New bike lane on Old Georgetown Rd in Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not pp, but have already sat in backups from Pike and Rose to Democracy, and more than once have sat through THREE light cycles at Tuckerman to get through that intersection.

While I agree we need bike lanes, a major thoroughfare that is already blocked with traffic, was not the place to remove one-third of the traffic lanes for cars.

They need to go, and go quickly

In other words, while you agree we need bike lanes, you think driving time is more important. So, where do you think we should have bike lanes?

The only way bike lanes should be handled on that road is to actually ADD a lane...not take away a lane. That means major construction. I support that. I, along with the majority of county residents, do not support the current solution and suspect those lanes will be going in a couple of months.

There is no space to add a lane without taking private property. And even if there were space to add a lane, it would take years. And the road would be even wider, which would make it even more dangerous. What actual, feasible solution do you support, that people can use now?

Well then bike traffic should be diverted to side roads or the existing bike path. I read somewhere that the SHA was completely unaware of the Capital Crescent Trail.

Do you know where the Capital Crescent Trail is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they have transformed the sidewalk into a Nike label I stead of taking up a lane?

Yea, I get the pedestrians would be mad, but the number of people walking on the sidewalk isn't a very low number compared to bikers. Something has to give..

Or make the existing sidewalk more mixed-use. Or perhaps "bikers only" during peak rush hour (so pedestrians walk at your own risk).

Yes, they could transform the sidewalks into shared use paths, by widening them into the road. I support this, because I think it would be safer than plastic posts that you can drive over without damaging your car. However, the result for drivers would be the same: 4 lanes to drive in, instead of 6.

The sidewalk, pre-bike-lanes, actually was mixed-use and walk-at-your-own risk. How did that work out? Two dead teenagers in 3 years.

The two teens were biking in the road, no?
Had they been on a mixed-use sidewalk there would have been a bit more of a buffer/better visibility to drivers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they have transformed the sidewalk into a Nike label I stead of taking up a lane?

Yea, I get the pedestrians would be mad, but the number of people walking on the sidewalk isn't a very low number compared to bikers. Something has to give..

Or make the existing sidewalk more mixed-use. Or perhaps "bikers only" during peak rush hour (so pedestrians walk at your own risk).

Yes, they could transform the sidewalks into shared use paths, by widening them into the road. I support this, because I think it would be safer than plastic posts that you can drive over without damaging your car. However, the result for drivers would be the same: 4 lanes to drive in, instead of 6.

The sidewalk, pre-bike-lanes, actually was mixed-use and walk-at-your-own risk. How did that work out? Two dead teenagers in 3 years.

The two teens were biking in the road, no?
Had they been on a mixed-use sidewalk there would have been a bit more of a buffer/better visibility to drivers

No. They were both biking on the sidewalk. The sidewalks had obstructions and no buffer. They both encountered obstructions, fell off the unbuffered sidewalk into the road, and were run over and killed by drivers driving in the curb lane. The curb lanes are now bike lanes, which provide a buffer for the sidewalks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they have transformed the sidewalk into a Nike label I stead of taking up a lane?

Yea, I get the pedestrians would be mad, but the number of people walking on the sidewalk isn't a very low number compared to bikers. Something has to give..

Or make the existing sidewalk more mixed-use. Or perhaps "bikers only" during peak rush hour (so pedestrians walk at your own risk).

Yes, they could transform the sidewalks into shared use paths, by widening them into the road. I support this, because I think it would be safer than plastic posts that you can drive over without damaging your car. However, the result for drivers would be the same: 4 lanes to drive in, instead of 6.

The sidewalk, pre-bike-lanes, actually was mixed-use and walk-at-your-own risk. How did that work out? Two dead teenagers in 3 years.

The two teens were biking in the road, no?
Had they been on a mixed-use sidewalk there would have been a bit more of a buffer/better visibility to drivers

No. They were both biking on the sidewalk. The sidewalks had obstructions and no buffer. They both encountered obstructions, fell off the unbuffered sidewalk into the road, and were run over and killed by drivers driving in the curb lane. The curb lanes are now bike lanes, which provide a buffer for the sidewalks.

First of all, cyclists are not supposed to bike on sidewalks. Secondly, they are supposed to cycle with the traffic. From what I understand one of the cyclist was cycling against the traffic, which just exacerbated the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they have transformed the sidewalk into a Nike label I stead of taking up a lane?

