Anonymous wrote:I bike a lot and find protected bike lanes more dangerous than taking the lane. Drivers just don’t see cyclists in bike lanes, which makes every intersection a massive risk of a right hook. The two-way bike lanes also become death traps when an irresponsible cyclist rides too fast and out of control from the other direction. No thanks.

John Forester (1929-2020) is posting from the grave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the IDEA of bike lanes. But I have to say that when I was trying to work and raise three kids, at three different schools, with the associated activities, playdates and doctor's appointments, I could barely manage WITH a car. No chance it would have worked on a bike.

If only there was a safe way for some of your kids to get to some of their destination via mode of transportation that they controlled...

On Connecticut! Are you insane?

If there were protected bike lanes, it would be safer to do this.

Even with a bike lane, CT is too dangerous for anyone up to late teens. You're going to be inches from trucks/buses doing 40+, cars trying to make turns in gaps in traffic, and the general bad driving/aggression of the daily commute. You'll need to be able to read/anticipate traffic in a way that only an experienced rider/driver can do. This is a big part of why I'm not a fan of CT bike lanes. It fails the "would you let a kid ride here by themselves?" test.

One of the great things about the Connecticut Avenue redesign is that drivers of trucks and buses would NOT be driving 40+. Protected bike lanes make the street safer for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:I bike a lot and find protected bike lanes more dangerous than taking the lane. Drivers just don’t see cyclists in bike lanes, which makes every intersection a massive risk of a right hook. The two-way bike lanes also become death traps when an irresponsible cyclist rides too fast and out of control from the other direction. No thanks.

I much prefer the protected lanes. Generally there’s enough of a space buffed that a right hook is less likely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bike a lot and find protected bike lanes more dangerous than taking the lane. Drivers just don’t see cyclists in bike lanes, which makes every intersection a massive risk of a right hook. The two-way bike lanes also become death traps when an irresponsible cyclist rides too fast and out of control from the other direction. No thanks.

Conn Ave is proposed to be one lane in each direction.

If drivers have issues seeing cyclists in bike lanes, then perhaps they shouldn't be operating 2000+ lb vehicles.

Unfortunately, the worse a driver is the larger the vehicle they prefer. That's because the larger vehicle makes them feel safer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the IDEA of bike lanes. But I have to say that when I was trying to work and raise three kids, at three different schools, with the associated activities, playdates and doctor's appointments, I could barely manage WITH a car. No chance it would have worked on a bike.

If only there was a safe way for some of your kids to get to some of their destination via mode of transportation that they controlled...

On Connecticut! Are you insane?

If there were protected bike lanes, it would be safer to do this.

Even with a bike lane, CT is too dangerous for anyone up to late teens. You're going to be inches from trucks/buses doing 40+, cars trying to make turns in gaps in traffic, and the general bad driving/aggression of the daily commute. You'll need to be able to read/anticipate traffic in a way that only an experienced rider/driver can do. This is a big part of why I'm not a fan of CT bike lanes. It fails the "would you let a kid ride here by themselves?" test.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a big fan of protected bike lanes but would be more than OK with a car-free lane (a.k.a. bus lane) on CT Ave if the city acquires a couple of dozen more tow trucks and finds a way to use the Western Ave bus station and other various premises throughout the city as impound lots.

It is an active bus repair facility. There isn't space to have it as an impound lot.

If towing is to be a real deterrent and is not going to be outsourced to private companies (which it probably should be, on short contracts to guard against scurrilous behavior) then the city needs to find more places across the city to tow vehicles once impounded. As of now, the one and only city impound lot is in Blue Plains, which is literally the most remote part of the city. Towing a vehicle from NW to there is probably at least a 90 minute round trip. And apparently it’s almost always full.

DC used to contract with private towing companies and it was incredibly corrupt. The companies would more or less just randomly tow (often legally parked) cars, fail to inform car owners where the vehicles had been towed and then charge exorbitant amounts to get them out, or just outright sell the cars if they weren't picked up quickly. It got so bad the feds had to investigate, and the practice was rightfully scrapped early this century.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/01/10/two-sue-dc-police-towing-companies/48ba10b7-8376-46df-a90c-54557809607a/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2001/08/26/some-agencies-knew-of-dc-towing-scheme/32588767-1ff1-42bd-815e-1cd324b8c752/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the IDEA of bike lanes. But I have to say that when I was trying to work and raise three kids, at three different schools, with the associated activities, playdates and doctor's appointments, I could barely manage WITH a car. No chance it would have worked on a bike.

If only there was a safe way for some of your kids to get to some of their destination via mode of transportation that they controlled...

Right on. I and a bunch of other kids I went to school with used to ride our bikes to and from school and activities from middle school up through most of high school. Now.. I am a bit older, so back when this was happening pick up trucks were like 2/3rds the size they are today at worst and SUV's didn't really exist.

The whole bigger is better and safer (maybe for the occupants of that vehicle?) craze that has permeated our country has really taken away freedom from both parents and kids and they didn't even consider it.

Kids already bike to all the schools near Connecticut. Doing it on Connecticut is not needed and something no parent would ever allow their elementary school student to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the IDEA of bike lanes. But I have to say that when I was trying to work and raise three kids, at three different schools, with the associated activities, playdates and doctor's appointments, I could barely manage WITH a car. No chance it would have worked on a bike.

If only there was a safe way for some of your kids to get to some of their destination via mode of transportation that they controlled...

Right on. I and a bunch of other kids I went to school with used to ride our bikes to and from school and activities from middle school up through most of high school. Now.. I am a bit older, so back when this was happening pick up trucks were like 2/3rds the size they are today at worst and SUV's didn't really exist.

The whole bigger is better and safer (maybe for the occupants of that vehicle?) craze that has permeated our country has really taken away freedom from both parents and kids and they didn't even consider it.

Anonymous wrote:I bike a lot and find protected bike lanes more dangerous than taking the lane. Drivers just don’t see cyclists in bike lanes, which makes every intersection a massive risk of a right hook. The two-way bike lanes also become death traps when an irresponsible cyclist rides too fast and out of control from the other direction. No thanks.

I bike five days a week on the average week and will always take a protected lane wherever they are available. When riding on the street, a small but not insignificant proportion of drivers do their utmost to scare the shit out of me by passing at speed and within a few inches. And then there’s the dilemma of whether I should weave in to empty parking spaces to let cars by and risk getting hit when weaving back out before the next parked car. In protected lanes, I don’t have to worry about any of that. There is a risk of getting right hooked but that can be mitigated by defensive cycling.

Anonymous wrote:I bike a lot and find protected bike lanes more dangerous than taking the lane. Drivers just don’t see cyclists in bike lanes, which makes every intersection a massive risk of a right hook. The two-way bike lanes also become death traps when an irresponsible cyclist rides too fast and out of control from the other direction. No thanks.

And the joy of sharing bike lanes w 35 mph e-motorcycles aka e-bikes where rider never pedals at all.

Anonymous wrote:I bike a lot and find protected bike lanes more dangerous than taking the lane. Drivers just don’t see cyclists in bike lanes, which makes every intersection a massive risk of a right hook. The two-way bike lanes also become death traps when an irresponsible cyclist rides too fast and out of control from the other direction. No thanks.

Conn Ave is proposed to be one lane in each direction.

If drivers have issues seeing cyclists in bike lanes, then perhaps they shouldn't be operating 2000+ lb vehicles.

I bike a lot and find protected bike lanes more dangerous than taking the lane. Drivers just don’t see cyclists in bike lanes, which makes every intersection a massive risk of a right hook. The two-way bike lanes also become death traps when an irresponsible cyclist rides too fast and out of control from the other direction. No thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a big fan of protected bike lanes but would be more than OK with a car-free lane (a.k.a. bus lane) on CT Ave if the city acquires a couple of dozen more tow trucks and finds a way to use the Western Ave bus station and other various premises throughout the city as impound lots.

It is an active bus repair facility. There isn't space to have it as an impound lot.

If towing is to be a real deterrent and is not going to be outsourced to private companies (which it probably should be, on short contracts to guard against scurrilous behavior) then the city needs to find more places across the city to tow vehicles once impounded. As of now, the one and only city impound lot is in Blue Plains, which is literally the most remote part of the city. Towing a vehicle from NW to there is probably at least a 90 minute round trip. And apparently it’s almost always full.

Perhaps a parking scofflaw would think twice before having to make the trek there.

That’s not the problem, so much as tasking tow trucks with towing cars to said remote spot is an inefficient way of
using DC’s very limited number of tow trucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a big fan of protected bike lanes but would be more than OK with a car-free lane (a.k.a. bus lane) on CT Ave if the city acquires a couple of dozen more tow trucks and finds a way to use the Western Ave bus station and other various premises throughout the city as impound lots.

It is an active bus repair facility. There isn't space to have it as an impound lot.

If towing is to be a real deterrent and is not going to be outsourced to private companies (which it probably should be, on short contracts to guard against scurrilous behavior) then the city needs to find more places across the city to tow vehicles once impounded. As of now, the one and only city impound lot is in Blue Plains, which is literally the most remote part of the city. Towing a vehicle from NW to there is probably at least a 90 minute round trip. And apparently it’s almost always full.

Perhaps a parking scofflaw would think twice before having to make the trek there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a big fan of protected bike lanes but would be more than OK with a car-free lane (a.k.a. bus lane) on CT Ave if the city acquires a couple of dozen more tow trucks and finds a way to use the Western Ave bus station and other various premises throughout the city as impound lots.

It is an active bus repair facility. There isn't space to have it as an impound lot.

If towing is to be a real deterrent and is not going to be outsourced to private companies (which it probably should be, on short contracts to guard against scurrilous behavior) then the city needs to find more places across the city to tow vehicles once impounded. As of now, the one and only city impound lot is in Blue Plains, which is literally the most remote part of the city. Towing a vehicle from NW to there is probably at least a 90 minute round trip. And apparently it’s almost always full.