You must log in or register to comment.

Gumburcules t1_j5zbliq wrote

This is the worst take I've ever seen.

The sticks are there because it's illegal to be there in a car but idiots in cars insist on being there anyway.

The pylons are a constant source of outrage on my local nextdoor and it honestly makes me furious how stupid and selfish people are. I have seen several people angry at the pylons for "taking away their parking" when the pylons were literally installed in the illegal parking area next to the intersection because assholes like those posters kept parking there and obscuring drivers' view of the intersection.


ertri t1_j5ziovv wrote

My proposal is to ditch the plastic and replace them with proper bollards. Those actually look better and are a lot less forgiving when someone hits o e


Gumburcules t1_j5zjifg wrote

My proposal is to replace them with severe tire damage strips.


giscard78 t1_j5zlc9y wrote

my proposal is sharks with laser beams

(no, but seriously, the pylons should be strengthened)


burrito-disciple t1_j60qzni wrote

Then you'd just have a disabled vehicle stuck there


Gumburcules t1_j60tu2h wrote

Well yeah, otherwise they'd get away before the tow truck comes to take the car to the impound and crush it into a cube in front of the driver.


GrilledCyan t1_j6114qo wrote

You have thirty minutes to move your car…you have ten minutes…your car has been impounded…you car has been crushed into a cube…you have thirty minutes to move your cube!


hemlockone t1_j65dabi wrote

A car was disabled taking the curve too sharp across the street from me. I live at a 4-way stop where three of the corners have a bio-retention curb extension ( #2). When a taxi ran aground, I made sure everyone was physically OK, then walked away because I wasn't particularly sympathetic. If the driver couldn't miss a giant concrete ditch and curb, what's to stop them from missing a child or a person?


ertri t1_j64gfki wrote

Sounds like a problem for the driver, not me


burrito-disciple t1_j64j9wz wrote

Lol y'all are so fussy


ertri t1_j650vtq wrote

Fussy? I literally don’t care what happens to the vehicle. How’s that being fussy?


burrito-disciple t1_j654xsf wrote

"I'm so fussy about something I don't like that I actively want other people to suffer for it" - u/ertri


ertri t1_j65anp8 wrote

Oh yeah, I don’t want drivers in bike lanes. I am fussy about that. I like people to actively suffer if they want to do shit that actively endangers me!


burrito-disciple t1_j65gsbj wrote

It's such an American thing to seek maximalist violent retribution for any perceived slight, whether real or imagined. Smh.


ertri t1_j661pby wrote

A bollard is stationary! Whatever’s behind it would get maximalist damage from a car going through it like what happens with plastic sticks!

I just think there should be consequences for maneuvering a multi thousand point piece of metal dangerously!


burrito-disciple t1_j662m1p wrote

>I like people to actively suffer


There's a difference between just consequences and sadistic retribution.


ertri t1_j66hlty wrote

Running into a bollard should have consequences because hitting a person behind that bollard sure as shit does!

Should people actively suffer because an idiot in a giant death machine was operating it poorly, or should the operator deal with the consequences?


burrito-disciple t1_j66ijm5 wrote

Just very cringey to invent situations where someone gets hurt or has to suffer and then to get excited about that thought.

Americans have a sick obsession with Retribution.


ertri t1_j68bm15 wrote

What? People literally drive over flex posts constantly, including right into bike lanes that other people are in. That’s not a made up situation, it happens every day on any of the protected lanes the original article is bitching about!


turnip-taker t1_j61whtt wrote

Bollards all the way! They look way sleeker, actually protect lanes, and don’t need to be replaced anywhere near as often as flexiposts. DDOT needs to deliver the 21st century, and public roads built for the public are the way to go.


ertri t1_j64ge6m wrote

We also have tons of bollards in DC already! Every federal building gets them


hemlockone t1_j60sndr wrote

I had to triple check that this wasn't satire:

>Roads are for cars — why are there vertical sticks being screwed into the ground, obstructing our vehicles and roads?



ertri t1_j64gjef wrote

I did too. Had to make sure Alexandra Petri wasn’t in the byline


hemlockone t1_j65chkf wrote

I think the distance that DC requires between parked cars and the crosswalk is a bit further than needed. I would have thought it was calculated based on the sight distance when braking from the speed limit. The default speed limit dropped from 25 to 20 last year.

That said, the rhetoric around putting street furniture and updates is insane. I live across from extension bioretention that's at the corner (#2 in the image at When a taxi took the turn too hard and grounded themselves, I made sure they were okay, but I couldn't help but silently think poorly of them because their inability to miss a giant concrete hole after a stop sign doesn't bode well for a small child.


trynoharderskrub t1_j5zajq0 wrote

I’ve never seen someone simp so hard for pavement.


