Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[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:I supposed OP would call me part of the Bike Lobby. Guess what ... it is possibly to simultaneously believe that the biker may have made a tragic, fatal mistake; AND that better bike infrastructure could have kept her safe. She was likely only in that position because we have a shameful lack of bike infrastructure in Foggy Bottom. With a protected lane as well as a no-right-on-red law, she would still be alive.

I’m not “bike lobby” and I agree. Especially with GW there, seems almost criminal that there’s no infrastructure to support cyclists.

Especially with GW there, most people walk. Not ride bikes.

People bike through foggy bottom to get to workplaces like State. The huge issue is that there are inadequate bike lanes in Foggy Bottom, so even though you can get all the way from lots of neighborhoods to the White House on excellent lanes, they run out when you get west of the White House.

There are fairly new and well-marked bi-directional bike lanes on 20th Street NW, just a block from the accident scene.

Thanks. I haven't been there in a while. Hopefully this accident will spur progress towards protected lanes: https://www.dccycletrack.com/20th21st22ndstnw

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

I don’t think you understand what happened here. How much wider can a turn be? If a cyclist is intent on blowing through an intersection to effect a pass on a turning truck, a bike lane would not have helped. In this case and in this circumstance there was no about of infrastructure that would save someone from doing something dangerous. It’s sad but the truth.

Guess what - there are traffic engineers & urban planners who know how to make these intersections safer. For example, the "bend out" crossing.

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf

There is no amount of engineering design that can protect people intent on taking risks.

Today I learned that suburbanites addicted to lifestyles that revolve around two-ton death machines, massive government subsidies, and toxic emissions will stoop to baselessly blaming a cyclist for her own death in order to better comfort themselves when advocating against infrastructural improvements that will save lives and marginally improve the chances of humanity making it to 2100.

There is no amount of engineering design that can protect people intent on taking risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? If there's a bike lane on a block a bicyclist is on then why don't they have to use it?

They might need to turn in a way the bike lane isn't condusive to. They might be in a mood. Their might be a car parked in the bike lane, blocking it.

Then why are we spending money to build them if the very people that demand them don't use them because they might be "in a mood"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? If there's a bike lane on a block a bicyclist is on then why don't they have to use it?

They might need to turn in a way the bike lane isn't condusive to. They might be in a mood. Their might be a car parked in the bike lane, blocking it.

Then why are we spending money to build them if the very people that demand them don't use them because they might be "in a mood"?

Because good urban design accounts for human imperfections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is a large, new bi-directional bike lane one block over, that was created in response to the bike lobby. This woman was not using it though.

Cyclists are not required to be in the bike lane.

When cyclists are on a road shared with cars, they are entitled to the entire lane. Car drivers frequently expect cyclists to ride all the way to the right, which creates dangerous situations. A driver is required to leave 3 feet of space when passing a cyclist, and they should not pass if they do not have that space.

This is true. A cyclist can also split the lane. However splitting a lane with a truck is foolishly risky because it puts you right in it’s blind spot.

My cyclist husband said "never f with a mac truck'. He said he would have never been riding alongside a large vehicle on a road that was clearly narrow for that vehicle. You drop back and get behind it.

[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:I supposed OP would call me part of the Bike Lobby. Guess what ... it is possibly to simultaneously believe that the biker may have made a tragic, fatal mistake; AND that better bike infrastructure could have kept her safe. She was likely only in that position because we have a shameful lack of bike infrastructure in Foggy Bottom. With a protected lane as well as a no-right-on-red law, she would still be alive.

I’m not “bike lobby” and I agree. Especially with GW there, seems almost criminal that there’s no infrastructure to support cyclists.

Especially with GW there, most people walk. Not ride bikes.

People bike through foggy bottom to get to workplaces like State. The huge issue is that there are inadequate bike lanes in Foggy Bottom, so even though you can get all the way from lots of neighborhoods to the White House on excellent lanes, they run out when you get west of the White House.

There are fairly new and well-marked bi-directional bike lanes on 20th Street NW, just a block from the accident scene.

