Alexandria Bike Lobby wins again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to ban motorised bikes from the bike paths and bike lanes. They belong in the street with the other motorised vehicles, not in the dedicated lanes for those who labour manually to move their bikes

No, e-bikes are fine. E-bikes enable people to bike who wouldn't otherwise bike. That's a good thing. Bike lanes aren't for rewarding physical effort, they're for enabling people to go places by bike.

Cyclist here: absolutely NOT! I positively HATE ebikes, and the dbags that ride them. There is no functional difference between a ebike and a motorcycle, the only distinction is what kind of engine is moving it. So if ebikes are allowed to keep using bike lanes, it’s only a matter of time before mopeds, scooters and motorcycles all start using the lane, and forcing actual bikes off the lane, or just running us down.

The ebikes have to go. No way, no how, can they be allowed to use the lanes. No F’ing way.

There are actually a lot of functional differences between an ebike and a motorcycle. And if your objection to ebikes is that it's a slippery slope from ebikes to mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles - save your energy to fight proposals to allow mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles, when and if any such proposals are actually made.

The fact is that e-bikes lead to more people biking. Old people, people with disabilities, people whose trips involve steep hills, etc. That's a good thing. More ebikes, more biking, fewer cars.

Nah. Sorry. Not accepting that. Trail signs on most trails (like Mount Vernon, for example) clearly and specifically say “no motorized vehicles”. Doesn’t split hairs about what KIND of motor, it’s says NO motors. An ebike has a motor. Period. They don’t belong on bike lanes. They need to be out in the street with the rest of vehicles with motors.

If you’re ok with ebikes, then what’s to stop the electric motorcycles and dirtbikes from using bike lanes? Do you really wanna share a lane with some jerk on a 500 pound full sized motorcycle, just because it’s technically got two wheels? No thanks.

Bike lanes are for bikes, period. Not things with motors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to ban motorised bikes from the bike paths and bike lanes. They belong in the street with the other motorised vehicles, not in the dedicated lanes for those who labour manually to move their bikes

No, e-bikes are fine. E-bikes enable people to bike who wouldn't otherwise bike. That's a good thing. Bike lanes aren't for rewarding physical effort, they're for enabling people to go places by bike.

Cyclist here: absolutely NOT! I positively HATE ebikes, and the dbags that ride them. There is no functional difference between a ebike and a motorcycle, the only distinction is what kind of engine is moving it. So if ebikes are allowed to keep using bike lanes, it’s only a matter of time before mopeds, scooters and motorcycles all start using the lane, and forcing actual bikes off the lane, or just running us down.

The ebikes have to go. No way, no how, can they be allowed to use the lanes. No F’ing way.

There are actually a lot of functional differences between an ebike and a motorcycle. And if your objection to ebikes is that it's a slippery slope from ebikes to mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles - save your energy to fight proposals to allow mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles, when and if any such proposals are actually made.

The fact is that e-bikes lead to more people biking. Old people, people with disabilities, people whose trips involve steep hills, etc. That's a good thing. More ebikes, more biking, fewer cars.

Nah. Sorry. Not accepting that. Trail signs on most trails (like Mount Vernon, for example) clearly and specifically say “no motorized vehicles”. Doesn’t split hairs about what KIND of motor, it’s says NO motors. An ebike has a motor. Period. They don’t belong on bike lanes. They need to be out in the street with the rest of vehicles with motors.

If you’re ok with ebikes, then what’s to stop the electric motorcycles and dirtbikes from using bike lanes? Do you really wanna share a lane with some jerk on a 500 pound full sized motorcycle, just because it’s technically got two wheels? No thanks.

Bike lanes are for bikes, period. Not things with motors.

Coming to a bike lane near you soon:

https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/consumer_financing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to ban motorised bikes from the bike paths and bike lanes. They belong in the street with the other motorised vehicles, not in the dedicated lanes for those who labour manually to move their bikes

No, e-bikes are fine. E-bikes enable people to bike who wouldn't otherwise bike. That's a good thing. Bike lanes aren't for rewarding physical effort, they're for enabling people to go places by bike.

Cyclist here: absolutely NOT! I positively HATE ebikes, and the dbags that ride them. There is no functional difference between a ebike and a motorcycle, the only distinction is what kind of engine is moving it. So if ebikes are allowed to keep using bike lanes, it’s only a matter of time before mopeds, scooters and motorcycles all start using the lane, and forcing actual bikes off the lane, or just running us down.

The ebikes have to go. No way, no how, can they be allowed to use the lanes. No F’ing way.

