DDOT's latest plan to destroy traffic, Georgia Avenue edition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 4 has the highest concentration of children under the age of 10 in the city. Some of them will inevitably be killed as a direct result of this DDOT proposal. We all know it will send tens of thousands of cars through side streets of Ward 4 to avoid the gridlock on Georgia that this plan will create.

There's basically no children on Georgia Avenue (Georgia Avenue is mostly liquor stores and other businesses), but go a few blocks east or west and there's a million of them. A lot of young children.

It's hard to imagine how this plan would *not* result in many children being killed. I would think someone will sue to stop this truly insane idea.

The status quo has already resulted in at least one actual - not hypothetical - child being actually - not hypothetically - killed.

On a different street. After 16th Street was redesigned.

The child was killed at the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia. The family was crossing Kennedy at Georgia - just like you would do if you were walking along Georgia and needed to get to the other side of Kennedy. And yet you keep insisting that the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia has nothing to do with Georgia.

they crossed from one side of Kennedy to the other side of Kennedy. Breaking the law in the process, it's probably worth noting.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf

"If a pedestrian crosses a roadway AT ANY POINT OTHER THAN A MARKED CROSSWALK, or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, THE PEDESTRIAN SHALL YEILD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANY VEHICLE."

At Georgia.

Is it open season on four-year-old children who break traffic laws, now? Are you the one expressing concern about the safety of children on "side streets"?

Not PP but what are you talking about re: “open season on 4 year olds”. The point is that crossing a road can be dangerous. That is true especially when Jay walking. It is parents’ responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not let them run into the street.

You know, it's interesting, because I would say it's drivers' responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not hit them, and I would also say it's DDOT's responsibility to make crossing a road safe.

A person might infer from your post that you actually are not concerned about the safety of children, after all.

[Anonymous]

In downtown DC before covid, police actually used to ticket jaywalkers, including people who crossed on red lights. Perhaps along with all of the other measures being proposed in this thread, we should revive that practice. And do it everywhere, not just in downtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In downtown DC before covid, police actually used to ticket jaywalkers, including people who crossed on red lights. Perhaps along with all of the other measures being proposed in this thread, we should revive that practice. And do it everywhere, not just in downtown.

Or DDOT could make the streets safer, and then police could do higher-priority things than stand there ticketing people who are crossing when the light says dno't walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love it; bring it to more of the major streets. Thanks DDOT!

Seems like this makes the streets more dangerous, not less.

Drivers aren't going to sit in traffic, and they're not going to switch to the bus. This will just shift traffic onto all the smaller streets around Georgia Avenue. How is that better?

Seems like it's better to focus traffic on big roads where everyone expects there to be lots of cars. I would be pissed if I lived in a neighborhood near Georgia.

This is the main question here that no one can seem to answer.

They don't want to answer it. The data and research is very clear that increasing congestion on heavily congested roads decreases safety. This isn't about safety. It has never been.

The data and research that you made up in your head.

In the actual world, the data and research are very clear that slower speeds make a street safer for everyone, including drivers.

Are you the AI bot, or the 19 yr old city planning intern with nothing else to do all afternoon? These insipid IKnowYouAreButWhatAmI responses are boresome. You're flat wrong.

Anyway, the actual data show that squeezing traffic to a standstill on a designated arterial will induce diversion to side roads. That situation is not, in fact, safer for anyone. High volume traffic on designated local streets is more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, pets, and 3 yr old scooter riders who misjudge the curb.

Your term paper thesis is going to kill a 3 yr old someday soon in the District. Is that okay with you?

[Mic drop]

Is it ok with you that an actual four year old was actually killed by a driver on Georgia Avenue?

Are you even from here? There's virtually no children on Georgia Avenue because their parents are like, "stay the F away from Georgia Avenue because there's too many cars." There's tens of thousands of children in the neighborhoods abutting Georgia Avenue that will be put in serious danger by this plan.

To repeat, AN ACTUAL FOUR YEAR OLD WAS ACTUALLY KILLED BY A DRIVER ON GEORGIA AVENUE. But that doesn't matter to you, because ... well, why?

Wow. Your caps make your dumb arguments so much more convincing! Again, go to Georgia Avenue and count how many children you see. You will only need one hand. Then go to look up how many kids live in nearby neighborhoods, walking to school and playing with friends, who will suddenly be put in immediate danger as tens of thousands of drivers go racing through their neighborhoods to avoid Georgia Avenue. This isn't hard. Well, maybe for you it is...

Yeah, you haven't answered the question. Why are potential kids, who might potentially be killed, more important to you than this actual child who was actually killed on Georgia Avenue? Wasn't his safety important too?

Because the kids on GA ave who are walking on it are black and brown and the ones off on the side streets have a lower chance of being black and brown, duh.

What kids? There are no children of any color on Georgia Avenue because Georgia Avenue would be incredibly boring to children. You think kids like hanging out at run down car washes?

There's a sign at Georgia and Kennedy street's intersection for the 2021 death of a 4 year old boy by SUV. You've been told this multiple times. Idiot.

He was on Kennedy not Georgia. We will correct you every time you attempt to slip this by and make up a bullshit narrative to support your case

He was on Kennedy at Georgia. I don't know what point you and the mouse in your pocket are trying to make, anyway.

https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/traffic-fatality-intersection-georgia-avenue-and-kennedy-street-northwest

He was not "at Georgia." He was jaywalking across Kennedy St., outside of a crosswalk. He jaywalked into the path of a lawfully operated vehicle that was not speeding and that had the right of way

The point? is that this sad case does not offer one iota of evidence that there should be a bus lane on Georgia to choke north-south traffic.

The POINT is that you keep lying and saying this kid was on Georgia.

If anything, this sad case supports your opponents and you're too dim to realize this. It offers evidence that traffic that will be diverted from Georgia onto north-south residential side streets poses a serious risk to little kids who do little kid things like run out into the street where they live without looking.

Your senior thesis idea will cause cars to run over kids. Bad idea.

"The operator then crossed over Georgia Avenue, Northwest, into onto the 900 block of Kennedy Street, Northwest. As the operator entered the block, a juvenile male was crossing the street, outside of a marked crosswalk. The operator struck the victim then immediately came to a stop and remained on scene."
https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/traffic-fatality-intersection-georgia-avenue-and-kennedy-street-northwest

I don't know what point you're trying to make, other than blaming a four-year-old child for getting killed in a car crash.

The point is that you're lying to everyone about what happened to this child because you think it will further the unrelated cause of created a bus-only lane.

He was on Kennedy at Georgia. The police news release says so. Are they lying too?

The police news report pretty clearly says that the child was on Kennedy, AND that the car was traveling on Kennedy. Neither of them was on Georgia. The car passed across Georgia and then struck the child on Kennedy. Again, on Kennedy. That cross street could have been any street and it wouldn't have mattered, because it was not involved in the crash.

?? the reason the car was going so fast was that it turned at a high rate of speed off Georgia. slow down Georgia and turns will be safer. Only someone with zero understanding of traffic safety could have posted that.

Untrue! The car crossed georgia ave from one side to the other, the entire time on Kennedy St.

Legally and with a green light.

Kennedy is perpendicular to Georgia. The driver was NEVER ON GEORGIA.

The deceased child however was jaywalking with his mother across Kennedy outside of the crosswalk.

Once again for the slow in the back … this story doesn’t support your argument. You’ve been informed 17 times so at this point you are lying

Did you not see the quote above from the deceased child’s uncle? The quote where he specifically and directly linked his nephew’s death to speeding vehicles on Georgia Avenue? Or did you see it and then choose to ignore it because it destroys the whole narrative you’re clinging to like a two year old with a safety blanket? I’ll repeat a question that was already posed: what makes you think you know the circumstances of the child’s death better than his own uncle? What makes you think you know better how to prevent similar tragedies than the relatives of children who were killed along this street? Enlighten us, please.

The uncle wasn't present at the collision. He can say whatever he wants, and the law calls that 'hearsay.'

There was likely also traffic speeding on Pennsylvania Ave that day, and the Beltway, and 295. Maybe Geogia Ave too, who knows?

None of this is relevant to what actually killed the poor kid.

I’ll repeat the question for a third time: what makes you think you know the circumstances of the child’s death better than his own uncle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love it; bring it to more of the major streets. Thanks DDOT!

Seems like this makes the streets more dangerous, not less.

Drivers aren't going to sit in traffic, and they're not going to switch to the bus. This will just shift traffic onto all the smaller streets around Georgia Avenue. How is that better?

Seems like it's better to focus traffic on big roads where everyone expects there to be lots of cars. I would be pissed if I lived in a neighborhood near Georgia.

This is the main question here that no one can seem to answer.

They don't want to answer it. The data and research is very clear that increasing congestion on heavily congested roads decreases safety. This isn't about safety. It has never been.

The data and research that you made up in your head.

In the actual world, the data and research are very clear that slower speeds make a street safer for everyone, including drivers.

Are you the AI bot, or the 19 yr old city planning intern with nothing else to do all afternoon? These insipid IKnowYouAreButWhatAmI responses are boresome. You're flat wrong.

Anyway, the actual data show that squeezing traffic to a standstill on a designated arterial will induce diversion to side roads. That situation is not, in fact, safer for anyone. High volume traffic on designated local streets is more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, pets, and 3 yr old scooter riders who misjudge the curb.

Your term paper thesis is going to kill a 3 yr old someday soon in the District. Is that okay with you?

[Mic drop]

Is it ok with you that an actual four year old was actually killed by a driver on Georgia Avenue?

Are you even from here? There's virtually no children on Georgia Avenue because their parents are like, "stay the F away from Georgia Avenue because there's too many cars." There's tens of thousands of children in the neighborhoods abutting Georgia Avenue that will be put in serious danger by this plan.

