Bikes lanes poorly designed - unsafe for drivers and bikers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

PP here. It’s not my fault your theories about “traffic calming” are nonsensical. Maybe you should stop believing in stupid bullshit?

Despite the best efforts of extremely narcissistic people like you to terrorize everyone else on the road simply because you can't organize your life properly, traffic calming does actually work. Sources:

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/0104.pdf

https://trafficlogix.com/how-traffic-calming-works/

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor

Traffic deaths are incredibly rare in DC. There’s usually between 30 and 40 per year. Typically a quarter of those are the fault of people who weren’t driving according to the police. There’s also a smattering of people who have medical emergencies while driving. So you’re really talking between 20 and 30 deaths per year. That’s out of billions of trips taken. Been that way for decades. Hard to see what difference “traffic calming” makes except to force cars to sit in traffic longer which doesn’t seem like a plus for the environment.

I happen to think that saving a few lives and preventing a handful of debilitating injuries is a good reason to build bike lanes, but if that doesn't do it for you there are other reasons.

Many people would like to use a bike more regularly to get to work and run errands etc., but don't because they are terrified of being hit by a car in the process. Protected bike lanes are necessary to give these people the confidence to substitute bike trips for car trips.

And why should we care about that?

Well, it happens to benefit the rider by reducing their transportation expenses and improving their physical fitness (and health outlays) as well as everyone else by - among other things - reducing noise, reducing road wear and therefore public expenditure on road maintenance, mitigating climate change, and - get this - lessening the congestion experienced by emergency vehicles and others who have no choice but to travel by vehicle.

For all but the most commited cyclophobe, it's a big win-win.

[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:

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:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it, it makes you sound worse.

I think PP's point is the the number of cyclists killed is statistically insignificant, and they're not wrong. Every death is a tragedy but the story is in each narrative, not the overall numbers.

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to write. Every road death represents a life tragically cut short. Those lives may not mean much to you, but they do to so many others. What is especially tragic is that many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had better infrastructure and more rigorous enforcement of road regulations, especially speeding.

Uh huh. While you hyperventilate about drivers, it’s worth noting that the number of cyclists killed in this city is minuscule. It’s amazing it’s not higher given all the stupid things cyclists do.

The number of children murdered in this city dwarfs the number of cyclists killed. But sure let’s all focus on that one white guy on a bike who got hit by a car three years ago

These are completely unrelated policy questions, though. We can be furious at children being murdered but also think the roads could be safer to bike on.

Except that’s not what happens *at all*. All the attention and a stunning amount of money goes to the white guy on a bike who is an adult who voluntarily chose to do something that everyone knows is dangerous. Every public dollar spent on one thing like subsidizing the hobbies of Bernie bros is a dollar that can’t be spent on another thing.

please stop. I doubt you care about black kids getting shot - you’re just trying to make a point. meanwhile, black kids actually DO disproportionately suffer from traffic accidents (and some die, including those on bikes). making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians would strongly benefit black kids.

Uh huh right. I think it’s disgusting how much of our public resources white guys are able to commandeer for their hobbies in a city with shocking poverty and crime rates. Our poverty rate is the same as West Virginia. We have as many murders as Baltimore. The children angle will upset anyone who has kids (you obviously do not).

White peoples from Ward 3 go to the front of line for everything including scarce tax dollars

It's common sense that scarce tax dollars should not be spent subsidizing others' personal choices, particularly when those choices impose negative externalities on the rest of the population. For this reason, DC should impose congestion and road tolls to ensure that all users who impose their vehicles on the city's roads contribute their fair share to the massive cost of maintaining the city's road network and that said users are properly incentivized to opt for forms of transportation that are less socially harmful.

Except those roads are not built in order to provide a space for someone's hobby. They were built in order to enable the transportation of goods and workers. No roads = no food. No roads = no ambulances. No roads = no iphones, renovations, whole foods, uber, doordash or instacart. Just because you hire someone to mow your lawn does not mean that lawnmowers aren't needed.

All the more reason for you to walk, bike, or take transit, so that farmworkers, truck drivers, ambulance drivers, food delivery drivers, and lawn care people don't have to sit in the traffic you create.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

PP here. It’s not my fault your theories about “traffic calming” are nonsensical. Maybe you should stop believing in stupid bullshit?

