Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Saturday Afternoon Ride - Don't forget Bike DC tomorrow | Main | Bike to Work Day 2011 - It was like a fountain of cyclists »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Two things,

Does anyone else find it incongruous that the picture in an article discussing the behavior of fast recreational/racing cyclists is of transportation/utility cyclists.

It's like we just had an story of someone complaining of drag racing down their street and the picture they show is of grandma in her station wagon!

Second point - yes wider shoulders will help with these conflicts. But is anyone seriously suggesting that packs of cyclists are supposed to be tearing down an 8-ft wide MUP at 30 MPH !!!!!!!

If groups want to ride three or more abreast, then they'll have to take the risk of a ticket.

If the police are going to be on McArthur Blvd. I am interested to see if they give any tickets to motorists for passing closer than the 3 foot law!!

If the police are going to be on McArthur Blvd. I am interested to see if they give any tickets to motorists for passing closer than the 3 foot law!!

If they are going to inforce the rules of the road to the letter of the law they they must also do so for drivers or they are simply discriminating.

Therefore I expect to see drivers & cyclist pulled over for exceeding the speed limit by 1 or more MPH, and not coming to complete stops at stop signs and rights on red.

In seems that in Mo.Co. freedom is the right to take away other's freedoms to make their lives convenient while discriminating against others.

Good point on the 3 foot law, then they should beable to get some drivers on the secondary no cell law that doesn't seem to have had any impact.


it's hard to intelligibly comment on such unbelievable stupidity from motorists and law enforcement (sic).

chief manger is a well intentioned fool. we all know that. he cant name a SINGLE book on the built environment he's EVER read!!! his command staff are similarly clueless. including cyclist lt. jack hand...

let's FIRST enforce the laws of the road on ALL users: ENFORCE THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT. ENFORCE THE THREE FOOT PASSING LAW (which manger's staff didnt know existed as recent as March 2011!!) etc.. do this and i GUARANTEE the last thing motorists will be concerned with is bicycles!!!...it will cause traffic to CRAWL, and the anger from motorists at EACH OTHER will lead to criminal assault...for CERTAIN.

MoCo is just an awful place to ride a bike and will remain so: sidepaths are idiotic, and the sprawlscape that dominates is not capable of being sanely reclaimed.

and sidepaths!? Tait Noir is an embarassment. youve got to be kidding -- about her and sidepaths!!!! like the one along macarthur? or seneca?! montrose? seven locks? pleeeezzzee!!!! theyre all pathetic

if you ride a bike give up. move to a liveable city...


uh.

DUH.

OF COURSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST BICYCLISTS!!!

WAKE UP!!!

@Washcycle. The letters and much discussion were on MoBike before the Rush letter. There was a grainy picture of cyclists seemingly riding 3-4 abreast and taking a lane and a shoulder. Depending on the condition of that shoulder, single file might work. Cyclists seem to be riding in the shoulder.

Note: In Maryland cyclist can ride 2 abreast if not impeding traffic. For narrow roads, riding 2 abreast probably helps rather than impedes traffic so the law is ambiguous. Does it mean that you can not ride two abreast if the two riding abreast are impeding traffic, or only if going from single file to two abreast impedes the traffic? Someone will probably have to take this one to court for us to be sure.

This might not be popular here, but I wonder if there couldn't be an argument that the solution would be a law forbidding cyclists to ride in large groups when doing so hinders the passage of automobiles. This would address the concerns of motorists and wouldn't do anything to inconvenience transportation/utility cyclists.

Guez: If I read your comment correctly, you don't want anything in the road that would hinder the passage of automobiles, I presume, at or over the speed limit. Then I guess we should pass a law that forbids automobiles during rush hour, because it is during rush hour that cars are going slower than I am on a bike, and hence cars are hindering the passage of themselves and bicycles. This is a great idea, and I fully support your idea. I'm looking forward to reading your letter to your state legislature promoting this.

Why should cyclists, either single file or in a pack, be treated any differently than a slow moving vehicle like a big lawn tractor or a postal delivery vehicle.

