Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

If it’s not a hobby, why do cyclists where costumes?

I don’t have a special outfit I wear when I drive or take the subway.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s amusing when overweight middle aged cyclists going eight miles an hour for, like, 20 minutes dress up like they’re in the Tour de France (good job burning all 75 of those calories!).

It seems evident that cyclists think of it as a hobby too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

If it’s not a hobby, why do cyclists where costumes?

I don’t have a special outfit I wear when I drive or take the subway.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s amusing when overweight middle aged cyclists going eight miles an hour for, like, 20 minutes dress up like they’re in the Tour de France (good job burning all 75 of those calories!).

It seems evident that cyclists think of it as a hobby too.

Its a bit of a catch-22. If cyclists dress like normal, then drivers complain they can't see them. If they wear hi-vis then they are playing dress-up for a hobby.

As a compromise cyclists can dress like normal people, and drivers can go back to driving vehicles with short, sloped hoods, that are low enough to the ground that they don't create gigantic blind spots. Drivers can also do away with the super dark tints and blinding lights/screens that ruin everyone's low-light vision.

Its asking a lot of drivers, but if that's what it takes to keep Lycra off the road...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bike lanes that take up less space will reduce cyclist speed, making things safer for everyone. Win-win.

It’s interesting that the rules of Vision Zero don’t apply the same after a cyclist kills another cyclist through recklessness. Even more interesting is that the cycling activists don’t seem to care about this dead cyclist at all. Haven’t said a word.

It’s fascinating how little the cycling activists want to talk about this. Want to cite traffic fatalities non-stop but don’t want to get into the causes.

Unfortunately there are two dead cyclists so far in DC in 2024. One was trying to cycle on 295 and the other who was riding a bike share e-bike without a helmet was killed from a collision with another cyclist riding a bike share e-bike. A helmet would probably have saved their life (but that’s too much common sense against the nonsense contrarian argument that helmets make cyclists less safe).

I think it’s time to start ignoring the bikebros.

This is not just a DC thing, but e-bikes are noticeably more dangerous than pedal bikes. Its not just the extra weight and size either, but the fact it lets novice riders move at speeds they really aren't ready for. They really do veer into moped territory and probably should be treated more like them.

Ironically though, the second cyclist died because he stopped at a light.

The cyclist died because they hit their head on the ground after a collision with another cyclist. You people are nuts.

I take it that you now support helmet laws and will be pushing for them? That's what Vision Zero would do.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bike lanes that take up less space will reduce cyclist speed, making things safer for everyone. Win-win.

It’s interesting that the rules of Vision Zero don’t apply the same after a cyclist kills another cyclist through recklessness. Even more interesting is that the cycling activists don’t seem to care about this dead cyclist at all. Haven’t said a word.

It’s fascinating how little the cycling activists want to talk about this. Want to cite traffic fatalities non-stop but don’t want to get into the causes.

Unfortunately there are two dead cyclists so far in DC in 2024. One was trying to cycle on 295 and the other who was riding a bike share e-bike without a helmet was killed from a collision with another cyclist riding a bike share e-bike. A helmet would probably have saved their life (but that’s too much common sense against the nonsense contrarian argument that helmets make cyclists less safe).

I think it’s time to start ignoring the bikebros.

This is not just a DC thing, but e-bikes are noticeably more dangerous than pedal bikes. Its not just the extra weight and size either, but the fact it lets novice riders move at speeds they really aren't ready for. They really do veer into moped territory and probably should be treated more like them.

Ironically though, the second cyclist died because he stopped at a light.

The cyclist died because they hit their head on the ground after a collision with another cyclist. You people are nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

If it’s not a hobby, why do cyclists where costumes?

I don’t have a special outfit I wear when I drive or take the subway.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s amusing when overweight middle aged cyclists going eight miles an hour for, like, 20 minutes dress up like they’re in the Tour de France (good job burning all 75 of those calories!).

It seems evident that cyclists think of it as a hobby too.

Its a bit of a catch-22. If cyclists dress like normal, then drivers complain they can't see them. If they wear hi-vis then they are playing dress-up for a hobby.

As a compromise cyclists can dress like normal people, and drivers can go back to driving vehicles with short, sloped hoods, that are low enough to the ground that they don't create gigantic blind spots. Drivers can also do away with the super dark tints and blinding lights/screens that ruin everyone's low-light vision.

Its asking a lot of drivers, but if that's what it takes to keep Lycra off the road...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

There you go again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

If it’s not a hobby, why do cyclists where costumes?

I don’t have a special outfit I wear when I drive or take the subway.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s amusing when overweight middle aged cyclists going eight miles an hour for, like, 20 minutes dress up like they’re in the Tour de France (good job burning all 75 of those calories!).

It seems evident that cyclists think of it as a hobby too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bike lanes that take up less space will reduce cyclist speed, making things safer for everyone. Win-win.

It’s interesting that the rules of Vision Zero don’t apply the same after a cyclist kills another cyclist through recklessness. Even more interesting is that the cycling activists don’t seem to care about this dead cyclist at all. Haven’t said a word.

It’s fascinating how little the cycling activists want to talk about this. Want to cite traffic fatalities non-stop but don’t want to get into the causes.

Unfortunately there are two dead cyclists so far in DC in 2024. One was trying to cycle on 295 and the other who was riding a bike share e-bike without a helmet was killed from a collision with another cyclist riding a bike share e-bike. A helmet would probably have saved their life (but that’s too much common sense against the nonsense contrarian argument that helmets make cyclists less safe).

I think it’s time to start ignoring the bikebros.

This is not just a DC thing, but e-bikes are noticeably more dangerous than pedal bikes. Its not just the extra weight and size either, but the fact it lets novice riders move at speeds they really aren't ready for. They really do veer into moped territory and probably should be treated more like them.

Ironically though, the second cyclist died because he stopped at a light.

The cyclist died because they hit their head on the ground after a collision with another cyclist. You people are nuts.