Cities starting to ban scooters. DC to follow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So something was illegal, then the law was changed to make it legal, and now it's legal?

[Anonymous]

If I come to an intersection with a cyclist, I use my car to force them to stop. They can either stop or slam into my car. Up to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I come to an intersection with a cyclist, I use my car to force them to stop. They can either stop or slam into my car. Up to them.

Haha so funny to joke about hitting people with your car. And/or, since I’m sure you’ll say you’re not joking, so charming to threaten to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly! The deaths are in intersections, meaning the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is in an intersection just sitting there. Which is why the Idaho Stop is so successful--it allows the cyclist to stop/yield and proceed if there's nothing in impeding their path (they don't ignore the signs, they just treat a stop sign as a yield sign and red light as a stop sign). That way, they spend less time in the middle of a busy intersection, where they are most likely to be rear-ended by a car.

If most deaths are IN intersections then the most dangerous place to be is IN and intersection, not stopped BEFORE the intersection.

If you are stopped at an intersection and a car driven by a person who is texting runs you over, guess where that accident is classified? At the freaking intersection.

Yes, AT the intersection. The PP said IN the intersection, which is a different place entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly! The deaths are in intersections, meaning the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is in an intersection just sitting there. Which is why the Idaho Stop is so successful--it allows the cyclist to stop/yield and proceed if there's nothing in impeding their path (they don't ignore the signs, they just treat a stop sign as a yield sign and red light as a stop sign). That way, they spend less time in the middle of a busy intersection, where they are most likely to be rear-ended by a car.

If most deaths are IN intersections then the most dangerous place to be is IN and intersection, not stopped BEFORE the intersection.

If you are stopped at an intersection and a car driven by a person who is texting runs you over, guess where that accident is classified? At the freaking intersection.

Yes, AT the intersection. The PP said IN the intersection, which is a different place entirely.

No, it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly! The deaths are in intersections, meaning the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is in an intersection just sitting there. Which is why the Idaho Stop is so successful--it allows the cyclist to stop/yield and proceed if there's nothing in impeding their path (they don't ignore the signs, they just treat a stop sign as a yield sign and red light as a stop sign). That way, they spend less time in the middle of a busy intersection, where they are most likely to be rear-ended by a car.

If most deaths are IN intersections then the most dangerous place to be is IN and intersection, not stopped BEFORE the intersection.

If you are stopped at an intersection and a car driven by a person who is texting runs you over, guess where that accident is classified? At the freaking intersection.

Yes, AT the intersection. The PP said IN the intersection, which is a different place entirely.

No, it's not.

Sorry, pal. At and in are two different places, especially for intersections but other places too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly! The deaths are in intersections, meaning the most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is in an intersection just sitting there. Which is why the Idaho Stop is so successful--it allows the cyclist to stop/yield and proceed if there's nothing in impeding their path (they don't ignore the signs, they just treat a stop sign as a yield sign and red light as a stop sign). That way, they spend less time in the middle of a busy intersection, where they are most likely to be rear-ended by a car.

If most deaths are IN intersections then the most dangerous place to be is IN and intersection, not stopped BEFORE the intersection.

If you are stopped at an intersection and a car driven by a person who is texting runs you over, guess where that accident is classified? At the freaking intersection.

Yes, AT the intersection. The PP said IN the intersection, which is a different place entirely.

No, it's not.

Sorry, pal. At and in are two different places, especially for intersections but other places too.

Yeah, it's not like anybody would ever say something like "I am at the office" when they are in the office, or "I am in the office" when they are at the office.

If you want to make up your own personal definitions of prepositions, go right ahead, but language is about communicating with other people, not with yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's your only response to data showing that bike crashes declined in other jurisdictions that have set up this law?

Ha. That’s not at all what the data shows. But, yes, telling cyclists it’s cool to ignore stop signs in the name of safety is some Orwellian nonsense.

That is exactly what the data shows, and the data also shows there were fewer bike injuries from traffic crashes:

“ After Idaho adopted the law, bicyclist injuries from traffic crashes declined by 14.5% the following year (Meggs, 2010). In
2017, Delaware adopted a similar, limited stop-as-yield law, known as the "Delaware Yield.” Traffic crashes involving bicyclists at stop sign intersections fell by 23% in the 30 months after the law’s passage, compared to the previous 30 months.”

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I HATE scooters with a passion. They don't obey any of the traffic laws, they do not look out for pedestrians at all. BAN THEM all.

I HATE cars with a passion. They don't obey any of the traffic laws, they do not look out for pedestrians at all. BAN THEM all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.