Bikers on MacArthur Blvd. MD

[Anonymous]

Safety goes both ways here. Drivers, and cyclists, are supposed adjust their speeds in response to the road conditions. If you are travelling so fast around a curve that you cannot safely stop in response to slower, or non moving traffic, then you are going too fast, either on a public roadway or the multi use path. The near misses a previous poster referenced are symptoms people not adjusting their speed to the road.

[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!

Well, there was the damage done to my right front quarter panel when a bicyclist rode into it full tilt. I was at a standstill, by the way, waiting to pull into traffic. Guess that big black SUV was hard to see..........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Well, there was the damage done to my right front quarter panel when a bicyclist rode into it full tilt. I was at a standstill, by the way, waiting to pull into traffic. Guess that big black SUV was hard to see..........

How was your right quarter panel hit if you were waiting to pull into traffic?

[Anonymous]

"Well, there was the damage done to my right front quarter panel when a bicyclist rode into it full tilt. I was at a standstill, by the way, waiting to pull into traffic. Guess that big black SUV was hard to see.........."

So if the bike was in the travel lane, the cyclist had the right of way and you pulled into the path of travel or you did not properly time your entry into traffic, not the other person responsibility , so whose fault was the accident?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Well, there was the damage done to my right front quarter panel when a bicyclist rode into it full tilt. I was at a standstill, by the way, waiting to pull into traffic. Guess that big black SUV was hard to see..........

My best friend was walking across a street when she was hit by a bicyclist going about 20 miles a hour - he ran the red light. She was eight months pregnant and rushed to GW hospital in an ambulance. Several pedestrians tried to catch the bicyclist, but he got away.

Too bad he didn't have to pay for the ambulance, her overnight stay in the hospital, and all doctor bills. And too bad he didn't go to jail.

[Anonymous]

My best friend was killed by a car whose driver looked directly at her and then pulled out into her. She had the right of way, the car was pulling out of a driveway. And this is just as relevant, or not, to a discussion nominally about whether to require bicycles to use bike paths, not roads, when path available, as the PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Well, there was the damage done to my right front quarter panel when a bicyclist rode into it full tilt. I was at a standstill, by the way, waiting to pull into traffic. Guess that big black SUV was hard to see..........

My best friend was walking across a street when she was hit by a bicyclist going about 20 miles a hour - he ran the red light. She was eight months pregnant and rushed to GW hospital in an ambulance. Several pedestrians tried to catch the bicyclist, but he got away.

Too bad he didn't have to pay for the ambulance, her overnight stay in the hospital, and all doctor bills. And too bad he didn't go to jail.

Wow, I guess we should ban bicycles because someone committed a crime with one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Well, there was the damage done to my right front quarter panel when a bicyclist rode into it full tilt. I was at a standstill, by the way, waiting to pull into traffic. Guess that big black SUV was hard to see.........."

So if the bike was in the travel lane, the cyclist had the right of way and you pulled into the path of travel or you did not properly time your entry into traffic, not the other person responsibility , so whose fault was the accident?

My question for her is how the hell did he hit the right panel if she hadn't yet pulled out?

If she's waiting to make a right turn, biker hits her left panel.

If she's waiting to make a left turn, biker coming the other way hits her left panel.

If she completed the turn, biker hits her rear.

The only way the biker plows into her right panel is if she is mid-turn and then it's her fault.

[Anonymous]

If there is a bike path, why do they need to be on the road. I am all for sharing the road where there is no lane or path for bikes. The fact that the path is not in good condition for riding shouldn't be an excuse. The roads are not in ultimate conditions and cars still need to use them. Also, that the path is being used by walkers and other bikers is not a good excuse either. Roads are full of cars and they are still used by cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My best friend was walking across a street when she was hit by a bicyclist going about 20 miles a hour - he ran the red light. She was eight months pregnant and rushed to GW hospital in an ambulance. Several pedestrians tried to catch the bicyclist, but he got away.

Too bad he didn't have to pay for the ambulance, her overnight stay in the hospital, and all doctor bills. And too bad he didn't go to jail.

Your friend was lucky
I know someone to whom that also happened, but they were hit by a car. No overnight hospital stays, just a few nights in the mortuary and then the rest in the coffin and the grave

[Anonymous]

The cyclists in the Lance Armstrong jackoff costumes should stay only velodromes. I hate them on MacArthur and especially on the Crescent trail. They are a menace. But it is true that you will never be able to stop them. It attracts a certain personality type to dress up in such narcissistic clothing and pour thousands into a f*cking bicycle. Douche-fanaticsm/exhibitionism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Pool together some of the $$ you spend on ridik gear and build some velodromes like they do in Europe. If you want American culture to support your sport, do it responsibly in a bike only environment.

[Anonymous]

In Montgomery County, it is illegal for an adult cyclist to ride on the sidewalk (kids are exempted). Macarthur Blvd has "share the road" signs on the road reminding drivers to share the road with cyclists (or perhaps the other way around).

However, riding two-abreast is also illegal if it obstructs traffic.

The capital crescent trail is actually not a very safe place for cyclists. Most of them are riding around 15-25mph, which is dangerous with walkers and children on the same path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pool together some of the $$ you spend on ridik gear and build some velodromes like they do in Europe. If you want American culture to support your sport, do it responsibly in a bike only environment.

the promised land of obesity will never support any sport

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cyclists in the Lance Armstrong jackoff costumes should stay only velodromes. I hate them on MacArthur and especially on the Crescent trail. They are a menace. But it is true that you will never be able to stop them. It attracts a certain personality type to dress up in such narcissistic clothing and pour thousands into a f*cking bicycle. Douche-fanaticsm/exhibitionism.

When did you see Lance Armstrong riding indoors?

If you don't like cyclists on the trails and roads, support the bike lanes they have been asking for over the last fifteen years down MacArthur.