Bicyclist knocks pedestrian unconscious, flees scene

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

The Council is completely captured by the bike crowd, so don’t hold your breath for any common sense bike safety regulations.

I stopped holding my breath when I saw multiple bicyclists putting infants in the baskets of their bikes and no one batted an eye.

[Anonymous]

No one is worried about kids that is a red herring and easy to exempt. So is the constant attempts to drag cars into a convo about pedestrians fears on the sidewalk or in the cross walk from bikes.

Bikes need to slow down if they could hit a person. A child biking isn't going to hurt someone like a fully grown man speeding along. Yelling on your left or ringing a bell isn't sufficient when people are walking along. The expectation shouldn't be that walkers need to be constantly vigilant and ready to jump off the sidewalk to yield to bikes. This isn't attacking bikes it is asking bikers to be civil members of the community

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

The Council is completely captured by the bike crowd, so don’t hold your breath for any common sense bike safety regulations.

If you want to commit a crime in this city, do it on a bike. If you want to rob someone or grope women or just punch a random stranger in the face, you should always use a bike or e-bike. You can easily escape anyone who tries to chase you, you don't have to worry about getting caught in traffic and, as this episode shows, you can be completely anonymous and the city will never be able to identify you.

[Anonymous]

The pedestrian is very fortunate they were struck by a bike and not a car, because if they were struck by a car they’d be dead now.

If we only had bikes in the city, and no cars or trucks at all, the number of pedestrian deaths each year would fall to single digits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

The Council is completely captured by the bike crowd, so don’t hold your breath for any common sense bike safety regulations.

You sound so completely stupid when you write sh*t like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pedestrian is very fortunate they were struck by a bike and not a car, because if they were struck by a car they’d be dead now.

If we only had bikes in the city, and no cars or trucks at all, the number of pedestrian deaths each year would fall to single digits.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

Right, but then, is the idea of bike license plates/licenses that kids aren't allowed to ride a bike? Or just that they don't need them to be registered? Because a kid riding a bike could also hit a pedestrian, so it does sort of undermine the whole stated goal of this policy if you don't license kids. And yet if the policy means kids aren't allowed to ride bikes, that seems really dumb.

Wow. You raise a really good point. I mean, an eight year old could steal a car and drive it over a pedestrian, so why do we even require any adult to have a drivers license or license plates?

Yes, but kids aren’t allowed to drive cars at all. So your analogy here doesn’t hold up unless you think they shouldn’t be allowed to ride bikes.

I’m fine with bike licensing, like I said, I just think you’re leaving most people who ride bikes out of the system entirely if you don’t license kids’ bikes, and I think licensing kids’ bikes is going to be unnecessarily complicated and most people won’t be in compliance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is worried about kids that is a red herring and easy to exempt. So is the constant attempts to drag cars into a convo about pedestrians fears on the sidewalk or in the cross walk from bikes.

Bikes need to slow down if they could hit a person. A child biking isn't going to hurt someone like a fully grown man speeding along. Yelling on your left or ringing a bell isn't sufficient when people are walking along. The expectation shouldn't be that walkers need to be constantly vigilant and ready to jump off the sidewalk to yield to bikes. This isn't attacking bikes it is asking bikers to be civil members of the community

But bikes aren’t allowed on sidewalks downtown already. So how is this elaborate new regulatory scheme solving problems?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

Right, but then, is the idea of bike license plates/licenses that kids aren't allowed to ride a bike? Or just that they don't need them to be registered? Because a kid riding a bike could also hit a pedestrian, so it does sort of undermine the whole stated goal of this policy if you don't license kids. And yet if the policy means kids aren't allowed to ride bikes, that seems really dumb.

Wow. You raise a really good point. I mean, an eight year old could steal a car and drive it over a pedestrian, so why do we even require any adult to have a drivers license or license plates?

Yes, but kids aren’t allowed to drive cars at all. So your analogy here doesn’t hold up unless you think they shouldn’t be allowed to ride bikes.

I’m fine with bike licensing, like I said, I just think you’re leaving most people who ride bikes out of the system entirely if you don’t license kids’ bikes, and I think licensing kids’ bikes is going to be unnecessarily complicated and most people won’t be in compliance.

Some mid-level trolling here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

The Council is completely captured by the bike crowd, so don’t hold your breath for any common sense bike safety regulations.

I stopped holding my breath when I saw multiple bicyclists putting infants in the baskets of their bikes and no one batted an eye.

I routintely see bicyclists put three year olds on bikes, who can barely even ride, on busy streets. The parents ride behind them on their own bikes like they think I guess they're going to somehow swoop in if the child falls and is about to get run over. It's insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is worried about kids that is a red herring and easy to exempt. So is the constant attempts to drag cars into a convo about pedestrians fears on the sidewalk or in the cross walk from bikes.

