Bikers on MacArthur Blvd. MD

[Anonymous]

Those biking turds are so obnoxious. Fine, the law says you have the right to use the road. If you want to share the road with cars, then deal with the consequences and show the same courtesy other drivers do when they are slower than prevailing traffic conditions. Move to the right and actively let the cars pass. The bike path seems perfectly fine for you when you crest the hill at the light and cars are backed up for 3 light cycles. Want to be treated equally? Then wait in line for the light like the cars do. Jerk offs! So glad OP posted this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those biking turds are so obnoxious. Fine, the law says you have the right to use the road. If you want to share the road with cars, then deal with the consequences and show the same courtesy other drivers do when they are slower than prevailing traffic conditions. Move to the right and actively let the cars pass. The bike path seems perfectly fine for you when you crest the hill at the light and cars are backed up for 3 light cycles. Want to be treated equally? Then wait in line for the light like the cars do. Jerk offs! So glad OP posted this.

Same courtesy? What courtesy? Have you seen how cars treat cyclists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whenever and wherever I pass a biker in traffic I always hug the curb afterwards which forces them to stop or pass me on the left, risking their lives. F them.

Aaaand this is why cyclists have to take up the lane. Moron. Hope you can live with yourself if someone really gets hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I drove out MacArthur yesterday, something I do not do very often. There were a lot of cyclists using the road, but there seemed to be little to no problem for both to co-exist. I was able to safely pass two or three sets of riders in the area between Glen Echo and Great Falls. If this was the norm, I hardly see what the problem is.

The issue is mainly weekend mornings, and, while annoying, that is manageable. Yes, it is obnoxious when a pack of 12 bikers decides to make a point by taking the whole lane, but it is not a safety issue, they are just being jerks. As I understand Maryland law, cyclists are supposed to be in single file toward the right side of the lane, and cars cannot pass them until conditions allow 3' of clearance. This is tricky on the way out to Glen Echo, and people need to be cautious on that twisty stretch of road.

One real danger, however, is cyclists who are on the bike path during the morning commute, but who blow through the stop sign on the bike path at Maryland Ave. and MacArthur Blvd. One of them is going to get killed someday, because they are coming at the cars leaving Brookmont on Maryland Avenue at an angle that is from behind the drivers, who are looking at the oncoming traffic and have no chance at seeing them. Cyclists, please stop or at least slow down at that stop sign, it is there for a reason.

[Anonymous]

I asked a cyclist I know why on earth the cyclists don't use the bike path along MacArthur. What he told me is that the bike path can be more dangerous than the road because:
a) it is not smooth and road bikes cannot handle the bumps, cracks, massive pot holes, tree roots, etc.
b) the bike path will sometimes end sudddenly, leaving the biker in an even worse position.

A real bike path would be great and might get better use than a multi-use path. I'm surprised that Glen Echo voted it down, as I think bicycling in general and bike commuting fit in well with the feel of that community.

Personally, I would like to see the large groups go single file and stick to the white line (far right of the lane) instead of many riders abreast though. And even more important, they really should obey traffic signals and signs.

[Anonymous]

"Also, if they are so intent on being treated as vehicles (their legal right to use the public roads, etc.), then how about the equivalent of auto-insurance for bikers, or bike-licenses (along with all the fees MOCO likes to collect when registering a car). "

The comment on insurance is funny and points to the interesting perspective that some drivers here have.

What would the insurance cover - what damage do bike riders cause that are their own fault? First, I think most of the damage is done to the bike and the rider. Second, I think most bike-car accidents are likely the result of a car driver's decisions. Is the bike at fault when the car driver makes a bad decision to pass and crashes head-on into another car? No. Is the bike at fault when the driver slams on his breaks and gets rear-ended? No. What's the damage that's being done by slow bike riders? Damage to the car driver's ego that they can't go faster and are being held up by a measly bike?

Power to the powerful! Let the meek move aside!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I asked a cyclist I know why on earth the cyclists don't use the bike path along MacArthur. What he told me is that the bike path can be more dangerous than the road because:
a) it is not smooth and road bikes cannot handle the bumps, cracks, massive pot holes, tree roots, etc.
b) the bike path will sometimes end sudddenly, leaving the biker in an even worse position.

A real bike path would be great and might get better use than a multi-use path. I'm surprised that Glen Echo voted it down, as I think bicycling in general and bike commuting fit in well with the feel of that community.

Personally, I would like to see the large groups go single file and stick to the white line (far right of the lane) instead of many riders abreast though. And even more important, they really should obey traffic signals and signs.

The roads around here are not much different from this and it is not my fault their ultra lightweight racing bike can't handle the terrain, maybe they should go for a jog instead, on the sidewalk or bike path. Guess what? If the path and/or sidewalk ends they can turn around. Isn't that what you do at a dead end in your car? The most annoying is when they do this shit on major highways during rush hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Also, if they are so intent on being treated as vehicles (their legal right to use the public roads, etc.), then how about the equivalent of auto-insurance for bikers, or bike-licenses (along with all the fees MOCO likes to collect when registering a car). "

The comment on insurance is funny and points to the interesting perspective that some drivers here have.

What would the insurance cover - what damage do bike riders cause that are their own fault? First, I think most of the damage is done to the bike and the rider. Second, I think most bike-car accidents are likely the result of a car driver's decisions. Is the bike at fault when the car driver makes a bad decision to pass and crashes head-on into another car? No. Is the bike at fault when the driver slams on his breaks and gets rear-ended? No. What's the damage that's being done by slow bike riders? Damage to the car driver's ego that they can't go faster and are being held up by a measly bike?

