Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Making bike lanes smaller just squeezes them into smaller spaces and would actually be less safe.

Bike lanes that take up less space will reduce cyclist speed, making things safer for everyone. Win-win.

It’s interesting that the rules of Vision Zero don’t apply the same after a cyclist kills another cyclist through recklessness. Even more interesting is that the cycling activists don’t seem to care about this dead cyclist at all. Haven’t said a word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

There is no planet where under the Dutch system of classification that Connecticut freaking Avenue would ever be considered for these changes.

Just like there is no planet under where the Swedish understanding of Vision Zero would include a proliferation of concrete barriers, the very antithesis of what Vision Zero stands for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Making bike lanes smaller just squeezes them into smaller spaces and would actually be less safe.

Bike lanes that take up less space will reduce cyclist speed, making things safer for everyone. Win-win.

It’s interesting that the rules of Vision Zero don’t apply the same after a cyclist kills another cyclist through recklessness. Even more interesting is that the cycling activists don’t seem to care about this dead cyclist at all. Haven’t said a word.

Under the rules of Vision Zero that would most definitely matter. Under the bastardization of that vision that we've been stuck with on the other hand...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

There is no planet where under the Dutch system of classification that Connecticut freaking Avenue would ever be considered for these changes.

Just like there is no planet under where the Swedish understanding of Vision Zero would include a proliferation of concrete barriers, the very antithesis of what Vision Zero stands for.

something tells me you are not actually a “Vision Zero with Fidelity” true believer and are instead using a one-off comment about a concrete barrier as yet another in your endless, stupid series of made-up objections to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

There is no planet where under the Dutch system of classification that Connecticut freaking Avenue would ever be considered for these changes.

Just like there is no planet under where the Swedish understanding of Vision Zero would include a proliferation of concrete barriers, the very antithesis of what Vision Zero stands for.

You are conflating "barriers" in this case with something else.
Just like your suggestion Connecticut Avenue is akin to the road cited in your posted article is also a conflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

There is no planet where under the Dutch system of classification that Connecticut freaking Avenue would ever be considered for these changes.

Just like there is no planet under where the Swedish understanding of Vision Zero would include a proliferation of concrete barriers, the very antithesis of what Vision Zero stands for.

You are conflating "barriers" in this case with something else.
Just like your suggestion Connecticut Avenue is akin to the road cited in your posted article is also a conflation.

With what? Please be honest and specific for once. The issue was concrete because the European Vision Zero is not some weird anti-car/pro-bike thing.

I did not suggest that Conn was the same as a Swedish highway. I said that, under the Dutch system, roads are classified as per their usage and function and adjusted accordingly. Under such a system nobody would ever suggest that the primary North-South route into downtown be a candidate for the changes you are proposing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

There is no planet where under the Dutch system of classification that Connecticut freaking Avenue would ever be considered for these changes.

Just like there is no planet under where the Swedish understanding of Vision Zero would include a proliferation of concrete barriers, the very antithesis of what Vision Zero stands for.

You are conflating "barriers" in this case with something else.
Just like your suggestion Connecticut Avenue is akin to the road cited in your posted article is also a conflation.

With what? Please be honest and specific for once. The issue was concrete because the European Vision Zero is not some weird anti-car/pro-bike thing.

I did not suggest that Conn was the same as a Swedish highway. I said that, under the Dutch system, roads are classified as per their usage and function and adjusted accordingly. Under such a system nobody would ever suggest that the primary North-South route into downtown be a candidate for the changes you are proposing.

Concrete as a tool for a protected bike lane is different than concrete bases for lighting as a "bollard" on a high speed highway. The only thing they have in common is "concrete"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

There is no planet where under the Dutch system of classification that Connecticut freaking Avenue would ever be considered for these changes.

Just like there is no planet under where the Swedish understanding of Vision Zero would include a proliferation of concrete barriers, the very antithesis of what Vision Zero stands for.

You are conflating "barriers" in this case with something else.
Just like your suggestion Connecticut Avenue is akin to the road cited in your posted article is also a conflation.

With what? Please be honest and specific for once. The issue was concrete because the European Vision Zero is not some weird anti-car/pro-bike thing.

I did not suggest that Conn was the same as a Swedish highway. I said that, under the Dutch system, roads are classified as per their usage and function and adjusted accordingly. Under such a system nobody would ever suggest that the primary North-South route into downtown be a candidate for the changes you are proposing.

Connecticut Avenue is not a highway either via Dutch classification or any other classification. I get it that it falls under the "highway act" but it is not an interstate highway as part of the Eisenhower system created in 1956.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.