Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Are their drivers (other than me) who stop at stop signs? Not a lot. Plenty are running red lights as well. And people are dying as a direct result. Why the obsession with cyclist behavior when bad driving is literally a mortal threat to most of us?

1. Most people would probably agree, based on their own experience, that the vast majority of drivers obey the law (we're surprised when we see one run a stop sign) and the vast majority of cyclists do not obey the law (we're surprised when one stops at a stop sign).

2. DC streets are pretty safe. 24 people this year have died, out of tens of millions of trips.

3. Riding a bike here is just plain dangerous. Accidents are inevitable, and if you're in a car, you'll probably be fine thanks to seat belts and air bags and all the steel around you. If you're in on a bike and you're in an accident, you're probably going to die because there's very little protecting you. The solution? Don't ride bikes on busy streets, just like your mother told you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a lot of magical thinking here.

if you slow traffic on connecticut, people will just switch the neighboring streets (waze will figure the best way, naturally). you say you'll put speed bumps on those side streets. ok. maybe that will happen, but im guessing it actually won't. and even if it does, people will avoid the streets that have speed bumps or, they'll do like i do, and go faster between the speed bumps to make up the difference.

you can already see this effect around town where there are major road construction projects. the traffic on side streets around those projects is nuts.

either way, drivers are not just going accept having suddenly longer commutes. people are jealous about their time, and they will make up whatever they lose on connecticut by going around, on streets that were never designed to accommodate heavy traffic, and that will make lots and lots of people in the surrounding area pretty unhappy.

the thing that bicyclists don't seem to get is that these projects to most people just look like the transportation equivalent of special interest giveaways -- they help the tiny number of people who ride bikes at the expense of everyone else.

also, please stop with how riding your bike is saving the environment. it's not. climate change is so, so big that it doesnt matter if we ride bikes or drive cars. it is a rounding error.

Your last point is true at an individual commuter level, but also an argument for why we should be doing MORE projects that make alternatives to driving much more feasible, on a much larger scale. Is one person biking to work going to help anything? No. But would massively reducing car trips and auto dependence help? Yes. And yet, the smallest steps to making any changes to reduce car-centric planning stir up a furious backlash and a lot of scorn from people who say doing anything is pointless if it’s not going to solve everything.

This isn't going to do anything at all to reduce car trips. No one is going to switch to bikes from cars. That's just delusional. If anything, this will have people sitting in traffic longer.

If this was actually about the environment and getting people out of cars (and it's not), we'd be focusing on the subway.

There are already people sitting in traffic for longer. There is only so much road capacity and with a growing region, there will be more cars and more traffic. So dedicating additional space to reduce SOME car trips is a prudent move by the city. No one is expecting all people to fully abandon cars. The idea is to get enough trips replaced with something other than a car to make things work better than they are or will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

I drive and I avoid getting behind cyclists. They're too unpredictable. You never know which, if any, traffic laws they're going to obey. If I see a cyclist in front of me, I look to take another route. I never feel that way about other drivers.

And that’s a great reason why cyclists should be separated from traffic by protected bike lanes.

We have to build protected bike lanes because cyclists refuse to obey traffic laws?

People driving cars ignore traffic laws as well. So how about we ban cars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

I drive and I avoid getting behind cyclists. They're too unpredictable. You never know which, if any, traffic laws they're going to obey. If I see a cyclist in front of me, I look to take another route. I never feel that way about other drivers.

And that’s a great reason why cyclists should be separated from traffic by protected bike lanes.

We have to build protected bike lanes because cyclists refuse to obey traffic laws?

Maybe you should consider the possibility that, in the absence of bike lanes, it is often considerably safer for cyclists to establish a separation from vehicular traffic by safely following practices like the Idaho Stop. There is at least one study that shows that cyclist compliance with traffic signals increases markedly when bike-specific infrastructure are established - a result that would not surprise anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the reality of biking on city streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Most of them do. Also, when I cycle on a street like Utah Avenue and take the lane, I get cars passing me across double yellow lines - totally unsafe and illegal. The reason cyclists yield instead of stopping at 4 way intersections is to get away from the maniacs tailing them, cursing at them and eventually passing them in a huff. The solution for the naysayers here is to simply ban bikes and let cars rule supreme. In an era of climate change, that isn't feasible.

This makes very little sense. Being afraid that a driver is going to give you a dirty look is not an excuse for you to ignore the law. I think we all the know the real answer is that bikers are too lazy to stop and start their bikes at every block. It's too physically taxing for them so they just don't do it. Also, not a good reason to ignore the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Are their drivers (other than me) who stop at stop signs? Not a lot. Plenty are running red lights as well. And people are dying as a direct result. Why the obsession with cyclist behavior when bad driving is literally a mortal threat to most of us?

1. Most people would probably agree, based on their own experience, that the vast majority of drivers obey the law (we're surprised when we see one run a stop sign) and the vast majority of cyclists do not obey the law (we're surprised when one stops at a stop sign).