To repeat, AN ACTUAL FOUR YEAR OLD WAS ACTUALLY KILLED BY A DRIVER ON GEORGIA AVENUE. But that doesn't matter to you, because ... well, why?

Wow. Your caps make your dumb arguments so much more convincing! Again, go to Georgia Avenue and count how many children you see. You will only need one hand. Then go to look up how many kids live in nearby neighborhoods, walking to school and playing with friends, who will suddenly be put in immediate danger as tens of thousands of drivers go racing through their neighborhoods to avoid Georgia Avenue. This isn't hard. Well, maybe for you it is...

Yeah, you haven't answered the question. Why are potential kids, who might potentially be killed, more important to you than this actual child who was actually killed on Georgia Avenue? Wasn't his safety important too?

Because the kids on GA ave who are walking on it are black and brown and the ones off on the side streets have a lower chance of being black and brown, duh.

What kids? There are no children of any color on Georgia Avenue because Georgia Avenue would be incredibly boring to children. You think kids like hanging out at run down car washes?

There's a sign at Georgia and Kennedy street's intersection for the 2021 death of a 4 year old boy by SUV. You've been told this multiple times. Idiot.

He was on Kennedy not Georgia. We will correct you every time you attempt to slip this by and make up a bullshit narrative to support your case

He was on Kennedy at Georgia. I don't know what point you and the mouse in your pocket are trying to make, anyway.

https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/traffic-fatality-intersection-georgia-avenue-and-kennedy-street-northwest

He was not "at Georgia." He was jaywalking across Kennedy St., outside of a crosswalk. He jaywalked into the path of a lawfully operated vehicle that was not speeding and that had the right of way

The point? is that this sad case does not offer one iota of evidence that there should be a bus lane on Georgia to choke north-south traffic.

The POINT is that you keep lying and saying this kid was on Georgia.

If anything, this sad case supports your opponents and you're too dim to realize this. It offers evidence that traffic that will be diverted from Georgia onto north-south residential side streets poses a serious risk to little kids who do little kid things like run out into the street where they live without looking.

Your senior thesis idea will cause cars to run over kids. Bad idea.

"The operator then crossed over Georgia Avenue, Northwest, into onto the 900 block of Kennedy Street, Northwest. As the operator entered the block, a juvenile male was crossing the street, outside of a marked crosswalk. The operator struck the victim then immediately came to a stop and remained on scene."
https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/traffic-fatality-intersection-georgia-avenue-and-kennedy-street-northwest

I don't know what point you're trying to make, other than blaming a four-year-old child for getting killed in a car crash.

The point is that you're lying to everyone about what happened to this child because you think it will further the unrelated cause of created a bus-only lane.

He was on Kennedy at Georgia. The police news release says so. Are they lying too?

The police news report pretty clearly says that the child was on Kennedy, AND that the car was traveling on Kennedy. Neither of them was on Georgia. The car passed across Georgia and then struck the child on Kennedy. Again, on Kennedy. That cross street could have been any street and it wouldn't have mattered, because it was not involved in the crash.

?? the reason the car was going so fast was that it turned at a high rate of speed off Georgia. slow down Georgia and turns will be safer. Only someone with zero understanding of traffic safety could have posted that.

Untrue! The car crossed georgia ave from one side to the other, the entire time on Kennedy St.

Legally and with a green light.

Kennedy is perpendicular to Georgia. The driver was NEVER ON GEORGIA.

The deceased child however was jaywalking with his mother across Kennedy outside of the crosswalk.

Once again for the slow in the back … this story doesn’t support your argument. You’ve been informed 17 times so at this point you are lying

The reports suggest the car ran a red light. I’m not convinced this was fully investigated.

The car either accelerated through a yellow or ran a red. The mother crossed just down from the intersection when the walk sign came on.

You made that up, because 1. the car was going the speed limit verified and 2. cameras showed that the light was not red. Which is why the driver was not charged.

Speed limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In most such investigations, police investigators have no feasible means of determining whether a car was above or below the speed limit in the lead up to the crash. This is not something that bystanders - if they exist - or the driver can or will reliably attest to. Sometimes camera footage can be used to determine speed, but this requires a fortuitous coincidence of circumstances that rarely occurs.

There are formulas they can use. The results are not very precise, though, even assuming they're accurate - which I don't. Also some of the cars do have data recorders. If it's a Tesla, there are also a lot of cameras on the car.

Based on those imprecise, inaccurate results, police can also do calculations about whether the person would have made it across the street if the driver had been driving more slowly.

There could even be a pre-determined hierarchy of causes, for example if a driver was drunk and speeding, it was a drunk-driving crash, because drunk driving takes priority over speeding. In that case, though, the "X Deaths Due To Speeding" poster's post would be even greater nonsense, because all of the other non-speeding crashes could also be speeding crashes. (Most probably are.)

That's not even getting into the whole issue of the reliability of police crash investigations. The people on the Metropolitan PD are law enforcement officers, not professional crash investigators. The MPD is not the National Transportation Safety Board.

What we do know is, the higher the speed of the car, the more likely the crash will be fatal. That's just basic physics.

