Bikes lanes poorly designed - unsafe for drivers and bikers

[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:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

What we need are bike lanes protected from bear attacks. Every cyclist eaten by a bear is a tragedy.

Nutjobs.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it, it makes you sound worse.

I think PP's point is the the number of cyclists killed is statistically insignificant, and they're not wrong. Every death is a tragedy but the story is in each narrative, not the overall numbers.

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to write. Every road death represents a life tragically cut short. Those lives may not mean much to you, but they do to so many others. What is especially tragic is that many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had better infrastructure and more rigorous enforcement of road regulations, especially speeding.

Uh huh. While you hyperventilate about drivers, it’s worth noting that the number of cyclists killed in this city is minuscule. It’s amazing it’s not higher given all the stupid things cyclists do.

The number of children murdered in this city dwarfs the number of cyclists killed. But sure let’s all focus on that one white guy on a bike who got hit by a car three years ago

These are completely unrelated policy questions, though. We can be furious at children being murdered but also think the roads could be safer to bike on.

Except that’s not what happens *at all*. All the attention and a stunning amount of money goes to the white guy on a bike who is an adult who voluntarily chose to do something that everyone knows is dangerous. Every public dollar spent on one thing like subsidizing the hobbies of Bernie bros is a dollar that can’t be spent on another thing.

please stop. I doubt you care about black kids getting shot - you’re just trying to make a point. meanwhile, black kids actually DO disproportionately suffer from traffic accidents (and some die, including those on bikes). making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians would strongly benefit black kids.

Uh huh right. I think it’s disgusting how much of our public resources white guys are able to commandeer for their hobbies in a city with shocking poverty and crime rates. Our poverty rate is the same as West Virginia. We have as many murders as Baltimore. The children angle will upset anyone who has kids (you obviously do not).

The city spent $4 million to build a place at union station for people to lock up their bikes. $4 million!

They could have spent a whole lot less than 4million if the goal was just "to store bikes securely". But they wanted it to look fancy so they could rent it to people/businesses. Which they did.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it, it makes you sound worse.

I think PP's point is the the number of cyclists killed is statistically insignificant, and they're not wrong. Every death is a tragedy but the story is in each narrative, not the overall numbers.

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to write. Every road death represents a life tragically cut short. Those lives may not mean much to you, but they do to so many others. What is especially tragic is that many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had better infrastructure and more rigorous enforcement of road regulations, especially speeding.

Uh huh. While you hyperventilate about drivers, it’s worth noting that the number of cyclists killed in this city is minuscule. It’s amazing it’s not higher given all the stupid things cyclists do.

The number of children murdered in this city dwarfs the number of cyclists killed. But sure let’s all focus on that one white guy on a bike who got hit by a car three years ago

These are completely unrelated policy questions, though. We can be furious at children being murdered but also think the roads could be safer to bike on.

Except that’s not what happens *at all*. All the attention and a stunning amount of money goes to the white guy on a bike who is an adult who voluntarily chose to do something that everyone knows is dangerous. Every public dollar spent on one thing like subsidizing the hobbies of Bernie bros is a dollar that can’t be spent on another thing.

please stop. I doubt you care about black kids getting shot - you’re just trying to make a point. meanwhile, black kids actually DO disproportionately suffer from traffic accidents (and some die, including those on bikes). making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians would strongly benefit black kids.

Uh huh right. I think it’s disgusting how much of our public resources white guys are able to commandeer for their hobbies in a city with shocking poverty and crime rates. Our poverty rate is the same as West Virginia. We have as many murders as Baltimore. The children angle will upset anyone who has kids (you obviously do not).

The city spent $4 million to build a place at union station for people to lock up their bikes. $4 million!

They could have spent a whole lot less than 4million if the goal was just "to store bikes securely". But they wanted it to look fancy so they could rent it to people/businesses. Which they did.

It’s closed. No one uses it. Another bicycle boondoggle.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it, it makes you sound worse.

I think PP's point is the the number of cyclists killed is statistically insignificant, and they're not wrong. Every death is a tragedy but the story is in each narrative, not the overall numbers.

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to write. Every road death represents a life tragically cut short. Those lives may not mean much to you, but they do to so many others. What is especially tragic is that many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had better infrastructure and more rigorous enforcement of road regulations, especially speeding.

