Thanks to the bike party organizers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

Are you blind or just willfully ignoring the vehicle parked in the right lane in the first photo?

DP, but what I think he's getting at is in the pictures after the pass the bike is still in the left/travel lane rather than the right/parking lane and he thinks the bike should be there except for when passing a parked car. That's all based on the normal speed business, which he seems to think requires bikes and cars going under a certain speed to constantly be darting in and out of the lane with parked cars.

I ride on DC streets on a daily basis and realized pretty quickly that the tactic of darting in and out of the right lane to let cars pass would get me killed pretty quickly. Anyone faulting the cyclist for not doing this either knows nothing about cycling or wishes them dead.

If you are riding in the left lane and not moving to the right lane when it’s unobstructed you are breaking the law. No one cares what post hoc justifications you make up to rationalize it because no one believes you.

This point is conclusively addressed in the most recent "Pocket Guide to Bike Laws in the District of Columbia", which was developed in consultation with MPD and DDOT.

Page 11 will be of specific interest to you. The question is posed: "Does a bicyclist always have to ride to the right?" The answer is given: "No. There are no regulations in DC which state that bicyclists must ride to the right."

That would seem fairly conclusive to me, but you should feel free to take this up with DDOT and MPD if you feel differently.

If you cannot tell the difference between between lanes and within lanes then you shouldn’t be using public roadways.

Just proves that there should be a licensing system for cyclists too if they want to ride in the street. They really need to learn traffic laws and pass a test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

The first picture says that the car on the right was parked there. So the left lane is the only lane. The time stamp between the 3rd and 4th picture is multiple seconds apart and hasn't moved.

There is another picture posted that you don’t want to talk about. You undermine your own credibility with this kind of stuff, which then undermines your activism. Nobody believes cyclists anymore.

There is a whole suv beyond the double yellow and you want to blame the cyclist because they exist???? The other picture is a goddamm red light approach.

Show me the code where the car violated the law.

The other still does not show a car running a red light. It shows a car past a red light. The person who took the video and chose that still over presumably one that shows the car actually running a red light wants us to take them at their word.

Cyclists have zero credibility and you just keep making it worse with your behavior. No one believes you anymore.

We are doing remedial driver education here it seems. Even if the light was yellow, the law is that the driver must stop unless it is unsafe for them to do so. It takes an awful lot of creativity to imagine a scenario whereby it is safer for the driver to speed up to run through a yellow light that will turn red while the car has not crossed the intersection than to slow down and stop. Relevant DC code is here:

2103.5 A STEADY YELLOW SIGNAL alone shall have the following meaning:
(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that a related green signal is being terminated or that a red signal will be exhibited thereafter, or both; and
(b) Vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk of the intersection, unless so close to the intersection that a stop cannot safely be made.

Cool story bro. Where is the picture of the driver running a yellow light?

I am very curious as to your interpretation of the events depicted in the photo. If in your view the car did not run a yellow or a red light, then by process of elimination you must believe light must have been green when he passed through. However, for the light to have turned red while he was still in the intersection, three seconds must have elapsed. The intersection can't be more than 50 feet wide, which means that the car would have been doing at most 11 mph. If the car was doing 11 mph, how do you believe it managed to pass a cyclist going 16 mph?

It’s very simple. The cyclist was recording video. The cyclist then takes screen shots of the video claiming something happened that is not evident in the screen shot. Why not just post a screen shot of what they claimed happened? This is why no one believed cyclists anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. Seems like more than enough given how few people ride bikes.

We’ve built an entirely new transportation system, costing billions of dollars, for a tiny number of white guys who think they’re too good for the bus

Political power is getting a city with a 20 percent poverty rate, that’s cutting positions in schools because of budget constraints, to spend billions of dollars on your hobby

A sampling of what's in the mayor's new budget:

$84 million for bike trails
$56 million for Vision Zero
$52 million for bike bridge to Virginia
$32 million for bike safety
$11.5 million for bike bridge to Anacostia
$10 million for Capital Bikeshare

Let's see the citation for $84 million in bike trails.
The va bridge has already been shown to be a federal expense

It's all in the mayor's budget! It's on her web site. (also that $52 million is coming from DC, not the feds, which is why it's in her budget).