Thanks. I haven't been there in a while. Hopefully this accident will spur progress towards protected lanes: https://www.dccycletrack.com/20th21st22ndstnw

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

I don’t think you understand what happened here. How much wider can a turn be? If a cyclist is intent on blowing through an intersection to effect a pass on a turning truck, a bike lane would not have helped. In this case and in this circumstance there was no about of infrastructure that would save someone from doing something dangerous. It’s sad but the truth.

Guess what - there are traffic engineers & urban planners who know how to make these intersections safer. For example, the "bend out" crossing.

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf

There is no amount of engineering design that can protect people intent on taking risks.

Today I learned that suburbanites addicted to lifestyles that revolve around two-ton death machines, massive government subsidies, and toxic emissions will stoop to baselessly blaming a cyclist for her own death in order to better comfort themselves when advocating against infrastructural improvements that will save lives and marginally improve the chances of humanity making it to 2100.

There is plenty of reason to believe that the accident is due to cyclist error. She clearly made an assumption that the driver was going straight and she either put herself or left herself in a place where the driver could not see her. Hard to know at this point whether the driver should have seen her or could have stopped. Very sad.

I see so many people assuming that she was trying to pass him- it is just as likely that she was cycling, he was behind her and decided to pass and turn right. Construction vehicles drive very dangerously in this city and I don't see what people presume that she was behind him at some point.

So she could have dropped back or stopped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? If there's a bike lane on a block a bicyclist is on then why don't they have to use it?

They might need to turn in a way the bike lane isn't condusive to. They might be in a mood. Their might be a car parked in the bike lane, blocking it.

Then why are we spending money to build them if the very people that demand them don't use them because they might be "in a mood"?

Because good urban design accounts for human imperfections.

But if nobody uses them then it's by definition bad urban design because it's an inefficient use of space and has not aeethetic value

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The report is "clearly" incomplete? How so?

The preliminary investigation revealed...

https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/traffic-fatality-intersection-21st-street-and-i-street-northwest

Preliminary. Not final. Not complete. Still working on it. Some details are missing. Says the author and publisher of the document.

What details are missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? If there's a bike lane on a block a bicyclist is on then why don't they have to use it?

They might need to turn in a way the bike lane isn't condusive to. They might be in a mood. Their might be a car parked in the bike lane, blocking it.

Then why are we spending money to build them if the very people that demand them don't use them because they might be "in a mood"?

The entire bike lane project is a boondoggle. The city has spend BILLIONS on bike infrastructure -- infrastructure that's maybe used by a 1,000 people. The cost per user is astronomical and indefensible. It would be cheaper to pay every biker in D.C. $100,000 to just take the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rules for bikes are the same as for cars. Try and pass a car on the right when he's making a right hand turn and let us know how it works out.

They should be but they're not. The bicyclist can legally undertake the truck. But it's extremely dangerous. Because the truck can make a right turn and run over the bicyclist.


Rules for cars have been ironed out over years of crashes, and are designed so that everyone knows what all the cars are supposed to be doing, for the safety of everyone. Rules for bikes are designed for convenience or efficiency but not for safety.

I would partly disagree here. Rules for bicycles are certainly designed for convenience, but at the expense of clarity. Cyclists demand to be able to make risk-based judgments in certain situations that cars are simply not allowed to make due to the risks. This means that there are no bright lines rules governing cyclist behavior. The most important thing for safety is that all users can have expectations of how other users will act in certain situations. Unfortunately there is a lot of pushback to setting these brightline rules for cycling. It’s worth noting that countries in Europe that have lower accident rates for bicycles do have clear rules governing all users.

And there it is. Bicyclists do whatever the hell they want and then blame drivers for collisions.

Correct: A bicycle rider crashed into my car as I was waiting for a red light. The rider was on a bike path by a major street that bisects the path. Everyone else was waiting for the intersection to clear so that they could cross the street, but Bicycle Princess tried to maneuver in front of my car so that she could cut through the waiting cars. It was a tight squeeze and she lost her balance and she and her bike "fell" into the front of my car. She created about $2,000 worth of body damage but refused to provide ay identifying information. Fortunately, an Arlington County cop was nearby and saw the effect of the accident she caused. She claimed that she was a poor student and could not pay for the damage. I found her parents and sent photos of what she did to my car. They paid up. Can you imagine racing that kind of brat.

No i can’t and I feel sorry for your parents raising someone who thinks it is ok to block bike paths.

