NPS: Ban Cars Now in DC Urban Parks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I never said that you illiterate potato. You're confusing me with someone else, and even they didn't say that.

I am totally going to start calling people illiterate potatoes, thank you PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

Who is "you people?" I'm not a cyclist, I'm a pedestrian, but I'm also not an idiot, so I know I'd rather bit hit by someone going 15 MPH on a bike than someone going 15 MPH on a car. Any road death is tragic, but if we're just going to link to random traffic deaths, I can do a bunch for cars, you know.

Your argument is that bikes should not have to follow traffic laws like other road users because it’s an acceptable risk to be hit by a biker behaving negligently. That’s sociopathic.

I never said that you illiterate potato. You're confusing me with someone else, and even they didn't say that.

Thanks for confirming that you are a narcissistic sociopath. I have thus far not met a single biker who isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

Yes according to physics. A modern car with it's broad face and relatively soft material is specifically designed to disperse the force of an impact. Conversely a bicycle with it's hard material and point like shape directs and amplifies the force of the impact. In addition gears, chains and spokes are pointy and exposed while cars internal components are contained. In addition, a car can stop pretty easily and quickly at 15 mph while a bicycle cannot. Lastly, a driver is more able to suddenly swerve to try and avoid the collision where a bicyclist cannot without losing control.

Actually what those broad faces seem to be specifically designed to do is: kill pedestrians.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-dangers-of-big-trucks/

It's not the broad face they are pointing out. It's the height of trucks (and big SUVs) creating a blind spot for smaller vehicles and people. I do agree that that's a major safety problem in general but it's a different issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

Who is "you people?" I'm not a cyclist, I'm a pedestrian, but I'm also not an idiot, so I know I'd rather bit hit by someone going 15 MPH on a bike than someone going 15 MPH on a car. Any road death is tragic, but if we're just going to link to random traffic deaths, I can do a bunch for cars, you know.

Your argument is that bikes should not have to follow traffic laws like other road users because it’s an acceptable risk to be hit by a biker behaving negligently. That’s sociopathic.

I never said that you illiterate potato. You're confusing me with someone else, and even they didn't say that.

Thanks for confirming that you are a narcissistic sociopath. I have thus far not met a single biker who isn’t.

Is this performance art? I said I'm not a cyclist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

This is an argument for having separate bike infrastructure in the park. Right now pedestrians are forced onto the road with cars and bikes. And of course although bikes can cause harm, it’s many orders of magnitude less than cars.

As a side note, calling bike riders “absolute sociopaths” does not lend you much credibility. It makes you seem rather … fixated.

It’s the point that bikes when they do not obey traffics rules can and do routinely cause injury to people and also death. Obey the rules of the road and people don’t get killed. If you cannot and refuse to do so and willingly put others at risk, you are a sociopath.

ok. again pls show me the stats showing bicycles are so deadly to pedestrians?

What are you talking about stats? One death is too many. This is not some risk assessment. As I already said, the fact that you think it’s an acceptable risk to disobey traffic rules when there is risk of injury and death to others is sociopathic by definition.

I’m talking about stats because that’s what this conversation is about: how to make public parks safer and more amenable to recreation. It’s not about one edge case. Anyway, you’re clearly fighting a battle in your own head about “sociopathic bikers” so I’m not going to engage.

Meanwhile: does anyone have any actual ideas about what’s going on at E Potomac Park? From the swimming pool fiasco to the crumbling sidewalks, it just seems like chaos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

Yes according to physics. A modern car with it's broad face and relatively soft material is specifically designed to disperse the force of an impact. Conversely a bicycle with it's hard material and point like shape directs and amplifies the force of the impact. In addition gears, chains and spokes are pointy and exposed while cars internal components are contained. In addition, a car can stop pretty easily and quickly at 15 mph while a bicycle cannot. Lastly, a driver is more able to suddenly swerve to try and avoid the collision where a bicyclist cannot without losing control.

