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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never, ever heard anyone complain that buses are prioritized over bike lanes. To the contrary, in my neighborhood everyone supported the 8th street bus priority project and understood that a bike lane doesn’t fit there. You’re making sh*t up.

Look at the numerous posts right before yours. If everyone agrees that bus lanes should be prioritized over bus lanes, that would be great! But that simple idea has drawn a lot of anger and accusations (and the attacks in your comment don't seem to be an exception).

As for the Connecticut Avenue link you posted, you should take a look at it. You'll note that the plan has dedicated bike lanes, but no dedicated bus lanes.

there are no anger and accusations, just people pointing out you’re full of sh*t and making the next in a series of dishonest arguments.

. but sure - go ahead and propose a bus lane for CT Ave (which will prohibit car traffic and parking) and let’s see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never, ever heard anyone complain that buses are prioritized over bike lanes. To the contrary, in my neighborhood everyone supported the 8th street bus priority project and understood that a bike lane doesn’t fit there. You’re making sh*t up.

Look at the numerous posts right before yours. If everyone agrees that bus lanes should be prioritized over bus lanes, that would be great! But that simple idea has drawn a lot of anger and accusations (and the attacks in your comment don't seem to be an exception).

As for the Connecticut Avenue link you posted, you should take a look at it. You'll note that the plan has dedicated bike lanes, but no dedicated bus lanes.

What are you talking about? Every cyclist in this thread is saying they wouldn't give a flying shit if another car lane was taken for a bus lane. Or that a bus/bike lane would work fine if it could KEEP THE CARS OUT. The problem with the shared bus/bike lanes in the city doesn't have anything to do with the buses. It has everything to do with the temp tag jerks who drive in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe you need it explained to you that anonymously “pointing out” something on a mommy message board is NOT the same thing as advocating for that thing. Slacktivism, anyone?

I can't believe that you're pretending it needs to be explained. Everyone here - those saying there should be more bike lanes, those saying there shouldn't be more bike lines, those say the city should allow Idaho stops, those against, those in favor of more bus lanes, etc. - all now that we're having a discussion on an anonymous board. The fact that the only ones being accused of "slacktivism" are the bus supporters speaks volumes. Claim to be on the same side as someone, then tell them to shut up if they dare open their mouth.

This is why it would be naive for any bus supporter to buy the "we're all on the same side against cars!" line. The idea that bus lanes should be given priority over both car lanes and bike lines has so far gotten attacked more by cyclists in this discussion than by drivers.

What are you doing to advocate for bus lanes besides repetitively posting anti-bicyclist screeds on an anonymous internet message board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe you need it explained to you that anonymously “pointing out” something on a mommy message board is NOT the same thing as advocating for that thing. Slacktivism, anyone?

I can't believe that you're pretending it needs to be explained. Everyone here - those saying there should be more bike lanes, those saying there shouldn't be more bike lines, those say the city should allow Idaho stops, those against, those in favor of more bus lanes, etc. - all now that we're having a discussion on an anonymous board. The fact that the only ones being accused of "slacktivism" are the bus supporters speaks volumes. Claim to be on the same side as someone, then tell them to shut up if they dare open their mouth.

This is why it would be naive for any bus supporter to buy the "we're all on the same side against cars!" line. The idea that bus lanes should be given priority over both car lanes and bike lines has so far gotten attacked more by cyclists in this discussion than by drivers.

What are you doing to advocate for bus lanes besides repetitively posting anti-bicyclist screeds on an anonymous internet message board?

what does this have to do with bike lanes? do I also have to advocate for peace in the middle east?

anyway - I can assure you that every single DDOT staff, ANC member, and bike advocate I’ve ever hear speak is also in favor of bus lanes etc. Often they are the same people when the projects are discussed at ANC meetings. it’s not even an overlapping Venn diagram - it’s a circle.

[Anonymous]

I'm a cyclist who has advocated the establishment of a bus lane to my local Council rep and ANC. Can we go home now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe you need it explained to you that anonymously “pointing out” something on a mommy message board is NOT the same thing as advocating for that thing. Slacktivism, anyone?

I can't believe that you're pretending it needs to be explained. Everyone here - those saying there should be more bike lanes, those saying there shouldn't be more bike lines, those say the city should allow Idaho stops, those against, those in favor of more bus lanes, etc. - all now that we're having a discussion on an anonymous board. The fact that the only ones being accused of "slacktivism" are the bus supporters speaks volumes. Claim to be on the same side as someone, then tell them to shut up if they dare open their mouth.

This is why it would be naive for any bus supporter to buy the "we're all on the same side against cars!" line. The idea that bus lanes should be given priority over both car lanes and bike lines has so far gotten attacked more by cyclists in this discussion than by drivers.

What are you doing to advocate for bus lanes besides repetitively posting anti-bicyclist screeds on an anonymous internet message board?

what does this have to do with bike lanes? do I also have to advocate for peace in the middle east?

anyway - I can assure you that every single DDOT staff, ANC member, and bike advocate I’ve ever hear speak is also in favor of bus lanes etc. Often they are the same people when the projects are discussed at ANC meetings. it’s not even an overlapping Venn diagram - it’s a circle.

I think you responded to the wrong poster, unless you're a bike advocate who also repetitively posts anti-bicyclist screeds...

[Anonymous]

Enough of cyclophobes, driversaurs, petrolheads, speedophiles, carseholes, petrosexuals, autoholics and motor supremacists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Every cyclist in this thread is saying they wouldn't give a flying shit if another car lane was taken for a bus lane. Or that a bus/bike lane would work fine if it could KEEP THE CARS OUT.

The degree of obfuscation thrown up is amusing.

A: Bus lanes should be prioritized over bike lanes.
B: Yeah, bus lanes should be prioritized over car lanes.
A: Sure, but bus lanes should also be prioritized over bike lanes.
B: I agree, take out the car lanes and add a bus lane.

If a car driver said "I support bike lanes - put them on any sidewalk or trail, just don't take out any car lanes" you're not going to come away thinking "Wow, what a great supporter of bike lanes!"

If we can have both, great, but there are plenty of situations where the city has prioritized bike lanes over bus lanes. Which is favoring a smaller wealthier group than the larger, poorer group that tends to take buses. I think the city should prioritize bus lanes. People here claim they really support bus lanes, then get extremely angry when someone says buses should be prioritized over bikes and cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Every cyclist in this thread is saying they wouldn't give a flying shit if another car lane was taken for a bus lane. Or that a bus/bike lane would work fine if it could KEEP THE CARS OUT.

The degree of obfuscation thrown up is amusing.

A: Bus lanes should be prioritized over bike lanes.
B: Yeah, bus lanes should be prioritized over car lanes.
A: Sure, but bus lanes should also be prioritized over bike lanes.
B: I agree, take out the car lanes and add a bus lane.

If a car driver said "I support bike lanes - put them on any sidewalk or trail, just don't take out any car lanes" you're not going to come away thinking "Wow, what a great supporter of bike lanes!"

If we can have both, great, but there are plenty of situations where the city has prioritized bike lanes over bus lanes. Which is favoring a smaller wealthier group than the larger, poorer group that tends to take buses. I think the city should prioritize bus lanes. People here claim they really support bus lanes, then get extremely angry when someone says buses should be prioritized over bikes and cars.

Name two examples.

The only reason why it would ever be bus lanes OR bike lanes, instead of bus lanes AND bike lanes, is if you're trying to preserve general-travel (car) lanes or (car) parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Name two examples.

The only reason why it would ever be bus lanes OR bike lanes, instead of bus lanes AND bike lanes, is if you're trying to preserve general-travel (car) lanes or (car) parking.

Connecticut Avenue (where the plan is to add bike lanes, but not bus lanes) was brought up in the first post of the bus discussion, and multiple times in the discussion that followed. The fact that you're trying to ignore it just underscores how difficult the decision is to defend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Every cyclist in this thread is saying they wouldn't give a flying shit if another car lane was taken for a bus lane. Or that a bus/bike lane would work fine if it could KEEP THE CARS OUT.

