Mary Cheh wants to make it legal for bicyclists for blow stop signs and stop lights

[Anonymous]

She says it's important for bicyclists to be able to "maintain momentum."

Uh, what?

If you're too lazy to stop at stop signs, whether you're in a car or on a bike, maybe you shouldnt be on the road.

This being D.C., she is pairing this "safety" proposal with other plans to make it harder to drive a car.

This is what being captured by special interests (i.e., the bike lobby) looks like.

https://twitter.com/marycheh/status/1496223827524820995

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She says it's important for bicyclists to be able to "maintain momentum."

Uh, what?

If you're too lazy to stop at stop signs, whether you're in a car or on a bike, maybe you shouldnt be on the road.

This being D.C., she is pairing this "safety" proposal with other plans to make it harder to drive a car.

This is what being captured by special interests (i.e., the bike lobby) looks like.

https://twitter.com/marycheh/status/1496223827524820995

what's the Idaho stop?

[Anonymous]

Not quite, the proposal is to allow Idaho stops which lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. It is actually associated with fewer cyclist injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

[Anonymous]

Roads with tons of bicyclists sound far more dangerous than ones with lots of cars because no one follows any rules of the road.

This, from the New York Times:

PARIS — On a recent afternoon, the Rue de Rivoli looked like this: Cyclists blowing through red lights in two directions. Delivery bike riders fixating on their cellphones. Electric scooters careening across lanes. Jaywalkers and nervous pedestrians scrambling as if in a video game.

Sarah Famery, a 20-year resident of the Marais neighborhood, braced for the tumult. She looked left, then right, then left and right again before venturing into a crosswalk, only to break into a rant-laden sprint as two cyclists came within inches of grazing her.

“It’s chaos!” exclaimed Ms. Famery, shaking a fist at the swarm of bikes that have displaced cars on the Rue de Rivoli ever since it was remade into a multilane highway for cyclists last year. “Politicians want to make Paris a cycling city, but no one is following any rules,” she said. “It’s becoming risky just to cross the street!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/world/europe/paris-bicyles-france.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She says it's important for bicyclists to be able to "maintain momentum."

Uh, what?

If you're too lazy to stop at stop signs, whether you're in a car or on a bike, maybe you shouldnt be on the road.

This being D.C., she is pairing this "safety" proposal with other plans to make it harder to drive a car.

This is what being captured by special interests (i.e., the bike lobby) looks like.

https://twitter.com/marycheh/status/1496223827524820995

what's the Idaho stop?

An "Idaho stop" is the euphemism they've created to describe bicyclists ignoring stop signs. If cars did this, people would be apoplectic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not quite, the proposal is to allow Idaho stops which lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. It is actually associated with fewer cyclist injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Wow. Who knew stop signs were so dangerous? And here I was thinking they made the roads safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She says it's important for bicyclists to be able to "maintain momentum."

Uh, what?

If you're too lazy to stop at stop signs, whether you're in a car or on a bike, maybe you shouldnt be on the road.

This being D.C., she is pairing this "safety" proposal with other plans to make it harder to drive a car.

This is what being captured by special interests (i.e., the bike lobby) looks like.

https://twitter.com/marycheh/status/1496223827524820995

If you need to mis-represent what's being proposed in order for your argument to make sense, maybe you should reconsider your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She says it's important for bicyclists to be able to "maintain momentum."

Uh, what?

If you're too lazy to stop at stop signs, whether you're in a car or on a bike, maybe you shouldnt be on the road.

This being D.C., she is pairing this "safety" proposal with other plans to make it harder to drive a car.

This is what being captured by special interests (i.e., the bike lobby) looks like.

https://twitter.com/marycheh/status/1496223827524820995

what's the Idaho stop?

An "Idaho stop" is the euphemism they've created to describe bicyclists ignoring stop signs. If cars did this, people would be apoplectic.

They don't ignore the stop sign, they still have to yield right of way. They just don't have to come to a complete stop when doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She says it's important for bicyclists to be able to "maintain momentum."

Uh, what?

If you're too lazy to stop at stop signs, whether you're in a car or on a bike, maybe you shouldnt be on the road.

This being D.C., she is pairing this "safety" proposal with other plans to make it harder to drive a car.

This is what being captured by special interests (i.e., the bike lobby) looks like.

https://twitter.com/marycheh/status/1496223827524820995

what's the Idaho stop?

An "Idaho stop" is the euphemism they've created to describe bicyclists ignoring stop signs. If cars did this, people would be apoplectic.

First, cars routinely fail to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and yet the world continues to turn.

Moreover, you know what would make people (in cars) apoplectic? If each and every cyclist scrupulously obeyed each and every traffic law. So, coming to a complete stop at stop signs and traffic lights, and also taking the lane, as they are entitled to do under DC law. Not in bike lanes - in the regular multi-use traffic lanes (which drivers refer to as car lanes). A week of this, and drivers would lose their minds because cyclists were *obeying* traffic laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not quite, the proposal is to allow Idaho stops which lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. It is actually associated with fewer cyclist injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Wow. Who knew stop signs were so dangerous? And here I was thinking they made the roads safer.

Because getting up to speed on a bike takes longer and drivers often don't see or ignore a stopped cyclist. Everywhere that has tried it has seen a decrease in injuries.

[Anonymous]

Is this really so much of a problem that there needs to be legislation? Bicyclists routinely roll through stop signs when there is nothing coming--I don't see anyone getting ticketed or arrested for that. Just let it be. There are so many other issues crying out for attention in DC...like crime. Of course, Cheh got blasted for saying anything about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not quite, the proposal is to allow Idaho stops which lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. It is actually associated with fewer cyclist injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Wow. Who knew stop signs were so dangerous? And here I was thinking they made the roads safer.

Because getting up to speed on a bike takes longer and drivers often don't see or ignore a stopped cyclist. Everywhere that has tried it has seen a decrease in injuries.

somehow it's drivers faults that people on bikes find it too physically taxing to stop at stop signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She says it's important for bicyclists to be able to "maintain momentum."

Uh, what?

If you're too lazy to stop at stop signs, whether you're in a car or on a bike, maybe you shouldnt be on the road.

This being D.C., she is pairing this "safety" proposal with other plans to make it harder to drive a car.

This is what being captured by special interests (i.e., the bike lobby) looks like.

https://twitter.com/marycheh/status/1496223827524820995

what's the Idaho stop?

An "Idaho stop" is the euphemism they've created to describe bicyclists ignoring stop signs. If cars did this, people would be apoplectic.

They don't ignore the stop sign, they still have to yield right of way. They just don't have to come to a complete stop when doing so.

Can I do that in my car too? It is very important for me to "maintain momentum."

[Anonymous]

It is provennto be safer. Stop with this anti-cyclist hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not quite, the proposal is to allow Idaho stops which lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. It is actually associated with fewer cyclist injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Wow. Who knew stop signs were so dangerous? And here I was thinking they made the roads safer.

Because getting up to speed on a bike takes longer and drivers often don't see or ignore a stopped cyclist. Everywhere that has tried it has seen a decrease in injuries.

somehow it's drivers faults that people on bikes find it too physically taxing to stop at stop signs.

It is their fault if they don't yield to a cyclist who was there first but is having to get back up to speed. It would be better for everyone if the cyclist had just been allowed to proceed or yield.