Who Are the Annoying People Who Ride Their Bikes on River Road During Morning Rush Hour???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bikers are disgusting and the entitlement and lack of concern they show for others is truly staggering.

Because?

Because they block major thoroughfares knowing full well the vast number of people it will inconvenience and cause to be late.

Cyclists overall result in less congestion on thoroughfares. The small amount of riding that involves taking the lane on fast roads is dwarfed by the amount of bike commuting on trails, in bike lanes, on streets with low speed limits. Much of the bike commuting that does occur on streets with higher speed limits happens at times when congestion means motor vehicles move so slowly, bikes can easily keep up - indeed one of the advantages of bike lanes is the ability to safely scoot around stopped traffic.

I have zero issue with bicyclists that sack to bike lanes and trails. That's fine. What becomes a problem is when you are commuting in lanes where the speed is higher than you, on your bike, can reach- inconveniencing drivers, especially at a crucial time like rush hour. Have some awareness and empathy for those around you and don't bike down major thoroughfares.

Please tell me how I should get from Holton Arms area to Downtown DC on a bike without going on River Road for part of it.

That's up to you to figure out, you little creep.

"little", "nerd", "creep"? Does Donald Trump post here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bikers are disgusting and the entitlement and lack of concern they show for others is truly staggering.

Because?

Because they block major thoroughfares knowing full well the vast number of people it will inconvenience and cause to be late.

Cyclists overall result in less congestion on thoroughfares. The small amount of riding that involves taking the lane on fast roads is dwarfed by the amount of bike commuting on trails, in bike lanes, on streets with low speed limits. Much of the bike commuting that does occur on streets with higher speed limits happens at times when congestion means motor vehicles move so slowly, bikes can easily keep up - indeed one of the advantages of bike lanes is the ability to safely scoot around stopped traffic.

I have zero issue with bicyclists that sack to bike lanes and trails. That's fine. What becomes a problem is when you are commuting in lanes where the speed is higher than you, on your bike, can reach- inconveniencing drivers, especially at a crucial time like rush hour. Have some awareness and empathy for those around you and don't bike down major thoroughfares.

Please tell me how I should get from Holton Arms area to Downtown DC on a bike without going on River Road for part of it.

That's up to you to figure out, you little creep.

You are probably that batty neighbor I hate so much. So with your advice, I will continue to ride on River.

I am wondering what the reaction would be if I drive my car well under the limit on River Road. Might be an interesting experiment.

In front of a cyclist... yesssss

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous
I don't. I see a bunch of really nerdy dudes that look like they had the hell pounded out of them in high school. And spent their fair share of time in lockers.

Poe's law invoked again (there are at least two of us invoking Poe's Law, ask Jeff)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bikers are disgusting and the entitlement and lack of concern they show for others is truly staggering.

Because?

Because they block major thoroughfares knowing full well the vast number of people it will inconvenience and cause to be late.

Cyclists overall result in less congestion on thoroughfares. The small amount of riding that involves taking the lane on fast roads is dwarfed by the amount of bike commuting on trails, in bike lanes, on streets with low speed limits. Much of the bike commuting that does occur on streets with higher speed limits happens at times when congestion means motor vehicles move so slowly, bikes can easily keep up - indeed one of the advantages of bike lanes is the ability to safely scoot around stopped traffic.

I have zero issue with bicyclists that sack to bike lanes and trails. That's fine. What becomes a problem is when you are commuting in lanes where the speed is higher than you, on your bike, can reach- inconveniencing drivers, especially at a crucial time like rush hour. Have some awareness and empathy for those around you and don't bike down major thoroughfares.

Please tell me how I should get from Holton Arms area to Downtown DC on a bike without going on River Road for part of it.

That's up to you to figure out, you little creep.

"little", "nerd", "creep"? Does Donald Trump post here?

Lets have compassion. With the Admin going down the drain, and the Big Cheeto himself praising Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer (a tough old woman and a nerdy Jew) PP must have a lot to feel bad about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bikers are disgusting and the entitlement and lack of concern they show for others is truly staggering.

Because?

Because they block major thoroughfares knowing full well the vast number of people it will inconvenience and cause to be late.

Cyclists overall result in less congestion on thoroughfares. The small amount of riding that involves taking the lane on fast roads is dwarfed by the amount of bike commuting on trails, in bike lanes, on streets with low speed limits. Much of the bike commuting that does occur on streets with higher speed limits happens at times when congestion means motor vehicles move so slowly, bikes can easily keep up - indeed one of the advantages of bike lanes is the ability to safely scoot around stopped traffic.

I have zero issue with bicyclists that sack to bike lanes and trails. That's fine. What becomes a problem is when you are commuting in lanes where the speed is higher than you, on your bike, can reach- inconveniencing drivers, especially at a crucial time like rush hour. Have some awareness and empathy for those around you and don't bike down major thoroughfares.

Please tell me how I should get from Holton Arms area to Downtown DC on a bike without going on River Road for part of it.

That's up to you to figure out, you little creep.

You are probably that batty neighbor I hate so much. So with your advice, I will continue to ride on River.

I am wondering what the reaction would be if I drive my car well under the limit on River Road. Might be an interesting experiment.

In front of a cyclist... yesssss

In front of everyone.

[Anonymous]

What I don't quite understand is that cycling is supposed to be something done for health reasons, and then the cyclist engages in all manner of risky behaviors, one of which is riding on busy streets and disobeying traffic laws. Then the cyclist gets clipped and dies, so what is the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bikers are disgusting and the entitlement and lack of concern they show for others is truly staggering.

