Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why is there the NEED to transport children in all types of weather and times of day BY CAR?

After all, kids can ride bikes, too. And little kids can ride on their parents' bikes. And it's possible ride bikes in the rain. And it's possible to ride bikes at night.

So, why? Because there's little or no safe bike infrastructure, that's why.

But instead of adding safe bike infrastructure, people are saying that there shouldn't be safe bike infrastructure because parents NEED to transport their children BY CAR.

How exactly do you transport babies and their associated gear such as strollers, etc. on a bike? Please be reasonable and use common sense.

There are lots and lots of child seats for bikes available. See here, for example: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-kids-bike-seats/

You can also easily transport two children on a bike - or even more. Here's a video full of people on bikes transporting babies and children, from Holland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfLJ876lXsQ

The difference is that in Holland, unlike here, there's a whole lot of safe bike infrastructure.

Take your kids to a travel tournament in Richmond or Delaware on your bike with all the gear. I’ll wait

Anonymous wrote:

I’m also supposed to give pedestrians the right of way by law, but I told my kids that even though they legally HAVE the right of way, don’t assume it’s safe to do so all the time. If you walk behind a ton of steel that’s backing up, you might have the right of way, but you might also be killed. Which is more important to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Citation please.

Because unless you can show a MV code which specifically mentions and exempts cyclists from being prohibited from passing on the right, you’re just making stuff up.

Plus, if someone is front of you, they have right of way to those overtaking them to pass. You don’t own the road in front of you where someone else is traveling. It’s not your “path”. Your responsibility by law is to exercise due caution to avoid a collision with someone in front of you.

You seem to think that traffic laws only apply to cyclists in situations where it benefits them, and the rest of time they don’t apply.

Your attitude and your relishing of double standards are why most drivers think cyclists are jerks.

The traffic laws that apply to people on bicycles are the traffic laws that apply to people on bicycles. Some of them are the same as the traffic laws that apply to people who are driving. Some of them are not the same.

Here's the law in DC:

Q: Is it legal to ride between lanes?

A: According to the DCMR, a bicyclist can split lanes.

Section 1201.3(b) states:

“A person operating a bicycle may overtake and pass other vehicles on the left or right side, staying in the same lane as the overtaken vehicle, or changing to a different lane, or riding off the roadway, as necessary to pass with safety.”

Paragraph (c) in this section states,

“If a lane is partially occupied by vehicles that are stopped, standing, or parked in that lane, a person operating a bicycle may ride in that or in the next adjacent lane used by vehicles proceeding in the same direction.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The only way for that to happen is where the car is FRONT of the cyclist, and the cyclist rides INTO the side of the car as it’s changing lanes.

This is exactly why passing on the right is illegal. Because overtaking vehicles drive right into the side of a car as it slows and makes a right turn. The cyclist is (yet again) failing to observe traffic laws. Shocking, huh?

If you don’t want to get right hooked, stop passing cars on the right as they slow down to make a turn.

Either take the lane as you’re legally entitled, stay in the middle, slow down as the car in front of you slows down, or pass it on the left if you are able to do so. But passing it on the right as it’s preparing to make a turn and getting run over is your own damn fault. If I ever got hit by a cyclist doing that, you can bet I’d be suing for damages.

The law disagrees with your interpretation. Passing on the right is not illegal for a person who is riding a bike. And drivers are not allowed to turn across another person's path. A person going straight has the right-of-way over a person turning. When you're driving and getting ready to turn right, you must not only signal, you must also check on the right for people who are biking and people who are walking.

If you right-hook a cyclist, and the collision damages your car, you may sue, but you will lose.

I agree, however, that one way to TRY to avoid a right hook is to take the lane.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/08/science-tackles-the-right-hook-bikings-most-feared-crash/567230/

Citation please.

Because unless you can show a MV code which specifically mentions and exempts cyclists from being prohibited from passing on the right, you’re just making stuff up.

Plus, if someone is front of you, they have right of way to those overtaking them to pass. You don’t own the road in front of you where someone else is traveling. It’s not your “path”. Your responsibility by law is to exercise due caution to avoid a collision with someone in front of you.

You seem to think that traffic laws only apply to cyclists in situations where it benefits them, and the rest of time they don’t apply.

Your attitude and your relishing of double standards are why most drivers think cyclists are jerks.

I’m not the PP but am curious about what the law says. Here’s what VA says: https://www.virginiadot.org/programs/bikeped/laws_and_safety_tips.asp
Bikes can pass on the left or right. The section on passing does tell bikers to be careful on passing on the right because of the right hook.

In the situation where the car is slowing to make their right turn, I think a bike could keep going straight because they’d then be passing the slowing car. They’d be an idiot and putting themselves in the way of being right hooked.

