NPS: Ban Cars Now in DC Urban Parks

[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

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.

So you are a pedestrian that likes to get hit by bikes? I feel like I’m watching CSPAN and someone is calling in claiming to be a Democrat but thinks Obama is a Muslim.

[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.

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?

Are you the one arguing that bikes are more deadly than cars because they are "pointy" and cars are "soft flat plastic"?

[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:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

[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:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

The strawman was your claim that the entire thread is dedicated to getting rid of pedestrians in East Potomac Park. That's not what's being discussed here, so you're either A) debating in bad faith or B) in dire need of adult literacy classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

NOBODY SAID ONLY BIKES SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

The vision is for pedestrians and bikes to have appropriate spaces; for car access to be limited to the minimal extent necessary for access (e.g., one side of the drive only, a one-way, one-car-lane loop with a protected bike lane, 15 mph speed limit enforced with speed bumps, or more creative solutions like a parking lot and shuttle combo during the busiest weekends.) In addition, the golf course parking lot is a mess with no provisions made for pedestrians. That should be fixed ASAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

The strawman was your claim that the entire thread is dedicated to getting rid of pedestrians in East Potomac Park. That's not what's being discussed here, so you're either A) debating in bad faith or B) in dire need of adult literacy classes.

First, you are confusing me with someone else. Second, that’s not a strawman. As you point out, it is a claim that has been supported by evidence revealed in your priorities. You clearly are only interested in drawing people into false binary choices that lead only to the conclusion that favors you and only you (and the limited number of bikers like you). The refutation of that is pointing out your self-interested position to help explain how you arrive at these logical fallacies. In the meantime, as you seemingly don’t seem to understand this you are constantly name calling, one would presume out of exasperation that people are not falling for your self-interested arguments.

And that is a recap of this thread. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

The strawman was your claim that the entire thread is dedicated to getting rid of pedestrians in East Potomac Park. That's not what's being discussed here, so you're either A) debating in bad faith or B) in dire need of adult literacy classes.

First, you are confusing me with someone else. Second, that’s not a strawman. As you point out, it is a claim that has been supported by evidence revealed in your priorities. You clearly are only interested in drawing people into false binary choices that lead only to the conclusion that favors you and only you (and the limited number of bikers like you). The refutation of that is pointing out your self-interested position to help explain how you arrive at these logical fallacies. In the meantime, as you seemingly don’t seem to understand this you are constantly name calling, one would presume out of exasperation that people are not falling for your self-interested arguments.

And that is a recap of this thread. The end.

Um ... what false binary choice? A zillion people have repeatedly posted here about making room for bikes, pedestrians, and LIMITED SAFE car access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

The strawman was your claim that the entire thread is dedicated to getting rid of pedestrians in East Potomac Park. That's not what's being discussed here, so you're either A) debating in bad faith or B) in dire need of adult literacy classes.

First, you are confusing me with someone else. Second, that’s not a strawman. As you point out, it is a claim that has been supported by evidence revealed in your priorities. You clearly are only interested in drawing people into false binary choices that lead only to the conclusion that favors you and only you (and the limited number of bikers like you). The refutation of that is pointing out your self-interested position to help explain how you arrive at these logical fallacies. In the meantime, as you seemingly don’t seem to understand this you are constantly name calling, one would presume out of exasperation that people are not falling for your self-interested arguments.

And that is a recap of this thread. The end.

Um ... what false binary choice? A zillion people have repeatedly posted here about making room for bikes, pedestrians, and LIMITED SAFE car access.

LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

NOBODY SAID ONLY BIKES SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

The vision is for pedestrians and bikes to have appropriate spaces; for car access to be limited to the minimal extent necessary for access (e.g., one side of the drive only, a one-way, one-car-lane loop with a protected bike lane, 15 mph speed limit enforced with speed bumps, or more creative solutions like a parking lot and shuttle combo during the busiest weekends.) In addition, the golf course parking lot is a mess with no provisions made for pedestrians. That should be fixed ASAP.

Clearly the best and only logical solution. Nothing about this is self interested at all right? LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

The strawman was your claim that the entire thread is dedicated to getting rid of pedestrians in East Potomac Park. That's not what's being discussed here, so you're either A) debating in bad faith or B) in dire need of adult literacy classes.

First, you are confusing me with someone else. Second, that’s not a strawman. As you point out, it is a claim that has been supported by evidence revealed in your priorities. You clearly are only interested in drawing people into false binary choices that lead only to the conclusion that favors you and only you (and the limited number of bikers like you). The refutation of that is pointing out your self-interested position to help explain how you arrive at these logical fallacies. In the meantime, as you seemingly don’t seem to understand this you are constantly name calling, one would presume out of exasperation that people are not falling for your self-interested arguments.

And that is a recap of this thread. The end.

You responded to my post, so forgive me for thinking that you were the person who responded to my post. This 'rebuttal' is absolute gibberish. Nobody here is interested in drawing people into false binary choices, except maybe the guy who is convinced that getting hit by a car is safer than getting hit by a bike. And I haven't called you a single name in this thread, although a different poster did correctly point out that you are absolutely coocoo. All you have done is demonstrate that you can perform a reasonably competent gish gallop to obscure the fact that you're out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

NOBODY SAID ONLY BIKES SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

The vision is for pedestrians and bikes to have appropriate spaces; for car access to be limited to the minimal extent necessary for access (e.g., one side of the drive only, a one-way, one-car-lane loop with a protected bike lane, 15 mph speed limit enforced with speed bumps, or more creative solutions like a parking lot and shuttle combo during the busiest weekends.) In addition, the golf course parking lot is a mess with no provisions made for pedestrians. That should be fixed ASAP.

Clearly the best and only logical solution. Nothing about this is self interested at all right? LOL.

The tell is failing to mention the repair of the sea wall but of course a dedicated bike lane is a priority but it was pedestrians and not cyclists killed?

Yes, this is all perfect logical sense. No logical fallacies here. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

The strawman was your claim that the entire thread is dedicated to getting rid of pedestrians in East Potomac Park. That's not what's being discussed here, so you're either A) debating in bad faith or B) in dire need of adult literacy classes.

First, you are confusing me with someone else. Second, that’s not a strawman. As you point out, it is a claim that has been supported by evidence revealed in your priorities. You clearly are only interested in drawing people into false binary choices that lead only to the conclusion that favors you and only you (and the limited number of bikers like you). The refutation of that is pointing out your self-interested position to help explain how you arrive at these logical fallacies. In the meantime, as you seemingly don’t seem to understand this you are constantly name calling, one would presume out of exasperation that people are not falling for your self-interested arguments.

And that is a recap of this thread. The end.

You responded to my post, so forgive me for thinking that you were the person who responded to my post. This 'rebuttal' is absolute gibberish. Nobody here is interested in drawing people into false binary choices, except maybe the guy who is convinced that getting hit by a car is safer than getting hit by a bike. And I haven't called you a single name in this thread, although a different poster did correctly point out that you are absolutely coocoo. All you have done is demonstrate that you can perform a reasonably competent gish gallop to obscure the fact that you're out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

And a return to the name calling. LOL.

So childish. Y’all need to grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

The strawman was your claim that the entire thread is dedicated to getting rid of pedestrians in East Potomac Park. That's not what's being discussed here, so you're either A) debating in bad faith or B) in dire need of adult literacy classes.

First, you are confusing me with someone else. Second, that’s not a strawman. As you point out, it is a claim that has been supported by evidence revealed in your priorities. You clearly are only interested in drawing people into false binary choices that lead only to the conclusion that favors you and only you (and the limited number of bikers like you). The refutation of that is pointing out your self-interested position to help explain how you arrive at these logical fallacies. In the meantime, as you seemingly don’t seem to understand this you are constantly name calling, one would presume out of exasperation that people are not falling for your self-interested arguments.

And that is a recap of this thread. The end.

You responded to my post, so forgive me for thinking that you were the person who responded to my post. This 'rebuttal' is absolute gibberish. Nobody here is interested in drawing people into false binary choices, except maybe the guy who is convinced that getting hit by a car is safer than getting hit by a bike. And I haven't called you a single name in this thread, although a different poster did correctly point out that you are absolutely coocoo. All you have done is demonstrate that you can perform a reasonably competent gish gallop to obscure the fact that you're out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

And a return to the name calling. LOL.

So childish. Y’all need to grow up.

Thanks for proving my point - you've got nothing. Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how constructing a strawman argument could possibly be considered a respectful challenge, but whatever helps you sleep better at night.

The strawman is what exactly? You are so all over the place with shifting rationales for why only bikes should be in the park that you are impossible to follow.

The strawman was your claim that the entire thread is dedicated to getting rid of pedestrians in East Potomac Park. That's not what's being discussed here, so you're either A) debating in bad faith or B) in dire need of adult literacy classes.

First, you are confusing me with someone else. Second, that’s not a strawman. As you point out, it is a claim that has been supported by evidence revealed in your priorities. You clearly are only interested in drawing people into false binary choices that lead only to the conclusion that favors you and only you (and the limited number of bikers like you). The refutation of that is pointing out your self-interested position to help explain how you arrive at these logical fallacies. In the meantime, as you seemingly don’t seem to understand this you are constantly name calling, one would presume out of exasperation that people are not falling for your self-interested arguments.

And that is a recap of this thread. The end.

You responded to my post, so forgive me for thinking that you were the person who responded to my post. This 'rebuttal' is absolute gibberish. Nobody here is interested in drawing people into false binary choices, except maybe the guy who is convinced that getting hit by a car is safer than getting hit by a bike. And I haven't called you a single name in this thread, although a different poster did correctly point out that you are absolutely coocoo. All you have done is demonstrate that you can perform a reasonably competent gish gallop to obscure the fact that you're out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.

And a return to the name calling. LOL.

So childish. Y’all need to grow up.

Thanks for proving my point - you've got nothing. Enjoy the rest of your day.

All you have is motivated reasoning and name calling. Makes sense considering that bikers seem to be in a state of emotional arrested development.