‘Slow Streets’ is stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t a street that’s closed to through traffic basically a publicly funded shared driveway?

No, it's a street that people can comfortably use while not in a car.

In AU Park where I see them, all the slow streets could be comfortably navigated while not in a car before the barriers went up.

"comfortably navigated" by whom?

Pedestrians, bicyclists, scootering kids, etc. These are not busy streets to start with.

So, pedestrians, bicyclists, scootering kids can comfortable be in (not cross) the streets, even when they're not slow streets? You'd have been comfortable teaching your four-year-old how to ride a bike in those streets last year? Or letting your five-year-old go by themselves to visit their friend on the other side of the street at the other end of the block? Or letting your six-year-old play kickball in those streets?

Children should not be playing kickball in any streets. That’s not their purpose. I taught my kids to ride their bikes on the sidewalk and at the park a few blocks away.

Says who? We're talking about neighborhood streets, right? Why shouldn't streets belong to everyone, including neighborhood kids playing kickball?

[Anonymous]

Slow streets is so stupid and dangerous. People are still driving on the roads, they just have less safe intersections because there are giant signs blocking the way. The signs at Georgia and Piney Branch are particularly hazardous but I’m sure there are similar issues across the city. I’d never allow my children to play in the streets, even with these signs. People speed down the streets anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slow streets is so stupid and dangerous. People are still driving on the roads, they just have less safe intersections because there are giant signs blocking the way. The signs at Georgia and Piney Branch are particularly hazardous but I’m sure there are similar issues across the city. I’d never allow my children to play in the streets, even with these signs. People speed down the streets anyway.

Slow streets aren't stupid or dangerous. You know what's stupid and dangerous? Drivers driving too fast, and roads built for drivers to drive too fast on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slow streets is so stupid and dangerous. People are still driving on the roads, they just have less safe intersections because there are giant signs blocking the way. The signs at Georgia and Piney Branch are particularly hazardous but I’m sure there are similar issues across the city. I’d never allow my children to play in the streets, even with these signs. People speed down the streets anyway.

So pick a different street?

Georgia & Piney Branch isn't even a slow street intersection, you're thinking of Van Buren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slow streets are elitist. You are privatizing your street but expect public services while negatively impacting your neighboring streets.

The city is closing the streets to through traffic, no one who lives there is "privatizing" their street.

[Anonymous]

I'd love for my street to be designated a "slow street". How can I apply?

[Anonymous]

Your slow street is Privatized. For you. Call it what you want but you are denying public access. To cars. Which is why streets were built. Not for kickball and strollers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your slow street is Privatized. For you. Call it what you want but you are denying public access. To cars. Which is why streets were built. Not for kickball and strollers.

Is a sidewalk privatized because you can't drive on it? Of course not. Whatever you might think of why streets were built (many of these streets, of course, predate the widespread use of cars), the city regularly designates how and when the public can access public areas. Those areas aren't privatized anymore than a park that closes at dusk or a sidewalk I can't ride my bike on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your slow street is Privatized. For you. Call it what you want but you are denying public access. To cars. Which is why streets were built. Not for kickball and strollers.

I have news for you about the history of streets in DC. Short version: streets in DC were not built for cars.

[Anonymous]

Developed for them. Yeah. I know about the horses. Still not kickball & strollers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Developed for them. Yeah. I know about the horses. Still not kickball & strollers.

Horses nothing. You mention public space? Streets used to be public space for everyone, before society decided to designate them as space almost exclusively for people in cars. Slow streets help restore the street to be public space for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Like most drivers, I ignore all the rules associated with Slow Streets. The cops are free to cite me but we all know they won’t bother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like most drivers, I ignore all the rules associated with Slow Streets. The cops are free to cite me but we all know they won’t bother.

Like most drivers, you ignore traffic laws?

I don't think that's true, by the way. Most drivers do ignore some traffic laws (speed limits, for example; also, a complete stop at a stop sign and before turning right on red) but do generally follow other traffic laws (for example, do-not-enter signs and no-thru-traffic signs).

[Anonymous]

People who hate cars sometimes seem to forget they are in the extreme minority of people in Washington DC.

Most people in DC have cars. And most of the rest of the people who don’t have cars don’t have them for non-car-hating reasons. Maybe they don’t need one. Maybe they can’t afford one. Maybe they’ve been meaning to buy one but haven’t gotten around to it. People who don’t have cars because they don’t like cars in principle are a minuscule share of the population.

People in the teeny tiny minority don’t get to dictate the rules for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who hate cars sometimes seem to forget they are in the extreme minority of people in Washington DC.

Most people in DC have cars. And most of the rest of the people who don’t have cars don’t have them for non-car-hating reasons. Maybe they don’t need one. Maybe they can’t afford one. Maybe they’ve been meaning to buy one but haven’t gotten around to it. People who don’t have cars because they don’t like cars in principle are a minuscule share of the population.

People in the teeny tiny minority don’t get to dictate the rules for everyone else.

Whom are you addressing? I don't hate cars. I own two of them. What I hate is the belief that roads are for cars and everybody else just better get the heck out of the way. Actually, I don't even hate that belief, just like I don't hate the belief that the world is flat. It's just a factually incorrect belief, that's all.