The degree of obfuscation thrown up is amusing.

A: Bus lanes should be prioritized over bike lanes.
B: Yeah, bus lanes should be prioritized over car lanes.
A: Sure, but bus lanes should also be prioritized over bike lanes.
B: I agree, take out the car lanes and add a bus lane.

If a car driver said "I support bike lanes - put them on any sidewalk or trail, just don't take out any car lanes" you're not going to come away thinking "Wow, what a great supporter of bike lanes!"

If we can have both, great, but there are plenty of situations where the city has prioritized bike lanes over bus lanes. Which is favoring a smaller wealthier group than the larger, poorer group that tends to take buses. I think the city should prioritize bus lanes. People here claim they really support bus lanes, then get extremely angry when someone says buses should be prioritized over bikes and cars.

where has the city prioritized bike lanes over bus lane?! please give an example. this is a fiction. fwiw I don’t believe bus lanes are condidered good fits for every road anyway. there needs to be a certain density of buses. if you’re trying to claim the absence of a bus lane in the Ct Ave plan somehow demonstrates a priority of biked over buses - that’s just absurd. There are many bus improvements in the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Name two examples.

The only reason why it would ever be bus lanes OR bike lanes, instead of bus lanes AND bike lanes, is if you're trying to preserve general-travel (car) lanes or (car) parking.

Connecticut Avenue (where the plan is to add bike lanes, but not bus lanes) was brought up in the first post of the bus discussion, and multiple times in the discussion that followed. The fact that you're trying to ignore it just underscores how difficult the decision is to defend.

ffs. the Ct Ave project includes many bus improvements. but tell me again how you want parking to be banned during rush hour for the bus lane? Sure you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Name two examples.

The only reason why it would ever be bus lanes OR bike lanes, instead of bus lanes AND bike lanes, is if you're trying to preserve general-travel (car) lanes or (car) parking.

Connecticut Avenue (where the plan is to add bike lanes, but not bus lanes) was brought up in the first post of the bus discussion, and multiple times in the discussion that followed. The fact that you're trying to ignore it just underscores how difficult the decision is to defend.

What's stopping you from advocating for bus lanes in addition to bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue? Has anyone who advocates for the bike lanes said that there shouldn't be bus lanes in addition to the bike lanes? I, personally, would be very happy with bike lanes and bus lanes on Connecticut Avenue. How about you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Name two examples.

The only reason why it would ever be bus lanes OR bike lanes, instead of bus lanes AND bike lanes, is if you're trying to preserve general-travel (car) lanes or (car) parking.

Connecticut Avenue (where the plan is to add bike lanes, but not bus lanes) was brought up in the first post of the bus discussion, and multiple times in the discussion that followed. The fact that you're trying to ignore it just underscores how difficult the decision is to defend.

What's stopping you from advocating for bus lanes in addition to bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue? Has anyone who advocates for the bike lanes said that there shouldn't be bus lanes in addition to the bike lanes? I, personally, would be very happy with bike lanes and bus lanes on Connecticut Avenue. How about you?

fwiw where bus lanes actually need to go is Wisc Ave - lol at the idea that everyone is going to be so happy with that and raise zero objections!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Name two examples.

The only reason why it would ever be bus lanes OR bike lanes, instead of bus lanes AND bike lanes, is if you're trying to preserve general-travel (car) lanes or (car) parking.

Connecticut Avenue (where the plan is to add bike lanes, but not bus lanes) was brought up in the first post of the bus discussion, and multiple times in the discussion that followed. The fact that you're trying to ignore it just underscores how difficult the decision is to defend.

You can add bike lanes by taking away some parking, because bike lanes are narrower than car lanes. You can only add bus lanes by taking away car lanes. Do you really think the reason the CT Ave plan only includes bike lanes is because of the bike lanes? Or could there be some other car-shaped reason?