Car hating weirdo big mad that so few people are killed by speeding drivers. Wrecks his whole narrative.

Among the many sad things about you is that you still don’t understand - or at least don’t want to admit that you understand - that there is absolutely nothing in the tabulation you have presented to suggest that these people were killed by drivers who were obeying the speed limit. Just because someone tagged another cause as predominant - using whatever hierarchy they choose to use - does not mean that the driver was not speeding. This is so elementary that it pains me to have to explain it you.

And to add to that, we know from basic physics and decades of crash studies that the probability of death rises exponentially with speed. So, while the predominant reason for the crash may be determined to be another factor, the predominant reason for the death will almost always be speed. A drunk driver who runs a stop sign at 10mph may cause a crash, but most likely not a fatal one. Any driver that runs into a pedestrian at 35mph, on the other hand, has a better than even chance of killing them.

By this logic, we should ban bicycling on DC streets.

You're saying we need to eliminate conditions that make crashes more deadly, even if those conditions did not cause the crash. The mere existence of the condition, you say, is reason enough to eliminate it.

Bicycling certainly fits that bill. Crashes are inevitable, and a person who is on a bike is far, far, FAR more likely to be killed in a crash than if that person had been walking or in a car or on a bus. Heck, we don't even require bicyclists to wear helmets. We don't even care if they put three year olds on bikes on busy streets with no helmets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is proposing to reduce Georgia Avenue to single lane in each direction because they want to make the other lanes bus-only.

In the understatement of the year, DDOT says "current peak traffic volumes cannot be accommodated by a single lane of traffic" and "there will be increased travel times."

The obvious problems here are:

1. Georgia Avenue will become gridlocked, always

2. Very few people ride the bus, and this isn't going to change that.

3. If you live within a half mile of Georgia Avenue in either direction, you can expect an enormous increase in traffic on your street as tens of thousands of drivers cut through side streets to avoid Georgia Avenue.

4. The city says this is needed to reduce speeding. It's worth nothing that a grand total of 9 people in Washington DC were killed by speeding drivers in 2022, the latest year from the police statistics.

https://buspriority.ddot.dc.gov/pages/georgiaavenw

5. That enormous increase in traffic on the secondary and tertiary streets of Ward 4, where a gazillion little kids live, will result in children being killed.

Don't ask these nutjobs to choose between sticking it to drivers and increasing the number of children who are killed. You won't like the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In most such investigations, police investigators have no feasible means of determining whether a car was above or below the speed limit in the lead up to the crash. This is not something that bystanders - if they exist - or the driver can or will reliably attest to. Sometimes camera footage can be used to determine speed, but this requires a fortuitous coincidence of circumstances that rarely occurs.

There are formulas they can use. The results are not very precise, though, even assuming they're accurate - which I don't. Also some of the cars do have data recorders. If it's a Tesla, there are also a lot of cameras on the car.

Based on those imprecise, inaccurate results, police can also do calculations about whether the person would have made it across the street if the driver had been driving more slowly.

There could even be a pre-determined hierarchy of causes, for example if a driver was drunk and speeding, it was a drunk-driving crash, because drunk driving takes priority over speeding. In that case, though, the "X Deaths Due To Speeding" poster's post would be even greater nonsense, because all of the other non-speeding crashes could also be speeding crashes. (Most probably are.)

That's not even getting into the whole issue of the reliability of police crash investigations. The people on the Metropolitan PD are law enforcement officers, not professional crash investigators. The MPD is not the National Transportation Safety Board.

What we do know is, the higher the speed of the car, the more likely the crash will be fatal. That's just basic physics.

Car hating weirdo big mad that so few people are killed by speeding drivers. Wrecks his whole narrative.

Among the many sad things about you is that you still don’t understand - or at least don’t want to admit that you understand - that there is absolutely nothing in the tabulation you have presented to suggest that these people were killed by drivers who were obeying the speed limit. Just because someone tagged another cause as predominant - using whatever hierarchy they choose to use - does not mean that the driver was not speeding. This is so elementary that it pains me to have to explain it you.

And to add to that, we know from basic physics and decades of crash studies that the probability of death rises exponentially with speed. So, while the predominant reason for the crash may be determined to be another factor, the predominant reason for the death will almost always be speed. A drunk driver who runs a stop sign at 10mph may cause a crash, but most likely not a fatal one. Any driver that runs into a pedestrian at 35mph, on the other hand, has a better than even chance of killing them.

By this logic, we should ban bicycling on DC streets.

You're saying we need to eliminate conditions that make crashes more deadly, even if those conditions did not cause the crash. The mere existence of the condition, you say, is reason enough to eliminate it.

Bicycling certainly fits that bill. Crashes are inevitable, and a person who is on a bike is far, far, FAR more likely to be killed in a crash than if that person had been walking or in a car or on a bus. Heck, we don't even require bicyclists to wear helmets. We don't even care if they put three year olds on bikes on busy streets with no helmets.

