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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC law requires Bikes to yield to pedestrians while on the side walk in cross walks etc.. Bikes almost never do - this happens frequently.

The fact that cars may be a larger safety hazard does not conflict with bikes being held to a safe standard when traveling on a side walk. The standard that "no one has been killed in x years" is a very low bar. I am sure there are many collisions that result in injury to the peds which would not occur if the bicylists reduced their speed to a walking speed until they can safely get around the pedestrians.

Ringing a bell or yelling on your left doesn't mitigate the bikes responsibility to manage their speed in a way so that they don't hit the people walking

Um, yeah, I'm still more concerned with the actual people being killed. By cars.

You're trying to make a strong argument that bikes are a major safety hazard without any strong data and sorry, I can't get behind it (as a non biker).

[Anonymous]

This thread was about the law allowing an idaho stop and bikers rolling through intersections when people are trying to walk through the cross walk. As a DC walker (not driver or biker) that concerns me.

I have no issue with extending protections for bikers and pedestrians for cars would be all for it. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive or you have an issue with bikes sharing the sidewalks in a safe manner or feel that somehow any comments not solely focused on cars detracts from pedestrians getting killed by cars which was not what this thread was about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread was about the law allowing an idaho stop and bikers rolling through intersections when people are trying to walk through the cross walk. As a DC walker (not driver or biker) that concerns me.

I have no issue with extending protections for bikers and pedestrians for cars would be all for it. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive or you have an issue with bikes sharing the sidewalks in a safe manner or feel that somehow any comments not solely focused on cars detracts from pedestrians getting killed by cars which was not what this thread was about.

During an Idaho stop, bikes still have to yield, and pedestrians would still have the right of way in the crosswalk.

[Anonymous]

People (drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc.) who are going to break the law and be rude jerks are going to break the law and be rude jerks anyway.

Those of us who follow the law should have a good set of laws regardless of the large number of people who suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread was about the law allowing an idaho stop and bikers rolling through intersections when people are trying to walk through the cross walk. As a DC walker (not driver or biker) that concerns me.

I have no issue with extending protections for bikers and pedestrians for cars would be all for it. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive or you have an issue with bikes sharing the sidewalks in a safe manner or feel that somehow any comments not solely focused on cars detracts from pedestrians getting killed by cars which was not what this thread was about.

During an Idaho stop, bikes still have to yield, and pedestrians would still have the right of way in the crosswalk.

It's telling that people opposed to this measure feel the need to misrepresent what it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread was about the law allowing an idaho stop and bikers rolling through intersections when people are trying to walk through the cross walk. As a DC walker (not driver or biker) that concerns me.

I have no issue with extending protections for bikers and pedestrians for cars would be all for it. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive or you have an issue with bikes sharing the sidewalks in a safe manner or feel that somehow any comments not solely focused on cars detracts from pedestrians getting killed by cars which was not what this thread was about.

During an Idaho stop, bikes still have to yield, and pedestrians would still have the right of way in the crosswalk.

Cyclists don't in practice yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. They dodge pedestrians, but they don't stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread was about the law allowing an idaho stop and bikers rolling through intersections when people are trying to walk through the cross walk. As a DC walker (not driver or biker) that concerns me.

I have no issue with extending protections for bikers and pedestrians for cars would be all for it. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive or you have an issue with bikes sharing the sidewalks in a safe manner or feel that somehow any comments not solely focused on cars detracts from pedestrians getting killed by cars which was not what this thread was about.

During an Idaho stop, bikes still have to yield, and pedestrians would still have the right of way in the crosswalk.

Cyclists don't in practice yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. They dodge pedestrians, but they don't stop.

Please share the data you have to back this claim. I would fully support any pedestrian safety measures that need to be put in place if you can show that bikers have been hitting pedestrians

[Anonymous]

I'll never forget when I was badly injured in the crosswalk by a Safeway truck and the short statured young petite man in Mary Cheh's office told me I should have been paying attention and looking behind me while crossing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll never forget when I was badly injured in the crosswalk by a Safeway truck and the short statured young petite man in Mary Cheh's office told me I should have been paying attention and looking behind me while crossing.

This literally has nothing to do with the topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never forget when I was badly injured in the crosswalk by a Safeway truck and the short statured young petite man in Mary Cheh's office told me I should have been paying attention and looking behind me while crossing.

This literally has nothing to do with the topic

Yea but they didn’t get enough attention the first time they post to the story, so they are trying again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread was about the law allowing an idaho stop and bikers rolling through intersections when people are trying to walk through the cross walk. As a DC walker (not driver or biker) that concerns me.

I have no issue with extending protections for bikers and pedestrians for cars would be all for it. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive or you have an issue with bikes sharing the sidewalks in a safe manner or feel that somehow any comments not solely focused on cars detracts from pedestrians getting killed by cars which was not what this thread was about.

During an Idaho stop, bikes still have to yield, and pedestrians would still have the right of way in the crosswalk.

Cyclists don't in practice yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. They dodge pedestrians, but they don't stop.

Yield doesn't mean stop. It means it's on you to avoid colliding. Dodging fits that definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never forget when I was badly injured in the crosswalk by a Safeway truck and the short statured young petite man in Mary Cheh's office told me I should have been paying attention and looking behind me while crossing.

This literally has nothing to do with the topic

Yea but they didn’t get enough attention the first time they post to the story, so they are trying again.

Oh, too bad. It sure does have everything to do with the topic. She doesn't care about pedestrian safety. Everything is repeated over and over again. You're probably the little man in her office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never forget when I was badly injured in the crosswalk by a Safeway truck and the short statured young petite man in Mary Cheh's office told me I should have been paying attention and looking behind me while crossing.

This literally has nothing to do with the topic

Yea but they didn’t get enough attention the first time they post to the story, so they are trying again.

And good night, "little man."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never forget when I was badly injured in the crosswalk by a Safeway truck and the short statured young petite man in Mary Cheh's office told me I should have been paying attention and looking behind me while crossing.

This literally has nothing to do with the topic

Yea but they didn’t get enough attention the first time they post to the story, so they are trying again.

And good night, "little man."

Good night paranoid loon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never forget when I was badly injured in the crosswalk by a Safeway truck and the short statured young petite man in Mary Cheh's office told me I should have been paying attention and looking behind me while crossing.

This literally has nothing to do with the topic

Yea but they didn’t get enough attention the first time they post to the story, so they are trying again.

Oh, too bad. It sure does have everything to do with the topic. She doesn't care about pedestrian safety. Everything is repeated over and over again. You're probably the little man in her office.

Also, I never mentioned in any thread "little man's" comment which is certainly relevant to the topic. Clearly nobody in the office is concerned with pedestrian safety.