Please don't ride your bike on busy streets after dark

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should let the police know that the individual circumstances in any given accident don't matter because it's always the driver's fault so there's no need for them to investigate what happened.

The driver is legally responsible for the safe operation of his or her car. Just because police don't enforce it doesn't mean it's any less true.

A vehicle operator is legally responsible for the safe operation of their vehicle. As we keep being reminded, bicycles are legally considered vehicles. Therefore, cyclists are legally responsible for the safe operation of their bicycles. Just because the police don’t enforce it doesn’t mean it’s any less true.

A dead cyclist might be right, but they are still dead

So is a dead driver.

Terrible comeback. Also, wear a reflective vest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No cyclists out tonight. Wonder why? LOL.

I saw one. Some people are really stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No cyclists out tonight. Wonder why? LOL.

I was, and saw multiple others. Most with enough lights / reflective gear. But again, you'd have to look up from your phone to see us anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No cyclists out tonight. Wonder why? LOL.

I was, and saw multiple others. Most with enough lights / reflective gear. But again, you'd have to look up from your phone to see us anyway.

You’ve posted that like 14 times now.

Most drivers are not on their phones. Certainly fewer than cyclists who run red lights and stop signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this evening I saw a cyclist wearing his black work suit while speeding past a stop sign. “Idaho stop” I guess. I’m a very careful driver but it infuriates me when cyclists don’t take easy yet important steps to improve visibility and safety. Everyone should do their part. Why is that so hard for some cyclists to understand?

Cyclists are adamantly opposed to any requirements whatsoever being imposed on them. Rules are for other people.

Drivers are adamantly opposed to speed governor bring installed on their cars. Rules are for other people.

I’m not opposed at all. It would mean absolute end to speeding tickets. I don’t speed, so I don’t get speeding tickets. And since I don’t speed, a governor wouldn’t change my driving at all.


And it’s time for bikes to be registered, tagged, and inspected. Do you oppose this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this evening I saw a cyclist wearing his black work suit while speeding past a stop sign. “Idaho stop” I guess. I’m a very careful driver but it infuriates me when cyclists don’t take easy yet important steps to improve visibility and safety. Everyone should do their part. Why is that so hard for some cyclists to understand?

Cyclists are adamantly opposed to any requirements whatsoever being imposed on them. Rules are for other people.

Drivers are adamantly opposed to speed governor bring installed on their cars. Rules are for other people.

I’m not opposed at all. It would mean absolute end to speeding tickets. I don’t speed, so I don’t get speeding tickets. And since I don’t speed, a governor wouldn’t change my driving at all.


And it’s time for bikes to be registered, tagged, and inspected. Do you oppose this?

I am a NP but oppose this because what freaking difference does it make? CARS are licensed and tagged and run red lights and speed and kill people all day long with zero repercussions. What would licensing and tagging do? It would not prevent any deaths or make the streets safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? Don't bike after dark?

Drive more carefully.

I am mostly a biker and a walker, and as a result I am an extremely cautious driver.

It’s next to impossible to see a biker at night.

Don’t be an idiot.

A lot of people do it seeing normal lights/reflectors. If you have a hard time seeing lights and reflectors then please get your eyes checked to see if you have a condition. It's not normal.

I'm not taking about people who have no lights or reflectors.

WABA recommends using as much reflective material as possible when cycling at night in order to increase visibility beyond what is mandated by law, including reflective vests, wheel reflectors, tires with reflective strips, reflective ankle band, backpacks, stickers and decals. Not sure why you don’t want to take professional safety advice.

Do you need me to find you a link about driving after dark if you're visually impaired? I'm quite sure it's not recommended and may even be prohibited. Not sure why you don't want to take professional safety advice.

I am an optometrist. You need to stop. Most people with good vision cannot see a dark figure against a dark background at night, which is the scenario being described over and over again in this thread.

Then they shouldn't be driving after dark. Driving is inherently dangerous, if most people can't do it safely after dark then is it something that people should be doing after dark?

I can't tell if you are trolling, sarcastic or delusional.

It is delusional to think that people who want to operate a two ton machine do so safely?

The streets are quite safe here. Traffic accidents are rare, and it's very, very rare for anyone to die. Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year to just 26. Almost ten time as many people were murdered last year.

Wearing a reflective vest at night is an easy, inexpensive thing people can immediately do to make the streets even more safe.

Weird how cyclists supposedly concerned about safety refuse to do something as simple as wearing a reflective vest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? Don't bike after dark?

Drive more carefully.

I am mostly a biker and a walker, and as a result I am an extremely cautious driver.

It’s next to impossible to see a biker at night.

Don’t be an idiot.

A lot of people do it seeing normal lights/reflectors. If you have a hard time seeing lights and reflectors then please get your eyes checked to see if you have a condition. It's not normal.

I'm not taking about people who have no lights or reflectors.

WABA recommends using as much reflective material as possible when cycling at night in order to increase visibility beyond what is mandated by law, including reflective vests, wheel reflectors, tires with reflective strips, reflective ankle band, backpacks, stickers and decals. Not sure why you don’t want to take professional safety advice.

Do you need me to find you a link about driving after dark if you're visually impaired? I'm quite sure it's not recommended and may even be prohibited. Not sure why you don't want to take professional safety advice.

I am an optometrist. You need to stop. Most people with good vision cannot see a dark figure against a dark background at night, which is the scenario being described over and over again in this thread.

Then they shouldn't be driving after dark. Driving is inherently dangerous, if most people can't do it safely after dark then is it something that people should be doing after dark?

