City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

Good thing only a tiny number of people here bike. It would suck if there were a lot of them:

As Bikers Throng the Streets, ‘It’s Like Paris Is in Anarchy’

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

Amsterdam has many more cyclists than Paris and does just fine. Change is a hard thing for some of you to come to terms with, we get it. But everything will be fine, even better than before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing drivers can do to protect themselves from bogus lawsuits from cyclists who ride dangerously is to get a dash cam. Everyone is going to need it in court. It's on my Christmas list.

And what can cyclists do to protect ourselves from drivers who drive dangerously? I've been in one bike accident in nearly 15 years of bike commuting, and it was very much the driver's fault: He hit me while I was in a bike lane riding to work, which he drove into because, as he told me when we stopped, "I didn't see you." I didn't bother calling police about it because it was raining and I wanted to get to work, but he damaged his side-view mirror, and my wrist hurt for a few weeks. If he'd had a dash cam, the only thing it would have been useful for in court would be for me to subpoena the footage.

If you ride a bike in DC, you should probably expect to be hit by a car sooner or later, just like you should expect to get mugged sooner or later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

They're a menace to their own children. I saw a cyclist this morning with a small child on the back of his back riding down the middle of New Hampshire, between the two lanes, during rush hour. Spectacularly dangerous. How are people allowed to put children in this situation?

I beg you to review the list of people who died on DC’s streets last year. That list includes at least two young children who were killed on a crosswalk by drivers. If you truly cared about the safety of children on DC streets, your focus would be on the actual threats to their safety as borne out by the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing drivers can do to protect themselves from bogus lawsuits from cyclists who ride dangerously is to get a dash cam. Everyone is going to need it in court. It's on my Christmas list.

And what can cyclists do to protect ourselves from drivers who drive dangerously? I've been in one bike accident in nearly 15 years of bike commuting, and it was very much the driver's fault: He hit me while I was in a bike lane riding to work, which he drove into because, as he told me when we stopped, "I didn't see you." I didn't bother calling police about it because it was raining and I wanted to get to work, but he damaged his side-view mirror, and my wrist hurt for a few weeks. If he'd had a dash cam, the only thing it would have been useful for in court would be for me to subpoena the footage.

If you ride a bike in DC, you should probably expect to be hit by a car sooner or later, just like you should expect to get mugged sooner or later.

You really do not know anything about DC do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

They're a menace to their own children. I saw a cyclist this morning with a small child on the back of his back riding down the middle of New Hampshire, between the two lanes, during rush hour. Spectacularly dangerous. How are people allowed to put children in this situation?

I beg you to review the list of people who died on DC’s streets last year. That list includes at least two young children who were killed on a crosswalk by drivers. If you truly cared about the safety of children on DC streets, your focus would be on the actual threats to their safety as borne out by the data.

Yikes. I guess it's ok to put your child's life in danger so long as you're really into bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this seems pretty insane. im guessing we're in for some horrific accidents. this would also seem to raise all kinds of legal liability issues.

dcist's write up


https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing drivers can do to protect themselves from bogus lawsuits from cyclists who ride dangerously is to get a dash cam. Everyone is going to need it in court. It's on my Christmas list.

And what can cyclists do to protect ourselves from drivers who drive dangerously? I've been in one bike accident in nearly 15 years of bike commuting, and it was very much the driver's fault: He hit me while I was in a bike lane riding to work, which he drove into because, as he told me when we stopped, "I didn't see you." I didn't bother calling police about it because it was raining and I wanted to get to work, but he damaged his side-view mirror, and my wrist hurt for a few weeks. If he'd had a dash cam, the only thing it would have been useful for in court would be for me to subpoena the footage.

If you ride a bike in DC, you should probably expect to be hit by a car sooner or later, just like you should expect to get mugged sooner or later.

Though you're vastly, vastly overestimating the odds of being a victim of a crime in D.C., I do like how your analogy recognizes that, much like armed criminals, drivers are dangerous to the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing drivers can do to protect themselves from bogus lawsuits from cyclists who ride dangerously is to get a dash cam. Everyone is going to need it in court. It's on my Christmas list.

