City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance should then be required. Too many people have been injured or died from being hit by cyclists.

https://gothamist.com/news/pedestrian-dies-after-being-struck-by-cyclist-in-midtown

Liability insurance to cover medical expenses should be a minimum.

Yes that is a good idea. Also a tax for upkeep and maintenance of the roads. All bikes need to be registered, have an easily identified license plate and pay a yearly tax.

Have you looked at past attempts to require bike insurance? On average, bikes do so little damage that it doesn't end up being worthwhile for anyone.

Coverage for injuries caused by a negligent cyclist may be provided under the personal (third party) liability part of homeowner/renter/umbrella policies.

Are cyclists required to carry such liability policies?

I hate to be the one to break the news but there are literally thousands of unregistered passenger vehicles on our roads with fake or expired temporary tags and no liability insurance. The risk of serious personal injury — much less death — posed by bicycles is de minimis and pales in comparison.

As for the snark about spandex wearing commuters, there are untold number of lower wage hourly workers who rely on a bike to get to and from their places of employment because Metro is unreliable, inconvenient or too expensive. Sorry if Connecticut Avenue just isn’t wide enough to accommodate another lane of traffic so you can get to your destination 7 minutes quicker.

I love it when the Bernie bros claim what they want is really for poor black and brown people.

From a study of cyclists in Washington D.C.:

"Area cyclists are predominantly male, between 25 and 40 years old, white, and from higher income groups. These statistics resemble characteristics of typical cyclists in the USA."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bikers are so annoying on major roads. Either move out to Potomac or stay on a trail.

Biking on Mass Ave/ River Rd/ Ct Ave/ etc during rush hour is stupid and is just asking for disaster.

Sorry but the world doesn't revolve around bikers in spandex riding to work.

my favorite is when bikers go around a line of cars waiting at a stop sign, then ride in the middle of the road, going all of five miles per hour, then complain when cars go around them.

I don't expect you to ever get this but the fact that the biker keeps ending up in front of you is because you aren't going any faster than the biker.

I have a tv and see the car commercials - you are supposed to travel as fast as possible in all environments! Regardless of whether it gets you anywhere faster! Because zoom zoom and car culture masculinity!

I guarantee the biker who complained to you did so because you did not legally and safely pass them, which few drivers ever do.

Because zoom zoom - that car ad convinced us to spend a lot of money on our imported SUV which then forced us to drive until we qualified for our mortgage and F it - now we are in Olney which is an awful place to live and have an awful commute but some dude on a $300 bike with a short commute is in my way and slowing me from getting to the next queue of cars so I had better get around him as quickly as possible!

I have no idea what this jumble of words is supposed to say. Did you have a stroke while writing it?

It makes perfect sense to me. Do you need reading comprehension lessons? The cliffs notes is that even though a car goes faster in between stops it does not travel faster than bikes because cars cause traffic and drivers need to wait in large metal boxes behind other large metal boxes. Bikes are slimmer so fit more efficiently on the road so can be faster overall even if they do not reach the same max speed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance should then be required. Too many people have been injured or died from being hit by cyclists.

https://gothamist.com/news/pedestrian-dies-after-being-struck-by-cyclist-in-midtown

Liability insurance to cover medical expenses should be a minimum.

Yes that is a good idea. Also a tax for upkeep and maintenance of the roads. All bikes need to be registered, have an easily identified license plate and pay a yearly tax.

Have you looked at past attempts to require bike insurance? On average, bikes do so little damage that it doesn't end up being worthwhile for anyone.

Coverage for injuries caused by a negligent cyclist may be provided under the personal (third party) liability part of homeowner/renter/umbrella policies.

Are cyclists required to carry such liability policies?

I hate to be the one to break the news but there are literally thousands of unregistered passenger vehicles on our roads with fake or expired temporary tags and no liability insurance. The risk of serious personal injury — much less death — posed by bicycles is de minimis and pales in comparison.

As for the snark about spandex wearing commuters, there are untold number of lower wage hourly workers who rely on a bike to get to and from their places of employment because Metro is unreliable, inconvenient or too expensive. Sorry if Connecticut Avenue just isn’t wide enough to accommodate another lane of traffic so you can get to your destination 7 minutes quicker.

