Mary Cheh wants to make it legal for bicyclists for blow stop signs and stop lights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

The main argument against bike lanes is that hardly anyone uses them.

The government has spent billions of dollars building out the city's bicycle infrastructure. Bike lanes make car traffic much worse, and they make parking a lot harder. And for what? Because a 1,000 or so white guys from Ward 3 are really into bikes? People in Washington D.C., generally speaking, just aren't into bikes. (Look at Capital Bikeshare, for example. The number of people using that has plummeted since it began and yet the government spends tens of millions of dollars every year expanding it, even though people don't want it).

We have limited transportation resources and we should be using them to move as many people around the city as efficiently as possible.

Also, maybe read a bit about climate change? You riding a bike makes zero difference to global warming. that's like saying you're fighting climate change by recycling your Coke cans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

The main argument against bike lanes is that hardly anyone uses them.

The government has spent billions of dollars building out the city's bicycle infrastructure. Bike lanes make car traffic much worse, and they make parking a lot harder. And for what? Because a 1,000 or so white guys from Ward 3 are really into bikes? People in Washington D.C., generally speaking, just aren't into bikes. (Look at Capital Bikeshare, for example. The number of people using that has plummeted since it began and yet the government spends tens of millions of dollars every year expanding it, even though people don't want it).

We have limited transportation resources and we should be using them to move as many people around the city as efficiently as possible.

Also, maybe read a bit about climate change? You riding a bike makes zero difference to global warming. that's like saying you're fighting climate change by recycling your Coke cans.

This poster is unwittingly a prime example not being able to reason somebody out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

The main argument against bike lanes is that hardly anyone uses them.

The government has spent billions of dollars building out the city's bicycle infrastructure. Bike lanes make car traffic much worse, and they make parking a lot harder. And for what? Because a 1,000 or so white guys from Ward 3 are really into bikes? People in Washington D.C., generally speaking, just aren't into bikes. (Look at Capital Bikeshare, for example. The number of people using that has plummeted since it began and yet the government spends tens of millions of dollars every year expanding it, even though people don't want it).

We have limited transportation resources and we should be using them to move as many people around the city as efficiently as possible.

Also, maybe read a bit about climate change? You riding a bike makes zero difference to global warming. that's like saying you're fighting climate change by recycling your Coke cans.

This poster is unwittingly a prime example not being able to reason somebody out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

not sure what this gobbledygook is supposed to mean. but, honestly, at this point, it would be cheaper if the city just paid every bicyclist $10,000 to ride the bus. we'd save a lot of money and have better traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

The main argument against bike lanes is that hardly anyone uses them.

The government has spent billions of dollars building out the city's bicycle infrastructure. Bike lanes make car traffic much worse, and they make parking a lot harder. And for what? Because a 1,000 or so white guys from Ward 3 are really into bikes? People in Washington D.C., generally speaking, just aren't into bikes. (Look at Capital Bikeshare, for example. The number of people using that has plummeted since it began and yet the government spends tens of millions of dollars every year expanding it, even though people don't want it).

We have limited transportation resources and we should be using them to move as many people around the city as efficiently as possible.

Also, maybe read a bit about climate change? You riding a bike makes zero difference to global warming. that's like saying you're fighting climate change by recycling your Coke cans.

This poster is unwittingly a prime example not being able to reason somebody out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

not sure what this gobbledygook is supposed to mean. but, honestly, at this point, it would be cheaper if the city just paid every bicyclist $10,000 to ride the bus. we'd save a lot of money and have better traffic.

You or someone else made that point earlier. Didn’t make sense then and doesn’t now. You don’t like traffic in your car? Try another option, you might like it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

The main argument against bike lanes is that hardly anyone uses them.

The government has spent billions of dollars building out the city's bicycle infrastructure. Bike lanes make car traffic much worse, and they make parking a lot harder. And for what? Because a 1,000 or so white guys from Ward 3 are really into bikes? People in Washington D.C., generally speaking, just aren't into bikes. (Look at Capital Bikeshare, for example. The number of people using that has plummeted since it began and yet the government spends tens of millions of dollars every year expanding it, even though people don't want it).