There are actually a lot of functional differences between an ebike and a motorcycle. And if your objection to ebikes is that it's a slippery slope from ebikes to mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles - save your energy to fight proposals to allow mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles, when and if any such proposals are actually made.

The fact is that e-bikes lead to more people biking. Old people, people with disabilities, people whose trips involve steep hills, etc. That's a good thing. More ebikes, more biking, fewer cars.

Nah. Sorry. Not accepting that. Trail signs on most trails (like Mount Vernon, for example) clearly and specifically say “no motorized vehicles”. Doesn’t split hairs about what KIND of motor, it’s says NO motors. An ebike has a motor. Period. They don’t belong on bike lanes. They need to be out in the street with the rest of vehicles with motors.

If you’re ok with ebikes, then what’s to stop the electric motorcycles and dirtbikes from using bike lanes? Do you really wanna share a lane with some jerk on a 500 pound full sized motorcycle, just because it’s technically got two wheels? No thanks.

Bike lanes are for bikes, period. Not things with motors.

That's like stomping your feet at the sunrise because it will lead to sunburn.

E-bikes are good for bicycling. Here's a literature review by Carlton Reid, who has been a bicycle advocate for decades: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/23/riding-electric-bicycles-boon-to-health-and-not-cheating-confirms-literature-review/#41cd83aa35cc

Save your outrage for when there are proposals to make it legal for electric motorcycles and dirtbikes to use bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When should the convenience of a few bikers outweigh the safety and efficiency of the driving majority? Putting bike lanes on Seminary Rd. is a stupid idea.

I am the poster who is arguing about city priorities wrt traffic calming and safety. These types of comments are really not helpful to the conversation. We need to reduce the “driving majority”. You aren’t going to effectively argue against this road diet based on that. Focus on Alexandria’s backwards priorities, funding streams, shitty traffic analysis, the high ADT on Seminary, and lack of transparency re: Fire, police and hospital concerns. This road diet was not appropriate based available data and concerns regarding first responder access. And there are other, parallel roads that were much more appropriate for a road diet and provided higher connectivity. The fact is, this road was more about winning a battle than the appropriate allocation of road space. The prior, wholly dismissive poster I am debating with, who clearly knows nothing about this project, and isn’t from Alexandria, is an example of those who just want to win.

First-responder access benefits from traffic-calmed roads.

It's also possible to build first-responder access into bike lanes. Other places do it.

Is it really too much to ask that you profess to show SOME knowledge of the underlying project before you respond? Because this conversation isn’t about any road diet- it’s about a very specific one. Or do you just like mansplaining this things despite your clear lack of knowledge or any sense of thoughtfulness?

You mean, this specific project, where the city report said that a road diet design opens a more predictable and practical path for emergency responders?

Ugh. Forget it. You are just making shit up now.

The city recommended 4 lanes and the fire department asked for 4 lanes until they were clearly strong armed and sent a last minute (redacted) email that they “could consider [a road diet]”. The hospital asked for two westbound lanes. Fire union members, who could not provide a public statement, wanted 4 lanes. And the fire department is still doesn’t support the pedestrian refuge islands because the fire truck can’t get over them. This isn’t any road. It is a heavily traveled arterial with the city’s busiest fire station and only hospital on it.

T&ES recommented 4 lanes ONLY because it was procedurally simpler to advance what the Traffic and Parking Board voted for (in a split decision). Had one vote on the T&PB gone the other way, they would have been recommending Option 3. At T&PB they recommended a hybrid.

T&ES did say that that Option 3 was fine for emergency vehicles, citing FHWA documents. Fire department explicitly said, at the Council hearing, that they had certain requirements and Option 3 met them.

The Hospital provided no statement.

Quotes of anonymous people were, properly, not taken into account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have seen many fender benders on Seminary when people attempt to turn onto side streets like Fairbanks Ave. What is needed is a dedicated turn lane - not a bike lane.

The proposal that the City is implementing will provide a dedicated center turn lane as well as bike lanes, which latter also provide buffers for the sidewalks. This is a standard treatment for fixing a four lane road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When should the convenience of a few bikers outweigh the safety and efficiency of the driving majority? Putting bike lanes on Seminary Rd. is a stupid idea.

The road diet will improve safety for dirvers as well, and also improve convenience for people who need to make lefts to driveways or at unsignalized intersections. It will also improve pedestrian safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When should the convenience of a few bikers outweigh the safety and efficiency of the driving majority? Putting bike lanes on Seminary Rd. is a stupid idea.