I love it when the Bernie bros claim what they want is really for poor black and brown people.

From a study of cyclists in Washington D.C.:

"Area cyclists are predominantly male, between 25 and 40 years old, white, and from higher income groups. These statistics resemble characteristics of typical cyclists in the USA."

Putting quotes on something without a vote does not make it true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance should then be required. Too many people have been injured or died from being hit by cyclists.

https://gothamist.com/news/pedestrian-dies-after-being-struck-by-cyclist-in-midtown

Liability insurance to cover medical expenses should be a minimum.

Yes that is a good idea. Also a tax for upkeep and maintenance of the roads. All bikes need to be registered, have an easily identified license plate and pay a yearly tax.

Have you looked at past attempts to require bike insurance? On average, bikes do so little damage that it doesn't end up being worthwhile for anyone.

Coverage for injuries caused by a negligent cyclist may be provided under the personal (third party) liability part of homeowner/renter/umbrella policies.

Are cyclists required to carry such liability policies?

And what about pedestrians? Rollerskaters? Dog walkers?!??

The cyclist who murdered Jane Bennett Clark was sued by the estate and declared bankruptcy to avoid judgment. As a result, the family was not able to even receive a pittance of financial compensation from the murderer for this crime. Is that justice?

It is indeed the case that most victims of a homicide — whether premeditated or negligent — aren’t able to receive financial compensation from the alleged perpetrator, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted. You assume some degree of risk every time you cross a street as a pedestrian. It’s why your parents taught you to look both ways. A loss of life is always tragic regardless of whether there is a civil remedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance should then be required. Too many people have been injured or died from being hit by cyclists.

https://gothamist.com/news/pedestrian-dies-after-being-struck-by-cyclist-in-midtown

Liability insurance to cover medical expenses should be a minimum.

Yes that is a good idea. Also a tax for upkeep and maintenance of the roads. All bikes need to be registered, have an easily identified license plate and pay a yearly tax.

Have you looked at past attempts to require bike insurance? On average, bikes do so little damage that it doesn't end up being worthwhile for anyone.

Coverage for injuries caused by a negligent cyclist may be provided under the personal (third party) liability part of homeowner/renter/umbrella policies.

Are cyclists required to carry such liability policies?

I hate to be the one to break the news but there are literally thousands of unregistered passenger vehicles on our roads with fake or expired temporary tags and no liability insurance. The risk of serious personal injury — much less death — posed by bicycles is de minimis and pales in comparison.

As for the snark about spandex wearing commuters, there are untold number of lower wage hourly workers who rely on a bike to get to and from their places of employment because Metro is unreliable, inconvenient or too expensive. Sorry if Connecticut Avenue just isn’t wide enough to accommodate another lane of traffic so you can get to your destination 7 minutes quicker.

I love it when the Bernie bros claim what they want is really for poor black and brown people.

From a study of cyclists in Washington D.C.:

"Area cyclists are predominantly male, between 25 and 40 years old, white, and from higher income groups. These statistics resemble characteristics of typical cyclists in the USA."

predominantly, like 95%? 55%? A plurality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance should then be required. Too many people have been injured or died from being hit by cyclists.

https://gothamist.com/news/pedestrian-dies-after-being-struck-by-cyclist-in-midtown

Liability insurance to cover medical expenses should be a minimum.

Yes that is a good idea. Also a tax for upkeep and maintenance of the roads. All bikes need to be registered, have an easily identified license plate and pay a yearly tax.

Have you looked at past attempts to require bike insurance? On average, bikes do so little damage that it doesn't end up being worthwhile for anyone.

Coverage for injuries caused by a negligent cyclist may be provided under the personal (third party) liability part of homeowner/renter/umbrella policies.

Are cyclists required to carry such liability policies?

I hate to be the one to break the news but there are literally thousands of unregistered passenger vehicles on our roads with fake or expired temporary tags and no liability insurance. The risk of serious personal injury — much less death — posed by bicycles is de minimis and pales in comparison.

As for the snark about spandex wearing commuters, there are untold number of lower wage hourly workers who rely on a bike to get to and from their places of employment because Metro is unreliable, inconvenient or too expensive. Sorry if Connecticut Avenue just isn’t wide enough to accommodate another lane of traffic so you can get to your destination 7 minutes quicker.

