Missed connection

[Anonymous]

@dasgeh 136501 wrote:

Just a quibble with this sentence. The people on the trail coming from the opposite direction than the cars turning right (“salmoning”) are actually easier for the cars to see then people on the trail coming from the same direction. The latter on behind the driver of the car.

No. We are not talking about people coming parallel the cars, but perpendicular to the cars. The trail/sidewalk is to the east of GWP– alongside the northbound car lanes. The parking lot is also to the east of the parkway and trail. Cars coming out of parking lot cross the trail to turn onto the parkway. When they are heading north, they are making a right turn and are looking to their left for northbound car traffic. Meanwhile, people headed southbound on MVT are approaching from their right. Some of them don’t bother to look right, since they don’t have to worry about cars coming from that direction.

I assume the bike light was deliberately changed (the big sign in Casey’s picture was also removed) at the end of the “trial period” because it did not accomplish whatever the city had hoped it would accomplish. I further assume it was left there because it was cheaper to reprogram it to yellow-red than to remove it. I liked it the other way, but if the city has data that suggests it decreased safety or increased conflict, “Amalitza thought that light was pretty nifty” is probably not a good argument to put it back the other way. //shrug//

[scoot]

@Amalitza 136504 wrote:

@dasgeh 136501 wrote:

Just a quibble with this sentence. The people on the trail coming from the opposite direction than the cars turning right (“salmoning”) are actually easier for the cars to see then people on the trail coming from the same direction. The latter on behind the driver of the car.

No. We are not talking about people coming parallel the cars, but perpendicular to the cars.

Correct. The problem is that many drivers, only mindful of automobile traffic coming from the left, don’t bother to look to their right before making right turns. Thus the “salmons” are the riders at greatest risk of being undetected.

[dasgeh]

@Amalitza 136504 wrote:

No. We are not talking about people coming parallel the cars, but perpendicular to the cars.

Fair enough. But then it’s not the same problem as on the Custis (which is parallel to the dominant direction of car traffic)

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 136507 wrote:

Fair enough. But then it’s not the same problem as on the Custis (which is parallel to the dominant direction of car traffic)

Correct. It’s more analogous to the Wakefield intersection by the Ballston Connector, which they improved by making it No-Right-on-Red.

[Tania]

The intersection at lee and oak has a no turn on red sign. The cab the other am just ignored it. He ignored the red light all together in fact since he never actually stopped. I’m way too lazy to figure out how to right this image when posting from my phone. Sorrynotsorry.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11190[/ATTACH]
Changing topics a touch – the sidewalk there along the Kennedy Center on the east side of 25th – that’s considered a bike path, right? I had a lady yell at me for being on the sidewalk today. I called out that I was passing – politely, as in “I’m going to pass you on your left ma’am” and passed her quite slowly and with plenty of room. When she told me to get on the road I said “surprisingly, this is considered a bike path!” with no snark at all but as I rode towards the TR Bridge (and waved to my favorite guard at the Embassy? Kennedy Center? Not sure of his role but he always has a friendly greeting) I realized that I’m not 100% sure that’s true.

[KWL]

1. Oblivious dog walker with a dog on a long lease.
2. The ill-defined pile on the trail in front of him is a standing runner, a prone runner and a prone cyclist. The downed runner moved to pass the standing runner while the downed cyclist passed. Dare I say the cyclist likely did not call his pass?
3. One of two Elite cyclists who passed me and the whole mess without a word when they should have been queuing up behind me to carefully pick our way through.

No one was injured, except for pride. Runner to cyclist in second image – “You should be wearing a helmet”.

[vern]

Riding home on the WOD:

Me to pedestrian: Passing on your left

Pedestrian: So?

[Steve O]

@Tania 136528 wrote:

The intersection at lee and oak has a no turn on red sign.

Here are the street view images, all right side up and everything.

