Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I say to self-righteous cyclists who get mowed over: At least you have your point.

What is the difference between a cyclist and a self-righteous cyclist, aside from them being in front of you? I'd like to be able to tell them apart.

Given that this is all sociopathic-level of projection and an almost textbook case of fundamental attribution error, you might just as well ask a deranged individual how best to line your hat with tin-foil.

Bikes have every right to be on the road. They should be treated as cars and are legally required to follow traffic laws just like cars. They are entitled to an entire lane - just like a car; however, most don't do this out of respect for drivers on the road but maybe they should. And just like car commuters, they ignore stop signs and blow thru lights - mostly for their own safety or to get out of your way when that light turns green for you.

Gosh! Such a sedentary view of the road this country has. Guess what? Car is not king anymore. Traffic sucks in this town and cycling is on the rise. Get used to it. Better yet, try riding a bike one day. Its so nice not be to be trapped behind the wheel with a bunch of people driving who have no regard for anyone but themselves.

I'm so sick of people bagging on cyclists when they are just plain shitty drivers.

Signed,
Part time cycling commuter - part time driving commuter that lives in the city

It's always fun to see people who are the aggressors in these situation try to turn things around to try to cast themselves in the role of the victim.

On the one hand, you've got someone trying to get from Point A to Point B, probably enjoying a nice day out, and getting a little bit of exercise--all legally and within their rights.

On the other, you've got someone in a 5000 pound vehicle who's in danger of being inconvenienced for a few moments. So they're going to honk, scream, swerve, etc, etc..

How can the latter possibly justify behaving like such a total douchebag? Well, let's see: bikers wear colorful clothing, someone who was riding on a bike once ran into my girlfriend, they don't obey all traffic laws at all times, they think they're "entitled", etc, etc, etc...

Did I miss anything, or is that pretty much it

Cyclists should pay for MoCo to put up speed cameras every 500 yards. It would serve the bitchy drivers right.

Anonymous wrote:What I say to self-righteous cyclists who get mowed over: At least you have your point.

What is the difference between a cyclist and a self-righteous cyclist, aside from them being in front of you? I'd like to be able to tell them apart.

Anonymous wrote:What I say to self-righteous cyclists who get mowed over: At least you have your point.

This happens so rarely as to not factor into my decision-making at all. Love it when the law-abiding tantrum-throwers have to resort to thinly veiled threats of violence, though. "You'll be sorry when you're all dead and stuff!" Waa-waa, indeed.

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.

I think you suffer from a delusion common among folks who think that the entire world should comport itself with whatever you find most convenient. Namely, that "the law" consists of "whatever you wish it to". While you're correct that in MD cyclists are required to use a bike lane if there is one, and if it is--in the opinion of the cyclist--suitably safe.

But that has no bearing in the case of MacArthur Blvd, since there is no "bike lane" on McArthur Blvd. There's an adjoining multi-use path. These things all have actual legal definitions.

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.

Uh, the bike lanes were rejected by Glen Echo's representative. That's why we just have the path and the road. Maybe you are unfamiliar with what a bike lane is.

What I say to self-righteous cyclists who get mowed over: At least you have your point.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loathe bikers on the roads. ... They take the right of way rather than yield the right of way. !

You do realize that bikes have a legal right to be on the road? There is no mandate that they yield the right of way? Maybe you need to go back to driving school?

Also, the right to the road has been upheld over and over and over again by the courts, so good luck with your efforts to "pass a law" to get the banned. How about growing up, taking a big deep breath, turning on the car stereo, and realizing that you're being a childish little shit.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it funny that the bikers complain about having to slow down for pedestrians but think drivers shouldn't complain about having to slow down for them?

You know what's funny? The fact that you're completely projecting. Folks who bike are explaining that bike paths are not sufficient for bike travel, and that they're going to use their legal right to ride in the road rather than endanger pedestrians by riding fast on multi-use trails.

The very small minority of unhinged drivers who are posting here basically want to have cyclists banned from the roadways because they want to be able to drive as fast as they want.

The equivalent would be if bikers were to argue that pedestrians should be banned from specific high-traffic sidewalks because it's just. too. dangerous. After all, pedestrians can't keep up with the flow of [bike] traffic, and it's extremely dangerous for them.

Of course, no cyclists are making that argument because we're not a bunch of deranged, overly-entitled cry babies with the coping skills of a three year old. That clearly isn't the case for the folks who want to ban cyclists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have a right to ride in the street. If they rode the path they would endanger pedestrians and the speed limit on the path is too low.

Bikers are terrifying on the bike paths, screaming "On your right," and then almost knock you over. I don't know the answer but the next time I'm out walking with my family and dog, and this happens, I'm going to scream at them. Bikers have no manners and I am fed up with them.

You need to take it up with the unhinged broad who wants to ban bikes from the public roadways. The only reason there are bike/pedestrian conflicts is that they both are fighting over the tiniest sliver of public space left over when everything has been ceded to the automobile. Don't like bike buzzing you on the 2.5 foot wide, rutted, muddy, twisting multi-use path? Talk to Ms Shrieky from up-thread.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why not do what you're advising drivers to do -- just deal with it?

We do. We choose the path where we are least likely to hurt anyone and where traffic is moving closest to our rate of speed.

You are in a big hunk of metal. You drive 25 mph (or do you?) You are required to drive in one direction and signal when you brake or turn. Every driver is licensed.

Pedestrians are unprotected. They walk at 3 mph or jog at 6 mph. They are not required to signal, often have headphones, and may cross lanes, turn around at will. Children present.

The best match for a bicycle is the auto lane. The rate of speed is closer, the non-cyclists are protected, everyone is following the same direction, and no children driving.