I am the poster who is arguing about city priorities wrt traffic calming and safety. These types of comments are really not helpful to the conversation. We need to reduce the “driving majority”. You aren’t going to effectively argue against this road diet based on that. Focus on Alexandria’s backwards priorities, funding streams, shitty traffic analysis, the high ADT on Seminary, and lack of transparency re: Fire, police and hospital concerns. This road diet was not appropriate based available data and concerns regarding first responder access. And there are other, parallel roads that were much more appropriate for a road diet and provided higher connectivity. The fact is, this road was more about winning a battle than the appropriate allocation of road space. The prior, wholly dismissive poster I am debating with, who clearly knows nothing about this project, and isn’t from Alexandria, is an example of those who just want to win.

First-responder access benefits from traffic-calmed roads.

It's also possible to build first-responder access into bike lanes. Other places do it.

Is it really too much to ask that you profess to show SOME knowledge of the underlying project before you respond? Because this conversation isn’t about any road diet- it’s about a very specific one. Or do you just like mansplaining this things despite your clear lack of knowledge or any sense of thoughtfulness?

You mean, this specific project, where the city report said that a road diet design opens a more predictable and practical path for emergency responders?

Ugh. Forget it. You are just making shit up now.

The city recommended 4 lanes and the fire department asked for 4 lanes until they were clearly strong armed and sent a last minute (redacted) email that they “could consider [a road diet]”. The hospital asked for two westbound lanes. Fire union members, who could not provide a public statement, wanted 4 lanes. And the fire department is still doesn’t support the pedestrian refuge islands because the fire truck can’t get over them. This isn’t any road. It is a heavily traveled arterial with the city’s busiest fire station and only hospital on it.

T&ES recommented 4 lanes ONLY because it was procedurally simpler to advance what the Traffic and Parking Board voted for (in a split decision). Had one vote on the T&PB gone the other way, they would have been recommending Option 3. At T&PB they recommended a hybrid.

T&ES did say that that Option 3 was fine for emergency vehicles, citing FHWA documents. Fire department explicitly said, at the Council hearing, that they had certain requirements and Option 3 met them.

The Hospital provided no statement.

Quotes of anonymous people were, properly, not taken into account.

Regardless, staff said two westbound lanes were needed. It was stated publicly and several hundred people heard it.

The FD said they would “consider Alternative 3” which was a reversal of their prior statement. They also stated they were given little inclusion in the Complete Streets guidelines. Hopefully a FOIA will flesh out why their position changed. City staff stated the hospital wanted two westbound lanes. For some reason, staff didn’t want it include that in the council packet, they stated it during a public meeting.

The TPB vote would have been 4-3 for for four lanes with a full vote. Staff was not legally obligated to present Alternative 1.

And there is a difference between anonymous comment and union, police and hospital employees being told they are not permitted to speak on the issue. Thankfully the NY FD union just spoke out publicly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Regardless, staff said two westbound lanes were needed. It was stated publicly and several hundred people heard it.

The FD said they would “consider Alternative 3” which was a reversal of their prior statement. They also stated they were given little inclusion in the Complete Streets guidelines. Hopefully a FOIA will flesh out why their position changed. City staff stated the hospital wanted two westbound lanes. For some reason, staff didn’t want it include that in the council packet, they stated it during a public meeting.

The TPB vote would have been 4-3 for for four lanes with a full vote. Staff was not legally obligated to present Alternative 1.

And there is a difference between anonymous comment and union, police and hospital employees being told they are not permitted to speak on the issue. Thankfully the NY FD union just spoke out publicly.

Probably because they were terrified of retaliation by the dreaded, all-powerful Bicycle Lobby.

https://twitter.com/bicyclelobby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to ban motorised bikes from the bike paths and bike lanes. They belong in the street with the other motorised vehicles, not in the dedicated lanes for those who labour manually to move their bikes

No, e-bikes are fine. E-bikes enable people to bike who wouldn't otherwise bike. That's a good thing. Bike lanes aren't for rewarding physical effort, they're for enabling people to go places by bike.

Cyclist here: absolutely NOT! I positively HATE ebikes, and the dbags that ride them. There is no functional difference between a ebike and a motorcycle, the only distinction is what kind of engine is moving it. So if ebikes are allowed to keep using bike lanes, it’s only a matter of time before mopeds, scooters and motorcycles all start using the lane, and forcing actual bikes off the lane, or just running us down.

The ebikes have to go. No way, no how, can they be allowed to use the lanes. No F’ing way.

There are actually a lot of functional differences between an ebike and a motorcycle. And if your objection to ebikes is that it's a slippery slope from ebikes to mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles - save your energy to fight proposals to allow mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles, when and if any such proposals are actually made.

