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:

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.

DP. Are you saying that the totality of MPDs investigation was to do nothing then issue a press release after an hour? Do you have an specific knowledge of what their investigation did not do that they should have done in that specific case? Is there a standard procedure or protocol for accident investigations that you believe MPD is not following? I’d love to understand whether you actually have an idea what you are talking about or whether you are just making sh*t up and spouting conspiracy theories out your *ss.

[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.

So explain it. What was the standard and how was it not applied in this case?

[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.

Ah you called me a conspiracy theorist, you win this argument. What a well thought-out rebuttal.

[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: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.

DP. Are you saying that the totality of MPDs investigation was to do nothing then issue a press release after an hour? Do you have an specific knowledge of what their investigation did not do that they should have done in that specific case? Is there a standard procedure or protocol for accident investigations that you believe MPD is not following? I’d love to understand whether you actually have an idea what you are talking about or whether you are just making sh*t up and spouting conspiracy theories out your *ss.

Here is a study that was done with a NJ police department to try to ID and reduce bias in reporting that might subtly blame the victim. The department took part in it which would indicate they were willing to at least confront if they were biased. It isn't some vast conspiracy to say that cops might report in a way that blames the victim- it isn't necessarily deliberate, just a consequence of having windshield bias from spending more time in cars then on foot. Not everything has to be done on purpose to have happened.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198222001294#!

[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.

Ah you called me a conspiracy theorist, you win this argument. What a well thought-out rebuttal.

You're the one who said I wasn't familiar with the "relevant legal standards." Please explain. Tell us all what "relevant legal standards" allow the police to hide what happened to a five year old who was hit by a car and how the rest of the world is powerless to do anything about it. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me but tell us why that's not insane.

[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: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.

DP. Are you saying that the totality of MPDs investigation was to do nothing then issue a press release after an hour? Do you have an specific knowledge of what their investigation did not do that they should have done in that specific case? Is there a standard procedure or protocol for accident investigations that you believe MPD is not following? I’d love to understand whether you actually have an idea what you are talking about or whether you are just making sh*t up and spouting conspiracy theories out your *ss.

Here is a study that was done with a NJ police department to try to ID and reduce bias in reporting that might subtly blame the victim. The department took part in it which would indicate they were willing to at least confront if they were biased. It isn't some vast conspiracy to say that cops might report in a way that blames the victim- it isn't necessarily deliberate, just a consequence of having windshield bias from spending more time in cars then on foot. Not everything has to be done on purpose to have happened.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198222001294#!

Seriously? This is a joke.

[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: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.

DP. Are you saying that the totality of MPDs investigation was to do nothing then issue a press release after an hour? Do you have an specific knowledge of what their investigation did not do that they should have done in that specific case? Is there a standard procedure or protocol for accident investigations that you believe MPD is not following? I’d love to understand whether you actually have an idea what you are talking about or whether you are just making sh*t up and spouting conspiracy theories out your *ss.

Here is a study that was done with a NJ police department to try to ID and reduce bias in reporting that might subtly blame the victim. The department took part in it which would indicate they were willing to at least confront if they were biased. It isn't some vast conspiracy to say that cops might report in a way that blames the victim- it isn't necessarily deliberate, just a consequence of having windshield bias from spending more time in cars then on foot. Not everything has to be done on purpose to have happened.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198222001294#!

Seriously? This is a joke.

Welcome to the chat, white person.

[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: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.

DP. Are you saying that the totality of MPDs investigation was to do nothing then issue a press release after an hour? Do you have an specific knowledge of what their investigation did not do that they should have done in that specific case? Is there a standard procedure or protocol for accident investigations that you believe MPD is not following? I’d love to understand whether you actually have an idea what you are talking about or whether you are just making sh*t up and spouting conspiracy theories out your *ss.

Here is a study that was done with a NJ police department to try to ID and reduce bias in reporting that might subtly blame the victim. The department took part in it which would indicate they were willing to at least confront if they were biased. It isn't some vast conspiracy to say that cops might report in a way that blames the victim- it isn't necessarily deliberate, just a consequence of having windshield bias from spending more time in cars then on foot. Not everything has to be done on purpose to have happened.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198222001294#!

Studies like these remind me why I left academia. This belongs at the bottom of a bird cage.

[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.

If MPD ever did a proper investigation of the deaths of Alison Hart, Shawn O'Donnell, and others, please feel free to post it here. I have not yet seen them. To maintain - as some posters do here - that a press release passes for an investigation is complete nonsense.

Rhonda Whitaker and Waldon Adams were killed while cycling around Hains Point a year and a half ago. This article does a great job of summarizing what has happened since (spoiler: jack shit): https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

Nina Larson was a 24 year old pedestrian killed in Columbia Heights. You can also read everything her mother knows about that investigation here also: https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?" seems to actually be a pretty good description of what is going on . . . or not going on, in this case. And the comparison with lightning strikes is stupid and offensive. Drivers who obey speed limits and other DC traffic laws generally don't kill people. Those who speed and run stop signs and/or red lights do.

[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.

If MPD ever did a proper investigation of the deaths of Alison Hart, Shawn O'Donnell, and others, please feel free to post it here. I have not yet seen them. To maintain - as some posters do here - that a press release passes for an investigation is complete nonsense.

Rhonda Whitaker and Waldon Adams were killed while cycling around Hains Point a year and a half ago. This article does a great job of summarizing what has happened since (spoiler: jack shit): https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

Nina Larson was a 24 year old pedestrian killed in Columbia Heights. You can also read everything her mother knows about that investigation here also: https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?" seems to actually be a pretty good description of what is going on . . . or not going on, in this case. And the comparison with lightning strikes is stupid and offensive. Drivers who obey speed limits and other DC traffic laws generally don't kill people. Those who speed and run stop signs and/or red lights do.

Can you tell us what a “proper investigation” should entail?

Better yet, since you seem to know accident investigative methods better than MPD, why aren’t you telling them? Even better, why aren’t you working for them? Be the change you want to see.

[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.

If MPD ever did a proper investigation of the deaths of Alison Hart, Shawn O'Donnell, and others, please feel free to post it here. I have not yet seen them. To maintain - as some posters do here - that a press release passes for an investigation is complete nonsense.

Rhonda Whitaker and Waldon Adams were killed while cycling around Hains Point a year and a half ago. This article does a great job of summarizing what has happened since (spoiler: jack shit): https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

Nina Larson was a 24 year old pedestrian killed in Columbia Heights. You can also read everything her mother knows about that investigation here also: https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?" seems to actually be a pretty good description of what is going on . . . or not going on, in this case. And the comparison with lightning strikes is stupid and offensive. Drivers who obey speed limits and other DC traffic laws generally don't kill people. Those who speed and run stop signs and/or red lights do.

Can you tell us what a “proper investigation” should entail?

Better yet, since you seem to know accident investigative methods better than MPD, why aren’t you telling them? Even better, why aren’t you working for them? Be the change you want to see.

Because they don't care, aren't interested

[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.

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.

Well, yes, this is very clever, except that firearms recently overtook car accidents as the number one cause of death for children in the United States: https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/

Nationwide, about 4,000 kids are killed each year by guns and by cars (so 8,000 total from those two), compared to about 100 kids a year in bike accidents (https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=accident-statistics-90-P02853). FWIW, I rounded down on the guns and the cars by more than 200 in each category, which is more than twice the number killed in bike accidents. But it's possible some of the bike-related accidents are also counted in the car deaths.

So it does sort of seem like enforcing the safety standards for cars AND for guns are both more pressing than implementing a whole new set of them for bikes.

[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: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.

If MPD ever did a proper investigation of the deaths of Alison Hart, Shawn O'Donnell, and others, please feel free to post it here. I have not yet seen them. To maintain - as some posters do here - that a press release passes for an investigation is complete nonsense.

Rhonda Whitaker and Waldon Adams were killed while cycling around Hains Point a year and a half ago. This article does a great job of summarizing what has happened since (spoiler: jack shit): https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

Nina Larson was a 24 year old pedestrian killed in Columbia Heights. You can also read everything her mother knows about that investigation here also: https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?" seems to actually be a pretty good description of what is going on . . . or not going on, in this case. And the comparison with lightning strikes is stupid and offensive. Drivers who obey speed limits and other DC traffic laws generally don't kill people. Those who speed and run stop signs and/or red lights do.

Can you tell us what a “proper investigation” should entail?

Better yet, since you seem to know accident investigative methods better than MPD, why aren’t you telling them? Even better, why aren’t you working for them? Be the change you want to see.

Because they don't care, aren't interested

So you’ve got nothin’? 🤡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.

What is the problem with having bikes registered?

Every other vehicle that uses the road is required to be registered and have tags and get an annual safety inspection. Why are bikes THE ONLY vehicles that use the roads not required to be registered and tagged?

I’d really like to hear cyclists explain why they feel they should be exempt from the registration/tags/inspections that every other vehicle on the road they insist they have a right to use has to comply with.

Please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.

What is the problem with having bikes registered?

Every other vehicle that uses the road is required to be registered and have tags and get an annual safety inspection. Why are bikes THE ONLY vehicles that use the roads not required to be registered and tagged?

I’d really like to hear cyclists explain why they feel they should be exempt from the registration/tags/inspections that every other vehicle on the road they insist they have a right to use has to comply with.

Please explain.

You're assuming that the purpose of registration is "because they use the road", which is just something you made up.

What has happened in places that did require people to register bicycles? Why did DC stop?