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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be the future of every intersection in DC if this passes. Cyclists further emboldened to engage in dangerous behavior and believing that it’s legal and everyone else’s fault when they inevitably get hit by a car.

If you couple this proposed legal change with the change in liability, the cyclist in this video could sue you claiming contributory negligence and would win. Everyone car in DC is going to need to get a dashcam now if this passes to legally protect themselves from cyclists like this.

Why are you picking an example of a two way stop sign where the road seems incredibly more open than any dc streets I bike on. Between DC traffic and 4 way stop signs everywhere, this is such a silly comparison

If anything, the wider sight lines would make this type of intersection more condusive to Idaho stops while as you point out, the narrower sight lines in DC make DC less optimal environment. And yet the video is what it is. Cyclist has a stop sign, doesn’t stop, gets hit by a car and blamed the car.

Changing the law would incentivize the cyclist in this video to say they legally yielded and it would make it difficult to dispute without video evidence and even with video evidence it would be difficult to dispute because yielding is subjective.

This is a black-or-white situation that the Idaho stop legal change would introduce the possibility for sufficient grey area to claim the driver is at fault.

Yielding is no more subjective than stopping. If you get hit you didn't yield.

Again, why do the opponents of this measure need to misrepresent what it actually does?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be the future of every intersection in DC if this passes. Cyclists further emboldened to engage in dangerous behavior and believing that it’s legal and everyone else’s fault when they inevitably get hit by a car.

If you couple this proposed legal change with the change in liability, the cyclist in this video could sue you claiming contributory negligence and would win. Everyone car in DC is going to need to get a dashcam now if this passes to legally protect themselves from cyclists like this.

That's not how contributory negligence works. In a contributory negligence state -- which is what DC, MD and VA all are -- in order for a plaintiff to prevail the defendant has to be 100% at fault. If there is any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff then the plaintiff cannot recover. In a contributory negligence state the percentage of fault is irrelevant. There's no way you could argue in this case that the cyclist didn't hold some part of the blame for this collision, whether that sign is a stop sign or a yield sign, and whether the jurisdiction has an Idaho stop law.

If the car was damaged by the collision the question would be whether the cyclist would be liable for those damages. Then it becomes a question whether the driver in any way contributed to the collision, and whether the driver was speeding certainly becomes an issue. From the few seconds of video it doesn't look like the driver was speeding to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be the future of every intersection in DC if this passes. Cyclists further emboldened to engage in dangerous behavior and believing that it’s legal and everyone else’s fault when they inevitably get hit by a car.

If you couple this proposed legal change with the change in liability, the cyclist in this video could sue you claiming contributory negligence and would win. Everyone car in DC is going to need to get a dashcam now if this passes to legally protect themselves from cyclists like this.

Why are you picking an example of a two way stop sign where the road seems incredibly more open than any dc streets I bike on. Between DC traffic and 4 way stop signs everywhere, this is such a silly comparison

If anything, the wider sight lines would make this type of intersection more condusive to Idaho stops while as you point out, the narrower sight lines in DC make DC less optimal environment. And yet the video is what it is. Cyclist has a stop sign, doesn’t stop, gets hit by a car and blamed the car.

Changing the law would incentivize the cyclist in this video to say they legally yielded and it would make it difficult to dispute without video evidence and even with video evidence it would be difficult to dispute because yielding is subjective.

This is a black-or-white situation that the Idaho stop legal change would introduce the possibility for sufficient grey area to claim the driver is at fault.

Yielding is no more subjective than stopping. If you get hit you didn't yield.

Again, why do the opponents of this measure need to misrepresent what it actually does?

And yet, just two posts up a cyclist is claiming that both parties are at fault.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything but you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be the future of every intersection in DC if this passes. Cyclists further emboldened to engage in dangerous behavior and believing that it’s legal and everyone else’s fault when they inevitably get hit by a car.

If you couple this proposed legal change with the change in liability, the cyclist in this video could sue you claiming contributory negligence and would win. Everyone car in DC is going to need to get a dashcam now if this passes to legally protect themselves from cyclists like this.

That's not how contributory negligence works. In a contributory negligence state -- which is what DC, MD and VA all are -- in order for a plaintiff to prevail the defendant has to be 100% at fault. If there is any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff then the plaintiff cannot recover. In a contributory negligence state the percentage of fault is irrelevant. There's no way you could argue in this case that the cyclist didn't hold some part of the blame for this collision, whether that sign is a stop sign or a yield sign, and whether the jurisdiction has an Idaho stop law.

