Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the two cyclists who died recently. The state department woman was a great person. What a loss. I live in Shaw near whether the other cyclist died. As a mom and a driver, I just hope that parents who think it’s safe and cool to ride with their kids in trailers and baby seats on their bike will think twice. I rode bikes downtown with my kids during the pandemic when the streets were mostly empty, but it’s not safe most of the time, especially at rush hour. One mistake by a car and the unthinkable will happen again. Ok if adults take risks, but please don’t put your kids on the line. Also, I hope all the scooter people will take note. So many near accidents every day.

+1

You have to be insane to allow a child on a bike in Washington D.C. It is really, really dangerous.

Yes, and the whole goal of the nefarious bike lobby is to... make it safer! Those evil bastards.

If they aren't used then they don't work.

We're not questioning your intentions. We're questioning your judgement and the use of finite public resources.

Bike lanes aren't for bike commuters. Those bicyclists don't like the inability to go fast and manouver. Meanwhile casual bikers prefer biking in areas with less traffic and occassional bikers prefer to walk. Bike lanes are designed for a segment of travel, medium distance, that is better served by metro. They are the betamax/DAT of transportation policy. People don't use them. And if people don't use them then it is a waste of money, resources and space that serves no benefit.

The bicycling enthusiast community would be better served by fixing and/or maintaining dedicated bike paths alongside GW and RC Parkway.

nope try again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the two cyclists who died recently. The state department woman was a great person. What a loss. I live in Shaw near whether the other cyclist died. As a mom and a driver, I just hope that parents who think it’s safe and cool to ride with their kids in trailers and baby seats on their bike will think twice. I rode bikes downtown with my kids during the pandemic when the streets were mostly empty, but it’s not safe most of the time, especially at rush hour. One mistake by a car and the unthinkable will happen again. Ok if adults take risks, but please don’t put your kids on the line. Also, I hope all the scooter people will take note. So many near accidents every day.

+1

You have to be insane to allow a child on a bike in Washington D.C. It is really, really dangerous.

Yes, and the whole goal of the nefarious bike lobby is to... make it safer! Those evil bastards.

If they aren't used then they don't work.

We're not questioning your intentions. We're questioning your judgement and the use of finite public resources.

Bike lanes aren't for bike commuters. Those bicyclists don't like the inability to go fast and manouver. Meanwhile casual bikers prefer biking in areas with less traffic and occassional bikers prefer to walk. Bike lanes are designed for a segment of travel, medium distance, that is better served by metro. They are the betamax/DAT of transportation policy. People don't use them. And if people don't use them then it is a waste of money, resources and space that serves no benefit.

The bicycling enthusiast community would be better served by fixing and/or maintaining dedicated bike paths alongside GW and RC Parkway.

Bike lanes are pretty much only used by commuters or other people using their bikes as transportation. Recreational cyclists want to go faster than you can go in the city. Also, not every bike trip is better done by Metro. I replace a lot of round-trip 2-mile car trips for errands with a bike trip. Metro doesn’t run from my house to where I’m going. (There also aren’t bike lanes, but the point is, bikes are ideal for far more than you’re suggesting.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the two cyclists who died recently. The state department woman was a great person. What a loss. I live in Shaw near whether the other cyclist died. As a mom and a driver, I just hope that parents who think it’s safe and cool to ride with their kids in trailers and baby seats on their bike will think twice. I rode bikes downtown with my kids during the pandemic when the streets were mostly empty, but it’s not safe most of the time, especially at rush hour. One mistake by a car and the unthinkable will happen again. Ok if adults take risks, but please don’t put your kids on the line. Also, I hope all the scooter people will take note. So many near accidents every day.

+1

You have to be insane to allow a child on a bike in Washington D.C. It is really, really dangerous.

Yes, and the whole goal of the nefarious bike lobby is to... make it safer! Those evil bastards.

If they aren't used then they don't work.

We're not questioning your intentions. We're questioning your judgement and the use of finite public resources.

Bike lanes aren't for bike commuters. Those bicyclists don't like the inability to go fast and manouver. Meanwhile casual bikers prefer biking in areas with less traffic and occassional bikers prefer to walk. Bike lanes are designed for a segment of travel, medium distance, that is better served by metro. They are the betamax/DAT of transportation policy. People don't use them. And if people don't use them then it is a waste of money, resources and space that serves no benefit.

The bicycling enthusiast community would be better served by fixing and/or maintaining dedicated bike paths alongside GW and RC Parkway.

Bike lanes are pretty much only used by commuters or other people using their bikes as transportation. Recreational cyclists want to go faster than you can go in the city. Also, not every bike trip is better done by Metro. I replace a lot of round-trip 2-mile car trips for errands with a bike trip. Metro doesn’t run from my house to where I’m going. (There also aren’t bike lanes, but the point is, bikes are ideal for far more than you’re suggesting.)

