[invisiblehand]

The cyclist has been charged with disobeying a traffic device …

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news2_bikecrash-1030am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a67a1960e32e

[invisiblehand]

@S. Arlington Observer 135912 wrote:

If the parks department thinks the signs increase safety it is very wrong. They aren’t legally enforceable and yet appear to declare legal rights. They encourage motorists to be aggressive. They should be removed.

Totally agree with this. There is no need for “fake” signs giving priority to street traffic.

[invisiblehand]

@DismalScientist 114119 wrote:

As far as the station at St. Ann’s, who is better determined to pick the better location: The Arlington bicycle lobby or the local residents?

I saw the newsletter. To be honest, I don’t see what their complaints are about with respect to the St. Ann’s location since there is a decent amount of space with the Custis extension and Harrison St. bridge over I-66. I assumed that the location was to serve the church and school which does get a decent amount of foot traffic.

[invisiblehand]

@ronwalf 71308 wrote:

Every time the weather’s nasty, I start getting the urge to go bike shopping. If I really knew what I needed, I’d have bought it by now, but this is the set of requirements that I’m working with:

• Disc brakes (BB-7s, equivalent, or such a good deal that upgrading is economical)
• Drop-bar, or drop-bar-ish. I run mustache bars and like them.
• Enough tire clearance for studs and fenders (45mm?)
• Geometry somewhere between touring and relaxed cross (inclusive).
• Rack and fender compatible

A Karate Monkey’s geometry with drop bars has worked for a few folks.

http://jeffsbike.blogspot.com/2011/11/surly-karate-monkey-second-impressions.html

[invisiblehand]

@Riley Casey 71438 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what are merits of having studded tyres for pavement riding in DC ?

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/washington-dc-snowfall-totals-snow-accumulation-averages.php

It’s all about icy roads/trails, in my experience, which can form without much or any natural precipitation. Deep snow/slush still warrants wide/stubby MTB tires.

http://washingtonwheelman.blogspot.com/2011/01/schwalbe-winter-tires.html
http://washingtonwheelman.blogspot.com/2011/01/schwalbe-winter-tire-follow-up.html
http://washingtonwheelman.blogspot.com/2011/02/replacement-studs-for-winter-tires.html

[invisiblehand]

This is a marginally more accurate map of where to catch the WOD off Wilson Blvd.

http://goo.gl/maps/q4IWt

[invisiblehand]

@myoglobinologist 48212 wrote:

Thank you for the warning. I bike this route every day.

Is there a better way getting on to custis, west bound, from Ballston, at night then? Two possibilities appear to be:

1. Go out on wilson and turn in at bonair park?
2. Continue west on surface streets on Fairfax drive west of the on-ramp to 66 and then connect on George Mason drive.

Are either of these preferable?

Thanks.

-k

My preferred route is #2. While it gets you past the Glebe and I-66 intersection, its connection to the Custis Trail is still quite secluded and dark.

The Custis Trail is the fastest way to get from Ballston to EFC Metros, IMO. Any alternative is a real inconvenience.

EDIT: I mean route #2 is the fastest. You can certainly catch the WOD around Bluemont Park if you continue down Wilson Blvd. It’s at the bottom of the hill. http://goo.gl/maps/iv7oA

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 22231 wrote:

I think the latter is probably true for a place like the Netherlands.

This paper says yes in the Netherlands.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.0901747

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 22236 wrote:

From WashCycle today:

“Local poll done in conjunction with the Fairfax County Bike Plan shows reasons people don’t bike more have a lot to do with a lack of facilities.”

Bicycle more? Sure. Whether it’s meaningful is something else. And whether they are willing to sacrifice something else for it is yet another — perhaps the most important — question.

[invisiblehand]

@DismalScientist 22082 wrote:

I can’t think of many areas in the inner suburbs that are not accessible by bikeable streets (except perhaps bridge access) With the lack of through side streets, many areas of Fairfax are a disaster for biking. The arterials likely need to be widened for any bicycle-friendly treatment of the road, but the question is whether to put in bike lanes or call the wider lanes sharrows. Claiming that anti-segregated facility cyclists are against making bike friendly investments is disingenuous.

