Are bikes allowed to go through red lights on major roads?

[Anonymous]

I have a question.

What are the DC laws on ATVs and dirt bike, with regard to stop signs?

Thank you.

[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:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

But without the extensive tram, train and subway network. So in other words, nothing at all like the Netherlands.

Last I checked, it was Goodyear and the big Auto companies that bought up all of our electric street car network, shut them down, paved it over, and made it drivers only. The biggest problem with the H St streetcar is that it has to share the road with cars and sit in traffic. And we, at least in this city, have a pretty decent metro network, with light and heavy rail connecting it.

Goodyear? The bicycle tire company! That's hilarious.

Do you take cream with your motor oil in the morning? Idiot carbrain.

It's not my fault that you didn't know that Goodyear was founded as a bicycle tire company before coming up with your insane conspiracy theory regarding big rubber. Should we demand reparations from Liberia?

It's not a conspiracy theory. The fact that a company started as one thing a hundred years before it became something else doesn't change the fact that there was a concerted effort by a combination of the tire industry, oil, and automobile industry in the early to mid 20th century to systematically buy up street car networks, demolish them, and replace with buses. National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, American City Lines are all companies that existed and were subsidaries of GM that were funded by many others in the supply chain for cars.

Moron.

You sound like a freshman in college.

You don’t have to come with tortured readings of history to explain why our transportation system is build around cars.

The answer is obvious: our transportation system is built around cars because that’s how people want it. Of all the possible ways to travel, cars are the most popular by a mile.

Sorry, people don’t want to ride **cking bicycles. If they did, they would.

DP - but you actually sound like a freshman in college with this superficial response. You are clearly comfortable in your complete and utter ignorance of the history of transportation but more embarrassingly, you also seem completely ignorant of the psychology of advertising (for example). People may *think* this car-based system is what they want… but is it really? Have they ever been exposed to an alternative? And more fundamentally, maybe explore WHY this is what they want…

You think people have never heard of bikes? You think they’re unfamiliar with the experience of riding a bike? People don’t want to ride bikes because they think biking sucks compared to their other options. You seem to have a hard time accepting that.

It’s like you’re a spokesman for the cauliflower industry and you can’t accept that people honestly believe cauliflower sucks so you have all these silly arguments about how cauliflower was never really given a fair shot because of mean corporations or magazine ads or whatever the *uck so how can people really know that they don’t love cauliflower?

Jesus, PP, I’m sorry, ok? I didn’t realize that you, undoubtedly a typical American, are so fat and lazy and out of shape that the mere thought of physical exertion sends you into a rage, while also bringing up all those painful memories of being made to eat vegetables.

Riding a bike is not real exercise. Aside from walking, hard to think of something that is less strenuous. Probably why cyclists are always so porky.

Now I'm really confused. Is biking an easy mode of transportation, and thus accessible to the elderly and kids, or is it too strenuous and therefore real exercise?

Old people and bikes seems like a spectacularly bad idea. Breaking a hip is frequently a death sentence.

Old people and car-first design is a spectacularly bad idea. Just ask the AARP.

https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2018/complete-street-example.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the cyclist on L street who ran the stale red light this morning, you’re welcome.

Are we just listing vehicles that run red lights now? I don't think car ppl want to play that game.

To the cyclist who blasted through the red hawk signal this morning and almost hit me, you're an a**hole.

Heh. We should keep a tally of cyclists’ lives saved by the quick reactions of drivers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists talk out of both sides of their mouth on safety issues.

They prattle on about unsafe drivers and about how the city needs to spend a gazillion dollars to protect them and if a single cyclist is ever in an accident, we hear endlessly about it.

But then if you ask why, if it's so unsafe, do they allow small children to ride bikes on busy streets, because that sounds a whole lot like child endangerment, then they're all like, well what evidence is there that it's unsafe?

+1

[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:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

But without the extensive tram, train and subway network. So in other words, nothing at all like the Netherlands.

Last I checked, it was Goodyear and the big Auto companies that bought up all of our electric street car network, shut them down, paved it over, and made it drivers only. The biggest problem with the H St streetcar is that it has to share the road with cars and sit in traffic. And we, at least in this city, have a pretty decent metro network, with light and heavy rail connecting it.

