Reply to Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Here's another fun tidbit directly from the hard data.

The prevalence of accidents is directly related to rush hour.  In otherwords, not speed but congestion.

During rush hour, the likelihood of an accident is greater on Connecticut than Wisconsin.  Outside of rush hour the liklihood was less.  Although it should be noted that those numbers are not weighted for volume and Connecticut has higher volume.  The most common accident involved left turns during rush hour.[/quote]

That's pretty misleading.  Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries.  [b]Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin.[/b]  For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.[/quote]
DP. Talk about “misleading”. [b]You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats[/b] when you know that you cannot make your case with bikes alone. It’s been pretty definitely proven over this thread and through the course of this whole public policy debacle that the cycling community doesn’t care about the safety of pedestrians.[/quote]

I don't know who "you folks" is, but it is completely appropriate to talk about crashes involving non-motorists. That's what the police do, in fact.

Actually I also don't know who the "cycling community" is, but I know a lot of people who advocate for safe streets, and the people who advocate for safe streets for bicyclists are the exact same people who advocate for safe streets for pedestrians.[/quote]
Do you ever stop lying. DDOT doesn’t believe and there is no data that backs up what you say. But you try your best to deceive people anyway. Why are you still even doing this? It’s kinda sad to be honest.

But I digress, here is an example of why you present bikes with pedestrians. The DDOT vision zero dashboard shows 4 cyclist crashes in the corridor in 2024. All four were minor injury crashes and none of them involved cars. So they were cyclists crashing themselves in what are essentially single vehicle accidents.

[/quote]

You aren't reading that data right and you are so confident in your ignorance.[/quote]
I am presenting the data accurately and if I was not you would be able to provide proof. But since I am such a generous person I will tell you what, the moment that you provide only bike-vehicle incidence crash data for the CT Ave corridor instead of combining it with pedestrian crash data, we’ll call it even.

Otherwise, I am presenting th[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics