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:

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.

Sure thing, Tom.

[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.

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.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn.

[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:

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.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn.

The vast majority of bicycle accidents are people falling off their bikes.

[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:

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.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn.

The vast majority of bicycle accidents are people falling off their bikes.

You keep saying that without pointing to any citation to back it up, so it’s sort of hard to know whether it’s true.

[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:

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.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn.

The vast majority of bicycle accidents are people falling off their bikes.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn

[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:

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.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn.

The vast majority of bicycle accidents are people falling off their bikes.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn

You are sure and yet have no idea. If you look closely at the same dashboard, you will see plenty of accidents in places where car access is restricted. And this does not even include every time a cyclist falls over and doesn’t call 911 for medical attention, which is the vast majority of the time.

[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:

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.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn.

The vast majority of bicycle accidents are people falling off their bikes.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn

You are sure and yet have no idea. If you look closely at the same dashboard, you will see plenty of accidents in places where car access is restricted. And this does not even include every time a cyclist falls over and doesn’t call 911 for medical attention, which is the vast majority of the time.

Man, need some of whatever this guy is on, because it's giving him a wild ride

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So instead of one lane of 6 being taken, you are suggesting taking 2 of 6?

Nick, if you really care about disabled people then why not?

I've been saying for a while now - any parking on a main road shouldn't be treated any different than the parking nearest a grocery store. All ADA and other groups who need it (parents w/ small kids or pregnant mothers, etc.) all the time. The difference here is that Lee Mayer and Jessica Lee don't actually want that, because they still want to be able to drive down and park in front of their destination and not walk a couple blocks from a side street.

This is also about people who can't walk or can't walk far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This about sums it up

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/13/bicycle-advocates-won/

Self serving and tacky. Anyone that claims this issue is going away is wrong. It's a letter to the editor. Whoopdido

If opponents of the bike lanes want to keep it as an issue, then they are the ones who are dividing the community. The issue has been settled. There has been an election which has further settled it. This is the transportation trend globally over the past 15 years, and DC is just playing catch up.

Look, after the results of the 2022 election, many pundits said "the kids have voted for the future they want, we should listen to them"

Maybe it is time for the old guard NIMBYs in Ward 3 to heed the same advice.

Recent transplants shouldn't be speaking for the community

I am the person you ar eresponding to. I have lived here over 55 years. Am I a recent transplant?

If you’ve been here that long, let’s be honest, you’re kids are grown and you don’t have to be anywhere in a hurry these days. Most of us have busy lives and young kids and need safe side streets and efficient major corridors. The bike lanes threaten booth those needs so the bike bros can save on metro fare. No thanks.

I have young kids and live on a side street of a major corridor. I am in favor of bike lanes, because I don't drive my kids to school and I don't drive to work. (The kids walk or bike to school.) If neither "recent transplants" nor people who have lived here for 55 years can speak for "the community," then perhaps you also shouldn't be claiming to speak for every middle-aged person with kids?

Are you OK with your kids sharing your side street with 7000 additional cars each day?

Is there one side street that would see 7000 additional cars a day? Also can’t people just stop driving rather than threatening residents with killing their kids while driving down side streets?

No, people can't stop driving. What bubble do you live in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All ADA and other groups

Sorry, all ADA groups?

Are you the transphobe from the other bike lane thread? The ADA is a law, not a group of people.

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.

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.

You are certainly aware of the parking tags for individuals with disabilities who need priority parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This about sums it up

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/13/bicycle-advocates-won/

Self serving and tacky. Anyone that claims this issue is going away is wrong. It's a letter to the editor. Whoopdido

If opponents of the bike lanes want to keep it as an issue, then they are the ones who are dividing the community. The issue has been settled. There has been an election which has further settled it. This is the transportation trend globally over the past 15 years, and DC is just playing catch up.

Look, after the results of the 2022 election, many pundits said "the kids have voted for the future they want, we should listen to them"

Maybe it is time for the old guard NIMBYs in Ward 3 to heed the same advice.

Recent transplants shouldn't be speaking for the community

I am the person you ar eresponding to. I have lived here over 55 years. Am I a recent transplant?

If you’ve been here that long, let’s be honest, you’re kids are grown and you don’t have to be anywhere in a hurry these days. Most of us have busy lives and young kids and need safe side streets and efficient major corridors. The bike lanes threaten booth those needs so the bike bros can save on metro fare. No thanks.

I have young kids and live on a side street of a major corridor. I am in favor of bike lanes, because I don't drive my kids to school and I don't drive to work. (The kids walk or bike to school.) If neither "recent transplants" nor people who have lived here for 55 years can speak for "the community," then perhaps you also shouldn't be claiming to speak for every middle-aged person with kids?

Are you OK with your kids sharing your side street with 7000 additional cars each day?

Is there one side street that would see 7000 additional cars a day? Also can’t people just stop driving rather than threatening residents with killing their kids while driving down side streets?

No, people can't stop driving. What bubble do you live in?

The bubble where I see people taking the bus and the metro and walking and biking to work everyday instead of choosing to drive? Nobody is requiring you to buy a house that requires you to drive a car to work every day. That is absolutely a personal choice.

Or maybe the bubble where I drive once a week at most because I am able to use my brain and figure out a way to get from A to B that does not involve using a car every day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This about sums it up

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/13/bicycle-advocates-won/

Self serving and tacky. Anyone that claims this issue is going away is wrong. It's a letter to the editor. Whoopdido

If opponents of the bike lanes want to keep it as an issue, then they are the ones who are dividing the community. The issue has been settled. There has been an election which has further settled it. This is the transportation trend globally over the past 15 years, and DC is just playing catch up.