And what can cyclists do to protect ourselves from drivers who drive dangerously? I've been in one bike accident in nearly 15 years of bike commuting, and it was very much the driver's fault: He hit me while I was in a bike lane riding to work, which he drove into because, as he told me when we stopped, "I didn't see you." I didn't bother calling police about it because it was raining and I wanted to get to work, but he damaged his side-view mirror, and my wrist hurt for a few weeks. If he'd had a dash cam, the only thing it would have been useful for in court would be for me to subpoena the footage.

If you ride a bike in DC, you should probably expect to be hit by a car sooner or later, just like you should expect to get mugged sooner or later.

But meanwhile, cyclists who might file "bogus lawsuits" against drivers are the real menace?

[Anonymous]

The basic premise of the original post in this thread was that this change will lead to a huge increase in accidents, but meanwhile, the data seems to indicate that the Idaho stop makes bicycling significantly safer, as DCist notes (https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/):

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

[Anonymous]

Will the changes reduce traffic fatalities?

The District has been wrestling with increasing traffic fatalities in recent years, with 40 people getting killed on the streets last year. So far, 24 have been killed this year. The council, Bowser, and DDOT have tried a number of remedies to fix the issue, but nothing has reduced the statistics.

Mendelson ultimately voted for the bill but wanted to see an analysis on whether banning right turns at red lights would actually address the problems. “We’ve been doing thing after thing after thing and we’re getting more accidents, more fatalities in this city,” he said. “We’re going the wrong way… and that’s what concerns me.”

From the DCist article

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

They're a menace to their own children. I saw a cyclist this morning with a small child on the back of his back riding down the middle of New Hampshire, between the two lanes, during rush hour. Spectacularly dangerous. How are people allowed to put children in this situation?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Now do shoplifting.

Agreed 100%

It’s a petty charge used to harm BIPOC. Get rid of it.

Unless this is sarcasm, this is insane and a good example of how this country has turned into an episode of The Twilight Zone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

They're a menace to their own children. I saw a cyclist this morning with a small child on the back of his back riding down the middle of New Hampshire, between the two lanes, during rush hour. Spectacularly dangerous. How are people allowed to put children in this situation?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

A helmet is, unfortunately, not likely to make a huge difference in the outcome when a car that weighs several thousand pounds runs over a kid on a bike. Laws that attempt to prevent crashes in the first place will make more of a difference than laws that penalize kids for not wearing helmets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

They're a menace to their own children. I saw a cyclist this morning with a small child on the back of his back riding down the middle of New Hampshire, between the two lanes, during rush hour. Spectacularly dangerous. How are people allowed to put children in this situation?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

Saw a parent who put maybe a three year old on their handle bars while riding in rush hour. Thought I'd only seen that kind of insanity in third world countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to?

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have). Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive. Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.

This is just hysterical. So “stop” is a fluid thing now? Kinda like gender, right? Please consult a dictionary, dear poster. Not to spoil surprise, but I don’t think you can be stopped if you are still moving.

It is reality. Deny it to your hearts content but that doesn't make it any less real.

Go and look it up in a dictionary. I dare you.

Because you are a prig (look it up - it's very apt) I did.

Stop - to halt the progress or motion of
Halt - to pause

As you can see there is no requirement to prevent the capability of moving forward and there is also no extended time requirement. Examples of things that are stops but are not vomplete stops. Halting one's progress before the line and then inching forward. Halting one's progress past the line. Halting one's progress and then taking their foot off the break. Halting one's progress for a second and then moving forward. Moving forward directly after halting one's progress because they were waiting their turn. Halting one's progress but not coming to a complete standstill. All of those examples are things that meet the definition of stop in common parlance but that do not meet the traffic law definition which requires one to come to a complete standstill at the line for a short but extended period of time. All of those examples are the ways you, and everyone else, stop. None of those examples are complete stops. Stop as a word is broad and open to interpretation. Complete stop is much more specific and has elements besides the mere pausing of progress.

Complete, as an adjective, modifies the term stop and provides more specificity to the meaning. All complete stops are stops but not all stops are complete stops. The use of adjectives in the English language should be a relatively straight forward concept but clearly is something that eludes your ken.

When it comes to safety I am more concerned with the utility of the stop than the technicality of its completeness. Whether it's a California, Idaho or complete stop does not matter to me unless it is done in an unsafe manner with a disregard to the context of the particular situation. I am concerned with the spirit and not the letter of the law. You on the other hand seem obsessed with the letter of the law regardless of context. You are not Diogenes.