Mary Cheh wants to make it legal for bicyclists for blow stop signs and stop lights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
^^^ This guy thinks requiring cyclists to obey traffic laws is equivalent to Jim Crow. Incredible. Just cannot make this up.

Only a complete idiot would think laws should require operators of 25 lb bicycles to conform to the same laws as operators of 2 ton murder machines.

I'm not the poster you are responding to but seriously, everyone in motion needs to be following explicit rules for how to negotiate the space. And everyone in motion should be stopping at stop signs and red lights for vehicles coming from the direction required to stop.

-- Usually a pedestrian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Biking is a right? Who knew.

Correct, it's the law. That is a right. What else do you need to be educated on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Biking is a right? Who knew.

Correct, it's the law. That is a right. What else do you need to be educated on?

Ok, automobiles are a right then as well then. It's the law. From this argument, you might finally understand why laws don't assign rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Biking is a right? Who knew.

Correct, it's the law. That is a right. What else do you need to be educated on?

Ok, automobiles are a right then as well then. It's the law. From this argument, you might finally understand why laws don't assign rights.

Owning one is, operating one isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Biking is a right? Who knew.

Correct, it's the law. That is a right. What else do you need to be educated on?

Ok, automobiles are a right then as well then. It's the law. From this argument, you might finally understand why laws don't assign rights.

Owning one is, operating one isn't.

It’s hard to unpack how badly this misunderstands the law.

Operating a bicycle is also regulated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we pay taxes and the streets are public space. It requires a license to operate a car - a privilege, not a right, unlike walking or biking, which are rights, not privelige.

Biking is a right? Who knew.

Who knew bikers paid gas tax that pays for the roads?

Gas tax doesn't really pay for roads. It pays for about half of road construction and maintenance, but it mostly goes to multi-lane limited access roads, which cyclists are banned from. The neighborhood streets that cyclists use are paid for by local taxes, mostly property and sales taxes. Which cyclists pay just like everyone else.

You have it sort of right - the Federal Gas tax covers about 40% of Federal spending on roads.

Local gas taxes (and other fees on drivers) cover an ever lower percentages - I think I read somewhere that nationally the average is like 25%. In a city like DC that doesn't collect a lot of gas taxes I'd bet it is under 10%.

So in fact everyone pays for roads. In a city like DC where a lot of people don't even own cars non-drivers in fact heavily subsidize drivers, particularly suburban drivers who contribute nothing.

Must be nice to just make numbers up.

You are right - my numbers on the Federal gas tax are off but not by that much:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/06/11/infrastructure-bill-gas-tax-faq/

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-federal-gas-tax-doesnt-bring-in-enough-money-for-highways-heres-a-way-to-change-how-we-pay-for-it-11605731623

But those numbers are before the Infrastructure bill that passed last year and included massive amounts of Federal money going into roads projects and no new gas taxes to pay for them so incorporating those monies into the equation I almost certainly overestimated the share of expenditures covered by monies raised by gas taxes.

As for DC in the FY that just ended the city collected just under 27 million in gas tax revenue:

https://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/May%202021%20Revised%20Revenue%20Estimates%20for%20FY%202022%20-%202025_0.pdf

And spent almost 600 million just on road repaving.

You are missing a critically important role of the federal government. It’s cold though to just make stuff up and then make key omissions in furtherance of crank beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Biking is a right? Who knew.

Correct, it's the law. That is a right. What else do you need to be educated on?

Ok, automobiles are a right then as well then. It's the law. From this argument, you might finally understand why laws don't assign rights.

Owning one is, operating one isn't.

It’s hard to unpack how badly this misunderstands the law.

Operating a bicycle is also regulated.

So you need a license or state permission? Do tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Biking is a right? Who knew.

Correct, it's the law. That is a right. What else do you need to be educated on?

Ok, automobiles are a right then as well then. It's the law. From this argument, you might finally understand why laws don't assign rights.

Owning one is, operating one isn't.

It’s hard to unpack how badly this misunderstands the law.

Operating a bicycle is also regulated.

So you need a license or state permission? Do tell.

Tell me: are you legally allowed to operate a bicycle under any conditions, anywhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Biking is a right? Who knew.