I can't tell if you are trolling, sarcastic or delusional.

It is delusional to think that people who want to operate a two ton machine do so safely?

The streets are quite safe here. Traffic accidents are rare, and it's very, very rare for anyone to die. Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year to just 26. Almost ten time as many people were murdered last year.

Wearing a reflective vest at night is an easy, inexpensive thing people can immediately do to make the streets even more safe.

Weird how cyclists supposedly concerned about safety refuse to do something as simple as wearing a reflective vest.

Or are opposed to reasonable, common sense bike safety laws like registration and annual safety inspections.

It’s indeed bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this evening I saw a cyclist wearing his black work suit while speeding past a stop sign. “Idaho stop” I guess. I’m a very careful driver but it infuriates me when cyclists don’t take easy yet important steps to improve visibility and safety. Everyone should do their part. Why is that so hard for some cyclists to understand?

Cyclists are adamantly opposed to any requirements whatsoever being imposed on them. Rules are for other people.

Drivers are adamantly opposed to speed governor bring installed on their cars. Rules are for other people.

I’m not opposed at all. It would mean absolute end to speeding tickets. I don’t speed, so I don’t get speeding tickets. And since I don’t speed, a governor wouldn’t change my driving at all.


And it’s time for bikes to be registered, tagged, and inspected. Do you oppose this?

I am a NP but oppose this because what freaking difference does it make? CARS are licensed and tagged and run red lights and speed and kill people all day long with zero repercussions. What would licensing and tagging do? It would not prevent any deaths or make the streets safer.

Cars are required by federal and state law to be equipped with lights for safety. Motorcycles require use of a helmet in most states. Vehicles are inspected annually by most jurisdictions to ensure they are in working order - including lights. You need a registration system in place to ensure that owners of bikes can be notified to report for annual safety inspections and have lights that are in working order.

That’s why.


Why are cyclists SO opposed to this? It’s for SAFETY. Their safety. Why would they be against this?

Every other vehicle on the road complies with this. Cyclists share the road with all these other vehicles. What POSSIBLE reason could a bike rider offer for not having to be required to have lights? It makes no sense at all. None.

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this evening I saw a cyclist wearing his black work suit while speeding past a stop sign. “Idaho stop” I guess. I’m a very careful driver but it infuriates me when cyclists don’t take easy yet important steps to improve visibility and safety. Everyone should do their part. Why is that so hard for some cyclists to understand?

Cyclists are adamantly opposed to any requirements whatsoever being imposed on them. Rules are for other people.

Drivers are adamantly opposed to speed governor bring installed on their cars. Rules are for other people.

I’m not opposed at all. It would mean absolute end to speeding tickets. I don’t speed, so I don’t get speeding tickets. And since I don’t speed, a governor wouldn’t change my driving at all.


And it’s time for bikes to be registered, tagged, and inspected. Do you oppose this?

I am a NP but oppose this because what freaking difference does it make? CARS are licensed and tagged and run red lights and speed and kill people all day long with zero repercussions. What would licensing and tagging do? It would not prevent any deaths or make the streets safer.

Cars are required by federal and state law to be equipped with lights for safety. Motorcycles require use of a helmet in most states. Vehicles are inspected annually by most jurisdictions to ensure they are in working order - including lights. You need a registration system in place to ensure that owners of bikes can be notified to report for annual safety inspections and have lights that are in working order.

That’s why.


Why are cyclists SO opposed to this? It’s for SAFETY. Their safety. Why would they be against this?

Every other vehicle on the road complies with this. Cyclists share the road with all these other vehicles. What POSSIBLE reason could a bike rider offer for not having to be required to have lights? It makes no sense at all. None.

Bicycle riders are required to have reflectors/lights. It's already the law. It'd be great to hand out warnings with a couple of free lights.

[Anonymous]

Also DC doesn't have a car safety inspection system, only emissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this evening I saw a cyclist wearing his black work suit while speeding past a stop sign. “Idaho stop” I guess. I’m a very careful driver but it infuriates me when cyclists don’t take easy yet important steps to improve visibility and safety. Everyone should do their part. Why is that so hard for some cyclists to understand?

Cyclists are adamantly opposed to any requirements whatsoever being imposed on them. Rules are for other people.

Drivers are adamantly opposed to speed governor bring installed on their cars. Rules are for other people.

I’m not opposed at all. It would mean absolute end to speeding tickets. I don’t speed, so I don’t get speeding tickets. And since I don’t speed, a governor wouldn’t change my driving at all.


And it’s time for bikes to be registered, tagged, and inspected. Do you oppose this?

I am a NP but oppose this because what freaking difference does it make? CARS are licensed and tagged and run red lights and speed and kill people all day long with zero repercussions. What would licensing and tagging do? It would not prevent any deaths or make the streets safer.

Cars are required by federal and state law to be equipped with lights for safety. Motorcycles require use of a helmet in most states. Vehicles are inspected annually by most jurisdictions to ensure they are in working order - including lights. You need a registration system in place to ensure that owners of bikes can be notified to report for annual safety inspections and have lights that are in working order.

That’s why.


Why are cyclists SO opposed to this? It’s for SAFETY. Their safety. Why would they be against this?

Every other vehicle on the road complies with this. Cyclists share the road with all these other vehicles. What POSSIBLE reason could a bike rider offer for not having to be required to have lights? It makes no sense at all. None.

It's also kind of insane there are no safety standards for putting children on bikes. If you put a two year old in a car, you have to strap them into a government approved car seat. If you put a two year on your bike on Connecticut Avenue, well, anything goes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.