Despite the best efforts of extremely narcissistic people like you to terrorize everyone else on the road simply because you can't organize your life properly, traffic calming does actually work. Sources:

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/0104.pdf

https://trafficlogix.com/how-traffic-calming-works/

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor

Traffic deaths are incredibly rare in DC. There’s usually between 30 and 40 per year. Typically a quarter of those are the fault of people who weren’t driving according to the police. There’s also a smattering of people who have medical emergencies while driving. So you’re really talking between 20 and 30 deaths per year. That’s out of billions of trips taken. Been that way for decades. Hard to see what difference “traffic calming” makes except to force cars to sit in traffic longer which doesn’t seem like a plus for the environment.

Yeah, you're a ghoul. Regular people understand that crashes are bad, even crashes that don't kill people, and that crashes that killed people who were legally at fault are also bad.

Then why are you in favor of increasing crashes? There's almost 100 years of studies and data showing that congestion increases accidents.

And, in what qualifies as regular service on this thread, you can't present a single citation to back up your counterintuitive claims . . .

God you're committed to your lies. It's literally been the main focus of transportation research for decades and makes perfect logical sense unlike your nonsensical fantasy that inceasing congestion on major roads will decrease accidents on thise roads.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540246/

That has scores of other citations within it so don't claim it's only one.

[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:

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:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it, it makes you sound worse.

I think PP's point is the the number of cyclists killed is statistically insignificant, and they're not wrong. Every death is a tragedy but the story is in each narrative, not the overall numbers.

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to write. Every road death represents a life tragically cut short. Those lives may not mean much to you, but they do to so many others. What is especially tragic is that many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had better infrastructure and more rigorous enforcement of road regulations, especially speeding.

Uh huh. While you hyperventilate about drivers, it’s worth noting that the number of cyclists killed in this city is minuscule. It’s amazing it’s not higher given all the stupid things cyclists do.

The number of children murdered in this city dwarfs the number of cyclists killed. But sure let’s all focus on that one white guy on a bike who got hit by a car three years ago

These are completely unrelated policy questions, though. We can be furious at children being murdered but also think the roads could be safer to bike on.

Except that’s not what happens *at all*. All the attention and a stunning amount of money goes to the white guy on a bike who is an adult who voluntarily chose to do something that everyone knows is dangerous. Every public dollar spent on one thing like subsidizing the hobbies of Bernie bros is a dollar that can’t be spent on another thing.

please stop. I doubt you care about black kids getting shot - you’re just trying to make a point. meanwhile, black kids actually DO disproportionately suffer from traffic accidents (and some die, including those on bikes). making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians would strongly benefit black kids.

Uh huh right. I think it’s disgusting how much of our public resources white guys are able to commandeer for their hobbies in a city with shocking poverty and crime rates. Our poverty rate is the same as West Virginia. We have as many murders as Baltimore. The children angle will upset anyone who has kids (you obviously do not).

White peoples from Ward 3 go to the front of line for everything including scarce tax dollars

It's common sense that scarce tax dollars should not be spent subsidizing others' personal choices, particularly when those choices impose negative externalities on the rest of the population. For this reason, DC should impose congestion and road tolls to ensure that all users who impose their vehicles on the city's roads contribute their fair share to the massive cost of maintaining the city's road network and that said users are properly incentivized to opt for forms of transportation that are less socially harmful.

Except those roads are not built in order to provide a space for someone's hobby. They were built in order to enable the transportation of goods and workers. No roads = no food. No roads = no ambulances. No roads = no iphones, renovations, whole foods, uber, doordash or instacart. Just because you hire someone to mow your lawn does not mean that lawnmowers aren't needed.

All the more reason for you to walk, bike, or take transit, so that farmworkers, truck drivers, ambulance drivers, food delivery drivers, and lawn care people don't have to sit in the traffic you create.

Wow, you're privilege is off the cart.

[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:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

PP here. It’s not my fault your theories about “traffic calming” are nonsensical. Maybe you should stop believing in stupid bullshit?

Despite the best efforts of extremely narcissistic people like you to terrorize everyone else on the road simply because you can't organize your life properly, traffic calming does actually work. Sources:

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/0104.pdf

https://trafficlogix.com/how-traffic-calming-works/

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor

Traffic deaths are incredibly rare in DC. There’s usually between 30 and 40 per year. Typically a quarter of those are the fault of people who weren’t driving according to the police. There’s also a smattering of people who have medical emergencies while driving. So you’re really talking between 20 and 30 deaths per year. That’s out of billions of trips taken. Been that way for decades. Hard to see what difference “traffic calming” makes except to force cars to sit in traffic longer which doesn’t seem like a plus for the environment.

