Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You won't see a lot of people riding their bikes on CT Avenue, because it is unsafe. That is the whole point, thanks for helping to make it.

Has any cyclist ever in their lives considered that it simply might be too dangerous to do something and the entire community shouldn't be turned upside down in order to make them feel better?

Hi! I'm a member of the community. As a member of the community, when I drive, I'm a driver; when I walk, I'm a pedestrian; when I bicycle, I'm a cyclist; and when I take the bus, I'm a busrider. Also, even when I'm a driver, I don't believe that I'm more important than pedestrians or cyclists or busriders. Roads should be useful and safe for everyone, and when they're not, that's a problem, and we should fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You won't see a lot of people riding their bikes on CT Avenue, because it is unsafe. That is the whole point, thanks for helping to make it.

Has any cyclist ever in their lives considered that it simply might be too dangerous to do something and the entire community shouldn't be turned upside down in order to make them feel better?

Hi! I'm a member of the community. As a member of the community, when I drive, I'm a driver; when I walk, I'm a pedestrian; when I bicycle, I'm a cyclist; and when I take the bus, I'm a busrider. Also, even when I'm a driver, I don't believe that I'm more important than pedestrians or cyclists or busriders. Roads should be useful and safe for everyone, and when they're not, that's a problem, and we should fix it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You won't see a lot of people riding their bikes on CT Avenue, because it is unsafe. That is the whole point, thanks for helping to make it.

Has any cyclist ever in their lives considered that it simply might be too dangerous to do something and the entire community shouldn't be turned upside down in order to make them feel better?

How exactly will the "entire community" be turned upside down?

We could restore the historic streetcars as if they never left the Avenue and there would be 1 parking lane, one car/bus lane and one streetcar lane, and you would hail it as great historic urbanism. The road was transformed into an urban highway in the 1960's and that is the past you laud. the rest of us want the street restored to a great urban community based space, not an autocentric cesspool.

Making space for bikes will improve things for pedestrians and cyclists. The addition of turn lanes also improves things for motorists and generally speaking, there will still be two through lanes for cars and buses, just like there is today (though we generally don't have turn lanes today, so with parking there is only one through lane at most intersections)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You won't see a lot of people riding their bikes on CT Avenue, because it is unsafe. That is the whole point, thanks for helping to make it.

Has any cyclist ever in their lives considered that it simply might be too dangerous to do something and the entire community shouldn't be turned upside down in order to make them feel better?

Hi! I'm a member of the community. As a member of the community, when I drive, I'm a driver; when I walk, I'm a pedestrian; when I bicycle, I'm a cyclist; and when I take the bus, I'm a busrider. Also, even when I'm a driver, I don't believe that I'm more important than pedestrians or cyclists or busriders. Roads should be useful and safe for everyone, and when they're not, that's a problem, and we should fix it.

No, see, the rules are that "the community" only includes drivers. Those of us who sometimes drive, sometimes walk, sometimes bike, and sometimes take public transit don't count as part of the community, because "the community" demands the roads be completely optimized for cars and if you disagree with that, you are ipso facto not part of "the community." No true member of "the community" would support these bike lanes, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You won't see a lot of people riding their bikes on CT Avenue, because it is unsafe. That is the whole point, thanks for helping to make it.

Has any cyclist ever in their lives considered that it simply might be too dangerous to do something and the entire community shouldn't be turned upside down in order to make them feel better?

Hi! I'm a member of the community. As a member of the community, when I drive, I'm a driver; when I walk, I'm a pedestrian; when I bicycle, I'm a cyclist; and when I take the bus, I'm a busrider. Also, even when I'm a driver, I don't believe that I'm more important than pedestrians or cyclists or busriders. Roads should be useful and safe for everyone, and when they're not, that's a problem, and we should fix it.

No, see, the rules are that "the community" only includes drivers. Those of us who sometimes drive, sometimes walk, sometimes bike, and sometimes take public transit don't count as part of the community, because "the community" demands the roads be completely optimized for cars and if you disagree with that, you are ipso facto not part of "the community." No true member of "the community" would support these bike lanes, obviously.

It's disturbing to see on social media (I know, I know) people saying more often that if we really want to make roads safe for pedestrians and bicyclists, we should...ban walking and biking. Completely bizarre.

[Anonymous]

As a member of the community and an avid cyclist, I’m opposed. Protected bike lanes offer a false sense of safety, they take you out of direct line of sight of vehicles and allow cars to forget about you. Proper vehicular cycling is much safer. These bike lanes are guaranteed going to get cyclists killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a member of the community and an avid cyclist, I’m opposed. Protected bike lanes offer a false sense of safety, they take you out of direct line of sight of vehicles and allow cars to forget about you. Proper vehicular cycling is much safer. These bike lanes are guaranteed going to get cyclists killed.

