[lordofthemark]

@ShawnoftheDread 45237 wrote:

Depends in how you plan to get to Williams. If you mean take the CCT to Prosperity to Highland, you won’t like it. The block or two you have to ride on Prosperity is hilly, narrow, and fast.

If you want to use the sidewalks and parking lots adjacent to the hospital to cut over to Williams, then it works pretty well.

The latter. Lafayette Village to Trammel to Aston (today I went up Hummer but that’s force of habit because I take Hummer when I go south or east or to the busstop on LRT) to Gallows, to the crossing, and thence on whatever way around the hospital is easiest.

[lordofthemark]

I did this today. I agree with the OP, the south path is doable. Note the western crossing has a 90 degree turn adjacent to the curb cut – I’m more comfortable dismounting than riding through. I will definitely use this for access to the CCT heading west.

It looks on a map like you can go west around the hospital and avoid Gallows up to Williams south of rte 50. I wonder if this would make a good route to Mosaic and Dunn Loring?

[lordofthemark]

could he be free associating with the more serious question (IIUC) of cyclist caloric intake? The key CO2 there is not the CO2 the cyclist breathes out, but the CO2 released by the farm machinery, manufacture of fertilizer, etc, used in growing the incremental food.

A. Of course if the cyclist is someone who eats enough they would otherwise be overweight, they can cycle, eat the same amount, and not be overweight (or less so). Zero incremental calories eaten.
B. If the cyclist would otherwise be working out at a gym, playing tennis, etc and their cycling substitutes for that, then zero incremental calories eaten.
C. if all the incremental calories are from sustainable agriculture sources, then quite possibly (Im no expert on sustainable ag) minimal incremental GHGs. (Why do I think that this legislator might find someone who both eats organic AND bikes insufferable?)
D, IIUC even if you assume all the calories burned by the cyclist are incrementally eaten, AND they are from conventional sources, cycling may still be more efficient depending on your technical assumptions about biking and the MPG of the car. I would note that the fact that our incremental petroleum increasingly comes from high GHG sources (IE its not just the CO2 out your tail pipe, its the CO2 the canadians are using to get the stuff out of the tar sands) would lean things further towards cycling. It also matters if the incremental calories are from cattle or not, IIUC, sustainable practices aside.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 45215 wrote:

I’m now curious just how slow you shift.

I’m not sure I even know how to explain it. I have found some youtube videos that I think will help me, at least on uphills where I found myself having trouble downshifting.

[lordofthemark]

To the adult weaving around on a kid’s bike on the MVT today.

Thank you. Even slowpokes like me like to pass another bike rider once in a while.

[lordofthemark]

Is it fair to say that riding east on the Custis its very good to be able to shift gears quickly and smoothly? I did the Arlington Loop again today (the wind wasn’t nearly as bad as two weeks ago so just finishing is much less an accomplishment – I was faster of course, but not fast enough to want to talk about it) I got the strong impression that I went slower on the Custis and worked harder than I should have, even given my level of fitness, weight, bike, etc because I was not shifting smoothly or quickly enough to take advantage of downhills, get into the right gear for uphills, etc.

[lordofthemark]

I guess at this point I am more a recruitee. I had a coworker who commuted to downtown DC from maryland, did bike racing and similar, and was always talking about biking. He just retired, but has promised to come for bike to work day to see me actually commute in (even though it will almost certainly be a transit to bike commute for me). He gave me advice on various things as I started out.

I will talk to others if asked, but don’t feel knowledgeable enough to do real outreach.

[lordofthemark]

If and when cycling/bike riding is as taken for granted in these United States as vacuuming is, or as bike riding is in the NL or Denmark, I will be unconcerned with the tendency of non-cyclists/nonbike riders/cagers/whathaveyou to identify cycling/bikeriding with racing.

It may be that the equation of cycling = racing (with other words for “non sport” riding) does not get in the way of the cultural shift from where we are, to Copenhagen. I’m not sure though.

None of which means I am against articles about racing, of course.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 45018 wrote:

I like this idea, but don’t really like “bike commuting” as the generic term, because I think one of the biggest areas for growth is in the non-commuting transportation area. I know a lot of people who would never dream of commuting to work on a bike, but who have expressed interest on using bikes to do more local errands (grocery store, getting into the R-B corridor, local parks and libraries with kids). Any ideas?
.

