Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.
That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people
What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!
Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.
This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.
Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).
There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc
The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.
What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.
There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.
Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?
I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.
I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.
That might be analogous if the bike lane plan were to convert Connecticut Avenue to bus/bike/walk only. But it's not. People would still be able to drive on Connecticut Avenue.
More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.
Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.
Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.
I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.
If people aren't driving fast then why are pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt? Why are cars crashing into each other?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
You have an absolutely appalling understanding of physics, crash investigations, and basic logic. A car traveling at 25mph or less will very rarely kill someone (feel free to look up the research on this). Cars don't have black boxes and so there is no record of how the fast a car was actually traveling when the crash occurred. And there is almost never just a single cause for any accident. This is basic stuff. Please return to elementary school for remedial education.
i have a friend who died on an ebike going less than 25mph. head hit the cement. helmet broke in half.
Well there's a complete data set, nothing else to look at.
I know someone who slipped on ice and wacked their head and spent 3 months in a coma. Therefore no one should be allowed outside whenever ice might be potentially on the ground ever.
And DC averages *one* cyclist death per year, so there isn't really a problem here and we have more important things to focus on...
Weird take.
Not as weird as the safe streets bikebros that claimed 1,000 carjackings was a trivially small number.
I'm putting that in the category of Things That Never Happened.
I'm sure you would and that really reflects upon your judgement.
Right. It is laughable to think that an increase of car jackings from a trivially small number to another trivially small number would result in everyone's premiums rising 42%, especially since in some car jacjings the automobile is recovered with modest or no damage.
You know, versus crashes.. crashes that occur at a far higher frequency.
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.
That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people
What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!
Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.
This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.
Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).
There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc
The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.
What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.
There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.
Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?
I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.
I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.
That might be analogous if the bike lane plan were to convert Connecticut Avenue to bus/bike/walk only. But it's not. People would still be able to drive on Connecticut Avenue.
More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.
Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.
Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.
I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.
If people aren't driving fast then why are pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt? Why are cars crashing into each other?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
You have an absolutely appalling understanding of physics, crash investigations, and basic logic. A car traveling at 25mph or less will very rarely kill someone (feel free to look up the research on this). Cars don't have black boxes and so there is no record of how the fast a car was actually traveling when the crash occurred. And there is almost never just a single cause for any accident. This is basic stuff. Please return to elementary school for remedial education.
i have a friend who died on an ebike going less than 25mph. head hit the cement. helmet broke in half.
Well there's a complete data set, nothing else to look at.
I know someone who slipped on ice and wacked their head and spent 3 months in a coma. Therefore no one should be allowed outside whenever ice might be potentially on the ground ever.
And DC averages *one* cyclist death per year, so there isn't really a problem here and we have more important things to focus on...
Weird take.
Not as weird as the safe streets bikebros that claimed 1,000 carjackings was a trivially small number.
I'm putting that in the category of Things That Never Happened.
I'm sure you would and that really reflects upon your judgement.
Right. It is laughable to think that an increase of car jackings from a trivially small number to another trivially small number would result in everyone's premiums rising 42%, especially since in some car jacjings the automobile is recovered with modest or no damage.
You know, versus crashes.. crashes that occur at a far higher frequency.
You're citing a random anonymous post on DCUM? okey dokey
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.
That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people
What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!
Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.
This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.
Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).
There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc
The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.
What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.
There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.
Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?
I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.
I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.
That might be analogous if the bike lane plan were to convert Connecticut Avenue to bus/bike/walk only. But it's not. People would still be able to drive on Connecticut Avenue.
More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.
Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.
Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.
I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.
If people aren't driving fast then why are pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt? Why are cars crashing into each other?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
You have an absolutely appalling understanding of physics, crash investigations, and basic logic. A car traveling at 25mph or less will very rarely kill someone (feel free to look up the research on this). Cars don't have black boxes and so there is no record of how the fast a car was actually traveling when the crash occurred. And there is almost never just a single cause for any accident. This is basic stuff. Please return to elementary school for remedial education.
i have a friend who died on an ebike going less than 25mph. head hit the cement. helmet broke in half.
Well there's a complete data set, nothing else to look at.