Look, after the results of the 2022 election, many pundits said "the kids have voted for the future they want, we should listen to them"

Maybe it is time for the old guard NIMBYs in Ward 3 to heed the same advice.

Recent transplants shouldn't be speaking for the community

I am the person you ar eresponding to. I have lived here over 55 years. Am I a recent transplant?

If you’ve been here that long, let’s be honest, you’re kids are grown and you don’t have to be anywhere in a hurry these days. Most of us have busy lives and young kids and need safe side streets and efficient major corridors. The bike lanes threaten booth those needs so the bike bros can save on metro fare. No thanks.

I have young kids and live on a side street of a major corridor. I am in favor of bike lanes, because I don't drive my kids to school and I don't drive to work. (The kids walk or bike to school.) If neither "recent transplants" nor people who have lived here for 55 years can speak for "the community," then perhaps you also shouldn't be claiming to speak for every middle-aged person with kids?

Are you OK with your kids sharing your side street with 7000 additional cars each day?

Is there one side street that would see 7000 additional cars a day? Also can’t people just stop driving rather than threatening residents with killing their kids while driving down side streets?

No, people can't stop driving. What bubble do you live in?

The bubble where I see people taking the bus and the metro and walking and biking to work everyday instead of choosing to drive? Nobody is requiring you to buy a house that requires you to drive a car to work every day. That is absolutely a personal choice.

Or maybe the bubble where I drive once a week at most because I am able to use my brain and figure out a way to get from A to B that does not involve using a car every day?

Less than 5% of people commute occasionally using a bicycle. Transit has a 10% mode share in our region, which is high nationally but still very, very low overall. Combining the two, what you are describing is the rarest of the rare.

What you are describing is anecdote, not data. The data is very clear, hardly anyone bicycles and a very limited group of people use transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All ADA and other groups

Sorry, all ADA groups?

Are you the transphobe from the other bike lane thread? The ADA is a law, not a group of people.

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.

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.

You are certainly aware of the parking tags for individuals with disabilities who need priority parking.

These cannot possibly be adults making these posts, because they are so incredibly ridiculously ignorant of the world.

[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:

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.

Yes, I'm sure all those mid-block accidents on Conn Ave on the VisionZero dashboard had nothing to do with that car bumping into them while passing and the ones at intersections weren't right hooks or drivers not paying attention and bumping a cyclist. Yawn.

The vast majority of bicycle accidents are people falling off their bikes.

You keep saying that without pointing to any citation to back it up, so it’s sort of hard to know whether it’s true.

Are you a bicyclist and you don’t understand this? Go read the NHTSA https://www.nhtsa.gov/

30% of officially reported cyclist accidents are in collisions with cars. The rest are collisions with pedestrians and falls. Less than 10% of all bicycle accidents are reported and 90% of collisions with cars are reported but very few falls and collisions with pedestrians are reported. The result is that 70% number is substantially higher by orders of magnitude.

But beyond that it is stupid to even have to say this out loud because every cyclist knows this because every cyclist has fallen off their bike at least once and injured themselves.

[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:This about sums it up

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/13/bicycle-advocates-won/

Self serving and tacky. Anyone that claims this issue is going away is wrong. It's a letter to the editor. Whoopdido

If opponents of the bike lanes want to keep it as an issue, then they are the ones who are dividing the community. The issue has been settled. There has been an election which has further settled it. This is the transportation trend globally over the past 15 years, and DC is just playing catch up.

Look, after the results of the 2022 election, many pundits said "the kids have voted for the future they want, we should listen to them"

Maybe it is time for the old guard NIMBYs in Ward 3 to heed the same advice.

Recent transplants shouldn't be speaking for the community

I am the person you ar eresponding to. I have lived here over 55 years. Am I a recent transplant?

If you’ve been here that long, let’s be honest, you’re kids are grown and you don’t have to be anywhere in a hurry these days. Most of us have busy lives and young kids and need safe side streets and efficient major corridors. The bike lanes threaten booth those needs so the bike bros can save on metro fare. No thanks.

I have young kids and live on a side street of a major corridor. I am in favor of bike lanes, because I don't drive my kids to school and I don't drive to work. (The kids walk or bike to school.) If neither "recent transplants" nor people who have lived here for 55 years can speak for "the community," then perhaps you also shouldn't be claiming to speak for every middle-aged person with kids?

Are you OK with your kids sharing your side street with 7000 additional cars each day?

Is there one side street that would see 7000 additional cars a day? Also can’t people just stop driving rather than threatening residents with killing their kids while driving down side streets?

No, people can't stop driving. What bubble do you live in?

The bubble where I see people taking the bus and the metro and walking and biking to work everyday instead of choosing to drive? Nobody is requiring you to buy a house that requires you to drive a car to work every day. That is absolutely a personal choice.

Or maybe the bubble where I drive once a week at most because I am able to use my brain and figure out a way to get from A to B that does not involve using a car every day?

Less than 5% of people commute occasionally using a bicycle. Transit has a 10% mode share in our region, which is high nationally but still very, very low overall. Combining the two, what you are describing is the rarest of the rare.

What you are describing is anecdote, not data. The data is very clear, hardly anyone bicycles and a very limited group of people use transit.

you keep citing this number, but in a post-covid era where more people are working from home, the number of people who ride during the day for errands during lunch or whatever has gone up exponentially. This isn't just about people getting downtown as commuters, but the people who want to use their bike to support the businesses up and down Conn Ave but don't feel safe doing it today.

So, no, diverting to Rock Creek Park or the CCT isn't an alternative.