[mstone]

@CCrew 17012 wrote:

The yellow traffic paint one would think would be a dead giveaway.

That doesn’t really answer the question. “Why wouldn’t they make it flush?” “So they can put bright paint on it to reduce the danger.”

[mstone]

I hate dogs. I had some lady the other day with a pair of the damned things on the ends of leashes lunging and barking and she’s saying “it’s ok, they bark but they’re very friendly.” what a load of hooey.

[mstone]

The whole conversation is surreal. A vanishingly small percentage of metro users is asking for a disproportionately large resource expenditure for studies, rule making, enforcement, etc., from an already under-resourced and overstressed system. There have been proposals like “well, only the first and last cars, which aren’t as crowded”. So we’re going to expend all that effort over, at most, 4 out of 1000 people on the train. And the entire concept only works as long as it’s not particularly popular, because if too many people do try to do it there’s no way they can fit even under ideal circumstances. All because someone didn’t pay attention to the rules and couldn’t avoid the 3 hours. It might be worth looking at the numbers and seeing if 7 is the right time, maybe 6 would be adequate. But trying to come up with a system of zones and directions? If metro has the time to spend on that, I’d rather see them working on making the trains run on time.

[mstone]

ugh. why on earth would they think that was better than making it flush?

[mstone]

that’s why a bell is better than yelling at someone

[mstone]

The “inner core” idea is somewhat farcical on some lines even now, and will become even more so with the silver line. There are a whole lot of crowded trains outside the core. The platforms are better, but does anyone really believe that people will really not try to cram bikes on overcrowded trains once they’re on the platform?

[mstone]

before 7 things were extremely quiet. of course, there may have been crowds that i couldn’t see through the thick hovering water.

[mstone]

I had a ferociously hissing goose recently.

[mstone]

I use the continental contact, but in 700c. Dunno how different they’d be in 26″. I’ve been pretty happy with them.

[mstone]

@Greenbelt 16586 wrote:

I think Metro should allow bikes on trains during rush hour only in the first (front) car and only at the operator’s discretion. That is, when he or she opens the little window, you ask if you can board with your bike. Most of the time the front car is less crowded, especially on suburban or off-direction runs, and this would allow many cyclists to use Metro as needed. The cyclist would take the risk if trains were too crowded and boarding was denied by the operator — you’d just have to wait for an uncrowded train.

That wouldn’t solve the problem of hoards of tourists with bikes on overcrowded platforms. Trying to have different policies for different places is unmanageable–there’s no way they could control whether people got off at the approved stations. Heck, they can’t even enforce the system-wide “no food” policy anymore.

[mstone]

This thread is kinda making me feel like I’m gonna hurl.

[mstone]

@PrintError 16460 wrote:

The simple solution to all of this is to stop at stop signs. Even if it’s just a quick 3-4 second track stand, it’s worth it.

Except that, in practice, it isn’t. It is tremendously confusing for cars when a bike at a crosswalk stops. What does the car do? Start moving again because the guy on the bike has stopped and isn’t clearly proceeding? What does the guy on the bike do? Stay stopped indefinitely because the car might decide to go because of the above? Should both parties just remain stopped and wave at each other? There’s a reason that the stop sign isn’t an approved control device for pedestrians. It’s much safer to simply clear out of the street while it is safe to do so than to stop and confuse everyone involved.

[mstone]

@chris_s 16270 wrote:

Also – incandescent bulbs? Seriously?

Given the level of vandalism, I wouldn’t expect expensive bulbs to be a good investment…

[mstone]

@DCLiz 16262 wrote:

No, the Zoo’s giraffes were moved to other zoos to make way for the expansion of the Asian elephant habitat. The new Elephant Trails will make the National Zoo one of the few places in the country that can house a multi-generational herd of Asian elephants, including full grown bulls.

well, I (and the giraffes) am happy to be corrected.

[mstone]

@Terpfan 16229 wrote:

By definition you will be stopping as well as overtaking the bicycle, in which case you throw 18.2202.09 in which discusses ‘safely clear of the overtaken bicycle’ the 3′ rule and the previous discussed no stopping in a bicycle lane law. I think you get some legal ambiguity in that sense. The solution of the DC council is to specify the law in this regard the same way they do in 18.2202 noting if it’s an actual bicycle lane, etc.

it still seems like you’re creating confusion where there doesn’t need to be any. if it’s not safe to pass and move in front of the bike, you slow and move over once the bike is past. what am I missing that makes this so complicated?

[Author]

Posts