You can't say whether it's crazy and dangerous for pedestrians to jaywalk after looking both ways? How can you be so confident in your argument when you can't even stand up to one simple yes or no question? That's pretty weak sauce.

Do you believe pedestrians jaywalking after looking both ways is "crazy and dangerous"? How come you can't give a clear yes or no answer to that very simple question?

Jaywalking is illegal here. Do you believe that jaywalking after you look both ways and see no cars coming is "crazy and dangerous"?

> This is just going to train people to not pay attention while driving.

I think it's TBD. Most people don't turn on smart cruise control until they are on a highway; the entire time that they are pulling out of their house, driving through neighborhood streets, and navigating to a freeway, they have to do all the normal work that drivers do to make sure they stay in their lane and not hit what's in front of them.

And again, ultimately what will matter is the number of accidents averted. If we have shitty drivers in safer cars, that might result in safer streets even as drivers themselves become worse. Like, I wouldn't be surprised if rear cameras and some of the automatic parking features in cars today have, on average, made people less skilled at parallel parking. But that doesn't mean there are more accidents while parallel parking than there used to be. It just means that if you gave today's driver yesterday's technology, they would be worse at using it.

Because manual transmission enthusiasts value the feel of using a clutch, not just the ability to control the gear you're in. That's why manual transmission enthusiasts still exist even though semi-automatic transmissions that let you control your gear with shifter are quite common.

> slowing down EV adoption isn't a bad thing

Disagree. Rapid EV adoption is an imperative. But it does create urgency to improve road safety in the meantime, because EVs are heavier and faster (and therefore more dangerous) than ICE counterparts.

> Semi-autonomous driving, however, is an absolutely awful idea and will produce even worse drivers than we have now. Tons of people are getting their driving reflexes accustomed to adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist.

IDK, this isn't obvious to me, it just seems like a narrow intuitive argument and I don't think I am fully on board with your intuitions. Most "semi-autonomous" features are features that engage under very rare and extreme circumstances, 99+% of the time drivers are driving their cars the exact same way we always have. It's not obvious to me that having some semi-autonomous safety features that engage under rare circumstances will radically change the driving behavior that drivers develop as they learn to drive. And even if it did, it would still be a question of how many accidents were avoided vs. caused by that change.

> What happens if they are in a situation where they have to drive an older car?

Sure, maybe they would be worse drivers in an older car. That seems like an edge case, though - as above, it becomes a question of whether accidents caused in those circumstances are more frequent or worse than the accidents avoided the rest of the time. It is also something that will gradually go away over the course of the transition towards vehicles with more semi-autonomous safety features, rather than a permanent problem with semi-autonomous features. Like, I'm sure that drivers today with backup cameras would be really shitty at parallel parking a car if they had to drive an older car with only a rear-view mirror... but we are rapidly approaching the point at which the likelihood of them ever having to drive an old car without a backup camera is getting pretty low.

> I think we're still in too young a phase with autonomous vehicles. Theoretically, computers should be able to avoid pedestrians/cyclists much better than (very distractable) human drivers, but I don't know if the technology is fully there yet.

If we define "autonomous vehicles" as something like "full self driving cars" then yeah obviously the technology isn't there yet. That said, I think there is a lot of technology available right now that is well short of that threshold that could save plenty of pedestrian lives. Automatic emergency braking already exists in a number of cars and hopefully already helps avoid some pedestrian collisions (especially in daylight). We also definitely have the technology to actually enforce speed limits by software if we wanted to, we just lack the will.

On the whole, I would not seek to discourage vehicle autonomy features right now, despite the existence and well-publicized failures of of Musk the Moron. In the long run I'm sure they will be a good thing, and they are already probably having some meaningful positive effects.

No, I don't.

Now answer my question - have you ever looked both ways and jaywalked when there weren't any cars coming?

Have you ever looked both ways and jaywalked when there weren't any cars coming?

> Just force manufacturers to make more manuals.

