Anonymous wrote:

Sure, take the Capital Crescent, that's an excellent alternative. I seriously doubt there's any research comparing taking the Metro to biking down highly trafficked arterials like River Road with no bike infrastructure. But anyway the other point is being anti-social. You're engaged in an activity that's impinging on traffic, so you're going to get annoyed responses just like this OP. You can't engage in out-of-place behavior that inconveniences others, and not expect them to be annoyed. Which is not a great look, if you care about getting better bike infrastructure created.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

you have the wrong person. I'm a biker and I've loved the times when I had a feasible bike commute. I agree that biking on busy traffic arteries is legal in DC; but it's unwise, and it's anti-social to slow down traffic at rush hour. And overall it's not good for the cause of getting more investment in and acceptance of bike infrastructure. Just bike to Bethesda and metro in like the rest of us.

or Bike to Bethesda and take the perfectly good Capital Crescent Trail and then get off and use existing bike lanes in the core of DC instead of going on Conn/Wis/Mass whatever

AFAICT most people riding from MoCo to downtown DC do exactly that. The folks riding those state avenues live IN upper NW DC, and don't have good alternatives. Or they work in Upper NW.

Which state avenues?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

you have the wrong person. I'm a biker and I've loved the times when I had a feasible bike commute. I agree that biking on busy traffic arteries is legal in DC; but it's unwise, and it's anti-social to slow down traffic at rush hour. And overall it's not good for the cause of getting more investment in and acceptance of bike infrastructure. Just bike to Bethesda and metro in like the rest of us.

or Bike to Bethesda and take the perfectly good Capital Crescent Trail and then get off and use existing bike lanes in the core of DC instead of going on Conn/Wis/Mass whatever

AFAICT most people riding from MoCo to downtown DC do exactly that. The folks riding those state avenues live IN upper NW DC, and don't have good alternatives. Or they work in Upper NW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

you have the wrong person. I'm a biker and I've loved the times when I had a feasible bike commute. I agree that biking on busy traffic arteries is legal in DC; but it's unwise, and it's anti-social to slow down traffic at rush hour. And overall it's not good for the cause of getting more investment in and acceptance of bike infrastructure. Just bike to Bethesda and metro in like the rest of us.

I don't live in MoCo. But riding in on arterials is probably MORE wise than taking metro for most people, in terms of health outcomes.

Also if someone can ride to downtown Bethesda, can't they ride into DC on the Capital Crescent Trail? What does this have to do with River Road? What high speed road are you thinking of ? One in DC? I am pretty sure the DC govt is not going to stop putting in bike lanes because some folks in Bethesda and North Potomac don't like cyclists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

or Bike to Bethesda and take the perfectly good Capital Crescent Trail and then get off and use existing bike lanes in the core of DC instead of going on Conn/Wis/Mass whatever

But the perfectly good Capital Crescent Trail doesn't go everywhere that people want to go. It's like me asking why don't drivers take the Beltway instead of 270.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

you have the wrong person. I'm a biker and I've loved the times when I had a feasible bike commute. I agree that biking on busy traffic arteries is legal in DC; but it's unwise, and it's anti-social to slow down traffic at rush hour. And overall it's not good for the cause of getting more investment in and acceptance of bike infrastructure. Just bike to Bethesda and metro in like the rest of us.

Anonymous wrote:

or Bike to Bethesda and take the perfectly good Capital Crescent Trail and then get off and use existing bike lanes in the core of DC instead of going on Conn/Wis/Mass whatever

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

you have the wrong person. I'm a biker and I've loved the times when I had a feasible bike commute. I agree that biking on busy traffic arteries is legal in DC; but it's unwise, and it's anti-social to slow down traffic at rush hour. And overall it's not good for the cause of getting more investment in and acceptance of bike infrastructure. Just bike to Bethesda and metro in like the rest of us.

or Bike to Bethesda and take the perfectly good Capital Crescent Trail and then get off and use existing bike lanes in the core of DC instead of going on Conn/Wis/Mass whatever

