New bike lane on Old Georgetown Rd in Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say, also, that it's nice to be able to ride two people next to each other in the bike lanes and walk two people next to each other on the sidewalks that are now separated from traffic, just like people can ride two people next to each other in cars.

Thanks for confirming that the buffer is not so essential for safety after all since you gladly ride in it without concern for your safety. I think we know what is going to be the first thing to go. Thanks!

What are you talking about? There was still buffer, even with two people riding next to each other. The cars were not speeding by, which was great. I am very concerned about my own safety, for understandable reasons, and it was perfectly safe. If it had been trucks going by at 60 mph, it would have been different, but it wasn't. You might give the bike lanes a try yourself some time, if only so that you can criticize them with better, first-hand information.

Okay great. So the buffer still isn’t needed because there is enough room for the luxury of two people to ride side by side without it.

I wouldn't call side-by-side travel a luxury, I'd call it a basic human habit that I expect any transportation system to enable.

Now, would all of the current buffer space be needed if the state replaced the bendy plastic posts with concrete jersey walls or steel guard rails? I suppose not. That's probably not the solution you're looking for, though.

Also, the ten-foot car lane widths are a purposeful feature of the state's safety improvements, and there isn't space for 3 ten-foot car lanes plus a bike lane. So the extra space goes to the buffer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Petition for removing the bike lanes has 6400 signatures. Petition supporting the current design has 1400.

Thanks for the update Elon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say, also, that it's nice to be able to ride two people next to each other in the bike lanes and walk two people next to each other on the sidewalks that are now separated from traffic, just like people can ride two people next to each other in cars.

Thanks for confirming that the buffer is not so essential for safety after all since you gladly ride in it without concern for your safety. I think we know what is going to be the first thing to go. Thanks!

What are you talking about? There was still buffer, even with two people riding next to each other. The cars were not speeding by, which was great. I am very concerned about my own safety, for understandable reasons, and it was perfectly safe. If it had been trucks going by at 60 mph, it would have been different, but it wasn't. You might give the bike lanes a try yourself some time, if only so that you can criticize them with better, first-hand information.

Okay great. So the buffer still isn’t needed because there is enough room for the luxury of two people to ride side by side without it.

I wouldn't call side-by-side travel a luxury, I'd call it a basic human habit that I expect any transportation system to enable.

Now, would all of the current buffer space be needed if the state replaced the bendy plastic posts with concrete jersey walls or steel guard rails? I suppose not. That's probably not the solution you're looking for, though.

Also, the ten-foot car lane widths are a purposeful feature of the state's safety improvements, and there isn't space for 3 ten-foot car lanes plus a bike lane. So the extra space goes to the buffer.

The primary and only reason for the bike lanes are safety. Your response clarifies that as a cyclist, you believe that the bike lane has been overdeigned for safety which means that you agree with everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Petition for removing the bike lanes has 6400 signatures. Petition supporting the current design has 1400.

How many of those 6400 are people who don’t understand change.org and signed multiple times? There were so many duplicate or triplicate signatures because people hit submit twice or signed the petition again because they wanted to post a new comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petition for removing the bike lanes has 6400 signatures. Petition supporting the current design has 1400.

How many of those 6400 are people who don’t understand change.org and signed multiple times? There were so many duplicate or triplicate signatures because people hit submit twice or signed the petition again because they wanted to post a new comment.

So much cope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say, also, that it's nice to be able to ride two people next to each other in the bike lanes and walk two people next to each other on the sidewalks that are now separated from traffic, just like people can ride two people next to each other in cars.

Thanks for confirming that the buffer is not so essential for safety after all since you gladly ride in it without concern for your safety. I think we know what is going to be the first thing to go. Thanks!

What are you talking about? There was still buffer, even with two people riding next to each other. The cars were not speeding by, which was great. I am very concerned about my own safety, for understandable reasons, and it was perfectly safe. If it had been trucks going by at 60 mph, it would have been different, but it wasn't. You might give the bike lanes a try yourself some time, if only so that you can criticize them with better, first-hand information.

Okay great. So the buffer still isn’t needed because there is enough room for the luxury of two people to ride side by side without it.

I wouldn't call side-by-side travel a luxury, I'd call it a basic human habit that I expect any transportation system to enable.

Now, would all of the current buffer space be needed if the state replaced the bendy plastic posts with concrete jersey walls or steel guard rails? I suppose not. That's probably not the solution you're looking for, though.

Also, the ten-foot car lane widths are a purposeful feature of the state's safety improvements, and there isn't space for 3 ten-foot car lanes plus a bike lane. So the extra space goes to the buffer.

