Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

There are not enough cyclists to warrant their own lane. Sorry.

Since no particular street was mentioned above, how can you possibly know that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

There are not enough cyclists to warrant their own lane. Sorry.

There weren't enough drivers driving across San Francisco Bay at the Golden Gate to warrant their own bridge, either.

I hope that you're not the PP who doesn't like bicyclists on the sidewalk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

There are not enough cyclists to warrant their own lane. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

I ride a motorcycle, but I identify as a cyclist.

Can I ride in your bike lanes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here now on a full size keyboard. This was on Macarthur on the MD side in Cabin John. I was stopped immediately behind the bus which had already turned its red lights on. Out of nowhere from behind me came a cyclist that passed me on the left and went into the opposing lane (where there were no cars because they had also stopped for the bus) and whipped back in front of the bus. I assume it was a man but it all happened so quickly. THe person was wearing lycra head to toe and had one of the thin racing bikes that becomes part of your body when you ride leaning side to side. It was just jaw-dropping. He was moving way too fast and would not have been able to stop if a kid had done something unpredictable.

Yes, the person should have stopped.

I live in this area. We have a large number of cyclists because of the multi-use path (used to be called a bike path) in DC, and the fact that the road has few intersections. There seem to be two types of cyclists here -- those that casual riders, or semi-frequent riders into work from the neighborhood, and a group that I like to call 'intense and entitled cyclists'. The second group is characterized by the affinity for breezing through 4 way stop signs (even with lots of traffic), riding on the double yellow in between traffic so as to make the light at the one-lane bridge, and generally acting as if the sound belongs to them (or should belong to them). I admit that the second group drives me nuts -- and that speeding past a bus with flashing yellow lights sounds totally like something they would do. (And yes, it does seem that this group more frequently dresses like they are training for the tour de france)

When a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road (just like a car). That is the law.

And whether or not injuries sustained when being hit by a moving car are worse that those sustained when hit by or a moving bike are irrelevant. And just because somebody else did something worse than you, does not make what you did right.

Not quite. When a person on a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road for bicyclists - just like drivers must follow the rules of the road for drivers. That is the law.

And pray tell - what do those rules say about red lights, stop signs, and one-way streets?

The rules for one-way streets are the same for bicyclists and drivers - except where there are contraflow bike lanes.

The rules for red lights and stop signs are the same for bicyclists and drivers - except in jurisdictions that allow bicyclists to treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs.

In DC bicyclists are legally allowed to go through a red light when the pedestrian signal turns to walk, usually a second before the light turns green.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

There are not enough cyclists to warrant their own lane. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here now on a full size keyboard. This was on Macarthur on the MD side in Cabin John. I was stopped immediately behind the bus which had already turned its red lights on. Out of nowhere from behind me came a cyclist that passed me on the left and went into the opposing lane (where there were no cars because they had also stopped for the bus) and whipped back in front of the bus. I assume it was a man but it all happened so quickly. THe person was wearing lycra head to toe and had one of the thin racing bikes that becomes part of your body when you ride leaning side to side. It was just jaw-dropping. He was moving way too fast and would not have been able to stop if a kid had done something unpredictable.

Yes, the person should have stopped.

I live in this area. We have a large number of cyclists because of the multi-use path (used to be called a bike path) in DC, and the fact that the road has few intersections. There seem to be two types of cyclists here -- those that casual riders, or semi-frequent riders into work from the neighborhood, and a group that I like to call 'intense and entitled cyclists'. The second group is characterized by the affinity for breezing through 4 way stop signs (even with lots of traffic), riding on the double yellow in between traffic so as to make the light at the one-lane bridge, and generally acting as if the sound belongs to them (or should belong to them). I admit that the second group drives me nuts -- and that speeding past a bus with flashing yellow lights sounds totally like something they would do. (And yes, it does seem that this group more frequently dresses like they are training for the tour de france)

When a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road (just like a car). That is the law.

