NPS: Ban Cars Now in DC Urban Parks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has given an exemption to traffic rules for bicyclists. An exemption they dont get in MD or VA. It may be legal but that doesn't mean it is either right or good policy.

Only someone who hasn't ridden a bike in 30+ years would post this. Physics is your friend, on a bike.

No. Just somebody that walks a lot and has had orders of magnitude more close calls with bicyclists than drivers.

I guess you do all of your walking on the Capital Crescent Trail?

Nope. Downtown. Ward 2 to be specific.

'

Oh, on the Mall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen, Hains Point is a pretty popular location for African-American families to have cookouts, usually involving a fair number of people of all ages (from little kids to seniors). Banning cars in this park would make those types of gatherings very difficult, if not impossible.

I'm guessing the people in favor of the ban on cars don't care about that.

Or park and walk? It’s not that hard to figure out a way for everyone to use the space safely. You just don’t need to be able to drive 100% of the park.

And carry all your food, chairs, grills and other stuff you need for a large family barbecue? While dragging little kids and trying to get seniors with mobility issues from the car to the picnic area?

Hains Point isn't Zion or Glacier National Park. People use it for different things, many of which require people to drive into the park. But, I sense there's a disconnect here between people coming from NW to use the park, versus people coming from SE or NE.

You could get a permit for one car to drive per cookout. Sounds good to me. No it’s not zion but it is a park in an urban area, which makes preserving it even more precious.

I'm sure it sounds great to you, because it doesn't create any burden for you. Imposing burdens on other people is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

right, like cars do ALL THE TIME. you want to make the comparative negative externality argument on cars v bikes v pedestrians, let’s go.

We're talking about a very specific location and use. Many people who use Hains Point need to have car access for those uses. People on here are proposing creating burdens on those uses.

The two deaths of pedestrians, though awful, in no way justifies limiting access to Hains Point by people in cars. Limiting such access would result in an entire category of uses becoming much more difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen, Hains Point is a pretty popular location for African-American families to have cookouts, usually involving a fair number of people of all ages (from little kids to seniors). Banning cars in this park would make those types of gatherings very difficult, if not impossible.

I'm guessing the people in favor of the ban on cars don't care about that.

Or park and walk? It’s not that hard to figure out a way for everyone to use the space safely. You just don’t need to be able to drive 100% of the park.

And carry all your food, chairs, grills and other stuff you need for a large family barbecue? While dragging little kids and trying to get seniors with mobility issues from the car to the picnic area?

Hains Point isn't Zion or Glacier National Park. People use it for different things, many of which require people to drive into the park. But, I sense there's a disconnect here between people coming from NW to use the park, versus people coming from SE or NE.

You could get a permit for one car to drive per cookout. Sounds good to me. No it’s not zion but it is a park in an urban area, which makes preserving it even more precious.

I'm sure it sounds great to you, because it doesn't create any burden for you. Imposing burdens on other people is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

right, like cars do ALL THE TIME. you want to make the comparative negative externality argument on cars v bikes v pedestrians, let’s go.

We're talking about a very specific location and use. Many people who use Hains Point need to have car access for those uses. People on here are proposing creating burdens on those uses.

The two deaths of pedestrians, though awful, in no way justifies limiting access to Hains Point by people in cars. Limiting such access would result in an entire category of uses becoming much more difficult.

Right? These anti-car fanatics want us to use carts in a park to avoid killing and injuring people. It’s nuts!

I was thinking: we should also be able to park on sidewalks when there’s no other parking available. It’s an undue burden on us to have to park a block away or pay for a garage. They are so selfish!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen, Hains Point is a pretty popular location for African-American families to have cookouts, usually involving a fair number of people of all ages (from little kids to seniors). Banning cars in this park would make those types of gatherings very difficult, if not impossible.

I'm guessing the people in favor of the ban on cars don't care about that.

Or park and walk? It’s not that hard to figure out a way for everyone to use the space safely. You just don’t need to be able to drive 100% of the park.

And carry all your food, chairs, grills and other stuff you need for a large family barbecue? While dragging little kids and trying to get seniors with mobility issues from the car to the picnic area?

