Thanks to the bike party organizers!

[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.

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.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

These folks never spare themselves a moment to destroy their own credibility. I wonder at what point they will get tired of embarrassing themselves.

[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.

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.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

[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:

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

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of bad vehicle driver behavior, but the myopic entitlement of some cyclists is concerning, too. Just this morning, a dad with two young kids in a cargo bike came sailing through an intersection without stopping at the 4-way stop. A car had already entered the intersection to cross it.

This happened to me the other day. I was turning left at a four way stop and a cyclist came flying in front of me, with a small child on the back of his bike. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting him and laid on the horn and the cyclist acted like he did nothing wrong. Poor child. Son of an idiot who's going to get him killed.

Love that bicyclists asked for the Idaho stop law and now they're like "yeah we're not going to obey that law either"

I know, right?!?!?!

Priceless!!!!

Drivers should push for a mandatory helmet law for anyone on a bike. Then cyclists will reflexively refuse to wear them because it’s a traffic law. That might save the lives of more people on organ-donation-waiting-lists, when un-helmeted cyclists blow through red lights and wind up with their heads smooshed under someone’s tire.

It’s worth a try.

[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.

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.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

LOL. If I don’t get what I want no one should get anything is called hostage taking. The bike bros did the same thing on the K Street Transitway. People are pretty tired of this crap and thankfully the ANC doesn’t get to decide, which makes them look foolish because it just shows how much antipathy they have towards everyone else in the community.

[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:

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

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

I didn't know we had thousands of ambivalent people that checked in directly with you. Thanks for the feedback!

[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:

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

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

The main argument voiced against the CT Ave bike lanes was that no one would use them. Yet when hundreds of cyclists show up to bike down CT Ave, you lose your sh*t. Schrödinger’s cyclist strikes again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of bad vehicle driver behavior, but the myopic entitlement of some cyclists is concerning, too. Just this morning, a dad with two young kids in a cargo bike came sailing through an intersection without stopping at the 4-way stop. A car had already entered the intersection to cross it.

This happened to me the other day. I was turning left at a four way stop and a cyclist came flying in front of me, with a small child on the back of his bike. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting him and laid on the horn and the cyclist acted like he did nothing wrong. Poor child. Son of an idiot who's going to get him killed.

Love that bicyclists asked for the Idaho stop law and now they're like "yeah we're not going to obey that law either"

I know, right?!?!?!

Priceless!!!!

Drivers should push for a mandatory helmet law for anyone on a bike. Then cyclists will reflexively refuse to wear them because it’s a traffic law. That might save the lives of more people on organ-donation-waiting-lists, when un-helmeted cyclists blow through red lights and wind up with their heads smooshed under someone’s tire.

It’s worth a try.

On a chilly Friday morning in DC, nothing warms the heart quite like reading accounts of motorists wishing death upon 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:

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

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

The main argument voiced against the CT Ave bike lanes was that no one would use them. Yet when hundreds of cyclists show up to bike down CT Ave, you lose your sh*t. Schrödinger’s cyclist strikes again.

Where are these folks every other day of the year?

[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.

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.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

It's hilarious that this group of cretins thinks they have the power to do this.

[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:

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

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

I didn't know we had thousands of ambivalent people that checked in directly with you. Thanks for the feedback!

You’re quite welcome.

Now get busy planning your next traffic disruption protest. People like me, are counting on people like you. Don’t let us down. Get out there and block the sh!t outta those streets!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of bad vehicle driver behavior, but the myopic entitlement of some cyclists is concerning, too. Just this morning, a dad with two young kids in a cargo bike came sailing through an intersection without stopping at the 4-way stop. A car had already entered the intersection to cross it.

This happened to me the other day. I was turning left at a four way stop and a cyclist came flying in front of me, with a small child on the back of his bike. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting him and laid on the horn and the cyclist acted like he did nothing wrong. Poor child. Son of an idiot who's going to get him killed.

Love that bicyclists asked for the Idaho stop law and now they're like "yeah we're not going to obey that law either"

I know, right?!?!?!

Priceless!!!!

Drivers should push for a mandatory helmet law for anyone on a bike. Then cyclists will reflexively refuse to wear them because it’s a traffic law. That might save the lives of more people on organ-donation-waiting-lists, when un-helmeted cyclists blow through red lights and wind up with their heads smooshed under someone’s tire.

It’s worth a try.

On a chilly Friday morning in DC, nothing warms the heart quite like reading accounts of motorists wishing death upon cyclists.

Which they could easily avoid by following traffic laws like stopping for red lights, stopping for stop signs in busy intersections with other traffic, not passing on the right, and wearing a helmet- which many riders do, simply because there’s not a law *requiring* adults to wear one.

[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.

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.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

As a pedestrian, I’ve never objected to bikes on the sidewalk. Doesn’t bother me at all.

[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:

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

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

And cyclists just want to cycle anywhere without fear of being mowed over or doored. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of bad vehicle driver behavior, but the myopic entitlement of some cyclists is concerning, too. Just this morning, a dad with two young kids in a cargo bike came sailing through an intersection without stopping at the 4-way stop. A car had already entered the intersection to cross it.

This happened to me the other day. I was turning left at a four way stop and a cyclist came flying in front of me, with a small child on the back of his bike. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting him and laid on the horn and the cyclist acted like he did nothing wrong. Poor child. Son of an idiot who's going to get him killed.

Love that bicyclists asked for the Idaho stop law and now they're like "yeah we're not going to obey that law either"

I know, right?!?!?!

Priceless!!!!

Drivers should push for a mandatory helmet law for anyone on a bike. Then cyclists will reflexively refuse to wear them because it’s a traffic law. That might save the lives of more people on organ-donation-waiting-lists, when un-helmeted cyclists blow through red lights and wind up with their heads smooshed under someone’s tire.

It’s worth a try.

On a chilly Friday morning in DC, nothing warms the heart quite like reading accounts of motorists wishing death upon cyclists.

Which they could easily avoid by following traffic laws like stopping for red lights, stopping for stop signs in busy intersections with other traffic, not passing on the right, and wearing a helmet- which many riders do, simply because there’s not a law *requiring* adults to wear one.

And plenty of cyclists have done all of these things and still ended up being maimed or killed by motorists on the streets of DC.