The point of 'bike paths'

A recent letter to the post informs us that cyclists do not belong on the road.

Why was his group of bicyclists riding on the road and not on the bike path? A bike path is aptly named "bike path" because that is where bicyclists should ride. A group of cyclists riding on the road is a danger to drivers and to themselves. Cars have to swerve into the other lane to avoid cyclists and risk getting hit head-on by other cars.

Yes, swerving into head on traffic is the only sensible option left when a driver finds themselves trapped behind a cyclist. Someone should tell the Sheriff's Office about the aptness of the name "bike path."

blocking the Four Mile Run bike trail this morning at approximately 9:20 a.m. was a brown Sheriff’s Office van, within which a deputy or deputies were “supervising” three poor wretches in orange cleaning up in sub-freezing temps.

The first letter was a response to this one. It was followed by this one, written by someone who's obviously brilliant and devastatingly good-looking.

Melissa Schultz showed in her Jan. 21 letter how difficult it is to be a cyclist.

She claimed that a "bike path is aptly named 'bike path' because that is where bicyclists should ride." But the name is not apt at all. Most "bike paths" are filled with dog walkers, joggers, roller bladers and runners.

These are fine places for a leisurely ride. They are not suitable for a large group of adults on a training ride. Does Ms. Schultz really want a peloton of cyclists racing down a narrow path at 25 mph while she and her children bike to Mount Vernon? Cyclists riding in large groups and at high speeds are safer on the road.

Ms. Schultz contended that because of cyclists, "Cars have to swerve into the other lane . . . and risk getting hit head-on by other cars." But cars do not have to "swerve" into the other lane; they need only slow down and wait patiently for a safe opportunity to pass. Or they may not need to pass at all.

Cyclists are often told that if they obey the law, they'll get respect.

I can see why some doubt that.

If not for the 200 word limit the author might have added that it's a stated goal of every political entity in the area to increase the use of bikes for transportation, and that the network of trails is - and will always be - inadequate to achieve that goal. Furthermore, bike trails are not maintained to as high a stadards as roads are. The MacArthur Avenue trail still has long sections covered in ice and snow - though we haven't had snow for several days. There are many trails with cracked and dangerous surfaces as well as debris and glass. Riding in the road is not only safe, but often necessary.

Others have pointed out that the proper name is actually a multi-use path.

Another letter followed that one, asking why we can't just share the road.

Comments

[Jack]

200 word limit? The guy should get a blog so he can ramble on and on!

I'm tired of reading these negative letters. It's a bunch of people who'd be afraid to confront a housecat if they met one on the road, saying threatening things just to get a rise.

Here's my take. Cyclists may cork the road on some roads, but we more than make up for it elsewhere by not taking up any precious "car space" at traffic lights and roads with shoulders or wide curb lanes. And don't blame cyclists for the "corking" -- it's cities and counties who fail to widen the roads. I avoid most of those roads anyway.

Anyway, look on the bright side: The snow seems to have covered up all the broken glass on the trails.

[Jack]

BTW about that very first letter... I've noticed while biking, when I'm going slow enough to notice such things, that half the drivers impatiently honking their horns at other drivers are somewhat old and apparently crotchety. It made me calm down a bit. But the last few times someone yelled or honked at me as they passed me, they discovered to their dismay that a cyclist can catch them pretty quick at the next signal.

[ridethewomble]

It's completely disheartening. I would wager the same people who write the "get of the trail" letters are the same ones who write the "get of the road" letters two weeks later.

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. The fundamental problem is that Washington is full of self-important jackasses who complain about ANYTHING that gets in their way. Whether it's blocking the bike lane to Blackberry the office or pushing two SUV strollers side-by-side down a trail, these folks resent all reminders they are not on Earth by themselves.

They'd rather kill you than wait to turn right at the Key Bridge.

We all know it's a battle out there. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

But, yeah, Jack, it's pretty satisfying to "break their anonymity" by catching them at a light.

Sigh.

[ridethewomble]

Wow. "Of the trail," not "Off the trail?"

I need to drink coffee before reading stuff like this, and having my buttons pushed.

"Same people, same ones," is sponsored by the Department of Redundancy Department, BTW.

[Contrarian]

"Washington has made considerable effort to ensure that miles of bike paths are available and well maintained." To put that comment in perspective, DC has about 30 miles of multi-use paths, and about 2000 miles of roads.

I think there really is a generational aspect to this. The laws regarding bicycles on the road have changed a lot in the past 70 years or so. In the years after WWII, a lot of states restricted bicycles, and only in the past 30-40 years has the pendulum swung the other way. So many older drivers learned to drive at a time when cyclists in fact did not have the right to use the road. So there is room for education.

[jack]

Recent three-way conversation:

[scene 1: 6-lane arterial]

Giant SUV: "HONK!"

[scene 2: SUV's destination, 2 minutes later]

Cyclist: "What's your problem?"

Lady dwarfed by her giant SUV, both physically and mentally: "Someone's gonna rear end me because of you."

Cyclist: "Are you kidding? Your vehicle is visible from outer space."
---
Alternate responses are welcome.

[icon o'classt]

I happen to have met the writer of the last letter you reference and I can assure you he is by no means "brilliant and devastatingly good-looking"--though he compensates with a good personality, ha.

There's an Arlington Co. constable who every once in a while parks on the trail/sidewalk section of the Custis Trail between the opposing lanes of Key Blvd on the Arlington side of Key Bridge. I'm guessing (hoping?) he's sniping red-light runners coming out of Georgetown or off the parkway, though how he plans to safely overtake them from that unorthodox "parking" spot without mowing down cyclists/pedestrians is beyond me:

http://wrenchinthegears.blogspot.com/2006/10/which-thing-doesnt-belong_115984048611656363.html

[guez]

Ridethewombie,

Brilliant post! You manage to rant about people who "complain about ANYTHING that gets in their way" and people who block bike lanes by "pushing two SUV strollers side-by-side" in the same paragraph. So I guess that means you are complaining about yourself.

Incredible.

[guez]

Sorry, meant to write "paths" not "bike lanes."

[Jack]

Shared use paths are two way. If you block the whole thing you're blocking both directions and taking it out of service. I don't know too many (living) cyclists who take up the oncoming lane of the road.

[ridethewomble]

guez,

You miss the point. As an editor, you do make a good observation. That choice of words is, literally, contradictory. It would be better to phrase it a different way. Good on ya.

It's a matter of intent, though. The blocker of the bike lane thinks, "F you, cyclist, I'm just waiting here for a minute/unloading these sodas and beers/sitting here my Reston Limousine shuttle/delivering these UPS/Fedex/Airborne packages. Bike lane? F you." And that's not hypothetical. I've asked. They're completely self-centered in their decision to break the rules.

In a similar vein, the dog-walking, iPod wearing, SUV stroller-pushing trail hog thinks, "F you, cyclist. I have the right of way. I don't have any responsibilities. The burden of my safety and your safety is on you. We should ban bikes." Again, completely self-centered thinking.

I'm trying to say there's no way to make these people happy. They want bikes off the roads, and they want them off the paths. It's because they refuse to share things. I meant, "get in their way," figuratively, not literally.

I'm tired of people on MUT's using their rights to abrogate their responsibilities. I'm sick of trucks, taxis, and cars having no respect for bike lanes. I'm tired of getting honked at by, and having close calls with, cars turning right when I am going straight. If that makes me a selfish jackass, then I'm a selfish jackass.

[Claire]

I am sick to death of people yelling at me "get off the road." I have just as much right, if not more so to be on the road as they do!