No Bike Lanes To Be Added on Glade Drive, But Colts Neck Road to Get Diet

by Dave Emke May 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm 77 Comments

Following a community meeting last month regarding the potential addition of bike lanes to Glade Drive, the Fairfax County Department of Transportation has decided not to go forward with that possibility.

“We obviously heard from the community along Glade about their preference for parking, and that helped to drive our decision,” said Adam Lind, FCDOT’s Bike Program manager, Friday morning. “We’re not going to take any parking; we’re sticking with just sharrows.”

A shared-lane marking, or sharrow, is painted in a travel lane to show where bicycles may be on the road and what direction they should be traveling. Lanes remain the same width, as does space for cars to park.

Some residents had expressed concern that if bike lanes were added to Glade Drive, the subsequent removal of street parking would cause problems with overflow parking at Glade Pool, Walker Nature Center, the Quartermaster Soccer Field and other locations along the road.

In another community meeting in March, Lind presented possibilities for bike lanes on Colts Neck Road, North Shore Drive and Twin Branches Road. In regard to those plans, Lind said:

  • bike lanes will be added in both directions on Colts Neck Road, along with a road diet
  • there will be a bike lane in one direction and sharrows in the other along North Shore Drive, with the location of each alternating “depending on the section of the street”
  • bike lanes will be added in both directions on Twin Branches Road

“No major alterations [from what was presented],” Lind said. “Most of the tweaks have been local comments about specific items — [such as] where we’re looking to shift the double yellow to give more room for people to pass when there’s parking along a road.”

At March’s meeting, a number of residents were particularly concerned about the proposal for the road diet on Colts Neck Road, which will take the road from four lanes of vehicle traffic to two between Glade Drive and South Lakes Drive.

Bicycle riders responded by saying Colts Neck Road is particularly dangerous for them and for pedestrians as well. The road diet could also allow for the addition of a crosswalk. Lind also said it is not believed the diet will have a major adverse effect on vehicle traffic. In a presentation during the March meeting, Lind said roads with traffic less than 20,000 cars per day don’t require four travel lanes, and a traffic count showed less than half that on Colts Neck Road. Those cars will be slowed by the diet and safety will be increased, Lind said.

Residents argued, however, that the road is a major “cut-through” during rush-hour times when traffic is backed up on Fairfax County Parkway, and that the road diet would cause additional traffic delays specifically during those times. According to a recent study, less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Fairfax County commuters bike to work — an amount some residents said is not worth potentially causing daily bottlenecking of cars. Possible safety hazards that could be presented by a center left-turn lane were also raised by citizens.

Repaving and re-striping will be conducted by the Virginia Department of Transportation after school lets out for the summer, Lind said. Further details will be provided on VDOT’s paving program website.

Anyone seeking additional information can request it by emailing [email protected].

Let us know what you think below:

File photo at top from Glade Drive community meeting April 27. Map of Colts Neck Road redesign via Fairfax County Department of Transportation.

  • Mike M

    Only half a victory for commons sense. Tell Hudgins the last thing we should be doing now is reducing road capacity.

    • SomeGuy

      No one reads your comments…..but keep thinking they do.

      • Mike M

        Ask yourself why you made that comment. Is it because you are afraid people read my comments? Is it because you read them but don’t like them? There is a reason someguy.

        • SomeGuy

          It’s because few read the comments and when they do they wish they hadn’t. But it’s mostly because you are a broken record and full of self importance. If your content was presented without that – you might actually have people listen. Might being the key word.

          • vdiv

            Which is it, no one, or few?
            I wish he didn’t have to make this comment either, but a couple of things come to mind, he is entitled to it and occasionally he has a point, this is one of those occasions.

          • SomeGuy

            How did it go from Bike Lanes to free speech, which by the way is only protected from government restrictions.

            Comments are welcome. Reading them is optional. Replying to them is ridiculous. RestonNow has the ability to decide if they want to. WTOP stopped comments on it’s site.

