Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, no more bike lanes. Cyclist are slow and get in the way of vehicles.

I don't think I'm more important when I'm in a car than when I'm on a bike - or when I'm on foot.

Fair enough, but I think vehicles are more important than bikes. Vehicles include things like trucks which carry goods to stores, ambulances, fire trucks and police cars, which are often in an emergency situation, buses which carry people to work and cars carrying people to and from work etc. Like it or not, roads were not made for cyclists.

OK, so make as many bike lanes as you want as long as it doesn't slow down the vehicle traffic.

Anonymous wrote:
Sorry but you have missed something. Bikes could not possibly carry goods to stores. Well, I guess they could in very, very small amounts. But imagine how long it would take to stock a store or how much more money they would charge for merchandise if stuff was delivered by bike. Also imagine how long it would take to get your mail or packages from someone if they had to cycle it across town.

We need vehicles, but we don't need bikes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, no more bike lanes. Cyclist are slow and get in the way of vehicles.

I don't think I'm more important when I'm in a car than when I'm on a bike - or when I'm on foot.

Fair enough, but I think vehicles are more important than bikes. Vehicles include things like trucks which carry goods to stores, ambulances, fire trucks and police cars, which are often in an emergency situation, buses which carry people to work and cars carrying people to and from work etc. Like it or not, roads were not made for cyclists.

OK, so make as many bike lanes as you want as long as it doesn't slow down the vehicle traffic.

Ok, so except for fire trucks and ambulances all of those things are accomplished by bike as well. People absolutely bike to work and do it much more efficiently than in large cars. Roads were actually originally built for horses and bikes- in the 20th century the lane was redesignated for use by cars. Nothing wrong with changing it back if that is the best, most efficient use of space.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because it is the only way to get from East of the Park to West of the Park, and you need to go that route to get to Rock Creek Parkway from EOTP. The alternative is going through Columbia or Harvard streets which are complete disasters at all time.

I guess if you can afford to live WOTP you wouldn’t get it.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, no more bike lanes. Cyclist are slow and get in the way of vehicles.

I don't think I'm more important when I'm in a car than when I'm on a bike - or when I'm on foot.

Fair enough, but I think vehicles are more important than bikes. Vehicles include things like trucks which carry goods to stores, ambulances, fire trucks and police cars, which are often in an emergency situation, buses which carry people to work and cars carrying people to and from work etc. Like it or not, roads were not made for cyclists.

OK, so make as many bike lanes as you want as long as it doesn't slow down the vehicle traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, no more bike lanes. Cyclist are slow and get in the way of vehicles.

I don't think I'm more important when I'm in a car than when I'm on a bike - or when I'm on foot.

Anonymous wrote:Please, no more bike lanes. Cyclist are slow and get in the way of vehicles.

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?

Cyclists will NEVER obey traffic laws. Ever.

They rely on YOU obeying them to keep them alive.

Anonymous wrote:

With the same idiot drivers who can’t stay on the correct side of the road. I’m sure they’ll check their blind spots every time they turn right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Literally why we can’t have nice things.

The bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will be very nice things. Can't wait!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Literally why we can’t have nice things.

Anonymous wrote:

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.