Yea, I get the pedestrians would be mad, but the number of people walking on the sidewalk isn't a very low number compared to bikers. Something has to give..

Or make the existing sidewalk more mixed-use. Or perhaps "bikers only" during peak rush hour (so pedestrians walk at your own risk).

Yes, they could transform the sidewalks into shared use paths, by widening them into the road. I support this, because I think it would be safer than plastic posts that you can drive over without damaging your car. However, the result for drivers would be the same: 4 lanes to drive in, instead of 6.

The sidewalk, pre-bike-lanes, actually was mixed-use and walk-at-your-own risk. How did that work out? Two dead teenagers in 3 years.

The two teens were biking in the road, no?
Had they been on a mixed-use sidewalk there would have been a bit more of a buffer/better visibility to drivers

No. They were both biking on the sidewalk. The sidewalks had obstructions and no buffer. They both encountered obstructions, fell off the unbuffered sidewalk into the road, and were run over and killed by drivers driving in the curb lane. The curb lanes are now bike lanes, which provide a buffer for the sidewalks.

First of all, cyclists are not supposed to bike on sidewalks. Secondly, they are supposed to cycle with the traffic. From what I understand one of the cyclist was cycling against the traffic, which just exacerbated the situation.

It is legal everywhere in Montgomery County to bike on the sidewalk, and there is no requirement about bicycling or walking direction when you're on the sidewalk. Please don't invent "reasons" to blame teenagers for their deaths. Bicyclists shouldn't bike in the road blah blah blah, bicyclists shouldn't bike on the sidewalk blah blah blah, basically that just means "bicyclists shouldn't bicycle anywhere where I'm driving."

[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.

So it’s perfectly fine by you for cars to block bike lanes and force cyclists out into the street where they can be killed (a three year died in Chicago when her mother went around a vehicle parked in a bike lane) or, maybe worse by you, slow down traffic? I wouldn't have banged on the trunk but do you think a confrontation would not have ensued had the cyclist instead pulled up beside the driver and asked him to move? Should he have called 911 instead? It's more than a bit revealing that you call the cyclist "entitled" and not the driver, who is illegally parked, obstructing a bike lane, and has racked up $10k in speeding tickets in DC alone. A rather weird set of values you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not pp, but have already sat in backups from Pike and Rose to Democracy, and more than once have sat through THREE light cycles at Tuckerman to get through that intersection.

While I agree we need bike lanes, a major thoroughfare that is already blocked with traffic, was not the place to remove one-third of the traffic lanes for cars.

They need to go, and go quickly

In other words, while you agree we need bike lanes, you think driving time is more important. So, where do you think we should have bike lanes?

The only way bike lanes should be handled on that road is to actually ADD a lane...not take away a lane. That means major construction. I support that. I, along with the majority of county residents, do not support the current solution and suspect those lanes will be going in a couple of months.

Agree with this. We all have set-backs in Montgomery County (ours is 8 feet I think, but we are not on a major road). Use them and ADD a bike lane, or a buffer between sidewalk and road. Don't take away 1/3 of the road lanes on an already heavily trafficked roadway

[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.

So it’s perfectly fine by you for cars to block bike lanes and force cyclists out into the street where they can be killed (a three year died in Chicago when her mother went around a vehicle parked in a bike lane) or, maybe worse by you, slow down traffic? I wouldn't have banged on the trunk but do you think a confrontation would not have ensued had the cyclist instead pulled up beside the driver and asked him to move? Should he have called 911 instead? It's more than a bit revealing that you call the cyclist "entitled" and not the driver, who is illegally parked, obstructing a bike lane, and has racked up $10k in speeding tickets in DC alone. A rather weird set of values you have.

Sorry, but that cyclist even admitted he is a jerk! Come on...that kind of behavior is off the rails. He could have called the non emergency number or nicely told them that they weren't allowed to park there. I would have been very upset if someone did that to me. I very well could have pulled over for an emergency or whatnot. The cyclist had no idea why the people were pulled over or that they had speeding fines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not pp, but have already sat in backups from Pike and Rose to Democracy, and more than once have sat through THREE light cycles at Tuckerman to get through that intersection.

