Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

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.

LMFAO. So now you’ve shifted from personal insults and “casual inference” to excuses. You’re an absolute clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

Are you an imbecile or just pretending to be one? Inferring from a few data points that "installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents" is your attempt at "further analysis". And it's completely daft. Maybe others have the patience to explain to you why. I don't. Please just accept you are not qualified to conduct the "further analysis" required to draw general conclusions from a small number of specific data points and leave it at that.

The study found that 42% of cyclists did not obey a red light. OK. I'll do some observations tomorrow on how many cars driving down my DC street are obeying the posted speed limit and coming to the mandated full stop at stop signs. What proportion do you think I'll find are in compliance with the law? Dollars to donuts it's a heck of a lot less than 58%. Should I take that statistic and demand that our city roads be ripped up?

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

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.

LMFAO. So now you’ve shifted from personal insults and “casual inference” to excuses. You’re an absolute clown.

That was a different poster. Clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

Are you an imbecile or just pretending to be one? Inferring from a few data points that "installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents" is your attempt at "further analysis". And it's completely daft. Maybe others have the patience to explain to you why. I don't. Please just accept you are not qualified to conduct the "further analysis" required to draw general conclusions from a small number of specific data points and leave it at that.

The study found that 42% of cyclists did not obey a red light. OK. I'll do some observations tomorrow on how many cars driving down my DC street are obeying the posted speed limit and coming to the mandated full stop at stop signs. What proportion do you think I'll find are in compliance with the law? Dollars to donuts it's a heck of a lot less than 58%. Should I take that statistic and demand that our city roads be ripped up?

This idiot has not bothered to read the report calling other people dumb. 🤡

It’s really funny how y’all like to talk about your “studies” from Europe but totally lose your mind when confronted with actual data from your own city.

What DDOT has shown is that cyclists in DC disobey traffic laws and ride in an unsafe manner. Furthermore, increasing bike infrastructure does not make it any safer. The more cyclists, the more cyclists crashing their bikes.

But please do keep sharing your “studies” from Europe. Your Danish study about 5% bicycle compliance is totally irrelevant in this city. But keep posting it loser.

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

Are you an imbecile or just pretending to be one? Inferring from a few data points that "installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents" is your attempt at "further analysis". And it's completely daft. Maybe others have the patience to explain to you why. I don't. Please just accept you are not qualified to conduct the "further analysis" required to draw general conclusions from a small number of specific data points and leave it at that.

The study found that 42% of cyclists did not obey a red light. OK. I'll do some observations tomorrow on how many cars driving down my DC street are obeying the posted speed limit and coming to the mandated full stop at stop signs. What proportion do you think I'll find are in compliance with the law? Dollars to donuts it's a heck of a lot less than 58%. Should I take that statistic and demand that our city roads be ripped up?

This idiot has not bothered to read the report calling other people dumb. 🤡

It’s really funny how y’all like to talk about your “studies” from Europe but totally lose your mind when confronted with actual data from your own city.

What DDOT has shown is that cyclists in DC disobey traffic laws and ride in an unsafe manner. Furthermore, increasing bike infrastructure does not make it any safer. The more cyclists, the more cyclists crashing their bikes.

But please do keep sharing your “studies” from Europe. Your Danish study about 5% bicycle compliance is totally irrelevant in this city. But keep posting it loser.

You should try harder at not demonstrating your own idiocy while slinging insults at others. In this thread, you have demonstrated a persistent and complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts. The people who wrote the report for DDOT apparently understand such concepts. And that's why they reached quite a a different conclusion than you did from reviewing the data. I know this may be difficult for you to accept, but that's the way it is.

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

Are you an imbecile or just pretending to be one? Inferring from a few data points that "installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents" is your attempt at "further analysis". And it's completely daft. Maybe others have the patience to explain to you why. I don't. Please just accept you are not qualified to conduct the "further analysis" required to draw general conclusions from a small number of specific data points and leave it at that.

