Bowser promised “zero traffic deaths” 10 years ago, but fatalities have doubled

[Anonymous]

Bowser has systematically removed driving lanes and parking and put in miles of concrete island and thousands of unsightly flexiposts. The theory is that it would all make for safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. But it's more dangerous than ever. Drivers are frustrated and angry by the increased congestion created by Bower's interventions. So drivers rush more, not less. They take more risks than before. And now the move toward universal "no turn in red." It will make things worse. DC is becoming unlivable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bowser has systematically removed driving lanes and parking and put in miles of concrete island and thousands of unsightly flexiposts. The theory is that it would all make for safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. But it's more dangerous than ever. Drivers are frustrated and angry by the increased congestion created by Bower's interventions. So drivers rush more, not less. They take more risks than before. And now the move toward universal "no turn in red." It will make things worse. DC is becoming unlivable.

Induced traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bowser has systematically removed driving lanes and parking and put in miles of concrete island and thousands of unsightly flexiposts. The theory is that it would all make for safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. But it's more dangerous than ever. Drivers are frustrated and angry by the increased congestion created by Bower's interventions. So drivers rush more, not less. They take more risks than before. And now the move toward universal "no turn in red." It will make things worse. DC is becoming unlivable.

What did you expect from a group of activists that want to make driving lanes narrower because cars have gotten wider?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were 35 traffic fatalities in 2022. Here's what happened per the DC government:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- speeding driver
4 deaths -- drunk/stoned driver
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/motorcycle/atv error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

It would appear that about half of traffic deaths in DC have *nothing* to do with how people drive.

Yes they do. They are all caused by cars and inherently have to do with cars driving.

[Anonymous]

Getting rid of Right Turn On Red would make the streets a lot safer — particularly for pedestrians.

RTOR introduced an additional layer of judgements by drivers vs Stop On Red. Many drivers do rolling stops, and some don’t even stop anymore. The more predictable drivers are the safer it will be for pedestrians.

Drivers also need to give pedestrians the right of way — a practice that’s no longer universal. I live near a crosswalk that’s very difficult for pedestrians— and continues to be, even after a traffic light was added several years ago. At certain times of the day, many cars use my local street to reach much larger nearby major avenues, turning left (lots of cars) and right (some cars) from the cross street. When all of us — cars and pedestrians— have the green light, the long line of cars turning left don’t pause for the pedestrians crossing the street. This often leaves pedestrians stranded in the middle of the street that they’re crossing when the light turns red. It’s not safe for pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of Right Turn On Red would make the streets a lot safer — particularly for pedestrians.

RTOR introduced an additional layer of judgements by drivers vs Stop On Red. Many drivers do rolling stops, and some don’t even stop anymore. The more predictable drivers are the safer it will be for pedestrians.

Drivers also need to give pedestrians the right of way — a practice that’s no longer universal. I live near a crosswalk that’s very difficult for pedestrians— and continues to be, even after a traffic light was added several years ago. At certain times of the day, many cars use my local street to reach much larger nearby major avenues, turning left (lots of cars) and right (some cars) from the cross street. When all of us — cars and pedestrians— have the green light, the long line of cars turning left don’t pause for the pedestrians crossing the street. This often leaves pedestrians stranded in the middle of the street that they’re crossing when the light turns red. It’s not safe for pedestrians.

The absolute disregard for pedestrians is so noticeable in DC compared to other places I've lived. When I first moved here I lived near 14th and U. There was cross walk between T and U streets on 14th. If you tried to use that crosswalk people would actively try to run you over -- I saw people accelerate when they say pedestrians enter the crosswalk like they were trying to scare the peds back onto the sidewalk. I basically only used it when there was no traffic.

I can't count the number of times I've been yelled at by drivers in this city for using a cross-walk with a walk signal and the right of way. Recently I was walking my 6 yr old daughter home from school and crossing a street where we had a clear walk signal and a cross walk. A driver turning left (at a high rate of speed) nearly hit us but I thankfully was watching for just this sort of thing and grabbed my DD and jumped us back. I didn't even say anything as I was just making sure we were both okay and catching my breath. The driver then slammed on their breaks rolled down their window and called me a string of expletives out the window before screeching off. This happened at 3:30pm on a Tuesday. And I've had similar experiences before.