Hains Point isn't Zion or Glacier National Park. People use it for different things, many of which require people to drive into the park. But, I sense there's a disconnect here between people coming from NW to use the park, versus people coming from SE or NE.

You could get a permit for one car to drive per cookout. Sounds good to me. No it’s not zion but it is a park in an urban area, which makes preserving it even more precious.

I'm sure it sounds great to you, because it doesn't create any burden for you. Imposing burdens on other people is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

right, like cars do ALL THE TIME. you want to make the comparative negative externality argument on cars v bikes v pedestrians, let’s go.

We're talking about a very specific location and use. Many people who use Hains Point need to have car access for those uses. People on here are proposing creating burdens on those uses.

The two deaths of pedestrians, though awful, in no way justifies limiting access to Hains Point by people in cars. Limiting such access would result in an entire category of uses becoming much more difficult.

Right? These anti-car fanatics want us to use carts in a park to avoid killing and injuring people. It’s nuts!

I was thinking: we should also be able to park on sidewalks when there’s no other parking available. It’s an undue burden on us to have to park a block away or pay for a garage. They are so selfish!

Hains Point is not some sort of killing ground. I doubt you ever use it, but cars drive pretty slowly in that park. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars seem to do a pretty good job sharing the space.

Your using the death of these two people to advance your agenda is pretty disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen, Hains Point is a pretty popular location for African-American families to have cookouts, usually involving a fair number of people of all ages (from little kids to seniors). Banning cars in this park would make those types of gatherings very difficult, if not impossible.

I'm guessing the people in favor of the ban on cars don't care about that.

Or park and walk? It’s not that hard to figure out a way for everyone to use the space safely. You just don’t need to be able to drive 100% of the park.

And carry all your food, chairs, grills and other stuff you need for a large family barbecue? While dragging little kids and trying to get seniors with mobility issues from the car to the picnic area?

Hains Point isn't Zion or Glacier National Park. People use it for different things, many of which require people to drive into the park. But, I sense there's a disconnect here between people coming from NW to use the park, versus people coming from SE or NE.

You could get a permit for one car to drive per cookout. Sounds good to me. No it’s not zion but it is a park in an urban area, which makes preserving it even more precious.

I'm sure it sounds great to you, because it doesn't create any burden for you. Imposing burdens on other people is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

right, like cars do ALL THE TIME. you want to make the comparative negative externality argument on cars v bikes v pedestrians, let’s go.

We're talking about a very specific location and use. Many people who use Hains Point need to have car access for those uses. People on here are proposing creating burdens on those uses.

The two deaths of pedestrians, though awful, in no way justifies limiting access to Hains Point by people in cars. Limiting such access would result in an entire category of uses becoming much more difficult.

Right? These anti-car fanatics want us to use carts in a park to avoid killing and injuring people. It’s nuts!

I was thinking: we should also be able to park on sidewalks when there’s no other parking available. It’s an undue burden on us to have to park a block away or pay for a garage. They are so selfish!

Hains Point is not some sort of killing ground. I doubt you ever use it, but cars drive pretty slowly in that park. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars seem to do a pretty good job sharing the space.

Your using the death of these two people to advance your agenda is pretty disgusting.

Good point. We should ignore people dying and the potential causes. It’s not like we’ve killed a high enough number of people to change our ways so…just shrug and move on I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Hains Point is not some sort of killing ground. I doubt you ever use it, but cars drive pretty slowly in that park. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars seem to do a pretty good job sharing the space.

Your using the death of these two people to advance your agenda is pretty disgusting.

Hains Point was a killing ground for 55-year-old Rhonda Whitaker and 60-year-old Waldon Adams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen, Hains Point is a pretty popular location for African-American families to have cookouts, usually involving a fair number of people of all ages (from little kids to seniors). Banning cars in this park would make those types of gatherings very difficult, if not impossible.

I'm guessing the people in favor of the ban on cars don't care about that.

Or park and walk? It’s not that hard to figure out a way for everyone to use the space safely. You just don’t need to be able to drive 100% of the park.

And carry all your food, chairs, grills and other stuff you need for a large family barbecue? While dragging little kids and trying to get seniors with mobility issues from the car to the picnic area?

Hains Point isn't Zion or Glacier National Park. People use it for different things, many of which require people to drive into the park. But, I sense there's a disconnect here between people coming from NW to use the park, versus people coming from SE or NE.

You could get a permit for one car to drive per cookout. Sounds good to me. No it’s not zion but it is a park in an urban area, which makes preserving it even more precious.

I'm sure it sounds great to you, because it doesn't create any burden for you. Imposing burdens on other people is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

right, like cars do ALL THE TIME. you want to make the comparative negative externality argument on cars v bikes v pedestrians, let’s go.

We're talking about a very specific location and use. Many people who use Hains Point need to have car access for those uses. People on here are proposing creating burdens on those uses.

The two deaths of pedestrians, though awful, in no way justifies limiting access to Hains Point by people in cars. Limiting such access would result in an entire category of uses becoming much more difficult.

And who decides that the needs of a few users, which involve transport that takes up a disproportionate share of space and creates literally risks of death to other users, should take precedence? Cars take up far, far more resources than pedetrians and bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hains Point is not some sort of killing ground. I doubt you ever use it, but cars drive pretty slowly in that park. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars seem to do a pretty good job sharing the space.

Your using the death of these two people to advance your agenda is pretty disgusting.

Hains Point was a killing ground for 55-year-old Rhonda Whitaker and 60-year-old Waldon Adams.

Have there been any other pedestrian fatalities on Hains Point in the last 20 years? That would tell us whether this is a systemic problem or one terrible incident with a criminal driver. The road doesn't lend itself to speeding, in my experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hains Point is not some sort of killing ground. I doubt you ever use it, but cars drive pretty slowly in that park. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars seem to do a pretty good job sharing the space.

Your using the death of these two people to advance your agenda is pretty disgusting.

Hains Point was a killing ground for 55-year-old Rhonda Whitaker and 60-year-old Waldon Adams.

Exactly. Plus cars detract from the safe and enjoyable use of everyone, even if they aren't so unfortunate as to get hit by a car. At the bare minimum, they need to restrict cars to one side of the drive, and put in speedbumps literally every 5 feet so nobody can go over 5 mph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hains Point is not some sort of killing ground. I doubt you ever use it, but cars drive pretty slowly in that park. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars seem to do a pretty good job sharing the space.

Your using the death of these two people to advance your agenda is pretty disgusting.

Hains Point was a killing ground for 55-year-old Rhonda Whitaker and 60-year-old Waldon Adams.

Have there been any other pedestrian fatalities on Hains Point in the last 20 years? That would tell us whether this is a systemic problem or one terrible incident with a criminal driver. The road doesn't lend itself to speeding, in my experience.

It obviously "lends itself to speeding," as this incident has shown. And doesn't it bother you in the slightest that there's literally zero news about the driver or charges? Can you imagine any other context where people are recklessly murdered and it's just crickets?

And beyond that, pedestrians and cyclists have the right to their own space. A civilized country doesn't make them jostle with cars in one of the few urban green spaces that exist. That's why Central Park, Prospect Park, and now Rock Creek Park (hopefully) restrict cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've seen, Hains Point is a pretty popular location for African-American families to have cookouts, usually involving a fair number of people of all ages (from little kids to seniors). Banning cars in this park would make those types of gatherings very difficult, if not impossible.

I'm guessing the people in favor of the ban on cars don't care about that.

Or park and walk? It’s not that hard to figure out a way for everyone to use the space safely. You just don’t need to be able to drive 100% of the park.

And carry all your food, chairs, grills and other stuff you need for a large family barbecue? While dragging little kids and trying to get seniors with mobility issues from the car to the picnic area?

Hains Point isn't Zion or Glacier National Park. People use it for different things, many of which require people to drive into the park. But, I sense there's a disconnect here between people coming from NW to use the park, versus people coming from SE or NE.

You could get a permit for one car to drive per cookout. Sounds good to me. No it’s not zion but it is a park in an urban area, which makes preserving it even more precious.

