Anonymous wrote:When cyclist are on the roads are they required to follow the laws of motorists? If there is a stop light do they need to stop for the light or are they permitted to ride without stopping?

Cyclists will NEVER obey traffic laws. Ever.

They rely on YOU obeying them to keep them alive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible. Prefer the alternating lanes. Traffic is already a mess without them.

They caused over 1500 accidents during a 2-year study.

b/c stupid people can't read signs.....it wasn't confusing

Evidently it was confusing to the stupid people who can't read signs, and evidently there were a lot of stupid people who can't read signs. All the more reason to remove the alternating lanes.

They caused accidents because newbies thought they were in the farthest left lane and then turned left but actually they weren’t — and get t boned by the car actually in the farthest left lane.

I suspect head-on northbound vs southbound crashes were pretty rare

Also the lane signs were pretty terrible compared with the big red and green overhead signs in Maryland. Assume it was dc restrictions and aesthetics that kept that out.

Also, total Mad Max/Road Warrior situation around 630 when the lanes were about to switch and then did switch — massive game of chicken

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible. Prefer the alternating lanes. Traffic is already a mess without them.

They caused over 1500 accidents during a 2-year study.

b/c stupid people can read signs.....it wasn't confusing

"can't"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible. Prefer the alternating lanes. Traffic is already a mess without them.

They caused over 1500 accidents during a 2-year study.

b/c stupid people can read signs.....it wasn't confusing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks eliminating the rush hour traffic pattern will cut accidents on Conn Ave hasn't driven that route lately.

Hope sense prevails and they reopen Beach Drive - if there are bike lanes on Conn, why preserve an alternate route solely for bikes?

The outcome here will be more WFH (and more catastrophic impact on downtown businesses and office space) and more neighborhood cut-throughs by commuters. Enjoy!

If there are car lanes on Connecticut, why do drivers need an alternate route through a park?

Why do bikes need any of the roads all to themselves? You already have the trails. If the major car commuter route is now half car/half bike, the other local commuter road needs to reopen.

Honestly, this is just a terrible idea. I foresee many, many bike accidents on Conn from cars turning right.

The trails are hardly the most convenient or direct way to get downtown (they're also barely lit at night, which makes riding home on them on wet leaves in the winter really fun, and by fun, I mean dangerous). Drivers don't like bike lanes, but they also certainly don't like when bicycles are in the regular car lanes. Seems like you can go faster if the bikes are all in their own lane than if we're riding in the road in front of you, no?

Anonymous wrote:I'll believe this when I see it. They can't even enforce towing. And the metro still doesn't work. Once NWDC loses its mind over this, and it will, it won't happen.

NWDC already lost its mind over it, or at least the bike-lane-opposing parts of NWDC (obviously the bike-lane-supporting parts of NWDC were for it). It will happen.

I'll believe this when I see it. They can't even enforce towing. And the metro still doesn't work. Once NWDC loses its mind over this, and it will, it won't happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks eliminating the rush hour traffic pattern will cut accidents on Conn Ave hasn't driven that route lately.

Hope sense prevails and they reopen Beach Drive - if there are bike lanes on Conn, why preserve an alternate route solely for bikes?

The outcome here will be more WFH (and more catastrophic impact on downtown businesses and office space) and more neighborhood cut-throughs by commuters. Enjoy!

If there are car lanes on Connecticut, why do drivers need an alternate route through a park?

Why do bikes need any of the roads all to themselves? You already have the trails. If the major car commuter route is now half car/half bike, the other local commuter road needs to reopen.

Honestly, this is just a terrible idea. I foresee many, many bike accidents on Conn from cars turning right.

Why do you need to drive to work through a park?

Fortunately, there's lots of information in design guides about how to design bike lanes to protect bicyclists from drivers turning right.

Anonymous wrote:Terrible. Prefer the alternating lanes. Traffic is already a mess without them.

They caused over 1500 accidents during a 2-year study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks eliminating the rush hour traffic pattern will cut accidents on Conn Ave hasn't driven that route lately.

Hope sense prevails and they reopen Beach Drive - if there are bike lanes on Conn, why preserve an alternate route solely for bikes?

The outcome here will be more WFH (and more catastrophic impact on downtown businesses and office space) and more neighborhood cut-throughs by commuters. Enjoy!

If there are car lanes on Connecticut, why do drivers need an alternate route through a park?

Why do bikes need any of the roads all to themselves? You already have the trails. If the major car commuter route is now half car/half bike, the other local commuter road needs to reopen.

Honestly, this is just a terrible idea. I foresee many, many bike accidents on Conn from cars turning right.

Anonymous wrote:Will there be no more street parking on Connecticut?

This will be worse than the reverse rush hour lanes. Nightmare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When cyclist are on the roads are they required to follow the laws of motorists? If there is a stop light do they need to stop for the light or are they permitted to ride without stopping?

No, when bicyclists are on the roads, they are required to follow the laws for bicyclists.

Just like when drivers are on the roads, they are required to follow the laws for drivers.

From DDOT:

Does a cyclist have to obey traffic laws?

Yes, cyclists have to obey traffic laws.

According to the DC Municipal Regulations, Title 18, Section 1201.1,

Every person riding a bicycle on a highway shall be subject to all the duties applicable to the drivers of motor vehicles under this title, except as otherwise expressly provided in the chapter, and except for those duties imposed by this title which, by their nature, can have no reasonable application to a bicycle operator.

In addition Section 1201.15 states,

No person shall operate a bicycle except in obedience to the instructions of official traffic control signals, signs, and other control devices applicable to vehicles, unless otherwise directed by a police officer or other person authorized to direct and control traffic.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/DC-Bike-Law-Pocket-Guide-Oct2012.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks eliminating the rush hour traffic pattern will cut accidents on Conn Ave hasn't driven that route lately.

Hope sense prevails and they reopen Beach Drive - if there are bike lanes on Conn, why preserve an alternate route solely for bikes?

The outcome here will be more WFH (and more catastrophic impact on downtown businesses and office space) and more neighborhood cut-throughs by commuters. Enjoy!

If there are car lanes on Connecticut, why do drivers need an alternate route through a park?

Anonymous wrote:When cyclist are on the roads are they required to follow the laws of motorists? If there is a stop light do they need to stop for the light or are they permitted to ride without stopping?

No, when bicyclists are on the roads, they are required to follow the laws for bicyclists.

Just like when drivers are on the roads, they are required to follow the laws for drivers.