Thanks to the bike party organizers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do cyclists have to have insurance like cars do?

The cyclists here will all insist that most drivers don’t have insurance. And drive 245 mph on Connecticut Ave. And run 141% of red lights and stop signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

There were 41 reported car accidents on the most recently available full day of reporting, with possible reports still coming in: https://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/DCGIS::crashes-in-dc/explore

What sort of police/fire/medical resources do you think those accidents consume? That's with current "law abiding" drivers.

Says the cyclist who wants the city to spend $50 million to build him and his friends their own bridge next to a bridge that's already there.

The daytime population of Washington DC is one million. That's a lot of people moving around and accidents are inevitable (that's why we call them accidents!). Everyone who is on the road, regardless of how they are moving about, should expect to be in an accident sooner or later. (The notion that we can engineer away accident is silly).

That said, it would be helpful if we got the police back in the traffic enforcement game (something WABA opposes!). Traffic cameras basically only catch tourists and they give a free pass to people who are driving while high or drunk who are the most dangerous people on the road.

This is the attitude that gets 40,000 Americans killed every year. And yes, you can engineer away the vast majority of those deaths and injuries. You just don't want to try.
Other countries have 1/3rd the fatalities per mile driven, and most of that difference is design.

Next party starts tomorrow at the van ness metro around 6:30

The bike party will be led around by the local ANC with middle fingers extended.

Looks like tens of people had a fun protest ride tonight.

Few hundred. Did you learn to count at the same place you learned to drive and that's why you fail so hard at both?

https://twitter.com/DcSafer/status/1783279454627741937

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

And cyclists just want to cycle anywhere without fear of being mowed over or doored. What is your point?

And the reality is you cannot cycle “anywhere”. Many roads simply do not lend themselves to it. Accept that and move on. You cannot cycle on an interstate highly. I can’t drive on a bike path. Accept that there are just places you can’t be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

Option C was the preferred choice until people opposed decided to fight it.

The bike lanes will only be dead when there isn't another recourse. Until then, advocates will show the support for the safety improvements (more signatures in a week than the opponents collected in 2+ years) show where the Mayor and DDOT are wrong and try to ensure there is a safe North-South route on Connecticut Avenue is preserved as is codified in the MoveDC plan (we don't need another plan) and in compliance with both Vision Zero and the DC Sustainability Plan.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

As a pedestrian, I’ve never objected to bikes on the sidewalk. Doesn’t bother me at all.

I live on the bottom of a hill and because there is no bike lane on my street and because drivers tend to aggressively speed on my street, bikes / e-bikes regularly sail down the sidewalk at 15-20 mph. Getting hit by one would be catastrophic. Anyone who regularly walks anywhere in DC is all for the bike lanes.

How does a bike lane reduce the risk of a cyclist going too fast for conditions down a hill to stop?

It reduces the risk of a collision between cyclist and pedestrian, you knob.

[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:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

Option C was the preferred choice until people opposed decided to fight it.

The bike lanes will only be dead when there isn't another recourse. Until then, advocates will show the support for the safety improvements (more signatures in a week than the opponents collected in 2+ years) show where the Mayor and DDOT are wrong and try to ensure there is a safe North-South route on Connecticut Avenue is preserved as is codified in the MoveDC plan (we don't need another plan) and in compliance with both Vision Zero and the DC Sustainability Plan.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

Whoa friend, you are asking for this anti-biker to think through second order effects of a decision. No way that will happen!

There is only a few dozen bicyclists per day that use Connecticut. Whether they are on the sidewalk or the street makes no difference for safety at all because there aren't enough of them to matter either way.

Amazingly, governments have decided to build bridges across swift-flowing rivers even in the absence of people drowning every day while trying to swim across them.

Amazingly, bridges were built where ferry crossings were so your analogy is not only stupid but also fundamentally wrong.

Regardless, there is no safety issue because hardly anyone bikes on Connecticut. You can't have it both ways and we see through your transparent mendacity.

Just think how many would bike there, if it were safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

Option C was the preferred choice until people opposed decided to fight it.

