Cities starting to ban scooters. DC to follow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paris is voting Sunday on whether to ban scooters. People are sick of them — they ride too fast, they go on the sidewalks, they leave their scooters everywhere. Copenhagen, Helsinki have imposed new restrictions. London wants to require people to get licenses. I would love it if DC banned them outright. They are a menace.

While we’re at it, let’s ban cars too. They are a menace that kill tens of thousands of the living population and are making the planet unlivable for everyone that comes after.

Omg, an old lady clutched her pearls because a 13 year old menace on a scooter nearly buzzed her on a city sidewalk. I guess we need to ban all scooters now! No, no, no, the cars that kill 35,000-45,000 people a year for the last nearly 100 years are absolutely just fine.

All motorized scooters age limit is 18 and older. Why are you dismissive of older women? Don't they the right to not get hit by a scooter flying by at 25 miles an hour? An who are the idiots who ride with their kids in front!

Wooosh

Whoosh back at ya. Never answered the question

Because your question is stupid. Let's ignore the thing that kills thousands of people and flip out about this newer, novel thing because a couple of folks got injured and the media covered it because its new and novel. Cool! Yay! Mass hysteria!! Wooohooo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with scooters? They don't have an impact on the air quality and they make it so people can get from one place to another faster than walking.

How do they have zero impact on air quality?

The users hurt people.

Cars, you mean?

A scooter did hurt my car. One fell over and dented my passenger side door. Those thugs are a menace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

The only reason Idaho stops even exist is because the fatties in spandex are too lazy to stop and start at every stop sign. It has nothing to do with safety. That’s a fig leaf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

It literally is true. Facts don't care about your feelings, they're facts.

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

It literally is true. Facts don't care about your feelings, they're facts.

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

More than a quarter of all the cyclists who die in traffic die in intersections so, yes, of course we should tell cyclists to ignore those signs designed to make them be more careful when crossing intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

It literally is true. Facts don't care about your feelings, they're facts.

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

More than a quarter of all the cyclists who die in traffic die in intersections so, yes, of course we should tell cyclists to ignore those signs designed to make them be more careful when crossing intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

^ PP doesn't let data get in the way of their feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

It literally is true. Facts don't care about your feelings, they're facts.

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

More than a quarter of all the cyclists who die in traffic die in intersections so, yes, of course we should tell cyclists to ignore those signs designed to make them be more careful when crossing intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

Exactly! The deaths are in intersections, meaning the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is in an intersection just sitting there. Which is why the Idaho Stop is so successful--it allows the cyclist to stop/yield and proceed if there's nothing in impeding their path (they don't ignore the signs, they just treat a stop sign as a yield sign and red light as a stop sign). That way, they spend less time in the middle of a busy intersection, where they are most likely to be rear-ended by a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

It literally is true. Facts don't care about your feelings, they're facts.

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

More than a quarter of all the cyclists who die in traffic die in intersections so, yes, of course we should tell cyclists to ignore those signs designed to make them be more careful when crossing intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

Exactly! The deaths are in intersections, meaning the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is in an intersection just sitting there. Which is why the Idaho Stop is so successful--it allows the cyclist to stop/yield and proceed if there's nothing in impeding their path (they don't ignore the signs, they just treat a stop sign as a yield sign and red light as a stop sign). That way, they spend less time in the middle of a busy intersection, where they are most likely to be rear-ended by a car.

This is truly ridiculous. Just delusional.

[Anonymous]

Yeah it does not make any sense why cursing through stop signs would be safer for anyone. I see the stats posted but no explanation that makes sense for why crash rates would be lower

[Anonymous]

By all means, let’s ban scooters. But please leave freaking armed horrendous and dangerous ATVs to troll this city.

Here’s the One Good Thing: you’ll never ever get the stateshood now.

Why is that good, cause you can’t handle it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

It literally is true. Facts don't care about your feelings, they're facts.

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

More than a quarter of all the cyclists who die in traffic die in intersections so, yes, of course we should tell cyclists to ignore those signs designed to make them be more careful when crossing intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

Exactly! The deaths are in intersections, meaning the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is in an intersection just sitting there. Which is why the Idaho Stop is so successful--it allows the cyclist to stop/yield and proceed if there's nothing in impeding their path (they don't ignore the signs, they just treat a stop sign as a yield sign and red light as a stop sign). That way, they spend less time in the middle of a busy intersection, where they are most likely to be rear-ended by a car.

This is truly ridiculous. Just delusional.

Which ones? The zoo one was a rogue Tesla, would have caused the same accident anywhere it crossed into the opposite traffic. What’s your dumb argument? Most deaths are in the burbs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

It literally is true. Facts don't care about your feelings, they're facts.

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

More than a quarter of all the cyclists who die in traffic die in intersections so, yes, of course we should tell cyclists to ignore those signs designed to make them be more careful when crossing intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

Exactly! The deaths are in intersections, meaning the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is in an intersection just sitting there. Which is why the Idaho Stop is so successful--it allows the cyclist to stop/yield and proceed if there's nothing in impeding their path (they don't ignore the signs, they just treat a stop sign as a yield sign and red light as a stop sign). That way, they spend less time in the middle of a busy intersection, where they are most likely to be rear-ended by a car.

If most deaths are IN intersections then the most dangerous place to be is IN and intersection, not stopped BEFORE the intersection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

It literally is true. Facts don't care about your feelings, they're facts.

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

More than a quarter of all the cyclists who die in traffic die in intersections so, yes, of course we should tell cyclists to ignore those signs designed to make them be more careful when crossing intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

That's your only response to data showing that bike crashes declined in other jurisdictions that have set up this law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Idaho Stop business is really pernicious. You can’t tell one group of people they don’t have to follow the rules without everyone else asking why they can’t do the same. It really teaches the public that traffic laws don’t matter.

The thing is for cyclists, sitting idle in a street or sidewalk is much more dangerous. That's why states are following the Idaho stop now, and it reduces traffic fatalities. I get that your feelings might be hurt that cyclists get something for them for once, but if it saves lives, I really don't care.

No matter how many times you say “the thing is” doesn’t make it true.

It literally is true. Facts don't care about your feelings, they're facts.

"Idaho first passed this law in the 1980s, hence why it’s called the Idaho stop. Idaho saw a 13% decrease in bike crashes after the law was passed. Delaware passed a similar law five years ago and saw a 23% decrease in bike crashes. Nine states total allow the practice."

https://dcist.com/story/22/09/21/dc-moves-to-ban-right-turn-on-red-allow-idaho-stop-cyclists/

More than a quarter of all the cyclists who die in traffic die in intersections so, yes, of course we should tell cyclists to ignore those signs designed to make them be more careful when crossing intersections. Makes a lot of sense.

That's your only response to data showing that bike crashes declined in other jurisdictions that have set up this law?

Ha. That’s not at all what the data shows. But, yes, telling cyclists it’s cool to ignore stop signs in the name of safety is some Orwellian nonsense.