There isn't really any such thing right now as a manual EV, that's not how their gearing works. Forcing manual production would mean forcing production of ICEs. There are better ways of making safer roads.

> Put massive taxes on vehicle autonomy features.

Are vehicle autonomy features bad for pedestrian safety? Obviously it's bad when a "self-driving" car hits a pedestrian. But I'm not sure that the net effect of vehicle autonomy features is negative for pedestrian safety; I assume that some smart features like automatic braking will have positive effects for pedestrian safety.

As someone who drove a manual until a few years ago, I can't promise that I was any less prone to getting distracted than someone with an automatic. Once you're used to a manual, shifting gears fades into the background of your thinking just as much as driving an automatic (except when you're in stop and go traffic or stopped on a hill).

Plus, sadly, manual transmissions are going to have a hard time making a comeback with the rise of EVs.

> I've seen a biker go through a red light

This isn't crazy or dangerous unless there is cross traffic

> a pedestrian trying to walk through 4 lanes of ongoing traffic in the middle of a block.

If the pedestrian is at a crosswalk, the only thing that is "crazy" about them is expecting drivers to follow the law

> They also cite things like cars getting bigger, but frankly even cars from the 50s going at even moderate speeds can be deadly, so where’s the actual connection?

There has been a lot of study of this particular issue, linking larger cars both to disproportionately high rates of pedestrian crashes and do higher fatality rates in the crashes that happen. Here is some research from IIHS, for example. I don't think this is a particularly controversial empirical point. Of course any car can be deadly, but taller, heavier, faster cars are more likely to be deadly (one of the things that is likely to be harmful about the EV revolution), and larger vehicles have more visibility limitations than smaller ones.

Anecdotally, if you look back through the pedestrian & cyclist deaths in DC, I think you will see "large vehicle turns into a pedestrian or cyclist" is probably the biggest recurring theme.

Excellent post. OP I feel like your title does a slight disservice to the message; it's great to support a neighborhood restaurant or bar, but this advice isn't about charity to others, it's about looking after yourself. These events (I have also been to multiple (shame on me)) can be really frustrating as an attendee.

That said, many people have a good time at them, especially if you know in advance what you're signing up for and have reasonable expectations, or if you are the type of person who has other people wait in drink lines for you. It's not impossible to have fun at one of these galas, but just know that it is not the glamorous, full-service experience you would expect from the price and marketing. The drink lines especially are genuinely unconscionable and will eat up a huge chunk of your night if you actually want to get a good buzz going on NYE. But if you can deal with that, there will be many young attractive people drinking and dancing in fancy clothes and maybe that's all you need from your night, no judgment.

Last year we made a big batch of roasted candied & spiced pecans to give to friends & family as stocking stuffers. I'm sure something like that would be appreciated by any neighbor who doesn't have a tree nut allergy.

Unfortunately, my understanding as a bicyclist is that because pedestrians sometimes jaywalk, it is pedestrians' fault if they get hit in a crosswalk for not being safe enough road users.

If you really want a binge, I am sure there are better shows out there. Have you done most of the other long prestige-y shows? Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, The Americans, Mr. Robot, The Expanse, Justified, The Wire, The Boys, The Sopranos are all really well-liked shows with 4+ seasons out there. Mad Men too, which I deeply love, but is paced slower than the others.

I also love and miss Battlestar Galactica, but I'm leaving it off this list because it's not universally thought to have stuck the landing the same way those other shows largely did. Although I am in the minority of fans who found the end mostly satisfying (there are dozens of us!)

Highlands on upper 14th St might fit the bill. Taqueria Habanero may scratch this itch too.

You could file a 311 request asking for a Traffic Safety Investigation at that intersection. In addition, it is probably worth reaching out to your ANC as a starting point. From looking at a map, it looks like this intersection falls in either 4C03 or 4C05 depending on which corner you're on. Contact info for those ANCs is here. They will know best what the history of DDOT's process in evaluating that intersection for traffic calming has been.