Bikers on MacArthur Blvd. MD

[Anonymous]

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.

Let me translate this for those of you who have neither the time nor desire to wade through an incoherent rant:

"I drive a car. Bikes sometimes inconvenience me. Therefore, bikes should stay off the road."

And cyclists are the self-centered ones. Gottcha.

[Anonymous]

But you know what??? PEDESTRIANS HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WALK ON THE ROAD TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source, please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let me translate this for those of you who have neither the time nor desire to wade through an incoherent rant:

"I drive a car. Bikes sometimes inconvenience me. Therefore, bikes should stay off the road."

And cyclists are the self-centered ones. Gottcha.

If you're going to translate, then translate right. I never ONCE called you self centerd. Better yet, I don't need a translater - especially one that decides to just inject her own opinion and not that of mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But you know what??? PEDESTRIANS HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WALK ON THE ROAD TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source, please?

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/humanpower.htm

www.sha.maryland.gov/.../Chapter%209%20-%20Sidewalk%20Design.pdf

[Anonymous]

The difference between pedestrians and bicycles is that, on the road, pedestrians are required to walk along the side of the road facing traffic. Bicyclists ride with traffic.

On the trails, pedestrians walk in the same direction as the riders, so the problems with passing are similar, especially where the trails are narrow. What I have seen in other places is a trail marked into separate sections for pedestrians and bicycles. My impression was that it worked well, but it took more space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you know what??? PEDESTRIANS HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO WALK ON THE ROAD TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Source, please?

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/humanpower.htm

www.sha.maryland.gov/.../Chapter%209%20-%20Sidewalk%20Design.pdf

Interesting reading. However, you said “pedestrians have a legal right to walk on the road.” Legal rights are set forth in statutes, regulations, or sometimes cases. Neither of those papers you linked to establish legal rights. One is an opinion piece, and although it does point to a couple of cases, none are from Maryland or DC. Opinion papers do not establish legal rights. Bizarrely, the second paper is the Maryland SHA guidelines for sidewalk design – once again, it doesn’t establish a legal right.

(I would note, though, that the opinion piece does state, “Accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians must be provided via safe, lawful and courteous behavior by other road users and by appropriate engineering of roadways.” That seems incompatible with ranting that cyclists should stay off the roads. Maybe it’s just me.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... the opinion piece does state, “Accommodation of cyclists and pedestrians must be provided via safe, lawful and courteous behavior by other road users and by appropriate engineering of roadways.” That seems incompatible with ranting that cyclists should stay off the roads.

That was my reaction too. The link seems to stand for support of cyclist rights on roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting reading. However, you said “pedestrians have a legal right to walk on the road.” Legal rights are set forth in statutes, regulations, or sometimes cases.

Not the pp but actually all rights are not set forth in statutes regs and cases. otherwise you'd have them for everything...the right to breath fresh air, to skip along the sidewalk, to wave hello...everything. It's actually the opposite. Theres an assumption that you have a right to do things unless it's specifically prohibited by statute, regs, or sometimes cases.

[Anonymous]

Oh,and I would agree with the pp about a right to walk on the street. Although there's not a spelled out right, generally, the laws all give pedestrians a defacto right of way on the roads, which would imply they have a right to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting reading. However, you said “pedestrians have a legal right to walk on the road.” Legal rights are set forth in statutes, regulations, or sometimes cases.

Not the pp but actually all rights are not set forth in statutes regs and cases. otherwise you'd have them for everything...the right to breath fresh air, to skip along the sidewalk, to wave hello...everything. It's actually the opposite. Theres an assumption that you have a right to do things unless it's specifically prohibited by statute, regs, or sometimes cases.

Actually these are usually spelled out. I am familiar with Florida, so I will cite here and you can see there is a clear pedestrian restriction:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/laws/ped_bike_pedLaws.shtm


Here is an article that references VA:
http://www.allenandallen.com/blog/pedestrian-traffic-laws-virginia.html

[Anonymous]

Actually, the rights of pedestrians are spelled out for Maryland:

http://www.sha.maryland.gov/oots/Appendix%20C%20-%20PedBikeCode.pdf

You will note that they are very similar to the rights of bicycle riders, except that pedestrians are to face traffic if they walk on the roadway.

[Anonymous]

I am a frequent bike commuter and, after way too many close calls where cars pass too dangerously close when I was thoughtfully trying to stay to the right, no more. Now, I ALWAYS take the lane because it is my legal right and safer for me. I don't really care if it slows cars down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh,and I would agree with the pp about a right to walk on the street. Although there's not a spelled out right, generally, the laws all give pedestrians a defacto right of way on the roads, which would imply they have a right to do it.

And you'd both be wrong. Pedestrians are expressly prohibited from walking on the road where a sidewalk is present. There's that specific prohibition you were looking for. RIF

21-506 Pedestrian on roadways
(a) Where sidewalks provided – Where a sidewalk is provided, a pedestrian may not walk along and on an adjacent
roadway.

[Anonymous]

It seems some of the car drivers from this thread have been taking out their aggression elsewhere.

Last Friday, Fort Hunt Patch reported on a chilling incident in which a driver on the George Washington Parkway sped by a group of cyclists and proceeded to slam on his brakes in front of them, one of which ended up under the car ....

http://dcist.com/2011/10/driver_slams_on_brakes_in_front_of.php
http://forthunt.patch.com/articles/driver-flees-scene-on-gw-parkway-leaving-injured-cyclist#c

[ThatSmileyFaceGuy]

Anonymous wrote:

ThatSmileyFaceGuy wrote:Things from the pocket guide for Maryland

Ride with traffic as close to the right side as possible.
Full lane use allowed when travelling the normal speed of traffic.
Use of bike lanes required when they are available unless turning, passing, or avioding hazards.
No more than two abrest.

So all you "law abiding" bikers need to be in the bike lane.

First off, you're wrong on the law. Second, I'll "obey all the laws" the second no driver exceeds the posted speed limit ever.

You guys (and by that I mean anyone who drives a car) have absolutely zero moral standing to be judging anyone's behavior. None whatsoever.

actually no I'm not :

Pocket guide to bicycle laws in DC / MD / VA
http://www.waba.org/resources/laws.php