I know someone who slipped on ice and wacked their head and spent 3 months in a coma. Therefore no one should be allowed outside whenever ice might be potentially on the ground ever.
And DC averages *one* cyclist death per year, so there isn't really a problem here and we have more important things to focus on...
Weird take.
Not as weird as the safe streets bikebros that claimed 1,000 carjackings was a trivially small number.
I'm putting that in the category of Things That Never Happened.
I'm sure you would and that really reflects upon your judgement.
Right. It is laughable to think that an increase of car jackings from a trivially small number to another trivially small number would result in everyone's premiums rising 42%, especially since in some car jacjings the automobile is recovered with modest or no damage.
You know, versus crashes.. crashes that occur at a far higher frequency.
You're citing a random anonymous post on DCUM? okey dokey
DCUM is where safestreets bikebros are found.
Definitely not — Twitter is more like it — the people on DCUM who want bike lanes are mostly middle-aged homeowners with kids (just like the people who don't want the bike lanes), except that we also ride bikes and want to do it safely.
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
If you say that DDOT spends *b*illons (rather than the actual, maybe double digit *m*illions), all your creditability goes directly into the toilet.
You could actually look at the city's budget. It routinely spends $250 million a year on bike stuff and has been doing so for many, many years. So, yes, billions.
Yes, and I'm a millionaire (if you add up my annual income over many years).
Cool non sequitur.
The question is whether the city has spend billions on bike stuff and the answer is yes.
What's crazy is, despite all those billions, the number of cyclists here is only slightly less tiny than it was 10 years ago.
Billions of dollars spent and the percentage of Washingtonians who say they commute to work and usually go via a bike is up all of 0.5 percentage points since 2014. WTF
Billions or thousands of dollars, it really doesn't matter. With the approaching fiscal cliff, DC is in no position to spend dimes on bike lanes right now:
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
If you say that DDOT spends *b*illons (rather than the actual, maybe double digit *m*illions), all your creditability goes directly into the toilet.
You could actually look at the city's budget. It routinely spends $250 million a year on bike stuff and has been doing so for many, many years. So, yes, billions.
Yes, and I'm a millionaire (if you add up my annual income over many years).
Cool non sequitur.
The question is whether the city has spend billions on bike stuff and the answer is yes.
What's crazy is, despite all those billions, the number of cyclists here is only slightly less tiny than it was 10 years ago.
Billions of dollars spent and the percentage of Washingtonians who say they commute to work and usually go via a bike is up all of 0.5 percentage points since 2014. WTF
Billions or thousands of dollars, it really doesn't matter. With the approaching fiscal cliff, DC is in no position to spend dimes on bike lanes right now:
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
Look at X - for the WABA types and the full-of-themselves ANC commissioners.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.
That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people
What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!
Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.
This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.
Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).
There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc
The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.
What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.
There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.
Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?
I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.
I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.
That might be analogous if the bike lane plan were to convert Connecticut Avenue to bus/bike/walk only. But it's not. People would still be able to drive on Connecticut Avenue.
More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.
Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.
Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.
I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.
If people aren't driving fast then why are pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt? Why are cars crashing into each other?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
You have an absolutely appalling understanding of physics, crash investigations, and basic logic. A car traveling at 25mph or less will very rarely kill someone (feel free to look up the research on this). Cars don't have black boxes and so there is no record of how the fast a car was actually traveling when the crash occurred. And there is almost never just a single cause for any accident. This is basic stuff. Please return to elementary school for remedial education.
i have a friend who died on an ebike going less than 25mph. head hit the cement. helmet broke in half.
Well there's a complete data set, nothing else to look at.
I know someone who slipped on ice and wacked their head and spent 3 months in a coma. Therefore no one should be allowed outside whenever ice might be potentially on the ground ever.
And DC averages *one* cyclist death per year, so there isn't really a problem here and we have more important things to focus on...
Weird take.
Not as weird as the safe streets bikebros that claimed 1,000 carjackings was a trivially small number.
I'm putting that in the category of Things That Never Happened.
I'm sure you would and that really reflects upon your judgement.
Right. It is laughable to think that an increase of car jackings from a trivially small number to another trivially small number would result in everyone's premiums rising 42%, especially since in some car jacjings the automobile is recovered with modest or no damage.
