Who’s right?
From: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/commuting/marylander-despairs-over-beltway-traffic/2011/11/04/gIQAlKuZFN_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/commuting/marylander-despairs-over-beltway-traffic/2011/11/04/gIQAlKuZFN_story.html</a>;Dear Dr. Gridlock:
My understanding is that most people ride bicycles because they enjoy it and because it is good exercise and is good for the environment.
I have noticed a trend where bike trails intersect roads. Sometimes, bikers will expect cars to yield for them even though the cars have the right of way. This seems illogical.
If either the car or the bicycle has to yield, it makes much more sense for the bicycle to yield. If the car stops, it loses all of its momentum. This means that it will end up using more gas to get back up to speed and also emit more pollution.
On the other hand, if the bicyclist yields, he or she will lose forward momentum and will have to use additional physical energy to get back up to speed, resulting in a better workout.
Am I missing something?
— Rory Rohde, Hamilton
*****************************************************************************
B' Spokes: First, if you want to save on gas ride a bicycle, take mass transit or car pool, anything else is... well taking the lowest of all gas conservation measures and using it justify being selfish.
Second, the law: § 21-202.e Yielding right-of-way to certain pedestrians and other traffic. -- Vehicular traffic described under subsection (d) of this section shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian or bicycle lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any other traffic lawfully using the intersection.. [A trail junction is an intersection. So sorry, you are required to stop.]
Third, the law of the land is not anything close to "People with faster machines need to always go as fast as possible to the next red light and people with slower machines need to go slower to accommodate the faster machines." It is closer to "If you got 300+ horse power at your disposal you can easily make up any loss of time, period."
Forth, by making cycling safe, comfortable and convenient, cyclists will save way more gas then you ever will by not stopping. Try keeping your tires up to the proper pressure if you are really interested in squeezing out some gas savings that's more then "using more gas to get back up to speed."
Fifth, getting a workout: What's missing here is what separates bicycling from other forms of exercise. It's (generally) not about an "intense" workout, that kind of intensity found in other forms of exercise is what makes it hard for a lot of people to stick with an exercise regimen. Bicycling is a gentle and easy way to stay fit, plus it's fun. I know "fun" is bad word when talking about exercise as it is supposed to be "hard" otherwise people think it does no good. But the typical beginning cyclists loses 10 lbs in the first year of biking. So let me stress: the appeal of cycling for many trail users is that it is not an intense workout, if you want intense you go mountain biking or do some other sport.
Sixth, bicycling is not always a sport or exercise, it is transportation, just like a car. Oh sure, people who bicycle get a health benefit but that does not negate that they are simply trying to get from point A to B as easily as possible, just like you in your car. Gee who would have thought that cyclists are really just like everyone else trying to take it easy?
In conclusion, we need to keep bicycling an "easy" and convenient option:
* to replace the wastefulness of the Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) (how many billions (if not trillions) of dollars do we need over and above "what they pay in" in infrastructure to support the SOV?)
* to reduce the obesity epidemic (something has to remain an easy thing to do. We can't go around making exercise harder because it's "better" but in so doing fewer people do it.)
* to save money (or more correctly, cyclists put more of their money into the local economy then supporting foreign oil, foreign made cars, foreign made parts, ... )
What's Related