Thanks to the bike party organizers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The federal grant will cover about 23 percent of the pedestrian crossing’s cost, estimated at about $88 million, according to the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, which is overseeing the project."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/08/11/dc-infrastructure-projects-federal-grants/

$88 million? For a bike bridge? Why are we gold plating this thing?

A more recent article said $52 million. And of that, the fed are paying over $50 million of it, with DC (350k) and VA (the balance) the rest.

And another article says it's two bike bridges.

If the federal government is paying for it that's great because it seems very extravagent. But either way, why is it so damn expensive?

Where did you just arrive from? Building and maintaining any infrastructure is insanely expensive in this part of the world. The amounts being put into rehabilitating the Northeast Rail Corridor are eye-watering. Googling will take you to a few good articles that explain why.

Context: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/27/how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost
Keep in mind those numbers are from 2014, so you need to add about 40% for construction inflation.

This bridge is about as expensive as building one mile of collector road.

It's the road equivalent of flat rural basic road, which is much cheaper, and it's only a mile.

If the feds are paying than whatever but it doesn't make sense economically and is over complicated. They should have just built a new 4 rail bridge and converted the old one into a pedestrian/bike path but I assume they didn't do that because the old rail bridge is privately owned.

Do you even know what rural means or what a bridge is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

not the PP you are replying to, but, the PP was making the point that no one adheres to the laws, and when one is operating a 2 ton vehicle and not obeying the law, the consequences are far different than one walking or being on a bike and not obeying the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The federal grant will cover about 23 percent of the pedestrian crossing’s cost, estimated at about $88 million, according to the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, which is overseeing the project."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/08/11/dc-infrastructure-projects-federal-grants/

$88 million? For a bike bridge? Why are we gold plating this thing?

A more recent article said $52 million. And of that, the fed are paying over $50 million of it, with DC (350k) and VA (the balance) the rest.

And another article says it's two bike bridges.

If the federal government is paying for it that's great because it seems very extravagent. But either way, why is it so damn expensive?

Where did you just arrive from? Building and maintaining any infrastructure is insanely expensive in this part of the world. The amounts being put into rehabilitating the Northeast Rail Corridor are eye-watering. Googling will take you to a few good articles that explain why.

Context: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/27/how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost
Keep in mind those numbers are from 2014, so you need to add about 40% for construction inflation.

This bridge is about as expensive as building one mile of collector road.

It's the road equivalent of flat rural basic road, which is much cheaper, and it's only a mile.

If the feds are paying than whatever but it doesn't make sense economically and is over complicated. They should have just built a new 4 rail bridge and converted the old one into a pedestrian/bike path but I assume they didn't do that because the old rail bridge is privately owned.

Do you even know what rural means or what a bridge is?

I do. In this case it has to do with specifications regarding usage and complications regarding surrounding development although obviously a bridge is more complicated. That's why it doesn't make sense to build a dedicated separate bridge.

Bicycles as equivalent transportation is your underlying fallacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The federal grant will cover about 23 percent of the pedestrian crossing’s cost, estimated at about $88 million, according to the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, which is overseeing the project."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/08/11/dc-infrastructure-projects-federal-grants/

$88 million? For a bike bridge? Why are we gold plating this thing?

A more recent article said $52 million. And of that, the fed are paying over $50 million of it, with DC (350k) and VA (the balance) the rest.

And another article says it's two bike bridges.

If the federal government is paying for it that's great because it seems very extravagent. But either way, why is it so damn expensive?

Where did you just arrive from? Building and maintaining any infrastructure is insanely expensive in this part of the world. The amounts being put into rehabilitating the Northeast Rail Corridor are eye-watering. Googling will take you to a few good articles that explain why.

Context: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/27/how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost
Keep in mind those numbers are from 2014, so you need to add about 40% for construction inflation.

This bridge is about as expensive as building one mile of collector road.

It's the road equivalent of flat rural basic road, which is much cheaper, and it's only a mile.

If the feds are paying than whatever but it doesn't make sense economically and is over complicated. They should have just built a new 4 rail bridge and converted the old one into a pedestrian/bike path but I assume they didn't do that because the old rail bridge is privately owned.

Do you even know what rural means or what a bridge is?

I do. In this case it has to do with specifications regarding usage and complications regarding surrounding development although obviously a bridge is more complicated. That's why it doesn't make sense to build a dedicated separate bridge.

Bicycles as equivalent transportation is your underlying fallacy.

So you take issue anyone anywhere allocating public funds towards recreational projects like a bridge allowing walkers, bikers, and rollers to travel between two public parks. You also take issue with people meeting other people in a public park. Do you have any other personal hang-ups you want to share with the group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The federal grant will cover about 23 percent of the pedestrian crossing’s cost, estimated at about $88 million, according to the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, which is overseeing the project."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/08/11/dc-infrastructure-projects-federal-grants/

$88 million? For a bike bridge? Why are we gold plating this thing?

A more recent article said $52 million. And of that, the fed are paying over $50 million of it, with DC (350k) and VA (the balance) the rest.

And another article says it's two bike bridges.

If the federal government is paying for it that's great because it seems very extravagent. But either way, why is it so damn expensive?

Where did you just arrive from? Building and maintaining any infrastructure is insanely expensive in this part of the world. The amounts being put into rehabilitating the Northeast Rail Corridor are eye-watering. Googling will take you to a few good articles that explain why.

Context: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/27/how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost
Keep in mind those numbers are from 2014, so you need to add about 40% for construction inflation.

This bridge is about as expensive as building one mile of collector road.

It's the road equivalent of flat rural basic road, which is much cheaper, and it's only a mile.

If the feds are paying than whatever but it doesn't make sense economically and is over complicated. They should have just built a new 4 rail bridge and converted the old one into a pedestrian/bike path but I assume they didn't do that because the old rail bridge is privately owned.

Do you even know what rural means or what a bridge is?

I do. In this case it has to do with specifications regarding usage and complications regarding surrounding development although obviously a bridge is more complicated. That's why it doesn't make sense to build a dedicated separate bridge.

Bicycles as equivalent transportation is your underlying fallacy.

You do realize that rural labor markets are different than the DC labor market right? And that urban areas have all sorts of issues with regulation, oversight and usage that rural areas do not? That's why the costs are higher. And bridges are way more complicated than roads for many reasons. Its why there are so few Potomac river crossings when there are dozens of roads that connect DC to MD.

You're right, there is no equivalency. How many cars can you get across the Potomac for $53 million dollars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

For the umpteenth time, the Idaho Stop is legal for cyclists in DC. The Idaho Stop is not legal for motor vehicles, but a casual observation of any given intersection in DC will reveal that the percentage of cars that actually come to a full stop before the line is in the single digits. And, yes, not coming to a full stop at an intersection with a stop sign is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The federal grant will cover about 23 percent of the pedestrian crossing’s cost, estimated at about $88 million, according to the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, which is overseeing the project."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/08/11/dc-infrastructure-projects-federal-grants/

$88 million? For a bike bridge? Why are we gold plating this thing?

A more recent article said $52 million. And of that, the fed are paying over $50 million of it, with DC (350k) and VA (the balance) the rest.

And another article says it's two bike bridges.

If the federal government is paying for it that's great because it seems very extravagent. But either way, why is it so damn expensive?

Where did you just arrive from? Building and maintaining any infrastructure is insanely expensive in this part of the world. The amounts being put into rehabilitating the Northeast Rail Corridor are eye-watering. Googling will take you to a few good articles that explain why.

Context: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/27/how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost
Keep in mind those numbers are from 2014, so you need to add about 40% for construction inflation.

This bridge is about as expensive as building one mile of collector road.

It's the road equivalent of flat rural basic road, which is much cheaper, and it's only a mile.

If the feds are paying than whatever but it doesn't make sense economically and is over complicated. They should have just built a new 4 rail bridge and converted the old one into a pedestrian/bike path but I assume they didn't do that because the old rail bridge is privately owned.

Do you even know what rural means or what a bridge is?

I do. In this case it has to do with specifications regarding usage and complications regarding surrounding development although obviously a bridge is more complicated. That's why it doesn't make sense to build a dedicated separate bridge.

Bicycles as equivalent transportation is your underlying fallacy.

