The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

What about the kids on the main roads? Do "we" not care about them? Are they not "our kids"?

Why would you want kids playing in the main roads?

Because they live there. Why would you want main roads that are too dangerous for kids?

This is like saying we should make it safer for 10 year olds to shoot handguns.

No, we shouldn't. I mean, I'm sure there's lots of things we could do to make shooting guns safer and I'm sure there's lots of 10 year olds in this country who shoot guns all the time. But the correct answer is we should tell 10 year olds to stay the hell away from handguns because it's incredibly dangerous.

Ditto kids riding bikes on busy streets. This is a major city. Kids don't belong on bikes anywhere near main roads. If you want to do that or if you want to be able to throw a football in the middle of the street or chase fireflies even if they cross into busy roads, move elsewhere back to Indiana. City living ain't for you.

Wow.

Alternatively: Kids live in DC. DC roads should be safe for kids.

Well, if the streets are not safe, and are outright dangerous as you suggest, then it stands to reason that children should not be allowed on bikes on them. Perhaps we should cite parents who let their kids on bikes for child endangerment.

What stands to reason is that we should make streets safe.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the streets are dangerous and that the streets are safe enough for a four year old to ride a bike. It's either one or the other.

you know what is demonstrably more dangerous for kids? riding in cars.

not at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If bike lanes weren't dead already, they're gone with the wind now - or at least gone with the Wizards and the Caps. People have finally had it up to here with all of Bowser's bad agenda: not just bike lanes that create traffic jams, out of control crime that has spread to formerly safe neighborhoods; allowing the police department to become hollowed out; a misguided voucher program that works only to enrich glorified slumlords while spreading the aforesaid crime around; truancy and further declining DC public schools (if that's possible); selling out the DC government to real estate developers; poor quality appointed officials; and "urban vibrancy" that has become code for a declining quality of life in many areas. The list goes on.

If anything, the reduced demand for going downtown undermines the downtown business lobby's arguments.

Your policies destroy the city and now you want a prize?

The bike lanes are not the reason the Wizards and Caps are leaving, and just because Bowser supports the bike lanes doesn't mean everyone else who does supports Bowser.

The people who support the bike lanes are the reason the Caps are leaving. Because those same people keep electing pro crime and anti business elected officials.

Just stop, please. Biking is politically neutral. Safe streets are neutral. Public transport is neutral.

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

100%

This is the “plan.” This is intentional. These folks hate your kids, your single family home and private car ownership. Every little change is an attempt to get you to move. Drip, drip drip….

What are you talking about? I live in a single-family home with my kids and own two cars. And I bike downtown and back on Connecticut Avenue at least once a week and would love to be able to do it in a protected bike lane instead of in traffic. I don’t hate anyone’s kids or their homes or their cars, you just can’t believe anyone might not want things to be exactly the way you do.

Then move downtown and live the life you say you want. Leave the rest of us alone.

I have the life I want. I just want it to be less likely that I'll be hit by a car when I commute by bike instead of by Metro. I am otherwise leaving the rest of you alone, I promise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has implemented a lot of YIMBY and bike policies over the past 10 years and its economy and economic prospects are markedly worse than they were 10 years ago. I know these groups haven’t gotten everything they wanted but it’s hard to see why the city should keep listening to them.

Are bike lanes supposed to address crime and economic downturns?? I thought they were a way to get around. Silly me.

It seemed silly to me to but there they were being sold as essential to creating vibrant places that attract jobs and affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you ride a bike in D.C. don't you *expect* to get hit by a car sooner or later? I mean, do you think you're never going to get mugged either?

DC seems especially dangerous because the government practically promotes pot smoking and makes zero attempt to catch drunk drivers. When was the last time you saw a traffic camera catch a drunk driver? Believe me, alcoholics know exactly how much they can get away with.

I've been hit by a car while I was riding in a bike lane, so I recognize it's quite possible. But your argument here is... drivers are dangerous, so we should definitely not do anything to make them less dangerous?

[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:

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

What about the kids on the main roads? Do "we" not care about them? Are they not "our kids"?

