Bike on bike violence on Custis

[sethpo]

My boss was taken out this morning inbound on the Custis on one of those narrow blind curves w/ the retaining wall on one side and Lee Hwy on the other. He was passed by a fast-moving cyclist who cut back in front of him and took out my boss’ front wheel. Boss man hit a light post pretty hard and tore up his knee (only road rash fortunately). The guy stopped and apologized but quickly took off w/o making sure my friend needed help.

If you insist on riding recklessly and your recklessness causes a crash please remember that there are no team cars or medical support vehicles so, you know, be a decent human and stuff.

Topic

[mstone]

@Steve O 141082 wrote:

In the end, this is what we want, though. 5-10 times as many people riding bikes.

Yes and no: there’s simply no way that 10x as many people can bike on the current infrastructure.

[Jason]

If you stay all the way to your right, oncoming traffic will take your lane, and be more likely to hit you. Stay in the middle of YOUR lane and adjust as immediate circumstances dictate. In my experience (including a crash head on) if you stay to your right, oncoming traffic will take dangerous advantage of that space, and passing traffic will also be more likely to pass you dangerously. I move to my right when someone calls their pass or if oncoming is so dangerous I need that extra room. If you start all the way to your right within your lane, you will be giving up all your safety space.

[OneEighth]

I prefer not to be the dog in the manger.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 141095 wrote:

Yes and no: there’s simply no way that 10x as many people can bike on the current infrastructure.

Thoughts

1. As current infra gets more crowded, we can make a stronger case for more
2. In some places we have infra parallel to the crowded trails, and it is not well utilized – partly because it is just not well known, partly because it is not great infra, and partly because of enforcement issues.

For example, when I attend Crystal City Coffee Club, or avoid the mulching on the MVT, I take Eads Street. I seldom see anyone else riding on Eads, despite the crowded and otherwise poor conditions on the MVT. Partly I am not sure how many people think of Eads as an alternative. Of course Eads has its own issues with conditions (at least for someone looking for a low stress route) – for the first segment north from 4MRT it is a narrow door zone bike lane with awful pavement. Then it is a buffered bike lane, with lots of tour buses and delivery vehicles parked in it. Then it is a PBL without any special bike treatment at intersections. Then to get into CC, via 18th street, you have to take the lane on some awful pavement. If we are going to create an alternative to the MVT (see the proposals to improve the Boundary Channel Drive/Long Branch intersection, and provide a route to the 14th Street bridge from there) it would make sense to turn Eads into a real alternative.

[Steve O]

@mstone 141095 wrote:

Yes and no: there’s simply no way that 10x as many people can bike on the current infrastructure.

I want this problem.

[Crickey7]

I think people will comply with at least some trail rules like calling their passes if they see it as a norm, like wearing seatbelts. More signage can’t hurt.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

My on-road route alternatives (Pershing, Wilson, Clarendon) haven’t seen a change in behavior and a slight increase in numbers. It does help that opposing cyclists are on the other side of the road.

[BTC_DC]

@Brendan von Buckingham 141192 wrote:

My on-road route alternatives (Pershing, Wilson, Clarendon) haven’t seen a change in behavior and a slight increase in numbers. It does help that opposing cyclists are on the other side of the road.

Most of the time, at least. However, I was surprised this morning by a cyclist coming straight at me going the wrong way right down the middle of my lane on Crystal Dr. Not a good example for the kids…

[Author]

Replies