I am not a cyclist and don't really care about bike infrastructure. But I sometimes appreciate the bike lanes when they create a buffer between the sidewalk and traffic. Occasionally bicyclists can do scary things too but it's such a tiny fraction compared to the people who drive around this city like they are playing Grand Theft Auto. It's a combination of a very car-centric culture plus a lot of angry and resentful people. At this point I also think a lot of these people are high.

I can't wait to move out of this city and area as soon as my spouse finishes up their tour in their current job. There is something wrong with people here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bowser has systematically removed driving lanes and parking and put in miles of concrete island and thousands of unsightly flexiposts. The theory is that it would all make for safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. But it's more dangerous than ever. Drivers are frustrated and angry by the increased congestion created by Bower's interventions. So drivers rush more, not less. They take more risks than before. And now the move toward universal "no turn in red." It will make things worse. DC is becoming unlivable.

Sounds like the “frustrated and angry” drivers taking more risks need to get a grip. And get more penalties for moving violations that put the rest of us at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of Right Turn On Red would make the streets a lot safer — particularly for pedestrians.

RTOR introduced an additional layer of judgements by drivers vs Stop On Red. Many drivers do rolling stops, and some don’t even stop anymore. The more predictable drivers are the safer it will be for pedestrians.

Drivers also need to give pedestrians the right of way — a practice that’s no longer universal. I live near a crosswalk that’s very difficult for pedestrians— and continues to be, even after a traffic light was added several years ago. At certain times of the day, many cars use my local street to reach much larger nearby major avenues, turning left (lots of cars) and right (some cars) from the cross street. When all of us — cars and pedestrians— have the green light, the long line of cars turning left don’t pause for the pedestrians crossing the street. This often leaves pedestrians stranded in the middle of the street that they’re crossing when the light turns red. It’s not safe for pedestrians.

Pedestrians need to start following the rules and ONLY step off the curb if they have the white walk sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of Right Turn On Red would make the streets a lot safer — particularly for pedestrians.

RTOR introduced an additional layer of judgements by drivers vs Stop On Red. Many drivers do rolling stops, and some don’t even stop anymore. The more predictable drivers are the safer it will be for pedestrians.

Drivers also need to give pedestrians the right of way — a practice that’s no longer universal. I live near a crosswalk that’s very difficult for pedestrians— and continues to be, even after a traffic light was added several years ago. At certain times of the day, many cars use my local street to reach much larger nearby major avenues, turning left (lots of cars) and right (some cars) from the cross street. When all of us — cars and pedestrians— have the green light, the long line of cars turning left don’t pause for the pedestrians crossing the street. This often leaves pedestrians stranded in the middle of the street that they’re crossing when the light turns red. It’s not safe for pedestrians.

Pedestrians need to start following the rules and ONLY step off the curb if they have the white walk sign.

Or what -- you'll murder us.

What is the consequence when drivers run red lights and blow through stop signs and drive well over the speed limit -- nothing.

Don't tell pedestrians what they need to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of Right Turn On Red would make the streets a lot safer — particularly for pedestrians.

RTOR introduced an additional layer of judgements by drivers vs Stop On Red. Many drivers do rolling stops, and some don’t even stop anymore. The more predictable drivers are the safer it will be for pedestrians.

Drivers also need to give pedestrians the right of way — a practice that’s no longer universal. I live near a crosswalk that’s very difficult for pedestrians— and continues to be, even after a traffic light was added several years ago. At certain times of the day, many cars use my local street to reach much larger nearby major avenues, turning left (lots of cars) and right (some cars) from the cross street. When all of us — cars and pedestrians— have the green light, the long line of cars turning left don’t pause for the pedestrians crossing the street. This often leaves pedestrians stranded in the middle of the street that they’re crossing when the light turns red. It’s not safe for pedestrians.

