Bowser promised “zero traffic deaths” 10 years ago, but fatalities have doubled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people on here who are pro driving but also hate traffic. Just move to LA already. Enjoy 18 lanes of jammed traffic in each direction.

Yes this makes me laugh too. What these people don't understand is that the more car-centric a city is the more people choose to drive and thus the more traffic. It's called "induced demand." It's why every time you widen a highway and add more lanes you wind up with more traffic not less.

People who think the key to making their commute easier is to eliminate bike lanes and bus lanes and other alternative forms of transportation are idiots because they don't understand every cyclist is a car not on the road. Every bus is 30-40 cars not on the road. Every metro line is thousands of cars not on the road.

If your goal is less traffic you should support every initiative to encourage people to walk or bike or take public transportation including stuff like Vision Zero that makes those alternatives safer.

If you're successful you might just wind up with a nice relaxing car commute with minimal traffic because everyone else decided to skip the car.

Though admittedly you will have to pay through the nose for parking and you may not be able to drive right up to your office due to closing certain streets to car traffic. But it would be worth it! Imagine Connecticut Avenue with virtually no traffic (except in the bike lanes) at 8am! This is actually what it's like in a lot of cities that have successful shifted most of the population to car-free travel. I was in Sweden over the summer and we rented a car and we were regularly the only car on any given street and could park basically anywhere we wanted (again parking was incredibly pricy in the cities). Probably the easiest and most pleasant driving experience I've ever had. You do have to be very alert to bikes and pedestrians but there are so many of them this isn't that hard -- they have their own wide lanes and traffic signals and as long as you follow the rules you won't have trouble.

"Induced demand" is a lie. It's a bullshit theory made up by car hating weirdos. The average new car now costs almost $50,000. You think if we make traffic run more smoothly, everybody is going to rush out to spend $50,000 on a new car? Give me a break.

Just because it’s inconsistent with the belief system you use to justify your lifestyle does not make it a “lie”. Induced demand is not a theory, but an empirical reality. Even a cursory review of the evidence on the effects of road widening, highway construction, and road diets will show you this, should you actually care about the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people on here who are pro driving but also hate traffic. Just move to LA already. Enjoy 18 lanes of jammed traffic in each direction.

Yes this makes me laugh too. What these people don't understand is that the more car-centric a city is the more people choose to drive and thus the more traffic. It's called "induced demand." It's why every time you widen a highway and add more lanes you wind up with more traffic not less.

People who think the key to making their commute easier is to eliminate bike lanes and bus lanes and other alternative forms of transportation are idiots because they don't understand every cyclist is a car not on the road. Every bus is 30-40 cars not on the road. Every metro line is thousands of cars not on the road.

If your goal is less traffic you should support every initiative to encourage people to walk or bike or take public transportation including stuff like Vision Zero that makes those alternatives safer.

If you're successful you might just wind up with a nice relaxing car commute with minimal traffic because everyone else decided to skip the car.

Though admittedly you will have to pay through the nose for parking and you may not be able to drive right up to your office due to closing certain streets to car traffic. But it would be worth it! Imagine Connecticut Avenue with virtually no traffic (except in the bike lanes) at 8am! This is actually what it's like in a lot of cities that have successful shifted most of the population to car-free travel. I was in Sweden over the summer and we rented a car and we were regularly the only car on any given street and could park basically anywhere we wanted (again parking was incredibly pricy in the cities). Probably the easiest and most pleasant driving experience I've ever had. You do have to be very alert to bikes and pedestrians but there are so many of them this isn't that hard -- they have their own wide lanes and traffic signals and as long as you follow the rules you won't have trouble.

"Induced demand" is a lie. It's a bullshit theory made up by car hating weirdos. The average new car now costs almost $50,000. You think if we make traffic run more smoothly, everybody is going to rush out to spend $50,000 on a new car? Give me a break.

The government has very little influence over people's transportation choices. I mean, we've built more than 150 miles of bike lanes and bicycling is becoming *less* popular.

That's because the availability of bike lanes does not actually overcome people's reluctance to bike which is actually due to discomfort with biking (including not knowing how) lack of access to bikes as well as safety concerns. The majority of bike lanes don't even address safety concerns because people who don't want to bike are not just worried about being hit by cars. Also many bike lanes don't actually protect bikes from cars (most are just painted lines and drivers disregard them) so they do not make someone who has never commuted by bike before to start doing so.

But induced demand is real -- bike share programs have been enormously successful because they actually do provide non-bikers with a way to overcome a major obstacle to biking.

And induced demand with regards to cars is definitely a real phenomenon. The easiest to measure is the impact on usage of turning a two-lane highway into a four-lane highway. Lots of studies on this. People see the four lane highway and think "I won't have to wait to pass people -- this will go much faster" and they make decisions on where to live and work and when to drive based on it. The effects are lesser with regards to widening existing multi-lane highways but are still there. There is also a science to this when it comes to toll lanes -- you need the toll to be high enough that few enough people will pay it so that it's actually faster to use the toll lanes. If you charge too little everyone will just pay it and then the toll lanes get backed up. This is just a different variation on the concept of induced demand.

I am not even someone who cares much about bike infrastructure (I think in the US if you want to reduce cars on the road you should focus about 95% of your efforts on developing clean affordable convenient public transportation and about 5% on bikes) but induced demand is a basic principle of infrastructure planning. Saying "it's not real" reveals you to be a dilettante. It's a demonstrated and accepted phenomenon.

You probably also think if we raise taxes on rich people, they'll all leave. Because you wildly exaggerate how responsive people are to the government's policy decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people on here who are pro driving but also hate traffic. Just move to LA already. Enjoy 18 lanes of jammed traffic in each direction.

Yes this makes me laugh too. What these people don't understand is that the more car-centric a city is the more people choose to drive and thus the more traffic. It's called "induced demand." It's why every time you widen a highway and add more lanes you wind up with more traffic not less.

People who think the key to making their commute easier is to eliminate bike lanes and bus lanes and other alternative forms of transportation are idiots because they don't understand every cyclist is a car not on the road. Every bus is 30-40 cars not on the road. Every metro line is thousands of cars not on the road.

If your goal is less traffic you should support every initiative to encourage people to walk or bike or take public transportation including stuff like Vision Zero that makes those alternatives safer.

If you're successful you might just wind up with a nice relaxing car commute with minimal traffic because everyone else decided to skip the car.

Though admittedly you will have to pay through the nose for parking and you may not be able to drive right up to your office due to closing certain streets to car traffic. But it would be worth it! Imagine Connecticut Avenue with virtually no traffic (except in the bike lanes) at 8am! This is actually what it's like in a lot of cities that have successful shifted most of the population to car-free travel. I was in Sweden over the summer and we rented a car and we were regularly the only car on any given street and could park basically anywhere we wanted (again parking was incredibly pricy in the cities). Probably the easiest and most pleasant driving experience I've ever had. You do have to be very alert to bikes and pedestrians but there are so many of them this isn't that hard -- they have their own wide lanes and traffic signals and as long as you follow the rules you won't have trouble.

"Induced demand" is a lie. It's a bullshit theory made up by car hating weirdos. The average new car now costs almost $50,000. You think if we make traffic run more smoothly, everybody is going to rush out to spend $50,000 on a new car? Give me a break.

Just because it’s inconsistent with the belief system you use to justify your lifestyle does not make it a “lie”. Induced demand is not a theory, but an empirical reality. Even a cursory review of the evidence on the effects of road widening, highway construction, and road diets will show you this, should you actually care about the truth.

It understand there are sociologists who got their Ph.D. at branch campuses of the University of Mississippi who say induced demand is a real thing. I just think they are stupid people who are full of shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were 35 traffic fatalities in 2022. Here's what happened per the DC government:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- speeding driver
4 deaths -- drunk/stoned driver
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/motorcycle/atv error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

This is a crock of bullshit. The DC crash data doesn't provide attribution of fault. This person posting this is interpreting every crash involving a dead pedestrian or cyclist as them being at fault. They are wrong.

This is what's so $!@#*(& up about this "debate". The idiots protesting road diet changes don't understand a goddamn thing about data yet say stuff like this like its fact. Absolutely freaking ridiculous.

This is all nonsense.

The figures come from the police department. Each year they put out a report that includes data on the causes of traffic deaths in the city. You can look them yourself.

For 2022, see page 24 of this report: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/AR_2022_lowres.pdf

Any source - from the MPD or otherwise - that attributes every single crash to a single cause is just not serious.

I’m happy for you that you found a single publication that you think gives you the prerogative to blame cyclists and pedestrians for their own deaths, but you should also be aware that it reveals to the rest of us a gross ignorance and lack of critical thinking.

I look forward to you presenting your revelations - courtesy of the 2022 MPD Annual Report - in a public meeting and outing yourself for the fool that you are.

The report lists the "predominant cause" of each fatality. Also, is there someone else, besides the police department, who investigated what happened in each of these accidents?

Ask yourself who at MPD prepares annual reports. Then ask yourself if the authors of annual reports are those who complete major crash investigations. Further ask yourself what the investigators of those major crashes likely think about their work being crudely summarized in an idiotic tabulation. And then go felch yourself.