I love it when the Bernie bros claim what they want is really for poor black and brown people.

From a study of cyclists in Washington D.C.:

"Area cyclists are predominantly male, between 25 and 40 years old, white, and from higher income groups. These statistics resemble characteristics of typical cyclists in the USA."

Is the term “predominately,” although perhaps intentionally ambiguous, somewhat difficult for you to comprehend? And, I assume that in your haste to wallow in smugness you neglected to consider that the “poors” are not limited to just “black” and “brown.” That could be my high schooler biking to an after-school retail job for her college savings. Obey the traffic laws and try to find a healthy outlet for your repressed anger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bikers are so annoying on major roads. Either move out to Potomac or stay on a trail.

Biking on Mass Ave/ River Rd/ Ct Ave/ etc during rush hour is stupid and is just asking for disaster.

Sorry but the world doesn't revolve around bikers in spandex riding to work.

my favorite is when bikers go around a line of cars waiting at a stop sign, then ride in the middle of the road, going all of five miles per hour, then complain when cars go around them.

I don't expect you to ever get this but the fact that the biker keeps ending up in front of you is because you aren't going any faster than the biker.

I have a tv and see the car commercials - you are supposed to travel as fast as possible in all environments! Regardless of whether it gets you anywhere faster! Because zoom zoom and car culture masculinity!

I guarantee the biker who complained to you did so because you did not legally and safely pass them, which few drivers ever do.

Because zoom zoom - that car ad convinced us to spend a lot of money on our imported SUV which then forced us to drive until we qualified for our mortgage and F it - now we are in Olney which is an awful place to live and have an awful commute but some dude on a $300 bike with a short commute is in my way and slowing me from getting to the next queue of cars so I had better get around him as quickly as possible!

I have no idea what this jumble of words is supposed to say. Did you have a stroke while writing it?

It makes perfect sense to me. Do you need reading comprehension lessons? The cliffs notes is that even though a car goes faster in between stops it does not travel faster than bikes because cars cause traffic and drivers need to wait in large metal boxes behind other large metal boxes. Bikes are slimmer so fit more efficiently on the road so can be faster overall even if they do not reach the same max speed

The only reason a bike going 10 mph max is passing cars going 20 mph max is because the cars are stopping at stop signs every 300 feet and the biker is blowing through them. So, yes, it turns out that you can travel faster if you just ignore all traffic laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bikers are so annoying on major roads. Either move out to Potomac or stay on a trail.

Biking on Mass Ave/ River Rd/ Ct Ave/ etc during rush hour is stupid and is just asking for disaster.

Sorry but the world doesn't revolve around bikers in spandex riding to work.

my favorite is when bikers go around a line of cars waiting at a stop sign, then ride in the middle of the road, going all of five miles per hour, then complain when cars go around them.

I don't expect you to ever get this but the fact that the biker keeps ending up in front of you is because you aren't going any faster than the biker.

I have a tv and see the car commercials - you are supposed to travel as fast as possible in all environments! Regardless of whether it gets you anywhere faster! Because zoom zoom and car culture masculinity!

I guarantee the biker who complained to you did so because you did not legally and safely pass them, which few drivers ever do.

Because zoom zoom - that car ad convinced us to spend a lot of money on our imported SUV which then forced us to drive until we qualified for our mortgage and F it - now we are in Olney which is an awful place to live and have an awful commute but some dude on a $300 bike with a short commute is in my way and slowing me from getting to the next queue of cars so I had better get around him as quickly as possible!

I have no idea what this jumble of words is supposed to say. Did you have a stroke while writing it?

It makes perfect sense to me. Do you need reading comprehension lessons? The cliffs notes is that even though a car goes faster in between stops it does not travel faster than bikes because cars cause traffic and drivers need to wait in large metal boxes behind other large metal boxes. Bikes are slimmer so fit more efficiently on the road so can be faster overall even if they do not reach the same max speed

The only reason a bike going 10 mph max is passing cars going 20 mph max is because the cars are stopping at stop signs every 300 feet and the biker is blowing through them. So, yes, it turns out that you can travel faster if you just ignore all traffic laws.