If the car was damaged by the collision the question would be whether the cyclist would be liable for those damages. Then it becomes a question whether the driver in any way contributed to the collision, and whether the driver was speeding certainly becomes an issue. From the few seconds of video it doesn't look like the driver was speeding to me.

In fact, in DC case law there is what is called the "last clear chance" doctrine, which holds that even if you have right of way you can't just go around hitting people; if you are able to avoid a collision you have an obligation to do so. So having right of way isn't enough to prevail in a lawsuit, you have to show there was no way you could have stopped in time or otherwise avoided the collision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be the future of every intersection in DC if this passes. Cyclists further emboldened to engage in dangerous behavior and believing that it’s legal and everyone else’s fault when they inevitably get hit by a car.

If you couple this proposed legal change with the change in liability, the cyclist in this video could sue you claiming contributory negligence and would win. Everyone car in DC is going to need to get a dashcam now if this passes to legally protect themselves from cyclists like this.

Why are you picking an example of a two way stop sign where the road seems incredibly more open than any dc streets I bike on. Between DC traffic and 4 way stop signs everywhere, this is such a silly comparison

If anything, the wider sight lines would make this type of intersection more condusive to Idaho stops while as you point out, the narrower sight lines in DC make DC less optimal environment. And yet the video is what it is. Cyclist has a stop sign, doesn’t stop, gets hit by a car and blamed the car.

Changing the law would incentivize the cyclist in this video to say they legally yielded and it would make it difficult to dispute without video evidence and even with video evidence it would be difficult to dispute because yielding is subjective.

This is a black-or-white situation that the Idaho stop legal change would introduce the possibility for sufficient grey area to claim the driver is at fault.

Yielding is no more subjective than stopping. If you get hit you didn't yield.

Again, why do the opponents of this measure need to misrepresent what it actually does?

And yet, just two posts up a cyclist is claiming that both parties are at fault.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything but you.

Well that poster was wrong. Cyclist violated the right of way of the driver. That's true whether the obligation of the cyclist was to yield or merely to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be the future of every intersection in DC if this passes. Cyclists further emboldened to engage in dangerous behavior and believing that it’s legal and everyone else’s fault when they inevitably get hit by a car.

If you couple this proposed legal change with the change in liability, the cyclist in this video could sue you claiming contributory negligence and would win. Everyone car in DC is going to need to get a dashcam now if this passes to legally protect themselves from cyclists like this.

Why are you picking an example of a two way stop sign where the road seems incredibly more open than any dc streets I bike on. Between DC traffic and 4 way stop signs everywhere, this is such a silly comparison

If anything, the wider sight lines would make this type of intersection more condusive to Idaho stops while as you point out, the narrower sight lines in DC make DC less optimal environment. And yet the video is what it is. Cyclist has a stop sign, doesn’t stop, gets hit by a car and blamed the car.

Changing the law would incentivize the cyclist in this video to say they legally yielded and it would make it difficult to dispute without video evidence and even with video evidence it would be difficult to dispute because yielding is subjective.

This is a black-or-white situation that the Idaho stop legal change would introduce the possibility for sufficient grey area to claim the driver is at fault.

Yielding is no more subjective than stopping. If you get hit you didn't yield.

Again, why do the opponents of this measure need to misrepresent what it actually does?

And yet, just two posts up a cyclist is claiming that both parties are at fault.

Nobody is misrepresenting anything but you.

Well that poster was wrong. Cyclist violated the right of way of the driver. That's true whether the obligation of the cyclist was to yield or merely to stop.

It’s incredible that you seem to hold the only truth and everyone else is either dumb or a liar.

[Anonymous]

The only thing I’ve learned from trying to participate in this thread is that bad drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians and are mad that cyclists are being empowered to bike safely. A yield does not equal blowing stop signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I’ve learned from trying to participate in this thread is that bad drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians and are mad that cyclists are being empowered to bike safely. A yield does not equal blowing stop signs.

Bingo. I don't know if people don't know what a yield is or if they just suffer from bicycle derangement. The proposed law lets cyclists treat a stop sign as if it were a yield sign and a red light as if it were a stop sign. That's it. Yet people seem convinced that cyclists will rule the streets and all will be forced to scatter in their path if this becomes law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I’ve learned from trying to participate in this thread is that bad drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians and are mad that cyclists are being empowered to bike safely. A yield does not equal blowing stop signs.

You have an over active imagination. Car drivers really confirmed to you in this thread that they were bad drivers and hit pedestrians and cyclists?

Pretty sure the reality of this thread is that there is justifiably a lot of skepticism that the proposed changes will improve safety and frankly your active imagination hurts the credibility of your claims otherwise.

