Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the bikes coming from to come down CT ave to go downtown? Is this recreational use or commuting? When the studies or plans were done what was the data showing who would use this? That would be helpful information.

Just a philosophical feeling that bikes are great and environmental does not sway me. If there really were significant numbers of residents of upperNW around CT ave who would bike in (and back up the giant 4 mile hill) that would be more persuasive

There are no studies. This is more progressive wishful thinking. This is Defund the Police for transportation.

This is a perfect analogy. The DC government is all about making a political statement that they really like bikes, and they give no **cks about the consequences of their insane policies.

+1

[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.

So says the People For Bikes Coalition board member from the E Bike company that paid for the study just posted…

[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.

On the contrary, I’ve read every single page of this sordid thread. It follows a clear pattern:

1. NIMBY crank engages in baseless fear-mongering or advances a nonsensical theory
2. Some kind soul takes the time to post reputable evidence directly contradicting the aforementioned NIMBY nonsense
3. NIMBY crank tries to change the topic by advancing a ridiculous stereotype about cyclists or by making a new yet equally ridiculous claim
4. Lather, rinse, repeat . . .

And then we have the fat shaming again. I’m presuming your not the poster accusing others of being childish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you hate the term. It describes you perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you hate the term. It describes you perfectly.

always with the name calling. i guess we know now that the bike lobby people cannot answer any questions at all...

[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.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you hate the term. It describes you perfectly.

always with the name calling. i guess we know now that the bike lobby people cannot answer any questions at all...

What questions do you have? How the law of demand works?

[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.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you hate the term. It describes you perfectly.

always with the name calling. i guess we know now that the bike lobby people cannot answer any questions at all...

What questions do you have? How the law of demand works?

Please please please enlighten us. How does permanently eliminating two lanes on a vital regionally integral transportation route reduce aggregate demand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

There is absolutely no proof of this, and even if it were true, so what, they are public streets and you don't want bikes on those, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

Let me guess . . . you have absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. Of course because all the evidence points to the opposite effect.

Children walk and cross on arterial streets too. Look up where children where killed or maimed by cars in DC in 2021 and that fact will be painfully apparent to you.

It’s very sad that people like you believe that the convenience of your commute should trump the safety of DC adults and children alike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you hate the term. It describes you perfectly.

always with the name calling. i guess we know now that the bike lobby people cannot answer any questions at all...

What questions do you have? How the law of demand works?

Please please please enlighten us. How does permanently eliminating two lanes on a vital regionally integral transportation route reduce aggregate demand?

Oh, how silly of me for forgetting that driving a car is akin to being addicted to crack cocaine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It’s very sad that people like you believe that the convenience of your commute should trump the safety of DC adults and children alike.

The blood of children murdered by drivers of death mobiles runs through the streets of DC and they could not care less. Because spineless politicians cater to them and they never face consequences for their actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you hate the term. It describes you perfectly.

always with the name calling. i guess we know now that the bike lobby people cannot answer any questions at all...

What questions do you have? How the law of demand works?

Please please please enlighten us. How does permanently eliminating two lanes on a vital regionally integral transportation route reduce aggregate demand?

Your dogged determination to defend positions in spite of a vast array of logic and empirical evidence to the contrary is remarkable. Quixotic but remarkable. Things would be easier if you let facts - rather than your prejudices - determine your views.

[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?

If you had to slam on the brakes so hard that it sent you crashing to the ground, you were going far too fast for the conditions.