[mstone]

wait, your quick release skewers are loose enough to rattle, but don’t cause enough of a problem to notice until reading the magazine?

[mstone]

@baiskeli 36090 wrote:

So cyclists need never stop or slow down when approaching a crossing?

You’re raising straw men again. Let me put it in real simple terms for you. Current state of law if pedestrian is hit in intersection: “motorist probably at fault, but has the opportunity to convince a jury that the pedestrian was negligent”. State of law if pedestrian is hit in intersection given proposed changes for stop signs: “pedestrian was at fault”. That’s it: the only thing that changes is that a jury is no longer responsible for determining what happened and the pedestrian has no protection in law. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BEST PRACTICE OR COMMON SENSE, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY TIMES YOU ASK WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD DO WHEN APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION.

[mstone]

@DaveK 35996 wrote:

There’s a flip side to this – if the message gets out that the signs are not enforced and people think they’re entitled to blow through the signs, what then? How does an officer assign fault to between a cyclist who runs an unenforceable stop sign and a vehicle that is required to yield to cyclists in a crosswalk?

Count me in the fold that the signs are valid and should be enforced, but should be enforced realistically (slow rolls shouldn’t earn you a ticket). There should be some traffic controls at these intersections – trail and driver behaviors aren’t to the point where we can trust both to manage the crossings without guidance.

We’ve been over this ad nauseam. What should happen is what the law requires: cars yield to vulnerable road users in a marked crosswalk unless there is a traffic control signal. Nobody should ever suggest otherwise and no signage should confuse this very simple concept. Pedestrians don’t have much going for them in this car-centric society, they should at least get deference within their lousy little white-painted ghetto.

What happens if a driver hits someone in a crosswalk? Simple–he should be cited for hitting someone in a crosswalk. If he thinks that the crash was unavoidable (that is, he attempted to avoid the crash, but it was physically impossible to do so–not that he was texting and didn’t look until he felt a bump) he can go to court and make his case. This is why we have a court system; police officers are not the ones responsible for determining negligence.

What should be done to mark the intersections? Put up big signs in the street indicating that there is a crosswalk. Drivers should know that means that people will be crossing there and should therefore proceed with caution (in practice, this means they should slow down as they are probably speeding). A sign can be placed on the trail notifying cyclists that there is a crossing of a high speed street where drivers often fail in their responsibility to proceed with caution, so that trail users know to cross with increased vigilance.

What if we don’t want cars to slow down or stop? (I know, why would we?) Options:
1) Grade separate the crossing
2) Install a (legal) signal which would indicate that pedestrians should stop until vehicular traffic is stopped, at which point the pedestrians can proceed. (This would be a HAWK or other crossing device.)
3) Remove the crosswalk markings to make it clear that the commonwealth expects pedestrians to scurry from cover to cover with no more safety or legal rights than a mammal in the age of dinosaurs.

This isn’t rocket science.

[mstone]

@sjclaeys 35989 wrote:

The question is how does this get communicated to Falls Church and Arlington police.

everyone who gets one needs to fight it and not just pay the fine. they’ll get the message, because they get dragged to court for each one. (whereas if you just eat it, they’ve got no incentive to change.)

edit to add: and yes, this is a PITA for everyone getting a ticket. consider it your civic duty for the month.

[mstone]

@Tim Kelley 35899 wrote:

It takes you 2 hours by bike, but only 20 minutes by car? What’s the hold up?

If you were Mark Blacknell, I’d tell you to just pedal faster.

I have similar differentials. Traveling on grade-separated car infrastructure (with no stops) is a huge factor when compared to how many times you have to stop on a bike.

[mstone]

if you yank hard enough your foot should just come out

[mstone]

@dbb 35672 wrote:

The idea of a “turtle basking station” was kind of neat. Most turtles just use a log or a rock but the turtles at the beaver pond will have basking stations. Sweet!

I think I’m going to start calling my comfy chair the “basking station”.

[mstone]

For a nice, seasonal recovery drink, try egg nog–it’s festive and yummy.

[mstone]

@thecyclingeconomist 35619 wrote:

And if you over wear the chain and cassette…then just keep riding till they start skipping when you really put power into your pedal stroke…no point in spending the 75 to 125 bucks now…

Or until it breaks…

[mstone]

You shouldn’t have to change the cassette at the same time as the chain unless you wait too long to replace the chain.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 35575 wrote:

The issue I have with private companies operating what should be a public function is the economics behind it: private companies are run to generate a profit. Public agencies are run to serve the public. While there may be some room for “savings” when private companies provide public services, such that the private company can generate profit, and the public can get the same benefit. But in practice, public agencies have a pretty good track record of providing services at low cost. The biggest “cost” driver is that public agencies bare all the risk (practically speaking, there’s no bankruptcy option), so public agencies are often more risk adverse. But in the long run, the public basically pays the same cost (in expected value) because if the private company does go belly-up, the public agency is still on the hook.

Anyway, hope some of that made sense. It’s getting late on Friday…

There’s also the argument that private companies can be more efficient. Which may be true–but redundancy is a good thing sometimes, especially when it comes to critical services. Circling back to the thread topic, anyone who’s been stuck in carmageddon traffic or a scary weather event can attest that having more than one way home is a good thing.

[mstone]

@JeffC 35555 wrote:

nothing requires a 75 or 100 year term

Yup, you can use a short term, at which point it becomes a service contract rather than a generational burden. But then you don’t have the appearance of free money which makes all this public/private partnership so rosy on the campaign brochures.

[mstone]

@JeffC 35549 wrote:

That does not mean that every public sector lease of property is necessarily a bad deal for the public though, done right there is no reason it cannot be a “win-win” situation. Of course, who wants to hear about a win-win situation in the press, far more entertaining to read about the disaster cases like in Chicago and us scofflaw bikers!

And if we could tell ahead of time which were wins and which ones weren’t, that would be a valid point (but we don’t, which gets back to the risks to the taxpayers). And since we don’t, it makes no sense for people now to screw their grandchildren just so they can kick a budget can down the road a bit. 75 and 100 year infrastructure deals are ridiculous. 75 years from now there’s a good chance we won’t even be using cars as we know them today, but our grandchildren won’t be able to do what they want with that chunk of public land because it’s been signed over to someone else (and would owe the company money for lost revenue if traffic declines). Consider that 75 years ago horses were still making deliveries in the area where the HOT lanes are, and most of urban DC was well served by public transit. There’s this weird tendency these days to think that the last 40 years or so are THE WAY THINGS WILL ALWAYS BE, which is inexplicable given the changes we’ve seen over the past few generations and the lack of obvious reasons for changes to stop coming.

[mstone]

I don’t have any problems with charging for road use, I have a problem with turning public infrastructure over to private companies for short-term revenue tricks. We all know that the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for anything that goes wrong (the public gets all the risk) so why should we give away the rewards?

[mstone]

@Certifried 35504 wrote:

the HOT lanes are government owned, but operated by a private company for 75 years – source: WTOP this morning, I don’t know much more than that. Being from Maryland, I don’t care enough to research it :p lol

You know those dystopian books/movies where heartless, greedy corporations own all the essential services? It’s like that, but real life.

[Author]

Posts