I'm sure it sounds great to you, because it doesn't create any burden for you. Imposing burdens on other people is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

right, like cars do ALL THE TIME. you want to make the comparative negative externality argument on cars v bikes v pedestrians, let’s go.

We're talking about a very specific location and use. Many people who use Hains Point need to have car access for those uses. People on here are proposing creating burdens on those uses.

The two deaths of pedestrians, though awful, in no way justifies limiting access to Hains Point by people in cars. Limiting such access would result in an entire category of uses becoming much more difficult.

Right? These anti-car fanatics want us to use carts in a park to avoid killing and injuring people. It’s nuts!

I was thinking: we should also be able to park on sidewalks when there’s no other parking available. It’s an undue burden on us to have to park a block away or pay for a garage. They are so selfish!

Speed limits. So selfish!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. The weird thing about cyclists is that they think everyone cares about cycling and cyclists. We don’t, okay. No ones going to congratulate you because you think you’re morally superior. Get over yourselves.

I think you've identified the most annoying thing about self-declared cyclists, who I would consider to be a subset of the people who ride bikes. There's a sense of moral superiority about their choice of transportation that you don't see in people who walk, take public transit, or drive. Every argument for more bicycle infrastructure has an almost religious undertone because cycling is the One True Way to travel.

They are morally superior in their choice of travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hains Point is not some sort of killing ground. I doubt you ever use it, but cars drive pretty slowly in that park. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars seem to do a pretty good job sharing the space.

Your using the death of these two people to advance your agenda is pretty disgusting.

Hains Point was a killing ground for 55-year-old Rhonda Whitaker and 60-year-old Waldon Adams.

Have there been any other pedestrian fatalities on Hains Point in the last 20 years? That would tell us whether this is a systemic problem or one terrible incident with a criminal driver. The road doesn't lend itself to speeding, in my experience.

How many people need to be killed or seriously injured before action is justified, in your opinion? Two people isn't enough, evidently. Would three people be enough? Four? Five? Ten?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hains Point is not some sort of killing ground. I doubt you ever use it, but cars drive pretty slowly in that park. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars seem to do a pretty good job sharing the space.

Your using the death of these two people to advance your agenda is pretty disgusting.

Hains Point was a killing ground for 55-year-old Rhonda Whitaker and 60-year-old Waldon Adams.

Have there been any other pedestrian fatalities on Hains Point in the last 20 years? That would tell us whether this is a systemic problem or one terrible incident with a criminal driver. The road doesn't lend itself to speeding, in my experience.

It obviously "lends itself to speeding," as this incident has shown. And doesn't it bother you in the slightest that there's literally zero news about the driver or charges? Can you imagine any other context where people are recklessly murdered and it's just crickets?

And beyond that, pedestrians and cyclists have the right to their own space. A civilized country doesn't make them jostle with cars in one of the few urban green spaces that exist. That's why Central Park, Prospect Park, and now Rock Creek Park (hopefully) restrict cars.

Have there been other incidents? That's my question. This one was clearly terrible and I hope the driver is fully prosecuted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hains Point is not some sort of killing ground. I doubt you ever use it, but cars drive pretty slowly in that park. Pedestrians, cyclists and cars seem to do a pretty good job sharing the space.

Your using the death of these two people to advance your agenda is pretty disgusting.

Hains Point was a killing ground for 55-year-old Rhonda Whitaker and 60-year-old Waldon Adams.

Have there been any other pedestrian fatalities on Hains Point in the last 20 years? That would tell us whether this is a systemic problem or one terrible incident with a criminal driver. The road doesn't lend itself to speeding, in my experience.

It obviously "lends itself to speeding," as this incident has shown. And doesn't it bother you in the slightest that there's literally zero news about the driver or charges? Can you imagine any other context where people are recklessly murdered and it's just crickets?

And beyond that, pedestrians and cyclists have the right to their own space. A civilized country doesn't make them jostle with cars in one of the few urban green spaces that exist. That's why Central Park, Prospect Park, and now Rock Creek Park (hopefully) restrict cars.

Have there been other incidents? That's my question. This one was clearly terrible and I hope the driver is fully prosecuted.

The driver probably won't be prosecuted at all. How many dead people justify action, for you?