The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is awful in Alexandria: rude, aggressive, bullying, and they lie (they bring in people who live and work somewhere else to meetings, sign petitions etc to get things changed in Alexandria). The head of BPAC had his blind cyclist friends contact the city to request the crosswalk on Seminary that goes in front of the BPAC member’s house, claiming they needed the crosswalk to cross safely.

Talk about the ultimate special interest.

Oh, how terrible, a crosswalk.

It was part of the $1,000,000 plus for bike lane improvements for about 5 blocks. It included. Person crosswalk, that no one uses, in front of BPAC’s head house. IYKYK. It was ridiculous.

Question: did anyone know how much of the cost of bike lane improvements is silly meetings with NIMBYs that address no real concerns?

Objective answers only please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Generally, if you can just proceed through the intersection as soon as you verify that it is clear, that is better for bikes, instead of stopping fully. Bikes and cars are totally different vehicles.

Ok then why do we share a road? Why do I have to creep behind the Little Engine that Could if we are different vehicles with different capabilities.

And I see how its better to slow down than make a full stop....but tell that to all the bikers that I almost hit when I have the right of way, use my turn signal and safely proceed and they run through a stop sign. Share the road, share the rules.

The same reason a Prius and a turbocharged F-350 share a road?

Nice try, but a Prius and F-350 can both keep traffic moving at 25mph.

You don't have a right to go 25mph. You want to and don't care about other people. You probably also sit in traffic complaining about too many cars on the road.

So say its a one lane road with a 30mph limit, you think its ok to bike at.....15mph?....and slow down everyone behind you...and then roll through that stop sign. Talk about entitlement.....

Do you know what a speed limit is? Because the 30 MPH you are referring to is a limit, not a floor. Are you aware of any minimum speeds on any roads that aren't interstate highways? Please do let me know when you find one.

You guys can high five each other all you want in pointing out the obvious difference between a limit and a floor or the lack of minimum speed limits....the point is that bikes slow down traffic on streets that were built for cars.

Thank you for demonstrating your actual position here.

You're welcome hon! Now let me know when you want to talk about both biker and driver safety, liability, use of roads with availability of bike lanes and the enormous cost to taxpayers.

Cost to taxpayers?

Let's see, cost for all of the mideast wars to prserve cheap gas and oil? Cost to the environment from car polliution and disposed tires? Cost to health for having people trapped in metal boxes to get around? Costs in space to accomodate the least efficient mode of transportation in human history.

Sure, lets talk about costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't ride a bike but I'm not opposed to bike lanes generally.

I do think that major corridors like Massachusetts Ave, Wisconsin Ave, Connecticut Ave, 16th St, Georgia Ave, Pennsylvania Ave, N Capitol, etc should not allow any parking in order to maximize traffic flow. I don't mind if a few of those get dedicated bike lanes.

Exactly. If one were building a city from scratch, the deliveries and parking would all be underground or in the rear of buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You lost me at “Bike Lobby.”

People should be able to ride bicycles safely, without constantly being at risk of injury or death. In places like the Netherlands, this is the norm. Maybe you should broaden your thinking to realize there’s more to transplantation and infrastructure than car culture.

I'm not against that, but what my issue is is that we are effectively bending over backwards to accommodate them by allowing them to skirt through red lights or building bike infrastructure in certain areas of the city but not others. Its disgusting, to see how badly the Council has kowtowed to them.

You see a disparity in bike infrastructure throughout the city, and your solution is to build it nowhere, rather than build it everywhere? Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a whole group for Black women who bike. Do you care?

ha ha, no they don't care. they also have never actually spent time in Hains Point or the Anacostia trail to see that road biking is VERY popular for Black men. This isn't about reality, it's about people who feel put out by having to share the road with cyclists and don't think anything should ever change, ever.

They can afford to bike?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is awful in Alexandria: rude, aggressive, bullying, and they lie (they bring in people who live and work somewhere else to meetings, sign petitions etc to get things changed in Alexandria). The head of BPAC had his blind cyclist friends contact the city to request the crosswalk on Seminary that goes in front of the BPAC member’s house, claiming they needed the crosswalk to cross safely.

Talk about the ultimate special interest.

Oh, how terrible, a crosswalk.

It was part of the $1,000,000 plus for bike lane improvements for about 5 blocks. It included. Person crosswalk, that no one uses, in front of BPAC’s head house. IYKYK. It was ridiculous.

Question: did anyone know how much of the cost of bike lane improvements is silly meetings with NIMBYs that address no real concerns?

Objective answers only please.

$0

All those government officials are salaried.

Although, I guess the $2.5m paid to WABA for "outreach" counts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is awful in Alexandria: rude, aggressive, bullying, and they lie (they bring in people who live and work somewhere else to meetings, sign petitions etc to get things changed in Alexandria). The head of BPAC had his blind cyclist friends contact the city to request the crosswalk on Seminary that goes in front of the BPAC member’s house, claiming they needed the crosswalk to cross safely.

Talk about the ultimate special interest.

