More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Almost half the deaths are the fault of pedestrians, cyclists and other nondrivers. Maybe start there.

It's also not a great idea to tell drunk and stoned drivers that there are free to do whatever they like (which is the message our reliance on traffic cameras sends to them). If you've ever known anyone with substance problems, they know exactly what they can get away with and they will not think twice about driving when they can barely stand up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Almost half the deaths are the fault of pedestrians, cyclists and other nondrivers. Maybe start there.

It's also not a great idea to tell drunk and stoned drivers that there are free to do whatever they like (which is the message our reliance on traffic cameras sends to them). If you've ever known anyone with substance problems, they know exactly what they can get away with and they will not think twice about driving when they can barely stand up.

First of all, you're posting DC numbers, not Montgomery County numbers. Don't you have a thread about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes to post on?

Second of all, yes, starting there is the whole idea. Making sure that the streets are safe and convenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers to use, and also making sure that even if pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers make a mistake, that mistake doesn't kill them. The great benefit of using this approach is that it actually makes streets safer for everybody, including drivers and passenger.

As a driver, I don't like the idea that it's ok for me to kill someone who was crossing when there was a don't walk sign, and most of my fellow human beings feel the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

It is bizarre Vision Zero even exists. There is literally no traffic enforcement in DC. Anyone can do anything, and no one cares. I see people on e-bikes blowing stop signs going 40mph. There are 12 year olds riding ATV down the center of major streets during rush hour. It's crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Almost half the deaths are the fault of pedestrians, cyclists and other nondrivers. Maybe start there.

It's also not a great idea to tell drunk and stoned drivers that there are free to do whatever they like (which is the message our reliance on traffic cameras sends to them). If you've ever known anyone with substance problems, they know exactly what they can get away with and they will not think twice about driving when they can barely stand up.

First of all, you're posting DC numbers, not Montgomery County numbers. Don't you have a thread about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes to post on?

Second of all, yes, starting there is the whole idea. Making sure that the streets are safe and convenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers to use, and also making sure that even if pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers make a mistake, that mistake doesn't kill them. The great benefit of using this approach is that it actually makes streets safer for everybody, including drivers and passenger.

As a driver, I don't like the idea that it's ok for me to kill someone who was crossing when there was a don't walk sign, and most of my fellow human beings feel the same way.

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

It is bizarre Vision Zero even exists. There is literally no traffic enforcement in DC. Anyone can do anything, and no one cares. I see people on e-bikes blowing stop signs going 40mph. There are 12 year olds riding ATV down the center of major streets during rush hour. It's crazy.

You do not.

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Almost half the deaths are the fault of pedestrians, cyclists and other nondrivers. Maybe start there.

It's also not a great idea to tell drunk and stoned drivers that there are free to do whatever they like (which is the message our reliance on traffic cameras sends to them). If you've ever known anyone with substance problems, they know exactly what they can get away with and they will not think twice about driving when they can barely stand up.

First of all, you're posting DC numbers, not Montgomery County numbers. Don't you have a thread about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes to post on?

Second of all, yes, starting there is the whole idea. Making sure that the streets are safe and convenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers to use, and also making sure that even if pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers make a mistake, that mistake doesn't kill them. The great benefit of using this approach is that it actually makes streets safer for everybody, including drivers and passenger.

As a driver, I don't like the idea that it's ok for me to kill someone who was crossing when there was a don't walk sign, and most of my fellow human beings feel the same way.

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

Montgomery County has a whole Vision Zero website
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/
where you can find the information you're looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

It is bizarre Vision Zero even exists. There is literally no traffic enforcement in DC. Anyone can do anything, and no one cares. I see people on e-bikes blowing stop signs going 40mph. There are 12 year olds riding ATV down the center of major streets during rush hour. It's crazy.

You do not.

I saw someone the other day on an ebike/moped/scooter/whateverthey'recalled in a bicycle lane next to school going probably 40mph only inches from parents getting small children out of cars and then not even slow down for a stop sign.

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

It is bizarre Vision Zero even exists. There is literally no traffic enforcement in DC. Anyone can do anything, and no one cares. I see people on e-bikes blowing stop signs going 40mph. There are 12 year olds riding ATV down the center of major streets during rush hour. It's crazy.

You do not.

I saw someone the other day on an ebike/moped/scooter/whateverthey'recalled in a bicycle lane next to school going probably 40mph only inches from parents getting small children out of cars and then not even slow down for a stop sign.

You saw someone on a motor scooter who was going too fast but not 40 mph.

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

It is bizarre Vision Zero even exists. There is literally no traffic enforcement in DC. Anyone can do anything, and no one cares. I see people on e-bikes blowing stop signs going 40mph. There are 12 year olds riding ATV down the center of major streets during rush hour. It's crazy.