You know, versus crashes.. crashes that occur at a far higher frequency.
You're citing a random anonymous post on DCUM? okey dokey
DCUM is where safestreets bikebros are found.
Definitely not — Twitter is more like it — the people on DCUM who want bike lanes are mostly middle-aged homeowners with kids (just like the people who don't want the bike lanes), except that we also ride bikes and want to do it safely.
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
If you say that DDOT spends *b*illons (rather than the actual, maybe double digit *m*illions), all your creditability goes directly into the toilet.
You could actually look at the city's budget. It routinely spends $250 million a year on bike stuff and has been doing so for many, many years. So, yes, billions.
Yes, and I'm a millionaire (if you add up my annual income over many years).
Cool non sequitur.
The question is whether the city has spend billions on bike stuff and the answer is yes.
What's crazy is, despite all those billions, the number of cyclists here is only slightly less tiny than it was 10 years ago.
Billions of dollars spent and the percentage of Washingtonians who say they commute to work and usually go via a bike is up all of 0.5 percentage points since 2014. WTF
Billions or thousands of dollars, it really doesn't matter. With the approaching fiscal cliff, DC is in no position to spend dimes on bike lanes right now:
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
If you say that DDOT spends *b*illons (rather than the actual, maybe double digit *m*illions), all your creditability goes directly into the toilet.
You could actually look at the city's budget. It routinely spends $250 million a year on bike stuff and has been doing so for many, many years. So, yes, billions.
Yes, and I'm a millionaire (if you add up my annual income over many years).
Cool non sequitur.
The question is whether the city has spend billions on bike stuff and the answer is yes.
What's crazy is, despite all those billions, the number of cyclists here is only slightly less tiny than it was 10 years ago.
Billions of dollars spent and the percentage of Washingtonians who say they commute to work and usually go via a bike is up all of 0.5 percentage points since 2014. WTF
Billions or thousands of dollars, it really doesn't matter. With the approaching fiscal cliff, DC is in no position to spend dimes on bike lanes right now:
Anyone who thinks we're getting another bike lane in this city for the next ten years is NUTS. THERE IS NO MONEY! The Barras Report likened it to the 2008 financial crisis.
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.
That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people
What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!
Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.
This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.
Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).
There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc
The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.
What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.
There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.
Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?
I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.
I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.
That might be analogous if the bike lane plan were to convert Connecticut Avenue to bus/bike/walk only. But it's not. People would still be able to drive on Connecticut Avenue.
More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.
Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.
Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.
I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.
If people aren't driving fast then why are pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt? Why are cars crashing into each other?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
You have an absolutely appalling understanding of physics, crash investigations, and basic logic. A car traveling at 25mph or less will very rarely kill someone (feel free to look up the research on this). Cars don't have black boxes and so there is no record of how the fast a car was actually traveling when the crash occurred. And there is almost never just a single cause for any accident. This is basic stuff. Please return to elementary school for remedial education.
i have a friend who died on an ebike going less than 25mph. head hit the cement. helmet broke in half.
Well there's a complete data set, nothing else to look at.
I know someone who slipped on ice and wacked their head and spent 3 months in a coma. Therefore no one should be allowed outside whenever ice might be potentially on the ground ever.
And DC averages *one* cyclist death per year, so there isn't really a problem here and we have more important things to focus on...
Weird take.
Not as weird as the safe streets bikebros that claimed 1,000 carjackings was a trivially small number.
I'm putting that in the category of Things That Never Happened.
I'm sure you would and that really reflects upon your judgement.
Right. It is laughable to think that an increase of car jackings from a trivially small number to another trivially small number would result in everyone's premiums rising 42%, especially since in some car jacjings the automobile is recovered with modest or no damage.
You know, versus crashes.. crashes that occur at a far higher frequency.
You're citing a random anonymous post on DCUM? okey dokey
DCUM is where safestreets bikebros are found.
Definitely not — Twitter is more like it — the people on DCUM who want bike lanes are mostly middle-aged homeowners with kids (just like the people who don't want the bike lanes), except that we also ride bikes and want to do it safely.
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.
That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people
What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!
Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.
This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.
Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).
There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc
The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.
What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.
There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.
Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?
I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.
I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.