Pedestrians need to start following the rules and ONLY step off the curb if they have the white walk sign.

In this situation they are doing this. The problem is that cars turning onto the street — without pausing for pedestrians— leave pedestrians dangerously stuck in the middle of the street. The pedestrians have the walk light AND the cars that are turning onto the street that the pedestrians are crossing also have a green light. Once the cars start turning, pedestrians can no longer cross the street — even when both pedestrians and cars have green/walk lights.

In the before times, cars used to pause to allow pedestrians already in the crosswalk the right of way to finish crossing the street. Now they don’t, stranding pedestrians in the middle of the street between streams of turning cars, followed by a red light before the pedestrians can finish crossing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of Right Turn On Red would make the streets a lot safer — particularly for pedestrians.

RTOR introduced an additional layer of judgements by drivers vs Stop On Red. Many drivers do rolling stops, and some don’t even stop anymore. The more predictable drivers are the safer it will be for pedestrians.

Drivers also need to give pedestrians the right of way — a practice that’s no longer universal. I live near a crosswalk that’s very difficult for pedestrians— and continues to be, even after a traffic light was added several years ago. At certain times of the day, many cars use my local street to reach much larger nearby major avenues, turning left (lots of cars) and right (some cars) from the cross street. When all of us — cars and pedestrians— have the green light, the long line of cars turning left don’t pause for the pedestrians crossing the street. This often leaves pedestrians stranded in the middle of the street that they’re crossing when the light turns red. It’s not safe for pedestrians.

Pedestrians need to start following the rules and ONLY step off the curb if they have the white walk sign.

That's great, but what about the drivers who don't care that pedestrians have a walk sign.

I always wait for the walk sign. Unfortunately, we have cars that turn off Connecticut and run the red light with pedestrians in the intersection almost every day. There needs to be more enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, they should execute a few illegal ATV riders as a deterrent to other punks.

That's the one level of lawbreaking that the "no cars" crowd never mentions. When and ATV parks in a bike lane their brains melt.

Huh? Did you trip and fall really hard on your head getting out of bed this morning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of Right Turn On Red would make the streets a lot safer — particularly for pedestrians.

RTOR introduced an additional layer of judgements by drivers vs Stop On Red. Many drivers do rolling stops, and some don’t even stop anymore. The more predictable drivers are the safer it will be for pedestrians.

Drivers also need to give pedestrians the right of way — a practice that’s no longer universal. I live near a crosswalk that’s very difficult for pedestrians— and continues to be, even after a traffic light was added several years ago. At certain times of the day, many cars use my local street to reach much larger nearby major avenues, turning left (lots of cars) and right (some cars) from the cross street. When all of us — cars and pedestrians— have the green light, the long line of cars turning left don’t pause for the pedestrians crossing the street. This often leaves pedestrians stranded in the middle of the street that they’re crossing when the light turns red. It’s not safe for pedestrians.

Pedestrians need to start following the rules and ONLY step off the curb if they have the white walk sign.

That's great, but what about the drivers who don't care that pedestrians have a walk sign.

I always wait for the walk sign. Unfortunately, we have cars that turn off Connecticut and run the red light with pedestrians in the intersection almost every day. There needs to be more enforcement.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people on here who are pro driving but also hate traffic. Just move to LA already. Enjoy 18 lanes of jammed traffic in each direction.

Yes this makes me laugh too. What these people don't understand is that the more car-centric a city is the more people choose to drive and thus the more traffic. It's called "induced demand." It's why every time you widen a highway and add more lanes you wind up with more traffic not less.

People who think the key to making their commute easier is to eliminate bike lanes and bus lanes and other alternative forms of transportation are idiots because they don't understand every cyclist is a car not on the road. Every bus is 30-40 cars not on the road. Every metro line is thousands of cars not on the road.

If your goal is less traffic you should support every initiative to encourage people to walk or bike or take public transportation including stuff like Vision Zero that makes those alternatives safer.

If you're successful you might just wind up with a nice relaxing car commute with minimal traffic because everyone else decided to skip the car.

