All these new bike lanes that the city put in downturn during the pandemic are dumb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will just stop going downtown. It's as simple as that. Sucks but it's true. At some point, businesses downtown will rebel and force the city the tear out all these bike lanes.

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will stop driving downtown. It's as simple as that.

Fixed that for you.

It's silly to think that, if you deliberately make traffic downtown terrible, people will switch to some other form of transportation. Most people regard riding a bike as incredibly dangerous, incredibly inconvenient or both. And the public has turned rather decisively against the metro system (which to me seems like the real problem with DC transportation. The Metro has the potential to solve a whole lot of problems but, instead, everyone has learned to hate it). People will just work more from home and/or go to other parts of the DMV instead of downtown.

The purpose of bike lanes is to make it safe and convenient to use a bike for transportation.

Well, it's still neither.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will just stop going downtown. It's as simple as that. Sucks but it's true. At some point, businesses downtown will rebel and force the city the tear out all these bike lanes.

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will stop driving downtown. It's as simple as that.

Fixed that for you.

It's silly to think that, if you deliberately make traffic downtown terrible, people will switch to some other form of transportation. Most people regard riding a bike as incredibly dangerous, incredibly inconvenient or both. And the public has turned rather decisively against the metro system (which to me seems like the real problem with DC transportation. The Metro has the potential to solve a whole lot of problems but, instead, everyone has learned to hate it). People will just work more from home and/or go to other parts of the DMV instead of downtown.

The purpose of bike lanes is to make it safe and convenient to use a bike for transportation.

Well, it's still neither.

This is exactly why DC is building more bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will just stop going downtown. It's as simple as that. Sucks but it's true. At some point, businesses downtown will rebel and force the city the tear out all these bike lanes.

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will stop driving downtown. It's as simple as that.

Fixed that for you.

It's silly to think that, if you deliberately make traffic downtown terrible, people will switch to some other form of transportation. Most people regard riding a bike as incredibly dangerous, incredibly inconvenient or both. And the public has turned rather decisively against the metro system (which to me seems like the real problem with DC transportation. The Metro has the potential to solve a whole lot of problems but, instead, everyone has learned to hate it). People will just work more from home and/or go to other parts of the DMV instead of downtown.

The purpose of bike lanes is to make it safe and convenient to use a bike for transportation.

Well, it's still neither.

This is exactly why DC is building more bike lanes.

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

Your argument here is that DC shouldn't build bike infrastructure to make bicycling in DC safe and convenient, because bicycling in DC is unsafe and inconvenient due to the lack of bike infrastructure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

Your argument here is that DC shouldn't build bike infrastructure to make bicycling in DC safe and convenient, because bicycling in DC is unsafe and inconvenient due to the lack of bike infrastructure.

No, I'm saying riding a bike in DC is like playing football or boxing: It is inherently dangerous and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

And unless you can figure out a way to control the weather, it will never be convenient in a city that is borderline tropical for roughly half the year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

Your argument here is that DC shouldn't build bike infrastructure to make bicycling in DC safe and convenient, because bicycling in DC is unsafe and inconvenient due to the lack of bike infrastructure.

No, I'm saying riding a bike in DC is like playing football or boxing: It is inherently dangerous and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

And unless you can figure out a way to control the weather, it will never be convenient in a city that is borderline tropical for roughly half the year.

Ah. If that's what you're saying, then you're just plain wrong on the facts. Fortunately, you're not in charge at DDOT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

Your argument here is that DC shouldn't build bike infrastructure to make bicycling in DC safe and convenient, because bicycling in DC is unsafe and inconvenient due to the lack of bike infrastructure.

No, I'm saying riding a bike in DC is like playing football or boxing: It is inherently dangerous and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

And unless you can figure out a way to control the weather, it will never be convenient in a city that is borderline tropical for roughly half the year.

Ah. If that's what you're saying, then you're just plain wrong on the facts. Fortunately, you're not in charge at DDOT.

Sounds like you're in denial. You should meet my friend, physics. He says that if a 2,000 pound car going 25 mph hits a 200-pound man on a bike, that man goes dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

Your argument here is that DC shouldn't build bike infrastructure to make bicycling in DC safe and convenient, because bicycling in DC is unsafe and inconvenient due to the lack of bike infrastructure.

No, I'm saying riding a bike in DC is like playing football or boxing: It is inherently dangerous and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

And unless you can figure out a way to control the weather, it will never be convenient in a city that is borderline tropical for roughly half the year.

Ah. If that's what you're saying, then you're just plain wrong on the facts. Fortunately, you're not in charge at DDOT.

Sounds like you're in denial. You should meet my friend, physics. He says that if a 2,000 pound car going 25 mph hits a 200-pound man on a bike, that man goes dead.