Competent motorists don't have a problem overtaking a group of bicycles. Incompetent and impatient motorists do.

While they are out there, they probably get a lot more money from stopping speeders exceeding the posted speed limits than from bicyclists riding two abreast. BTW, is passing a cyclist riding two abreast since there is a certain time where they are at the same level?

Clearly, these guys have not looked around themselves enough to note that they are in a glass house and it is not advised to throw stones in that position.

This article mentions that riding "more than two abreast" is illegal, and then says "riding two and three abreast is illegal". How many can ride abreast legally? One or two?

@Rob. Please see second paragraph of my comment of 12:14 AM May 22. In addition, cyclists may ride no more than two abreast.

Upside, I think what guez is going for is that cyclists should be allowed to ride anywhere regardless of speed, but that perhaps packs of cyclists out for recreation or training should not.
It's an interesting idea as it's harder to justify a club ride holding up traffic than a woman on her way to work, but the execution would be difficult. I think it would be easier to ban that type of cycling on certain roads, but I'm not sure MacArthur Boulevard, which isn't a highway of any kind as near as I can tell, and has a speed limit of 30mph would qualify. But maybe there are single lane, shoulderless roads where weekend pack riding should be banned. A better option would be to find good routes for that kind of riding and mark them as such. Encourage cyclists to ride those routes and promise extra enforcement of violations against cyclists. A little more carrot and less stick.

Who are you and what did you do with Washcycle?

Guez, thanks for proving my point. There are poeple in Mo.Co. that think it's fine to discriminate and limit people's freedom just to gain convenience for themselves.

As for the concept that bicycles should only be on the road for transportation... again, stop taking away peoples freedoms.

Maybe we should kick bicycles off bicycles trails in Mo.Co. because they are an inconvenience for the peds? Thats the next step.

The only FAR and EQUAL solution is to inforce the rules on EVERYONE.

No I do not ride with that group or really any groups, I'm just very STRONGLY OPPOSED TO DISCRIMINATION. If the laws are not equally inforced on ALL groups then it's DISCRIMINATION.


Guez, please clarify, be the following statement, are you saying that you don't think cyclists sould be on the roads for recreation on training?

......This would address the concerns of motorists and wouldn't do anything to inconvenience transportation/utility cyclists.

We've got an egalitarian, simple, and eminently enforceable way of prioritizing traffic on our roads: you get priority if your vehicle is running with lights and a siren.

I'm not sure what framework there is for banning club/team rides on public roads. Do we then get into ranking the different kinds of road uses? Should we ban drivers who are headed to the gym? People out for a Sunday excursion? Short of outlawing fun, and perhaps installing smile-o-meters in the driver's seat, I don't see how this is practicable.

Attempts at banning urban Critical Mass rides as "unpermitted parades" have met with little success. The courts have tended to frown upon laws intended to break up groups of motorcyclists - sometimes there are even First Amendment implications.

I think what guez is going for is that cyclists should be allowed to ride anywhere regardless of speed, but that perhaps packs of cyclists out for recreation or training should not.

Sounds great! We'll ban cyclists from roadways for non-transport purposes just as soon as we ban private automobiles from Rock Creek Park and Haines Point.

Somehow I'm not too worried.

You can put in all of the bike lanes you want but the bicyclist will still ride in the street. They believe they own the roads. They do not stop at stop signs and they do not share the road in a safe manner.

You can put in all of the bike lanes you want but the bicyclist will still ride in the street.

That's correct. And legal.

They believe they own the roads.

Turns out, they do. At least the part they're on and the safe space around them. That's why they call it right-of-way (which is a real estate term)

They do not stop at stop signs

And neither does anyone else.

and they do not share the road in a safe manner.

They do a better job of it than drivers do.

I'll add that I've never met a cyclist who prefers to ride with motorized traffic. Given two facilities of equal quality every cyclist will pick the one that is car-free. The problem with MacArthur is that the multi-use trail is just awful.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader