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

[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”?

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

[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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The whataboutism is incredible. Because drivers sometimes break the law does not give cyclists license to also break the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The whataboutism is incredible. Because drivers sometimes break the law does not give cyclists license to also break the law.

That’s why Mary Cheh is proposing a new law. Based on data that shows traffic regulations should be adjusted to support bike safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The whataboutism is incredible. Because drivers sometimes break the law does not give cyclists license to also break the law.

That’s why Mary Cheh is proposing a new law. Based on data that shows traffic regulations should be adjusted to support bike safety

I wouldn't say this is about safety, it's about making cycling more convenient without impacting safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The way cyclists callously scatter pedestrians on freaking sidewalks where pedestrians should have unquestioned right of way argues against their having even fewer obligations toward the rest of humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The whataboutism is incredible. Because drivers sometimes break the law does not give cyclists license to also break the law.

That’s why Mary Cheh is proposing a new law. Based on data that shows traffic regulations should be adjusted to support bike safety

I wouldn't say this is about safety, it's about making cycling more convenient without impacting safety.

You clearly have never ridden a bike in vehicular traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The whataboutism is incredible. Because drivers sometimes break the law does not give cyclists license to also break the law.

That’s why Mary Cheh is proposing a new law. Based on data that shows traffic regulations should be adjusted to support bike safety

I wouldn't say this is about safety, it's about making cycling more convenient without impacting safety.

You clearly have never ridden a bike in vehicular traffic.

Actually I commuted on the streets of DC every day for over a decade. Been hit by cars a few times, never seriously.

But tell me how this improves safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The way cyclists callously scatter pedestrians on freaking sidewalks where pedestrians should have unquestioned right of way argues against their having even fewer obligations toward the rest of humanity.

This is what the argument breaks down to: is cycling a social ill that should be discouraged, and cyclists punished? Or is it a benefit to society that should be encouraged? Because this law is about making cycling easier, not really about safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The whataboutism is incredible. Because drivers sometimes break the law does not give cyclists license to also break the law.

That’s why Mary Cheh is proposing a new law. Based on data that shows traffic regulations should be adjusted to support bike safety

I wouldn't say this is about safety, it's about making cycling more convenient without impacting safety.

You clearly have never ridden a bike in vehicular traffic.

Actually I commuted on the streets of DC every day for over a decade. Been hit by cars a few times, never seriously.

But tell me how this improves safety.

So do you come to a full stop at every stop sign? I am going to guess not. As such, you should support the legislation so you are not technically breaking the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The way cyclists callously scatter pedestrians on freaking sidewalks where pedestrians should have unquestioned right of way argues against their having even fewer obligations toward the rest of humanity.

This is what the argument breaks down to: is cycling a social ill that should be discouraged, and cyclists punished? Or is it a benefit to society that should be encouraged? Because this law is about making cycling easier, not really about safety.

The lack of seriousness is a bizarre tick.

Encouraging cycling does not have to equal allowing cyclists to put others in harm. Why can you not understand that?

I look forward to the reply that whatabouts cars and then rinse, wash, repeat. It’s tiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The way cyclists callously scatter pedestrians on freaking sidewalks where pedestrians should have unquestioned right of way argues against their having even fewer obligations toward the rest of humanity.

This is what the argument breaks down to: is cycling a social ill that should be discouraged, and cyclists punished? Or is it a benefit to society that should be encouraged? Because this law is about making cycling easier, not really about safety.

The lack of seriousness is a bizarre tick.

Encouraging cycling does not have to equal allowing cyclists to put others in harm. Why can you not understand that?

I look forward to the reply that whatabouts cars and then rinse, wash, repeat. It’s tiring.

What about this bill puts others in harm? Please limit your answer to what the proposal actually says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The whataboutism is incredible. Because drivers sometimes break the law does not give cyclists license to also break the law.

That’s why Mary Cheh is proposing a new law. Based on data that shows traffic regulations should be adjusted to support bike safety

I wouldn't say this is about safety, it's about making cycling more convenient without impacting safety.

You clearly have never ridden a bike in vehicular traffic.

Actually I commuted on the streets of DC every day for over a decade. Been hit by cars a few times, never seriously.

But tell me how this improves safety.

So do you come to a full stop at every stop sign? I am going to guess not. As such, you should support the legislation so you are not technically breaking the law.

I do support this legislation. I'm just not going to pretend it's about safety. It's about encouraging cycling by making it less inconvenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The way cyclists callously scatter pedestrians on freaking sidewalks where pedestrians should have unquestioned right of way argues against their having even fewer obligations toward the rest of humanity.

This is what the argument breaks down to: is cycling a social ill that should be discouraged, and cyclists punished? Or is it a benefit to society that should be encouraged? Because this law is about making cycling easier, not really about safety.

The lack of seriousness is a bizarre tick.

Encouraging cycling does not have to equal allowing cyclists to put others in harm. Why can you not understand that?

I look forward to the reply that whatabouts cars and then rinse, wash, repeat. It’s tiring.

What about this bill puts others in harm? Please limit your answer to what the proposal actually says.

You can start by actually listening to what pedestrians are telling you. You can also consider the rise of e-bikes and the fact that your only defense to pedestrian concerns is that their injuries from bicycle collisions are not likely to be fatal but that’s not true for e-bikes.

The truth is that bicyclists have no concern for the safety and welfare of pedestrians. Providing them a free pass to make cross walks less safe for pedestrians is a bad idea, particularly as the number of e-bikes is growing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I don't see cyclists yield. Not to cars, not to pedestrians in crosswalks. In fact, on sidewalks cyclists will ding their little bells behind a mother with groceries in one arm holding a squirmy kid's hand in the other (ok that's me) or call "on your left" because they can't even be arsed to yield right of way on the sidewalk to an actual pedestrian with her hands full.

Bottom line: cyclists act like maintaining momentum is the G-d-given right and never yield even when there is no argument for their right of way.

You've clearly never ridden a bike in traffic. Drivers violate cyclists right of way all the time. Continuously. If you're on a bike and you come to an intersection it doesn't matter if the light is red or green, if you have a stop sign or don't, because drivers are going to act like you're not there.

The way cyclists callously scatter pedestrians on freaking sidewalks where pedestrians should have unquestioned right of way argues against their having even fewer obligations toward the rest of humanity.

This is what the argument breaks down to: is cycling a social ill that should be discouraged, and cyclists punished? Or is it a benefit to society that should be encouraged? Because this law is about making cycling easier, not really about safety.

The lack of seriousness is a bizarre tick.

Encouraging cycling does not have to equal allowing cyclists to put others in harm. Why can you not understand that?

I look forward to the reply that whatabouts cars and then rinse, wash, repeat. It’s tiring.

What about this bill puts others in harm? Please limit your answer to what the proposal actually says.

You can start by actually listening to what pedestrians are telling you. You can also consider the rise of e-bikes and the fact that your only defense to pedestrian concerns is that their injuries from bicycle collisions are not likely to be fatal but that’s not true for e-bikes.

The truth is that bicyclists have no concern for the safety and welfare of pedestrians. Providing them a free pass to make cross walks less safe for pedestrians is a bad idea, particularly as the number of e-bikes is growing.

This response is completely unconnected to anything actually in the bill.