Though admittedly you will have to pay through the nose for parking and you may not be able to drive right up to your office due to closing certain streets to car traffic. But it would be worth it! Imagine Connecticut Avenue with virtually no traffic (except in the bike lanes) at 8am! This is actually what it's like in a lot of cities that have successful shifted most of the population to car-free travel. I was in Sweden over the summer and we rented a car and we were regularly the only car on any given street and could park basically anywhere we wanted (again parking was incredibly pricy in the cities). Probably the easiest and most pleasant driving experience I've ever had. You do have to be very alert to bikes and pedestrians but there are so many of them this isn't that hard -- they have their own wide lanes and traffic signals and as long as you follow the rules you won't have trouble.

"Induced demand" is a lie. It's a bullshit theory made up by car hating weirdos. The average new car now costs almost $50,000. You think if we make traffic run more smoothly, everybody is going to rush out to spend $50,000 on a new car? Give me a break.

+1

So we have another person here who doesn’t understand economics. Do you deny basic physics also? Do you have problems following simple logic? If so, you have a likeminded friend in the author of the post you endorsed.

The city has been trying to make traffic worse for years, and guess what's happened? Driving has become *more* popular. It is the only mode of transportation that's gaining market share. Bus ridership is down, subway ridership is down, cycling is down, even after correcting for the rise of remote work. I think your "induced demand" theory needs a little work.

You are an extremely reliable source of misinformation.

First, popularity of cycling in DC is increasing very rapidly. This article runs through the numbers: https://ggwash.org/view/96705/biking-in-the-district-is-for-normiesthats-a-good-thing

Second, the fact that people shifted from public transport to driving during the pandemic is an argument in favor of - not against - induced demand.

I see a lot of posts in this thread that have sought to educate you. That you persist in ignoring actual science and advancing false claims suggests that you are most probably a troll.

Citing GGW as the authority:

It's not just DC. Biking is down almost everywhere.

Bloomberg News:

Biking to Work Isn’t Gaining Any Ground in the US

Despite growth in New York and a few other big cities, commuting by bicycle is less popular nationwide than it was a decade ago.

"After increased investments in bicycle infrastructure, big experiments with urban bike sharing, an explosion in electric-bike sales and an overall pandemic bike-buying boom, the latest news on bike commuting in the US from the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey is not impressive. An estimated 731,272 Americans used bicycles as their chief means of transportation to work in 2022, up from 2021 but down almost 75,000 from before the pandemic and 175,000 from the peak year of 2014."

We will all die waiting for a shred of evidence that shows cycling is becoming less popular in DC relative to other modes.

Look at the transportation survey released last year by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have driving up by more than 10 percentage points from 2019, even after correcting for remote work. Bicycling and everything else is down during the same time.

And every time you cite that survey, its pointed out that its two-years old, commuting is not representative of all trips, and that the modes vary greatly within this very large metro area. It also shows that drivers are a minority of DC residents. None of this seems to sink through with you though.

So, to recap (according to you):

Official government investigations into the causes of traffic deaths in DC are bullshit

Gold standard transportation surveys that we've been relying on for decades are also bullshit

Book reports by Estonian high school students on "induced demand" are not bullshit

Everyone got it?

Yes, that response is purposely dense. Your gold standard transportation survey is actually a "commuting" survey. A lot of transportation happens outside of commuting you realize right? Take air travel for instance. Lots of people fly right? But not according to your survey. I guess planes are a figment of our imagination. Biking and walking are much more common modes of transportation for errands and entertainment, and that's where the usage is these days. Also, you do realize commuting patterns in 2022 are not being used to make planning decisions, because everyone knows 20-22 are aberrations.

Here's a thought experiment on induced demand. Reverse it. If we decommissioned highways for instance, would fewer people drive to work?

This is how you know induced demand is nonsense. It only makes sense in absurd thought experiments. How about giving me a concrete, real life example from life here in Washington DC? Tell me how many drivers are moved into other modes of transportation by discrete changes in policy. Be specific.