In other words, it's not bicycling that's dangerous, it's bicycling around drivers. Yes. That's the reason for protected bike lanes, as well as for prioritizing other means of transportation that aren't cars.

Incidentally, your friend physics says no such thing. If a driver hits a person at 25 mph, the odds of death are only (!) about 10%. And even lower at 20 mph, which is why DC recently lowered the default speed limit on residential streets to 20 mph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

Your argument here is that DC shouldn't build bike infrastructure to make bicycling in DC safe and convenient, because bicycling in DC is unsafe and inconvenient due to the lack of bike infrastructure.

No, I'm saying riding a bike in DC is like playing football or boxing: It is inherently dangerous and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

And unless you can figure out a way to control the weather, it will never be convenient in a city that is borderline tropical for roughly half the year.

Ah. If that's what you're saying, then you're just plain wrong on the facts. Fortunately, you're not in charge at DDOT.

Seriously, this. There are other cities that set up biking to be quite safe. What isn’t safe is an amateur propelling themselves around in a few tons of metal and plastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

Your argument here is that DC shouldn't build bike infrastructure to make bicycling in DC safe and convenient, because bicycling in DC is unsafe and inconvenient due to the lack of bike infrastructure.

No, I'm saying riding a bike in DC is like playing football or boxing: It is inherently dangerous and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

And unless you can figure out a way to control the weather, it will never be convenient in a city that is borderline tropical for roughly half the year.

Ah. If that's what you're saying, then you're just plain wrong on the facts. Fortunately, you're not in charge at DDOT.

Sounds like you're in denial. You should meet my friend, physics. He says that if a 2,000 pound car going 25 mph hits a 200-pound man on a bike, that man goes dead.

In other words, it's not bicycling that's dangerous, it's bicycling around drivers. Yes. That's the reason for protected bike lanes, as well as for prioritizing other means of transportation that aren't cars.

Incidentally, your friend physics says no such thing. If a driver hits a person at 25 mph, the odds of death are only (!) about 10%. And even lower at 20 mph, which is why DC recently lowered the default speed limit on residential streets to 20 mph.

Love the entitled white boy logic here. It's not other people's fault if you get hurt doing something stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will just stop going downtown. It's as simple as that. Sucks but it's true. At some point, businesses downtown will rebel and force the city the tear out all these bike lanes.

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will stop driving downtown. It's as simple as that.

Fixed that for you.

It's silly to think that, if you deliberately make traffic downtown terrible, people will switch to some other form of transportation. Most people regard riding a bike as incredibly dangerous, incredibly inconvenient or both. And the public has turned rather decisively against the metro system (which to me seems like the real problem with DC transportation. The Metro has the potential to solve a whole lot of problems but, instead, everyone has learned to hate it). People will just work more from home and/or go to other parts of the DMV instead of downtown.

The purpose of bike lanes is to make it safe and convenient to use a bike for transportation.

Well, it's still neither.

You not thinking a bike is safe or convenient does not make it actually dangerous or inconvenient. When I ride my bike to work from upper NW, it takes about the same amount of time to get there as taking Metro does and about 8 minutes more to get home than Metro. Hardly a big deal convenience-wise. And in about 10 years of bike-commuting, I've been in exactly two accidents -- one when an Uber driver hit me at about 5 mph (while I was in a bike lane), and once when I slammed on my brakes and crashed deliberately into the road to avoid hitting a kid who ran out between parked cars in the middle of the block. I was basically fine both times. Meanwhile, in the same span of time, I've been rear-ended in a car three times by drivers who didn't notice that the light I was stopped at was red. Which makes bike commuting safer than driving in terms of sheer number of accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

Your argument here is that DC shouldn't build bike infrastructure to make bicycling in DC safe and convenient, because bicycling in DC is unsafe and inconvenient due to the lack of bike infrastructure.

No, I'm saying riding a bike in DC is like playing football or boxing: It is inherently dangerous and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

And unless you can figure out a way to control the weather, it will never be convenient in a city that is borderline tropical for roughly half the year.

Ah. If that's what you're saying, then you're just plain wrong on the facts. Fortunately, you're not in charge at DDOT.

Sounds like you're in denial. You should meet my friend, physics. He says that if a 2,000 pound car going 25 mph hits a 200-pound man on a bike, that man goes dead.

In other words, it's not bicycling that's dangerous, it's bicycling around drivers. Yes. That's the reason for protected bike lanes, as well as for prioritizing other means of transportation that aren't cars.

Incidentally, your friend physics says no such thing. If a driver hits a person at 25 mph, the odds of death are only (!) about 10%. And even lower at 20 mph, which is why DC recently lowered the default speed limit on residential streets to 20 mph.

Love the entitled white boy logic here. It's not other people's fault if you get hurt doing something stupid.

I'm not a white boy, and yes, the logic is that people who hit other people while driving are - or at least can be - at fault. In fact, it's not just the logic, it's the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That may be what they think they are doing. But if you think riding a bike in DC is safe, well, you need your head examined. And convenient? Stop. It is anything but convenient.

Your argument here is that DC shouldn't build bike infrastructure to make bicycling in DC safe and convenient, because bicycling in DC is unsafe and inconvenient due to the lack of bike infrastructure.

No, I'm saying riding a bike in DC is like playing football or boxing: It is inherently dangerous and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

And unless you can figure out a way to control the weather, it will never be convenient in a city that is borderline tropical for roughly half the year.

Ah. If that's what you're saying, then you're just plain wrong on the facts. Fortunately, you're not in charge at DDOT.

Sounds like you're in denial. You should meet my friend, physics. He says that if a 2,000 pound car going 25 mph hits a 200-pound man on a bike, that man goes dead.

In other words, it's not bicycling that's dangerous, it's bicycling around drivers. Yes. That's the reason for protected bike lanes, as well as for prioritizing other means of transportation that aren't cars.

Incidentally, your friend physics says no such thing. If a driver hits a person at 25 mph, the odds of death are only (!) about 10%. And even lower at 20 mph, which is why DC recently lowered the default speed limit on residential streets to 20 mph.

Love the entitled white boy logic here. It's not other people's fault if you get hurt doing something stupid.

It is definitely other people's fault if they hit you while you're on a bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will just stop going downtown. It's as simple as that. Sucks but it's true. At some point, businesses downtown will rebel and force the city the tear out all these bike lanes.

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will stop driving downtown. It's as simple as that.

Fixed that for you.

It's silly to think that, if you deliberately make traffic downtown terrible, people will switch to some other form of transportation. Most people regard riding a bike as incredibly dangerous, incredibly inconvenient or both. And the public has turned rather decisively against the metro system (which to me seems like the real problem with DC transportation. The Metro has the potential to solve a whole lot of problems but, instead, everyone has learned to hate it). People will just work more from home and/or go to other parts of the DMV instead of downtown.

The purpose of bike lanes is to make it safe and convenient to use a bike for transportation.

Well, it's still neither.

You not thinking a bike is safe or convenient does not make it actually dangerous or inconvenient. When I ride my bike to work from upper NW, it takes about the same amount of time to get there as taking Metro does and about 8 minutes more to get home than Metro. Hardly a big deal convenience-wise. And in about 10 years of bike-commuting, I've been in exactly two accidents -- one when an Uber driver hit me at about 5 mph (while I was in a bike lane), and once when I slammed on my brakes and crashed deliberately into the road to avoid hitting a kid who ran out between parked cars in the middle of the block. I was basically fine both times. Meanwhile, in the same span of time, I've been rear-ended in a car three times by drivers who didn't notice that the light I was stopped at was red. Which makes bike commuting safer than driving in terms of sheer number of accidents.

This seems like saying you played football for a couple years, and you didnt get brain damage, so therefore football is not dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will just stop going downtown. It's as simple as that. Sucks but it's true. At some point, businesses downtown will rebel and force the city the tear out all these bike lanes.

If it's too hard to drive downtown, people will stop driving downtown. It's as simple as that.

Fixed that for you.

It's silly to think that, if you deliberately make traffic downtown terrible, people will switch to some other form of transportation. Most people regard riding a bike as incredibly dangerous, incredibly inconvenient or both. And the public has turned rather decisively against the metro system (which to me seems like the real problem with DC transportation. The Metro has the potential to solve a whole lot of problems but, instead, everyone has learned to hate it). People will just work more from home and/or go to other parts of the DMV instead of downtown.

The purpose of bike lanes is to make it safe and convenient to use a bike for transportation.

Well, it's still neither.

You not thinking a bike is safe or convenient does not make it actually dangerous or inconvenient. When I ride my bike to work from upper NW, it takes about the same amount of time to get there as taking Metro does and about 8 minutes more to get home than Metro. Hardly a big deal convenience-wise. And in about 10 years of bike-commuting, I've been in exactly two accidents -- one when an Uber driver hit me at about 5 mph (while I was in a bike lane), and once when I slammed on my brakes and crashed deliberately into the road to avoid hitting a kid who ran out between parked cars in the middle of the block. I was basically fine both times. Meanwhile, in the same span of time, I've been rear-ended in a car three times by drivers who didn't notice that the light I was stopped at was red. Which makes bike commuting safer than driving in terms of sheer number of accidents.

This seems like saying you played football for a couple years, and you didnt get brain damage, so therefore football is not dangerous.

On the other hand, if I'd been driving a car rather than riding a bike when the kid ran out into the street, I could have killed her rather than scraping my knee. Would definitely rather scrape my knee up than run a little kid over.