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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has far too mamy hills which make it more difficult to yield to pedestrians. There won't be enough time to stop and the pedestrians won't see the cyclists coming.

I don't think you understand what "yield" means. You have to slow down when you come to an intersection to make sure there is no other traffic (and pedestrians are traffic). You just don't have to come to a complete stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not quite, the proposal is to allow Idaho stops which lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. It is actually associated with fewer cyclist injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

This is true. It also is associated with greater pedestrian injuries.

Mary Cheh doesn't care about pedestrian safety. She blew me off when I was injured by a Safeway truck in a dangerous cross walk.

I will never forget avoiding a horrific collision by a split second with a speeding bicycle messenger in a crosswalk in another city. Unfortunately, he hit another pedestrian walking next to me, causing severe open wound, broken bone injuries to the person next to me. The cyclist's bicycle was twisted in a knot and the front wheel became disengaged.

THIS, above. Sure, Idaho stops are better for cyclists. For pedestrians, not so much. It's going to take a pedestrian getting killed by a cyclist to get anyone to realize that pedestrians are vulnerable and that cycles hitting a pedestrian can indeed kill the pedestrian.

That happened downtown about five years ago and, NB!, not once since then. Meanwhile, dozens of pedestrians are killed and hundreds more maimed by cars in DC each year. But yes, bicycles are the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not quite, the proposal is to allow Idaho stops which lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. It is actually associated with fewer cyclist injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

This is true. It also is associated with greater pedestrian injuries.

Mary Cheh doesn't care about pedestrian safety. She blew me off when I was injured by a Safeway truck in a dangerous cross walk.

I will never forget avoiding a horrific collision by a split second with a speeding bicycle messenger in a crosswalk in another city. Unfortunately, he hit another pedestrian walking next to me, causing severe open wound, broken bone injuries to the person next to me. The cyclist's bicycle was twisted in a knot and the front wheel became disengaged.

THIS, above. Sure, Idaho stops are better for cyclists. For pedestrians, not so much. It's going to take a pedestrian getting killed by a cyclist to get anyone to realize that pedestrians are vulnerable and that cycles hitting a pedestrian can indeed kill the pedestrian.

That happened downtown about five years ago and, NB!, not once since then. Meanwhile, dozens of pedestrians are killed and hundreds more maimed by cars in DC each year. But yes, bicycles are the problem.

I remember this incident. The cycling enthusiasts went out of their way to blame the pedestrian, because cyclists are never to blame for anything. It was gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is provennto be safer. Stop with this anti-cyclist hate.

I'm guessing you haven't been hit on a crosswalk or crossing by a cyclist.

[Anonymous]

Horrible idea. I really do not care about momentum. If you ride a bike you obey all the laws. I can see cars getting stuck a stop signs because the bikers will just continue to go through the intersection.

Chen is out of touch and needs to retire. She is also in favor of removing 190 parking spacing in Glover Park for a bike lane. While at the same time opposing restricting parking on Reservoir Road in front of Georgetown University during construction of the new Hospital- a traffic nightmare. All that parking is used by Georgetown Hospital staff and patients not local residents.

She got all upset about Maret using Jelleff but did nothing with the Duke Ellington field. The Duke Ellington field just sits there in unused. If Hardy was so in need of a field you think she would get off her a$$ and open Ellington field for others to use. Now it’s just an abandoned sports field taken over by dog owners and filled with dog cr#p.

I really do not know who she listens to but it’s not the people who live in ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Well, at least we know who to blame when -- inevitably -- a cyclist is killed by a car when the driver had the right-of-way or a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist when lawfully crossing a road.

Cheers to "maintaining momentum."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not quite, the proposal is to allow Idaho stops which lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. It is actually associated with fewer cyclist injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

This is true. It also is associated with greater pedestrian injuries.

Mary Cheh doesn't care about pedestrian safety. She blew me off when I was injured by a Safeway truck in a dangerous cross walk.

I will never forget avoiding a horrific collision by a split second with a speeding bicycle messenger in a crosswalk in another city. Unfortunately, he hit another pedestrian walking next to me, causing severe open wound, broken bone injuries to the person next to me. The cyclist's bicycle was twisted in a knot and the front wheel became disengaged.

THIS, above. Sure, Idaho stops are better for cyclists. For pedestrians, not so much. It's going to take a pedestrian getting killed by a cyclist to get anyone to realize that pedestrians are vulnerable and that cycles hitting a pedestrian can indeed kill the pedestrian.

