Thanks to the bike party organizers!

[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:

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.

This is the attitude that gets 40,000 Americans killed every year. And yes, you can engineer away the vast majority of those deaths and injuries. You just don't want to try.
Other countries have 1/3rd the fatalities per mile driven, and most of that difference is design.

Next party starts tomorrow at the van ness metro around 6:30

The bike party will be led around by the local ANC with middle fingers extended.

Looks like tens of people had a fun protest ride tonight.

[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:

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.

This is the attitude that gets 40,000 Americans killed every year. And yes, you can engineer away the vast majority of those deaths and injuries. You just don't want to try.
Other countries have 1/3rd the fatalities per mile driven, and most of that difference is design.

Next party starts tomorrow at the van ness metro around 6:30

The bike party will be led around by the local ANC with middle fingers extended.

Looks like tens of people had a fun protest ride tonight.

Few hundred. Did you learn to count at the same place you learned to drive and that's why you fail so hard at both?

https://twitter.com/DcSafer/status/1783279454627741937

[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:

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.

This is the attitude that gets 40,000 Americans killed every year. And yes, you can engineer away the vast majority of those deaths and injuries. You just don't want to try.
Other countries have 1/3rd the fatalities per mile driven, and most of that difference is design.

Next party starts tomorrow at the van ness metro around 6:30

The bike party will be led around by the local ANC with middle fingers extended.

Looks like tens of people had a fun protest ride tonight.

Few hundred. Did you learn to count at the same place you learned to drive and that's why you fail so hard at both?

https://twitter.com/DcSafer/status/1783279454627741937

What exactly does this hissy fit think that it is going to accomplish?

[Anonymous]

Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

If the budget is tight, we should turn more car infrastructure into bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure is a lot cheaper to maintain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

If the budget is tight, we should turn more car infrastructure into bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure is a lot cheaper to maintain.

This is the most bike bros thing that has ever been said.

[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:

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.

This is the attitude that gets 40,000 Americans killed every year. And yes, you can engineer away the vast majority of those deaths and injuries. You just don't want to try.
Other countries have 1/3rd the fatalities per mile driven, and most of that difference is design.

Next party starts tomorrow at the van ness metro around 6:30

The bike party will be led around by the local ANC with middle fingers extended.

Looks like tens of people had a fun protest ride tonight.

Few hundred. Did you learn to count at the same place you learned to drive and that's why you fail so hard at both?

https://twitter.com/DcSafer/status/1783279454627741937

Dozens of people.

[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:

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.

This is the attitude that gets 40,000 Americans killed every year. And yes, you can engineer away the vast majority of those deaths and injuries. You just don't want to try.
Other countries have 1/3rd the fatalities per mile driven, and most of that difference is design.

Next party starts tomorrow at the van ness metro around 6:30

The bike party will be led around by the local ANC with middle fingers extended.

Looks like tens of people had a fun protest ride tonight.

Few hundred. Did you learn to count at the same place you learned to drive and that's why you fail so hard at both?

https://twitter.com/DcSafer/status/1783279454627741937

What exactly does this hissy fit think that it is going to accomplish?

Climate protestors
Truckers
Big Ben
Parliament

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

If the budget is tight, we should turn more car infrastructure into bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure is a lot cheaper to maintain.

This is the most bike bros thing that has ever been said.

Its somewhat tongue in cheek response to the "we don't have money for bike infrastructure" complaints, but the reality is that roads are incredibly expensive to maintain. Its why so many roads around here are in such disrepair. There just isn't enough money to go around to keep up. Vehicles are getting heavier doing more damage to roads, while construction costs are outstripping inflation. Drivers refuse to pay more and general revenue is tight. Its a recipe for, self-inflicted, disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

If the budget is tight, we should turn more car infrastructure into bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure is a lot cheaper to maintain.

This is the most bike bros thing that has ever been said.

Its somewhat tongue in cheek response to the "we don't have money for bike infrastructure" complaints, but the reality is that roads are incredibly expensive to maintain. Its why so many roads around here are in such disrepair. There just isn't enough money to go around to keep up. Vehicles are getting heavier doing more damage to roads, while construction costs are outstripping inflation. Drivers refuse to pay more and general revenue is tight. Its a recipe for, self-inflicted, disaster.

No form of transportation has a higher cost per user than bicycling. It is astronomical. The city has spend billions for the benefit for an absurdly small group of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

Option C was the preferred choice until people opposed decided to fight it.