That might be analogous if the bike lane plan were to convert Connecticut Avenue to bus/bike/walk only. But it's not. People would still be able to drive on Connecticut Avenue.
More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.
Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.
Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.
I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.
If people aren't driving fast then why are pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt? Why are cars crashing into each other?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
You have an absolutely appalling understanding of physics, crash investigations, and basic logic. A car traveling at 25mph or less will very rarely kill someone (feel free to look up the research on this). Cars don't have black boxes and so there is no record of how the fast a car was actually traveling when the crash occurred. And there is almost never just a single cause for any accident. This is basic stuff. Please return to elementary school for remedial education.
i have a friend who died on an ebike going less than 25mph. head hit the cement. helmet broke in half.
Well there's a complete data set, nothing else to look at.
I know someone who slipped on ice and wacked their head and spent 3 months in a coma. Therefore no one should be allowed outside whenever ice might be potentially on the ground ever.
And DC averages *one* cyclist death per year, so there isn't really a problem here and we have more important things to focus on...
Weird take.
Not as weird as the safe streets bikebros that claimed 1,000 carjackings was a trivially small number.
I'm putting that in the category of Things That Never Happened.
I'm sure you would and that really reflects upon your judgement.
Right. It is laughable to think that an increase of car jackings from a trivially small number to another trivially small number would result in everyone's premiums rising 42%, especially since in some car jacjings the automobile is recovered with modest or no damage.
You know, versus crashes.. crashes that occur at a far higher frequency.
You're citing a random anonymous post on DCUM? okey dokey
DCUM is where safestreets bikebros are found.
Definitely not — Twitter is more like it — the people on DCUM who want bike lanes are mostly middle-aged homeowners with kids (just like the people who don't want the bike lanes), except that we also ride bikes and want to do it safely.
MAMIL? You don’t say!
You have an odd fascination with guys in spandex.
Do you make fun of runners for wearing neon shoes and shorts? Guys who go to the gym for wearing sleeveless shirts? Maybe the little leaguer for his silly baseball uniform? The high school kid who - wait for it lol - wears a helment and padded clothing like he's going to battle to play football?
Oh wait, no - it's probably not appropriate to do any of those things, because it's just people who are engaging in an exercise/sporting activity wearing appropriate clothing for doing so.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks we're getting another bike lane in this city for the next ten years is NUTS. THERE IS NO MONEY! The Barras Report likened it to the 2008 financial crisis.
I guess you haven't been listening to the DDOT Director's testimony at the Oversight hearing today.
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.
That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people
What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!
Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.
This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.
Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).
There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc
The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.
What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.
There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.
Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?
I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.
I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.
That might be analogous if the bike lane plan were to convert Connecticut Avenue to bus/bike/walk only. But it's not. People would still be able to drive on Connecticut Avenue.
More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.
Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.
Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.
I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.
If people aren't driving fast then why are pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt? Why are cars crashing into each other?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
You have an absolutely appalling understanding of physics, crash investigations, and basic logic. A car traveling at 25mph or less will very rarely kill someone (feel free to look up the research on this). Cars don't have black boxes and so there is no record of how the fast a car was actually traveling when the crash occurred. And there is almost never just a single cause for any accident. This is basic stuff. Please return to elementary school for remedial education.
i have a friend who died on an ebike going less than 25mph. head hit the cement. helmet broke in half.
Well there's a complete data set, nothing else to look at.
I know someone who slipped on ice and wacked their head and spent 3 months in a coma. Therefore no one should be allowed outside whenever ice might be potentially on the ground ever.
And DC averages *one* cyclist death per year, so there isn't really a problem here and we have more important things to focus on...
Weird take.
Not as weird as the safe streets bikebros that claimed 1,000 carjackings was a trivially small number.
I'm putting that in the category of Things That Never Happened.
I'm sure you would and that really reflects upon your judgement.
Right. It is laughable to think that an increase of car jackings from a trivially small number to another trivially small number would result in everyone's premiums rising 42%, especially since in some car jacjings the automobile is recovered with modest or no damage.
You know, versus crashes.. crashes that occur at a far higher frequency.
You're citing a random anonymous post on DCUM? okey dokey
DCUM is where safestreets bikebros are found.
