Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever been to Copenhagen? It’s dead at night. Why? Because nobody is biking to restaurants or clubs for dinner, drinks, dates, etc.

Plus: weather. Or more specifically: lack of sunlight.

ICYMI: DC needs more of a city vibe after business hours, not less.

Why are you trying to kill DC’s economy?

Please show a study that demonstrates that bike lanes are a negative for the economy or businesses.

I think Copenhagen’s reality (read: lack of foot traffic, limited business hours after dark, zero nightlife) pretty much says it all.

The drones bike directly to work, pray their bike isn’t stolen, then bike directly home.

Is that the world you want to live in?

#notfun

So you have no studies that show bike lanes are bad for businesses or the economy.

Got it.

I’m persuaded by the data underscoring the dangers of putting bike lanes on congested streets where cyclists have a false sense of security and end up in serious accidents as a result. YMMV.

Show the data for PROTECTED bike lanes. That isn't a false sense of security. It is literally safer. and that is what is proposed here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianafurchtgott-roth/2022/09/08/bike-lanes-dont-make-cycling-safe/amp/

The problem with protected bike lanes is the cyclist tends to not be as visible. They blend in with or are otherwise obscured by whatever barrier is in place.

They work perfectly fine until a car or truck needs to turn or a pedestrian needs to cross.

The safest place for any cyclist is *not* CT Ave. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

Oh yes, the opinion piece about an unbelievably bad, UNprotected bike lane on River Road in Bethesda, by a former Trump administration official, who is now Director of the Center against Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation. She also recently used Montpellier, France, as an example of Europe's war on cars. And she opposed the Purple Line. A highly authoritative source on bike lane design and road safety!

Perhaps read the studies from New Zealand which documented how cyclists ride faster in protected lanes due to the false sense of security and the end result is more accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever been to Copenhagen? It’s dead at night. Why? Because nobody is biking to restaurants or clubs for dinner, drinks, dates, etc.

Plus: weather. Or more specifically: lack of sunlight.

ICYMI: DC needs more of a city vibe after business hours, not less.

Why are you trying to kill DC’s economy?

Please show a study that demonstrates that bike lanes are a negative for the economy or businesses.

I think Copenhagen’s reality (read: lack of foot traffic, limited business hours after dark, zero nightlife) pretty much says it all.

The drones bike directly to work, pray their bike isn’t stolen, then bike directly home.

Is that the world you want to live in?

#notfun

So you have no studies that show bike lanes are bad for businesses or the economy.

Got it.

I’m persuaded by the data underscoring the dangers of putting bike lanes on congested streets where cyclists have a false sense of security and end up in serious accidents as a result. YMMV.

Show the data for PROTECTED bike lanes. That isn't a false sense of security. It is literally safer. and that is what is proposed here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianafurchtgott-roth/2022/09/08/bike-lanes-dont-make-cycling-safe/amp/

The problem with protected bike lanes is the cyclist tends to not be as visible. They blend in with or are otherwise obscured by whatever barrier is in place.

They work perfectly fine until a car or truck needs to turn or a pedestrian needs to cross.

The safest place for any cyclist is *not* CT Ave. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

Oh yes, the opinion piece about an unbelievably bad, UNprotected bike lane on River Road in Bethesda, by a former Trump administration official, who is now Director of the Center against Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation. She also recently used Montpellier, France, as an example of Europe's war on cars. And she opposed the Purple Line. A highly authoritative source on bike lane design and road safety!

Perhaps read the studies from New Zealand which documented how cyclists ride faster in protected lanes due to the false sense of security and the end result is more accidents.

Who's advocating for bike infrastructure where bicyclists have a false sense of security? Not me. I'm advocating for bike infrastructure where bicyclists have a true sense of security.

[Anonymous]

https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever been to Copenhagen? It’s dead at night. Why? Because nobody is biking to restaurants or clubs for dinner, drinks, dates, etc.

Plus: weather. Or more specifically: lack of sunlight.

ICYMI: DC needs more of a city vibe after business hours, not less.

Why are you trying to kill DC’s economy?

Please show a study that demonstrates that bike lanes are a negative for the economy or businesses.