It's amazing how the anti-bus lane people are also the anti-safe streets people are also the anti-bicycle people. It's almost like they're engaging in a war for cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In most such investigations, police investigators have no feasible means of determining whether a car was above or below the speed limit in the lead up to the crash. This is not something that bystanders - if they exist - or the driver can or will reliably attest to. Sometimes camera footage can be used to determine speed, but this requires a fortuitous coincidence of circumstances that rarely occurs.

There are formulas they can use. The results are not very precise, though, even assuming they're accurate - which I don't. Also some of the cars do have data recorders. If it's a Tesla, there are also a lot of cameras on the car.

Based on those imprecise, inaccurate results, police can also do calculations about whether the person would have made it across the street if the driver had been driving more slowly.

There could even be a pre-determined hierarchy of causes, for example if a driver was drunk and speeding, it was a drunk-driving crash, because drunk driving takes priority over speeding. In that case, though, the "X Deaths Due To Speeding" poster's post would be even greater nonsense, because all of the other non-speeding crashes could also be speeding crashes. (Most probably are.)

That's not even getting into the whole issue of the reliability of police crash investigations. The people on the Metropolitan PD are law enforcement officers, not professional crash investigators. The MPD is not the National Transportation Safety Board.

What we do know is, the higher the speed of the car, the more likely the crash will be fatal. That's just basic physics.

Car hating weirdo big mad that so few people are killed by speeding drivers. Wrecks his whole narrative.

Among the many sad things about you is that you still don’t understand - or at least don’t want to admit that you understand - that there is absolutely nothing in the tabulation you have presented to suggest that these people were killed by drivers who were obeying the speed limit. Just because someone tagged another cause as predominant - using whatever hierarchy they choose to use - does not mean that the driver was not speeding. This is so elementary that it pains me to have to explain it you.

And to add to that, we know from basic physics and decades of crash studies that the probability of death rises exponentially with speed. So, while the predominant reason for the crash may be determined to be another factor, the predominant reason for the death will almost always be speed. A drunk driver who runs a stop sign at 10mph may cause a crash, but most likely not a fatal one. Any driver that runs into a pedestrian at 35mph, on the other hand, has a better than even chance of killing them.

By this logic, we should ban bicycling on DC streets.

You're saying we need to eliminate conditions that make crashes more deadly, even if those conditions did not cause the crash. The mere existence of the condition, you say, is reason enough to eliminate it.

Bicycling certainly fits that bill. Crashes are inevitable, and a person who is on a bike is far, far, FAR more likely to be killed in a crash than if that person had been walking or in a car or on a bus. Heck, we don't even require bicyclists to wear helmets. We don't even care if they put three year olds on bikes on busy streets with no helmets.

It's amazing how the anti-bus lane people are also the anti-safe streets people are also the anti-bicycle people. It's almost like they're engaging in a war for cars.

There is a tongue-in-cheek hypothesis out there called car-brain. It is basically that cars are a type of parasite like toxoplasma gondii that takes over a person's brain and makes them act in the interests of the parasite to the detriment of the host. They work for the car, they design their habitat for the car while spending all that time in the car leaves them infirm and unhealthy.

Its the only thing that can explain how the only thing drivers hate more than driving are alternatives to driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In most such investigations, police investigators have no feasible means of determining whether a car was above or below the speed limit in the lead up to the crash. This is not something that bystanders - if they exist - or the driver can or will reliably attest to. Sometimes camera footage can be used to determine speed, but this requires a fortuitous coincidence of circumstances that rarely occurs.

There are formulas they can use. The results are not very precise, though, even assuming they're accurate - which I don't. Also some of the cars do have data recorders. If it's a Tesla, there are also a lot of cameras on the car.

Based on those imprecise, inaccurate results, police can also do calculations about whether the person would have made it across the street if the driver had been driving more slowly.

There could even be a pre-determined hierarchy of causes, for example if a driver was drunk and speeding, it was a drunk-driving crash, because drunk driving takes priority over speeding. In that case, though, the "X Deaths Due To Speeding" poster's post would be even greater nonsense, because all of the other non-speeding crashes could also be speeding crashes. (Most probably are.)

That's not even getting into the whole issue of the reliability of police crash investigations. The people on the Metropolitan PD are law enforcement officers, not professional crash investigators. The MPD is not the National Transportation Safety Board.

What we do know is, the higher the speed of the car, the more likely the crash will be fatal. That's just basic physics.

Car hating weirdo big mad that so few people are killed by speeding drivers. Wrecks his whole narrative.

Among the many sad things about you is that you still don’t understand - or at least don’t want to admit that you understand - that there is absolutely nothing in the tabulation you have presented to suggest that these people were killed by drivers who were obeying the speed limit. Just because someone tagged another cause as predominant - using whatever hierarchy they choose to use - does not mean that the driver was not speeding. This is so elementary that it pains me to have to explain it you.