Definitely not — Twitter is more like it — the people on DCUM who want bike lanes are mostly middle-aged homeowners with kids (just like the people who don't want the bike lanes), except that we also ride bikes and want to do it safely.
MAMIL? You don’t say!
You have an odd fascination with guys in spandex.
Do you make fun of runners for wearing neon shoes and shorts? Guys who go to the gym for wearing sleeveless shirts? Maybe the little leaguer for his silly baseball uniform? The high school kid who - wait for it lol - wears a helment and padded clothing like he's going to battle to play football?
Oh wait, no - it's probably not appropriate to do any of those things, because it's just people who are engaging in an exercise/sporting activity wearing appropriate clothing for doing so.
m
No, it’s just the old paunchy guys making things worse for everyone else
Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.
… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.
So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.
You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.
People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.
"I don't like bicycling."
-you
Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.
Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.
I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.
Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.
The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.
You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.
So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.
You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.
Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.
That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people
What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!
Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.
This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.
Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).
There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc
The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.
What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.
There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.
Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?
I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.
I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.
That might be analogous if the bike lane plan were to convert Connecticut Avenue to bus/bike/walk only. But it's not. People would still be able to drive on Connecticut Avenue.
More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.
Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.
Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.
I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.
If people aren't driving fast then why are pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt? Why are cars crashing into each other?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
You have an absolutely appalling understanding of physics, crash investigations, and basic logic. A car traveling at 25mph or less will very rarely kill someone (feel free to look up the research on this). Cars don't have black boxes and so there is no record of how the fast a car was actually traveling when the crash occurred. And there is almost never just a single cause for any accident. This is basic stuff. Please return to elementary school for remedial education.
i have a friend who died on an ebike going less than 25mph. head hit the cement. helmet broke in half.
Well there's a complete data set, nothing else to look at.
I know someone who slipped on ice and wacked their head and spent 3 months in a coma. Therefore no one should be allowed outside whenever ice might be potentially on the ground ever.
And DC averages *one* cyclist death per year, so there isn't really a problem here and we have more important things to focus on...
Weird take.
Not as weird as the safe streets bikebros that claimed 1,000 carjackings was a trivially small number.
I'm putting that in the category of Things That Never Happened.
I'm sure you would and that really reflects upon your judgement.
Right. It is laughable to think that an increase of car jackings from a trivially small number to another trivially small number would result in everyone's premiums rising 42%, especially since in some car jacjings the automobile is recovered with modest or no damage.
You know, versus crashes.. crashes that occur at a far higher frequency.
You're citing a random anonymous post on DCUM? okey dokey
DCUM is where safestreets bikebros are found.
Definitely not — Twitter is more like it — the people on DCUM who want bike lanes are mostly middle-aged homeowners with kids (just like the people who don't want the bike lanes), except that we also ride bikes and want to do it safely.
MAMIL? You don’t say!
You have an odd fascination with guys in spandex.
Do you make fun of runners for wearing neon shoes and shorts? Guys who go to the gym for wearing sleeveless shirts? Maybe the little leaguer for his silly baseball uniform? The high school kid who - wait for it lol - wears a helment and padded clothing like he's going to battle to play football?
Oh wait, no - it's probably not appropriate to do any of those things, because it's just people who are engaging in an exercise/sporting activity wearing appropriate clothing for doing so.
It is both approprate and perfectly normal to make fun of jogger shorts and sleeveless shirts.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks we're getting another bike lane in this city for the next ten years is NUTS. THERE IS NO MONEY! The Barras Report likened it to the 2008 financial crisis.
I guess you haven't been listening to the DDOT Director's testimony at the Oversight hearing today.
Acting director. But DC, like other cities, is finding the cupboard is bare. Other major cities are already announcing drastic budget cuts. Washington DC will be next, although some on the Council will reflexively try to just raise taxes again. The reasons for the cliff are multiple: the end of COVID-era subsidies to municipalities; the crash in commercial real estate assessments because of remote work; over-spending and lack of oversight and accountability in existing spending programs; costs of services for the surge of illegal migrants, etc.
There will be no money for Connecticut Avenue bike lanes. If the choice is between hiring more cops vs bike lanes, which one will Bowser choose?
Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