The study found that 42% of cyclists did not obey a red light. OK. I'll do some observations tomorrow on how many cars driving down my DC street are obeying the posted speed limit and coming to the mandated full stop at stop signs. What proportion do you think I'll find are in compliance with the law? Dollars to donuts it's a heck of a lot less than 58%. Should I take that statistic and demand that our city roads be ripped up?

This idiot has not bothered to read the report calling other people dumb. 🤡

It’s really funny how y’all like to talk about your “studies” from Europe but totally lose your mind when confronted with actual data from your own city.

What DDOT has shown is that cyclists in DC disobey traffic laws and ride in an unsafe manner. Furthermore, increasing bike infrastructure does not make it any safer. The more cyclists, the more cyclists crashing their bikes.

But please do keep sharing your “studies” from Europe. Your Danish study about 5% bicycle compliance is totally irrelevant in this city. But keep posting it loser.

You should try harder at not demonstrating your own idiocy while slinging insults at others. In this thread, you have demonstrated a persistent and complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts. The people who wrote the report for DDOT apparently understand such concepts. And that's why they reached quite a a different conclusion than you did from reviewing the data. I know this may be difficult for you to accept, but that's the way it is.

Look at you losing your mind at basic facts contravening your narrative. Keep posting, it’s just gets funnier.

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

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.

LMFAO. So now you’ve shifted from personal insults and “casual inference” to excuses. You’re an absolute clown.

I wasn't whoever was arguing with you before, but I did post what you just replied to here. I'll even grant you the red-light running and will even concede that every single one of the 42 percent of cyclists the report observed running red lights just blew right through them without slowing. Sure. Seems unlikely, but whatever.

Do you think the very small increase in the number of cyclists hit by cars after they installed the bike infrastructure might be related, perhaps, to the very large increase in the number of cyclists using the road, though? Or you don't care, your point is just that crashes went up from 4 to 5 and therefore the bike infrastructure is bad?

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

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.

LMFAO. So now you’ve shifted from personal insults and “casual inference” to excuses. You’re an absolute clown.

I wasn't whoever was arguing with you before, but I did post what you just replied to here. I'll even grant you the red-light running and will even concede that every single one of the 42 percent of cyclists the report observed running red lights just blew right through them without slowing. Sure. Seems unlikely, but whatever.

Do you think the very small increase in the number of cyclists hit by cars after they installed the bike infrastructure might be related, perhaps, to the very large increase in the number of cyclists using the road, though? Or you don't care, your point is just that crashes went up from 4 to 5 and therefore the bike infrastructure is bad?

The report says that accidents increased. It did not say that the number of cyclists hit by cars increased. In fact, the vast majority of bicycle accidents are not caused by cars.

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

Are you an imbecile or just pretending to be one? Inferring from a few data points that "installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents" is your attempt at "further analysis". And it's completely daft. Maybe others have the patience to explain to you why. I don't. Please just accept you are not qualified to conduct the "further analysis" required to draw general conclusions from a small number of specific data points and leave it at that.

The study found that 42% of cyclists did not obey a red light. OK. I'll do some observations tomorrow on how many cars driving down my DC street are obeying the posted speed limit and coming to the mandated full stop at stop signs. What proportion do you think I'll find are in compliance with the law? Dollars to donuts it's a heck of a lot less than 58%. Should I take that statistic and demand that our city roads be ripped up?

This idiot has not bothered to read the report calling other people dumb. 🤡

It’s really funny how y’all like to talk about your “studies” from Europe but totally lose your mind when confronted with actual data from your own city.

What DDOT has shown is that cyclists in DC disobey traffic laws and ride in an unsafe manner. Furthermore, increasing bike infrastructure does not make it any safer. The more cyclists, the more cyclists crashing their bikes.

But please do keep sharing your “studies” from Europe. Your Danish study about 5% bicycle compliance is totally irrelevant in this city. But keep posting it loser.

