New bike lane on Old Georgetown Rd in Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, can one of our resident bike-disciples please explain this? Because it looks really, really passive aggressive.

Why would a bunch of cyclists lobby for a bike lane to be created, and then ride in the road next to it, refusing to use the bike lane they demanded be created.

Seriously - WHY???

Did you stop and ask them whether they "lobbied" for the bike lanes, or did you just assume that everyone on a bicycle belongs to the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby?

If you're asking why they weren't riding in the bike lanes, I'm guessing the answer involves some or all of the following:

1. They don't feel comfortable in the bike lanes
2. They don't feel safe in the bike lanes
3. The bike lanes aren't configured for group rides
4. It's legal to ride in the general lanes

No. 4 should change. If there is a designated bike lane, it should not be legal to ride in car lane. That's common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, can one of our resident bike-disciples please explain this? Because it looks really, really passive aggressive.

Why would a bunch of cyclists lobby for a bike lane to be created, and then ride in the road next to it, refusing to use the bike lane they demanded be created.

Seriously - WHY???

Did you stop and ask them whether they "lobbied" for the bike lanes, or did you just assume that everyone on a bicycle belongs to the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby?

If you're asking why they weren't riding in the bike lanes, I'm guessing the answer involves some or all of the following:

1. They don't feel comfortable in the bike lanes
2. They don't feel safe in the bike lanes
3. The bike lanes aren't configured for group rides
4. It's legal to ride in the general lanes

No. 4 should change. If there is a designated bike lane, it should not be legal to ride in car lane. That's common sense.

It is not legal to ride in the general lanes if there is a bike lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The utilization of bike lanes is dependent on a network effect. The lanes on OGR are absurd because they only go a little ways, and then you have the "Trolley Sidewalk" next to NIH, and then when you get to downtown, I guess they expect you to take the Trolley Trail by the storm water pond, across Battery Lane, etc. This might make sense on paper, but people just want to ride down OGR from Democracy to Wisconsin. By adding one little section, the County / State have just annoyed drivers. The County either needs to commit or not. The half-measures annoy everyone, and if anything make it less safe for cyclists who "run out of lane" and then have to choose between a four-lane freeway and a hazardous no-median sidewalk.

I guess you’ve been privileged enough to never have to make turns when you’re going somewhere but most of do have to use more than one path, road or sidewalk to get where we want to go, whether we’re biking, walking, or driving. Most people just understand that the transportation infrastructure wasn’t built solely for our benefit and adjust. When your route isn’t direct, embrace the extra exercise. If you’re struggling, hit the weight room and lay off the craft beer.

Two teenage bicyclists were killed and one teenage bicyclist was critically injured, all three of them riding on the sidewalk, within 3 years, on Old Georgetown Road, but go ahead and keep talking about craft beer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, can one of our resident bike-disciples please explain this? Because it looks really, really passive aggressive.

Why would a bunch of cyclists lobby for a bike lane to be created, and then ride in the road next to it, refusing to use the bike lane they demanded be created.

Seriously - WHY???

Did you stop and ask them whether they "lobbied" for the bike lanes, or did you just assume that everyone on a bicycle belongs to the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby?

If you're asking why they weren't riding in the bike lanes, I'm guessing the answer involves some or all of the following:

1. They don't feel comfortable in the bike lanes
2. They don't feel safe in the bike lanes
3. The bike lanes aren't configured for group rides
4. It's legal to ride in the general lanes

No. 4 should change. If there is a designated bike lane, it should not be legal to ride in car lane. That's common sense.

It is not legal to ride in the general lanes if there is a bike lane.

Unless you're avoiding a hazard in the bike lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also about the bike lanes on University Avenue: like on Old Georgetown Road, the bike lanes also helped people who were walking on the sidewalk or waiting for buses, because of the separation from high-speed cars from the sidewalk. And also because they reduced speeding.

And despite these benefits, they were removed because the community requested it because they believed that the costs outweighed these benefits.

"The community" didn't request removal of the bike lanes. Many people in "the community" supported them. Some people in "the community" did not, because yes, they believed their wait time for turning right was more important than the general safety of everyone on University Boulevard.

