Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should change the name of this thread. Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are definitely not back after Monday's presentation.

Councilmember Frumin thinks that they may still happen.

No he doesn't. Why would you post this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour. In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin. Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less. Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume. The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.

Do you ever stop lying. DDOT doesn’t believe and there is no data that backs up what you say. But you try your best to deceive people anyway. Why are you still even doing this? It’s kinda sad to be honest.

But I digress, here is an example of why you present bikes with pedestrians. The DDOT vision zero dashboard shows 4 cyclist crashes in the corridor in 2024. All four were minor injury crashes and none of them involved cars. So they were cyclists crashing themselves in what are essentially single vehicle accidents.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Wrong. The crash reports are captured because the injured called 911.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

You’re also wrong. The MPD crash data does not include whether multiple vehicles were involved. Just location and severity. It’s only for fatal crashes that there is some cause analysis performed that provides this additional level of detail in the data records available online, but it doesn’t assign fault. The only way to know about the conditions surrounding an injury accident, including the number and type of vehicles, you need to file a public records request for the police report. And in many cases the only way to determine who was at fault is to examine court records.

Yes, it does. Whether or not they post the data. But in this case, for injury crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, they do post the data that a car was involved.

Thanks for the clarification. I checked all of the bicycle incidents from this year on Connecticut in the Vision Zero portal and none of them mentioned a car. So it looks like the police do routinely respond to accidents where a cyclist injures themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour. In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin. Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less. Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume. The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.

Do you ever stop lying. DDOT doesn’t believe and there is no data that backs up what you say. But you try your best to deceive people anyway. Why are you still even doing this? It’s kinda sad to be honest.

But I digress, here is an example of why you present bikes with pedestrians. The DDOT vision zero dashboard shows 4 cyclist crashes in the corridor in 2024. All four were minor injury crashes and none of them involved cars. So they were cyclists crashing themselves in what are essentially single vehicle accidents.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Wrong. The crash reports are captured because the injured called 911.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

You’re also wrong. The MPD crash data does not include whether multiple vehicles were involved. Just location and severity. It’s only for fatal crashes that there is some cause analysis performed that provides this additional level of detail in the data records available online, but it doesn’t assign fault. The only way to know about the conditions surrounding an injury accident, including the number and type of vehicles, you need to file a public records request for the police report. And in many cases the only way to determine who was at fault is to examine court records.

Yes, it does. Whether or not they post the data. But in this case, for injury crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, they do post the data that a car was involved.

Thanks for the clarification. I checked all of the bicycle incidents from this year on Connecticut in the Vision Zero portal and none of them mentioned a car. So it looks like the police do routinely respond to accidents where a cyclist injures themselves.

Please go back to page 101 of this thread, scroll all the way down and read how you are also wrong and misinterpreting the data. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Why is this stupid thread still going? You are a bunch of losers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour. In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin. Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less. Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume. The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

The point was about WHEN those crashes occurred. Accidents of all sort happened at a significantly disproprtionate rate during rush hour and they almost all happened within the areas of highest congestion.

An "accident" is running over an acorn and sending it flying to hit someone on the sidewalk. Speeding, looking at your phone, aggressively changing lanes, or cheating lights are things that cause *crashes*. See, the difference here is that someone is actually responsible for a crash and that infrastructure changes can help making being dumb on the road harder.

So is when a bike doesn’t stop at an intersection or goes flying through a crosswalk without dismounting or stopping (for example, despite specific stop signs for cyclists on the paths near the Kennedy Ctr). As a motorist and a cyclist, these situations can lead to accidents.

PP didn't say motorists doing those things. Anyone doing those things is causing CRASHES not accidents. Because preventable.

[Anonymous]

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:Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour. In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin. Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less. Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume. The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.

Do you ever stop lying. DDOT doesn’t believe and there is no data that backs up what you say. But you try your best to deceive people anyway. Why are you still even doing this? It’s kinda sad to be honest.

But I digress, here is an example of why you present bikes with pedestrians. The DDOT vision zero dashboard shows 4 cyclist crashes in the corridor in 2024. All four were minor injury crashes and none of them involved cars. So they were cyclists crashing themselves in what are essentially single vehicle accidents.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Wrong. The crash reports are captured because the injured called 911.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

You’re also wrong. The MPD crash data does not include whether multiple vehicles were involved. Just location and severity. It’s only for fatal crashes that there is some cause analysis performed that provides this additional level of detail in the data records available online, but it doesn’t assign fault. The only way to know about the conditions surrounding an injury accident, including the number and type of vehicles, you need to file a public records request for the police report. And in many cases the only way to determine who was at fault is to examine court records.