No, it's because the cars are going faster than 20 and the bike is legally allowed to lane-split and doesn't have to just sit behind the car ahead. The bike can still stop at every stop sign and go faster than traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bikers are so annoying on major roads. Either move out to Potomac or stay on a trail.

Biking on Mass Ave/ River Rd/ Ct Ave/ etc during rush hour is stupid and is just asking for disaster.

Sorry but the world doesn't revolve around bikers in spandex riding to work.

my favorite is when bikers go around a line of cars waiting at a stop sign, then ride in the middle of the road, going all of five miles per hour, then complain when cars go around them.

I don't expect you to ever get this but the fact that the biker keeps ending up in front of you is because you aren't going any faster than the biker.

I have a tv and see the car commercials - you are supposed to travel as fast as possible in all environments! Regardless of whether it gets you anywhere faster! Because zoom zoom and car culture masculinity!

I guarantee the biker who complained to you did so because you did not legally and safely pass them, which few drivers ever do.

Because zoom zoom - that car ad convinced us to spend a lot of money on our imported SUV which then forced us to drive until we qualified for our mortgage and F it - now we are in Olney which is an awful place to live and have an awful commute but some dude on a $300 bike with a short commute is in my way and slowing me from getting to the next queue of cars so I had better get around him as quickly as possible!

I have no idea what this jumble of words is supposed to say. Did you have a stroke while writing it?

It makes perfect sense to me. Do you need reading comprehension lessons? The cliffs notes is that even though a car goes faster in between stops it does not travel faster than bikes because cars cause traffic and drivers need to wait in large metal boxes behind other large metal boxes. Bikes are slimmer so fit more efficiently on the road so can be faster overall even if they do not reach the same max speed

The only reason a bike going 10 mph max is passing cars going 20 mph max is because the cars are stopping at stop signs every 300 feet and the biker is blowing through them. So, yes, it turns out that you can travel faster if you just ignore all traffic laws.

It’s fairly obvious that you haven’t spent much time on a bicycle since losing your training wheels. A cyclist who blows through stop signs is soon-to-be a dead cyclist. The dozens of motorists who roll through stop signs, fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and run red lights in my neighborhood don’t share the same reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bikers are so annoying on major roads. Either move out to Potomac or stay on a trail.

Biking on Mass Ave/ River Rd/ Ct Ave/ etc during rush hour is stupid and is just asking for disaster.

Sorry but the world doesn't revolve around bikers in spandex riding to work.

my favorite is when bikers go around a line of cars waiting at a stop sign, then ride in the middle of the road, going all of five miles per hour, then complain when cars go around them.

I don't expect you to ever get this but the fact that the biker keeps ending up in front of you is because you aren't going any faster than the biker.

I have a tv and see the car commercials - you are supposed to travel as fast as possible in all environments! Regardless of whether it gets you anywhere faster! Because zoom zoom and car culture masculinity!

I guarantee the biker who complained to you did so because you did not legally and safely pass them, which few drivers ever do.

Because zoom zoom - that car ad convinced us to spend a lot of money on our imported SUV which then forced us to drive until we qualified for our mortgage and F it - now we are in Olney which is an awful place to live and have an awful commute but some dude on a $300 bike with a short commute is in my way and slowing me from getting to the next queue of cars so I had better get around him as quickly as possible!

I have no idea what this jumble of words is supposed to say. Did you have a stroke while writing it?

It makes perfect sense to me. Do you need reading comprehension lessons? The cliffs notes is that even though a car goes faster in between stops it does not travel faster than bikes because cars cause traffic and drivers need to wait in large metal boxes behind other large metal boxes. Bikes are slimmer so fit more efficiently on the road so can be faster overall even if they do not reach the same max speed

The only reason a bike going 10 mph max is passing cars going 20 mph max is because the cars are stopping at stop signs every 300 feet and the biker is blowing through them. So, yes, it turns out that you can travel faster if you just ignore all traffic laws.

No, it's because the cars are going faster than 20 and the bike is legally allowed to lane-split and doesn't have to just sit behind the car ahead. The bike can still stop at every stop sign and go faster than traffic.

Lane splitting (which doesnt seem very wise) doesnt matter if there's not a line of cars waiting to go. Cyclists are saving time by running all the stop signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bikers are so annoying on major roads. Either move out to Potomac or stay on a trail.