While I agree we need bike lanes, a major thoroughfare that is already blocked with traffic, was not the place to remove one-third of the traffic lanes for cars.

They need to go, and go quickly

In other words, while you agree we need bike lanes, you think driving time is more important. So, where do you think we should have bike lanes?

The only way bike lanes should be handled on that road is to actually ADD a lane...not take away a lane. That means major construction. I support that. I, along with the majority of county residents, do not support the current solution and suspect those lanes will be going in a couple of months.

Agree with this. We all have set-backs in Montgomery County (ours is 8 feet I think, but we are not on a major road). Use them and ADD a bike lane, or a buffer between sidewalk and road. Don't take away 1/3 of the road lanes on an already heavily trafficked roadway

Common sense is an amazing thing.

[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.

So it’s perfectly fine by you for cars to block bike lanes and force cyclists out into the street where they can be killed (a three year died in Chicago when her mother went around a vehicle parked in a bike lane) or, maybe worse by you, slow down traffic? I wouldn't have banged on the trunk but do you think a confrontation would not have ensued had the cyclist instead pulled up beside the driver and asked him to move? Should he have called 911 instead? It's more than a bit revealing that you call the cyclist "entitled" and not the driver, who is illegally parked, obstructing a bike lane, and has racked up $10k in speeding tickets in DC alone. A rather weird set of values you have.

Sorry, but that cyclist even admitted he is a jerk! Come on...that kind of behavior is off the rails. He could have called the non emergency number or nicely told them that they weren't allowed to park there. I would have been very upset if someone did that to me. I very well could have pulled over for an emergency or whatnot. The cyclist had no idea why the people were pulled over or that they had speeding fines.

You (or the PP, if different) described his actions as "typical cyclist entitlement", which is nothing but bigoted, dehumanizing nonsense that feeds a vicious stereotype that is perfectly capable of getting people killed:

I would not have banged on the car, but pulling up beside the car to talk to the driver would have meant that he was blocking a traffic lane and putting himself at risk in the process. Calling 311 would be a complete waste of time - I've done it many times and not once have they responded.

I'm sorry that you are so offended by his banging on a piece of metal, but I'm not particularly inclined to get worked up about others being rude to those who flagrantly violate laws designed to protect vulnerable road users. If someone yells an obscenity at a driver who runs a red light, is that "typical pedestrian behavior"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not pp, but have already sat in backups from Pike and Rose to Democracy, and more than once have sat through THREE light cycles at Tuckerman to get through that intersection.

While I agree we need bike lanes, a major thoroughfare that is already blocked with traffic, was not the place to remove one-third of the traffic lanes for cars.

They need to go, and go quickly

In other words, while you agree we need bike lanes, you think driving time is more important. So, where do you think we should have bike lanes?

The only way bike lanes should be handled on that road is to actually ADD a lane...not take away a lane. That means major construction. I support that. I, along with the majority of county residents, do not support the current solution and suspect those lanes will be going in a couple of months.

Agree with this. We all have set-backs in Montgomery County (ours is 8 feet I think, but we are not on a major road). Use them and ADD a bike lane, or a buffer between sidewalk and road. Don't take away 1/3 of the road lanes on an already heavily trafficked roadway

No, there is not extra space for all roads. Some roads occupy the entire right-of-way. Much of Old Georgetown Road, for example. Nobody has taken away a lane; the lane is still there. It's just that now it's for bicycling and for buffering the sidewalk. And for driving, you still have 2 other lanes in each direction.

[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.

So it’s perfectly fine by you for cars to block bike lanes and force cyclists out into the street where they can be killed (a three year died in Chicago when her mother went around a vehicle parked in a bike lane) or, maybe worse by you, slow down traffic? I wouldn't have banged on the trunk but do you think a confrontation would not have ensued had the cyclist instead pulled up beside the driver and asked him to move? Should he have called 911 instead? It's more than a bit revealing that you call the cyclist "entitled" and not the driver, who is illegally parked, obstructing a bike lane, and has racked up $10k in speeding tickets in DC alone. A rather weird set of values you have.

Sorry, but that cyclist even admitted he is a jerk! Come on...that kind of behavior is off the rails. He could have called the non emergency number or nicely told them that they weren't allowed to park there. I would have been very upset if someone did that to me. I very well could have pulled over for an emergency or whatnot. The cyclist had no idea why the people were pulled over or that they had speeding fines.