You are not the norm. The vast majority of people have no interest in biking for anything other than occassional recreation and the general non-use of bike lanes supports that point. You keep.talking about what one can do on a bike. Not what people do do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the two cyclists who died recently. The state department woman was a great person. What a loss. I live in Shaw near whether the other cyclist died. As a mom and a driver, I just hope that parents who think it’s safe and cool to ride with their kids in trailers and baby seats on their bike will think twice. I rode bikes downtown with my kids during the pandemic when the streets were mostly empty, but it’s not safe most of the time, especially at rush hour. One mistake by a car and the unthinkable will happen again. Ok if adults take risks, but please don’t put your kids on the line. Also, I hope all the scooter people will take note. So many near accidents every day.

+1

You have to be insane to allow a child on a bike in Washington D.C. It is really, really dangerous.

Yes, and the whole goal of the nefarious bike lobby is to... make it safer! Those evil bastards.

If they aren't used then they don't work.

We're not questioning your intentions. We're questioning your judgement and the use of finite public resources.

Bike lanes aren't for bike commuters. Those bicyclists don't like the inability to go fast and manouver. Meanwhile casual bikers prefer biking in areas with less traffic and occassional bikers prefer to walk. Bike lanes are designed for a segment of travel, medium distance, that is better served by metro. They are the betamax/DAT of transportation policy. People don't use them. And if people don't use them then it is a waste of money, resources and space that serves no benefit.

The bicycling enthusiast community would be better served by fixing and/or maintaining dedicated bike paths alongside GW and RC Parkway.

Bike lanes are pretty much only used by commuters or other people using their bikes as transportation. Recreational cyclists want to go faster than you can go in the city. Also, not every bike trip is better done by Metro. I replace a lot of round-trip 2-mile car trips for errands with a bike trip. Metro doesn’t run from my house to where I’m going. (There also aren’t bike lanes, but the point is, bikes are ideal for far more than you’re suggesting.)

You are not the norm. The vast majority of people have no interest in biking for anything other than occassional recreation and the general non-use of bike lanes supports that point. You keep.talking about what one can do on a bike. Not what people do do.

Still wrong - DP

[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.

Spot on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spot on!

but they didn’t so I’ll keep using the bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the two cyclists who died recently. The state department woman was a great person. What a loss. I live in Shaw near whether the other cyclist died. As a mom and a driver, I just hope that parents who think it’s safe and cool to ride with their kids in trailers and baby seats on their bike will think twice. I rode bikes downtown with my kids during the pandemic when the streets were mostly empty, but it’s not safe most of the time, especially at rush hour. One mistake by a car and the unthinkable will happen again. Ok if adults take risks, but please don’t put your kids on the line. Also, I hope all the scooter people will take note. So many near accidents every day.

+1

You have to be insane to allow a child on a bike in Washington D.C. It is really, really dangerous.

Yes, and the whole goal of the nefarious bike lobby is to... make it safer! Those evil bastards.

If they aren't used then they don't work.

We're not questioning your intentions. We're questioning your judgement and the use of finite public resources.

Bike lanes aren't for bike commuters. Those bicyclists don't like the inability to go fast and manouver. Meanwhile casual bikers prefer biking in areas with less traffic and occassional bikers prefer to walk. Bike lanes are designed for a segment of travel, medium distance, that is better served by metro. They are the betamax/DAT of transportation policy. People don't use them. And if people don't use them then it is a waste of money, resources and space that serves no benefit.

The bicycling enthusiast community would be better served by fixing and/or maintaining dedicated bike paths alongside GW and RC Parkway.

Bike lanes are pretty much only used by commuters or other people using their bikes as transportation. Recreational cyclists want to go faster than you can go in the city. Also, not every bike trip is better done by Metro. I replace a lot of round-trip 2-mile car trips for errands with a bike trip. Metro doesn’t run from my house to where I’m going. (There also aren’t bike lanes, but the point is, bikes are ideal for far more than you’re suggesting.)

You are not the norm. The vast majority of people have no interest in biking for anything other than occassional recreation and the general non-use of bike lanes supports that point. You keep.talking about what one can do on a bike. Not what people do do.

False. And you're probably a clueless driver who doesn't even live in the district. I regularly see good numbers of cyclists commuting. And our bike garage, bike racks and showers/changing areas get heavy use by bicycle commuters. It's not just DC residents either, some of my co-workers even commute in to downtown by bike from as far as Vienna and Falls Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spot on!

Completely wrong and you're totally making up complete over the top hyperbolic nonsense, for example it's not even remotely "billions" spent on bike infrastructure. And, DC bike lanes get used by a hell of a lot more than "maybe 1,000" people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spot on!

Completely wrong and you're totally making up complete over the top hyperbolic nonsense, for example it's not even remotely "billions" spent on bike infrastructure. And, DC bike lanes get used by a hell of a lot more than "maybe 1,000" people.

