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

[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 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.

You’re intentionally obtuse to the point of offensive as it displays a severe lack of concern.

A bill that tells cyclists that stop signs are yield signs will promote more cyclists entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present. This is already a big problem that will be exacerbated. Particularly as it does not exempt e-bikes which are a major danger. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

[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: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.

You’re intentionally obtuse to the point of offensive as it displays a severe lack of concern.

A bill that tells cyclists that stop signs are yield signs will promote more cyclists entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present. This is already a big problem that will be exacerbated. Particularly as it does not exempt e-bikes which are a major danger. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Nothing in the bill changes the legal obligation of cyclists to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

[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:

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.

You’re intentionally obtuse to the point of offensive as it displays a severe lack of concern.

A bill that tells cyclists that stop signs are yield signs will promote more cyclists entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present. This is already a big problem that will be exacerbated. Particularly as it does not exempt e-bikes which are a major danger. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Nothing in the bill changes the legal obligation of cyclists to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

This is like a car driver arguing that raising the speed limit is fine because you are still legally obligated to drive at a speed that is safe for road conditions.

Pretty sad, honestly.

[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:

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.

You’re intentionally obtuse to the point of offensive as it displays a severe lack of concern.

A bill that tells cyclists that stop signs are yield signs will promote more cyclists entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present. This is already a big problem that will be exacerbated. Particularly as it does not exempt e-bikes which are a major danger. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Nothing in the bill changes the legal obligation of cyclists to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

This is like a car driver arguing that raising the speed limit is fine because you are still legally obligated to drive at a speed that is safe for road conditions.

Pretty sad, honestly.

We can be reasonably confident that because of the rarity of serious injuries and death from cyclists striking pedestrians, this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety.

The same cannot be said about your hypothetical. You'll have to grasp at different straws.

[Anonymous]

Allow me to offer a contrast: right on red. There is no safety benefit to right on red, it was implemented for the convenience of drivers, the societal benefit of having drivers wait through an entire light cycle was deemed to be lesser than the benefit of letting them go on their way.

Right on red actually has a well-documented negative impact on pedestrian safety, drivers often fail to look for pedestrians when turning. But overall the benefit is seen to outweigh the cost.

[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:

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.

You’re intentionally obtuse to the point of offensive as it displays a severe lack of concern.

A bill that tells cyclists that stop signs are yield signs will promote more cyclists entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present. This is already a big problem that will be exacerbated. Particularly as it does not exempt e-bikes which are a major danger. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Nothing in the bill changes the legal obligation of cyclists to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

This is like a car driver arguing that raising the speed limit is fine because you are still legally obligated to drive at a speed that is safe for road conditions.

Pretty sad, honestly.

We can be reasonably confident that because of the rarity of serious injuries and death from cyclists striking pedestrians, this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety.

The same cannot be said about your hypothetical. You'll have to grasp at different straws.

And here you are back to arguing that it’s actually fine for cyclists to negligently run into pedestrians.

Next you will say what about cars.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

[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:

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.

You’re intentionally obtuse to the point of offensive as it displays a severe lack of concern.

A bill that tells cyclists that stop signs are yield signs will promote more cyclists entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present. This is already a big problem that will be exacerbated. Particularly as it does not exempt e-bikes which are a major danger. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Nothing in the bill changes the legal obligation of cyclists to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

This is like a car driver arguing that raising the speed limit is fine because you are still legally obligated to drive at a speed that is safe for road conditions.

Pretty sad, honestly.

We can be reasonably confident that because of the rarity of serious injuries and death from cyclists striking pedestrians, this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety.

The same cannot be said about your hypothetical. You'll have to grasp at different straws.

And here you are back to arguing that it’s actually fine for cyclists to negligently run into pedestrians.

Next you will say what about cars.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Do you have anything to offer other than bad faith arguments and intentional misreadings of other peoples' posts?

Saying "this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety [because of the rarity of injuries caused by cyclists]" is vastly, vastly different from saying "it's fine for cyclists to negligently run into pedestrians." Please refrain from having arguments with imaginary people in your head and try to engage with what people are actually saying.

[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.

Cycling is fine but cyclists should be licensed and held accountable for traffic infractions. So they learn to actually yield to pedestrians in pedestrian-first spaces and follow traffic rules in the street (which should indeed apply to them).

[Anonymous]

At present none of the above is happening. Cyclists practice anarchy and thumb their noses at accountability. And polish arguments about why their virtuousness exempts them from accountability.

[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:

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.

You’re intentionally obtuse to the point of offensive as it displays a severe lack of concern.

A bill that tells cyclists that stop signs are yield signs will promote more cyclists entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present. This is already a big problem that will be exacerbated. Particularly as it does not exempt e-bikes which are a major danger. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Nothing in the bill changes the legal obligation of cyclists to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

This is like a car driver arguing that raising the speed limit is fine because you are still legally obligated to drive at a speed that is safe for road conditions.

Pretty sad, honestly.

We can be reasonably confident that because of the rarity of serious injuries and death from cyclists striking pedestrians, this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety.

The same cannot be said about your hypothetical. You'll have to grasp at different straws.

And here you are back to arguing that it’s actually fine for cyclists to negligently run into pedestrians.

Next you will say what about cars.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Do you have anything to offer other than bad faith arguments and intentional misreadings of other peoples' posts?

Saying "this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety [because of the rarity of injuries caused by cyclists]" is vastly, vastly different from saying "it's fine for cyclists to negligently run into pedestrians." Please refrain from having arguments with imaginary people in your head and try to engage with what people are actually saying.