The bike lanes will only be dead when there isn't another recourse. Until then, advocates will show the support for the safety improvements (more signatures in a week than the opponents collected in 2+ years) show where the Mayor and DDOT are wrong and try to ensure there is a safe North-South route on Connecticut Avenue is preserved as is codified in the MoveDC plan (we don't need another plan) and in compliance with both Vision Zero and the DC Sustainability Plan.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

You could just not ride a bike. I don't know why the city, and taxpayers, need to make special accommodations for your hobby.

You call it a hobby. It is a form of transportation, whether yo like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

Option C was the preferred choice until people opposed decided to fight it.

The bike lanes will only be dead when there isn't another recourse. Until then, advocates will show the support for the safety improvements (more signatures in a week than the opponents collected in 2+ years) show where the Mayor and DDOT are wrong and try to ensure there is a safe North-South route on Connecticut Avenue is preserved as is codified in the MoveDC plan (we don't need another plan) and in compliance with both Vision Zero and the DC Sustainability Plan.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

As a pedestrian, I’ve never objected to bikes on the sidewalk. Doesn’t bother me at all.

I live on the bottom of a hill and because there is no bike lane on my street and because drivers tend to aggressively speed on my street, bikes / e-bikes regularly sail down the sidewalk at 15-20 mph. Getting hit by one would be catastrophic. Anyone who regularly walks anywhere in DC is all for the bike lanes.

How does a bike lane reduce the risk of a cyclist going too fast for conditions down a hill to stop?

If the cyclist is not in the same space as the pedestrians, then the pedestrians will be safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

There were 41 reported car accidents on the most recently available full day of reporting, with possible reports still coming in: https://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/DCGIS::crashes-in-dc/explore

What sort of police/fire/medical resources do you think those accidents consume? That's with current "law abiding" drivers.

Says the cyclist who wants the city to spend $50 million to build him and his friends their own bridge next to a bridge that's already there.

The daytime population of Washington DC is one million. That's a lot of people moving around and accidents are inevitable (that's why we call them accidents!). Everyone who is on the road, regardless of how they are moving about, should expect to be in an accident sooner or later. (The notion that we can engineer away accident is silly).

That said, it would be helpful if we got the police back in the traffic enforcement game (something WABA opposes!). Traffic cameras basically only catch tourists and they give a free pass to people who are driving while high or drunk who are the most dangerous people on the road.

This is the attitude that gets 40,000 Americans killed every year. And yes, you can engineer away the vast majority of those deaths and injuries. You just don't want to try.
Other countries have 1/3rd the fatalities per mile driven, and most of that difference is design.

Next party starts tomorrow at the van ness metro around 6:30

The bike party will be led around by the local ANC with middle fingers extended.

Looks like tens of people had a fun protest ride tonight.

Few hundred. Did you learn to count at the same place you learned to drive and that's why you fail so hard at both?

https://twitter.com/DcSafer/status/1783279454627741937

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

And cyclists just want to cycle anywhere without fear of being mowed over or doored. What is your point?

And the reality is you cannot cycle “anywhere”. Many roads simply do not lend themselves to it. Accept that and move on. You cannot cycle on an interstate highly. I can’t drive on a bike path. Accept that there are just places you can’t be.

And we are not talking about bike paths or highways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

Option C was the preferred choice until people opposed decided to fight it.

The bike lanes will only be dead when there isn't another recourse. Until then, advocates will show the support for the safety improvements (more signatures in a week than the opponents collected in 2+ years) show where the Mayor and DDOT are wrong and try to ensure there is a safe North-South route on Connecticut Avenue is preserved as is codified in the MoveDC plan (we don't need another plan) and in compliance with both Vision Zero and the DC Sustainability Plan.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

You could just not ride a bike. I don't know why the city, and taxpayers, need to make special accommodations for your hobby.

This is just not true. From Cp to Calvert, the street has as many multimodal users as many downtown ones.

[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:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

Option C was the preferred choice until people opposed decided to fight it.

The bike lanes will only be dead when there isn't another recourse. Until then, advocates will show the support for the safety improvements (more signatures in a week than the opponents collected in 2+ years) show where the Mayor and DDOT are wrong and try to ensure there is a safe North-South route on Connecticut Avenue is preserved as is codified in the MoveDC plan (we don't need another plan) and in compliance with both Vision Zero and the DC Sustainability Plan.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

As a pedestrian, I’ve never objected to bikes on the sidewalk. Doesn’t bother me at all.

I live on the bottom of a hill and because there is no bike lane on my street and because drivers tend to aggressively speed on my street, bikes / e-bikes regularly sail down the sidewalk at 15-20 mph. Getting hit by one would be catastrophic. Anyone who regularly walks anywhere in DC is all for the bike lanes.

How does a bike lane reduce the risk of a cyclist going too fast for conditions down a hill to stop?

If the cyclist is not in the same space as the pedestrians, then the pedestrians will be safer.

What happens when the pedestrian tries to cross the street? At what point to cyclists need to take responsibility for their own reckless behavior?

[Anonymous]

I don’t know why people who operate their bikes as forms of transportation don’t have to carry insurance. Boats, planes, trucks, cars, vehicles that are used as transport must carry insurance. Why don’t bike operators?

Bike riders are using public roads for free. Register your bike. Insure your bike. The taxes paid by car and truck drivers when they purchase gasoline is used to create and repair public roadways. People who bike on public roadways are not financially contributing to the roadways but demanding usage. You don’t get to use public roadways to “exercise” when you are not contributing to the cost of establishing and maintaining public roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

There were 41 reported car accidents on the most recently available full day of reporting, with possible reports still coming in: https://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/DCGIS::crashes-in-dc/explore

What sort of police/fire/medical resources do you think those accidents consume? That's with current "law abiding" drivers.

Says the cyclist who wants the city to spend $50 million to build him and his friends their own bridge next to a bridge that's already there.

The daytime population of Washington DC is one million. That's a lot of people moving around and accidents are inevitable (that's why we call them accidents!). Everyone who is on the road, regardless of how they are moving about, should expect to be in an accident sooner or later. (The notion that we can engineer away accident is silly).

That said, it would be helpful if we got the police back in the traffic enforcement game (something WABA opposes!). Traffic cameras basically only catch tourists and they give a free pass to people who are driving while high or drunk who are the most dangerous people on the road.

This is the attitude that gets 40,000 Americans killed every year. And yes, you can engineer away the vast majority of those deaths and injuries. You just don't want to try.
Other countries have 1/3rd the fatalities per mile driven, and most of that difference is design.

Next party starts tomorrow at the van ness metro around 6:30

The bike party will be led around by the local ANC with middle fingers extended.

Looks like tens of people had a fun protest ride tonight.

Few hundred. Did you learn to count at the same place you learned to drive and that's why you fail so hard at both?

https://twitter.com/DcSafer/status/1783279454627741937

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

And cyclists just want to cycle anywhere without fear of being mowed over or doored. What is your point?

And the reality is you cannot cycle “anywhere”. Many roads simply do not lend themselves to it. Accept that and move on. You cannot cycle on an interstate highly. I can’t drive on a bike path. Accept that there are just places you can’t be.

Ironically, Connecticut Ave is part of the national highway system.

[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:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

Option C was the preferred choice until people opposed decided to fight it.

The bike lanes will only be dead when there isn't another recourse. Until then, advocates will show the support for the safety improvements (more signatures in a week than the opponents collected in 2+ years) show where the Mayor and DDOT are wrong and try to ensure there is a safe North-South route on Connecticut Avenue is preserved as is codified in the MoveDC plan (we don't need another plan) and in compliance with both Vision Zero and the DC Sustainability Plan.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

Whoa friend, you are asking for this anti-biker to think through second order effects of a decision. No way that will happen!

There is only a few dozen bicyclists per day that use Connecticut. Whether they are on the sidewalk or the street makes no difference for safety at all because there aren't enough of them to matter either way.

Amazingly, governments have decided to build bridges across swift-flowing rivers even in the absence of people drowning every day while trying to swim across them.

Amazingly, bridges were built where ferry crossings were so your analogy is not only stupid but also fundamentally wrong.

Regardless, there is no safety issue because hardly anyone bikes on Connecticut. You can't have it both ways and we see through your transparent mendacity.

Just think how many would bike there, if it were safe.

Don’t need to imagine. Almost all bike lanes in DC have low utilization and are unused. The most popular place to bike in DC, by a long shot, is the Anacostia River Trail. Followed by Maine Ave.