Goodyear? The bicycle tire company! That's hilarious.

Do you take cream with your motor oil in the morning? Idiot carbrain.

It's not my fault that you didn't know that Goodyear was founded as a bicycle tire company before coming up with your insane conspiracy theory regarding big rubber. Should we demand reparations from Liberia?

It's not a conspiracy theory. The fact that a company started as one thing a hundred years before it became something else doesn't change the fact that there was a concerted effort by a combination of the tire industry, oil, and automobile industry in the early to mid 20th century to systematically buy up street car networks, demolish them, and replace with buses. National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, American City Lines are all companies that existed and were subsidaries of GM that were funded by many others in the supply chain for cars.

Moron.

You sound like a freshman in college.

You don’t have to come with tortured readings of history to explain why our transportation system is build around cars.

The answer is obvious: our transportation system is built around cars because that’s how people want it. Of all the possible ways to travel, cars are the most popular by a mile.

Sorry, people don’t want to ride **cking bicycles. If they did, they would.

DP - but you actually sound like a freshman in college with this superficial response. You are clearly comfortable in your complete and utter ignorance of the history of transportation but more embarrassingly, you also seem completely ignorant of the psychology of advertising (for example). People may *think* this car-based system is what they want… but is it really? Have they ever been exposed to an alternative? And more fundamentally, maybe explore WHY this is what they want…

You think people have never heard of bikes? You think they’re unfamiliar with the experience of riding a bike? People don’t want to ride bikes because they think biking sucks compared to their other options. You seem to have a hard time accepting that.

It’s like you’re a spokesman for the cauliflower industry and you can’t accept that people honestly believe cauliflower sucks so you have all these silly arguments about how cauliflower was never really given a fair shot because of mean corporations or magazine ads or whatever the *uck so how can people really know that they don’t love cauliflower?

Because our infrastructure is built for cars! Are you really this mind-bogglingly stupid?

The city has relentlessly promoted bikes for 15 years. The city will practically pay you to ride a bike. And people are still like “no thanks”

Sorry, where do I sign up for the payments? I've been commuting to work by bike at least part of the time for more than 15 years and have yet to receive a check.

DC has a program that’s literally called “Get Paid to Pedal”

This program started out giving people whose income was low enough $400 toward buying a bike (or toward repairing one), then shifted to giving school teachers or staff $200 toward the purchase of a bike at a D.C. bike shop, and now it's out of money. It did pay for bikes for 107 people before it ran out.

It was not, however, a program that literally will pay you to ride a bike. Though I can see how you'd find it easier to make fun of if it was.

[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:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

But without the extensive tram, train and subway network. So in other words, nothing at all like the Netherlands.

Last I checked, it was Goodyear and the big Auto companies that bought up all of our electric street car network, shut them down, paved it over, and made it drivers only. The biggest problem with the H St streetcar is that it has to share the road with cars and sit in traffic. And we, at least in this city, have a pretty decent metro network, with light and heavy rail connecting it.

Goodyear? The bicycle tire company! That's hilarious.

Do you take cream with your motor oil in the morning? Idiot carbrain.

It's not my fault that you didn't know that Goodyear was founded as a bicycle tire company before coming up with your insane conspiracy theory regarding big rubber. Should we demand reparations from Liberia?

It's not a conspiracy theory. The fact that a company started as one thing a hundred years before it became something else doesn't change the fact that there was a concerted effort by a combination of the tire industry, oil, and automobile industry in the early to mid 20th century to systematically buy up street car networks, demolish them, and replace with buses. National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, American City Lines are all companies that existed and were subsidaries of GM that were funded by many others in the supply chain for cars.

Moron.

You sound like a freshman in college.

You don’t have to come with tortured readings of history to explain why our transportation system is build around cars.

The answer is obvious: our transportation system is built around cars because that’s how people want it. Of all the possible ways to travel, cars are the most popular by a mile.

Sorry, people don’t want to ride **cking bicycles. If they did, they would.