Yes, it does. Whether or not they post the data. But in this case, for injury crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, they do post the data that a car was involved.

Thanks for the clarification. I checked all of the bicycle incidents from this year on Connecticut in the Vision Zero portal and none of them mentioned a car. So it looks like the police do routinely respond to accidents where a cyclist injures themselves.

Please go back to page 101 of this thread, scroll all the way down and read how you are also wrong and misinterpreting the data. Thanks.

Huh. So the data that you says publicly exists doesn’t but you want people to take your word for it?

[Anonymous]

https://youtu.be/8nZh7A7qTPo?si=-iocogzcKn_AbZt3

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this stupid thread still going? You are a bunch of losers.

+100

[Anonymous]

The good news is that with all their new free time the bike lane supporters can shift their efforts to other important issues like marijuana dispensaries and getting rid of gas stoves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour. In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin. Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less. Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume. The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.

Do you ever stop lying. DDOT doesn’t believe and there is no data that backs up what you say. But you try your best to deceive people anyway. Why are you still even doing this? It’s kinda sad to be honest.

But I digress, here is an example of why you present bikes with pedestrians. The DDOT vision zero dashboard shows 4 cyclist crashes in the corridor in 2024. All four were minor injury crashes and none of them involved cars. So they were cyclists crashing themselves in what are essentially single vehicle accidents.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Wrong. The crash reports are captured because the injured called 911.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

You’re also wrong. The MPD crash data does not include whether multiple vehicles were involved. Just location and severity. It’s only for fatal crashes that there is some cause analysis performed that provides this additional level of detail in the data records available online, but it doesn’t assign fault. The only way to know about the conditions surrounding an injury accident, including the number and type of vehicles, you need to file a public records request for the police report. And in many cases the only way to determine who was at fault is to examine court records.

Yes, it does. Whether or not they post the data. But in this case, for injury crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, they do post the data that a car was involved.

Thanks for the clarification. I checked all of the bicycle incidents from this year on Connecticut in the Vision Zero portal and none of them mentioned a car. So it looks like the police do routinely respond to accidents where a cyclist injures themselves.

Check again, please. ALL of them include the data that a car was involved.

[Anonymous]

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:Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour. In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin. Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less. Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume. The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.

Do you ever stop lying. DDOT doesn’t believe and there is no data that backs up what you say. But you try your best to deceive people anyway. Why are you still even doing this? It’s kinda sad to be honest.

But I digress, here is an example of why you present bikes with pedestrians. The DDOT vision zero dashboard shows 4 cyclist crashes in the corridor in 2024. All four were minor injury crashes and none of them involved cars. So they were cyclists crashing themselves in what are essentially single vehicle accidents.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Wrong. The crash reports are captured because the injured called 911.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

You’re also wrong. The MPD crash data does not include whether multiple vehicles were involved. Just location and severity. It’s only for fatal crashes that there is some cause analysis performed that provides this additional level of detail in the data records available online, but it doesn’t assign fault. The only way to know about the conditions surrounding an injury accident, including the number and type of vehicles, you need to file a public records request for the police report. And in many cases the only way to determine who was at fault is to examine court records.

Yes, it does. Whether or not they post the data. But in this case, for injury crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, they do post the data that a car was involved.

Thanks for the clarification. I checked all of the bicycle incidents from this year on Connecticut in the Vision Zero portal and none of them mentioned a car. So it looks like the police do routinely respond to accidents where a cyclist injures themselves.

Check again, please. ALL of them include the data that a car was involved.

They do not. They only provide address, CCN, date, Mode, Crash Severity, Ward, ANC, SMD. I am not sure what benefit you derive from lying about something that is easily checked, but it’s weird.

[Anonymous]

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:Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour. In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin. Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less. Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume. The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.

Do you ever stop lying. DDOT doesn’t believe and there is no data that backs up what you say. But you try your best to deceive people anyway. Why are you still even doing this? It’s kinda sad to be honest.

