Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know which bike lanes you're talking about, but the "bike lobby" is not lobbying for terrible bike lanes.

And actually putting in protected bike lanes, on their own, does improve safety.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm

Diverting Conn Avenue traffic onto the side streets off of Conn Ave will not improve safety. I will lead to accidents, and no doubt the death of a young running to school in NW DC. Question is not whether but when and where.

You have repeated these lies for hundreds of pages. Don't you get tired of lying?

So very Trumpy sounding. Wonder why that is?

So you spout lie after lie after lie blissfully ignoring anything that's presented in a ... checks notes... 371 page thread... and the people who are calling you out for it are "Trumpy"? Wth.

[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?

Do you know the circumstances of this accident? And what is your evidence that bike lanes would have prevented it?

The subject of the thread is options to oppose Connecticut Avenue changes. The changes being proposed as safety changes. The OP wants to oppose those changes. Yet a pedestrian was hit by a driver in front of a speed camera. Why do we accept this on our streets? It is unnecesary carnage and should be considered untolerable.

Nowhere in my post did I mention bike lanes.

Did you witness the accident? Please share the specific details you have.

[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.

This.

Its just hilarious cognitive dissosance how many of these drivers admit to committing crimes if the law isn't convenient to them, but want everyone else arrested for every petty crime, including fare jumping

[Anonymous]

The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

When a road is designed to facilitate said crashes when tweaks could minimize them, why not opt for the one that will make it safer for people, rather than prioritizing single individuals in 2 ton hunks of metal?

[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?

Do you know the circumstances of this accident? And what is your evidence that bike lanes would have prevented it?

The subject of the thread is options to oppose Connecticut Avenue changes. The changes being proposed as safety changes. The OP wants to oppose those changes. Yet a pedestrian was hit by a driver in front of a speed camera. Why do we accept this on our streets? It is unnecesary carnage and should be considered untolerable.

Nowhere in my post did I mention bike lanes.

Did you witness the accident? Please share the specific details you have.

Someone driving a car hit a human being who was on foot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know which bike lanes you're talking about, but the "bike lobby" is not lobbying for terrible bike lanes.

And actually putting in protected bike lanes, on their own, does improve safety.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm

Diverting Conn Avenue traffic onto the side streets off of Conn Ave will not improve safety. I will lead to accidents, and no doubt the death of a young running to school in NW DC. Question is not whether but when and where.

You have repeated these lies for hundreds of pages. Don't you get tired of lying?

You fail to recognize the likely consequences of your favorite policy. With WAZE, etc, I (and thousands of others) regularly drive routes that I would not have considered, because my phone tells me what is the fastest in terms of time. So, the idea that traffic changes on the Avenue will not affect the side streets is simply delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

You live in reports and studies. We live in the real world. As a 30 year DC resident I know exactly what will happen to my block just off Connecticut. Bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

You live in reports and studies. We live in the real world. As a 30 year DC resident I know exactly what will happen to my block just off Connecticut. Bye.

I really hope you mean it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

You live in reports and studies. We live in the real world. As a 30 year DC resident I know exactly what will happen to my block just off Connecticut. Bye.

I too live on a block immediately off CT Ave (a "unit" block if you will) and want the bike lanes and have zero issue with any prospective increase in car traffic. Because 1) we need a safer avenue and 2) a street is a street, and it is meant to be used by people, bikes, cars etc. So if there are more cars on my street (doubtful) then so be it, that is what public space is for.

Oh and I am a 50 year resident, so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know which bike lanes you're talking about, but the "bike lobby" is not lobbying for terrible bike lanes.

And actually putting in protected bike lanes, on their own, does improve safety.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm

Diverting Conn Avenue traffic onto the side streets off of Conn Ave will not improve safety. I will lead to accidents, and no doubt the death of a young running to school in NW DC. Question is not whether but when and where.

You have repeated these lies for hundreds of pages. Don't you get tired of lying?

You fail to recognize the likely consequences of your favorite policy. With WAZE, etc, I (and thousands of others) regularly drive routes that I would not have considered, because my phone tells me what is the fastest in terms of time. So, the idea that traffic changes on the Avenue will not affect the side streets is simply delusional.

and?

WAZE already diverts people from CT Av. Look at the mess it creates with the unsignaled intersection of Chevy Chase Parkway. But so what? It is all public space meant to be used...by the public.

The fact is, other than "north cleveland park" there really isn't enough of a grid pattern for cars to diver to other than Reno Road to get north/south so WAZE can divert drivers all it wants, there are not many options to really bypass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

You live in reports and studies. We live in the real world. As a 30 year DC resident I know exactly what will happen to my block just off Connecticut. Bye.

I too live on a block immediately off CT Ave (a "unit" block if you will) and want the bike lanes and have zero issue with any prospective increase in car traffic. Because 1) we need a safer avenue and 2) a street is a street, and it is meant to be used by people, bikes, cars etc. So if there are more cars on my street (doubtful) then so be it, that is what public space is for.

Oh and I am a 50 year resident, so...

That's fine. Others may disagree about the potential benefits but what everyone should agree upon is that traffic will be diverted and congestion will increase. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a difference of opinion. What isn't a difference of opinion is whether or not it would occur.