To all the NIMBYs saying we should just keep cars out of the city and do WFH forever, you guys are living in an economic fantasy world. The population of DC DOUBLES during the day with the influx of workers (historically). Did you really think that your residential population can support all these restaurants, coffee shops, etc.? No freaking way. Your businesses will shutter without all the terrible "commuters." Your sales tax revenues will plummet. The commuters keep your city alive

Anonymous wrote:So bikes don't belong in the category of everyone-except-cars? I see people biking on side paths and they don't seem to have a problem.

Yes, of course bicycles belong in the category of everyone-except-cars. That category is the problem. Like, here's lots of space for drivers, and over there is a narrow space for everyone else to try to share. It's not comfortable walking on a "sidepath" where lots of people are bicycling, and it's not comfortable bicycling on a "sidepath" where lots of people are walking. The only group that "sidepaths" really work for is drivers.

So bikes don't belong in the category of everyone-except-cars? I see people biking on side paths and they don't seem to have a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Because they're sidewalks, and people are walking on them.

I apologize. I am speaking more for the outlying suburbs. Sorry if I derailed the discussion in terms of locality. (Side note-bikers don't like to use paths with peds cuz it slows them down)

Yes, also in the suburbs. Off-road "sidepaths" are sidewalks. People are walking on them. Sidepaths are not bicycle infrastructure, they are everyone-except-cars infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Because the law says they can? Why don't people who insist on driving 55 in the left lane on the highway use side streets? Should the existence of those annoying drivers automatically disqualify any new car-based infrastructure as you seem to believe cyclists exercising their legal right to ride in the street does?

Drivers: You're in my way, get over there with the pedestrians.
Pedestrians: You don't belong on my sidewalk, get in the road.

The solution to this problem is infrastructure FOR BICYCLISTS.

Mind you, as a driver, I understand that it's mostly other drivers who are in my way (as I am in their way), not bicyclists - or pedestrians.

The first part of this isn’t true though? Cars are legally mandated to share the road with bicycles. Bicycles are also legally allowed to take the lane.

The law says the first part of it isn't true, but many drivers nonetheless believe that it is true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Because the law says they can? Why don't people who insist on driving 55 in the left lane on the highway use side streets? Should the existence of those annoying drivers automatically disqualify any new car-based infrastructure as you seem to believe cyclists exercising their legal right to ride in the street does?

Drivers: You're in my way, get over there with the pedestrians.
Pedestrians: You don't belong on my sidewalk, get in the road.

The solution to this problem is infrastructure FOR BICYCLISTS.

Mind you, as a driver, I understand that it's mostly other drivers who are in my way (as I am in their way), not bicyclists - or pedestrians.

The first part of this isn’t true though? Cars are legally mandated to share the road with bicycles. Bicycles are also legally allowed to take the lane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Because they're sidewalks, and people are walking on them.

I apologize. I am speaking more for the outlying suburbs. Sorry if I derailed the discussion in terms of locality. (Side note-bikers don't like to use paths with peds cuz it slows them down)

New poster here. That's big of you to apologize and acknowledge that your experiences may not be our reality in the city. My husband and I have biked 15 years here, commuting and for leisure, and watched the number of cyclists grow every year. If you are downtown at rush hour it's actually incredible to see the literally dozens, sometimes, bikes lined up in the protected lanes at just one stoplight. There's also been a 300% increase in ebike sales (nationally, I think?) and there are families everywhere in the District with kids, groceries, cargo, etc. E-bikes also answer the inquiry about sweaty dates and August, or you could splurge for Uber. As bike infrastructure is improving here, it's also becoming more accessible to regular people who aren't "crazy bikers."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Because they're sidewalks, and people are walking on them.

I apologize. I am speaking more for the outlying suburbs. Sorry if I derailed the discussion in terms of locality. (Side note-bikers don't like to use paths with peds cuz it slows them down)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Because the law says they can? Why don't people who insist on driving 55 in the left lane on the highway use side streets? Should the existence of those annoying drivers automatically disqualify any new car-based infrastructure as you seem to believe cyclists exercising their legal right to ride in the street does?

Drivers: You're in my way, get over there with the pedestrians.
Pedestrians: You don't belong on my sidewalk, get in the road.

The solution to this problem is infrastructure FOR BICYCLISTS.

Mind you, as a driver, I understand that it's mostly other drivers who are in my way (as I am in their way), not bicyclists - or pedestrians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Because the law says they can? Why don't people who insist on driving 55 in the left lane on the highway use side streets? Should the existence of those annoying drivers automatically disqualify any new car-based infrastructure as you seem to believe cyclists exercising their legal right to ride in the street does?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Because they're sidewalks, and people are walking on them.

And I'm not even a dude (mike drop)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

This is about as embarrassing as hearing at Frat Boy say, “it’s not a frat, it’s a fraternity”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Hardly anyone in DC bikes. It would be interesting to divide DC's total spending on bike infrastructure by the number of people who use it. I wonder if it comes out to $1 million plus per bicyclist.

It is also important to consider the geography of where the infrastructure is placed and the race of the users.

Please expand.