Are bikes allowed to go through red lights on major roads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, I wish police would stop drivers who run red lights as well, but I was shocked at these biking parents putting their children at risk like that.


The city is turning a blind eye to the danger cyclists put children in. It is appalling.

Maybe it's arrogance and entitlement by bike "advocates" who are trying to prove a point. But sometimes it crosses the line into reckless endangerment of a child or even several children.

Do you have any examples of actual harm to children or are you just making up hypotheticals? With such rampant recklessness taking place there must be many examples to draw upon. However, it would be simple to post countless examples of children who died in local traffic collisions recently. Would driving your kids to school also be considered reckless endangerment?

Children in cars who are in accidents are protected by government approved car seats, thousands of pounds of steel and multiple air bags.

Children on bicycles who are in accidents are protected by...their parents' good intentions?

Do you really think that a typical car accident is equivalent to a typical bike accident? Oh, unless you mean a car hitting a bike which is probably due to the reckless driving of the person in the vehicle (they know they’re “protected” by their thousands of pounds of steel and multiple airbags, after all)

Well, if a child in a car is in an accident, it's pretty unlikely that they will die.

If a child is on a bike in an accident, it's pretty unlikely that they will survive.

[Anonymous]

Cyclists talk out of both sides of their mouth on safety issues.

They prattle on about unsafe drivers and about how the city needs to spend a gazillion dollars to protect them and if a single cyclist is ever in an accident, we hear endlessly about it.

But then if you ask why, if it's so unsafe, do they allow small children to ride bikes on busy streets, because that sounds a whole lot like child endangerment, then they're all like, well what evidence is there that it's unsafe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists talk out of both sides of their mouth on safety issues.

They prattle on about unsafe drivers and about how the city needs to spend a gazillion dollars to protect them and if a single cyclist is ever in an accident, we hear endlessly about it.

But then if you ask why, if it's so unsafe, do they allow small children to ride bikes on busy streets, because that sounds a whole lot like child endangerment, then they're all like, well what evidence is there that it's unsafe?

You don’t get it. They’re unsafe BECAUSE OF THE CARS! Not the bikes. (And if there isn’t alternative biking infrastructure they have no choice but to bike on the busy roads - THAT’S THE PROBLEM!) Bunch of idiots in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists talk out of both sides of their mouth on safety issues.

They prattle on about unsafe drivers and about how the city needs to spend a gazillion dollars to protect them and if a single cyclist is ever in an accident, we hear endlessly about it.

But then if you ask why, if it's so unsafe, do they allow small children to ride bikes on busy streets, because that sounds a whole lot like child endangerment, then they're all like, well what evidence is there that it's unsafe?

You don’t get it. They’re unsafe BECAUSE OF THE CARS! Not the bikes. (And if there isn’t alternative biking infrastructure they have no choice but to bike on the busy roads - THAT’S THE PROBLEM!) Bunch of idiots in this thread.

Bike crashes and falls happen all the time. Don't be an idiotic. Everyone should wear a helmet when biking and small kids shouldn't be riding along on major roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists talk out of both sides of their mouth on safety issues.

They prattle on about unsafe drivers and about how the city needs to spend a gazillion dollars to protect them and if a single cyclist is ever in an accident, we hear endlessly about it.

But then if you ask why, if it's so unsafe, do they allow small children to ride bikes on busy streets, because that sounds a whole lot like child endangerment, then they're all like, well what evidence is there that it's unsafe?

You don’t get it. They’re unsafe BECAUSE OF THE CARS! Not the bikes. (And if there isn’t alternative biking infrastructure they have no choice but to bike on the busy roads - THAT’S THE PROBLEM!) Bunch of idiots in this thread.

Why someone have no choice but to bike on a busy road? You keep pointing out that car drivers have other options. If you feel so unsafe around all those terrible drivers why not take Metro?

[Anonymous]

I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists talk out of both sides of their mouth on safety issues.

They prattle on about unsafe drivers and about how the city needs to spend a gazillion dollars to protect them and if a single cyclist is ever in an accident, we hear endlessly about it.

But then if you ask why, if it's so unsafe, do they allow small children to ride bikes on busy streets, because that sounds a whole lot like child endangerment, then they're all like, well what evidence is there that it's unsafe?

You don’t get it. They’re unsafe BECAUSE OF THE CARS! Not the bikes. (And if there isn’t alternative biking infrastructure they have no choice but to bike on the busy roads - THAT’S THE PROBLEM!) Bunch of idiots in this thread.

PP is unhinged. Yikes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

not stopping at the red light can be safer for bikes. it doesn’t mean bikes don’t have to yield. It means bikes proceed through the intersection before there are conflicts with cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

But without the extensive tram, train and subway network. So in other words, nothing at all like the Netherlands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

But without the extensive tram, train and subway network. So in other words, nothing at all like the Netherlands.

Last I checked, it was Goodyear and the big Auto companies that bought up all of our electric street car network, shut them down, paved it over, and made it drivers only. The biggest problem with the H St streetcar is that it has to share the road with cars and sit in traffic. And we, at least in this city, have a pretty decent metro network, with light and heavy rail connecting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists talk out of both sides of their mouth on safety issues.

They prattle on about unsafe drivers and about how the city needs to spend a gazillion dollars to protect them and if a single cyclist is ever in an accident, we hear endlessly about it.

But then if you ask why, if it's so unsafe, do they allow small children to ride bikes on busy streets, because that sounds a whole lot like child endangerment, then they're all like, well what evidence is there that it's unsafe?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

But without the extensive tram, train and subway network. So in other words, nothing at all like the Netherlands.

Last I checked, it was Goodyear and the big Auto companies that bought up all of our electric street car network, shut them down, paved it over, and made it drivers only. The biggest problem with the H St streetcar is that it has to share the road with cars and sit in traffic. And we, at least in this city, have a pretty decent metro network, with light and heavy rail connecting it.

Goodyear? The bicycle tire company! That's hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

But without the extensive tram, train and subway network. So in other words, nothing at all like the Netherlands.

Last I checked, it was Goodyear and the big Auto companies that bought up all of our electric street car network, shut them down, paved it over, and made it drivers only. The biggest problem with the H St streetcar is that it has to share the road with cars and sit in traffic. And we, at least in this city, have a pretty decent metro network, with light and heavy rail connecting it.

Goodyear? The bicycle tire company! That's hilarious.

Do you take cream with your motor oil in the morning? Idiot carbrain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

But without the extensive tram, train and subway network. So in other words, nothing at all like the Netherlands.

Last I checked, it was Goodyear and the big Auto companies that bought up all of our electric street car network, shut them down, paved it over, and made it drivers only. The biggest problem with the H St streetcar is that it has to share the road with cars and sit in traffic. And we, at least in this city, have a pretty decent metro network, with light and heavy rail connecting it.

Goodyear? The bicycle tire company! That's hilarious.

Do you take cream with your motor oil in the morning? Idiot carbrain.

It's not my fault that you didn't know that Goodyear was founded as a bicycle tire company before coming up with your insane conspiracy theory regarding big rubber. Should we demand reparations from Liberia?