D.C. needs to get a lot more car friendly

[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:DC is about to get a lot less car friendly. Bowser has already started the process to install speed cameras throughout the city. We have less than a year to dial it back.

Not sure "enforcing the speed limit" means "a lot less car friendly." If you don't speed by more than 5 mph, you won't get a ticket.

Oh please. Not a single one of us drives below 25 mph at all times. So save that holier than thou bs. Speed cameras are a nuisance that don't make traffic better. In fact they make it more dangerous because people slam on the brakes right before approaching one. This isn't about safety. It's about revenue and treating the citizenry as a resource to be plundered. It's a solution in search of a problem.

You don't even have to drive under 25. Just drive under 35 and you don't get a ticket in a 25mph zone. I have zero sympathy for you.

Not sure what sympathy has to do with this. I am just as adept at not getting a ticket as everyone else. I'm also not a speed demon. I'm a normal regular citizen that thinks mass speed cameras, what is being proposed by Bowser, are a bad idea that do nothing to make streets safer while exponentially increasing government harrassment of regular citizens. It says a lot that you are trying to slander me instead of providing a substantive reason why widespread speed cameras would be a good public policy choice.

Well I'd prefer to have structural changes, like narrowing roads, removing lanes, building hard barriers, and things like that to slow people down. You good with that instead?

If you want to have that conversation then have that conversation. I do not want those things. Im sure some people like yourself do but am confident that a large majority do not but if I'm wrong about that then I would accept it. Can you say the same?

So you don't want speed cameras and you don't want to structurally change the roads, so you're ok with the status quo of many people dying and being injured every year?

It doesn't have to be that way, it's a choice that you are making.

Yes. I am ok with the status quo. The amount of people "dying and being injured every year" is not many and is demonstrably less than it has been in recent decades past. I am happy to have that public conversation and follow the will of the people though. It appears however that you are not.

That's a pretty cold statement and not backed up by facts.

Then you should have no problem pointing to sudden or recent increases in these statistics compared to the 80s and 90s on a population adjusted basis.

There is no groundswell of public support for street narrowing, speed bumps and speed cameras. The fact that these measures are being implemented behind people's backs shoud give everyone pause. In almost all these cases there's a small coterie of outspoken self-appointed busybodies trying to force their will on the majority through the backdoor while pretending that there is widespread support.

If a majority of people don’t like what elected officials are doing, I’m sure they’ll be voted out.

It's not being done in public.

Really? DDOT and the various ANCs on Conn Ave has scores of public meetings, zoom meeting etc. Took open votes and with almost unanimity, voted to support the changes on that street. There was nothing "not being done in public" about it.

Let's stick to the facts and take off the tin-foil hats.

[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:DC is about to get a lot less car friendly. Bowser has already started the process to install speed cameras throughout the city. We have less than a year to dial it back.

Not sure "enforcing the speed limit" means "a lot less car friendly." If you don't speed by more than 5 mph, you won't get a ticket.

Oh please. Not a single one of us drives below 25 mph at all times. So save that holier than thou bs. Speed cameras are a nuisance that don't make traffic better. In fact they make it more dangerous because people slam on the brakes right before approaching one. This isn't about safety. It's about revenue and treating the citizenry as a resource to be plundered. It's a solution in search of a problem.

You don't even have to drive under 25. Just drive under 35 and you don't get a ticket in a 25mph zone. I have zero sympathy for you.

Not sure what sympathy has to do with this. I am just as adept at not getting a ticket as everyone else. I'm also not a speed demon. I'm a normal regular citizen that thinks mass speed cameras, what is being proposed by Bowser, are a bad idea that do nothing to make streets safer while exponentially increasing government harrassment of regular citizens. It says a lot that you are trying to slander me instead of providing a substantive reason why widespread speed cameras would be a good public policy choice.

Well I'd prefer to have structural changes, like narrowing roads, removing lanes, building hard barriers, and things like that to slow people down. You good with that instead?

