bike lanes not plowed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

That infrastructure exists to try to slow you and other maniacal drivers down and save the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. If people in this city drove better, it wouldn't be needed.

[Anonymous]

My protected bike lane is plowed, at the Easternmost end of Ward 1. It is currently a much used fantastic safe path for pedestrians, dogs, 2-wheels of all kinds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

It's amazing how much time you spend on here whining about bike lanes instead of getting your car out of the way of the plows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

This is all nonsense. Also, it's only a matter of time before you get hit by a car. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

Talk about canards!

1. Not very many people bicycle and probably most of them don't own cars, so them bicycling has a negligible impact on the total number of drivers on the road
2. Bike increase increase congestion because there's less space for cars to drive
3. Increasing congestion means cars sit in traffic longer, which means more greenhouse gases
4. Medical and insurance costs are higher when people ride bikes, scooters, e-bikes, etc. because when they're in accidents, it's bad. Ask an emergency room doctor.
5. The effects on cardiovascular disease are unknowable. Bicycling is not very strenuous exercise and just because people drive doesn't mean they're not in good shape. People do go to gyms, you know, where they do exercise that is actually strenuous
6. Cars are harder on the road, but drivers pay for them through an incredible assortment of fees. Bicycling infrastructure costs billions of dollars, and bicyclists do not pay any special fees towards its cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

Talk about canards!

1. Not very many people bicycle and probably most of them don't own cars, so them bicycling has a negligible impact on the total number of drivers on the road
2. Bike increase increase congestion because there's less space for cars to drive
3. Increasing congestion means cars sit in traffic longer, which means more greenhouse gases
4. Medical and insurance costs are higher when people ride bikes, scooters, e-bikes, etc. because when they're in accidents, it's bad. Ask an emergency room doctor.
5. The effects on cardiovascular disease are unknowable. Bicycling is not very strenuous exercise and just because people drive doesn't mean they're not in good shape. People do go to gyms, you know, where they do exercise that is actually strenuous
6. Cars are harder on the road, but drivers pay for them through an incredible assortment of fees. Bicycling infrastructure costs billions of dollars, and bicyclists do not pay any special fees towards its cost.

I love #3. Your argument is that we should make driving easier to reduce greenhouse gasses. Just brilliant. You are a very smart person and clearly quite learned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

Talk about canards!

1. Not very many people bicycle and probably most of them don't own cars, so them bicycling has a negligible impact on the total number of drivers on the road
2. Bike increase increase congestion because there's less space for cars to drive
3. Increasing congestion means cars sit in traffic longer, which means more greenhouse gases
4. Medical and insurance costs are higher when people ride bikes, scooters, e-bikes, etc. because when they're in accidents, it's bad. Ask an emergency room doctor.
5. The effects on cardiovascular disease are unknowable. Bicycling is not very strenuous exercise and just because people drive doesn't mean they're not in good shape. People do go to gyms, you know, where they do exercise that is actually strenuous
6. Cars are harder on the road, but drivers pay for them through an incredible assortment of fees. Bicycling infrastructure costs billions of dollars, and bicyclists do not pay any special fees towards its cost.

Oh, #4 is a gem too. It's why people who get bicycle specific insurance pay more than car insurance, which is miniscule. Cars are definitely not the hazard otherwise car insurance rates would be high!

[Anonymous]

#5 is good too. Driving may be better for your health than biking. This person must be at the forefront of medical research because no one else has been able to prove that yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

Talk about canards!

1. Not very many people bicycle and probably most of them don't own cars, so them bicycling has a negligible impact on the total number of drivers on the road
2. Bike increase increase congestion because there's less space for cars to drive
3. Increasing congestion means cars sit in traffic longer, which means more greenhouse gases
4. Medical and insurance costs are higher when people ride bikes, scooters, e-bikes, etc. because when they're in accidents, it's bad. Ask an emergency room doctor.
5. The effects on cardiovascular disease are unknowable. Bicycling is not very strenuous exercise and just because people drive doesn't mean they're not in good shape. People do go to gyms, you know, where they do exercise that is actually strenuous
6. Cars are harder on the road, but drivers pay for them through an incredible assortment of fees. Bicycling infrastructure costs billions of dollars, and bicyclists do not pay any special fees towards its cost.

I love #3. Your argument is that we should make driving easier to reduce greenhouse gasses. Just brilliant. You are a very smart person and clearly quite learned.

Cars burn more fuel when they're stopping and starting, and when they're idling, they're producing greenhouse gases even though they're not moving. So, yeah. Take it up with science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

Talk about canards!

1. Not very many people bicycle and probably most of them don't own cars, so them bicycling has a negligible impact on the total number of drivers on the road
2. Bike increase increase congestion because there's less space for cars to drive
3. Increasing congestion means cars sit in traffic longer, which means more greenhouse gases
4. Medical and insurance costs are higher when people ride bikes, scooters, e-bikes, etc. because when they're in accidents, it's bad. Ask an emergency room doctor.
5. The effects on cardiovascular disease are unknowable. Bicycling is not very strenuous exercise and just because people drive doesn't mean they're not in good shape. People do go to gyms, you know, where they do exercise that is actually strenuous
6. Cars are harder on the road, but drivers pay for them through an incredible assortment of fees. Bicycling infrastructure costs billions of dollars, and bicyclists do not pay any special fees towards its cost.

I love #3. Your argument is that we should make driving easier to reduce greenhouse gasses. Just brilliant. You are a very smart person and clearly quite learned.