The projection here is incredible.

You start with a straw man that people who think this is a bad idea believe that “cyclists should be punished”. And this is where you end up?

Maybe you should cut down on the transparent b.s. if it makes you so mad that people call you on it?

[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.

Cycling is fine but cyclists should be licensed and held accountable for traffic infractions. So they learn to actually yield to pedestrians in pedestrian-first spaces and follow traffic rules in the street (which should indeed apply to them).

Absolutely. The ability to cause serious injury in the public realm means that there is a strong public safety interest in licensing.

It’s interesting that they say they want DC to emulate the Netherlands but in the Netherlands bicycling is highly regulated. Instead they want to take what is a low regulated road use and deregulate it further.

So evidently they don’t want to be like the Netherlands after all?

[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:

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.

You’re intentionally obtuse to the point of offensive as it displays a severe lack of concern.

A bill that tells cyclists that stop signs are yield signs will promote more cyclists entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present. This is already a big problem that will be exacerbated. Particularly as it does not exempt e-bikes which are a major danger. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Nothing in the bill changes the legal obligation of cyclists to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

This is like a car driver arguing that raising the speed limit is fine because you are still legally obligated to drive at a speed that is safe for road conditions.

Pretty sad, honestly.

We can be reasonably confident that because of the rarity of serious injuries and death from cyclists striking pedestrians, this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety.

The same cannot be said about your hypothetical. You'll have to grasp at different straws.

And here you are back to arguing that it’s actually fine for cyclists to negligently run into pedestrians.

Next you will say what about cars.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Do you have anything to offer other than bad faith arguments and intentional misreadings of other peoples' posts?

Saying "this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety [because of the rarity of injuries caused by cyclists]" is vastly, vastly different from saying "it's fine for cyclists to negligently run into pedestrians." Please refrain from having arguments with imaginary people in your head and try to engage with what people are actually saying.

The projection here is incredible.

You start with a straw man that people who think this is a bad idea believe that “cyclists should be punished”. And this is where you end up?

Maybe you should cut down on the transparent b.s. if it makes you so mad that people call you on it?

I'm not the poster who originally pushed back against your nonsensical and blissfully fact-free rantings (hint: it's possible for more than one person to disagree with you on an anonymous Internet forum!). I ask again; do you have anything to offer other than bad faith arguments and intentional misreadings of peoples' posts? Because you've shown time and again that you refuse to engage with what people are actually saying, and instead preferring to pat yourself on the back for deftly tearing down strawmen.

Once again, you can either respond to what people are actually saying, or you can continue putting words in peoples' mouths. Given your behavior so far, I have a feeling I know which one you'll choose. But who knows, maybe you'll finally come to understand that you're not fooling anybody with your bad faith arguments and grow up.

[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:

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.

You’re intentionally obtuse to the point of offensive as it displays a severe lack of concern.

A bill that tells cyclists that stop signs are yield signs will promote more cyclists entering crosswalks when pedestrians are present. This is already a big problem that will be exacerbated. Particularly as it does not exempt e-bikes which are a major danger. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Nothing in the bill changes the legal obligation of cyclists to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

This is like a car driver arguing that raising the speed limit is fine because you are still legally obligated to drive at a speed that is safe for road conditions.

Pretty sad, honestly.

We can be reasonably confident that because of the rarity of serious injuries and death from cyclists striking pedestrians, this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety.

The same cannot be said about your hypothetical. You'll have to grasp at different straws.

And here you are back to arguing that it’s actually fine for cyclists to negligently run into pedestrians.

Next you will say what about cars.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Do you have anything to offer other than bad faith arguments and intentional misreadings of other peoples' posts?

Saying "this bill will not have a deleterious effect on pedestrian safety [because of the rarity of injuries caused by cyclists]" is vastly, vastly different from saying "it's fine for cyclists to negligently run into pedestrians." Please refrain from having arguments with imaginary people in your head and try to engage with what people are actually saying.

The projection here is incredible.

You start with a straw man that people who think this is a bad idea believe that “cyclists should be punished”. And this is where you end up?

Maybe you should cut down on the transparent b.s. if it makes you so mad that people call you on it?

I'm not the poster who originally pushed back against your nonsensical and blissfully fact-free rantings (hint: it's possible for more than one person to disagree with you on an anonymous Internet forum!). I ask again; do you have anything to offer other than bad faith arguments and intentional misreadings of peoples' posts? Because you've shown time and again that you refuse to engage with what people are actually saying, and instead preferring to pat yourself on the back for deftly tearing down strawmen.

Once again, you can either respond to what people are actually saying, or you can continue putting words in peoples' mouths. Given your behavior so far, I have a feeling I know which one you'll choose. But who knows, maybe you'll finally come to understand that you're not fooling anybody with your bad faith arguments and grow up.

Again your projection is telling. You realize that you are responding to multiple people who are critical of this proposed legislation?

You’re honestly a weird person to believe that pointing out that bicyclists should obey the law and not put pedestrians at risk is “bad faith”.

[Anonymous]

"You’re honestly a weird person to believe that pointing out that bicyclists should obey the law and not put pedestrians at risk is “bad faith”."

Question: if you believe that cyclists should follow the law, why not change the law to make it easier for them to follow it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"You’re honestly a weird person to believe that pointing out that bicyclists should obey the law and not put pedestrians at risk is “bad faith”."

Question: if you believe that cyclists should follow the law, why not change the law to make it easier for them to follow it?

Yeah the way to get rid of crime is to decriminalize everything criminals like to do.