As someone who lives nearby, I found those lanes a bit confusing. I never knew whether I was supposed to move into the bike lane to make a right hand turn or make the turn from the right-most driving lane (i.e., the middle lane). I saw cars doing it both ways.

I still don't know -- could someone explain this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also about the bike lanes on University Avenue: like on Old Georgetown Road, the bike lanes also helped people who were walking on the sidewalk or waiting for buses, because of the separation from high-speed cars from the sidewalk. And also because they reduced speeding.

And despite these benefits, they were removed because the community requested it because they believed that the costs outweighed these benefits.

"The community" didn't request removal of the bike lanes. Many people in "the community" supported them. Some people in "the community" did not, because yes, they believed their wait time for turning right was more important than the general safety of everyone on University Boulevard.

As someone who lives nearby, I found those lanes a bit confusing. I never knew whether I was supposed to move into the bike lane to make a right hand turn or make the turn from the right-most driving lane (i.e., the middle lane). I saw cars doing it both ways.

I still don't know -- could someone explain this?

From the Maryland Driver's Manual:

"Never make a right turn from a through lane
immediately after passing a bike on a shoulder
or bike lane. Try to avoid any chance that a
bicycle will be to your right or in your right blind
spot when you turn right. Before starting a right
turn, move as far to the right as practicable within
the bike lane, shoulder, or right turn lane."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, can one of our resident bike-disciples please explain this? Because it looks really, really passive aggressive.

Why would a bunch of cyclists lobby for a bike lane to be created, and then ride in the road next to it, refusing to use the bike lane they demanded be created.

Seriously - WHY???

Did you stop and ask them whether they "lobbied" for the bike lanes, or did you just assume that everyone on a bicycle belongs to the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby?

If you're asking why they weren't riding in the bike lanes, I'm guessing the answer involves some or all of the following:

1. They don't feel comfortable in the bike lanes
2. They don't feel safe in the bike lanes
3. The bike lanes aren't configured for group rides
4. It's legal to ride in the general lanes

No. 4 should change. If there is a designated bike lane, it should not be legal to ride in car lane. That's common sense.

It is not legal to ride in the general lanes if there is a bike lane.

Unless you're avoiding a hazard in the bike lane.

Provided that you have merged into the other lanes safely (ie not cutting off someone or pulling alongside another vehicle in the lane) and provided that you return to the bike lanes once you are past the hazard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The utilization of bike lanes is dependent on a network effect. The lanes on OGR are absurd because they only go a little ways, and then you have the "Trolley Sidewalk" next to NIH, and then when you get to downtown, I guess they expect you to take the Trolley Trail by the storm water pond, across Battery Lane, etc. This might make sense on paper, but people just want to ride down OGR from Democracy to Wisconsin. By adding one little section, the County / State have just annoyed drivers. The County either needs to commit or not. The half-measures annoy everyone, and if anything make it less safe for cyclists who "run out of lane" and then have to choose between a four-lane freeway and a hazardous no-median sidewalk.

I guess you’ve been privileged enough to never have to make turns when you’re going somewhere but most of do have to use more than one path, road or sidewalk to get where we want to go, whether we’re biking, walking, or driving. Most people just understand that the transportation infrastructure wasn’t built solely for our benefit and adjust. When your route isn’t direct, embrace the extra exercise. If you’re struggling, hit the weight room and lay off the craft beer.

Two teenage bicyclists were killed and one teenage bicyclist was critically injured, all three of them riding on the sidewalk, within 3 years, on Old Georgetown Road, but go ahead and keep talking about craft beer.

And now we have bike lanes there that cyclists object to using.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, can one of our resident bike-disciples please explain this? Because it looks really, really passive aggressive.

Why would a bunch of cyclists lobby for a bike lane to be created, and then ride in the road next to it, refusing to use the bike lane they demanded be created.

Seriously - WHY???

Did you stop and ask them whether they "lobbied" for the bike lanes, or did you just assume that everyone on a bicycle belongs to the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby?