Right, "maybe 1,000" is an obvious understatement and just as obviously, totally made up. The "bikecommuting" Slack channel at my employer alone has 55 people in it, and there are several other people who commute only by bike who aren't even in that channel. We're nowhere near one of the largest employers in the city. You get over 1,000 pretty quickly if each workplace has a few dozen people riding to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the two cyclists who died recently. The state department woman was a great person. What a loss. I live in Shaw near whether the other cyclist died. As a mom and a driver, I just hope that parents who think it’s safe and cool to ride with their kids in trailers and baby seats on their bike will think twice. I rode bikes downtown with my kids during the pandemic when the streets were mostly empty, but it’s not safe most of the time, especially at rush hour. One mistake by a car and the unthinkable will happen again. Ok if adults take risks, but please don’t put your kids on the line. Also, I hope all the scooter people will take note. So many near accidents every day.

+1

You have to be insane to allow a child on a bike in Washington D.C. It is really, really dangerous.

Yes, and the whole goal of the nefarious bike lobby is to... make it safer! Those evil bastards.

If they aren't used then they don't work.

We're not questioning your intentions. We're questioning your judgement and the use of finite public resources.

Bike lanes aren't for bike commuters. Those bicyclists don't like the inability to go fast and manouver. Meanwhile casual bikers prefer biking in areas with less traffic and occassional bikers prefer to walk. Bike lanes are designed for a segment of travel, medium distance, that is better served by metro. They are the betamax/DAT of transportation policy. People don't use them. And if people don't use them then it is a waste of money, resources and space that serves no benefit.

The bicycling enthusiast community would be better served by fixing and/or maintaining dedicated bike paths alongside GW and RC Parkway.

Bike lanes are pretty much only used by commuters or other people using their bikes as transportation. Recreational cyclists want to go faster than you can go in the city. Also, not every bike trip is better done by Metro. I replace a lot of round-trip 2-mile car trips for errands with a bike trip. Metro doesn’t run from my house to where I’m going. (There also aren’t bike lanes, but the point is, bikes are ideal for far more than you’re suggesting.)

You are not the norm. The vast majority of people have no interest in biking for anything other than occassional recreation and the general non-use of bike lanes supports that point. You keep.talking about what one can do on a bike. Not what people do do.

Technically, I'm talking about what I do on a bike, not what one can do on a bike. But apparently I don't count, because my behavior on a bike doesn't match what you think people do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spot on!

Completely wrong and you're totally making up complete over the top hyperbolic nonsense, for example it's not even remotely "billions" spent on bike infrastructure. And, DC bike lanes get used by a hell of a lot more than "maybe 1,000" people.

Right, "maybe 1,000" is an obvious understatement and just as obviously, totally made up. The "bikecommuting" Slack channel at my employer alone has 55 people in it, and there are several other people who commute only by bike who aren't even in that channel. We're nowhere near one of the largest employers in the city. You get over 1,000 pretty quickly if each workplace has a few dozen people riding to work.

Then let's get a trafficl flow survey. Not intentions or potential interest. Actual year round use because a bicyclist in a bike lane is one of the rarest sights in the city. I've seen more deer on the streets than bikes in bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spot on!

but they didn’t so I’ll keep using the bike lanes.

Good for you. Somebody should. Hope you do so even when you are "in a mood". When the very people the bike lanes were built for don't use them it shows how pointless they are.

In the meantime we should pass a law that all cyclists must use bike lanes and paths if there is one available. That would increase safety, reduce congestion and show whether they are useful or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spot on!

Completely wrong and you're totally making up complete over the top hyperbolic nonsense, for example it's not even remotely "billions" spent on bike infrastructure. And, DC bike lanes get used by a hell of a lot more than "maybe 1,000" people.

Right, "maybe 1,000" is an obvious understatement and just as obviously, totally made up. The "bikecommuting" Slack channel at my employer alone has 55 people in it, and there are several other people who commute only by bike who aren't even in that channel. We're nowhere near one of the largest employers in the city. You get over 1,000 pretty quickly if each workplace has a few dozen people riding to work.

Then let's get a trafficl flow survey. Not intentions or potential interest. Actual year round use because a bicyclist in a bike lane is one of the rarest sights in the city. I've seen more deer on the streets than bikes in bike lanes.

I believe you. It can be very hard to see what's around you when you're looking at your phone so much. It's ok, I see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spot on!

but they didn’t so I’ll keep using the bike lanes.

Good for you. Somebody should. Hope you do so even when you are "in a mood". When the very people the bike lanes were built for don't use them it shows how pointless they are.

In the meantime we should pass a law that all cyclists must use bike lanes and paths if there is one available. That would increase safety, reduce congestion and show whether they are useful or not.

What if the bicyclist sees debris in the bike lane or is getting ready to turn left, but you don't see the same. Will you chill out then? Ah, nevermind. Of course not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Spot on!

but they didn’t so I’ll keep using the bike lanes.

Good for you. Somebody should. Hope you do so even when you are "in a mood". When the very people the bike lanes were built for don't use them it shows how pointless they are.

In the meantime we should pass a law that all cyclists must use bike lanes and paths if there is one available. That would increase safety, reduce congestion and show whether they are useful or not.

Can we also have a law that cars can’t park in bike lanes? The amount of time drivers yell at me for being in the road when I have to swerve in and out of delivery drivers and people just chilling with their hazards is awful