Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
The ratio of bicyclists to pedestrians is 1:100
Irrelevant, even if true.
There are almost as many motorcyclists as bicyclists on Connecticut. Heck, more dogs use Connecticut than either of them.
30,000 cars, 3,000 pedestrians and 30 bicyclists. Why are we spending any time or effort catering to the abdolutist demands of the 0.01%?
Because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
The bike lanes would have the same impact as the bulb-outs in terms of shortening the crossing distance with the added benefit that kids at Murch could also ride safely to their school.
Frumin proposed to cut funding for bulb-outs near Murch unless the bike lanes are built.
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.
When there are scooters and cyclists on the sidewalk, how is that safer for pedestrians?
Aren’t scooters supposed to be banned from sidewalks. Bikes and scooters should be prohibited on sidewalks not just in the downtown business district but in all DC business districts. That’s where slow moving pedestrians are most likely to be present.
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.
When there are scooters and cyclists on the sidewalk, how is that safer for pedestrians?
Aren’t scooters supposed to be banned from sidewalks. Bikes and scooters should be prohibited on sidewalks not just in the downtown business district but in all DC business districts. That’s where slow moving pedestrians are most likely to be present.
There's only 30 of them on Connecticut so it doesn't really matter.
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
The ratio of bicyclists to pedestrians is 1:100
Irrelevant, even if true.
There are almost as many motorcyclists as bicyclists on Connecticut. Heck, more dogs use Connecticut than either of them.
30,000 cars, 3,000 pedestrians and 30 bicyclists. Why are we spending any time or effort catering to the abdolutist demands of the 0.01%?
Because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
Praise be the Bike Lane! Is there anything they don't make better? They're the bacon of urban planning!
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
The ratio of bicyclists to pedestrians is 1:100
Irrelevant, even if true.
There are almost as many motorcyclists as bicyclists on Connecticut. Heck, more dogs use Connecticut than either of them.
30,000 cars, 3,000 pedestrians and 30 bicyclists. Why are we spending any time or effort catering to the abdolutist demands of the 0.01%?
Because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
Praise be the Bike Lane! Is there anything they don't make better? They're the bacon of urban planning!
Connecticut Ave bike lanes are the secret ingredient for more vibrant urban dense mixed-use!
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.
When there are scooters and cyclists on the sidewalk, how is that safer for pedestrians?
Aren’t scooters supposed to be banned from sidewalks. Bikes and scooters should be prohibited on sidewalks not just in the downtown business district but in all DC business districts. That’s where slow moving pedestrians are most likely to be present.
So you want to basically ban scooters and bikes city wide?
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
The ratio of bicyclists to pedestrians is 1:100
Irrelevant, even if true.
There are almost as many motorcyclists as bicyclists on Connecticut. Heck, more dogs use Connecticut than either of them.
30,000 cars, 3,000 pedestrians and 30 bicyclists. Why are we spending any time or effort catering to the abdolutist demands of the 0.01%?
I saw over 30 cyclists on my drive into downtown yesterday on Connecticut Avenue. I don't know why you think that 20 minute drive for me encompasses ALL of the cyclists using the Avenue each day.
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.
When there are scooters and cyclists on the sidewalk, how is that safer for pedestrians?
Aren’t scooters supposed to be banned from sidewalks. Bikes and scooters should be prohibited on sidewalks not just in the downtown business district but in all DC business districts. That’s where slow moving pedestrians are most likely to be present.
So you want to basically ban scooters and bikes city wide?
Not bikes, but even Paris banned those effing scooters.
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
The ratio of bicyclists to pedestrians is 1:100
Irrelevant, even if true.
There are almost as many motorcyclists as bicyclists on Connecticut. Heck, more dogs use Connecticut than either of them.
30,000 cars, 3,000 pedestrians and 30 bicyclists. Why are we spending any time or effort catering to the abdolutist demands of the 0.01%?
I saw over 30 cyclists on my drive into downtown yesterday on Connecticut Avenue. I don't know why you think that 20 minute drive for me encompasses ALL of the cyclists using the Avenue each day.
Because those were the numbers DDOT counted on a beautiful day in September during the pandemic.
It doesn't account for turn offs etc. That's so the number can be a like for like comparison to all the other numbers. Otherwise the calculation for cars/buses/trucks and pedestrians would be way higher than 30,000 and 3,000 respectively.
Anonymous wrote:The bike lobby is seeking to defund DDOT’s new plan for Connecticut Ave. So maybe there will be no changes in the end.
It is awn awful plan that uses little of modern transportation planning tactics. Even the folks at DDOT don't want to do this, so the proposed plan is likely not to happen at all. The status quo is literally better than what DDOT has planned.
Parents that walk their kids to school at Murch feel differently. The proposed bump outs will improve crossing for pedestrians, particularly school kids, but cyclists dgaf about pedestrians so that explains your nihilistic attitude.
If the plan were truly about safety, there would also be protected bike lanes, because protected bike lanes have been proven to make streets safer for everyone.
That’s false and doesn’t make any sense. A bump out is safer for pedestrians for crossing a street than having to frogger across a bike lane before crossing the street.
When there are scooters and cyclists on the sidewalk, how is that safer for pedestrians?
Aren’t scooters supposed to be banned from sidewalks. Bikes and scooters should be prohibited on sidewalks not just in the downtown business district but in all DC business districts. That’s where slow moving pedestrians are most likely to be present.
So you want to basically ban scooters and bikes city wide?
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."
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}