You should try harder at not demonstrating your own idiocy while slinging insults at others. In this thread, you have demonstrated a persistent and complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts. The people who wrote the report for DDOT apparently understand such concepts. And that's why they reached quite a a different conclusion than you did from reviewing the data. I know this may be difficult for you to accept, but that's the way it is.

Look at you losing your mind at basic facts contravening your narrative. Keep posting, it’s just gets funnier.

I don't find your eagerness to draw sweeping conclusions on the basis of an ignorance of basic statistics particularly funny, but more power to you if you do.

And we're still awaiting a response as to what sweeping conclusion you think we should leap to once we observe more than 58% of drivers violating the law by speeding and/or disobeying stop signs and red lights.

But I'm genuinely curious, what is that cyclists did to you that has given you this obsession? Did a cyclist steal your girl or something?

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

Are you an imbecile or just pretending to be one? Inferring from a few data points that "installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents" is your attempt at "further analysis". And it's completely daft. Maybe others have the patience to explain to you why. I don't. Please just accept you are not qualified to conduct the "further analysis" required to draw general conclusions from a small number of specific data points and leave it at that.

The study found that 42% of cyclists did not obey a red light. OK. I'll do some observations tomorrow on how many cars driving down my DC street are obeying the posted speed limit and coming to the mandated full stop at stop signs. What proportion do you think I'll find are in compliance with the law? Dollars to donuts it's a heck of a lot less than 58%. Should I take that statistic and demand that our city roads be ripped up?

This idiot has not bothered to read the report calling other people dumb. 🤡

It’s really funny how y’all like to talk about your “studies” from Europe but totally lose your mind when confronted with actual data from your own city.

What DDOT has shown is that cyclists in DC disobey traffic laws and ride in an unsafe manner. Furthermore, increasing bike infrastructure does not make it any safer. The more cyclists, the more cyclists crashing their bikes.

But please do keep sharing your “studies” from Europe. Your Danish study about 5% bicycle compliance is totally irrelevant in this city. But keep posting it loser.

You should try harder at not demonstrating your own idiocy while slinging insults at others. In this thread, you have demonstrated a persistent and complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts. The people who wrote the report for DDOT apparently understand such concepts. And that's why they reached quite a a different conclusion than you did from reviewing the data. I know this may be difficult for you to accept, but that's the way it is.

Look at you losing your mind at basic facts contravening your narrative. Keep posting, it’s just gets funnier.

I don't find your eagerness to draw sweeping conclusions on the basis of an ignorance of basic statistics particularly funny, but more power to you if you do.

And we're still awaiting a response as to what sweeping conclusion you think we should leap to once we observe more than 58% of drivers violating the law by speeding and/or disobeying stop signs and red lights.

But I'm genuinely curious, what is that cyclists did to you that has given you this obsession? Did a cyclist steal your girl or something?

Your “point” is totally nonsensical. Hope this helps. I am sure that you only obey the law when you ride. Should encourage your fellow hobbyists to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

Are you an imbecile or just pretending to be one? Inferring from a few data points that "installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents" is your attempt at "further analysis". And it's completely daft. Maybe others have the patience to explain to you why. I don't. Please just accept you are not qualified to conduct the "further analysis" required to draw general conclusions from a small number of specific data points and leave it at that.

The study found that 42% of cyclists did not obey a red light. OK. I'll do some observations tomorrow on how many cars driving down my DC street are obeying the posted speed limit and coming to the mandated full stop at stop signs. What proportion do you think I'll find are in compliance with the law? Dollars to donuts it's a heck of a lot less than 58%. Should I take that statistic and demand that our city roads be ripped up?

This idiot has not bothered to read the report calling other people dumb. 🤡

It’s really funny how y’all like to talk about your “studies” from Europe but totally lose your mind when confronted with actual data from your own city.