DP - but you actually sound like a freshman in college with this superficial response. You are clearly comfortable in your complete and utter ignorance of the history of transportation but more embarrassingly, you also seem completely ignorant of the psychology of advertising (for example). People may *think* this car-based system is what they want… but is it really? Have they ever been exposed to an alternative? And more fundamentally, maybe explore WHY this is what they want…

You think people have never heard of bikes? You think they’re unfamiliar with the experience of riding a bike? People don’t want to ride bikes because they think biking sucks compared to their other options. You seem to have a hard time accepting that.

It’s like you’re a spokesman for the cauliflower industry and you can’t accept that people honestly believe cauliflower sucks so you have all these silly arguments about how cauliflower was never really given a fair shot because of mean corporations or magazine ads or whatever the *uck so how can people really know that they don’t love cauliflower?

Jesus, PP, I’m sorry, ok? I didn’t realize that you, undoubtedly a typical American, are so fat and lazy and out of shape that the mere thought of physical exertion sends you into a rage, while also bringing up all those painful memories of being made to eat vegetables.

Haha - +1,000,000

[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:I always find it weird how American cyclists want there to be as many cyclists as there are in Amsterdam and talk about how wonderful biking is there, but then ignore the fact that cyclists there have real responsibilities and have to stop at red lights like everyone else. You get the same sort of discussion when people talk about Portuguese decriminalization of drugs - everyone talks about the decriminalization part, but few talk about the mandatory treatment part.

People want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities that are needed to make these things function.

Nah, we also want the stop lights and road infrastructure updated to be more like the netherlands. Where there is greater separation from cars, fewer stop lights overall, separate signals for cars from other modes of traffic THAT MAKES THE CAR THE LOWER PRIORITY FORM OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE IT SHOULD BE.

But without the extensive tram, train and subway network. So in other words, nothing at all like the Netherlands.

Last I checked, it was Goodyear and the big Auto companies that bought up all of our electric street car network, shut them down, paved it over, and made it drivers only. The biggest problem with the H St streetcar is that it has to share the road with cars and sit in traffic. And we, at least in this city, have a pretty decent metro network, with light and heavy rail connecting it.

Goodyear? The bicycle tire company! That's hilarious.

Do you take cream with your motor oil in the morning? Idiot carbrain.

It's not my fault that you didn't know that Goodyear was founded as a bicycle tire company before coming up with your insane conspiracy theory regarding big rubber. Should we demand reparations from Liberia?

It's not a conspiracy theory. The fact that a company started as one thing a hundred years before it became something else doesn't change the fact that there was a concerted effort by a combination of the tire industry, oil, and automobile industry in the early to mid 20th century to systematically buy up street car networks, demolish them, and replace with buses. National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, American City Lines are all companies that existed and were subsidaries of GM that were funded by many others in the supply chain for cars.

Moron.

You sound like a freshman in college.

You don’t have to come with tortured readings of history to explain why our transportation system is build around cars.

The answer is obvious: our transportation system is built around cars because that’s how people want it. Of all the possible ways to travel, cars are the most popular by a mile.

Sorry, people don’t want to ride **cking bicycles. If they did, they would.

DP - but you actually sound like a freshman in college with this superficial response. You are clearly comfortable in your complete and utter ignorance of the history of transportation but more embarrassingly, you also seem completely ignorant of the psychology of advertising (for example). People may *think* this car-based system is what they want… but is it really? Have they ever been exposed to an alternative? And more fundamentally, maybe explore WHY this is what they want…

You think people have never heard of bikes? You think they’re unfamiliar with the experience of riding a bike? People don’t want to ride bikes because they think biking sucks compared to their other options. You seem to have a hard time accepting that.

It’s like you’re a spokesman for the cauliflower industry and you can’t accept that people honestly believe cauliflower sucks so you have all these silly arguments about how cauliflower was never really given a fair shot because of mean corporations or magazine ads or whatever the *uck so how can people really know that they don’t love cauliflower?

Jesus, PP, I’m sorry, ok? I didn’t realize that you, undoubtedly a typical American, are so fat and lazy and out of shape that the mere thought of physical exertion sends you into a rage, while also bringing up all those painful memories of being made to eat vegetables.

Riding a bike is not real exercise. Aside from walking, hard to think of something that is less strenuous. Probably why cyclists are always so porky.