Is a bike lane a segregated facility?

Anyway, I largely agree with Dismal Scientist. If it matters, I try to think of cycling within a bigger context of transportation in general … this is somewhat old and I have not revisiting it in a while.

http://washingtonwheelman.blogspot.com/2010/12/advocate-safer-robust-and-efficient.html

Broadly speaking, forum discussions are difficult since it is often unclear what people mean by risk and what their subjective estimates are based on. So are we talking about a risk of collision? Risk of hospitalization? Risk of mortality?

What are we holding constant? Rider speed/aggressiveness? Convenience? Pleasure? Motor vehicle speed and volume? Pedestrian volume?

Largely — especially in a black hole like bikeforums.net — there is so much frothing in the mouth and declarations regarding what is “obvious” that, IMO, we tend to overlook some of these points that distinguish different points of view.

Consider something like the cycletracks on 15th ST NW. To me, they’re a “deathtrap”.** I tested them out once on the recumbent at a “normal” pace — this means a light to moderate effort and cruising around 12-15 mph — and there were a few close calls until I slowed down considerably more and this was primarily a function of being segregated (IMO) outside the primary viewing area of drivers since there never were issues when riding in the right lane. Now I suspect that if you’re riding slow and conservatively enough, that the risk (let’s say mortality and serious injury) of riding there is teeny tiny such that we’d have a hard time cognitively registering the number. Although I should point out that the inherent risk from cycling — for some reasonable distance, trip, person — is a tiny number such that we’d have a hard time cognitively registering it.

From the perspective of this bicycle advocate, the 15th ST cycletrack is something that almost certainly gets more people on saddle but encourages (1) the mindset that wildly overestimates the risks of cycling on roads, (2) a style of riding that either makes cycling outside of facilities less convenient and/or more risky, and (3) potentially makes cycling more risky within facilities under certain conditions.

http://tinyurl.com/7ovampn
http://tinyurl.com/78fz3p2
http://tinyurl.com/7gtrv4s

Moreover, it manages to do this while increasing the level of harassment on a route that I enjoyed for years. I’ll point out that taking the right lane puts me in a much better position to use the bike lane that leads up the hill at the end of the cycletrack.

Now is this worth it? Maybe. It depends on what you’re trying to do and what the net effects are. I myself, am willing to tradeoff measures of pleasure, speed, risk, convenience, and overall utility for people. Some environments are different enough that it makes sense to entertain alternatives; for instance, bridges and high speed roads with no/few intersections. But I think that we can go pretty far without segregated facilities everywhere if we concentrated on higher standards of driver responsibility and curbing extreme speeds on roads. I like the idea of bicycle boulevards too.

** Note I put “deathtrap” in quotes since I think the likelihood of mortality probably didn’t change much since cars would have to slow down a lot to make the turn. Nonetheless, I used the expression to convey an idea.

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 22089 wrote:

As much as I agree that I have as much right to the road as a driver there is no getting around the fact that the driver is far more protected than I by airbags, seatbelt, two tons of metal, and insurance. Irrespective of the laws and how many cyclists are on the road, I will always be the more vulnerable of the two and I want an equivalent amount of safety. In many cases, that can only be provided by segregated facilities. Put another way, do you want your 10 year old daughter taking the lane on Clarendon, by herself, on the way to school? Your 90 year old granddad who has arthritis and bad vision? Going downhill at rush hour? We should be able to build infrastructure that allows these users a safe, convenient way to travel along the same roads as drivers. Just sayin’

Even in areas with a high concentration of facilities, the direct risk of mortality and injury from cycling is higher than driving. If that is how you define safety, then facilities are not going to achieve what you want.

