Please don't ride your bike on busy streets after dark

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? Don't bike after dark?

Drive more carefully.

I am mostly a biker and a walker, and as a result I am an extremely cautious driver.

It’s next to impossible to see a biker at night.

Don’t be an idiot.

A lot of people do it seeing normal lights/reflectors. If you have a hard time seeing lights and reflectors then please get your eyes checked to see if you have a condition. It's not normal.

I'm not taking about people who have no lights or reflectors.

WABA recommends using as much reflective material as possible when cycling at night in order to increase visibility beyond what is mandated by law, including reflective vests, wheel reflectors, tires with reflective strips, reflective ankle band, backpacks, stickers and decals. Not sure why you don’t want to take professional safety advice.

Do you need me to find you a link about driving after dark if you're visually impaired? I'm quite sure it's not recommended and may even be prohibited. Not sure why you don't want to take professional safety advice.

I am an optometrist. You need to stop. Most people with good vision cannot see a dark figure against a dark background at night, which is the scenario being described over and over again in this thread.

Then they shouldn't be driving after dark. Driving is inherently dangerous, if most people can't do it safely after dark then is it something that people should be doing after dark?

I can't tell if you are trolling, sarcastic or delusional.

It is delusional to think that people who want to operate a two ton machine do so safely?

The streets are quite safe here. Traffic accidents are rare, and it's very, very rare for anyone to die. Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year to just 26. Almost ten time as many people were murdered last year.

Wearing a reflective vest at night is an easy, inexpensive thing people can immediately do to make the streets even more safe.

+1

What about injuries? Do those matter?

All the more reason to wear a reflective vest. Very perplexed at these cyclists who complain endlessly about cars but refuse to do really simple things to help drivers see them at night.

I barely ride my bike after dark (I leave work early when I'm commuting by bike, mostly so I don't have to worry about being visible), and I've got very bright blinking front and back lights and have wrapped most of my bike and my helmet in reflective tape. And I have a reflective vest. Have I met the required ante to be permitted to have an opinion about drivers and road design? Or do I also need to, like, smear glow-stick liquid on my cheeks?

It depends. Do you believe others should also take these measures? And if they don’t, are vehicles at blame for the inability to see them? Because that’s what we are discussing in this thread.

PP here - I want to add that I commute via bike. But the difference between me and other cyclists in this thread is that I do believe cyclists have an obligation to make themselves visible at night. It’s basic safety and I am perturbed at the insistence that the obligation to protect cyclists is always on the driver and never on the cyclist.

Nothing is ever on the cyclist -- no rules, no regulations, no responsibilities, no nothing. So selfish.

[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:Seriously? Don't bike after dark?

Drive more carefully.

I am mostly a biker and a walker, and as a result I am an extremely cautious driver.

It’s next to impossible to see a biker at night.

Don’t be an idiot.

A lot of people do it seeing normal lights/reflectors. If you have a hard time seeing lights and reflectors then please get your eyes checked to see if you have a condition. It's not normal.

I'm not taking about people who have no lights or reflectors.

WABA recommends using as much reflective material as possible when cycling at night in order to increase visibility beyond what is mandated by law, including reflective vests, wheel reflectors, tires with reflective strips, reflective ankle band, backpacks, stickers and decals. Not sure why you don’t want to take professional safety advice.

Do you need me to find you a link about driving after dark if you're visually impaired? I'm quite sure it's not recommended and may even be prohibited. Not sure why you don't want to take professional safety advice.

I am an optometrist. You need to stop. Most people with good vision cannot see a dark figure against a dark background at night, which is the scenario being described over and over again in this thread.

Then they shouldn't be driving after dark. Driving is inherently dangerous, if most people can't do it safely after dark then is it something that people should be doing after dark?

I can't tell if you are trolling, sarcastic or delusional.

It is delusional to think that people who want to operate a two ton machine do so safely?

The streets are quite safe here. Traffic accidents are rare, and it's very, very rare for anyone to die. Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year to just 26. Almost ten time as many people were murdered last year.

Wearing a reflective vest at night is an easy, inexpensive thing people can immediately do to make the streets even more safe.

+1

What about injuries? Do those matter?

All the more reason to wear a reflective vest. Very perplexed at these cyclists who complain endlessly about cars but refuse to do really simple things to help drivers see them at night.

I barely ride my bike after dark (I leave work early when I'm commuting by bike, mostly so I don't have to worry about being visible), and I've got very bright blinking front and back lights and have wrapped most of my bike and my helmet in reflective tape. And I have a reflective vest. Have I met the required ante to be permitted to have an opinion about drivers and road design? Or do I also need to, like, smear glow-stick liquid on my cheeks?

It depends. Do you believe others should also take these measures? And if they don’t, are vehicles at blame for the inability to see them? Because that’s what we are discussing in this thread.

I believe others should, sure. But I don’t think the fact that some people don’t means that’s a reason to oppose any and all measures that might make drivers slow down or put cyclists in protected lanes — and all too often here, that’s what the argument against such things boils down to. “I saw a biker doing something dangerous, therefore, no bike lanes.”

[Anonymous]

I don't get the outrage. Lights and reflectors are already required and additional reflection and lights are recommended and promoted by the bike lobby. What exactly are you asking for? 100% compliance? They would be nice but we're don't hold drivers to nearly that standard. If we did, speed cameras would trigger at 1mph above the limit.

[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:Just this evening I saw a cyclist wearing his black work suit while speeding past a stop sign. “Idaho stop” I guess. I’m a very careful driver but it infuriates me when cyclists don’t take easy yet important steps to improve visibility and safety. Everyone should do their part. Why is that so hard for some cyclists to understand?

Cyclists are adamantly opposed to any requirements whatsoever being imposed on them. Rules are for other people.

Drivers are adamantly opposed to speed governor bring installed on their cars. Rules are for other people.

I’m not opposed at all. It would mean absolute end to speeding tickets. I don’t speed, so I don’t get speeding tickets. And since I don’t speed, a governor wouldn’t change my driving at all.


And it’s time for bikes to be registered, tagged, and inspected. Do you oppose this?

I am a NP but oppose this because what freaking difference does it make? CARS are licensed and tagged and run red lights and speed and kill people all day long with zero repercussions. What would licensing and tagging do? It would not prevent any deaths or make the streets safer.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

This is a complete non sequitor. The number of fatalities should not influence whether or not drivers are held accountable for killing pedestrians in crosswalks. If one person were murdered by a person using a gun in the US each year should we not convict the person who murdered him/ her?

The number of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is similar to the number of people killed by lightning strike, which is not that far off the number of Washingtonians who are eaten by sharks. But every incident is investigated by the police. Do you think there's instances where the police are like "eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?"

Within an hour of Alison Hart being killed, in a crosswalk, the DC police put out a statement saying that she "was unable to stop" before the truck hit and killed her. She was in a crosswalk, no mention of why the driver hit her or any actions taken by the driver. That is not an investigation, that is victim blaming. So yes, I think it is quite frequent that DC police do not investigate why a driver has killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Putting a statement out within an hour that ascribes actions to one party is not an investigation.

If MPD ever did a proper investigation of the deaths of Alison Hart, Shawn O'Donnell, and others, please feel free to post it here. I have not yet seen them. To maintain - as some posters do here - that a press release passes for an investigation is complete nonsense.

Rhonda Whitaker and Waldon Adams were killed while cycling around Hains Point a year and a half ago. This article does a great job of summarizing what has happened since (spoiler: jack shit): https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

Nina Larson was a 24 year old pedestrian killed in Columbia Heights. You can also read everything her mother knows about that investigation here also: https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?" seems to actually be a pretty good description of what is going on . . . or not going on, in this case. And the comparison with lightning strikes is stupid and offensive. Drivers who obey speed limits and other DC traffic laws generally don't kill people. Those who speed and run stop signs and/or red lights do.

Can you tell us what a “proper investigation” should entail?

Better yet, since you seem to know accident investigative methods better than MPD, why aren’t you telling them? Even better, why aren’t you working for them? Be the change you want to see.

You know, you could just respond something along the lines of . . .

“Gee, thanks for the information. I read the article and now understand that MPD, USPP and others really aren’t investigating these accidents in a timely fashion and, even if they were, the US Attorney’s Office would never get around to prosecuting the suspects. It’s really terrible how little the lives of pedestrians and cyclists seem to matter in the eyes of what passes for the justice system in DC. This is as good a rationale for statehood as any.”

At least, that’s the kind of response that would befit an actual human being.

Except that the article doesn’t say that. You don’t like the outcomes and as a result you are impugning the professionalism of the police. However, you don’t even have a clue what you’re criticizing because you have no idea what they do. Instead you are mad about what you perceive to be biased language in press releases that most everyone else see as factual statements and you are mad that every accident, no matter the cause, should result in street closures. Get a grip and give it a rest already.

I don’t need to impugn anybody’s professionalism. Their performance in processing these cases really requires no commentary. But since you are so confident that these cases have been investigated in a timely fashion, please apprise us as to where we can read the investigations. We’ll wait. God knows we’ve been waiting for long enough already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.

What is the problem with having bikes registered?

Every other vehicle that uses the road is required to be registered and have tags and get an annual safety inspection. Why are bikes THE ONLY vehicles that use the roads not required to be registered and tagged?

I’d really like to hear cyclists explain why they feel they should be exempt from the registration/tags/inspections that every other vehicle on the road they insist they have a right to use has to comply with.

Please explain.

You're assuming that the purpose of registration is "because they use the road", which is just something you made up.

What has happened in places that did require people to register bicycles? Why did DC stop?

I have no idea. Why don’t you enlighten us?

Because of the potential for people driving cars to injure people and damage property. It's the same reason that liability insurance is required.

It's a similar argument for registering guns, although that brings out a much more emotional response.

So…. you’re saying bike registration was eliminated in DC because of….car crashes.

And most people here are fully in favor of registration of guns. That seems like a perfect reason for bikes to be registered as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And most people here are fully in favor of registration of guns. That seems like a perfect reason for bikes to be registered as well.

Did you come up with this idiocy yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.

What is the problem with having bikes registered?

Every other vehicle that uses the road is required to be registered and have tags and get an annual safety inspection. Why are bikes THE ONLY vehicles that use the roads not required to be registered and tagged?

I’d really like to hear cyclists explain why they feel they should be exempt from the registration/tags/inspections that every other vehicle on the road they insist they have a right to use has to comply with.

Please explain.

You're assuming that the purpose of registration is "because they use the road", which is just something you made up.

What has happened in places that did require people to register bicycles? Why did DC stop?

I have no idea. Why don’t you enlighten us?

Because of the potential for people driving cars to injure people and damage property. It's the same reason that liability insurance is required.

It's a similar argument for registering guns, although that brings out a much more emotional response.

So…. you’re saying bike registration was eliminated in DC because of….car crashes.

And most people here are fully in favor of registration of guns. That seems like a perfect reason for bikes to be registered as well.

Wow, swing and a miss. Congratulations, you understood nothing and opened your mouth anyway.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Just this evening I saw a cyclist wearing his black work suit while speeding past a stop sign. “Idaho stop” I guess. I’m a very careful driver but it infuriates me when cyclists don’t take easy yet important steps to improve visibility and safety. Everyone should do their part. Why is that so hard for some cyclists to understand?

Cyclists are adamantly opposed to any requirements whatsoever being imposed on them. Rules are for other people.

Drivers are adamantly opposed to speed governor bring installed on their cars. Rules are for other people.

I’m not opposed at all. It would mean absolute end to speeding tickets. I don’t speed, so I don’t get speeding tickets. And since I don’t speed, a governor wouldn’t change my driving at all.


And it’s time for bikes to be registered, tagged, and inspected. Do you oppose this?

I am a NP but oppose this because what freaking difference does it make? CARS are licensed and tagged and run red lights and speed and kill people all day long with zero repercussions. What would licensing and tagging do? It would not prevent any deaths or make the streets safer.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

This is a complete non sequitor. The number of fatalities should not influence whether or not drivers are held accountable for killing pedestrians in crosswalks. If one person were murdered by a person using a gun in the US each year should we not convict the person who murdered him/ her?

The number of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is similar to the number of people killed by lightning strike, which is not that far off the number of Washingtonians who are eaten by sharks. But every incident is investigated by the police. Do you think there's instances where the police are like "eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?"

Within an hour of Alison Hart being killed, in a crosswalk, the DC police put out a statement saying that she "was unable to stop" before the truck hit and killed her. She was in a crosswalk, no mention of why the driver hit her or any actions taken by the driver. That is not an investigation, that is victim blaming. So yes, I think it is quite frequent that DC police do not investigate why a driver has killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Putting a statement out within an hour that ascribes actions to one party is not an investigation.