And to add to that, we know from basic physics and decades of crash studies that the probability of death rises exponentially with speed. So, while the predominant reason for the crash may be determined to be another factor, the predominant reason for the death will almost always be speed. A drunk driver who runs a stop sign at 10mph may cause a crash, but most likely not a fatal one. Any driver that runs into a pedestrian at 35mph, on the other hand, has a better than even chance of killing them.

By this logic, we should ban bicycling on DC streets.

You're saying we need to eliminate conditions that make crashes more deadly, even if those conditions did not cause the crash. The mere existence of the condition, you say, is reason enough to eliminate it.

Bicycling certainly fits that bill. Crashes are inevitable, and a person who is on a bike is far, far, FAR more likely to be killed in a crash than if that person had been walking or in a car or on a bus. Heck, we don't even require bicyclists to wear helmets. We don't even care if they put three year olds on bikes on busy streets with no helmets.

It's amazing how the anti-bus lane people are also the anti-safe streets people are also the anti-bicycle people. It's almost like they're engaging in a war for cars.

It's a pretty glaring double standard, and judging by your non-answer, you agree it is a double standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In most such investigations, police investigators have no feasible means of determining whether a car was above or below the speed limit in the lead up to the crash. This is not something that bystanders - if they exist - or the driver can or will reliably attest to. Sometimes camera footage can be used to determine speed, but this requires a fortuitous coincidence of circumstances that rarely occurs.

There are formulas they can use. The results are not very precise, though, even assuming they're accurate - which I don't. Also some of the cars do have data recorders. If it's a Tesla, there are also a lot of cameras on the car.

Based on those imprecise, inaccurate results, police can also do calculations about whether the person would have made it across the street if the driver had been driving more slowly.

There could even be a pre-determined hierarchy of causes, for example if a driver was drunk and speeding, it was a drunk-driving crash, because drunk driving takes priority over speeding. In that case, though, the "X Deaths Due To Speeding" poster's post would be even greater nonsense, because all of the other non-speeding crashes could also be speeding crashes. (Most probably are.)

That's not even getting into the whole issue of the reliability of police crash investigations. The people on the Metropolitan PD are law enforcement officers, not professional crash investigators. The MPD is not the National Transportation Safety Board.

What we do know is, the higher the speed of the car, the more likely the crash will be fatal. That's just basic physics.

Car hating weirdo big mad that so few people are killed by speeding drivers. Wrecks his whole narrative.

Among the many sad things about you is that you still don’t understand - or at least don’t want to admit that you understand - that there is absolutely nothing in the tabulation you have presented to suggest that these people were killed by drivers who were obeying the speed limit. Just because someone tagged another cause as predominant - using whatever hierarchy they choose to use - does not mean that the driver was not speeding. This is so elementary that it pains me to have to explain it you.

And to add to that, we know from basic physics and decades of crash studies that the probability of death rises exponentially with speed. So, while the predominant reason for the crash may be determined to be another factor, the predominant reason for the death will almost always be speed. A drunk driver who runs a stop sign at 10mph may cause a crash, but most likely not a fatal one. Any driver that runs into a pedestrian at 35mph, on the other hand, has a better than even chance of killing them.

By this logic, we should ban bicycling on DC streets.

You're saying we need to eliminate conditions that make crashes more deadly, even if those conditions did not cause the crash. The mere existence of the condition, you say, is reason enough to eliminate it.

Bicycling certainly fits that bill. Crashes are inevitable, and a person who is on a bike is far, far, FAR more likely to be killed in a crash than if that person had been walking or in a car or on a bus. Heck, we don't even require bicyclists to wear helmets. We don't even care if they put three year olds on bikes on busy streets with no helmets.

It's amazing how the anti-bus lane people are also the anti-safe streets people are also the anti-bicycle people. It's almost like they're engaging in a war for cars.

There is a tongue-in-cheek hypothesis out there called car-brain. It is basically that cars are a type of parasite like toxoplasma gondii that takes over a person's brain and makes them act in the interests of the parasite to the detriment of the host. They work for the car, they design their habitat for the car while spending all that time in the car leaves them infirm and unhealthy.

Its the only thing that can explain how the only thing drivers hate more than driving are alternatives to driving.

Anyone that believes this has never been on River Road. It’s the spawn point for packs of Tour de France LARPer NPCs, that there are no larger groups of self centered humanoids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ward 4 has the highest concentration of children under the age of 10 in the city. Some of them will inevitably be killed as a direct result of this DDOT proposal. We all know it will send tens of thousands of cars through side streets of Ward 4 to avoid the gridlock on Georgia that this plan will create.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In most such investigations, police investigators have no feasible means of determining whether a car was above or below the speed limit in the lead up to the crash. This is not something that bystanders - if they exist - or the driver can or will reliably attest to. Sometimes camera footage can be used to determine speed, but this requires a fortuitous coincidence of circumstances that rarely occurs.

There are formulas they can use. The results are not very precise, though, even assuming they're accurate - which I don't. Also some of the cars do have data recorders. If it's a Tesla, there are also a lot of cameras on the car.

Based on those imprecise, inaccurate results, police can also do calculations about whether the person would have made it across the street if the driver had been driving more slowly.