Bikes need to slow down if they could hit a person. A child biking isn't going to hurt someone like a fully grown man speeding along. Yelling on your left or ringing a bell isn't sufficient when people are walking along. The expectation shouldn't be that walkers need to be constantly vigilant and ready to jump off the sidewalk to yield to bikes. This isn't attacking bikes it is asking bikers to be civil members of the community

I commute by bike and I agree with you. There are some sections where I need to go on sidewalk to get building, and I am not going off my bike to walk them cause it’ll add time to my commute that I don’t have. But I do slow down considerably on that section.

Also this is why bike lanes need to be extended. Now about 85% of my route is on bike lanes, which is great. If it was 100% - I wouldn’t be on the sidewalk at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what is the chance this cyclist is caught? I guess very little.

Who knows what happened. Did the woman walk out from between to cars and it was an accident or did the biker see her and hit her?

If a cyclist hits a pedestrian hard enough to knock them unconscious, then obviously they were going too fast.

Not true at all. All it takes is a head bump on the way down.

For most collisions the fact of the collision itself is proof on its face that the at-fault party was going too fast, regardless of whether anyone was hurt. At a human level, if you knock someone out with your bike, it means you were going way too fast. Try not to knock people out with your bike. If you can’t do that, then you need to put the bike away. Why is that hard?

So basically cars are at fault for every accident?

If you hit someone from behind or if you hit someone who’s lawfully in the roadway you’re generally at fault, yes. If a driver hits a cyclist who ran a stop sign or made an unsafe lane change then generally the cyclist is at fault. But setting the law aside and who is at fault as a matter of law, being a decent person means adjusting your speed based on what’s going on around you so that you don’t hit anyone even if they do the wrong thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

The Council is completely captured by the bike crowd, so don’t hold your breath for any common sense bike safety regulations.

I stopped holding my breath when I saw multiple bicyclists putting infants in the baskets of their bikes and no one batted an eye.

I routintely see bicyclists put three year olds on bikes, who can barely even ride, on busy streets. The parents ride behind them on their own bikes like they think I guess they're going to somehow swoop in if the child falls and is about to get run over. It's insane.

You "routinely see" these shocking scenes, but yet never have had the forethought to photograph or even video such incidents so that they can be reported to the appropriate authorities?

In any case, I do agree with you that cyclists - and particularly children riding bikes - should not be mixing with road traffic. That's why I advocate for the construction of protected bike lanes on arterial roads. However, DDOT recently removed a protected bike lane on Arizona Ave NW and reversed a decision to build a protected bike lane on Connecticut Ave NW.

I trust you were as outraged by these decision as I was given your concern about the mixing of bicycle and vehicle traffic on busy streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

All of the things you mention pose a mortal danger to the general public when used by those who are not suitably trained. Bicycles do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine, go ahead and require license plates for bikes. I will happily comply with the law, just as I comply with traffic laws when I’m on my bike (or in my car). I look forward to seeing how you plan to enforce the rules for, say, 6-years-olds. Also, I assume that once you require cyclists to pay registration fees, we won’t have to constantly put up with complaints about spending money on bike infrastructure?

yeah, the government is going to have a really hard time deciding how to give licenses to do something to certain people but not other people. how will they ever figure out how to do that?

So kids don't need license plates on their bikes, or kids aren't allowed to ride them?

Somehow the government gives people licenses to practice medicine and own guns and drive cars and run restaurants and a million other things, and believe it or not, they've figured out how not to give them to six year olds.

The Council is completely captured by the bike crowd, so don’t hold your breath for any common sense bike safety regulations.

I stopped holding my breath when I saw multiple bicyclists putting infants in the baskets of their bikes and no one batted an eye.

I routintely see bicyclists put three year olds on bikes, who can barely even ride, on busy streets. The parents ride behind them on their own bikes like they think I guess they're going to somehow swoop in if the child falls and is about to get run over. It's insane.

You "routinely see" these shocking scenes, but yet never have had the forethought to photograph or even video such incidents so that they can be reported to the appropriate authorities?

In any case, I do agree with you that cyclists - and particularly children riding bikes - should not be mixing with road traffic. That's why I advocate for the construction of protected bike lanes on arterial roads. However, DDOT recently removed a protected bike lane on Arizona Ave NW and reversed a decision to build a protected bike lane on Connecticut Ave NW.

I trust you were as outraged by these decision as I was given your concern about the mixing of bicycle and vehicle traffic on busy streets.

DP. You think we should call the cops or dox people when a kid is riding a bike? Kind of a creepy take. You might consider getting out of the bike echo chamber for a little bit and interacting with normal people.