Actually what those broad faces seem to be specifically designed to do is: kill pedestrians.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-dangers-of-big-trucks/

It's not the broad face they are pointing out. It's the height of trucks (and big SUVs) creating a blind spot for smaller vehicles and people. I do agree that that's a major safety problem in general but it's a different issue.

It's also the broad face, which hits people in the torso or head, instead of the legs, and which knocks people down under the vehicle instead of up onto the hood. Not to mention that you couldn't get those hood heights without the broad faces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

Yes according to physics. A modern car with it's broad face and relatively soft material is specifically designed to disperse the force of an impact. Conversely a bicycle with it's hard material and point like shape directs and amplifies the force of the impact. In addition gears, chains and spokes are pointy and exposed while cars internal components are contained. In addition, a car can stop pretty easily and quickly at 15 mph while a bicycle cannot. Lastly, a driver is more able to suddenly swerve to try and avoid the collision where a bicyclist cannot without losing control.

oookay. this must be why there’s an absolute epidemic of bikes killing pedestrians?

Most bicyclists don't go over 15 mph. Average bike speed is less than 10 mph. Meanwhile car accidents at 15 mph arent deadly. Compare like to like. It was a very specific scenario in which somebody didn't want bicyclists to have to follow a 15 mph speed limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

Yes according to physics. A modern car with it's broad face and relatively soft material is specifically designed to disperse the force of an impact. Conversely a bicycle with it's hard material and point like shape directs and amplifies the force of the impact. In addition gears, chains and spokes are pointy and exposed while cars internal components are contained. In addition, a car can stop pretty easily and quickly at 15 mph while a bicycle cannot. Lastly, a driver is more able to suddenly swerve to try and avoid the collision where a bicyclist cannot without losing control.

Actually what those broad faces seem to be specifically designed to do is: kill pedestrians.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-dangers-of-big-trucks/

It's not the broad face they are pointing out. It's the height of trucks (and big SUVs) creating a blind spot for smaller vehicles and people. I do agree that that's a major safety problem in general but it's a different issue.

It's also the broad face, which hits people in the torso or head, instead of the legs, and which knocks people down under the vehicle instead of up onto the hood. Not to mention that you couldn't get those hood heights without the broad faces.

That article was entirely about height

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

This is an argument for having separate bike infrastructure in the park. Right now pedestrians are forced onto the road with cars and bikes. And of course although bikes can cause harm, it’s many orders of magnitude less than cars.

As a side note, calling bike riders “absolute sociopaths” does not lend you much credibility. It makes you seem rather … fixated.

It’s the point that bikes when they do not obey traffics rules can and do routinely cause injury to people and also death. Obey the rules of the road and people don’t get killed. If you cannot and refuse to do so and willingly put others at risk, you are a sociopath.

ok. again pls show me the stats showing bicycles are so deadly to pedestrians?

What are you talking about stats? One death is too many. This is not some risk assessment. As I already said, the fact that you think it’s an acceptable risk to disobey traffic rules when there is risk of injury and death to others is sociopathic by definition.

I’m talking about stats because that’s what this conversation is about: how to make public parks safer and more amenable to recreation. It’s not about one edge case. Anyway, you’re clearly fighting a battle in your own head about “sociopathic bikers” so I’m not going to engage.

Meanwhile: does anyone have any actual ideas about what’s going on at E Potomac Park? From the swimming pool fiasco to the crumbling sidewalks, it just seems like chaos.

It's the same environmental engineering issue.

Nothing in this thread has been about making parks safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

This is an argument for having separate bike infrastructure in the park. Right now pedestrians are forced onto the road with cars and bikes. And of course although bikes can cause harm, it’s many orders of magnitude less than cars.

As a side note, calling bike riders “absolute sociopaths” does not lend you much credibility. It makes you seem rather … fixated.

It’s the point that bikes when they do not obey traffics rules can and do routinely cause injury to people and also death. Obey the rules of the road and people don’t get killed. If you cannot and refuse to do so and willingly put others at risk, you are a sociopath.

ok. again pls show me the stats showing bicycles are so deadly to pedestrians?

What are you talking about stats? One death is too many. This is not some risk assessment. As I already said, the fact that you think it’s an acceptable risk to disobey traffic rules when there is risk of injury and death to others is sociopathic by definition.