Biking on Mass Ave/ River Rd/ Ct Ave/ etc during rush hour is stupid and is just asking for disaster.

Sorry but the world doesn't revolve around bikers in spandex riding to work.

my favorite is when bikers go around a line of cars waiting at a stop sign, then ride in the middle of the road, going all of five miles per hour, then complain when cars go around them.

I don't expect you to ever get this but the fact that the biker keeps ending up in front of you is because you aren't going any faster than the biker.

I have a tv and see the car commercials - you are supposed to travel as fast as possible in all environments! Regardless of whether it gets you anywhere faster! Because zoom zoom and car culture masculinity!

I guarantee the biker who complained to you did so because you did not legally and safely pass them, which few drivers ever do.

Because zoom zoom - that car ad convinced us to spend a lot of money on our imported SUV which then forced us to drive until we qualified for our mortgage and F it - now we are in Olney which is an awful place to live and have an awful commute but some dude on a $300 bike with a short commute is in my way and slowing me from getting to the next queue of cars so I had better get around him as quickly as possible!

I have no idea what this jumble of words is supposed to say. Did you have a stroke while writing it?

It makes perfect sense to me. Do you need reading comprehension lessons? The cliffs notes is that even though a car goes faster in between stops it does not travel faster than bikes because cars cause traffic and drivers need to wait in large metal boxes behind other large metal boxes. Bikes are slimmer so fit more efficiently on the road so can be faster overall even if they do not reach the same max speed

The only reason a bike going 10 mph max is passing cars going 20 mph max is because the cars are stopping at stop signs every 300 feet and the biker is blowing through them. So, yes, it turns out that you can travel faster if you just ignore all traffic laws.

It’s fairly obvious that you haven’t spent much time on a bicycle since losing your training wheels. A cyclist who blows through stop signs is soon-to-be a dead cyclist. The dozens of motorists who roll through stop signs, fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and run red lights in my neighborhood don’t share the same reality.

So basically what you're saying is that bicyclists going 10 mph, who are stopping at stop signs every 300 feet, are able to pass cars going 20 mph, even though none of them are stopping at stop signs. Gotcha. Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:bikers are so annoying on major roads. Either move out to Potomac or stay on a trail.

Biking on Mass Ave/ River Rd/ Ct Ave/ etc during rush hour is stupid and is just asking for disaster.

Sorry but the world doesn't revolve around bikers in spandex riding to work.

my favorite is when bikers go around a line of cars waiting at a stop sign, then ride in the middle of the road, going all of five miles per hour, then complain when cars go around them.

I don't expect you to ever get this but the fact that the biker keeps ending up in front of you is because you aren't going any faster than the biker.

I have a tv and see the car commercials - you are supposed to travel as fast as possible in all environments! Regardless of whether it gets you anywhere faster! Because zoom zoom and car culture masculinity!

I guarantee the biker who complained to you did so because you did not legally and safely pass them, which few drivers ever do.

Because zoom zoom - that car ad convinced us to spend a lot of money on our imported SUV which then forced us to drive until we qualified for our mortgage and F it - now we are in Olney which is an awful place to live and have an awful commute but some dude on a $300 bike with a short commute is in my way and slowing me from getting to the next queue of cars so I had better get around him as quickly as possible!

I have no idea what this jumble of words is supposed to say. Did you have a stroke while writing it?

It makes perfect sense to me. Do you need reading comprehension lessons? The cliffs notes is that even though a car goes faster in between stops it does not travel faster than bikes because cars cause traffic and drivers need to wait in large metal boxes behind other large metal boxes. Bikes are slimmer so fit more efficiently on the road so can be faster overall even if they do not reach the same max speed

The only reason a bike going 10 mph max is passing cars going 20 mph max is because the cars are stopping at stop signs every 300 feet and the biker is blowing through them. So, yes, it turns out that you can travel faster if you just ignore all traffic laws.

No, it's because the cars are going faster than 20 and the bike is legally allowed to lane-split and doesn't have to just sit behind the car ahead. The bike can still stop at every stop sign and go faster than traffic.

Lane splitting (which doesnt seem very wise) doesnt matter if there's not a line of cars waiting to go. Cyclists are saving time by running all the stop signs.

You obviously know more about cycling than people who actually ride bicycles. Have a great afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance should then be required. Too many people have been injured or died from being hit by cyclists.

https://gothamist.com/news/pedestrian-dies-after-being-struck-by-cyclist-in-midtown

Liability insurance to cover medical expenses should be a minimum.

Yes that is a good idea. Also a tax for upkeep and maintenance of the roads. All bikes need to be registered, have an easily identified license plate and pay a yearly tax.

Have you looked at past attempts to require bike insurance? On average, bikes do so little damage that it doesn't end up being worthwhile for anyone.

Coverage for injuries caused by a negligent cyclist may be provided under the personal (third party) liability part of homeowner/renter/umbrella policies.

Are cyclists required to carry such liability policies?

And what about pedestrians? Rollerskaters? Dog walkers?!??

The cyclist who murdered Jane Bennett Clark was sued by the estate and declared bankruptcy to avoid judgment. As a result, the family was not able to even receive a pittance of financial compensation from the murderer for this crime. Is that justice?

It is indeed the case that most victims of a homicide — whether premeditated or negligent — aren’t able to receive financial compensation from the alleged perpetrator, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted. You assume some degree of risk every time you cross a street as a pedestrian. It’s why your parents taught you to look both ways. A loss of life is always tragic regardless of whether there is a civil remedy.

That’s a great argument for also removing requirements for mandatory insurance for automobiles. Oh well, things happen. That sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance should then be required. Too many people have been injured or died from being hit by cyclists.

https://gothamist.com/news/pedestrian-dies-after-being-struck-by-cyclist-in-midtown

Liability insurance to cover medical expenses should be a minimum.

Yes that is a good idea. Also a tax for upkeep and maintenance of the roads. All bikes need to be registered, have an easily identified license plate and pay a yearly tax.

Have you looked at past attempts to require bike insurance? On average, bikes do so little damage that it doesn't end up being worthwhile for anyone.

Coverage for injuries caused by a negligent cyclist may be provided under the personal (third party) liability part of homeowner/renter/umbrella policies.

Are cyclists required to carry such liability policies?

And what about pedestrians? Rollerskaters? Dog walkers?!??

The cyclist who murdered Jane Bennett Clark was sued by the estate and declared bankruptcy to avoid judgment. As a result, the family was not able to even receive a pittance of financial compensation from the murderer for this crime. Is that justice?

It is indeed the case that most victims of a homicide — whether premeditated or negligent — aren’t able to receive financial compensation from the alleged perpetrator, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted. You assume some degree of risk every time you cross a street as a pedestrian. It’s why your parents taught you to look both ways. A loss of life is always tragic regardless of whether there is a civil remedy.

That’s a great argument for also removing requirements for mandatory insurance for automobiles. Oh well, things happen. That sucks.

Yeah, because magnitude isn't a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insurance should then be required. Too many people have been injured or died from being hit by cyclists.

https://gothamist.com/news/pedestrian-dies-after-being-struck-by-cyclist-in-midtown

Liability insurance to cover medical expenses should be a minimum.

Yes that is a good idea. Also a tax for upkeep and maintenance of the roads. All bikes need to be registered, have an easily identified license plate and pay a yearly tax.

Have you looked at past attempts to require bike insurance? On average, bikes do so little damage that it doesn't end up being worthwhile for anyone.

Coverage for injuries caused by a negligent cyclist may be provided under the personal (third party) liability part of homeowner/renter/umbrella policies.

Are cyclists required to carry such liability policies?

And what about pedestrians? Rollerskaters? Dog walkers?!??

The cyclist who murdered Jane Bennett Clark was sued by the estate and declared bankruptcy to avoid judgment. As a result, the family was not able to even receive a pittance of financial compensation from the murderer for this crime. Is that justice?

It is indeed the case that most victims of a homicide — whether premeditated or negligent — aren’t able to receive financial compensation from the alleged perpetrator, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted. You assume some degree of risk every time you cross a street as a pedestrian. It’s why your parents taught you to look both ways. A loss of life is always tragic regardless of whether there is a civil remedy.

That’s a great argument for also removing requirements for mandatory insurance for automobiles. Oh well, things happen. That sucks.

Yeah, because magnitude isn't a thing.

Pretty sure that death is the highest magnitude adverse event that can happen to someone.