Yeah, you're a ghoul. Regular people understand that crashes are bad, even crashes that don't kill people, and that crashes that killed people who were legally at fault are also bad.

Then why are you in favor of increasing crashes? There's almost 100 years of studies and data showing that congestion increases accidents.

And, in what qualifies as regular service on this thread, you can't present a single citation to back up your counterintuitive claims . . .

God you're committed to your lies. It's literally been the main focus of transportation research for decades and makes perfect logical sense unlike your nonsensical fantasy that inceasing congestion on major roads will decrease accidents on thise roads.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540246/

That has scores of other citations within it so don't claim it's only one.

Not even your own citation supports your contention.

[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:

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:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it, it makes you sound worse.

I think PP's point is the the number of cyclists killed is statistically insignificant, and they're not wrong. Every death is a tragedy but the story is in each narrative, not the overall numbers.

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to write. Every road death represents a life tragically cut short. Those lives may not mean much to you, but they do to so many others. What is especially tragic is that many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had better infrastructure and more rigorous enforcement of road regulations, especially speeding.

Uh huh. While you hyperventilate about drivers, it’s worth noting that the number of cyclists killed in this city is minuscule. It’s amazing it’s not higher given all the stupid things cyclists do.

The number of children murdered in this city dwarfs the number of cyclists killed. But sure let’s all focus on that one white guy on a bike who got hit by a car three years ago

These are completely unrelated policy questions, though. We can be furious at children being murdered but also think the roads could be safer to bike on.

Except that’s not what happens *at all*. All the attention and a stunning amount of money goes to the white guy on a bike who is an adult who voluntarily chose to do something that everyone knows is dangerous. Every public dollar spent on one thing like subsidizing the hobbies of Bernie bros is a dollar that can’t be spent on another thing.

please stop. I doubt you care about black kids getting shot - you’re just trying to make a point. meanwhile, black kids actually DO disproportionately suffer from traffic accidents (and some die, including those on bikes). making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians would strongly benefit black kids.

Uh huh right. I think it’s disgusting how much of our public resources white guys are able to commandeer for their hobbies in a city with shocking poverty and crime rates. Our poverty rate is the same as West Virginia. We have as many murders as Baltimore. The children angle will upset anyone who has kids (you obviously do not).

White peoples from Ward 3 go to the front of line for everything including scarce tax dollars

It's common sense that scarce tax dollars should not be spent subsidizing others' personal choices, particularly when those choices impose negative externalities on the rest of the population. For this reason, DC should impose congestion and road tolls to ensure that all users who impose their vehicles on the city's roads contribute their fair share to the massive cost of maintaining the city's road network and that said users are properly incentivized to opt for forms of transportation that are less socially harmful.

Except those roads are not built in order to provide a space for someone's hobby. They were built in order to enable the transportation of goods and workers. No roads = no food. No roads = no ambulances. No roads = no iphones, renovations, whole foods, uber, doordash or instacart. Just because you hire someone to mow your lawn does not mean that lawnmowers aren't needed.

All the more reason for you to walk, bike, or take transit, so that farmworkers, truck drivers, ambulance drivers, food delivery drivers, and lawn care people don't have to sit in the traffic you create.

Wow, you're privilege is off the cart.

Please explain. No roads = no ambulances, you said. What slows down ambulances? Cars. Traffic. Why are you contributing to the slowing down of ambulances?

[Anonymous]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353031755_Understanding_the_Effect_of_Traffic_Congestion_on_Accidents_Using_Big_Data

This is a fun one. Reducing congestion in major Latin American cities by 10% would reduce accidents by 3.4%.

[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:

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:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it, it makes you sound worse.

I think PP's point is the the number of cyclists killed is statistically insignificant, and they're not wrong. Every death is a tragedy but the story is in each narrative, not the overall numbers.

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to write. Every road death represents a life tragically cut short. Those lives may not mean much to you, but they do to so many others. What is especially tragic is that many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had better infrastructure and more rigorous enforcement of road regulations, especially speeding.

Uh huh. While you hyperventilate about drivers, it’s worth noting that the number of cyclists killed in this city is minuscule. It’s amazing it’s not higher given all the stupid things cyclists do.

The number of children murdered in this city dwarfs the number of cyclists killed. But sure let’s all focus on that one white guy on a bike who got hit by a car three years ago

These are completely unrelated policy questions, though. We can be furious at children being murdered but also think the roads could be safer to bike on.

Except that’s not what happens *at all*. All the attention and a stunning amount of money goes to the white guy on a bike who is an adult who voluntarily chose to do something that everyone knows is dangerous. Every public dollar spent on one thing like subsidizing the hobbies of Bernie bros is a dollar that can’t be spent on another thing.

please stop. I doubt you care about black kids getting shot - you’re just trying to make a point. meanwhile, black kids actually DO disproportionately suffer from traffic accidents (and some die, including those on bikes). making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians would strongly benefit black kids.

Uh huh right. I think it’s disgusting how much of our public resources white guys are able to commandeer for their hobbies in a city with shocking poverty and crime rates. Our poverty rate is the same as West Virginia. We have as many murders as Baltimore. The children angle will upset anyone who has kids (you obviously do not).

White peoples from Ward 3 go to the front of line for everything including scarce tax dollars

It's common sense that scarce tax dollars should not be spent subsidizing others' personal choices, particularly when those choices impose negative externalities on the rest of the population. For this reason, DC should impose congestion and road tolls to ensure that all users who impose their vehicles on the city's roads contribute their fair share to the massive cost of maintaining the city's road network and that said users are properly incentivized to opt for forms of transportation that are less socially harmful.

Except those roads are not built in order to provide a space for someone's hobby. They were built in order to enable the transportation of goods and workers. No roads = no food. No roads = no ambulances. No roads = no iphones, renovations, whole foods, uber, doordash or instacart. Just because you hire someone to mow your lawn does not mean that lawnmowers aren't needed.

It's a well known historical fact that there was no food or homes before paved roads. Those things didn't happen and won't if some people bike.

[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:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

PP here. It’s not my fault your theories about “traffic calming” are nonsensical. Maybe you should stop believing in stupid bullshit?

Despite the best efforts of extremely narcissistic people like you to terrorize everyone else on the road simply because you can't organize your life properly, traffic calming does actually work. Sources:

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/0104.pdf

https://trafficlogix.com/how-traffic-calming-works/

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor

Traffic deaths are incredibly rare in DC. There’s usually between 30 and 40 per year. Typically a quarter of those are the fault of people who weren’t driving according to the police. There’s also a smattering of people who have medical emergencies while driving. So you’re really talking between 20 and 30 deaths per year. That’s out of billions of trips taken. Been that way for decades. Hard to see what difference “traffic calming” makes except to force cars to sit in traffic longer which doesn’t seem like a plus for the environment.

Yeah, you're a ghoul. Regular people understand that crashes are bad, even crashes that don't kill people, and that crashes that killed people who were legally at fault are also bad.

Then why are you in favor of increasing crashes? There's almost 100 years of studies and data showing that congestion increases accidents.

And, in what qualifies as regular service on this thread, you can't present a single citation to back up your counterintuitive claims . . .

God you're committed to your lies. It's literally been the main focus of transportation research for decades and makes perfect logical sense unlike your nonsensical fantasy that inceasing congestion on major roads will decrease accidents on thise roads.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540246/

That has scores of other citations within it so don't claim it's only one.

Not even your own citation supports your contention.

Of course it does. There is 100% certainty of a casual link between accidents and congestion. What it also mentions is that there is some indication that fatalities occur most often when there is medium congestion.

The argument you are making is that we should increase increase congestion from medium to high in order to reduce fatalities and accept the increase in accidents short of fatal, along with all the economic and environmental costs of increased congestion.

[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:

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:I really appreciated the guy going 20mph on his e-bike in the bike lanes ringing his bell as he ran the red light so the pedestrians had a chance to scatter before he went through the crosswalk. All the cars at the intersection were stopped, by the way.

Wow. I also saw many cars speeding and couple running red lights yesterday. Shall we all chip in with our observations of bad behavior by road users in Washington, DC. What great fun that would be.

How many of those cars honked their horns to make pedestrians scatter out of the crosswalk while they ran the red light? I’m not talking about technical violations that may have resulted from inattention, which, while extremely dangerous, is not the same as wanton and willful lawbreaking. The problem with too many cyclists is that they expect everyone to adjust to their presence regardless of what the law is. That tendency is worse when they’re in protected bike lanes because they don’t have to worry about cars.