If you want to have that conversation then have that conversation. I do not want those things. Im sure some people like yourself do but am confident that a large majority do not but if I'm wrong about that then I would accept it. Can you say the same?

So you don't want speed cameras and you don't want to structurally change the roads, so you're ok with the status quo of many people dying and being injured every year?

It doesn't have to be that way, it's a choice that you are making.

Yes. I am ok with the status quo. The amount of people "dying and being injured every year" is not many and is demonstrably less than it has been in recent decades past. I am happy to have that public conversation and follow the will of the people though. It appears however that you are not.

That's a pretty cold statement and not backed up by facts.

Then you should have no problem pointing to sudden or recent increases in these statistics compared to the 80s and 90s on a population adjusted basis.

There is no groundswell of public support for street narrowing, speed bumps and speed cameras. The fact that these measures are being implemented behind people's backs shoud give everyone pause. In almost all these cases there's a small coterie of outspoken self-appointed busybodies trying to force their will on the majority through the backdoor while pretending that there is widespread support.

If a majority of people don’t like what elected officials are doing, I’m sure they’ll be voted out.

It's not being done in public.

Really? DDOT and the various ANCs on Conn Ave has scores of public meetings, zoom meeting etc. Took open votes and with almost unanimity, voted to support the changes on that street. There was nothing "not being done in public" about it.

Let's stick to the facts and take off the tin-foil hats.

I'm not talking about Connecticut Ave and that's not what I'm hearing from the ANC's. Policy was recently changed to cut ANC's, let alone residents, out of the loop.

[Anonymous]

If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

[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:DC is about to get a lot less car friendly. Bowser has already started the process to install speed cameras throughout the city. We have less than a year to dial it back.

Not sure "enforcing the speed limit" means "a lot less car friendly." If you don't speed by more than 5 mph, you won't get a ticket.

Oh please. Not a single one of us drives below 25 mph at all times. So save that holier than thou bs. Speed cameras are a nuisance that don't make traffic better. In fact they make it more dangerous because people slam on the brakes right before approaching one. This isn't about safety. It's about revenue and treating the citizenry as a resource to be plundered. It's a solution in search of a problem.

You don't even have to drive under 25. Just drive under 35 and you don't get a ticket in a 25mph zone. I have zero sympathy for you.

Not sure what sympathy has to do with this. I am just as adept at not getting a ticket as everyone else. I'm also not a speed demon. I'm a normal regular citizen that thinks mass speed cameras, what is being proposed by Bowser, are a bad idea that do nothing to make streets safer while exponentially increasing government harrassment of regular citizens. It says a lot that you are trying to slander me instead of providing a substantive reason why widespread speed cameras would be a good public policy choice.

Well I'd prefer to have structural changes, like narrowing roads, removing lanes, building hard barriers, and things like that to slow people down. You good with that instead?

If you want to have that conversation then have that conversation. I do not want those things. Im sure some people like yourself do but am confident that a large majority do not but if I'm wrong about that then I would accept it. Can you say the same?

So you don't want speed cameras and you don't want to structurally change the roads, so you're ok with the status quo of many people dying and being injured every year?

It doesn't have to be that way, it's a choice that you are making.

Yes. I am ok with the status quo. The amount of people "dying and being injured every year" is not many and is demonstrably less than it has been in recent decades past. I am happy to have that public conversation and follow the will of the people though. It appears however that you are not.

That's a pretty cold statement and not backed up by facts.

Then you should have no problem pointing to sudden or recent increases in these statistics compared to the 80s and 90s on a population adjusted basis.

There is no groundswell of public support for street narrowing, speed bumps and speed cameras. The fact that these measures are being implemented behind people's backs shoud give everyone pause. In almost all these cases there's a small coterie of outspoken self-appointed busybodies trying to force their will on the majority through the backdoor while pretending that there is widespread support.

If a majority of people don’t like what elected officials are doing, I’m sure they’ll be voted out.

It's not being done in public.

Really? DDOT and the various ANCs on Conn Ave has scores of public meetings, zoom meeting etc. Took open votes and with almost unanimity, voted to support the changes on that street. There was nothing "not being done in public" about it.

Let's stick to the facts and take off the tin-foil hats.

I'm not talking about Connecticut Ave and that's not what I'm hearing from the ANC's. Policy was recently changed to cut ANC's, let alone residents, out of the loop.

What are you talking about, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but honestly, yes. ANCs have no real power, and it's far past time to start treating them as such. Do you have a problem with the way things are being done? Okay, take it up with MOCA or your councilmember's constituent services team. The system we have right now enables busybodies to stick their fingers in every pie. It's absurd, dysfunctional, and counterproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

When there is no downside to opposing something and it forces change to happen like molassas, then yes. If there are actual legitimate reasons why something shouldn't happen, then those reasons should be addressed. But when people complain about traffic and parking as if THEY aren't their own contributions to traffic and parking woes - just they don't like it when it is other people coming to their neighborhood, but they have no issue going to other people's neighborhoods and expecting free street parking - that is the problem. It all boils down to be selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

When there is no downside to opposing something and it forces change to happen like molassas, then yes. If there are actual legitimate reasons why something shouldn't happen, then those reasons should be addressed. But when people complain about traffic and parking as if THEY aren't their own contributions to traffic and parking woes - just they don't like it when it is other people coming to their neighborhood, but they have no issue going to other people's neighborhoods and expecting free street parking - that is the problem. It all boils down to be selfish.

I 100% agree but you have the cause and effect backwards. What the changes do is INCREASE the ability of the people you described to do what you have described by cutting the rest of the neighborhood out of the process and noftification loop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but honestly, yes. ANCs have no real power, and it's far past time to start treating them as such. Do you have a problem with the way things are being done? Okay, take it up with MOCA or your councilmember's constituent services team. The system we have right now enables busybodies to stick their fingers in every pie. It's absurd, dysfunctional, and counterproductive.

I don't know what to tell you but the reality is the exact opposite. No one cares about the ANC, as you said they are utterly pointless in their current configuration. It's the residents that are being cut out of the loop. This empowers the busybodies to do even more because it now happens outside of the public purview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but honestly, yes. ANCs have no real power, and it's far past time to start treating them as such. Do you have a problem with the way things are being done? Okay, take it up with MOCA or your councilmember's constituent services team. The system we have right now enables busybodies to stick their fingers in every pie. It's absurd, dysfunctional, and counterproductive.

I don't know what to tell you but the reality is the exact opposite. No one cares about the ANC, as you said they are utterly pointless in their current configuration. It's the residents that are being cut out of the loop. This empowers the busybodies to do even more because it now happens outside of the public purview.

You’re here arguing transpo policy on the 31st page of a thread and your complaining that other people are being too much of a busybody? Maybe you’re just not using your busybodying efficiently enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but honestly, yes. ANCs have no real power, and it's far past time to start treating them as such. Do you have a problem with the way things are being done? Okay, take it up with MOCA or your councilmember's constituent services team. The system we have right now enables busybodies to stick their fingers in every pie. It's absurd, dysfunctional, and counterproductive.

I don't know what to tell you but the reality is the exact opposite. No one cares about the ANC, as you said they are utterly pointless in their current configuration. It's the residents that are being cut out of the loop. This empowers the busybodies to do even more because it now happens outside of the public purview.

You’re here arguing transpo policy on the 31st page of a thread and your complaining that other people are being too much of a busybody? Maybe you’re just not using your busybodying efficiently enough

Pardon? Im not proposing anything. Im not pushing anything. I dont want speed bumps on my street but don't care if you want them on your street. That's the exact opposite of being a busybody. What I want is for residents to be informed and have a say on measures proposed for their own blocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but honestly, yes. ANCs have no real power, and it's far past time to start treating them as such. Do you have a problem with the way things are being done? Okay, take it up with MOCA or your councilmember's constituent services team. The system we have right now enables busybodies to stick their fingers in every pie. It's absurd, dysfunctional, and counterproductive.

