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:

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?

I don't really care one way or the other about parking, traffic diversion, or congestion. I just want the protected bike lane. But my point is, not everyone who wants the bike lanes is out there trying to abolish single-family housing or ban private cars or hate kids, as the person I was initially replying to insisted. I own two cars and have a single-family house with kids. I also drive on Connecticut Avenue frequently, and yet I still want the bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

Because I don't want to have to ride all the way down into the park (and then all the way west to Georgetown) to get to my office downtown, or all the way up out of the park to get home. And because that bike path is also pretty congested with joggers, and it's safer for them if bicyclists are in the street. Why can't there be more than literally just one north-south bike route that's safer than just riding in the car lanes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Hot take... the murder rate can be too damn high and so can the death by reckless driver at the same time. And good news, there are constructive ways to address both issues. And you can want bike lanes and fewer murders/violent crimes. I sure do.

I mean the whole *country* of Norway had a 110 deadly crashes in a recent year - and Oslo is about 800k people, similar to DC. We had almost half as many crashes in our city as their whole country of 5.5 million people! They also only had like 80 gun-related homicides in a year recently (we blew way past that here in DC). In the whole freaking country.

We've got serious problems - not just in DC, but generally here. 259 murders in DC is the equivalent of a South Sudan or Algeria number of gun deaths. These are all the *countries* with lower number of gun-related murders than DC (our stats are 259 and ~38.0!):

Country / Gun Deaths / Rate per 100k
Brunei 1 0.22
Kiribati 1 0.75
Andorra 1 1.25
Bermuda 1 1.56
Northern Mariana Islands 1 2.01
American Samoa 1 2.28
Marshall Islands 1 2.38
Monaco 1 2.76
San Marino 1 2.97
Fiji 2 0.21
Maldives 2 0.38
Grenada 2 1.58
Seychelles 2 1.86
Singapore 3 0.05
Samoa 3 1.33
Micronesia 3 2.60
Dominica 3 4.11
Oman 4 0.09
Mauritius 4 0.31
Bhutan 4 0.51
Iceland 4 1.07
Sao Tome and Principe 4 1.73
Guam 4 2.31
Malta 5 0.93
Vanuatu 5 1.49
Antigua and Barbuda 6 6.36
Qatar 7 0.26
Luxembourg 8 1.22
Bahrain 9 0.61
Saint Kitts and Nevis 9 18.85
Greenland 11 19.42
Timor Leste 13 0.96
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 13 12.54
Equatorial Guinea 15 0.87
Barbados 15 5.32
Estonia 16 1.21
Kuwait 18 0.42
Cyprus 19 1.51
Saint Lucia 20 11.10
Moldova 22 0.64
United States Virgin Islands 23 23.29
Latvia 25 1.37
Solomon Islands 27 3.65
Lithuania 28 1.03
Gabon 28 1.15
Montenegro 28 4.47
Suriname 28 4.49
Ireland 29 0.57
Mongolia 30 0.87
Gambia 30 1.08
Comoros 30 3.52
Romania 31 0.16
Slovenia 36 1.70
Bosnia and Herzegovina 37 1.15
Tajikistan 39 0.38
South Korea 44 0.08
Kyrgyzstan 46 0.68
North Macedonia 46 2.21
New Zealand 48 0.92
Armenia 50 1.80
Taiwan 51 0.21
Djibouti 51 4.49
Azerbaijan 55 0.53
Hungary 56 0.55
Turkmenistan 57 0.87
Uzbekistan 58 0.16
Denmark 64 1.08
Eswatini 64 5.29
Libya 70 1.02
Albania 70 2.47
Slovakia 75 1.29
Norway 77 1.41
Cuba 78 0.70
Tunisia 79 0.63
Lebanon 82 1.53
Bahamas 82 19.87
Belize 82 19.96
Netherlands 85 0.48
Guinea Bissau 87 4.04
United Arab Emirates 89 0.94
Mauritania 89 1.83
Republic of the Congo 90 1.47
Guyana 92 11.30
North Korea 93 0.36
Liberia 93 1.72
Croatia 98 2.44
Japan 101 0.08
Georgia 103 2.76
Namibia 105 4.03
Belarus 108 1.14
Poland 112 0.27
Botswana 120 4.49
Bulgaria 121 1.81
Papua New Guinea 141 1.36
Greece 148 1.43
Sweden 152 1.43
Sierra Leone 158 1.80
Finland 161 2.90
United Kingdom 162 0.24
Malaysia 179 0.52
Lesotho 182 7.81
Central African Republic 188 3.27
Nepal 192 0.62
Laos 192 2.52
Jordan 195 1.72
Cambodia 200 1.18
Israel 201 2.19
Kazakhstan 209 1.07
Portugal 211 2.06
Trinidad and Tobago 221 14.40
Burundi 222 1.68
Nicaragua 226 3.21
Belgium 228 1.95
Austria 237 2.65
Switzerland 239 2.72
Australia 241 0.91
Senegal 241 1.36
Rwanda 251 1.78
Zimbabwe 253 1.52
Algeria 254 0.56

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Hot take... the murder rate can be too damn high and so can the death by reckless driver at the same time. And good news, there are constructive ways to address both issues. And you can want bike lanes and fewer murders/violent crimes. I sure do.

I mean the whole *country* of Norway had a 110 deadly crashes in a recent year - and Oslo is about 800k people, similar to DC. We had almost half as many crashes in our city as their whole country of 5.5 million people! They also only had like 80 gun-related homicides in a year recently (we blew way past that here in DC). In the whole freaking country.

