More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

DP. Of course it’s not ok to kill someone on a road. But your comparison of an accidental death to a punishment is ridiculous. I know that calling every road fatality a murder is one of Vision Zero’s favorite tropes, but it makes you sound like you lack capacity for critical reasoning.

You're going to need to decide for yourself whether you think it was accidental (nobody's fault, just something that happens) or the fault of the pedestrians or bicyclists for being reckless.

I don’t need to decide for myself because there were already investigations done by people with access to the relevant evidence. The investigations show pedestrians overwhelmingly at fault. I guess rules and enforcement matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

One white guy on a bike getting killed gets more attention than 100 black guys getting murdered

+1. Imagine if all of these resources were spent hiring more police officers and taking other measures to reduce crime against black people. Instead, Elrich recently said that crime in DTSS is not a problem. It's pretty shocking that we're obsessed with slowing down traffic, when there's a huge, glaring crime issue that is much more concerning.

Which "white guy on a bike getting killed" are you talking about, specifically?

But hey, if you want crime to be your issue, nobody's stopping you. Certainly not the people who think streets should be safer. Go out and advocate for your priorities, instead of complaining that other people aren't doing the work for you.

So what I'm hearing is that you're OK with the preventable deaths of many black people due to crime because you've got other priorities to worry about? Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

DP. Of course it’s not ok to kill someone on a road. But your comparison of an accidental death to a punishment is ridiculous. I know that calling every road fatality a murder is one of Vision Zero’s favorite tropes, but it makes you sound like you lack capacity for critical reasoning.

You're going to need to decide for yourself whether you think it was accidental (nobody's fault, just something that happens) or the fault of the pedestrians or bicyclists for being reckless.

I don’t need to decide for myself because there were already investigations done by people with access to the relevant evidence. The investigations show pedestrians overwhelmingly at fault. I guess rules and enforcement matter.

Ok, you're on the punishment side then. Death by random driver is an appropriate punishment for a pedestrian who failed to obey a signal. Well, I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

One white guy on a bike getting killed gets more attention than 100 black guys getting murdered

+1. Imagine if all of these resources were spent hiring more police officers and taking other measures to reduce crime against black people. Instead, Elrich recently said that crime in DTSS is not a problem. It's pretty shocking that we're obsessed with slowing down traffic, when there's a huge, glaring crime issue that is much more concerning.

Which "white guy on a bike getting killed" are you talking about, specifically?

But hey, if you want crime to be your issue, nobody's stopping you. Certainly not the people who think streets should be safer. Go out and advocate for your priorities, instead of complaining that other people aren't doing the work for you.

So what I'm hearing is that you're OK with the preventable deaths of many black people due to crime because you've got other priorities to worry about? Got it.

I still want to know which "white guy on a bike getting killed" you're talking about, specifically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

So if a pedestrian decides to cross a 6-lane road in heavy traffic, not at a crosswalk and not even attempting to avoid cars, your view is that we need to try to prevent that? Truly nuts. If you surveyed 100 Moco residents, I think 99% would rather that the county focus on crime prevention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

So if a pedestrian decides to cross a 6-lane road in heavy traffic, not at a crosswalk and not even attempting to avoid cars, your view is that we need to try to prevent that? Truly nuts. If you surveyed 100 Moco residents, I think 99% would rather that the county focus on crime prevention.

Where did you get the "not even attempting to avoid cars" thing? Are you talking about someone who committed suicide by walking into a road? Or someone in a mental health crisis? Or someone who was drunk? Because yes, all of those things happen. Now imagine you're the driver who killed the person. One moment, you're driving along, minding your own business, and the next moment, you've killed someone. Maybe you would shrug and said the person had it coming. Most decent human beings don't react like that, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

DP. Of course it’s not ok to kill someone on a road. But your comparison of an accidental death to a punishment is ridiculous. I know that calling every road fatality a murder is one of Vision Zero’s favorite tropes, but it makes you sound like you lack capacity for critical reasoning.

You're going to need to decide for yourself whether you think it was accidental (nobody's fault, just something that happens) or the fault of the pedestrians or bicyclists for being reckless.

Assuming that you are the person that provided the link, I love that you like
like to cite the data but not actually scrutinize it and then change your time to focus on emotion when the data reveals information that contradicts your premise.

13 of the 15 fatalities that occurred when it was dark and 12 were on state highways. What can we do as a society when people are out in the middle of the road or crossing against signals or darting into traffic in the dark on a state highway? Not only can you not fix stupid you cannot engineer away stupid either.

This is why Vision Zero is a joke, because is dispassionate view of the data looking at accident causes should result in a policy focused on pedestrian and cyclist education and even enforcement in order to save them from 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

DP. Of course it’s not ok to kill someone on a road. But your comparison of an accidental death to a punishment is ridiculous. I know that calling every road fatality a murder is one of Vision Zero’s favorite tropes, but it makes you sound like you lack capacity for critical reasoning.

