Thanks to the bike party organizers!

[Anonymous]

https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/s/wXPjuRq8Rm

Look at all these fake people acting like they are having fun. It is raining and cold out and they a clearly miserable. But the parents are dragging their kids along with them through this indoctrination. Shameful!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Macintyre's in Woodley Park is closing because they say it’s impossible to stay in business due to current “government policies” e.g. crime and tipping laws. Now the cyclists want to add a bike sewer in front of the commercial strip?

Macintyre's supported the bike lane, you dolt.

Their landlord stuck it to them and the tipped wages referendum hurt their profit margins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Macintyre's in Woodley Park is closing because they say it’s impossible to stay in business due to current “government policies” e.g. crime and tipping laws. Now the cyclists want to add a bike sewer in front of the commercial strip?

Macintyre's supported the bike lane, you dolt.

Their landlord stuck it to them and the tipped wages referendum hurt their profit margins.

If they were pro-bike lanes, it explains why they are closing. They clearly were bad business people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/s/wXPjuRq8Rm

Look at all these fake people acting like they are having fun. It is raining and cold out and they a clearly miserable. But the parents are dragging their kids along with them through this indoctrination. Shameful!

They call it “family biking” but there are at least 5 adults for every child and no adolescents either. LOL.

[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: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.

Uh…..How about just not riding in a way the endangers pedestrians?

Is that too big an ask?

How about not driving your car in a way that endangers both pedestrians and cyclists?

I don’t. I’m an extremely safe driver, and that’s reflected by both my spotless driving record and my insurance, with uses a little device called a Snapshot that plugs into the sensor port in my car and monitors things like speed, acceleration, and braking effort. My insurance company says I’m a very safe driver and they have the receipts to prove it.


Now - let’s get back to talking about your not riding on the sidewalk in a way that endangers pedestrians. Can you do that? Or is it a non-starter?

then you are the pearl in the sea.

Yes, I personally can ride safely on a sidewalk just as you can drive safely on a road.

But you and I aren't all people, as clearly there are lots of crashes. Though you don't hear too much about pedestrians getting hurt on sidewalks from cyclists (not that it doesn't happen, but it is rare), you do hear a lot about pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt by cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/s/wXPjuRq8Rm

Look at all these fake people acting like they are having fun. It is raining and cold out and they a clearly miserable. But the parents are dragging their kids along with them through this indoctrination. Shameful!

So it is it indoctrination when a kid is strapped into a car seat and driven for 45 minutes each way to day care or school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/s/wXPjuRq8Rm

Look at all these fake people acting like they are having fun. It is raining and cold out and they a clearly miserable. But the parents are dragging their kids along with them through this indoctrination. Shameful!

Is this satire? It reads like satire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People get their groceries on bikes? They bike to the doctor when they’re ill? They bike the kids to school with backpacks, 2-3 kids?

Yes to all three? Please open your eyes and put down your phone when driving.

You get groceries, take your children to school, on your bike? You bike to your doctor when you are sick?

How do you transport 3 kids with backpacks to and from school everyday and bike to and from work?

For our family, the kids go to different schools so one spouse takes 2 and the other takes one. Easy peasy.

Rich white people in Ward 3 are like, "Everything is so close. Why don't you just bike everywhere?"

Non-rich white people are like, "There's nothing within biking distance. We don't even have a grocery store."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People get their groceries on bikes? They bike to the doctor when they’re ill? They bike the kids to school with backpacks, 2-3 kids?

Yes to all three? Please open your eyes and put down your phone when driving.

You get groceries, take your children to school, on your bike? You bike to your doctor when you are sick?

How do you transport 3 kids with backpacks to and from school everyday and bike to and from work?

For our family, the kids go to different schools so one spouse takes 2 and the other takes one. Easy peasy.

Rich white people in Ward 3 are like, "Everything is so close. Why don't you just bike everywhere?"

Non-rich white people are like, "There's nothing within biking distance. We don't even have a grocery store."

People make choices to live in walkable/bikeable communities. Others make choices to live in more suburban and isolated communities. Oftentimes, the ones choosing a more urban lifestyle are sacfriciing a yard or the size of the house in exchange for the convenience. There is something for everyone. But...no matter where one lives, the ability to be multi-modal and travel safely should be considered universal. It is the people who chose to live in an auto-centric neighborhood who are the ones who are selfishly opposing bike lanes so their driving and ability to park is easier.

[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: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.

Uh…..How about just not riding in a way the endangers pedestrians?

Is that too big an ask?

How about not driving your car in a way that endangers both pedestrians and cyclists?

I don’t. I’m an extremely safe driver, and that’s reflected by both my spotless driving record and my insurance, with uses a little device called a Snapshot that plugs into the sensor port in my car and monitors things like speed, acceleration, and braking effort. My insurance company says I’m a very safe driver and they have the receipts to prove it.


Now - let’s get back to talking about your not riding on the sidewalk in a way that endangers pedestrians. Can you do that? Or is it a non-starter?

then you are the pearl in the sea.

Yes, I personally can ride safely on a sidewalk just as you can drive safely on a road.

But you and I aren't all people, as clearly there are lots of crashes. Though you don't hear too much about pedestrians getting hurt on sidewalks from cyclists (not that it doesn't happen, but it is rare), you do hear a lot about pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt by cars.

We might hear about it more - but the discussion typically stops conveniently before issue of who was at-fault comes up.

Because in a large majority of the cases the driver of a vehicle injures or kills a pedestrian or cyclist - the pedestrian or cyclist is at-fault. And the data from DC bear that out in black and white.