Yes, it's just a big conspiracy.

You're the only person in Washington D.C. who is pissed off that so few people here are killed by speeding dirvers.

What was described is the opposite of a conspiracy.

You’re the only person - well, probably not the only person, but among a select few - who refuses to understand the simple reality that excessive speed is a necessary condition in fatal accidents in a city where speed limits are set low enough to preclude fatal accidents when drivers adhere to them.

As the data shows, the majority of traffic deaths in Washington DC have nothing to do with excessive speed.

You and your “data” are a sick joke.

It's the DC government's data.

I have only a couple of questions for you. Do you honestly believe that every vehicular crash has a single cause and that crash investigators can conclusively determine whether a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit at the time of the crash? If you answer yes to both questions, then congratulations! You think your tabulation is relevant to this discussion. But just don’t expect anyone else to pay the slightest heed to your nonsensical opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people on here who are pro driving but also hate traffic. Just move to LA already. Enjoy 18 lanes of jammed traffic in each direction.

Yes this makes me laugh too. What these people don't understand is that the more car-centric a city is the more people choose to drive and thus the more traffic. It's called "induced demand." It's why every time you widen a highway and add more lanes you wind up with more traffic not less.

People who think the key to making their commute easier is to eliminate bike lanes and bus lanes and other alternative forms of transportation are idiots because they don't understand every cyclist is a car not on the road. Every bus is 30-40 cars not on the road. Every metro line is thousands of cars not on the road.

If your goal is less traffic you should support every initiative to encourage people to walk or bike or take public transportation including stuff like Vision Zero that makes those alternatives safer.

If you're successful you might just wind up with a nice relaxing car commute with minimal traffic because everyone else decided to skip the car.

Though admittedly you will have to pay through the nose for parking and you may not be able to drive right up to your office due to closing certain streets to car traffic. But it would be worth it! Imagine Connecticut Avenue with virtually no traffic (except in the bike lanes) at 8am! This is actually what it's like in a lot of cities that have successful shifted most of the population to car-free travel. I was in Sweden over the summer and we rented a car and we were regularly the only car on any given street and could park basically anywhere we wanted (again parking was incredibly pricy in the cities). Probably the easiest and most pleasant driving experience I've ever had. You do have to be very alert to bikes and pedestrians but there are so many of them this isn't that hard -- they have their own wide lanes and traffic signals and as long as you follow the rules you won't have trouble.

"Induced demand" is a lie. It's a bullshit theory made up by car hating weirdos. The average new car now costs almost $50,000. You think if we make traffic run more smoothly, everybody is going to rush out to spend $50,000 on a new car? Give me a break.

Just because it’s inconsistent with the belief system you use to justify your lifestyle does not make it a “lie”. Induced demand is not a theory, but an empirical reality. Even a cursory review of the evidence on the effects of road widening, highway construction, and road diets will show you this, should you actually care about the truth.

It understand there are sociologists who got their Ph.D. at branch campuses of the University of Mississippi who say induced demand is a real thing. I just think they are stupid people who are full of shit.

Just the response I would expect from someone who spends all day shooting their mouth off about things they refuse to even try to understand. You are much too stupid to be insulting anyone else’s intelligence, much less doctoral students at esteemed institutes of higher learning.

[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:There were 35 traffic fatalities in 2022. Here's what happened per the DC government:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- speeding driver
4 deaths -- drunk/stoned driver
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/motorcycle/atv error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

This is a crock of bullshit. The DC crash data doesn't provide attribution of fault. This person posting this is interpreting every crash involving a dead pedestrian or cyclist as them being at fault. They are wrong.

This is what's so $!@#*(& up about this "debate". The idiots protesting road diet changes don't understand a goddamn thing about data yet say stuff like this like its fact. Absolutely freaking ridiculous.

This is all nonsense.

The figures come from the police department. Each year they put out a report that includes data on the causes of traffic deaths in the city. You can look them yourself.

For 2022, see page 24 of this report: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/AR_2022_lowres.pdf

Any source - from the MPD or otherwise - that attributes every single crash to a single cause is just not serious.

I’m happy for you that you found a single publication that you think gives you the prerogative to blame cyclists and pedestrians for their own deaths, but you should also be aware that it reveals to the rest of us a gross ignorance and lack of critical thinking.

I look forward to you presenting your revelations - courtesy of the 2022 MPD Annual Report - in a public meeting and outing yourself for the fool that you are.

The report lists the "predominant cause" of each fatality. Also, is there someone else, besides the police department, who investigated what happened in each of these accidents?