Cars burn more fuel when they're stopping and starting, and when they're idling, they're producing greenhouse gases even though they're not moving. So, yeah. Take it up with science.

It's your decision to drive or not. Stop blaming greenhouse gas emissions on anything that gets in the way. Or perhaps you'd like a personal freeway between your house and everywhere you may choose to go. For the environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

Talk about canards!

1. Not very many people bicycle and probably most of them don't own cars, so them bicycling has a negligible impact on the total number of drivers on the road
2. Bike increase increase congestion because there's less space for cars to drive
3. Increasing congestion means cars sit in traffic longer, which means more greenhouse gases
4. Medical and insurance costs are higher when people ride bikes, scooters, e-bikes, etc. because when they're in accidents, it's bad. Ask an emergency room doctor.
5. The effects on cardiovascular disease are unknowable. Bicycling is not very strenuous exercise and just because people drive doesn't mean they're not in good shape. People do go to gyms, you know, where they do exercise that is actually strenuous
6. Cars are harder on the road, but drivers pay for them through an incredible assortment of fees. Bicycling infrastructure costs billions of dollars, and bicyclists do not pay any special fees towards its cost.

I love #3. Your argument is that we should make driving easier to reduce greenhouse gasses. Just brilliant. You are a very smart person and clearly quite learned.

Cars burn more fuel when they're stopping and starting, and when they're idling, they're producing greenhouse gases even though they're not moving. So, yeah. Take it up with science.

It's your decision to drive or not. Stop blaming greenhouse gas emissions on anything that gets in the way. Or perhaps you'd like a personal freeway between your house and everywhere you may choose to go. For the environment.

Sounds like you're conceding the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

Talk about canards!

1. Not very many people bicycle and probably most of them don't own cars, so them bicycling has a negligible impact on the total number of drivers on the road
2. Bike increase increase congestion because there's less space for cars to drive
3. Increasing congestion means cars sit in traffic longer, which means more greenhouse gases
4. Medical and insurance costs are higher when people ride bikes, scooters, e-bikes, etc. because when they're in accidents, it's bad. Ask an emergency room doctor.
5. The effects on cardiovascular disease are unknowable. Bicycling is not very strenuous exercise and just because people drive doesn't mean they're not in good shape. People do go to gyms, you know, where they do exercise that is actually strenuous
6. Cars are harder on the road, but drivers pay for them through an incredible assortment of fees. Bicycling infrastructure costs billions of dollars, and bicyclists do not pay any special fees towards its cost.

I love #3. Your argument is that we should make driving easier to reduce greenhouse gasses. Just brilliant. You are a very smart person and clearly quite learned.

Cars burn more fuel when they're stopping and starting, and when they're idling, they're producing greenhouse gases even though they're not moving. So, yeah. Take it up with science.

It's your decision to drive or not. Stop blaming greenhouse gas emissions on anything that gets in the way. Or perhaps you'd like a personal freeway between your house and everywhere you may choose to go. For the environment.

Sounds like you're conceding the point.

You're right, I'll get started building that freeway for you, your royal highness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if bike lanes didn’t have little white poles and concrete dividers from the street, it’d be easy to plow. Or you could make the homeowners and business owners alongside bike trails clear them like a sidewalk—of course no sane homeowner would ever support bike lanes after shoveling even more snow.

DMV has inflexible infrastructure that creates huge bottlenecks. Parklets, dining areas, bike racks take up too much road space.

Amen. We must suffer for an entitled superminority who thinks the world should bend to meet their needs. Take public transportation.

It is amazing how much of the public's time, energy and money is consumed by a tiny number of middle age white guys who demand the government subsidize their hobby.

Another canard. It's the middle aged white guys driving in cars alone who don't pay their own way and are subsidized by general taxation. Those who opt to bike instead of drive, reduce road maintenance costs, reduce insurance premiums, reduce road congestion, reduce various costs arising from fatal or otherwise serious accidents and the various cardiovascular illnesses that arise from being stuck in gridlock every morning and evening, and reduce the carbon emissions that give rise to the kind of insane weather we're currently experiencing. Hence the reason why bike lanes exist. If you really don't understand the concept of positive and negative externalities, please go find a video on YouTube that explains it to you.

Talk about canards!

1. Not very many people bicycle and probably most of them don't own cars, so them bicycling has a negligible impact on the total number of drivers on the road
2. Bike increase increase congestion because there's less space for cars to drive
3. Increasing congestion means cars sit in traffic longer, which means more greenhouse gases
4. Medical and insurance costs are higher when people ride bikes, scooters, e-bikes, etc. because when they're in accidents, it's bad. Ask an emergency room doctor.
5. The effects on cardiovascular disease are unknowable. Bicycling is not very strenuous exercise and just because people drive doesn't mean they're not in good shape. People do go to gyms, you know, where they do exercise that is actually strenuous
6. Cars are harder on the road, but drivers pay for them through an incredible assortment of fees. Bicycling infrastructure costs billions of dollars, and bicyclists do not pay any special fees towards its cost.

Oh, #4 is a gem too. It's why people who get bicycle specific insurance pay more than car insurance, which is miniscule. Cars are definitely not the hazard otherwise car insurance rates would be high!

I think the idea is that if you're in an accident in a car in DC, you're probably going to be fine because of all the safety features of cars. And if you're on a bike and you get in an accident, chances are far higher than you are going to suffer catastrophic injuries. The New York Times just had a big story on emergency room doctors talking about the incredibly bad injuries they see among people on e-bikes.