[mstone]

@baiskeli 16171 wrote:

I don’t get it.

This implies that cyclists never have to stop, even for stop signs. If they are legally pedestrians at crosswalks, I still don’t think pedestrians can just jump into traffic if it’s not safe. This case would imply that nobody was at fault – that there’s no law at an intersection except that cars must yield, even if a bike or ped jumps right out in front of them.

No, it implies that the person was cited for the wrong thing, making the citation invalid. The person still might have been found at fault and could have been cited for violating a different provision of the code (as outlined below) but that doesn’t validate the original citation issued in error.

[mstone]

@MCL1981 16070 wrote:

I’m not bleeding heart by any means, but this just seems incredibly crule. An animal like that should be in a pen with some room to move around… you know like maybe… a zoo”?

Didn’t the zoo’s meet its end during the great zoo animal die-off?

[mstone]

@Terpfan 16067 wrote:

The tricky aspect of this question is the word ‘stop sign’. Otherwise it would clearly fall under the regulation requiring vehicles to move to the right. However, in the case of a stop sign, the vehicle is not moving right to avoid traffic per say. In fact, doing so may confuse vehicles at other sides of the stop sign (that’s why you rarely see stop signs on four land roads). However, by placing a cycletrack/bike lane there, they have by default created the four lanes of traffic in which case further signage would be needed to indicate the right of way.

Or, put short, the DC code is actually conflicting on this manner. You could argue it both ways.

I don’t see a conflict. You’re moving to the right to turn, in compliance with the law.

[mstone]

Hmm. Lots of geese? You need fenders.

[mstone]

yes, the lack of a helmet was obviously the determining factor in a collision that involved being run over by three axles.

[mstone]

I think encouraging the tendency to focus hyperbole on ultimately unimportant problems is equally unlikely to help anything. Would it help if I wrung my hands and shouted “WOE IS US”? Then I’d be allowed to get past something I can’t do anything about and which doesn’t hurt society as a whole and get back to focusing on something that actually matters?

[mstone]

@MCL1981 15408 wrote:

That could be because murder is common enough to be considered normal behavior. Think about it, if someone gets murdered, people “oh, again?”. If someone on a bike cuts them off in an intersection, they say “Damn WTF is wrong with that guy, he’s going to cause an accident and hurt someone.”

I’m talking about killing people with cars. Until something is done about automobile road safety, it is foolish for a single dime or a single news story or a single thought on all the scary dangerous cyclist behavior that, statistically/factually, doesn’t kill people the way cars do. Now, if you want to, you can buy into the dangerous bicycle meme, but I’m not going to waste time thinking about that versus SUVs flying off 66 onto neighborhood streets in Arlington without slowing down–it is just so incredibly less likely that I could get killed by a bike hitting me in an intersection than that damn SUV that it simply doesn’t bear consideration. If you are really interested in pedestrian safety, then push for a cop to stand at every major intersection and ticket every car that cuts off pedestrians in an intersection so it can make a left turn on yellow. THAT will make us ALL safer.

[mstone]

@OutsideTheLaw 15381 wrote:

I don’t understand why those bike slow red bikes don’t come with helmets.

Because few people want to put other people’s skanky sweat on their head.

I’ll ignore the rest of the pointless bashing.

[mstone]

@MCL1981 15374 wrote:

And making the peds have jump out of the way, dodging the nutcase on wheels is much better? Making cross traffic have to weave or slam on the brakes is better? Running the red light is better?

Yes, all of those things are better than actually killing people. Which, for some reason, garners less attention from police and “reporters”.

[mstone]

Depends on how you planned it. If you planned a turn at monument you’re golden. (Until you get to 29 and the spot where your choices are to go west on 29 or turn around and ride back to the previous intersection so you can cross west ox to cross 29 to get to the parkway.) If you were planning to take the the path through fair lakes it’s unlikely that your map has kept up with the construction, and there are enough intersecting paths that even with a good map you’ll be a mite bewildered. That’s if there’s still a path where you were expecting one. Maybe we should just steal the signs from the 123 bypass and move them to where they’re more needed.

[mstone]

@btj 15186 wrote:

Wonder what that entails?

Presumably it’ll be like NYC, where they start giving cyclists more tickets than cars because, you know, cyclists kill more people.

[mstone]

There’s not much that can be done about it. You know they won’t do a story on the number of cars speeding, or the number that stop in a crosswalk, because that won’t rile people up and sell ads.

[mstone]

@vvill 15094 wrote:

It’s cool, but my dream would be if the right lane of every multi-lane road was sharrowed by default. Then the funding for roads would benefit cyclists as well as other road users.

I’ve seen people ride on the parkway, but you couldn’t pay me to do it with or without sharrows. Typical speeds are over 60mph, and I have young kids.

[mstone]

@CCrew 15101 wrote:

Saw a notation in the FABB article about the bad signage at the I66 crossing. Does it actually go beyond Fair Lakes area? We rode it last year (on carbon road bikes – not again!) but had to bail at Fair Lakes because we didn’t see where it went further.

You can take either monument or fair lakes to west ox and pick the trail up again south of lee highway. If there’s any signage at all, I’ve missed it, and you have to cross a bunch of streets as the trail does the annoying “it’s cheaper to make the cyclists cross the same street repeatedly than to pick one side and stick with it” thing. There’s another detour further south around 123, but I think that one might actually have a sign. (It’s also harder to miss as the trail simply ends and there’s only one way to go across the street.)

And yes, the only spot between the W&OD and 66 suitable for a road bike is the spot where they put in the temporary detour 5 years ago for utility work, so the trail runs on the road for a couple hundred feet. Since it’s a road, it has been repaved since it was built.

[mstone]

also the shimano a530

[Author]

Posts