Why would you want kids playing in the main roads?

Because they live there. Why would you want main roads that are too dangerous for kids?

This is like saying we should make it safer for 10 year olds to shoot handguns.

No, we shouldn't. I mean, I'm sure there's lots of things we could do to make shooting guns safer and I'm sure there's lots of 10 year olds in this country who shoot guns all the time. But the correct answer is we should tell 10 year olds to stay the hell away from handguns because it's incredibly dangerous.

Ditto kids riding bikes on busy streets. This is a major city. Kids don't belong on bikes anywhere near main roads. If you want to do that or if you want to be able to throw a football in the middle of the street or chase fireflies even if they cross into busy roads, move elsewhere back to Indiana. City living ain't for you.

Wow.

Alternatively: Kids live in DC. DC roads should be safe for kids.

Well, if the streets are not safe, and are outright dangerous as you suggest, then it stands to reason that children should not be allowed on bikes on them. Perhaps we should cite parents who let their kids on bikes for child endangerment.

What stands to reason is that we should make streets safe.

Yes, we should. Unfortunately, Connecticut Ave bike lanes will not make Connecticut road safer for pedestrians. Whether it makes it safer for bikers is also questionable, given the numerous commercial and apartment driveways along the avenue that will create conflict points with bike lanes. The diverted traffic will make other routes and cross streets much less safe for residents, pedestrians, bikers.

Seems like a bad deal.

Actually the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes will make the street safer.

Seriously? Explain.

You can go back and look at the DDOT presentations. Slowing down traffic makes it hugely more safe, and there are other safety improvements.

ie: congestion - based on one study that paradoxically says that shifting from medium to high congestion reduces fatalities but not accidents. This effect does not happen when moving from high congestion to higher congestion. It's paradoxical because, as a general rule, increased congestion increases accidents.

[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:If bike lanes weren't dead already, they're gone with the wind now - or at least gone with the Wizards and the Caps. People have finally had it up to here with all of Bowser's bad agenda: not just bike lanes that create traffic jams, out of control crime that has spread to formerly safe neighborhoods; allowing the police department to become hollowed out; a misguided voucher program that works only to enrich glorified slumlords while spreading the aforesaid crime around; truancy and further declining DC public schools (if that's possible); selling out the DC government to real estate developers; poor quality appointed officials; and "urban vibrancy" that has become code for a declining quality of life in many areas. The list goes on.

If anything, the reduced demand for going downtown undermines the downtown business lobby's arguments.

Your policies destroy the city and now you want a prize?

The bike lanes are not the reason the Wizards and Caps are leaving, and just because Bowser supports the bike lanes doesn't mean everyone else who does supports Bowser.

The people who support the bike lanes are the reason the Caps are leaving. Because those same people keep electing pro crime and anti business elected officials.

Just stop, please. Biking is politically neutral. Safe streets are neutral. Public transport is neutral.

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

100%

This is the “plan.” This is intentional. These folks hate your kids, your single family home and private car ownership. Every little change is an attempt to get you to move. Drip, drip drip….

What are you talking about? I live in a single-family home with my kids and own two cars. And I bike downtown and back on Connecticut Avenue at least once a week and would love to be able to do it in a protected bike lane instead of in traffic. I don’t hate anyone’s kids or their homes or their cars, you just can’t believe anyone might not want things to be exactly the way you do.

Then move downtown and live the life you say you want. Leave the rest of us alone.

That's harsh. I'm sure that poster is being quite honest. They're not pushing congestion in the name of safety. They're not demanding that driving and parking become punishing as a means to an end. They just want a bike lane for their occassional use and are agnostic about where it is. They'd like a bike lane as an amenity just like others might want a dog park.

There's nothing wrong with that. They're not the problem and they're likely embarrassed by the things some of their more out there ostensible allies push.

That poster was actually very specific about where they want the bike lane for their regular transportation use: on Connecticut Avenue.

