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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero.  It is very different than what it has transmogrified into.  For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers.  One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.[/quote]

Exactly.  Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC.  The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.[/quote]

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.[/quote]

There is no planet where under the Dutch system of classification that Connecticut freaking Avenue would ever be considered for these changes.

Just like there is no planet under where the Swedish understanding of Vision Zero would include a proliferation of concrete barriers, the very antithesis of what Vision Zero stands for.[/quote]

You are conflating "barriers" in this case with something else.
Just like your suggestion Connecticut Avenue is akin to the road cited in your posted article is also a conflation.

[/quote]

With what?  Please be honest and specific for once.  The issue was concrete because the European Vision Zero is not some weird anti-car/pro-bike thing.

I did not suggest that Conn was the same as a Swedish highway.  I said that, under the Dutch system, roads are classified as per their usage and function and adjusted accordingly. Under such a system nobody would ever suggest that the primary North-South route into downtown be a candidate for the changes you are proposing.[/quote]

Concrete as a tool for a protected bike lane is different than concrete bases for lighting as a "bollard" on a high speed highway. The only thing they have in common is "concrete"[/quote]

And that "concrete" part is literally the main safety problem according to the Swedes that came up with Vision Zero.[/quote]

Sorry, but you sound ridiculous when you simultaneously object to bike safety measures on the grounds that they’re too inconvenient for cars and also on the grounds that they’re not safe enough for bikes. You know what’s more dangerous than the possibility of crashing your bike into a concrete barrier that protects the bike lane from the traffic on Connecticut? Riding your bike in the traffic lane, as you have to do now. I’ll take my chances with the concrete, thanks. [/quote]

Now I understand.  You don't get the point of Vision Zero. You think it's about bicycles but it is not.  The concrete barriers are not dangerous to bicycles per se.  They are dangerous to cars and humans in general.  That was what the Swedish engineer realized.  That fatal accident wasn't about bad drivers, impairment, bicycles, or anything like that.  The cause of the death was the concrete barrier itself.[/quote]

It’s quite a thing to see how you spin up your latest bad-faith argument. But just for the heck of it, I’ll take it on:

Just because ONE type of concrete object is risky on one type of road doesn’t mean all concrete used in all road design is dangerous. If that was true there could not be any sidewalks. [/quote]

How transparently ironic.

Shaped solid concrete objects 2 feet high or greater.

It wasn't about the road, the speed, the car, or the driver.  It was raining and someone microplaned into the concrete base of the lamp post.  Because the concrete did not give it killed those 4 or 5 people.  Removing concrete objects like that was the first thing done.  That is how and why Vision Zero started.
[/quote]

Ok you got me Vision Zero orginalist. Vision Zero means no concrete allowed ever. What do you have to tell me about contrails next?[/quote]

There you go again.[/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