I just saw go over the TJ Bridge northbound. What an idiot!

I just saw go over the TJ Bridge northbound. What an idiot!

May explain the traffic news i heard on the radio coming home about that time. Northbound TJ bridge traffic slow though no accidents on either side.
Definite idiot if it was a bicycle rider for sure.

May explain the traffic news i heard on the radio coming home about that time. Northbound TJ bridge traffic slow though no accidents on either side.
Definite idiot if it was a bicycle rider for sure.

The bridge was already slow. The sign advises against bikes. That is stupid. You want to risk your life to save a couple of bucks?

Sowwy...my car was in the shop.

I just saw go over the TJ Bridge northbound. What an idiot!

That bridge bothers me going over it on a motorcycle; but on a bic...y...c..l...e, there, that's it......NFW!

Bridge made me nervous the first couple times over on the V-strom, but after adding a fork brace and an adjustable bracket for my windshield, it's steady as a rock over the bridge. Set the windshield for max low, and no wind issues, the front end wobble went away due to the fork brace.

I just saw go over the TJ Bridge northbound. What an idiot!

Are we talking about the Thomas Johnson Bridge? As far as I know, cyclists are allowed on that bridge. I've taken a look on Google maps and it looks perfectly safe to me as long as the cyclist takes the full lane and doesn't ride in the gutter. Yeah, he's going to slow traffic down to 10mph, but it's not like there's any other option there - the next bridge over that body of water is nearly 35 miles away. If I had to go over there, I wouldn't think twice about it.

It's not as if he's taking the William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge - US 50/301 over Chesapeake Bay.

I just saw go over the TJ Bridge northbound. What an idiot!


Did they have their Lance Armstrong professional bicyclist outfit on?

:sideswipe:

Did they have their Lance Armstrong professional bicyclist outfit on?

:sideswipe:

I hope you're not advocating vehicular homicide, just because they have the temerity to use a bridge and wear a colorful shirt.

:blahblah:

Are we talking about the Thomas Johnson Bridge? As far as I know, cyclists are allowed on that bridge. I've taken a look on Google maps and it looks perfectly safe to me as long as the cyclist takes the full lane and doesn't ride in the gutter. Yeah, he's going to slow traffic down to 10mph, but it's not like there's any other option there - the next bridge over that body of water is nearly 35 miles away. If I had to go over there, I wouldn't think twice about it.

It's not as if he's taking the William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge - US 50/301 over Chesapeake Bay.

While it may not be illegal, it's still idiotic, rude and dangerous.

While it may not be illegal, it's still idiotic, rude and dangerous.

At least inconsiderate.

While it may not be illegal, it's still idiotic, rude and dangerous.

At least inconsiderate.

Idiotic and dangerous? In what way? Last I heard, cars have brakes and steering wheels. I think most drivers know how to slow to between 10 and 20mph (cycling speed) and wait until it's safe to pass. This is what the law requires. If people can't even do that, then I think they need to stop driving.

Rude? Inconsiderate? How? It's a road, and cyclists are not rude by using it to get places. If the man is like me and doesn't own a car, and needs to get to work or to some appointment, what other option would he have? As a cyclist, I can assure you that no cyclist would take that bridge if they had another option - we know full well that motorists don't like being slowed to cycling speeds, and to take a bridge that has only one narrow lane will cause many motorists, ignorant of the law and the need to share the road with other users, to switch to road rage mode.

The bridge is only a mile long. It's not going to take him that long to get over it - maybe 3 minutes if he's fit. It takes motorists just over a minute when going at the 45mph speed limit. So he's causing you to be a couple of minutes later. You know there's no right to a certain speed on the road, right? You are required to go at the speed of the vehicle who has the right of way - and if that's a bicycle, so be it. Also, vehicles cannot be cited for holding up traffic if they are going at a normal speed based on that vehicle's capabilities.

I think maybe drivers need to be a little more patient and aware that some folks just don't have the option to drive, and that there are going to be some slower vehicles on the road. This is going to be the case to a greater extent in the future, as fuel prices rise and more and more low income folks have to look to other options for their commute. Middle income and higher income folks don't seem to realize what a burden car ownership is - a car costs thousands of dollars per year in maintenance costs. In these times, that burden is becoming unbearable for millions of Americans. There seems to be a widely held assumption that cyclists are only on the road for recreation. That is not the case for me, and it's surely not the case for others. I think a little consideration might be in order.

Idiotic and dangerous? In what way? Last I heard, cars have brakes and steering wheels. I think most drivers know how to slow to between 10 and 20mph (cycling speed) and wait until it's safe to pass. This is what the law requires. If people can't even do that, then I think they need to stop driving.

Rude? Inconsiderate? How? It's a road, and cyclists are not rude by using it to get places. If the man is like me and doesn't own a car, and needs to get to work or to some appointment, what other option would he have? As a cyclist, I can assure you that no cyclist would take that bridge if they had another option - we know full well that motorists don't like being slowed to cycling speeds, and to take a bridge that has only one narrow lane will cause many motorists, ignorant of the law and the need to share the road with other users, to switch to road rage mode.

The bridge is only a mile long. It's not going to take him that long to get over it - maybe 3 minutes if he's fit. It takes motorists just over a minute when going at the 45mph speed limit. So he's causing you to be a couple of minutes later. You know there's no right to a certain speed on the road, right? You are required to go at the speed of the vehicle who has the right of way - and if that's a bicycle, so be it. Also, vehicles cannot be cited for holding up traffic if they are going at a normal speed based on that vehicle's capabilities.

I think maybe drivers need to be a little more patient and aware that some folks just don't have the option to drive, and that there are going to be some slower vehicles on the road. This is going to be the case to a greater extent in the future, as fuel prices rise and more and more low income folks have to look to other options for their commute.

:blahblah:

Why do you think the signs advise against it then?

I hope you're not advocating vehicular homicide, just because they have the temerity to use a bridge and wear a colorful shirt.

They can wear a clown suit for all I care as long as they don't impede the progress of traffic.

:blahblah:

Why do you think the signs advise against it then?

The signs probably advise against it because most people who decide to place signs are not cyclists, and they respond the way most folks here have responded, and assume it's just too SCAARRYY for cyclists. But, as a public right of way, they probably can't make using it illegal.

There are only three bridges in MD where cyclists are forbidden - the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge - US 40 over the Susquehanna River, the Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge - US 301 over the Potomac River, and the William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge - US 50/301 over Chesapeake Bay. The rules regarding cyclists on MD roads are here (http://www.marylandroads.com/index.aspx?Pageid=596).

What is the wording on the sign?

Idiotic and dangerous? In what way? Last I heard, cars have brakes and steering wheels. I think most drivers know how to slow to between 10 and 20mph (cycling speed) and wait until it's safe to pass. This is what the law requires. If people can't even do that, then I think they need to stop driving.

Rude? Inconsiderate? How? It's a road, and cyclists are not rude by using it to get places. If the man is like me and doesn't own a car, and needs to get to work or to some appointment, what other option would he have? As a cyclist, I can assure you that no cyclist would take that bridge if they had another option - we know full well that motorists don't like being slowed to cycling speeds, and to take a bridge that has only one narrow lane will cause many motorists, ignorant of the law and the need to share the road with other users, to switch to road rage mode.

The bridge is only a mile long. It's not going to take him that long to get over it - maybe 3 minutes if he's fit. It takes motorists just over a minute when going at the 45mph speed limit. So he's causing you to be a couple of minutes later. You know there's no right to a certain speed on the road, right? You are required to go at the speed of the vehicle who has the right of way - and if that's a bicycle, so be it. Also, vehicles cannot be cited for holding up traffic if they are going at a normal speed based on that vehicle's capabilities.

I think maybe drivers need to be a little more patient and aware that some folks just don't have the option to drive, and that there are going to be some slower vehicles on the road. This is going to be the case to a greater extent in the future, as fuel prices rise and more and more low income folks have to look to other options for their commute. Middle income and higher income folks don't seem to realize what a burden car ownership is - a car costs thousands of dollars per year in maintenance costs. In these times, that burden is becoming unbearable for millions of Americans. There seems to be a widely held assumption that cyclists are only on the road for recreation. That is not the case for me, and it's surely not the case for others. I think a little consideration might be in order.

You might want to investigate 'obstruction of traffic' regulations. If a car can be ticketed for going less than the speed limit and holding up traffic, and a bike is supposed to follow all road rules, then I would think the bike could be fined for traffic obstruction.

Idiotic and dangerous? In what way? Last I heard, cars have brakes and steering wheels. I think most drivers know how to slow to between 10 and 20mph (cycling speed) and wait until it's safe to pass. This is what the law requires. If people can't even do that, then I think they need to stop driving.

Rude? Inconsiderate? How? It's a road, and cyclists are not rude by using it to get places. If the man is like me and doesn't own a car, and needs to get to work or to some appointment, what other option would he have? As a cyclist, I can assure you that no cyclist would take that bridge if they had another option - we know full well that motorists don't like being slowed to cycling speeds, and to take a bridge that has only one narrow lane will cause many motorists, ignorant of the law and the need to share the road with other users, to switch to road rage mode.

The bridge is only a mile long. It's not going to take him that long to get over it - maybe 3 minutes if he's fit. It takes motorists just over a minute when going at the 45mph speed limit. So he's causing you to be a couple of minutes later. You know there's no right to a certain speed on the road, right? You are required to go at the speed of the vehicle who has the right of way - and if that's a bicycle, so be it. Also, vehicles cannot be cited for holding up traffic if they are going at a normal speed based on that vehicle's capabilities.

I think maybe drivers need to be a little more patient and aware that some folks just don't have the option to drive, and that there are going to be some slower vehicles on the road. This is going to be the case to a greater extent in the future, as fuel prices rise and more and more low income folks have to look to other options for their commute. Middle income and higher income folks don't seem to realize what a burden car ownership is - a car costs thousands of dollars per year in maintenance costs. In these times, that burden is becoming unbearable for millions of Americans. There seems to be a widely held assumption that cyclists are only on the road for recreation. That is not the case for me, and it's surely not the case for others. I think a little consideration might be in order.

Mr. Silver Spring, May I ask how many times you have crossed our bridge?

You might want to investigate 'obstruction of traffic' regulations. If a car can be ticketed for going less than the speed limit and holding up traffic, and a bike is supposed to follow all road rules, then I would think the bike could be fined for traffic obstruction.

When I took the League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor course, I looked into all MD laws pertaining to cycling. As a MD resident and a person whose sole mode of personal transportation is the bicycle, I make sure I keep up with all MD cycling laws. Maryland law specifically applies only to motor vehicles:

"§ 21-804. Minimum speed regulation.

(a) Slow speed impeding traffic prohibited.- Unless reduced speed is necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle or otherwise is in compliance with law, a person may not willfully drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic."

Most states specifically exclude cyclists from the law with wording saying words to the effect of "vehicles driven at a normal speed based on that vehicle's capabilities cannot be cited for impeding traffic". MD doesn't seem to have that wording, but the specific mention of 'motor' vehicles makes it unnecessary. Personally, I think the current MD law is not very smart - after all, a cyclist could legally impede traffic, riding at something silly like 4mph on that bridge, with no fear of prosecution. Of course, he'd probably be lynched, given some of the comments here.

The signs probably advise against it because most people who decide to place signs are not cyclists, and they respond the way most folks here have responded, and assume it's just too SCAARRYY for cyclists. But, as a public right of way, they probably can't make using it illegal.

There are only three bridges in MD where cyclists are forbidden - the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge - US 40 over the Susquehanna River, the Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge - US 301 over the Potomac River, and the William Preston Lane, Jr. Memorial Bridge - US 50/301 over Chesapeake Bay. The rules regarding cyclists on MD roads are here (http://www.marylandroads.com/index.aspx?Pageid=596).

What is the wording on the sign?

I don't recall exactly, but the word winds is in there somewhere as well as a warning to other light vehicles, like mopeds or scooters. And yes they could restrict it if it became a real factor, but they decided to keep it open as a bike route, for the few that might use it.

Mr. Silver Spring, May I ask how many times you have crossed our bridge?

I have no idea. Never on a bicycle, that's for sure - I would remember that. But I don't have to have crossed it to know who may legally cross it.

Mr. Silver Spring, May I ask how many times you have crossed our bridge?

I have no idea. Never on a bicycle, that's for sure - I would remember that. But I don't have to have crossed it to know who may legally cross it.

Do you have a clown suit and bicycle?

I have no idea. Never on a bicycle, that's for sure - I would remember that. But I don't have to have crossed it to know who may legally cross it.

Why not?

No they can't. Maryland law specifically applies only to motor vehicles:

"§ 21-804. Minimum speed regulation.

(a) Slow speed impeding traffic prohibited.- Unless reduced speed is necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle or otherwise is in compliance with law, a person may not willfully drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic."

Maryland's traffic laws apply to bicycles and motor scooters. (TR § 21-1202)

Current Bicycle Laws (http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver-Safety/Bicycle/default.htm)

You might want to investigate 'obstruction of traffic' regulations. If a car can be ticketed for going less than the speed limit and holding up traffic, and a bike is supposed to follow all road rules, then I would think the bike could be fined for traffic obstruction.

C'mon GW they want all the rights, but not have to follow the same rules, you know that.

C'mon GW they want all the rights, but not have to follow the same rules, you know that.

You're right. How foolish of me to question this. :coffee:

Why not?

Hmmm... I think you proved your point.:buddies:

When I took the League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor course

They have a course to teach you how to ride a bike? :killingme

Maryland's traffic laws apply to bicycles and motor scooters. (TR § 21-1202)

Current Bicycle Laws (http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver-Safety/Bicycle/default.htm)

If the word 'motor' does not exclude cyclists (last I checked, my bike doesn't have a motor), then the 'safe operation' provision would be the important phrase. I very much doubt that MD would have any legal case for prosecuting a cyclist under the impeding traffic statute when the cyclist was traveling at a normal cycling speed. If MD did take such action, the whole concept of public rights of way would be a joke.

They have a course to teach you how to ride a bike? :killingme

They have a course teaching you how to teach others to ride a bike safely. If you haven't noticed, not many cyclists know how to use the road safely. Nor do many motorists, but that's a different topic.

They do also have courses teaching people to ride. They also have a course teaching motorists how to drive legally and safely around cyclists. It's not very popular, and judging by the responses here I can see why. Motorists appear to be arrogant, childish, inconsiderate monomaniacal butt-dumplings who seem to think the law doesn't apply to them and who think that everyone else should get out of their way.

They have a course to teach you how to ride a bike? :killingme

Don't knock it...





I'm going to get a 3rd job: Free Online Minister Ordination - Get Ordained - Universal Life Church (http://www.themonastery.org/)

Course looks easy enough...

I have no idea. Never on a bicycle, that's for sure - I would remember that. But I don't have to have crossed it to know who may legally cross it.

You're debating legal vs. illegal instead of the real issue - it's freaking STUPID.

You can legally wear all brown, hang a white cloth on your butt, tie twigs to your head, and prance around the woods during deer season. Just because riding the bridge is legal doesn't make it smart.

They have a course teaching you how to teach others to ride a bike safely. If you haven't noticed, not many cyclists know how to use the road safely. Nor do many motorists, but that's a different topic.

Speaking of safety... I want to get an extended bull bar for my ride... don't want my paint scratched.

You're debating legal vs. illegal instead of the real issue - it's freaking STUPID.

You can legally wear all brown, hang a white cloth on your butt, tie twigs to your head, and prance around the woods during deer season. Just because riding the bridge is legal doesn't make it smart.

:dingding:

C'mon GW they want all the rights, but not have to follow the same rules, you know that.

We already had the rights before motorists came on the scene. Cyclists built the US road system back in the 1890s. As for the rules, we are already required to follow the rules. But it would be an unreasonable law indeed that required cyclists to only use the road if they could travel at a speed over that which a normal person could cycle.

If the word 'motor' does not exclude cyclists (last I checked, my bike doesn't have a motor), then the 'safe operation' provision would be the important phrase. I very much doubt that MD would have any legal case for prosecuting a cyclist under the impeding traffic statute when the cyclist was traveling at a normal cycling speed. If MD did take such action, the whole concept of public rights of way would be a joke.

You're struggling to prove a point. If you were a wannabe instructor:
When I took the League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor course, ...

...and you didn't know that bikes must follow motor vehicle road rules, then I'm not sure I'd trust anything you have to say at this point.

Hmmm... I think you proved your point.:buddies:

I would still like to know why he hasn't ridden his unicycle over our bridge. :shrug:

They have a course teaching you how to teach others to ride a bike safely. If you haven't noticed, not many cyclists know how to use the road safely. Nor do many motorists, but that's a different topic.

Uh, I learned that as a kid. Don't run into stuff or fall over, stop at the signs and watch out for cars.

I would still like to know why he hasn't ridden his unicycle over our bridge. :shrug:

Keeps losing the balls in the wind, the juggling balls, I mean.

Keeps losing the balls in the wind, the juggling balls, I mean.

Plausible, I suppose.

Just because riding the bridge is legal doesn't make it smart.

What about it is not smart, exactly? Is it that motorists cannot be trusted to drive their vehicles with due care? I suspect that's what it is, because I see them texting, running stop signs, speeding, drunk driving, etc., etc., a lot.