The primary and only reason for the bike lanes are safety. Your response clarifies that as a cyclist, you believe that the bike lane has been overdeigned for safety which means that you agree with everyone else.

Only if you believe that everything additional to the absolute bare minimum for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure is "overdesigned". We have to build roads big enough for the maximum number of cars, even if it means that most of the road is empty all night and much of the day, but if people want to walk side by side, nope, sorry, that's too much. Single file only, and be grateful there's a sidewalk at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say, also, that it's nice to be able to ride two people next to each other in the bike lanes and walk two people next to each other on the sidewalks that are now separated from traffic, just like people can ride two people next to each other in cars.

Thanks for confirming that the buffer is not so essential for safety after all since you gladly ride in it without concern for your safety. I think we know what is going to be the first thing to go. Thanks!

What are you talking about? There was still buffer, even with two people riding next to each other. The cars were not speeding by, which was great. I am very concerned about my own safety, for understandable reasons, and it was perfectly safe. If it had been trucks going by at 60 mph, it would have been different, but it wasn't. You might give the bike lanes a try yourself some time, if only so that you can criticize them with better, first-hand information.

Okay great. So the buffer still isn’t needed because there is enough room for the luxury of two people to ride side by side without it.

I wouldn't call side-by-side travel a luxury, I'd call it a basic human habit that I expect any transportation system to enable.

Now, would all of the current buffer space be needed if the state replaced the bendy plastic posts with concrete jersey walls or steel guard rails? I suppose not. That's probably not the solution you're looking for, though.

Also, the ten-foot car lane widths are a purposeful feature of the state's safety improvements, and there isn't space for 3 ten-foot car lanes plus a bike lane. So the extra space goes to the buffer.

The primary and only reason for the bike lanes are safety. Your response clarifies that as a cyclist, you believe that the bike lane has been overdeigned for safety which means that you agree with everyone else.

Only if you believe that everything additional to the absolute bare minimum for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure is "overdesigned". We have to build roads big enough for the maximum number of cars, even if it means that most of the road is empty all night and much of the day, but if people want to walk side by side, nope, sorry, that's too much. Single file only, and be grateful there's a sidewalk at all.

In this case, since the bike lane gets about 5 cyclist per day there is no need to go beyond the minimum to maintain safety. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say, also, that it's nice to be able to ride two people next to each other in the bike lanes and walk two people next to each other on the sidewalks that are now separated from traffic, just like people can ride two people next to each other in cars.

Thanks for confirming that the buffer is not so essential for safety after all since you gladly ride in it without concern for your safety. I think we know what is going to be the first thing to go. Thanks!

What are you talking about? There was still buffer, even with two people riding next to each other. The cars were not speeding by, which was great. I am very concerned about my own safety, for understandable reasons, and it was perfectly safe. If it had been trucks going by at 60 mph, it would have been different, but it wasn't. You might give the bike lanes a try yourself some time, if only so that you can criticize them with better, first-hand information.

Okay great. So the buffer still isn’t needed because there is enough room for the luxury of two people to ride side by side without it.

I wouldn't call side-by-side travel a luxury, I'd call it a basic human habit that I expect any transportation system to enable.

Now, would all of the current buffer space be needed if the state replaced the bendy plastic posts with concrete jersey walls or steel guard rails? I suppose not. That's probably not the solution you're looking for, though.

Also, the ten-foot car lane widths are a purposeful feature of the state's safety improvements, and there isn't space for 3 ten-foot car lanes plus a bike lane. So the extra space goes to the buffer.

The primary and only reason for the bike lanes are safety. Your response clarifies that as a cyclist, you believe that the bike lane has been overdeigned for safety which means that you agree with everyone else.

Only if you believe that everything additional to the absolute bare minimum for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure is "overdesigned". We have to build roads big enough for the maximum number of cars, even if it means that most of the road is empty all night and much of the day, but if people want to walk side by side, nope, sorry, that's too much. Single file only, and be grateful there's a sidewalk at all.

In this case, since the bike lane gets about 5 cyclist per day there is no need to go beyond the minimum to maintain safety. Thanks for agreeing with me.

It's true what the other PP said, your debating technique does remind me of the Eradicator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO0FxifkzFQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say, also, that it's nice to be able to ride two people next to each other in the bike lanes and walk two people next to each other on the sidewalks that are now separated from traffic, just like people can ride two people next to each other in cars.

Thanks for confirming that the buffer is not so essential for safety after all since you gladly ride in it without concern for your safety. I think we know what is going to be the first thing to go. Thanks!