You do not.

I saw someone the other day on an ebike/moped/scooter/whateverthey'recalled in a bicycle lane next to school going probably 40mph only inches from parents getting small children out of cars and then not even slow down for a stop sign.

At the risk of derailing the derail, there is a very interesting tendency that the faster one can go, the less consideration people give when using that mode of transportation. This seems true between categories and within. Pedestrians are more courteous than drivers for instance. People on regular CABI bikes are more courteous than lycranauts and they are in turn more courteous than people with E-bikes.

There seems to be something inherently anti-social about speed, especially when it is easily delivered.

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Almost half the deaths are the fault of pedestrians, cyclists and other nondrivers. Maybe start there.

It's also not a great idea to tell drunk and stoned drivers that there are free to do whatever they like (which is the message our reliance on traffic cameras sends to them). If you've ever known anyone with substance problems, they know exactly what they can get away with and they will not think twice about driving when they can barely stand up.

First of all, you're posting DC numbers, not Montgomery County numbers. Don't you have a thread about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes to post on?

Second of all, yes, starting there is the whole idea. Making sure that the streets are safe and convenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers to use, and also making sure that even if pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers make a mistake, that mistake doesn't kill them. The great benefit of using this approach is that it actually makes streets safer for everybody, including drivers and passenger.

As a driver, I don't like the idea that it's ok for me to kill someone who was crossing when there was a don't walk sign, and most of my fellow human beings feel the same way.

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

Montgomery County has a whole Vision Zero website
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/
where you can find the information you're looking for.

That is not a one for one comparison. What are the causes of the fatality accidents in Montgomery County?

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Almost half the deaths are the fault of pedestrians, cyclists and other nondrivers. Maybe start there.

It's also not a great idea to tell drunk and stoned drivers that there are free to do whatever they like (which is the message our reliance on traffic cameras sends to them). If you've ever known anyone with substance problems, they know exactly what they can get away with and they will not think twice about driving when they can barely stand up.

First of all, you're posting DC numbers, not Montgomery County numbers. Don't you have a thread about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes to post on?

Second of all, yes, starting there is the whole idea. Making sure that the streets are safe and convenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers to use, and also making sure that even if pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers make a mistake, that mistake doesn't kill them. The great benefit of using this approach is that it actually makes streets safer for everybody, including drivers and passenger.

As a driver, I don't like the idea that it's ok for me to kill someone who was crossing when there was a don't walk sign, and most of my fellow human beings feel the same way.

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

Montgomery County has a whole Vision Zero website
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/
where you can find the information you're looking for.

That is not a one for one comparison. What are the causes of the fatality accidents in Montgomery County?

Motor vehicle speed.

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

It is bizarre Vision Zero even exists. There is literally no traffic enforcement in DC. Anyone can do anything, and no one cares. I see people on e-bikes blowing stop signs going 40mph. There are 12 year olds riding ATV down the center of major streets during rush hour. It's crazy.

You do not.

I saw someone the other day on an ebike/moped/scooter/whateverthey'recalled in a bicycle lane next to school going probably 40mph only inches from parents getting small children out of cars and then not even slow down for a stop sign.

At the risk of derailing the derail, there is a very interesting tendency that the faster one can go, the less consideration people give when using that mode of transportation. This seems true between categories and within. Pedestrians are more courteous than drivers for instance. People on regular CABI bikes are more courteous than lycranauts and they are in turn more courteous than people with E-bikes.

There seems to be something inherently anti-social about speed, especially when it is easily delivered.

We have a broken windows problem.

Everyone sees, on a daily basis, cyclists ignoring basically all traffic laws. Other people on two wheels see that and internalize that and think to themselves "if they can do it, so can I." Now we have people on ebikes and mopeds and things that look like they could be rounded up to motorcycles treating stop signs and traffic lights like they are optional.

Some of those things are really heavy and if you get hit by one, you could die. It's a dangerous situation but no one seems to care.

But, sure, "Vision Zero"....

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Almost half the deaths are the fault of pedestrians, cyclists and other nondrivers. Maybe start there.

It's also not a great idea to tell drunk and stoned drivers that there are free to do whatever they like (which is the message our reliance on traffic cameras sends to them). If you've ever known anyone with substance problems, they know exactly what they can get away with and they will not think twice about driving when they can barely stand up.

First of all, you're posting DC numbers, not Montgomery County numbers. Don't you have a thread about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes to post on?

Second of all, yes, starting there is the whole idea. Making sure that the streets are safe and convenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers to use, and also making sure that even if pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers make a mistake, that mistake doesn't kill them. The great benefit of using this approach is that it actually makes streets safer for everybody, including drivers and passenger.

As a driver, I don't like the idea that it's ok for me to kill someone who was crossing when there was a don't walk sign, and most of my fellow human beings feel the same way.