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Risk.pdf

Alternatively, if you’re thinking of a standard where the total risk of mortality if equivalent over varying transportation form — i.e., where you allow health benefits to offset the increased risk of cycling — then it might be the case that you could already be there without the facilities.

More broadly, it’s really hard to identify what underlies the different mortality and injury rates across different cultures, legal systems, and environments. How much would the risk of collision and injury drop if we moved toward a standard where drivers faced something analogous to strict liability?

[invisiblehand]

@Mark Blacknell 22174 wrote:

Just to nudge things a bit – I don’t think there are really too many people “who simply won’t bike without separate facilities” that extend from their front door. I think the bigger numbers come into play when people reach the edges of their neighborhoods. If folks haven’t seen it already, there’s a City of Portland study that identifies most potential cyclists (60% of all people) as ‘Interested but concerned’. These are people want to ride more, but don’t feel safe near fast moving traffic, even with bike lanes. 60%? That’s a *huge* number of people, and I don’t think it’s good to dismiss their concerns out of hand.

I guess. Surveys without an appropriate context often produce dubious results. How many people want lower taxes? How many people want to lower Medicare — or a long list of other stuff — benefits? You’ll get wildly inconsistent results.

Are there people interested in cycling more and concerned about getting from A to B safely because of motorized traffic? Certainly. But it’s pretty easy to dismiss 60% as misleading if the question is about how many people will meaningfully use an HPV for transportation.

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 22068 wrote:

What I mean by “transportation corridor” is the reasonable expectation that traffic (on wheels, peds, etc) will be moving on it and that people have to act accordingly; that is, users should always expect traffic to pass them occasionally and that everyone is part of a continually moving traffic stream. We do not expect, or condone, people having a picnic in the middle of the trail, or kids playing hopscotch, etc. Likewise, if I have to change a tire, I move off the trail because I am impeding traffic. MUP users have to think just like they do as drivers – which is keep things moving and stay out of each others’ way. If I’m doing 55 on the beltway I stay in the right lane for instance.

OK. Then it sounds like our expectations agree.

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 22018 wrote:

A MUP first and foremost is a *transportation corridor*; one is not walking in the grass through a park.

Does the Parks Dept maintain the MUPs? I think yes such that it’s a park/recreation first.

IMO, it’s a park that everyone is entitled to reasonable use. So a bunch of kids playing hopscotch on the trail is unreasonable. Families slowly rolling along the trail is reasonable. Families slowly rolling along three-abreast is unreasonable. Off the top of my head, I don’t have a succinct rule that covers everything.

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 21900 wrote:

In my ideal world, I would remove on-street parking and put in a barrier separated bike lane for each road. Whether you keep one side of the road available to on-street parking depends on whether you want one or two lanes of through traffic. Even if I were not interested in promoting biking, as a transportation economist I am against on-street parking, in most instances, on economic grounds.

But anyway, your point seems to be that American citizens lack the willpower and desire to create this kind of bike friendly environment. I agree with you on that point. It’s sad since the technology exists and the infrastructure can be built in most places. Unfortunately I think a lack of support is due to ignorance of existing alternatives that are alive and well (but CaBi should help in this regard).

I used to work for Amtrak so I know how hard it is to turn the tide. Patience, patience… That said, Arlington is 10x better than most American cities and I’m thankful for that. Go Arlington!

@Mark Blacknell 21896 wrote:

Perhaps I lack imagination, but I really can’t imagine a United States in which this is a politically viable solution.

Lets take a super bike-friendly jurisdiction and high bike traffic route as an example. The Clarendon and Wilson Boulevard pair in Arlington. A few miles of prime east-west corridor real estate. How would you segregate traffic along there, and what are the chances of that plan being adopted within the next 20 years?

(FWIW, I’ve been to (and lived in some of) the places you mention. I’ve also lived here for a good long while now.)

EDIT … I seem to have lost DaveK’s text. Sorry.

I agree that Arlington, VA constituents will not go for widespread use of such facilities. I personally would vote against broad use of cycletracks and would let the board know it.

[Author]

Posts