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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Maybe that's because more kids are injured in car accidents than in bike accidents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the law requires reflectors only, chances are virtually every bike is already in compliance; most pedals have reflective strips on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the law requires reflectors only, chances are virtually every bike is already in compliance; most pedals have reflective strips on them.

When riding at night, you need a white front light and a red rear light OR reflector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's pretty easy to see into your cars while biking by. So many have phones in their hands. I've seen people with movies on while they are driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Maybe that's because more kids are injured in car accidents than in bike accidents?

You're bad at logic. By this reasoning, we should have no rules regarding children operating guns either because, hey, more kids are injured in car accidents than gun accidents.

[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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

[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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

They don't know the law well enough to say whom it favors. They just assume that if a cyclist is killed (and that's extremely rare), then by definition it must be the driver's fault. But the police investigate every single incident to figure out what happened and who was at fault. If the driver isn't charged, that tells you what the answer is.

[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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

This is a complete non sequitor. The number of fatalities should not influence whether or not drivers are held accountable for killing pedestrians in crosswalks. If one person were murdered by a person using a gun in the US each year should we not convict the person who murdered him/ her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

This is a complete non sequitor. The number of fatalities should not influence whether or not drivers are held accountable for killing pedestrians in crosswalks. If one person were murdered by a person using a gun in the US each year should we not convict the person who murdered him/ her?

The number of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is similar to the number of people killed by lightning strike, which is not that far off the number of Washingtonians who are eaten by sharks. But every incident is investigated by the police. Do you think there's instances where the police are like "eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

This is a complete non sequitor. The number of fatalities should not influence whether or not drivers are held accountable for killing pedestrians in crosswalks. If one person were murdered by a person using a gun in the US each year should we not convict the person who murdered him/ her?

The number of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is similar to the number of people killed by lightning strike, which is not that far off the number of Washingtonians who are eaten by sharks. But every incident is investigated by the police. Do you think there's instances where the police are like "eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?"

Within an hour of Alison Hart being killed, in a crosswalk, the DC police put out a statement saying that she "was unable to stop" before the truck hit and killed her. She was in a crosswalk, no mention of why the driver hit her or any actions taken by the driver. That is not an investigation, that is victim blaming. So yes, I think it is quite frequent that DC police do not investigate why a driver has killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Putting a statement out within an hour that ascribes actions to one party is not an investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

This is a complete non sequitor. The number of fatalities should not influence whether or not drivers are held accountable for killing pedestrians in crosswalks. If one person were murdered by a person using a gun in the US each year should we not convict the person who murdered him/ her?

The number of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is similar to the number of people killed by lightning strike, which is not that far off the number of Washingtonians who are eaten by sharks. But every incident is investigated by the police. Do you think there's instances where the police are like "eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?"

Within an hour of Alison Hart being killed, in a crosswalk, the DC police put out a statement saying that she "was unable to stop" before the truck hit and killed her. She was in a crosswalk, no mention of why the driver hit her or any actions taken by the driver. That is not an investigation, that is victim blaming. So yes, I think it is quite frequent that DC police do not investigate why a driver has killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Putting a statement out within an hour that ascribes actions to one party is not an investigation.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. It seems a little ridiculous to think the police would try to sweep something that got so much attention under the rug. Besides, if the victim's family feels wronged by the police, they can always sue and the courts and the city's insurers will guarantee a through investigation.

[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: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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

This is a complete non sequitor. The number of fatalities should not influence whether or not drivers are held accountable for killing pedestrians in crosswalks. If one person were murdered by a person using a gun in the US each year should we not convict the person who murdered him/ her?

The number of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is similar to the number of people killed by lightning strike, which is not that far off the number of Washingtonians who are eaten by sharks. But every incident is investigated by the police. Do you think there's instances where the police are like "eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?"

Within an hour of Alison Hart being killed, in a crosswalk, the DC police put out a statement saying that she "was unable to stop" before the truck hit and killed her. She was in a crosswalk, no mention of why the driver hit her or any actions taken by the driver. That is not an investigation, that is victim blaming. So yes, I think it is quite frequent that DC police do not investigate why a driver has killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Putting a statement out within an hour that ascribes actions to one party is not an investigation.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. It seems a little ridiculous to think the police would try to sweep something that got so much attention under the rug. Besides, if the victim's family feels wronged by the police, they can always sue and the courts and the city's insurers will guarantee a through investigation.

You seem not at all familiar with the relevant legal standards.

[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: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.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

This is a complete non sequitor. The number of fatalities should not influence whether or not drivers are held accountable for killing pedestrians in crosswalks. If one person were murdered by a person using a gun in the US each year should we not convict the person who murdered him/ her?

The number of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is similar to the number of people killed by lightning strike, which is not that far off the number of Washingtonians who are eaten by sharks. But every incident is investigated by the police. Do you think there's instances where the police are like "eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?"

Within an hour of Alison Hart being killed, in a crosswalk, the DC police put out a statement saying that she "was unable to stop" before the truck hit and killed her. She was in a crosswalk, no mention of why the driver hit her or any actions taken by the driver. That is not an investigation, that is victim blaming. So yes, I think it is quite frequent that DC police do not investigate why a driver has killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Putting a statement out within an hour that ascribes actions to one party is not an investigation.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. It seems a little ridiculous to think the police would try to sweep something that got so much attention under the rug. Besides, if the victim's family feels wronged by the police, they can always sue and the courts and the city's insurers will guarantee a through investigation.

You seem not at all familiar with the relevant legal standards.

We'd love to hear more of your nutty conspiracy theories.