John Forester is posting on DCUM from the grave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You won't see a lot of people riding their bikes on CT Avenue, because it is unsafe. That is the whole point, thanks for helping to make it.

Has any cyclist ever in their lives considered that it simply might be too dangerous to do something and the entire community shouldn't be turned upside down in order to make them feel better?

Hi! I'm a member of the community. As a member of the community, when I drive, I'm a driver; when I walk, I'm a pedestrian; when I bicycle, I'm a cyclist; and when I take the bus, I'm a busrider. Also, even when I'm a driver, I don't believe that I'm more important than pedestrians or cyclists or busriders. Roads should be useful and safe for everyone, and when they're not, that's a problem, and we should fix it.

No, see, the rules are that "the community" only includes drivers. Those of us who sometimes drive, sometimes walk, sometimes bike, and sometimes take public transit don't count as part of the community, because "the community" demands the roads be completely optimized for cars and if you disagree with that, you are ipso facto not part of "the community." No true member of "the community" would support these bike lanes, obviously.

I am a driving part of the community. I’d like to drive my car on the Crescent Trail or the sidewalk because I feel like it. How can we fix this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You won't see a lot of people riding their bikes on CT Avenue, because it is unsafe. That is the whole point, thanks for helping to make it.

Has any cyclist ever in their lives considered that it simply might be too dangerous to do something and the entire community shouldn't be turned upside down in order to make them feel better?

Hi! I'm a member of the community. As a member of the community, when I drive, I'm a driver; when I walk, I'm a pedestrian; when I bicycle, I'm a cyclist; and when I take the bus, I'm a busrider. Also, even when I'm a driver, I don't believe that I'm more important than pedestrians or cyclists or busriders. Roads should be useful and safe for everyone, and when they're not, that's a problem, and we should fix it.

No, see, the rules are that "the community" only includes drivers. Those of us who sometimes drive, sometimes walk, sometimes bike, and sometimes take public transit don't count as part of the community, because "the community" demands the roads be completely optimized for cars and if you disagree with that, you are ipso facto not part of "the community." No true member of "the community" would support these bike lanes, obviously.

I am a driving part of the community. I’d like to drive my car on the Crescent Trail or the sidewalk because I feel like it. How can we fix this?

Well, this is different, because while the law bans cars from sidewalks or bike trails, it does not ban bikes from roads, except interstate highways. So I'm afraid you're going to remain disappointed, at least until you decide to just ignore the law and drive on the Capital Crescent Trail anyway, as people do several times a year, at least, or on the sidewalk, which probably happens even more often.

[Anonymous]

Please post links to the numerous incidents of cars driving on a biking trail, sidewalk or tow path. When Beach Drive is closed on the weekends how many cars do you see there? How about the trolley trail? Take your time,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please post links to the numerous incidents of cars driving on a biking trail, sidewalk or tow path. When Beach Drive is closed on the weekends how many cars do you see there? How about the trolley trail? Take your time,

Somebody is sad that the law forbids them from driving on the sidewalk.

[Anonymous]

Frankly you are very quick to point out what you feel are unreasonable demands by drivers but are unable to recognize that many bikers demands are unreasonable. You want the trails, some of you want the sidewalks but you also want tax dollars used to build bike lanes that clog roads and even if that bike lane is constructed you still want to ride in the road next to it. You don’t want to have to stop for signs lights peds cars or even cyclists slower than you. You won’t even consider dismounting and god forbid walking your bike across certain intersections because you don’t think that you should have to. The disastrous lanes on OGR have maybe 10 cyclists a day and now traffic is tied up for thousands. Who is behing unreasonable here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly you are very quick to point out what you feel are unreasonable demands by drivers but are unable to recognize that many bikers demands are unreasonable. You want the trails, some of you want the sidewalks but you also want tax dollars used to build bike lanes that clog roads and even if that bike lane is constructed you still want to ride in the road next to it. You don’t want to have to stop for signs lights peds cars or even cyclists slower than you. You won’t even consider dismounting and god forbid walking your bike across certain intersections because you don’t think that you should have to. The disastrous lanes on OGR have maybe 10 cyclists a day and now traffic is tied up for thousands. Who is behing unreasonable here?

"It's my road, and I don't want to share it! No fair!"

-you

[Anonymous]

If you are unable to add anything substantive to the conversation you don’t have to post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a member of the community and an avid cyclist, I’m opposed. Protected bike lanes offer a false sense of safety, they take you out of direct line of sight of vehicles and allow cars to forget about you. Proper vehicular cycling is much safer. These bike lanes are guaranteed going to get cyclists killed.

Disagree. Riding in mixed traffic is far more dangerous, particularly on Conn Ave.