[mstone]

much of the rider’s weight is on the pedals and arms, whereas the rack has a bunch of weight on a long lever that responds to every bump.

[mstone]

I’ve also been happy with the headwinds so far.

Side note: every time I see this thread title I think, OF COURSE you should wear pants when it’s cold.

[mstone]

I agree that verbal warnings are counterproductive. Regardless of what the caller thinks, most of the time the recipient can’t really understand what’s being said and needs a perceptible period of time to figure it out. The bike bell is pretty unambiguous. The verbal caller also needs to decide whether to call from a distance (actually allowing some reaction time for the pedestrian, but increasing the probability they won’t be able to understand) or wait until the last minute (so they’ll definitely hear, but what’s the point–they can’t react that fast anyway). You can ding the bell far enough away to see what they’re going to do before you get there. If you’re with a bunch of regular cyclists, go ahead and shout. For a mixed use trail, find a nice bell.

[mstone]

so you’re one of those people who just wants to speed along far in excess of the posted limit and expects everyone else to get out of your way. got it.

[mstone]

@Mark Blacknell 10068 wrote:

I think a signalized crossing on the parkway itself is more likely. Wouldn’t be hard to time it so it doesn’t create backups, and people crossing don’t need to wait forever (I’ve been at that crossing 10+ minutes, before).

The problem is that NPS would rather pave the parkway with nice, natural bodies than put in a light and spoil the natural beauty and scenic views of traffic. A signal was a simple and obvious solution a long time ago.

[mstone]

@Roscoe 9971 wrote:

Perhaps if you weren’t trolling you’d notice the glaring inconsistencies implicit in your reply, or you’d notice several facts that you either didn’t comprehend or choose to ignore.

First, the majority of cyclists on the MD roads I refer to are riding singly. Or in file. So for you to suggest that there are no accidents because they are taking the lane is…..perhaps wrong. Since most are not.
[/quote]

Taking the lane has nothing to do with how many riders there are next to each other; I can do it alone or I can do it with someone. The assertion made earlier is that if you’re taking the lane anyway, riding two abreast doesn’t change the situation for following traffic.

Quote:

Second, If what you advocate is so “essential for safety”, why is it not universally, or even by majority, advocated ? It’s a provable fact that the vast majority of cyclists in the area do not consider taking the entire lane essential for safety….since if they did, they would DO SO !!

It is advocated quite often, as in the language you misread above from the MD manual, safe cycling training, etc. I’d guess that more people would do it in unsafe situations if they didn’t have misguided notions about “being courteous” that makes them hesitate to take the safest option.

Quote:

It’s simply an astonishing amount that DO choose to ride abreast for solely an increase in discourtesy, but no gain in safety whatsoever.

And there you go again. Since you’re completely convinced that you know what they’re thinking and that they can’t possibly have any thought of what’s safest for themselves, why continue the conversation? Everybody you disagree with is obviously wrong.

Quote:

It’s not just discourteous, it’s counter-productive – they force motorists who may not be very skilled to make the more dangerous move of passing in an entire oncoming lane.

Again, I’d rather it be dangerous for them than for me. Them having a head-on collision with another car at sub-highway speeds in a modern car is probably a walk-away accident. Them forcing me off the road because I have no room to maneuver probably is not. (Or, they could simply wait until it’s safe for everybody. Your original scenario of a twisty narrow road with bad sight lines and a double yellow line sounds exactly like the kind of scenario where people should just sit back and wait rather than squeeze past–whether they’re a little bit in the other lane or a lot in the other lane.)

Note: I have never been on the roads under discussion. I have been on a number of roads where it’s unsafe to ride near the edge, and am offended by the idea that nothing but rudeness can explain not wanting to do so.

[mstone]

@Roscoe 9944 wrote:

I have NEVER seen a cyclist hit in years of living right next to some of the most heavily cycled roads in Montgomery County. But EVERY weekend I see traffic backed up and travelling at 15 mph (if that) on many roads near here because some cyclists show courtesy, while an astounding number revel in their opportunity to flex their ego and achieve their small victory against motorists by slowing them down unnecessarily.
[/quote]

Perhaps you’ve never seen an accident because so many cyclists are protecting their safety by taking the lane…

Quote:

Which of course doesn’t even factor in the fact that many motorists are not very skilled and most of the “swerving back into their lane” occurs when they have to pass riders abreast by going 100% into the oncoming lane.

Unfortunately, accident statistics don’t bear that out. The major difference between the approaches is that the cyclist who takes the lane has a couple of feet of pavement to his right to give him some options, and the cyclist already at the edge of the road has no way to avoid injury. It is extremely common for motorists to have no idea where the right side of their car is, and these motorists will approach the cyclist regardless of how far they swung into the oncoming lane.

Quote:

What’s the problem with the bikers just showing a little courtesy in the first place ?

Well, if you’re not trolling you would have noticed by now that what you consider “discourteous”, others consider “essential for safety”.

