[mstone]

@lordofthemark 194169 wrote:

According to the NHTSA, data from 2010 to 2015 shows that a majority of bicyclist fatalities occurred on urban roads, as opposed to rural roadways. During this period, 69.6 percent of bicyclist fatalities were in an urban environment, while 30.4 percent were in rural areas.”

Unfortunately, normalizing that data is near impossible so determining the relative risk is also a guessing game. At some point trying to squeeze more information out of bad data is an exercise in futility and it makes sense to just do something.

@scoot 194173 wrote:

I don’t have the data at hand, but the urban cyclist fatalities surely do not contain the same fraction of “motorist overtaking bicyclist, non-intersection” as the rural ones do.

I’m not sure there’s really good data on that either. Certainly cyclist collision investigations leave quite a lot to be desired in my experience–I’d guess that some non-trivial fraction of “he swerved into me” aka “cyclist failed to yield right of way” should fall into this category except that the official report contains only the driver’s opinion. I can think of at least one local urban fatality caused by a sideswiping truck, and I’m sure that’s not an isolated incident–consider peoples’ experience of close passes that didn’t kill them. (“Motorist overtaking bicyclist” does not mean “ran over like a steamroller”.)

[mstone]

@Tania 194151 wrote:

I learned of the county boil orders AFTER making coffee.

Assuming a coffee maker, you should be fine–most will get the water more than hot enough to kill stuff in the water. (Recommendations to boil water for 10 minutes or whatever are bs: 158 degrees for one minute will kill to 5 9s. Bringing the water to a full boil is a mechanism to ensure you hit the 158 degree point in the absence of a thermometer; leaving it at a boil for a minute adds a safety factor; boiling longer than that means you have access to cheap energy.)

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 194123 wrote:

To be fair, didn’t Forrester say leading cause of cyclist crashes or injuries, not fatalities? From what I can gather (including by personal experience) collisions at intersections tend to be at lower speed (while hit by overtakers would be at higher speed) . While the former could still be fatal (esp with a very heavy vehicle like a truck) they are generally less serious.

Mostly I think he expressed personal preference via very poor datasets. Hopefully, though, we’ll be able to move beyond wishing the world were different and actually designing safer infrastructure–the drivers sure aren’t getting any better. (I’m not particularly optimistic about this, though, as things seem to be getting worse in these parts as VDOT keeps optimizing for vehicle LOS and “faster wider better”.)

[mstone]

@buschwacker 194133 wrote:

Isn’t this just coded transphobia?

it was coded?

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 194106 wrote:

It seems it was actually the Popeye’s and the issue was the chicken sandwiches.

Those things are dangerous.

[mstone]

I guess the people who didn’t feel safe with cars whizzing past were right, Forester notwithstanding?

I did find it interesting that their data has multiple categories for “cyclist failed to yield” but none at all for “motorist failed to yield”. I guess motorists always follow the rules.

[mstone]

@EasyRider 194069 wrote:

I see you point, but I guess I’d say there are rules, and then there are norms. To me, the value in a speed limit sign is the norm that it communicates — that it isn’t OK to go as fast as you please without concern for more vulnerable trail users. There’s an implied threat of enforcement that is yes, largely toothless. I’m open to alternative signage that communicates the need for courteous behavior in a simple, brief way. We could just put up more “Hey, be a PAL” signs and hope that works.

The problem is, that isn’t what the sign communicates. It says that you’re perfectly ok going 15MPH (+ the 10MPH courtesy window) which is flat out dangerous on a crowded trail. If the intent is to encourage safe trail use, then the implementation should align with that goal–not slap on a speed limit so that bikes have to “follow the same rules as cars” even though the concerns and vehicles are more different than the same. (A speed limit sign for a car is greatly restrictive–a 20MPH bike speed limit would be like a 120MPH car speed limit, and how many of those do you see in the area?) I would love to see ideas for legislating safe behavior (rather than arbitrary and capricous restrictions that don’t really enhance safety) but it seems that it’s really hard to do so (and the concern dasgeh raised about selective/harassing enforcement is huge when it comes to things that boil down to using good judgment).

[mstone]

@EasyRider 194019 wrote:

I don’t agree. I’m not a hater. I’ve been riding here for 20 years. I think ebikes make speed limits a good idea. if we’re going to allow vehicles capable of going nearly 30mph on MUPs, vehicles which specifically appeal to and are often operated by individuals lacking experience, speed limits are helpful. Sorry if that offends; with power comes responsibility. A unenforced speed limit of 20mph on a MUPs would affect probably 2% of pedal bike riders, half of them going downhill. Basically, I think a 20mph speed limit would gesture at keeping ebikes from running amok and have almost no effect on everybody else.

