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:I had another wonderful ride this morning, the weather was great. Best part of the day. Sorry you are stuck on Wisconsin or River Road or whatever.

Did you remember to take your meds this morning? Or can we all expect another morning of riveting entertainment?

Don't need meds. The exercise and the wind and the views are too wonderful to need any meds.

No, it's obviously not. If you need a list of therapists I'm sure myself and others would be only too happy to provide them

You seem like you want to pick a fight. You should get a hobby. You might try riding a bike.

What I want is to get a quite obviously deranged person who posted all manner of bizarre things yesterday the medical attention they need. And yes it would be entertaining if you went into one of your spiels again so I confess I might be guilty of trying to provoke that... but only for entertainment's sake.

You should get a life, so you don't need to troll to get entertainment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can tell some of these people are lawyers lol It's like arguing with a hall monitor

Look yes you have a right to drive on Wis avenue in rush hour

Should you no, should steps be taken to make it easier to do it no, should steps be taken instead to make it more hospitable to drivers who are the vast vast majority of users of this route yes

Most of the people in the travel lanes on Wisconsin Avenue are drivers because the travel lanes on Wisconsin Avenue are inhospitable to people who aren't in cars. That's not an argument for staying off Wisconsin Avenue unless you're in a car; it's an argument for making Wisconsin Avenue more hospitable to everybody, whether they're in cars or not. Why DC would want to prioritize the desires of car commuters from the suburbs over the desires of its own residents, I can't understand.

DC's interest is in making transportation efficient and safe for all DC residents, not in the actual length of rush hour.

And most of the knowledge jobs in DC are not going to leave because it takes a bit longer to drive on Wisconsin (or similar arterials) Aside from the many knowledge workers who live in DC, there are plenty who commute from Virginia, who go more less directly from I395 or other bridges to downtown without using the arterials, and there are plenty of suburban commuters from both Md and Va who use metrorail, MARC, VRE, commuter buses, or even - gasp - bike.

Because DC has an interest in making rush hours as short as possible? And because the vast majority of knowledge workers are from the suburbs?

I disagree with you about DC's interest. It's all about the money it makes from VA, WVA and MD residents commuting into the city. You wish it was about the safety of all residents, but it's just not. I am not sure you understand how many companies are relocating out of DC due to taxes and to give their employees a better commute. Having to wait behind a cyclist biking 20 mph on Wisconsin Avenue could add to the frustration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the comments by cyclists in this thread makes me hate cyclists more than I ever thought possible. The entitled smugness is just boundless. I used to be sort of indifferent to them, but now that I think about all the times I've seen them blow through redlights or stop signs, then post here how it's no big thing and deflect the issue saying drivers run redlights too.... you know what? I've never seen a car drive along the shoulder past other traffic waiting for a light, and then drive through the light forcing other cars to avoid them. But I see cyclists do it all the time. Then I read some of them on this thread, it infuriates me. I hate them. HATE them!

I am confused - is your problem behavior at stop signs, or is it filtering to the right?

Filtering to the right is legal and in many places makes traffic work better. In particular I can use it to get to a bike lane, or a right turn, and get out of the way of motor vehicles. I don't filter in places where I am going to have to stay in the general lanes, and will only need to be passed again.

Treating stop signs as yield signs is not legal in the US outside Idaho and Colorado - but it is much like cars going a couple of MPH over the limit - its not really a big deal. Thats not smugness, its reality. The fact is that all types of transportation system users - drivers, cyclists, and walkers, violate the law. In ways that are specific to their mode. Maybe we should discourage that, but its not a reason to hate them as a class.

I also note again, one difference is that most cyclists have driven cars (or even do so regularly) and all walk. While most drivers and pedestrians have never ridden in traffic, and don't actually understand what we do.

Are you on the spectrum?

Yes.

Thank you, I understand now. You may not understand why your logic isn't swaying people then.

Are you talking to yourself again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All of which has zero to do with the actual issue, which is biking down a major artery that has not been signed to safely accommodate bikes at all.

It is abundantly clear from this thread that people who resent cyclists on the state avenues of upper NW (and on River Road) are not concerned about cyclist safety (which cyclists surely know about better than they do) but about cyclists "getting in their way"

Yes you are right. Cyclists should stick to more secondary roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I disagree with you about DC's interest. It's all about the money it makes from VA, WVA and MD residents commuting into the city. You wish it was about the safety of all residents, but it's just not. I am not sure you understand how many companies are relocating out of DC due to taxes and to give their employees a better commute. Having to wait behind a cyclist biking 20 mph on Wisconsin Avenue could add to the frustration.

I am not sure you understand that office rents are higher in downtown DC than in the suburbs - firms pay a premium to locate in the District. And DC does far better from residents, who pay property and income taxes than from commuters. As DC has gained residents (and particularly high income residents) its financial situation has improved. It has a huge rainy day fund now, throws money at school renovations, etc, while suburbs fight over how to fund schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
All of which has zero to do with the actual issue, which is biking down a major artery that has not been signed to safely accommodate bikes at all.

