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

[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.

DP. That's not the same as a right to bicycling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. That's not the same as a right to bicycling.

But it gets to the need for a compelling state interest to restrict it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. That's not the same as a right to bicycling.

They are so f)&king stupid. I just cannot believe it.

[Anonymous]

Working on my "Idaho stops" in my 30,000 pound SUV

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Working on my "Idaho stops" in my 30,000 pound SUV

That would be called failure to stop at a controlled intersection. Doing it in an SUV would be illegal.

The practical matter is that a cyclist has the legal right to take a full lane. So if you want to be in your SUV while a cyclist starts and comes to a full stop at every stop sign, then that is your right. I will start doing that and expect you not to mow me down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Working on my "Idaho stops" in my 30,000 pound SUV

That would be called failure to stop at a controlled intersection. Doing it in an SUV would be illegal.

The practical matter is that a cyclist has the legal right to take a full lane. So if you want to be in your SUV while a cyclist starts and comes to a full stop at every stop sign, then that is your right. I will start doing that and expect you not to mow me down.

Wait, I thought "Idaho stops" were safer? Do whatever you like. I go around cyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Working on my "Idaho stops" in my 30,000 pound SUV

That would be called failure to stop at a controlled intersection. Doing it in an SUV would be illegal.

The practical matter is that a cyclist has the legal right to take a full lane. So if you want to be in your SUV while a cyclist starts and comes to a full stop at every stop sign, then that is your right. I will start doing that and expect you not to mow me down.

Wait, I thought "Idaho stops" were safer? Do whatever you like. I go around cyclists.

It isn't legal to "go around" me if there are double yellow lines. So if you want me to come to a complete stop at every stop sign because you want me to follow the letter of the law, then you will surely be happy to be stuck behind me as I get up to speed after coming to a complete stop, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Working on my "Idaho stops" in my 30,000 pound SUV

That would be called failure to stop at a controlled intersection. Doing it in an SUV would be illegal.

The practical matter is that a cyclist has the legal right to take a full lane. So if you want to be in your SUV while a cyclist starts and comes to a full stop at every stop sign, then that is your right. I will start doing that and expect you not to mow me down.

Wait, I thought "Idaho stops" were safer? Do whatever you like. I go around cyclists.

For bike, yes. Far cars, no. It isn't hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Working on my "Idaho stops" in my 30,000 pound SUV

That would be called failure to stop at a controlled intersection. Doing it in an SUV would be illegal.

The practical matter is that a cyclist has the legal right to take a full lane. So if you want to be in your SUV while a cyclist starts and comes to a full stop at every stop sign, then that is your right. I will start doing that and expect you not to mow me down.

Wait, I thought "Idaho stops" were safer? Do whatever you like. I go around cyclists.

It isn't legal to "go around" me if there are double yellow lines. So if you want me to come to a complete stop at every stop sign because you want me to follow the letter of the law, then you will surely be happy to be stuck behind me as I get up to speed after coming to a complete stop, right?

Says the biker who never stops at stop signs because...(checks notes) he's too lazy to stop and start his bike.

But, yes, you have that basically right, except I will also lay on my horn while I'm passing you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Working on my "Idaho stops" in my 30,000 pound SUV

That would be called failure to stop at a controlled intersection. Doing it in an SUV would be illegal.

The practical matter is that a cyclist has the legal right to take a full lane. So if you want to be in your SUV while a cyclist starts and comes to a full stop at every stop sign, then that is your right. I will start doing that and expect you not to mow me down.

Wait, I thought "Idaho stops" were safer? Do whatever you like. I go around cyclists.

It isn't legal to "go around" me if there are double yellow lines. So if you want me to come to a complete stop at every stop sign because you want me to follow the letter of the law, then you will surely be happy to be stuck behind me as I get up to speed after coming to a complete stop, right?

Says the biker who never stops at stop signs because...(checks notes) he's too lazy to stop and start his bike.

But, yes, you have that basically right, except I will also lay on my horn while I'm passing you.

It isn't legal to pass me if there are double yellow lines. So you are ok with you breaking the law?