I think Copenhagen’s reality (read: lack of foot traffic, limited business hours after dark, zero nightlife) pretty much says it all.

The drones bike directly to work, pray their bike isn’t stolen, then bike directly home.

Is that the world you want to live in?

#notfun

So you have no studies that show bike lanes are bad for businesses or the economy.

Got it.

I’m persuaded by the data underscoring the dangers of putting bike lanes on congested streets where cyclists have a false sense of security and end up in serious accidents as a result. YMMV.

Show the data for PROTECTED bike lanes. That isn't a false sense of security. It is literally safer. and that is what is proposed here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianafurchtgott-roth/2022/09/08/bike-lanes-dont-make-cycling-safe/amp/

The problem with protected bike lanes is the cyclist tends to not be as visible. They blend in with or are otherwise obscured by whatever barrier is in place.

They work perfectly fine until a car or truck needs to turn or a pedestrian needs to cross.

The safest place for any cyclist is *not* CT Ave. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

Oh yes, the opinion piece about an unbelievably bad, UNprotected bike lane on River Road in Bethesda, by a former Trump administration official, who is now Director of the Center against Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation. She also recently used Montpellier, France, as an example of Europe's war on cars. And she opposed the Purple Line. A highly authoritative source on bike lane design and road safety!

Perhaps read the studies from New Zealand which documented how cyclists ride faster in protected lanes due to the false sense of security and the end result is more accidents.

Who's advocating for bike infrastructure where bicyclists have a false sense of security? Not me. I'm advocating for bike infrastructure where bicyclists have a true sense of security.

But that will never exist unless you are on a street without driveways, turns, pedestrians, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

You're citing a personal-injury law firm as an authority on bike lane design?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever been to Copenhagen? It’s dead at night. Why? Because nobody is biking to restaurants or clubs for dinner, drinks, dates, etc.

Plus: weather. Or more specifically: lack of sunlight.

ICYMI: DC needs more of a city vibe after business hours, not less.

Why are you trying to kill DC’s economy?

Please show a study that demonstrates that bike lanes are a negative for the economy or businesses.

I think Copenhagen’s reality (read: lack of foot traffic, limited business hours after dark, zero nightlife) pretty much says it all.

The drones bike directly to work, pray their bike isn’t stolen, then bike directly home.

Is that the world you want to live in?

#notfun

So you have no studies that show bike lanes are bad for businesses or the economy.

Got it.

I’m persuaded by the data underscoring the dangers of putting bike lanes on congested streets where cyclists have a false sense of security and end up in serious accidents as a result. YMMV.

Show the data for PROTECTED bike lanes. That isn't a false sense of security. It is literally safer. and that is what is proposed here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianafurchtgott-roth/2022/09/08/bike-lanes-dont-make-cycling-safe/amp/

The problem with protected bike lanes is the cyclist tends to not be as visible. They blend in with or are otherwise obscured by whatever barrier is in place.

They work perfectly fine until a car or truck needs to turn or a pedestrian needs to cross.

The safest place for any cyclist is *not* CT Ave. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

the bolded is a driver issue not a CT Ave issue. As far as you are concerned, there shouldn't be any cyclists anywhere and everyone should be driving neon colored cars.

I find it rather crass to be so dismissive of tragedy.

Cyclists have been seriously injured or even killed—like the local woman referenced in the linked article.

Be better, pp.

The people being dismissive of it are the ones opposing these changes which will make CT Ave safer for ALL users.

YOU be better. YOU are the one being dismissive of safety in favor of cars. And it isn't like cars on CT Ave are safe, as evidenced by the data someone posted yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever been to Copenhagen? It’s dead at night. Why? Because nobody is biking to restaurants or clubs for dinner, drinks, dates, etc.

Plus: weather. Or more specifically: lack of sunlight.

ICYMI: DC needs more of a city vibe after business hours, not less.

Why are you trying to kill DC’s economy?

Please show a study that demonstrates that bike lanes are a negative for the economy or businesses.

I think Copenhagen’s reality (read: lack of foot traffic, limited business hours after dark, zero nightlife) pretty much says it all.

The drones bike directly to work, pray their bike isn’t stolen, then bike directly home.

