He led into the chat with a question from a cyclist
I've got a letter from a biker I'm hoping to get some help with. Jodi Williams of Alexandria writes: "I started riding my bicycle once or twice a week from my home along Franconia Road to my office in Georgetown this May (14 miles each way). Until recently, that is. The pedestrian/bicycle passageway at the Eisenhower Avenue connector has been closed for construction associated with the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project.
"I've considered riding to Van Dorn, but that adds many miles to my route, and it would be risking my life to ride through the Telegraph Road/Beltway interchange. Do you have any suggestions about how to safely get from Franconia Road to the Mount Vernon Trail without adding significant mileage or major dangers to my ride?"
I'm hearing a lot from Beltway drivers about this new lane configuration on the outer loop at the Eisenhower Connector. My plan is to use next Sunday's Commuter page in The Post to explain what's going on and address some of these concerns.
Alexandria, Va.: I saw the question from the Franconia Rd. biker, and took a look at the Fairfax City bike map. With the Clermont connector to Eisenhower Ave. closed temporarily, bikers from Franconia and Springfield are really out of luck. The only way that I can see to get to the Mount Vernon trail is going to be a circuitous route through residential streets to get to Beacon Hill road. Or maybe Belle Haven Road would work - I don't know if there is a safe way to cross the GW parkway from there. Anything else leads to busy Rt. 1 or Telegraph Rd. - not safe. Glad I live INSIDE the beltway.
Robert Thomson: I know that the Wilson Bridge Project is suggesting Van Dorn Street as the alternative Beltway crossing now that the Eisenhower Avenue Connector is out of action (for drivers, bikers and walkers). I'm asking cyclists to suggest other alternatives, but think they're going to be limited.
If you've got ideas, drop me a line at drgridlock@washpost.com. I'll make that part of the Commuter page feature I mentioned above.Kevin, Alexandria, Va.: Was wondering about suggestions for those of us who used to bike through the Eisenhower connector. Will that really be closed until September? Will there be a new path put in place to allow us to get around the beltway without risking our lives on Van Dorn or Telegraph? Thank you in advance for your answer!
Robert Thomson: Through September, I think. No, there's no special bike path to compensate for the loss of access to the Eisenhower Connector.
Has anyone got a better suggestion than the one above? I don't.
Anyway, the question must've brought out the ugliness...
Ballston, Va.: Could the Tour D France wannabes in their lycra shorts and shaved legs please give it up riding double file down a hill at 25mph on road with a posted speed limit is stupid and dangerous and upsets those of us in cars who are stuck behind your Lance Armstrong wannabe bike. I realize you spent over $7k on your carbon fiber road bike from Trek but it still doesn't give you the right to obstruct traffic on winding two-lane roads, especially when you are climbing at less than 5mph. Go play somewhere else besides the back roads of Loudoun, PW, and Fauquier counties. Better yet take up mountain biking where you aren't endangering yourself and others and you can also wear baggy shorts. Real men mountain bike! I do.
Nothing worse than spending a Sunday morning worrying about these spandex-clad fools. And yeah I follow the rules of the road, laws etc. You roadies don't!
[WC: As an anti-bike rant I give it a mere 6 out of 10. He covered some of the boilerplate territory: "lycra", "spandex", "Lance Armstrong wannabe", questioning of manhood, expensive bike and a toy/play reference but failed to mention "arrogant", "self-righteous/holier-than-thou", taxes, the proximity of trails or acting as though "they own the road"/"laws don't apply to them". He was pulled up from a five for poor command of the English language - critical to such rants.]
Robert Thomson: I think riding double is legal everywhere in our region -- if it doesn't impede traffic. Passing cyclists on winding, two-lane roads in the suburbs is difficult, so I understand drivers' frustration with this.
Alexandria, Va.: Cyclists are vehicles--so they have the right to be on the roads. Following the rules of course. The trails have a speed limit and most of those riders travel too fast for the trails. Cyclists have the right to travel in the lane. Passing on a twisting road is a bad idea period. If you're in a hurry pick another road.
Robert Thomson: That's fair. Maybe idealistic, but fair.
Re: cyclists: As I was driving in Arlington yesterday, I passed two cyclists (who were staying toward the right side of the road) without any problem. A few blocks later I came to a red light and was thinking how the cyclists would be catching up to me soon so I would have to be careful as we all proceeded forward when the light turned green. It wasn't an issue as the cyclists proceeded to go through the red light where I was stopped and the red light at the next intersection. Please remind cyclists that red lights (and stop signs) apply to them too.
Robert Thomson: Constant problem. I think travelers would show more respect for each other if they saw each other following the rules of the road. If people are going to seek the protection of some rules, they should be following them all.
Red light running: A friend's brother, who was 25 and a super cyclist (won all sorts of races) was killed last year because he ran a red light at an intersection and was hit by an SUV crossing on the green. She shot out in front of her, she didn't see him and then couldn't stop. It was awful for everyone. It is just stupid to assume cars see you, bikers (and the same applies to pedestrians. I was hit while running by a car making a right on red without stopping. I now always look to be sure no one is turning before I cross). Is that extra 30 seconds or so worth your life?
Robert Thomson: Intersections are the most dangerous point for all: drivers, walkers and bikers. Don't be lulled because you've got the right of way. Even smart travelers can become victims that way.
More red light running: I notice a frightening number of bicyclists that run red lights and stop signs without stopping. Isn't that prohibited here? It was where I grew up.
Robert Thomson: Yes. You have not entered a parallel universe. The same traffic rules apply to drivers and to cyclists.
Again, I have no criticism for Dr. Gridlock. And yesterday he recommended more bike facilities as a partial cure for congestion. Though I wish he would be a little more assertive with someone like Ballston whose insulting rant shows more than a little aggression and entitlement - the kind of things that get dangerous if they show up on the road. I understand his desire to stay above the fray, but his willingness to let it go unchallenged might be read as tacit approval.
Agreed. Especially on the last point about insulting rants. As an advocate for traffic safety and commuting issues (by all modes), it seems like Dr. Gridlock needs to call people out on outrageous statements like that, or ignore their questions. I mean, that whole thing could have been boiled down to a more civilized, "I often encounter cyclists riding double file on two-lane roads impeding the slow of automobile traffic. What does the law say about this?"
But I guess that wouldn't be as fun as attacking a group as diverse as cyclists w/ outrageous stereotypes and questioning their manhood. Ballston must have a little "one" and he has to compensate by making comments like that one.
Does rhetoric like Ballston's stoke the flames of anti-cyclist feelings or does it simply make him look like a blubbering idiot with anger management issues? I wonder how non-cyclist readers of Dr. Gridlock react to comments like his...
Posted by: Eric | July 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM
"Balston" is a mountain biker. He is easily ignored as one who treats his bicycle as a toy.
Posted by: Tom | July 22, 2009 at 10:57 AM
I actually think that the response shows more than tacit approval--it shows sympathy as in "yeah, we've all been there and those cyclists sure do suck".
Also, they have editorial control over what questions/comments appear. Selecting this one, and sympathizing with the letter writer rather than telling him to get over himself shows deliberate cyclist bashing, to me.
Posted by: Catherine | July 22, 2009 at 11:17 AM
I actually think that the response shows more than tacit approval...
My guess is that if some idiot had posted a comment complaining about "ditzy female drivers", or the "sense of aggession and entitlement" all black drivers have, his response would have been different.
Posted by: ibc | July 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM
My guess is that if some idiot had posted a comment complaining about "ditzy female drivers", or the "sense of aggession and entitlement" all black drivers have, his response would have been different.
+1. I was trying to come up with a way to voice that very thought in my first comment, too. You have put it quite succinctly.
Posted by: Eric | July 22, 2009 at 02:38 PM
+1 ibc.
The cyclist was being forced miles out of her route by a closure and lack of SAFE alternative that exists for cars. However, Dr. Gridlock seems sympathetic to Ballston who had to wait an extra 30 seconds to pass someone on the road.
Posted by: SJE | July 22, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Totally with you all on this one. I think we should write a letter. A nice one, but pointing out what's been said above (particularly the differing attitudes toward the cyclist and the Ballston driver). I nominate anyone but myself--I tend to rant and get the objects of my ire just as angry as I am!
Posted by: Catherine | July 22, 2009 at 05:42 PM
I go through the Telegraph/Huntington/Kings Hwy area on occasion (live just off Huntington). In my experience, it's really not that bad. The letter writer could easily use Elmwood Dr (the last right before hitting the Beltway on Clermont, survive Telegraph for 2 blocks, then use Huntington (which, while busy, is not so painful that you can't use it) to get over to Route 1 and the new Route 1 trail connection to Mt. Vernon/WWB.
Posted by: Froggie | July 23, 2009 at 06:49 AM
I think someone should drop in on next week's chat and bring up the appropriateness of the anti-bike rant.
Posted by: Washcycle | July 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Or shoot Dr. Gridlock an E-mail. I sent one this morning and got a reply. He mentioned, verbatim:
"I'm preparing a news feature for the Sunday Commuter page in The Post about the changes at Eisenhower Connector and want it to be relevant to bikers and walkers as well as drivers."
Posted by: Froggie | July 23, 2009 at 06:46 PM
Right. If you have advice on getting across the beltway without using the ike connector, let him know about it via email.
Posted by: Washcycle | July 23, 2009 at 06:53 PM
I think the issue with Dr. G is not just being relevant to cyclists and peds, its saying something when drivers act like Ballston. The bad attitude of drivers leads to cyclists being killed.
Posted by: SJE | July 24, 2009 at 02:36 PM