            Point is – it’s an echo chamber. No one else is listening but the usual suspects. And if by chance they do, they wish they hadn’t as some of you allude to. As is often said – Don’t read the comments. MikeM has to get the last word because he is always right. His 76xx comments speak for themselves.

            As far as the FCDOT decision. They split the difference. Glade doesn’t need lanes but Colts Neck does need traffic calming. Bike lanes come along with the new paint scheme. It might slow traffic but that’s the point – less accidents, crashes and deaths however one decides to travel.

            Later. Off to actually ‘talk’ to people.

          • Mike M

            “Comments are welcome. Reading them is optional. Replying to them is ridiculous.”

            1) Are they welcome or not?
            2) You chose to read , right, Because you opined. Yet “no one reads” them.
            3) You also indulged in the “ridiculous” choice to respond?

            Your comments don’t add up. Do I detect mental illness?

            PS: The people commenting in here are real people. I suspect you speak to imaginary ones.

          • SomeGuy

            Comment all one wants.
            Read them at one’s own peril.
            Replying to comments is nuts.

            So yes, temporary insanity and I’ll blame my friend who told me to read this stuff. Have a nice day. No plans to come back here to engage. Go for 8k comments !!

          • The Constitutionalist

            Stick around. We’ll have fun together. LOL

      • Scott

        I do, so your post is factually wrong.

        • Greg

          And I do too. Every one of them.

      • Edward Calvert

        Someguy, why are you trying to stifle Mike ms free speech ? Sometimes u learn things like I did in this post. Bike manager who knew.

        • Someguy

          Not stifling Edward. But be careful if you only get your information from comments. As is often said, don’t read the comments.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Yet here you are, reading Mike M’s comments and saying that no one reads them…………………………..

          • Someguy

            It’s called hyperbole. Known fact – most visitors of news sites do not read the comments and those that do read/post are regulars. Sometimes others wander in due to the nature of the article and wish they hadn’t. Me. I’m sure if anyone was to go to other articles – the same cast of characters would be commenting. And for all we know – it’s a bunch of Russian bots stirring the pot.

  • vdiv

    Let’s have a bike registration tax to pay for these “improvements”.

    • MM

      And a book tax if you check a book out from the library.
      And a fire truck tax if you call the fire department.
      And a sidewalk tax if you walk places.
      And a parking tax if you park on the public street vs driveway.

      Where does it end?

      • vdiv

        In FFX county?! It doesn’t end. I too want the county to pay for services I find important, but not necessarily you. Instead I pay for services that you find important instead of me. The county does not pay for sidewalks in Reston, the RA and your cluster do. We do pay for county parking (Wiehle station), library patrons should pay for using the library, otherwise they abuse it, and fire protection is a public safety that concerns everyone and yes all of us pay for it via taxes.

      • Greg

        We do have a sidewalk tax. It’s called the RA assessment.

        We do have a parking tax. It’s called the annual vehicle registration fee, inspection fee, emissions fee, annual personal property tax, titling and transfer tax, insurance fee, and the big sales tax we pay when we buy a car.

        We do have an ambulance (fire department) fee. Fairfax county will charge $300, $400 or $550 for an ambulance trip to the hospital, depending on the severity of the illness or injury, plus $7.50 per mile.

        And, we have fines if one untimely returns a library book (that is if the wasteful library has not bought and burned. untouched by any hands and never checked out, books).

        And, of course, if one has a burglar alarm that rings and no burglars are present one is charged for that as well.

        So, yes, bikers should most definitely pay for that which they request.

        Any I missed?

        • Dag Otto

          Not all of us are requesting this.

          • Greg

            I didn’t say all of you are.

        • BobRoll

          A bike tax/registration is ridiculous and would never fly no matter how much anti-bike folks would love to see it. Legislatures keep trying and they fail.

          So much dissatisfaction with something so simple, easy to use, fun, green etc. I read these articles and have to shack my head at it all.

          • Greg

            Where is there any anti-bike reference? Aside from yours, of course.

            Most taxes are ridiculous, and fund a bloated and wasteful government, especially in Fairfax County — and, as you aptly point out, legislatures that fail.