[Anonymous]

This whole thread man. Some of you have weird angst against bikers and I get it, some are loud and aggressive but guess what: they’re behavior won’t kill you. Some of the people are taking victory laps in the form of concern trolling for Ms. o’donnells death and it’s absolutely gross. Look at how the OP framed this thread. It’s honestly disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread man. Some of you have weird angst against bikers and I get it, some are loud and aggressive but guess what: they’re behavior won’t kill you. Some of the people are taking victory laps in the form of concern trolling for Ms. o’donnells death and it’s absolutely gross. Look at how the OP framed this thread. It’s honestly disgusting.

Nothing to say about the people trying to intentionally spread misinformation about this poor woman’s death in order to promote a political agenda? I think that’s pretty disgusting too and it’s in keeping with the nature of this thread for someone to come in with a shame on all of you except me post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is a large, new bi-directional bike lane one block over, that was created in response to the bike lobby. This woman was not using it though.

Cyclists are not required to be in the bike lane.

Why not? Why are we building them then?

We built streets for bikes originally and cars have more than overtaken their use. Despite that, cars seem to end up crash on sidewalks all.the.time. So...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? If there's a bike lane on a block a bicyclist is on then why don't they have to use it?

They might need to turn in a way the bike lane isn't condusive to. They might be in a mood. Their might be a car parked in the bike lane, blocking it.

Then why are we spending money to build them if the very people that demand them don't use them because they might be "in a mood"?

If you can guarantee that a bike lane is never blocked by a car, that a sidewalk is never blocked by a car either flatly parking on it, or sticking out on a driveway, then we can have the conversation. Since you can't, then move along with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rules for bikes are the same as for cars. Try and pass a car on the right when he's making a right hand turn and let us know how it works out.

They should be but they're not. The bicyclist can legally undertake the truck. But it's extremely dangerous. Because the truck can make a right turn and run over the bicyclist.


Rules for cars have been ironed out over years of crashes, and are designed so that everyone knows what all the cars are supposed to be doing, for the safety of everyone. Rules for bikes are designed for convenience or efficiency but not for safety.

I would partly disagree here. Rules for bicycles are certainly designed for convenience, but at the expense of clarity. Cyclists demand to be able to make risk-based judgments in certain situations that cars are simply not allowed to make due to the risks. This means that there are no bright lines rules governing cyclist behavior. The most important thing for safety is that all users can have expectations of how other users will act in certain situations. Unfortunately there is a lot of pushback to setting these brightline rules for cycling. It’s worth noting that countries in Europe that have lower accident rates for bicycles do have clear rules governing all users.

And there it is. Bicyclists do whatever the hell they want and then blame drivers for collisions.

Correct: A bicycle rider crashed into my car as I was waiting for a red light. The rider was on a bike path by a major street that bisects the path. Everyone else was waiting for the intersection to clear so that they could cross the street, but Bicycle Princess tried to maneuver in front of my car so that she could cut through the waiting cars. It was a tight squeeze and she lost her balance and she and her bike "fell" into the front of my car. She created about $2,000 worth of body damage but refused to provide ay identifying information. Fortunately, an Arlington County cop was nearby and saw the effect of the accident she caused. She claimed that she was a poor student and could not pay for the damage. I found her parents and sent photos of what she did to my car. They paid up. Can you imagine racing that kind of brat.

Do you know what percentage of drivers come to a complete, legal stop at the 4 way stop signs in my neighborhood? Over the course of COVID, I had a chance to actually assess this and track it.

About 4%

Please stop with the nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? If there's a bike lane on a block a bicyclist is on then why don't they have to use it?

They might need to turn in a way the bike lane isn't condusive to. They might be in a mood. Their might be a car parked in the bike lane, blocking it.

Then why are we spending money to build them if the very people that demand them don't use them because they might be "in a mood"?

The entire bike lane project is a boondoggle. The city has spend BILLIONS on bike infrastructure -- infrastructure that's maybe used by a 1,000 people. The cost per user is astronomical and indefensible. It would be cheaper to pay every biker in D.C. $100,000 to just take the bus.

D.C. has one of the highest childhood poverty rates in the country, and yet we have billions in public money to subsidize the hobby of white guys from Ward 3.