The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's honestly so weird that you think the only relevant outcome is death.

Car crashes cost the US $340 billion in 2019. That's a per capita cost of $1,000 per year, just for car crashes.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crashes-cost-america-billions-2019

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Walking along Connecticut Avenue and other area streets, I frequently smell a strong pot odor wafting from vehicles stopped at a light or even passing by. Usually there's only a driver in the vehicle. Never have I seen the police pull a driver over for driving while stoned. If we're serious about road safety, that needs to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's honestly so weird that you think the only relevant outcome is death.

Car crashes cost the US $340 billion in 2019. That's a per capita cost of $1,000 per year, just for car crashes.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crashes-cost-america-billions-2019

Oh man. This is a hilariously bad analysis. This is like tallying up the cost of plane crashes and concluding the world would be better off without air travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Walking along Connecticut Avenue and other area streets, I frequently smell a strong pot odor wafting from vehicles stopped at a light or even passing by. Usually there's only a driver in the vehicle. Never have I seen the police pull a driver over for driving while stoned. If we're serious about road safety, that needs to change.

The city looks the other way on stoned driving and doesnt seem to give a rat's ass about drunk driving. They account for almost half the traffic deaths blamed on drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's honestly so weird that you think the only relevant outcome is death.

Car crashes cost the US $340 billion in 2019. That's a per capita cost of $1,000 per year, just for car crashes.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crashes-cost-america-billions-2019

Oh man. This is a hilariously bad analysis. This is like tallying up the cost of plane crashes and concluding the world would be better off without air travel.

It's funny you mention air travel. If we in the US took the same approach to motor vehicle travel that we take to air travel, the cost of car crashes per year would be much, much lower. Conversely, if we took the same approach to air travel that we take to motor vehicle travel, airplanes would regularly fall out of the sky.

[Anonymous]

It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Walking along Connecticut Avenue and other area streets, I frequently smell a strong pot odor wafting from vehicles stopped at a light or even passing by. Usually there's only a driver in the vehicle. Never have I seen the police pull a driver over for driving while stoned. If we're serious about road safety, that needs to change.

That and maybe require cyclists to wear a helmet, for goodness sake. I dont know how they complain so much about safety and then fight any suggestion that they should be required to wear a helmet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Walking along Connecticut Avenue and other area streets, I frequently smell a strong pot odor wafting from vehicles stopped at a light or even passing by. Usually there's only a driver in the vehicle. Never have I seen the police pull a driver over for driving while stoned. If we're serious about road safety, that needs to change.

That and maybe require cyclists to wear a helmet, for goodness sake. I dont know how they complain so much about safety and then fight any suggestion that they should be required to wear a helmet.

Because it makes bicycling, overall, more dangerous. That has been well established.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

"The cyclist killed" is actually usually not white, but go off with your stereotypes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2022 plans have no bearing on what will be presented because DDOT and neighbors did block by block walk-throughs which will result in refinements to those base maps.

Which will... add back parking, but not take away the freaking turn lane?

Much of the assumed parking (shown in green) in the Cleveland Park historic district commercial area has already been removed. The service lane, which was rebuilt as a shared space for pedestrians and parking has been closed to vehicles on basically a permanent basis. So the available parking will be less than shown in the diagram, which is additional blow to the businesses.

...whose patrons by and large don't even drive to their doors. They walk. So a promenade makes way more sense than a service lane (esp. since there is an alley).

The “promenade” will be given over to streeeteries at bargain-basement prices. Essentially it is public space that is being privatised. Maybe a bar and a couple of restaurants may benefit from this arrangement but most of the other businesses will suffer.

As far as the bike lane is concerned, the Ward 3 council member has said that if the service lane parking were lost then parking cannot also be removed on the east side of Connecticut. So that means a shared bike lane on the west side of Conn only, if at all.

That's funny because I see people milling about during the week and various markets on the weekend.

"Public space that is being privatised". Really? Oh yeah, it was sooo much more "public" before when it was reserved for a handful of people who wanted to store their cars there for free while the majority of people who were walking or tranisting there were crammed into a tiny freaking sidewalk where two folks could barely walk by each other without shoulders touching.

It's all good, though, because now the people in the silly yellow shirts can stand there while demonstrating for cars.

Beating a dead horse. Time to move on.

Not sure about the horse, but bike lanes on Connecticut Ave NW are dead. RIP.

Yeah? DDOT built themselves a brand new project site for it like 2 months ago. Sure seems "dead" to me.

You mean DDOT consultants built it. Except for the website, the cupboard is bare. Not even Frumin is a fan anymore.

This didn't age well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yeah, everything's just fine. Sorry, 40,000 or so people, every year. It's just *an accident* /shrug:



Gross take.

[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:The 2022 plans have no bearing on what will be presented because DDOT and neighbors did block by block walk-throughs which will result in refinements to those base maps.

Which will... add back parking, but not take away the freaking turn lane?

Much of the assumed parking (shown in green) in the Cleveland Park historic district commercial area has already been removed. The service lane, which was rebuilt as a shared space for pedestrians and parking has been closed to vehicles on basically a permanent basis. So the available parking will be less than shown in the diagram, which is additional blow to the businesses.

...whose patrons by and large don't even drive to their doors. They walk. So a promenade makes way more sense than a service lane (esp. since there is an alley).

The “promenade” will be given over to streeeteries at bargain-basement prices. Essentially it is public space that is being privatised. Maybe a bar and a couple of restaurants may benefit from this arrangement but most of the other businesses will suffer.

As far as the bike lane is concerned, the Ward 3 council member has said that if the service lane parking were lost then parking cannot also be removed on the east side of Connecticut. So that means a shared bike lane on the west side of Conn only, if at all.

That's funny because I see people milling about during the week and various markets on the weekend.

"Public space that is being privatised". Really? Oh yeah, it was sooo much more "public" before when it was reserved for a handful of people who wanted to store their cars there for free while the majority of people who were walking or tranisting there were crammed into a tiny freaking sidewalk where two folks could barely walk by each other without shoulders touching.

It's all good, though, because now the people in the silly yellow shirts can stand there while demonstrating for cars.

Beating a dead horse. Time to move on.

Not sure about the horse, but bike lanes on Connecticut Ave NW are dead. RIP.

Yeah? DDOT built themselves a brand new project site for it like 2 months ago. Sure seems "dead" to me.

You mean DDOT consultants built it. Except for the website, the cupboard is bare. Not even Frumin is a fan anymore.

This didn't age well.

The money quote is the first sentence on the second page. With the closing of the "Cleveland Park Promenade" to parking, Frumin has been clear that he will no longer support bike lanes on both sides of Connecticut that eliminate further parking.

Option C will be reworked completely. The result, if a bike lane is ever built, will be like M Street in the West End: a narrow, two-way bike lane on one side of the street. Maybe that would be an acceptable compromise.

[Anonymous]

I hope you don't hurt your back moving those goalposts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Well then why are people on here constantly insisting that bicyclists are idiots and should just assume we'll be hit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

Why do people constantly make this weird comparison? Yes, crime is bad and mostly affects black people. I, a white person who rides a bike to get to work and do errands, don't want people to be victims of crime, nor do I want them to be hit by a car. (Whether they're hit by a car and killed or hit by a car without being killed.) I don't understand what one policy has to do with the other except that people seem to think that the existence of crime means the city can't possibly spend any money on anything else (a theory that apparently only actually comes into play when the "anything else" is bike lanes).