Thanks to the bike party organizers!

[Anonymous]

No one blocked traffic. They might be moving slower than cars, but the roads were not blocked.

[Anonymous]

-Bikers
-Protestors
-Juvenile Criminals
-YIMBY bros

Fine. You can have the city. Your causes are morally righteous and in our best interest (even if we are too stupid to be aware of this truth). Make roads bike only, build lots and lots of tall apartment buildings really really close together, make lots of these buildings really cheap so the youth won't grow up to be criminals. Have at it. If the rest of us move out, would that make you happy? Or do you need us to stay to form the tax base, but we need to live under your rules I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a spectacularly bad idea for people on bikes to *try* to piss off people in cars. They're going to cross the wrong person, and end up with a SUV parked on their chest.

Which is, once again, the reason we advocate so fiercely for dedicated bike lanes

Your game plan to get more bike lanes is to piss off drivers so much they want to run you over? Good luck with that. Pretty sure that's the worst advocacy campaign I've ever heard of.

To the contrary, I think it is brilliant. For the strategy simply adopts that which has worked so well for drivers. That is, when they routinely clog the roads with their vehicles (often single occupied) to the point of causing gridlock, drivers are often rewarded with extra lanes. No one can reasonably blame the cyclists for venturing that, by clogging the streets with their bicycles, our transportation officials might react in the usual manner and give them a lane or two of their own.

So give us what we want or we’ll F things up for you? You know this is how terrorists negotiate right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a spectacularly bad idea for people on bikes to *try* to piss off people in cars. They're going to cross the wrong person, and end up with a SUV parked on their chest.

Which is, once again, the reason we advocate so fiercely for dedicated bike lanes

Your game plan to get more bike lanes is to piss off drivers so much they want to run you over? Good luck with that. Pretty sure that's the worst advocacy campaign I've ever heard of.

To the contrary, I think it is brilliant. For the strategy simply adopts that which has worked so well for drivers. That is, when they routinely clog the roads with their vehicles (often single occupied) to the point of causing gridlock, drivers are often rewarded with extra lanes. No one can reasonably blame the cyclists for venturing that, by clogging the streets with their bicycles, our transportation officials might react in the usual manner and give them a lane or two of their own.

We already have 100+ miles of bike lanes that virtually no one uses. Start with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a spectacularly bad idea for people on bikes to *try* to piss off people in cars. They're going to cross the wrong person, and end up with a SUV parked on their chest.

Which is, once again, the reason we advocate so fiercely for dedicated bike lanes

Your game plan to get more bike lanes is to piss off drivers so much they want to run you over? Good luck with that. Pretty sure that's the worst advocacy campaign I've ever heard of.

To the contrary, I think it is brilliant. For the strategy simply adopts that which has worked so well for drivers. That is, when they routinely clog the roads with their vehicles (often single occupied) to the point of causing gridlock, drivers are often rewarded with extra lanes. No one can reasonably blame the cyclists for venturing that, by clogging the streets with their bicycles, our transportation officials might react in the usual manner and give them a lane or two of their own.

Oh look now the cyclists are admitting the whole point is to block traffic and make life worse for everyone else

Drivers have been this to everyone else for going on 100 odd years. Its about time cyclists got with the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a spectacularly bad idea for people on bikes to *try* to piss off people in cars. They're going to cross the wrong person, and end up with a SUV parked on their chest.

Which is, once again, the reason we advocate so fiercely for dedicated bike lanes

Your game plan to get more bike lanes is to piss off drivers so much they want to run you over? Good luck with that. Pretty sure that's the worst advocacy campaign I've ever heard of.

To the contrary, I think it is brilliant. For the strategy simply adopts that which has worked so well for drivers. That is, when they routinely clog the roads with their vehicles (often single occupied) to the point of causing gridlock, drivers are often rewarded with extra lanes. No one can reasonably blame the cyclists for venturing that, by clogging the streets with their bicycles, our transportation officials might react in the usual manner and give them a lane or two of their own.

We already have 100+ miles of bike lanes that virtually no one uses. Start with that.

I didn't realize that everytime I saw a road with no cars on it, I could ask the city to tear it up and turn it into whatever I seem to be more useful. I'll need to start doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a spectacularly bad idea for people on bikes to *try* to piss off people in cars. They're going to cross the wrong person, and end up with a SUV parked on their chest.