We have limited transportation resources and we should be using them to move as many people around the city as efficiently as possible.

Also, maybe read a bit about climate change? You riding a bike makes zero difference to global warming. that's like saying you're fighting climate change by recycling your Coke cans.

You’re wasting your time. Recreational cyclists don’t give a fig about the environment. That’s just their a-hole excuse. They are cycling because they enjoy it. They DGAF about anyone but themselves. Occasionally they will dismount to harass some poor teenagers but the main objective is to go real real fast. That is what is important to them. Kind of like toddlers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

Except bikers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, bikers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it doesn't happen that often doesn't mean a ped killed by a biker is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if cars don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a bike in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Bikers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

Except drivers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, drivers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it happens often doesn't mean a ped killed by a driver is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if bikes don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a car in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Drivers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

Except none of that is true. Drivers are NOT completely unpredictable. The majority of them DO stop at lights, stop signs and crosswalks. Bikers do not. Simply taking my statement and changing the word biker to driver is lame. Also drivers drive on the road. Not the sidewalk not the trail and not the bike lane. Is it impossible for you to simply admit you suck?

Sorry, what's your evidence to show that the majority of bikers do not stop at lights or stop signs? I'll give you crosswalks, though (a) it's much easier to bike through a crosswalk while someone is walking through it and give everyone plenty of space to pass safely and (b) there's no way a majority of drivers stop at crosswalks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

The main argument against bike lanes is that hardly anyone uses them.

The government has spent billions of dollars building out the city's bicycle infrastructure. Bike lanes make car traffic much worse, and they make parking a lot harder. And for what? Because a 1,000 or so white guys from Ward 3 are really into bikes? People in Washington D.C., generally speaking, just aren't into bikes. (Look at Capital Bikeshare, for example. The number of people using that has plummeted since it began and yet the government spends tens of millions of dollars every year expanding it, even though people don't want it).

We have limited transportation resources and we should be using them to move as many people around the city as efficiently as possible.

Also, maybe read a bit about climate change? You riding a bike makes zero difference to global warming. that's like saying you're fighting climate change by recycling your Coke cans.

You’re wasting your time. Recreational cyclists don’t give a fig about the environment. That’s just their a-hole excuse. They are cycling because they enjoy it. They DGAF about anyone but themselves. Occasionally they will dismount to harass some poor teenagers but the main objective is to go real real fast. That is what is important to them. Kind of like toddlers.

Sorry that you don't like the way you get around, but you could try getting around literally any way other than driving, and you might find you enjoy it, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

Except bikers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, bikers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it doesn't happen that often doesn't mean a ped killed by a biker is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if cars don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a bike in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Bikers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

Except drivers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, drivers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it happens often doesn't mean a ped killed by a driver is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if bikes don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a car in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Drivers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

Except none of that is true. Drivers are NOT completely unpredictable. The majority of them DO stop at lights, stop signs and crosswalks. Bikers do not. Simply taking my statement and changing the word biker to driver is lame. Also drivers drive on the road. Not the sidewalk not the trail and not the bike lane. Is it impossible for you to simply admit you suck?

Sorry, what's your evidence to show that the majority of bikers do not stop at lights or stop signs? I'll give you crosswalks, though (a) it's much easier to bike through a crosswalk while someone is walking through it and give everyone plenty of space to pass safely and (b) there's no way a majority of drivers stop at crosswalks.

Please stand at the edge of a marked crosswalk on 16th street any time or day of the week and see how many drivers stop for you. The only way I can ever cross this street is to basically start waving my arms frantically until someone stops, and then wait for someone in the next lane to stop as well before it is safe to inch halfway across the street. Under DC law drivers are required to stop and I assure you way way less than a majority do.

The fact that the law technically requires me to be IN the crosswalk for a driver to stop is also absurd which means I need to basically be on the edge, not that it makes a difference.