[mstone]

@Roscoe 9920 wrote:

And it inconveniences the traffic more because they not only need a larger gap to make this longer pass, they frequently cannot judge the situation as well with their imperfect vision of the road caused by the cyclists riding abreast. Which obviously results in longer back-ups behind the cyclists. As does the fact that numerous motorists may lack the confidence to pass completely in the oncoming lane. Sure, you can say that those motorists SHOULD have greater skill and confidence….but with some of the poor drivers and elderly folks on the road, it’s just not the case.

I’d much rather have these uncertain and nervous drivers inconvenienced by having to slow down than to have them attempt a pass, chicken out when they see oncoming traffic, and hit the cyclist as they swerve back into their lane. That scenario is extremely common, which is why it is sometimes essential for the cyclist to position himself in the lane in a manner which precludes someone from “squeezing past”. Drivers tend to flatten the cyclist rather than risking a sideswipe by another car. There’s a difference between “courtesy” and self-preservation. If there’s not enough well-maintained shoulder to have an escape route on the right of the white line, the escape route needs to be the right several feet of the lane.

[mstone]

@CCrew 9732 wrote:

Funny though, I have 1/2 a floor of lawyers here at my disposal. They agreed that by the letter of the law I am correct. The *spirit* of the law however it could go either way in a courtroom. One of the problems with many cyclists though is that they interpret the law to their best advantage.

Since we don’t have access to those lawyers and we don’t have any idea what you actually asked or how you presented it, that line of argument is somewhat akin to “I know I’m right because I got a message from god telling me I was”.

[mstone]

@CCrew 9701 wrote:

Not to mention: Section §46.2-924B of VA law states: “No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in
disregard of approaching traffic.” which means that you can’t just arbitrarily assume that you can step out and have the right of way.
[/quote]

You seem to misinterpret “disregard of approaching traffic” to mean that you can’t cross if a car is present. If the pedestrian notes that the car is stopped at the crosswalk, he has fulfilled his duty to exercise care and may reasonably assume that the car will remain stopped while he is in the intersection. Please refer to PHILLIPS v. STEWART 148 S.E.2d 784 (1966) which holds that even if the car is merely slowing the pedestrian may assume that the car is properly yielding the right of way.

Quote:

I’m not making up law. You refuse to admit that your intrepretation of a crosswalk is flawed. The curb is not legally the crosswalk. Feel free to cite legal prescedent.

You’re not making up law, you’re making up fact. The pedestrian was in the intersection when the stopped vehicle started moving. The curb has absolutely nothing to do with this.

[mstone]

@CCrew 9674 wrote:

Wrong. Crosswalks are in the roadway. They are not part of the sidewalk. Therefore your standing on the trail does not provide you the legal justification you seem to think you have.

Legal Definition of a Crosswalk | Pedestrian|
“That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway; and in of the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at right angles to the centerline. (b) Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.”

According to Section 3B.17 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), crosswalks serve the following purposes:

“Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. Crosswalk markings also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not controlled by traffic signals or STOP signs. At intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk.”

Please also check relevant judicial precedent. I believe that the courts have found that there is a clear intent by the legislature to allow people to cross the street, and it is not the case that people have to risk their lives by stepping into the street before cars need to yield. That flies in the face of your argument that a stream of pedestrians can hold up traffic forever. The answer is: yes, they can. The other possible interpretation is that a stream of cars can keep pedestrians from crossing forever. The precedent is that pedestrians have a higher right (and in practice there is not generally a solid stream of pedestrians so this is not an undue burden on motorists).

Note also that regardless of that precedent, any argument that a car can start from a stop while a pedestrian is actually in an intersection and then run into the pedestrian is completely unsupported by the law.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 9661 wrote:

I-66 is not jammed at rush hours; it is restricted

Do you actually drive on 66? I’m gonna vote “jammed” on this one.

Side note: the survey people tell me that the proper response for someone who commutes by bike a couple of days a week is to select bicycle for the “part of the primary commute” question. I hope I’m not the only one for whom that wasn’t an obvious approach.

[mstone]

There’s no way to represent biking less than 50% of the time. I complained about that in a follow up email. At least I got a $5 starbucks card–the survey took a lot longer than I expected.

[mstone]

I consider the helmet light to be the primary–the front mount light doesn’t have the predictive turn feature. I could get one with a wider pattern, but then people would really complain. I usually switch from solid to blinky when it’s too bright to see the light on the ground. Blinky saves battery, but helps with visibility when you’re caught in sun rise/set glare. Oh, and look down and right when approaching another light. (Keeps from blinding people with the helmet light and also keeps you from staring into their light and blinding yourself.)

[mstone]

I keep a spare lock in the bike locker at work. The propriety of doing so depends somewhat on the environment. (I hate when there are so many locks on a rack that there is no room for a bike.) But if there’s enough space to keep it out of the way, it beats dragging the thing around.

[Author]

Posts