2. DC streets are pretty safe. 24 people this year have died, out of tens of millions of trips.

3. Riding a bike here is just plain dangerous. Accidents are inevitable, and if you're in a car, you'll probably be fine thanks to seat belts and air bags and all the steel around you. If you're in on a bike and you're in an accident, you're probably going to die because there's very little protecting you. The solution? Don't ride bikes on busy streets, just like your mother told you.

Pick any 4-way stop intersection in Chevy Chase DC and watch it for 10 minutes and then you will laugh at the bolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Most of them do. Also, when I cycle on a street like Utah Avenue and take the lane, I get cars passing me across double yellow lines - totally unsafe and illegal. The reason cyclists yield instead of stopping at 4 way intersections is to get away from the maniacs tailing them, cursing at them and eventually passing them in a huff. The solution for the naysayers here is to simply ban bikes and let cars rule supreme. In an era of climate change, that isn't feasible.

This makes very little sense. Being afraid that a driver is going to give you a dirty look is not an excuse for you to ignore the law. I think we all the know the real answer is that bikers are too lazy to stop and start their bikes at every block. It's too physically taxing for them so they just don't do it. Also, not a good reason to ignore the law.

When I "ignore" the law by executing an "Idaho Stop", no one is impacted. When a driver passes me crossing a double yellow line into an oncoming lane of traffic, that is putting many more than just the driver at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Are their drivers (other than me) who stop at stop signs? Not a lot. Plenty are running red lights as well. And people are dying as a direct result. Why the obsession with cyclist behavior when bad driving is literally a mortal threat to most of us?

1. Most people would probably agree, based on their own experience, that the vast majority of drivers obey the law (we're surprised when we see one run a stop sign) and the vast majority of cyclists do not obey the law (we're surprised when one stops at a stop sign).

2. DC streets are pretty safe. 24 people this year have died, out of tens of millions of trips.

3. Riding a bike here is just plain dangerous. Accidents are inevitable, and if you're in a car, you'll probably be fine thanks to seat belts and air bags and all the steel around you. If you're in on a bike and you're in an accident, you're probably going to die because there's very little protecting you. The solution? Don't ride bikes on busy streets, just like your mother told you. [/quote

If you really believe (1), you are either functionally blind or don’t understand the meaning of the word “stop”. In either case, you are not fit to operate a vehicle.

If 24 people had died riding Metro or flying on commercial airliners this year, would you consider them “safe” modes of transportation?

Most cyclists have come to terms with the personal risks associated with their mode of commuting. What will never be acceptable is the aggressive and illegal behavior of a few drivers that endangers their lives and other road users. Until they can be taken off the street, protected bike lanes are a necessity if we care at all about allowing people to safely bike around the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Are their drivers (other than me) who stop at stop signs? Not a lot. Plenty are running red lights as well. And people are dying as a direct result. Why the obsession with cyclist behavior when bad driving is literally a mortal threat to most of us?

1. Most people would probably agree, based on their own experience, that the vast majority of drivers obey the law (we're surprised when we see one run a stop sign) and the vast majority of cyclists do not obey the law (we're surprised when one stops at a stop sign).

2. DC streets are pretty safe. 24 people this year have died, out of tens of millions of trips.

3. Riding a bike here is just plain dangerous. Accidents are inevitable, and if you're in a car, you'll probably be fine thanks to seat belts and air bags and all the steel around you. If you're in on a bike and you're in an accident, you're probably going to die because there's very little protecting you. The solution? Don't ride bikes on busy streets, just like your mother told you.

If you really believe (1), you are either functionally blind or don’t understand the meaning of the word “stop”. In either case, you are not fit to operate a vehicle. See the final paragraph below.

If 24 people had died riding Metro or flying on commercial airliners this year, would you consider them “safe” modes of transportation?

Most cyclists have come to terms with the personal risks associated with their mode of commuting. What will never be acceptable is the aggressive and illegal behavior of a few drivers that endangers their lives and other road users. Until they can be taken off the street, protected bike lanes are a necessity if we care at all about allowing people to safely bike around the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Most of them do. Also, when I cycle on a street like Utah Avenue and take the lane, I get cars passing me across double yellow lines - totally unsafe and illegal. The reason cyclists yield instead of stopping at 4 way intersections is to get away from the maniacs tailing them, cursing at them and eventually passing them in a huff. The solution for the naysayers here is to simply ban bikes and let cars rule supreme. In an era of climate change, that isn't feasible.

This makes very little sense. Being afraid that a driver is going to give you a dirty look is not an excuse for you to ignore the law. I think we all the know the real answer is that bikers are too lazy to stop and start their bikes at every block. It's too physically taxing for them so they just don't do it. Also, not a good reason to ignore the law.

It’s not a dirty look that people are afraid of. It’s death by being run over. It’s not a hypothetical argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Most of them do. Also, when I cycle on a street like Utah Avenue and take the lane, I get cars passing me across double yellow lines - totally unsafe and illegal. The reason cyclists yield instead of stopping at 4 way intersections is to get away from the maniacs tailing them, cursing at them and eventually passing them in a huff. The solution for the naysayers here is to simply ban bikes and let cars rule supreme. In an era of climate change, that isn't feasible.