I’m talking about stats because that’s what this conversation is about: how to make public parks safer and more amenable to recreation. It’s not about one edge case. Anyway, you’re clearly fighting a battle in your own head about “sociopathic bikers” so I’m not going to engage.

Meanwhile: does anyone have any actual ideas about what’s going on at E Potomac Park? From the swimming pool fiasco to the crumbling sidewalks, it just seems like chaos.

It's the same environmental engineering issue.

Nothing in this thread has been about making parks safer.

this entire thread is about making the park safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

This is an argument for having separate bike infrastructure in the park. Right now pedestrians are forced onto the road with cars and bikes. And of course although bikes can cause harm, it’s many orders of magnitude less than cars.

As a side note, calling bike riders “absolute sociopaths” does not lend you much credibility. It makes you seem rather … fixated.

It’s the point that bikes when they do not obey traffics rules can and do routinely cause injury to people and also death. Obey the rules of the road and people don’t get killed. If you cannot and refuse to do so and willingly put others at risk, you are a sociopath.

ok. again pls show me the stats showing bicycles are so deadly to pedestrians?

What are you talking about stats? One death is too many. This is not some risk assessment. As I already said, the fact that you think it’s an acceptable risk to disobey traffic rules when there is risk of injury and death to others is sociopathic by definition.

I’m talking about stats because that’s what this conversation is about: how to make public parks safer and more amenable to recreation. It’s not about one edge case. Anyway, you’re clearly fighting a battle in your own head about “sociopathic bikers” so I’m not going to engage.

Meanwhile: does anyone have any actual ideas about what’s going on at E Potomac Park? From the swimming pool fiasco to the crumbling sidewalks, it just seems like chaos.

It's the same environmental engineering issue.

Nothing in this thread has been about making parks safer.

this entire thread is about making the park safer.

None of it is. It's been about getting rid of pedestrains and the cars they arrive in.

[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:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

This is an argument for having separate bike infrastructure in the park. Right now pedestrians are forced onto the road with cars and bikes. And of course although bikes can cause harm, it’s many orders of magnitude less than cars.

As a side note, calling bike riders “absolute sociopaths” does not lend you much credibility. It makes you seem rather … fixated.

It’s the point that bikes when they do not obey traffics rules can and do routinely cause injury to people and also death. Obey the rules of the road and people don’t get killed. If you cannot and refuse to do so and willingly put others at risk, you are a sociopath.

ok. again pls show me the stats showing bicycles are so deadly to pedestrians?

What are you talking about stats? One death is too many. This is not some risk assessment. As I already said, the fact that you think it’s an acceptable risk to disobey traffic rules when there is risk of injury and death to others is sociopathic by definition.

I’m talking about stats because that’s what this conversation is about: how to make public parks safer and more amenable to recreation. It’s not about one edge case. Anyway, you’re clearly fighting a battle in your own head about “sociopathic bikers” so I’m not going to engage.

Meanwhile: does anyone have any actual ideas about what’s going on at E Potomac Park? From the swimming pool fiasco to the crumbling sidewalks, it just seems like chaos.

It's the same environmental engineering issue.

Nothing in this thread has been about making parks safer.

this entire thread is about making the park safer.

None of it is. It's been about getting rid of pedestrains and the cars they arrive in.

someone is coocoo for cocopuffs

[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:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

This is an argument for having separate bike infrastructure in the park. Right now pedestrians are forced onto the road with cars and bikes. And of course although bikes can cause harm, it’s many orders of magnitude less than cars.

As a side note, calling bike riders “absolute sociopaths” does not lend you much credibility. It makes you seem rather … fixated.

It’s the point that bikes when they do not obey traffics rules can and do routinely cause injury to people and also death. Obey the rules of the road and people don’t get killed. If you cannot and refuse to do so and willingly put others at risk, you are a sociopath.

ok. again pls show me the stats showing bicycles are so deadly to pedestrians?