That happened downtown about five years ago and, NB!, not once since then. Meanwhile, dozens of pedestrians are killed and hundreds more maimed by cars in DC each year. But yes, bicycles are the problem.

I remember this incident. The cycling enthusiasts went out of their way to blame the pedestrian, because cyclists are never to blame for anything. It was gross.

Not a great look, I agree. But this is a red herring; let's keep things in perspective. It wasn't nearly as disgusting as the ways car apologists go out of their way to blame pedestrians and cyclists for their own deaths and injuries, because drivers are never at fault for anything.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that deaths and injuries caused by motorists are more frequent by an order of magnitude.

[Anonymous]

No, my story didn't take place in downtown DC in DC. It happened when I lived in NYC.

And no city in Idaho has the traffic and pedestrian traffic that DC has. Completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has far too mamy hills which make it more difficult to yield to pedestrians. There won't be enough time to stop and the pedestrians won't see the cyclists coming.

I don't think you understand what "yield" means. You have to slow down when you come to an intersection to make sure there is no other traffic (and pedestrians are traffic). You just don't have to come to a complete stop.

I meant if they were coming down a hill and need to stop for a slow moving family with little kids or stolllers. If someone is there they have to stop. They may not be able to see anyone over the hill to slow down or stop before it's too late.

[Anonymous]

I’m totally in favor of cyclists doing as they please.

One applied the Cheh proposal in an early pilot scheme yesterday and blew a stop sign right through a busy Dupont intersection. Not a glance at the cars having to come to a screeching halt.

So totally in favor. As long as the new rules are accompanying by a complete indemnification for cars. You blow a stop sign? Good on ya? If you get hit? Too bad. You blew the stop sign.

Like skiing. You get on the mountain and ski at your own risk.

[Anonymous]

Having been a regular bike commuter (though not now) - the stop sign thing makes a lot of sense. Slowing way down at a stop sign, looking both ways, and going if it's clear, is very possible without coming to a full and complete stop, and the full and complete stop is BRUTAL on a bike, without any advantage. And yes, if you're a car behind that bike, it's gonna slow you WAY down.

I don't agree with the other half of this, which is apparently turning red lights into stop signs. No. You need to stop at a red light and wait until it turns green. How is that a question? That sounds really dangerous to me.

[Anonymous]

The reality is that a majority of the bikers in DC don’t know how to cycle safely and don’t obey they must basic rules (like one way streets, signaling, lights at night). You do you, but if you get hit, I would get you help but wouldn’t lift a finger to prosecute the driver and would make civil action pay out a max of $50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She says it's important for bicyclists to be able to "maintain momentum."

Uh, what?

If you're too lazy to stop at stop signs, whether you're in a car or on a bike, maybe you shouldnt be on the road.

This being D.C., she is pairing this "safety" proposal with other plans to make it harder to drive a car.

This is what being captured by special interests (i.e., the bike lobby) looks like.

https://twitter.com/marycheh/status/1496223827524820995

what's the Idaho stop?

An "Idaho stop" is the euphemism they've created to describe bicyclists ignoring stop signs. If cars did this, people would be apoplectic.

First, cars routinely fail to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and yet the world continues to turn.

Moreover, you know what would make people (in cars) apoplectic? If each and every cyclist scrupulously obeyed each and every traffic law. So, coming to a complete stop at stop signs and traffic lights, and also taking the lane, as they are entitled to do under DC law. Not in bike lanes - in the regular multi-use traffic lanes (which drivers refer to as car lanes). A week of this, and drivers would lose their minds because cyclists were *obeying* traffic laws.

This. If I didn't think I would be run over, I would legally take a lane and stop fully at every stop sign, just to piss off all the drivers stacked up behind me. Cars do not stop at stop signs, and this is sensible legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this really so much of a problem that there needs to be legislation? Bicyclists routinely roll through stop signs when there is nothing coming--I don't see anyone getting ticketed or arrested for that. Just let it be. There are so many other issues crying out for attention in DC...like crime. Of course, Cheh got blasted for saying anything about that.

Yes, it is. Look at every thread of drivers complaining about cyclists and this is one of the main issues raised. Making it legal allows us to focus on more important things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not quite, the proposal is to allow Idaho stops which lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs. It is actually associated with fewer cyclist injuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Wow. Who knew stop signs were so dangerous? And here I was thinking they made the roads safer.

Because getting up to speed on a bike takes longer and drivers often don't see or ignore a stopped cyclist. Everywhere that has tried it has seen a decrease in injuries.

somehow it's drivers faults that people on bikes find it too physically taxing to stop at stop signs.

What is the driver's excuse for not stopping fully at each stop sign?