[mstone]

@elcee 9116 wrote:

Apparently the “no right turn on red” option has been studied, and would cause too many backups on I-66.

Because, of course, maintaining 66’s current well-known reputation for clear, fast-moving traffic is more important than pedestrian safety. It is obvious that prohibiting people from turning into pedestrians would cause 66 to back up during rush hour. :rolleyes:

[mstone]

I’m confused–I thought that corner was intended to be a Darwinian selection mechanism.

[mstone]

I sent a PM with detailed notes, but I’ll say that I’ve seen quite a few racks attached to various buildings in the area. E.g., here’s one that’s under a roof that always seems to have bikes parked in it: http://g.co/maps/7pdhz

[mstone]

@eminva 8962 wrote:

As of this morning, the traffic signal at this crossing appeared to be totally non-functional. Cross at your own risk.

Not the first time in the past few weeks–something seems up with it. In all honesty, I kinda like it that way in the early AM, since it makes the wait much shorter. Side note: the priority of the light is obviously too low when you can wait through several large traffic gaps before getting the walk signal. Other side note: PM rush is much more crowded, hopefully it gets fixed before then.

[mstone]

it was nice to see the bike to school kids, but sad that they all went away again

[mstone]

@eminva 8631 wrote:

Can’t imagine what the insurance must run on an operation like that.

Very little; in the event of a serious incident, the company just disappears and leaves no significant assets. Same principle explains why the $1 bus companies can save so much on driver training and insurance versus greyhound–the latter has actual physical assets to go after.

[mstone]

I suspect they really don’t understand how ones’ eyes can adjust while wandering in the dark, and how differently things can be seen while dark-adjusted vs light-adjusted. (I almost ran over someone in the car the other day because she was literally walking in a travel lane in the dark in the rain carrying a pizza. Speed limit 35 on that road, and she was behind a curve and a sound wall. I was driving slow because of the low visibility, and I really hope someone else going faster didn’t flatten her. I’m sure she was very visible to herself. Crossing the street to use the sidewalk was apparently too much work, and walking in the grass might have gotten her shoes dirty.)

[mstone]

I use a set of the Novarra transfer panniers, pretty cheap if you get them on sale, and fairly simple. They sort of snap on to the rack, and I’ve never had trouble with them falling off even on bumpy off-road trails. There are a few complaints about the clips breaking, but my best guess on that is that some people don’t read the directions and don’t remove the insert that sizes the clips for thin rack rails when they’re using thick rack rails. As others have said, they’re also great for getting a few gallons of milk, etc., from the store. I probably wouldn’t use them for long-distance touring, but for commuting and shopping they’re great.

[mstone]

to be fair, the “right to turn after red because you had to wait for a pedestrian” doesn’t actually exist even if widely practiced. at busy intersections what’s really needed more often is a pedestrian-only cycle, as much as that would inconvenience motorists.

[mstone]

Agreed, the “you have to walk your bike through the intersection” meme is the result of hazy half-remembered rules told to drivers when they were in elementary school.

I’m somewhat appalled, but only mildly surprised at the level of idiocy on the arlnow site.

Isn’t it hilarious when drivers start ranting about cyclists and then claim that it’s really all about the cyclist’s safety? If they were really concerned about safety they’d just slow down and pay attention and we wouldn’t have the problems. Like those idiotic W&OD stop signs — sure, it’s all about cyclist safety, and not about avoiding inconveniencing drivers by not putting stop signs on the cross streets.

[mstone]

@RideTheWomble 7744 wrote:

Exactly. The intersection is regulated by conflicting signage and signals. It’s dangerous enough, without all the ambiguity.

What ambiguity? Is there some legal standing that I’m not aware of for a word painted on the sidewalk that conflicts with a traffic control device? Just assume it’s graffiti and move on.

[mstone]

With the modern plastic eggshell cars, a fender bender isn’t necessarily much cheaper than totaling the car if it’s more than a couple of years old. Injuries are where the money is, and people can claim neck pains after even a low-speed crash.

[mstone]

That’s a good question. Best bet would be a paper manual or something that came with the bike. In my experience, most bike companies are morons about actually posting that stuff on the internet, I don’t know why. To some degree it depends on your own weight, and in the absence of any actual documentation from the manufacturer you can guess that the bike is probably designed for a total weight (rider+rack+etc) somewhere around 200-250lbs. Adding weight on the rack is different than adding weight on the rider, though, because it’s distributed entirely on the rear wheel. If the kid is small it won’t matter, but as the weight goes up you’ll want to watch the bumps, especially on a 700×25 road bike.

[mstone]

Remember to also check the bike’s weight rating for racks…

[mstone]

@GreyBear 7384 wrote:

If motorists aren’t supposed to stop at that crosswalk, then what exactly does the crosswalk signify?

I’ve long wondered that myself, whenever people claim that there’s no requirement to stop for someone about to cross. I suppose that perhaps they believe that if a pedestrian is in the middle of the street but not in a crosswalk it is legal to simply run them down, whereas it is not legal to run them down if they are in the middle of a crosswalk.

[Author]

Posts