[lordofthemark]

@JorgeGortex 66319 wrote:

Funny, I clicked the link expecting some loud mouth disparaging cycling in some fashion or making light of those that take seriously… but I found neither. Frankly I thought it was pretty well written and from an interesting point of view. Seemed pretty honest, level, and not a statement of defacto reality, but one of personal opinion lending to worthy discussion.

G.

well first of all there was his notion that riding in casual clothes and sans helmet (and with fewer gears) somehow distances him from the students, the hipster, etc. Which AFAICT is exactly backwards. He seems to have conflated high speed/long distance/on road/etc cycling with hipster cycling. Thats a common meme among the “stop the war on cars set” but I think its a statement about “de facto reality” that is mostly incorrect. He sounds plenty hipster, tooling around helmetless on his 3 speed in casual clothes. And the notion that riding sans helmet distances him from the suicidal, or that riding on segregated infra makes him less on the public dime, mystifies me (note that personally I support segregated infra, and oppose mandatory helmet laws for adults). Though both those (cyclists in the road are suicidal, and cyclists are subsidized by drivers) are also memes used against biking. It sounds fishy, to me.

” because I refuse to ride where I’m clearly not welcome.”

This has to be parody, right? Grovel, grovel, grovel. Its pre-Stonewall, pre-Montgomery Bus Boycott, pre-Herzl. I will be a good assimilated Jew/Negro/faerie(?) and not bother the whites/gentiles/normals. But applied to biking. I would find it repulsive even if I knew nothing about biking. Its not impolite to insist on ones rights. I mean this kind of thinking has been on the decline, more broadly, for generations. (I mean does “Slave Morality” come to me mind only to me?)

Will cyclists ride the roads less when there is better seg infra? Sure. Will they obey the law more when law and infra are more designed with them in mind? Sure. Will they ride in casual clothes more when distances and conditions make that more appropriate? Sure. But its hardly the case that this groveling mindset is spreading.

If you wanted to write something about biking, from the POV of an oppressed driver who resents the all powerful bike lobby, you could hardly do better.

[lordofthemark]

@eminva 66291 wrote:

I guess I’ll take the opposing view here — there are probably good security reasons to have the building relatively isolated from other structures. Also, the scale of the thing is so massive, it just wouldn’t look right aesthetically if it were hemmed in like the poor Alamo. It needs space!

Liz

1. that implies it looks right now. Hmmm. (I mean you’d still have an open view from the river side, even if you built on some of the parking lots – especially the more distant ones – there’s a corner near I395 I am thinking of)

2. I would think they could build at least some high security govt offices. I mean why not the FBI (which is now going to end up near the beltway) or even some of the DoD agencies that got moved to Mark Center or Ft Belvoir? I think the reason they don’t want anything is a combination of parking, and a kind of unurbanist mentality that sees even minor security or aesthetic concerns, and jumps at a big parking lot as the best way to deal with them.

That said, if they would do more for people cyling through (even just some improved signage) I would forgive them their massive parking lots.

[lordofthemark]

@Steve 66256 wrote:

Yea, I kinda flip-flop on my feelings about the PNT area. On one hand, they won’t allow anyone to finish the trail around the south side, and make things pretty difficult on cyclists in general. The lack of CaBi seems silly too. That being said, they allow their front porch to be a huge bus terminal, not just for people going to work there, and buses are a huge part of a multi-modal world. You think if the PNT was CIA headquarters instead, that you’d have the bus terminal there? My guess is no, and the PNT has just as sensitive things going on inside as Langley. So they are pretty friendly to Metro and Bus, just not to cyclists. I’ll call that a split, especially because Metro and Bus take WAY more people out of cars than bikes do.

The metrorail station, IIUC was sited there as part of the original metro plan back in the 1960s. And from that, the bus station naturally followed (one of the initial fruits of metro was removing the massive number of buses that stopped on 14th street, IIUC.) And of course very large numbers of DoD employees rely on both. And the bus terminal was rebuilt, farther from the pentagon, after 9/11. For a brief period people transferred at Pentagon City.

[lordofthemark]

@Terpfan 66232 wrote:

So shutting down four parking spaces that don’t even have a trash can is somehow a prudent use of resources during a shutdown? C’mon, it’s political. I get that they’re following orders and that’s perfectly fine, but call a spade for a spade.?

I don’t know the rationale for that. Perhaps whoever ordered it did not go through each parking lot and its charecteristics. How many people at NPS are on duty deciding to what to shut?

And yes, the NPS part could end with either of two votes. I think you’re forgetting the mini-CRs that included them.

I am quite aware of them, but I am not sure the point of them. I was under the impression that the House was refusing to pass a complete CR with the spending levels that the GOP had long supported, because they needed to save us from catastrophe (or tyranny, or socialism, or something). Now it seems the catastrophe is not so bad as to be worth spoiling people’s vacations. This resembles a kidnapper holding a hostage, who wants to provide some creature comforts to the hostage, in order to deter the police from intervening. Or someone who beats their family members to get their way, but is careful to make sure its on places that don’t show in street clothes.

To end the NPS part, while leaving the cuts that are harming the rest of the govt, from scientific research to environmental enforcement to headstart, does not strike me as a reasonable option. Refusing it is not playing politics.

[lordofthemark]

@consularrider 66199 wrote:

While the Bolivians have kicked USAID out of their country, they are mandating bicycle use one day a week in Cochabamba. While here in the good ol’ US of A we have a Georgia legislator who is going in the opposite direction.