The thing is, if motorists believe their driving is so bad that they naturally endanger cyclists, it's not the cyclists who need to be taken off the road.

Fortunately, studies show that motorists are not all that incompetent, and that although they don't like sharing the road with cyclists, 99.99% of the time, when they see a cyclist, they stop doing all the stupid stuff they do and they start acting responsibly (with the exception of the few psychopaths who think it's funny to kill other road users).

On the issue of who is more at risk on the road, studies show that cyclists' lifetime risk of death on the road is half that of motorists, so the idea that cycling is dangerous is nonsense. The danger on the road is speed, and cyclists reduce that danger - much to the anger of motorists who think they have a God-given right to go fast.

What about it is not smart, exactly?

Ride that bridge and you'll know.

Do you frequently put yourself into a situation where your only escape route includes a 130' fall?

What about it is not smart, exactly? Is it that motorists cannot be trusted to drive their vehicles with due care? I suspect that's what it is, because I see them texting, running stop signs, speeding, drunk driving, etc., etc., a lot.

The thing is, if motorists believe their driving is so bad that they naturally endanger cyclists, it's not the cyclists who need to be taken off the road.

Fortunately, studies show that motorists are not all that incompetent, and that although they don't like sharing the road with cyclists, 99.99% of the time, when they see a cyclist, they stop doing all the stupid stuff they do and they start acting responsibly.

You don't have a driver's license do you?

What about the cyclists that do all the stupid stuff?

Ride that bridge and you'll know.

Do you frequently put yourself into a situation where your only escape route includes a 130' fall?

...on a narrow 2-lane bridge with blind entrance corners and traffic moving at 50+ mph?

...on a narrow 2-lane bridge with blind entrance corners and traffic moving at 50+ mph?

And unpredictable gusty winds? And debris on what there is of a shoulder? Where does he plan to change a flat?

If it's ok to ride a bike over, I can totally get monster and a jogging stroller and take a nice jog over to st. mary's..right?

:drummer:

What about it is not smart, exactly? Is it that motorists cannot be trusted to drive their vehicles with due care? I suspect that's what it is, because I see them texting, running stop signs, speeding, drunk driving, etc., etc., a lot.

The thing is, if motorists believe their driving is so bad that they naturally endanger cyclists, it's not the cyclists who need to be taken off the road.

Fortunately, studies show that motorists are not all that incompetent, and that although they don't like sharing the road with cyclists, 99.99% of the time, when they see a cyclist, they stop doing all the stupid stuff they do and they start acting responsibly (with the exception of the few psychopaths who think it's funny to kill other road users).

On the issue of who is more at risk on the road, studies show that cyclists' lifetime risk of death on the road is half that of motorists, so the idea that cycling is dangerous is nonsense. The danger on the road is speed, and cyclists reduce that danger - much to the anger of motorists who think they have a God-given right to go fast.

Are you going to answer my question?

:drummer:

Second pic for the win.

If it's ok to ride a bike over, I can totally get monster and a jogging stroller and take a nice jog over to st. mary's..right?

You can go to Calvert, but you cannot come back. You'll need to hitch a ride. :yay:

If it's ok to ride a bike over, I can totally get monster and a jogging stroller and take a nice jog over to st. mary's..right?

Legally, yes. But you can also legally let her torment a pit bull.

You can go to Calvert, but you cannot come back. You'll need to hitch a ride. :yay:

gotcha. Hopefully someone will lend me their bike :yay:

If it's ok to ride a bike over, I can totally get monster and a jogging stroller and take a nice jog over to st. mary's..right?

Pretty sure it says no pedestrians. Unless there are about 100 of them walking for some cause. Why they have to use the bridge, I have no idea.

gotcha. Hopefully someone will lend me their bike :yay:

Segway!

Segway!

:doh:

If it's ok to ride a bike over, I can totally get monster and a jogging stroller and take a nice jog over to st. mary's..right?

The question seems to imply that travel is just something people do for fun. It is not. This is a big misconception about cycling. people in the US seem to think that cyclists are all out for a joy ride. This is, I think, a big part of why they get so angry when cyclists are on the road. Most motorists have no idea that cyclists are often commuting, either to work or to an appointment.

But back to your point. I have no idea about the law as it pertains to pedestrians.

However, I'd hope a person calling himself 'LibertyTyranny' would opt for the choice that showed he was serious about freedom. If you don't use the rights you have you'll lose them.

The question seems to imply that travel is just something people do for fun. It is not. This is a big misconception about cycling. people in the US seem to think that cyclists are all out for a joy ride. This is, I think, a big part of why they get so angry when cyclists are on the road. Most motorists have no idea that cyclists are often commuting, either to work or to an appointment.

But back to your point. I have no idea about the law as it pertains to pedestrians.

However, I'd hope a person calling himself 'LibertyTyranny' would opt for the choice that showed he was serious about freedom. If you don't use the rights you have you'll lose them.

Loosen that grip a lil'... you're holding on a wee bit too tight... you may be headed for a ...


MELTDOWN

Loosen that grip a lil'... you're holding on a wee bit too tight... you may be headed for a ...


MELTDOWN

He completely missed the implied sarcasm....

We already had the rights before motorists came on the scene. Cyclists built the US road system back in the 1890s. As for the rules, we are already required to follow the rules. But it would be an unreasonable law indeed that required cyclists to only use the road if they could travel at a speed over that which a normal person could cycle.
Are you going to argue that the horse & buggy should be allowed to cross the bridge too? Are you Amish by chance? People were actually walking before they were riding a bike, maybe we should make exceptions for that as well.

Or maybe we should also be allowing Segways, old time automobiles (think Model T era), and other random forms of transportation onto roads that don't have a reasonable shoulder. It's called moving to the 21st century. If you don't have a mode of transportation that can safely get you from point A to point B, then you shouldn't go there. Cyclists can safely navigate the Calvery side of the bridge and the St Mary's side of the bridge, but can't safely navigate the bridge itself and therefore shouldn't be on it for any reason whatsoever.

If you're dead-set on getting from Calvert to St Mary's then go buy a canoe that can hold your bike and use that to get across. Just beware of motor boats.

...on a narrow 2-lane bridge with blind entrance corners and traffic moving at 50+ mph?
Exactly. That's incredibly dangerous. If there's a law against a motor vehicle doing those speeds then there's a reason for it. Cyclists aren't immune to the law when it's done for safety reasons. How are you supposed to pass a cyclist on a bridge with poor visibility, lots of traffic, and double yellow lines? Oh right, you can't.

If it's ok to ride a bike over, I can totally get monster and a jogging stroller and take a nice jog over to st. mary's..right?
It sounds like the bridge should be allowed for any form of transportation if you ask Beery.

The question seems to imply that travel is just something people do for fun. It is not. This is a big misconception about cycling. people in the US seem to think that cyclists are all out for a joy ride. This is, I think, a big part of why they get so angry when cyclists are on the road. Most motorists have no idea that cyclists are often commuting, either to work or to an appointment.

But back to your point. I have no idea about the law as it pertains to pedestrians.

However, I'd hope a person calling himself 'LibertyTyranny' would opt for the choice that showed he was serious about freedom. If you don't use the rights you have you'll lose them.

What if she is too poor to own a bike and needs to take her child to daycare across the bridge so she can go to work? You're just assuming that she's walking/jogging for "pleasure". For someone who is being holier than thou about everyone assuming bikers are riding for pleasure, you just did the same thing about walkers and joggers.

Are you going to argue that the horse & buggy should be allowed to cross the bridge too?

I don't have to argue it. It's the law.

"11-176 Vehicle
(a)
In general – (1) “Vehicle” means, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any device in, on, or by which any individual or property is or might be transported or towed on a highway."

How are you supposed to pass a cyclist on a bridge with poor visibility, lots of traffic, and double yellow lines? Oh right, you can't.

You do not have the right to. This is not my rule - it's the law. I believe this bridge has a double yellow line and (unlike other states) in MD you are not allowed to go over it to overtake a cyclist, even if the oncoming traffic lane is clear. On such a road, you are legally required to wait behind the cyclist until it is legal and safe to pass. When you pass, you must leave 3ft between your car and the cyclist - this is the law. If that means you have to wait 3 hours to pass, that is what you are required by law to do.

Of course, in MD, I've never seen a motorist who even appears to know that there's a 3ft safe passing rule or a requirement not to cross a double yellow line. MD drivers are not too clued-up on traffic law.

It sounds like the bridge should be allowed for any form of transportation if you ask Beery.

It is. This is the law as it relates to public rights of way. It's not my fault that whoever designed the bridge made passing impossible.

I think many here could do with brushing up on the Maryland laws as they apply to motorists and cyclists (http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver-Safety/Bicycle/default.htm) - also, perhaps a quick look through the Driver's Handbook (http://www.mva.maryland.gov/resources/dl-002a.pdf) wouldn't go amiss. Too many drivers think that passing a driving test and getting a license absolves them from the responsibility to know traffic rules. It does not. It's a great pity that so many drivers think they know the law when they haven't a clue as to what the law actually says (http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/exploremd/bicyclists/oppe/laws/acom_bike_laws1.pdf) or what it requires of them.

I don't have to argue it. It's the law.



You do not have the right to. This is not my rule - it's the law.



It is. This is the law as it relates to public rights of way. It's not my fault that whoever designed the bridge made passing impossible.

I think many here could do with brushing up on the traffic code in this state - also, perhaps a quick look through the Driver's Handbook wouldn't go amiss. Too many drivers think that passing a driving test and getting a license absolves them from the responsibility to know traffic rules. It does not. It's a great pity that so many drivers think they know the law when they haven't a clue as to what the law actually says or what it requires of them.


Are you going to answer my question?

...and you didn't know that bikes must follow motor vehicle road rules, then I'm not sure I'd trust anything you have to say at this point.



I think many here could do with brushing up on the traffic code in this state - also, perhaps a quick look through the Driver's Handbook wouldn't go amiss. Too many drivers think that passing a driving test and getting a license absolves them from the responsibility to know traffic rules. It does not. It's a great pity that so many drivers think they know the law when they haven't a clue as to what the law actually says or what it requires of them.

:coffee:

I don't have to argue it. It's the law.

I think many here could do with brushing up on the traffic code in this state - also, perhaps a quick look through the Driver's Handbook wouldn't go amiss.


:sideswipe:

The bridge has enough issues with daily traffic, lets not try and add to it.

I think the sign posted at the foot of the bridge establishes the legality of riding a bike across. The issue at hand is the practicality of doing it. Thus far, nothing has been said that negates the fact that riding a bike across the TJ Bridge during rush hour is an inconsiderate, dangerous thing to do.

It's a great pity that so many drivers think they know the law when they haven't a clue as to what the law actually says or what it requires of them.

Actually, it's a great pity that someone who is unfamiliar with that bridge and only knows what a map shows thinks that just because it is legal to ride the bridge it isn't stupid.

What you fail to realize is that most of us here drive that bridge regularly. I have probably driven it close to 15,000 times. I am also a cyclist, and I would never even think of riding over that bridge.

Instead of sitting behind a keyboard and looking at a map, try driving over the bridge and think about riding it during rush hour.

Are you going to answer my question?

:crickets:

I don't have to argue it. It's the law.

"11-176 Vehicle
(a)
In general – (1) “Vehicle” means, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any device in, on, or by which any individual or property is or might be transported or towed on a highway."



You do not have the right to. This is not my rule - it's the law. I believe this bridge has a double yellow line and (unlike other states) in MD you are not allowed to go over it to overtake a cyclist, even if the oncoming traffic lane is clear. On such a road, you are legally required to wait behind the cyclist until it is legal and safe to pass. When you pass, you must leave 3ft between your car and the cyclist - this is the law. If that means you have to wait 3 hours to pass, that is what you are required by law to do.

Of course, in MD, I've never seen a motorist who even appears to know that there's a 3ft safe passing rule or a requirement not to cross a double yellow line. MD drivers are not too clued-up on traffic law.



It is. This is the law as it relates to public rights of way. It's not my fault that whoever designed the bridge made passing impossible.

I think many here could do with brushing up on the Maryland laws as they apply to motorists and cyclists (http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver-Safety/Bicycle/default.htm) - also, perhaps a quick look through the Driver's Handbook (http://www.mva.maryland.gov/resources/dl-002a.pdf) wouldn't go amiss. Too many drivers think that passing a driving test and getting a license absolves them from the responsibility to know traffic rules. It does not. It's a great pity that so many drivers think they know the law when they haven't a clue as to what the law actually says (http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/exploremd/bicyclists/oppe/laws/acom_bike_laws1.pdf) or what it requires of them.

Ok, let's look at an excerpt from your post; Bicycles, motor scooters and EPAMDs are not permitted on any roads where the speed limit is more than 50miles per hour or higher. (TR § 21-1205.1)
The bridge located on Md. Rte. 4 has a posted speed limit in the above range, therefore; how can you legally ride across the bridge? :popcorn:

Ok, let's look at an excerpt from your post; Bicycles, motor scooters and EPAMDs are not permitted on any roads where the speed limit is more than 50miles per hour or higher. (TR § 21-1205.1)
The bridge located on Md. Rte. 4 has a posted speed limit in the above range, therefore; how can you legally ride across the bridge? :popcorn:

Wrong.

Wrong.

What's wrong? Has the speed limit on Rte. 4 changed since last weekend?

:crickets:

I know, right?

Ok, let's look at an excerpt from your post; Bicycles, motor scooters and EPAMDs are not permitted on any roads where the speed limit is more than 50miles per hour or higher. (TR § 21-1205.1)
The bridge located on Md. Rte. 4 has a posted speed limit in the above range, therefore; how can you legally ride across the bridge? :popcorn:

Speed limit on the bridge is 45, roads leading into the bridge are either 45 or 50, not over 50.

I think the sign posted at the foot of the bridge establishes the legality of riding a bike across. The issue at hand is the practicality of doing it. Thus far, nothing has been said that negates the fact that riding a bike across the TJ Bridge during rush hour is an inconsiderate, dangerous thing to do.

Despite all the hot air blowing around, I've seen nothing explaining why it is inconsiderate or dangerous to ride a bicycle on that road. The only danger comes from other road users - they are dangerous only if they drive dangerously. Again, if motorists can't trust themselves to drive safely, they should quit driving.

What is inconsiderate is the fact that motorists seem to think that cyclists don't belong on the road. I can assure everyone here that we do. We were here long before motorists arrived, and we'll be here long after the car has gone the way of the Dodo. Motorists are merely permitted to use the road - cyclists have a right to use it. This has been the case since the 1890s. If a cyclist needs to get across that bridge, he has to use it. How can using it be inconsiderate if he has no other option within 35 miles?

What's wrong? Has the speed limit on Rte. 4 changed since last weekend?

No. It's been 45 from Dowell Rd. all the way over the bridge for at least 20 years.

Idiotic and dangerous? In what way? Last I heard, cars have brakes and steering wheels. I think most drivers know how to slow to between 10 and 20mph (cycling speed) and wait until it's safe to pass. This is what the law requires. If people can't even do that, then I think they need to stop driving.
Here's your original quote citing the "law" because clearly you aren't aware of what I was referencing when I said that you can't pass with a double yellow, although here you're clearly inferring that you CAN pass a cyclist on the bridge.

You do not have the right to. This is not my rule - it's the law. I believe this bridge has a double yellow line and (unlike other states) in MD you are not allowed to go over it to overtake a cyclist, even if the oncoming traffic lane is clear. On such a road, you are legally required to wait behind the cyclist until it is legal and safe to pass. When you pass, you must leave 3ft between your car and the cyclist - this is the law. If that means you have to wait 3 hours to pass, that is what you are required by law to do.
And here, your most recent post, cites another "law" that directly negates your first post about the "law". It sounds like you enjoy referencing the "law" without actually keeping the facts straight. According to you we can pass a biker on the bridge, but we also can't. That makes sense.


It is. This is the law as it relates to public rights of way. It's not my fault that whoever designed the bridge made passing impossible.


Actually, it's not. There are signs up saying certain things are forbidden. I thought bicycles and pedestrians were among them. The signs make it pretty clear that only motor vehicles should be using the bridge. I think there are also signs warning us that the bridge may freeze and that it's very windy. But hey, why bother reading the 20 warning signs on the bridge if it's the "law" that you can bike it?


By the way, why should hundreds (if not thousands) of people be inconvenienced because one prick wants to bike the bridge? I don't care if he can't afford a car, you're not only backing up the traffic of the people immediately behind you (which probably could equate to 50-100 cars easily before you're off the bridge), but then you've stacked up traffic that could end up causing a lengthy traffic jam, as if there aren't already plenty of those with cars traveling at 45mph. That could cause backups all across route 4. All because 1 guy decided his need is greater than hundreds of others. Regardless of the "law", said person is a prick.

Here's your original quote citing the "law" because clearly you aren't aware of what I was referencing when I said that you can't pass with a double yellow, although here you're clearly inferring that you CAN pass a cyclist on the bridge.


And here, your most recent post, cites another "law" that directly negates your first post about the "law". It sounds like you enjoy referencing the "law" without actually keeping the facts straight. According to you we can pass a biker on the bridge, but we also can't. That makes sense.



