City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs

[Anonymous]

Check the race of the bicyclist victims.

Compare to the race of the vast majority of homicide victims.

There’s your answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait... does this apply to atvs and dirt bikes?

DCUM readers can't tell the difference between a bicycle, ATV, and a dirt bike.

[Anonymous]

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?

Good idea. Let's get rid of speeding ticket tickets.

[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.

As if enough cyclists aren't killed while riding. No one in their right mind who rides a bike would follow this........Is this really true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait... does this apply to atvs and dirt bikes?

DCUM readers can't tell the difference between a bicycle, ATV, and a dirt bike.

‘Twas a joke. Bicycle riders are so damn earnest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait... does this apply to atvs and dirt bikes?

DCUM readers can't tell the difference between a bicycle, ATV, and a dirt bike.

‘Twas a joke. Bicycle riders are so damn earnest.

I'm not joking. DCUM posters claim that DC law is so ambiguous, a dirt bike could be considered a bicycle. It has two wheels and isn't a motorcycle, therefore it's a bicycle and legal on the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait... does this apply to atvs and dirt bikes?

DCUM readers can't tell the difference between a bicycle, ATV, and a dirt bike.

‘Twas a joke. Bicycle riders are so damn earnest.

I'm not joking. DCUM posters claim that DC law is so ambiguous, a dirt bike could be considered a bicycle. It has two wheels and isn't a motorcycle, therefore it's a bicycle and legal on the street.

This goes over 40 MPH and had pedals. You tell me how it should be regulated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As if enough cyclists aren't killed while riding. No one in their right mind who rides a bike would follow this........Is this really true?

Only people who have never ridden a bike in a city would ever post this.

[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.

To be clear, the law does not articulate "ignoring" stop signs. So the OP premise is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because *checks notes* they don't actually stop.

THAT is the problem. Since the law has been in place for decades, the aggressiveness of drivers had gotten worse. Since driver abused the freedom, they now lose it.

Of course they stop. The hyperbole on this thread is ridiculous. If as many drivers ignored stop signs as you say, traffic would be completely unpredictable -- they would be *thousands* of accidents every day, the death toll would be staggering and bicyclists would have to be insane to venture out into the streets. Of course none of that is happening because the nearly every driver follows the rules.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

I don't entirely see what that comparison is supposed to show. We also devote enormous resources in this city to police (even though I know a lot of people think we should be devoting more), including an entire homicide unit. So far there have been 150 homicides in D.C. this year, but I don't think we spend 1/6 as much energy or money on keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe as we do on MPD.

It's funny how people act like 24 is a huge number but 150 is a tiny number.

The bike lobby would have you think the streets are drenched in blood and that we're all about to be run over by some crazy driver. Yet no one is particularly concerned about being murdered.

But more than six times as many people are murdered than killed in traffic accidents. And while homicides and basically every violent crime is way, way up this year, the number of traffic deaths is down.

The reality is very different from the rhetoric.

But it’s much easier to prevent drivers from killing people than it is to prevent murders. You can make the streets safer for pedestrians and bicycles. We know it works. People just don’t want to do it. There is no similar fix that can prevent homicide.

Also, I won’t pretend to speak for anyone else who supports bike infrastructure, but I don’t think 150 murders is an incredibly small number. I think both figures are unacceptably high. I also don’t think this comparison makes any sense, because one has nothing to do with the other except in the very rare cases of vehicular homicide.

(Finally, you say homicides are way way up this year, but just for the sake of accuracy, I do think it’s worth noting that compared to this time last year, homicide in D.C. is actually down 3 percent.)

No, it's not. There were 154 murders in 2021 (an average of 13 per month). So far this year, we're at 150 (an average of 16 per month). So at this pace, we will end up at 198, which would be almost a 30 percent increase.

So far this year there have been 24 traffic deaths, compared to 29 same time last year. That's a 17 percent decrease, per MPD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because *checks notes* they don't actually stop.