If MPD ever did a proper investigation of the deaths of Alison Hart, Shawn O'Donnell, and others, please feel free to post it here. I have not yet seen them. To maintain - as some posters do here - that a press release passes for an investigation is complete nonsense.

Rhonda Whitaker and Waldon Adams were killed while cycling around Hains Point a year and a half ago. This article does a great job of summarizing what has happened since (spoiler: jack shit): https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

Nina Larson was a 24 year old pedestrian killed in Columbia Heights. You can also read everything her mother knows about that investigation here also: https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?" seems to actually be a pretty good description of what is going on . . . or not going on, in this case. And the comparison with lightning strikes is stupid and offensive. Drivers who obey speed limits and other DC traffic laws generally don't kill people. Those who speed and run stop signs and/or red lights do.

Can you tell us what a “proper investigation” should entail?

Better yet, since you seem to know accident investigative methods better than MPD, why aren’t you telling them? Even better, why aren’t you working for them? Be the change you want to see.

You know, you could just respond something along the lines of . . .

“Gee, thanks for the information. I read the article and now understand that MPD, USPP and others really aren’t investigating these accidents in a timely fashion and, even if they were, the US Attorney’s Office would never get around to prosecuting the suspects. It’s really terrible how little the lives of pedestrians and cyclists seem to matter in the eyes of what passes for the justice system in DC. This is as good a rationale for statehood as any.”

At least, that’s the kind of response that would befit an actual human being.

Except that the article doesn’t say that. You don’t like the outcomes and as a result you are impugning the professionalism of the police. However, you don’t even have a clue what you’re criticizing because you have no idea what they do. Instead you are mad about what you perceive to be biased language in press releases that most everyone else see as factual statements and you are mad that every accident, no matter the cause, should result in street closures. Get a grip and give it a rest already.

I don’t need to impugn anybody’s professionalism. Their performance in processing these cases really requires no commentary. But since you are so confident that these cases have been investigated in a timely fashion, please apprise us as to where we can read the investigations. We’ll wait. God knows we’ve been waiting for long enough already.

Again, you have no knowledge of how a proper investigation is conducted nor do you have any specific knowledge of the investigative details in the cases you cite.

In other words, you’re just making sh*t up.

[Anonymous]

Want to help cyclists be visible? Support Bike Lane Uprising, a grassroots effort to distribute high-quality lights to cyclists across DC. Your $12 sponsors a set of lights:

https://www.bikelaneuprising.com/product-page/sponsor-a-light-set

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.

What is the problem with having bikes registered?

Every other vehicle that uses the road is required to be registered and have tags and get an annual safety inspection. Why are bikes THE ONLY vehicles that use the roads not required to be registered and tagged?

I’d really like to hear cyclists explain why they feel they should be exempt from the registration/tags/inspections that every other vehicle on the road they insist they have a right to use has to comply with.

Please explain.

You're assuming that the purpose of registration is "because they use the road", which is just something you made up.

What has happened in places that did require people to register bicycles? Why did DC stop?

I have no idea. Why don’t you enlighten us?

Because of the potential for people driving cars to injure people and damage property. It's the same reason that liability insurance is required.

It's a similar argument for registering guns, although that brings out a much more emotional response.

So…. you’re saying bike registration was eliminated in DC because of….car crashes.

And most people here are fully in favor of registration of guns. That seems like a perfect reason for bikes to be registered as well.

Wow, swing and a miss. Congratulations, you understood nothing and opened your mouth anyway.

That whooshing sound was my point soaring high over your head.

Gun registration is said to be a tool for ensuring that gun owners comply with gun laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

Registration of bikes is a way to ensure that cyclists comply with traffic and safety laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

I’m really sorry simple analogies are lost on you, but that’s your fault, no one else’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.

What is the problem with having bikes registered?

Every other vehicle that uses the road is required to be registered and have tags and get an annual safety inspection. Why are bikes THE ONLY vehicles that use the roads not required to be registered and tagged?

I’d really like to hear cyclists explain why they feel they should be exempt from the registration/tags/inspections that every other vehicle on the road they insist they have a right to use has to comply with.

