New bike lane on Old Georgetown Rd in Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I drove OGR this past weekend and, honestly, I'd think MD should do what Amsterdam does.....widen the sidewalks. For most of OGR, there is enough space to widen the sidewalk without taking out a car lane.

For much of Old Georgetown Road, in order to widen the sidewalk, you'd have to widen it into the road. Now I, personally think that this would be a much better long-term solution. Actual separated bike lanes, separated from the cars and also from the pedestrians, within the footprint of the current road, which is plenty wide. However, that's not something the state would do during regular repaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Then don't put state highways through residential areas.

you realize that we have an interstate highway through a residential area, right?

Yes with walls and infrastructure isolating it from the community. OGR? People live and shop along it. Time for it to not be a "highway" anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Then don't put state highways through residential areas.

you realize that we have an interstate highway through a residential area, right?

Yes with walls and infrastructure isolating it from the community. OGR? People live and shop along it. Time for it to not be a "highway" anymore.

There are very few houses facing Old Georgetown Rd and also very few businesses. But honestly this is just a dumb statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Then don't put state highways through residential areas.

you realize that we have an interstate highway through a residential area, right?

Yes with walls and infrastructure isolating it from the community. OGR? People live and shop along it. Time for it to not be a "highway" anymore.

There are very few houses facing Old Georgetown Rd and also very few businesses. But honestly this is just a dumb statement.

It's not a dumb statement, it's a factual statement. People live and shop along Old Georgetown Road. And walk their dogs, and go to school, and get on and off buses, and work, and attend religious services, and exercise, and attend camp, and visit museums, and and and. It's not 270 or the Beltway. It's a road that people use for much more than just driving on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Then don't put state highways through residential areas.

you realize that we have an interstate highway through a residential area, right?

Yes with walls and infrastructure isolating it from the community. OGR? People live and shop along it. Time for it to not be a "highway" anymore.

There are very few houses facing Old Georgetown Rd and also very few businesses. But honestly this is just a dumb statement.

It's not a dumb statement, it's a factual statement. People live and shop along Old Georgetown Road. And walk their dogs, and go to school, and get on and off buses, and work, and attend religious services, and exercise, and attend camp, and visit museums, and and and. It's not 270 or the Beltway. It's a road that people use for much more than just driving on.

It’s a major arterial going through a residential area.

[Anonymous]

Yikes, just got a glimpse of typical cyclist entitlement when searching for a recent news article about the lanes. This happened in DC about a year ago. Unbelievable attitude and totally inappropriate behavior. Vigilante cyclists are a real thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Then don't put state highways through residential areas.

you realize that we have an interstate highway through a residential area, right?

Yes with walls and infrastructure isolating it from the community. OGR? People live and shop along it. Time for it to not be a "highway" anymore.

There are very few houses facing Old Georgetown Rd and also very few businesses. But honestly this is just a dumb statement.

It's not a dumb statement, it's a factual statement. People live and shop along Old Georgetown Road. And walk their dogs, and go to school, and get on and off buses, and work, and attend religious services, and exercise, and attend camp, and visit museums, and and and. It's not 270 or the Beltway. It's a road that people use for much more than just driving on.

It’s a major arterial going through a residential area.

Exactly, which is why it needs 6 lanes and any accommodations for cyclists would need to involve a widening of the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Then don't put state highways through residential areas.

you realize that we have an interstate highway through a residential area, right?

Yes with walls and infrastructure isolating it from the community. OGR? People live and shop along it. Time for it to not be a "highway" anymore.

There are very few houses facing Old Georgetown Rd and also very few businesses. But honestly this is just a dumb statement.

It's not a dumb statement, it's a factual statement. People live and shop along Old Georgetown Road. And walk their dogs, and go to school, and get on and off buses, and work, and attend religious services, and exercise, and attend camp, and visit museums, and and and. It's not 270 or the Beltway. It's a road that people use for much more than just driving on.

It’s a major arterial going through a residential area.

An area where people live, work, shop, worship, go to school, and recreate. Of course people have to be able to get to all of those places safely on foot and by bike and by bus, as well as by car. I honestly don't understand how this could even be up for debate. All these people complaining about the part between Tuckerman and Nicholson, when in a few years, there will be 2500 teenagers going to school there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, just got a glimpse of typical cyclist entitlement when searching for a recent news article about the lanes. This happened in DC about a year ago. Unbelievable attitude and totally inappropriate behavior. Vigilante cyclists are a real thing.