You (or the PP, if different) described his actions as "typical cyclist entitlement", which is nothing but bigoted, dehumanizing nonsense that feeds a vicious stereotype that is perfectly capable of getting people killed:

I would not have banged on the car, but pulling up beside the car to talk to the driver would have meant that he was blocking a traffic lane and putting himself at risk in the process. Calling 311 would be a complete waste of time - I've done it many times and not once have they responded.

I'm sorry that you are so offended by his banging on a piece of metal, but I'm not particularly inclined to get worked up about others being rude to those who flagrantly violate laws designed to protect vulnerable road users. If someone yells an obscenity at a driver who runs a red light, is that "typical pedestrian behavior"?

Wait, are you saying we get to yell obscenities at cyclists who run red lights? I am very pro that. (DP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but that cyclist even admitted he is a jerk! Come on...that kind of behavior is off the rails. He could have called the non emergency number or nicely told them that they weren't allowed to park there. I would have been very upset if someone did that to me. I very well could have pulled over for an emergency or whatnot. The cyclist had no idea why the people were pulled over or that they had speeding fines.

You still don't get to park in the bike lane, just like you don't get to park on the sidewalk.

I got doored once by a driver who didn't look. The driver yelled at me for damaging his car. Fortunately I wasn't injured, but dooring can kill people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they have transformed the sidewalk into a Nike label I stead of taking up a lane?

Yea, I get the pedestrians would be mad, but the number of people walking on the sidewalk isn't a very low number compared to bikers. Something has to give..

Or make the existing sidewalk more mixed-use. Or perhaps "bikers only" during peak rush hour (so pedestrians walk at your own risk).

Yes, they could transform the sidewalks into shared use paths, by widening them into the road. I support this, because I think it would be safer than plastic posts that you can drive over without damaging your car. However, the result for drivers would be the same: 4 lanes to drive in, instead of 6.

The sidewalk, pre-bike-lanes, actually was mixed-use and walk-at-your-own risk. How did that work out? Two dead teenagers in 3 years.

The two teens were biking in the road, no?
Had they been on a mixed-use sidewalk there would have been a bit more of a buffer/better visibility to drivers

No. They were both biking on the sidewalk. The sidewalks had obstructions and no buffer. They both encountered obstructions, fell off the unbuffered sidewalk into the road, and were run over and killed by drivers driving in the curb lane. The curb lanes are now bike lanes, which provide a buffer for the sidewalks.

First of all, cyclists are not supposed to bike on sidewalks. Secondly, they are supposed to cycle with the traffic. From what I understand one of the cyclist was cycling against the traffic, which just exacerbated the situation.

Pedestrians don't want cyclists on the sidewalks (they are legal except in the downtown DC central business area)
Drivers don't want bikes on the roads (even though they are legal and funded by the same taxpayer regardless of whether the drive or bike or walk)

As someone noted, these two deaths were cause because cyclists were on the sidewalk, got to an area where there was an obstruction (like a utility pole or garbage can) and fell over and were run over by drivers in the curb lane. What direction they were headed on the sidewalk is immaterial to the fact that they were riding safely on a sidewalk, hit an obstruction and were kiilled. They were failed by planners and engineers as well as the operators of the cars who ran over them.

[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.

So it’s perfectly fine by you for cars to block bike lanes and force cyclists out into the street where they can be killed (a three year died in Chicago when her mother went around a vehicle parked in a bike lane) or, maybe worse by you, slow down traffic? I wouldn't have banged on the trunk but do you think a confrontation would not have ensued had the cyclist instead pulled up beside the driver and asked him to move? Should he have called 911 instead? It's more than a bit revealing that you call the cyclist "entitled" and not the driver, who is illegally parked, obstructing a bike lane, and has racked up $10k in speeding tickets in DC alone. A rather weird set of values you have.

Sorry, but that cyclist even admitted he is a jerk! Come on...that kind of behavior is off the rails. He could have called the non emergency number or nicely told them that they weren't allowed to park there. I would have been very upset if someone did that to me. I very well could have pulled over for an emergency or whatnot. The cyclist had no idea why the people were pulled over or that they had speeding fines.

And get shot, no thanks.