Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The relationship between bike lanes and increased crashes was further validated in this published study of bike lanes in Denver. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338530884_The_Relationship_between_Separated_Bicycle_Lanes_and_Bicycle_Crashes_In_Denver_Colorado |
Anonymous
You are quoting an unpublished paper by a master's student in architecture which has no coherent strategy for causal inference. A sea cucumber could find better studies. |
Anonymous
Do you expect us to take your word for it? I didn't and, low and behold, the executive summary describes the finds as follows: "Overall, the analysis found that the bicycle treatments improved conditions for cycling without negatively impacting other modes in the vicinity of the investment." |
Anonymous
The ADA covers a ton of groups, not just what people would "normally" think of as those who have impairments or disabilities for walking. "All ADA" is a huge list of covered conditions. Why would I repeat that here? I'm saying provide priority parking on avenues *only* to those covered groups and to some of those who are not covered by it like the expecting or people with young children. |
Anonymous
More cyclists were observed... again, the rate of accidents did not increase, the absolute number of cyclists and accidents did. And the latter increased at a slower rate than the former. Any other shitshow interpretations of stats you want to try to throw around? |
Anonymous
I have worked in disability rights and have never seen or heard the term "ADA groups." |
Anonymous
I mean, I'm covered by the ADA because I have type 1 diabetes. I don't think that should entitle me to priority parking anywhere. Saying anyone who's protected by the ADA gets a parking spot is a good way to build more parking spots. |
Anonymous
That is a qualitative finding. The quantitative findings, supported the DDOT data, are that the number of accidents increased and 42% of cyclists did not respect red lights. |
Anonymous
You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data. |
Anonymous
How does that sentence you pulled out of context invalidate the DDOT data that accidents increased after bike infrastructure was installed and that 42% of cyclists did not obey red lights? Curious to understand from a smart person like you. |
Anonymous
LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study? |
Anonymous
My god you’re thick. DDOT says that there were more accidents where bike infrastructure was installed and that cyclists didn’t stop at red lights 42% of the time. You somehow think that’s invalidated because of a banal statement about impacts to other modes? |
Anonymous
You clearly have no understanding of causal inference. That’s why DDOT hires professionals to write these reports and not you. It’s not my job to explain to you what you don’t get and have no desire to learn. Please just get to grips with the fact that this is over your head and move on. |
Anonymous
This is observational data. It requires no further analysis. Or perhaps you can explain the “casual inference” behind the observation that 42% of cyclists cannot obey the law at a red light. |
Anonymous
The frequency of crashes did go up after installing the bike infrastructure, yes, but you failed to note that the volume of bikes also went way up. At one location, bike volume increased by 133 percent in the A.M. rush hour and 185 percent in the p.m. rush hour, while crashes increased from 4 in the previous 4 years to 5 in 13 months. But you'd expect crashes to go up if there are so many more bikes! At another location, volume was up 200 percent while crashes increased from 6 in 4 years to 9 in 14 months. And at the 15th Street cycletrack, bike volume increased by 206 percent (by 272 percent a little further north on the track) while crashes remained steady. Seems like a reasonable argument for protected bike lanes. Personally, the only time I've ever been hit by a car on my bike was in an unprotected bike lane, when an Uber driver ran into me because, as he told me, he didn't see me. So I'm not at all surprised that a large increase in bike traffic also means a small increase in people on bikes being hit by cars. You are correct about the 42 percent red light-running figure, but the report doesn't differentiate between "the bike just blew through the light without slowing" or "the bike stopped or slowed approaching a red light and then proceeded through when it was clear," both of which were just straight-up violations in 2012, when this study was commissioned, but only one of which would be illegal soon under D.C.'s new bike laws. Just for what it's worth. |