DCmetrosexual1 OP t1_j5z0yxi wrote

Someone needs to tell the post that they don’t need to publish this shit.


keyjan t1_j5z2wse wrote

wow, this is seriously low value, even for the Post. Of course, they just fired 20 people out of the newsroom, so they're going to be looking for content......


MrDickford t1_j620f4k wrote

It’s going to bring together the demographic that wishes DC was more like the wealthy suburb they grew up in and the demographic that wishes it was still 2000, when a million fewer people lived in the DC metro area and they could do three point turns on 14th street at rush hour without getting honked at.


LilInterweb t1_j5z3urp wrote

Was this article written by a third grader? “Streets are for cars” “white cones are bad for the environment (plastic).” Lol

This article sounds like something my Republican uncle would try to write only diving into the shallowest of concepts to try to make his point. It’s lazy, uneducated, shallow, and biased. NEXT


solidrecommendations t1_j5zf2zb wrote

And the “bar-code lookalikes” comparison is so weirdly strained… just say you think the plastic posts are unsightly. We get it.


toorigged2fail t1_j5zgvtz wrote

I thought he was talking about the streatery at Barcode.. and then realized they don't have one.


hemlockone t1_j60svo3 wrote

I thought it was referring to painting the asphalt when intersections daylighting happens


dc_dobbz t1_j608o84 wrote

I read that as “my uncle would try to write while driving,” and it still seemed to work.


acctthrowaway7134 t1_j5z222g wrote

“Roads are for cars”

No, roads are for transportation.


johnbrownbody t1_j5z560n wrote

No, roads are public spaces and can and should be reclaimed when appropriate.


speedymcpot t1_j5z9k9z wrote

Yeah but not with ugly tents that all they do is sell expensive alcohol. If you going to go the “oh the people have the right to reclaim the streets” then this is not the way to turn it into a money cow for alcohol and Vice.


NorseTikiBar t1_j5zn31u wrote

Alcohol and vice? Is someone in the middle of their Rumpspringa and it's not going well?


johnbrownbody t1_j5zaur3 wrote

> Yeah but not with ugly tents that all they do is sell expensive alcohol.

Lots of businesses and cafes have streeteries.

> If you going to go the “oh the people have the right to reclaim the streets” then this is not the way to turn it into a money cow for alcohol and Vice.

It's a cash cow for the city and for small businesses, and it's great for people to enjoy spending time outside in the open air.

We should definitely also reclaim parking spots with more bike lanes, enforced bus lanes, and green spaces, but to claim that "all they do is sell expensive alcohol... and vice" is ridiculous and factually incorrect.


GuyNoirPI t1_j5zcslo wrote

> It is encroachment, just as the many pandemic-era on-street cafes are just private property encroaching on public spaces.

As opposed to parked cars, which everyone can enter.


oxtailplanning t1_j62sook wrote

It's amazing the logically twists people will exert to justify their desires.


johnbrownbody t1_j5z598z wrote

> It is encroachment, just as the many pandemic-era on-street cafes are just private property encroaching on public spaces

What is street parking if not private property encroaching on public spaces?


missjennielang t1_j62g8bf wrote

I can post up for 2 hours for free?


johnbrownbody t1_j64jh2o wrote

You can post up at a massively subsidized parking spot (or free in some spots) where your private property will sit on public space for a nominal and inexpensive fee when that land could be much more effectively used to generate tax revenue or beautify the city. Streeteries pay a nominal fee and generate a nice spot for people to spend money which generates tax revenue. Dedicated bus lanes instead of parking spots allow for the efficient movement of people to and from places of businesses. I can go on.


missjennielang t1_j64r3a3 wrote

You’d rather businesses get that space for essentially free than a disabled person like me pay for it?


johnbrownbody t1_j64ro61 wrote

Businesses get that space for the cost of parking for the entire year AFAIK. That's how it worked during the pandemic.

There will / should still be disabled parking spots for accessibility purposes.

Now your argument is about accessibility not cost, which I pointed out is a bad one. Accessibility wise yes we should make the city accessible to all. Those who need to drive for disability purposes as well as those who cannot drive due to disabilities or other reasons. But the argument that streeteries or other uses for parking are somehow worse than your car getting a massive subsidy to sit in public spaces is easily refuted.


missjennielang t1_j64suba wrote

DC has given them millions of dollars towards outdoor dining but people who would pay to share parking are getting too subsidized? We don’t make money off the spots, the restaurants do and they’ve been given massive amounts of money to enable that.


johnbrownbody t1_j64uosj wrote

>people who would pay to share parking are getting too subsidized?

Yes they are, parking in cities is massively subsidized. If you want to park in a private lot you would pay significantly more than Street city parking. A good clue that parking is very subsidized.