Just because you’re the party who got injured in a crash doesn’t automatically make the other party at-fault or guilty. Cyclists have become masters of spinning this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People get their groceries on bikes? They bike to the doctor when they’re ill? They bike the kids to school with backpacks, 2-3 kids?

Yes to all three? Please open your eyes and put down your phone when driving.

You get groceries, take your children to school, on your bike? You bike to your doctor when you are sick?

How do you transport 3 kids with backpacks to and from school everyday and bike to and from work?

For our family, the kids go to different schools so one spouse takes 2 and the other takes one. Easy peasy.

Rich white people in Ward 3 are like, "Everything is so close. Why don't you just bike everywhere?"

Non-rich white people are like, "There's nothing within biking distance. We don't even have a grocery store."

+1. I have family in southeastern Kentucky. They’re poor AF and the closest thing even resembling a grocery store is 21 miles, two-mountains over, and almost an hour away by car. By bike? That’s theoretically a whole day for a round trip, assuming the average person would struggle pedaling up two mountains of ~1,500 elevation change each. That’s 6,000 feet of climbing in total for a 42 mile trip - basically that’s a stage on the Tour de France. And cyclists here expect everyone to be able to do that.

The disconnect is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People get their groceries on bikes? They bike to the doctor when they’re ill? They bike the kids to school with backpacks, 2-3 kids?

Yes to all three? Please open your eyes and put down your phone when driving.

You get groceries, take your children to school, on your bike? You bike to your doctor when you are sick?

How do you transport 3 kids with backpacks to and from school everyday and bike to and from work?

For our family, the kids go to different schools so one spouse takes 2 and the other takes one. Easy peasy.

Rich white people in Ward 3 are like, "Everything is so close. Why don't you just bike everywhere?"

Non-rich white people are like, "There's nothing within biking distance. We don't even have a grocery store."

I'm the other pp who uses my bike to commute/drop off kids and I don't live in W3 and make less than 100k/year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People get their groceries on bikes? They bike to the doctor when they’re ill? They bike the kids to school with backpacks, 2-3 kids?

Yes to all three? Please open your eyes and put down your phone when driving.

You get groceries, take your children to school, on your bike? You bike to your doctor when you are sick?

How do you transport 3 kids with backpacks to and from school everyday and bike to and from work?

For our family, the kids go to different schools so one spouse takes 2 and the other takes one. Easy peasy.

Rich white people in Ward 3 are like, "Everything is so close. Why don't you just bike everywhere?"

Non-rich white people are like, "There's nothing within biking distance. We don't even have a grocery store."

+1. I have family in southeastern Kentucky. They’re poor AF and the closest thing even resembling a grocery store is 21 miles, two-mountains over, and almost an hour away by car. By bike? That’s theoretically a whole day for a round trip, assuming the average person would struggle pedaling up two mountains of ~1,500 elevation change each. That’s 6,000 feet of climbing in total for a 42 mile trip - basically that’s a stage on the Tour de France. And cyclists here expect everyone to be able to do that.

The disconnect is hilarious.

Huh? We're talking about commuting within the boundaries of Washington, D.C.
The story you are sharing has nothing to do with this discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People get their groceries on bikes? They bike to the doctor when they’re ill? They bike the kids to school with backpacks, 2-3 kids?

Yes to all three? Please open your eyes and put down your phone when driving.

You get groceries, take your children to school, on your bike? You bike to your doctor when you are sick?

How do you transport 3 kids with backpacks to and from school everyday and bike to and from work?

For our family, the kids go to different schools so one spouse takes 2 and the other takes one. Easy peasy.

Rich white people in Ward 3 are like, "Everything is so close. Why don't you just bike everywhere?"

Non-rich white people are like, "There's nothing within biking distance. We don't even have a grocery store."

Bicyclists are almost entirely white and drivers are predominantly black and brown and that is a function of where people can afford to live

[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: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.

Uh…..How about just not riding in a way the endangers pedestrians?

Is that too big an ask?

How about not driving your car in a way that endangers both pedestrians and cyclists?

I don’t. I’m an extremely safe driver, and that’s reflected by both my spotless driving record and my insurance, with uses a little device called a Snapshot that plugs into the sensor port in my car and monitors things like speed, acceleration, and braking effort. My insurance company says I’m a very safe driver and they have the receipts to prove it.


Now - let’s get back to talking about your not riding on the sidewalk in a way that endangers pedestrians. Can you do that? Or is it a non-starter?

then you are the pearl in the sea.

Yes, I personally can ride safely on a sidewalk just as you can drive safely on a road.

But you and I aren't all people, as clearly there are lots of crashes. Though you don't hear too much about pedestrians getting hurt on sidewalks from cyclists (not that it doesn't happen, but it is rare), you do hear a lot about pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt by cars.

We might hear about it more - but the discussion typically stops conveniently before issue of who was at-fault comes up.

Because in a large majority of the cases the driver of a vehicle injures or kills a pedestrian or cyclist - the pedestrian or cyclist is at-fault. And the data from DC bear that out in black and white.

Just because you’re the party who got injured in a crash doesn’t automatically make the other party at-fault or guilty. Cyclists have become masters of spinning this nonsense.

It's always interesting read a post on here that makes an outrageous and unverified claim while accusing others of "spinning . . . nonsense".

Anyone who has a more serious interest in this topic can read actual analysis of pedestrian and bike crash data here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812502_pedestrian-and-bicyclist-data-analysis-tsf-research-note.pdf and here: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813484