Now I'm really confused. Is biking an easy mode of transportation, and thus accessible to the elderly and kids, or is it too strenuous and therefore real exercise?

It's just the normal carbrain doublespeak called whataboutism

[Anonymous]

Cauliflower can be really good— let me know if you want a recipe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are bikes allowed to ignore every single traffic law?

Legally, no.
But the law is rarely applied, and sometimes it's safer for cyclists to cross an intersection when cars have stopped.
Perhaps you're not mature enough to understand this, or the fact that there are a ton of laws in every state that for various reasons are not enforced.

It's not that it's safer for cyclists to go through stop signs and traffic lights -- that's obviously crazy. It's that it would suck if they had to stop and start at every single intersection. That would be really tiring and be so slow.

The worst is when it's rush hour, and you have a slow biker blocking traffic, but due to oncoming traffic it takes you forever to pass them. You finally get past, then hit a red light, and the biker blows by you again as they completely disregard the light, and then you are stuck driving 10 mph yet again as you struggle to get around them once again in traffic.

Yes--this is absolutely the worst. Happens all the time- not just during rush hour. Some cyclists behave as if the rules don't apply to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are bikes allowed to ignore every single traffic law?

Legally, no.
But the law is rarely applied, and sometimes it's safer for cyclists to cross an intersection when cars have stopped.
Perhaps you're not mature enough to understand this, or the fact that there are a ton of laws in every state that for various reasons are not enforced.

It's not that it's safer for cyclists to go through stop signs and traffic lights -- that's obviously crazy. It's that it would suck if they had to stop and start at every single intersection. That would be really tiring and be so slow.

The worst is when it's rush hour, and you have a slow biker blocking traffic, but due to oncoming traffic it takes you forever to pass them. You finally get past, then hit a red light, and the biker blows by you again as they completely disregard the light, and then you are stuck driving 10 mph yet again as you struggle to get around them once again in traffic.

Yes--this is absolutely the worst. Happens all the time- not just during rush hour. Some cyclists behave as if the rules don't apply to them.

Bicyclists who go at bicycle speed are complying with the rules, even if that inconveniences people who are driving at times when lots of other people are also driving.

Unrelatedly, yesterday while I was driving, I saw a driver speed up from 500 feet away to blast through a fully red red light at 50 mph. This is an intersection where there is constantly car wreckage strewn across the road. There should be red-light cameras at every traffic signal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are bikes allowed to ignore every single traffic law?

Legally, no.
But the law is rarely applied, and sometimes it's safer for cyclists to cross an intersection when cars have stopped.
Perhaps you're not mature enough to understand this, or the fact that there are a ton of laws in every state that for various reasons are not enforced.

It's not that it's safer for cyclists to go through stop signs and traffic lights -- that's obviously crazy. It's that it would suck if they had to stop and start at every single intersection. That would be really tiring and be so slow.

The worst is when it's rush hour, and you have a slow biker blocking traffic, but due to oncoming traffic it takes you forever to pass them. You finally get past, then hit a red light, and the biker blows by you again as they completely disregard the light, and then you are stuck driving 10 mph yet again as you struggle to get around them once again in traffic.

Yes--this is absolutely the worst. Happens all the time- not just during rush hour. Some cyclists behave as if the rules don't apply to them.

Bicyclists who go at bicycle speed are complying with the rules, even if that inconveniences people who are driving at times when lots of other people are also driving.

Unrelatedly, yesterday while I was driving, I saw a driver speed up from 500 feet away to blast through a fully red red light at 50 mph. This is an intersection where there is constantly car wreckage strewn across the road. There should be red-light cameras at every traffic signal.

How can cyclists be in compliance with the "rules" when they behave as if there are no rules? I guess when you are operating an uninsured vechicle with no license or registration why follow any rules at all. Do any of you ever ever have a thought about those around you? Why do you think it's totally ok to block and slow traffic on a road that is designated for cars as well as you? Why are you biking on a road adjacent to a path? And why would any one want their tax dollars spent on building new infrastructure for the small amount of cyclists when they show total disdain for the infrastruture already in place? Also cyclists acting snotty does not attract a lot of sympathy to their perceived "plight". Just as driving a car a choice is as you point out isn't cycling a choice as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are bikes allowed to ignore every single traffic law?

