Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

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.

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.

You aren't reading that data right and you are so confident in your ignorance.

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

What? I don't need to provide "proof". You said "all four were minory injury crashes and none of them involved cars". Well, that is just wrong. I mean, I don't know how else to tell you - maybe I'll try bolded text: you are reading that data wrong.

You are looking at the Vision Zero Dashboard. You are filtering using the left side panel to "Bicyclist" with the button. You are then clicking on a dot on Conn Ave and only seeing Bicyclist in the Mode and nothing else. And then you are making the wrong conclusion that no one else was involved in that crash. Because the data you are looking at in the callout box is for the person injured by mode only. Guess what! When a motorist rides into or side swipes a cyclist, usually no harm comes to that motorist. Go figure.

You want your shitty proof though I guess. Okay cool beans bro. Go to the Crashes in DC data from MPD on Open Data. There's a CCN on the popup box on the Vision Zero Dashboard, you're gonna need that because its the crash ID that ties the data together. Let's use this one "24038451" as the example. Zoom in on the map to where it was, adjust the little slider at the bottom to the most recent period. Hit the filter button, click on CCN and put in the number. Click the blue dot and scroll down to the different types of things and - oh look its magic, there's a 1 bike and 1 vehicle involved.



So, like I said. You are interpreting that data wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

According to the bike lobby themselves, there’s only been one bike-auto accident in the Connecticut Avenue corridor under consideration for the bike lanes. And that was in 1971 when the cyclist ran a red light.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

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.

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.

You aren't reading that data right and you are so confident in your ignorance.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

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.

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.

You aren't reading that data right and you are so confident in your ignorance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

It's funny that you say that because I spend roughly equal time as both a pedestrian and a cyclist on my day to day, so actually, yeah, I do give a shit about both and this plan is crap for both and could be way better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

The point was about WHEN those crashes occurred. Accidents of all sort happened at a significantly disproprtionate rate during rush hour and they almost all happened within the areas of highest congestion.

An "accident" is running over an acorn and sending it flying to hit someone on the sidewalk. Speeding, looking at your phone, aggressively changing lanes, or cheating lights are things that cause *crashes*. See, the difference here is that someone is actually responsible for a crash and that infrastructure changes can help making being dumb on the road harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

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.

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.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Wrong. The crash reports are captured because the injured called 911.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

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.

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.

You're wrong. All of the crashes involved cars. If it were just someone falling off their bike, there wouldn't be a police crash report. In addition, the dashboard only shows injury crashes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was stupid on the part of DC. They should be making it harder to get into the city from the suburbs by car. Not easier. Increases the chances of people moving into the city and decreases the number of dangerous drivers.

Great idea! DC has not been the center of the DMV business community for decades. Your idea will have the opposite effect. It will encourage remote workers even more. If I am unable to drive into and park in DC for a lunch meeting or for dinner, I will not do so. There are plenty of entertainment options in the burbs.

It will also encourage businesses to further set up their offices outside of DC, which is exactly what the city doesn’t want. That’s the problem with the “let’s make driving harder” argument.

The smart play by the city is to make it easier to get downtown and make the downtown environment attractive enough to make people want to go and linger. Bike lanes on Connecticut may or may not fit that goal, but getting metro back to pre-pandemic functionality would be a big step in the right direction. I don't think its coincidental that the bike lane push came while metro was cratering.

Metro is actually better now than before the pandemic. The trains are ontime, plentiful and it is a pleasure to ride.

Except it’s filled with thugs and people openly smoking pot on the trains.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was stupid on the part of DC. They should be making it harder to get into the city from the suburbs by car. Not easier. Increases the chances of people moving into the city and decreases the number of dangerous drivers.

Great idea! DC has not been the center of the DMV business community for decades. Your idea will have the opposite effect. It will encourage remote workers even more. If I am unable to drive into and park in DC for a lunch meeting or for dinner, I will not do so. There are plenty of entertainment options in the burbs.

It will also encourage businesses to further set up their offices outside of DC, which is exactly what the city doesn’t want. That’s the problem with the “let’s make driving harder” argument.

There are a group of people who think that people and particularly businesses will willingly accept increased inconvenience, when all evidence to the contrary and behavioral economics says the opposite.

If I can't drive and park easily to do business on the Avenue, I will take my business elsewhere. Very simple. I frequent Avenue businesses 4-5 times a week.

Notwithstanding your personal preferences, bike lanes have been proven to be GOOD for businesses.

The Connecticut Ave business community (those who actually operate a business) beg to differ.

And that is based on feelings.

The actual data support that bike lanes are good for business. Intuitively, who is more likely to stop, a Maryland Commuter or a local resident on a bike?

https://www.businessinsider.com/bike-lanes-good-for-business-studies-better-streets-2024-3

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's pretty misleading. Wisconsin only leads Conn Ave in crashes that are both amongst cars alone and without injuries. Conn Ave typically has 1.5x to 2.5x more crashes involving bikes and pedestrians than Wisconsin. For crashes amongst just cars with injuries Conn Ave is typically between 1.1-1.5x worse than Wisc.

DP. Talk about “misleading”. You folks always include pedestrians with bikes in your stats 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was stupid on the part of DC. They should be making it harder to get into the city from the suburbs by car. Not easier. Increases the chances of people moving into the city and decreases the number of dangerous drivers.

Great idea! DC has not been the center of the DMV business community for decades. Your idea will have the opposite effect. It will encourage remote workers even more. If I am unable to drive into and park in DC for a lunch meeting or for dinner, I will not do so. There are plenty of entertainment options in the burbs.

It will also encourage businesses to further set up their offices outside of DC, which is exactly what the city doesn’t want. That’s the problem with the “let’s make driving harder” argument.

There are a group of people who think that people and particularly businesses will willingly accept increased inconvenience, when all evidence to the contrary and behavioral economics says the opposite.

If I can't drive and park easily to do business on the Avenue, I will take my business elsewhere. Very simple. I frequent Avenue businesses 4-5 times a week.

Notwithstanding your personal preferences, bike lanes have been proven to be GOOD for businesses.

The Connecticut Ave business community (those who actually operate a business) beg to differ.

They can beg to differ all they want. It is nonetheless true that bike lanes have been proven to be GOOD for businesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was stupid on the part of DC. They should be making it harder to get into the city from the suburbs by car. Not easier. Increases the chances of people moving into the city and decreases the number of dangerous drivers.

Great idea! DC has not been the center of the DMV business community for decades. Your idea will have the opposite effect. It will encourage remote workers even more. If I am unable to drive into and park in DC for a lunch meeting or for dinner, I will not do so. There are plenty of entertainment options in the burbs.

It will also encourage businesses to further set up their offices outside of DC, which is exactly what the city doesn’t want. That’s the problem with the “let’s make driving harder” argument.

There are a group of people who think that people and particularly businesses will willingly accept increased inconvenience, when all evidence to the contrary and behavioral economics says the opposite.

If I can't drive and park easily to do business on the Avenue, I will take my business elsewhere. Very simple. I frequent Avenue businesses 4-5 times a week.

Notwithstanding your personal preferences, bike lanes have been proven to be GOOD for businesses.

The Connecticut Ave business community (those who actually operate a business) beg to differ.