Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should change the name of this thread. Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are definitely not back after Monday's presentation.

Councilmember Frumin thinks that they may still happen.

I actually cannot wait for the bike bros to finally experience the constant disappointment of the man that’s CM Frumin. He’ll be trying to sell you this line for the next 2 years.

Frumin is an avid biker himself and bikes to meetings around the ward.

And this stripper you just met really is in love with you...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should change the name of this thread. Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are definitely not back after Monday's presentation.

Councilmember Frumin thinks that they may still happen.

I wish he was right, but he is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

Police get dispatched for single vehicle accidents and file reports when they do.

It would have to be a very serious single-vehicle accident involving a bike for 911 or police to be involved. Who would call police after they crashed their bike on their own?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should change the name of this thread. Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are definitely not back after Monday's presentation.

Councilmember Frumin thinks that they may still happen.

I actually cannot wait for the bike bros to finally experience the constant disappointment of the man that’s CM Frumin. He’ll be trying to sell you this line for the next 2 years.

Frumin is an avid biker himself and bikes to meetings around the ward.

You can bike all day when you don’t have a real job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should change the name of this thread. Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are definitely not back after Monday's presentation.

Councilmember Frumin thinks that they may still happen.

The least powerful, most insignificant council member thinks they might still happen? It's a guarantee they won't, then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

You’re also wrong. The MPD crash data does not include whether multiple vehicles were involved. Just location and severity. It’s only for fatal crashes that there is some cause analysis performed that provides this additional level of detail in the data records available online, but it doesn’t assign fault. The only way to know about the conditions surrounding an injury accident, including the number and type of vehicles, you need to file a public records request for the police report. And in many cases the only way to determine who was at fault is to examine court records.

Yes, it does. Whether or not they post the data. But in this case, for injury crashes involving a pedestrian or bicyclist, they do post the data that a car was involved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should change the name of this thread. Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are definitely not back after Monday's presentation.

Councilmember Frumin thinks that they may still happen.

I actually cannot wait for the bike bros to finally experience the constant disappointment of the man that’s CM Frumin. He’ll be trying to sell you this line for the next 2 years.

Frumin is an avid biker himself and bikes to meetings around the ward.

I would love to be there the moment you realize that he’s conning you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should change the name of this thread. Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are definitely not back after Monday's presentation.

Councilmember Frumin thinks that they may still happen.

I actually cannot wait for the bike bros to finally experience the constant disappointment of the man that’s CM Frumin. He’ll be trying to sell you this line for the next 2 years.

Frumin is an avid biker himself and bikes to meetings around the ward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should change the name of this thread. Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are definitely not back after Monday's presentation.

Councilmember Frumin thinks that they may still happen.

I actually cannot wait for the bike bros to finally experience the constant disappointment of the man that’s CM Frumin. He’ll be trying to sell you this line for the next 2 years.

Anonymous wrote:Agree -- Reno is equidistant between all the commercial activity on Connecticut AND Wisconsin. Makes more sense.

This.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should change the name of this thread. Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are definitely not back after Monday's presentation.

Councilmember Frumin thinks that they may still happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

You’re also wrong. The MPD crash data does not include whether multiple vehicles were involved. Just location and severity. It’s only for fatal crashes that there is some cause analysis performed that provides this additional level of detail in the data records available online, but it doesn’t assign fault. The only way to know about the conditions surrounding an injury accident, including the number and type of vehicles, you need to file a public records request for the police report. And in many cases the only way to determine who was at fault is to examine court records.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

Police get dispatched for single vehicle accidents and file reports when they do.

Yes, they might file a crash report if someone drives a car into a tree. They do not file a crash report if someone falls off their bike.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree -- Reno is equidistant between all the commercial activity on Connecticut AND Wisconsin. Makes more sense.

Why just close the avenues to cars and have them on Reno and then the peds, buses and bikes can have the avenues and the motorists can just take the side streets. Seems like a more equitable solution.

(and yes, this is sarcastic, but it shows how ridiculous the "reno or bust" position is)

No it doesn't.

The ratio of cars/buses/pedestrians to bikes is 1111:1.

In addition, such a plan could connect to Calvert which has higher demand for bicyclists than any part of Connecticut.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

That doesn’t make the data comprehensive. I’ve been (slightly) injured in a bike crash, where a car hit me in a bike lane, and I didn’t call police, because it was raining and I didn’t want to wait around, and my only injury was an ache on my arm where the car hit me that I knew I didn’t need medical treatment for. It wasn’t on Connecticut, but it doesn’t show up in the stats for downtown, either.

It's also wrong. The data come from police crash reports. You don't get a police crash report just from calling 911.

Police get dispatched for single vehicle accidents and file reports when they do.