Yes, that's true, that poster was me, and what I want is the policy that the city says it's pursuing. I have done absolutely nothing to advocate for or bring about this policy other than occasionally respond to anonymous message board threads about it (so, absolutely nothing); I have never and will not contact the government to register my opinion on it one way or the other, and if they decide to pull the plug on their stated policy, I won't contact them about that, either. So essentially you're bashing me for having a preference that I barely express and that's currently already supposed to be happening. And I'm the one who's supposed to leave you alone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has implemented a lot of YIMBY and bike policies over the past 10 years and its economy and economic prospects are markedly worse than they were 10 years ago. I know these groups haven’t gotten everything they wanted but it’s hard to see why the city should keep listening to them.

Are bike lanes supposed to address crime and economic downturns?? I thought they were a way to get around. Silly me.

It seemed silly to me to but there they were being sold as essential to creating vibrant places that attract jobs and affordable housing.

Makes sense. The same political lobbyist/operative seems to shill for both dense development in NW and for Connecticut bike lanes.

[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:If bike lanes weren't dead already, they're gone with the wind now - or at least gone with the Wizards and the Caps. People have finally had it up to here with all of Bowser's bad agenda: not just bike lanes that create traffic jams, out of control crime that has spread to formerly safe neighborhoods; allowing the police department to become hollowed out; a misguided voucher program that works only to enrich glorified slumlords while spreading the aforesaid crime around; truancy and further declining DC public schools (if that's possible); selling out the DC government to real estate developers; poor quality appointed officials; and "urban vibrancy" that has become code for a declining quality of life in many areas. The list goes on.

If anything, the reduced demand for going downtown undermines the downtown business lobby's arguments.

Your policies destroy the city and now you want a prize?

The bike lanes are not the reason the Wizards and Caps are leaving, and just because Bowser supports the bike lanes doesn't mean everyone else who does supports Bowser.

The people who support the bike lanes are the reason the Caps are leaving. Because those same people keep electing pro crime and anti business elected officials.

Just stop, please. Biking is politically neutral. Safe streets are neutral. Public transport is neutral.

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

100%

This is the “plan.” This is intentional. These folks hate your kids, your single family home and private car ownership. Every little change is an attempt to get you to move. Drip, drip drip….

What are you talking about? I live in a single-family home with my kids and own two cars. And I bike downtown and back on Connecticut Avenue at least once a week and would love to be able to do it in a protected bike lane instead of in traffic. I don’t hate anyone’s kids or their homes or their cars, you just can’t believe anyone might not want things to be exactly the way you do.

Then move downtown and live the life you say you want. Leave the rest of us alone.

That's harsh. I'm sure that poster is being quite honest. They're not pushing congestion in the name of safety. They're not demanding that driving and parking become punishing as a means to an end. They just want a bike lane for their occassional use and are agnostic about where it is. They'd like a bike lane as an amenity just like others might want a dog park.

There's nothing wrong with that. They're not the problem and they're likely embarrassed by the things some of their more out there ostensible allies push.

That poster was actually very specific about where they want the bike lane for their regular transportation use: on Connecticut Avenue.

Yes, that's true, that poster was me, and what I want is the policy that the city says it's pursuing. I have done absolutely nothing to advocate for or bring about this policy other than occasionally respond to anonymous message board threads about it (so, absolutely nothing); I have never and will not contact the government to register my opinion on it one way or the other, and if they decide to pull the plug on their stated policy, I won't contact them about that, either. So essentially you're bashing me for having a preference that I barely express and that's currently already supposed to be happening. And I'm the one who's supposed to leave you alone?

So then you don't just want a protected north south bike route for your occassional trips. You want the full kit and kaboodle of congestion, traffic diversion, and decreased parking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

What about the kids on the main roads? Do "we" not care about them? Are they not "our kids"?

Why would you want kids playing in the main roads?

Because they live there. Why would you want main roads that are too dangerous for kids?

This is like saying we should make it safer for 10 year olds to shoot handguns.

No, we shouldn't. I mean, I'm sure there's lots of things we could do to make shooting guns safer and I'm sure there's lots of 10 year olds in this country who shoot guns all the time. But the correct answer is we should tell 10 year olds to stay the hell away from handguns because it's incredibly dangerous.

Ditto kids riding bikes on busy streets. This is a major city. Kids don't belong on bikes anywhere near main roads. If you want to do that or if you want to be able to throw a football in the middle of the street or chase fireflies even if they cross into busy roads, move elsewhere back to Indiana. City living ain't for you.

Wow.

Alternatively: Kids live in DC. DC roads should be safe for kids.

Well, if the streets are not safe, and are outright dangerous as you suggest, then it stands to reason that children should not be allowed on bikes on them. Perhaps we should cite parents who let their kids on bikes for child endangerment.

What stands to reason is that we should make streets safe.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the streets are dangerous and that the streets are safe enough for a four year old to ride a bike. It's either one or the other.

Yeah this never made any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has implemented a lot of YIMBY and bike policies over the past 10 years and its economy and economic prospects are markedly worse than they were 10 years ago. I know these groups haven’t gotten everything they wanted but it’s hard to see why the city should keep listening to them.

Are bike lanes supposed to address crime and economic downturns?? I thought they were a way to get around. Silly me.

It seemed silly to me to but there they were being sold as essential to creating vibrant places that attract jobs and affordable housing.

Makes sense. The same political lobbyist/operative seems to shill for both dense development in NW and for Connecticut bike lanes.

So you are saying that democrats shouldn't be supporting the democratic platform of more housing in urban areas and safer modes of transportation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

What about the kids on the main roads? Do "we" not care about them? Are they not "our kids"?

Why would you want kids playing in the main roads?

Because they live there. Why would you want main roads that are too dangerous for kids?

This is like saying we should make it safer for 10 year olds to shoot handguns.

No, we shouldn't. I mean, I'm sure there's lots of things we could do to make shooting guns safer and I'm sure there's lots of 10 year olds in this country who shoot guns all the time. But the correct answer is we should tell 10 year olds to stay the hell away from handguns because it's incredibly dangerous.

Ditto kids riding bikes on busy streets. This is a major city. Kids don't belong on bikes anywhere near main roads. If you want to do that or if you want to be able to throw a football in the middle of the street or chase fireflies even if they cross into busy roads, move elsewhere back to Indiana. City living ain't for you.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

What about the kids on the main roads? Do "we" not care about them? Are they not "our kids"?

Why would you want kids playing in the main roads?

Because they live there. Why would you want main roads that are too dangerous for kids?

This is like saying we should make it safer for 10 year olds to shoot handguns.

No, we shouldn't. I mean, I'm sure there's lots of things we could do to make shooting guns safer and I'm sure there's lots of 10 year olds in this country who shoot guns all the time. But the correct answer is we should tell 10 year olds to stay the hell away from handguns because it's incredibly dangerous.

Ditto kids riding bikes on busy streets. This is a major city. Kids don't belong on bikes anywhere near main roads. If you want to do that or if you want to be able to throw a football in the middle of the street or chase fireflies even if they cross into busy roads, move elsewhere back to Indiana. City living ain't for you.

Wow.

Alternatively: Kids live in DC. DC roads should be safe for kids.

Well, if the streets are not safe, and are outright dangerous as you suggest, then it stands to reason that children should not be allowed on bikes on them. Perhaps we should cite parents who let their kids on bikes for child endangerment.

What stands to reason is that we should make streets safe.

Yes, we should. Unfortunately, Connecticut Ave bike lanes will not make Connecticut road safer for pedestrians. Whether it makes it safer for bikers is also questionable, given the numerous commercial and apartment driveways along the avenue that will create conflict points with bike lanes. The diverted traffic will make other routes and cross streets much less safe for residents, pedestrians, bikers.

Seems like a bad deal.

Actually the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes will make the street safer.

No they won't. Not even for bikers.

What you are saying isn't even just wrong. It's offensive and ignorant. Head in the sand idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

What about the kids on the main roads? Do "we" not care about them? Are they not "our kids"?

Why would you want kids playing in the main roads?

Because they live there. Why would you want main roads that are too dangerous for kids?