What are you talking about? There was still buffer, even with two people riding next to each other. The cars were not speeding by, which was great. I am very concerned about my own safety, for understandable reasons, and it was perfectly safe. If it had been trucks going by at 60 mph, it would have been different, but it wasn't. You might give the bike lanes a try yourself some time, if only so that you can criticize them with better, first-hand information.

Okay great. So the buffer still isn’t needed because there is enough room for the luxury of two people to ride side by side without it.

I wouldn't call side-by-side travel a luxury, I'd call it a basic human habit that I expect any transportation system to enable.

Now, would all of the current buffer space be needed if the state replaced the bendy plastic posts with concrete jersey walls or steel guard rails? I suppose not. That's probably not the solution you're looking for, though.

Also, the ten-foot car lane widths are a purposeful feature of the state's safety improvements, and there isn't space for 3 ten-foot car lanes plus a bike lane. So the extra space goes to the buffer.

The primary and only reason for the bike lanes are safety. Your response clarifies that as a cyclist, you believe that the bike lane has been overdeigned for safety which means that you agree with everyone else.

Only if you believe that everything additional to the absolute bare minimum for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure is "overdesigned". We have to build roads big enough for the maximum number of cars, even if it means that most of the road is empty all night and much of the day, but if people want to walk side by side, nope, sorry, that's too much. Single file only, and be grateful there's a sidewalk at all.

In this case, since the bike lane gets about 5 cyclist per day there is no need to go beyond the minimum to maintain safety. Thanks for agreeing with me.

It's true what the other PP said, your debating technique does remind me of the Eradicator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO0FxifkzFQ

It is a lot of whiplash that you can go from crocodile tears about dead kids to juvenile trolling. Pretty clear that you are insincere and because you are obviously a baby, I do wonder why you are wasting your time instead of doing your algebra homework.

[Anonymous]

I drive this stretch of OGR about 4-6 times a day on average. I’ve been counting the number of cyclists I see in the bike lanes each day every time I go through there. Yes, it’s a very unscientific and anecdotal way to collet data, but it’s the best I can do.

The most cyclists I’ve seen on a weekday is 4. But that was over the whole day.

So let’s figure I spend a total of about 20 minutes observation per day, throughout the day. So let’s over estimate and say based on that, say 12 cyclists per hour were using the lanes. That’s 120 cyclists in a 12 hour morning/daytime/dusk period.

So 120 cyclists…. and how many thousand people in cars? That’s the problem with taking away travel lanes to make them into bike lanes. There’s almost no one using them compared to before. All this has done is create essentially a private road for a very very few people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I drive this stretch of OGR about 4-6 times a day on average. I’ve been counting the number of cyclists I see in the bike lanes each day every time I go through there. Yes, it’s a very unscientific and anecdotal way to collet data, but it’s the best I can do.

The most cyclists I’ve seen on a weekday is 4. But that was over the whole day.

So let’s figure I spend a total of about 20 minutes observation per day, throughout the day. So let’s over estimate and say based on that, say 12 cyclists per hour were using the lanes. That’s 120 cyclists in a 12 hour morning/daytime/dusk period.

So 120 cyclists…. and how many thousand people in cars? That’s the problem with taking away travel lanes to make them into bike lanes. There’s almost no one using them compared to before. All this has done is create essentially a private road for a very very few people.

All this has done is make the road safer for everyone, including you, whether you're driving, bicycling, walking, or catching a bus.

Did you count how many people are driving on the road during off-peak hours? Did you ask why there's a six-lane road, when there are only enough cars to potentially justify a six-lane road for a maximum of 10 hours a week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I drive this stretch of OGR about 4-6 times a day on average. I’ve been counting the number of cyclists I see in the bike lanes each day every time I go through there. Yes, it’s a very unscientific and anecdotal way to collet data, but it’s the best I can do.

The most cyclists I’ve seen on a weekday is 4. But that was over the whole day.

So let’s figure I spend a total of about 20 minutes observation per day, throughout the day. So let’s over estimate and say based on that, say 12 cyclists per hour were using the lanes. That’s 120 cyclists in a 12 hour morning/daytime/dusk period.

So 120 cyclists…. and how many thousand people in cars? That’s the problem with taking away travel lanes to make them into bike lanes. There’s almost no one using them compared to before. All this has done is create essentially a private road for a very very few people.

