Are bikes allowed to go through red lights on major roads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Do people even bike to work on Beach? Or is it mostly recreational cycling? Doesn't seem like a convenient way to get anywhere you'd need to be for an office job.

OK if it isn't convenient to get to an office job then why are drivers so up in arms about it being closed to cars?

It's a convenient way to get to an office job if you're driving from the northern end of it, because who cares if you have to drive uphill out of the park to get where you're going. But for people who live near the park and bike to work downtown, it's much more convenient to just take surface streets.

Beach is a super long stretch with no loots and no car traffic. I bike from the northern tip down; getting in and out is not an issue at all. It is a longer mileage than if I took surface streets but with lack of traffic it is certainly more convenient than surface streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

Cite your source. And no, something from DECCA doesn't count, silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Do people even bike to work on Beach? Or is it mostly recreational cycling? Doesn't seem like a convenient way to get anywhere you'd need to be for an office job.

OK if it isn't convenient to get to an office job then why are drivers so up in arms about it being closed to cars?

It's a convenient way to get to an office job if you're driving from the northern end of it, because who cares if you have to drive uphill out of the park to get where you're going. But for people who live near the park and bike to work downtown, it's much more convenient to just take surface streets.

It is much more convenient to just take the surface streets.

The reason it was closed wasn't to create a biking commuter path. It was closed so that people could enjoy the park as a ... park. Rather than as a highway that restricted park users to only small sections of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Do people even bike to work on Beach? Or is it mostly recreational cycling? Doesn't seem like a convenient way to get anywhere you'd need to be for an office job.

OK if it isn't convenient to get to an office job then why are drivers so up in arms about it being closed to cars?

It's a convenient way to get to an office job if you're driving from the northern end of it, because who cares if you have to drive uphill out of the park to get where you're going. But for people who live near the park and bike to work downtown, it's much more convenient to just take surface streets.

It is much more convenient to just take the surface streets.

The reason it was closed wasn't to create a biking commuter path. It was closed so that people could enjoy the park as a ... park. Rather than as a highway that restricted park users to only small sections of it.

(whispers - the Ct Ave protected bike lanes indeed would make surface streets a better bike commute route for many …)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

Cite your source. And no, something from DECCA doesn't count, silly.

I believe that PP is probably referring to this piece, which does cite that POC use a bicycle a lot less than other race & ethnicities. However, I guess PP stopped reading at that point of the chart in the article, because they are ignoring the fact that the reason the article was citing this data was to support greater equity in DC-DOT funding allocation to the wards across the river/highway at the south and eastern parts of the city: "we should continue to improve streets for pedestrians and cyclists, so that residents of all neighborhoods can safely access these healthier modes of transportation."[i]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Do people even bike to work on Beach? Or is it mostly recreational cycling? Doesn't seem like a convenient way to get anywhere you'd need to be for an office job.

OK if it isn't convenient to get to an office job then why are drivers so up in arms about it being closed to cars?

It's a convenient way to get to an office job if you're driving from the northern end of it, because who cares if you have to drive uphill out of the park to get where you're going. But for people who live near the park and bike to work downtown, it's much more convenient to just take surface streets.

It is much more convenient to just take the surface streets.

The reason it was closed wasn't to create a biking commuter path. It was closed so that people could enjoy the park as a ... park. Rather than as a highway that restricted park users to only small sections of it.

(whispers - the Ct Ave protected bike lanes indeed would make surface streets a better bike commute route for many …)

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

Cite your source. And no, something from DECCA doesn't count, silly.

I believe that PP is probably referring to this piece, which does cite that POC use a bicycle a lot less than other race & ethnicities. However, I guess PP stopped reading at that point of the chart in the article, because they are ignoring the fact that the reason the article was citing this data was to support greater equity in DC-DOT funding allocation to the wards across the river/highway at the south and eastern parts of the city: "we should continue to improve streets for pedestrians and cyclists, so that residents of all neighborhoods can safely access these healthier modes of transportation."[i]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

Cite your source. And no, something from DECCA doesn't count, silly.

