Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

E-bikes are a thing for rich people. The pool of people who will use these lanes is narrow: young, able-bodied, rich enough to buy an ebike, and with uncomplicated lives (ie, they’re not transporting kids to sports practice after work or picking up the family groceries.)

Almost everything you assume is wrong. E-bikes are much cheaper than cars yet are supposedly only for the rich. They are precisely designed for those not young, fit, or “able-bodied” enough to use regular bikes. Plenty of elderly people use them. Plenty of people with “complicated lives” use them to carry out all manner of errands. That your small mind and limited knowledge cannot fathom how people in the city are actually living is not an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

There's no one with less regard for traffic laws than people on bikes. I almost hit one the other day. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid him. If I had killed him, there's no way I would have been cited.

HYou can count on one hand the number of cars I have seen stop at stop signs since I started watching for it taking daily walks since COVID. Drivers are the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

E-bikes are a thing for rich people. The pool of people who will use these lanes is narrow: young, able-bodied, rich enough to buy an ebike, and with uncomplicated lives (ie, they’re not transporting kids to sports practice after work or picking up the family groceries.)

Almost everything you assume is wrong. E-bikes are much cheaper than cars yet are supposedly only for the rich. They are precisely designed for those not young, fit, or “able-bodied” enough to use regular bikes. Plenty of elderly people use them. Plenty of people with “complicated lives” use them to carry out all manner of errands. That your small mind and limited knowledge cannot fathom how people in the city are actually living is not an argument.

Oh please tell us how old people are really into bike lanes. Especially people in hospice, right? How about the blind and disabled? THEY LOVE BIKE LANES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

this is why we need bike lanes. thank you for playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

There's no one with less regard for traffic laws than people on bikes. I almost hit one the other day. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid him. If I had killed him, there's no way I would have been cited.

That’s funny, when I posted once about having to slam on the brakes my bike, which sent me crashing to the ground, to avoid hitting a kid who ran out into the road between two parked cars in front of me, everyone told me it was proof cyclists are dangerous, too, and yet here’s someone doing the same thing in a car as proof of the same thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

Or, we can make sure people who need to do this because they cannot afford the expense of a car and correspoding insurance etc costs, have a safe alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

this is why we need bike lanes. thank you for playing.

Or you could, like, not put your children in danger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

Or, we can make sure people who need to do this because they cannot afford the expense of a car and correspoding insurance etc costs, have a safe alternative.

IT'S REALLY FOR POOR PEOPLE! HA! I LOVE IT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since this whole thread is clearly just 1-2 angry posters who are upset that they've already lost, can we take bets on how much more of their life they will waste with this thread? The strategy of throwing everything at the wall in the desperate hope that something sticks is really a sight to behold.

it reads to me like mostly very young sounding bicyclists with a proclivity for declaring anyone who isn't super in bikes as "fascists."

Yup. A lot of immaturity.

Shows the amount and quality of thought that has gone into all of this. They don't have any substantive responses to people's questions. They can't even stand the fact that people ask questions. Their only response is name calling, and not even good name calling.

Note to bicyclists: Calling people "fascists" for reasons related to biking, of all things, makes you sound like a petulant 15-year old.

Was it the advocates of the bike lanes that were fat shaming cyclists? That kind of behavior is not acceptable among “petulant 15 year olds”, but appears to be par for the course for NIMBY cranks who have no real argument and no real evidence to validate their irrational hatred of those who aren’t as addicted to their cars as they are.

Fascism doesn’t have much to do with bike lanes. But a key principle of fascism is the tyranny of the majority and the destruction of minority rights. The argument that cyclists don’t deserve to be protected from death by cars merely because they are a (rapidly growing) minority among road users - notwithstanding the shocking accidents they suffer at the hands of bad drivers - echoes fascist principles. I’m sorry if you don’t like the company that puts you in.

The NIMBY Cranks guy is a one man troll farm - give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

So disabled individuals have to use the rear alley entrance now?

I'm all for biking for those who can. I am concerned that this plan does not discuss our residents with disabilities and mobility impaired elderly or their needs and concerns. Is there an ADA compliance study with this plan. I can't find one. Does this account for accessible passenger loading zones from the street?

https://ada-update.com/2020/08/19/bike-lanes-can-create-disability-barriers/

there weren’t ada spaces before when there was no parking during rush hour.

This literally makes no sense. Do you not understand that parking is not allowed during rush hour depending on direction which means that that without parked cars there is full curb access. In additional, parking is not allowed in front of all buildings for loading zones when it is not rush hour. How can you not know this? Where do you live exactly? Are you the same person claiming to live in CCDC walking distance to the metro?

The ADA spaces are generally on the side streets, but thatb will likely change with the 24/7 parking coming after the changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

this is why we need bike lanes. thank you for playing.

Or you could, like, not put your children in danger?

I think it’s the people driving the cars who are putting the children in danger in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No studies? Here’s your evening reading, folks: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/economic-benefits

“The PeopleForBikes Coalition and Foundation boards of directors as well as the BPSA Trade Association Committee members [b]include executives from leading companies in the U.S. bicycle industry.”[b]

Oh, really.

Well that just invalidates the findings of all of the peer-reviewed studies listed in the bibliography, doesn’t it?

Nothing quite as reliable as the intellectual dishonesty of NIMBY cranks.

And again - NIMBY Cranks - give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

this is why we need bike lanes. thank you for playing.

Or you could, like, not put your children in danger?

the danger is the reckless car drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

There's no one with less regard for traffic laws than people on bikes. I almost hit one the other day. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid him. If I had killed him, there's no way I would have been cited.

That’s funny, when I posted once about having to slam on the brakes my bike, which sent me crashing to the ground, to avoid hitting a kid who ran out into the road between two parked cars in front of me, everyone told me it was proof cyclists are dangerous, too, and yet here’s someone doing the same thing in a car as proof of the same thing?

PP here. Uh, does it matter that the bicyclist ran a red light? Or that he was a **cking adult? And not a kid who doesnt know any better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since this whole thread is clearly just 1-2 angry posters who are upset that they've already lost, can we take bets on how much more of their life they will waste with this thread? The strategy of throwing everything at the wall in the desperate hope that something sticks is really a sight to behold.

it reads to me like mostly very young sounding bicyclists with a proclivity for declaring anyone who isn't super in bikes as "fascists."

Yup. A lot of immaturity.

Shows the amount and quality of thought that has gone into all of this. They don't have any substantive responses to people's questions. They can't even stand the fact that people ask questions. Their only response is name calling, and not even good name calling.

Note to bicyclists: Calling people "fascists" for reasons related to biking, of all things, makes you sound like a petulant 15-year old.

Was it the advocates of the bike lanes that were fat shaming cyclists? That kind of behavior is not acceptable among “petulant 15 year olds”, but appears to be par for the course for NIMBY cranks who have no real argument and no real evidence to validate their irrational hatred of those who aren’t as addicted to their cars as they are.

Fascism doesn’t have much to do with bike lanes. But a key principle of fascism is the tyranny of the majority and the destruction of minority rights. The argument that cyclists don’t deserve to be protected from death by cars merely because they are a (rapidly growing) minority among road users - notwithstanding the shocking accidents they suffer at the hands of bad drivers - echoes fascist principles. I’m sorry if you don’t like the company that puts you in.

You havent been paying attention. Critics of all this have raised a thousand substantive questions and have gotten nothing in response except dumb name calling. If you have any real answers to their questions -- please, we're waiting.

Also, fat people in spandex are funny. Fat people in spandex who think they are working so hard (going ten miles an hour) that they need to think about wind resistance are really funny. I'm sorry. I don't make the rules.

fact check: true.