Is that the world you want to live in?

#notfun

So you have no studies that show bike lanes are bad for businesses or the economy.

Got it.

I’m persuaded by the data underscoring the dangers of putting bike lanes on congested streets where cyclists have a false sense of security and end up in serious accidents as a result. YMMV.

Show the data for PROTECTED bike lanes. That isn't a false sense of security. It is literally safer. and that is what is proposed here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianafurchtgott-roth/2022/09/08/bike-lanes-dont-make-cycling-safe/amp/

The problem with protected bike lanes is the cyclist tends to not be as visible. They blend in with or are otherwise obscured by whatever barrier is in place.

They work perfectly fine until a car or truck needs to turn or a pedestrian needs to cross.

The safest place for any cyclist is *not* CT Ave. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

Oh yes, the opinion piece about an unbelievably bad, UNprotected bike lane on River Road in Bethesda, by a former Trump administration official, who is now Director of the Center against Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation. She also recently used Montpellier, France, as an example of Europe's war on cars. And she opposed the Purple Line. A highly authoritative source on bike lane design and road safety!

Perhaps read the studies from New Zealand which documented how cyclists ride faster in protected lanes due to the false sense of security and the end result is more accidents.

Who's advocating for bike infrastructure where bicyclists have a false sense of security? Not me. I'm advocating for bike infrastructure where bicyclists have a true sense of security.

But that will never exist unless you are on a street without driveways, turns, pedestrians, etc.

Love to be advised about safe bicycle infrastructure by someone who knows nothing about safe bicycle infrastructure and doesn't ride a bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

Every street had driveways and turns. Unless you suggest we go back to the 1790's and install separated lanes before and concurrent with the street grid, then we have to deal with reality. And reality is that the safety improvements for CT Ave will make it better for people walking, people biking, people driving, people enjoying a restaurant sidewalk cafe etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

You're citing a personal-injury law firm as an authority on bike lane design?

Of course. If they had to cite traffic engineers or urban planners, they wouldn't find any sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

You're citing a personal-injury law firm as an authority on bike lane design?

Of course. If they had to cite traffic engineers or urban planners, they wouldn't find any sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

You're citing a personal-injury law firm as an authority on bike lane design?

They link to a fact-based summary of the fed data.

Google pulls up the same data that is helpfully consolidated here.

Go read the primary sources…or continue to ignore it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

You're citing a personal-injury law firm as an authority on bike lane design?

They link to a fact-based summary of the fed data.

Google pulls up the same data that is helpfully consolidated here.

Go read the primary sources…or continue to ignore it.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

You're citing a personal-injury law firm as an authority on bike lane design?

Of course. If they had to cite traffic engineers or urban planners, they wouldn't find any sources.

ICYMI:

There are significant federal dollars that everyone is chasing after for these bike lanes.

Why?

Because they’ll get a big bucket of money to pay existing staff and use the rest for actual implementation of the bike lanes.

DC is doing this to help their own budget situation (read: covering existing city staffers), not for safety reasons.

Of course their planners—and their counterparts in other communities chasing the federal dollars—cherry pick research and stats when making their case.

[Anonymous]

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/some-protected-bike-lanes-leave-cyclists-vulnerable-to-injury

So what’s your take on this?

They literally use a pic of a protected bike lane in DC to illustrate the danger to cyclists…and those same dangers seem to be an issue on CT Ave, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

You're citing a personal-injury law firm as an authority on bike lane design?

Of course. If they had to cite traffic engineers or urban planners, they wouldn't find any sources.

ICYMI:

There are significant federal dollars that everyone is chasing after for these bike lanes.

Why?

Because they’ll get a big bucket of money to pay existing staff and use the rest for actual implementation of the bike lanes.

DC is doing this to help their own budget situation (read: covering existing city staffers), not for safety reasons.

Of course their planners—and their counterparts in other communities chasing the federal dollars—cherry pick research and stats when making their case.

You ignore the other benefits, more people biking means more space for the people who have to drive on the road and to park, the more people who bike the better the macro health benefits, the more people who bike, the better the macro environmental benefits, the more people who bike, the better the impact on carbon and climate change.