[Steve]

@KLizotte 83318 wrote:

These pics were taken by a friend along the Custis trail last Sunday.

Not in the crosswalk. Unbelievable.

[Steve]

@culimerc 83295 wrote:

Is it wrong that I think the bike is every bit as much of a work of art as the mural?

Nope.

[Steve]

@bobco85 83252 wrote:

but his overly aggressive and confrontational methods are sabotaging the message he’s trying to communicate.

I’m not so sure of that. I mean why is it sabotaging his message? It seems like people who watch that video understand exactly what he is saying. They might not agree with him, they may hate cyclists, or they may think he’s an idiot, but I still think they would understand what he is saying.

I really go back-and-forth on this, but sometimes I think cycling advocates are too afraid of confrontation and aggression. Do people think we got in this car-dominated transportation system by the car lobbyists being patient and kind and passive? They are bulldozers. I imagine maybe it’s because bicycle lobbying appears to be more at a grassroots level, users of it, local advocacy, and not run so business-like. I think we suffer from the bike companies not finding it in their best interest to lobby more effectively or aggressively on our behalf, the way car companies and AAA seem to.

[Steve]

@dasgeh 82948 wrote:

Honest question: Why shouldn’t drivers drive in the cycletrack when no bikes are around?

Why wouldn’t that logic apply to stopping at red lights when you’re on a bike?

I think I would say that the cycletrack is a piece of infrastructure specifically built for cycling, in the same way that a sidewalk is for pedestrian use (at least in the central business district, or part of it). The light, on the other hand, is a signal or control. Obviously lots of us think that the uniform application of control laws designed for cars does no make sense. Cars are bigger, faster, do not have all of the sightline advantages or bikes, etc., so I think that applying some control laws differently makes sense.

I obey almost every red light, because I like to set what I think is the right example. But in the morning, I cross the Ohio Dr./Independence Ave intersection to go south on Ohio. That light does not turn to green unless a car is present to trip the light (at least early in the morning). I have NEVER seen it naturally cycle thru. On cold mornings, or humid mornings when my glasses begin fogging, if no cars are coming to be at the light with me, and I’ve waited 30 seconds or so, I tend to run the light.

Bottom line is I think you do what makes sense.

[Steve]

Just as an FYI, the “Ride to Provide” takes place in that very location on Saturday at 0900. It just might be something to consider, in terms of leaving before 0900 if at all possible, or joining if you care to. This isn’t a HUGE event (at least I don’t think), but still will likely have the trail much more crowded than it already would be on a nice day.

http://ridetoprovide.org/page.asp?id=28

[Steve]

That’s such a bummer.

That being said, I would like to think any ding to your metal or carbon bikes should push you one step closer to buidling wood bikes, and that I think is worth celebrating! So here’s to the story that starts Dickie’s new bike company!

[Steve]

@lordofthemark 82028 wrote:

not to go too far off topic, but could we have a sticky or something with geographic nicknames explained, like trollheim? I know we have a forum dictionary but its mostly about things cyclists and others do, not places.

I like the idea! For this instance, in case it is not know, the trollheim refers to the long wooden boardwalk section of the MVT just south of Roosevelt Island. Though between drivers piloting their cars off the GWMP into it and the Roosevelt Bridge falling on it, the trollheim might not be there for much longer….

[Steve]

This morning commute was great. I rode a bit with some guy riding into town who complimented the disc trucker, which always makes me happy. Had a nice tailwind heading south. And it was beautiful out.

I still hate all the TV cameras set up along the Tidal Basin. In particular someone today had put the plastic speed bumps over their wires, which are awful. But I guess what can you do.

[Steve]

@dasgeh 81929 wrote:

For short stretches, this is fine, but when that’s the design of a half-mile of the trail, then I question whether it’s a bike trail.

At some point, if you make bike riding annoying and slow enough, you will chase us into cars. (and you’ll never get the bike-curious to ride).

I measure from the bridge going over to the island up to the start of the ramp over GWMP being 0.17 miles, which is really the stretch in question, I belive (basically the start of the parking lot to the end of it). So let’s not act like it’s longer than it is. I believe the trollheim is actually longer than the length of the parking lots. I also think it’s quite a stretch to imply that people aren’t going to ride because it’s slow thru a short section of trail thru that park.

