[lordofthemark]

@mstone 63548 wrote:

The same is true anywhere in the US–I can easily point to roads in Arlington that I wouldn’t ride a bike on.

I did not mean to imply that Fairfax is unique in having some/many unrideable roads. However I find in Arlington that between the trails, the bike lanes, and the availability of parallel roads, I seldom have a problem getting places (note I do not ride in the northern corner of ArlCo). Whereas in the part of Fairfax in which I live finding useable routes is a constant issue (though its improved a bit lately – at least I have a better route to the south now, and the route due north has improved as well – but within Annandale,and leaving it to go due west, due east, and northeast are all problematic – and are motivators to using the bike racks on the local buses. I am probably in the “enthusiastic and confident” category.

But I support FABB’s advocacy to improve things. Things will get better.

[lordofthemark]

“Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!” http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2010/10/abandon-all-hope-ye-who-enter-here.html

more seriously, I suppose it depends both on where in FFX you mean, and what kind of rider you are – “strong and fearless” riders have a wider range of options than many of us.

far be it from me to discourage anyone, or to challenge more experienced riders who are just fine with riding on roads in FFX (and there are quite a few such riders on this forum). But see for example http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?3153-Why-is-Annandale-Road-considered-a-good-route and http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?5711-Cycling-in-the-US-from-a-Dutch-perspective&p=62572#post62572

[lordofthemark]

Its 1899. A. The railroad is going to get an easement to run a RR on your property, which they will exercise for as long as railroads in your area are profitable.

B. The railroad is going to get an easement on to run a RR on your property, which they will exercise for as long as railroads in your area are profitable. If and when the railroad abandons the property, the easement will pass to the state, if and only if, they build a multiuse trail for cyclists and joggers. Which they may not due depending on demand and funding.

Granted, the right given up in B is worth more than in A. Sure. But $1 million a mile (suitably adjusted back to 1899 or whenever)more ????? Someone else can do the math on what that comes to per acre given the typical ROW width, but it sure sounds high to me. IANAL – is it proper to evaluate an easement with an uncertain chance of eventually become a trail (and surely, the vast majority of abandoned rail lines eligible for rails to trails have not been railbanked?) based on the assumption that rail banking is/was a certainty?

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63058 wrote:

Drivers can, and should, use the bike lanes when making a right turn.

Yes, where they are striped with a broken line indicating the lawfulness of doing so. They also, IIUC, have the right to cross them to park.

IE there are specific limits on when they can and cannot enter them. While bicyclists can always enter them, and can ride in them for distances.

IE they are an instance (and an important one) of bikes and motor vehicles being treated differently in the law. As are (most) limited access highways.

[lordofthemark]

@Hancockbs 63046 wrote:

Taking it just a bit further, if you filter past cars that recently passed you in a safe manner, don’t you think they have a legitimate beef if they have to wait to pass you safely again?

I personally would never filter in such a situation. There are places where filtering can enable me to get quickly to a bike lane, or to where I was already planning on going onto a sidewalk. Both are situations not applicable to motorcycles.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63049 wrote:

I don’t think the right to filter stopped traffic is specific to bikes. Cars can filter on the right to make a right turn if there is room. Generally lanes are not sufficiently wide for cars to filter each other.:rolleyes:

The special right of bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk makes them no longer road users when doing so. As such it is not a special road rule.

The “rule” that bicyclists ride on the right is really a rule that slower traffic stays to the right, whether motorized or not. Unfortunately IMO, this rule does not seem to be enforced against motorists any more. If you are riding at the prevailing speed of traffic, you have no obligation to stay to the right (as far as practicable).

Here’s the Va code

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-905

whatever you think it “really” is, the code makes specific refererence to bicycles.

The distinction about sidewalk rules not being “road rules” seems arbitrary to me. The fact is bikes have different rights on public infrastructure than motor vehicles do.

and that still leaves bike lanes, which are on roads and allow bikes, but not motor vehicles.

[lordofthemark]

@Hancockbs 63046 wrote:

Having hit a pedestrian who was not in a crosswalk one dark night many years ago, I can tell you that they are NOT the only ones to suffer the consequences of their actions. It does have an effect on the other people that become involved in an incident.

Thats why I said almost. Quantities matter.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63032 wrote:

The problem with “benign” cyclists running red after stopping and seeing that all traffic is clear and then proceeding across is that it would be perfectly safe for an automobile driver to do the same thing. (I’m not talking about signals not detecting cyclist here.) Defending this behavior by cyclists and not automobile drivers is basically saying the cyclists should have special rights. I don’t think this is a good way of establishing comity between road users.

Arguably there are visibility differences – cyclists can see better than motorists can (a similar argument is made about the Idaho Stop). And of course if a cyclist errs in their crossing, the consequences are almost always going to be entirely to themselves. And there are cyclists who want to get out ahead of turning traffic, and be more visible, as a strategy to be safer. No similar argument for autos, which are not as vulnerable.