The bike lanes will only be dead when there isn't another recourse. Until then, advocates will show the support for the safety improvements (more signatures in a week than the opponents collected in 2+ years) show where the Mayor and DDOT are wrong and try to ensure there is a safe North-South route on Connecticut Avenue is preserved as is codified in the MoveDC plan (we don't need another plan) and in compliance with both Vision Zero and the DC Sustainability Plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

If the budget is tight, we should turn more car infrastructure into bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure is a lot cheaper to maintain.

This is the most bike bros thing that has ever been said.

Its somewhat tongue in cheek response to the "we don't have money for bike infrastructure" complaints, but the reality is that roads are incredibly expensive to maintain. Its why so many roads around here are in such disrepair. There just isn't enough money to go around to keep up. Vehicles are getting heavier doing more damage to roads, while construction costs are outstripping inflation. Drivers refuse to pay more and general revenue is tight. Its a recipe for, self-inflicted, disaster.

No form of transportation has a higher cost per user than bicycling. It is astronomical. The city has spend billions for the benefit for an absurdly small group of people.

You are not factoring in the subsidies at the federal and local level for cars, fuel and the externalities around pollution, health, safety and military expenditure in the middle east. When you factor those costs in, cycling is easily the more cost-effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

If the budget is tight, we should turn more car infrastructure into bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure is a lot cheaper to maintain.

This is the most bike bros thing that has ever been said.

Its somewhat tongue in cheek response to the "we don't have money for bike infrastructure" complaints, but the reality is that roads are incredibly expensive to maintain. Its why so many roads around here are in such disrepair. There just isn't enough money to go around to keep up. Vehicles are getting heavier doing more damage to roads, while construction costs are outstripping inflation. Drivers refuse to pay more and general revenue is tight. Its a recipe for, self-inflicted, disaster.

No form of transportation has a higher cost per user than bicycling. It is astronomical. The city has spend billions for the benefit for an absurdly small group of people.

You are not factoring in the subsidies at the federal and local level for cars, fuel and the externalities around pollution, health, safety and military expenditure in the middle east. When you factor those costs in, cycling is easily the more cost-effective.

This is the second most bike bros statement ever and a perfect reflection of how deeply unserious and narcissistic they are. Bikes are now the solution to Israel and Palestine, GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

If the budget is tight, we should turn more car infrastructure into bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure is a lot cheaper to maintain.

This is the most bike bros thing that has ever been said.

Its somewhat tongue in cheek response to the "we don't have money for bike infrastructure" complaints, but the reality is that roads are incredibly expensive to maintain. Its why so many roads around here are in such disrepair. There just isn't enough money to go around to keep up. Vehicles are getting heavier doing more damage to roads, while construction costs are outstripping inflation. Drivers refuse to pay more and general revenue is tight. Its a recipe for, self-inflicted, disaster.

No form of transportation has a higher cost per user than bicycling. It is astronomical. The city has spend billions for the benefit for an absurdly small group of people.

You are not factoring in the subsidies at the federal and local level for cars, fuel and the externalities around pollution, health, safety and military expenditure in the middle east. When you factor those costs in, cycling is easily the more cost-effective.

This is the second most bike bros statement ever and a perfect reflection of how deeply unserious and narcissistic they are. Bikes are now the solution to Israel and Palestine, GMAFB.

It may not bring peace to the middle east, but bike lanes will win the war on obesity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

If the budget is tight, we should turn more car infrastructure into bike infrastructure. Bike infrastructure is a lot cheaper to maintain.

This is the most bike bros thing that has ever been said.

Its somewhat tongue in cheek response to the "we don't have money for bike infrastructure" complaints, but the reality is that roads are incredibly expensive to maintain. Its why so many roads around here are in such disrepair. There just isn't enough money to go around to keep up. Vehicles are getting heavier doing more damage to roads, while construction costs are outstripping inflation. Drivers refuse to pay more and general revenue is tight. Its a recipe for, self-inflicted, disaster.

No form of transportation has a higher cost per user than bicycling. It is astronomical. The city has spend billions for the benefit for an absurdly small group of people.

You are not factoring in the subsidies at the federal and local level for cars, fuel and the externalities around pollution, health, safety and military expenditure in the middle east. When you factor those costs in, cycling is easily the more cost-effective.

This is the second most bike bros statement ever and a perfect reflection of how deeply unserious and narcissistic they are. Bikes are now the solution to Israel and Palestine, GMAFB.

It may not bring peace to the middle east, but bike lanes will win the war on obesity.

There is truly nothing that bike lanes can't fix. Hook some generators up to them and boom. Instant renewable and sustainable energy.