It is abundantly clear from this thread that people who resent cyclists on the state avenues of upper NW (and on River Road) are not concerned about cyclist safety (which cyclists surely know about better than they do) but about cyclists "getting in their way"

Yes you are right. Cyclists should stick to more secondary roads.

The state avenues should get bus only lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I disagree with you about DC's interest. It's all about the money it makes from VA, WVA and MD residents commuting into the city. You wish it was about the safety of all residents, but it's just not. I am not sure you understand how many companies are relocating out of DC due to taxes and to give their employees a better commute. Having to wait behind a cyclist biking 20 mph on Wisconsin Avenue could add to the frustration.

I am not sure you understand that office rents are higher in downtown DC than in the suburbs - firms pay a premium to locate in the District. And DC does far better from residents, who pay property and income taxes than from commuters. As DC has gained residents (and particularly high income residents) its financial situation has improved. It has a huge rainy day fund now, throws money at school renovations, etc, while suburbs fight over how to fund schools.

And has this truly translated into care for its own residents, rather than the money from suburban commuters, or is this just your fervent hope?

[Anonymous]

The bicyclist who is on the spectrum is making the same argument made by those who insist they can legally drive 55 mph in the far left lane on the Beltway. Sure, you can legally do that, but not safely, and that's the problem with cyclists on Wisconsin Ave at rush hour. Tone deaf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I disagree with you about DC's interest. It's all about the money it makes from VA, WVA and MD residents commuting into the city. You wish it was about the safety of all residents, but it's just not. I am not sure you understand how many companies are relocating out of DC due to taxes and to give their employees a better commute. Having to wait behind a cyclist biking 20 mph on Wisconsin Avenue could add to the frustration.

I am not sure you understand that office rents are higher in downtown DC than in the suburbs - firms pay a premium to locate in the District. And DC does far better from residents, who pay property and income taxes than from commuters. As DC has gained residents (and particularly high income residents) its financial situation has improved. It has a huge rainy day fund now, throws money at school renovations, etc, while suburbs fight over how to fund schools.

And has this truly translated into care for its own residents, rather than the money from suburban commuters, or is this just your fervent hope?

DDOT has steadily added bike lanes, and other forms of traffic calming. They have several studies going on of additional traffic calming changes. They have a LOT of traffic cameras. DC Council has passed a vision zero plan, has altereted "contributory negligence" to provide protections to cyclists and pedestrians.

http://www.dcvisionzero.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bicyclist who is on the spectrum is making the same argument made by those who insist they can legally drive 55 mph in the far left lane on the Beltway. Sure, you can legally do that, but not safely, and that's the problem with cyclists on Wisconsin Ave at rush hour. Tone deaf.

You cannot legally do that, actually. Slower traffic is legally required to keep right on highways.

Wouldn't it be great if people "advocating for drivers" actually knew the laws about driving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bicyclist who is on the spectrum is making the same argument made by those who insist they can legally drive 55 mph in the far left lane on the Beltway. Sure, you can legally do that, but not safely, and that's the problem with cyclists on Wisconsin Ave at rush hour. Tone deaf.

You cannot legally do that, actually. Slower traffic is legally required to keep right on highways.

Wouldn't it be great if people "advocating for drivers" actually knew the laws about driving?

Are we talking about law, custom or safety here? At what speed is a care considered a part of slower traffic and required to keep right? Please tell me the VA or MD statute that defines this. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Who are the annoying people who drive their cars on Bradley Blvd during morning rush hour? Got stuck in a line of cars behind one car doing 25mph this morning.

[Anonymous]

Saw one report that over 13,000 DC residents bike to work. Let's assume that including MD and VA residents might boost that to at least 15,000-20,000. Wouldn't it be great if they all stopped cycling and we had another 15,000+ cars on the road? Would make my commute so much easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bicyclist who is on the spectrum is making the same argument made by those who insist they can legally drive 55 mph in the far left lane on the Beltway. Sure, you can legally do that, but not safely, and that's the problem with cyclists on Wisconsin Ave at rush hour. Tone deaf.

You cannot legally do that, actually. Slower traffic is legally required to keep right on highways.

Wouldn't it be great if people "advocating for drivers" actually knew the laws about driving?

Are you arguing that drivers should not be annoyed with cyclists on major arteries during rush hour, simply because those cyclists have a legal right to be there? If so, you do not understand annoyance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are the annoying people who drive their cars on Bradley Blvd during morning rush hour? Got stuck in a line of cars behind one car doing 25mph this morning.

A driver practicing what they preach to cyclists - following the letter of the law! Maybe they were inspired by this thread!