The "cyclists" who have been killed on this road or seriously injured on this road in recent years are a 17-year-old boy on the sidewalk, an 18-year-old boy on the sidewalk, a 13-year-old girl on the sidewalk, and a family with children on the sidewalk. Your post is bigotry and nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Then don't put state highways through residential areas.

you realize that we have an interstate highway through a residential area, right?

Yes with walls and infrastructure isolating it from the community. OGR? People live and shop along it. Time for it to not be a "highway" anymore.

There are very few houses facing Old Georgetown Rd and also very few businesses. But honestly this is just a dumb statement.

It's not a dumb statement, it's a factual statement. People live and shop along Old Georgetown Road. And walk their dogs, and go to school, and get on and off buses, and work, and attend religious services, and exercise, and attend camp, and visit museums, and and and. It's not 270 or the Beltway. It's a road that people use for much more than just driving on.

It’s a major arterial going through a residential area.

Exactly, which is why it needs 6 lanes and any accommodations for cyclists would need to involve a widening of the road.

Obviously it does not need to involve a widening of the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, just got a glimpse of typical cyclist entitlement when searching for a recent news article about the lanes. This happened in DC about a year ago. Unbelievable attitude and totally inappropriate behavior. Vigilante cyclists are a real thing.

The "cyclists" who have been killed on this road or seriously injured on this road in recent years are a 17-year-old boy on the sidewalk, an 18-year-old boy on the sidewalk, a 13-year-old girl on the sidewalk, and a family with children on the sidewalk. Your post is bigotry and nothing else.

Wasn't talking about them. I have encountered many an aggressive cyclist on the roads around here. One even was extending a long pole out into my traffic lane to prevent me from passing him while he was on the left side of a VERY wide shoulder riding much slower than the moving traffic. No excuse for such obnoxious behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, just got a glimpse of typical cyclist entitlement when searching for a recent news article about the lanes. This happened in DC about a year ago. Unbelievable attitude and totally inappropriate behavior. Vigilante cyclists are a real thing.

The "cyclists" who have been killed on this road or seriously injured on this road in recent years are a 17-year-old boy on the sidewalk, an 18-year-old boy on the sidewalk, a 13-year-old girl on the sidewalk, and a family with children on the sidewalk. Your post is bigotry and nothing else.

Wasn't talking about them. I have encountered many an aggressive cyclist on the roads around here. One even was extending a long pole out into my traffic lane to prevent me from passing him while he was on the left side of a VERY wide shoulder riding much slower than the moving traffic. No excuse for such obnoxious behavior.

This is not a thread about mean things people have done to you while you were using the roads. It's about the new bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road.

[Anonymous]

There is no amount of infrastructure that is going to save people from bad decisions, unless you believe that the answer here is that there needs to be a bike lane through the middle of the reflecting pool. It might be about time that cyclists take some responsibility and accountability for the risks that they take and they they have demanded to have the legal right to take, i.e. Idaho stops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, just got a glimpse of typical cyclist entitlement when searching for a recent news article about the lanes. This happened in DC about a year ago. Unbelievable attitude and totally inappropriate behavior. Vigilante cyclists are a real thing.

The "cyclists" who have been killed on this road or seriously injured on this road in recent years are a 17-year-old boy on the sidewalk, an 18-year-old boy on the sidewalk, a 13-year-old girl on the sidewalk, and a family with children on the sidewalk. Your post is bigotry and nothing else.

Wasn't talking about them. I have encountered many an aggressive cyclist on the roads around here. One even was extending a long pole out into my traffic lane to prevent me from passing him while he was on the left side of a VERY wide shoulder riding much slower than the moving traffic. No excuse for such obnoxious behavior.

This is not a thread about mean things people have done to you while you were using the roads. It's about the new bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road.

We have to remember, though, the very people who are ramrodding this project down citizen's throats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, just got a glimpse of typical cyclist entitlement when searching for a recent news article about the lanes. This happened in DC about a year ago. Unbelievable attitude and totally inappropriate behavior. Vigilante cyclists are a real thing.

The "cyclists" who have been killed on this road or seriously injured on this road in recent years are a 17-year-old boy on the sidewalk, an 18-year-old boy on the sidewalk, a 13-year-old girl on the sidewalk, and a family with children on the sidewalk. Your post is bigotry and nothing else.

Wasn't talking about them. I have encountered many an aggressive cyclist on the roads around here. One even was extending a long pole out into my traffic lane to prevent me from passing him while he was on the left side of a VERY wide shoulder riding much slower than the moving traffic. No excuse for such obnoxious behavior.

This is not a thread about mean things people have done to you while you were using the roads. It's about the new bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road.

We have to remember, though, the very people who are ramrodding this project down citizen's throats.

Ah yes, the Maryland State Highway Administration.