Looking at the situation that sparked the right turn issue, that poster said they were at a stop sign. Two cars were stopped, one going straight and one turning right. The woman making the right had a biker then come up on her right, passing all the stopped cars. I think that is legal based on the VA bike laws. But someone else please read and correct me. I’m likely reading it wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just trying to imagine all the moms biking their little kids to school. Just not going to happen for many reasons.

It certainly isn't going to happen now. But build good bike infrastructure, and it will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why is there the NEED to transport children in all types of weather and times of day BY CAR?

After all, kids can ride bikes, too. And little kids can ride on their parents' bikes. And it's possible ride bikes in the rain. And it's possible to ride bikes at night.

So, why? Because there's little or no safe bike infrastructure, that's why.

But instead of adding safe bike infrastructure, people are saying that there shouldn't be safe bike infrastructure because parents NEED to transport their children BY CAR.

How exactly do you transport babies and their associated gear such as strollers, etc. on a bike? Please be reasonable and use common sense.

There are lots and lots of child seats for bikes available. See here, for example: https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-kids-bike-seats/

You can also easily transport two children on a bike - or even more. Here's a video full of people on bikes transporting babies and children, from Holland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfLJ876lXsQ

The difference is that in Holland, unlike here, there's a whole lot of safe bike infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is an avid bike rider. The bike controls EVERYTHING in our household, from where we bought a house to how we will retire. The dedication bike riders have to their sport is beyond anything I’ve ever seen, and it’s supported by other riders. It’s as close to a cult as I’ve ever seen.

Lots and lots of people don't ride bikes as a sport. They ride bikes as a means of transportation.

By choice. That’s a sport

You drive by choice. So it's a sport. Right?

WRONG, parents drive b/c of NEED to transport their children safely in all types of weather and times of day. There will always be cars, trucks, buses on the road b/c of NEED. Cyclist typically also have cars but they choose to ride-- many others do not have that option for various valid reasons.

Why is there the NEED to transport children in all types of weather and times of day BY CAR?

After all, kids can ride bikes, too. And little kids can ride on their parents' bikes. And it's possible ride bikes in the rain. And it's possible to ride bikes at night.

So, why? Because there's little or no safe bike infrastructure, that's why.

But instead of adding safe bike infrastructure, people are saying that there shouldn't be safe bike infrastructure because parents NEED to transport their children BY CAR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll respect cyclists when I start seeing them getting pulled over and issued tickets for running stop signs and redlights.

Until then, they’re scofflaws, and get zero respect.

Or when they're ticketed for speeding on trails. There are speed limits, and the trails were built before your super souped up bikes - plus there are far too many people on it for the lancholes to ride like they do.

Anonymous wrote:I’ll respect cyclists when I start seeing them getting pulled over and issued tickets for running stop signs and redlights.

Until then, they’re scofflaws, and get zero respect.

Anonymous wrote:

Citation please.

Because unless you can show a MV code which specifically mentions and exempts cyclists from being prohibited from passing on the right, you’re just making stuff up.

Plus, if someone is front of you, they have right of way to those overtaking them to pass. You don’t own the road in front of you where someone else is traveling. It’s not your “path”. Your responsibility by law is to exercise due caution to avoid a collision with someone in front of you.

You seem to think that traffic laws only apply to cyclists in situations where it benefits them, and the rest of time they don’t apply.

Your attitude and your relishing of double standards are why most drivers think cyclists are jerks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The only way for that to happen is where the car is FRONT of the cyclist, and the cyclist rides INTO the side of the car as it’s changing lanes.

This is exactly why passing on the right is illegal. Because overtaking vehicles drive right into the side of a car as it slows and makes a right turn. The cyclist is (yet again) failing to observe traffic laws. Shocking, huh?

If you don’t want to get right hooked, stop passing cars on the right as they slow down to make a turn.

Either take the lane as you’re legally entitled, stay in the middle, slow down as the car in front of you slows down, or pass it on the left if you are able to do so. But passing it on the right as it’s preparing to make a turn and getting run over is your own damn fault. If I ever got hit by a cyclist doing that, you can bet I’d be suing for damages.

The law disagrees with your interpretation. Passing on the right is not illegal for a person who is riding a bike. And drivers are not allowed to turn across another person's path. A person going straight has the right-of-way over a person turning. When you're driving and getting ready to turn right, you must not only signal, you must also check on the right for people who are biking and people who are walking.

If you right-hook a cyclist, and the collision damages your car, you may sue, but you will lose.

I agree, however, that one way to TRY to avoid a right hook is to take the lane.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/08/science-tackles-the-right-hook-bikings-most-feared-crash/567230/

Citation please.

