[scoot]

It’s not alone. CaBi is expanding into Falls Church with 11 stations, including the one you saw, one at WFC Metro, plus 9 other locations:

https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/blog/cfc

[scoot]

@pmf 190459 wrote:

And now they’re tearing down a hotel and restaurant on the corner of Nutley and 123 to build some huge mixed use condo development. Its all we need. Same with the Marco Polo lot. And up at the metro. There will be 500 more cars buzzing around in a few years. I can’t wait.

People have to live somewhere. Better to provide high-density mixed-use development in locations that could be served by high-quality transit than to further expand the car-dependent sprawl somewhere in Chantilly or Loudoun County.

[scoot]

@Steve O 190438 wrote:

That’s a good strategy …

Who ever would have thought that bicyclists might fare better by staying to the left of drivers making right turns?

[scoot]

IOD is technically just a long LPI. So it must be legal in Virginia for bikes in the crosswalk to proceed on an LPI, but not bicycles in the street? We should get it legalized for street riders too.

At IOD westbound, if I am intending to take a left on Ft Myer Drive, I will sometimes walk south into the crosswalk while Lynn has the green, position myself in front of the left lane of the I-66 exit, then start riding on the LPI. By doing so, I eliminate both the conflict with drivers violating the temporary no-turn-on-red arrow as well as the conflict of turning across oncoming Custis Trail users. Plus I reach the intersection at Fort Myer and Lee long before any vehicles get close. I suppose I could legally go a bit further to the southern crosswalk across Lynn instead, but that’s less efficient and should be unnecessary.

[scoot]

@n18 190105 wrote:

To me, the citizen dashcam does show the cruiser with it’s rear wheels over the white line, so unless he stopped first before crossing the white line, then proceeded and stopped again, then he didn’t break any laws, but I doubt he stopped twice.

In the first three seconds of the video, the police car is stopped behind the crosswalk. His front end might be over the white stop line, but his rear wheels certainly are not. The movement of the dashcam driver from SB US-1 into the turn lane opens up a small gap in the right lane behind the bus. The police officer decides he can fit into this gap. As the bus passes (0:04), he begins his turn. The only reason he stops for a second time (at 0:06) is because he has hit the bicyclist.

Note also that the Fordson stop line is farther forward in the right lane than the others. A common design that facilitates better sightlines for right-on-red drivers.

[scoot]

@n18 190084 wrote:

In this FCPD blog, they say “the officer was stopped at a red light”. Not so. He crossed the white line, so he is the box so to speak, running a red light.

To be fair, the citizen dashcam shows that the police driver did initially stop for the red light as required. It’s hard to tell if he was completely behind the stop line, but it is clear that he wasn’t blocking the crosswalk at all while stopped. His error was his subsequent attempt to make a right-on-red when it was not safe to do so. Because he didn’t check to see if anyone was about to use that crosswalk. If the bicyclist hadn’t been there, that would have been a legal turn.

[scoot]

@Steve O 190017 wrote:

It is hard to tell, but it may be that the person riding the bike entered the intersection on the walk signal – or perhaps the blinking hand? It appears the red hand goes steady about the time of the collision.

The green right turn arrow is certainly lit when the cyclist enters the roadway, so he was presumably facing a steady red hand.

I’m not too familiar with that area, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the walk signal is only activated by the beg button. While the default cycle probably just lights the green turn arrow whenever Route 1 traffic has a green. Typical car-centric suburban design.

All this arrow seems to accomplish is to give legal cover for drivers who hit people in the crosswalk. I can’t imagine that it even increases traffic flow measurably. But hey, at least a driver can hit someone and then point fingers at him, since he could have pushed a button and waited two minutes to see if the next Route 1 green cycle would deign to include him as well.

[scoot]

That said, you are right that poor offenders would be far more inconvenienced than wealthy ones. Which is a problem. But the same asymmetry of punishments’ impact already holds true for any criminal offense/punishment, not just those involving driving. To fix this, a far broader solution is necessary.

[scoot]

@jrenaut 190024 wrote:

… could have their lives destroyed.

Any more so than the families of Dave Salovesh and Abdul Seck?

[scoot]

@Starduster 189872 wrote:

@sjclaeys 189857 wrote:

The plan isn’t worth the paper/electrons it is printed on until ACPD improves enforcement against illegal driving that threatens vulnerable road users.

Today’s fatality in DC gives this even more resonance. https://dcist.com/story/19/04/19/cyclist-killed-by-driver-of-stolen-van-on-florida-avenue-in-northeast/

This.

Infrastructure changes might lead to a few improvements at the margins, but we will not significantly curtail fatality and injury rates until we create a cultural/legal environment where even the least conscientious people fear the consequences they would face for negligent driving.

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 189707 wrote:

I did some quick googling and found a guy opposing current standards that allow too narrow DZBLs, talking about lack of good reporting of dooring incidents, etc. Definitely an anti-DZBL guy.

By googling your quote, I assume that you found this article.

@lordofthemark 189707 wrote:

In the most successful case, 85 percent of bicyclists were riding within the door zone before SLM installation, and only 45 percent after.
AFTER putting in sharrows, 45% of riders were STILL riding in the door zone. Even I did not think it was that high.

It seems plausible to me. I have taken numerous rides with less experienced cyclists and have observed many of them riding in door zones, even on low-speed streets with properly located sharrows or without markings at all.

On one hand, a drop from 85% to 45% sounds like an enormous improvement. It suggests that just a little bit of paint could sharply cut doorings on those streets. But it also sounds like that one data point was his “best” out of four separate studies, so should be consumed along with a huge grain of salt. The article itself is behind the Elsevier paywall.

@lordofthemark 189707 wrote:

People on forums like this, who both know a lot about dooring and VC, … tend to think sharrows will eliminate door zone riding.

I can’t imagine anyone believing that sharrows could ever eliminate door zone riding.

I do believe that properly located sharrows can help reduce door-zone riding and by extension dooring incidents. I also believe that riders who feel safer in a travel lane than a door zone are likely to experience more motorist harassment where DZBLs are painted than they would if sharrows were painted instead. (I have no data to support the latter hypothesis, just my perception of anecdotes from my own experience.)

[scoot]

@lordofthemark 189684 wrote:

That is why given a route choice, I will often pick a door zone bike lane route over a route with no infrastructure.

Interesting. While I certainly do get the occasional close pass while claiming a lane, I experience far more of them when using a DZBL. Perhaps we position ourselves differently in such a lane? Do you tend to ride in the door zone, in the center of the lane, or near the left edge? I try to keep at least four feet away from any parked car, which might put me closer to the adjacent lane than other riders. (But I will make an exception to filter through a DZBL slowly to bypass congestion).

On some streets I also might alternate between the left edge of the DZBL and claiming the adjacent lane. Basically merging left anytime I see a squeeze point ahead, and merging right to facilitate vehicles passing whenever I encounter a sufficiently long stretch where the bike lane appears safer (due either to a lack of parked cars, or at least none that are encroaching over the lines)

As you have indicated, there is no simple approach that can optimize safety in all scenarios, because there are a multitude of factors that come into play when assessing the relative dangers from passing motorists vs. parked cars. Such as: expected parking turnover, the presence of a center line or median, vehicle speeds, how far drivers are typically going before parking or turning off the street, etc.

[scoot]

In addition to offering higher rates for chargers that perform difficult retrievals, perhaps users could be assessed a fee for abandoning scooters in locations that excessively complicate retrieval?

Do the scooters display how charged the batteries are? It seems like the app could offer a remaining distance estimate for each scooter and a map showing locations that qualify for the drop fee, so that the potential rider would know in advance whether they are likely to run out of juice somewhere that would cost them extra.

[scoot]

The study results are consistent with my own perceptions as a rider.

In the USA, many of our bicycle lanes are built in the door-zone, so one needs to hug the left edge of the lane to use them. Which of course invites closer passing by any motorists in the adjacent lane who fail to alter their own courses to give proper clearance. On the other hand, where there are no bicycle facilities and a cyclist is claiming an entire full-width travel lane, motorists must change lanes to pass. Most drivers change lanes entirely and in so doing allow far more clearance than required.

I would like to see a deeper investigation of how passing distance depends on cyclist position relative to the painted lines. Is this entirely explainable by rider positioning relative to the lane lines drawn for vehicles? Or is there further association between the existence of a bike lane and closer passing, even after controlling for cyclist position?

[scoot]

@Judd 189647 wrote:

I was on a string with the GWMP this week … Their position is still aligned with the official rules that motorized vehicles are prohibited on the trail unless they are an assistive device.

So they’ll allow scooters on the highway instead?

[Author]

Posts