Ask yourself who at MPD prepares annual reports. Then ask yourself if the authors of annual reports are those who complete major crash investigations. Further ask yourself what the investigators of those major crashes likely think about their work being crudely summarized in an idiotic tabulation. And then go felch yourself.

Yes, it's just a big conspiracy.

You're the only person in Washington D.C. who is pissed off that so few people here are killed by speeding dirvers.

What was described is the opposite of a conspiracy.

You’re the only person - well, probably not the only person, but among a select few - who refuses to understand the simple reality that excessive speed is a necessary condition in fatal accidents in a city where speed limits are set low enough to preclude fatal accidents when drivers adhere to them.

As the data shows, the majority of traffic deaths in Washington DC have nothing to do with excessive speed.

You and your “data” are a sick joke.

It's the DC government's data.

I have only a couple of questions for you. Do you honestly believe that every vehicular crash has a single cause and that crash investigators can conclusively determine whether a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit at the time of the crash? If you answer yes to both questions, then congratulations! You think your tabulation is relevant to this discussion. But just don’t expect anyone else to pay the slightest heed to your nonsensical opinions.

Neither data nor context matters and analysis means nothing since it is impossible to conclusively determine anything? WTF

[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:There were 35 traffic fatalities in 2022. Here's what happened per the DC government:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- speeding driver
4 deaths -- drunk/stoned driver
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/motorcycle/atv error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

This is a crock of bullshit. The DC crash data doesn't provide attribution of fault. This person posting this is interpreting every crash involving a dead pedestrian or cyclist as them being at fault. They are wrong.

This is what's so $!@#*(& up about this "debate". The idiots protesting road diet changes don't understand a goddamn thing about data yet say stuff like this like its fact. Absolutely freaking ridiculous.

This is all nonsense.

The figures come from the police department. Each year they put out a report that includes data on the causes of traffic deaths in the city. You can look them yourself.

For 2022, see page 24 of this report: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/AR_2022_lowres.pdf

Any source - from the MPD or otherwise - that attributes every single crash to a single cause is just not serious.

I’m happy for you that you found a single publication that you think gives you the prerogative to blame cyclists and pedestrians for their own deaths, but you should also be aware that it reveals to the rest of us a gross ignorance and lack of critical thinking.

I look forward to you presenting your revelations - courtesy of the 2022 MPD Annual Report - in a public meeting and outing yourself for the fool that you are.

The report lists the "predominant cause" of each fatality. Also, is there someone else, besides the police department, who investigated what happened in each of these accidents?

Ask yourself who at MPD prepares annual reports. Then ask yourself if the authors of annual reports are those who complete major crash investigations. Further ask yourself what the investigators of those major crashes likely think about their work being crudely summarized in an idiotic tabulation. And then go felch yourself.

Yes, it's just a big conspiracy.

You're the only person in Washington D.C. who is pissed off that so few people here are killed by speeding dirvers.

What was described is the opposite of a conspiracy.

You’re the only person - well, probably not the only person, but among a select few - who refuses to understand the simple reality that excessive speed is a necessary condition in fatal accidents in a city where speed limits are set low enough to preclude fatal accidents when drivers adhere to them.

As the data shows, the majority of traffic deaths in Washington DC have nothing to do with excessive speed.

You and your “data” are a sick joke.

It's the DC government's data.

I have only a couple of questions for you. Do you honestly believe that every vehicular crash has a single cause and that crash investigators can conclusively determine whether a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit at the time of the crash? If you answer yes to both questions, then congratulations! You think your tabulation is relevant to this discussion. But just don’t expect anyone else to pay the slightest heed to your nonsensical opinions.

Have you been in an accident? The police do pretty thorough investigations. And a lot of people rely on them, including the families of people involved, insurance companies and the court system. We put some people in prison for the rest of their lives based on those investigations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people on here who are pro driving but also hate traffic. Just move to LA already. Enjoy 18 lanes of jammed traffic in each direction.

Yes this makes me laugh too. What these people don't understand is that the more car-centric a city is the more people choose to drive and thus the more traffic. It's called "induced demand." It's why every time you widen a highway and add more lanes you wind up with more traffic not less.

People who think the key to making their commute easier is to eliminate bike lanes and bus lanes and other alternative forms of transportation are idiots because they don't understand every cyclist is a car not on the road. Every bus is 30-40 cars not on the road. Every metro line is thousands of cars not on the road.

If your goal is less traffic you should support every initiative to encourage people to walk or bike or take public transportation including stuff like Vision Zero that makes those alternatives safer.

If you're successful you might just wind up with a nice relaxing car commute with minimal traffic because everyone else decided to skip the car.

Though admittedly you will have to pay through the nose for parking and you may not be able to drive right up to your office due to closing certain streets to car traffic. But it would be worth it! Imagine Connecticut Avenue with virtually no traffic (except in the bike lanes) at 8am! This is actually what it's like in a lot of cities that have successful shifted most of the population to car-free travel. I was in Sweden over the summer and we rented a car and we were regularly the only car on any given street and could park basically anywhere we wanted (again parking was incredibly pricy in the cities). Probably the easiest and most pleasant driving experience I've ever had. You do have to be very alert to bikes and pedestrians but there are so many of them this isn't that hard -- they have their own wide lanes and traffic signals and as long as you follow the rules you won't have trouble.

"Induced demand" is a lie. It's a bullshit theory made up by car hating weirdos. The average new car now costs almost $50,000. You think if we make traffic run more smoothly, everybody is going to rush out to spend $50,000 on a new car? Give me a break.

The government has very little influence over people's transportation choices. I mean, we've built more than 150 miles of bike lanes and bicycling is becoming *less* popular.

That's because the availability of bike lanes does not actually overcome people's reluctance to bike which is actually due to discomfort with biking (including not knowing how) lack of access to bikes as well as safety concerns. The majority of bike lanes don't even address safety concerns because people who don't want to bike are not just worried about being hit by cars. Also many bike lanes don't actually protect bikes from cars (most are just painted lines and drivers disregard them) so they do not make someone who has never commuted by bike before to start doing so.

But induced demand is real -- bike share programs have been enormously successful because they actually do provide non-bikers with a way to overcome a major obstacle to biking.

And induced demand with regards to cars is definitely a real phenomenon. The easiest to measure is the impact on usage of turning a two-lane highway into a four-lane highway. Lots of studies on this. People see the four lane highway and think "I won't have to wait to pass people -- this will go much faster" and they make decisions on where to live and work and when to drive based on it. The effects are lesser with regards to widening existing multi-lane highways but are still there. There is also a science to this when it comes to toll lanes -- you need the toll to be high enough that few enough people will pay it so that it's actually faster to use the toll lanes. If you charge too little everyone will just pay it and then the toll lanes get backed up. This is just a different variation on the concept of induced demand.

I am not even someone who cares much about bike infrastructure (I think in the US if you want to reduce cars on the road you should focus about 95% of your efforts on developing clean affordable convenient public transportation and about 5% on bikes) but induced demand is a basic principle of infrastructure planning. Saying "it's not real" reveals you to be a dilettante. It's a demonstrated and accepted phenomenon.

You probably also think if we raise taxes on rich people, they'll all leave. Because you wildly exaggerate how responsive people are to the government's policy decisions.

"Induced demand" is the Laffer Curve of transportation/infrastructure policy.

[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:There were 35 traffic fatalities in 2022. Here's what happened per the DC government:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- speeding driver
4 deaths -- drunk/stoned driver
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/motorcycle/atv error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

This is a crock of bullshit. The DC crash data doesn't provide attribution of fault. This person posting this is interpreting every crash involving a dead pedestrian or cyclist as them being at fault. They are wrong.

This is what's so $!@#*(& up about this "debate". The idiots protesting road diet changes don't understand a goddamn thing about data yet say stuff like this like its fact. Absolutely freaking ridiculous.

This is all nonsense.

The figures come from the police department. Each year they put out a report that includes data on the causes of traffic deaths in the city. You can look them yourself.

For 2022, see page 24 of this report: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/AR_2022_lowres.pdf

Any source - from the MPD or otherwise - that attributes every single crash to a single cause is just not serious.

I’m happy for you that you found a single publication that you think gives you the prerogative to blame cyclists and pedestrians for their own deaths, but you should also be aware that it reveals to the rest of us a gross ignorance and lack of critical thinking.

I look forward to you presenting your revelations - courtesy of the 2022 MPD Annual Report - in a public meeting and outing yourself for the fool that you are.

The report lists the "predominant cause" of each fatality. Also, is there someone else, besides the police department, who investigated what happened in each of these accidents?

Ask yourself who at MPD prepares annual reports. Then ask yourself if the authors of annual reports are those who complete major crash investigations. Further ask yourself what the investigators of those major crashes likely think about their work being crudely summarized in an idiotic tabulation. And then go felch yourself.

Yes, it's just a big conspiracy.

You're the only person in Washington D.C. who is pissed off that so few people here are killed by speeding dirvers.

What was described is the opposite of a conspiracy.

You’re the only person - well, probably not the only person, but among a select few - who refuses to understand the simple reality that excessive speed is a necessary condition in fatal accidents in a city where speed limits are set low enough to preclude fatal accidents when drivers adhere to them.

