Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[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:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Bicycles are literally single occupancy vehicles

And slow ones at that.

The idea that biking 6-10 miles each way from NOW DC to downtown is a realistic option for many commuters is simply false. Between the need to carry stuff to and from work, the need to be dressed appropriately and clean at the office, the physical abilities required to bike those miles, the lack of flexibility in terms of pre and post work errands, appointments, and pick-ups, and the time commitment involved, biking is not a realistic commuter option for most people. Facts are facts.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

You refute yourself in your own post. It’s been a thing for decades. There has been a lot of investment in facilities and infrastructure. Yet hardly anyone does it. One more bike lane isn’t going to get people to commute on their bikes. Sorry.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. [/b]One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license.[b] I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

Let’s stipulate that few people under 16 have a drivers license.

Let's stipulate that people under 16 are people, and not only that: people under 16 are (1) people, who (2) go places.

Let’s stipulate that people under 16 are students with free transit passes to get them anywhere they need to go. Honestly bizarre that people who know nothing about DC or Connecticut Avenue keep wasting their time posting about this hyper local issue.

If free transit passes can get everyone anywhere they need to go, then there's no need for cars on Connecticut Avenue at all. Free transit passes for everyone, and restore Connecticut Avenue to its original purpose (public transportation and local commerce). As an additional benefit: without cars, there is no need for separate, protected bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Bicycles are literally single occupancy vehicles

And slow ones at that.

The idea that biking 6-10 miles each way from NOW DC to downtown is a realistic option for many commuters is simply false. Between the need to carry stuff to and from work, the need to be dressed appropriately and clean at the office, the physical abilities required to bike those miles, the lack of flexibility in terms of pre and post work errands, appointments, and pick-ups, and the time commitment involved, biking is not a realistic commuter option for most people. Facts are facts.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

You refute yourself in your own post. It’s been a thing for decades. There has been a lot of investment in facilities and infrastructure. Yet hardly anyone does it. One more bike lane isn’t going to get people to commute on their bikes. Sorry.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

Wouldn’t the most sensible approach — and and to balance various interests — be to route new bike lanes on streets that are parallel to Connecticut Avenue or on side street? Those would be a lot safer for bikers than Connecticut Avenue and that would ensure that Connecticut Avenue will continue to be a principal route for through traffic between Upper Northwest and Maryland and downtown Washington. Some bike bros may be disappointed with no bike lane passing Nanny O’Briens, but that’s the nature of compromise and maximizing the various aspects interests of the greatest number of people.

Love this, brilliant!!!!! Everyone wins right?

No. Drivers on Connecticut Avenue win. Everyone else loses.

Why? What’s wrong with cyclists using the side streets?

Why shouldn't drivers use the side streets?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Bicycles are literally single occupancy vehicles

And slow ones at that.

The idea that biking 6-10 miles each way from NOW DC to downtown is a realistic option for many commuters is simply false. Between the need to carry stuff to and from work, the need to be dressed appropriately and clean at the office, the physical abilities required to bike those miles, the lack of flexibility in terms of pre and post work errands, appointments, and pick-ups, and the time commitment involved, biking is not a realistic commuter option for most people. Facts are facts.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

You refute yourself in your own post. It’s been a thing for decades. There has been a lot of investment in facilities and infrastructure. Yet hardly anyone does it. One more bike lane isn’t going to get people to commute on their bikes. Sorry.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

Wouldn’t the most sensible approach — and and to balance various interests — be to route new bike lanes on streets that are parallel to Connecticut Avenue or on side street? Those would be a lot safer for bikers than Connecticut Avenue and that would ensure that Connecticut Avenue will continue to be a principal route for through traffic between Upper Northwest and Maryland and downtown Washington. Some bike bros may be disappointed with no bike lane passing Nanny O’Briens, but that’s the nature of compromise and maximizing the various aspects interests of the greatest number of people.

Love this, brilliant!!!!! Everyone wins right?

No. Drivers on Connecticut Avenue win. Everyone else loses.

Why? What’s wrong with cyclists using the side streets?

Why shouldn't drivers use the side streets?

The “local” classified side streets were not designed for through traffic and larger volumes. Flushing Connecticut Ave traffic through the side streets will make them less safe for pedestrians, cyclists and residents.

[Anonymous]

I say this most sincerely, please get help. This is not healthy.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Bicycles are literally single occupancy vehicles

And slow ones at that.

