The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

300 out of millions of car trips?

you really wanna get into proportions? If there are millions of trips on just ct ave, then those 900 carjackings must have taken place over tens of millions of trips. Why do we need to care about that?

Are you feeling ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

A great DCUM drinking game would be to take a shot everyone responded to people sharing studies with their own conjecture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

300 out of millions of car trips?

you really wanna get into proportions? If there are millions of trips on just ct ave, then those 900 carjackings must have taken place over tens of millions of trips. Why do we need to care about that?

Are you feeling ok?

Yah, just not sure why one point would be valid and the other not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

A good rule of thumb is that if the DC police union has a position, the opposite position is the right one. They are absolute clowns with thin skins to boot.

I wonder why it’s so hard to recruit police officers to DC?

[Anonymous]

Maybe the bike lobby is not powerful enough. For those of us seeking solutions to the rise rise of carjackings by teens (and not just uselessly punish), perhaps more bike lanes are needed. District government could provide free bicycles to the kids, they’d have safe streets to travel on, and wouldn’t have to desperately resort to admittedly dubious means to get to school, extracurriculars, or to their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the bike lobby is not powerful enough. For those of us seeking solutions to the rise rise of carjackings by teens (and not just uselessly punish), perhaps more bike lanes are needed. District government could provide free bicycles to the kids, they’d have safe streets to travel on, and wouldn’t have to desperately resort to admittedly dubious means to get to school, extracurriculars, or to their jobs.

Is this tongue in cheek? Because if it's serious, it's wacko.

[Anonymous]

A good rule of thumb is that if the DC police union has a position, the opposite position is the right one. They are a bunch of clowns.

This sounds like some of the "progressive" ANC commissioners: myopically focused on bike lanes, while reflexively being critical of policing.

[Anonymous]

Look, it does feel like momentum for CT Avenue bike lanes is gone…it feels pretty dead to me.

What I find odd is that maybe 2% of people are nuts for them and 2% think they will lead to World War III and 96% of us couldn’t give much of a f**k if they happen or not.

It’s one of those things where nobody was really asking for them…then they were proposed…and most of us said “I might use them every now and then, but I can also see myself being annoyed when I am driving”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

A great DCUM drinking game would be to take a shot everyone responded to people sharing studies with their own conjecture

It's not conjecture. Why do you always lie about this. It isn't the least bit controversial, hypothetical or debatable. Congestion increases accidents.

[Anonymous]

The bike lobby’s power results in substantial part from the direct payments it receives from the DC government. It’s a lobby paid for by the taxpayers. That’s concerning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

300 out of millions of car trips?

you really wanna get into proportions? If there are millions of trips on just ct ave, then those 900 carjackings must have taken place over tens of millions of trips. Why do we need to care about that?

You and your points! (Lol)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

A great DCUM drinking game would be to take a shot everyone responded to people sharing studies with their own conjecture

It's not conjecture. Why do you always lie about this. It isn't the least bit controversial, hypothetical or debatable. Congestion increases accidents.

But it doesn't?