            After all, all those fees and taxes and tolls that motorists pay are doing very little to keep any of the transportation infrastructure in good order. Look at Metro…

            I hope that your head shack knocked some sense into it and that you are not hurt. After all, you would not want to pay those outrageous ambulance fees, would you?

          • BobRoll

            The anti-bike sentiment is inherent in the comments.

            I also said legislatures “fail” at passing bike registration/bike tax bills.

            I continue to shake my head as even a simply spelling error gets a comment.

          • John Farrell

            Bike registration plates would make it easier to report all the illegal activities of the spandex scofflaws to the police.

          • BobRoll

            Just like how cyclists who turn in license plates of scofflaw motorists for turning against no right on red signs, passing within 3 ft, following too close, texting while driving, rolling coal, and speeding. I’ve read 3 articles on RestonNow about cycling and I’m aghast how much animosity there is in a place that has a reputation as being bike friendly. What gives people?

          • John Farrell

            When you’ve experienced packs of of bikers running stop signs and red lights and riding 3-5 abreast with impunity every Tuesday night @ 6:30 on Glade for more than a decade with no enforcement effort by the FCPD, and when travel lanes are sacrificed to bike lanes, it builds a certain antagonism among the overburdened majority toward an oppressive minority that demands and receives preferential treatment by the government.

            But that’s just a guess.

          • BobRoll

            Mr Farrell: I read the article. Glade Road is not getting lanes, so no sacrifice taking place. And if I understand the road diet, it’s an overall safety issue. The article claims residents are concerned about cut thru traffic, which is notorious for speeding. Crosswalks being added for pedestrians and the road diet allows for bike travel. What’s wrong with slowing traffic and making it better for all? It would be nice to hear residents complain about cut thru traffic and their bad behavior.

          • John Farrell

            Volume on a 4 lane road is not properly called “cut-through.” Reducing capacity on a minor arterial like Colts Neck will induce “cut through” traffic on adjacent two lane roads.

            Colts Neck was always intended as a relief from overloading Reston Parkway. As it is Reston Parkway frequently backs up to Franklin Farm during morning peak. When the through lanes on Colts Neck are taken away, that cue will get longer.

            The suicide lane on Lawyers induced “cut through” traffic on Triple Crown because the west bound cue on Lawyers during morning peak hour was extended so long that a left turn from Lawyers onto south-bound Steeple Chase became impossible. Traveling west on Triple Crown to Steeple Chase so as to cross Lawyers became necessary.

            With the many off-set, ovrlapping lefts on Colts Neck, there will be multiple conflicts between those trying to make those lefts.

          • BobRoll

            So there is a car problem.

          • John Farrell

            There’s a democracy problem. Decisions allocating limited public resources are being made in contravention of the best interests of the vast majority of people to placate the desires of a minuscule minority.

          • BobRoll

            So there is no car problem?

            Your argument negates the safety problem being addressed. The road diet is addressing traffic issues: speeding, crashes, pedestrian deaths, etc and by doing so, bike lanes get that newly freed up space thereby taking them out of the driving lane.

            Maybe the road diet will actually reduce the cut through/relief traffic and make the area less full of cars?

          • John Farrell

            Eliminating capacity on one road merely shifts traffic to another. So called “road diets” do not make traffic disappear. Only eliminating jobs and homes will do that.

            There has been little evidence offered that there is a safety problem on Colts Neck whose only solution is reducing its capacity.

            Suicide lanes have a mixed record on improving overall safety, especially on streets with the configuration of Colts Neck with multiple offset, overlapping lefts.

          • BobRoll

            Jobs and homes aren’t disappearing so what is the solution to the car problem? I wasn’t implying traffic will disappear but certainly if the cut through is slower….it won’t be a cut through much longer.

            Did someone not die on Colts Neck? Aren’t the speeds higher than desired? Do we not want to address a problem before it happens? Why is slowing traffic such a bad idea?

          • John Farrell

            It’s a human problem.

            When the lanes are removed, where do you think those drivers go?