Actually, it's not. There are signs up saying certain things are forbidden. I thought bicycles and pedestrians were among them. The signs make it pretty clear that only motor vehicles should be using the bridge. I think there are also signs warning us that the bridge may freeze and that it's very windy. But hey, why bother reading the 20 warning signs on the bridge if it's the "law" that you can bike it?
The sign advises against bikes, but does not prohibit them. It is legal to ride over the bridge.

Stupid though. Very , very stupid.

No. It's been 45 from Dowell Rd. all the way over the bridge for at least 20 years.

Ok, sleuth, we'll refine the question. How does one legally get from Silver Spring, Md. by bicycle to use the TJ bridge?

Despite all the hot air blowing around, I've seen nothing explaining why it is inconsiderate or dangerous to ride a bicycle on that road. The only danger comes from other road users - they are dangerous only if they drive dangerously. Again, if motorists can't trust themselves to drive safely, they should quit driving.

What is inconsiderate is the fact that motorists seem to think that cyclists don't belong on the road. I can assure everyone here that we do. We were here long before motorists arrived, and we'll be here long after the car has gone the way of the Dodo. Motorists are merely permitted to use the road - cyclists have a right to use it. This has been the case since the 1890s. If a cyclist needs to get across that bridge, he has to use it. How can using it be inconsiderate if he has no other option within 35 miles?

I know, right?

:lol:

Damn, he doesn't have anything for either of us... :shrug:

Maybe he can give Lisa Marie a ride over the bridge?

Here's your original quote citing the "law" because clearly you aren't aware of what I was referencing when I said that you can't pass with a double yellow, although here you're clearly inferring that you CAN pass a cyclist on the bridge.

No. I said you must wait until it's safe to pass. Depending on the placement of the double yellow line, it may not be safe or legal to pass until way after the bridge.

And here, your most recent post, cites another "law" that directly negates your first post about the "law". It sounds like you enjoy referencing the "law" without actually keeping the facts straight. According to you we can pass a biker on the bridge, but we also can't. That makes sense.

Again, you're misstating what I actually wrote.

Actually, it's not. There are signs up saying certain things are forbidden. I thought bicycles and pedestrians were among them. The signs make it pretty clear that only motor vehicles should be using the bridge.

If the sign says bicycles are forbidden, then that's probably a local ordinance. Whether it's legal to forbid bicycles from the bridge is something only a judge could determine.

I've seen nothing explaining why it is inconsiderate or dangerous to ride a bicycle on that road.

You admit you've never crossed the bridge, right? You are completely unfamiliar with the bridge or the traffic, right?

You are trying to argue with people who drive it every freaking day. Please, drive over the bridge some time. Then come back here and explain to us why it is not stupid to ride it.

The question seems to imply that travel is just something people do for fun. It is not. This is a big misconception about cycling. people in the US seem to think that cyclists are all out for a joy ride. This is, I think, a big part of why they get so angry when cyclists are on the road. Most motorists have no idea that cyclists are often commuting, either to work or to an appointment.

But back to your point. I have no idea about the law as it pertains to pedestrians.

However, I'd hope a person calling himself 'LibertyTyranny' would opt for the choice that showed he was serious about freedom. If you don't use the rights you have you'll lose them.

This may very well be the case in Silver Spring where you are located. It is not the case, however, in Southern Maryland, where this bridge is located. Around here, when we encounter a bicyclist, it is generally a child or a person/group out there for exercise (complete with those fancy biking clothes). Southern Maryland is a predominantly rural area with no special accommodations made for bicycles (such as special traffic lanes).

The Thomas Johnson Memorial bridge is a horrendously designed bridge with a high arching design, single lanes in either direction, and no berms to speak of for the majority of the bridge. The only "sides" to speak of at the height of the bridge are those totally inadequate low concrete barriers. Any bicyclist riding at the side of the road would, for the most part, be above the barriers, giving them absolutely no chance should their bike be hit by a vehicle and guaranteeing them a cannonball into the Patuxent River 130 feet below.

The attitude that you are seeing from these posters is not because of any legal right on behalf of the bicyclist, it is because they live here, they travel that bridge routinely in all sorts of weather and they recognize that any bicyclist choosing to ride over that bridge is definitely a few spokes short of a wheel. It may be legal, but it is insane.

This does not show the worst of the bridge at the top but it may give you some sort of an idea of what that cyclist undertook on that journey. One can only hope that they had no idea what they were getting into before they rode over it.

Live Streaming Traffic Cam - Thomas Johnson Bridge - CalvertNews.info - Calvert County MD News & Information (http://www.calvertnews.info/c/599/live-streaming-traffic-cam-thomas-johnson-bridge-rt-4)

Ok, sleuth, we'll refine the question. How does one legally get from Silver Spring, Md. by bicycle to use the TJ bridge?

Don't know, don't care. We're not discussing that. We're discussing the bridge.

Ok, sleuth, we'll refine the question. How does one legally get from Silver Spring, Md. by bicycle to use the TJ bridge?

What are you talking about? One goes on the roads that lead there! Through DC, MD 210 south, MD 373 east, MD 5 south, MD 235 south.

What has this got to do with anything. I wasn't the cyclist who used the bridge.

Despite all the hot air blowing around, I've seen nothing explaining why it is inconsiderate or dangerous to ride a bicycle on that road. The only danger comes from other road users

I think you are starting to see the light. The bridge itself is not dangerous. Nor is it inconvenienced in the least if you ride across it a 10mph.

What are you talking about? One goes on the roads that lead there! Through DC, MD 210 south, MD 373 east, MD 5 south, MD 235 south.

What has this got to do with anything. I wasn't the cyclist who used the bridge.

Are you going to answer my question?

Are you going to answer my question?

(Please help the rest of us out and keep re-posting it so we don't lose it in this now long thread. TIA! :huggy:)

(Please help the rest of us out and keep re-posting it so we don't lose it in this now long thread. TIA! :huggy:)

I'm afraid he may just be obtuse.

Ok, sleuth, we'll refine the question. How does one legally get from Silver Spring, Md. by bicycle to use the TJ bridge?
Ever heard of bike lanes? There are backroads you could use to get there. You can ride a bike on Route 4 even though the speed limit is over 50. I think you're getting confused with the law. Then again, nobody is riding a bike from Silver Spring down here :lol:

No. I said you must wait until it's safe to pass. Depending on the placement of the double yellow line, it may not be safe or legal to pass until way after the bridge.



Again, you're misstating what I actually wrote.



If the sign says bicycles are forbidden, then that's probably a local ordinance. Whether it's legal to forbid bicycles from the bridge is something only a judge could determine.

So basically your comment was pointless because if you have to wait until it's safe & legal to pass then you're off the bridge. I'm not misstating, I'm assuming you have some basic concept of the bridge...otherwise, why would you say you can pass when it's pretty apparent that you can't?

Now I'm starting to think you've never seen the bridge, even from a car, and have no idea what you're talking about. Stop arguing cyclist rights when you're ignorant on the actual issue at hand.

This may very well be the case in Silver Spring where you are located. It is not the case, however, in Southern Maryland, where this bridge is located. Around here, when we encounter a bicyclist, it is generally a child or a person/group out there for exercise (complete with those fancy biking clothes). Southern Maryland is a predominantly rural area with no special accommodations made for bicycles (such as special traffic lanes).

Bicycles are road vehicles. We don't need special accommodations. I've been riding on the road perfectly safely for 40 years without bike facilities. Never been knocked off my bike yet, even though I've taken trips over bridges much like the one in question. If you know how to ride safely, there is no danger on such a road.

The Thomas Johnson Memorial bridge is a horrendously designed bridge with a high arching design, single lanes in either direction, and no berms to speak of for the majority of the bridge. The only "sides" to speak of at the height of the bridge are those totally inadequate low concrete barriers. Any bicyclist riding at the side of the road would, for the most part, be above the barriers, giving them absolutely no chance should their bike be hit by a vehicle and guaranteeing them a cannonball into the Patuxent River 130 feet below.

The idea that a competent cyclist would take that bridge using the side of the road is a misconception. The correct way to ride on such a road is in the center of the lane. No cyclist should ride at the edge of a lane that's too narrow to share, as it invites unsafe passes by motorists trying to squeeze through the gap. That's the case whether the lane is on a bridge or on a surface road. Anyway, like I said before, motor vehicles have brakes. Most motorists are not blind. When they see a cyclist, they have the ability to slow down. If they don't, then they shouldn't be driving 3,000lbs of steel around.

The attitude that cycling on that road is insane is, quite simply, nonsense, and it arises out of a complete misunderstanding of cycling and the real risks involved. I am not surprised that rural motorists have no clue about these matters, and to be honest, it does not worry me too much. After all, the cyclist in question made it across the bridge unscathed and was not arrested by some hick county sheriff for using his lawful right of travel. Despite the assertions of everyone here to the contrary, I'm sure they do drive responsibly on the road, even though they don't seem to know that they can do so when they're discussing the issue on a public forum.