I don't know what to tell you but the reality is the exact opposite. No one cares about the ANC, as you said they are utterly pointless in their current configuration. It's the residents that are being cut out of the loop. This empowers the busybodies to do even more because it now happens outside of the public purview.

You’re here arguing transpo policy on the 31st page of a thread and your complaining that other people are being too much of a busybody? Maybe you’re just not using your busybodying efficiently enough

Pardon? Im not proposing anything. Im not pushing anything. I dont want speed bumps on my street but don't care if you want them on your street. That's the exact opposite of being a busybody. What I want is for residents to be informed and have a say on measures proposed for their own blocks.

I hate to break it to you, but opposing speed bumps on your street makes you a busybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but honestly, yes. ANCs have no real power, and it's far past time to start treating them as such. Do you have a problem with the way things are being done? Okay, take it up with MOCA or your councilmember's constituent services team. The system we have right now enables busybodies to stick their fingers in every pie. It's absurd, dysfunctional, and counterproductive.

I don't know what to tell you but the reality is the exact opposite. No one cares about the ANC, as you said they are utterly pointless in their current configuration. It's the residents that are being cut out of the loop. This empowers the busybodies to do even more because it now happens outside of the public purview.

You’re here arguing transpo policy on the 31st page of a thread and your complaining that other people are being too much of a busybody? Maybe you’re just not using your busybodying efficiently enough

Pardon? Im not proposing anything. Im not pushing anything. I dont want speed bumps on my street but don't care if you want them on your street. That's the exact opposite of being a busybody. What I want is for residents to be informed and have a say on measures proposed for their own blocks.

wanting to keep things the same is a policy position in itself. I’m not sure what you’re complaining about being not informed about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but honestly, yes. ANCs have no real power, and it's far past time to start treating them as such. Do you have a problem with the way things are being done? Okay, take it up with MOCA or your councilmember's constituent services team. The system we have right now enables busybodies to stick their fingers in every pie. It's absurd, dysfunctional, and counterproductive.

I don't know what to tell you but the reality is the exact opposite. No one cares about the ANC, as you said they are utterly pointless in their current configuration. It's the residents that are being cut out of the loop. This empowers the busybodies to do even more because it now happens outside of the public purview.

You’re here arguing transpo policy on the 31st page of a thread and your complaining that other people are being too much of a busybody? Maybe you’re just not using your busybodying efficiently enough

Pardon? Im not proposing anything. Im not pushing anything. I dont want speed bumps on my street but don't care if you want them on your street. That's the exact opposite of being a busybody. What I want is for residents to be informed and have a say on measures proposed for their own blocks.

Why? The streets belong to the public, not to you. People who live on a street and want, or don't want speed humps shouldn't be able to trump what traffic experts suggest is best for that street. They can voice their opinion, sure, but that's about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that means we can get to vision zero more expediently, then that is good news.

Cutting residents and ANCs out of the loop is a good thing for you? Do you even hear yourself?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but honestly, yes. ANCs have no real power, and it's far past time to start treating them as such. Do you have a problem with the way things are being done? Okay, take it up with MOCA or your councilmember's constituent services team. The system we have right now enables busybodies to stick their fingers in every pie. It's absurd, dysfunctional, and counterproductive.

I don't know what to tell you but the reality is the exact opposite. No one cares about the ANC, as you said they are utterly pointless in their current configuration. It's the residents that are being cut out of the loop. This empowers the busybodies to do even more because it now happens outside of the public purview.

You’re here arguing transpo policy on the 31st page of a thread and your complaining that other people are being too much of a busybody? Maybe you’re just not using your busybodying efficiently enough

Pardon? Im not proposing anything. Im not pushing anything. I dont want speed bumps on my street but don't care if you want them on your street. That's the exact opposite of being a busybody. What I want is for residents to be informed and have a say on measures proposed for their own blocks.

I hate to break it to you, but opposing speed bumps on your street makes you a busybody.

Ni it doesn't. Don't be absurd.