Bikers on MacArthur Blvd. MD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The equivalent would be if bikers were to argue that pedestrians should be banned from specific high-traffic sidewalks because it's just. too. dangerous. After all, pedestrians can't keep up with the flow of [bike] traffic, and it's extremely dangerous for them.

Oh, I've seen that argument, too, after a woman pedestrian was injured by a bicycle on the Capital Crescent Trail. What people call "bike paths" are multi-use paths, but on a sunny weekend the bikers on the towpath or on the Capital Crescent trail are a real hazard. It's true that being hit by a car is worse, but automobile drivers are much more predictable than are bicyclists, at least in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The equivalent would be if bikers were to argue that pedestrians should be banned from specific high-traffic sidewalks because it's just. too. dangerous. After all, pedestrians can't keep up with the flow of [bike] traffic, and it's extremely dangerous for them.

Oh, I've seen that argument, too, after a woman pedestrian was injured by a bicycle on the Capital Crescent Trail. What people call "bike paths" are multi-use paths, but on a sunny weekend the bikers on the towpath or on the Capital Crescent trail are a real hazard. It's true that being hit by a car is worse, but automobile drivers are much more predictable than are bicyclists, at least in this country.

Roads are multi-use paths as well - both cars and bikes have a right to be on them.

It seems like cyclists get into trouble when they try to be considerate by staying to the side. In the future, I'll just take the lane. Cars can stay behind me. That'll make everyone happy. Especially as I labor up a hill at 10 mph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It seems like cyclists get into trouble when they try to be considerate by staying to the side. In the future, I'll just take the lane. Cars can stay behind me. That'll make everyone happy. Especially as I labor up a hill at 10 mph.

In Maryland, bicyclists are required to stay right if it's feasible. You're allowed to take the lane if necessary, but you shouldn't block traffic intentionally either with a bike or with a slow-moving car in the left lane. It's rude and dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It seems like cyclists get into trouble when they try to be considerate by staying to the side. In the future, I'll just take the lane. Cars can stay behind me. That'll make everyone happy. Especially as I labor up a hill at 10 mph.

In Maryland, bicyclists are required to stay right if it's feasible. You're allowed to take the lane if necessary, but you shouldn't block traffic intentionally either with a bike or with a slow-moving car in the left lane. It's rude and dangerous.

If I don't feel safe, it's not feasible to stay to the right, and necessary to take the lane. Given some of the sentiment expressed here, that seems like the best alternative.

[Anonymous]

I don't ride a bike but yikes, I can see why the bikers are so defensive when car drivers say that they are out there to kill them. Riding a bike on a road with cars seems akin to being a black man making eyes at a white woman 40 years ago in the south.

Wow. What can be done to remedy this situation? Better enforcement of existing laws?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blame Glen Echo for the problem. Montgomery County's own analysis says that the path is no good for cyclists. Twice they have tried to fix the problem by putting in bike lanes, and Glen Echo blocked it.


In 2004-2005 Maryland created a plan to put 5 foot wide bike lanes on MacArthur Blvd, solving the problem. Guess who vetoed it? Glen Echo. That was back in 2004-2005.

In 2007, Montgomery County again tried to put in bike lanes, this time 3' lanes in a second project. ontgomery Planning Board cited as its reason: "Since MacArthur Boulevard does not have a sidewalk, the shared use path is a de facto pedestrian facility". Once again, Glen Echo got in a tizzy over it. They feel that by creating bike lanes, traffic will speed up on MacArthur.


http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2007/documents/20070208_Bikeway.pdf

http://www.glenecho.org/echo_files/2007_03.htm

This is really interesting. I live in Glen Echo and wasn't aware of this. Although I do loathe the bikers, I will be even more tolerant of them now that I realize that the county has been willing to step in. The bike path is wide, but the bikers ride so fast that it can be dangerous if there are joggers and strollers on the path. Since I live here, I do see many folks (esp. dog walkers) using the bike path. They really do need their own lane. If it was up to me, I would build the bike path and then install traffic speed camera on MacArthur. Then enforce both car speeds and bicycle traffic laws.

[Anonymous]

I mean build bike lanes (not the current bike path).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If I don't feel safe, it's not feasible to stay to the right, and necessary to take the lane. Given some of the sentiment expressed here, that seems like the best alternative.

Good luck; I think you'd be safer on the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If I don't feel safe, it's not feasible to stay to the right, and necessary to take the lane. Given some of the sentiment expressed here, that seems like the best alternative.

Good luck; I think you'd be safer on the right.

Interesting - why is that? And do you often ride? I ask because I thought the way you do when I was a driver/pedestrian, but quickly changed my mind when I started biking. When you're on the right, cars feel free to pass with impunity, often coming uncomfortably close. You also risk getting doored, or having to screech to a halt, or try to quickly merge with traffic when an obstruction (more common along the right than in the center/left of the lane) appears. In the center/left, cars have to completely enter the opposing lane to pass; they tend to be more careful in that situation (after all, it's their own safety at stake, not just some cyclist's). Plus, you're more visible in the center, and that's very important. This theory is, of course, premised on the assumption that drivers aren't sociopaths who would intentionally mow down a cyclist. But if other cyclists have alternate theories, I'd love to hear them. Non-cyclists, too, but I take those opinions with a grain of salt - as I said, my perspective changed dramatically once I started riding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The equivalent would be if bikers were to argue that pedestrians should be banned from specific high-traffic sidewalks because it's just. too. dangerous. After all, pedestrians can't keep up with the flow of [bike] traffic, and it's extremely dangerous for them.

Oh, I've seen that argument, too, after a woman pedestrian was injured by a bicycle on the Capital Crescent Trail. What people call "bike paths" are multi-use paths, but on a sunny weekend the bikers on the towpath or on the Capital Crescent trail are a real hazard. It's true that being hit by a car is worse, but automobile drivers are much more predictable than are bicyclists, at least in this country.

Respectfully, you're full of horseshit. If you've "seen that argument" post a link to it. Seriously, one link to anyone proposing banning pedestrians from the CCT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It seems like cyclists get into trouble when they try to be considerate by staying to the side. In the future, I'll just take the lane. Cars can stay behind me. That'll make everyone happy. Especially as I labor up a hill at 10 mph.

In Maryland, bicyclists are required to stay right if it's feasible. You're allowed to take the lane if necessary, but you shouldn't block traffic intentionally either with a bike or with a slow-moving car in the left lane. It's rude and dangerous.

Of course, it's up to the vehicle operator to make the determination whether it's "practicable" (not "feasible").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If I don't feel safe, it's not feasible to stay to the right, and necessary to take the lane. Given some of the sentiment expressed here, that seems like the best alternative.

Good luck; I think you'd be safer on the right.

Interesting - why is that? And do you often ride? I ask because I thought the way you do when I was a driver/pedestrian, but quickly changed my mind when I started biking. When you're on the right, cars feel free to pass with impunity, often coming uncomfortably close. You also risk getting doored, or having to screech to a halt, or try to quickly merge with traffic when an obstruction (more common along the right than in the center/left of the lane) appears. In the center/left, cars have to completely enter the opposing lane to pass; they tend to be more careful in that situation (after all, it's their own safety at stake, not just some cyclist's). Plus, you're more visible in the center, and that's very important. This theory is, of course, premised on the assumption that drivers aren't sociopaths who would intentionally mow down a cyclist. But if other cyclists have alternate theories, I'd love to hear them. Non-cyclists, too, but I take those opinions with a grain of salt - as I said, my perspective changed dramatically once I started riding.

Very true.

The greatest dangers posed by overtaking cars is that they'll try to "squeeze" past the cyclists while in the same lane, rather than wait until it's safe to pass, and give the cyclist the legally mandated three-foot clearance. If you try to hug the right shoulder, the chances that a driver will attempt to pass with little or no clearance goes up dramatically. "Take the lane" and passing vehicles are required to pass when there is no oncoming traffic. The lanes on MacArthur Blvd are too narrow for a bike and car to pass in the same lane. Therefore, taking the lane is the choice that any informed cyclist would take.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Douche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You just hit on one of the reasons why cyclists ride on the road instead of the bike path along MacArthur, in Rock Creek, and other places. The paths are multi-use and if it's not pedestrians walking two, three, four abreast, it's someone with a dog on a retractable leash or a kid weaving around on a tricycle that cyclists often get caught behind until it's safe to pass. And yes, it can be a couple of minutes. For all the people who are anti-cyclist on MacArthur, where would you have people ride? The bike paths really are not conducive to riding for exercise -- if you don't believe me, go out and try to really ride -- so what other solutions are out there? People have already said Glen Echo killed bike lanes. Where do you want people to ride?

Why not do what you're advising drivers to do -- just deal with it?

You are in a big hunk of metal. You drive 25 mph (or do you?) You are required to drive in one direction and signal when you brake or turn. Every driver is licensed.

Pedestrians are unprotected. They walk at 3 mph or jog at 6 mph. They are not required to signal, often have headphones, and may cross lanes, turn around at will. Children present.

The best match for a bicycle is the auto lane. The rate of speed is closer, the non-cyclists are protected, everyone is following the same direction, and no children driving.



This is the stuff that gets me riled for SO many reasons.

First, like a pp said, you are complaining about pedestrians the same as drivers are complaining about you - you're slower, you often ride two, three, four abreast, often don't signal, often have headphones, cross lanes, swerve in and out of traffic.... yet, you defend your actions on the road (which you say is multi-use) but complain about pedestrians doing it (in your multi-use path).

Then, some say "we cyclists deal with pedestrians without complaint and just move to the road" while you drivers just bitch. Well, that's because you.... MOVE TO ANOTHER SPACE so you don't have to deal. We don't have that option. There's not a parallel road next to the current road. I would bet you millions that if you HAD to stay on the path amidst pedestrians and their dogs and children, and YOU had to stop or slow down or screetch to a halt every few minutes, you'd be bitching more than we drivers are. But, you move onto the road so you become the slower-moving more obnoxious vehicles on the road instead of the faster moving vehicles on the path. So, you can't take the high ground and say you don't complain. you say the road is the best option for cyclists? well, the road is the better option for cars. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice and not pick the "best" option for you just because it's the least annoying and go with an adequate option (bike path) for the greater good. Cars have no choice - they can't pick a mystery "secret" parallel road to avoid you. they have to ride on the road. You have a choice - if there's a bike path and it's a heavy traffic time - pick the bike path.

And you get so mad at us honking our horns at you? what do you thing "ON YOUR LEFT" is? That is definitely a cyclist's horn -and you all use it all.the.time.

Finally, I am SO SICK of hearing every one of you insert the phrase "which we legally can do," into every friggen post. yes, you have a legal right to ride on the road. But you know what??? PEDESTRIANS HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WALK ON THE ROAD TOO!!!!!!!!!!!! So, imagine now, YOU are trying to cycle somewhere and you're on a curved, single lane road and as you turn the corner going as fast as your little legs can go, you see a group of walkers in the middle of the road walking along. You have to slow down (or G-d forbid stop) and wait until you can pass. Go ahead, honk your proverbial horn (which would be your voice yelling "On your left!!") then come on DCUM and bitch about all those damn pedestrians slowing YOU down.