Uh huh. While you hyperventilate about drivers, it’s worth noting that the number of cyclists killed in this city is minuscule. It’s amazing it’s not higher given all the stupid things cyclists do.

The number of children murdered in this city dwarfs the number of cyclists killed. But sure let’s all focus on that one white guy on a bike who got hit by a car three years ago

These are completely unrelated policy questions, though. We can be furious at children being murdered but also think the roads could be safer to bike on.

Except that’s not what happens *at all*. All the attention and a stunning amount of money goes to the white guy on a bike who is an adult who voluntarily chose to do something that everyone knows is dangerous. Every public dollar spent on one thing like subsidizing the hobbies of Bernie bros is a dollar that can’t be spent on another thing.

please stop. I doubt you care about black kids getting shot - you’re just trying to make a point. meanwhile, black kids actually DO disproportionately suffer from traffic accidents (and some die, including those on bikes). making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians would strongly benefit black kids.

Uh huh right. I think it’s disgusting how much of our public resources white guys are able to commandeer for their hobbies in a city with shocking poverty and crime rates. Our poverty rate is the same as West Virginia. We have as many murders as Baltimore. The children angle will upset anyone who has kids (you obviously do not).

The city spent $4 million to build a place at union station for people to lock up their bikes. $4 million!

The federal government covered 80 percent of that cost, FWIW, and also, it was in pretty constant use for the duration of its initial 10-year lease. Weirdly, sometime around early 2020, demand seems to have fallen off. The current dispute dates only to last October, though. And anyway, the new owners of Union Station are trying to take the whole space over for expanding the station's footprint. In other words, this is mostly about post-pandemic commercial real estate, not about bike infrastructure.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it, it makes you sound worse.

I think PP's point is the the number of cyclists killed is statistically insignificant, and they're not wrong. Every death is a tragedy but the story is in each narrative, not the overall numbers.

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to write. Every road death represents a life tragically cut short. Those lives may not mean much to you, but they do to so many others. What is especially tragic is that many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had better infrastructure and more rigorous enforcement of road regulations, especially speeding.

Uh huh. While you hyperventilate about drivers, it’s worth noting that the number of cyclists killed in this city is minuscule. It’s amazing it’s not higher given all the stupid things cyclists do.

The number of children murdered in this city dwarfs the number of cyclists killed. But sure let’s all focus on that one white guy on a bike who got hit by a car three years ago

These are completely unrelated policy questions, though. We can be furious at children being murdered but also think the roads could be safer to bike on.

Except that’s not what happens *at all*. All the attention and a stunning amount of money goes to the white guy on a bike who is an adult who voluntarily chose to do something that everyone knows is dangerous. Every public dollar spent on one thing like subsidizing the hobbies of Bernie bros is a dollar that can’t be spent on another thing.

please stop. I doubt you care about black kids getting shot - you’re just trying to make a point. meanwhile, black kids actually DO disproportionately suffer from traffic accidents (and some die, including those on bikes). making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians would strongly benefit black kids.

Uh huh right. I think it’s disgusting how much of our public resources white guys are able to commandeer for their hobbies in a city with shocking poverty and crime rates. Our poverty rate is the same as West Virginia. We have as many murders as Baltimore. The children angle will upset anyone who has kids (you obviously do not).

The city spent $4 million to build a place at union station for people to lock up their bikes. $4 million!

They could have spent a whole lot less than 4million if the goal was just "to store bikes securely". But they wanted it to look fancy so they could rent it to people/businesses. Which they did.

It’s closed. No one uses it. Another bicycle boondoggle.

It's closed because the company they rented to (which did bike tour rentals) went out of business during the pandemic since way fewer people were traveling here during that. Some people might call that a vacant property that is available for rent. It's not like its closed forever and the building has to be torn down. Jeez.

[Anonymous]

I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

This is objectively untrue.

Why do you think so many accidents happen, particularly serious ones, happen on highways where the driving is so smooth that people can zone out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Right, but you can't evaluate that based on the three years surrounding the change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

So you're saying you're a scofflaw driver?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

You just made the case for MORE traffic calming measures, including cameras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

Pretty much every single cyclist ignores stop signs. It’s not like they even follow the rules of “Idaho stops”