided infrastructure (walls, large swath of grass, etc) is better than posts. I see it as anything that makes it easier to get around will get more people riding. As more people ride, the case for better infrastructure gets stronger.

There are, in my mind, two levels of “protection.” There is actual physical protection, where it isn’t possible for a car to enter the lane (like walls or totally separate infrastructure). Then there are visual cues, like curbs and flex posts, which won’t actually stop a car from entering the lane, but at least make it pretty obvious cars aren’t supposed to enter.

[jabberwocky]

After another damn bout of illness (walking pneumonia this time) I had to reluctantly store the bike for a few weeks while the body recuperated. Clean bill of health yesterday morning from the doc though, so I’m back on the bike this morning. I was slow, my legs felt like jelly, it was 18 degrees when I left the house and I couldn’t stop grinning.

[jabberwocky]

Its actually too big for me, but a lovely bike.

[jabberwocky]

@PotomacCyclist 106181 wrote:

The Custis Trail already runs along I-66 for most of the route in Arlington. Does anyone know what sort of upgrades are being proposed here? Are they significant upgrades? If so, where? Or is this just a way to lower any opposition to the I-66 proposal? Arlington has battled with VDOT in the recent past over proposed HOT lanes on I-395.

The cynic in me says that these are usually part of the proposal just so they have something they can cut when people whine about cost/environmental impact/etc.

[Author]

Posts