This is like saying we should make it safer for 10 year olds to shoot handguns.

No, we shouldn't. I mean, I'm sure there's lots of things we could do to make shooting guns safer and I'm sure there's lots of 10 year olds in this country who shoot guns all the time. But the correct answer is we should tell 10 year olds to stay the hell away from handguns because it's incredibly dangerous.

Ditto kids riding bikes on busy streets. This is a major city. Kids don't belong on bikes anywhere near main roads. If you want to do that or if you want to be able to throw a football in the middle of the street or chase fireflies even if they cross into busy roads, move elsewhere back to Indiana. City living ain't for you.

Wow.

Alternatively: Kids live in DC. DC roads should be safe for kids.

Well, if the streets are not safe, and are outright dangerous as you suggest, then it stands to reason that children should not be allowed on bikes on them. Perhaps we should cite parents who let their kids on bikes for child endangerment.

What stands to reason is that we should make streets safe.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the streets are dangerous and that the streets are safe enough for a four year old to ride a bike. It's either one or the other.

you know what is demonstrably more dangerous for kids? riding in cars.

You know what is even more demonstrably dangerous for kids? Getting a liberal arts degree, realizing you make no money, and believing that YIMBYs will make it possible for you to get a sweet new 2br in a hot neighborhood.

[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:If bike lanes weren't dead already, they're gone with the wind now - or at least gone with the Wizards and the Caps. People have finally had it up to here with all of Bowser's bad agenda: not just bike lanes that create traffic jams, out of control crime that has spread to formerly safe neighborhoods; allowing the police department to become hollowed out; a misguided voucher program that works only to enrich glorified slumlords while spreading the aforesaid crime around; truancy and further declining DC public schools (if that's possible); selling out the DC government to real estate developers; poor quality appointed officials; and "urban vibrancy" that has become code for a declining quality of life in many areas. The list goes on.

If anything, the reduced demand for going downtown undermines the downtown business lobby's arguments.

Your policies destroy the city and now you want a prize?

The bike lanes are not the reason the Wizards and Caps are leaving, and just because Bowser supports the bike lanes doesn't mean everyone else who does supports Bowser.

The people who support the bike lanes are the reason the Caps are leaving. Because those same people keep electing pro crime and anti business elected officials.

Just stop, please. Biking is politically neutral. Safe streets are neutral. Public transport is neutral.

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

100%

This is the “plan.” This is intentional. These folks hate your kids, your single family home and private car ownership. Every little change is an attempt to get you to move. Drip, drip drip….

What are you talking about? I live in a single-family home with my kids and own two cars. And I bike downtown and back on Connecticut Avenue at least once a week and would love to be able to do it in a protected bike lane instead of in traffic. I don’t hate anyone’s kids or their homes or their cars, you just can’t believe anyone might not want things to be exactly the way you do.

Then move downtown and live the life you say you want. Leave the rest of us alone.

I have the life I want. I just want it to be less likely that I'll be hit by a car when I commute by bike instead of by Metro. I am otherwise leaving the rest of you alone, I promise.

Listen lady, we’re not going to upend a major arterial so you can ride your beach cruiser to work on casual Fridays a few times a year. Get a pelaton or move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ride a bike in D.C. don't you *expect* to get hit by a car sooner or later? I mean, do you think you're never going to get mugged either?

DC seems especially dangerous because the government practically promotes pot smoking and makes zero attempt to catch drunk drivers. When was the last time you saw a traffic camera catch a drunk driver? Believe me, alcoholics know exactly how much they can get away with.

I've been hit by a car while I was riding in a bike lane, so I recognize it's quite possible. But your argument here is... drivers are dangerous, so we should definitely not do anything to make them less dangerous?

Drivers are not dangerous. The streets are quite safe. People take billions of car trips each year. In 2021, 40 people were killed in traffic accidents. The police say:

12 of those deaths were because of speeding
10 deaths were because of drunk or stoned driving
8 deaths were the fault of a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, scooter, ATV rider
5 deaths were unknown causes
3 deaths were because of driver error
2 deaths were because of a medical emergency