If I’m walking in a crosswalk, having already established a lawful presence there, stop for me. It’s the law and it’s also common courtesy.

Yes, it is. It's the law. Which is routinely broken by drivers of cars, with or without bike lanes, and when drivers do it, they can seriously injure or kill you. But sure, let's focus on bike lanes.

The more people bike instead of drive, the safer you as a pedestrian will be.

You never acknowledge that you have any responsibility for the safety of others as a cyclist, so your argument that I'll be safer with more bike lanes falls flat. That's the problem. Too many cyclists fail to take responsibility for anyone else's safety, even that of other cyclists. I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least.

A regular bike at 20 mph on a bike lane in your mysterious unnamed intersection in DC? Where is that mysterious unnamed intersection, by the way?

It’s on a downhill. It’s an easy 20. You still keep deflecting instead of acknowledging how your own conduct can put other people at risk.

I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk

Faster than 25 mph, on a bike, on the sidewalk of a street in DC. You don't say.

People do some crazy shit

People also have no sense of speed. Unless you have Olympian-level strength, attaining - let alone maintaining - 25mph on level ground is very difficult and especially so on a confined space such as a sidewalk. 15mph is possible but that’s about it.

Nonetheless I’d be all for a law banning cycling on any and all sidewalks where there is an adjacent protected bike lane. That is entirely reasonable.

It’s not uncommon for runners to run five minute miles. That translates to 12 miles per hour. Someone on a bike could easily go twice that.

Why do you feel qualified to opine on that which you know very little. Here is a reference that may prove educative for you: https://www.bikelockwiki.com/average-cycling-speed/

20 mph (PP's estimate) is right in the middle of the average for an advanced cyclist and on a downhill they could easily get to 24 mph (the average top-end speed for an advanced cyclist). Thanks for the link.

It's good to hear that DC's sidewalks are in such an outstanding, smooth, unblocked, non-bumpy condition that athletes can reach Tour de France speeds on them.

PP wasn't talking about a sidewalk. PP was talking about a protected bike lane on a downhill stretch. Just keep deflecting.

Huh?

“I’ve seen cyclists go faster than that on sidewalks. I was driving down one of those streets named after a state, going maybe 25mph, and was passed by a bike on the sidewalk”

No cyclist are doing those speeds on a sidewalk. It’s patently absurd. To assert such only shows you no nothing about speed nor cycling.

The discussion about speed started with this: "I'm pretty sure getting hit by a cyclist on an e-bike or regular bike at 20 mph, which is faster than cars usually go at this intersection because of the congestion, would result in some broken ribs at the least." One of the bike trolls claimed no one rode 20 mph in a bike lane, which prompted the dubious claim of 25 mph on a sidewalk.

20 mph downhill on the road or a bike lane is certainly possible. But any cyclist who routinely runs red lights or stop signs at 20 mph is not someone who is going to be around long enough for you to worry much about.

Don’t you understand? Nothing is ever a cyclist’s fault. If a cyclist ran a stop sign at 30 mph and got hit by a car and died, it would be the driver’s fault regardless of the details of what actually happened.

This thread notwithstanding, the number of cyclists in DC who are killed by drivers is pretty close to the number of cyclists who are eaten by bears.

Yeah, you keep saying that, and every time you say it, it makes you sound worse.

I think PP's point is the the number of cyclists killed is statistically insignificant, and they're not wrong. Every death is a tragedy but the story is in each narrative, not the overall numbers.

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to write. Every road death represents a life tragically cut short. Those lives may not mean much to you, but they do to so many others. What is especially tragic is that many of these deaths could have been prevented if we had better infrastructure and more rigorous enforcement of road regulations, especially speeding.

Uh huh. While you hyperventilate about drivers, it’s worth noting that the number of cyclists killed in this city is minuscule. It’s amazing it’s not higher given all the stupid things cyclists do.

The number of children murdered in this city dwarfs the number of cyclists killed. But sure let’s all focus on that one white guy on a bike who got hit by a car three years ago

These are completely unrelated policy questions, though. We can be furious at children being murdered but also think the roads could be safer to bike on.

