City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And one death is the same magnitude as thousands. You really are smart to have discovered this. Did you have help? Or was it all on your own?

[Anonymous]

This guy is really trying to argue that bicycling is as destructive as driving?? Just bonkers. I hope he doesn't work in the underwriting business.

[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.

Cyclists save time by lane-splitting on major roads with red lights -- traffic backs up at the stoplight, and the bikes move up to close to the light, rather than sitting eight or nine cars back. When traffic is moving as slowly as 8 or 10 mph, which it often does during rush hour, it's perfectly safe to lane-split. Running all the stop signs is a good way to get hit by a car, so most cyclists don't do that.