[scoot]

@Drewdane 117888 wrote:

Perhaps I’m being overly charitable, but I would assume most drivers who pass too close aren’t doing it out of malice, but out of ignorance of just how hazardous it is to pass a cyclist too close. I don’t see why those people would give police a wider berth.

So “that suicidal biker just swerved right in front of me” might be a consequence of that same ignorance, rather than a blatant lie?

[scoot]

I wonder whether drivers pass uniformed police officers differently than other bicyclists. You’re far more likely to face consequences for a close pass if the guy you buzz is a cop. But on the other hand, drivers might be less inclined to cross a double yellow line in front of one.

[scoot]

All on that one road? Your sample would be too biased (and probably also too small) to draw any useful conclusions. Unless maybe if you somehow distributed multiple sections of each type randomly in very short bursts along the road. But then each section would only be about 200 feet max. Obstacle course!

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 117633 wrote:

I am skeptical that opposing this would have increased the chances of bike lanes on those roads. It might have lost BPAC an ally, by alienating folks in this neighborhood who wanted this.

You are right. I didn’t mean to imply that anyone should have opposed the reconfiguration for that reason.

I’m just cynical that tepid allies in city government will try to placate the cycling community by pointing to these types of accomplishments (“see look at how many bike lanes we’ve installed this year”), while punting on the arterials (and the Royal St boulevard). That concern doesn’t mean that good small projects like Potomac Greens should be ditched. It just means that the next time public officials brag about how many miles of bike infrastructure they’re responsible for, we need to call out these folks for shooting fish in a barrel and avoiding the important battles.

[scoot]

@mstone 117619 wrote:

This is a pure “look at how many miles of bike lanes we have!” project, not anything that benefits cyclists in the least.

Bingo. Why put bike lanes on Beauregard Street / Quaker Lane / etc. when you can instead just put them in cul-de-sacs where they won’t get in anyone’s way?

Conflating traffic calming and bike projects just distracts from real bike projects and gives ammunition to those who complain that the bike projects are a waste of money because nobody uses them.

Perhaps. But traffic calming, if done right, can be better for bicyclists than a “bike project”.

[scoot]

+1 on Walter Reed through this area; it’s a nice ride overall. I’ve always felt comfortable riding in the sharrows south of the Pike. The only place that’s a little uncomfortable is north of the Pike up to 8th St S. There are door-zone bike lanes (rideable if you hang on the left edge), but also concrete medians that don’t offer passing vehicles a whole lot of room to get by. But it’s a very short stretch, and WR doesn’t carry that much traffic anyway, so I can usually time it to go through that narrowest part without any motor vehicles around.

I think the part between 8th and Columbia Pike would be better if the lines were painted a little different. Specifically, the vehicle lanes could be narrowed from 11 to 10 feet, and also shifted to the left. (There’s more space than necessary between the yellow line and the median.) That way the bike lanes could be widened enough that riders could stay entirely inside them while safely clear of the doors.

[scoot]

I’m more worried about the fact that the underpass doesn’t solve many of the problems (and the likelihood that it will turn into an ice rink come winter) than I am about NPS objection. But that’s why I’m a physicist, not a politician

FWIW, NPS is obviously not completely opposed to the idea of major infrastructure projects to improve safety.

[scoot]

Whatever happened to the Steve O plan? I liked that one better.

[scoot]

@mstone 117224 wrote:

It’s actually less convenient and requires more attention to turn in two movements (merging into the bike lane first) than it is to hang a right and fly across the bike lane.

Not only that, but turning from nearer to the curb necessitates a smaller turn radius and consequently a lower speed. People that turn from the middle of the roadway don’t have to slow down much to make it around a corner, and that’s dangerous for everybody.

[scoot]

@Amalitza 117101 wrote:

@sjclaeys 117097 wrote:

2) Drive car to intersection, stop at intersection to the left of the bike lane with righthand turn signal waiting for signal to change or for a safe right on red. Second car pulls up to my right in the bike lane to also make right hand turn because in such a hurry. I’d like to hear how either situation is ok and safe.

Situation #2, if you had merged into the bike lane to wait for your right turn, the other car couldn’t have come up to your right like that. The problem wasn’t them using the bike lane, it’s that the two of you were doing it differently, and therefore unpredictable to each other.

Confusion on this issue may be partially attributable to the fact that not all laws in other states agree on this point. Most states have adopted California’s approach (e.g. “merge into bike lane before the intersection”), but Oregon (“don’t drive in the bike lane at all, yield to everyone while turning across it”) has a few followers as well. I cannot seem to find a reference that breaks this down state by state, but I’m pretty sure Virginia and DC are both in the California camp. IIUC, Virginia law includes bicycle lanes within its definition of roadway, and motorists should always merge into a right-hand bike lane before making a right turn.

IMO, the California method is far safer than the Oregon one. In drivers’ ed, I was taught to separate hazards so as not to have to confront them all simultaneously. A practical example: if I see a stopped car close to the edge on my side of a two-lane highway, plus an oncoming car on the other side of the road, I adjust my speed so that I do not pass both vehicles at the same time. Because doing so leaves no room for error or reaction in case a third potential hazard presents itself also. The same concept applies to turning across bike lanes. When turning, drivers already have many other directions to look at the intersection itself, to ensure that they do not endanger pedestrians. Checking behind and merging into the bike lane in advance means that there’s one less potential conflict at the intersection. If any bicycles then approach before the car has turned, they can safely go around to its left.

[scoot]

The usual figure attributed for roadway wear-and-tear is proportional to the 4th power of the axle weight. I don’t know if that changes when you’re specifically talking about bridges though.

[scoot]

@bobco85 117004 wrote:

My prediction is that the flow of pedestrian/bicycle traffic across the bridge is unlikely to fade.

Unlikely to be eliminated entirely, sure. But numbers will decline sharply: many will be dissuaded if the only way to cross the bridge is to walk among cars.

[scoot]

Sounds like there are conflicting reports then as to whether the sidewalks will be open or not.

There is an awful lot of pedestrian and bicycle traffic using those sidewalks. Four feet narrower would be okay; they’re pretty wide already. But IMO it is unacceptable to close them entirely. If that is the plan, we should make some noise and fight for a temporary trail using one of the travel lanes. It’s much easier for motorists to detour to another bridge than for peds/bikes to do so.

The construction project at 27&110 may serve to reduce motorist demand for that bridge anyway.

[scoot]

@kcb203 116936 wrote:

Someone put three pylons/cones into the bike lane on NY Ave just east of 15th Street for no apparent reason. I unclipped and was able to kick the third one over and out of the bike lane while riding by. Hopefully someone else was able to knock the other two out of the way.

Perhaps the District asked Falls Church for police reinforcements this morning?

Last night there were multiple buses on that block hanging over the bike lane. I don’t go there often, so I don’t know if that’s typical. I did not try to kick them out of the way…

[scoot]

Are those signals consistently timed or are they demand-driven? I would have guessed demand responsive, which would make the cycle lengths irregular. I’m referring to the Rt 1 signals at Huntington and at the Urgent Care / Holiday Inn intersection. Buried induction loops are clearly visible in the latter, but I don’t see them at Huntington (on google). If they are demand-driven, do they detect bicycles? Also, do you have to go over and push the beg button to extend the cycle long enough?

[Author]

Posts