Let's keep the outdoor dining, the streets reserved for walking, and the new bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As are streets with a lot of bicyclists ignoring traffic signs and signals.

Cars are more dangerous in low traffic density situations while bicycles are more dangerous in high traffic density situations. It all has to do with pedestrians being able to observe and predict the traffic situation. Hanoi is a famous example of that.

No. First of all, bicyclists obey traffic signs and signals at similar or better rates as drivers. It's possible that you're so used to drivers not obeying traffic signs/signals that you don't notice. Second of all, cars are more dangerous to pedestrians under every circumstance except when cars are not moving and bicyclists are moving. That's just basic physics. A person riding a bicycle weighs maybe 200 pounds total (including the bicycle). Even just a small car weighs 15 times more. A Suburban weighs 30 times more.

If you want to talk about transportation in Hanoi, probably the travel forum is the appropriate place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As are streets with a lot of bicyclists ignoring traffic signs and signals.

Cars are more dangerous in low traffic density situations while bicycles are more dangerous in high traffic density situations. It all has to do with pedestrians being able to observe and predict the traffic situation. Hanoi is a famous example of that.

No. First of all, bicyclists obey traffic signs and signals at similar or better rates as drivers. It's possible that you're so used to drivers not obeying traffic signs/signals that you don't notice. Second of all, cars are more dangerous to pedestrians under every circumstance except when cars are not moving and bicyclists are moving. That's just basic physics. A person riding a bicycle weighs maybe 200 pounds total (including the bicycle). Even just a small car weighs 15 times more. A Suburban weighs 30 times more.

If you want to talk about transportation in Hanoi, probably the travel forum is the appropriate place.

You have a source for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As are streets with a lot of bicyclists ignoring traffic signs and signals.

Cars are more dangerous in low traffic density situations while bicycles are more dangerous in high traffic density situations. It all has to do with pedestrians being able to observe and predict the traffic situation. Hanoi is a famous example of that.

No. First of all, bicyclists obey traffic signs and signals at similar or better rates as drivers. It's possible that you're so used to drivers not obeying traffic signs/signals that you don't notice. Second of all, cars are more dangerous to pedestrians under every circumstance except when cars are not moving and bicyclists are moving. That's just basic physics. A person riding a bicycle weighs maybe 200 pounds total (including the bicycle). Even just a small car weighs 15 times more. A Suburban weighs 30 times more.

If you want to talk about transportation in Hanoi, probably the travel forum is the appropriate place.

Wow, you're really scared of the Hanoi mention.

Hanoi is an interesting example because bikes and scooters far outnumber cars which makes it one of the few real world examples of the policy suggestion you are proposing we strive for.

And no. Bicyclists in DC do NOT follow traffic signals or signs because they were given an exemption to the rules.

[Anonymous]

This is the Metropolitan DC Local Politics forum, not that Transportation in Hanoi forum.

The last time you brought up the "bicyclists have an exemption to the rules" assertion, people asked you to provide proof, and you didn't (because you can't, because it's not true).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As are streets with a lot of bicyclists ignoring traffic signs and signals.

Cars are more dangerous in low traffic density situations while bicycles are more dangerous in high traffic density situations. It all has to do with pedestrians being able to observe and predict the traffic situation. Hanoi is a famous example of that.

No. First of all, bicyclists obey traffic signs and signals at similar or better rates as drivers. It's possible that you're so used to drivers not obeying traffic signs/signals that you don't notice. Second of all, cars are more dangerous to pedestrians under every circumstance except when cars are not moving and bicyclists are moving. That's just basic physics. A person riding a bicycle weighs maybe 200 pounds total (including the bicycle). Even just a small car weighs 15 times more. A Suburban weighs 30 times more.

If you want to talk about transportation in Hanoi, probably the travel forum is the appropriate place.

You have a source for that?

https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates
https://www.outsideonline.com/2273001/cyclists-comply-traffic-laws-more-drivers
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/?sh=602b7c124bfa

For what it's worth, if I stopped with both feet on the ground at every stop sign while bicycling, many of the drivers behind me would get very annoyed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As are streets with a lot of bicyclists ignoring traffic signs and signals.

Cars are more dangerous in low traffic density situations while bicycles are more dangerous in high traffic density situations. It all has to do with pedestrians being able to observe and predict the traffic situation. Hanoi is a famous example of that.