This estimate of cyclists is way too high. You presume that they use the lanes at a steady rate throughout the day when it’s more likely and data from other bike lanes confirm that most utilization is during commuting hours, like when everyone else is trying to go somewhere. If you are sitting on Old Georgetown Rd for 20 minutes during the evening commute and only see 1 cyclists. Then that’s 3 an hour for 3 hours. Combine with the morning commute and you have 18 for the day with a couple odd users throughout the day so you could maybe round up to 24. I believe that is still a high estimate but it’s a lot more reasonable than 120 which is completely improbable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drive this stretch of OGR about 4-6 times a day on average. I’ve been counting the number of cyclists I see in the bike lanes each day every time I go through there. Yes, it’s a very unscientific and anecdotal way to collet data, but it’s the best I can do.

The most cyclists I’ve seen on a weekday is 4. But that was over the whole day.

So let’s figure I spend a total of about 20 minutes observation per day, throughout the day. So let’s over estimate and say based on that, say 12 cyclists per hour were using the lanes. That’s 120 cyclists in a 12 hour morning/daytime/dusk period.

So 120 cyclists…. and how many thousand people in cars? That’s the problem with taking away travel lanes to make them into bike lanes. There’s almost no one using them compared to before. All this has done is create essentially a private road for a very very few people.

All this has done is make the road safer for everyone, including you, whether you're driving, bicycling, walking, or catching a bus.

Did you count how many people are driving on the road during off-peak hours? Did you ask why there's a six-lane road, when there are only enough cars to potentially justify a six-lane road for a maximum of 10 hours a week?

That’s awesome, except that cyclists in this thread are saying that the lanes installed are over designed allowing them to disregard the safety buffer and engage in less safe behavior through rising side by side. If they are going to disregard the buffer, which is there for their safety but instead has induced unsafe behavior, then it should at minimum be removed to improve the safety of cyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drive this stretch of OGR about 4-6 times a day on average. I’ve been counting the number of cyclists I see in the bike lanes each day every time I go through there. Yes, it’s a very unscientific and anecdotal way to collet data, but it’s the best I can do.

The most cyclists I’ve seen on a weekday is 4. But that was over the whole day.

So let’s figure I spend a total of about 20 minutes observation per day, throughout the day. So let’s over estimate and say based on that, say 12 cyclists per hour were using the lanes. That’s 120 cyclists in a 12 hour morning/daytime/dusk period.

So 120 cyclists…. and how many thousand people in cars? That’s the problem with taking away travel lanes to make them into bike lanes. There’s almost no one using them compared to before. All this has done is create essentially a private road for a very very few people.

All this has done is make the road safer for everyone, including you, whether you're driving, bicycling, walking, or catching a bus.

Did you count how many people are driving on the road during off-peak hours? Did you ask why there's a six-lane road, when there are only enough cars to potentially justify a six-lane road for a maximum of 10 hours a week?

That’s awesome, except that cyclists in this thread are saying that the lanes installed are over designed allowing them to disregard the safety buffer and engage in less safe behavior through rising side by side. If they are going to disregard the buffer, which is there for their safety but instead has induced unsafe behavior, then it should at minimum be removed to improve the safety of cyclists.

No, that's you saying that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drive this stretch of OGR about 4-6 times a day on average. I’ve been counting the number of cyclists I see in the bike lanes each day every time I go through there. Yes, it’s a very unscientific and anecdotal way to collet data, but it’s the best I can do.

The most cyclists I’ve seen on a weekday is 4. But that was over the whole day.

So let’s figure I spend a total of about 20 minutes observation per day, throughout the day. So let’s over estimate and say based on that, say 12 cyclists per hour were using the lanes. That’s 120 cyclists in a 12 hour morning/daytime/dusk period.

So 120 cyclists…. and how many thousand people in cars? That’s the problem with taking away travel lanes to make them into bike lanes. There’s almost no one using them compared to before. All this has done is create essentially a private road for a very very few people.

All this has done is make the road safer for everyone, including you, whether you're driving, bicycling, walking, or catching a bus.

Did you count how many people are driving on the road during off-peak hours? Did you ask why there's a six-lane road, when there are only enough cars to potentially justify a six-lane road for a maximum of 10 hours a week?

That’s awesome, except that cyclists in this thread are saying that the lanes installed are over designed allowing them to disregard the safety buffer and engage in less safe behavior through rising side by side. If they are going to disregard the buffer, which is there for their safety but instead has induced unsafe behavior, then it should at minimum be removed to improve the safety of cyclists.

No, that's you saying that.

If you can ride side by side then they are too wide. That’s patently obvious because no other bike lane in the region is designed for that behavior and for good reason. It’s unsafe.