You're going to need to decide for yourself whether you think it was accidental (nobody's fault, just something that happens) or the fault of the pedestrians or bicyclists for being reckless.

Assuming that you are the person that provided the link, I love that you like
like to cite the data but not actually scrutinize it and then change your time to focus on emotion when the data reveals information that contradicts your premise.

13 of the 15 fatalities that occurred when it was dark and 12 were on state highways. What can we do as a society when people are out in the middle of the road or crossing against signals or darting into traffic in the dark on a state highway? Not only can you not fix stupid you cannot engineer away stupid either.

This is why Vision Zero is a joke, because is dispassionate view of the data looking at accident causes should result in a policy focused on pedestrian and cyclist education and even enforcement in order to save them from themselves.

+1. We're going to throw a ton of money at this Vision Zero initiative, and my guess is that traffic deaths actually won't decrease one bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

So if a pedestrian decides to cross a 6-lane road in heavy traffic, not at a crosswalk and not even attempting to avoid cars, your view is that we need to try to prevent that? Truly nuts. If you surveyed 100 Moco residents, I think 99% would rather that the county focus on crime prevention.

Where did you get the "not even attempting to avoid cars" thing? Are you talking about someone who committed suicide by walking into a road? Or someone in a mental health crisis? Or someone who was drunk? Because yes, all of those things happen. Now imagine you're the driver who killed the person. One moment, you're driving along, minding your own business, and the next moment, you've killed someone. Maybe you would shrug and said the person had it coming. Most decent human beings don't react like that, though.

You're inventing the part about the driver not caring. Instead of misdirection, please show me how Vision Zero is supposed to prevent incidents like what I described.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

So if a pedestrian decides to cross a 6-lane road in heavy traffic, not at a crosswalk and not even attempting to avoid cars, your view is that we need to try to prevent that? Truly nuts. If you surveyed 100 Moco residents, I think 99% would rather that the county focus on crime prevention.

Where did you get the "not even attempting to avoid cars" thing? Are you talking about someone who committed suicide by walking into a road? Or someone in a mental health crisis? Or someone who was drunk? Because yes, all of those things happen. Now imagine you're the driver who killed the person. One moment, you're driving along, minding your own business, and the next moment, you've killed someone. Maybe you would shrug and said the person had it coming. Most decent human beings don't react like that, though.

You're inventing the part about the driver not caring. Instead of misdirection, please show me how Vision Zero is supposed to prevent incidents like what I described.

No, let's back up to your pedestrian who supposedly was "not even attempting to avoid cars". Why was this pedestrian not even attempting to avoid cars?

But yes, Vision Zero can help prevent these deaths with slower driving speeds, narrower roads, and better street lighting. Which would you prefer, being able to see people in the road and stop in time to avoid hitting them, or being unable to do so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

DP. Of course it’s not ok to kill someone on a road. But your comparison of an accidental death to a punishment is ridiculous. I know that calling every road fatality a murder is one of Vision Zero’s favorite tropes, but it makes you sound like you lack capacity for critical reasoning.

You're going to need to decide for yourself whether you think it was accidental (nobody's fault, just something that happens) or the fault of the pedestrians or bicyclists for being reckless.

Assuming that you are the person that provided the link, I love that you like
like to cite the data but not actually scrutinize it and then change your time to focus on emotion when the data reveals information that contradicts your premise.

13 of the 15 fatalities that occurred when it was dark and 12 were on state highways. What can we do as a society when people are out in the middle of the road or crossing against signals or darting into traffic in the dark on a state highway? Not only can you not fix stupid you cannot engineer away stupid either.

This is why Vision Zero is a joke, because is dispassionate view of the data looking at accident causes should result in a policy focused on pedestrian and cyclist education and even enforcement in order to save them from themselves.

You can't fix stupid, but you can engineer systems so that stupid doesn't kill. We do it all the time for cars and drivers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

DP. Of course it’s not ok to kill someone on a road. But your comparison of an accidental death to a punishment is ridiculous. I know that calling every road fatality a murder is one of Vision Zero’s favorite tropes, but it makes you sound like you lack capacity for critical reasoning.

You're going to need to decide for yourself whether you think it was accidental (nobody's fault, just something that happens) or the fault of the pedestrians or bicyclists for being reckless.

Assuming that you are the person that provided the link, I love that you like
like to cite the data but not actually scrutinize it and then change your time to focus on emotion when the data reveals information that contradicts your premise.

13 of the 15 fatalities that occurred when it was dark and 12 were on state highways. What can we do as a society when people are out in the middle of the road or crossing against signals or darting into traffic in the dark on a state highway? Not only can you not fix stupid you cannot engineer away stupid either.

This is why Vision Zero is a joke, because is dispassionate view of the data looking at accident causes should result in a policy focused on pedestrian and cyclist education and even enforcement in order to save them from themselves.

+1. We're going to throw a ton of money at this Vision Zero initiative, and my guess is that traffic deaths actually won't decrease one bit.