This makes very little sense. Being afraid that a driver is going to give you a dirty look is not an excuse for you to ignore the law. I think we all the know the real answer is that bikers are too lazy to stop and start their bikes at every block. It's too physically taxing for them so they just don't do it. Also, not a good reason to ignore the law.

When I "ignore" the law by executing an "Idaho Stop", no one is impacted. When a driver passes me crossing a double yellow line into an oncoming lane of traffic, that is putting many more than just the driver at risk.

The bike lobby gets so Orwellian when "Idaho Stops" comes up. They want the government to bless them ignoring stop signs, but they don't want to call it that because it sounds crazy, so we have "Idaho Stop." And they pretend that one of the most basic traffic laws, one that's been around longer than anyone can possibly remember precisely because it keeps people safe, actually is dangerous and that it's safer for them (but only them) to ignore one of the most basic safety rules of the road.

It's ok. We know you just hate having to constantly stop and start. I'm a driver and I wish I could ignore them too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Most of them do. Also, when I cycle on a street like Utah Avenue and take the lane, I get cars passing me across double yellow lines - totally unsafe and illegal. The reason cyclists yield instead of stopping at 4 way intersections is to get away from the maniacs tailing them, cursing at them and eventually passing them in a huff. The solution for the naysayers here is to simply ban bikes and let cars rule supreme. In an era of climate change, that isn't feasible.

This makes very little sense. Being afraid that a driver is going to give you a dirty look is not an excuse for you to ignore the law. I think we all the know the real answer is that bikers are too lazy to stop and start their bikes at every block. It's too physically taxing for them so they just don't do it. Also, not a good reason to ignore the law.

When I "ignore" the law by executing an "Idaho Stop", no one is impacted. When a driver passes me crossing a double yellow line into an oncoming lane of traffic, that is putting many more than just the driver at risk.

So cyclists are now the lazy ones? Is that the argument you really want to make? If so, please explain how lazy people can possibly bike across a city that is supposedly so hilly and so humid that such activity could not be fathomed by much of the population (an argument, you may remember, that was advanced earlier in this thread as a reason the city should not invest in bike lanes.) This thread is a gift that just keeps giving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Most of them do. Also, when I cycle on a street like Utah Avenue and take the lane, I get cars passing me across double yellow lines - totally unsafe and illegal. The reason cyclists yield instead of stopping at 4 way intersections is to get away from the maniacs tailing them, cursing at them and eventually passing them in a huff. The solution for the naysayers here is to simply ban bikes and let cars rule supreme. In an era of climate change, that isn't feasible.

This makes very little sense. Being afraid that a driver is going to give you a dirty look is not an excuse for you to ignore the law. I think we all the know the real answer is that bikers are too lazy to stop and start their bikes at every block. It's too physically taxing for them so they just don't do it. Also, not a good reason to ignore the law.

It’s not a dirty look that people are afraid of. It’s death by being run over. It’s not a hypothetical argument.

Cyclists don't do themselves any favors by being obnoxious pricks to anyone who isn't into bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Are their drivers (other than me) who stop at stop signs? Not a lot. Plenty are running red lights as well. And people are dying as a direct result. Why the obsession with cyclist behavior when bad driving is literally a mortal threat to most of us?

1. Most people would probably agree, based on their own experience, that the vast majority of drivers obey the law (we're surprised when we see one run a stop sign) and the vast majority of cyclists do not obey the law (we're surprised when one stops at a stop sign).

2. DC streets are pretty safe. 24 people this year have died, out of tens of millions of trips.

3. Riding a bike here is just plain dangerous. Accidents are inevitable, and if you're in a car, you'll probably be fine thanks to seat belts and air bags and all the steel around you. If you're in on a bike and you're in an accident, you're probably going to die because there's very little protecting you. The solution? Don't ride bikes on busy streets, just like your mother told you.

Pick any 4-way stop intersection in Chevy Chase DC and watch it for 10 minutes and then you will laugh at the bolded.

This thread has videos of almost every car blowing stop signs, in front of a small bike that has been painted white because it is where a child was killed (while in a crosswalk, by a vehicle that did not properly yield).

https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

Most of them do. Also, when I cycle on a street like Utah Avenue and take the lane, I get cars passing me across double yellow lines - totally unsafe and illegal. The reason cyclists yield instead of stopping at 4 way intersections is to get away from the maniacs tailing them, cursing at them and eventually passing them in a huff. The solution for the naysayers here is to simply ban bikes and let cars rule supreme. In an era of climate change, that isn't feasible.

This makes very little sense. Being afraid that a driver is going to give you a dirty look is not an excuse for you to ignore the law. I think we all the know the real answer is that bikers are too lazy to stop and start their bikes at every block. It's too physically taxing for them so they just don't do it. Also, not a good reason to ignore the law.

It’s not a dirty look that people are afraid of. It’s death by being run over. It’s not a hypothetical argument.

Cyclists don't do themselves any favors by being obnoxious pricks to anyone who isn't into bikes.

Either this is a non sequitor or you are saying it is ok for drivers to drive aggressively and threaten to run over cyclists because you think some cyclists are pricks.