As the data shows, the majority of traffic deaths in Washington DC have nothing to do with excessive speed.

You and your “data” are a sick joke.

It's the DC government's data.

I have only a couple of questions for you. Do you honestly believe that every vehicular crash has a single cause and that crash investigators can conclusively determine whether a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit at the time of the crash? If you answer yes to both questions, then congratulations! You think your tabulation is relevant to this discussion. But just don’t expect anyone else to pay the slightest heed to your nonsensical opinions.

Have you been in an accident? The police do pretty thorough investigations. And a lot of people rely on them, including the families of people involved, insurance companies and the court system. We put some people in prison for the rest of their lives based on those investigations.

Then let’s see the investigation reports and discuss those, rather than the meaningless crap the deranged crank is misrepresenting at “data”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people on here who are pro driving but also hate traffic. Just move to LA already. Enjoy 18 lanes of jammed traffic in each direction.

Yes this makes me laugh too. What these people don't understand is that the more car-centric a city is the more people choose to drive and thus the more traffic. It's called "induced demand." It's why every time you widen a highway and add more lanes you wind up with more traffic not less.

People who think the key to making their commute easier is to eliminate bike lanes and bus lanes and other alternative forms of transportation are idiots because they don't understand every cyclist is a car not on the road. Every bus is 30-40 cars not on the road. Every metro line is thousands of cars not on the road.

If your goal is less traffic you should support every initiative to encourage people to walk or bike or take public transportation including stuff like Vision Zero that makes those alternatives safer.

If you're successful you might just wind up with a nice relaxing car commute with minimal traffic because everyone else decided to skip the car.

Though admittedly you will have to pay through the nose for parking and you may not be able to drive right up to your office due to closing certain streets to car traffic. But it would be worth it! Imagine Connecticut Avenue with virtually no traffic (except in the bike lanes) at 8am! This is actually what it's like in a lot of cities that have successful shifted most of the population to car-free travel. I was in Sweden over the summer and we rented a car and we were regularly the only car on any given street and could park basically anywhere we wanted (again parking was incredibly pricy in the cities). Probably the easiest and most pleasant driving experience I've ever had. You do have to be very alert to bikes and pedestrians but there are so many of them this isn't that hard -- they have their own wide lanes and traffic signals and as long as you follow the rules you won't have trouble.

"Induced demand" is a lie. It's a bullshit theory made up by car hating weirdos. The average new car now costs almost $50,000. You think if we make traffic run more smoothly, everybody is going to rush out to spend $50,000 on a new car? Give me a break.

The government has very little influence over people's transportation choices. I mean, we've built more than 150 miles of bike lanes and bicycling is becoming *less* popular.

That's because the availability of bike lanes does not actually overcome people's reluctance to bike which is actually due to discomfort with biking (including not knowing how) lack of access to bikes as well as safety concerns. The majority of bike lanes don't even address safety concerns because people who don't want to bike are not just worried about being hit by cars. Also many bike lanes don't actually protect bikes from cars (most are just painted lines and drivers disregard them) so they do not make someone who has never commuted by bike before to start doing so.

But induced demand is real -- bike share programs have been enormously successful because they actually do provide non-bikers with a way to overcome a major obstacle to biking.

And induced demand with regards to cars is definitely a real phenomenon. The easiest to measure is the impact on usage of turning a two-lane highway into a four-lane highway. Lots of studies on this. People see the four lane highway and think "I won't have to wait to pass people -- this will go much faster" and they make decisions on where to live and work and when to drive based on it. The effects are lesser with regards to widening existing multi-lane highways but are still there. There is also a science to this when it comes to toll lanes -- you need the toll to be high enough that few enough people will pay it so that it's actually faster to use the toll lanes. If you charge too little everyone will just pay it and then the toll lanes get backed up. This is just a different variation on the concept of induced demand.

I am not even someone who cares much about bike infrastructure (I think in the US if you want to reduce cars on the road you should focus about 95% of your efforts on developing clean affordable convenient public transportation and about 5% on bikes) but induced demand is a basic principle of infrastructure planning. Saying "it's not real" reveals you to be a dilettante. It's a demonstrated and accepted phenomenon.

You probably also think if we raise taxes on rich people, they'll all leave. Because you wildly exaggerate how responsive people are to the government's policy decisions.

Your presumptions meet real world: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585642200026X

There are other studies. Feel free to find them and educate yourself.

[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:There were 35 traffic fatalities in 2022. Here's what happened per the DC government:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- speeding driver
4 deaths -- drunk/stoned driver
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/motorcycle/atv error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

This is a crock of bullshit. The DC crash data doesn't provide attribution of fault. This person posting this is interpreting every crash involving a dead pedestrian or cyclist as them being at fault. They are wrong.

