Thanks to the bike party organizers!

[Anonymous]

Like I said earlier, you are wasting your time engaging with cyclist. They want cars to go away--literally, and have the roads be cyclist and pedestrian only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like I said earlier, you are wasting your time engaging with cyclist. They want cars to go away--literally, and have the roads be cyclist and pedestrian only.

Anyone who has such poor comprehension of the English language would indeed be wasting their time trying to engage in nuanced discussion.

[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:

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.

That is indeed the law and cyclists should abide by it. Now that we have that established, we eagerly await your views on the proliferation of reckless driving in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like I said earlier, you are wasting your time engaging with cyclist. They want cars to go away--literally, and have the roads be cyclist and pedestrian only.

I would ask this, why should we design our places for cars rather than for people? Places designed for people are inherently preferable to places designed for cars. There is a reason why people live here instead of Houston.

When people go on vacation, most people try to get as far away from cars as possible. Think how awful Disney World would be if you had to drive from Space Mountain to TRON. Who would want to be at a beach with an idling truck next to them? How would you like driving to the top of a ski slope? Parking your SUV next to the green?

Put a car in those environments and its absolutely ruined. The same happens with cities, but most Americans just don't realize there are alternatives. They lack imagination.

[Anonymous]

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.

Then why not join the anti-bike lane crowd in the push for more law and order in DC? More police. More prosecution. More consequences for violators of traffic AND criminal violations. Join us, together we can take back our city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like I said earlier, you are wasting your time engaging with cyclist. They want cars to go away--literally, and have the roads be cyclist and pedestrian only.

I would ask this, why should we design our places for cars rather than for people? Places designed for people are inherently preferable to places designed for cars. There is a reason why people live here instead of Houston.

When people go on vacation, most people try to get as far away from cars as possible. Think how awful Disney World would be if you had to drive from Space Mountain to TRON. Who would want to be at a beach with an idling truck next to them? How would you like driving to the top of a ski slope? Parking your SUV next to the green?

Put a car in those environments and its absolutely ruined. The same happens with cities, but most Americans just don't realize there are alternatives. They lack imagination.

I was just on vacation in NYC. We walked from one park to another, successfully crossed a busy street (using the crosswalk) and then my son got ran over by a e-bike/CitiBike rider who came flying down a bike path so fast that he had to swerve around the other cyclists that stopped at the pedestrian crossing. We spent 6 hours at the ED and thankfully son wasn't seriously injured but I do wish we had driven to the park instead.

[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.

Then why not join the anti-bike lane crowd in the push for more law and order in DC? More police. More prosecution. More consequences for violators of traffic AND criminal violations. Join us, together we can take back our city.

It’s hysterical that you think that there is any link between those supporting / opposing bike lanes and those calling / not calling for increased enforcement. If anything, the correlation is the opposite of what you describe. All of the people I hear in public meetings asking the MPD, Council, and the mayor to enforce the city’s laws are cyclists who every day are endangered by the prevailing lawlessness on the roads. All I hear the anti-bike lane crowd railing against are bike lanes.

[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.

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.

Says the cyclist who wants the city to spend $50 million to build him and his friends their own bridge next to a bridge that's already there.

The daytime population of Washington DC is one million. That's a lot of people moving around and accidents are inevitable (that's why we call them accidents!). Everyone who is on the road, regardless of how they are moving about, should expect to be in an accident sooner or later. (The notion that we can engineer away accident is silly).

That said, it would be helpful if we got the police back in the traffic enforcement game (something WABA opposes!). Traffic cameras basically only catch tourists and they give a free pass to people who are driving while high or drunk who are the most dangerous people on the road.

[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.

Then why not join the anti-bike lane crowd in the push for more law and order in DC? More police. More prosecution. More consequences for violators of traffic AND criminal violations. Join us, together we can take back our city.

It’s hysterical that you think that there is any link between those supporting / opposing bike lanes and those calling / not calling for increased enforcement. If anything, the correlation is the opposite of what you describe. All of the people I hear in public meetings asking the MPD, Council, and the mayor to enforce the city’s laws are cyclists who every day are endangered by the prevailing lawlessness on the roads. All I hear the anti-bike lane crowd railing against are bike lanes.

