[sjclaeys]

@dbb 191803 wrote:

While there isn’t a great deal of movement that would be visible in a photo; thinking, reflection, studying, cogitating, considering, contemplating, meditating, pondering, ruminating, consideration, musing, opining, and kvetching are all actions

Exactly, seeing the picture I could feel the mental activity going on.

[sjclaeys]

Action shots of Bike Arlington Forum members looking at the proposed plan with great interest: https://www.arlnow.com/2019/06/26/county-plans-to-turn-army-navy-drive-into-pedestrian-bicycle-corridor/ As the article’s writer felt the need to immediately opine, the plan “might make traffic a little more congested”. Fortunately, this is Arlington and not the dystopia of Alexandria, so my hopes are still high.

[sjclaeys]

Rode a Jump Bike for the first time to go from K St NW to Adams Morgan. Have to admit that it did not suck and cheaper than any other option (other than walking). What did suck is the Uber app not working when I wanted to ride one back to K St.

[sjclaeys]

Below are the comments that I provided:

“As an Arlington resident cyclist that regularly commutes along this route, Concept C is the best because it provides the most separation between vehicle and bicycle traffic. However, all three options are an improvement by providing continuous protection. I do not think that bollards or any other kind of protected bike lane is needed as long as sufficient traffic calming measures are incorporated into the plan and there is sufficient enforcement of speeding and parking restrictions.”

[sjclaeys]

@mstone 191579 wrote:

the scooter is not operable. at any rate, if someone is liable it’s the scooter company, not the user.

Actually, both are

[sjclaeys]

@dasgeh 191563 wrote:

I am very glad that Leslie was not hit by a Uber/Lyft.

OK, so in the scenario that a cyclist hits a scooter left in a MUP and is seriously injured, your response is that you’re glad they weren’t hit by a Uber/Lyft?

[sjclaeys]

@dasgeh 191543 wrote:

More importantly, it would discourage scooter use, which would (according to the research Va Tech did in Arlington) increase the number of Uber/Lyft rides.

Same team, people, same team.

So when someone riding a bicycle like Leslie gets hurt because of a scooter left in a MUP, they should just be thankful that the person who left the scooter didn’t ride Uber/Lyft? I don’t want to be part of any team that will reject any suggestions to improve public safety because they can come up with unlikely factual scenarios and won’t give consideration to anything that could impinge on scooter use. You guys sound a lot like the NRA.

[sjclaeys]

@mstone 191535 wrote:

I’m not there, someone moves a scooter I’m done with, I get a fine…how does that in any way increase public safety? Should we also prosecute people for manslaughter if someone else steals their car and hits someone?

Ummm, if you leave the keys in the car, yes you can be held liable if someone steals it and kills someone.

https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/ae980b2259288b51f4b5a6a20c13013c

[sjclaeys]

@mstone 191412 wrote:

so if a kid moves your scooter you get a $25 bill?

Why not? Why does a sense of equity for a scooter user outweigh public safety?

[sjclaeys]

@Brendan von Buckingham 191506 wrote:

The car side of the sign should be white and the bike side of the sign should be yellow.

Still, last week, with an earthmover and 4 construction workers taking up the bike lane and me in the main lane I had the joy of a Ford 150 driver yelling at me to, “Get in the bike lane or I will f—ing run you over next time.” Good times, good times.

Would have been great if you replied “and you’ll end up in f—ing jail!” but unfortunately we know that is not necessarily true.

[sjclaeys]

As I’ve suggested to ArlCo, require the scooter companies to charge the last user of a scooter a fee ($25 or higher) if the scooter is picked up from a location that presents a non-minimal safety threat to others. I’ve often had almost the same encounter as Leslie with abandoned scooters in that area and others.

[sjclaeys]

@dasgeh 191372 wrote:

May I refer you to page 47 of Arlington’s own Bicycle Element of the Master Transportation Plan, adopted unanimously by the County Board in April of this year. Conveniently, the Board added language saying that those NACTO guidelines are the MINIMUM acceptable facility (see page 49). The current repaving seems to be part of project 3-05 in the plan, which specifically calls for a PBL on Quincy (page 57).

So yeah, none of the plans are 100% compliant with the new Bike Element, though it seems like option C is with the exception of this one side of this one block.

Cool, so where does one go to determine the “Target Max. Motor Vehicle Volume (ADT)” for a given street or portion of a street?

[sjclaeys]

@zsionakides 191348 wrote:

If they are following the NACTO guidelines, then a buffered or protected bike lane would be the recommended treatment along Quincy St depending on the traffic volume. If the traffic volume is above 6k, which it may be, then a PBL would be warranted.

This answered a question I had about what are the criteria for installing a PBL. If the cite is handy, that would be great. Otherwise, I can search for it. My subjective impression is that the current strategy is to push for PBLs almost wherever there is road resurfacing. Having objective criteria to identify where PBLs would be most effective seems to be a better approach.

[sjclaeys]

Was planning to attend but work ran late. Just extending the bike lanes so they connect at Washington Blvd would have a high return on investment for safety.

[sjclaeys]

Wait, the official ArlCo term for these items are bollards. Does that now make you pro-bollard?

[Author]

Posts