Which is, once again, the reason we advocate so fiercely for dedicated bike lanes

Your game plan to get more bike lanes is to piss off drivers so much they want to run you over? Good luck with that. Pretty sure that's the worst advocacy campaign I've ever heard of.

To the contrary, I think it is brilliant. For the strategy simply adopts that which has worked so well for drivers. That is, when they routinely clog the roads with their vehicles (often single occupied) to the point of causing gridlock, drivers are often rewarded with extra lanes. No one can reasonably blame the cyclists for venturing that, by clogging the streets with their bicycles, our transportation officials might react in the usual manner and give them a lane or two of their own.

We already have 100+ miles of bike lanes that virtually no one uses. Start with that.

I didn't realize that everytime I saw a road with no cars on it, I could ask the city to tear it up and turn it into whatever I seem to be more useful. I'll need to start doing that.

You’re already doing exactly that right now with bike lanes, dummy

Are you really so obtuse and self absorbed that you didn’t realize how your post would sound to non-crazy people ????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire event is designed to antagonize drivers. There is no other point to a large group of cyclists riding slowing down a major artery when tens of thousands of people are just trying to get home to their families. People can't even use the intersections when they have the green light. It's really obnoxious. It's terrible PR for cyclists.

It’s like the climate protestors who block traffic or the pro-Palestinian protestors who block traffic. They aren’t looking to persuade people or get support. They are simply seeking to protest.

Except no one was blocking the road. They were riding on it, as afforded under the law.

Were they riding only two abreast as the law requires?

The whole thing was illegal, which makes it funny to see these folks complain about cars following the law.

It also just makes people hate cyclists, which doesnt seem good for anyone. This stuff makes the streets less safe for everyone.

The only people unhappy about it are the people who post on here and the krucoff crew, which may be one in the same

I think you mean the only people who know about it are the people who post here. It was a non-event for almost everybody.

All of y'all are trying to elevate it way beyond its meagre reality.

So, did it impact 10,000 people during rush hour, or was it a blip?

Both at the same time! It was a non-event that impacted 10,000 people during rush hour!!!11111!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damnit all! SCHRODINGER'S CYCLIST STRIKES AGAIN 🤦‍♂️

[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 entire event is designed to antagonize drivers. There is no other point to a large group of cyclists riding slowing down a major artery when tens of thousands of people are just trying to get home to their families. People can't even use the intersections when they have the green light. It's really obnoxious. It's terrible PR for cyclists.

It’s like the climate protestors who block traffic or the pro-Palestinian protestors who block traffic. They aren’t looking to persuade people or get support. They are simply seeking to protest.

Except no one was blocking the road. They were riding on it, as afforded under the law.

Were they riding only two abreast as the law requires?

The whole thing was illegal, which makes it funny to see these folks complain about cars following the law.

It also just makes people hate cyclists, which doesnt seem good for anyone. This stuff makes the streets less safe for everyone.

People are cyclists. Cyclists are people.

drivers too. so...maybe don't be such a dick?

When I am existing, on a bicycle, on a road, I am not doing it for the purpose of making you angry. In fact, I am not doing it for any purpose involving you at all.

Super weird way to characterize blocking traffic on a major road at rush hour. Are you always this mealy mouthed?

no one blocked traffic and certainly not rush hour. "traffic" is already blocked by virtue of there being so much of it

Ah, just own it. You sound pathetic.

A few hundred cyclists in a giant group ride going from one place to another is traffic. It's not blocking traffic. It IS traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a spectacularly bad idea for people on bikes to *try* to piss off people in cars. They're going to cross the wrong person, and end up with a SUV parked on their chest.

Which is, once again, the reason we advocate so fiercely for dedicated bike lanes

Your game plan to get more bike lanes is to piss off drivers so much they want to run you over? Good luck with that. Pretty sure that's the worst advocacy campaign I've ever heard of.

To the contrary, I think it is brilliant. For the strategy simply adopts that which has worked so well for drivers. That is, when they routinely clog the roads with their vehicles (often single occupied) to the point of causing gridlock, drivers are often rewarded with extra lanes. No one can reasonably blame the cyclists for venturing that, by clogging the streets with their bicycles, our transportation officials might react in the usual manner and give them a lane or two of their own.

We already have 100+ miles of bike lanes that virtually no one uses. Start with that.

I didn't realize that everytime I saw a road with no cars on it, I could ask the city to tear it up and turn it into whatever I seem to be more useful. I'll need to start doing that.

You’re already doing exactly that right now with bike lanes, dummy

Are you really so obtuse and self absorbed that you didn’t realize how your post would sound to non-crazy people ????

No one has said give bikes a lane on Conn Ave because motorists aren't using it. It is only the anti bike crew like yourself who likes to make shit up all the time. We have said put in a bike lane and people will use it and so.e of those people would have been driving. Which, you know, helps achieve goals for climate impact reductions and health and fitness improvements for the public.

But eh, carry on with your strawman arguments I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire event is designed to antagonize drivers. There is no other point to a large group of cyclists riding slowing down a major artery when tens of thousands of people are just trying to get home to their families. People can't even use the intersections when they have the green light. It's really obnoxious. It's terrible PR for cyclists.

It’s like the climate protestors who block traffic or the pro-Palestinian protestors who block traffic. They aren’t looking to persuade people or get support. They are simply seeking to protest.

Except no one was blocking the road. They were riding on it, as afforded under the law.

Were they riding only two abreast as the law requires?

The whole thing was illegal, which makes it funny to see these folks complain about cars following the law.

It also just makes people hate cyclists, which doesnt seem good for anyone. This stuff makes the streets less safe for everyone.

People are cyclists. Cyclists are people.

Let’s be real, cyclists are predominantly entitled early to middle age white men in spandex. Good thing their wives can handle the errands and child care pickups.

[Anonymous]

Your daily reminder that the POLICE think bike lanes are a horrible idea on Connecticut Avenue. Only the socialists among us think increasing response time is a virtue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire event is designed to antagonize drivers. There is no other point to a large group of cyclists riding slowing down a major artery when tens of thousands of people are just trying to get home to their families. People can't even use the intersections when they have the green light. It's really obnoxious. It's terrible PR for cyclists.

It’s like the climate protestors who block traffic or the pro-Palestinian protestors who block traffic. They aren’t looking to persuade people or get support. They are simply seeking to protest.

Except no one was blocking the road. They were riding on it, as afforded under the law.

Were they riding only two abreast as the law requires?

The whole thing was illegal, which makes it funny to see these folks complain about cars following the law.

It also just makes people hate cyclists, which doesnt seem good for anyone. This stuff makes the streets less safe for everyone.

People are cyclists. Cyclists are people.

Let’s be real, cyclists are predominantly entitled early to middle age white men in spandex. Good thing their wives can handle the errands and child care pickups.

Don't you get bored posting the same old trash takes over and over and over? Maybe you could be creative and think up some new trash takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a spectacularly bad idea for people on bikes to *try* to piss off people in cars. They're going to cross the wrong person, and end up with a SUV parked on their chest.

Which is, once again, the reason we advocate so fiercely for dedicated bike lanes

Your game plan to get more bike lanes is to piss off drivers so much they want to run you over? Good luck with that. Pretty sure that's the worst advocacy campaign I've ever heard of.

To the contrary, I think it is brilliant. For the strategy simply adopts that which has worked so well for drivers. That is, when they routinely clog the roads with their vehicles (often single occupied) to the point of causing gridlock, drivers are often rewarded with extra lanes. No one can reasonably blame the cyclists for venturing that, by clogging the streets with their bicycles, our transportation officials might react in the usual manner and give them a lane or two of their own.

Oh look now the cyclists are admitting the whole point is to block traffic and make life worse for everyone else

Admitting the obvious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire event is designed to antagonize drivers. There is no other point to a large group of cyclists riding slowing down a major artery when tens of thousands of people are just trying to get home to their families. People can't even use the intersections when they have the green light. It's really obnoxious. It's terrible PR for cyclists.

It’s like the climate protestors who block traffic or the pro-Palestinian protestors who block traffic. They aren’t looking to persuade people or get support. They are simply seeking to protest.

Except no one was blocking the road. They were riding on it, as afforded under the law.

Were they riding only two abreast as the law requires?

The whole thing was illegal, which makes it funny to see these folks complain about cars following the law.

It also just makes people hate cyclists, which doesnt seem good for anyone. This stuff makes the streets less safe for everyone.

People are cyclists. Cyclists are people.

Let’s be real, cyclists are predominantly entitled early to middle age white men in spandex. Good thing their wives can handle the errands and child care pickups.

This is what I was wondering. 730pm is an extremely busy time of day for anyone with a family