[Anonymous]

And D.C. wants home rule. What a pack of idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Working on my "Idaho stops" in my 30,000 pound SUV

That would be called failure to stop at a controlled intersection. Doing it in an SUV would be illegal.

The practical matter is that a cyclist has the legal right to take a full lane. So if you want to be in your SUV while a cyclist starts and comes to a full stop at every stop sign, then that is your right. I will start doing that and expect you not to mow me down.

Wait, I thought "Idaho stops" were safer? Do whatever you like. I go around cyclists.

It isn't legal to "go around" me if there are double yellow lines. So if you want me to come to a complete stop at every stop sign because you want me to follow the letter of the law, then you will surely be happy to be stuck behind me as I get up to speed after coming to a complete stop, right?

Says the biker who never stops at stop signs because...(checks notes) he's too lazy to stop and start his bike.

But, yes, you have that basically right, except I will also lay on my horn while I'm passing you.

It isn't legal to pass me if there are double yellow lines. So you are ok with you breaking the law?

Of course they're okay with breaking the law. You're inconveniencing them and causing them to arrive at their destination two minutes later than they otherwise would have.

This is not a new phenomenon. There's something about cars that make otherwise-sane people lose their goddamned minds when they're behind the wheel.


As relevant today as it was in 1965:

[Anonymous]

I started working downtown again and traffic is going to be an absolut nightmare once people fully return. So many streets are essentially one lane now with side/former parking lanes blocked off by barriers for bikes. It even makes me question what would happen in an emergency. How will ambulances and fire trucks be able to pass when cars have no where to move aside?

Frustrating drivers isn't the best way to tackle climate change. (Another sidebar is that DC has dramatically reduced parking spaces while simultaneously using $2.5 million of its covid money to hire more parking enforcement officers.

A very vocal and bullying crowd of cycling activists is crowding out a more silent majority. Cyclists need to be safer and they are still by far the minority of voters in DC. And let's turn to more effective ways to address climate change like promoting veganism.

Blocking parking options will also hurt businesses. This new traffic pattern is not well thought out. We need better for our city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I started working downtown again and traffic is going to be an absolut nightmare once people fully return. So many streets are essentially one lane now with side/former parking lanes blocked off by barriers for bikes. It even makes me question what would happen in an emergency. How will ambulances and fire trucks be able to pass when cars have no where to move aside?

Frustrating drivers isn't the best way to tackle climate change. (Another sidebar is that DC has dramatically reduced parking spaces while simultaneously using $2.5 million of its covid money to hire more parking enforcement officers.

A very vocal and bullying crowd of cycling activists is crowding out a more silent majority. Cyclists need to be safer and they are still by far the minority of voters in DC. And let's turn to more effective ways to address climate change like promoting veganism.

Blocking parking options will also hurt businesses. This new traffic pattern is not well thought out. We need better for our city.

Wrong. That "silent majority" you're talking about are mostly out-of-state commuters who just want to race around our narrow city street. The actual majority of DC residents want to stop that senseless carnage by making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I started working downtown again and traffic is going to be an absolut nightmare once people fully return. So many streets are essentially one lane now with side/former parking lanes blocked off by barriers for bikes. It even makes me question what would happen in an emergency. How will ambulances and fire trucks be able to pass when cars have no where to move aside?

Frustrating drivers isn't the best way to tackle climate change. (Another sidebar is that DC has dramatically reduced parking spaces while simultaneously using $2.5 million of its covid money to hire more parking enforcement officers.

A very vocal and bullying crowd of cycling activists is crowding out a more silent majority. Cyclists need to be safer and they are still by far the minority of voters in DC. And let's turn to more effective ways to address climate change like promoting veganism.

Blocking parking options will also hurt businesses. This new traffic pattern is not well thought out. We need better for our city.

Wrong. That "silent majority" you're talking about are mostly out-of-state commuters who just want to race around our narrow city street. The actual majority of DC residents want to stop that senseless carnage by making streets safer for bikers and pedestrians.

Is this your opinion or do you have legitimate, believable data to back up your claim?