THAT is the problem. Since the law has been in place for decades, the aggressiveness of drivers had gotten worse. Since driver abused the freedom, they now lose it.

Of course they stop. The hyperbole on this thread is ridiculous. If as many drivers ignored stop signs as you say, traffic would be completely unpredictable -- they would be *thousands* of accidents every day, the death toll would be staggering and bicyclists would have to be insane to venture out into the streets. Of course none of that is happening because the nearly every driver follows the rules.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

I don't entirely see what that comparison is supposed to show. We also devote enormous resources in this city to police (even though I know a lot of people think we should be devoting more), including an entire homicide unit. So far there have been 150 homicides in D.C. this year, but I don't think we spend 1/6 as much energy or money on keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe as we do on MPD.

It's funny how people act like 24 is a huge number but 150 is a tiny number.

The bike lobby would have you think the streets are drenched in blood and that we're all about to be run over by some crazy driver. Yet no one is particularly concerned about being murdered.

But more than six times as many people are murdered than killed in traffic accidents. And while homicides and basically every violent crime is way, way up this year, the number of traffic deaths is down.

The reality is very different from the rhetoric.

But it’s much easier to prevent drivers from killing people than it is to prevent murders. You can make the streets safer for pedestrians and bicycles. We know it works. People just don’t want to do it. There is no similar fix that can prevent homicide.

Also, I won’t pretend to speak for anyone else who supports bike infrastructure, but I don’t think 150 murders is an incredibly small number. I think both figures are unacceptably high. I also don’t think this comparison makes any sense, because one has nothing to do with the other except in the very rare cases of vehicular homicide.

(Finally, you say homicides are way way up this year, but just for the sake of accuracy, I do think it’s worth noting that compared to this time last year, homicide in D.C. is actually down 3 percent.)

No, it's not. There were 154 murders in 2021 (an average of 13 per month). So far this year, we're at 150 (an average of 16 per month). So at this pace, we will end up at 198, which would be almost a 30 percent increase.

So far this year there have been 24 traffic deaths, compared to 29 same time last year. That's a 17 percent decrease, per MPD.

I'm sorry, but that is not true. There were 226 murders in D.C. in 2021. There were 154 murders in D.C. in 2021 through Sept. 22. Through Sept. 22, 2022, there have been 150 murders, which is a 3 percent decrease. If we wind up at 198 murders in D.C. this year, that would be a 12 percent decrease, though tragically, I suspect that's unlikely since the trend year-to-date is, again, for a 3 percent decrease.

Anyway, I still don't see how bringing up murders in the context of traffic deaths is anything other than whattabout-ism. They're both bad. I am certain no one who wants safer streets to bike on is pro-murder. If we could make it harder to murder people by putting in some physical infrastructure on the streets, I'd be all for it. We can't do that, but we probably can help reduce the traffic deaths that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because *checks notes* they don't actually stop.

THAT is the problem. Since the law has been in place for decades, the aggressiveness of drivers had gotten worse. Since driver abused the freedom, they now lose it.

Of course they stop. The hyperbole on this thread is ridiculous. If as many drivers ignored stop signs as you say, traffic would be completely unpredictable -- they would be *thousands* of accidents every day, the death toll would be staggering and bicyclists would have to be insane to venture out into the streets. Of course none of that is happening because the nearly every driver follows the rules.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

I don't entirely see what that comparison is supposed to show. We also devote enormous resources in this city to police (even though I know a lot of people think we should be devoting more), including an entire homicide unit. So far there have been 150 homicides in D.C. this year, but I don't think we spend 1/6 as much energy or money on keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe as we do on MPD.

It's funny how people act like 24 is a huge number but 150 is a tiny number.

The bike lobby would have you think the streets are drenched in blood and that we're all about to be run over by some crazy driver. Yet no one is particularly concerned about being murdered.

But more than six times as many people are murdered than killed in traffic accidents. And while homicides and basically every violent crime is way, way up this year, the number of traffic deaths is down.

The reality is very different from the rhetoric.

