[arlrider]

@Steve O 226198 wrote:

I am curious to hear from someone who has ridden in the counter-clockwise direction. During any sort of busy time, I would think this would feel uncomfortable, riding between opposing traffic on both sides.
Anyone?

Well, as someone riding in the clockwise direction, the presence of a few people riding in the counter-clockwise direction seemed uncomfortable to me. Does that count? It was just one of those things…like, I know you’re now allowed to, but…why? Just for a change of scenery? A huge aversion to being passed from behind? As a runner it makes a ton of sense because pedestrians traditionally go against traffic, but as a cyclist it just seems…odd.

[arlrider]

Never seen that place in my life, but looks like a good way to get shot or eaten by a troll. Curious as to what you find out.

[arlrider]

Yes, they are really going after it there. When I passed by the other day it was quite a sight. My first reaction was that it was unfortunate that a number of large trees apparently needed to be removed “to create space for the new sediment collection area and expanded pools” but I guess that is why I am not a wetland remediation expert…

[arlrider]

I too have used this new setup a couple times and it has been more pleasant than I expected.

As a cyclist, I found it to basically be the status quo – cyclists capable of sufficient speed will just be in the main lane and “everyone else” will be using the bi-directional track. I think that it was a net positive because it encouraged the runners to all be in one area rather than everyone choosing their own line.

As a runner, I found it to be a big positive. Having a conceptually dedicated space and some sense of belonging was quite welcome. One just has to have faith that the cyclists riding in the opposite direction spread out across the road will move over when you meet head-on, but that has always been the case, previously without the presence of lanes to remind them to do so.

I too would give the caveat that my experiences were in early mornings where all of the traffic was non-motorized. So the fishing and big-party crowd were not present. Still, to the above, I don’t think that the new infrastructure would cause any *more* issues than what was inherently present in the previous design and use of the space.

[arlrider]

@lordofthemark 220926 wrote:

For me the purpose of bike infrastructure is to separate me from 2 to 3 ton vehicles that can move at 100MPH (and which routinely do 45 in 35MPH zones). And kill me.

I guess this is the part where we differ. I agree that a 2-3 ton hunk of metal moving at 45 mph can kill me. I also fear that a 300 lb rig, including 80+ lbs of bike and battery, moving at 25-30 mph can kill me. So are you only concerned about things that can make you really, really super dead, not just regular dead? I’m personally concerned about both.

@lordofthemark 220926 wrote:

I do not ride the Custis Trail that often…Perhaps this is a North Arlington thing?

I think there is actually some truth to this, a few hypotheses: 1) the Custis is the final routing for long-distance commuters from beyond Arlington who may have switched over due to the increasing challenges of getting into DC by car (e.g. 66 to HOV-3), thus folks who may be less about the cycling and more about hurrying downtown, and 2) the terrain of the Custis (rolling hills of steep gradient) exacerbates the unnatural behavior of electric bikes (e.g. rocketing up climbs) more than the flat MVT or W&OD.

[arlrider]

@lordofthemark 220924 wrote:

Fact is that more ebikes means fewer cars, more citizens who will support better bike infra and bike policy, more justification for bike infra (especially in street, but ALSO more and wider trails) In general it will help with the things that not only make many of us cranky, but also kill us

I think this is our fundamental disagreement. My personal empirically-driven belief is that when “bike” infrastructure that is opened up to vehicles that weigh significantly more than traditional bicycles and which can move under their own power, it is basically nullified because that defeats the purpose of bike infrastructure…having a separation between bike, heavy things that can move under their own power and…bicycles.

@lordofthemark 220924 wrote:

As for your lived experience mine is not similar.

Not really sure what to say. Plenty of riders I speak with have noted this. Sometimes I feel like the electric motorcycles and one-wheel electric unicycle things on the Custis are overtaking traffic on 66!

[arlrider]

I unfortunately have a full-time job so will just respond to a select few points here…

@lordofthemark 220918 wrote:

But you are a bike rider and bike supporter, no? Not an opponent of bike lanes using the speed of ebikes as an excuse? Or am I misreading you.

Yes, you are misreading me. I think I have been pretty clear. I am a fan of dedicated infrastructure for human-powered vehicles. Not building that infrastructure then allowing motor vehicles onto it. My position, as strange as you seem to find it, is exactly consistent with the original *point* of having MUPs and bike / ped infrastructure…to protect from motor vehicles through separation.