This is what's so $!@#*(& up about this "debate". The idiots protesting road diet changes don't understand a goddamn thing about data yet say stuff like this like its fact. Absolutely freaking ridiculous.

This is all nonsense.

The figures come from the police department. Each year they put out a report that includes data on the causes of traffic deaths in the city. You can look them yourself.

For 2022, see page 24 of this report: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/AR_2022_lowres.pdf

Any source - from the MPD or otherwise - that attributes every single crash to a single cause is just not serious.

I’m happy for you that you found a single publication that you think gives you the prerogative to blame cyclists and pedestrians for their own deaths, but you should also be aware that it reveals to the rest of us a gross ignorance and lack of critical thinking.

I look forward to you presenting your revelations - courtesy of the 2022 MPD Annual Report - in a public meeting and outing yourself for the fool that you are.

The report lists the "predominant cause" of each fatality. Also, is there someone else, besides the police department, who investigated what happened in each of these accidents?

Ask yourself who at MPD prepares annual reports. Then ask yourself if the authors of annual reports are those who complete major crash investigations. Further ask yourself what the investigators of those major crashes likely think about their work being crudely summarized in an idiotic tabulation. And then go felch yourself.

Yes, it's just a big conspiracy.

You're the only person in Washington D.C. who is pissed off that so few people here are killed by speeding dirvers.

What was described is the opposite of a conspiracy.

You’re the only person - well, probably not the only person, but among a select few - who refuses to understand the simple reality that excessive speed is a necessary condition in fatal accidents in a city where speed limits are set low enough to preclude fatal accidents when drivers adhere to them.

As the data shows, the majority of traffic deaths in Washington DC have nothing to do with excessive speed.

You and your “data” are a sick joke.

It's the DC government's data.

I have only a couple of questions for you. Do you honestly believe that every vehicular crash has a single cause and that crash investigators can conclusively determine whether a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit at the time of the crash? If you answer yes to both questions, then congratulations! You think your tabulation is relevant to this discussion. But just don’t expect anyone else to pay the slightest heed to your nonsensical opinions.

Have you been in an accident? The police do pretty thorough investigations. And a lot of people rely on them, including the families of people involved, insurance companies and the court system. We put some people in prison for the rest of their lives based on those investigations.

Then let’s see the investigation reports and discuss those, rather than the meaningless crap the deranged crank is misrepresenting at “data”.

The official results of the police investigations are "meaningless crap" being misinterpreted? You are insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people on here who are pro driving but also hate traffic. Just move to LA already. Enjoy 18 lanes of jammed traffic in each direction.

Yes this makes me laugh too. What these people don't understand is that the more car-centric a city is the more people choose to drive and thus the more traffic. It's called "induced demand." It's why every time you widen a highway and add more lanes you wind up with more traffic not less.

People who think the key to making their commute easier is to eliminate bike lanes and bus lanes and other alternative forms of transportation are idiots because they don't understand every cyclist is a car not on the road. Every bus is 30-40 cars not on the road. Every metro line is thousands of cars not on the road.

If your goal is less traffic you should support every initiative to encourage people to walk or bike or take public transportation including stuff like Vision Zero that makes those alternatives safer.

If you're successful you might just wind up with a nice relaxing car commute with minimal traffic because everyone else decided to skip the car.

Though admittedly you will have to pay through the nose for parking and you may not be able to drive right up to your office due to closing certain streets to car traffic. But it would be worth it! Imagine Connecticut Avenue with virtually no traffic (except in the bike lanes) at 8am! This is actually what it's like in a lot of cities that have successful shifted most of the population to car-free travel. I was in Sweden over the summer and we rented a car and we were regularly the only car on any given street and could park basically anywhere we wanted (again parking was incredibly pricy in the cities). Probably the easiest and most pleasant driving experience I've ever had. You do have to be very alert to bikes and pedestrians but there are so many of them this isn't that hard -- they have their own wide lanes and traffic signals and as long as you follow the rules you won't have trouble.

"Induced demand" is a lie. It's a bullshit theory made up by car hating weirdos. The average new car now costs almost $50,000. You think if we make traffic run more smoothly, everybody is going to rush out to spend $50,000 on a new car? Give me a break.

The government has very little influence over people's transportation choices. I mean, we've built more than 150 miles of bike lanes and bicycling is becoming *less* popular.