Show, don't tell. You made the claim, stand behind it.

I already did. It's in the FY2025 budget. It's on her web site. You can search it using the word "bicycle" and you'll find that and many, many, many other very dubious projects.

I've done exactly what you said and all of the capital improvement projects you mention - save Capital Bikeshare, which generates revenue for the city - serve pedestrians as well as cyclists. As for the Long Bridge Project (https://vapassengerrailauthority.org/longbridgeproject/) you've been railing against, DC seems to be providing all of $350,000 towards this $52 million project that - again - serves pedestrians, cyclists, and almost everyone else that is using a mode of transportation other than a motor vehicle, train, boat, airplane, or helicopter.

Is this like the claim that the CT Ave bike lanes also served pedestrians? DDOT said they didn’t which is why they were eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to pose an honest question to those finding fault with the cyclist here and/or who generally oppose bike lanes. Which of the following behaviors do you find least objectionable:

1. A cyclist rides down the middle of the lane to avoid getting “doored” but impedes faster moving vehicular traffic.

2. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane as is possible in order to allow traffic to pass but runs the risk of serious injury if a driver opens a door in their path.

3. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane and pulls into open parking spaces to allow traffic to pass more easily but runs the risk of serious injury or even death when rejoining the lane to get around the next parked car.

4. A cyclist rides on the sidewalk to limit their risk but endangers pedestrians in the process.

5. A cyclist advocates for a protected bike lane so that they can limit the risks to themselves and others while not impeding traffic.

6. A cyclist gives up cycling and instead uses a vehicle for all their transportation needs, further congesting the roadways.

The obvious choice is #7. The cyclist gives up their childish toy and gets a car like a real member of society, rather than making everyone else suffer for their silly hobby.

#8. Get married, have children, and stop hanging out in parks after dark with strangers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to pose an honest question to those finding fault with the cyclist here and/or who generally oppose bike lanes. Which of the following behaviors do you find least objectionable:

1. A cyclist rides down the middle of the lane to avoid getting “doored” but impedes faster moving vehicular traffic.

2. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane as is possible in order to allow traffic to pass but runs the risk of serious injury if a driver opens a door in their path.

3. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane and pulls into open parking spaces to allow traffic to pass more easily but runs the risk of serious injury or even death when rejoining the lane to get around the next parked car.

4. A cyclist rides on the sidewalk to limit their risk but endangers pedestrians in the process.

5. A cyclist advocates for a protected bike lane so that they can limit the risks to themselves and others while not impeding traffic.

6. A cyclist gives up cycling and instead uses a vehicle for all their transportation needs, further congesting the roadways.

The obvious choice is #7. The cyclist gives up their childish toy and gets a car like a real member of society, rather than making everyone else suffer for their silly hobby.

It does not surprise that you missed option six, which describes what happens when the cyclist decides to drive instead. It is also unsurprising that you subscribe to the fiction that cycling - not driving - imposes negative externalities on everyone else. Do we really need to review again the ways in which people who drive single occupant vehicles are the modern equivalent of blood-sucking vampires?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. Seems like more than enough given how few people ride bikes.

We’ve built an entirely new transportation system, costing billions of dollars, for a tiny number of white guys who think they’re too good for the bus

Political power is getting a city with a 20 percent poverty rate, that’s cutting positions in schools because of budget constraints, to spend billions of dollars on your hobby

A sampling of what's in the mayor's new budget:

$84 million for bike trails
$56 million for Vision Zero
$52 million for bike bridge to Virginia
$32 million for bike safety
$11.5 million for bike bridge to Anacostia
$10 million for Capital Bikeshare

Let's see the citation for $84 million in bike trails.
The va bridge has already been shown to be a federal expense

It's all in the mayor's budget! It's on her web site. (also that $52 million is coming from DC, not the feds, which is why it's in her budget).

Show, don't tell. You made the claim, stand behind it.

I already did. It's in the FY2025 budget. It's on her web site. You can search it using the word "bicycle" and you'll find that and many, many, many other very dubious projects.

