Bike lanes that literally no one uses -- why are we still doing 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:DC needs revenue. The city should require all bikes that go on roads to register and have a machine readable license plate, so when they speed downhill/blow through stop signs and red lights the city can issue tickets like they do for cars. want to use the road? then obey the law

The goal of most drivers is to make sure everyone is as unfree and miserable as they are. No one can escape. Crabs in a bucket mentality.

There's been multiple cyclists going around groping women. They count on the fact that, without license plates, they can't be readily identified. Sounds like you're totally cool with people committing sexual assault so long as they're on a bike when they do it.

Cyclists need license plates, and also insurance.

If ever you want a reminder of just how batty the velophobe set has become, this is a good place to start.

There's something very Trump-y about cyclists in DC. They dont think they have to follow *any* of the rules that everyone else respects and everything is always someone else's fault. Like Trump, they act like a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats.

Cyclists don’t think we need insurance or license plates on bikes because, according to the rules that everyone respects, we don’t. I do have insurance, license plates, and identification for when I’m driving. I don’t need those things on my bike or when I walk or take Metro. I don’t think it’s spoiled or entitled not to comply with your imaginary alternative regulatory scheme that requires insurance and more bureaucracy for bicycles that are very unlikely to cause any damage to anyone except the cyclist.

I actually started thinking through the implications of requiring cyclists to carry insurance and affix license plates to their bikes and, after a couple of seconds, realized that it was such an incredibly silly idea that only someone trying to parody the anti-bike folks would put it forth.

I mean, many cars that are driven dangerously in DC have obscured, fake, or no plates and potentially no insurance, but the problem is a lack of insurance and plates on bikes? Nice trolling . . .

it would be better for everyone if cyclists weren't allowed to be anonymous and unidentifiable on the road.

Why would that be better? How often do authorities need to be able to identify cyclists?

I see cyclists put children in spectacularly dangerous situations on a fairly regular basis. I saw one with an infant in the basket on the front of her bike. It would be great if they could be readily identified to the police.

That person should be arrested for child endangerment.

It's curious how, if you put a 10 year old in the front seat of a car, people would think you're wildly irresponsible and almost no parent would even think to do it, even though that kid is strapped down with a seat belt, there's at least one airbag protecting them and there's two tons of steel around them. But no one bats at eye if you do this:

https://bunchbike.com/products/the-original-4-upgraded-electric-cargo-bike-for-families?srsltid=AfmBOopgF9JVUlhcWqgtCDCqzR1K5nGzwExl3YLCVcHVTkWkoYIYQ6iW

If you only drive 15 mph I wouldn't think it's unsafe. Are you unclear on the differences between driving and biking??

And what happens when this bicyclist going 15 mph is hit by a car going 30 mph? All those kids are dead.

Sounds like a good argument for protected bike lanes until drivers can get themselves under control.

It’s not drivers’ fault that the design of these bikes is completely nuts. There are so many ways for children to be paralyzed or killed that these bikes should be outlawed.

Someone rightly pointed out up thread that it's irresponsible drivers who are the problem. Nothing wrong with the bikes without you nut jobs.

Uh huh. This is like designing a car where the children sit on the front bumper. If you put your kids on one of these bikes, you are 100 percent a terrible parent.

So strollers too? Parents who put their kids in strollers are bad parents according to your mind rot? It's like being on the bumper?

And where's the large number of injured children from this? Surely if it's so dangerous (and not just your delusions) there would be widespread alarm about it.

Well, since cars don't typically drive on sidewalks, strollers are probably fine. There probably will never be "large" numbers of injured children because the number of cyclists (let alone cyclists with children) is microscopic.

Ah, so you are saying that cycling would be safer if it had its own version of a sidewalk? Perhaps a lane of some sort?

[Anonymous]

I typically ride in the road, even when there’s a bike lane. It’s safer. Bike lanes don’t get used much, and debris tends to accumulate in them from getting kicked off the roads. So the roadway itself is safer than the bike lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I typically ride in the road, even when there’s a bike lane. It’s safer. Bike lanes don’t get used much, and debris tends to accumulate in them from getting kicked off the roads. So the roadway itself is safer than the bike lane.

We should just remove the stupid lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I typically ride in the road, even when there’s a bike lane. It’s safer. Bike lanes don’t get used much, and debris tends to accumulate in them from getting kicked off the roads. So the roadway itself is safer than the bike lane.

We should just remove the stupid lanes.

No, we should simply outlaw privately owned cars.

That would be safer for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I typically ride in the road, even when there’s a bike lane. It’s safer. Bike lanes don’t get used much, and debris tends to accumulate in them from getting kicked off the roads. So the roadway itself is safer than the bike lane.

We should just remove the stupid lanes.

No, we should simply outlaw privately owned cars.

That would be safer for everyone.

No, we should simply outlaw any means of transportation that involves wheels. That would be safer for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I typically ride in the road, even when there’s a bike lane. It’s safer. Bike lanes don’t get used much, and debris tends to accumulate in them from getting kicked off the roads. So the roadway itself is safer than the bike lane.

We should just remove the stupid lanes.

No, we should simply outlaw privately owned cars.

That would be safer for everyone.

