Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible. |
Anonymous
The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck. |
Anonymous
| BIKE LANES HAVE BROUGHT SAN FRANCISCO AND PORTLAND TO THE BRINK OF THE ABYSS!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!1111 |
Anonymous
Peapod has a $10 delivery fee + expected tip + higher item costs + creating a monopoly on essential purchases. Doordash is even worse, but they would be banned under this idiotic suggestion. |
Anonymous
Bike lanes don't cause injuries or fatalities. I don't know where you got this Koch Brother tripe from but it doesn't even make logical sense. The impact on business you assert is totally false. Study after study shows a neutral to positive impact. None show negative impact. |
Anonymous
That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing. |
Anonymous
And a car costs roughly $10,000 a year to own and operate. |
Anonymous
Maybe y'all could get with each other to decide whether bike lanes are bad because people use them, or bike lanes are bad because people don't use them, and then get back to us? |
Anonymous
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=arch_crp_theses 117% increase in crashes from protected bike lanes versus shared road Over 400% increase from cycle tracks |
Anonymous
😂 No it doesn't |
Anonymous
Yes, it does. https://www.bts.gov/content/average-cost-owning-and-operating-automobilea-assuming-15000-vehicle-miles-year |
Anonymous
It's weird how more drivers hit bicyclists on roads where there are bicyclists, vs. on roads where there aren't bicyclists. I wonder why that might be. I also wonder how many drivers hit bicyclists on roads where there aren't drivers, vs. on roads where there are drivers. |
Anonymous
Do you know what would prevent bike injuries or fatalities? No bikes. That is clearly your goal. We get it. But bikes were here before cars, they are cheaper to own and operate and they don't cause emissions or other environmental externalities, so, they aren't going anywhere, no matter how much you want to beg that they do. As such, a protected bike lanes is safer than no bike lane, and that is the path the mayor has chosen and there is near political unanimity around that decision. |
Anonymous
That's not what the study says. Protected bike lanes increase bike accidents. While that mean seem counter-intuitive it is not. The reason is that protected bike lanes engender a false sense of invulnerability and separation which results in greater risk taking and a lack of attention when crossing driveways and intersections. |
Anonymous
That's not my goal. There's nothing wrong with bikes or bicyclists in general. It's the plan to intentionally increase congestion and waste ten of millions of dollars on a barely used amenity that I don't like. |