[scoot]

@DrP 164081 wrote:

I have thought the intersection needs a regular sign that is “NO TURN ON RED” with the sub-sign of “During Leading Pedestrian Interval” or whatever the appropriate phrase is. It gets people to realize that there may be a time to not turn so that the sign that lights up isn’t a complete surprise. (Okay, I would prefer the lack of the caveat sign, but that is probably changing some other rules)

Yes, a big part of the problem is that drivers pull up, start looking to their left for a gap in Lynn traffic, and never bother to look right again after they see those cars stopping. This is why I think it should be “NO TURN ON RED” all the time. The present situation is confusing to drivers, because it’s something they don’t encounter anywhere else. Is there another intersection anywhere that goes directly from a “turn on red is permitted” phase immediately to a “no turn on red” phase? And without even using a red arrow? I can’t think of one.

That said, putting this information on the sign itself is a decent idea. It certainly won’t stop all the LPI violations, but maybe it will help some drivers realize how this intersection is supposed to work.

[scoot]

Sad story. So many questions here.

“westbound” = northbound?
“half a mile west of Route 301” = south/east of route 301? The road doesn’t go a half-mile the other way.

“van moved to pass the cyclist in a legal passing zone”: did the driver cross the double-yellow, or not? And did he get his entire vehicle across the center lines?

“cyclist appeared to veer into the lane and was struck”: It’s amazing how many cyclists are veering to their deaths these days. Also amazing how convenient it is that such behavior always happens to exonerate the sole survivor in these incidents… :rolleyes:

[scoot]

When going from Case Bridge to I St SW, I often take the Maine sidewalk from 9th to 7th. Sidewalk!!?? Yeah I know… but that block isn’t bad. It saves the trouble of two left turns and riding through the ever-changing construction zone. I haven’t encountered crowds of peds there, plus there are no driveway crossings to worry about. Westbound I use the Maine roadway.

[scoot]

I’m enjoying the new cameras at 50 and Fillmore. The last few times I’ve ridden through there late at night (always southbound), the traffic signals for 50 have turned yellow immediately as I cross the first stop line (at the service road).

[scoot]

Would an underpass flood there? Also, any chance that flashing beacon at grade could become a HAWK?

[scoot]

@zsionakides 163680 wrote:

I would rather see one the pedestrian paths re-purposed as space for the highway and the other side doubled in size. If you took away the “shoulder” space as well, you could probably fit about a 9-10′ fit trail across most the bridge. Raise the barriers up on either side and it’s a comparable facility to the 14th st bridge. If we’re going to spend money on an approach to the south side, which isn’t cheap, it would be better to get a better trail instead.

+1

Good sidepath on one side of TR Bridge >> Second copy of the awful one that presently exists.

[scoot]

@bentbike33 163671 wrote:

Easy-peasy: take the lane on eastbound 50 anywhere in Arlington, take the TR bridge ramp (means taking a left lane on 50 at some point prior) and when you get to the sign, stop, dismount, hoist bike over guardrail and place on sidewalk, climb over the railing, remount, and proceed into DC.

If the merge across 50 sounds a little scary, simply use the left entrance from 10th or N Courthouse.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 163590 wrote:

@dasgeh 163588 wrote:

It seems like we agree on quite a bit:
* we’d be better off if there were a place to bike fast safely separate from where people walk
* we need changes (mostly infrastructure) that will convince faster cyclists (on e- and regular bikes) off of trails, leaving trails to the people walking, jogging, kids riding, slow biking, etc.
* what that changes are depend on the road — maybe PBLs on Lee, Wilson, FFX, maybe wayfinding or streamlined stop-signs on neighborhood streets like Key, 5th St N, etc.

So let’s work on getting this done!

Agreed! To which I would only add, changes other than infra to make riding in the road (in seg infra or taking the lane) more attractive – lower speed limits where appropriate, restrictions on turns where appropriate, better enforcement of traffic laws and education about them, a due care standard relative to vulnerable road users and changes to contributory negligence laws.

One quibble: I’m not sold on the notion that infrastructure (such as PBLs) should be our primary approach. I would argue that serious efforts to secure legal and regulatory improvements (such as these items suggested by lordofthemark) have greater potential to enhance safety more broadly for everyone in the long term. I’d prefer to see an advocacy that focuses more on the latter.

[scoot]

@dasgeh 163545 wrote:

But take a street like Lee. Unless they do something to drastically slow down vehicles, a simple bike lane won’t feel safe enough even at high speeds.

Yes, I agree. I was thinking of slower streets with more pedestrian and commercial activity, such as Wilson Blvd. Climbing the hill from Oak St at 20MPH would be unsafe in the existing PBL, and becomes impossible if you encounter any human-powered bikes using it. OTOH many parts of Lee Highway feel more like a racetrack than a city street. A PBL would be especially useful for e-bike riders on the uphill out of Rosslyn.

[scoot]

@dasgeh 163533 wrote:

And aside from Eads, I can’t think of one route that has PBLs near trails. This is certainly a reason to add PBLs to Wilson (to provide an alternative to the Bluemont) and Lee (alternative to Custis), but instead of banning ebikes from trails, we should build alternative routes that will attract the faster riders (on ebikes or not).

If the intent is to provide space that will attract faster riders away from the MUTs, conventional bike lanes would be a better option than PBLs in most locations.

The dangers of PBL interactions with crossing and turning traffic are magnified at higher speeds. Bike lanes that are adjacent to general lanes (with no obstacles in between) offer much more time and space for reacting to and avoiding typical urban hazards. They also offer more opportunity for passing slower riders.

For my own safety, I find that I need to slow down anytime I use a flat PBL. Whenever I wish to ride fast, I avoid them entirely. At higher speeds, E-bike riders will face this same calculus.

[scoot]

@mstone 163253 wrote:

IMO, if I could get a gadget that would keep me from getting hit I would buy it today.

I usually wear a helmet, but not always. Sometimes I choose not to wear one; other times I simply forget to put it on even when intending to do so.

I too would buy such a gadget, but it shouldn’t be a bicyclist’s responsibility.

@mstone 163253 wrote:

IMO human driven cars shouldn’t be street legal until they aren’t involved in 30k deaths per year.

Yes, our current mix of drivers has set an incredibly low bar for self-driving cars to clear. But I’d implicate our milquetoast licensing and traffic violence justice system rather than the cars themselves.

How many of these deaths could be prevented if we held drivers fully responsible for their actions? Is a self-driving car safer than an attentive sober driver who is genuinely more concerned about safety than being two minutes late?

@jrenaut 163254 wrote:

If there is some beacon that means a self-driving car will recognize you as something it shouldn’t run over, it seems to me that finding a cheap way to procure these beacons and spread them throughout the city shouldn’t be a terribly difficult task.

I propose that this beacon be the optical signature of a human being.

[scoot]

Here’s a response from Streetsblog to the NPR article: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/25/self-driving-cars-should-accommodate-people-not-the-other-way-around/

What worries me is the original article’s insinuation that peds and cyclists might be required to carry technology capable of communicating with these vehicles. IMO, these cars shouldn’t be street legal until they don’t need special assistance. Compatibility with today’s transportation environment should be a requirement, and people walking or biking should not be victim-blamed for a failure to emit RF signals.

I think the analogy to reflective clothing is apropos. While it enhances one’s personal safety to go above and beyond with bright clothing, lights, and reflectors, the law requires none of these during the daytime (and only a small amount of reflection/illumination capability at night for cyclists). Vehicle operators are responsible for seeing all road users who are operating legally. Failure to greatly exceed minimum visibility requirements is not negligence.

[scoot]

@bobco85 162873 wrote:

3 out of 5 drivers think that the addition of bike lanes means they no longer need to park near the curb.

@bobco85 162873 wrote:

The paint seems to encourage right hooks. The dashed lines should open up much further north, allowing turning drivers to merge with bicycle traffic earlier.

[scoot]

I used to commute from Penrose Square to Fort Belvoir. I used a variety of routes between Walter Reed and those gates of Narnia. If you stay west, your path hinges largely on where you choose to cross 395. There are a limited number of good choices. Bobco’s routes show you three different crossing points (Sanger, Seminary, 34th), all of which are fine options.

Actually, my most common commute choice was a fourth option: Braddock road underpass.

southbound: Walter Reed – King – Hampton – Braddock – Ivor – climb hill through apartment parking lot to Seminary – Pickett – Pegram – HRT
northbound: HRT – Jordan – Raleigh – Imboden – Howard – Braddock – Hampton – King – Walter Reed

I don’t mind riding in traffic at 15+ MPH, but I prefer either bike lanes or quieter streets when climbing up hills. Hence the difference in the two directions. Under no circumstances would I commute over the 395 cloverleaf interchanges at Duke or King during rush hour.

I very rarely detoured over to the flatter terrain to the east: 19 miles each way was long enough! With a shorter commute, YMMV…

[scoot]

@chris_s 162729 wrote:

Alrighty then, let’s eliminate the right on red for safety. Now you’ve got huge backups of traffic from that huge # of people trying to turn right

In the very short term, yes. But wouldn’t that huge # of drivers soon realize that they have alternatives to Walter Reed, such as Shirlington Road or even 395, thus canceling out any excessive imbalance in travel time?

(i.e. Induced demand works both ways…)

[Author]

Posts