Sorry that I’m not going to take the word of someone that just makes stuff up. Why would anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I’ve learned from trying to participate in this thread is that bad drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians and are mad that cyclists are being empowered to bike safely. A yield does not equal blowing stop signs.

Bingo. I don't know if people don't know what a yield is or if they just suffer from bicycle derangement. The proposed law lets cyclists treat a stop sign as if it were a yield sign and a red light as if it were a stop sign. That's it. Yet people seem convinced that cyclists will rule the streets and all will be forced to scatter in their path if this becomes law.

What does “as a yield sign” mean to a cyclist like yourselves who are committed to “maintaining momentum”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I’ve learned from trying to participate in this thread is that bad drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians and are mad that cyclists are being empowered to bike safely. A yield does not equal blowing stop signs.

Bingo. I don't know if people don't know what a yield is or if they just suffer from bicycle derangement. The proposed law lets cyclists treat a stop sign as if it were a yield sign and a red light as if it were a stop sign. That's it. Yet people seem convinced that cyclists will rule the streets and all will be forced to scatter in their path if this becomes law.

It’s because enough people know and have experienced the obnoxious and dangerous behavior of many cyclists in and around D.C. If fewer cyclists behaved like a**holes on the road, and actually obeyed traffic laws instead of thinking they were above them, then there would be less of an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I’ve learned from trying to participate in this thread is that bad drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians and are mad that cyclists are being empowered to bike safely. A yield does not equal blowing stop signs.

Bingo. I don't know if people don't know what a yield is or if they just suffer from bicycle derangement. The proposed law lets cyclists treat a stop sign as if it were a yield sign and a red light as if it were a stop sign. That's it. Yet people seem convinced that cyclists will rule the streets and all will be forced to scatter in their path if this becomes law.

It’s because enough people know and have experienced the obnoxious and dangerous behavior of many cyclists in and around D.C. If fewer cyclists behaved like a**holes on the road, and actually obeyed traffic laws instead of thinking they were above them, then there would be less of an issue.

Now do cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I’ve learned from trying to participate in this thread is that bad drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians and are mad that cyclists are being empowered to bike safely. A yield does not equal blowing stop signs.

Bingo. I don't know if people don't know what a yield is or if they just suffer from bicycle derangement. The proposed law lets cyclists treat a stop sign as if it were a yield sign and a red light as if it were a stop sign. That's it. Yet people seem convinced that cyclists will rule the streets and all will be forced to scatter in their path if this becomes law.

What does “as a yield sign” mean to a cyclist like yourselves who are committed to “maintaining momentum”?

Don't lump me in with the "maintaining momentum" crowd. I'm just point out what the law actually says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I’ve learned from trying to participate in this thread is that bad drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians and are mad that cyclists are being empowered to bike safely. A yield does not equal blowing stop signs.

Bingo. I don't know if people don't know what a yield is or if they just suffer from bicycle derangement. The proposed law lets cyclists treat a stop sign as if it were a yield sign and a red light as if it were a stop sign. That's it. Yet people seem convinced that cyclists will rule the streets and all will be forced to scatter in their path if this becomes law.

It’s because enough people know and have experienced the obnoxious and dangerous behavior of many cyclists in and around D.C. If fewer cyclists behaved like a**holes on the road, and actually obeyed traffic laws instead of thinking they were above them, then there would be less of an issue.

In my experience if you ask someone who makes a statement like this what laws cyclists don't obey, they rattle off a bunch of things that aren't in fact illegal -- riding two abreast, switching from sidewalk to street, not using bike lane if it's present, riding in traffic, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I’ve learned from trying to participate in this thread is that bad drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians and are mad that cyclists are being empowered to bike safely. A yield does not equal blowing stop signs.

Bingo. I don't know if people don't know what a yield is or if they just suffer from bicycle derangement. The proposed law lets cyclists treat a stop sign as if it were a yield sign and a red light as if it were a stop sign. That's it. Yet people seem convinced that cyclists will rule the streets and all will be forced to scatter in their path if this becomes law.

It’s because enough people know and have experienced the obnoxious and dangerous behavior of many cyclists in and around D.C. If fewer cyclists behaved like a**holes on the road, and actually obeyed traffic laws instead of thinking they were above them, then there would be less of an issue.

In my experience if you ask someone who makes a statement like this what laws cyclists don't obey, they rattle off a bunch of things that aren't in fact illegal -- riding two abreast, switching from sidewalk to street, not using bike lane if it's present, riding in traffic, etc.

You have a habit of persisting with an active imagination. In your experience the people who you imagine to be your opponents are always and completely wrong about everything. Got it!