(Please help the rest of us out and keep re-posting it so we don't lose it in this now long thread. TIA! :huggy:)

As with many others here who have proved themselves to be incapable of arguing respectfully, I've blocked him. I don't answer questions from people who can't be civil. I'm not going to bother with any questions that are knee-jerk dismissive or contemptuous of my argument. I'm just not.

Now I'm starting to think you've never seen the bridge, even from a car, and have no idea what you're talking about. Stop arguing cyclist rights when you're ignorant on the actual issue at hand.

I have seen the bridge (though from a car, not from a bike). It looks perfectly bikeable to me. It doesn't look bikeable to you, probably because you've never been forced to commute by bike. I assure you, biking over that bridge is perfectly safe and sane. If I had to do it on a commute or on a bike tour, I would - I'd even enjoy the view.

It's actually even safer than most roads, because, since no one can overtake me on the bridge, I only have to rely on one motorist's competence - the one immediately behind me.

The problem here is not the safety of the bike trip across that bridge. It's the fact that motorists would have to slow to <20mph while a cyclist did it. Motorists simply don't like the thought of being slowed to cyclist speeds for even a few seconds. The thought of doing <20mph for three minutes must really make them mad. But if a cyclist is on that bridge, that's what they would have to do. I think you folks need to come to terms with that. It's not as if you'd have any other alternative that would allow you to stay out of prison.

Why not?

(Please help the rest of us out and keep re-posting it so we don't lose it in this now long thread. TIA! :huggy:)

As with many others here who have proved themselves to be incapable of arguing respectfully, I've blocked him. I don't answer questions from people who can't be civil. I'm not going to bother with any questions that are knee-jerk dismissive or contemptuous of my argument. I'm just not.

My question was uncivil? :roflmao: :killingme :roflmao:

As with many others here who have proved themselves to be incapable of arguing respectfully, I've blocked him. I don't answer questions from people who can't be civil. I'm not going to bother with any questions that are knee-jerk dismissive or contemptuous of my argument. I'm just not.

All this over wanting to wear the tigh, spandex shorts... just do it brah... just do it. You'll be laughed at... but just do it. (wear the Ronald McDonald wig to go with it)

I have seen the bridge (though from a car, not from a bike). It looks perfectly cyclable to me.

In an earlier post you state that the bridge is one mile. That's wrong. That may be the width of the river, but it is not the length of the bridge.

You claim that someone could cycle it in three minutes. That would mean averaging 30 MPH. No way.

The bridge is steep. It is not something anyone less than a very strong cyclist could climb at any reasonable speed. You point out that the cyclist may have been a commuter - sound like a strong cyclist?

The state has seen fit to post signs advising against cycling over the bridge. While they have stopped short of outlawing it, they still do advise against it. Do you generally consider warning signs to indicate that something is safe to do?

I really do not believe that you have been over the bridge. You may be thinking of some other bridge, but this one is in no way safe for cyclists.

This explains it:

Welcome to our newest member, Beery

All this over wanting to wear the tigh, spandex shorts... just do it brah... just do it. You'll be laughed at... but just do it. (wear the Ronald McDonald wig to go with it)

In an earlier post you state that the bridge is one mile. That's wrong. That may be the width of the river, but it is not the length of the bridge.

You claim that someone could cycle it in three minutes. That would mean averaging 30 MPH. No way.

The bridge is steep. It is not something anyone less than a very strong cyclist could climb at any reasonable speed. You point out that the cyclist may have been a commuter - sound like a strong cyclist?

The state has seen fit to post signs advising against cycling over the bridge. While they have stopped short of outlawing it, they still do advise against it. Do you generally consider warning signs to indicate that something is safe to do?

I really do not believe that you have been over the bridge. You may be thinking of some other bridge, but this one is in no way safe for cyclists.

I would like to suggest that he traverse the bridge during rush hour (both morning & evening) and report back to us how well that works out for him. :cheers:

I would like to suggest that he traverse the bridge during rush hour (both morning & evening) and report back to us how well that works out for him. :cheers:

NO!!!!! It's bad enough as it is. That would screw up traffic for hours!

NO!!!!! It's bad enough as it is. That would screw up traffic for hours!

Perhaps he will change his point of view.

Bicycles are road vehicles. We don't need special accommodations. If this is the case, please explain to me why several areas of our country have seen fit to include specified "bike lanes" as part of our infrastructure. I've been riding on the road perfectly safely for 40 years without bike facilities. Never been knocked off my bike yet, even though I've taken trips over bridges much like the one in question. If you know how to ride safely, there is no danger on such a road. I am glad that you know what you are doing. There is no guarantee or knowledge that the person on the bridge was as well-qualified as you.



The idea that a competent cyclist would take that bridge using the side of the road is a misconception. The correct way to ride on such a road is in the center of the lane. No cyclist should ride at the edge of a lane that's too narrow to share, as it invites unsafe passes by motorists trying to squeeze through the gap. In every single instance that I have encountered a bicyclist on the roads in Southern Maryland in the past 27 years of driving here (and also in driving in and around the Washington Beltway for the past 30 years), this is exactly what I have seen cyclists doing. They may be in the middle to start, but as soon as a car comes up, they head to the side/berm of the road. Somehow or other, your method of correct riding is not being adequately communicated to all of the cyclists who are out there. That's the case whether the lane is on a bridge or on a surface road. Anyway, like I said before, motor vehicles have brakes. Most motorists are not blind. When they see a cyclist, they have the ability to slow down. If they don't, then they shouldn't be driving 3,000lbs of steel around. This is definitely true, however, as a driving instructor once pointed out to me, there is such a thing as being "DEAD right" and that is not a good thing. One should always err on the side of caution and try to anticipate that the other occupants of the road will do the most stupid thing possible -- drive (car or bike) defensively, and stay alive.

The attitude that cycling on that road is insane is, quite simply, nonsense, and it arises out of a complete misunderstanding of cycling and the real risks involved. You are, of course, entitled toyour opinion, as misguided as it might be. You may be interested to know that many folks in this neck of the woods are associated in some manner with the Patuxent River Naval Air Station. If you are not familiar with their mission, they are a major testing center for naval aviation. By definition, this means that these folks "push the limits" on safety in aircraft so they can find out where the limits are. If they seem to think that something is "dangerous" by virtue of the parameters of the specific environment, I'm not going to argue with them. I am not surprised that rural motorists have no clue about these matters, and to be honest, it does not worry me too much.(Hint: insulting the locals is really not a good way to make your case and only reflects poorly on you. These kinds of comments are often resorted to when the original argument holds no water, and are used as a deflective tactic. After all, the cyclist in question made it across the bridge unscathed and was not arrested by some hick county sheriff for using his lawful right of travel. Despite the assertions of everyone here to the contrary, I'm sure they do drive responsibly on the road, even though they don't seem to know that they can do so when they're discussing the issue on a public forum.

There are two distinct issues being argued in this thread.

One, the law allows a bicyclist to ride over the TJ Bridge. TRUE

Two, any bicyclist that does this is risking being DEAD right. TRUE

My question was uncivil? :roflmao: :killingme :roflmao:

You should strive to be more civilly.

You should strive to be more civilly.

I guess so. I am such a meamie. :drama:

My question was uncivil? :roflmao: :killingme :roflmao:

You should strive to be more civilly.

Okay, I must be clueless today, because I fail to see how asking,

"Mr. Silver Spring, May I ask how many times you have crossed our bridge? " can possibly be considered uncivil? I think it is a very valid question, especially considering the course of the discussion.

But, hey, I'm just a rural citizen, what do I know? :killingme

I guess those big city folk have different ideas of civility than we do down here in the sticks, bless their hearts.:coffee:

I have seen the bridge (though from a car, not from a bike). It looks perfectly bikeable to me. It doesn't look bikeable to you, probably because you've never been forced to commute by bike. I assure you, biking over that bridge is perfectly safe and sane. If I had to do it on a commute or on a bike tour, I would - I'd even enjoy the view.

It's actually even safer than most roads, because, since no one can overtake me on the bridge, I only have to rely on one motorist's competence - the one immediately behind me.

The problem here is not the safety of the bike trip across that bridge. It's the fact that motorists would have to slow to <20mph while a cyclist did it. Motorists simply don't like the thought of being slowed to cyclist speeds for even a few seconds. The thought of doing <20mph for three minutes must really make them mad. But if a cyclist is on that bridge, that's what they would have to do. I think you folks need to come to terms with that. It's not as if you'd have any other alternative that would allow you to stay out of prison.

So again, what you're saying is that 1 person wanting to bike over the bridge is more important than the hundreds or thousands of people that could be delayed for more than a manner of 3 minutes due to the buildup of traffic that results? Again, the backup that would be caused could delay people 20-30+ minutes. It's even worse if that's in rush hour, which is conceivably when I commuter on a bike would want to do that ride anyway.