We've had bike lanes for more than 20 years. There's more than 150 miles of them. Over the years, the city has spent billions of dollars promoting bicycling.

Surely, the induced demand crowd can tell us how many drivers all of that has pulled off the road. I believe someone likened induced demand to a law of physics, so the answer should be easy to determine. So let's hear it!

(My suspicion is the answer is close to zero and that all bike lanes really do is pull people off buses and subways and reduce the amount that Washingtonians walk).

Crickets...

People have already linked you the bike share data that demonstrates massive year over year increases before the pandemic, a dip during it, and then new records every single month of the last two calendar years.

"According to a recent report by Transportation for America, the 100 largest urbanized areas expanded their total lane miles 42 percent between 1993 and 2017 (equivalent to more than 30,000 miles of lanes), exceeding their collective 32 percent population growth during that time. Despite all that road construction, total delays in those regions skyrocketed 144 percent."

^induced demand

Shut up.

The question was how many drivers has the bicycle experiment in Washington D.C. gotten off the road. Seems like a pretty basic question. Your nonanswer screams loud and clear that you have no idea.

If you’d like to pay me a few hundred thousand dollars, I could run a survey and devise a methodology to compile an estimate for you. But asking others to do quite time-intensive calculations for you when you’ve demonstrated a strong aversion to credible research findings and have belittled academic researchers is a bit rich.

It is legitimately bonkers that no one can point to a single study from the past 20 years showing that bike lanes in DC do what they say it does. You would think government policy would be based on more than just wishful thinking. The DC government is so depressing.

You are legitimately bonkers.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people on here who are pro driving but also hate traffic. Just move to LA already. Enjoy 18 lanes of jammed traffic in each direction.

Yes this makes me laugh too. What these people don't understand is that the more car-centric a city is the more people choose to drive and thus the more traffic. It's called "induced demand." It's why every time you widen a highway and add more lanes you wind up with more traffic not less.

People who think the key to making their commute easier is to eliminate bike lanes and bus lanes and other alternative forms of transportation are idiots because they don't understand every cyclist is a car not on the road. Every bus is 30-40 cars not on the road. Every metro line is thousands of cars not on the road.

If your goal is less traffic you should support every initiative to encourage people to walk or bike or take public transportation including stuff like Vision Zero that makes those alternatives safer.

If you're successful you might just wind up with a nice relaxing car commute with minimal traffic because everyone else decided to skip the car.

Though admittedly you will have to pay through the nose for parking and you may not be able to drive right up to your office due to closing certain streets to car traffic. But it would be worth it! Imagine Connecticut Avenue with virtually no traffic (except in the bike lanes) at 8am! This is actually what it's like in a lot of cities that have successful shifted most of the population to car-free travel. I was in Sweden over the summer and we rented a car and we were regularly the only car on any given street and could park basically anywhere we wanted (again parking was incredibly pricy in the cities). Probably the easiest and most pleasant driving experience I've ever had. You do have to be very alert to bikes and pedestrians but there are so many of them this isn't that hard -- they have their own wide lanes and traffic signals and as long as you follow the rules you won't have trouble.

"Induced demand" is a lie. It's a bullshit theory made up by car hating weirdos. The average new car now costs almost $50,000. You think if we make traffic run more smoothly, everybody is going to rush out to spend $50,000 on a new car? Give me a break.

+1

So we have another person here who doesn’t understand economics. Do you deny basic physics also? Do you have problems following simple logic? If so, you have a likeminded friend in the author of the post you endorsed.

The city has been trying to make traffic worse for years, and guess what's happened? Driving has become *more* popular. It is the only mode of transportation that's gaining market share. Bus ridership is down, subway ridership is down, cycling is down, even after correcting for the rise of remote work. I think your "induced demand" theory needs a little work.

You are an extremely reliable source of misinformation.

First, popularity of cycling in DC is increasing very rapidly. This article runs through the numbers: https://ggwash.org/view/96705/biking-in-the-district-is-for-normiesthats-a-good-thing

Second, the fact that people shifted from public transport to driving during the pandemic is an argument in favor of - not against - induced demand.