What DDOT has shown is that cyclists in DC disobey traffic laws and ride in an unsafe manner. Furthermore, increasing bike infrastructure does not make it any safer. The more cyclists, the more cyclists crashing their bikes.

But please do keep sharing your “studies” from Europe. Your Danish study about 5% bicycle compliance is totally irrelevant in this city. But keep posting it loser.

You should try harder at not demonstrating your own idiocy while slinging insults at others. In this thread, you have demonstrated a persistent and complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts. The people who wrote the report for DDOT apparently understand such concepts. And that's why they reached quite a a different conclusion than you did from reviewing the data. I know this may be difficult for you to accept, but that's the way it is.

Look at you losing your mind at basic facts contravening your narrative. Keep posting, it’s just gets funnier.

I don't find your eagerness to draw sweeping conclusions on the basis of an ignorance of basic statistics particularly funny, but more power to you if you do.

And we're still awaiting a response as to what sweeping conclusion you think we should leap to once we observe more than 58% of drivers violating the law by speeding and/or disobeying stop signs and red lights.

But I'm genuinely curious, what is that cyclists did to you that has given you this obsession? Did a cyclist steal your girl or something?

Your “point” is totally nonsensical. Hope this helps. I am sure that you only obey the law when you ride. Should encourage your fellow hobbyists to do the same.

I don't ride a bike as a hobby. And I don't know anyone who does. Sorry that I can't help you. Sorry also that you cann't answer the questions that were posed.

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

Are you an imbecile or just pretending to be one? Inferring from a few data points that "installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents" is your attempt at "further analysis". And it's completely daft. Maybe others have the patience to explain to you why. I don't. Please just accept you are not qualified to conduct the "further analysis" required to draw general conclusions from a small number of specific data points and leave it at that.

The study found that 42% of cyclists did not obey a red light. OK. I'll do some observations tomorrow on how many cars driving down my DC street are obeying the posted speed limit and coming to the mandated full stop at stop signs. What proportion do you think I'll find are in compliance with the law? Dollars to donuts it's a heck of a lot less than 58%. Should I take that statistic and demand that our city roads be ripped up?

This idiot has not bothered to read the report calling other people dumb. 🤡

It’s really funny how y’all like to talk about your “studies” from Europe but totally lose your mind when confronted with actual data from your own city.

What DDOT has shown is that cyclists in DC disobey traffic laws and ride in an unsafe manner. Furthermore, increasing bike infrastructure does not make it any safer. The more cyclists, the more cyclists crashing their bikes.

But please do keep sharing your “studies” from Europe. Your Danish study about 5% bicycle compliance is totally irrelevant in this city. But keep posting it loser.

You should try harder at not demonstrating your own idiocy while slinging insults at others. In this thread, you have demonstrated a persistent and complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts. The people who wrote the report for DDOT apparently understand such concepts. And that's why they reached quite a a different conclusion than you did from reviewing the data. I know this may be difficult for you to accept, but that's the way it is.

Look at you losing your mind at basic facts contravening your narrative. Keep posting, it’s just gets funnier.

Arguing with idiots on the internet who have a lower reading comprehension level than the average middle schooler is a waste of time, fellow cyclists. Tom Marabello here don't know how to read and only just repeats whatever Jessica Lee and Lee Mayer and NDD tell him to.

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

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.

LMFAO. So now you’ve shifted from personal insults and “casual inference” to excuses. You’re an absolute clown.

I wasn't whoever was arguing with you before, but I did post what you just replied to here. I'll even grant you the red-light running and will even concede that every single one of the 42 percent of cyclists the report observed running red lights just blew right through them without slowing. Sure. Seems unlikely, but whatever.

Do you think the very small increase in the number of cyclists hit by cars after they installed the bike infrastructure might be related, perhaps, to the very large increase in the number of cyclists using the road, though? Or you don't care, your point is just that crashes went up from 4 to 5 and therefore the bike infrastructure is bad?