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

you have the wrong person. I'm a biker and I've loved the times when I had a feasible bike commute. I agree that biking on busy traffic arteries is legal in DC; but it's unwise, and it's anti-social to slow down traffic at rush hour. And overall it's not good for the cause of getting more investment in and acceptance of bike infrastructure. Just bike to Bethesda and metro in like the rest of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

you have the wrong person. I'm a biker and I've loved the times when I had a feasible bike commute. I agree that biking on busy traffic arteries is legal in DC; but it's unwise, and it's anti-social to slow down traffic at rush hour. And overall it's not good for the cause of getting more investment in and acceptance of bike infrastructure. Just bike to Bethesda and metro in like the rest of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well its kind of hard to have an intelligent conversatioin with someone who doesnt know what they are talking about.

And again, I have never seen a rider on the GW Parkway. And I ride the MVT ALOT. I mean I am sure it happens, but is it as common as, say, people who drive their cars into stores?

This actually happens all.the.time. And it's not as though the store just jumped out at the driver.

Its the fault of the store, for running stop signs.

Thank you, PP, for clarifying! Yes, if those Dunkin Donuts keep willfully engaging in risky and unlawful behavior, how can I have any respect for buildings?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say it was illegal; just very unwise. And you certainly can't expect cars to be overjoyed about you when you're deliberately engaging in antisocial (albeit legal) behavior.

Unwise compared to what?

and it is NOT antisocial, other than to people like you who try to avoid understanding why cyclists do what they do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well its kind of hard to have an intelligent conversatioin with someone who doesnt know what they are talking about.

And again, I have never seen a rider on the GW Parkway. And I ride the MVT ALOT. I mean I am sure it happens, but is it as common as, say, people who drive their cars into stores?

This actually happens all.the.time. And it's not as though the store just jumped out at the driver.

Its the fault of the store, for running stop signs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't quite understand is that cycling is supposed to be something done for health reasons, and then the cyclist engages in all manner of risky behaviors, one of which is riding on busy streets and disobeying traffic laws. Then the cyclist gets clipped and dies, so what is the point?

Do you actually think that ALL cyclists do that?

If enough do it that you all have SUCH a horrible reputation, as so many have told you, perhaps it's time for some self reflection, no?

The reputation comes because

A. Many drivers can't tell the difference between an Idaho stop, and "blowing through" a red light or stop signs
B. The cyclists who do not Idaho stop signs, or seldom do, or who never Idaho red lights, are invisible, because of confirmation bias (that is a nerdy word, sorry)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't quite understand is that cycling is supposed to be something done for health reasons, and then the cyclist engages in all manner of risky behaviors, one of which is riding on busy streets and disobeying traffic laws. Then the cyclist gets clipped and dies, so what is the point?

Well for one, while bike riding is often done for health reasons, some do it for other reasons. Amazingly, not all cyclists are the same.

Secondly, if you ever ride in traffic yourself, you will find that sometimes the things cyclists do that you think make them less safe, actually make them more safe, or do not have any net effect either way.

As for riding on busy streets, I don't know anyone who doesn't seek out the safest convenient route. But often times there are no good alternatives (and what you think is a good alternative, like a sidewalk is not) Note also what is safe depends on how people ride. A little kid going at 5MPH may be able to ride on a sidewalk that is a terrible choice for an adult riding at 16MPH.

But we have statistics demonstrating that cycling is incredibly less safe than driving in a car. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation- we have facts.

Its not. It has about double the risk per trip (bike trips are typically shorter than car trips though, so the folks riding a few miles in DC are MORE safe than someone driving in from MoCo - but lets assume the same distance for the sake of argument, someone driving from MoCo to DC vs someone riding from MoCo to DC). This is more than offset by the health benefits of riding.

Even before we adjust for the large number of bike fatalities that involve not wearing a helmet, or having inadequate lights.

You literally said "it's not" and then proceeded to directly support everything i said.

Thanks... I guess?

Sorry my post was too long for you to read.