I believe that PP is probably referring to this piece, which does cite that POC use a bicycle a lot less than other race & ethnicities. However, I guess PP stopped reading at that point of the chart in the article, because they are ignoring the fact that the reason the article was citing this data was to support greater equity in DC-DOT funding allocation to the wards across the river/highway at the south and eastern parts of the city: "we should continue to improve streets for pedestrians and cyclists, so that residents of all neighborhoods can safely access these healthier modes of transportation."[i]

[Anonymous]

Clearly, this one bicyclist-hating poster should switch to a different hobby: advocating for better bus service.

(Assuming that ACS data from 2015, about the trips to work by people who live in DC and work in DC, is even still relevant.)

[Anonymous]

It's true that a dedicated bus lane would probably be more beneficial for most people (and particularly poorer citizens) than dedicated bike lanes. Particularly since even many cyclists switch over to the bus/metro when there's inclement weather.

It's crazy that there's more effort to put bike lanes than a bus lanes on Connecticut Ave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true that a dedicated bus lane would probably be more beneficial for most people (and particularly poorer citizens) than dedicated bike lanes. Particularly since even many cyclists switch over to the bus/metro when there's inclement weather.

It's crazy that there's more effort to put bike lanes than a bus lanes on Connecticut Ave.

Here's a great idea ... let's have both! Going each way, one dedicated bike lane, one dedicated bus lane, one lane for general traffic.

[Anonymous]

"Let's have both" usually means "let's give lip service to one while completely ignoring it and pushing for our pet project." No one is serious if they're going to pretend that space isn't limited, or if they pretend that no lanes are going to be preserved for cars, trucks, and vans.

Compare the map of D.C. dedicated bike lanes:

https://buspriority.ddot.dc.gov/pages/buslanes

To the map of dedicated D.C. bus lanes:

https://godcgo.com/wp-content/uploads/DC-Bike-Map.pdf

As mentioned, right now there's a push for bike lanes on Connecticut, not bus lanes. As the data above shows, bike commuters are a small segment of the population, but they often are wealthier and have an outsized voice compared to bus commuters, who are much more numerous but tend to be poorer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Let's have both" usually means "let's give lip service to one while completely ignoring it and pushing for our pet project." No one is serious if they're going to pretend that space isn't limited, or if they pretend that no lanes are going to be preserved for cars, trucks, and vans.

Compare the map of D.C. dedicated bike lanes:

https://buspriority.ddot.dc.gov/pages/buslanes

To the map of dedicated D.C. bus lanes:

https://godcgo.com/wp-content/uploads/DC-Bike-Map.pdf

As mentioned, right now there's a push for bike lanes on Connecticut, not bus lanes. As the data above shows, bike commuters are a small segment of the population, but they often are wealthier and have an outsized voice compared to bus commuters, who are much more numerous but tend to be poorer.

No, let's have both means let's have both. Nobody is stopping you from pushing for bus lanes on Connecticut Avenue. There is plenty of room on Connecticut Avenue for both bus lanes AND bike lanes - unless your priority is preserving space on Connecticut Avenue for cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Let's have both" usually means "let's give lip service to one while completely ignoring it and pushing for our pet project." No one is serious if they're going to pretend that space isn't limited, or if they pretend that no lanes are going to be preserved for cars, trucks, and vans.

Compare the map of D.C. dedicated bike lanes:

https://buspriority.ddot.dc.gov/pages/buslanes

To the map of dedicated D.C. bus lanes:

https://godcgo.com/wp-content/uploads/DC-Bike-Map.pdf

As mentioned, right now there's a push for bike lanes on Connecticut, not bus lanes. As the data above shows, bike commuters are a small segment of the population, but they often are wealthier and have an outsized voice compared to bus commuters, who are much more numerous but tend to be poorer.

So lead the charge and push for bus lanes on Connecticut Ave! Do something other than complaining that the the thing other people are doing is not the thing you would be doing if you were going to do anything, which you’re not…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true that a dedicated bus lane would probably be more beneficial for most people (and particularly poorer citizens) than dedicated bike lanes. Particularly since even many cyclists switch over to the bus/metro when there's inclement weather.

It's crazy that there's more effort to put bike lanes than a bus lanes on Connecticut Ave.

Well, PA Ave put in BOTH bus lanes AND protected bike lanes. People really need to stop making up fake conflicts. DDOT has many bus corridor projects going on right now.

The fact is the dedicated NIMBYs will make a fuss over ANY change to road use. Most triggered by bikes, but they’ll also oppose bus improvements (unless they are using buses to make a dishonest objection to bike lanes.)