The report says that accidents increased. It did not say that the number of cyclists hit by cars increased. In fact, the vast majority of bicycle accidents are not caused by cars.

The vast majority? I'd be curious for a citation on that. At any rate, I still think a small increase in bike accidents on a road is acceptable after a massive increase in bike usage. Which makes the infrastructure well worth it.

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

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.

LMFAO. So now you’ve shifted from personal insults and “casual inference” to excuses. You’re an absolute clown.

I wasn't whoever was arguing with you before, but I did post what you just replied to here. I'll even grant you the red-light running and will even concede that every single one of the 42 percent of cyclists the report observed running red lights just blew right through them without slowing. Sure. Seems unlikely, but whatever.

Do you think the very small increase in the number of cyclists hit by cars after they installed the bike infrastructure might be related, perhaps, to the very large increase in the number of cyclists using the road, though? Or you don't care, your point is just that crashes went up from 4 to 5 and therefore the bike infrastructure is bad?

The report says that accidents increased. It did not say that the number of cyclists hit by cars increased. In fact, the vast majority of bicycle accidents are not caused by cars.

The vast majority? I'd be curious for a citation on that. At any rate, I still think a small increase in bike accidents on a road is acceptable after a massive increase in bike usage. Which makes the infrastructure well worth it.

The vast majority of injuries on bicycles are from people falling over or otherwise losing their balance.

[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:A study is a study.

NIMBYs ask for studies. Not all of them are going to be US based or DC based.

Closer to home here in DC, a DDOT study found that installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents and that 42% of cyclists did not stop at red lights.
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/ddot_bike_evaluation_summary_final_report_part1_0.pdf

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."

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.

You have ably demonstrated that you lack the ability to properly interpret data.

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.

LOL. I pulled out of context the headline from the executive summary of the study?

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?

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.

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.

Are you an imbecile or just pretending to be one? Inferring from a few data points that "installation of bike infrastructure increased accidents" is your attempt at "further analysis". And it's completely daft. Maybe others have the patience to explain to you why. I don't. Please just accept you are not qualified to conduct the "further analysis" required to draw general conclusions from a small number of specific data points and leave it at that.

The study found that 42% of cyclists did not obey a red light. OK. I'll do some observations tomorrow on how many cars driving down my DC street are obeying the posted speed limit and coming to the mandated full stop at stop signs. What proportion do you think I'll find are in compliance with the law? Dollars to donuts it's a heck of a lot less than 58%. Should I take that statistic and demand that our city roads be ripped up?

This idiot has not bothered to read the report calling other people dumb. 🤡

It’s really funny how y’all like to talk about your “studies” from Europe but totally lose your mind when confronted with actual data from your own city.

What DDOT has shown is that cyclists in DC disobey traffic laws and ride in an unsafe manner. Furthermore, increasing bike infrastructure does not make it any safer. The more cyclists, the more cyclists crashing their bikes.

But please do keep sharing your “studies” from Europe. Your Danish study about 5% bicycle compliance is totally irrelevant in this city. But keep posting it loser.

You should try harder at not demonstrating your own idiocy while slinging insults at others. In this thread, you have demonstrated a persistent and complete ignorance of basic statistical concepts. The people who wrote the report for DDOT apparently understand such concepts. And that's why they reached quite a a different conclusion than you did from reviewing the data. I know this may be difficult for you to accept, but that's the way it is.

Look at you losing your mind at basic facts contravening your narrative. Keep posting, it’s just gets funnier.

Arguing with idiots on the internet who have a lower reading comprehension level than the average middle schooler is a waste of time, fellow cyclists. Tom Marabello here don't know how to read and only just repeats whatever Jessica Lee and Lee Mayer and NDD tell him to.

I have no idea who these people are but it is quite comical that you have some random people in the world that you are totally obsessed with. And when I say comical I mean not healthy.