[thucydides]

He always took a lot of care to not interfere with the riders. Alas you can’t say that about many of his imitators or those engaging in this insipid new fad of taking selfies with oncoming riders.

[thucydides]

@dkel 99290 wrote:

I do think it’s pretty interesting that I get some drafting advantage even by staying back a few bike-lengths, which is as close as I get to others unless passing.

I sometimes practice maintaining three bike lengths since that’s the rule in most triathlons. It’s a surprisingly difficult skill to master, especially on the lumpy Custis.

[thucydides]

@Starduster 98580 wrote:

Flashing/blinking lights, from the original Vistalites on, were and are *defensive* countermeasures to get the attention of larger vehicles that could kill you. On the street, perfectly fine. But on the trails, say, the MVT? Defensive measures are no longer needed. Cars and trucks are gone. *You* are the “biggest, meanest mutha'” on the road. Old Vistalites and the CaBi bikes are not bright enough to be painful for oncoming traffic to deal with. But high power strobes, both front and rear? Another matter. And incredibly rude to oncoming traffic- your fellow cyclists. Besides, how can you see the that rut ahead in flash mode?

I’ll violate my vow to myself to avoid these threads. Everything you say is quite reasonable and I personally think the solution to this will come with market developments more than anything. But…what bothers me about the above statement is two-fold. First, none of us that I know of both live and work right next to a trail. We travel via road to the trail and we travel via road from the trail. Second, every trail in the area — including the MVT if you’re far enough south — features dangerous at-grade road crossings. In dusk or dawn lighting conditions a strobe from the helmet into a driver’s face at, say, Lynn and Lee Highway, is far more effective than no light (duh) or a continuous light. (I certainly agree that a strobe in truly dark conditions makes little sense.) I’d rather the approach be about creating a norm where cyclists are aware of the impact that their lights have on other cyclists and learn to react accordingly — just like we all learn to do with hi beams on cars — rather than yell or scream at people that shouldn’t have X type of light.

[thucydides]

@arlrider 96635 wrote:

I will say this if we are trying to see a silver lining (trying to be more positive after my previous thread) – kudos to ARLnow for a headline that states the facts as they are, and kudos to ACPD for supplying those facts rather than just saying that the matter is “under investigation” or whatnot.

Good point. Because as I’m sure you’re implying, given the nature of ArlNow if the headline or article said it was “under investigation” then there would now be about 40 posts on there blaming the cyclist.

[thucydides]

Perhaps this has been mentioned elsewhere and I missed it. The daily counter is stuck on zero.

[thucydides]

@vvill 96006 wrote:

It’s in the list but yeah, it’s running TWO days this year! (I’m assuming it’s a reversed course on the second day so the race flow will be different both days.)

I recommend the rookie race if you just want to try one CX race, it’s open to just about any kind of bike, and riders of any age + skill level, and you don’t have to get up early to ride it. It was my first CX race a couple of years ago, and I even got a beer hand-up.

So what’s your read on the “beginner” races that I see listed on some events. (Most don’t have rookie races though as you noted DCCX does.) They’re listed as Cat 4/5. Now you couldn’t pay me to race a Cat 4/5 crit. Have you watched or participated in any of these beginner CX races?

[thucydides]

@Terpfan 94678 wrote:

I can’t conclude it’s for revenue, but you can conclude these automated traffic control devices are for safety?

The technology and cost arguments are bunk. All new vehicles will require a backup camera a little over two years from now. The standard backup camera assembly for a vehicle costs more than ignition interlock device and the actual use in cars is far newer than IID. So it’s safety checked by people’s desire for safety?

Sure the government could tax you more, but that will draw a lot of unpopular ire. That’s why so many state and local governments will nickel and dime you with fees, assessment modifications, et cetera. Few people notice when you phase in a fee increase to say an angler’s licenses.

I don’t doubt some camera emplacements are driven by safety; however, after asking one friend who works in local government if it was about the money, he replied, of course, why do you think they’re on X Rd (I’ll leave his workplace off as I don’t think he would appreciate being directly associated with the quote). He then proceeded to say, but that enables them to spend more money on roadway improvements, city events, police, etc.

We live in a federal system. Local governments don’t have the power to require automobiles to use the kind of technology you’re suggesting. Even if was legal it sure wouldn’t be practical. (The rear-camera rule you cite is coming from the federal government [specifically the NHTSA as authorized by a 2007 statute.]) A local government can only use the tools it has available. Do local government’s want the revenue, sure? Do they put cameras in places where they’ll maximize revenue? Of course. But they can maximize revenue there because people are speeding or running redlights there. Maybe one day the feds will impose the sort of technology you suggest though the politics around that would be…interesting.

[thucydides]

@baiskeli 94478 wrote:

Forget about what’s legal for a moment – is running at night in the roadway actually safer than on a sidewalk? It wouldn’t be my choice.

Yes

[thucydides]

I suspect drivers drive onto trails for more often than cyclists get on highways like 66 and 395.

[thucydides]

And now another at 3rd & E Sts, NW. Crikey.

[thucydides]

@jrenaut 92201 wrote:

The Secret Service is the most self-important organization I’ve ever had any contact with. They actually said to us that complying with new DHS accounting regulations would require them to remove agents from the President’s detail, which is so BAT[expletive deleted] CRAZY that I can’t take anything they say at face value, ever.

They may pay lip service to bikes here and there, but they are actively hostile to anyone riding a bike anywhere near the White House, so F them.

I’ve interacted professionally with the Secret Service a LOT over the last ten years. This mostly includes circumstances where they aren’t on a security detail, but I also frequently have business in areas secured by them. Almost without exception I find the agents on an individual basis to be friendly, engaging, and professional. Almost always when I’m dealing with them in a security circumstance I’m impressed with their professionalism and efficiency. (In direct contrast to the Capitol police, SCOTUS security, and, of course, MPD.) Yeah they can be aggressive in security situations, especially where they are operating in relatively unsecured areas. I bike around the WH a fair amount and have never experienced any major incidents with them but I don’t doubt they look at cyclists as a particular kind of hard-to-defend-against threat, so no doubt some of the agents overdo it. As for the budget stuff. Unfortunately that’s bureaucratic SOP when it comes to budget battles and it’s certainly not unique to the Secret Service. Any reduction in our budget is a direct attack on the most critical part of our mission.

[thucydides]

@DismalScientist 92089 wrote:

Ummm… It wasn’t a single lane road. Have you ever driven out west on perfectly straight roads with excellent sight lines? Speeding isn’t like drunk driving.

I’m in that area a lot and bike there often, though I avoid Lee Highway there on a bike other than to cross it. It’s not a single lane road, no. In many places in fact it’s a divided highway of sorts with a large grass or wooded median in the middle. And it’s relatively straight in that area. BUT it rolls a bit and does have some curves. Furthermore, it’s not a restricted access road like an interstate. This is not a case of going 93 on an interstate in Montana. This is a case of going 93 on a road where people are entering the road from their driveways or lots of side-roads. There’s simply no excuse for driving that fast in this sort of place.

[thucydides]

@creadinger 92076 wrote:

I’m an out and (not proud per se, but see the utility of it) motorist and agree with pretty much everything that was posted. Maybe n18 is a closet AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman? Nahh, that’s crazy.

Hah! John Barrett Townsend II perhaps.

[thucydides]

@Subby 92052 wrote:

Three days in jail is excessive for what he did. Any jail time is excessive if it was his first offense. Pay a huge fine, move on.

I had the exact opposite reaction. Driving 93 MPH on those roads is something akin to attempted murder in my book. Three days in jail and a year’s suspended license would have been more like it.

[thucydides]

@DCLiz 87011 wrote:

I’ve been a member for years. I’ve used them twice for towing services, and both times seemed comparable to my experiences with AAA. I miss the travel discounts, but can’t in good conscience support a business that actively lobbies against my interests (in addition to being anti-cycling, AAA also lobbies against public transit, safety cameras–yes I support DC’s speed/stop light cameras!–and I think they’ve even opposed things like fuel efficiency standards for vehicle fleets).

Furthermore, they actively PROMOTE things I am interested in promoting. http://www.betterworldclub.com/about-us/green-business-practices/

It’s too bad AAA has a monopoly on travel discounts.

Hey there’s always AARP which I’m now [cough] eligible to join. It’s funny, for over 20 years now I’ve done lectures on why people join interest groups and AAA is a big part of it. I always ask who belongs to AAA. Among undergraduates it’s usually about 50% (most as part of their parents’ membership) and grad students usually about 75%. Then I ask about what AAA does politically. On what sort of issues do they lobby? Crickets or some sort of generic, “uh, highway safety?” It’s an absolutely brilliant setup AAA has. They have millions of members who pay no attention to what’s being done in their name. At the same time though I think it reduces their political effectiveness in one way because people on the Hill and in state legislatures aren’t stupid and know that AAA “members” aren’t paying attention and therefore the political consequences of opposing AAA aren’t that great. AAA simply can’t mobilize its membership like an NRA or AARP. AAA does have an outsized voice due to their resources — they can provide more sophisticated technical information about policy effects. That outsized voice — which in my opinion is almost always wrong, though I keep this opinion to myself in class — is subsidized by those of us who use AAA’s services.

[Author]

Posts