The idea that biking 6-10 miles each way from NOW DC to downtown is a realistic option for many commuters is simply false. Between the need to carry stuff to and from work, the need to be dressed appropriately and clean at the office, the physical abilities required to bike those miles, the lack of flexibility in terms of pre and post work errands, appointments, and pick-ups, and the time commitment involved, biking is not a realistic commuter option for most people. Facts are facts.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

You refute yourself in your own post. It’s been a thing for decades. There has been a lot of investment in facilities and infrastructure. Yet hardly anyone does it. One more bike lane isn’t going to get people to commute on their bikes. Sorry.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

Wouldn’t the most sensible approach — and and to balance various interests — be to route new bike lanes on streets that are parallel to Connecticut Avenue or on side street? Those would be a lot safer for bikers than Connecticut Avenue and that would ensure that Connecticut Avenue will continue to be a principal route for through traffic between Upper Northwest and Maryland and downtown Washington. Some bike bros may be disappointed with no bike lane passing Nanny O’Briens, but that’s the nature of compromise and maximizing the various aspects interests of the greatest number of people.

Love this, brilliant!!!!! Everyone wins right?

No. Drivers on Connecticut Avenue win. Everyone else loses.

Why? What’s wrong with cyclists using the side streets?

Why shouldn't drivers use the side streets?

The “local” classified side streets were not designed for through traffic and larger volumes. Flushing Connecticut Ave traffic through the side streets will make them less safe for pedestrians, cyclists and residents.

Oh, that makes sense. Drivers shouldn't use the side streets because cars are dangerous for pedestrians, bicyclists, and residents. But it's ok for bicyclists to use the side streets because bicycles are NOT dangerous for pedestrians, bicyclists, and residents.

No, wait, actually that doesn't make sense. There are also pedestrians, bicyclists, and residents on Connecticut Avenue, who are endangered by cars. DC really ought to do something to protect pedestrians, bicyclists, and residents on Connecticut Avenue from cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

They are clearly not well.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Bicycles are literally single occupancy vehicles

And slow ones at that.

The idea that biking 6-10 miles each way from NOW DC to downtown is a realistic option for many commuters is simply false. Between the need to carry stuff to and from work, the need to be dressed appropriately and clean at the office, the physical abilities required to bike those miles, the lack of flexibility in terms of pre and post work errands, appointments, and pick-ups, and the time commitment involved, biking is not a realistic commuter option for most people. Facts are facts.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

You refute yourself in your own post. It’s been a thing for decades. There has been a lot of investment in facilities and infrastructure. Yet hardly anyone does it. One more bike lane isn’t going to get people to commute on their bikes. Sorry.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

Wouldn’t the most sensible approach — and and to balance various interests — be to route new bike lanes on streets that are parallel to Connecticut Avenue or on side street? Those would be a lot safer for bikers than Connecticut Avenue and that would ensure that Connecticut Avenue will continue to be a principal route for through traffic between Upper Northwest and Maryland and downtown Washington. Some bike bros may be disappointed with no bike lane passing Nanny O’Briens, but that’s the nature of compromise and maximizing the various aspects interests of the greatest number of people.

Love this, brilliant!!!!! Everyone wins right?

No. Drivers on Connecticut Avenue win. Everyone else loses.

Why? What’s wrong with cyclists using the side streets?

Why shouldn't drivers use the side streets?

The “local” classified side streets were not designed for through traffic and larger volumes. Flushing Connecticut Ave traffic through the side streets will make them less safe for pedestrians, cyclists and residents.

They can just take a bus or Metro instead of driving. Easy.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Bicycles are literally single occupancy vehicles

And slow ones at that.

The idea that biking 6-10 miles each way from NOW DC to downtown is a realistic option for many commuters is simply false. Between the need to carry stuff to and from work, the need to be dressed appropriately and clean at the office, the physical abilities required to bike those miles, the lack of flexibility in terms of pre and post work errands, appointments, and pick-ups, and the time commitment involved, biking is not a realistic commuter option for most people. Facts are facts.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

You refute yourself in your own post. It’s been a thing for decades. There has been a lot of investment in facilities and infrastructure. Yet hardly anyone does it. One more bike lane isn’t going to get people to commute on their bikes. Sorry.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

Wouldn’t the most sensible approach — and and to balance various interests — be to route new bike lanes on streets that are parallel to Connecticut Avenue or on side street? Those would be a lot safer for bikers than Connecticut Avenue and that would ensure that Connecticut Avenue will continue to be a principal route for through traffic between Upper Northwest and Maryland and downtown Washington. Some bike bros may be disappointed with no bike lane passing Nanny O’Briens, but that’s the nature of compromise and maximizing the various aspects interests of the greatest number of people.

Love this, brilliant!!!!! Everyone wins right?

No. Drivers on Connecticut Avenue win. Everyone else loses.

Why? What’s wrong with cyclists using the side streets?

Why shouldn't drivers use the side streets?

The “local” classified side streets were not designed for through traffic and larger volumes. Flushing Connecticut Ave traffic through the side streets will make them less safe for pedestrians, cyclists and residents.

They can just take a bus or Metro instead of driving. Easy.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

Typical anti-biker boomer response. You probably grew up riding a book to school. But now that you’re old and don’t have the energy for such physical exertion, you demand the right to the widest possible streets and an abundance of parking because what could possibly be more important than your own convenience? The inevitable consequences of further embedding car dependence - congestion, pollution, unnecessary deaths and injuries, squandering of resources and so on - are none of your concern for the likelihood of you being around here to experience what this all leads to in 10 to 20 years is slim to none. Of course, you lack the self-awareness to realize that this is what really going on but nonetheless come up a strange cognitive dissonance when anyone brings serious facts to the discussion. And so “Oof.” is about all you can muster by way of a response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

Typical anti-biker boomer response. You probably grew up riding a book to school. But now that you’re old and don’t have the energy for such physical exertion, you demand the right to the widest possible streets and an abundance of parking because what could possibly be more important than your own convenience? The inevitable consequences of further embedding car dependence - congestion, pollution, unnecessary deaths and injuries, squandering of resources and so on - are none of your concern for the likelihood of you being around here to experience what this all leads to in 10 to 20 years is slim to none. Of course, you lack the self-awareness to realize that this is what really going on but nonetheless come up a strange cognitive dissonance when anyone brings serious facts to the discussion. And so “Oof.” is about all you can muster by way of a response.

Lol bro I’m 35. In addition to lacking reasoning skills, your perceptive abilities are also poor. Congratulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

Typical anti-biker boomer response. You probably grew up riding a book to school. But now that you’re old and don’t have the energy for such physical exertion, you demand the right to the widest possible streets and an abundance of parking because what could possibly be more important than your own convenience? The inevitable consequences of further embedding car dependence - congestion, pollution, unnecessary deaths and injuries, squandering of resources and so on - are none of your concern for the likelihood of you being around here to experience what this all leads to in 10 to 20 years is slim to none. Of course, you lack the self-awareness to realize that this is what really going on but nonetheless come up a strange cognitive dissonance when anyone brings serious facts to the discussion. And so “Oof.” is about all you can muster by way of a response.

Not PP but whoever wrote this sounds like a kooky cult member. If you really want to make things safer for cyclists, diverting them to side streets would be a great idea. But safety is not your actual goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

Typical anti-biker boomer response. You probably grew up riding a book to school. But now that you’re old and don’t have the energy for such physical exertion, you demand the right to the widest possible streets and an abundance of parking because what could possibly be more important than your own convenience? The inevitable consequences of further embedding car dependence - congestion, pollution, unnecessary deaths and injuries, squandering of resources and so on - are none of your concern for the likelihood of you being around here to experience what this all leads to in 10 to 20 years is slim to none. Of course, you lack the self-awareness to realize that this is what really going on but nonetheless come up a strange cognitive dissonance when anyone brings serious facts to the discussion. And so “Oof.” is about all you can muster by way of a response.

Lol bro I’m 35. In addition to lacking reasoning skills, your perceptive abilities are also poor. Congratulations.

Welcome to the internet where anyone can be anything they claim to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

Typical anti-biker boomer response. You probably grew up riding a book to school. But now that you’re old and don’t have the energy for such physical exertion, you demand the right to the widest possible streets and an abundance of parking because what could possibly be more important than your own convenience? The inevitable consequences of further embedding car dependence - congestion, pollution, unnecessary deaths and injuries, squandering of resources and so on - are none of your concern for the likelihood of you being around here to experience what this all leads to in 10 to 20 years is slim to none. Of course, you lack the self-awareness to realize that this is what really going on but nonetheless come up a strange cognitive dissonance when anyone brings serious facts to the discussion. And so “Oof.” is about all you can muster by way of a response.

Not PP but whoever wrote this sounds like a kooky cult member. If you really want to make things safer for cyclists, diverting them to side streets would be a great idea. But safety is not your actual goal.

Protected bike lanes on side streets are more than welcome. But if you’re ever spent any time in DC you know that proposals for such are almost always viciously opposed by SFH-owners who fear the loss of on-street parking, to the point that DDOT rarely put them forward anymore. Lanes on arterials like Conn Ave are generally preferred because they serve more cyclists and are often much easier politically to get through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

Typical anti-biker boomer response. You probably grew up riding a book to school. But now that you’re old and don’t have the energy for such physical exertion, you demand the right to the widest possible streets and an abundance of parking because what could possibly be more important than your own convenience? The inevitable consequences of further embedding car dependence - congestion, pollution, unnecessary deaths and injuries, squandering of resources and so on - are none of your concern for the likelihood of you being around here to experience what this all leads to in 10 to 20 years is slim to none. Of course, you lack the self-awareness to realize that this is what really going on but nonetheless come up a strange cognitive dissonance when anyone brings serious facts to the discussion. And so “Oof.” is about all you can muster by way of a response.

Lol bro I’m 35. In addition to lacking reasoning skills, your perceptive abilities are also poor. Congratulations.

Welcome to the internet where anyone can be anything they claim to be.

Yes because boomers are so well known for starting internet posts with “Lol bro.”

You are just getting more and more ridiculous. Too many bike accidents without a helmet, I think.