I think there are places where bikes might be required to slow to pedestrian speeds, at least in order to pass. I don’t think that will ruin cycling for the entire MVT. I also think a widening of this particular trail will help with that, which was part of my stated recommendation.

This isn’t a “bike trail.” It’s a multi-use trail. I just think some of the arguments made here sound unbelievably similar to those made by drivers that don’t like bikes taking the lane. They move to slow, they’re in the way, we can’t possibly be asked to slow down to those speeds, it’s our road…..

I think a complete solution to this area has to consider all users. Safety should be #1. Speed #2. I think that using a parking lot as the bike path is not necessarily the safest solution. And I ride this section every day, so it’s not like I’m not affected by it.

[Steve]

@dasgeh 81900 wrote:

This will mean not only that bikes will be mixing with slower peds, but also that in the winters when the trails don’t get cleared, we won’t have the cleared parking lot option. For the times that I go through there (am/pm rush), anything that precludes the option of using the road will make the situation worse.

I know I’m (mostly) alone on this, but I just couldn’t disagree more. I think the multiple options (on trail/thru parking lot) simply confuses things and makes things more dangerous. I think part of it is the notion that things should always be *easiest* for bike traffic. Well, it’s a tight area, with lots of different types of users, and at the entrance to a park. There are some places that bikes may have to slow down. It’s no different than gravelly point on the weekend, where you might have to slow to a crawl to get thru.

I believe that if the trail was a little wider, cars and bikes were deconflicted, and there was no double 90 degree turn, that it can be a safe and fairly easy, albiet maybe a very slow section of trail.

In snow, I would think that the ramp and boardwalk are much worse than the trail, so I don’t see how the little parking lot section really makes anything in the snow better.

[Steve]

I realize that they are looking for comments directly to them, but thought I’d start some thoughts here at least. To that end…

I would prefer that they shift the south parking lot west, to cover the current trail, and put the trail on what is now the east side of that parking lot. This completely deconflicts cars from bikes. I realize that this might produce a fairly low speed curve, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, and isn’t really different than the low speed curve it would take to cross the parking lot. I also realize that this probably increases the bike/ped conflict, but to me, that’s a better choice than bike/car conflicts. If the parking lot funneled peds toward the bridge in a sensible way, to make for a more narrow trail crossing (perhaps with a painted and signed “crosswalk” this conflict could be pretty reduced. Just my thoughts.

[Steve]

Sometimes I wish bike companies would advertise on TV. And even make cyclists look as normal as car drivers. I can’t think of any TV commercials for a major bike brand, and if they are, I think it would only be like a Madone and show someone climbing a mountain that 99% of riders don’t/can’t climb. Perhaps just a commercial showing a cyclist riding on trails next to heavy car traffic and enjoying their life.

[Steve]

@thucydides 81780 wrote:

That situation on the TR bridge this morning was CRAZY. My jaw dropped through the floor when I saw what was causing the Eastbound backup. Basically there’s a big sinkhole, no it’s really a sinktrench, on the outer EB lanes. (Didn’t they just rebuild this bridge about 5 years ago?) One way or another DDOT will find a way for this to disrupt traffic on the main TR trail (on the cars’ westbound side).

Is it just me, or does the majority of the R-B corridor in Arlington appear to be sinking? Not that this is technically in Arlington, but it’s close…

[Steve]

@vvill 81754 wrote:

In that case, go ahead and get the BB7s! Oh and if your multi tool or whatever doesn’t have a Torx wrench you might want a dedicated one. They’re used for the rotor bolts and can be used for pad adjustment too.

Yes on this! I especially like using a longer Torx screwdriver for this. I got one at the hardware shop in Westover for a couple of bucks. Bascially the interior brake pad adjustment requires the torx head (T25 I think, but I can check), and so adjusting in when the wheel is on means going thru the spokes or around them somehow. With my rack, fenders, seat stays, etc., I found it much easier to use a long torx screwdriver and just going thru the spokes than trying to use any sort of wrench in there.

I hope that makes sense, rcannon.

[Steve]

@hozn 81613 wrote:

I assume not at all. There are more riders in the spring, so more “whining” seems natural.

Ha. My thought exactly. Perhaps if we were in Amsterdam, we would actually hate cycling.

[Author]

Posts