Reply to Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This is hilarious.

Is there 14,000 cyclists in all of North America? I doubt it.

“Replacing vehicular lanes with bicycle lanes ultimately increases the maximum capacity of the overall right of way, as an average car lane moves up to around 2,000 people per hour per direction, while an average bike lane using the same space can move up to around 14,000 people per hour per direction,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/15/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-revived/
[/quote]

It's one of those meaningless statistics because one could also say that 28,000 Segways (half the size of a bike but the same speed) per hour or even more smart cars (smaller length, larger width but faster speed).

There is one simple fact that matters.  Right now, 30,000 cars per day use Connecticut while bicycle use per day is in the low double digits.  The demand is simply not there.

As usual, the bicyclists overreached.  If they had waited until at least 500 people on average per day over a calendar year were using it then they might have had a point.[/quote]

People not wanting to risk their lives riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue is not indicative of a lack of demand. Count me and three additional members of my family who would replace countless car trips if it were safe to do so.[/quote] A protected gutter lane on a major avenue will never induce usage from anyone who is concerned about safety.[/quote]

Of course it will — it would be far, far safer than the way you ride on that street now, i.e., just in traffic. [/quote]
You forget the fact that nothing is stopping these people from riding on the sidewalk today. But yes, let’s imagine this magical group of people too worried about their own safety to ride on Connecticut Ave today but also not willing to use a really safe alternative option currently available would start riding their bicycle because there was a plastic bollard protecting them from a car 3 feet away while they had to ride through broken glass and trash. Make this make sense.

You’re telling me that there are thousands of people who don’t ride bikes on Connecticut Avenue today would  because they are worried about personal safety [/quote]

I didn't say thousands would start riding. You said a protected bike lane would "never" induce "anyone" to start, which is clearly wrong.

Riding on the sidewalk isn't anything like riding in a protected bike lane; there are no pedestrians in the bike lane (well, at least, there aren't supposed to be). There's far less perpendicular foot traffic crossing the bike lane than there is on a sidewalk, too. You don't have to go down and up dips for curb cuts and driveways in a bike lane, as you frequently do on a sidewalk (I once rode from Tenleytown to Dupont Circle on the sidewalk on Mass Ave and found that part of it particularly annoying). And in a lot of places, the sidewalk is narrower than the bike lanes are.

I don't entirely see what your argument is here — you're against bike lanes, okay, but you also think they're not safe enough? Have you ever ridden a bike in D.C.? I promise you that it feels far, far safer to ride in a protected lane than it does without one. Don't believe me? Go try it! [/quote]

Yeah, people who claim to be for pedestrians should be [u]for[/u] good bike lanes, not against them. I have this thought every time I used "shared use paths" as either a bicyclist or a pedestrian, and I use them a lot.[/quote]
You should map out your talking points so that you stop contradicting yourself about pedestrian safety.

When the number of bicycles on the sidewalks get to be so many that you become an actual safety risk to pedestrians then we can talk about bike lanes. However, as of now you have a fully safe option available to you that is not utilized and we know that cyclists don’t care about pedestrians (“you should be more afraid of cars than us”) so feigned concern for pedestrians for not using sidewalks is nonsense.

The way life works for normal people is that if you use everything that has been given then you ask for more. All children who are not spoilt are taught this. [/quote]

You're responding to multiple posters. This poster (me) actually does bicycle, on sidewalks when that feels less dangerous than bicycling in the road, so don't tell me I don't exist. This poster (me) also actually does walk, on sidewalks, which I share with people on bicycles, so don't tell me that people on bicycles on the sidewalk don't exist. The best thing for pedestrians, in order, are:

1. sidewalks
2. good sidewalks
3. good bike lanes so they don't have to share the sidewalks with people on bicycles

Also we are actually are talking about bike lanes, whether you like bike lanes or not. You certainly seem to love hate-posting about bike lanes on DCUM. [/quote]
Quick question. Do you think your debate club routine here makes any difference to what is happening in the real world? Who do you think you are convincing and what is your goal?

[b]I don’t love posting about bike lanes on this website.[/b] I am just really fascinated with how crazy you are.

You are really all over the place saying things that contradict themselves left and right. Arguing to death over a decision that is made like it’s somehow still up for debate.

Maybe my mistake is thinking that pointing out your crazy will help you to move on. [/quote]

Which raises the question: how come you spend so much time doing something you don't love? [/quote]
Why can’t you move on?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics