« Ospreys have left the crane | Main | Driver of Camaro who attacked cyclist was arrested »


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

Everyone noticed that those are two, one-legged guys, right?

They sure liked to smile and point guns at people a lot back in the 1920s. What's up with the execution/target practice picture (photo #5)? Strange.

The execution/target practice picture is a sales demonstration of an old bulletproof vest. When I came across this image yesterday and showed it around the office (the National Law Enforcement Museum) I was surprised to learn we have a stack of similar pictures and some of the early vests themselves - including one that belonged to Dillinger.

And to really sidetrack everyone for a summer Friday, most of these pictures and many MANY more can be found at shorpy - www.shorpy.com

Try using their search engine for "bicycle". The "Washington DC" search has a lot of good stuff too, but because the source for many of the images is the Library of Congress collection it also brings in a lot images of other places.

Found at fault by whom? The police? Or a judge? How many children were involved? Any bike-bike crashes (obviously a cyclist would be at fault there)?

Great point. This is a classic "apples-oranges" comparison. Many bike crashes involve children making poor decisions (though the way we organize our public spaces in suburbia and urban areas, where cars are allowed to speed with impunity, often leave little room for error). Obviously, no car crashes are going to be the result of children making a mistake.

But in general, statistics regarding cycling accidents are complete garbage.


"Not many NIH bike commuters (of which there are quite a lot)"

Of which I am one. The problem is that the subsidy program suffers from a common conceptual error in such programs: it assumes a single method of commuting: either you drive , or you metro, or you ride. I think most of us (especially cyclists) do at least two and such narrow thinking forces us to give up support for one if we want support for the other...

@ Ken. I agree. I'm a bike commuter with another agency and I wouldn't give up my Metro subsidy for $20 for biking. Since - by number of days commuted - I'm primarily a Metro user, that's just too valuable. The current bike program does little to encourage biking as a "transportation alternative."

I agree with 7 and Ken. The choice is one or the other, and the car subsidy FAR outweighs the bike subsidy. So, if you give up the car subsidy, you are pretty much giving up a big chunk of $$.


You're not Crickey7 (nee Krickey7) are you? If so, I love the new, "bad boy" moniker.


The Prince George's County connector from Ft. Totten to the DC line would help complete a missing link in the trail network. Any idea of timetable on the DC side? What about the connection on the PG county side from the NW branch trail to link up? Is that in the works yet?

I left the metro subsidy program in favor of biking all the time, though still occasionally use metrobus. I'd like the $20/month, but my department doesn't have it set up.

@ oboe.

The subsidy system is all screwed up. It is highest for cars, least for bikes. Peds get nothing. How is this encouraging people to live closer to work, reduce traffic, etc?

Then, it is all or nothing. At my office, I only get the parking subsidy if I get monthly parking. This only saves me money if I drive 4 days out of 5, compared to paying cash each time you park.

Why leave the metro subsidy program? I bike almost all the time, but when I don't, I take the subsidy. The only condition on receiving the subsidy is that you don't drive, which I don't.

This video was posted in GGW.


It's impossible to keep track of all the illegal moves made by drivers. There are just too many. As for cyclists? I didnt see a single one breaking the law.

(While the guy trying to pass two others in the intersection was unwise, it is actually not illegal)

I ride metro to work so infrequently it's not worth taking any money for it. I don't think I used metro for all of June, and only once in July. $6, the WMATA experience and missing my bike are incentive enough to ride the next day.

(While the guy trying to pass two others in the intersection was unwise, it is actually not illegal)

Can someone clarify this? The guy in question is riding into oncoming traffic traffic outside of the cycletrack crossing lines. Legal?

Yes, biking and transit benefits should be integrated. The original program wasn't all that great for people in metros where decent transit systems exist.

2. Boulder might be the only city in the US to have a bicycle excise tax on the sale of bikes. They use the money to pay for trails development.


While for a variety of reasons I think it's justifiable for bike, ped, and transit improvements to come out of gasoline excise taxes, I don't have a problem with a bike excise tax if the money is dedicated.

There is a federal excise tax on certain outdoor recreational equipment which supports lands and other conservation efforts which probably indirectly helps bicycling here and there:


The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader