Connecticut Avenue bike lane officially dead

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

It is PE classes in public schools where most of the kids are very poor and don't have parents to teach them how to ride. Why is this an issue for you? Is your privilege so high that only people who can afford a bike should be able to learn to ride? Capital Bikesare is used by a lot of people who don't own bikes and the program is breaking records each month in terms of ridership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would posit that the thousands of people who support bike lanes are neither bike bros nor smart growth advocates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i can guarantee that you did not actually stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Happens to me all the time and it’s infuriating

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

It is PE classes in public schools where most of the kids are very poor and don't have parents to teach them how to ride. Why is this an issue for you? Is your privilege so high that only people who can afford a bike should be able to learn to ride? Capital Bikesare is used by a lot of people who don't own bikes and the program is breaking records each month in terms of ridership.

WABA doesn't teach them. The PE teachers do.

It'd be cheaper to bypass WABA and buy every 2nd grader a bike each year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bike lanes are what they use to argue against building parking requirements. That's the connection.

[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: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

Be careful. You’re now venturing into the “it’s better for me to hit you with a bike” trope. That’s always where these conversations land because you can’t be bothered to care about anyone but yourself, hence your decision to compare your plight to that of formerly enslaved people.

[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: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

Be careful. You’re now venturing into the “it’s better for me to hit you with a bike” trope. That’s always where these conversations land because you can’t be bothered to care about anyone but yourself, hence your decision to compare your plight to that of formerly enslaved people.

That person literally said they were entitled to bike lanes because they pay taxes. They ventured into main character syndrome long ago.

[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: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

Be careful. You’re now venturing into the “it’s better for me to hit you with a bike” trope. That’s always where these conversations land because you can’t be bothered to care about anyone but yourself, hence your decision to compare your plight to that of formerly enslaved people.

That person literally said they were entitled to bike lanes because they pay taxes. They ventured into main character syndrome long ago.

1) you're talking to multiple people
2) you haven't been hit by a person on a bike in the crosswalk; there are a negligible number of bike/pedestrian incidents, especially when compared to car/pedestiran, so I don't see why that's not relevant when your issue with bikers is that they are dangerous to you as a pedestrian

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

It is PE classes in public schools where most of the kids are very poor and don't have parents to teach them how to ride. Why is this an issue for you? Is your privilege so high that only people who can afford a bike should be able to learn to ride? Capital Bikesare is used by a lot of people who don't own bikes and the program is breaking records each month in terms of ridership.

WABA doesn't teach them. The PE teachers do.

It'd be cheaper to bypass WABA and buy every 2nd grader a bike each year

Let's do the math. There's a bit less than 4,000 2nd graders in DCPS. A basic mid range kid's bike plus helmet, bought in bulk, costs $100. That's $400,000 per year with no overhead, storage, or maintenance necessary.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

It is PE classes in public schools where most of the kids are very poor and don't have parents to teach them how to ride. Why is this an issue for you? Is your privilege so high that only people who can afford a bike should be able to learn to ride? Capital Bikesare is used by a lot of people who don't own bikes and the program is breaking records each month in terms of ridership.

WABA doesn't teach them. The PE teachers do.

It'd be cheaper to bypass WABA and buy every 2nd grader a bike each year

Let's do the math. There's a bit less than 4,000 2nd graders in DCPS. A basic mid range kid's bike plus helmet, bought in bulk, costs $100. That's $400,000 per year with no overhead, storage, or maintenance necessary.

WABA rents its bikes to DCPS for the lessons. They charge $1,000 per bike rented.

[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: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

Be careful. You’re now venturing into the “it’s better for me to hit you with a bike” trope. That’s always where these conversations land because you can’t be bothered to care about anyone but yourself, hence your decision to compare your plight to that of formerly enslaved people.

That person literally said they were entitled to bike lanes because they pay taxes. They ventured into main character syndrome long ago.

1) you're talking to multiple people
2) you haven't been hit by a person on a bike in the crosswalk; there are a negligible number of bike/pedestrian incidents, especially when compared to car/pedestiran, so I don't see why that's not relevant when your issue with bikers is that they are dangerous to you as a pedestrian

I have been hit by a bicyclist in a crosswalk. But you're talking to someone different.

Do you think you're fiduciarally entitled to bike lanes?

[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: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

Be careful. You’re now venturing into the “it’s better for me to hit you with a bike” trope. That’s always where these conversations land because you can’t be bothered to care about anyone but yourself, hence your decision to compare your plight to that of formerly enslaved people.

That person literally said they were entitled to bike lanes because they pay taxes. They ventured into main character syndrome long ago.

1) you're talking to multiple people
2) you haven't been hit by a person on a bike in the crosswalk; there are a negligible number of bike/pedestrian incidents, especially when compared to car/pedestiran, so I don't see why that's not relevant when your issue with bikers is that they are dangerous to you as a pedestrian

I have been hit by a bicyclist in a crosswalk. But you're talking to someone different.

Do you think you're fiduciarally entitled to bike lanes?

I don't understand this gotcha? I don't think I'm any more entitled to safe transport than any other road user. However I do think it's frustrating that these bike lanes, which were deemed locally popular by any electoral metric, have been defunded bc of some overtly loud people who are content to continue a vision of cars first. I wish our mayor was more future forward.

Entitled? No, and I have ever claimed that.

[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.

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?

It is PE classes in public schools where most of the kids are very poor and don't have parents to teach them how to ride. Why is this an issue for you? Is your privilege so high that only people who can afford a bike should be able to learn to ride? Capital Bikesare is used by a lot of people who don't own bikes and the program is breaking records each month in terms of ridership.

WABA doesn't teach them. The PE teachers do.

It'd be cheaper to bypass WABA and buy every 2nd grader a bike each year

Let's do the math. There's a bit less than 4,000 2nd graders in DCPS. A basic mid range kid's bike plus helmet, bought in bulk, costs $100. That's $400,000 per year with no overhead, storage, or maintenance necessary.

WABA rents its bikes to DCPS for the lessons. They charge $1,000 per bike rented.

I am guessing they purchased, stored, maintained, and transported the bikes. They also probably need to have helmets and insurance requirements as well. All of that adds up, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I want to learn to juggle knives. It's good for eye hand coordination. What is the government/taxpayer going to do to prevent me from hurting myself? WABA? Can you help?

I collect poisonous snakes. What is the DC government going to do if I get bit? We need hobby equity. If bikers get zillions of taxpayers dollars to protect them, then shouldn't we poisonous snake collectors get the same?

Are poisonous snakes a form of transportation? Do you need a poisonous snake lane so you can ride on the back of your slithering pet?