We've got serious problems - not just in DC, but generally here. 259 murders in DC is the equivalent of a South Sudan or Algeria number of gun deaths. These are all the *countries* with lower number of gun-related murders than DC (our stats are 259 and ~38.0!):

Country / Gun Deaths / Rate per 100k
Brunei 1 0.22
Kiribati 1 0.75
Andorra 1 1.25
Bermuda 1 1.56
Northern Mariana Islands 1 2.01
American Samoa 1 2.28
Marshall Islands 1 2.38
Monaco 1 2.76
San Marino 1 2.97
Fiji 2 0.21
Maldives 2 0.38
Grenada 2 1.58
Seychelles 2 1.86
Singapore 3 0.05
Samoa 3 1.33
Micronesia 3 2.60
Dominica 3 4.11
Oman 4 0.09
Mauritius 4 0.31
Bhutan 4 0.51
Iceland 4 1.07
Sao Tome and Principe 4 1.73
Guam 4 2.31
Malta 5 0.93
Vanuatu 5 1.49
Antigua and Barbuda 6 6.36
Qatar 7 0.26
Luxembourg 8 1.22
Bahrain 9 0.61
Saint Kitts and Nevis 9 18.85
Greenland 11 19.42
Timor Leste 13 0.96
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 13 12.54
Equatorial Guinea 15 0.87
Barbados 15 5.32
Estonia 16 1.21
Kuwait 18 0.42
Cyprus 19 1.51
Saint Lucia 20 11.10
Moldova 22 0.64
United States Virgin Islands 23 23.29
Latvia 25 1.37
Solomon Islands 27 3.65
Lithuania 28 1.03
Gabon 28 1.15
Montenegro 28 4.47
Suriname 28 4.49
Ireland 29 0.57
Mongolia 30 0.87
Gambia 30 1.08
Comoros 30 3.52
Romania 31 0.16
Slovenia 36 1.70
Bosnia and Herzegovina 37 1.15
Tajikistan 39 0.38
South Korea 44 0.08
Kyrgyzstan 46 0.68
North Macedonia 46 2.21
New Zealand 48 0.92
Armenia 50 1.80
Taiwan 51 0.21
Djibouti 51 4.49
Azerbaijan 55 0.53
Hungary 56 0.55
Turkmenistan 57 0.87
Uzbekistan 58 0.16
Denmark 64 1.08
Eswatini 64 5.29
Libya 70 1.02
Albania 70 2.47
Slovakia 75 1.29
Norway 77 1.41
Cuba 78 0.70
Tunisia 79 0.63
Lebanon 82 1.53
Bahamas 82 19.87
Belize 82 19.96
Netherlands 85 0.48
Guinea Bissau 87 4.04
United Arab Emirates 89 0.94
Mauritania 89 1.83
Republic of the Congo 90 1.47
Guyana 92 11.30
North Korea 93 0.36
Liberia 93 1.72
Croatia 98 2.44
Japan 101 0.08
Georgia 103 2.76
Namibia 105 4.03
Belarus 108 1.14
Poland 112 0.27
Botswana 120 4.49
Bulgaria 121 1.81
Papua New Guinea 141 1.36
Greece 148 1.43
Sweden 152 1.43
Sierra Leone 158 1.80
Finland 161 2.90
United Kingdom 162 0.24
Malaysia 179 0.52
Lesotho 182 7.81
Central African Republic 188 3.27
Nepal 192 0.62
Laos 192 2.52
Jordan 195 1.72
Cambodia 200 1.18
Israel 201 2.19
Kazakhstan 209 1.07
Portugal 211 2.06
Trinidad and Tobago 221 14.40
Burundi 222 1.68
Nicaragua 226 3.21
Belgium 228 1.95
Austria 237 2.65
Switzerland 239 2.72
Australia 241 0.91
Senegal 241 1.36
Rwanda 251 1.78
Zimbabwe 253 1.52
Algeria 254 0.56

DC is a city not a state or country. Each country has different gun control laws which this country does not gun control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

What you call a "weird comparison" most people would simply call "racism."

[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.

Watch what they do, not what they say. If cyclists take small children on bikes that means they think the roads are safe.

[Anonymous]

Being super into biking is incel-coded. It’s why those guys always look so red and angry in their tight shorts.

[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: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 is based on ??? exactly?

Prior comment from poster before you isn't going to age well.

Told you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being super into biking is incel-coded. It’s why those guys always look so red and angry in their tight shorts.

Yeah? I bet this guy is real popular at parties.

[Anonymous]

Tyranny of the Minority (2020-2023) RIP.

You had a god run. The adults are finally back in charge in 2024. Drive, bus, walk, or Metro. Those are your choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tyranny of the Minority (2020-2023) RIP.

You had a god run. The adults are finally back in charge in 2024. Drive, bus, walk, or Metro. Those are your choices.

Anonymous rando on DCUM on a Friday night, deciding which modes of transportation people should get to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

There is a multi-hundred page thread about this already. Rock Creek is great, but if one is going neighborhood to neighborhood, going into Rock Creek and then back out is way out of the way, particularly if you live west of CT Ave. The shops and stores we want to support are on CT Ave, not in Rock Creek. Don't assume this is all about commuting downtown, though a CT Ave bike lane helps with that, but it is also about people going to school, to shop etc.

[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.

Watch what they do, not what they say. If cyclists take small children on bikes that means they think the roads are safe.

You don;t see people riding with their kids like that on CT Ave, because ... it is un safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

There is a multi-hundred page thread about this already. Rock Creek is great, but if one is going neighborhood to neighborhood, going into Rock Creek and then back out is way out of the way, particularly if you live west of CT Ave. The shops and stores we want to support are on CT Ave, not in Rock Creek. Don't assume this is all about commuting downtown, though a CT Ave bike lane helps with that, but it is also about people going to school, to shop etc.

The businesses need customer parking. They don’t want bike lanes that would displace parking.