Correct, it's the law. That is a right. What else do you need to be educated on?

Ok, automobiles are a right then as well then. It's the law. From this argument, you might finally understand why laws don't assign rights.

Owning one is, operating one isn't.

It’s hard to unpack how badly this misunderstands the law.

Operating a bicycle is also regulated.

So you need a license or state permission? Do tell.

Tell me: are you legally allowed to operate a bicycle under any conditions, anywhere?

No, if course not. But there is a difference between following understood rules and being permitted by teh state to partake in an activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Biking is a right? Who knew.

Correct, it's the law. That is a right. What else do you need to be educated on?

Ok, automobiles are a right then as well then. It's the law. From this argument, you might finally understand why laws don't assign rights.

Owning one is, operating one isn't.

It’s hard to unpack how badly this misunderstands the law.

Operating a bicycle is also regulated.

So you need a license or state permission? Do tell.

Tell me: are you legally allowed to operate a bicycle under any conditions, anywhere?

No, if course not. But there is a difference between following understood rules and being permitted by teh state to partake in an activity.

You are confusing different issues/changing the subject.

Bicycling on public roads/public right of way is a regulated activity, not a right. If you violate the legal terms of that proscribed activity you can be sanctioned.

[Anonymous]

If you don't need a government sanction, ie a license, then it is a right. Read the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't need a government sanction, ie a license, then it is a right. Read the Constitution.

So I can start my own broadcasting station because I have a right to free speech? Forcing me to license my radio station with the FCC violates my rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't need a government sanction, ie a license, then it is a right. Read the Constitution.

First off, there is no constitutionally protected right to bicycling in public roads/right of way. This is so stupid that I cannot believe that is have to actually tell anyone this and it makes you look stupid that that you think this is true.

Second, if you want to discuss constitutional rights, you may want to do some reading to understand the difference between positive and negative rights.

Last, your “right” to bicycle in public is governed by statute. The rules and obligations are proscribed by DC Code and the city could even ban bicycling completely on public right of way if they wanted to. Just because DC does not currently have licensing requirements does not mean that they could not enact them in the future.

If you want to bicycle entirely on your own private land you have a negative constitutional right that protects you from government preventing you from doing so, unless doing so violates others constitutional rights. Understand?

It shouldn’t surprise me how much the smug cyclist/urbanist crowd know so little about anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't need a government sanction, ie a license, then it is a right. Read the Constitution.

First off, there is no constitutionally protected right to bicycling in public roads/right of way. This is so stupid that I cannot believe that is have to actually tell anyone this and it makes you look stupid that that you think this is true.

Second, if you want to discuss constitutional rights, you may want to do some reading to understand the difference between positive and negative rights.

Last, your “right” to bicycle in public is governed by statute. The rules and obligations are proscribed by DC Code and the city could even ban bicycling completely on public right of way if they wanted to. Just because DC does not currently have licensing requirements does not mean that they could not enact them in the future.

If you want to bicycle entirely on your own private land you have a negative constitutional right that protects you from government preventing you from doing so, unless doing so violates others constitutional rights. Understand?

It shouldn’t surprise me how much the smug cyclist/urbanist crowd know so little about anything.

The Supreme Court has found a common-law right to travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't need a government sanction, ie a license, then it is a right. Read the Constitution.

First off, there is no constitutionally protected right to bicycling in public roads/right of way. This is so stupid that I cannot believe that is have to actually tell anyone this and it makes you look stupid that that you think this is true.

Second, if you want to discuss constitutional rights, you may want to do some reading to understand the difference between positive and negative rights.

Last, your “right” to bicycle in public is governed by statute. The rules and obligations are proscribed by DC Code and the city could even ban bicycling completely on public right of way if they wanted to. Just because DC does not currently have licensing requirements does not mean that they could not enact them in the future.

If you want to bicycle entirely on your own private land you have a negative constitutional right that protects you from government preventing you from doing so, unless doing so violates others constitutional rights. Understand?

It shouldn’t surprise me how much the smug cyclist/urbanist crowd know so little about anything.

The Supreme Court has found a common-law right to travel.

Which means limiting that right requires a compelling state interest.