I like cycling for riding a bicycle in general, and bike racing for racing. Will that cause me to be misunderstood in the bike community?

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 45005 wrote:

Perhaps the issue is only with the headline writer.

this. I have no problem with articles like this. It was more a bit of disappointment clicking on the link.

And no, while I’ve seen articles on bike lanes and so forth in the WaPo, I’ve never seen anything like what I would expect for “cycling the way forward’

As for cycling vs other terms – bike commuting won’t do, as there are lots of transportation cyclists who aren’t commuters, and there are lots of recreational riders who are not racers. And “biker” generally means motorcyclist. Bicycle rider would work, But its a bit long and awkward.

[lordofthemark]

eh. I was hoping a WaPo article on cycling’s road forward would be a grand synthesis of whats going on in the region (or the country) in terms of ridership, bike infrastructure, CaBi, biking law, safety and education, road sharing, etc, etc. Would have been a nice balance to the Examiner’s “war on cars” lead article today. I don’t think the identification of cycling with racing is actually helpful. Could anyone imagine an article called ” driving’s road forward” that focused on Nascar, Formula 1, etc???

[lordofthemark]

@hozn 44541 wrote:

I definitely echo the sentiment that no one in their heated seats is looking out with envy — or with admiration — at the cyclist riding by in the rain. That sentiment — and I’ve certainly had it cross my mind — is 100% smugness-induced and has no basis in reality. I’d like to believe they’re envious, because being cold & wet sucks. But they’re not.

Am I the only one here who also drives? Because on some occasions I see someone cycling from my car and I do admire them – and on other occasions envy them. Though usually not both at the same time.

[lordofthemark]

@hozn 44541 wrote:

I know there are other people that believe strongly in cycling as a way of life. I respect that, but when it turns into an expression of superiority — environmental or otherwise — I think it does disservice to the cycling community.

Urban planners, transportation planners, and folks concerned with sustainability DO consider cycling (and other ways to reduce gasoline consumption) part of strategies to address global warming and other environmental issues. I was a supporter of pro-biking policy before I got back to cycling myself, and I would remain so if I stopped biking. Just as I support hybrid vehicles, though I may never own one. I hope that is not doing a disservice to the cycling community.

[lordofthemark]

@ShawnoftheDread 44536 wrote:

The commonality here is rampant smugness, widespread enough that it’s easy to project onto everyone in those groups. I tend to hate all those categories of people too. Yes, often even the cyclists. Quit being smug, people. You’re not saving the earth, you’re just doing something you like.

I would say all have the potential for smugness – as does giving to charity, volunteering, etc. I think its a natural temptation when doing something that expresses one’s values. And of course anyone whose cycling is taking the place of transportation that causes GHG emissions (and of course those who refrain from eating red meat which is associated with methane and carbon intensive agriculture) is doing something to save the planet – and I say that as a driver and a meat eater. Fair trade coffee does not save the planet – but it may help some campesinos a bit. I have some in the house – I usually buy non fair trade, but I think going out of one’s way to buy some is no more reason to be hated than giving money to a charity is.

[lordofthemark]

good comments by rcannon and shawn.

yes, the rudeness is often expressed by drivers towards other drivers – if you’re not going fast enough (even driving the speed limit).

Which is both the kind of personal power issue Rcannon mentions – but its also about the “code” thats out there now, which is different from the law. Driving the limit, or just below it, is violating the code (though its legal). Biking in any way that inconveniences drivers (or appears to) violates the “code” even when its perfectly legal.

But add to that is guilt. Recreational cyclists are keeping themselves fit. Transportation cyclists are not using gasoline. Whether the cyclist consciously thinks this makes them better or not, many non-cyclists project that onto them. I bet many (most?) motorists who hate cyclists also hate Prius drivers, vegetarians, consumers of fair trade coffee, and other “elitist hipsters”. Its part of a larger culture war – I’m not saying thats whats causing poor motorist behavior, but its certainly behind some of the hate one sees in the media, on the internet, etc.

[Author]

Posts