            Traffic on Colts Neck is not cut-through! Colts Neck was intended to serve a relief valve for Reston Parkway. That’s why it was built for 4 lanes.

            In 33 years of living in this neighborhood, I’ve never seen any speed enforcement by FCPD on the portion of Colts Neck between Glade and Sunrise Valley.

            I have never seen a speed box there either.

            Somehow, speed tables were never considered. They are used elsewhere in Fairfax County. Placing the crosswalk on top of a speed table would make the pedestrian crossing safer.

            Of course, there already exists a highly used pedestrian tunnel in close proximity to the at-grade crossing and it will be reconstructed as part of the assisted living facility,

            In and of itself, suicide lanes don’t slow traffic but it does reduce capacity.

          • BobRoll

            We agree. Too many people. Check this out

          • John Farrell

            We do not.

            The Luntian distortion of the photograph is obvious: over 80% of trips are made in a automobile while all other forms represent less than 20%.

            And that’s because the car offers greater flexiblity in scheduling and route selection, greater physical comfort and greater privacy.

            Thanks for letting us know what the real agenda of the “road diet” proponents is: to inconvenience drivers so much that they forsake their cars for the regimentation of mass transit.

            Thanks for clarifying that point for us.

          • BobRoll

            The photograph is to show the problem you state – too many people will mean more and more cars but that other alternatives exist that can fit into the existing limited space. It’s about choice Mr Farrell. So stop with this idea that cyclists want to get rid of cars. Every comment you made references that volume of motorists is on the rise – yet offer no solution to reducing that. I hope it’s not continued paving over of our communities.

            Cyclists are not in a war against cars much to your chagrin. In fact the vast majority own cars and agree they are a good choice at times. I’m not sure what flexibility in scheduling means – other than maybe you can leave at the last minute and speed to your destination. Comfort is a matter of personal preference and not sure what privacy means? As far as route selection – well you are determined to limit cyclists that choice.

            Plenty of communities in the US are investing in choice….for Fairfax not to is short sighted.

          • MakeRestonBetter

            I understand that behavior annoys you, but it doesn’t last long, and it doesn’t actually hurt you or anyone else. In fact, if you want the bike club riders to obey the law to the letter, they will ride single file and every single one of them will stop at the stop signs and lights. Because there isn’t enough room for sharing the lane, they will take the lane, meaning they will ride in such a fashion that you in your car cannot safely pass them. Your being stuck behind them will last much longer than it does now. The bike club’s rides are predictable and scheduled and are easily avoided. The issue here in changing these roads is protecting vulnerable road users from the speed of traffic that has become the norm as people try to find a faster way to get from the Metro Station to Lawyers Road and parts further south.

          • John Farrell

            So law breaking is ok so long as it’s quick?

            Car are allowed to pass bikes even if it means crossing the yellow line to do so, thus single file bike packs would not inhibit travel.

            But passing the 4-5 abreast bike packs would require extensive travel in the wrong lane, not generally safe except on the longest of straightaways.

            The real challenge is the am peak as large volumes are funnelled into smaller spaces. The pm rush is less daunting because dispersal is more wide spread.

          • Arielle in NoVA

            A bike pack goes through our neighborhood during the evening rush as well, not stopping for vehicle traffic or stop signs or pedestrians. It’s annoying, dangerous, and illegal. I get that they want to practice for races, but rush hour is NOT the time to do that.

      • Donald

        I believe the County already charges for emergency transport services when their Fire & Rescue is involved. Sad.


      • ceefer

        We already pay taxes for every one of those things you mentioned.

        So, your point is…?

    • Jenny Gibbers

      No more taxes, this is unnecessary

    • Jenny Gibbers

      I think we should have a tax for posting stupid comments like yours. And then another surtax for those that upvote your stupid comment.

      Once we have this tax law put into permanent legislation we wont need any other taxes. Problems solved.