No. First of all, bicyclists obey traffic signs and signals at similar or better rates as drivers. It's possible that you're so used to drivers not obeying traffic signs/signals that you don't notice. Second of all, cars are more dangerous to pedestrians under every circumstance except when cars are not moving and bicyclists are moving. That's just basic physics. A person riding a bicycle weighs maybe 200 pounds total (including the bicycle). Even just a small car weighs 15 times more. A Suburban weighs 30 times more.

If you want to talk about transportation in Hanoi, probably the travel forum is the appropriate place.

You have a source for that?

https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates
https://www.outsideonline.com/2273001/cyclists-comply-traffic-laws-more-drivers
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/?sh=602b7c124bfa

For what it's worth, if I stopped with both feet on the ground at every stop sign while bicycling, many of the drivers behind me would get very annoyed.

First link refers to a “survey” but provides no details regarding the survey. Only a link a faculty bio page. There is no ability to judge whether this was a proper survey or not.

Second link refers to a FL DOT “study” but the link is broken so cannot judge the veracity. In any event, the description of the methods in the article (outfitting bikes with sensors) indicates that the participants knew they were being studied which surely biased the outcome.

Third link refers to the same FL DOT study and again the link is broken. Prior issues still hold and I’m starting to suspect that you are just googling without even reading the articles.

Fourth link refers to a what seems like an actually well designed study which does prove your point, but the study is in Denmark and therefore it’s a bit of a red herring.

You have not produced any evidence that cyclists in DC follow the rules.

[Anonymous]

You haven't produced any evidence that bicyclists in DC don't follow the rules - or don't follow the rules more than drivers don't follow the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You haven't produced any evidence that bicyclists in DC don't follow the rules - or don't follow the rules more than drivers don't follow the rules.

Cyclists in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that’s a fair assessment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven't produced any evidence that bicyclists in DC don't follow the rules - or don't follow the rules more than drivers don't follow the rules.

Cyclists in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that’s a fair assessment.

Drivers in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. Come on over to my condo overlooking a four-way stop, we can take a shot each time we see a driver come to a complete stop if there isn't a pedestrian crossing directly in front of them (and sometimes even then...). I promise you that we'll both be stone-cold sober at the end of the night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven't produced any evidence that bicyclists in DC don't follow the rules - or don't follow the rules more than drivers don't follow the rules.

Cyclists in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that’s a fair assessment.

Drivers in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that's a fair assessment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven't produced any evidence that bicyclists in DC don't follow the rules - or don't follow the rules more than drivers don't follow the rules.

Cyclists in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that’s a fair assessment.

Drivers in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that's a fair assessment.

^^^Seriously, I think that people are conditioned to see a driver rolling through a stop sign and think "that driver stopped at the stop sign" and see a bicyclist rolling through a stop sign and think "that bicyclist blew the stop sign".

If you're annoyed by bicyclists in front of you slowing you down when you're driving, you really really don't want bicyclists in front of you coming to a full and complete stop when you're driving.

[Anonymous]

So the trick here is to make an unsubstantiated claim, when asked for a source vigorously Google and link whatever you can find without reading. Then when confronted with that, change the burden. Then when presented with a factual claim to deflect and engage in whataboutism.

Good job guys. You’re only convincing yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the trick here is to make an unsubstantiated claim, when asked for a source vigorously Google and link whatever you can find without reading. Then when confronted with that, change the burden. Then when presented with a factual claim to deflect and engage in whataboutism.

Good job guys. You’re only convincing yourselves.

"I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the trick here is to make an unsubstantiated claim, when asked for a source vigorously Google and link whatever you can find without reading. Then when confronted with that, change the burden. Then when presented with a factual claim to deflect and engage in whataboutism.

Good job guys. You’re only convincing yourselves.

"I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

So if I understand correctly, your belief is that cyclists in DC scrupulously follow all rules. Which is interesting, because then why would cyclists in VA lobby for the state to pass a law specifically exempting them from stopping at stop signs? There should be no reason to do that at all.

You are engaged in I don’t know what purpose or goal. But it really does a disservice to other cyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the trick here is to make an unsubstantiated claim, when asked for a source vigorously Google and link whatever you can find without reading. Then when confronted with that, change the burden. Then when presented with a factual claim to deflect and engage in whataboutism.

Good job guys. You’re only convincing yourselves.

"I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

So if I understand correctly, your belief is that cyclists in DC scrupulously follow all rules. Which is interesting, because then why would cyclists in VA lobby for the state to pass a law specifically exempting them from stopping at stop signs? There should be no reason to do that at all.

You are engaged in I don’t know what purpose or goal. But it really does a disservice to other cyclists.

No, my belief is that "I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.