Every Council Member that supports bike lanes also supports marijuana decriminalization, legalization of illegal street vending, decriminalization of turnstile jumping, increasing threshold for felony thefts. You name it. They want less police and less enforcement. And they want bike lanes. It’s the same crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like I said earlier, you are wasting your time engaging with cyclist. They want cars to go away--literally, and have the roads be cyclist and pedestrian only.

I would ask this, why should we design our places for cars rather than for people? Places designed for people are inherently preferable to places designed for cars. There is a reason why people live here instead of Houston.

When people go on vacation, most people try to get as far away from cars as possible. Think how awful Disney World would be if you had to drive from Space Mountain to TRON. Who would want to be at a beach with an idling truck next to them? How would you like driving to the top of a ski slope? Parking your SUV next to the green?

Put a car in those environments and its absolutely ruined. The same happens with cities, but most Americans just don't realize there are alternatives. They lack imagination.

Do you think people have never heard of bikes? Is that what you think the issue is?

People don't want to bike because they think biking fcking sucks.

Look at DC. We've had bike lanes for 15 years and the number of people on bicycles is *shrinking*. It's not that they haven't given it a chance. It's that they aren't interested.

Some of you cyclists have a real stalker vibe, where you can't seem to accept that people are saying no thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like I said earlier, you are wasting your time engaging with cyclist. They want cars to go away--literally, and have the roads be cyclist and pedestrian only.

I would ask this, why should we design our places for cars rather than for people? Places designed for people are inherently preferable to places designed for cars. There is a reason why people live here instead of Houston.

When people go on vacation, most people try to get as far away from cars as possible. Think how awful Disney World would be if you had to drive from Space Mountain to TRON. Who would want to be at a beach with an idling truck next to them? How would you like driving to the top of a ski slope? Parking your SUV next to the green?

Put a car in those environments and its absolutely ruined. The same happens with cities, but most Americans just don't realize there are alternatives. They lack imagination.

I don't like Houston because it is hot and has no sidewalks. That being said, Houston is the 4th largest city in the US and has higher population growth than we do as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Capital Bikeshare mostly replaces walking and mass transit

[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?

No. I take issue with spending $52-88 million on a dedicated detached bike bridge. I would have no problem with something less costly and think it's a good idea to connect the two parks even though I don't think many will use the connection.

I don't take any issue with people meeting in a park as long as they clean up their trash and are considerate towards the other people in the park at the time.

[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.

Then why not join the anti-bike lane crowd in the push for more law and order in DC? More police. More prosecution. More consequences for violators of traffic AND criminal violations. Join us, together we can take back our city.

It’s hysterical that you think that there is any link between those supporting / opposing bike lanes and those calling / not calling for increased enforcement. If anything, the correlation is the opposite of what you describe. All of the people I hear in public meetings asking the MPD, Council, and the mayor to enforce the city’s laws are cyclists who every day are endangered by the prevailing lawlessness on the roads. All I hear the anti-bike lane crowd railing against are bike lanes.

Every Council Member that supports bike lanes also supports marijuana decriminalization, legalization of illegal street vending, decriminalization of turnstile jumping, increasing threshold for felony thefts. You name it. They want less police and less enforcement. And they want bike lanes. It’s the same crowd.

They don't want less policing and less enforcement. They want police (ie limited resources) to focus on things that matter. Traffic cameras can do a lot of enforcement and more evenly than a human. There is no reason for pot to be illegal. But getting guns under control and providing opportunity for youth to be postively engaged in the community will provide better outcomes.

[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?

No. I take issue with spending $52-88 million on a dedicated detached bike bridge. I would have no problem with something less costly and think it's a good idea to connect the two parks even though I don't think many will use the connection.

I don't take any issue with people meeting in a park as long as they clean up their trash and are considerate towards the other people in the park at the time.

Its a good thing almost all of that money is coming from the federal treasury, then.