Oh, how terrible, a crosswalk.

It was part of the $1,000,000 plus for bike lane improvements for about 5 blocks. It included. Person crosswalk, that no one uses, in front of BPAC’s head house. IYKYK. It was ridiculous.

Question: did anyone know how much of the cost of bike lane improvements is silly meetings with NIMBYs that address no real concerns?

Objective answers only please.

$0

All those government officials are salaried.

Although, I guess the $2.5m paid to WABA for "outreach" counts.

That is awesome. I had no idea that government employee salaries don't cost us anything. Thank you Car Fumes for your great point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Generally, if you can just proceed through the intersection as soon as you verify that it is clear, that is better for bikes, instead of stopping fully. Bikes and cars are totally different vehicles.

Right and I am sure most of the time you are right but if we are all held to the same standard it makes biking more safe to stop. If a bike cruises through a stop sign and does not realize that a car is traveling at a high speed and will not be stopping for whatever reason, then the biker is dead. I have seen too many bikers cruise through stop signs when cars are stopped assuming they have some sort of right of way. That is also inherently dangerous for the biker. Courtesy goes both ways.

I have made this point before, but drivers *think* they wants all bikes to scrupulously adhere to all laws, including the requirement to come to a complete stop, but they really, really don't. Consider that (i) there are not bike lanes in most of the city; (ii) cyclists are permitted to take the lane when there are no bike lanes; and (iii) even when there are bike lanes, cyclists aren't required to ride in them, and still may feel safer taking the lane. Then think about driving along and you come upon one or more cyclists. They are in the middle of the lane, and you can't pass them. Then they stop at each stop sigh - a complete stop, and then laboriously start up again, only to repeat the same thing at the next stop sign. Then think about the cyclist commuting home from work, taking the lane on Connecticut Avenue, with a long line of cars crawling behind him, trying to get into the left lane to pass. And then think about his neighbor, commuting home on Mass Ave., which narrows to one lane of traffic in spots because of construction, also taking the lane. And then think about . . .

See where this leads? If cyclists scrupulously observed every traffic law, and drove only in a legally permitted way, drivers would lose their freakin' minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is awful in Alexandria: rude, aggressive, bullying, and they lie (they bring in people who live and work somewhere else to meetings, sign petitions etc to get things changed in Alexandria). The head of BPAC had his blind cyclist friends contact the city to request the crosswalk on Seminary that goes in front of the BPAC member’s house, claiming they needed the crosswalk to cross safely.

Talk about the ultimate special interest.

Oh, how terrible, a crosswalk.

It was part of the $1,000,000 plus for bike lane improvements for about 5 blocks. It included. Person crosswalk, that no one uses, in front of BPAC’s head house. IYKYK. It was ridiculous.

Question: did anyone know how much of the cost of bike lane improvements is silly meetings with NIMBYs that address no real concerns?

Objective answers only please.

$0

All those government officials are salaried.

Although, I guess the $2.5m paid to WABA for "outreach" counts.

That is awesome. I had no idea that government employee salaries don't cost us anything. Thank you Car Fumes for your great point.

The BPAC velo lobbyist Wilson worshiper has entered the chat. The obnoxious guy who is uber aggressive and insulting and cannot have a civilized conversation. You’ve outed yourself, again. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is awful in Alexandria: rude, aggressive, bullying, and they lie (they bring in people who live and work somewhere else to meetings, sign petitions etc to get things changed in Alexandria). The head of BPAC had his blind cyclist friends contact the city to request the crosswalk on Seminary that goes in front of the BPAC member’s house, claiming they needed the crosswalk to cross safely.

Talk about the ultimate special interest.

Oh, how terrible, a crosswalk.

It was part of the $1,000,000 plus for bike lane improvements for about 5 blocks. It included. Person crosswalk, that no one uses, in front of BPAC’s head house. IYKYK. It was ridiculous.

Question: did anyone know how much of the cost of bike lane improvements is silly meetings with NIMBYs that address no real concerns?

Objective answers only please.

$0

All those government officials are salaried.

Although, I guess the $2.5m paid to WABA for "outreach" counts.

That is awesome. I had no idea that government employee salaries don't cost us anything. Thank you Car Fumes for your great point.

The BPAC velo lobbyist Wilson worshiper has entered the chat. The obnoxious guy who is uber aggressive and insulting and cannot have a civilized conversation. You’ve outed yourself, again. Sad.

I have no idea what BPAC or Wilson mean, but give me a break, what you'd written was pretty silly. Government employees time is free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Generally, if you can just proceed through the intersection as soon as you verify that it is clear, that is better for bikes, instead of stopping fully. Bikes and cars are totally different vehicles.

Right and I am sure most of the time you are right but if we are all held to the same standard it makes biking more safe to stop. If a bike cruises through a stop sign and does not realize that a car is traveling at a high speed and will not be stopping for whatever reason, then the biker is dead. I have seen too many bikers cruise through stop signs when cars are stopped assuming they have some sort of right of way. That is also inherently dangerous for the biker. Courtesy goes both ways.