  • Scott

    I generally find the need for bike lanes to be ridiculous on low volume roads like Glade and in areas where, when rounded, the number of bikers is zero. I travel soapstone often and rarely see a bike. Sharrows are stupid. No one pays attention and the group of 200 riders that go down Glade every Tuesday night will continue to take up the whole road and slow traffic to 15mph.

    I will say however, that the road diet on soapstone has been a good line. Instead of 4 narrow lanes that people speed around and must turn from, we have wider, single travel Lanes and separate turn lanes. It is better. Coltsneck is also a spedway where pedestrians gets killed and the intersection with south lakes has a high accident rate. Single travel Lanes and turning lanes will take accidents to almost zero. It might also cut down in the rush-hour “cut through”.

  • Jenny Gibbers

    Anyone who has lived here for a while knows that Reston is not bike friendly territory, not by design.

    Basically you have five or six large village centers that are disconnected from each other and disected by freeways: reston pkway, wiehle, the toll road, lawyers rd, soapstone – some of which claim lives each year.

    Then you have the poorly lit side streets, or street sections that have no lights at all. Combine that with road debris, inconsiderate motorists and other dangerous elements at dusk – bikers are taking a very high risk.

    The county also is to blame: poor planning and non functioning traffic devices. Little or no enforcement, from what I can tell impossible also.

    I would describe the situation as very bad and not fixable at this time. Save the tax dollars for bad times, we re at the peak of a cycle here, in case you havent noticed. Maybe the problem will fix itself in one of two ways: too many cars on the road or the economy tanks and people stop driving.

    My guess: pedestrians and cyclists win over the long term, no need to influence or spend any money on it. Safety will always be an issue. Drive decent!

    • vdiv

      Have you checked the climate in Reston recently? It is either freezing cold or burning hot, 30″ of snow or 300 kinds of pollen and 3000 kinds of mold in the air, hurricanes and derechos, wet leaves and black ice, humidity so heavy it condenses spontaneously into deluges, lightning strikes and wild animals (incl.humans) running and crossing everywhere.
      What part of that do you find bike-friendly? 🙂

      • Jenny Gibbers

        If people want to ride in extreme conditions that is their perogative but please stay out of my wallet.

  • Howard Wu

    What’s the point? The bikers will ride on the road anyway.

    • Dag Otto

      Yes we will, as we are legally allowed to do.

      • Kara Gardner Wills

        Bicycles and motorcycles are legally allowed as vehicles and therefore must follow all traffic laws just like an automobile. Stop at the stop signs, wait for the traffic light, signal lane changes/turns, no ‘riding the line’ between lanes of traffic.

      • The Constitutionalist

        I think you mean, as you are legally required to do. As only children age 12 and under are legally allowed to ride on the sidewalk.

        • BobRoll

          Per VA law, bicyclists are allowed to use the sidewalk except as noted below. Not aware of any VA jurisdictions in the NoVa area that have such an ordinance.

          The governing body of any county, city, or town may by ordinance prohibit the use of roller skates and skateboards and/or the riding of bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, motorized skateboards or foot-scooters, motor-driven cycles, or electric power-assisted bicycles on designated sidewalks or crosswalks, including those of any church, school, recreational facility, or any business property open to the public where such activity is prohibited. Signs indicating such prohibition shall be conspicuously posted in general areas where use of roller skates and skateboards, and/or bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility devices, motorized skateboards or foot-scooters, motor-driven cycles, or electric power-assisted bicycle riding is prohibited.

          A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorized skateboard or foot-scooter, motor-driven cycle, or an electric power-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk, shared-use path, or across a roadway on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties of a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

          • The Constitutionalist

            Very well, I will delete my previous post. However…

            VA State Law states:

