Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You must have read a different article from the one you linked to.

In 1995, a serious crash occurred on the E4 motorway near Stockholm, Sweden. Five young people were travelling in a hatchback car when the vehicle went into a roll near the exit ramp for the Ikea store. The car smashed into a concrete structure supporting a streetlight by the side of the road, and all five passengers were killed.

Connecticut Avenue is not a limited access highway, and nobody is advocating for replacing breakaway light poles with non-breakaway light poles.

The issue was the concrete base not the light poles. And yes people are advocating for concrete barriers. The very thing identified as the reason people died.

I truly don't understand why you all lie about absolutely everything.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Making bike lanes smaller just squeezes them into smaller spaces and would actually be less safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You must have read a different article from the one you linked to.

In 1995, a serious crash occurred on the E4 motorway near Stockholm, Sweden. Five young people were travelling in a hatchback car when the vehicle went into a roll near the exit ramp for the Ikea store. The car smashed into a concrete structure supporting a streetlight by the side of the road, and all five passengers were killed.

Connecticut Avenue is not a limited access highway, and nobody is advocating for replacing breakaway light poles with non-breakaway light poles.

The issue was the concrete base not the light poles. And yes people are advocating for concrete barriers. The very thing identified as the reason people died.

I truly don't understand why you all lie about absolutely everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You must have read a different article from the one you linked to.

In 1995, a serious crash occurred on the E4 motorway near Stockholm, Sweden. Five young people were travelling in a hatchback car when the vehicle went into a roll near the exit ramp for the Ikea store. The car smashed into a concrete structure supporting a streetlight by the side of the road, and all five passengers were killed.

Connecticut Avenue is not a limited access highway, and nobody is advocating for replacing breakaway light poles with non-breakaway light poles.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Making bike lanes smaller just squeezes them into smaller spaces and would actually be less safe.

You sound like a cager. Something has to stop these people from killing and this is a tried and true method of traffic calming that’s clearly necessary.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/e-bike-rider-dies-after-crash-with-another-rider-in-downtown-dc/3583735/?amp=1

What a truly weird hobby you have.

No more weird than your hobby.

My hobbies: playing a musical instrument, gardening, reading
Your hobby: hating on people who use bicycles to go places

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Making bike lanes smaller just squeezes them into smaller spaces and would actually be less safe.

You sound like a cager. Something has to stop these people from killing and this is a tried and true method of traffic calming that’s clearly necessary.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/e-bike-rider-dies-after-crash-with-another-rider-in-downtown-dc/3583735/?amp=1

What a truly weird hobby you have.

No more weird than your hobby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Making bike lanes smaller just squeezes them into smaller spaces and would actually be less safe.

You sound like a cager. Something has to stop these people from killing and this is a tried and true method of traffic calming that’s clearly necessary.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/e-bike-rider-dies-after-crash-with-another-rider-in-downtown-dc/3583735/?amp=1

What a truly weird hobby you have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Making bike lanes smaller just squeezes them into smaller spaces and would actually be less safe.

You sound like a cager. Something has to stop these people from killing and this is a tried and true method of traffic calming that’s clearly necessary.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/e-bike-rider-dies-after-crash-with-another-rider-in-downtown-dc/3583735/?amp=1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Making bike lanes smaller just squeezes them into smaller spaces and would actually be less safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?