But it’s much easier to prevent drivers from killing people than it is to prevent murders. You can make the streets safer for pedestrians and bicycles. We know it works. People just don’t want to do it. There is no similar fix that can prevent homicide.

Also, I won’t pretend to speak for anyone else who supports bike infrastructure, but I don’t think 150 murders is an incredibly small number. I think both figures are unacceptably high. I also don’t think this comparison makes any sense, because one has nothing to do with the other except in the very rare cases of vehicular homicide.

(Finally, you say homicides are way way up this year, but just for the sake of accuracy, I do think it’s worth noting that compared to this time last year, homicide in D.C. is actually down 3 percent.)

No, it's not. There were 154 murders in 2021 (an average of 13 per month). So far this year, we're at 150 (an average of 16 per month). So at this pace, we will end up at 198, which would be almost a 30 percent increase.

So far this year there have been 24 traffic deaths, compared to 29 same time last year. That's a 17 percent decrease, per MPD.

I'm sorry, but that is not true. There were 226 murders in D.C. in 2021. There were 154 murders in D.C. in 2021 through Sept. 22. Through Sept. 22, 2022, there have been 150 murders, which is a 3 percent decrease. If we wind up at 198 murders in D.C. this year, that would be a 12 percent decrease, though tragically, I suspect that's unlikely since the trend year-to-date is, again, for a 3 percent decrease.

Anyway, I still don't see how bringing up murders in the context of traffic deaths is anything other than whattabout-ism. They're both bad. I am certain no one who wants safer streets to bike on is pro-murder. If we could make it harder to murder people by putting in some physical infrastructure on the streets, I'd be all for it. We can't do that, but we probably can help reduce the traffic deaths that way.

PP here. You're right re: the murder #. I didnt see the second chart (I should have scrolled down).

Anyway, it's not whataboutism. It's pointing out that all the screaming on this dumb thread about sociopathic drivers and people cooking souffles while driving and all these other silly anecdotes designed to scare people come even as the number of traffic deaths in DC is down -- by a lot (17 percent).

And if you think 24 deaths among tens of millions of trips is a big deal then you must be really upset about other bad things that happen far more often and affect far more people (but of course they dont spend even a second thinking about any of that).

Traffic deaths are never going to get anywhere close to zero. Do you think we can stamp out murder? Do you think we can stop all rapes? There's been more than 1,000 assaults with dangerous weapons this year. Do we need Vision Zero for Assault with Dangerous Weapons? No, we don't and no we can't and it's not worth the resources it would take to try. The city has better things to do with its time, energy and money. Same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait... does this apply to atvs and dirt bikes?

DCUM readers can't tell the difference between a bicycle, ATV, and a dirt bike.

‘Twas a joke. Bicycle riders are so damn earnest.

I'm not joking. DCUM posters claim that DC law is so ambiguous, a dirt bike could be considered a bicycle. It has two wheels and isn't a motorcycle, therefore it's a bicycle and legal on the street.

This goes over 40 MPH and had pedals. You tell me how it should be regulated.

Motorcycle. It has a motor. It goes over 25mph. I know, that's confusing for you.

[Anonymous]

NP. Twenty four traffic deaths is insanely high. It should be zero. And some of those are children. So really, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to turn that into not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because *checks notes* they don't actually stop.

THAT is the problem. Since the law has been in place for decades, the aggressiveness of drivers had gotten worse. Since driver abused the freedom, they now lose it.

Of course they stop. The hyperbole on this thread is ridiculous. If as many drivers ignored stop signs as you say, traffic would be completely unpredictable -- they would be *thousands* of accidents every day, the death toll would be staggering and bicyclists would have to be insane to venture out into the streets. Of course none of that is happening because the nearly every driver follows the rules.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

I don't entirely see what that comparison is supposed to show. We also devote enormous resources in this city to police (even though I know a lot of people think we should be devoting more), including an entire homicide unit. So far there have been 150 homicides in D.C. this year, but I don't think we spend 1/6 as much energy or money on keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe as we do on MPD.