Please explain.

You're assuming that the purpose of registration is "because they use the road", which is just something you made up.

What has happened in places that did require people to register bicycles? Why did DC stop?

I have no idea. Why don’t you enlighten us?

Because of the potential for people driving cars to injure people and damage property. It's the same reason that liability insurance is required.

It's a similar argument for registering guns, although that brings out a much more emotional response.

So…. you’re saying bike registration was eliminated in DC because of….car crashes.

And most people here are fully in favor of registration of guns. That seems like a perfect reason for bikes to be registered as well.

Wow, swing and a miss. Congratulations, you understood nothing and opened your mouth anyway.

That whooshing sound was my point soaring high over your head.

Gun registration is said to be a tool for ensuring that gun owners comply with gun laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

Registration of bikes is a way to ensure that cyclists comply with traffic and safety laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

I’m really sorry simple analogies are lost on you, but that’s your fault, no one else’s.

That's why we have registration for everything we own including lawnmowers as a way to ensure we comply with lawn mowing laws. Oh, right. We only have registration for things that can cause significant harm.

Sorry that I mistook your poor logic for ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.

What is the problem with having bikes registered?

Every other vehicle that uses the road is required to be registered and have tags and get an annual safety inspection. Why are bikes THE ONLY vehicles that use the roads not required to be registered and tagged?

I’d really like to hear cyclists explain why they feel they should be exempt from the registration/tags/inspections that every other vehicle on the road they insist they have a right to use has to comply with.

Please explain.

You're assuming that the purpose of registration is "because they use the road", which is just something you made up.

What has happened in places that did require people to register bicycles? Why did DC stop?

I have no idea. Why don’t you enlighten us?

Because of the potential for people driving cars to injure people and damage property. It's the same reason that liability insurance is required.

It's a similar argument for registering guns, although that brings out a much more emotional response.

So…. you’re saying bike registration was eliminated in DC because of….car crashes.

And most people here are fully in favor of registration of guns. That seems like a perfect reason for bikes to be registered as well.

Wow, swing and a miss. Congratulations, you understood nothing and opened your mouth anyway.

That whooshing sound was my point soaring high over your head.

Gun registration is said to be a tool for ensuring that gun owners comply with gun laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

Registration of bikes is a way to ensure that cyclists comply with traffic and safety laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

I’m really sorry simple analogies are lost on you, but that’s your fault, no one else’s.

That's why we have registration for everything we own including lawnmowers as a way to ensure we comply with lawn mowing laws. Oh, right. We only have registration for things that can cause significant harm.

Sorry that I mistook your poor logic for ignorance.

People have been killed after being hit by a cyclist. Cyclists are killed every year through the negligence of drivers, or the negligence of the cyclists themselves.

I’d call getting killed a “significant harm”, wouldn’t you?

Stop grasping for reasons why bikes shouldn’t be registered. Because there aren’t any.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this evening I saw a cyclist wearing his black work suit while speeding past a stop sign. “Idaho stop” I guess. I’m a very careful driver but it infuriates me when cyclists don’t take easy yet important steps to improve visibility and safety. Everyone should do their part. Why is that so hard for some cyclists to understand?

Cyclists are adamantly opposed to any requirements whatsoever being imposed on them. Rules are for other people.

Drivers are adamantly opposed to speed governor bring installed on their cars. Rules are for other people.

I’m not opposed at all. It would mean absolute end to speeding tickets. I don’t speed, so I don’t get speeding tickets. And since I don’t speed, a governor wouldn’t change my driving at all.


And it’s time for bikes to be registered, tagged, and inspected. Do you oppose this?

I am a NP but oppose this because what freaking difference does it make? CARS are licensed and tagged and run red lights and speed and kill people all day long with zero repercussions. What would licensing and tagging do? It would not prevent any deaths or make the streets safer.

Exaggerations aside ("kill people all day long", seriously?), most drivers are not charged because they are not at fault. Yes, sometimes they are, but at least in my city, almost all recent pedestrian deaths are a result of the pedestrian taking unsafe actions (crossing in the middle of the road at night seems to be the most common reason). I know you are going to try to argue that the law somehow favors drivers, but that isn't going to prevent deaths. We need to put into place safety measures that reduce conflict between cars, cyclists and pedestrians, and part of that include recognizing that all parties engage in unsafe behaviors. The failure of cyclists to accept any blame for their own actions causes deaths.