There could even be a pre-determined hierarchy of causes, for example if a driver was drunk and speeding, it was a drunk-driving crash, because drunk driving takes priority over speeding. In that case, though, the "X Deaths Due To Speeding" poster's post would be even greater nonsense, because all of the other non-speeding crashes could also be speeding crashes. (Most probably are.)

That's not even getting into the whole issue of the reliability of police crash investigations. The people on the Metropolitan PD are law enforcement officers, not professional crash investigators. The MPD is not the National Transportation Safety Board.

What we do know is, the higher the speed of the car, the more likely the crash will be fatal. That's just basic physics.

Car hating weirdo big mad that so few people are killed by speeding drivers. Wrecks his whole narrative.

Among the many sad things about you is that you still don’t understand - or at least don’t want to admit that you understand - that there is absolutely nothing in the tabulation you have presented to suggest that these people were killed by drivers who were obeying the speed limit. Just because someone tagged another cause as predominant - using whatever hierarchy they choose to use - does not mean that the driver was not speeding. This is so elementary that it pains me to have to explain it you.

And to add to that, we know from basic physics and decades of crash studies that the probability of death rises exponentially with speed. So, while the predominant reason for the crash may be determined to be another factor, the predominant reason for the death will almost always be speed. A drunk driver who runs a stop sign at 10mph may cause a crash, but most likely not a fatal one. Any driver that runs into a pedestrian at 35mph, on the other hand, has a better than even chance of killing them.

By this logic, we should ban bicycling on DC streets.

You're saying we need to eliminate conditions that make crashes more deadly, even if those conditions did not cause the crash. The mere existence of the condition, you say, is reason enough to eliminate it.

Bicycling certainly fits that bill. Crashes are inevitable, and a person who is on a bike is far, far, FAR more likely to be killed in a crash than if that person had been walking or in a car or on a bus. Heck, we don't even require bicyclists to wear helmets. We don't even care if they put three year olds on bikes on busy streets with no helmets.

It's amazing how the anti-bus lane people are also the anti-safe streets people are also the anti-bicycle people. It's almost like they're engaging in a war for cars.

There is a tongue-in-cheek hypothesis out there called car-brain. It is basically that cars are a type of parasite like toxoplasma gondii that takes over a person's brain and makes them act in the interests of the parasite to the detriment of the host. They work for the car, they design their habitat for the car while spending all that time in the car leaves them infirm and unhealthy.

Its the only thing that can explain how the only thing drivers hate more than driving are alternatives to driving.

Anyone that believes this has never been on River Road. It’s the spawn point for packs of Tour de France LARPer NPCs, that there are no larger groups of self centered humanoids.

This thread is not about your hatred of certain people while they are riding bicycles, it's about bus lanes on Georgia Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love it; bring it to more of the major streets. Thanks DDOT!

Seems like this makes the streets more dangerous, not less.

Drivers aren't going to sit in traffic, and they're not going to switch to the bus. This will just shift traffic onto all the smaller streets around Georgia Avenue. How is that better?

Seems like it's better to focus traffic on big roads where everyone expects there to be lots of cars. I would be pissed if I lived in a neighborhood near Georgia.

This is the main question here that no one can seem to answer.

They don't want to answer it. The data and research is very clear that increasing congestion on heavily congested roads decreases safety. This isn't about safety. It has never been.

The data and research that you made up in your head.

In the actual world, the data and research are very clear that slower speeds make a street safer for everyone, including drivers.

Are you the AI bot, or the 19 yr old city planning intern with nothing else to do all afternoon? These insipid IKnowYouAreButWhatAmI responses are boresome. You're flat wrong.

Anyway, the actual data show that squeezing traffic to a standstill on a designated arterial will induce diversion to side roads. That situation is not, in fact, safer for anyone. High volume traffic on designated local streets is more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, pets, and 3 yr old scooter riders who misjudge the curb.

Your term paper thesis is going to kill a 3 yr old someday soon in the District. Is that okay with you?

[Mic drop]

Is it ok with you that an actual four year old was actually killed by a driver on Georgia Avenue?

Are you even from here? There's virtually no children on Georgia Avenue because their parents are like, "stay the F away from Georgia Avenue because there's too many cars." There's tens of thousands of children in the neighborhoods abutting Georgia Avenue that will be put in serious danger by this plan.

To repeat, AN ACTUAL FOUR YEAR OLD WAS ACTUALLY KILLED BY A DRIVER ON GEORGIA AVENUE. But that doesn't matter to you, because ... well, why?

Wow. Your caps make your dumb arguments so much more convincing! Again, go to Georgia Avenue and count how many children you see. You will only need one hand. Then go to look up how many kids live in nearby neighborhoods, walking to school and playing with friends, who will suddenly be put in immediate danger as tens of thousands of drivers go racing through their neighborhoods to avoid Georgia Avenue. This isn't hard. Well, maybe for you it is...

