Cities starting to ban scooters. DC to follow?

[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.

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.

I see motorcycles now doing “Idaho stops” (which itself is an Orwellian term since it means you’re blowing through stop signs). Soon Idaho stops will be for everyone, including people in two ton SUVs

[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.

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.

That is exactly what the data shows, and the data also shows there were fewer bike injuries from traffic crashes:

“ After Idaho adopted the law, bicyclist injuries from traffic crashes declined by 14.5% the following year (Meggs, 2010). In
2017, Delaware adopted a similar, limited stop-as-yield law, known as the "Delaware Yield.” Traffic crashes involving bicyclists at stop sign intersections fell by 23% in the 30 months after the law’s passage, compared to the previous 30 months.”

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I see motorcycles now doing “Idaho stops” (which itself is an Orwellian term since it means you’re blowing through stop signs). Soon Idaho stops will be for everyone, including people in two ton SUVs

People in two-ton SUVs definitely already feel perfectly comfortable blowing through stop signs with only the slightest nod to the idea of stopping, if the stop sign in front of my house is any indication.

[Anonymous]

Please please enforce the ban on loud engines and atvs. My neighborhood is like Beirut in the 80s. We’re all just hoping to get rest and not wake up in wreckage. Last night there were several sonic booms followed by thunderous motors whipping through the neighborhood. Then helicopters snd sirens. And one lone motorcyclist ripping donuts for an hour. Save me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please please enforce the ban on loud engines and atvs. My neighborhood is like Beirut in the 80s. We’re all just hoping to get rest and not wake up in wreckage. Last night there were several sonic booms followed by thunderous motors whipping through the neighborhood. Then helicopters snd sirens. And one lone motorcyclist ripping donuts for an hour. Save me!

“Like Beirut in the 80s.” 🤡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That is exactly what the data shows, and the data also shows there were fewer bike injuries from traffic crashes:

“ After Idaho adopted the law, bicyclist injuries from traffic crashes declined by 14.5% the following year (Meggs, 2010). In
2017, Delaware adopted a similar, limited stop-as-yield law, known as the "Delaware Yield.” Traffic crashes involving bicyclists at stop sign intersections fell by 23% in the 30 months after the law’s passage, compared to the previous 30 months.”

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

There is no peer reviewed research that supports this finding. Considering how low the bar is to get research published nowadays that is a serious indictment.

I clicked the link on that Meggs study to find out that it is a masters thesis by a public health student. If that is your proof, no thanks.

[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.

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

If you are stopped at an intersection and a car driven by a person who is texting runs you over, guess where that accident is classified? At the freaking intersection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

If you are stopped at an intersection and a car driven by a person who is texting runs you over, guess where that accident is classified? At the freaking intersection.

NHTSA data says that most fatal accidents are mid block.

[Anonymous]

I HATE scooters with a passion. They don't obey any of the traffic laws, they do not look out for pedestrians at all. BAN THEM all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I HATE scooters with a passion. They don't obey any of the traffic laws, they do not look out for pedestrians at all. BAN THEM all.

Cars, you mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please please enforce the ban on loud engines and atvs. My neighborhood is like Beirut in the 80s. We’re all just hoping to get rest and not wake up in wreckage. Last night there were several sonic booms followed by thunderous motors whipping through the neighborhood. Then helicopters snd sirens. And one lone motorcyclist ripping donuts for an hour. Save me!

Are you for restorative justice and defunding police etc? If you are, that is why you are facing this. The police have been explicitly told not to go after these buffoons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That is exactly what the data shows, and the data also shows there were fewer bike injuries from traffic crashes:

“ After Idaho adopted the law, bicyclist injuries from traffic crashes declined by 14.5% the following year (Meggs, 2010). In
2017, Delaware adopted a similar, limited stop-as-yield law, known as the "Delaware Yield.” Traffic crashes involving bicyclists at stop sign intersections fell by 23% in the 30 months after the law’s passage, compared to the previous 30 months.”

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

There is no peer reviewed research that supports this finding. Considering how low the bar is to get research published nowadays that is a serious indictment.

I clicked the link on that Meggs study to find out that it is a masters thesis by a public health student. If that is your proof, no thanks.

Sure, throw out the Idaho data because you want to disqualify the source based on credentials. The Delaware data comes from the state police: https://www.bikede.org/delaware-yield-crash-data/#page-content

Crashes involving bicycles at stop-sign intersections dropped by 23 percent. All other crashes involving bicycles dropped by 8 percent. No good because it's not peer-reviewed, I suppose? Not sure you need a peer review to sign off on counting traffic accidents in Delaware State Police data...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please please enforce the ban on loud engines and atvs. My neighborhood is like Beirut in the 80s. We’re all just hoping to get rest and not wake up in wreckage. Last night there were several sonic booms followed by thunderous motors whipping through the neighborhood. Then helicopters snd sirens. And one lone motorcyclist ripping donuts for an hour. Save me!

Are you for restorative justice and defunding police etc? If you are, that is why you are facing this. The police have been explicitly told not to go after these buffoons.

They've been told not to go after ATVs because of safety -- the risk of a crash while pursuing them is not worth it. But they've also set up a new task force to seize them, and if you call one in and they make an arrest or confiscate the rider, you get $250. Does not really sound to me like this fits your "woke cities are terrible" frame here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/09/atv-riders-nuisance-dc/
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-police-formed-specialized-team-to-confiscate-illegal-atvs-and-dirt-bikes
https://mpdc.dc.gov/b2pu

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please please enforce the ban on loud engines and atvs. My neighborhood is like Beirut in the 80s. We’re all just hoping to get rest and not wake up in wreckage. Last night there were several sonic booms followed by thunderous motors whipping through the neighborhood. Then helicopters snd sirens. And one lone motorcyclist ripping donuts for an hour. Save me!

Are you for restorative justice and defunding police etc? If you are, that is why you are facing this. The police have been explicitly told not to go after these buffoons.

They've been told not to go after ATVs because of safety -- the risk of a crash while pursuing them is not worth it. But they've also set up a new task force to seize them, and if you call one in and they make an arrest or confiscate the rider, you get $250. Does not really sound to me like this fits your "woke cities are terrible" frame here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/09/atv-riders-nuisance-dc/
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-police-formed-specialized-team-to-confiscate-illegal-atvs-and-dirt-bikes
https://mpdc.dc.gov/b2pu

LMAO that you just accept the word of the cops. “We got 200 off the streets” my ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I see motorcycles now doing “Idaho stops” (which itself is an Orwellian term since it means you’re blowing through stop signs). Soon Idaho stops will be for everyone, including people in two ton SUVs

Idaho stops for everyone regardless of how they travel. It’s equity, man