What are you talking about stats? One death is too many. This is not some risk assessment. As I already said, the fact that you think it’s an acceptable risk to disobey traffic rules when there is risk of injury and death to others is sociopathic by definition.

I’m talking about stats because that’s what this conversation is about: how to make public parks safer and more amenable to recreation. It’s not about one edge case. Anyway, you’re clearly fighting a battle in your own head about “sociopathic bikers” so I’m not going to engage.

Meanwhile: does anyone have any actual ideas about what’s going on at E Potomac Park? From the swimming pool fiasco to the crumbling sidewalks, it just seems like chaos.

It's the same environmental engineering issue.

Nothing in this thread has been about making parks safer.

this entire thread is about making the park safer.

None of it is. It's been about getting rid of pedestrains and the cars they arrive in.

someone is coocoo for cocopuffs

It’s fascinating that when respectfully challenged you resort to name calling.

[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:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

This is an argument for having separate bike infrastructure in the park. Right now pedestrians are forced onto the road with cars and bikes. And of course although bikes can cause harm, it’s many orders of magnitude less than cars.

As a side note, calling bike riders “absolute sociopaths” does not lend you much credibility. It makes you seem rather … fixated.

It’s the point that bikes when they do not obey traffics rules can and do routinely cause injury to people and also death. Obey the rules of the road and people don’t get killed. If you cannot and refuse to do so and willingly put others at risk, you are a sociopath.

ok. again pls show me the stats showing bicycles are so deadly to pedestrians?

What are you talking about stats? One death is too many. This is not some risk assessment. As I already said, the fact that you think it’s an acceptable risk to disobey traffic rules when there is risk of injury and death to others is sociopathic by definition.

I’m talking about stats because that’s what this conversation is about: how to make public parks safer and more amenable to recreation. It’s not about one edge case. Anyway, you’re clearly fighting a battle in your own head about “sociopathic bikers” so I’m not going to engage.

Meanwhile: does anyone have any actual ideas about what’s going on at E Potomac Park? From the swimming pool fiasco to the crumbling sidewalks, it just seems like chaos.

It's the same environmental engineering issue.

Nothing in this thread has been about making parks safer.

this entire thread is about making the park safer.

None of it is. It's been about getting rid of pedestrains and the cars they arrive in.

someone is coocoo for cocopuffs

Someone thinks they look good in spandex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you don't want the rules to apply to you

By the way, a 15 mph bicycle with all it's pointy metal bits and directed energy is more dangerous than a 15 mph broad, blunt and plastic car.

Not according to the laws of physics (specifically F=ma), it's not.

+1. I can't believe someone thinking that "bluntness" means a car is less dangerous despite being like 20 times more massive.

You people are absolute sociopaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-man-charged-in-bicycle-accident-that-killed-kiplinger-editor/2017/04/13/bd2f2e1e-1f91-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html

This is an argument for having separate bike infrastructure in the park. Right now pedestrians are forced onto the road with cars and bikes. And of course although bikes can cause harm, it’s many orders of magnitude less than cars.

As a side note, calling bike riders “absolute sociopaths” does not lend you much credibility. It makes you seem rather … fixated.

It’s the point that bikes when they do not obey traffics rules can and do routinely cause injury to people and also death. Obey the rules of the road and people don’t get killed. If you cannot and refuse to do so and willingly put others at risk, you are a sociopath.

ok. again pls show me the stats showing bicycles are so deadly to pedestrians?

What are you talking about stats? One death is too many. This is not some risk assessment. As I already said, the fact that you think it’s an acceptable risk to disobey traffic rules when there is risk of injury and death to others is sociopathic by definition.

I’m talking about stats because that’s what this conversation is about: how to make public parks safer and more amenable to recreation. It’s not about one edge case. Anyway, you’re clearly fighting a battle in your own head about “sociopathic bikers” so I’m not going to engage.

Meanwhile: does anyone have any actual ideas about what’s going on at E Potomac Park? From the swimming pool fiasco to the crumbling sidewalks, it just seems like chaos.

Unless you can present another death from cars in the park that is also as you say “one edge case”. So either “one edge case” is important or not important?