Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

All of the experts say you're wrong, but why trust them when we can trust an anonymous rando on the Internet?!

None of the experts say I'm wrong. Why are you so comfortable lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

All of the experts say you're wrong, but why trust them when we can trust an anonymous rando on the Internet?!

None of the experts say I'm wrong. Why are you so comfortable lying?

Different poster. Yes, experts would say you are wrong. There is no road engineer who would suggest higher speeds for cars and trucks make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. None.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this



How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

You're seven times more likely to be murdered in Washington D.C. than die in a traffic accident, and yet I doubt you worry about getting murdered.

Most people understand that it's not binary: either everything is peachy-keen, or you're dead. Most people understand that car crashes that cause injuries are bad, even if the injuries are not fatal injuries.

The issue is skin color, and we all know it.

The city will spend billions of dollars to prevent cyclists from getting killed, even though there's basically one cyclist killed per year since forever.

There's 300 mostly black people murdered each year, and everyone is like, "it's a city. Maybe you should move if you're scared."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

All of the experts say you're wrong, but why trust them when we can trust an anonymous rando on the Internet?!

None of the experts say I'm wrong. Why are you so comfortable lying?

Different poster. Yes, experts would say you are wrong. There is no road engineer who would suggest higher speeds for cars and trucks make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. None.

Of course, cyclists make the opposite argument for themselves. They say they should be allowed to ride through intersections as quickly as possible ("Idaho stops") because the less time they spend in the intersection, the safer it is. Speed limits for thee and not for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

All of the experts say you're wrong, but why trust them when we can trust an anonymous rando on the Internet?!

None of the experts say I'm wrong. Why are you so comfortable lying?

All of the experts say you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

All of the experts say you're wrong, but why trust them when we can trust an anonymous rando on the Internet?!

None of the experts say I'm wrong. Why are you so comfortable lying?

Different poster. Yes, experts would say you are wrong. There is no road engineer who would suggest higher speeds for cars and trucks make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. None.

Of course, cyclists make the opposite argument for themselves. They say they should be allowed to ride through intersections as quickly as possible ("Idaho stops") because the less time they spend in the intersection, the safer it is. Speed limits for thee and not for me.

There's a lack of phsyics knowledge in your repetoire. Both in regards to acceleration and the difference in impact between a speeding car and a bike

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this



How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

You're seven times more likely to be murdered in Washington D.C. than die in a traffic accident, and yet I doubt you worry about getting murdered.

Most people understand that it's not binary: either everything is peachy-keen, or you're dead. Most people understand that car crashes that cause injuries are bad, even if the injuries are not fatal injuries.

The issue is skin color, and we all know it.

The city will spend billions of dollars to prevent cyclists from getting killed, even though there's basically one cyclist killed per year since forever.

There's 300 mostly black people murdered each year, and everyone is like, "it's a city. Maybe you should move if you're scared."

You have a bizarre obsession with young white men, when they are riding expensive bicycles in expensive gear, but that's on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

So, scofflaw drivers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this



How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

You're seven times more likely to be murdered in Washington D.C. than die in a traffic accident, and yet I doubt you worry about getting murdered.

Most people understand that it's not binary: either everything is peachy-keen, or you're dead. Most people understand that car crashes that cause injuries are bad, even if the injuries are not fatal injuries.

The issue is skin color, and we all know it.

The city will spend billions of dollars to prevent cyclists from getting killed, even though there's basically one cyclist killed per year since forever.

There's 300 mostly black people murdered each year, and everyone is like, "it's a city. Maybe you should move if you're scared."

You have a bizarre obsession with young white men, when they are riding expensive bicycles in expensive gear, but that's on you.

I believe the kids call it "structural racism."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

All of the experts say you're wrong, but why trust them when we can trust an anonymous rando on the Internet?!

None of the experts say I'm wrong. Why are you so comfortable lying?

Different poster. Yes, experts would say you are wrong. There is no road engineer who would suggest higher speeds for cars and trucks make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. None.

Of course, cyclists make the opposite argument for themselves. They say they should be allowed to ride through intersections as quickly as possible ("Idaho stops") because the less time they spend in the intersection, the safer it is. Speed limits for thee and not for me.

There's a lack of phsyics knowledge in your repetoire. Both in regards to acceleration and the difference in impact between a speeding car and a bike

Your middle school grammar teacher would be so disappointed in you.

[Anonymous]

What's needed is more pro-active, aggressive enforcement, including traffic stops by MPD - versus reactive stops when accidents occur. It's still not clear how bike lanes will make Connecticut Ave safer for pedestrians. Instead, the constraint of Connecticut Ave from three lanes each direction (MD north of the circle) to proposed two lanes (DC south of the circle) will result in vehicles changing lanes and jockeying for position, more erratic driving, an increased number of delivery vehicles and buses stopped in travel lanes, and more pedestrian-bike conflicts when pedestrians cross the bike lanes. Bike lanes may or may not make sense in a given location, but improving pedestrian and overall road safety have not been shown to be a compelling, supportable rationale for them.


Agree with the above - pedestrian safety should be the paramount consideration, including those disembarking from buses which should not be happening into a bike lane or the street - way more people walk and ride the bus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

No turn on red signs have become meaningless.

When I used to see them, I took note because it meant there was something unusual about the intersection.

But now they're everywhere and seem to signify nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

No turn on red signs have become meaningless.

When I used to see them, I took note because it meant there was something unusual about the intersection.

But now they're everywhere and seem to signify nothing.

They signify that it's illegal for drivers to turn right on red.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

No turn on red signs have become meaningless.

When I used to see them, I took note because it meant there was something unusual about the intersection.

But now they're everywhere and seem to signify nothing.

They have added them in a confusing manner. There are intersections with almost no pedestrians that banned right on red in the last few years, while there are very busy intersections with pedestrians where it is still allowed.