NPS: Ban Cars Now in DC Urban Parks

[Anonymous]

Biden could fix this instantly with an EO. But he hasn’t. It’s time to ask why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden could fix this instantly with an EO. But he hasn’t. It’s time to ask why.

Because it's stupid and unpopular

[Anonymous]

I'm really warming up to the idea of putting in a bunch of speed bumps on Ohio Drive in East Potomac Park. It will slow down cars AND ruin one of the most popular cycle routes in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really warming up to the idea of putting in a bunch of speed bumps on Ohio Drive in East Potomac Park. It will slow down cars AND ruin one of the most popular cycle routes in the area.

Why aren't there more speed bumps in DC? Seems like an easy solution to all the speeding.

Or is it that they don't collect revenue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP: Notice how the.cyclists.are using pedestrian deaths to advance a pro-cyclist (not a pedestrian) agenda. It really is very disgusting. Cyclists don't care about pedestrains. Pedestrians are just pawns in their war with cars.

PP, we're all anonymous here. How do you know which of the posts come from people who ride a bike? Let alone who exclusively ride a bike and never, ever walk (assuming that's even possible)?

Because pedestrians need a car to get to Hains Point. You're not trying to help pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm really warming up to the idea of putting in a bunch of speed bumps on Ohio Drive in East Potomac Park. It will slow down cars AND ruin one of the most popular cycle routes in the area.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really warming up to the idea of putting in a bunch of speed bumps on Ohio Drive in East Potomac Park. It will slow down cars AND ruin one of the most popular cycle routes in the area.

Why aren't there more speed bumps in DC? Seems like an easy solution to all the speeding.

Or is it that they don't collect revenue?

DC doesn't actually care about speeding. On most neighborhood type roads it's hard to speed because they are fairly narrow and have stop signs or lights every block. On the state-named roads they are just trying to move people in and out of town as quickly as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP: Notice how the.cyclists.are using pedestrian deaths to advance a pro-cyclist (not a pedestrian) agenda. It really is very disgusting. Cyclists don't care about pedestrains. Pedestrians are just pawns in their war with cars.

PP, we're all anonymous here. How do you know which of the posts come from people who ride a bike? Let alone who exclusively ride a bike and never, ever walk (assuming that's even possible)?

Because pedestrians need a car to get to Hains Point. You're not trying to help pedestrians.

The only ways to get to Hains Point are (1) by car and (2) by bike? That seems like a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are objective standards to tell us whether a particular roadway is dangerous. You're the one claiming Hains Point is dangerous for pedestrians. If you're so sure of that, you should be able to provide evidence of your claim.

If your definition of a "safe" roadway is no deaths, ever, then there's no safe roadway in the world.

No, there aren't. There are subjective standards, for example: one or more serious injuries or deaths in a five-year period. By that standard, Hains Point is dangerous.

As for your second statement, it illustrates how much we in the US accept road deaths as normal and unavoidable. But road deaths are avoidable, and we should not accept road deaths as normal.

By that standard bicycles should be banned as well. Just so you know.

How many bicyclists have killed or seriously injured pedestrians on Ohio Drive in the last five years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are objective standards to tell us whether a particular roadway is dangerous. You're the one claiming Hains Point is dangerous for pedestrians. If you're so sure of that, you should be able to provide evidence of your claim.

If your definition of a "safe" roadway is no deaths, ever, then there's no safe roadway in the world.

No, there aren't. There are subjective standards, for example: one or more serious injuries or deaths in a five-year period. By that standard, Hains Point is dangerous.

As for your second statement, it illustrates how much we in the US accept road deaths as normal and unavoidable. But road deaths are avoidable, and we should not accept road deaths as normal.

And you're engaging in sophistry if you make that argument. Using that standard, we'd have to close down most roads in the US.

Road deaths are not avoidable. So long as we have roads, people will die on them. We do a cost benefit analysis when deciding what level of road deaths are acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are objective standards to tell us whether a particular roadway is dangerous. You're the one claiming Hains Point is dangerous for pedestrians. If you're so sure of that, you should be able to provide evidence of your claim.