Vision Zero is feasible in urban areas, it is not feasible in suburban or rural areas. You just have too many cars going too fast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

DP. Of course it’s not ok to kill someone on a road. But your comparison of an accidental death to a punishment is ridiculous. I know that calling every road fatality a murder is one of Vision Zero’s favorite tropes, but it makes you sound like you lack capacity for critical reasoning.

You're going to need to decide for yourself whether you think it was accidental (nobody's fault, just something that happens) or the fault of the pedestrians or bicyclists for being reckless.

Assuming that you are the person that provided the link, I love that you like
like to cite the data but not actually scrutinize it and then change your time to focus on emotion when the data reveals information that contradicts your premise.

13 of the 15 fatalities that occurred when it was dark and 12 were on state highways. What can we do as a society when people are out in the middle of the road or crossing against signals or darting into traffic in the dark on a state highway? Not only can you not fix stupid you cannot engineer away stupid either.

This is why Vision Zero is a joke, because is dispassionate view of the data looking at accident causes should result in a policy focused on pedestrian and cyclist education and even enforcement in order to save them from themselves.

+1. We're going to throw a ton of money at this Vision Zero initiative, and my guess is that traffic deaths actually won't decrease one bit.

Vision Zero is feasible in urban areas, it is not feasible in suburban or rural areas. You just have too many cars going too fast.

This "Vision Zero stuff" seems very Orwellian. We don't have any traffic enforcement at all. Anyone can do anything they want and there is no penalty for anything, and yet the goal is somehow to eliminate traffic deaths? How about we just enforce the existing laws?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

DP. Of course it’s not ok to kill someone on a road. But your comparison of an accidental death to a punishment is ridiculous. I know that calling every road fatality a murder is one of Vision Zero’s favorite tropes, but it makes you sound like you lack capacity for critical reasoning.

You're going to need to decide for yourself whether you think it was accidental (nobody's fault, just something that happens) or the fault of the pedestrians or bicyclists for being reckless.

Assuming that you are the person that provided the link, I love that you like
like to cite the data but not actually scrutinize it and then change your time to focus on emotion when the data reveals information that contradicts your premise.

13 of the 15 fatalities that occurred when it was dark and 12 were on state highways. What can we do as a society when people are out in the middle of the road or crossing against signals or darting into traffic in the dark on a state highway? Not only can you not fix stupid you cannot engineer away stupid either.

This is why Vision Zero is a joke, because is dispassionate view of the data looking at accident causes should result in a policy focused on pedestrian and cyclist education and even enforcement in order to save them from themselves.

+1. We're going to throw a ton of money at this Vision Zero initiative, and my guess is that traffic deaths actually won't decrease one bit.

Vision Zero is feasible in urban areas, it is not feasible in suburban or rural areas. You just have too many cars going too fast.

It’s not feasible in urban areas when people don’t follow the rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the causes in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you post the Montgomery County numbers?

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

This has a link to the MD state Vision Zero Dashboard which provides the following data.

45 traffic deaths in 2023, of which 14 pedestrians and 1 bicyclist.

Out of those deaths, actions at time of death were:
- 4 In Roadway Improperly
- 3 Dart Dash
- 3 Unknown
- 2 Fail to Obey Signal
- 2 No Improper Actions
- 1 Other
- 1 Wrong Way Walking or Riding

So nearly all of the time the cause of pedestrian or cyclist death is their own reckless behavior.

So 30 people killed in motor vehicles. Two-thirds of the people killed in car crashes in Montgomery County in 2023 were in motor vehicles. Let's talk about them first.

Then let's talk about why you think it's ok to kill pedestrians and bicyclists who were "in roadway improperly" or failed to obey a signal or whatever. The appropriate punishment for failing to obey a signal is a traffic citation, not death by driver.

DP. Of course it’s not ok to kill someone on a road. But your comparison of an accidental death to a punishment is ridiculous. I know that calling every road fatality a murder is one of Vision Zero’s favorite tropes, but it makes you sound like you lack capacity for critical reasoning.

You're going to need to decide for yourself whether you think it was accidental (nobody's fault, just something that happens) or the fault of the pedestrians or bicyclists for being reckless.

Assuming that you are the person that provided the link, I love that you like
like to cite the data but not actually scrutinize it and then change your time to focus on emotion when the data reveals information that contradicts your premise.

13 of the 15 fatalities that occurred when it was dark and 12 were on state highways. What can we do as a society when people are out in the middle of the road or crossing against signals or darting into traffic in the dark on a state highway? Not only can you not fix stupid you cannot engineer away stupid either.

This is why Vision Zero is a joke, because is dispassionate view of the data looking at accident causes should result in a policy focused on pedestrian and cyclist education and even enforcement in order to save them from themselves.

+1. We're going to throw a ton of money at this Vision Zero initiative, and my guess is that traffic deaths actually won't decrease one bit.

Vision Zero is feasible in urban areas, it is not feasible in suburban or rural areas. You just have too many cars going too fast.

In other words, it actually is feasible, if we make changes. If we don't make changes, then yes, you're right, nothing will change.