And whether or not injuries sustained when being hit by a moving car are worse that those sustained when hit by or a moving bike are irrelevant. And just because somebody else did something worse than you, does not make what you did right.

Not quite. When a person on a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road for bicyclists - just like drivers must follow the rules of the road for drivers. That is the law.

And pray tell - what do those rules say about red lights, stop signs, and one-way streets?

The rules for one-way streets are the same for bicyclists and drivers - except where there are contraflow bike lanes.

The rules for red lights and stop signs are the same for bicyclists and drivers - except in jurisdictions that allow bicyclists to treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.

Anonymous wrote:I've never seen a fellow cyclist run a stop sign or red light. It just flat doesn't happen. This whole thing is a myth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here now on a full size keyboard. This was on Macarthur on the MD side in Cabin John. I was stopped immediately behind the bus which had already turned its red lights on. Out of nowhere from behind me came a cyclist that passed me on the left and went into the opposing lane (where there were no cars because they had also stopped for the bus) and whipped back in front of the bus. I assume it was a man but it all happened so quickly. THe person was wearing lycra head to toe and had one of the thin racing bikes that becomes part of your body when you ride leaning side to side. It was just jaw-dropping. He was moving way too fast and would not have been able to stop if a kid had done something unpredictable.

Yes, the person should have stopped.

I live in this area. We have a large number of cyclists because of the multi-use path (used to be called a bike path) in DC, and the fact that the road has few intersections. There seem to be two types of cyclists here -- those that casual riders, or semi-frequent riders into work from the neighborhood, and a group that I like to call 'intense and entitled cyclists'. The second group is characterized by the affinity for breezing through 4 way stop signs (even with lots of traffic), riding on the double yellow in between traffic so as to make the light at the one-lane bridge, and generally acting as if the sound belongs to them (or should belong to them). I admit that the second group drives me nuts -- and that speeding past a bus with flashing yellow lights sounds totally like something they would do. (And yes, it does seem that this group more frequently dresses like they are training for the tour de france)

When a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road (just like a car). That is the law.

And whether or not injuries sustained when being hit by a moving car are worse that those sustained when hit by or a moving bike are irrelevant. And just because somebody else did something worse than you, does not make what you did right.

Not quite. When a person on a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road for bicyclists - just like drivers must follow the rules of the road for drivers. That is the law.

And pray tell - what do those rules say about red lights, stop signs, and one-way streets?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here now on a full size keyboard. This was on Macarthur on the MD side in Cabin John. I was stopped immediately behind the bus which had already turned its red lights on. Out of nowhere from behind me came a cyclist that passed me on the left and went into the opposing lane (where there were no cars because they had also stopped for the bus) and whipped back in front of the bus. I assume it was a man but it all happened so quickly. THe person was wearing lycra head to toe and had one of the thin racing bikes that becomes part of your body when you ride leaning side to side. It was just jaw-dropping. He was moving way too fast and would not have been able to stop if a kid had done something unpredictable.

Yes, the person should have stopped.

I live in this area. We have a large number of cyclists because of the multi-use path (used to be called a bike path) in DC, and the fact that the road has few intersections. There seem to be two types of cyclists here -- those that casual riders, or semi-frequent riders into work from the neighborhood, and a group that I like to call 'intense and entitled cyclists'. The second group is characterized by the affinity for breezing through 4 way stop signs (even with lots of traffic), riding on the double yellow in between traffic so as to make the light at the one-lane bridge, and generally acting as if the sound belongs to them (or should belong to them). I admit that the second group drives me nuts -- and that speeding past a bus with flashing yellow lights sounds totally like something they would do. (And yes, it does seem that this group more frequently dresses like they are training for the tour de france)

When a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road (just like a car). That is the law.

And whether or not injuries sustained when being hit by a moving car are worse that those sustained when hit by or a moving bike are irrelevant. And just because somebody else did something worse than you, does not make what you did right.

Not quite. When a person on a bicycle is using the roadway, they must follow the rules of the road for bicyclists - just like drivers must follow the rules of the road for drivers. That is the law.