Legally, no.
But the law is rarely applied, and sometimes it's safer for cyclists to cross an intersection when cars have stopped.
Perhaps you're not mature enough to understand this, or the fact that there are a ton of laws in every state that for various reasons are not enforced.

It's not that it's safer for cyclists to go through stop signs and traffic lights -- that's obviously crazy. It's that it would suck if they had to stop and start at every single intersection. That would be really tiring and be so slow.

The worst is when it's rush hour, and you have a slow biker blocking traffic, but due to oncoming traffic it takes you forever to pass them. You finally get past, then hit a red light, and the biker blows by you again as they completely disregard the light, and then you are stuck driving 10 mph yet again as you struggle to get around them once again in traffic.

Yes--this is absolutely the worst. Happens all the time- not just during rush hour. Some cyclists behave as if the rules don't apply to them.

Bicyclists who go at bicycle speed are complying with the rules, even if that inconveniences people who are driving at times when lots of other people are also driving.

Unrelatedly, yesterday while I was driving, I saw a driver speed up from 500 feet away to blast through a fully red red light at 50 mph. This is an intersection where there is constantly car wreckage strewn across the road. There should be red-light cameras at every traffic signal.

How can cyclists be in compliance with the "rules" when they behave as if there are no rules? I guess when you are operating an uninsured vechicle with no license or registration why follow any rules at all. Do any of you ever ever have a thought about those around you? Why do you think it's totally ok to block and slow traffic on a road that is designated for cars as well as you? Why are you biking on a road adjacent to a path? And why would any one want their tax dollars spent on building new infrastructure for the small amount of cyclists when they show total disdain for the infrastruture already in place? Also cyclists acting snotty does not attract a lot of sympathy to their perceived "plight". Just as driving a car a choice is as you point out isn't cycling a choice as well?

Don't you ever get bored posting the same nonsense over and over and over again?

[Anonymous]

Nope because it’s not nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are bikes allowed to ignore every single traffic law?

Legally, no.
But the law is rarely applied, and sometimes it's safer for cyclists to cross an intersection when cars have stopped.
Perhaps you're not mature enough to understand this, or the fact that there are a ton of laws in every state that for various reasons are not enforced.

It's not that it's safer for cyclists to go through stop signs and traffic lights -- that's obviously crazy. It's that it would suck if they had to stop and start at every single intersection. That would be really tiring and be so slow.

The worst is when it's rush hour, and you have a slow biker blocking traffic, but due to oncoming traffic it takes you forever to pass them. You finally get past, then hit a red light, and the biker blows by you again as they completely disregard the light, and then you are stuck driving 10 mph yet again as you struggle to get around them once again in traffic.

Yes--this is absolutely the worst. Happens all the time- not just during rush hour. Some cyclists behave as if the rules don't apply to them.

If you're in traffic, how much of an advantage are you really thinking you will gain by swerving around a biker between traffic lights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are bikes allowed to ignore every single traffic law?

Legally, no.
But the law is rarely applied, and sometimes it's safer for cyclists to cross an intersection when cars have stopped.
Perhaps you're not mature enough to understand this, or the fact that there are a ton of laws in every state that for various reasons are not enforced.

It's not that it's safer for cyclists to go through stop signs and traffic lights -- that's obviously crazy. It's that it would suck if they had to stop and start at every single intersection. That would be really tiring and be so slow.

The worst is when it's rush hour, and you have a slow biker blocking traffic, but due to oncoming traffic it takes you forever to pass them. You finally get past, then hit a red light, and the biker blows by you again as they completely disregard the light, and then you are stuck driving 10 mph yet again as you struggle to get around them once again in traffic.

Yes--this is absolutely the worst. Happens all the time- not just during rush hour. Some cyclists behave as if the rules don't apply to them.

If you're in traffic, how much of an advantage are you really thinking you will gain by swerving around a biker between traffic lights?

By definition, when you're in traffic, you're being held up by other people in cars. "The traffic was terrible" means lots of cars in your way, slowing you down. But somehow it's that person on a bike who's the real problem...