Forums

Agreed it's a bad idea.  Though having been a runner down that very stretch I would add that the sidewalks there leave much to be desired.  It's a very thin sidewalk and old – there are certainly parts where a smaller-tired stroller might have difficulty traversing.  Though I try to keep on the sidewalk, if I see a group of walkers ahead I'll move into the street to avoid being one of those sweaty jerks that runs and brushes past people on the sidewalk (Wilson Blvd joggers I'm looking at you).  So moving into the street there, especially as residential a street as Key blvd is certainly a venial sin among pedestrian transgressions.

Key is a good stretch of road to run on in some repsects, but it's narrow so I'd always hop on the sidewalk if there was traffic. The stroller thing drives me crazy though. You see it elsewhere, and I don't understand how other parents can be so negligent.  

It seems like most people running on Wilson and Clarendon do it just to be seen. It's always the scantily clad ones who do it. It's really no place to run. The sidewalks are too narrow and the bike lanes are for, well, bikes.

I have seen this many places across Arlington, especially Rhodes and Key in Colonial Village.

Also saw two people walking down the turn lane at N Glebe and Fairfax (where you would make a right onto N Glebe after coming up from 66 East) and they were just casually strolling, back to traffic, spaced so that they essentially took up the entire turn lane. Not smart. But they acted like *I* was the jerk for honking at them and glared at me as they slowly walked back up onto the sidewalk. 

First, these examples are asses, obviously.  But, when I run I do so on the street.  I tend to run after sundown and the sidewalks are too dark and hazardous for running.  I always trip on uprooted sidewalk tile.  However, when I run in the street I generally do so with awareness of my own mortality.  Therefore, I am usually considerate to those who could kill me.  I do carry a weapon, though, so if you hit me you better hope I don't get back up.  Baby joggers in the street, that's just stupid.  Something about seeing someone with a baby jogger makes me hate them.  ”Look out everybody:  I'm the width of the sidewalk and I'm not stopping for anybody!”  It's like a sidewalk plow.

CW said:

Wait, just to get this clear – you run down the middle of the street in the dark, but if a car or cyclist were to inadvertently strike you, you would draw your sidearm and return fire? Yeesh. Not sure the law would be on your side there.

Let me get this clear:  You completely made up that statement.  I said no such things.  I run down the appropriate side of the street, close to the edge, not the middle.  I move out of the way of vehicles as appropriate.  I am aware of my surroundings.  However, some drivers do create dangerous situations with their dangerous behaviors.  If I get hit by someone doing something stupid, I will take that as an act of hostility and respond.

neutrino said:

However, when I run in the street I generally do so with awareness of my own mortality.

Smart and sensible.

It’s like a sidewalk plow.

Hilarious and apt.

If I get hit by someone doing something stupid, I will take that as an act of hostility and respond.

WTF.  That sounds like completely the inappropriate response.  You've already established that the situation is through negligence, not malice – and you assert your response would be akin to a response to violence?  Please do elaborate on what you mean by “respond” in this context, because it sounds like using your aforementioned weapon in response to “something stupid” would be an unjustifiable assault.

neutrino said:

If someone shoots me by accident would I not have the right to self-defense?  When you are in control of a deadly weapon, intention is meaningless.  If someone hits my car with theirs while I’m driving because they were checking their phone, I might respond with violence then, as well.  Cars aren’t damn toys.  When you use them, take them seriously.

What is your intent with shooting them?  That is, what do you hope shooting them will accomplish?  I can't imagine a scenario where, after the first accidental strike by their car, that shooting the driver would somehow protect you from further harm.  As it is an accident, their intent is not to continue with course of action that led them to strike your car.  So shooting them serves as what: retribution?  This is clearly illegal.

To observers of this thread: yes yes, I'm well aware I may well just be being troll-baited.