City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs

[Anonymous]

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.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

I don't know the details of all those 24 deaths. But the ones I do know, it was the bicyclist at fault. Should bicyclists be more protected from their mistakes? Probably, so I support the red light changes. But I'm not sure that the Idaho stops will increase safety for everyone in DC, especially pedestrians, who are a miniscule population in Idaho.

Please share the police reports in the cases you have knowledge of where a bicyclist was killed in DC because I've not seen any of the police reports.

In the two most recent cases the evidence was pretty clear that the person on the bike was killed when the overtaking driver passed them and then turned into their path which is completely on the driver and not the bicyclist.

But apparently you have info that no one else has access to?

[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.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

I don't know the details of all those 24 deaths. But the ones I do know, it was the bicyclist at fault. Should bicyclists be more protected from their mistakes? Probably, so I support the red light changes. But I'm not sure that the Idaho stops will increase safety for everyone in DC, especially pedestrians, who are a miniscule population in Idaho.

Please share the police reports in the cases you have knowledge of where a bicyclist was killed in DC because I've not seen any of the police reports.

In the two most recent cases the evidence was pretty clear that the person on the bike was killed when the overtaking driver passed them and then turned into their path which is completely on the driver and not the bicyclist.

But apparently you have info that no one else has access to?

From that perspective, it will be very difficult to make the roads safer for cars and bicyclists and to reach Vision Zero.

[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.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

I don't know the details of all those 24 deaths. But the ones I do know, it was the bicyclist at fault. Should bicyclists be more protected from their mistakes? Probably, so I support the red light changes. But I'm not sure that the Idaho stops will increase safety for everyone in DC, especially pedestrians, who are a miniscule population in Idaho.

Please share the police reports in the cases you have knowledge of where a bicyclist was killed in DC because I've not seen any of the police reports.

In the two most recent cases the evidence was pretty clear that the person on the bike was killed when the overtaking driver passed them and then turned into their path which is completely on the driver and not the bicyclist.

But apparently you have info that no one else has access to?

From that perspective, it will be very difficult to make the roads safer for cars and bicyclists and to reach Vision Zero.

Yet other places somehow have.

[Anonymous]

NP. This post has gone off the rails but I'm still very confused by the argument in favor of the Idaho stop. Seems PPs have been saying:

1. No one follows stop signs any way, bikers shouldn't have to
2. It requires more physical exertion to stop
3. Cars are dangerous so let me get to my destination more quickly

Please help me understand. I do not see how this is SAFER for the cyclist. Regardless of the relative statistics on crime, car accidents, etc. How does this make it SAFER for CYCLISTS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. This post has gone off the rails but I'm still very confused by the argument in favor of the Idaho stop. Seems PPs have been saying:

1. No one follows stop signs any way, bikers shouldn't have to
2. It requires more physical exertion to stop
3. Cars are dangerous so let me get to my destination more quickly

Please help me understand. I do not see how this is SAFER for the cyclist. Regardless of the relative statistics on crime, car accidents, etc. How does this make it SAFER for CYCLISTS?

I'm a bicyclist and am not sure I understand the safety rational for this law but will say that bikes are a lot less stable and unpredictable at lower speeds so if you make bikers actually stop at every stop sign they become less stable and need less space.

I will add that most drivers I see go through stop signs at speeds similar to the speeds most people bike at but cars can accelerate a lot more quickly so for impatient drivers I think that allowing bikers to do Idaho stops will actually keep them moving.

I'm stealing this line from someone else but it does mirror my experiences - "The only thing that pisses a driver off more than a bicyclist running a stop sign is a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign" - I've definitely gotten some serious anger and yelling from drivers when I've stopped at stop signs both as a driver and bicyclists - the vast vast majority of drivers treat stop signs as yield signs which is why the driver outrage about this is so strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is definitely not a motorcycle. It’s an eBike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is definitely not a motorcycle. It’s an eBike.

I've noticed motorcyclists behaving more like plain old cyclists, ie ignoring stop signs and traffic lights, going around cars when they're apparently moving too slowly, going between lanes of cars stopped at traffic lights, etc.

I guess this not-obeying-traffic laws stuff is becoming contagious. The broken window theory of transportation, perhaps.