If your definition of a "safe" roadway is no deaths, ever, then there's no safe roadway in the world.

No, there aren't. There are subjective standards, for example: one or more serious injuries or deaths in a five-year period. By that standard, Hains Point is dangerous.

As for your second statement, it illustrates how much we in the US accept road deaths as normal and unavoidable. But road deaths are avoidable, and we should not accept road deaths as normal.

By that standard bicycles should be banned as well. Just so you know.

How many times have bicyclists caused serious injuries or deaths at Hains Point in the past five years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP: Notice how the.cyclists.are using pedestrian deaths to advance a pro-cyclist (not a pedestrian) agenda. It really is very disgusting. Cyclists don't care about pedestrains. Pedestrians are just pawns in their war with cars.

PP, we're all anonymous here. How do you know which of the posts come from people who ride a bike? Let alone who exclusively ride a bike and never, ever walk (assuming that's even possible)?

Because pedestrians need a car to get to Hains Point. You're not trying to help pedestrians.

The only ways to get to Hains Point are (1) by car and (2) by bike? That seems like a problem.

There's a bus stop as well, IIRC. And you can walk from a couple of Metro stops, if you really want to.

The park isn't in a residential area, so it's never going to be easy to get there on foot, based on distances to the nearest residential areas in Foggy Bottom,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are objective standards to tell us whether a particular roadway is dangerous. You're the one claiming Hains Point is dangerous for pedestrians. If you're so sure of that, you should be able to provide evidence of your claim.

If your definition of a "safe" roadway is no deaths, ever, then there's no safe roadway in the world.

No, there aren't. There are subjective standards, for example: one or more serious injuries or deaths in a five-year period. By that standard, Hains Point is dangerous.

As for your second statement, it illustrates how much we in the US accept road deaths as normal and unavoidable. But road deaths are avoidable, and we should not accept road deaths as normal.

And you're engaging in sophistry if you make that argument. Using that standard, we'd have to close down most roads in the US.

Road deaths are not avoidable. So long as we have roads, people will die on them. We do a cost benefit analysis when deciding what level of road deaths are acceptable.

There you go. Road deaths absolutely are avoidable. We choose not do. It's a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are objective standards to tell us whether a particular roadway is dangerous. You're the one claiming Hains Point is dangerous for pedestrians. If you're so sure of that, you should be able to provide evidence of your claim.

If your definition of a "safe" roadway is no deaths, ever, then there's no safe roadway in the world.

No, there aren't. There are subjective standards, for example: one or more serious injuries or deaths in a five-year period. By that standard, Hains Point is dangerous.

As for your second statement, it illustrates how much we in the US accept road deaths as normal and unavoidable. But road deaths are avoidable, and we should not accept road deaths as normal.

And you're engaging in sophistry if you make that argument. Using that standard, we'd have to close down most roads in the US.

Road deaths are not avoidable. So long as we have roads, people will die on them. We do a cost benefit analysis when deciding what level of road deaths are acceptable.

and my cost-benefit analysis is that a park should be a sanctuary from road death. restrict the cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP: Notice how the.cyclists.are using pedestrian deaths to advance a pro-cyclist (not a pedestrian) agenda. It really is very disgusting. Cyclists don't care about pedestrains. Pedestrians are just pawns in their war with cars.

PP, we're all anonymous here. How do you know which of the posts come from people who ride a bike? Let alone who exclusively ride a bike and never, ever walk (assuming that's even possible)?

Because pedestrians need a car to get to Hains Point. You're not trying to help pedestrians.

The only ways to get to Hains Point are (1) by car and (2) by bike? That seems like a problem.

There's a bus stop as well, IIRC. And you can walk from a couple of Metro stops, if you really want to.

The park isn't in a residential area, so it's never going to be easy to get there on foot, based on distances to the nearest residential areas in Foggy Bottom,

cars could be limited to a few parking lots. they do not need access to the whole park. people who need to bring a ton of stuff can just find a picnic spot near the lot, or get a few wagons.