Seeing the responses here, the CP listserv posts that are devoid of evidence and any understanding of pedestrian safety, and the stop sign thread, I now agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city is removing a protected bike lane. Good start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/06/12/arizona-bike-lane-dc/

"It’s the first time D.C. is removing a set of protected bike lanes, cycling advocates say. They worry it’s a sign that city leaders are joining a backlash against bike infrastructure building nationally. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has frozen all federal grants involving cycling, recently calling bike lanes in congested areas “a problem”; cities in Texas and California are tearing them out. Last year D.C. canceled plans for a bike lane down Connecticut Avenue NW, a key thoroughfare."

I wonder how this is going to play out.

[Anonymous]

I think that bike lanes were originally a deliberate signal to younger transplants that there presence was welcomed and encouraged. Now, before doing anything, comprehensive studies need to be done to determine which ones are used, when they are used, and how many people actually use them. Some may need to be eliminated, others might warrant different types of solutions that need to be adapted to support bike use in particular situations. (I.E. Maybe a particular bike like would get used more enthusiastically if there were bike storage offered in convenient locations.).

As someone who is often a pedestrian, my concern with my inability to accurately predict the behavior of cyclists — who shift from the streets to the sidewalks for convenience, or perhaps their safety (but not mine), and sometimes even riding on the sidewalks in locations with bike lanes, swooping from behind me without the courtesy of audible warnings. Whatever gives cyclists safer ways to ride will, hopefully, benefit pedestrians and drivers as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that bike lanes were originally a deliberate signal to younger transplants that there presence was welcomed and encouraged. Now, before doing anything, comprehensive studies need to be done to determine which ones are used, when they are used, and how many people actually use them. Some may need to be eliminated, others might warrant different types of solutions that need to be adapted to support bike use in particular situations. (I.E. Maybe a particular bike like would get used more enthusiastically if there were bike storage offered in convenient locations.).

As someone who is often a pedestrian, my concern with my inability to accurately predict the behavior of cyclists — who shift from the streets to the sidewalks for convenience, or perhaps their safety (but not mine), and sometimes even riding on the sidewalks in locations with bike lanes, swooping from behind me without the courtesy of audible warnings. Whatever gives cyclists safer ways to ride will, hopefully, benefit pedestrians and drivers as well.

I drive and I try to avoid being near cyclists. They’re too unpredictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city is removing a protected bike lane. Good start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/06/12/arizona-bike-lane-dc/

"It’s the first time D.C. is removing a set of protected bike lanes, cycling advocates say. They worry it’s a sign that city leaders are joining a backlash against bike infrastructure building nationally. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has frozen all federal grants involving cycling, recently calling bike lanes in congested areas “a problem”; cities in Texas and California are tearing them out. Last year D.C. canceled plans for a bike lane down Connecticut Avenue NW, a key thoroughfare."

yeesh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that bike lanes were originally a deliberate signal to younger transplants that there presence was welcomed and encouraged. Now, before doing anything, comprehensive studies need to be done to determine which ones are used, when they are used, and how many people actually use them. Some may need to be eliminated, others might warrant different types of solutions that need to be adapted to support bike use in particular situations. (I.E. Maybe a particular bike like would get used more enthusiastically if there were bike storage offered in convenient locations.).

As someone who is often a pedestrian, my concern with my inability to accurately predict the behavior of cyclists — who shift from the streets to the sidewalks for convenience, or perhaps their safety (but not mine), and sometimes even riding on the sidewalks in locations with bike lanes, swooping from behind me without the courtesy of audible warnings. Whatever gives cyclists safer ways to ride will, hopefully, benefit pedestrians and drivers as well.

I drive and I try to avoid being near cyclists. They’re too unpredictable.

I walk and also avoid cyclists. They're very unpredictable, much more so than car drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish we could be like Amsterdam but we have hills and disgusting summers. You'll never have a critical mass of bike commuters because it is hugely impractical for office workers. I wish they would invest more in public transit.

It's been hotter than hell and humid as a shower out and yet I still see tons of bike commuters every day down town this week and I was biking to work. Go figure.

Are you saying everyone who sees empty bike lanes is hallucinating? I live in MoCo and the Old Georgetown Rd bike lanes are ridiculous. I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist on them. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish we could be like Amsterdam but we have hills and disgusting summers. You'll never have a critical mass of bike commuters because it is hugely impractical for office workers. I wish they would invest more in public transit.

It's been hotter than hell and humid as a shower out and yet I still see tons of bike commuters every day down town this week and I was biking to work. Go figure.

Are you saying everyone who sees empty bike lanes is hallucinating? I live in MoCo and the Old Georgetown Rd bike lanes are ridiculous. I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist on them. Ever.

Remember, anecdata is only valid when it comes from a bike-lane supporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish we could be like Amsterdam but we have hills and disgusting summers. You'll never have a critical mass of bike commuters because it is hugely impractical for office workers. I wish they would invest more in public transit.

It's been hotter than hell and humid as a shower out and yet I still see tons of bike commuters every day down town this week and I was biking to work. Go figure.

Are you saying everyone who sees empty bike lanes is hallucinating? I live in MoCo and the Old Georgetown Rd bike lanes are ridiculous. I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist on them. Ever.

Remember, anecdata is only valid when it comes from a bike-lane supporter.

DOT is removing lanes because people aren’t using them