Connecticut Avenue bike lane officially dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

I don't know about the "bike lobby" trope, but what I do know is that people like me are your friends and neighbors who simply want a safer way to get up and down the corridor. Referring to people like me as a"lobby" is really dehumanizing and insulating, though I guess that is why you do it.

GGW and WABA engage in all manor of politics. They are very much a lobbying group.

The worst is, they are lobbying groups that get DC taxpayer subsidies to push their special interest agendas.

The special interest in this case is cleaning up bike paths and teaching children how to ride bikes.

Why are my tax dollars being used to teach people how to ride a bike? Can I get a rebate for having successfully taught my three kids to ride?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fiduciary?

Yes, you are entitled.

I pay as much in taxes as you do, ergo, I have every right to use the same roads as you do, get it?

I am glad that you have so boldy come out in support of re-opening Beach Drive.

But I am concerned that you don't think poor people have the right to use the roads.

Are there any other entitlements of yours that we should know about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.

Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.

.

Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.

What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?

They can walk.

It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.

Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?

Would you like a social security number as well?

The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.

There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.

You didn't answer the question because you are probably single and have no idea what life is like with children in the k-12 range.

You’re a creep. That is why no one is answering your questions.

I didn't ask a question. Just a new person who noticed that you didn't answer a question and still haven't answered the question because you are out of touch and don't what it's like to have the demands of a family. You want to impose your selfish view on everyone just so that you can ride your bike -- and bypass other public transportations options -- to go drink your beer or latte. Something that those of us with kids are far too busy to do. And yet here you are posting on a forum filled with people with kids who just don't have time for your nonsense. If people need to get to work, there are existing bike options if they so choose. The demand isn't there and never was there.

Family guy here, not the one you have been answering with. Our kids ride, we ride, we would ride more if it were safer, which is why we support more bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue and across the city and region. We ride to kids sporting events - soccer and baseball, we ride to their music classes (no, not a stand-up Bass) and art classes. We prefer riding to any other mode because of the flexibility and exercise. Our familiy riding takes two cars off the road and frees up parking spots for those who have no other option but to drive, so drivers should be happy about our choices and support our call for a safer path for us.

+1

Anti-bike people are short-sighted idiots, to put it nicely.

Probably no better advocates against bike lanes and the bike lane advocates. Please keep doing more of what you’re doing. There will likely be several more policy victories, like removing already installed bike lanes.

Making a city activitely more hostile to bikers and pedestrians is not a “victory.” It’s actually pathetic.

They are making it more safe for pedestrians. Pedestrian interests and cyclist interests are not the same.

DP: I agree that they are not the same. This plan is going to push more bikes onto sidewalks, negatively impacting the pedestrian experience

This. I hate riding on sidewalks and always feel sheepish about it. No more.

Just resist the urge to ride like a complete a-hole and it will be just fine.

But if you insist on tearing down the sidewalk like a spandex clad cheetah screeching at everyone in “your” way, then you’re going to have problems.

DP and you're right I'll just stick to the road. As a driver please resist the urge to drive like a complete a hole tearing down ct ave and honking at every biker in "your" way. Otherwise, you'll have problems.

I don’t drive like an a-hole, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

But if you decide to keep running red lights and stop signs, maybe we’ll meet one day. You’ll be the one going into the ambulance while I’m laughing with the police, telling them how you ran a red light right in front of me and then went underneath my car. Then we’ll watch my dashcam video and laugh some more. The cops will make sure I have your name and personal info so I can pass it on to my insurance company, who will come after you for the damage your body caused to my car.

I’ll wave bye bye as they close the back doors of the ambo. If you’re conscious, you’ll see me

It's like everyone on two wheels now ignores not only stop signs but traffic lights too. I see people on bikes, people on e-bikes, people on mopeds and scooters and people on giant motorcycles just going full speed through red traffic lights. It's amazing. They are going to get themselves killed.

My theory is that when they made Idaho Stops legal, it created a mentality of permissiveness about lawlessness for cyclists. No one knows what the law actuals says or means and there has no education. So a lot of cyclists probably think that their self-serving, risky behavior is legal and acceptable.

I think the culture of lawlessness started with cyclists, but now it's spread to people on scooters and ebikes and motorcycles. It's like the traffic version of the broken windows theory. People see cyclists getting away with it, which makes them wonder why they're bothering to obey the law.

This

These are the quotes that make people think drivers are clueless. Nearly every single driver for decades has been exceeding the speed limit, while many are modifying their vehicles in illegal ways, driving intoxicated, going without licenses/insurance, blowing through stop signs and parking wherever they want. To then turn around and blame their lawlessness on everyone but themselves is astounding.

Then why does WABA lobby (with our taxes) against police enforcement of traffic violations?

https://waba.org/details/police-reform/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.

Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.

.

Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.

What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?

They can walk.

It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.

Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?

Would you like a social security number as well?

The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.

There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.

You didn't answer the question because you are probably single and have no idea what life is like with children in the k-12 range.

You’re a creep. That is why no one is answering your questions.

I didn't ask a question. Just a new person who noticed that you didn't answer a question and still haven't answered the question because you are out of touch and don't what it's like to have the demands of a family. You want to impose your selfish view on everyone just so that you can ride your bike -- and bypass other public transportations options -- to go drink your beer or latte. Something that those of us with kids are far too busy to do. And yet here you are posting on a forum filled with people with kids who just don't have time for your nonsense. If people need to get to work, there are existing bike options if they so choose. The demand isn't there and never was there.

Family guy here, not the one you have been answering with. Our kids ride, we ride, we would ride more if it were safer, which is why we support more bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue and across the city and region. We ride to kids sporting events - soccer and baseball, we ride to their music classes (no, not a stand-up Bass) and art classes. We prefer riding to any other mode because of the flexibility and exercise. Our familiy riding takes two cars off the road and frees up parking spots for those who have no other option but to drive, so drivers should be happy about our choices and support our call for a safer path for us.

+1

Anti-bike people are short-sighted idiots, to put it nicely.

Probably no better advocates against bike lanes and the bike lane advocates. Please keep doing more of what you’re doing. There will likely be several more policy victories, like removing already installed bike lanes.

Making a city activitely more hostile to bikers and pedestrians is not a “victory.” It’s actually pathetic.

They are making it more safe for pedestrians. Pedestrian interests and cyclist interests are not the same.

DP: I agree that they are not the same. This plan is going to push more bikes onto sidewalks, negatively impacting the pedestrian experience

This. I hate riding on sidewalks and always feel sheepish about it. No more.

Just resist the urge to ride like a complete a-hole and it will be just fine.

But if you insist on tearing down the sidewalk like a spandex clad cheetah screeching at everyone in “your” way, then you’re going to have problems.

DP and you're right I'll just stick to the road. As a driver please resist the urge to drive like a complete a hole tearing down ct ave and honking at every biker in "your" way. Otherwise, you'll have problems.

I don’t drive like an a-hole, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

But if you decide to keep running red lights and stop signs, maybe we’ll meet one day. You’ll be the one going into the ambulance while I’m laughing with the police, telling them how you ran a red light right in front of me and then went underneath my car. Then we’ll watch my dashcam video and laugh some more. The cops will make sure I have your name and personal info so I can pass it on to my insurance company, who will come after you for the damage your body caused to my car.

I’ll wave bye bye as they close the back doors of the ambo. If you’re conscious, you’ll see me

It's like everyone on two wheels now ignores not only stop signs but traffic lights too. I see people on bikes, people on e-bikes, people on mopeds and scooters and people on giant motorcycles just going full speed through red traffic lights. It's amazing. They are going to get themselves killed.

My theory is that when they made Idaho Stops legal, it created a mentality of permissiveness about lawlessness for cyclists. No one knows what the law actuals says or means and there has no education. So a lot of cyclists probably think that their self-serving, risky behavior is legal and acceptable.

I think the culture of lawlessness started with cyclists, but now it's spread to people on scooters and ebikes and motorcycles. It's like the traffic version of the broken windows theory. People see cyclists getting away with it, which makes them wonder why they're bothering to obey the law.

This

These are the quotes that make people think drivers are clueless. Nearly every single driver for decades has been exceeding the speed limit, while many are modifying their vehicles in illegal ways, driving intoxicated, going without licenses/insurance, blowing through stop signs and parking wherever they want. To then turn around and blame their lawlessness on everyone but themselves is astounding.

Then why does WABA lobby (with our taxes) against police enforcement of traffic violations?

https://waba.org/details/police-reform/

I don't know. I am not WABA. Neither is any other cyclist. It may shock you that you don't need a WABA card to be a cyclist and many members and officers of WABA have other interests other than cycling. Anti-bike advocates like you feel a need to relentlessly shift the discussion to WABA because their actual arguments against better bike infrastructure are either devoid of logic or morally bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fiduciary?

Yes, you are entitled.

I pay as much in taxes as you do, ergo, I have every right to use the same roads as you do, get it?

I am glad that you have so boldy come out in support of re-opening Beach Drive.

But I am concerned that you don't think poor people have the right to use the roads.

Are there any other entitlements of yours that we should know about?

Poor people pay taxes too - you know, sales tax, any withholding, etc. Stop being obtuse.

And Beach Drive is a federal road in a park where the mission is to serve the park, not commuters driving cars that harm the plants and animals in said park. So no, i don't agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riding a bike on Connecticut avenue seems a bit like playing with a gun. You can totally do it! It is your right! But don't be surprised when something happens that you didnt anticipate and you are in a catastrophic accident.

You can play with a gun all day long and not hurt anyone, provided you just follow a few very simple rules.

You can also ride on Connecticut Ave and dramatically reduce the danger to yourself just by following a few very simple rules, too:

1) Stop at red lights and wait for them to turn green.

2) Don’t pass cars making right turns on the car’s right side.

3) Don’t shoal past traffic waiting at red lights.

4) Don’t do Idaho stops at stop signs. STOP at stop signs.





Do just those four things and your odds go up tremendously. It might never be as safe as playing with a gun, but it’ll be much safer than the way most cyclists ride normally.

5. Learn the how Idaho stops work. If *anyone* else at an intersection has the right of way, the bicyclist must stop at the stop sign.

6. Stop putting small children on bikes

7. If you insist on riding your bike at night, wear a reflective vest

8. Wear a friggin' helmet

Cyclists don't seem to understand Idaho stops at all. They've interpreted as they don't have to stop for anything ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fiduciary?

Yes, you are entitled.

I pay as much in taxes as you do, ergo, I have every right to use the same roads as you do, get it?

I am glad that you have so boldy come out in support of re-opening Beach Drive.

But I am concerned that you don't think poor people have the right to use the roads.

Are there any other entitlements of yours that we should know about?

Poor people pay taxes too - you know, sales tax, any withholding, etc. Stop being obtuse.

And Beach Drive is a federal road in a park where the mission is to serve the park, not commuters driving cars that harm the plants and animals in
said park. So no, i don't agree with you.

Just so we are clear. If someone doesn't pay taxes are they entitled?

Can there be commuters on a multi-jurisdictional federal road?

Is your self-described fiduciary entitlement theory limited to individual states, counties, etc or is it also federal?

Are there any limitations on this fiduciary entitlement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riding a bike on Connecticut avenue seems a bit like playing with a gun. You can totally do it! It is your right! But don't be surprised when something happens that you didnt anticipate and you are in a catastrophic accident.

You can play with a gun all day long and not hurt anyone, provided you just follow a few very simple rules.

You can also ride on Connecticut Ave and dramatically reduce the danger to yourself just by following a few very simple rules, too:

1) Stop at red lights and wait for them to turn green.

2) Don’t pass cars making right turns on the car’s right side.

3) Don’t shoal past traffic waiting at red lights.

4) Don’t do Idaho stops at stop signs. STOP at stop signs.





Do just those four things and your odds go up tremendously. It might never be as safe as playing with a gun, but it’ll be much safer than the way most cyclists ride normally.

5. Learn the how Idaho stops work. If *anyone* else at an intersection has the right of way, the bicyclist must stop at the stop sign.

6. Stop putting small children on bikes

7. If you insist on riding your bike at night, wear a reflective vest

8. Wear a friggin' helmet

Cyclists don't seem to understand Idaho stops at all. They've interpreted as they don't have to stop for anything ever.

Not all of them. It's just a small but prevalent set of entitled ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riding a bike on Connecticut avenue seems a bit like playing with a gun. You can totally do it! It is your right! But don't be surprised when something happens that you didnt anticipate and you are in a catastrophic accident.

Which is why bike lanes are needed.

