Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

The pro climate change and pro smog contingent weighs in.

A helpful explanation:

When people feel safe walking or biking, then they are more likely to walk or bike than drive. Walking and biking is better for air quality than driving, and emits less carbon, too.

Conversely, when people don't feel safe walking or biking, then they are more likely to drive, which is worse for air quality and emits more carbon.

But I like driving my hybrid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

The pro climate change and pro smog contingent weighs in.

A helpful explanation:

When people feel safe walking or biking, then they are more likely to walk or bike than drive. Walking and biking is better for air quality than driving, and emits less carbon, too.

Conversely, when people don't feel safe walking or biking, then they are more likely to drive, which is worse for air quality and emits more carbon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

It happens every single day in DC, are you on crack?

DP but just no. It does not happen “every single day”. Sorry.

It definitely does happen every single day in DC. Maybe not badly enough to injure the pedestrian and result in a police report, but yes, every single day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

It happens every single day in DC, are you on crack?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

It happens every single day in DC, are you on crack?

DP but just no. It does not happen “every single day”. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

It happens every single day in DC, are you on crack?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

It's better for pedestrians AND cyclists if cars aren't turning right on red, though. The cars aren't "competing" with pedestrians, because the pedestrians have right of way.

Eliminating right on red is silly because no one will obey it and it’s unenforceable. This is just teaching people that traffic laws are meaningless in DC.

Why will no one obey it? Right on red in particular, or traffic laws in general? Should we just get rid of all traffic laws?

Is this a real question? Yes the government can pass whatever laws it likes. It can declare that everyone has to walk backwards on tuesdays and walking forwards that day is illegal but if no one obeys and it’s not enforced all you’ve done is convince people laws are not worthy of respect.

Like stop signs and red lights and speed limits?

NP but yes. Have you driven at rush hour lately? People blow through stop signs and red lights speeding on a regular basis. And this is not speeding up through a yellow light. It’s incredibly dangerous and there are zero consequences. Maybe they get a camera ticket but who would pay that anyway?

So we should just get rid of all traffic laws?

No. You’re missing the point. When the city starts passing laws that seem to have no purpose but to harass drivers and satisfy anti-car fetishists, people ignore the laws, which is worse than not having the law in the first place.

There’s a traffic light near me for example that seems to serve no point whatsoever but slow down traffic and now drivers routinely drive right through the red light. That is stupid and makes everyone worse off. People should obey all traffic laws but the government needs to be a lot more judicious and thoughtful in deciding what is worthy of putting into law.

The point of banning Right Turn On Red is to reduce crashes where drivers hit and injure pedestrians. I think that is worthy of putting into law.

Yeah that almost never happens. This is a solution in search of a problem. I will ignore all bans on turning right on red. If you want to protect people, maybe cyclists be should required to wear helmets.

Almost never means it happens. The way to mitigate it is to simply ban the practice so it never happens.

You must be a huge fan of requiring everyone to take their shoes off at the airport for the rest of eternity because some crazy guy 20 years ago tried to hide a bomb in a shoe.

Except that it's actually quite common. The driver has a red, they roll across the crosswalk into the intersection looking to their left, they can't see anybody on their right because they're looking left, and CRASH. Everybody who has tried to cross with a walk signal has experienced this phenomenon (but hopefully not the crash).

It’s so common that it doesn’t even show up in police statistics.

What does show up is that one quarter of the 40 traffic deaths each year in DC are the fault of the pedestrian/cyclist/scooter.

It doesn't show up in police statistics because there is no box for "driver was turning right on red" on the form.

In DC, in 2022, at least 504 pedestrians and 269 bicyclists were injured in crashes. It's really weird to focus just on deaths, as though there were only two possibilities, no crash or fatal crash.

If it was common, they’d have a category for it.

All these silly rules to prevent things that are already incredibly rare seems reminiscent of life after 9-11 when we adopted lots of dumb precautions because terrorists were supposedly everywhere.

If the streets were dangerous, you wouldn’t see parents putting children on bikes.

If the streets are dangerous, the city needs to stop people from putting kids on bikes. People should not be allowed to put children in dangerous situations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

It's better for pedestrians AND cyclists if cars aren't turning right on red, though. The cars aren't "competing" with pedestrians, because the pedestrians have right of way.

Eliminating right on red is silly because no one will obey it and it’s unenforceable. This is just teaching people that traffic laws are meaningless in DC.

Why will no one obey it? Right on red in particular, or traffic laws in general? Should we just get rid of all traffic laws?

Is this a real question? Yes the government can pass whatever laws it likes. It can declare that everyone has to walk backwards on tuesdays and walking forwards that day is illegal but if no one obeys and it’s not enforced all you’ve done is convince people laws are not worthy of respect.

Like stop signs and red lights and speed limits?

NP but yes. Have you driven at rush hour lately? People blow through stop signs and red lights speeding on a regular basis. And this is not speeding up through a yellow light. It’s incredibly dangerous and there are zero consequences. Maybe they get a camera ticket but who would pay that anyway?

So we should just get rid of all traffic laws?

No. You’re missing the point. When the city starts passing laws that seem to have no purpose but to harass drivers and satisfy anti-car fetishists, people ignore the laws, which is worse than not having the law in the first place.

There’s a traffic light near me for example that seems to serve no point whatsoever but slow down traffic and now drivers routinely drive right through the red light. That is stupid and makes everyone worse off. People should obey all traffic laws but the government needs to be a lot more judicious and thoughtful in deciding what is worthy of putting into law.

The point of banning Right Turn On Red is to reduce crashes where drivers hit and injure pedestrians. I think that is worthy of putting into law.

Yeah that almost never happens. This is a solution in search of a problem. I will ignore all bans on turning right on red. If you want to protect people, maybe cyclists be should required to wear helmets.

Almost never means it happens. The way to mitigate it is to simply ban the practice so it never happens.

You must be a huge fan of requiring everyone to take their shoes off at the airport for the rest of eternity because some crazy guy 20 years ago tried to hide a bomb in a shoe.

Except that it's actually quite common. The driver has a red, they roll across the crosswalk into the intersection looking to their left, they can't see anybody on their right because they're looking left, and CRASH. Everybody who has tried to cross with a walk signal has experienced this phenomenon (but hopefully not the crash).

It’s so common that it doesn’t even show up in police statistics.

What does show up is that one quarter of the 40 traffic deaths each year in DC are the fault of the pedestrian/cyclist/scooter.

It doesn't show up in police statistics because there is no box for "driver was turning right on red" on the form.

In DC, in 2022, at least 504 pedestrians and 269 bicyclists were injured in crashes. It's really weird to focus just on deaths, as though there were only two possibilities, no crash or fatal crash.

If it was common, they’d have a category for it.

All these silly rules to prevent things that are already incredibly rare seems reminiscent of life after 9-11 when we adopted lots of dumb precautions because terrorists were supposedly everywhere.

If the streets were dangerous, you wouldn’t see parents putting children on bikes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

The pro climate change and pro smog contingent weighs in.

A helpful explanation:

When people feel safe walking or biking, then they are more likely to walk or bike than drive. Walking and biking is better for air quality than driving, and emits less carbon, too.

Conversely, when people don't feel safe walking or biking, then they are more likely to drive, which is worse for air quality and emits more carbon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

The pro climate change and pro smog contingent weighs in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.