It's funny how people act like 24 is a huge number but 150 is a tiny number.

The bike lobby would have you think the streets are drenched in blood and that we're all about to be run over by some crazy driver. Yet no one is particularly concerned about being murdered.

But more than six times as many people are murdered than killed in traffic accidents. And while homicides and basically every violent crime is way, way up this year, the number of traffic deaths is down.

The reality is very different from the rhetoric.

But it’s much easier to prevent drivers from killing people than it is to prevent murders. You can make the streets safer for pedestrians and bicycles. We know it works. People just don’t want to do it. There is no similar fix that can prevent homicide.

Also, I won’t pretend to speak for anyone else who supports bike infrastructure, but I don’t think 150 murders is an incredibly small number. I think both figures are unacceptably high. I also don’t think this comparison makes any sense, because one has nothing to do with the other except in the very rare cases of vehicular homicide.

(Finally, you say homicides are way way up this year, but just for the sake of accuracy, I do think it’s worth noting that compared to this time last year, homicide in D.C. is actually down 3 percent.)

No, it's not. There were 154 murders in 2021 (an average of 13 per month). So far this year, we're at 150 (an average of 16 per month). So at this pace, we will end up at 198, which would be almost a 30 percent increase.

So far this year there have been 24 traffic deaths, compared to 29 same time last year. That's a 17 percent decrease, per MPD.

I'm sorry, but that is not true. There were 226 murders in D.C. in 2021. There were 154 murders in D.C. in 2021 through Sept. 22. Through Sept. 22, 2022, there have been 150 murders, which is a 3 percent decrease. If we wind up at 198 murders in D.C. this year, that would be a 12 percent decrease, though tragically, I suspect that's unlikely since the trend year-to-date is, again, for a 3 percent decrease.

Anyway, I still don't see how bringing up murders in the context of traffic deaths is anything other than whattabout-ism. They're both bad. I am certain no one who wants safer streets to bike on is pro-murder. If we could make it harder to murder people by putting in some physical infrastructure on the streets, I'd be all for it. We can't do that, but we probably can help reduce the traffic deaths that way.

PP here. You're right re: the murder #. I didnt see the second chart (I should have scrolled down).

Anyway, it's not whataboutism. It's pointing out that all the screaming on this dumb thread about sociopathic drivers and people cooking souffles while driving and all these other silly anecdotes designed to scare people come even as the number of traffic deaths in DC is down -- by a lot (17 percent).

And if you think 24 deaths among tens of millions of trips is a big deal then you must be really upset about other bad things that happen far more often and affect far more people (but of course they dont spend even a second thinking about any of that).

Traffic deaths are never going to get anywhere close to zero. Do you think we can stamp out murder? Do you think we can stop all rapes? There's been more than 1,000 assaults with dangerous weapons this year. Do we need Vision Zero for Assault with Dangerous Weapons? No, we don't and no we can't and it's not worth the resources it would take to try. The city has better things to do with its time, energy and money. Same thing.

I mean, my preferred policy with regard to dangerous weapons would probably bring that down to closer to zero (it would involve seizing them all), but unfortunately, the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court appears to disagree with me. I also disagree with you that it's not worth the resources it would take to try to stamp out murder and rape — if it was just a question of money, I'd say it'd certainly be worth it. The problem with preventing crime (as opposed to preventing accidents) is that at some point, the tradeoffs become a question of infringing on civil liberties of non-criminals. I do not think we have a civil liberty argument to drive to work without traffic, though, so I don't think the same calculus applies to traffic deaths.

I recognize that statistically, I may be more likely to be murdered than to be hit and killed by a car, even though I personally am marginally more worried about being hit by a car on my bike than I am about being murdered. I'm not particularly worried that either will happen, but I think it'd be better if the odds were even lower of either one.

These are different problems with different policy solutions, I just don't think it makes sense to say that if we don't try to prevent all murders, we shouldn't also try to prevent all traffic deaths.