But I digress, here is an example of why you present bikes with pedestrians. The DDOT vision zero dashboard shows 4 cyclist crashes in the corridor in 2024. All four were minor injury crashes and none of them involved cars. So they were cyclists crashing themselves in what are essentially single vehicle accidents.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Wrong. The crash reports are captured because the injured called 911.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

You’re also wrong. The MPD crash data does not include whether multiple vehicles were involved. Just location and severity. It’s only for fatal crashes that there is some cause analysis performed that provides this additional level of detail in the data records available online, but it doesn’t assign fault. The only way to know about the conditions surrounding an injury accident, including the number and type of vehicles, you need to file a public records request for the police report. And in many cases the only way to determine who was at fault is to examine court records.

Yes, it does. Whether or not they post the data. But in this case, for injury crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, they do post the data that a car was involved.

Thanks for the clarification. I checked all of the bicycle incidents from this year on Connecticut in the Vision Zero portal and none of them mentioned a car. So it looks like the police do routinely respond to accidents where a cyclist injures themselves.

Check again, please. ALL of them include the data that a car was involved.

They do not. They only provide address, CCN, date, Mode, Crash Severity, Ward, ANC, SMD. I am not sure what benefit you derive from lying about something that is easily checked, but it’s weird.

To quote the PP:

"You want your shitty proof though I guess. Okay cool beans bro. Go to the Crashes in DC data from MPD on Open Data. There's a CCN on the popup box on the Vision Zero Dashboard, you're gonna need that because its the crash ID that ties the data together. Let's use this one "24038451" as the example. Zoom in on the map to where it was, adjust the little slider at the bottom to the most recent period. Hit the filter button, click on CCN and put in the number. Click the blue dot and scroll down to the different types of things and - oh look its magic, there's a 1 bike and 1 vehicle involved."

https://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/70392a096a8e431381f1f692aaa06afd/explore

On the dashboard you're looking at, it only provides information about the bicyclist BECAUSE ONLY THE BICYCLIST WAS INJURED.

[Anonymous]

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:Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour. In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin. Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less. Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume. The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.

Do you ever stop lying. DDOT doesn’t believe and there is no data that backs up what you say. But you try your best to deceive people anyway. Why are you still even doing this? It’s kinda sad to be honest.

But I digress, here is an example of why you present bikes with pedestrians. The DDOT vision zero dashboard shows 4 cyclist crashes in the corridor in 2024. All four were minor injury crashes and none of them involved cars. So they were cyclists crashing themselves in what are essentially single vehicle accidents.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Wrong. The crash reports are captured because the injured called 911.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

You’re also wrong. The MPD crash data does not include whether multiple vehicles were involved. Just location and severity. It’s only for fatal crashes that there is some cause analysis performed that provides this additional level of detail in the data records available online, but it doesn’t assign fault. The only way to know about the conditions surrounding an injury accident, including the number and type of vehicles, you need to file a public records request for the police report. And in many cases the only way to determine who was at fault is to examine court records.

Yes, it does. Whether or not they post the data. But in this case, for injury crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, they do post the data that a car was involved.

Thanks for the clarification. I checked all of the bicycle incidents from this year on Connecticut in the Vision Zero portal and none of them mentioned a car. So it looks like the police do routinely respond to accidents where a cyclist injures themselves.

Check again, please. ALL of them include the data that a car was involved.

They do not. They only provide address, CCN, date, Mode, Crash Severity, Ward, ANC, SMD. I am not sure what benefit you derive from lying about something that is easily checked, but it’s weird.

To quote the PP:

"You want your shitty proof though I guess. Okay cool beans bro. Go to the Crashes in DC data from MPD on Open Data. There's a CCN on the popup box on the Vision Zero Dashboard, you're gonna need that because its the crash ID that ties the data together. Let's use this one "24038451" as the example. Zoom in on the map to where it was, adjust the little slider at the bottom to the most recent period. Hit the filter button, click on CCN and put in the number. Click the blue dot and scroll down to the different types of things and - oh look its magic, there's a 1 bike and 1 vehicle involved."

https://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/70392a096a8e431381f1f692aaa06afd/explore

On the dashboard you're looking at, it only provides information about the bicyclist BECAUSE ONLY THE BICYCLIST WAS INJURED.

Bike bros gonna bro.

[Anonymous]

Bike-obsessed hater (BOH): Those bikers didn't even crash, they fell off their bikes.
Various posters: No, cars hit them.
BOH: The posted data doesn't say anything about cars.
Various posters: Yes it does.
BOH: Stop lying.
Various posters: Here's the data.
BOH: The posted data doesn't say anything about cars.
Various posters: Yes it does.
BOH: Stop lying.
Various posters: Here's the data.
BOH: "bike bros gonna bro"