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

Montgomery County has a whole Vision Zero website
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/
where you can find the information you're looking for.

That is not a one for one comparison. What are the causes of the fatality accidents in Montgomery County?

Motor vehicle speed.

Its also hood-height. Trucks/SUVs kill at lower speeds because of how tall they are. They also can't see.

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Almost half the deaths are the fault of pedestrians, cyclists and other nondrivers. Maybe start there.

It's also not a great idea to tell drunk and stoned drivers that there are free to do whatever they like (which is the message our reliance on traffic cameras sends to them). If you've ever known anyone with substance problems, they know exactly what they can get away with and they will not think twice about driving when they can barely stand up.

First of all, you're posting DC numbers, not Montgomery County numbers. Don't you have a thread about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes to post on?

Second of all, yes, starting there is the whole idea. Making sure that the streets are safe and convenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers to use, and also making sure that even if pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers make a mistake, that mistake doesn't kill them. The great benefit of using this approach is that it actually makes streets safer for everybody, including drivers and passenger.

As a driver, I don't like the idea that it's ok for me to kill someone who was crossing when there was a don't walk sign, and most of my fellow human beings feel the same way.

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

Montgomery County has a whole Vision Zero website
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/
where you can find the information you're looking for.

That is not a one for one comparison. What are the causes of the fatality accidents in Montgomery County?

Motor vehicle speed.

Wrong. Try again.

[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:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

You are ignoring the real-world trade offs that are involved in something like vision zero. Traffic deaths will never be zero unless we reduce the speed limits to 15 mph everywhere. There are very serious and negative consequences to reducing the speed limits substantially. For example, my doctors office that is now 30 around minutes away will take me around 1 hour and 30 minutes to get to if we lower the speed limit to 15mph. Multiply increases in transportation time across all of the county residents and the amount of time wasted will be astronomical. MOCO only has 39 traffic deaths per year on average. Applying the average demographics of MOCO residents indicates the the each of these people that die in a car accident are losing about 341,871 hours of their life. So any policy that waste more than this amount of other peoples time each year for every death prevented in car accidents is not a smart policy decision. Increasing the average daily driving time by 6 minutes a day for even 10,000 county residents wastes more hours than of peoples time than the hours of life gained by a single person who does not die in a car accident. I am supportive of policies that reduce traffic deaths given that a sufficient cost-benefit analysis is conducted. But it is foolish to pretend that any of these policies provide a free lunch. There are tradeoffs with pursuing policies and the vision zero proponents are largely ignoring this.

Are you listening to yourself?

I am not the PP, but the PP is a realist. Traffic deaths will NEVER be ZERO. Not really possible. Similarly, poverty will never be eliminated. You can work on the edges, which we should of course do. But ZERO is not humanly possible. Welcome to the real world, where bad sh-t happens unfortunately.

It is possible to have zero car crash deaths, though.

However, for the sake of argument: what do you consider an acceptable number of people killed in car crashes?

The acceptable level is determine by how much the government can reasonably afford to spend to reduce it and the impact on overall commute time. This is no different than society determining that there is a maximum amount that is reasonable to spend on medical care to prevent one death. The government cannot afford to spend (and should not) spend 1 million dollars on medical care for a cancer therapy that boost a persons life expectancy by one year. Spending exorbitant amount of money for small gains it wasteful and it allocates resources to activities that provide minimal benefits to society. There is a absolutely a value that must be assigned to human life because no government has unlimited resources. We need to prioritize spending where it has the largest impact and benefit for society.

Currently it's about 40 people killed in car crashes every year in Montgomery County. Is that an acceptable number for you?

Lets get real. Some of those 40 deaths are really due to pedestrian stupidity. A few weeks ago, I witnessed several teenagers hot riding and waving their bikes through Bethesda. I see pedestrians regularly cross major streets without really looking out for traffic. I myself regularly j-walk in downtown DC. Simple fact is some pedestrian deaths are due to the stupidity of those pedestrians.

Ok, so 40 people killed in car crashes every year in Montgomery County is an acceptable number for you. You're good with that.

I think that what they are saying is that some of the deaths are just casual suicides, and you can’t plan around those.

"Casual suicide"?

Some of the deaths are actual suicides, and yes, you actually can take actions to prevent them. Suicide barriers on bridges, for example.

Strokes, seizures, and heart attacks are not something that can be prevented.

Vision Zero was supposed to be an aspirational rhetorical goal. It is not possible to achieve.

You can design resilient infrastructure such that strokes, seizures and heart attacks don't cause as much damage.

The "resilient infrastructure", ie: concrete blocks, just makes it more likely that the person having the health emergency gets killed. It's trading one potential death for another and at best is death neutral.

The impact is taken up by a vehicle, rather than by a body. Bollards forever.