>We don’t make money off the spots, the restaurants do

Do you think restaurants pay more tax if they make more money? They do. And yes, the restaurants also pay for the spots themselves.


missjennielang t1_j64vbv6 wrote

The restaurants have received millions of dollars to build and upgrade these…..


johnbrownbody t1_j66cycg wrote

Again, the city makes money off of the tax revenue and if your issue is that money was provided to businesses to help set up streeteries (if true), the alternative was that businesses would not exist because people were not doing indoor dining. Then you could have parked right next to these empty storefronts.


missjennielang t1_j689xp1 wrote

You keep pretending the stuff taking up the parking isn’t subsidized. All you’re doing is showing a preference for wealthier residents.

The truth is everyone but the restaurants are harmed by the loss of parking, haven’t you listened to any of the other businesses?


johnbrownbody t1_j68aqpd wrote

>All you’re doing is showing a preference for wealthier residents

DC residents with cars are wealthier than those without. Giving cheap parking to car drivers instead of using public space for amenities that benefit the city in a variety of ways is what benefits wealthy residents who don't care if there is a bus lane because they don't take the bus. Etc.


missjennielang t1_j68em6u wrote

You forgot how everyone except the restaurant owners have been harmed by this


campbeer t1_j5zwcub wrote

I googled the name, and it is either a priest from the 1800, or an editor from the GW school for International Affairs.


ofriendly t1_j5za0q6 wrote

Area man angry he can’t drive car wherever he wants and people keep walking on crosswalks. Film at 11.


not_a_gumby t1_j5zgp10 wrote

its a conservative opinion columnist, the lowest of the lowest rungs in society. what else do you expect? these people actively want and desire the worst outcomes in all categories. this shouldn't surprise anyone


NorseTikiBar t1_j5z42gt wrote

Oh, letters to the editor. If there was a limit to how dumb you can be, we haven't found it yet.


Rooster_Ties t1_j60960r wrote

Of course the one photo in the article doesn’t even show what they’re talking about.

What the hell does this look like? I live here (up in Columbia Heights), and work downtown — and I can’t figure out what they’re even talking about that’s such an outrage.


[deleted] t1_j61t15e wrote



Rooster_Ties t1_j623omc wrote

Oh, those things. WTF?? They always seem highly effective at preventing exactly what they’re designed for. This seems like an example of GOOD and effective design, if you ask me. WTF??!!


missesT1 t1_j6223hs wrote

Haha thanks for asking, I also was like Wtf is this.


TheCoelacanth t1_j5ziwd5 wrote

I agree. Just ban all cars and we won't need that bullshit.


Evaderofdoom t1_j600fhw wrote

Terrible article. In 2017 visited Montreal and they had converted a ton of parking spaces like that but used a lot of wood decking material. I thought it was a great idea then and hope we keep expanding it here.


RaelynShaw t1_j603obq wrote

This reads like a post on NextDoor.


swampoodler t1_j604vwh wrote

Still looks better than cars parked everywhere.


Blackice1625 t1_j61apgq wrote

It’s just funny cuz dc will be experience actual issues and WaPO will find time to have an Op Ed like this posted like we not dying out here.


ekkidee t1_j639jwr wrote

It's a letter to the editor, which is at the bottom of the newspaper content hierarchy.


CannaVet t1_j5zrshs wrote

"I can't drive across pedestrian spaces and try to kill somebody waaahhhhhhh"


twenty-six-sixty-six t1_j5zw64o wrote

I'm of two minds because I like them for safety purposes but they are ugly


jaco1001 t1_j60938o wrote

the purpose of the plastic stick at intersections, often bumping out the corners of the blocks that make up the intersection, is to force cars to pull up further into the box before they turn. This stops them from slamming through bikes and pedestrians, gives everyone more time to make eye contact, and generally forces people to slow down and not slam it around the corner. what a fucking joke from the post, it's really going to the dogs.


ThrowawayMHDP t1_j62wost wrote

Parking shouldn't be a thing in DC


pgm123 t1_j63v7h1 wrote

>Roads are for cars

Get the fuck out of here. I didn't make it through the first paragraph.


pgm123 t1_j63vs6i wrote

OK. I decided to keep reading. The fact that he's complaining about the fountain in McLean Gardens tells me where he owns his expensive condo. I guarantee very few people care about it who don't live there.


Sheol t1_j60xf85 wrote

Yes, flexposts are super ugly, but they could have been avoided if people in cars stopped parking in bike lanes. Unfortunately, the only sightly option is installing real curbs but that would cost many multiples of what flexposts do.


ekkidee t1_j639ncf wrote

TIL WaPo still publishes letters to the editor.


CanaKitty t1_j61ecw6 wrote

Obviously a republican who hates outdoor dining and has zero respect for people who prefer to minimize their Covid risk.


superdookietoiletexp t1_j61plme wrote

Suburbanism is the reason a lot of these people are Republicans in the first place (yes, there are actual studies on that). It’s a vicious cycle.


missjennielang t1_j62g209 wrote

When do we get all the street parking back