Cities starting to ban scooters. DC to follow?

[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

while texting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Soon Idaho stops will be for everyone, including people in two ton SUVs

They already are

[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.

Ban cars, and ban shltty, dangerous drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you (a) oppose "restorative justice and defunding police etc" but you also (b) don't believe anything the cops say. Got it.

Personally, I would rather police not do high-speed chases after people on ATVs, which seems even more dangerous than just the ATVs. They're loud and annoying and potentially dangerous, but I don't think adding a high-speed police car into the mix would improve much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban cars, and ban shltty, dangerous drivers.

I assume you don't drive or have kids eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you (a) oppose "restorative justice and defunding police etc" but you also (b) don't believe anything the cops say. Got it.

Personally, I would rather police not do high-speed chases after people on ATVs, which seems even more dangerous than just the ATVs. They're loud and annoying and potentially dangerous, but I don't think adding a high-speed police car into the mix would improve much.

Apparently they hit the same parts of town night after night. The police don't have to randomly chase them..I'm fine with lying in wait and a dragnet. Oh wait,.I forgot we aren't allowed to actually thoughtfully catch criminals anymore...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban cars, and ban shltty, dangerous drivers.

Since bicycles are legally considered vehicles, I hope this means that we can ban shitty and dangerous cyclists from the roads too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban cars, and ban shltty, dangerous drivers.

I assume you don't drive or have kids eh?

Who wants kids these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban cars, and ban shltty, dangerous drivers.

I assume you don't drive or have kids eh?

Who wants kids these days?

Definitely glad you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban cars, and ban shltty, dangerous drivers.

Since bicycles are legally considered vehicles, I hope this means that we can ban shitty and dangerous cyclists from the roads too?

Someone in a bike came up really fast behind me in the sidewalk yesterday. It was scary, and unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban cars, and ban shltty, dangerous drivers.

Since bicycles are legally considered vehicles, I hope this means that we can ban shitty and dangerous cyclists from the roads too?

or at least from driving down my sidewalk at 30+ mph while texting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban cars, and ban shltty, dangerous drivers.

Since bicycles are legally considered vehicles, I hope this means that we can ban shitty and dangerous cyclists from the roads too?

or at least from driving down my sidewalk at 30+ mph while texting

Omg! Bicyclists going 30+ mph on the sidewalk, while texting! That's alarming! Where in the Rocky Mountains is your sidewalk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ban cars, and ban shltty, dangerous drivers.

Since bicycles are legally considered vehicles, I hope this means that we can ban shitty and dangerous cyclists from the roads too?

Someone in a bike came up really fast behind me in the sidewalk yesterday. It was scary, and unreasonable.

The cyclists successfully lobbied to make it illegal for cars to punishment pass them but they purposely do it to pedestrians every day because they are narcissists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What percentage of those deaths are the result of a turning car failing to yield to a bike with right away, where there isn't even a stop sign or light to stop at? That's what happened to my spouse when they were hit -- they were going straight through an intersection with no stop signs and a car turned left right into them. The saving grace was that the car turned such that their bike ran into the car and flipped them up and over the car. Still awful, but if they'd been hit from the side by the car, even at a relatively slow speed, it potentially could have been catastrophic.

Cyclists utilizing Idaho stops at four way stop signs are only going to get hit if cars aren't stopping at those intersections at all.

So the problem is really not with cyclists utilizing an Idaho stop to avoid having to stop their momentum entirely in certain situations -- the problem is, and has always been, that cars disobey traffic laws at the expense of the safety and well being of cyclists, pedestrians, and other vehicular traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What percentage of those deaths are the result of a turning car failing to yield to a bike with right away, where there isn't even a stop sign or light to stop at? That's what happened to my spouse when they were hit -- they were going straight through an intersection with no stop signs and a car turned left right into them. The saving grace was that the car turned such that their bike ran into the car and flipped them up and over the car. Still awful, but if they'd been hit from the side by the car, even at a relatively slow speed, it potentially could have been catastrophic.

Cyclists utilizing Idaho stops at four way stop signs are only going to get hit if cars aren't stopping at those intersections at all.

So the problem is really not with cyclists utilizing an Idaho stop to avoid having to stop their momentum entirely in certain situations -- the problem is, and has always been, that cars disobey traffic laws at the expense of the safety and well being of cyclists, pedestrians, and other vehicular traffic.

Up until a few months ago "Idaho Stops", also known as running stop signs, was illegal.