            Bicyclists must ride with the flow of traffic on the right side of the highway.
            Bicyclists operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under conditions then existing shall ride as close as safely practicable to the right curb or edge of roadway. Exceptions to this are when bicyclists are overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, preparing for a left turn, avoiding unsafe conditions, avoiding riding in a lane that turns or diverges to the right, riding on a one way street where bicyclists may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of roadway, or when the lane width is too narrow to share with a motor vehicle. Additionally, bicycles are not excluded from riding on the highway shoulder.
            Bicyclists must not ride between two lanes of traffic moving in the same direction unless one lane is a separate or mandatory turn lane.
            Bicyclists cannot ride more than two abreast on highways. When riding two abreast, bicyclists cannot impede the movement of traffic and need to move into a single file when being overtaken from the rear. On a laned roadway, bicyclists shall ride in a single lane.
            Bicyclists are not permitted to ride on interstate and certain controlled access highways, unless the operation is limited to bicycle or pedestrian facilities that are barrier separated from the roadway and automobile traffic. The restricted sections of the highways are marked with conspicuous signs.
            Bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks unless prohibited by local ordinance or traffic control devices. While on sidewalks and shared use paths, bicyclists must always yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before passing a pedestrian.
            Bicyclists pulling onto a sidewalk or highway from a driveway must yield the right of way to pedestrians or vehicles already on the sidewalk or highway.
            Reference: §§ 46.2-802, 46.2-808, 46.2-826, 46.2-903, 46.2-904, 46.2-905, 46.2-907

          • BobRoll

            Why delete?

            Yes those are the laws. And one could easily post a series of laws regarding motorists. Commenting here does not change them or behavior. Talk to LE if you want them enforced. I have no problem if motorists and cyclists are treated equally under the law.

  • Bruce Wright

    Dave, the figure you cite for bike commuters is a very small portion of people who ride bikes. The Census Bureau folks ask respondents “How did the person usually get to work LAST WEEK.” If you biked to work 2 days and took Metro or drove on the other 3 days, then taking transit or driving are the answer. If you biked to Metro every day and then took Metro for a longer trip, then taking transit is the answer. Same with driving part way and then biking part way. Any trip other than biking to work is not counted, so all the people riding on the weekends or riding anywhere other than to work are not counted.

    • John Farrell

      That’s not an accurate description of the methodology.

      • BobRoll

        Per the Census Bureau’s report May 2014.

        “ACS questions related to travel focus solely on commuting and do not ask about leisure travel or other nonwork trips. Commutes may involve multiple transportation modes, but ACS respondents are restricted to indicating the single mode used for the longest distance.”

        “Because bicycling and walking often serve as secondary travel modes that supplement modes such as transit or driving, some commutes that involve bicycling and walking are not reflected as such in the ACS because another mode is used for a longer distance. “

        • John Farrell

          The traffic counts that VDOT and FCDOT use come from actual traffic counts, not surveys.

          In that methodology, all trips are counted, not just trips to/from work. When that’s done, the percentage of trips made by bicycle fall to less than 0.4%, though there is some minor variability based on place and time.

          • BobRoll

            What is the source of bicycle trips to get to 0.4%

          • John Farrell


  • RestonLyons

    You go to Arlington and see bike lanes everywhere, same in DC. Reston is an ideal place for bike lanes. We really need them on North Shore drive. It is best for those in their cars and those on bikes, for example bike riders can only travel in single file.

    • Ugh

      North Shore needs better lighting or some bike riders are going to get killed.

      • Greg

        All of Reston needs better lighting. Of the few lights we do have, most of them are ancient inefficient technology using toxic materials mercury- and sodium- vapor light sources. And, as most of us know, those bulbs burn out and dim frequently and are infrequently replaced.

        Lake Anne uses even more inefficient incandescent lamps.

        • vdiv

          Lake Anne has actually replaced most incandescents with LEDs. Still rather dim.

  • RestonLyons

    and so will the cars.

  • Big Drop

    With all of the proposals for development in Reston (does anyone reading this know how much is proposed for Sunrise Valley alone?) we should be talking about additional lanes for cars, let alone bikes. There are several thousand apartment units currently under construction which alone may add three to four thousand more people as residents. And Town Center: it is a half mile from the Metro which spans the Toll road to the skating rink. Does anyone really think that people will walk if it is raining or it is cold? Traffic is already gridlocked there in the rush hours. Town Center’s Signature apartments will add more than 500 units and the apartments next to Oracle will add over 400. That’s more than 2,000 people, most of whom will be driving. And, I’m not including the 21 story condominium proposed for the area next to the Stratford House?

    Did I mention that there is a consideration to increase the density at Town Center by 50% or so?

    • johnson

      Seems some folks have gone off on a “bicyclist tangent” and are missing your point.

      I agree with your original comment. Bicycle lanes or not, “they” are increasing the density of Reston as a whole and putting roads on a diet? How do these people get these jobs? “Hey, lets really create more traffic and add stress to people’s lives in addition to increasing the density. Let’s cut lanes and make them sit in traffic! Then when we need to change it back, we can raise taxes for road improvements. “

  • MakeRestonBetter

    What I don’t understand here is the antipathy towards people who simply make a different choice than many of you would. Are we all supposed to be exactly the same? I’m sure there are things in your life where you’re a minority of the people who do that thing, but you still want to do it in a fashion that is safe. People who ride bikes and who walk also pay taxes – many also drive so pay all of those taxes as well. Just because you don’t like our choices does not make us worth less consideration as human beings. Reston is going through a tough time as we transition to a higher density community in the transit station area. Tearing each other apart, endangering each other through incendiary language — these are not Reston values.

    • The Constitutionalist

      Incendiary language endangered you? Really?

      • MakeRestonBetter

        Yes, language that treats an entire group of people as lesser creates an atmosphere in which individuals of that group are seen in the same way. For example, language that argues all immigrants are criminals creates an atmosphere in which the next time a susceptible person sees an immigrant, he sees that individual as a potential criminal and values that person less. With the issue of people riding bike on the road, it becomes dangerous because of the unequal forces at work: car vs. human boy. Many cyclists have had the experience of someone in a car “nosing over” to “teach us a lesson” when the actual cyclist isn’t the one did anything “wrong”.

        • The Constitutionalist

          What the literal hell are you talking about?

          This is about cycling, not immigrants. Stay on track…

          The only unequal force at work here is both the incredible fallacy of the bike lane necessity and the sheer difference between the weight of someone’s car and you on a bike.

          And the only thing that caused you to be endangered here is the person “nosing over” to teach you a lesson. Not words. Did they yell mean things at you when they drove by?

          Toughen up, buttercup.

          • MakeRestonBetter

            Using the immigrant example was just that – an analogy. Vilifying an entire group of people contributes to group think marginalization of those people – immigrants, LGBTQ people, etc. The people doing the vilifying belong to a self righteous majority group who think it is up to them to correct everyone else’s actions and choices.

            I don’t care if people yell mean things. I do care if they use their vehicle as a weapon – which is what is going on when they try to run me off the road. It is especially galling when I am exactly where I have a right to be, am complying with the law, but am being punished for others’ walking or cycling behaviors — which may or may not be illegal. Even if their behavior isn’t legal, it doesn’t give anyone in a vehicle the right to punish them.

            So many of you who comment on RestonNow are so threatened by change – it’s impossible to have a conversation with you. I’m finished here and happy to go be productive – and yes, walk and ride my bicycle.

          • The Constitutionalist

            We’re not threatened by all change. We are threatened by these changes, as the vast majority (you said it yourself) is going to be negatively affected by the county using money, that could positively affect the vast majority, to appease the vast minority.

            What’s so galling about this whole thing is that it’s going to be mostly funded by people who will never use this “service” and this very same “service” will be responsible, at least in part, for their quality of life degrading as they’ll be required to spend more time in traffic, and less time doing the things they enjoy (running cyclists off the road and oppressing immigrants and LGBTQ – according to you).

  • The Constitutionalist

    If you bike at all, you bike far more than the average American.

  • RestonPeep

    Wow….what a crazy thread. Lots of chatter about bike lanes or no bike lanes as well as what seems to be a dislike of bikes or those who ride them.

    But the elephant in the room is that Reston is going to be a log jam of cars. At least the bicyclists are offering one solution to help reduce cars – like it or not. For those who don’t like that solution – what do you suggest?


Subscribe to our mailing list