You consider this OK because you "have" to bike over a bridge that you're not forced to live on the other side of? It's also OK because you wouldn't be delayed as a result and hey, bikers can just ride up the shoulder of Route 4 and bypass all of the traffic until they get to the bridge anyway!

If that's what you're saying, you're so obsessed with the "right to bike" that your concept of reality of significantly skewed. If only life were a video game and I was driving across a bridge with bikers...:whistle:

I have no idea. Never on a bicycle, that's for sure - I would remember that. But I don't have to have crossed it to know who may legally cross it.
His answer...
Why not?
Then my next question, which he has now ignored.
Okay, I must be clueless today, because I fail to see how asking,

"Mr. Silver Spring, May I ask how many times you have crossed our bridge? " can possibly be considered uncivil? I think it is a very valid question, especially considering the course of the discussion.

But, hey, I'm just a rural citizen, what do I know? :killingme

I guess those big city folk have different ideas of civility than we do down here in the sticks, bless their hearts.:coffee:

Thank you.

As with many others here who have proved themselves to be incapable of arguing respectfully or simply have a different opinion than mine or can prove I'm a hot air bag, I've blocked him. I don't answer questions from people who can't be civil. I'm not going to bother with any questions that are knee-jerk dismissive or contemptuous of my argument. I'm just not.

:fixed:

:fixed:

How uncivil of you. You should be ashamed.

How uncivil of you. You should be ashamed.

:drama: oh the pain...... the pain of it all.....

:drama: oh the pain...... the pain of it all.....

:smack: Better?

:smack: Better?

Thanx. i needed that.

BTW, Beery's posts in the circumcision thread are pretty enlightening as well.

Thanx. i needed that.

BTW, Beery's posts in the circumcision thread are pretty enlightening as well.

No interest in that, thanks. :lol:

No interest in that, thanks. :lol:

:lol: No, not for the subject matter, for a little closer look at what makes this person tick. Seems to know as much about that subject as riding across unsafe bridges.

Ride that bridge and you'll know.

Do you frequently put yourself into a situation where your only escape route includes a 130' fall?

Although I am an advocate for cycling, I have to agree with the premise that riding across the TJ Bridge is not very safe. I've ridden across the TJ Bridge twice, never during rush hour, and will probably never do it again. With only jerseyNJ barriers between me and the water 140 feet below, it's a scary ride. The first foot or foot and a half of the bridge is full of debris that could cause a flat or worse. That forces the rider to ride into the lane of traffic. If something causes the cyclist to veer right, the jersey barrier to low to preclude a tumble into the Patuxent River.

The above being said, the cyclist has every right to cross the bridge. Is the two - three minutes that you're inconvenienced really worth getting all worked up about?

Although I am an advocate for cycling, I have to agree with the premise that riding across the TJ Bridge is not very safe. I've ridden across the TJ Bridge twice, never during rush hour, and will probably never do it again. With only jerseyNJ barriers between me and the water 140 feet below, it's a scary ride. The first foot or foot and a half of the bridge is full of debris that could cause a flat or worse. That forces the rider to ride into the lane of traffic. If something causes the cyclist to veer right, the jersey barrier to low to preclude a tumble into the Patuxent River.

The above being said, the cyclist has every right to cross the bridge. Is the two - three minutes that you're inconvenienced really worth getting all worked up about?

IMHO, I think the consternation expressed was more along the lines of that's such a crazy thing to do safety-wise. I know that if I happened to be driving that bridge and there was a cyclist in front of me, I'd be even more totally stressed out than I normally am on that bridge, just from praying the entire way over that nothing happened to that person because I sure wouldn't want to see anyone go over the side. I think it's bad enough in a car!

The rest of it happened because some people just love a good argument and some people don't know how to conduct one.

:lol: No, not for the subject matter, for a little closer look at what makes this person tick. Seems to know as much about that subject as riding across unsafe bridges.

Are you suggesting I read that thread? :lol:

I have no idea. Never on a bicycle, that's for sure - I would remember that. But I don't have to have crossed it to know who may legally cross it.
This sounds exactly like Jimmy explaining that Sotterly was spreading lies about slavery, even though he'd never been there.

Perhaps he will change his point of view.
his point of view would probably be underwater.

his point of view would probably be underwater.

Just because you can, doesn't make it a good, safe idea.

Despite all the hot air blowing around, I've seen nothing explaining why it is inconsiderate or dangerous to ride a bicycle on that road. The only danger comes from other road users - they are dangerous only if they drive dangerously. Again, if motorists can't trust themselves to drive safely, they should quit driving.

What is inconsiderate is the fact that motorists seem to think that cyclists don't belong on the road. I can assure everyone here that we do. We were here long before motorists arrived, and we'll be here long after the car has gone the way of the Dodo. Motorists are merely permitted to use the road - cyclists have a right to use it. This has been the case since the 1890s. If a cyclist needs to get across that bridge, he has to use it. How can using it be inconsiderate if he has no other option within 35 miles?

Inconsiderate because you are holding up hundreds of other people, adding a potential 20-30 minutes to their commute. When something happens on the bridge traffic DOES back up for miles, I don't have to go within several miles of even the turnoff to go to the bridge on my after-work routine, but a backup can easily add enough time to my drive to make me late picking my son up from daycare. No traffic from work to daycare is < 5 minutes. Regular rush hour traffic bumps it to about 15. Incident on the bridge? It's taken me nearly 30.

Dangerous because you DON'T know that the person in the car behind your bicycle is going to be a good, responsible driver and not try to pass you. There are major wind shears at the top of the bridge with inadequate side barriers to prevent a person on a bicycle from going over and falling 130 feet to the water below. There are signs warning that riding a bike over a bridge is inadvisable. Typically you don't see signs like for things that are perfectly safe, or even safe within reasonable limits (such as riding a bike down most other roads in the county).

Yes, a cyclist has every right in the world to ride their bike over that bridge at rush hour. Legally humans can do any number of absolutely idiotic things that hugely compromise their safety. That doesn't make those things any safer or less idiotic. If a person rides a bicycle over that bridge during rush hour it is dangerous and it is hugely inconsiderate to the hundreds of people you are inconveniencing by screwing up their schedules.

Although I am an advocate for cycling, I have to agree with the premise that riding across the TJ Bridge is not very safe. I've ridden across the TJ Bridge twice, never during rush hour, and will probably never do it again. With only jerseyNJ barriers between me and the water 140 feet below, it's a scary ride. The first foot or foot and a half of the bridge is full of debris that could cause a flat or worse. That forces the rider to ride into the lane of traffic. If something causes the cyclist to veer right, the jersey barrier to low to preclude a tumble into the Patuxent River.

The above being said, the cyclist has every right to cross the bridge. Is the two - three minutes that you're inconvenienced really worth getting all worked up about?
you're ignoring the fact that it's going to add more time than 2-3 minutes for a couple of people. See pelers' post below for what I keep saying but you and Beery are blindly ignoring...or too selfish to care.

Inconsiderate because you are holding up hundreds of other people, adding a potential 20-30 minutes to their commute. When something happens on the bridge traffic DOES back up for miles, I don't have to go within several miles of even the turnoff to go to the bridge on my after-work routine, but a backup can easily add enough time to my drive to make me late picking my son up from daycare. No traffic from work to daycare is < 5 minutes. Regular rush hour traffic bumps it to about 15. Incident on the bridge? It's taken me nearly 30.

Dangerous because you DON'T know that the person in the car behind your bicycle is going to be a good, responsible driver and not try to pass you. There are major wind shears at the top of the bridge with inadequate side barriers to prevent a person on a bicycle from going over and falling 130 feet to the water below. There are signs warning that riding a bike over a bridge is inadvisable. Typically you don't see signs like for things that are perfectly safe, or even safe within reasonable limits (such as riding a bike down most other roads in the county).

Yes, a cyclist has every right in the world to ride their bike over that bridge at rush hour. Legally humans can do any number of absolutely idiotic things that hugely compromise their safety. That doesn't make those things any safer or less idiotic. If a person rides a bicycle over that bridge during rush hour it is dangerous and it is hugely inconsiderate to the hundreds of people you are inconveniencing by screwing up their schedules.

After thinking about it further, the BEST time for them to bike the bridge is probably the peak of rush hour. That's when traffic is probably slow enough for them that they wouldn't significantly impact traffic flow. :lmao:

There are barriers/fences to prevent them from falling off the bridge and onto land, isn't there something to say for that?

Inconsiderate because you are holding up hundreds of other people, adding a potential 20-30 minutes to their commute. When something happens on the bridge traffic DOES back up for miles, I don't have to go within several miles of even the turnoff to go to the bridge on my after-work routine, but a backup can easily add enough time to my drive to make me late picking my son up from daycare. No traffic from work to daycare is < 5 minutes. Regular rush hour traffic bumps it to about 15. Incident on the bridge? It's taken me nearly 30.

Dangerous because you DON'T know that the person in the car behind your bicycle is going to be a good, responsible driver and not try to pass you. There are major wind shears at the top of the bridge with inadequate side barriers to prevent a person on a bicycle from going over and falling 130 feet to the water below. There are signs warning that riding a bike over a bridge is inadvisable. Typically you don't see signs like for things that are perfectly safe, or even safe within reasonable limits (such as riding a bike down most other roads in the county).

Yes, a cyclist has every right in the world to ride their bike over that bridge at rush hour. Legally humans can do any number of absolutely idiotic things that hugely compromise their safety. That doesn't make those things any safer or less idiotic. If a person rides a bicycle over that bridge during rush hour it is dangerous and it is hugely inconsiderate to the hundreds of people you are inconveniencing by screwing up their schedules.

there is nothing more dangerous about riding a bicycle across this road than any other two lane road with no shoulder. A good example, 244. However, if you throw in the conditions, wether they be traffic, visibility, wind etc, the crossing can be dangerous.
I have been across the TJ briodge a few times usually with a group on a sunday morning, nothing dangerous about it at all.

That same crossing at rush hour or during high winds, and you couldn't make me.

Again, its probably not much more dangerous than any other 2 lane road with no shoulder, it all depends on who is passing you and if they are responsibile.

you're ignoring the fact that it's going to add more time than 2-3 minutes for a couple of people. See pelers' post below for what I keep saying but you and Beery are blindly ignoring...or too selfish to care.



After thinking about it further, the BEST time for them to bike the bridge is probably the peak of rush hour. That's when traffic is probably slow enough for them that they wouldn't significantly impact traffic flow. :lmao:

There are barriers/fences to prevent them from falling off the bridge and onto land, isn't there something to say for that?

those barriers are intended to keep you from throwing your trash and debris onto people and their houses, that is all.

those barriers are intended to keep you from throwing your trash and debris onto people and their houses, that is all.

And to keep people from throwing you over when they're trying to get to church, apparently :coffee:

I was joking about the barriers, but it IS a fence, it's not like you'd go toppling over it while you're over land. It has kept cars from going over the bridge too so it does have a purpose of saving the people below. To be honest, I doubt it would help with trash...it's chain link!

I hope you're not advocating vehicular homicide, just because they have the temerity to use a bridge and wear shorts that show off their man package.

#justifiablehomicideyerhonor

Idiotic and dangerous? In what way? Last I heard, cars have brakes and steering wheels. I think most drivers know how to slow to between 10 and 20mph (cycling speed) and wait until it's safe to pass. This is what the law requires. If people can't even do that, then I think they need to stop driving.

Rude? Inconsiderate? How? It's a road, and cyclists are not rude by using it to get places. If the man is like me and doesn't own a car, and needs to get to work or to some appointment, what other option would he have? As a cyclist, I can assure you that no cyclist would take that bridge if they had another option - we know full well that motorists don't like being slowed to cycling speeds, and to take a bridge that has only one narrow lane will cause many motorists, ignorant of the law and the need to share the road with other users, to switch to road rage mode.

The bridge is only a mile long. It's not going to take him that long to get over it - maybe 3 minutes if he's fit. It takes motorists just over a minute when going at the 45mph speed limit. So he's causing you to be a couple of minutes later. You know there's no right to a certain speed on the road, right? You are required to go at the speed of the vehicle who has the right of way - and if that's a bicycle, so be it. Also, vehicles cannot be cited for holding up traffic if they are going at a normal speed based on that vehicle's capabilities.

I think maybe drivers need to be a little more patient and aware that some folks just don't have the option to drive, and that there are going to be some slower vehicles on the road. This is going to be the case to a greater extent in the future, as fuel prices rise and more and more low income folks have to look to other options for their commute. Middle income and higher income folks don't seem to realize what a burden car ownership is - a car costs thousands of dollars per year in maintenance costs. In these times, that burden is becoming unbearable for millions of Americans. There seems to be a widely held assumption that cyclists are only on the road for recreation. That is not the case for me, and it's surely not the case for others. I think a little consideration might be in order.

New to these parts, hey?

:popcorn:




PS: try obeying traffic directions such as stop signs, and we might be willing to cut you guys a little more slack. Get it?

I hope you're not advocating vehicular homicide, just because they have the temerity to use a bridge and wear a colorful shirt.

Thinning the herd...

#justifiablehomicideyerhonor

I saw what you did there. :lol:

What happened to Beery?

Although I am an advocate for cycling, I have to agree with the premise that riding across the TJ Bridge is not very safe. I've ridden across the TJ Bridge twice, never during rush hour, and will probably never do it again. With only jerseyNJ barriers between me and the water 140 feet below, it's a scary ride. The first foot or foot and a half of the bridge is full of debris that could cause a flat or worse. That forces the rider to ride into the lane of traffic. If something causes the cyclist to veer right, the jersey barrier to low to preclude a tumble into the Patuxent River.

The above being said, the cyclist has every right to cross the bridge. Is the two - three minutes that you're inconvenienced really worth getting all worked up about?

Jersey barriers were made with autos in mind. Not bikes.

there is nothing more dangerous about riding a bicycle across this road than any other two lane road with no shoulder. A good example, 244. However, if you throw in the conditions, wether they be traffic, visibility, wind etc, the crossing can be dangerous.
I have been across the TJ briodge a few times usually with a group on a sunday morning, nothing dangerous about it at all.

That same crossing at rush hour or during high winds, and you couldn't make me.

Again, its probably not much more dangerous than any other 2 lane road with no shoulder, it all depends on who is passing you and if they are responsibile.

Well, except for the possibilty of getting bumped or blown and falling 130' So the crabs can eat on you for a few days.

those barriers are intended to keep you from throwing your trash and debris onto people and their houses, that is all.

Wrong, that is what the fences are for. That is why all the trash in the area of the fencing. The jersey barriers farther along are for car protection.

Anyone ever notice all the tire marks on those barriers? Yikes.

What happened to Beery?

Must still be stuck in traffic somewhere close to DC... :roflmao:

Thinning the herd...
Exactly, it sounds like natural selection...if you're going to be dumb, Darwin is comin for ya. :lol:

Anyone ever notice all the tire marks on those barriers? Yikes.

Yup. Absolutely no room for error.

Must still be stuck in traffic somewhere close to DC... :roflmao:

Probably behind a bicycle.

Yup. Absolutely no room for error.

I used to keep my boat at a dock right by the bridge to the South of it. A couple times I watched a group of kids walk up the bridge and jump off just past the fence. Probably 25'- 30' Looked like fun.

Jersey barriers were made with autos in mind. Not bikes.



Well, except for the possibilty of getting bumped or blown and falling 130' So the crabs can eat on you for a few days.



Wrong, that is what the fences are for. That is why all the trash in the area of the fencing. The jersey barriers farther along are for car protection.

Anyone ever notice all the tire marks on those barriers? Yikes.

we were specifcally talking about the fences..... Obviously the jersey barriers aren't going to keep any trash from being thrown off the bridge

we were specifcally talking about the fences..... Obviously the jersey barriers aren't going to keep any trash from being thrown off the bridge

Then you should say fence rather than barrier.

Then you should say fence rather than barrier.

how about you just learn to read using context instead. :bigwhoop:

how about you just learn to read using context instead. :bigwhoop:

Next time I will do that, thanks. I will make sure to all read all posts and figure out what you are actually trying to say.

I used to keep my boat at a dock right by the bridge to the South of it. A couple times I watched a group of kids walk up the bridge and jump off just past the fence. Probably 25'- 30' Looked like fun.

Wow that just doesn't sound very smart, I heard there is a bunch of busted up concrete with rebar around the bridge area.

Wirelessly posted

how about you just learn to read using context instead. :bigwhoop:

Next time I will do that, thanks. I will make sure to all read all posts and figure out what you are actually trying to say.

You would only have had to read the post I quoted in my response :yay:

Wow that just doesn't sound very smart, I heard there is a bunch of busted up concrete with rebar around the bridge area.

No telling what could be a few feet under the surface. Plus it isn't very deep.

:evil:

How to deal with them...

Move It! (http://i44.tinypic.com/8wkxsz.gif)

:evil:

How to deal with them...

Move It! (http://i44.tinypic.com/8wkxsz.gif)

That crap was cray!!!!! I shouldn't laugh at it...but damn, everytime I'm on Sixes, Greys, or McKall and they are double wide on no shoulder roads, I think about this .gif

I agree. But don't forget they are told that they have the same rights as the motor vehicles on the road. I thought there was a sign with this type of a restriction.