Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

No. DDOT won't even release the data it collected on the amount of bicyclists that use it currently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

Not really. First, there is no evidence that CaBi, particularly with the huge amount of subsidies and discounts promoted over the past two years, is not just capturing people who would otherwise use their own bike.

Second, there is no evidence of a relationship between bike sales and bike use. The joke among avid cyclists is that the optimal number of bikes is n+1. Further, a bike is one of those things that everyone thinks that they need to buy for their kids and then they sit in the garage barely used except for that one week in the summer when they go to the beach.

Third, bike theft is rampant and as a result a significant portion of sales could be attributed to replacing stolen bikes.

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

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:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.

But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

get a grip. I don’t know what kind of psychodrama the sight of a bike triggers in you, but it’s really weird.

You hate it when people bring up facts that don’t fit your narrative. Sorry, bro. Facts are facts. The last cyclist killed in DC was in fact killed by another cyclist.

DP. This is obviously a tragedy, and I hope the police prosecute the surviving rider if she violated the law.

But I also don't think the fact that there was a fatal bike crash involving another bike means that's the only thing anyone needs to ever think about related to making it safer to ride a bike in D.C. You would not, for instance, say that the homicide by stabbing committed in southwest D.C. in April means the police should never worry about gun crimes.

Using this horrible death as some sort of weird cudgel or gotcha over public policy questions that long predate this incident doesn't really make it seem like you care any more about the man who died in this crash than the people you're hectoring about it.

Yes, it was a tragedy. But the bike bros love exploiting tragedies as weird cudgels when there’s a car involved, even when the cyclist was doing something illegal and objectively dangerous. The bike crowd also likes to claim that no one gets killed by cyclists. Sorry you don’t like the facts or the shoe being on the other foot.

Nice strawman with the knife murder. You must have a farm with all that straw you throw around.

Ah, so you're arguing with "the bike bros" and "the bike crowd," not with me, an actual person who supports bike lanes and also thinks the woman who killed this guy should go to jail if she broke the law. Good to have that cleared up.

Okay. But how should the cycling infrastructure be changed to reduce do speeds and encourage safe practices? What sorts of traffic enforcement measures should compliment those infrastructure changes to make sure that it never happens again?

One possibility is a "waffle cone" junction. This creates a larger queuing area for people waiting at lights, that then narrows as it crosses the intersection. You wait in the "ice cream" and then proceed down the narrowing cone, and the other direction does the same with an inverted cone.

It might also be worth considering limiting e-bikes to 16ish MPH (25KM) like they do in Europe.

I think CaBi e-bikes are limited to 20mph, which seems reasonable given that the absence of bike lanes across the city means that riders will often have to mix with traffic.

The first best would be for the city to have a comprehensive network of bike lanes and then to aggressively limit the speed of e-bikes, e-scooters and so forth.

But in the absence of that comprehensive network, it’s not clear whether limiting e-bike speeds to well below the speed of traffic helps improve safety.

The comprehensive network exists on paper. The Mayor and bike lane opponents are the problem.

Anonymous wrote:All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?

The project budget calls for an expenditure of almost $10 million, with or without bike lanes. The addition of bike lanes in this case is not a budget issue. Please don't try to use it falsely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.

But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

get a grip. I don’t know what kind of psychodrama the sight of a bike triggers in you, but it’s really weird.

You hate it when people bring up facts that don’t fit your narrative. Sorry, bro. Facts are facts. The last cyclist killed in DC was in fact killed by another cyclist.

It’s fascinating that there has been no vigils, no rallies at the Wilson Building, no commemorative rides, no ghost bike, nothing. Just radio silence from the bike activists hoping that people won’t notice. It’s reveals what a shallow pathetic con this whole charade is.

The silence is very telling. E-bikes are a menace and should be completely banned.

Anonymous wrote:All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?

How would the street be made safer without consideration for cyclists? Sure, they can put in some bulbouts, but if cyclists are left competing with motorists in driving lanes, then it is unsafe for cyclists. If cyclists are left competing with pedestrians on sidewalks, then it is unsafe for pedestrians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.

But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

get a grip. I don’t know what kind of psychodrama the sight of a bike triggers in you, but it’s really weird.

You hate it when people bring up facts that don’t fit your narrative. Sorry, bro. Facts are facts. The last cyclist killed in DC was in fact killed by another cyclist.

DP. This is obviously a tragedy, and I hope the police prosecute the surviving rider if she violated the law.

But I also don't think the fact that there was a fatal bike crash involving another bike means that's the only thing anyone needs to ever think about related to making it safer to ride a bike in D.C. You would not, for instance, say that the homicide by stabbing committed in southwest D.C. in April means the police should never worry about gun crimes.