[scoot]

@dasgeh 136507 wrote:

Fair enough. But then it’s not the same problem as on the Custis (which is parallel to the dominant direction of car traffic)

No, it’s exactly the same problem as the Custis. In both cases the sidewalk/trail is parallel to the main automobile traffic highway (MVT vs. GWMP and Custis vs. Lee Hwy). The danger being discussed is that posed by drivers exiting a side street and making right turns onto the highway (e.g. from Porto Vecchio onto northbound GWMP, from Oak onto westbound Lee Hwy) without looking both ways. Many drivers are oblivious to trail users approaching from their right, because they are only think about looking for highway traffic approaching from their left.

Essentially what we are discussing is a variation of the picture in BicycleSafe’s Collision Type #4: The Wrong-Way Wreck. In our case, the “wrong-way” riders are on a sidewalk/trail, not in the street, but the root of the problem is the same: the drivers aren’t looking that direction.

Exacerbating the problem in both these locations is a slope that enables “salmons” to gather high speed.

[dasgeh]

@scoot 136538 wrote:

No, it’s exactly the same problem as the Custis. In both cases the sidewalk/trail is parallel to the main automobile traffic highway (MVT vs. GWMP and Custis vs. Lee Hwy). The danger being discussed is that posed by drivers exiting a side street and making right turns onto the highway (e.g. from Porto Vecchio onto northbound GWMP, from Oak onto westbound Lee Hwy) without looking both ways. Many drivers are oblivious to trail users approaching from their right, because they are only think about looking for highway traffic approaching from their left.

Essentially what we are discussing is a variation of the picture in BicycleSafe’s Collision Type #4: The Wrong-Way Wreck. In our case, the “wrong-way” riders are on a sidewalk/trail, not in the street, but the root of the problem is the same: the drivers aren’t looking that direction.

Exacerbating the problem in both these locations is a slope that enables “salmons” to gather high speed.

No. All intersections on the Custis have no right on red.

[notinthe18]

Not so much a missed connection, just pretty funny. Tail end of my ride yesterday, MVT near the power plant:

Lady walking with her dog, who has a lot of the leash and is blocking the whole trail: (wearing headphones)
Me: On your left.
Lady: (nothing)
Me: On your left!
Lady: (nothing)
Me: HEY! Can I squeeze by?
Lady: (nothing)
Me: HEY! MA’AM!!!
Lady: (nothing)
Dog: (turns to look at me, and I swear he smiled)
Me: HEY!! ON YOUR LEFT!! PASSING!!! 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Lady: (nothing)

It went on like this for a minute until she finally noticed that the dog was looking at me. She was so oblivious that it was funny, plus I was in a great mood and she seemed mortified.

[scorchedearth]

@KWL 136530 wrote:

1. Oblivious dog walker with a dog on a long lease.
2. The ill-defined pile on the trail in front of him is a standing runner, a prone runner and a prone cyclist. The downed runner moved to pass the standing runner while the downed cyclist passed. Dare I say the cyclist likely did not call his pass?
3. One of two Elite cyclists who passed me and the whole mess without a word when they should have been queuing up behind me to carefully pick our way through.

No one was injured, except for pride. Runner to cyclist in second image – “You should be wearing a helmet”.

The MVT was a disaster yesterday. I saw far too many dangerous passes by oblivious riders for my personal comfort level and a friend of mine was nearly run off the trail a few times whilst coming to meet me. I’m going to avoid the trail for a while until the situation calms down.

[huskerdont]

@Tania 136528 wrote:

The intersection at lee and oak has a no turn on red sign. The cab the other am just ignored it. He ignored the red light all together in fact since he never actually stopped. I’m way too lazy to figure out how to right this image when posting from my phone. Sorrynotsorry.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11190[/ATTACH]
Changing topics a touch – the sidewalk there along the Kennedy Center on the east side of 25th – that’s considered a bike path, right? I had a lady yell at me for being on the sidewalk today. I called out that I was passing – politely, as in “I’m going to pass you on your left ma’am” and passed her quite slowly and with plenty of room. When she told me to get on the road I said “surprisingly, this is considered a bike path!” with no snark at all but as I rode towards the TR Bridge (and waved to my favorite guard at the Embassy? Kennedy Center? Not sure of his role but he always has a friendly greeting) I realized that I’m not 100% sure that’s true.

