Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

DP. In fact, I currently do not ride on Connecticut Avenue. But I will, once there are protected bike lanes. I'm really looking forward to it.

[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?

I have ridden my bike on Old Georgetown Road approximately once, and it was about 18 years ago, and I rode on the sidewalk. What does the fact that there are now bike lanes there have to do with whether there should be bike lanes in an entirely different jurisdiction on a different road?

[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,

Bunch of photos here of cars on the Capital Crescent Trail if you'd like to scroll through: https://twitter.com/search?q=car%20capital%20crescent%20trail&src=typed_query&f=live

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have ridden my bike on Old Georgetown Road approximately once, and it was about 18 years ago, and I rode on the sidewalk. What does the fact that there are now bike lanes there have to do with whether there should be bike lanes in an entirely different jurisdiction on a different road?

DP. I drive on Old Georgetown regularly, and I ride on Old Georgetown semi-regularly now that there are the bike lanes all the way between Cedar and Nicholson and then on to Pike & Rose, and I have yet to encounter disaster. I think the drivers who are the most upset are the ones who used to speed. There's a lot less speeding now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

Hard to do when the shops I need to access are...on Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

So you purport to oppose bike lanes because you believe they will harm the local merchants but in fact you are telling their customers who arrive by bike to shop elsewhere.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

So you purport to oppose bike lanes because you believe they will harm the local merchants but in fact you are telling their customers who arrive by bike to shop elsewhere.

Got it.

Now you're just being silly. Do you really think that the local merchants want this? And there is no other way to get to Connecticut Ave by bike?????? Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

Hard to do when the shops I need to access are...on Connecticut Avenue.

You sound well....very bike dependant. Like bike brain. Have you considered taking Metro? There must be some buses running on Conn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

So you purport to oppose bike lanes because you believe they will harm the local merchants but in fact you are telling their customers who arrive by bike to shop elsewhere.

Got it.

Now you're just being silly. Do you really think that the local merchants want this? And there is no other way to get to Connecticut Ave by bike?????? Are you kidding me?

If I live in Woodley Park on CT Ave and want to go to Vace or Politcs and Prose, you would have me ride up the hill to the Cathedral and then north, or else down into Rock Creek Park, when the straightest shot is riding on Connectict Avenue. Why should I be inconvenienced for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

Hard to do when the shops I need to access are...on Connecticut Avenue.

You sound well....very bike dependant. Like bike brain. Have you considered taking Metro? There must be some buses running on Conn.

I ride Metro all of the time. It doesn't make sense for me to take the metro to Van Ness and then walk to Politcs and Prose when I can do it faster on my bike if it were safe on the Avenue. People like me split their mobility share, sometimes mass transit, sometime walk, sometimes bike and sometimes rent a car. The easiest and cheapest is to bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

Hard to do when the shops I need to access are...on Connecticut Avenue.

You sound well....very bike dependant. Like bike brain. Have you considered taking Metro? There must be some buses running on Conn.

I ride Metro all of the time. It doesn't make sense for me to take the metro to Van Ness and then walk to Politcs and Prose when I can do it faster on my bike if it were safe on the Avenue. People like me split their mobility share, sometimes mass transit, sometime walk, sometimes bike and sometimes rent a car. The easiest and cheapest is to bike.

It makes a lot more sense for you to possibly reconsider other options to get to Politics and Prose then expecting the city to spend millions of tax dollars to build infrastructure (in addition to what already exists) to make the minority feel safer at the expense of the majority. Have you ever thought of that? We can't bubble wrap the world for you; you may have to consider other options as bikers are so ready to tell drivers to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

So you purport to oppose bike lanes because you believe they will harm the local merchants but in fact you are telling their customers who arrive by bike to shop elsewhere.

Got it.

Now you're just being silly. Do you really think that the local merchants want this? And there is no other way to get to Connecticut Ave by bike?????? Are you kidding me?

If I live in Woodley Park on CT Ave and want to go to Vace or Politcs and Prose, you would have me ride up the hill to the Cathedral and then north, or else down into Rock Creek Park, when the straightest shot is riding on Connectict Avenue. Why should I be inconvenienced for you?

You're absolutely right. I should be inconvenienced for you. You are clearly more important than most other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

Hard to do when the shops I need to access are...on Connecticut Avenue.

You sound well....very bike dependant. Like bike brain. Have you considered taking Metro? There must be some buses running on Conn.

I ride Metro all of the time. It doesn't make sense for me to take the metro to Van Ness and then walk to Politcs and Prose when I can do it faster on my bike if it were safe on the Avenue. People like me split their mobility share, sometimes mass transit, sometime walk, sometimes bike and sometimes rent a car. The easiest and cheapest is to bike.

It makes a lot more sense for you to possibly reconsider other options to get to Politics and Prose then expecting the city to spend millions of tax dollars to build infrastructure (in addition to what already exists) to make the minority feel safer at the expense of the majority. Have you ever thought of that? We can't bubble wrap the world for you; you may have to consider other options as bikers are so ready to tell drivers to do.

Or, the city can just go ahead with plans to enable safe, efficient transportation choices for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then stay off of Conn when riding a bike. This is not difficult.

Hard to do when the shops I need to access are...on Connecticut Avenue.

You sound well....very bike dependant. Like bike brain. Have you considered taking Metro? There must be some buses running on Conn.

I ride Metro all of the time. It doesn't make sense for me to take the metro to Van Ness and then walk to Politcs and Prose when I can do it faster on my bike if it were safe on the Avenue. People like me split their mobility share, sometimes mass transit, sometime walk, sometimes bike and sometimes rent a car. The easiest and cheapest is to bike.

It makes a lot more sense for you to possibly reconsider other options to get to Politics and Prose then expecting the city to spend millions of tax dollars to build infrastructure (in addition to what already exists) to make the minority feel safer at the expense of the majority. Have you ever thought of that? We can't bubble wrap the world for you; you may have to consider other options as bikers are so ready to tell drivers to do.

Or, the city can just go ahead with plans to enable safe, efficient transportation choices for everyone.

The city already does that. You just want more, more, more........