I've done exactly what you said and all of the capital improvement projects you mention - save Capital Bikeshare, which generates revenue for the city - serve pedestrians as well as cyclists. As for the Long Bridge Project (https://vapassengerrailauthority.org/longbridgeproject/) you've been railing against, DC seems to be providing all of $350,000 towards this $52 million project that - again - serves pedestrians, cyclists, and almost everyone else that is using a mode of transportation other than a motor vehicle, train, boat, airplane, or helicopter.

Is this like the claim that the CT Ave bike lanes also served pedestrians? DDOT said they didn’t which is why they were eliminated.

The CT Ave bike lanes very much would have served pedestrians in so far as they would have provided cyclists with a safe place to ride other than the sidewalk. But, no, these projects are bridges or trails that are explicitly for both pedestrians and cyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to pose an honest question to those finding fault with the cyclist here and/or who generally oppose bike lanes. Which of the following behaviors do you find least objectionable:

1. A cyclist rides down the middle of the lane to avoid getting “doored” but impedes faster moving vehicular traffic.

2. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane as is possible in order to allow traffic to pass but runs the risk of serious injury if a driver opens a door in their path.

3. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane and pulls into open parking spaces to allow traffic to pass more easily but runs the risk of serious injury or even death when rejoining the lane to get around the next parked car.

4. A cyclist rides on the sidewalk to limit their risk but endangers pedestrians in the process.

5. A cyclist advocates for a protected bike lane so that they can limit the risks to themselves and others while not impeding traffic.

6. A cyclist gives up cycling and instead uses a vehicle for all their transportation needs, further congesting the roadways.

The obvious choice is #7. The cyclist gives up their childish toy and gets a car like a real member of society, rather than making everyone else suffer for their silly hobby.

#8. Get married, have children, and stop hanging out in parks after dark with strangers.

How did your life get so sad that you get so upset by a bunch of people hanging out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

The first picture says that the car on the right was parked there. So the left lane is the only lane. The time stamp between the 3rd and 4th picture is multiple seconds apart and hasn't moved.

There is another picture posted that you don’t want to talk about. You undermine your own credibility with this kind of stuff, which then undermines your activism. Nobody believes cyclists anymore.

There is a whole suv beyond the double yellow and you want to blame the cyclist because they exist???? The other picture is a goddamm red light approach.

Show me the code where the car violated the law.

The other still does not show a car running a red light. It shows a car past a red light. The person who took the video and chose that still over presumably one that shows the car actually running a red light wants us to take them at their word.

Cyclists have zero credibility and you just keep making it worse with your behavior. No one believes you anymore.

We are doing remedial driver education here it seems. Even if the light was yellow, the law is that the driver must stop unless it is unsafe for them to do so. It takes an awful lot of creativity to imagine a scenario whereby it is safer for the driver to speed up to run through a yellow light that will turn red while the car has not crossed the intersection than to slow down and stop. Relevant DC code is here:

2103.5 A STEADY YELLOW SIGNAL alone shall have the following meaning:
(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that a related green signal is being terminated or that a red signal will be exhibited thereafter, or both; and
(b) Vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk of the intersection, unless so close to the intersection that a stop cannot safely be made.

Cool story bro. Where is the picture of the driver running a yellow light?

I am very curious as to your interpretation of the events depicted in the photo. If in your view the car did not run a yellow or a red light, then by process of elimination you must believe light must have been green when he passed through. However, for the light to have turned red while he was still in the intersection, three seconds must have elapsed. The intersection can't be more than 50 feet wide, which means that the car would have been doing at most 11 mph. If the car was doing 11 mph, how do you believe it managed to pass a cyclist going 16 mph?

It’s very simple. The cyclist was recording video. The cyclist then takes screen shots of the video claiming something happened that is not evident in the screen shot. Why not just post a screen shot of what they claimed happened? This is why no one believed cyclists anymore.

You decline to answer a simple question, pose an absurd scenario, and then claim people don’t generally believe a particular subset of the population. OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to pose an honest question to those finding fault with the cyclist here and/or who generally oppose bike lanes. Which of the following behaviors do you find least objectionable:

1. A cyclist rides down the middle of the lane to avoid getting “doored” but impedes faster moving vehicular traffic.

2. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane as is possible in order to allow traffic to pass but runs the risk of serious injury if a driver opens a door in their path.

3. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane and pulls into open parking spaces to allow traffic to pass more easily but runs the risk of serious injury or even death when rejoining the lane to get around the next parked car.

4. A cyclist rides on the sidewalk to limit their risk but endangers pedestrians in the process.

5. A cyclist advocates for a protected bike lane so that they can limit the risks to themselves and others while not impeding traffic.

6. A cyclist gives up cycling and instead uses a vehicle for all their transportation needs, further congesting the roadways.

The obvious choice is #7. The cyclist gives up their childish toy and gets a car like a real member of society, rather than making everyone else suffer for their silly hobby.

Real member of society, DC edition = constantly angry, selfish, hypocrite, probably has heart disease, definitely shouldn't wear lycra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to pose an honest question to those finding fault with the cyclist here and/or who generally oppose bike lanes. Which of the following behaviors do you find least objectionable:

1. A cyclist rides down the middle of the lane to avoid getting “doored” but impedes faster moving vehicular traffic.

2. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane as is possible in order to allow traffic to pass but runs the risk of serious injury if a driver opens a door in their path.

3. A cyclist rides to the right of the lane and pulls into open parking spaces to allow traffic to pass more easily but runs the risk of serious injury or even death when rejoining the lane to get around the next parked car.

4. A cyclist rides on the sidewalk to limit their risk but endangers pedestrians in the process.

5. A cyclist advocates for a protected bike lane so that they can limit the risks to themselves and others while not impeding traffic.

6. A cyclist gives up cycling and instead uses a vehicle for all their transportation needs, further congesting the roadways.

The obvious choice is #7. The cyclist gives up their childish toy and gets a car like a real member of society, rather than making everyone else suffer for their silly hobby.

Cars are expensive.
Insurance is expensive.
Gas is expensive.
Maintenance on a car is expensive.

Bikes, in addition to being a hobby for some, are a legitimate form of transportation for others (and those to circles can obviously overlap) - the suggestion that cycling as transportation is "a hobby" and a "childish toy" at that is really quite a tell. Not everyone can afford to spend $10k/yr on owning and operating a car, nor should it be a litmus test for being a "real member of society" in the 21st century.

Clearly other countries around the world, and cities across the country have figured this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

Bicyclists seem to assume that everyone will just wait for them to go through the intersection, even if it's not their turn. I don't do that. If it's my turn, I'm going, regardless of what the bicyclist is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. Seems like more than enough given how few people ride bikes.

We’ve built an entirely new transportation system, costing billions of dollars, for a tiny number of white guys who think they’re too good for the bus

Political power is getting a city with a 20 percent poverty rate, that’s cutting positions in schools because of budget constraints, to spend billions of dollars on your hobby

A sampling of what's in the mayor's new budget:

$84 million for bike trails
$56 million for Vision Zero
$52 million for bike bridge to Virginia
$32 million for bike safety
$11.5 million for bike bridge to Anacostia
$10 million for Capital Bikeshare

Let's see the citation for $84 million in bike trails.
The va bridge has already been shown to be a federal expense

It's all in the mayor's budget! It's on her web site. (also that $52 million is coming from DC, not the feds, which is why it's in her budget).

Show, don't tell. You made the claim, stand behind it.

I already did. It's in the FY2025 budget. It's on her web site. You can search it using the word "bicycle" and you'll find that and many, many, many other very dubious projects.

I've done exactly what you said and all of the capital improvement projects you mention - save Capital Bikeshare, which generates revenue for the city - serve pedestrians as well as cyclists. As for the Long Bridge Project (https://vapassengerrailauthority.org/longbridgeproject/) you've been railing against, DC seems to be providing all of $350,000 towards this $52 million project that - again - serves pedestrians, cyclists, and almost everyone else that is using a mode of transportation other than a motor vehicle, train, boat, airplane, or helicopter.

No one is asking for this absurd bridge except cyclists. WABA has a long list of particulars that it wants to see with it though. https://waba.org/details/long-bridge/

The bridge costs $52 million and those costs are stretched out over more than one fiscal year. Fairly certain they aren't just going to build $350,000 worth of bridge and then just stop.