[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:Connecticut Ave bike lanes are dead, folks. Get over it. The District’s budget situation is dire and not even Charles Allen would fund bike lanes over public school needs. On top of that, public opinion is divided. The WABA crowd comes across as selfish whiners.

Option C was the preferred choice until people opposed decided to fight it.

The bike lanes will only be dead when there isn't another recourse. Until then, advocates will show the support for the safety improvements (more signatures in a week than the opponents collected in 2+ years) show where the Mayor and DDOT are wrong and try to ensure there is a safe North-South route on Connecticut Avenue is preserved as is codified in the MoveDC plan (we don't need another plan) and in compliance with both Vision Zero and the DC Sustainability Plan.

If this is your goal, what is this hissy fit supposed to accomplish?

I am not sure why you call it hissy fit.

People are allowed to go for an evening bike ride, are they not?

Hissy fit is pretty accurate, because the behavior is quite similar to a toddler’s temper tantrum.

You didn’t get what you wanted, so you are having a hissy fit to demonstrate your displeasure.

Everyone that has raised a child knows exactly what is going on.

That's a riot coming from the people who obstructed multiple government agencies for 3 years because of a bike lane!

The middle finger ANC group recently voted to hold up any DDOT spending to improve Connecticut Ave safety unless and until DDOT also builds the bike lanes. So it’s not really about safety on Connecticut either.

Without a place for bikes, there isn't safety, because bikers will either need to be on the sidewalk or on the street. Neither pedestrians nor car drivers want bikes in "their" space, so it sort of makes sense.

As a pedestrian, I’ve never objected to bikes on the sidewalk. Doesn’t bother me at all.

I live on the bottom of a hill and because there is no bike lane on my street and because drivers tend to aggressively speed on my street, bikes / e-bikes regularly sail down the sidewalk at 15-20 mph. Getting hit by one would be catastrophic. Anyone who regularly walks anywhere in DC is all for the bike lanes.

How does a bike lane reduce the risk of a cyclist going too fast for conditions down a hill to stop?

If the cyclist is not in the same space as the pedestrians, then the pedestrians will be safer.

What happens when the pedestrian tries to cross the street? At what point to cyclists need to take responsibility for their own reckless behavior?

Cyclists seldom hit pedestrians, but certainly it is the cyclists responsibility not to hit pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why people who operate their bikes as forms of transportation don’t have to carry insurance. Boats, planes, trucks, cars, vehicles that are used as transport must carry insurance. Why don’t bike operators?

Bike riders are using public roads for free. Register your bike. Insure your bike. The taxes paid by car and truck drivers when they purchase gasoline is used to create and repair public roadways. People who bike on public roadways are not financially contributing to the roadways but demanding usage. You don’t get to use public roadways to “exercise” when you are not contributing to the cost of establishing and maintaining public roads.

Bike riders pay taxes, the same ones that people who drive pay.
People who ride bikes exert much less wear and tear on the roads.
People who ride bikes don't spew excess carbon and pollution into the air we breathe.
People who ride bikes are generally in better health and thus not taxing the healthcare system as much.
People who ride bikes are not dependent on middle eastern oil or the follow on military/political costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this type of driver behavior all.the.time.

But sure, its the bikes that are dangerous

The cyclist is traveling in the left lane at a rate of speed 1/3 below the speed limit and normal flow of traffic. The car made a pass that provided a safe distance between the cyclist and the vehicle. The cyclist complains that the pass was made over double yellow, okay, but the cyclist continues to travel in the left lane as a slower moving vehicle, demonstrating that they were determined not to let anyone pass them. It’s also funny to see cyclist claim they stopped at red light, when it looks like they are illegally in the crosswalk and the spedometer says 4 MPH, indicating that they are still moving and not actually stopped.

I don't know the cyclist, perhaps they were getting ready to turn left.

Either way, the cyclist has the right to ride in the lane and it is illegal for the driver to cross the double yellow line.

So you are wrong on both counts.

There is no blanket prohibition for crossing a double yellow line in DC. However, the cyclist has recorded themselves committing at least one clear traffic violation.

I've been looking this up and cannot find a reference in the DC regulations to the double yellow line. This is of course covered in the DC Driver Manual and we all know it is illegal, but what specific regulation does it violate?

