This is Crickey7's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Crickey7's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Crickey7
Crickey7 is a man who is extremely proud of his humility. He has no connection to the imposter "krickey7".
Recent Activity
Alors! Will the French stop at nothing! Have done a couple of endos in my time, I take my hat off to the riders who got back on and completed the stage. Those guys are freaking tough.
The signal activators I run into in Maryland generally turn the light for me, although I have to position myself right over the center of the loop, and it helps if I've have the Super Burrito with extra cheese for munch.
I come down on the side of "better safe than in full possession of moral superiority, but dead". That's why come dusk, I'm running more red lights than an Amsterdam brothel.
I'd settle for a "pedestrians, horses and cyclists preferred" sign.
dayglo-- Fat chance. She can see right through a cyclo-nazi one-worlder socialist like yourself.
The volume of people using the WO&D indicates she is wrong on two counts. During the week, those people may not be spending tourism dollars, but they are relieving pressure on the transportation infrastructure. Has Suzanne priced new transportation infrastructure lately? On the weekends, those people are indeed in Loudon Co. buying gas, buying food, staying in lodging and buying, um, bikes. If they weren't doing it in Loudon County, you can be sure they would be doing it in a jurisdiction that had cycling recreation, because that's what a lot of people like to do, at least occasionally.
It's hard to see, but the last three riders appear to be wearing a uniform. And the final rider's leg position indicates he may be about to do the dreaded "butt waggle", which is highly provocative to drivers, kind of like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
It is indeed hard to deduce anything from a static picture. A couple of points seem to be clear, though. One, there is a fair amount of traffic on the road in question, of both the motor vehicle and bicycle variety. Two, they both appear to using the road at the same time, even if the speed at this particular moment MAY not as high as the drivers wish. Three, either the next car up has just passed some of the cyclists, or they are travelling at the same speed. Q.E.D., the cyclists are in fact sharing the road, and not impeding traffic.
That could do double duty as one's talisman.
I think we're all a bit abashed by the direction the thread veered. No disrespect intended.
Only with a chorus that calls out the gradually diminishing number of beer bottles.
Mandatory stopwatch laws for cyclists. How else will you know your two minutes are up?
I'd be interested in seeing how any recent work on the trail changed what I remember. It always was a fine path to use as long as you were prepared to go slowly and take a number of the turns at a walking speed. And, of course, if no one else were on the path. So it's a multi-use path, not a bike trail, with all the flaws of that type of trail for cyclists. To the unwary, or to those looking to make a little time, I recall it being fairly unforgiving. I wasn't exaggerating about missing the turns a few times.
I see several points of difference. First, the one on the south side is on level ground, with good sight lines. Second, drivers approaching that crossing are entering an area where lanes merge and exit, creating a necessity for slower speeds and for greater caution. You can partially replicate the latter, but not the former. Bikes will speed up on the approach. And cars will tend to treat a flashing light as creating the need to be more vigilant, but not to go slower.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2011 on Trail now semi-official at TheWashCycle
Trying to legislate where a design problem exists is ultimately futile. Ticketing cyclists is pointless--there are no really good alternatives to this crossing--and ticketing drivers is pointless where this is along a long undisturbed stretch of road. Either way, you'll generate a lot of tickets, and people will still do dangerous and illegal things. The only answer is a design one.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2011 on Trail now semi-official at TheWashCycle
Man, I got the heebie-jeebies just looking at a picture of that crossing.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2011 on Trail now semi-official at TheWashCycle
I am on record as backing mandatory talisman laws.
Half-assed.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2011 on DDOT responds to cycletrack concerns at TheWashCycle
Tragic. Interesting that they report the cyclist as having been "thrown from his bike", as if there are bicycle crashes in which that does not happen. A little autocentricity in reporting there.
I think I basically agree. And I think that it makes for an awkward interchange, where no one really knows who has the right of way, and so everyone slows and proceeds with caution. In Europe, they call this "traffic calming."
I think that someone on the trail approaching the crossing must stop and yield to cars approaching. It gets a little messy if there are a series of cars. Technically, a yield means you're supposed to wait for an opening. But if you proceed into the crosswalk (seated or walking), I believe the cars have to stop if they can. So in practice the "opening" is the amount or distance you could reasonably expect a car to stop.
Au contraire. The right amount is the amount Mrs. Crikey determines. Although I love having a washing machine located between the garage where the Crickeycycle is stored and the living area of Casa Crickey.
Toggle Commented Jun 27, 2011 on Where the ladies at? at TheWashCycle
You missed the moral of the story. Contrarian vowed to adopt the helmet-wearing lifestyle, and has lived a safer, hassle-free existence ever since.
I hope you carry some form of ID. I know at least three cyclists who got concussed in accidents, so were for a period unable to communicate. You owe it to your loved ones.
To refuse to follow the advice of a professional until you know their agenda is an invitation to paralysis. As to the abandonment thing, I'm sure most abandoned bikes didn't start out that way. It's impossible to enforce a law prohibiting only bikes that are being abandoned from being locked to trees. Plus, the tree can be damaged if a bike is stolen or stripped while locked to it, or if the City has to break the lock to remove it. Better to avoid the abandonment issue prospectively than retrospectively, when the tree is far more likely to be damaged. While not an arborist (albeit posessing a "pro-tree" agenda), I believe that any damage to a tree's bark, even if not readily apparent, can have a significant negative effect on a tree's overall health.