So you take issue anyone anywhere allocating public funds towards recreational projects like a bridge allowing walkers, bikers, and rollers to travel between two public parks. You also take issue with people meeting other people in a public park. Do you have any other personal hang-ups you want to share with the group?

The only people who want this crap are cyclists. No one else is asking for it. No one else is even aware of these projects. Cyclists pretend that their stuff is also for other people because otherwise it looks insane that we're spending $50 million on a project that will be used by maybe 100 cyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

For the umpteenth time, the Idaho Stop is legal for cyclists in DC. The Idaho Stop is not legal for motor vehicles, but a casual observation of any given intersection in DC will reveal that the percentage of cars that actually come to a full stop before the line is in the single digits. And, yes, not coming to a full stop at an intersection with a stop sign is illegal.

'
Idaho stops are only legal for cyclists when no one else has the right of way at an intersection. You should really learn this stuff if you're going to ride a bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

For the umpteenth time, the Idaho Stop is legal for cyclists in DC. The Idaho Stop is not legal for motor vehicles, but a casual observation of any given intersection in DC will reveal that the percentage of cars that actually come to a full stop before the line is in the single digits. And, yes, not coming to a full stop at an intersection with a stop sign is illegal.

'
Idaho stops are only legal for cyclists when no one else has the right of way at an intersection. You should really learn this stuff if you're going to ride a bike.

"Sec. 9d. Riders' safe crossing at intersections.

"(a) A rider approaching a stop sign may go straight through the intersection or make a turn without stopping; provided, that the rider:

"(1) Is travelling at an appropriate speed to reasonably assess and avoid hazards;

"(2) Determines there is no immediate hazard; and

"(3) Yields the right-of-way to pedestrians and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

There were 41 reported car accidents on the most recently available full day of reporting, with possible reports still coming in: https://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/DCGIS::crashes-in-dc/explore

What sort of police/fire/medical resources do you think those accidents consume? That's with current "law abiding" drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

On my daily walks, I can count on one hand the number of drivers who stop their cars in accordance with the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The federal grant will cover about 23 percent of the pedestrian crossing’s cost, estimated at about $88 million, according to the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, which is overseeing the project."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/08/11/dc-infrastructure-projects-federal-grants/

$88 million? For a bike bridge? Why are we gold plating this thing?

A more recent article said $52 million. And of that, the fed are paying over $50 million of it, with DC (350k) and VA (the balance) the rest.

And another article says it's two bike bridges.

If the federal government is paying for it that's great because it seems very extravagent. But either way, why is it so damn expensive?

Where did you just arrive from? Building and maintaining any infrastructure is insanely expensive in this part of the world. The amounts being put into rehabilitating the Northeast Rail Corridor are eye-watering. Googling will take you to a few good articles that explain why.

Context: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/27/how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost
Keep in mind those numbers are from 2014, so you need to add about 40% for construction inflation.

This bridge is about as expensive as building one mile of collector road.

It's the road equivalent of flat rural basic road, which is much cheaper, and it's only a mile.

If the feds are paying than whatever but it doesn't make sense economically and is over complicated. They should have just built a new 4 rail bridge and converted the old one into a pedestrian/bike path but I assume they didn't do that because the old rail bridge is privately owned.

Do you even know what rural means or what a bridge is?

I do. In this case it has to do with specifications regarding usage and complications regarding surrounding development although obviously a bridge is more complicated. That's why it doesn't make sense to build a dedicated separate bridge.

Bicycles as equivalent transportation is your underlying fallacy.

So you take issue anyone anywhere allocating public funds towards recreational projects like a bridge allowing walkers, bikers, and rollers to travel between two public parks. You also take issue with people meeting other people in a public park. Do you have any other personal hang-ups you want to share with the group?

The only people who want this crap are cyclists. No one else is asking for it. No one else is even aware of these projects. Cyclists pretend that their stuff is also for other people because otherwise it looks insane that we're spending $50 million on a project that will be used by maybe 100 cyclists.

You keep citing this while ignoring the thousands of cyclists commuting and running errands every day. Capital Bikeshare has like 20,000 trips per day now. Imagine if all of those bike trips were instead cars.