Hopefully this is the end of this tempest in a teapot.
The main things are that he won't be tailed by a motorcycle anymore, and that he didn't know the Clara Barton Parkway was off limits to cyclists - he's been riding it since high school. So now we can get back to less important issues like fixing the education system and balancing the budget.
IS Clara Barton Pkwy off limits to bicycles? All these stories have claimed such, but there are no signs to that affect where Canal Rd turns into Clara Barton. I wouldn't ride on the Pkwy because cars go too fast, but I had no idea it was illegal. (Isn't it sort of ironic that it is the parkways that one cannot ride a bicycle on?)
Posted by: Ross | November 12, 2009 at 02:50 PM
According to NPS rules it is. But it isn't posted and one commenter here said that it is required to be posted. So the rule is no biking, but they may have not followed the procedures needed to implement the rule. Of course the MSM hasn't captured that part of the story.
Posted by: Washcycle | November 12, 2009 at 03:06 PM
...except for that little section between Chain Bridge going towards Georgetown, of course...
Posted by: Chris | November 12, 2009 at 03:49 PM
So the Mayor can have security with him... unless he rides a bicycle. Are we really that much lower of a class of people because we ride bikes?
Is WTOP alined with a political party now? They could dig this much dirt up on anyone yet they only focus on Fenty for some reason and in the end make things worse for all cyclists.
WTOP has done a fantastic job of pushing the letter of the law to take things away from cyclists yet egnores the peds and drivers.
Posted by: Joe | November 12, 2009 at 03:49 PM
Cycling was banned on the Clara Barton Parkway in Novemeber 2007. Prior to that, PPTC held monthly time trials on the road. So that's why Fenty remembers riding there in high school. Then it was legal. The policy banned it from the Chain Bridge to MacArthur Boulevard.
This was all discussed here (and I forgot the details).
Posted by: Washcycle | November 12, 2009 at 04:06 PM
I'm hoping that is a typo rather than "less" important issues, to be "more important issues"
Posted by: Susan Schneider | November 12, 2009 at 07:55 PM
It was sarcasm.
Posted by: Washcycle | November 12, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Can a "compendium" actually close Clara Barton Parkway? How does that constitute the public rulemaking requirement set forth in section 1.5 of 36 CFR (especially in light of its historical use by bicyclists)? Does that really meet the public notice requirements set out in section 1.7?
Posted by: 7 | November 13, 2009 at 09:40 AM
Can a "compendium" actually close Clara Barton Parkway? How does that constitute the public rulemaking requirement set forth in section 1.5 of 36 CFR (especially in light of its historical use by bicyclists)? Does that really meet the public notice requirements set out in section 1.7?
No. No. And No.
Posted by: Contrarian | November 13, 2009 at 09:46 AM