If you're asking why they weren't riding in the bike lanes, I'm guessing the answer involves some or all of the following:

1. They don't feel comfortable in the bike lanes
2. They don't feel safe in the bike lanes
3. The bike lanes aren't configured for group rides
4. It's legal to ride in the general lanes

No. 4 should change. If there is a designated bike lane, it should not be legal to ride in car lane. That's common sense.

It is not legal to ride in the general lanes if there is a bike lane.

Unless you're avoiding a hazard in the bike lane.

Provided that you have merged into the other lanes safely (ie not cutting off someone or pulling alongside another vehicle in the lane) and provided that you return to the bike lanes once you are past the hazard.

There are some bike lanes where the bike lane itself is the hazard, because it's so narrow that the bike stencil doesn't even fit, or the drivers believe the 3-feet passing law doesn't apply when passing people who are in the bike lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The utilization of bike lanes is dependent on a network effect. The lanes on OGR are absurd because they only go a little ways, and then you have the "Trolley Sidewalk" next to NIH, and then when you get to downtown, I guess they expect you to take the Trolley Trail by the storm water pond, across Battery Lane, etc. This might make sense on paper, but people just want to ride down OGR from Democracy to Wisconsin. By adding one little section, the County / State have just annoyed drivers. The County either needs to commit or not. The half-measures annoy everyone, and if anything make it less safe for cyclists who "run out of lane" and then have to choose between a four-lane freeway and a hazardous no-median sidewalk.

I guess you’ve been privileged enough to never have to make turns when you’re going somewhere but most of do have to use more than one path, road or sidewalk to get where we want to go, whether we’re biking, walking, or driving. Most people just understand that the transportation infrastructure wasn’t built solely for our benefit and adjust. When your route isn’t direct, embrace the extra exercise. If you’re struggling, hit the weight room and lay off the craft beer.

Two teenage bicyclists were killed and one teenage bicyclist was critically injured, all three of them riding on the sidewalk, within 3 years, on Old Georgetown Road, but go ahead and keep talking about craft beer.

And now we have bike lanes there that cyclists object to using.

According to the people complaining on NextDoor, who are all drivers, nobody rides on Old Georgetown Road at all. So I don't know who these "cyclists" supposedly are who are objecting to using the bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The utilization of bike lanes is dependent on a network effect. The lanes on OGR are absurd because they only go a little ways, and then you have the "Trolley Sidewalk" next to NIH, and then when you get to downtown, I guess they expect you to take the Trolley Trail by the storm water pond, across Battery Lane, etc. This might make sense on paper, but people just want to ride down OGR from Democracy to Wisconsin. By adding one little section, the County / State have just annoyed drivers. The County either needs to commit or not. The half-measures annoy everyone, and if anything make it less safe for cyclists who "run out of lane" and then have to choose between a four-lane freeway and a hazardous no-median sidewalk.

I guess you’ve been privileged enough to never have to make turns when you’re going somewhere but most of do have to use more than one path, road or sidewalk to get where we want to go, whether we’re biking, walking, or driving. Most people just understand that the transportation infrastructure wasn’t built solely for our benefit and adjust. When your route isn’t direct, embrace the extra exercise. If you’re struggling, hit the weight room and lay off the craft beer.

Two teenage bicyclists were killed and one teenage bicyclist was critically injured, all three of them riding on the sidewalk, within 3 years, on Old Georgetown Road, but go ahead and keep talking about craft beer.

And now we have bike lanes there that cyclists object to using.

According to the people complaining on NextDoor, who are all drivers, nobody rides on Old Georgetown Road at all. So I don't know who these "cyclists" supposedly are who are objecting to using the bike lanes.

They’re the ones on this very thread who say it’s safer to ride in the other travel lanes on OGR.

Look, bud, we could all have easier commutes if we could all travel in straight lines without stopping or even slowing down for anyone else. It’s not realistic to expect to have a straight line from home to work, the grocery store, the planning meetings, and, yes the craft brewery (I see you bike Twitter!) At best you can get two of those things unless you prioritize that above all else in deciding where to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, can one of our resident bike-disciples please explain this? Because it looks really, really passive aggressive.