Power to the powerful! Let the meek move aside!

You are ridiculous -- and you are missing the entire point. Many of us are saying that bikers are endangering people every day on this stretch of road. It boggles the mind that you don't understand that a biker blowing through a stop sign (thereby forcing a driver to slam on the breaks or to swerve) could easily cause an accident. If a biker is a "vehicle" then that biker should be the "at fault" party in such a collision and should have to pay the medical bills and or repair bills for all cars involved in the accident.

Perhaps this is the heart of the matter. Cyclist just don't seem to want to accept the responsibilities that accompany the right to share the road. The reason so many drivers are upset at cyclist is because we see these type of collision-close-calls every day...while the cyclist has whizzed past and is oblivious to the dangerous conditions he or she has just created. Perhaps having bike-licenses and insurance claims filed against cyclists would be the incentive necessary for cyclists to not just "share the road" but to also "share the responsibility!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I asked a cyclist I know why on earth the cyclists don't use the bike path along MacArthur. What he told me is that the bike path can be more dangerous than the road because:
a) it is not smooth and road bikes cannot handle the bumps, cracks, massive pot holes, tree roots, etc.
b) the bike path will sometimes end sudddenly, leaving the biker in an even worse position.

A real bike path would be great and might get better use than a multi-use path. I'm surprised that Glen Echo voted it down, as I think bicycling in general and bike commuting fit in well with the feel of that community.

Personally, I would like to see the large groups go single file and stick to the white line (far right of the lane) instead of many riders abreast though. And even more important, they really should obey traffic signals and signs.

None of this applies to the very wide, smooth, bike path along MacArthur from Sangamore to Glen Echo.

[Anonymous]

Let's call it what it is. This is about drivers who are pissed that they have to slow down. Everything else is window-dressing.

Look how many drivers blow the speed limit on that road. Who are you to throw the rule books at the cyclists? Oh the safety the safety you say. Right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it what it is. This is about drivers who are pissed that they have to slow down. Everything else is window-dressing.

Look how many drivers blow the speed limit on that road. Who are you to throw the rule books at the cyclists? Oh the safety the safety you say. Right.

Even if that is true--and I'll admit, I absolutely get pissed off at having to drive 10 mph in a 25 zone because some weekend warrior is too cool for the bike path--so what? That's a perfectly natural and defensible reaction. How would cyclists feel if they had to ride behind pedestrians for 3 minutes at a time at a walking pace until it was safe to pass? To say nothing of the many near misses I've endured from cyclists as a pedestrian in a crosswalk? Get off your high horse. Speaking only for myself, I always give cyclists a wide berth, even if it is very frustrating, but it should be a two-way street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it what it is. This is about drivers who are pissed that they have to slow down. Everything else is window-dressing.

Look how many drivers blow the speed limit on that road. Who are you to throw the rule books at the cyclists? Oh the safety the safety you say. Right.

Do you really not see the safety issue here? I get it, some people speed. That's a real problem, I agree. But this bike issue is also a very real problem. I think you are hearing, from the outpouring of posters here, that many of us feel that this is truly a safety issue. Do you really think we're all just speed-demons looking to blow the speed limits? Is it possible that we're people who live in these neighborhoods who have seen a lot of near misses on this particularly windy road?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it what it is. This is about drivers who are pissed that they have to slow down. Everything else is window-dressing.

Look how many drivers blow the speed limit on that road. Who are you to throw the rule books at the cyclists? Oh the safety the safety you say. Right.

Even if that is true--and I'll admit, I absolutely get pissed off at having to drive 10 mph in a 25 zone because some weekend warrior is too cool for the bike path--so what? That's a perfectly natural and defensible reaction. How would cyclists feel if they had to ride behind pedestrians for 3 minutes at a time at a walking pace until it was safe to pass? To say nothing of the many near misses I've endured from cyclists as a pedestrian in a crosswalk? Get off your high horse. Speaking only for myself, I always give cyclists a wide berth, even if it is very frustrating, but it should be a two-way street.

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?

[Anonymous]

Having known of 2 people who have died and 1 who was left quadriplegic by accidents on bikes on roads, I abhor biking on roads. Yes, cyclists may be 'in their rights' and cars may be 'in the wrong', but the widow and widower and wife and children of these people are not consoled by that. Until we live in a society that supports it both in spirit and with practical paths and lanes, I cannot support bicycling on the roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's call it what it is. This is about drivers who are pissed that they have to slow down. Everything else is window-dressing.

Look how many drivers blow the speed limit on that road. Who are you to throw the rule books at the cyclists? Oh the safety the safety you say. Right.

Do you really not see the safety issue here? I get it, some people speed. That's a real problem, I agree. But this bike issue is also a very real problem. I think you are hearing, from the outpouring of posters here, that many of us feel that this is truly a safety issue. Do you really think we're all just speed-demons looking to blow the speed limits? Is it possible that we're people who live in these neighborhoods who have seen a lot of near misses on this particularly windy road?

Every NIMBY issue has a veneer of lofty principle to it. No one ever says "dammit this thing just inconveniences me". And there is always a grain of truth. So the Clarendon low income housing project is opposed due to church-state entanglement. The Georgetown synagogue's 10 slot daycare is opposed on the grounds of traffic congestion. The 395 HOT lanes are blocked because they discriminate against black people. I'm not making these up.

The primary safety issue is not the fault of the cyclist. It is cars trying to pass when it is unsafe or illegal to pass. So you can point to some bikers not respecting stop signs but it is not the source of the complaint. That is the red herring.