That's because the availability of bike lanes does not actually overcome people's reluctance to bike which is actually due to discomfort with biking (including not knowing how) lack of access to bikes as well as safety concerns. The majority of bike lanes don't even address safety concerns because people who don't want to bike are not just worried about being hit by cars. Also many bike lanes don't actually protect bikes from cars (most are just painted lines and drivers disregard them) so they do not make someone who has never commuted by bike before to start doing so.

But induced demand is real -- bike share programs have been enormously successful because they actually do provide non-bikers with a way to overcome a major obstacle to biking.

And induced demand with regards to cars is definitely a real phenomenon. The easiest to measure is the impact on usage of turning a two-lane highway into a four-lane highway. Lots of studies on this. People see the four lane highway and think "I won't have to wait to pass people -- this will go much faster" and they make decisions on where to live and work and when to drive based on it. The effects are lesser with regards to widening existing multi-lane highways but are still there. There is also a science to this when it comes to toll lanes -- you need the toll to be high enough that few enough people will pay it so that it's actually faster to use the toll lanes. If you charge too little everyone will just pay it and then the toll lanes get backed up. This is just a different variation on the concept of induced demand.

I am not even someone who cares much about bike infrastructure (I think in the US if you want to reduce cars on the road you should focus about 95% of your efforts on developing clean affordable convenient public transportation and about 5% on bikes) but induced demand is a basic principle of infrastructure planning. Saying "it's not real" reveals you to be a dilettante. It's a demonstrated and accepted phenomenon.

You probably also think if we raise taxes on rich people, they'll all leave. Because you wildly exaggerate how responsive people are to the government's policy decisions.

Your presumptions meet real world: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585642200026X

There are other studies. Feel free to find them and educate yourself.

Your evidence that "induced demand" isn't a bunch of bullshit is to point to a report by a student in Hungary? Hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were 35 traffic fatalities in 2022. Here's what happened per the DC government:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- speeding driver
4 deaths -- drunk/stoned driver
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/motorcycle/atv error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

This is a crock of bullshit. The DC crash data doesn't provide attribution of fault. This person posting this is interpreting every crash involving a dead pedestrian or cyclist as them being at fault. They are wrong.

This is what's so $!@#*(& up about this "debate". The idiots protesting road diet changes don't understand a goddamn thing about data yet say stuff like this like its fact. Absolutely freaking ridiculous.

This is all nonsense.

The figures come from the police department. Each year they put out a report that includes data on the causes of traffic deaths in the city. You can look them yourself.

For 2022, see page 24 of this report: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/AR_2022_lowres.pdf

Any source - from the MPD or otherwise - that attributes every single crash to a single cause is just not serious.

I’m happy for you that you found a single publication that you think gives you the prerogative to blame cyclists and pedestrians for their own deaths, but you should also be aware that it reveals to the rest of us a gross ignorance and lack of critical thinking.

I look forward to you presenting your revelations - courtesy of the 2022 MPD Annual Report - in a public meeting and outing yourself for the fool that you are.

The report lists the "predominant cause" of each fatality. Also, is there someone else, besides the police department, who investigated what happened in each of these accidents?

Ask yourself who at MPD prepares annual reports. Then ask yourself if the authors of annual reports are those who complete major crash investigations. Further ask yourself what the investigators of those major crashes likely think about their work being crudely summarized in an idiotic tabulation. And then go felch yourself.

Yes, it's just a big conspiracy.

You're the only person in Washington D.C. who is pissed off that so few people here are killed by speeding dirvers.

What was described is the opposite of a conspiracy.

You’re the only person - well, probably not the only person, but among a select few - who refuses to understand the simple reality that excessive speed is a necessary condition in fatal accidents in a city where speed limits are set low enough to preclude fatal accidents when drivers adhere to them.

As the data shows, the majority of traffic deaths in Washington DC have nothing to do with excessive speed.

but they ALL have to do with cars! shall I say it again? vision zero/traffic calming includes much more than speeding.

No, they don't. There's traffic deaths all the time that don't involve cars. Didn't some e-bicyclist just kill another e-bicyclist in a crash? Besides who cares if they involve cars? That's like saying, because all traffic deaths happened outdoors, no one should be allowed to go outdoors.

Um the fact that 99.9% involve cars suggests that changes to the roads and cars could reduce them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think it’s too hot and hilly here for people to bike. The e-bikes have changed things but if you’d still be a hot mess at your destination a lot of the time.

Because there aren't other cities around the country and world that aren't hot and hilly yet have successful bike infrastructure and programs?

[Anonymous]

I don’t really have an opinion on “induced demand” but it’s quite clear that making traffic move as quickly as possible through a city is a stupid goal. So regardless, traffic needs to be slowed down and people need more non-car transit, not faster roads.