Because?

Because they block major thoroughfares knowing full well the vast number of people it will inconvenience and cause to be late.

Cyclists overall result in less congestion on thoroughfares. The small amount of riding that involves taking the lane on fast roads is dwarfed by the amount of bike commuting on trails, in bike lanes, on streets with low speed limits. Much of the bike commuting that does occur on streets with higher speed limits happens at times when congestion means motor vehicles move so slowly, bikes can easily keep up - indeed one of the advantages of bike lanes is the ability to safely scoot around stopped traffic.

I have zero issue with bicyclists that sack to bike lanes and trails. That's fine. What becomes a problem is when you are commuting in lanes where the speed is higher than you, on your bike, can reach- inconveniencing drivers, especially at a crucial time like rush hour. Have some awareness and empathy for those around you and don't bike down major thoroughfares.

Please tell me how I should get from Holton Arms area to Downtown DC on a bike without going on River Road for part of it.

If you're set on bike commuting, it's your responsibility to find a safe route. If you insist on biking on a heavily trafficked artery with no bike infrastructure at rush hour, then you just have to accept the consequences.

Except what I am doing is legal, so you will have to accept the consequences.

Have a great day.

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bikers are disgusting and the entitlement and lack of concern they show for others is truly staggering.

Because?

Because they block major thoroughfares knowing full well the vast number of people it will inconvenience and cause to be late.

Cyclists overall result in less congestion on thoroughfares. The small amount of riding that involves taking the lane on fast roads is dwarfed by the amount of bike commuting on trails, in bike lanes, on streets with low speed limits. Much of the bike commuting that does occur on streets with higher speed limits happens at times when congestion means motor vehicles move so slowly, bikes can easily keep up - indeed one of the advantages of bike lanes is the ability to safely scoot around stopped traffic.

I have zero issue with bicyclists that sack to bike lanes and trails. That's fine. What becomes a problem is when you are commuting in lanes where the speed is higher than you, on your bike, can reach- inconveniencing drivers, especially at a crucial time like rush hour. Have some awareness and empathy for those around you and don't bike down major thoroughfares.

Please tell me how I should get from Holton Arms area to Downtown DC on a bike without going on River Road for part of it.

That's up to you to figure out, you little creep.

You are probably that batty neighbor I hate so much. So with your advice, I will continue to ride on River.

I am wondering what the reaction would be if I drive my car well under the limit on River Road. Might be an interesting experiment.

In front of a cyclist... yesssss

In front of everyone.

Im gonna do it in front of the next cyclist I see. Thanks for that tip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don't quite understand is that cycling is supposed to be something done for health reasons, and then the cyclist engages in all manner of risky behaviors, one of which is riding on busy streets and disobeying traffic laws. Then the cyclist gets clipped and dies, so what is the point?

Yes, but that's the kind of critical thinking that is far beyond the capabilities of cyclists...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't. I see a bunch of really nerdy dudes that look like they had the hell pounded out of them in high school. And spent their fair share of time in lockers.

Poe's law invoked again (there are at least two of us invoking Poe's Law, ask Jeff)

You're certainly exhibiting Poe's Law yourself. Especially each time you post "poe's law".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don't quite understand is that cycling is supposed to be something done for health reasons, and then the cyclist engages in all manner of risky behaviors, one of which is riding on busy streets and disobeying traffic laws. Then the cyclist gets clipped and dies, so what is the point?

Well for one, while bike riding is often done for health reasons, some do it for other reasons. Amazingly, not all cyclists are the same.

Secondly, if you ever ride in traffic yourself, you will find that sometimes the things cyclists do that you think make them less safe, actually make them more safe, or do not have any net effect either way.

As for riding on busy streets, I don't know anyone who doesn't seek out the safest convenient route. But often times there are no good alternatives (and what you think is a good alternative, like a sidewalk is not) Note also what is safe depends on how people ride. A little kid going at 5MPH may be able to ride on a sidewalk that is a terrible choice for an adult riding at 16MPH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't quite understand is that cycling is supposed to be something done for health reasons, and then the cyclist engages in all manner of risky behaviors, one of which is riding on busy streets and disobeying traffic laws. Then the cyclist gets clipped and dies, so what is the point?

Well for one, while bike riding is often done for health reasons, some do it for other reasons. Amazingly, not all cyclists are the same.

Secondly, if you ever ride in traffic yourself, you will find that sometimes the things cyclists do that you think make them less safe, actually make them more safe, or do not have any net effect either way.

As for riding on busy streets, I don't know anyone who doesn't seek out the safest convenient route. But often times there are no good alternatives (and what you think is a good alternative, like a sidewalk is not) Note also what is safe depends on how people ride. A little kid going at 5MPH may be able to ride on a sidewalk that is a terrible choice for an adult riding at 16MPH.

But we have statistics demonstrating that cycling is incredibly less safe than driving in a car. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation- we have facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don't quite understand is that cycling is supposed to be something done for health reasons, and then the cyclist engages in all manner of risky behaviors, one of which is riding on busy streets and disobeying traffic laws. Then the cyclist gets clipped and dies, so what is the point?

Cycling is also done for transportation reasons. When I get on a bicycle, it's because I'm trying to get from Here to There, and I've decided that a bicycle is the best way to do it. The same for when I decide to walk, drive, or take the train/bus/Metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

NP. Unwise compared to not riding on a major thoroughfare.

And yes it is. Everyone knows it. By any definition of the word it is.