I have made this point before, but drivers *think* they wants all bikes to scrupulously adhere to all laws, including the requirement to come to a complete stop, but they really, really don't. Consider that (i) there are not bike lanes in most of the city; (ii) cyclists are permitted to take the lane when there are no bike lanes; and (iii) even when there are bike lanes, cyclists aren't required to ride in them, and still may feel safer taking the lane. Then think about driving along and you come upon one or more cyclists. They are in the middle of the lane, and you can't pass them. Then they stop at each stop sigh - a complete stop, and then laboriously start up again, only to repeat the same thing at the next stop sign. Then think about the cyclist commuting home from work, taking the lane on Connecticut Avenue, with a long line of cars crawling behind him, trying to get into the left lane to pass. And then think about his neighbor, commuting home on Mass Ave., which narrows to one lane of traffic in spots because of construction, also taking the lane. And then think about . . .

See where this leads? If cyclists scrupulously observed every traffic law, and drove only in a legally permitted way, drivers would lose their freakin' minds.

Yup - the only thing that makes a driver madder than a bicyclist running a stop sign is a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Generally, if you can just proceed through the intersection as soon as you verify that it is clear, that is better for bikes, instead of stopping fully. Bikes and cars are totally different vehicles.

Right and I am sure most of the time you are right but if we are all held to the same standard it makes biking more safe to stop. If a bike cruises through a stop sign and does not realize that a car is traveling at a high speed and will not be stopping for whatever reason, then the biker is dead. I have seen too many bikers cruise through stop signs when cars are stopped assuming they have some sort of right of way. That is also inherently dangerous for the biker. Courtesy goes both ways.

I have made this point before, but drivers *think* they wants all bikes to scrupulously adhere to all laws, including the requirement to come to a complete stop, but they really, really don't. Consider that (i) there are not bike lanes in most of the city; (ii) cyclists are permitted to take the lane when there are no bike lanes; and (iii) even when there are bike lanes, cyclists aren't required to ride in them, and still may feel safer taking the lane. Then think about driving along and you come upon one or more cyclists. They are in the middle of the lane, and you can't pass them. Then they stop at each stop sigh - a complete stop, and then laboriously start up again, only to repeat the same thing at the next stop sign. Then think about the cyclist commuting home from work, taking the lane on Connecticut Avenue, with a long line of cars crawling behind him, trying to get into the left lane to pass. And then think about his neighbor, commuting home on Mass Ave., which narrows to one lane of traffic in spots because of construction, also taking the lane. And then think about . . .

See where this leads? If cyclists scrupulously observed every traffic law, and drove only in a legally permitted way, drivers would lose their freakin' minds.

Yup - the only thing that makes a driver madder than a bicyclist running a stop sign is a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign.

Nice projection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is awful in Alexandria: rude, aggressive, bullying, and they lie (they bring in people who live and work somewhere else to meetings, sign petitions etc to get things changed in Alexandria). The head of BPAC had his blind cyclist friends contact the city to request the crosswalk on Seminary that goes in front of the BPAC member’s house, claiming they needed the crosswalk to cross safely.

Talk about the ultimate special interest.

Oh, how terrible, a crosswalk.

It was part of the $1,000,000 plus for bike lane improvements for about 5 blocks. It included. Person crosswalk, that no one uses, in front of BPAC’s head house. IYKYK. It was ridiculous.

Question: did anyone know how much of the cost of bike lane improvements is silly meetings with NIMBYs that address no real concerns?

Objective answers only please.

$0

All those government officials are salaried.

Although, I guess the $2.5m paid to WABA for "outreach" counts.

That is awesome. I had no idea that government employee salaries don't cost us anything. Thank you Car Fumes for your great point.

The BPAC velo lobbyist Wilson worshiper has entered the chat. The obnoxious guy who is uber aggressive and insulting and cannot have a civilized conversation. You’ve outed yourself, again. Sad.

I have no idea what BPAC or Wilson mean, but give me a break, what you'd written was pretty silly. Government employees time is free?

You don't know what Wilson is and you're on this site? Aggressively promoting bike lanes on upper Connecticut Avenue?

Goverment employees get paid the same regardless. It does not cost a single extra cent. In fact, it's part of their core job description.

[Anonymous]

If there is such a thing as a "bike lobby", it must be one of the most unsuccessful lobbies in the history of lobbying.

Even in DC and in spite of recent initiatives, the amount of road space and transportation budgets that are allowed to bike-specific infrastructure are miniscule compared to the proportion of people who commute by bike or bike recreationally. The inequality is even more stark considering that bikes create none of the negative externalities - e.g., pollution, injuries and fatalities, obesity, human productivity lost in traffic jams - that vehicular traffic does.

So, yes, a rather useless lobby if indeed one exists beyond the minds of those who seem to harbor an irrational hatred of bikes and infrastructure that protects the lives of people young, middle-aged, and old who ride bikes.

[Anonymous]

Gosh I love this thread so much.