New bike lane on Old Georgetown Rd in Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but those bike lanes are making Old Georgetown a complete cluster f***. Doubled the length of my commute this morning.

They need to do bike lanes that do not take away lanes for cars. It's not a zero-sum game, they need to add without taking away something

Bike lanes don't make your commute a cluster, other cars and drivers do.

Yes they do. That is a commuter artery. Not a trail.

Your trip to/from work is miserable because you're driving your car on the same road as a bunch of other people driving their cars, all at the same time. And I'm sorry, because that really is miserable. Wouldn't it be great if some of those people going to/from work in cars, who are blocking your way, switched to bikes? I know some people who commute by bike to locations on Old Georgetown Road. If the bike lanes are good, there will be more. If the bike lanes aren't good, the state should make them good.

You are miserable because you a low-paid or unpaid intern for WABA and you can't afford a car, anyway, so you pretend that you voluntarily chose to reject driving. When in fact driving an automobile isn't even an option for you, because you're poor.

Right, because society doesn’t want poor people who can’t afford cars to be able to get around.

[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

Sorry, chief. It’s not legal to ride in the general lanes on OGR where there are one-way bike lanes. “Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface, a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane and may not ride on the roadway, except in the following situations:” (none of which are your scenarios). The group ride complaint is a riot because there’s no practical limit on how many bikes can ride single file in a bike lane. It almost sounds like you don’t want to wait your turn or be inconvenienced by slower traffic.

You’re probably not going to get a ticket for riding in the road but if you get into an accident remember that MD is a contributory negligence jurisdiction. If you don’t care about maximizing your safety by using infrastructure created for you then I guess I don’t care about your safety either. (And I think the bike lanes are a good idea even though current usage does not justify giving them a third of the right of way.)

[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

Sorry, chief. It’s not legal to ride in the general lanes on OGR where there are one-way bike lanes. “Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface, a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane and may not ride on the roadway, except in the following situations:” (none of which are your scenarios). The group ride complaint is a riot because there’s no practical limit on how many bikes can ride single file in a bike lane. It almost sounds like you don’t want to wait your turn or be inconvenienced by slower traffic.

You’re probably not going to get a ticket for riding in the road but if you get into an accident remember that MD is a contributory negligence jurisdiction. If you don’t care about maximizing your safety by using infrastructure created for you then I guess I don’t care about your safety either. (And I think the bike lanes are a good idea even though current usage does not justify giving them a third of the right of way.)

Here's one of the situations: "(iii) When reasonably necessary to leave the bike lane to avoid debris or other hazardous condition; or"

Practically speaking, bicyclists maximize their safety by riding in groups and taking the lane.

[Anonymous]

Then what is the point of the bike lane????? And how is riding in groups sharing the road? Cars can’t pass. Recreational cyclists are such jerks. They care only about going fast and having fun then they care about their own safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then what is the point of the bike lane????? And how is riding in groups sharing the road? Cars can’t pass. Recreational cyclists are such jerks. They care only about going fast and having fun then they care about their own safety.

The point of the bike lanes is to make the road safer for everyone.

I don't know if you've seen the road signs that say "[Bicycle symbol] may use full lane"? Highway departments started using those signs instead of "Share the road" signs, because too many drivers assumed the "Share the road" signs were aimed at bicyclists, not drivers.

I am not a "recreational bicyclist", although I suppose I am a recreational driver because I drive to recreational things, but I feel quite confident that recreational bicyclists are better able to assess what is and is not safe for them than you are. Also it's ironic to complain that "they only care about going fast" when your objection is that they're stopping you from going fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what is the point of the bike lane????? And how is riding in groups sharing the road? Cars can’t pass. Recreational cyclists are such jerks. They care only about going fast and having fun then they care about their own safety.

The point of the bike lanes is to make the road safer for everyone.

I don't know if you've seen the road signs that say "[Bicycle symbol] may use full lane"? Highway departments started using those signs instead of "Share the road" signs, because too many drivers assumed the "Share the road" signs were aimed at bicyclists, not drivers.

I am not a "recreational bicyclist", although I suppose I am a recreational driver because I drive to recreational things, but I feel quite confident that recreational bicyclists are better able to assess what is and is not safe for them than you are. Also it's ironic to complain that "they only care about going fast" when your objection is that they're stopping you from going fast.

You know you’re right. From now on when I’m driving and cyclists are blocking my way I’ll just hop onto the trail or bike lane.

[Anonymous]

Lots of times cyclists don’t use the trail because pedestrians slow them down. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then what is the point of the bike lane????? And how is riding in groups sharing the road? Cars can’t pass. Recreational cyclists are such jerks. They care only about going fast and having fun then they care about their own safety.

The point of the bike lanes is to make the road safer for everyone.

I don't know if you've seen the road signs that say "[Bicycle symbol] may use full lane"? Highway departments started using those signs instead of "Share the road" signs, because too many drivers assumed the "Share the road" signs were aimed at bicyclists, not drivers.

I am not a "recreational bicyclist", although I suppose I am a recreational driver because I drive to recreational things, but I feel quite confident that recreational bicyclists are better able to assess what is and is not safe for them than you are. Also it's ironic to complain that "they only care about going fast" when your objection is that they're stopping you from going fast.

You know you’re right. From now on when I’m driving and cyclists are blocking my way I’ll just hop onto the trail or bike lane.

I'm not sure what your point is? I don't even notice anymore when cars are blocking the sidewalk or the crosswalk or the bike lane, it's so common.

[Anonymous]

Boo hoo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are they not doing more to encourage cyclists to utilize the very nice and adjacent trolley trail? What is the point of the trolley trail in the first place if not for use by bicycles instead of promoting cyclists to ride on a state highway.

Plenty of people use the Trolley Trail to go where the Trolley Trail goes, which is different from where Old Georgetown Road goes. Might as well ask why they are not doing more to encourage drivers to utilize the very nice and adjacent Rockville Pike instead of Old Georgetown Road.

The trolley trail runs directly adjacent to MD355 through that area.

The sidewalk on the east side of Rockville Pike between Nicholson and Bou has "Trolley Trail" signs. Is that the area you're referring to? I don't understand how that's relevant to Old Georgetown Road, though.

Thanks for demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the area that you are so opinionated about. LOL.

Then you need to explain which "that area" you're talking about. The new bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road are supposed to go from Ryland to Nicholson. The Trolley Trail does not run directly adjacent to 355 there. It also doesn't run directly adjacent to Old Georgetown Road. Maybe you can explain how someone should go by bike on the Trolley Trail from Woodward High School to the Wildwood shopping center, or from Rock Spring to the Wyngate neighborhood, or from the Wyngate neighborhood to the Y.

The trolley trail runs adjacent 187. That’s the point. That’s why a protected bike lane is not needed. You can ride from Pike & Rose straight to downtown Bethesda in complete safety and in a relaxing environment. You can also easily access shopping areas from the trail coming from a much safer direction in residential neighborhoods and away from a state highway. Theses bike lanes have no point. They also would not have stopped at least one of the recent fatalities because the kid unfortunately lost his balance and fell in the road. Same thing can happen from a sidewalk as a protected bike lane.

You can also drive from Pike and Rose to downtown Bethesda on 355. So I guess Old Georgetown Road has no point.

Both teenage boys fell off the sidewalk into the curb lane, where they were hit and killed by passing cars. If anybody falls off the sidewalk now, they will fall into the bike lane, and they will get up, brush themselves off, and keep going about their day.

Why would people still be riding on the sidewalks when there are dedicated bike lanes? Leave the sidewalks for people walking and ride in the bike lanes. If they're too unsafe to ride in, then lobby to fix the specific problem. Otherwise people are going to get fed up with cyclists driving with cars or on the sidewalk and lobby to remove them. The bike lanes on University Ave in Wheaton didn't get much use and they are gone now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are they not doing more to encourage cyclists to utilize the very nice and adjacent trolley trail? What is the point of the trolley trail in the first place if not for use by bicycles instead of promoting cyclists to ride on a state highway.

Plenty of people use the Trolley Trail to go where the Trolley Trail goes, which is different from where Old Georgetown Road goes. Might as well ask why they are not doing more to encourage drivers to utilize the very nice and adjacent Rockville Pike instead of Old Georgetown Road.

The trolley trail runs directly adjacent to MD355 through that area.

The sidewalk on the east side of Rockville Pike between Nicholson and Bou has "Trolley Trail" signs. Is that the area you're referring to? I don't understand how that's relevant to Old Georgetown Road, though.

Thanks for demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the area that you are so opinionated about. LOL.

Then you need to explain which "that area" you're talking about. The new bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road are supposed to go from Ryland to Nicholson. The Trolley Trail does not run directly adjacent to 355 there. It also doesn't run directly adjacent to Old Georgetown Road. Maybe you can explain how someone should go by bike on the Trolley Trail from Woodward High School to the Wildwood shopping center, or from Rock Spring to the Wyngate neighborhood, or from the Wyngate neighborhood to the Y.

The trolley trail runs adjacent 187. That’s the point. That’s why a protected bike lane is not needed. You can ride from Pike & Rose straight to downtown Bethesda in complete safety and in a relaxing environment. You can also easily access shopping areas from the trail coming from a much safer direction in residential neighborhoods and away from a state highway. Theses bike lanes have no point. They also would not have stopped at least one of the recent fatalities because the kid unfortunately lost his balance and fell in the road. Same thing can happen from a sidewalk as a protected bike lane.

You can also drive from Pike and Rose to downtown Bethesda on 355. So I guess Old Georgetown Road has no point.

Both teenage boys fell off the sidewalk into the curb lane, where they were hit and killed by passing cars. If anybody falls off the sidewalk now, they will fall into the bike lane, and they will get up, brush themselves off, and keep going about their day.

Why would people still be riding on the sidewalks when there are dedicated bike lanes? Leave the sidewalks for people walking and ride in the bike lanes. If they're too unsafe to ride in, then lobby to fix the specific problem. Otherwise people are going to get fed up with cyclists driving with cars or on the sidewalk and lobby to remove them. The bike lanes on University Ave in Wheaton didn't get much use and they are gone now.

Why would people still be riding on the sidewalks when there are dedicated bike lanes? When people do that, it's because they feel safer on the sidewalk than in the bike lane. As you say, the solution to that problem is to fix the bike lanes, so that people feel safe in them.

The bike lanes on University Avenue got a lot of use. Even SHA agreed about that. They're gone because some people complained that they had to wait too long to turn right from Arcola onto University, while driving, and SHA thought that was more important.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but those bike lanes are making Old Georgetown a complete cluster f***. Doubled the length of my commute this morning.

They need to do bike lanes that do not take away lanes for cars. It's not a zero-sum game, they need to add without taking away something

Bike lanes don't make your commute a cluster, other cars and drivers do.

Yes they do. That is a commuter artery. Not a trail.

Your trip to/from work is miserable because you're driving your car on the same road as a bunch of other people driving their cars, all at the same time. And I'm sorry, because that really is miserable. Wouldn't it be great if some of those people going to/from work in cars, who are blocking your way, switched to bikes? I know some people who commute by bike to locations on Old Georgetown Road. If the bike lanes are good, there will be more. If the bike lanes aren't good, the state should make them good.

I drive to work and I find it very enjoyable. I am sorry that your life is so miserable. It is not the car that makes you miserable. You may want to see someone about that.

Lol. Yes I am sure there are many therapists who specialize in helping people who don’t like being in traffic learn to love soul crushing commutes

Why do you think 88% of commuters in the area purposefully choose to drive alone in the cars despite a plethora of options if you think it is so “miserable” and “soul crushing”?

It makes about as much sense as saying that a place is so crowded no one goes there anymore.

[Anonymous]

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.