Yeah, both Oak and Ft. Meyer have no turn on red all the time. People ignore it. I almost went over someone’s hood a few months back at Ft. Meyer–only just managed to swerve to their right, and even that wouldn’t have been enough if they had accelerated faster.

I would like to see all intersections in urban areas be no turn on red all the time. Right turn on red is dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, and I think even honest people sometimes don’t see the signs because there are simply a lot of signs and other things to observe while driving. If everyone knew that there was no turn on red anywhere in an urban area, there’d be less lawbreaking. I think.

That path you’re talking about always makes me uncomfortable to ride on because it just looks so much like a sidewalk. Not sure of its official designation. I’ll use it sometimes if there aren’t many people about, but if I do, I do like you and take it very easy. Usually I do take the road–either the pain in the butt way around the circle, or breaking the law going against traffic flow and hopping back onto the sidewalk if cars come.

[Anonymous]

@huskerdont 136545 wrote:

I would like to see all intersections in urban areas be no turn on red all the time. Right turn on red is dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, and I think even honest people sometimes don’t see the signs because there are simply a lot of signs and other things to observe while driving. If everyone knew that there was no turn on red anywhere in an urban area, there’d be less lawbreaking. I think.

Also the fact that all the “no right on red when pedestrians are present” signs are actually 2 signs; a big “No Right On Red” sign with a smaller “when pedestrians are present” sign underneath it, so we’re all accustomed to seeing signs that say “No Right On Red” but don’t actually mean it. You don’t just have to notice the sign that says no right on red. You have to also actively notice the absence of the “when peds are present” accompanying sign. I’d like to know who came up with that idea and why traffic engineers seem to all think it makes sense…

[Tania]

@huskerdont 136545 wrote:

That path you’re talking about always makes me uncomfortable to ride on because it just looks so much like a sidewalk. Not sure of its official designation. I’ll use it sometimes if there aren’t many people about, but if I do, I do like you and take it very easy. Usually I do take the road–either the pain in the butt way around the circle, or breaking the law going against traffic flow and hopping back onto the sidewalk if cars come.

I used to always go through the circle (taking the lane since I can bike about as fast as cars through there) but one day about two months ago I had incident after incident biking to the TR Bridge from Metro Center. By the time I got to Virginia and G street, I was D-O-N-E with cars so I took the pedestrian crossing to the sidewalk and it just became a habit. I really do ride slowly, I’ve held conversations with pedestrians a few times. I’ve had a few people say “sorry!” and scoot off the sidewalk into the grass when I said I was passing (or they heard my hubs as I coasted – yay Hopes!) and I say “no no! You have the right of way, I just didn’t want to surprise you. You’re totally fine.”

Anyway, screenshot from DC’s bike path map here:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11193[/ATTACH]

It looks like it is actually a bike path (the dotted black line means “off street trail”) but I agree that it looks questionable.

Any changing topics BACK to the one about no rights on red, as a driver I’m always relieved when this is posted at an intersection. I hate creeping forward (because there could be pedestrians coming from the left that I can’t see because of a car to my left) and then the jerks in cars behind me honking because I’m not pulling out into traffic. PS, you honk at me, I’m going to count to at least 10 before moving. 15 or 20 if I’m feeling smarmy and you keep honking. I may even “accidentally” stall my manual car.

I was almost hit as a pedestrian this am. I’m waiting to cross at a light, a car is at the same intersection turning right. He saw the cars from the left slowing down (because the light changed) and gunned it right as I stepped out into the intersection (with a walk signal). I knew he was going to do it though (he didn’t even bother to stop after he saw me).

[Author]

Posts