Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Connecticut Avenue is literally part of the National Highway System. Literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

And that "concrete" part is literally the main safety problem according to the Swedes that came up with Vision Zero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Connecticut Avenue is literally part of the National Highway System. Literally.

Oh boy, the bike-hating PP wants to have debates about the definitions of "highway" and "concrete", what fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Connecticut Avenue is literally part of the National Highway System. Literally.

"national highway system" =/= "interstate highway system"

Do you really think Connecticut Avenue is the same as I-95?

[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.

yawn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"

And that "concrete" part is literally the main safety problem according to the Swedes that came up with Vision Zero.

Please, provide a citation showing that separation by bollards or low curbs is contrary to Origina Swedish Vision Zero. If a curb (the same height as … any other curb) poses a severe safety hazard, I’d like to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"

And that "concrete" part is literally the main safety problem according to the Swedes that came up with Vision Zero.

Please, provide a citation showing that separation by bollards or low curbs is contrary to Origina Swedish Vision Zero. If a curb (the same height as … any other curb) poses a severe safety hazard, I’d like to know.

Bollards are not the same height as curbs.

Bollards are the same height or higher than lamp post bases. The article has an interview with the engineer who came up with the idea and explicitly says that the impetus was the concrete lamp post base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"

And that "concrete" part is literally the main safety problem according to the Swedes that came up with Vision Zero.

Please, provide a citation showing that separation by bollards or low curbs is contrary to Origina Swedish Vision Zero. If a curb (the same height as … any other curb) poses a severe safety hazard, I’d like to know.

Bollards are not the same height as curbs.

Bollards are the same height or higher than lamp post bases. The article has an interview with the engineer who came up with the idea and explicitly says that the impetus was the concrete lamp post base.

Please provide actual and specifix technical documentation that Orginal Swedish Vision Zero specifically says low curbs or bollards on a street Like Conn Ave are a safety risk. All you have is a quote from the popular press discussing an obstacle (concrete lightpole on a highway) that is not at all the same as the protected bike lane buffers used in DC.

[Anonymous]

What’s the name for arguments entirely focusd on “gotchas” that are demonstrably stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Connecticut Avenue is literally part of the National Highway System. Literally.

"national highway system" =/= "interstate highway system"

Do you really think Connecticut Avenue is the same as I-95?

Doesn’t matter what I think. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what USDOT thinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"

And that "concrete" part is literally the main safety problem according to the Swedes that came up with Vision Zero.

Please, provide a citation showing that separation by bollards or low curbs is contrary to Origina Swedish Vision Zero. If a curb (the same height as … any other curb) poses a severe safety hazard, I’d like to know.

Bollards are not the same height as curbs.

Bollards are the same height or higher than lamp post bases. The article has an interview with the engineer who came up with the idea and explicitly says that the impetus was the concrete lamp post base.

Please provide actual and specifix technical documentation that Orginal Swedish Vision Zero specifically says low curbs or bollards on a street Like Conn Ave are a safety risk. All you have is a quote from the popular press discussing an obstacle (concrete lightpole on a highway) that is not at all the same as the protected bike lane buffers used in DC.

It's literally the guy who came up with the idea saying that concrete objects was the problem.

And why do you keep conflating low curbs with bollards? They aren't remotely similar. You know that, I know that, my cat knows that, anything that has a brain knows that but somehow you pretend to not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s the name for arguments entirely focusd on “gotchas” that are demonstrably stupid?

bikebrosism

[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: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"

And that "concrete" part is literally the main safety problem according to the Swedes that came up with Vision Zero.

Please, provide a citation showing that separation by bollards or low curbs is contrary to Origina Swedish Vision Zero. If a curb (the same height as … any other curb) poses a severe safety hazard, I’d like to know.

Bollards are not the same height as curbs.

Bollards are the same height or higher than lamp post bases. The article has an interview with the engineer who came up with the idea and explicitly says that the impetus was the concrete lamp post base.

Please provide actual and specifix technical documentation that Orginal Swedish Vision Zero specifically says low curbs or bollards on a street Like Conn Ave are a safety risk. All you have is a quote from the popular press discussing an obstacle (concrete lightpole on a highway) that is not at all the same as the protected bike lane buffers used in DC.

It's literally the guy who came up with the idea saying that concrete objects was the problem.

And why do you keep conflating low curbs with bollards? They aren't remotely similar. You know that, I know that, my cat knows that, anything that has a brain knows that but somehow you pretend to not.

Please provide a cite where Original Swedish Vision Zero says *all* concrete on *all* roads is a safety hazard, and specifically that low curbs and bollards are a hazard?

Also are you confused by the word “and”? Curbs and bollards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the name for arguments entirely focusd on “gotchas” that are demonstrably stupid?

bikebrosism

The more you use dumb slogans and stupid bad faith arguments, the more you will be ignored.

Nobody likes you. Your neighbors roll their eyes when they see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Connecticut Avenue is literally part of the National Highway System. Literally.

"national highway system" =/= "interstate highway system"

Do you really think Connecticut Avenue is the same as I-95?

Doesn’t matter what I think. Doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what USDOT thinks.

US DOT does not think Connecticut Avenue is a limited access high speed highway and thus not the same as the example cited above.