@lordofthemark 220918 wrote:

There’s no appetite for restricting ebikes on trails presumably because the folks at the trail orgs find no urgent problem from ebikes on trails.

Or because, as you have noted in your own post, funding is tied to user count…

Anyhow, I’ve made my opinion, and nothing more, clear. My lived experience as a cyclist is that the world has gotten more dangerous since motorized vehicles (to the guy referencing legal definitions – I’m talking the laws of physics, not the laws on the books), have started to occupy the spaces previously designed and built to protect human powered transit users from motor vehicles. This isn’t to say that humans can’t be dangerous – of course a rider going flat-out on a traditional bike can cause plenty of damage – I’m simply noting that incremental risk has been introduced. We can all have one issue or another that makes us cranky, for me as a cyclist, this is mine.

Also, PS, you can copy / paste quote blocks as I have done if you want to respond to multiple points a user has made. Makes the response a lot easier to follow.

[arlrider]

@lordofthemark 220862 wrote:

Your comments are not, IMO, contributing to that discourse, and are not winning sympathy to your position.

Be better. Help make this community better. Go for a bike ride.

My comments are reflective of reality. That reality is that 1) this thread is about someone being outraged over use of a motor vehicle on a trail, 2) yet that outrage is based off a false dichotomy between different types of motor vehicles, and that 3) the introduction of motor vehicles en masse to trails has made them into incrementally more dangerous places.

Telling me that I am “bad” (opposite of “better”) because I don’t agree with your position is not a valid form of discourse either, and I am not seeking your “sympathy”.

If you want to engage with me, engage with my actual position, which is that the introduction of a certain type of motor vehicle onto trails previously allowed only for human-powered transit, done under the presence of “green” transportation yet ignoring all pre-existing safety-based reasons why motor vehicles were not allowed, has increased the aggregate risk level of using those trails.

@lordofthemark 220863 wrote:

Do you do real world bike advocacy? I have NEVER heard a staffer, elected, or citizen make that argument – not in Alexandria, not elsewhere in greater DC, and not in the national discourse.

Well take a seat, because you just saw a real, live, many-thousands-of-taxes-paying, card-carrying citizen make that argument!

@lordofthemark 220863 wrote:

I have also seen a need for more people to be bike advocates, and have seen ebike riders being bike advocates.

As for need – someone on an ebike capped at 28 MPH may be uncomfortable on a road that is signed at 35MPH. Even one that is signed at 25MPH where drivers routinely go well over 30. A fortiori, someone on Class 1 ebike capped at 21MPH. And note, its not necessarily easy to get to those speeds uphill. On a CaBi ebike I couldn’t get close to 21 MPH on one steep grade – I was VERY glad I was in a PBL.

I don’t disagree that the view above reflects the “short game”. But as these motor vehicles become more and more powerful, there is going to become no distinction between them and other types of motorcycles, other than a pedal system installed as a showpiece. That is going to create lack of rationale for policymakers to advocate for protected lanes. The same people who say “no one bikes” will, in the future, say “Why do motorcycle riders need to be protected? They’ve always ridden on the road.” By breaking down the distinction as to what is and is not a bike, in the long run it is going to erode any support for true bike infrastructure.

The evolution of these motor vehicles has already accelerated beyond the ability or appetite of regulators to keep up. The trails and streets have become the wild west. Which is why I posit that the traditional position of “no motor vehicles on trails” was the easiest to maintain and enforce.

We can agree to disagree. You can call me names and claim I’m not contributing. And I will go for a ride, as you suggest – I’ll just unfortunately have to keep one eye on my six for the next huge rig roaring up on me at automobile speed going uphill, distracted rider at the helm ready to mow me down.

[arlrider]

Can’t say I am surprised by the self-justifying responses from the motorcycle users as to why their cases are special and how they are model citizens…I need to get from X to Y, I maintain the speed limit, I signal this, ring that, natural gas CO2 emissions aren’t that bad, lol, etc…Ah yes, and the old “they require pedaling” – because casually turning 50 rpm at low resistance to tell the control to unleash wattages a UCI pro could only dream of makes the thing “human powered”.