Because unless you can show a MV code which specifically mentions and exempts cyclists from being prohibited from passing on the right, you’re just making stuff up.

Plus, if someone is front of you, they have right of way to those overtaking them to pass. You don’t own the road in front of you where someone else is traveling. It’s not your “path”. Your responsibility by law is to exercise due caution to avoid a collision with someone in front of you.

You seem to think that traffic laws only apply to cyclists in situations where it benefits them, and the rest of time they don’t apply.

Your attitude and your relishing of double standards are why most drivers think cyclists are jerks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only way for that to happen is where the car is FRONT of the cyclist, and the cyclist rides INTO the side of the car as it’s changing lanes.

This is exactly why passing on the right is illegal. Because overtaking vehicles drive right into the side of a car as it slows and makes a right turn. The cyclist is (yet again) failing to observe traffic laws. Shocking, huh?

If you don’t want to get right hooked, stop passing cars on the right as they slow down to make a turn.

Either take the lane as you’re legally entitled, stay in the middle, slow down as the car in front of you slows down, or pass it on the left if you are able to do so. But passing it on the right as it’s preparing to make a turn and getting run over is your own damn fault. If I ever got hit by a cyclist doing that, you can bet I’d be suing for damages.

The law disagrees with your interpretation. Passing on the right is not illegal for a person who is riding a bike. And drivers are not allowed to turn across another person's path. A person going straight has the right-of-way over a person turning. When you're driving and getting ready to turn right, you must not only signal, you must also check on the right for people who are biking and people who are walking.

If you right-hook a cyclist, and the collision damages your car, you may sue, but you will lose.

I agree, however, that one way to TRY to avoid a right hook is to take the lane.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/08/science-tackles-the-right-hook-bikings-most-feared-crash/567230/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look around your office and tell me which of the 300 pound admins from PG County are going to pedal their fat assess to work-Burger King-work-home even if there were dedicated paved paths just for them?

None.

This bike thing has white privilege written all over it.

Bike lanes are racist.

There is some truth to this, actually a lot of truth to this. Not that the majority of people from PG county are overweight but that it is extreme white (usually) male privilege to think and demonize that biking for all your needs is practical, the best, the most efficient use of your time, the answer. It is also very white
male privilege to have that Jesus complex that I just save everyone, I am absolutely right, it is my duty to tell everyone why and convert them. Because I’m a white dude, I know, I’m smart, smarter than you. You have to pick up your kids and take them to soccer. Of course you can bike it if it was only so easy as more bike lanes. You can just buy all those kids bikes and helmets, you have the free time to bike to practice, it’s great. It’s fine. You need to commute to your job In dc from Fairfax, OMG no problem. It’s ok, you can afford a bike, and gear and I’m sure you have access to a gym at your cool white collar job in a posh building plus the extra tine to take a shower once you get there. Oh you need winter and rain gear, sure so easy just spend more money you don’t have to get that too. Wait, you’re handicap, no big deal, you can get an arm pedal bike or some other adaptive bike, they’re so affordable. Wait, you work more than one job because you need the cash, ok I just know you can store your bike at both places. And just get a light for when you leave late, it’s totally safe. Ha ha ha. I mean Seminary Road was just spearheaded by an Uber bike enthusiast who lives in a million dollar neighborhood to make the few blocks walk for his grandchildren from their million dollar neighborhood to his safer. He just needed that little stretch of Seminary to do it. Who cares about the poors? They don’t live in Seminary Hill. They’re too busy getting run over on Beauregard or Little River Turnpike in the west end. Not my problem, we’ll just blame it on the cars and lack of bike infrastructure, not the fact that these people are running for the bus. We won’t worry about it, Who needs to get these people bikes or work to make it safer. They’re like different shades of brown and black. Out of site out of mind!

Anonymous wrote:Take a look around your office and tell me which of the 300 pound admins from PG County are going to pedal their fat assess to work-Burger King-work-home even if there were dedicated paved paths just for them?

None.

This bike thing has white privilege written all over it.

Bike lanes are racist.

Anonymous wrote:

The only way for that to happen is where the car is FRONT of the cyclist, and the cyclist rides INTO the side of the car as it’s changing lanes.

This is exactly why passing on the right is illegal. Because overtaking vehicles drive right into the side of a car as it slows and makes a right turn. The cyclist is (yet again) failing to observe traffic laws. Shocking, huh?

If you don’t want to get right hooked, stop passing cars on the right as they slow down to make a turn.

Either take the lane as you’re legally entitled, stay in the middle, slow down as the car in front of you slows down, or pass it on the left if you are able to do so. But passing it on the right as it’s preparing to make a turn and getting run over is your own damn fault. If I ever got hit by a cyclist doing that, you can bet I’d be suing for damages.