Except that’s not what happens *at all*. All the attention and a stunning amount of money goes to the white guy on a bike who is an adult who voluntarily chose to do something that everyone knows is dangerous. Every public dollar spent on one thing like subsidizing the hobbies of Bernie bros is a dollar that can’t be spent on another thing.

please stop. I doubt you care about black kids getting shot - you’re just trying to make a point. meanwhile, black kids actually DO disproportionately suffer from traffic accidents (and some die, including those on bikes). making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians would strongly benefit black kids.

Uh huh right. I think it’s disgusting how much of our public resources white guys are able to commandeer for their hobbies in a city with shocking poverty and crime rates. Our poverty rate is the same as West Virginia. We have as many murders as Baltimore. The children angle will upset anyone who has kids (you obviously do not).

White peoples from Ward 3 go to the front of line for everything including scarce tax dollars

It's common sense that scarce tax dollars should not be spent subsidizing others' personal choices, particularly when those choices impose negative externalities on the rest of the population. For this reason, DC should impose congestion and road tolls to ensure that all users who impose their vehicles on the city's roads contribute their fair share to the massive cost of maintaining the city's road network and that said users are properly incentivized to opt for forms of transportation that are less socially harmful.

Except those roads are not built in order to provide a space for someone's hobby. They were built in order to enable the transportation of goods and workers. No roads = no food. No roads = no ambulances. No roads = no iphones, renovations, whole foods, uber, doordash or instacart. Just because you hire someone to mow your lawn does not mean that lawnmowers aren't needed.

It's a well known historical fact that there was no food or homes before paved roads. Those things didn't happen and won't if some people bike.

It's a well known historical fact that there used to be farms in Bethesda and Arlington while Georgetown was a port and the C&O Canal worked.

[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:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

PP here. It’s not my fault your theories about “traffic calming” are nonsensical. Maybe you should stop believing in stupid bullshit?

Despite the best efforts of extremely narcissistic people like you to terrorize everyone else on the road simply because you can't organize your life properly, traffic calming does actually work. Sources:

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/0104.pdf

https://trafficlogix.com/how-traffic-calming-works/

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor

Traffic deaths are incredibly rare in DC. There’s usually between 30 and 40 per year. Typically a quarter of those are the fault of people who weren’t driving according to the police. There’s also a smattering of people who have medical emergencies while driving. So you’re really talking between 20 and 30 deaths per year. That’s out of billions of trips taken. Been that way for decades. Hard to see what difference “traffic calming” makes except to force cars to sit in traffic longer which doesn’t seem like a plus for the environment.

Yeah, you're a ghoul. Regular people understand that crashes are bad, even crashes that don't kill people, and that crashes that killed people who were legally at fault are also bad.

Then why are you in favor of increasing crashes? There's almost 100 years of studies and data showing that congestion increases accidents.

And, in what qualifies as regular service on this thread, you can't present a single citation to back up your counterintuitive claims . . .

God you're committed to your lies. It's literally been the main focus of transportation research for decades and makes perfect logical sense unlike your nonsensical fantasy that inceasing congestion on major roads will decrease accidents on thise roads.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540246/

That has scores of other citations within it so don't claim it's only one.

Not even your own citation supports your contention.

Of course it does. There is 100% certainty of a casual link between accidents and congestion. What it also mentions is that there is some indication that fatalities occur most often when there is medium congestion.

The argument you are making is that we should increase increase congestion from medium to high in order to reduce fatalities and accept the increase in accidents short of fatal, along with all the economic and environmental costs of increased congestion.

Alternatively we could keep building lanes until there's no congestion?

Exactly how many would that be?

[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:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

PP here. It’s not my fault your theories about “traffic calming” are nonsensical. Maybe you should stop believing in stupid bullshit?

Despite the best efforts of extremely narcissistic people like you to terrorize everyone else on the road simply because you can't organize your life properly, traffic calming does actually work. Sources:

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/0104.pdf

https://trafficlogix.com/how-traffic-calming-works/

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor

Traffic deaths are incredibly rare in DC. There’s usually between 30 and 40 per year. Typically a quarter of those are the fault of people who weren’t driving according to the police. There’s also a smattering of people who have medical emergencies while driving. So you’re really talking between 20 and 30 deaths per year. That’s out of billions of trips taken. Been that way for decades. Hard to see what difference “traffic calming” makes except to force cars to sit in traffic longer which doesn’t seem like a plus for the environment.

Yeah, you're a ghoul. Regular people understand that crashes are bad, even crashes that don't kill people, and that crashes that killed people who were legally at fault are also bad.

Then why are you in favor of increasing crashes? There's almost 100 years of studies and data showing that congestion increases accidents.

And, in what qualifies as regular service on this thread, you can't present a single citation to back up your counterintuitive claims . . .

God you're committed to your lies. It's literally been the main focus of transportation research for decades and makes perfect logical sense unlike your nonsensical fantasy that inceasing congestion on major roads will decrease accidents on thise roads.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540246/

That has scores of other citations within it so don't claim it's only one.

Not even your own citation supports your contention.

Of course it does. There is 100% certainty of a casual link between accidents and congestion. What it also mentions is that there is some indication that fatalities occur most often when there is medium congestion.

The argument you are making is that we should increase increase congestion from medium to high in order to reduce fatalities and accept the increase in accidents short of fatal, along with all the economic and environmental costs of increased congestion.

Well, yes, I do think it would be desirable to have fewer crashes that kill people. Fewer crashes that kill or seriously injure people, more crashes that are just fender-benders with no injuries - yep, that sounds good. Especially given the economic and societal costs of crashes that kill or seriously injure people.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crashes-cost-america-billions-2019

[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:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

PP here. It’s not my fault your theories about “traffic calming” are nonsensical. Maybe you should stop believing in stupid bullshit?

Despite the best efforts of extremely narcissistic people like you to terrorize everyone else on the road simply because you can't organize your life properly, traffic calming does actually work. Sources:

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/0104.pdf

https://trafficlogix.com/how-traffic-calming-works/

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor

Traffic deaths are incredibly rare in DC. There’s usually between 30 and 40 per year. Typically a quarter of those are the fault of people who weren’t driving according to the police. There’s also a smattering of people who have medical emergencies while driving. So you’re really talking between 20 and 30 deaths per year. That’s out of billions of trips taken. Been that way for decades. Hard to see what difference “traffic calming” makes except to force cars to sit in traffic longer which doesn’t seem like a plus for the environment.

Yeah, you're a ghoul. Regular people understand that crashes are bad, even crashes that don't kill people, and that crashes that killed people who were legally at fault are also bad.

Then why are you in favor of increasing crashes? There's almost 100 years of studies and data showing that congestion increases accidents.

And, in what qualifies as regular service on this thread, you can't present a single citation to back up your counterintuitive claims . . .

God you're committed to your lies. It's literally been the main focus of transportation research for decades and makes perfect logical sense unlike your nonsensical fantasy that inceasing congestion on major roads will decrease accidents on thise roads.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540246/

That has scores of other citations within it so don't claim it's only one.

And yet the one you produce says this: "The role of congestion in modifying accident risk has been widely studied, but consensus has not been reached, with conflicting results leaving open questions." It's a damn shame that the world is a little more complicated than your simple mind can fathom.

[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:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

PP here. It’s not my fault your theories about “traffic calming” are nonsensical. Maybe you should stop believing in stupid bullshit?

Despite the best efforts of extremely narcissistic people like you to terrorize everyone else on the road simply because you can't organize your life properly, traffic calming does actually work. Sources:

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/0104.pdf

https://trafficlogix.com/how-traffic-calming-works/

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor

Traffic deaths are incredibly rare in DC. There’s usually between 30 and 40 per year. Typically a quarter of those are the fault of people who weren’t driving according to the police. There’s also a smattering of people who have medical emergencies while driving. So you’re really talking between 20 and 30 deaths per year. That’s out of billions of trips taken. Been that way for decades. Hard to see what difference “traffic calming” makes except to force cars to sit in traffic longer which doesn’t seem like a plus for the environment.

Yeah, you're a ghoul. Regular people understand that crashes are bad, even crashes that don't kill people, and that crashes that killed people who were legally at fault are also bad.

Then why are you in favor of increasing crashes? There's almost 100 years of studies and data showing that congestion increases accidents.

And, in what qualifies as regular service on this thread, you can't present a single citation to back up your counterintuitive claims . . .

God you're committed to your lies. It's literally been the main focus of transportation research for decades and makes perfect logical sense unlike your nonsensical fantasy that inceasing congestion on major roads will decrease accidents on thise roads.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540246/

That has scores of other citations within it so don't claim it's only one.

Not even your own citation supports your contention.