Yeah, you haven't answered the question. Why are potential kids, who might potentially be killed, more important to you than this actual child who was actually killed on Georgia Avenue? Wasn't his safety important too?

Are you aware of how completely crazy you sound? You think we should put tens of thousands of kids in danger because there was a kid killed on Georgia Avenue five years ago?

It's like arguing that, because a child was killed on the Beltway several years ago, we should make the Beltway a two lane road, and redirect all the commuter traffic into all the little towns surrounding the highway and, yeah, there's a lot of kids in those towns, but I'm sure it will be totally fine.

Yeah, you're another person who claims to be worried about the safety of kids, but actually your primary worry is the convenience of drivers.

Why shouldn't Georgia Avenue also be safe for kids?

It’s a major arterial and an evacuation route and a state highway at the border. It’s safe enough at this time.

Your statistics 101 class that you took in 2023 as a freshman surely taught that there is no such thing as zero risk.

Every death is a sad event to be sure but it was never going to be none. You can have all the fantastical “Visions” you want but it is not statistically possible. In any city. Never has happened— even in Sweden! — and it never will.

You should have stopped after "Every death is a sad event." Especially when the death in question was a four-year-old child.

But I didn’t because we are helping you to come to terms with the fact that there is no city in the developed world that has ever had zero pedestrian deaths.

It’s an irrational goal. Why then is it your talisman?

How many deaths are you willing to accept?

Here's the number of speeding deaths each year in DC. As you can see, the numbers don't really change in a statistically significant way from year to year, despite all the things the city has down to try to "calm" traffic. These numbers are quite small, given the number of people on the road. If you were to list the 500 top ways people in Washington D.C. die, traffic deaths would not be on the list.

2022: 9
2021: 12
2020: 15
2019: 10
2018: 9
2017: 9
2016: 8
2015: 11
2014: 12
2013: 11
2012: 5
2011: 15
2010: 8

I am very curious about the methodology that underscores these statistics. If an unlicensed and drunk driver is speeding, runs a red light, has a heart attack, and then crosses into the path of oncoming traffic and kills someone else, to what cause do we attribute their death if we must pick only one? How also do the police definitively know whether a vehicle involved in a crash was speeding in the lead-up to the collision when cars aren’t equipped with black boxes?

cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In most such investigations, police investigators have no feasible means of determining whether a car was above or below the speed limit in the lead up to the crash. This is not something that bystanders - if they exist - or the driver can or will reliably attest to. Sometimes camera footage can be used to determine speed, but this requires a fortuitous coincidence of circumstances that rarely occurs.

There are formulas they can use. The results are not very precise, though, even assuming they're accurate - which I don't. Also some of the cars do have data recorders. If it's a Tesla, there are also a lot of cameras on the car.

Based on those imprecise, inaccurate results, police can also do calculations about whether the person would have made it across the street if the driver had been driving more slowly.

There could even be a pre-determined hierarchy of causes, for example if a driver was drunk and speeding, it was a drunk-driving crash, because drunk driving takes priority over speeding. In that case, though, the "X Deaths Due To Speeding" poster's post would be even greater nonsense, because all of the other non-speeding crashes could also be speeding crashes. (Most probably are.)

That's not even getting into the whole issue of the reliability of police crash investigations. The people on the Metropolitan PD are law enforcement officers, not professional crash investigators. The MPD is not the National Transportation Safety Board.

What we do know is, the higher the speed of the car, the more likely the crash will be fatal. That's just basic physics.

Car hating weirdo big mad that so few people are killed by speeding drivers. Wrecks his whole narrative.

Among the many sad things about you is that you still don’t understand - or at least don’t want to admit that you understand - that there is absolutely nothing in the tabulation you have presented to suggest that these people were killed by drivers who were obeying the speed limit. Just because someone tagged another cause as predominant - using whatever hierarchy they choose to use - does not mean that the driver was not speeding. This is so elementary that it pains me to have to explain it you.

And to add to that, we know from basic physics and decades of crash studies that the probability of death rises exponentially with speed. So, while the predominant reason for the crash may be determined to be another factor, the predominant reason for the death will almost always be speed. A drunk driver who runs a stop sign at 10mph may cause a crash, but most likely not a fatal one. Any driver that runs into a pedestrian at 35mph, on the other hand, has a better than even chance of killing them.

By this logic, we should ban bicycling on DC streets.

You're saying we need to eliminate conditions that make crashes more deadly, even if those conditions did not cause the crash. The mere existence of the condition, you say, is reason enough to eliminate it.

Bicycling certainly fits that bill. Crashes are inevitable, and a person who is on a bike is far, far, FAR more likely to be killed in a crash than if that person had been walking or in a car or on a bus. Heck, we don't even require bicyclists to wear helmets. We don't even care if they put three year olds on bikes on busy streets with no helmets.

It's hard to keep track of all the double standards. They're for increasingly safety, except they don't care that bus only lanes on Georgia will create so much gridlock that will it divert thousands of cars off Georgia into the surrounding neighborhoods, which are chock full of small children, some of whom will surely be killed.