The fact is that e-bikes lead to more people biking. Old people, people with disabilities, people whose trips involve steep hills, etc. That's a good thing. More ebikes, more biking, fewer cars.

Nah. Sorry. Not accepting that. Trail signs on most trails (like Mount Vernon, for example) clearly and specifically say “no motorized vehicles”. Doesn’t split hairs about what KIND of motor, it’s says NO motors. An ebike has a motor. Period. They don’t belong on bike lanes. They need to be out in the street with the rest of vehicles with motors.

If you’re ok with ebikes, then what’s to stop the electric motorcycles and dirtbikes from using bike lanes? Do you really wanna share a lane with some jerk on a 500 pound full sized motorcycle, just because it’s technically got two wheels? No thanks.

Bike lanes are for bikes, period. Not things with motors.

That's like stomping your feet at the sunrise because it will lead to sunburn.

E-bikes are good for bicycling. Here's a literature review by Carlton Reid, who has been a bicycle advocate for decades: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/23/riding-electric-bicycles-boon-to-health-and-not-cheating-confirms-literature-review/#41cd83aa35cc

Save your outrage for when there are proposals to make it legal for electric motorcycles and dirtbikes to use bike lanes.

That’s GOING to happen!!! Don’t you see that? And it’s goung to be rammed-through as an F-you to cyclists by the jackasses who are opposed to bike lanes right now. They’re goung to do it *just* to F’ with us. Just wait. Just wait and see.

If WE as a cycling community don’t make a proactive stand, right NOW, against ebikes, then we’ll be dealing with every electric two or three wheeled vehicle ever created in a few years. The bike lanes will be as crowded and dangerous as the roads are now if we don’t get out in front of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That’s GOING to happen!!! Don’t you see that? And it’s goung to be rammed-through as an F-you to cyclists by the jackasses who are opposed to bike lanes right now. They’re goung to do it *just* to F’ with us. Just wait. Just wait and see.

If WE as a cycling community don’t make a proactive stand, right NOW, against ebikes, then we’ll be dealing with every electric two or three wheeled vehicle ever created in a few years. The bike lanes will be as crowded and dangerous as the roads are now if we don’t get out in front of this.

We, who? Speak for yourself.

Here's WABA:

In most circumstances, WABA supports treating speed limited Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes as regular bikes. These low speed e-bikes make bicycling a viable transportation option for more people. They reduce barriers for folks who have longer distances to travel, heavier loads or passengers to carry, or other challenges that might otherwise preclude using a bicycle to make a trip. More people on bikes is an unequivocally good thing.

https://waba.org/blog/2017/08/lets-talk-about-e-bikes/

See particularly this question:

Isn’t this a “slippery slope” toward letting electric motorcycles on trails?

No. There’s a clear framework for distinguishing between e-bikes, mopeds, and motorcycles. No one is arguing that a Tesla-Harley Davidson collaboration should be allowed on the Mount Vernon Trail.

[Anonymous]

Why should electric motorcycles be allowed on bike lanes? They have two wheels. What's the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should electric motorcycles be allowed on bike lanes? They have two wheels. What's the problem?

Nobody is saying that electric motorcycles should be allowed in bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should electric motorcycles be allowed on bike lanes? They have two wheels. What's the problem?

Nobody is saying that electric motorcycles should be allowed in bike lanes.

Actually that’s a reasonable idea. If a bike with an electric motor is ok in a bike lane, why not a motorcycle? It’s just another type of bike. It’s just bigger, that’s all. Still has two wheels.


What’s the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should electric motorcycles be allowed on bike lanes? They have two wheels. What's the problem?

Nobody is saying that electric motorcycles should be allowed in bike lanes.

Actually that’s a reasonable idea. If a bike with an electric motor is ok in a bike lane, why not a motorcycle? It’s just another type of bike. It’s just bigger, that’s all. Still has two wheels.


What’s the problem?

If I can drive a sedan down a residential street then why can't I drive an oversized extreme dump truck there too?

Are we really able to make meaningful distinctions based on size and power? Yes. The answer is clearly yes. PP, you are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should electric motorcycles be allowed on bike lanes? They have two wheels. What's the problem?

Nobody is saying that electric motorcycles should be allowed in bike lanes.

Actually that’s a reasonable idea. If a bike with an electric motor is ok in a bike lane, why not a motorcycle? It’s just another type of bike. It’s just bigger, that’s all. Still has two wheels.

What’s the problem?

If a car is ok on an interstate highway, why not a riding lawnmower? it's just another type of motor vehicle. It's just smaller, that's all. Still has four wheels.

What's the problem?