Curious what city this is because this is not true in DC. Pedestrians are overwhelmingly being killed by careless drivers in crosswalks.

Traffic fatalities are down 30 percent this year. Just 26 people killed. Let's put a denominator on that: That's out of probably billions of trips.

This is a complete non sequitor. The number of fatalities should not influence whether or not drivers are held accountable for killing pedestrians in crosswalks. If one person were murdered by a person using a gun in the US each year should we not convict the person who murdered him/ her?

The number of pedestrians killed in crosswalks is similar to the number of people killed by lightning strike, which is not that far off the number of Washingtonians who are eaten by sharks. But every incident is investigated by the police. Do you think there's instances where the police are like "eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?"

Within an hour of Alison Hart being killed, in a crosswalk, the DC police put out a statement saying that she "was unable to stop" before the truck hit and killed her. She was in a crosswalk, no mention of why the driver hit her or any actions taken by the driver. That is not an investigation, that is victim blaming. So yes, I think it is quite frequent that DC police do not investigate why a driver has killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Putting a statement out within an hour that ascribes actions to one party is not an investigation.

If MPD ever did a proper investigation of the deaths of Alison Hart, Shawn O'Donnell, and others, please feel free to post it here. I have not yet seen them. To maintain - as some posters do here - that a press release passes for an investigation is complete nonsense.

Rhonda Whitaker and Waldon Adams were killed while cycling around Hains Point a year and a half ago. This article does a great job of summarizing what has happened since (spoiler: jack shit): https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

Nina Larson was a 24 year old pedestrian killed in Columbia Heights. You can also read everything her mother knows about that investigation here also: https://dcist.com/story/22/04/27/waldon-adams-rhonda-whitaker-killed-hains-point/

eh, we probably don't need to bother with this one?" seems to actually be a pretty good description of what is going on . . . or not going on, in this case. And the comparison with lightning strikes is stupid and offensive. Drivers who obey speed limits and other DC traffic laws generally don't kill people. Those who speed and run stop signs and/or red lights do.

Can you tell us what a “proper investigation” should entail?

Better yet, since you seem to know accident investigative methods better than MPD, why aren’t you telling them? Even better, why aren’t you working for them? Be the change you want to see.

You know, you could just respond something along the lines of . . .

“Gee, thanks for the information. I read the article and now understand that MPD, USPP and others really aren’t investigating these accidents in a timely fashion and, even if they were, the US Attorney’s Office would never get around to prosecuting the suspects. It’s really terrible how little the lives of pedestrians and cyclists seem to matter in the eyes of what passes for the justice system in DC. This is as good a rationale for statehood as any.”

At least, that’s the kind of response that would befit an actual human being.

Except that the article doesn’t say that. You don’t like the outcomes and as a result you are impugning the professionalism of the police. However, you don’t even have a clue what you’re criticizing because you have no idea what they do. Instead you are mad about what you perceive to be biased language in press releases that most everyone else see as factual statements and you are mad that every accident, no matter the cause, should result in street closures. Get a grip and give it a rest already.

I don’t need to impugn anybody’s professionalism. Their performance in processing these cases really requires no commentary. But since you are so confident that these cases have been investigated in a timely fashion, please apprise us as to where we can read the investigations. We’ll wait. God knows we’ve been waiting for long enough already.

Again, you have no knowledge of how a proper investigation is conducted nor do you have any specific knowledge of the investigative details in the cases you cite.

In other words, you’re just making sh*t up.

Once again, if the investigations actually happened, where are the reports? Prove me wrong. Please.

[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'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.

What is the problem with having bikes registered?

Every other vehicle that uses the road is required to be registered and have tags and get an annual safety inspection. Why are bikes THE ONLY vehicles that use the roads not required to be registered and tagged?

I’d really like to hear cyclists explain why they feel they should be exempt from the registration/tags/inspections that every other vehicle on the road they insist they have a right to use has to comply with.

Please explain.

You're assuming that the purpose of registration is "because they use the road", which is just something you made up.

What has happened in places that did require people to register bicycles? Why did DC stop?

I have no idea. Why don’t you enlighten us?

Because of the potential for people driving cars to injure people and damage property. It's the same reason that liability insurance is required.

It's a similar argument for registering guns, although that brings out a much more emotional response.

So…. you’re saying bike registration was eliminated in DC because of….car crashes.

And most people here are fully in favor of registration of guns. That seems like a perfect reason for bikes to be registered as well.

Wow, swing and a miss. Congratulations, you understood nothing and opened your mouth anyway.

That whooshing sound was my point soaring high over your head.

Gun registration is said to be a tool for ensuring that gun owners comply with gun laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

Registration of bikes is a way to ensure that cyclists comply with traffic and safety laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

I’m really sorry simple analogies are lost on you, but that’s your fault, no one else’s.

That's why we have registration for everything we own including lawnmowers as a way to ensure we comply with lawn mowing laws. Oh, right. We only have registration for things that can cause significant harm.

Sorry that I mistook your poor logic for ignorance.

People have been killed after being hit by a cyclist. Cyclists are killed every year through the negligence of drivers, or the negligence of the cyclists themselves.

I’d call getting killed a “significant harm”, wouldn’t you?

Stop grasping for reasons why bikes shouldn’t be registered. Because there aren’t any.

Yes, all risk is the same as all other risk. You are very smart.

[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'm trying to figure out how to get my 5 year old niece a license when she comes here over Christmas break. And register her bike.

Also, no one has answered what bicycle registration would do. You just keep repeating it like some kind of mantra.

You know how people have to get their cars registered, right? It would be like that.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling the anti-bike people.

What is the problem with having bikes registered?

Every other vehicle that uses the road is required to be registered and have tags and get an annual safety inspection. Why are bikes THE ONLY vehicles that use the roads not required to be registered and tagged?

I’d really like to hear cyclists explain why they feel they should be exempt from the registration/tags/inspections that every other vehicle on the road they insist they have a right to use has to comply with.

Please explain.

You're assuming that the purpose of registration is "because they use the road", which is just something you made up.

What has happened in places that did require people to register bicycles? Why did DC stop?

I have no idea. Why don’t you enlighten us?

Because of the potential for people driving cars to injure people and damage property. It's the same reason that liability insurance is required.

It's a similar argument for registering guns, although that brings out a much more emotional response.

So…. you’re saying bike registration was eliminated in DC because of….car crashes.

And most people here are fully in favor of registration of guns. That seems like a perfect reason for bikes to be registered as well.

Wow, swing and a miss. Congratulations, you understood nothing and opened your mouth anyway.

That whooshing sound was my point soaring high over your head.

Gun registration is said to be a tool for ensuring that gun owners comply with gun laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

Registration of bikes is a way to ensure that cyclists comply with traffic and safety laws, and those who don’t comply can be charged.

I’m really sorry simple analogies are lost on you, but that’s your fault, no one else’s.

That's why we have registration for everything we own including lawnmowers as a way to ensure we comply with lawn mowing laws. Oh, right. We only have registration for things that can cause significant harm.

Sorry that I mistook your poor logic for ignorance.

People have been killed after being hit by a cyclist. Cyclists are killed every year through the negligence of drivers, or the negligence of the cyclists themselves.

I’d call getting killed a “significant harm”, wouldn’t you?

Stop grasping for reasons why bikes shouldn’t be registered. Because there aren’t any.

The last time a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist in DC was in 2017. The pedestrian was Jane Bennett Clark. The cyclist was Zakkai Stanley Kauffman-Rogoff. Mr. Kauffman-Rogoff stayed on the scene after the accident and cooperated with the investigation, which found that he had failed to obey a traffic control device (i.e., ran a red light). What happened after that is unclear from the public records, although it seems that he was sued by Ms. Clark's estate for wrongful death in 2019 and then filed for bankruptcy (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/28581341/Salmon_v_KauffmanRogoff).

Interestingly, if we go all the way back to the first recorded death of a pedestrian hit by a cyclist in 1905, that cyclist - Joseph Meyers - was also charged with "careless cycling". The full listing of pedestrians killed by cyclists in DC is here: https://www.thewashcycle.com/2017/03/pedestrian-struck-by-cyclist-in-downtown-dc-dies-from-injuriess-.html.

The notion that registration is needed to hold cyclists to account in these rare but tragic cases doesn't seem to be borne out by what has actually happened.