Using this horrible death as some sort of weird cudgel or gotcha over public policy questions that long predate this incident doesn't really make it seem like you care any more about the man who died in this crash than the people you're hectoring about it.

Yes, it was a tragedy. But the bike bros love exploiting tragedies as weird cudgels when there’s a car involved, even when the cyclist was doing something illegal and objectively dangerous. The bike crowd also likes to claim that no one gets killed by cyclists. Sorry you don’t like the facts or the shoe being on the other foot.

Nice strawman with the knife murder. You must have a farm with all that straw you throw around.

Ah, so you're arguing with "the bike bros" and "the bike crowd," not with me, an actual person who supports bike lanes and also thinks the woman who killed this guy should go to jail if she broke the law. Good to have that cleared up.

Okay. But how should the cycling infrastructure be changed to reduce do speeds and encourage safe practices? What sorts of traffic enforcement measures should compliment those infrastructure changes to make sure that it never happens again?

One possibility is a "waffle cone" junction. This creates a larger queuing area for people waiting at lights, that then narrows as it crosses the intersection. You wait in the "ice cream" and then proceed down the narrowing cone, and the other direction does the same with an inverted cone.

It might also be worth considering limiting e-bikes to 16ish MPH (25KM) like they do in Europe.

We could also limit cars to 20-25 MPH like they do elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

Tens of bikers. Eventually, maybe even dozens.

I imagine this guy on a hinge date:
So, how do you spend your free time?

"Well I spend 8-10 hours/day posting anonymous misinformation about the number of bikers that ride CT ave"

Why is anyone posting on this boring, highly repetitive thread? This should have been locked a long time ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

Tens of bikers. Eventually, maybe even dozens.

I imagine this guy on a hinge date:
So, how do you spend your free time?

"Well I spend 8-10 hours/day posting anonymous misinformation about the number of bikers that ride CT ave"

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

Tens of bikers. Eventually, maybe even dozens.

I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

Anonymous wrote:All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?

Because the 11th hour switcheroo the mayor has pulled here - presumably at the best of commercial developers desperately keen to turn back the clock to February 2020 - would preclude the installation of bike lanes for decades in the future. And building up the city’s network of bike lanes is important for all sorts of reasons, of which safety is one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.

But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

get a grip. I don’t know what kind of psychodrama the sight of a bike triggers in you, but it’s really weird.

You hate it when people bring up facts that don’t fit your narrative. Sorry, bro. Facts are facts. The last cyclist killed in DC was in fact killed by another cyclist.

DP. This is obviously a tragedy, and I hope the police prosecute the surviving rider if she violated the law.

But I also don't think the fact that there was a fatal bike crash involving another bike means that's the only thing anyone needs to ever think about related to making it safer to ride a bike in D.C. You would not, for instance, say that the homicide by stabbing committed in southwest D.C. in April means the police should never worry about gun crimes.

Using this horrible death as some sort of weird cudgel or gotcha over public policy questions that long predate this incident doesn't really make it seem like you care any more about the man who died in this crash than the people you're hectoring about it.

Yes, it was a tragedy. But the bike bros love exploiting tragedies as weird cudgels when there’s a car involved, even when the cyclist was doing something illegal and objectively dangerous. The bike crowd also likes to claim that no one gets killed by cyclists. Sorry you don’t like the facts or the shoe being on the other foot.

Nice strawman with the knife murder. You must have a farm with all that straw you throw around.

Ah, so you're arguing with "the bike bros" and "the bike crowd," not with me, an actual person who supports bike lanes and also thinks the woman who killed this guy should go to jail if she broke the law. Good to have that cleared up.

Okay. But how should the cycling infrastructure be changed to reduce do speeds and encourage safe practices? What sorts of traffic enforcement measures should compliment those infrastructure changes to make sure that it never happens again?

One possibility is a "waffle cone" junction. This creates a larger queuing area for people waiting at lights, that then narrows as it crosses the intersection. You wait in the "ice cream" and then proceed down the narrowing cone, and the other direction does the same with an inverted cone.

It might also be worth considering limiting e-bikes to 16ish MPH (25KM) like they do in Europe.

I think CaBi e-bikes are limited to 20mph, which seems reasonable given that the absence of bike lanes across the city means that riders will often have to mix with traffic.

The first best would be for the city to have a comprehensive network of bike lanes and then to aggressively limit the speed of e-bikes, e-scooters and so forth.

But in the absence of that comprehensive network, it’s not clear whether limiting e-bike speeds to well below the speed of traffic helps improve safety.

All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?