We’ve already been repeatedly assured that ebikes can’t speed because classes. So a 20MPH speed limit does absolutely nothing. (Logically it can’t be enforced until someone’s doing 30, which will come up so seldom that there’s zero chance that the police will commit resources to it.) If there’s a serious desire to implement a rule to improve safety, then it needs to mandate taking trail conditions into account (a speed of 15MPH is way too fast for a crowded trail, and a speed of 25MPH doesn’t affect anyone if the trail is empty–I’m much more concerned by things like passing dangerously than by absolute speed). But mandating safe behavior is hard, and slapping a useless speed limit sign on the trail is easy, so we get the useless one.

[mstone]

Speed limits on trails are stupid except to satisfy haters who want bikes to not be “special” and have rules even if the rules are stupid. There is absolutely no reason to ever post a trail speed limit.

[mstone]

@Hancockbs 193944 wrote:

For me it’s mostly walkers.

I also hate getting passed by people with walkers

[mstone]

@Dickie 193878 wrote:

when it comes to the Manassas, Centreville, and Chantilly area I have no idea what to expect. My work location is at the new NVCC STEM Fab Lab on the Manassas campus off Battlefield Parkway

I think you mean battleview parkway? At any rate, it’s basically the cyclist scene from Dante’s Inferno. It wasn’t great even 10 years ago, but there used to be quiet back roads. Then they kept building houses so VDOT needed to “upgrade” the roads… The problem you’ve got is that 66 is basically a wall, and the only holes in the wall are complete trainwrecks at rush hours. In theory the bike trail thrown in as a sop for the 66 widening plan might help, you can look at the maps and see how things will change. With VDOT actively hostile to bike/ped improvements it’s hard to see them following through with something that will actually make it safe/pleasant to bike there.

[mstone]

@huskerdont 193782 wrote:

Not the place for a full review, but wanted to comment that, while I love this light as my handlebar/secondary light, I don’t think it would be bright enough or extend far enough out to be the sole light for trail use. I have my helmet light, and the two together are just right (50 lux for the B&M, 600 lumen for the NR helmet light).

For others reading, the ixon iq premium has the same kind of beam shape, but is 50% brighter. (And is also bigger.) I find that one’s bright enough, but I still keep a helmet light for backup and as a steerable beam.

[mstone]

@ginacico 193731 wrote:

Goes w/o saying the consequences are worse if colliding with an oncoming ton of steel at high speeds.[/quote]
I’d argue the opposite–a head-on collision between modern cars more likely than not results in everyone walking away without serious injuries; a head-on between two cyclists will almost certainly result in injuries, possibly life-altering.

Quote:

I’ve had dozens of those scorching flashlights with diffuse beams (the most recent one was literally branded as Scorch 2.0, bright af). If they’re bright enough to light my way, they’re obnoxious for anyone coming toward me. Maybe we should pass out index cards and rubber bands to jury rig hoods over the darn things. Count me in for advocating for better designs even if it means, like Germany, we institute some new standards.

One thing worth noting is that the non-cutoff beams are better for off-road use (seeing overhanging branches, twisty trails on hills, etc.) so banning them completely is probably a non-starter. But certainly, on a road or well-maintained trail, a properly shaped beam is better for everyone.

[mstone]

@Starduster 193723 wrote:

A crosswalk at 13th & L St NW, DC. No, no e-scooters nearby to challenge/ignore this.[ATTACH=CONFIG]20443[/ATTACH]

is that a diy sign?

[mstone]

@ginacico 193677 wrote:

Not putting myself at risk for some really questionable etiquette.

“Questionable etiquette” is a key phrase here. Among some it’s become important to be seen dramatically taking action to fiddle with a headlight. These people get angry if they can’t see someone actively fiddling with their light when passing–regardless of the whether the light is bright, or dim, or well aimed or poorly aimed–because they think it’s “polite” to do so and “impolite” to not do so. I think everyone should actively reject this fashion–DO NOT TOUCH YOUR HEADLIGHT WHEN PASSING PEOPLE. Advocating light-fiddling as a social norm is downright dangerous: people should have both hands on their handlebars and be focused on not colliding, not waving a hand around and fiddling with their headlight when passing someone. Advocating for well aimed and well designed headlights is much more productive, and safer.

[Author]

Posts