« Monday Morning Commute - Friends of ... | Main | Action Alert: DDOT Backtracking on L & M Street Cycletracks »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I only ride the portion of MD-564 North of MD-193. However, on my bike commute to work I have to cross MD-564 to get to Greenbelt. I take advantage of the WB&A trail and MD-450 path to get me to the Sea Brook MARC station where there is a pedestrian underpass to cross the tracks. There is a marked crosswalk on MD-564 at the MARC station. Not too bad to cross in the morning.

In the evening it is a whole different ball game. I walk my bike across as a pedestrian. NO ONE stops to allow a pedestrian to cross. There are two sets of signs in either direction warning drivers of the crosswalk. Not even PG's finest bother to yield. Since the nearest traffic lights are so far away and you are near a strip mall, the flow of speeding car traffic is constant. It can take ten minutes to find a break in traffic to cross.

This is my biggest impediment to communing to work by bike. The thought of crossing that road due to its poor design makes me and my wife drive most of the time. Since I need to get across the tracks my options are very limited.

So while being able to travel down the road with nice shoulders is important, it is not the only consideration.

I would like to see a traffic light. But I think that is a dream. BTW, while waiting I often see kids running across that road like a game of frogger.

I would be glad to participate in a meeting to convey this aspect.

"Prince Georges County officials have indicated a willingness to use these signs along roads with two or more lanes in a given direction, but not on roads with only one lane each direction."

Is the County position that bicyclists are never allowed to use the full lane on 2 lane roads (regardless of width)? Do they want to cite bicyclist on 2 lane roads, and hold them at fault in any collisions?

Is the SHA of the opinion that the signs (and bicyclists) should not be allowed on any roads too busy for grade school children?

(My experience with DE police is that rules enforced depend on the individual officer, e.g. restricted to 2 lane roads, bicyclists prohibited on all multilane roads, some want to require left turn from curb, others allow normal use of left turn lane).

Does SHA want bicycle requirement to vary by count or town (independent of state traffic law)?

Other ideas where we need to better understand official thinking include fog lines that carve out a constant lane width so that cyclists can immediately discern where the lane is wide enough to share, wider lanes up hill at the expense of narrower lanes downhill, sharrows, a revised share-the-road sign with a less ambiguous meaning, and legalizing the practice of crossing a double-yellow line to pass a bicyclist as long as passing vehicle is entirely within the oncoming lane, changing speed limits to accommodate cyclists, and a reconsideration of center-line rumble strips on roads used by cyclists. What am I forgetting?

A good list. I would add clarification of the rights and duties of cyclists in a crosswalk.

I think recommendations for better sharing change to some degree if it is a rural state road or a busy artery (MD-564 or MD-193). The latter is a more aggressive environment.

I like that some accommodation is made for cyclists going straight around a right turn lane. Usually a narrow dashed lined "bike lane". However, this is a very narrow space to live in, and very unconformable being sandwiched between speeding traffic on both sides. This exists on MD-564 north of MD-193. Too often I see drivers use the right turn only lane to pass traffic as some of these are quite long. I am not sure what a better approach would be other than a sign to alert drivers that a cyclist may be using that little lane.

I find it easier to use state roads if there is a nice shoulder. If the shoulders are not likely to be widened, then the surface quality needs to be better. Like fixing raised manholes and the like.

In places where there are sharp turns or right hand ramps the shoulders need to be wide enough to provide a higher margin of space. Those are not good places to share the road. Right turn ramps are places where drivers are preparing for turning maneuvers and not looking out for anything other than cars. If widening is not a possibility, then perhaps signs. I hate to alway be relying on signs.

@twk. Some of these issues you mention will probably come up in the July meeting on bypass lanes etc. Are you interested in coming to that one?

@Contrarian. As I am sure you realize, the Maryland Code is a mess on that one. The obvious question is whether we want SHA to lead, or should Delegate Carr (who introduced the previous clarification) be encouraged to submit a bill to clarify these grey areas. Who yields at a bypass lane is similarly confused. But more on that for the July meeting.

@Jim T

Yes I would be interested. Do you know when and where? I will be out of town for part of July. After July 19 I should be available.

@twk. Meeting just rescheduled to late August. I'm not sure if I have your contact info.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader