Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that generally speaking, the proposals to add bike lanes also calm vehicular traffic, which makes both the streets and sidewalks safer and more livable for humans, including humans with disabilities.

Not really. Especially when there are many preeexisting crosswalks with stop lights. Increased volume creates blocked boxes. Removal of space eliminates the ability to swerve and deceases the margin for error. Bump outs and flexposts increase obstacles to be avoided and reduce sight lines. Different rules for different vehicles eliminate predictability. But that's just the street these things are put on. In this case the measures come with a massive increase in residential overflow traffic that makes those streets exponentially less safe.

Clear sight lines, space, predictability and traffic lights with crosswalks are the things that make things safe. When those things are decreased then it is less safe. Increasing complexity and volume whie eliminating buffers is a toxic combination.

Any support for that, at all? But love the idea that more space and "clear sight lines" slows down traffic ...

Visibility, predictability, and flexibility (manueverability) are the three components of safety. I am not using safety as a euphemism. I am using it to mean safety.

Visibility enables people to see situations that might develop earlier.
Predictability enables people to anticipate potential behavior.
Flexibility allows people to avoid situations if the previous two have failed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that generally speaking, the proposals to add bike lanes also calm vehicular traffic, which makes both the streets and sidewalks safer and more livable for humans, including humans with disabilities.

Not really. Especially when there are many preeexisting crosswalks with stop lights. Increased volume creates blocked boxes. Removal of space eliminates the ability to swerve and deceases the margin for error. Bump outs and flexposts increase obstacles to be avoided and reduce sight lines. Different rules for different vehicles eliminate predictability. But that's just the street these things are put on. In this case the measures come with a massive increase in residential overflow traffic that makes those streets exponentially less safe.

Clear sight lines, space, predictability and traffic lights with crosswalks are the things that make things safe. When those things are decreased then it is less safe. Increasing complexity and volume whie eliminating buffers is a toxic combination.

Any support for that, at all? But love the idea that more space and "clear sight lines" slows down traffic ...

Visibility, predictability, and flexibility (manueverability) are the three components of safety. I am not using safety as a euphemism. I am using it to mean safety.

Visibility enables people to see situations that might develop earlier.
Predictability enables people to anticipate potential behavior.
Flexibility allows people to avoid situations if the previous two have failed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that generally speaking, the proposals to add bike lanes also calm vehicular traffic, which makes both the streets and sidewalks safer and more livable for humans, including humans with disabilities.

Not really. Especially when there are many preeexisting crosswalks with stop lights. Increased volume creates blocked boxes. Removal of space eliminates the ability to swerve and deceases the margin for error. Bump outs and flexposts increase obstacles to be avoided and reduce sight lines. Different rules for different vehicles eliminate predictability. But that's just the street these things are put on. In this case the measures come with a massive increase in residential overflow traffic that makes those streets exponentially less safe.

Clear sight lines, space, predictability and traffic lights with crosswalks are the things that make things safe. When those things are decreased then it is less safe. Increasing complexity and volume whie eliminating buffers is a toxic combination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 pages of angry, whining cyclists!

Look people, this could all have been avoided if DDOT just engaged with disability groups and made an effort to accommodate disability needs into the design. Instead DDOT and bike advocates in the city have been doing nothing but doing a reprise of those immature ANC commissioners giving a business the middle finger.

Cannot help but laugh at the schaedenfruede.

ddot’s designs meet the ADA standards set out in the bike design manual.

saying that DDOT refused to engage with disability groups is a serious accusation. Any support for that?

If they did make reasonable accommodations then they wouldn’t be getting sued. LMFAO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bicyclists in DC are SO MEAN. The most road rage Ive seen in DC is from cyclists to drivers (I am a pedestrian--no wheels for me)

Anyone - cyclist, pedestrian, driver whatever - whose life is nearly ended through the recklessness of another has every right to be pissed off at that person. Some cyclists may be mean, but it’s also true that drivers kill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that generally speaking, the proposals to add bike lanes also calm vehicular traffic, which makes both the streets and sidewalks safer and more livable for humans, including humans with disabilities.

Not really. Especially when there are many preeexisting crosswalks with stop lights. Increased volume creates blocked boxes. Removal of space eliminates the ability to swerve and deceases the margin for error. Bump outs and flexposts increase obstacles to be avoided and reduce sight lines. Different rules for different vehicles eliminate predictability. But that's just the street these things are put on. In this case the measures come with a massive increase in residential overflow traffic that makes those streets exponentially less safe.

Clear sight lines, space, predictability and traffic lights with crosswalks are the things that make things safe. When those things are decreased then it is less safe. Increasing complexity and volume whie eliminating buffers is a toxic combination.

Any support for that, at all? But love the idea that more space and "clear sight lines" slows down traffic ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that generally speaking, the proposals to add bike lanes also calm vehicular traffic, which makes both the streets and sidewalks safer and more livable for humans, including humans with disabilities.

Not really. Especially when there are many preeexisting crosswalks with stop lights. Increased volume creates blocked boxes. Removal of space eliminates the ability to swerve and deceases the margin for error. Bump outs and flexposts increase obstacles to be avoided and reduce sight lines. Different rules for different vehicles eliminate predictability. But that's just the street these things are put on. In this case the measures come with a massive increase in residential overflow traffic that makes those streets exponentially less safe.

Clear sight lines, space, predictability and traffic lights with crosswalks are the things that make things safe. When those things are decreased then it is less safe. Increasing complexity and volume whie eliminating buffers is a toxic combination.

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that generally speaking, the proposals to add bike lanes also calm vehicular traffic, which makes both the streets and sidewalks safer and more livable for humans, including humans with disabilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 pages of angry, whining cyclists!

Look people, this could all have been avoided if DDOT just engaged with disability groups and made an effort to accommodate disability needs into the design. Instead DDOT and bike advocates in the city have been doing nothing but doing a reprise of those immature ANC commissioners giving a business the middle finger.

Cannot help but laugh at the schaedenfruede.

ddot’s designs meet the ADA standards set out in the bike design manual.

saying that DDOT refused to engage with disability groups is a serious accusation. Any support for that?

Anonymous wrote:9 pages of angry, whining cyclists!

Look people, this could all have been avoided if DDOT just engaged with disability groups and made an effort to accommodate disability needs into the design. Instead DDOT and bike advocates in the city have been doing nothing but doing a reprise of those immature ANC commissioners giving a business the middle finger.

Cannot help but laugh at the schaedenfruede.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

Sorry, no, this is ridiculous. Cyclists face a fraction, at best, of the hostility that disabled people do on a regular basis. And if you don't want to face hostility as a cyclist, you can just... get off your bike.

I bicycle all over the place and commute by bike far, far more often than I drive to work, but this comparison is (a) false, (b) inappropriately dismissive of what it's like to have a disability, and (c) also completely unhelpful for the pro-bike infrastructure argument.

There's a smart way to put in bike lanes that accommodates people with mobility issues, who in theory should be better off if the streets are designed better to allow uses besides only driving in cars. D.C. can figure it out and fix it moving forward.

Good job creating a strawman. The reply was specifically responding to a post about hostility in this thread. I’ve read none directed towards people with disabilities. Whereas virtually every second post here is spreading some ridiculous nonsense about cyclists.

There is a post here saying that disabled people should just expect to sit in traffic, and that since the number of people who might hit them on bikes might be lower than the number of drivers who would that's acceptable. There is no post here saying that cyclists should risk their children's or their own lives. So, yes in this thread the ableism is more horrifying than the comments about people who cycle as a hobby.

Please produce the actual post in the thread that said that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

Sorry, no, this is ridiculous. Cyclists face a fraction, at best, of the hostility that disabled people do on a regular basis. And if you don't want to face hostility as a cyclist, you can just... get off your bike.

I bicycle all over the place and commute by bike far, far more often than I drive to work, but this comparison is (a) false, (b) inappropriately dismissive of what it's like to have a disability, and (c) also completely unhelpful for the pro-bike infrastructure argument.

There's a smart way to put in bike lanes that accommodates people with mobility issues, who in theory should be better off if the streets are designed better to allow uses besides only driving in cars. D.C. can figure it out and fix it moving forward.

Good job creating a strawman. The reply was specifically responding to a post about hostility in this thread. I’ve read none directed towards people with disabilities. Whereas virtually every second post here is spreading some ridiculous nonsense about cyclists.

There is a post here saying that disabled people should just expect to sit in traffic, and that since the number of people who might hit them on bikes might be lower than the number of drivers who would that's acceptable. There is no post here saying that cyclists should risk their children's or their own lives. So, yes in this thread the ableism is more horrifying than the comments about people who cycle as a hobby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot of hostility on this thread towards disabled people.

Try being a cyclist . . .

Sorry, no, this is ridiculous. Cyclists face a fraction, at best, of the hostility that disabled people do on a regular basis. And if you don't want to face hostility as a cyclist, you can just... get off your bike.

I bicycle all over the place and commute by bike far, far more often than I drive to work, but this comparison is (a) false, (b) inappropriately dismissive of what it's like to have a disability, and (c) also completely unhelpful for the pro-bike infrastructure argument.

There's a smart way to put in bike lanes that accommodates people with mobility issues, who in theory should be better off if the streets are designed better to allow uses besides only driving in cars. D.C. can figure it out and fix it moving forward.

Good job creating a strawman. The reply was specifically responding to a post about hostility in this thread. I’ve read none directed towards people with disabilities. Whereas virtually every second post here is spreading some ridiculous nonsense about cyclists.