There is not a specific bright line rule because the law intentionally allows for situations like what the cyclist depicted. Needing to cross for safety reasons while also complying with other laws.

Blowing past a cyclist is not "safety reasons" - that is just being selfish and operating the SUV in question very dangerously.

Cyclists are the least law abiding people on the road. They don't even follow the rules of "Idaho stops," a rule they wanted. They're only allowed to blow stop signs if no one else has the right of way at an intersection.

This really is focusing on the speck in another's eye while ignoring planks in your own territory. Drivers really are completely blind to their own illegal behavior. Speeding is the most obvious, and dangerous one, but the vast majority of drivers at any given point in time are violating one or more laws. Illegal driver behavior is so ingrained it doesn't even feel illegal to most drivers.

Not to mention that drivers enjoy the privilege of being ensconced in a multi-ton steel cage that not only insulates them from the consequences of their own reckless behavior but socializes the adverse effects thereof across all manner of surrounding road users. False equivalences between driver and cyclist behavior are one of the dumbest tropes to be found on the whole internet.

uh, what? this is bizarre. the laws are the laws, and everyone is supposed to follow them. the rules about when idaho stops are allowed are very specific. it's not just "you can do whatever you feel like."

Speed limits, stop signs, and red lights are also very specific, but routinely ignored by motorists on DC roads as a matter of course. When a staggering proportion of road users flout the law, focusing on those whose behavior poses the absolute least risk to others is, um, bizarre.

Nonsense. If drivers ignored stop signs at the same rate as cyclists, there would be wrecks at every single intersection in the city, every single day.

There were 41 reported car accidents on the most recently available full day of reporting, with possible reports still coming in: https://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/DCGIS::crashes-in-dc/explore

What sort of police/fire/medical resources do you think those accidents consume? That's with current "law abiding" drivers.

Says the cyclist who wants the city to spend $50 million to build him and his friends their own bridge next to a bridge that's already there.

The daytime population of Washington DC is one million. That's a lot of people moving around and accidents are inevitable (that's why we call them accidents!). Everyone who is on the road, regardless of how they are moving about, should expect to be in an accident sooner or later. (The notion that we can engineer away accident is silly).

That said, it would be helpful if we got the police back in the traffic enforcement game (something WABA opposes!). Traffic cameras basically only catch tourists and they give a free pass to people who are driving while high or drunk who are the most dangerous people on the road.

This is the attitude that gets 40,000 Americans killed every year. And yes, you can engineer away the vast majority of those deaths and injuries. You just don't want to try.
Other countries have 1/3rd the fatalities per mile driven, and most of that difference is design.

Next party starts tomorrow at the van ness metro around 6:30

The bike party will be led around by the local ANC with middle fingers extended.

Looks like tens of people had a fun protest ride tonight.

Few hundred. Did you learn to count at the same place you learned to drive and that's why you fail so hard at both?

https://twitter.com/DcSafer/status/1783279454627741937

Hundreds? Is that you Sean Spicer?

There were about 235 people at the start of the ride. We picked up a handful on the way. So hundreds is correct and tens is stupid wrong.

This was the largest bike protest in history — period.

Yes, I’m sure it was. And all it accomplished for you was making thousands of people who were formerly ambivalent to dedicated bike lanes and cyclists in general, HATE you, because they saw firsthand that you really don’t care about anything having to do with safety or laws - you just wanted to punish people who were trying to drive somewhere. No matter how different each of those people in all those cars were, no matter how little they had in common - you managed to unite them in opposition to you and bike lanes.

And to that, I give you my sincere thanks.

Please conduct similar protest rides as often as you’re able to muster enough people to shut down a major artery. And for even greater impact, do it at 3-5pm in the future. I want you to “reach” as many drivers as you can.

Good luck.

And cyclists just want to cycle anywhere without fear of being mowed over or doored. What is your point?

And the reality is you cannot cycle “anywhere”. Many roads simply do not lend themselves to it. Accept that and move on. You cannot cycle on an interstate highly. I can’t drive on a bike path. Accept that there are just places you can’t be.

Ironically, Connecticut Ave is part of the national highway system.

It is not an interstate highway or part of the designated interstate highway system (ie the blue and red numbered signs like I-95 for example) and as such, it is totally legal and acceptable for people to ride their bikes on it.