I see a lot of posts in this thread that have sought to educate you. That you persist in ignoring actual science and advancing false claims suggests that you are most probably a troll.

Citing GGW as the authority:

It's not just DC. Biking is down almost everywhere.

Bloomberg News:

Biking to Work Isn’t Gaining Any Ground in the US

Despite growth in New York and a few other big cities, commuting by bicycle is less popular nationwide than it was a decade ago.

"After increased investments in bicycle infrastructure, big experiments with urban bike sharing, an explosion in electric-bike sales and an overall pandemic bike-buying boom, the latest news on bike commuting in the US from the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey is not impressive. An estimated 731,272 Americans used bicycles as their chief means of transportation to work in 2022, up from 2021 but down almost 75,000 from before the pandemic and 175,000 from the peak year of 2014."

We will all die waiting for a shred of evidence that shows cycling is becoming less popular in DC relative to other modes.

Look at the transportation survey released last year by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have driving up by more than 10 percentage points from 2019, even after correcting for remote work. Bicycling and everything else is down during the same time.

And every time you cite that survey, its pointed out that its two-years old, commuting is not representative of all trips, and that the modes vary greatly within this very large metro area. It also shows that drivers are a minority of DC residents. None of this seems to sink through with you though.

So, to recap (according to you):

Official government investigations into the causes of traffic deaths in DC are bullshit

Gold standard transportation surveys that we've been relying on for decades are also bullshit

Book reports by Estonian high school students on "induced demand" are not bullshit

Everyone got it?

Yes, that response is purposely dense. Your gold standard transportation survey is actually a "commuting" survey. A lot of transportation happens outside of commuting you realize right? Take air travel for instance. Lots of people fly right? But not according to your survey. I guess planes are a figment of our imagination. Biking and walking are much more common modes of transportation for errands and entertainment, and that's where the usage is these days. Also, you do realize commuting patterns in 2022 are not being used to make planning decisions, because everyone knows 20-22 are aberrations.

Here's a thought experiment on induced demand. Reverse it. If we decommissioned highways for instance, would fewer people drive to work?

This is how you know induced demand is nonsense. It only makes sense in absurd thought experiments. How about giving me a concrete, real life example from life here in Washington DC? Tell me how many drivers are moved into other modes of transportation by discrete changes in policy. Be specific.

We've had bike lanes for more than 20 years. There's more than 150 miles of them. Over the years, the city has spent billions of dollars promoting bicycling.

Surely, the induced demand crowd can tell us how many drivers all of that has pulled off the road. I believe someone likened induced demand to a law of physics, so the answer should be easy to determine. So let's hear it!

(My suspicion is the answer is close to zero and that all bike lanes really do is pull people off buses and subways and reduce the amount that Washingtonians walk).

Crickets...

People have already linked you the bike share data that demonstrates massive year over year increases before the pandemic, a dip during it, and then new records every single month of the last two calendar years.

"According to a recent report by Transportation for America, the 100 largest urbanized areas expanded their total lane miles 42 percent between 1993 and 2017 (equivalent to more than 30,000 miles of lanes), exceeding their collective 32 percent population growth during that time. Despite all that road construction, total delays in those regions skyrocketed 144 percent."

^induced demand

Shut up.

The question was how many drivers has the bicycle experiment in Washington D.C. gotten off the road. Seems like a pretty basic question. Your nonanswer screams loud and clear that you have no idea.

If you’d like to pay me a few hundred thousand dollars, I could run a survey and devise a methodology to compile an estimate for you. But asking others to do quite time-intensive calculations for you when you’ve demonstrated a strong aversion to credible research findings and have belittled academic researchers is a bit rich.

It is legitimately bonkers that no one can point to a single study from the past 20 years showing that bike lanes in DC do what they say it does. You would think government policy would be based on more than just wishful thinking. The DC government is so depressing.

It's pathetic we can't say whether bike lanes reduce the number of cars on the road or if they merely reduce the amount of walking people do/people taking public transportation. Evidence free policymaking.