Why would a bunch of cyclists lobby for a bike lane to be created, and then ride in the road next to it, refusing to use the bike lane they demanded be created.

Seriously - WHY???

Did you stop and ask them whether they "lobbied" for the bike lanes, or did you just assume that everyone on a bicycle belongs to the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby?

If you're asking why they weren't riding in the bike lanes, I'm guessing the answer involves some or all of the following:

1. They don't feel comfortable in the bike lanes
2. They don't feel safe in the bike lanes
3. The bike lanes aren't configured for group rides
4. It's legal to ride in the general lanes

No. 4 should change. If there is a designated bike lane, it should not be legal to ride in car lane. That's common sense.

It is not legal to ride in the general lanes if there is a bike lane.

That’s true. But it should be illegal. And if cyclists refuse to use the expensive cycling infrastructure provided the infrastructure will either be removed or it will be made illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, can one of our resident bike-disciples please explain this? Because it looks really, really passive aggressive.

Why would a bunch of cyclists lobby for a bike lane to be created, and then ride in the road next to it, refusing to use the bike lane they demanded be created.

Seriously - WHY???

Did you stop and ask them whether they "lobbied" for the bike lanes, or did you just assume that everyone on a bicycle belongs to the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby?

If you're asking why they weren't riding in the bike lanes, I'm guessing the answer involves some or all of the following:

1. They don't feel comfortable in the bike lanes
2. They don't feel safe in the bike lanes
3. The bike lanes aren't configured for group rides
4. It's legal to ride in the general lanes

No. 4 should change. If there is a designated bike lane, it should not be legal to ride in car lane. That's common sense.

It is not legal to ride in the general lanes if there is a bike lane.

That’s true. But it should be illegal. And if cyclists refuse to use the expensive cycling infrastructure provided the infrastructure will either be removed or it will be made illegal.

That's just silly. It's like saying, if drivers refuse to obey speed limits, the infrastructure will be removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, can one of our resident bike-disciples please explain this? Because it looks really, really passive aggressive.

Why would a bunch of cyclists lobby for a bike lane to be created, and then ride in the road next to it, refusing to use the bike lane they demanded be created.

Seriously - WHY???

Did you stop and ask them whether they "lobbied" for the bike lanes, or did you just assume that everyone on a bicycle belongs to the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby?

If you're asking why they weren't riding in the bike lanes, I'm guessing the answer involves some or all of the following:

1. They don't feel comfortable in the bike lanes
2. They don't feel safe in the bike lanes
3. The bike lanes aren't configured for group rides
4. It's legal to ride in the general lanes

No. 4 should change. If there is a designated bike lane, it should not be legal to ride in car lane. That's common sense.

It is not legal to ride in the general lanes if there is a bike lane.

That’s true. But it should be illegal. And if cyclists refuse to use the expensive cycling infrastructure provided the infrastructure will either be removed or it will be made illegal.

Help me with the difference between “not legal” and “illegal.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously, can one of our resident bike-disciples please explain this? Because it looks really, really passive aggressive.

Why would a bunch of cyclists lobby for a bike lane to be created, and then ride in the road next to it, refusing to use the bike lane they demanded be created.

Seriously - WHY???

Did you stop and ask them whether they "lobbied" for the bike lanes, or did you just assume that everyone on a bicycle belongs to the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby?

If you're asking why they weren't riding in the bike lanes, I'm guessing the answer involves some or all of the following:

1. They don't feel comfortable in the bike lanes
2. They don't feel safe in the bike lanes
3. The bike lanes aren't configured for group rides
4. It's legal to ride in the general lanes

No. 4 should change. If there is a designated bike lane, it should not be legal to ride in car lane. That's common sense.

It is not legal to ride in the general lanes if there is a bike lane.

That’s true. But it should be illegal. And if cyclists refuse to use the expensive cycling infrastructure provided the infrastructure will either be removed or it will be made illegal.

That's just silly. It's like saying, if drivers refuse to obey speed limits, the infrastructure will be removed.

How well do you think you did on the analogies part of the SAT? Because I’m pretty sure it’s not as well as you think.