There is no way that cyclists are less predictable than drivers- if a cyclist is half a block away I can safely cross because I know that he won't be able to accelerate to where I am. Nothing to stop a car from gunning it and going 50 and hitting me (and probably killing me)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She says it's important for bicyclists to be able to "maintain momentum."

Uh, what?

If you're too lazy to stop at stop signs, whether you're in a car or on a bike, maybe you shouldnt be on the road.

This being D.C., she is pairing this "safety" proposal with other plans to make it harder to drive a car.

This is what being captured by special interests (i.e., the bike lobby) looks like.

https://twitter.com/marycheh/status/1496223827524820995

This actually makes total sense. Treating cyclists like cars doesn't work because they have different momentum and just aren't as dangerous as cars. Pedestrians are not required to stop at crosswalks in order to cross (I mean, they do so they don't get killed but legally they are not required to). Treating cyclists between cars and pedestrians makes sense. I would have no issue driving and needing to stop an extra second or two to let a cyclist not have to stop at a stop sign (although its sounds like that isn't even what this bill would do- legally if I was at the stop sign first I would have the right of way although I would prefer to give it to a cyclist to let him maintain momentum)

[Anonymous]

Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

No, the law would still require them to yield to pedestrians. Next argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

Except bikers DO impede traffic.

Every vehicle -- every user of roads -- impedes traffic. That's what traffic is -- other people preventing you from going where you're going.

If you start from the position that bicycles shouldn't be allowed on the road, then it's easy to conclude that they illegitimately impede traffic. Because that's really what you're saying.

[Anonymous]

It's really amazing. I had no idea that drivers are the ones saving the environment here, and cyclists are the ones causing pollution. I learn so much from reading DCUM. Thanks! You all are so smart

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do the folks advocating for bike lanes lie so much? It’s incredible how little respect they have for others intelligence. It’s just non-stop bullsh*t and propaganda that doesn’t withstand minimal scrutiny.

I saw someone on here claim that Capital Bikeshare had high utilization. That’s false.

I am now seeing someone try to gaslight people that cyclists don’t run stop signs.

The only time DDOT ever bothered to collect data on bicyclist compliance with traffic laws, they found that most bicyclists don’t even respect RED LIGHTS and engage in dangerous behavior that risks injury to pedestrians and to themselves.

What changing the law will do for cyclists is to try to create enough legal grey area so that they can be absolved or even get compensated for injuring pedestrians or themselves.

Of the 768 cyclists arriving at an intersection on a red light, 508 stopped (although a fraction of the 508 continued again before the light turned green). Of those that stopped, 17 percent stopped behind the painted stop bar preceding the median and crosswalk. However, 76 percent stopped either in the median or in the crosswalk, with most of the remainder stopping in the intersection, placing them potentially in conflict with left-turning vehicles.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part3.pdf

This is unreal. Actual data demonstrates what we all know to be true with our own eyes: 86 out of 768 cyclists or only 11% followed traffic laws at red lights.

You see a lot of cyclists talk about how we need Dutch cycling infrastructure. What they don’t talk about is that the Netherlands has very stringent traffic laws for bicycles that includes significant fines. And that makes sense. If you want public resources, it comes with public obligations.

What is even more interesting is that DDOT data in that study indicates some important things. First the cyclist survey says that the vast majority of cyclists “feel” unsafe from cars but they only found cyclists and not cars engaging in behavior that was unsafe around cars. Second and relatedly, that installing protected bikes lanes actually increased accidents. but they are choosing to hide it.

And this is why Vision Zero doesn’t work. Because everything that is being done is actually inducing accidents by bicyclists and ignoring the source of accidents: bicyclists themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's really amazing. I had no idea that drivers are the ones saving the environment here, and cyclists are the ones causing pollution. I learn so much from reading DCUM. Thanks! You all are so smart

It’s incontrovertible that congestion increases air pollution. If bicyclists are causing congestion then they are causing air pollution. Not sure why this is so hard to understand.