[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.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

I don't know the details of all those 24 deaths. But the ones I do know, it was the bicyclist at fault. Should bicyclists be more protected from their mistakes? Probably, so I support the red light changes. But I'm not sure that the Idaho stops will increase safety for everyone in DC, especially pedestrians, who are a miniscule population in Idaho.

Please share the police reports in the cases you have knowledge of where a bicyclist was killed in DC because I've not seen any of the police reports.

In the two most recent cases the evidence was pretty clear that the person on the bike was killed when the overtaking driver passed them and then turned into their path which is completely on the driver and not the bicyclist.

But apparently you have info that no one else has access to?

The bicyclist was undertaking the truck that turned right.

Banning passing on the right would be more effective than banning right turns. Or at least, it would be if bicyclists obeyed and stopped doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is definitely not a motorcycle. It’s an eBike.

Apparently, if we rename old things, then entirely different rules apply.

[Anonymous]

Splat!

[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.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

I don't know the details of all those 24 deaths. But the ones I do know, it was the bicyclist at fault. Should bicyclists be more protected from their mistakes? Probably, so I support the red light changes. But I'm not sure that the Idaho stops will increase safety for everyone in DC, especially pedestrians, who are a miniscule population in Idaho.

Please share the police reports in the cases you have knowledge of where a bicyclist was killed in DC because I've not seen any of the police reports.

In the two most recent cases the evidence was pretty clear that the person on the bike was killed when the overtaking driver passed them and then turned into their path which is completely on the driver and not the bicyclist.

But apparently you have info that no one else has access to?

The bicyclist was undertaking the truck that turned right.

Banning passing on the right would be more effective than banning right turns. Or at least, it would be if bicyclists obeyed and stopped doing it.

No that is not what happened in either case - in both cases the truck passed the bicyclist than cut across their path - the responsibility to yield and safely turn is entirely on the driver in these cases.

The bikers aren't here to tell us what happened but I bet in neither case did the driver even bother with their turn signal - betting they were instead accelerating around the biker to try to beat them to the turn and screwed up running over them instead.

[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.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

I don't know the details of all those 24 deaths. But the ones I do know, it was the bicyclist at fault. Should bicyclists be more protected from their mistakes? Probably, so I support the red light changes. But I'm not sure that the Idaho stops will increase safety for everyone in DC, especially pedestrians, who are a miniscule population in Idaho.

Please share the police reports in the cases you have knowledge of where a bicyclist was killed in DC because I've not seen any of the police reports.

In the two most recent cases the evidence was pretty clear that the person on the bike was killed when the overtaking driver passed them and then turned into their path which is completely on the driver and not the bicyclist.

But apparently you have info that no one else has access to?

The bicyclist was undertaking the truck that turned right.

Banning passing on the right would be more effective than banning right turns. Or at least, it would be if bicyclists obeyed and stopped doing it.

No that is not what happened in either case - in both cases the truck passed the bicyclist than cut across their path - the responsibility to yield and safely turn is entirely on the driver in these cases.

The bikers aren't here to tell us what happened but I bet in neither case did the driver even bother with their turn signal - betting they were instead accelerating around the biker to try to beat them to the turn and screwed up running over them instead.

Your post will not increase safety or save lives. When you're on a car or truck's right side, you need to make sure they know you are there and that they do not run over you. That applies to cars, bikes, and pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is definitely not a motorcycle. It’s an eBike.

So a Tesla is a four-wheeled bicycle?

[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.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

I don't know the details of all those 24 deaths. But the ones I do know, it was the bicyclist at fault. Should bicyclists be more protected from their mistakes? Probably, so I support the red light changes. But I'm not sure that the Idaho stops will increase safety for everyone in DC, especially pedestrians, who are a miniscule population in Idaho.

Please share the police reports in the cases you have knowledge of where a bicyclist was killed in DC because I've not seen any of the police reports.

In the two most recent cases the evidence was pretty clear that the person on the bike was killed when the overtaking driver passed them and then turned into their path which is completely on the driver and not the bicyclist.

But apparently you have info that no one else has access to?

From that perspective, it will be very difficult to make the roads safer for cars and bicyclists and to reach Vision Zero.

No one said it would be easy, but I applaud the Mayor for trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is definitely not a motorcycle. It’s an eBike.

If it goes over 30 mph, it's legally a motorcycle in DC (18 DMCR 9901)