Of course it does. There is 100% certainty of a casual link between accidents and congestion. What it also mentions is that there is some indication that fatalities occur most often when there is medium congestion.

The argument you are making is that we should increase increase congestion from medium to high in order to reduce fatalities and accept the increase in accidents short of fatal, along with all the economic and environmental costs of increased congestion.

Given that research suggests that bike lanes actually reduce congestion (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-05/when-adding-bike-lanes-actually-reduces-traffic-delays), I take it that you believe we should build a lot more of them.

[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:I don't own a bike and haven't ridden a bike in years.

But I do understand three things:

1. The built environment influences behavior. You don't build a park where people are already playing soccer. You build the park and people start to go there. This is called induced demand, and it is why adding lanes to roads never actually decreases congestion. More people just drive.

2. Making roads more difficult to navigate does not generally make them more dangerous. In fact, the opposite. If drivers need to slow down and pay attention, it makes it safer.

3. City planner, particularly ones who have environmental sustainability goals, need to plan for a future. Yes it is a gamble, but it happens all the time.

Actually...

1. Soccer fields are indeed built where people play soccer.
2. Making roads more difficult to navigate obviously makes them more dangerous because they are more difficult to navigate.
3. Obviously it's a gamble. The question is whether or not it's a smart gamble.

Really, that's how it works? People play soccer in a vacant lot, then the rec department decides to build a soccer field there?

You might believe that making roads more difficult to navigate makes them more dangerous, but in actual reality it makes them safer, because drivers drive more slowly.

I drive and speed bumps and things like that make me more likely to roll stop signs. If you’re going to slow me down in the middle of the street, then I’m going to make up the time elsewhere. Sorry. There’s no free lunch with slowing down drivers. (It’s like when they close streets or lanes to cars. All they’re doing is forcing traffic elsewhere.)

Look at this a**hole announcing to the whole world what an a**hole they are.

PP here. It’s not my fault your theories about “traffic calming” are nonsensical. Maybe you should stop believing in stupid bullshit?

Despite the best efforts of extremely narcissistic people like you to terrorize everyone else on the road simply because you can't organize your life properly, traffic calming does actually work. Sources:

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/0104.pdf

https://trafficlogix.com/how-traffic-calming-works/

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor

Traffic deaths are incredibly rare in DC. There’s usually between 30 and 40 per year. Typically a quarter of those are the fault of people who weren’t driving according to the police. There’s also a smattering of people who have medical emergencies while driving. So you’re really talking between 20 and 30 deaths per year. That’s out of billions of trips taken. Been that way for decades. Hard to see what difference “traffic calming” makes except to force cars to sit in traffic longer which doesn’t seem like a plus for the environment.

Yeah, you're a ghoul. Regular people understand that crashes are bad, even crashes that don't kill people, and that crashes that killed people who were legally at fault are also bad.

Then why are you in favor of increasing crashes? There's almost 100 years of studies and data showing that congestion increases accidents.

And, in what qualifies as regular service on this thread, you can't present a single citation to back up your counterintuitive claims . . .

God you're committed to your lies. It's literally been the main focus of transportation research for decades and makes perfect logical sense unlike your nonsensical fantasy that inceasing congestion on major roads will decrease accidents on thise roads.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540246/

That has scores of other citations within it so don't claim it's only one.

Not even your own citation supports your contention.

Of course it does. There is 100% certainty of a casual link between accidents and congestion. What it also mentions is that there is some indication that fatalities occur most often when there is medium congestion.

The argument you are making is that we should increase increase congestion from medium to high in order to reduce fatalities and accept the increase in accidents short of fatal, along with all the economic and environmental costs of increased congestion.

Given that research suggests that bike lanes actually reduce congestion (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-05/when-adding-bike-lanes-actually-reduces-traffic-delays), I take it that you believe we should build a lot more of them.

This one provides a panel analysis using a very large (>100) city-level dataset spanning years. It finds that moderate congestion (defined as travel times up to 30% worse than free-flowing traffic) has a positive relationship with safety, but that generally as congestion gets worse than that, then there's an inverse relationship.

So, all these bike lanes that DDOT wants to put in where the impact on throughput is a couple minutes longer for a 15 - 20 minute drive? Not a big deal. Lane reductions reduce the amount of legal lane changes. They allow drivers who are obeying speed limits to set the pace. Gridlock is not a desirable goal, but the steady state of traffic congestion is just fine.