Riding a bike on a busy city street is inherently dangerous, and it's not everyone else's job to prevent you from getting hurt doing something dangerous that you chose to do.

We don't spend billions of dollars trying to prevent gun enthusiasts from shooting themselves in face.

You could just not do the dangerous thing or, if you insist on doing it, you could stop being such an entitled, whiny b*t*h and take responsibility for the danger you freely chose to assume.

I want to take up boxing. How do I get the government to spend a shit ton of money to make sure I don't get hurt boxing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riding a bike on Connecticut avenue seems a bit like playing with a gun. You can totally do it! It is your right! But don't be surprised when something happens that you didnt anticipate and you are in a catastrophic accident.

You can play with a gun all day long and not hurt anyone, provided you just follow a few very simple rules.

You can also ride on Connecticut Ave and dramatically reduce the danger to yourself just by following a few very simple rules, too:

1) Stop at red lights and wait for them to turn green.

2) Don’t pass cars making right turns on the car’s right side.

3) Don’t shoal past traffic waiting at red lights.

4) Don’t do Idaho stops at stop signs. STOP at stop signs.





Do just those four things and your odds go up tremendously. It might never be as safe as playing with a gun, but it’ll be much safer than the way most cyclists ride normally.

5. Learn the how Idaho stops work. If *anyone* else at an intersection has the right of way, the bicyclist must stop at the stop sign.

6. Stop putting small children on bikes

7. If you insist on riding your bike at night, wear a reflective vest

8. Wear a friggin' helmet

Cyclists don't seem to understand Idaho stops at all. They've interpreted as they don't have to stop for anything ever.

I was screamed at by a cyclist the other day because I came to a four way intersection in my car, completely stopped at the stop sign and turned left. My sin? After I came to a stop, I didnt wait for him to get to his stop sign (he was still a good 20 feet away from his) and wait for him to go flying through the intersection at probably 20 mph before I turned left. Not even the first time it's happened!

Cyclists wonder why everyone hates them but is it really so mysterious? Look in the mirror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riding a bike on Connecticut avenue seems a bit like playing with a gun. You can totally do it! It is your right! But don't be surprised when something happens that you didnt anticipate and you are in a catastrophic accident.

Which is why bike lanes are needed.

Riding a bike on a busy city street is inherently dangerous, and it's not everyone else's job to prevent you from getting hurt doing something dangerous that you chose to do.

We don't spend billions of dollars trying to prevent gun enthusiasts from shooting themselves in face.

You could just not do the dangerous thing or, if you insist on doing it, you could stop being such an entitled, whiny b*t*h and take responsibility for the danger you freely chose to assume.

I want to take up boxing. How do I get the government to spend a shit ton of money to make sure I don't get hurt boxing?

Let me know when boxing is a form of transportation. Maybe that is the link you are missing? Not everyone is a lycra bro (who wouldn't be riding recreationally on Connecticut Avenue anyhow) - there are a lot of us where using a bike is a cheap and easy form of transportation to run errands and get where we need to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

I thought you wanted jersey barriers which would have even less visibility?

Heck, didn't y'all also say that sightlines were unimportant in terms of safety?

Jersey barriers are 3 feet tall. Cars and SUVs are 5-7 feet tall. Kinds of a difference for sightlines, no?

Cyclists on bikes are 5-7 feet tall. Bump outs elevate pedestrians so they’re better for sightlines and pedestrians are more visible. You ignore the bump outs because they’re inconvenient for your argument.

Even a fat guy on a bike isn't gonna block line of sight like an SUV.

Bump outs really depend on how much of a bump out - if it's just a bit of a bulb at the curb.. no a driver will likely still parallel part too close to the corner blocking line of sight. If they use sticks and not concrete for it, eventually those sticks will be worn down by people driving into/over them. Just look at the corner of Livingston and Conn Ave where they put sticks to stop Starbucks patrons from parking "just for a minute" at the corner and blocking line of sight and turning traffic.

a bike lane on both sides of the road would provide - at the least - 4.5 ft of open clear line of sight (with the briefest moment of blocked vision when the fat guy rides by on his giant bike).

I hope that DC does the bump outs well, but if they don’t then they probably wouldn’t have done the bike lanes well either, so there would have been flex posts screening pedestrians from cars in addition to the cyclists.

The best part about the new plan is that pedestrians won’t have cars on one side of them and people like you the other. The cars are enough to contend with already, and this plan reduces the lanes of moving cars by a third without adding a lane of self-obsessed cyclists.

People's hate for bikers is honestly ridiculous. Replace the word cyclist in this thread with actual slurs and I don't think I would've even noticed the difference in rhetoric. It makes me really sad that people hold this much hate over an alternative mode of transportation.

And, to add, this plan is going to lead ton more hate of people on bikes, either by pedestrians who have to share the already busy and narrow sidewalks or by drivers who are now going to have to wait behind them while sharing lanes.

Are you seriously comparing bikers to populations that were once enslaved or face persistent employment and housing discrimination? Check your privilege.

Also, I don’t have a problem on the sidewalks. I have problems at crosswalks where you run red lights and buzz past me closer than anyone who’s not related to me ever should be. So, yeah, I don’t want to have to cross a bike lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

I thought you wanted jersey barriers which would have even less visibility?

Heck, didn't y'all also say that sightlines were unimportant in terms of safety?

Jersey barriers are 3 feet tall. Cars and SUVs are 5-7 feet tall. Kinds of a difference for sightlines, no?

Cyclists on bikes are 5-7 feet tall. Bump outs elevate pedestrians so they’re better for sightlines and pedestrians are more visible. You ignore the bump outs because they’re inconvenient for your argument.

Even a fat guy on a bike isn't gonna block line of sight like an SUV.

Bump outs really depend on how much of a bump out - if it's just a bit of a bulb at the curb.. no a driver will likely still parallel part too close to the corner blocking line of sight. If they use sticks and not concrete for it, eventually those sticks will be worn down by people driving into/over them. Just look at the corner of Livingston and Conn Ave where they put sticks to stop Starbucks patrons from parking "just for a minute" at the corner and blocking line of sight and turning traffic.

a bike lane on both sides of the road would provide - at the least - 4.5 ft of open clear line of sight (with the briefest moment of blocked vision when the fat guy rides by on his giant bike).

I hope that DC does the bump outs well, but if they don’t then they probably wouldn’t have done the bike lanes well either, so there would have been flex posts screening pedestrians from cars in addition to the cyclists.

The best part about the new plan is that pedestrians won’t have cars on one side of them and people like you the other. The cars are enough to contend with already, and this plan reduces the lanes of moving cars by a third without adding a lane of self-obsessed cyclists.

People's hate for bikers is honestly ridiculous. Replace the word cyclist in this thread with actual slurs and I don't think I would've even noticed the difference in rhetoric. It makes me really sad that people hold this much hate over an alternative mode of transportation.

And, to add, this plan is going to lead ton more hate of people on bikes, either by pedestrians who have to share the already busy and narrow sidewalks or by drivers who are now going to have to wait behind them while sharing lanes.

Are you seriously comparing bikers to populations that were once enslaved or face persistent employment and housing discrimination? Check your privilege.

Also, I don’t have a problem on the sidewalks. I have problems at crosswalks where you run red lights and buzz past me closer than anyone who’s not related to me ever should be. So, yeah, I don’t want to have to cross a bike lane.

It's not worth trying to reason with people who are so inflamed by a biker being near them in a crosswalk when people have died in this city from cars ignoring crosswalks. I can promise you that cars are much more of a menace to you in a crosswalk than a biker is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When are the bike zealots going to stop fighting the last war? It’s like watching Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific islands at the end of WWII. Give it a rest already.

It's not just the bike bros. The "smart growth" machine has revved up to refight the last war. Maybe it's because they use the same lobbyist. And maybe it's because developers need the Connecticut bike lanes to market their upscale density plans to attract a demographic that doesn't find Connecticut Avenue to be sufficiently hip, urban and "vibey" today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When are the bike zealots going to stop fighting the last war? It’s like watching Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific islands at the end of WWII. Give it a rest already.

It's not just the bike bros. The "smart growth" machine also has revved up to refight the last war. Maybe it's because they use the same lobbyist. And maybe it's because developers apparently need the Connecticut bike lanes to market their upscale density plans to attract a demographic that doesn't find Connecticut Avenue to be sufficiently hip, urban and "vibey" today.