OK, so what if the 2-stroke rider (not diesel, look up combustion cycles) did all of the “good citizen” things noted above? Then it just comes down to noise (ah yes, the Custis is so quiet, being next to 66 and all…not like Mt Vernon is next to a parkway or airport or anything either, etc.) and marginal GHG emissions. Not much of an argument. Let the internal combustion guy ride, then, right?

At the end of the day, trails were designed for human-powered transportation and introducing these rigs that are 300+ lbs fully loaded and can do things that human-powered transit modes cannot have completely shifted the dynamic and, individual perfect citizens aside, made them a net more dangerous place. I’ve been out on these trails for nearly 15 years, and it wasn’t until a couple years ago that I had to regularly turn around and get ready to dive out of the way of a silent Harley blasting up on me, 300+ lbs, user talking on the phone or using a handlebar-mounted iPad.

PS electric motorcycles are NOT net positive for cycling, because by enabling their riders to easily operate at speed parity with other motor vehicles, they obviate the need for dedicated cycling infrastructure. It’s hard to make the case for a MOTOR VEHICLE that can hold the speed limit needing its own set of lanes or roadways…

[arlrider]

@DrP 220848 wrote:

So, no hypocrisy from the OP. Lots of Humbug and fist shaking and “get off my lawn,” however.

No, my apologies!!! I wasn’t accusing you of hypocrisy. That accusation was leveled more towards the “advocates” who would faint at the thought of gas-powered motorcycles on the trails, but fought (and won) a battle to let equally dangerous electric motorcycles run rampant. So we’re on the same page and cut from the same grumpy, human-powered-purist cloth!

[arlrider]

@bentbike33 220807 wrote:

I’m beginning to suspect that the whole point is to discourage the Haines Point pelotons.

Isn’t the posted speed limit 15 or 20 MPH out there? If they wanted to discourage the pelotons, all they’d need is a few cops with radar guns.

[arlrider]

@consularrider 220239 wrote:

And not to reopen the helmet discussion (but here goes anyway), a little bit of foam and plastic will do little for you when you are plowed into by the driver of a 3000 pound hunk of metal

As someone who has been plowed into by an at fault-driver commandeering one of those hunks of metal, ejected from his bike at speed due to the collision, and landed headfirst on the pavement, with his helmet compressing and shattering instead of his skull, I would offer that I have empirical evidence to the contrary.

[arlrider]

But to expound on the point the OP mentioned in passing…why should one be opposed to this if they are in favor of “e bikes” (aka quiet motorcycles)? The argument is really a noise and smell-based one, not a safety one? This bike and the “e bikes” both get up to speeds unattainable by most human riders on trails, all while carrying so much mass as to be extremely dangerous in a collision. The only difference is that these 2-stroke motorcycles that people are clutching their pearls about burn fossils on-site, whereas the “e-bikes” that all of our “advocates” love sooooo much have the burning done by Dominion. Can’t help but feel the hypocrisy here – I wish we could have just kept the rule of NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES on trails and been done with it. Humbug!!!!

[arlrider]

@consularrider 219608 wrote:

They had also closed off 22nd St N at N Dinwiddie making access to Heidleberg Pastry Shoppe problematic

Ah, yes, as opposed to the normally clear, straightforward, and safe approach to the entrance to Heidelberg…one of my favorite parking lots in the County…NOT. Hehe, I’ll see myself out now.

[arlrider]

So is this the right spot for discussion of the reworked crossing of Doom? I did a good bit ‘o searching and couldn’t find anything newer…

As of last week the NE corner of the IoD has been re-opened in what appears to be its more-or-less permanent configuration – what do others think? Personally, I think it’s somehow, if this is possible, even more dangerous than before – the fact that the N/S crosswalk is now set in from the traffic lane by ~10 feet just gives even more real estate for the drivers to crawl along into when making their precious right turns on red. And now, because it’s such a protracted procedure to do so, they’re paying even less attention than previous to the bikes/peds crossing Lynn as they inch forward to gain visibility, all while looking left.

How this is going to work when the actual esplanade opens and people are actually using the N/S crosswalk, I can’t even imagine – I think people will be mowed down en masse there. Of course if ACPD put an officer on duty station there 24/7 (which they won’t), the resulting revenue could reduce our property taxes by 50%…

I’d imagine there is plenty of other discussion already and I’m in the wrong place, so please point me to the right thread!

[Author]

Posts