The Georgia bill went no where

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/6/article/89826/

Democracy worked, in Georgia at least.

[lordofthemark]

@jhr 66216 wrote:

I don’t really blame the NPS but it is annoying that all the trails are (technically) closed when it’s probably physically impossible to bike from Arlington to DC without either going through NPS land or illegally riding on a restricted access highway.

Wait, Key Bridge?

I took the 14th street bridge last friday, both ways, and the access on both sides was open. I hope to bike in this Friday, and will report back.

[lordofthemark]

@jrenaut 66210 wrote:

There is a pretty consistent anger at NPS here, regardless of government shutdown, because of the way they generally treat cyclists. I would be much more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt now if they were more pleasant under normal circumstances.

My view may be narrower. The part of my commute on NPS property will be improved due to NPS using a transportation enhancement grant to well, enhance it. Ive loosely followed the kvetching about the TR Island parking lot (a lot of my weekend rides seem to pass there), where NPS seems to have made an effort to improve thing. I’ve also had many, many positive experiences with NPS as a hiker, park visitor, etc.

NPS could do better, I’m sure. But for the most part, the folks in the larger discourse berating the NPS for being political are no friends of cycling, AFAICT.

[lordofthemark]

@Terpfan 66205 wrote:

The easier solution appears to be posting that people use the trail at their own risk

So when my wife and I wanted to go winter hiking in SNP, and they shut Skyline drive cause of snow, rather than just inform us of the risks, that was political?

NPS has a difficult job under current circumstances, and will be damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. If folks are angry about lack of access to parks, the place to take that anger is the folks who could change the situation overnight with a simple vote.

[lordofthemark]

Today I test rode a Specialized Sirrus Sport http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/fitness/sirrus/sirrus-sport at Freshbikes. Another zippy bike, this time 700×28 wheels and 3×9 gears. Cheapest hybrid (?) they had in the store. Nice, but I think the Kona works just as well for me, and this cost $590.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66020 wrote:

It’s certainly possible to go any distance on a flat bar bike, that’s why I stuck to phrases like “many people are more comfortable” rather than claiming an absolute advantage. The larger point is that for a 6 mile ride on a budget, any possible difference isn’t worth worrying about. Could be he tries the Dew on a century and it works out, could be he tries the Dew on a century and it doesn’t work out, either way it doesn’t matter if the plan is to use the bike for a 6 miles commute and the century is s future hypothetical. Buy what works for the current need, and if the need changes, then see if another bike is necessary.

This sums up the situation nicely. That said, I appreciate everyone’s ideas.

[lordofthemark]

@jabberwocky 65946 wrote:

It really depends in your personal fitness

as in A. if you’re really fit, you will overcome the things on a hybrid that make you go slower, and you will be fast anyway or B. If you aren’t going that fast to begin with, the aerodynamics won’t make that much of a difference (days with major headwinds excepted)? C. something else ?

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 65934 wrote:

I’m seeing a lot of parallels with economic forecasting already.

macro forecasters are like the ELITE among economists

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 65933 wrote:

This can translate into more flex in the frame. The geometry is designed for sitting upright, which is better for riding in congestion & light use but (for many) fatiguing for long rides (due to aero effects as well as weight distribution between hands, feet, and bottom)..

what distances are we talking about? 20 miles? 200? Seriously, while my current commute is about 6 miles each way, if the drop bar (and associated attributes) is helpful at only a bit longer than that, I really owe it to myself to test ride some road bikes. If it doesn’t really become an issue till we are talking about century rides, I don’t think I want to take up my bike shopping time with that now.

[lordofthemark]

@ShawnoftheDread 65927 wrote:

That was an economist’s way of telling you he doesn’t have an answer. Reminds me of Harry Truman saying he needed to find a one-armed economist, because every one he had would tell him “on the one hand…. but on the other hand… and on the other hand….”

actually theres a technical term (which I am applying loosely) for what we are doing – hedonic pricing. The idea is that a good is actually a bundle of attributes, and what you will pay for the good is based on what you will pay for the attributes. The attributes being driven (at least in this case) by features/specs of the good.

So the principle attributes I will pay for are – reliability, comfort (for me, and granted even for me that differ by terrain, ride length, weather, etc) speed (on flats, up hills, etc). My sense is that the tradeoff among road bikes, road leaning hybrids, and MTB leaning hybrids (have I got that right?) is that the as you in the direction of the road bike you get higher speed, and more comfort on longer rides (cause of differences in positioning) while giving up reliability, and giving up “commuter comfort” (esp the greater visibility one gets in an upright posture). There are also stiffness of ride issues, but Im not sure I grok those.

What Im trying to get a handle on (pardon) is the relation of the bike specs to the speed attribute, in particular. I thought the major drivers were weight, aerodynamics from rider position, and tire size and width. Some above have also introduced efficiency related to frame shape, which is about more than simply the flatness of the handle bars, IIUC.

[lordofthemark]

@Greenbelt 65902 wrote:

Durable, light, fun to ride, versatile, high value. Not really intended for the longest rides — has mountain bike roots more than a road bike.

Okay, help me with this (not only WRT to the Dew, but more broadly) The bike is light and has 700CC tires. What makes it so far from a road bike? Lack of drop handle bars? The tires not being narrower than they are?

[Author]

Posts