I do not feel myself an experienced enough street rider to be able to judge other riders who make those claims (or who might).

Cyclists DO have special rights. They have the right to filter between lanes of stopped traffic, to ride the sidewalk in most places, and to ride in bike lanes and on trails. Just as motor vehicles have the right to drive on limited access highways where bikes are banned. And they have no requirement to stay to the right depending on circumstances, as bikes do. There is a meme out there that the obligation to share the road, and the rule that bikes should in general act as vehicles, means that bikes and motor vehicles are the same under the law. They are not.

Now a benign red light violation may impair comity. True. That impairment is finite, and each rider can weigh that against all other considerations.

We have as much right to judge someone for their contribution to comity through their cycling practices, as we do to judge people for their contributions of time and money to bike advocacy.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 63023 wrote:

Honestly, I think there’s a difference here between how you behave, and how you judge others’ behavior. Personally, I don’t run reds. Ever.

But when I see others run reds, I try not to judge. They may be on their way to perform heart surgery. They may know the light and route and judge it safer to run the light than not. They may have gotten really bad news and are rushing home to deal with it. They may have gotten an email from their boss demanding that they GET TO WORK RIGHT NOW. I don’t know. I’m sure not everyone has an excuse, and even if they have an excuse, it’s just that. Still, it’s not mine to judge.

What is mine to judge is whether the police department sets up a sting to ticket those cyclists that do run reds. I judge that to be a waste of police resources, which would be better put to enforcing laws that keep others safe.

This. There are only a few situations at this point where I would proceed through a red (eg a sensor controlled one that doesn’t change, but IIUC thats legal if I wait long enough) but based on all I’ve read about the advantages and disadvantages, the safety implications, etc I have a hard time judging someone who stops at a red, and then proceeds through it safely (judging someone who proceeds through without slowing, in a dangerous fashion, is something else). I am sympathetic to the notion of improving the optics to alter the political situation – but there are many ways to do that – lobbying, donating money to bike advocacy, explaining the bike POV to your neighbors etc. Some of us will choose to forego some time savings to do so. Others beleive that in certain instances proceeding through a red is to their safety advantage, and others do not think the optics effect is worth the cost in their time. As a cycling advocate, I respect their right to choose what to give up for the sake of optics.

[lordofthemark]

@Hancockbs 63011 wrote:

I love the use of data, but data should be used in creating and changing the law, NOT in deciding how and when to enforce existing laws. There are many problems with using data for selective enforcement, not the least of which is that the data can be interpreted in many ways. I still say that if you/we don’t like the law, work to change it rather than asking for selective enforcement.

given finite resources, prioritizing enforcement is also a policy decision, which can be supported by data.

[lordofthemark]

@NicDiesel 62995 wrote:

Enjoy waiting for Godot.

There are more cyclists today than there were 5 years ago.

And fewer than there will be in 5 years from now.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single turn of the pedals.

You and I, we will change the world

http://hebrewsongs.com/?song=aniveata

[lordofthemark]

@Dickie 62980 wrote:

The “meaningless” aspect is only for those that do not see the consequences of their actions, but for those law abiding cyclists like myself who are stopped with the rest of traffic at a light I see the head shakes and disdain growing in your wake. I just love how some cyclists want more respect from drivers but refuse to earn it.

Increasingly I beleive that we will earn respect from drivers, when more drivers ARE cyclists, and understand the issues. But of course when we reach that point, the infra (including signals) will be changed to reflect the issues.

Which means that arguing over idaho stops, red light sensors, etc is less important than getting more people on bikes, whatever way we can.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 62981 wrote:

This is why I think speeding in areas with little kids, and speeding more than 35 mph should be enforced more than speeding 30mph in a 25mph.

I wish that when I drove 30MPH in a 25MPH zone, people wouldn’t tailgate me or flash their headlights because I go too slowly.

The reality is we are very very very far from universal enforcement of traffic laws. The notion of eliminating the 10MPH speed “buffer” over the limit is a dream (at least in Fairfax.) Police simply don’t have the resources. And speed cameras are illegal in Virginia (shows how much poliitcal will there is to enforce traffic laws). Discussions of enforcing everything need to take place in this context or they are unrealistic, and thus poor guides to policy.

[lordofthemark]

@Hancockbs 62946 wrote:

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.

So I can get them to ticket the woman in the SUV who was sitting in the crosswalk on LRT the other day, and when I shrugged at her after walking my bike past, she just shrugged back (though she had room to back up). I took a pic with my cellphone – I didn’t actually manage to get the license legibly, but I hope I got her thinking.

[lordofthemark]

@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.

I will say that this http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?5593-How-do-you-know-when-a-light-is-set-for-sensors was a definite learning experience for me. While I hope to review all relevant laws, I think there are a number of situations (traffic light red but ped light set to “walk”, light controlled by sensor, light where there is little cross traffic and biking on red after stopping provides a way to avoid turning cars while being more visibile to cars going in the same direction) that I want to think more about.

[Author]

Posts