City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bicyclists hate having to stop at the end of each block for a stop sign because they think it's too physically tiring to constantly have to stop and start again. That's why they're doing this.

The safety argument (which makes zero sense) is just a fig leaf.

Well to be fair, when a cyclist take the lane as they are legally allowed to do, the cars stacked up behind them don't want to stop for the cyclist at each stop sign either.

Yeah, next time you're driving behind a bicycle, see how happy you are if the cyclist stops at every stop sign.

Pretty sure this has never happened so I guess we'll never know how a driver would respond

I have personally done it and I will never do it again. Between the people screaming at me and the cars gunning their engines to illegally pass me, never again.

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/wpgeye/status/1569823888724627456

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cars NEVER stop for stop signs unless there is conflicting traffic. Seriously - stand by any stop sign and see for yourself. Every single one rolls through.

Allowing cyclists to roll through increases safety because they can proceed through the intersection when they see it's clear.

They never stop even if there is conflicting traffic. That is why the stop light cameras (like the one in Glover Park) rake in millions in fines. Because none of the drivers in this city actually knows what "stop" means. The reality is that - outside of the intersections with these cameras - the Idaho Stop is perfectly normal and accepted behavior even for heavy vehicles. The total hypocrisy of drivers on this - and other issues of compliance with traffic laws - is phenomenal.

Err, bicyclists are the ones claiming here that they should be exempt from a law (stopping at stop signs) that everyone else must follow.

Sure, you may have seen a driver run a stop sign but there's a half million vehicles in the city so you're going to see all kinds of things.

And drivers are not asking the city council to give them a special exemption from the law.

A cyclist yielding at an open intersection does not harm anyone. Cars not stopping can be fatal.

That's not how any of this is going to work.

No one is going to remember or even be aware of any details about "open intersections" or any other caveats that may be in the bill. People will just interpret this as: Bicyclists don't have to obey stop signs or traffic lights.

Maybe some drivers will interpret this as stop signs being optional too? People will have all kinds of crazy interpretations of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Now do shoplifting.

Agreed 100%

It’s a petty charge used to harm BIPOC. Get rid of it.

Already in the works. Also, Charles Allen's crime reform bill would also make it easier for certain sex offenders to get off the hook. You can't make this up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bicyclists hate having to stop at the end of each block for a stop sign because they think it's too physically tiring to constantly have to stop and start again. That's why they're doing this.

The safety argument (which makes zero sense) is just a fig leaf.

Well to be fair, when a cyclist take the lane as they are legally allowed to do, the cars stacked up behind them don't want to stop for the cyclist at each stop sign either.

Yeah, next time you're driving behind a bicycle, see how happy you are if the cyclist stops at every stop sign.

Pretty sure this has never happened so I guess we'll never know how a driver would respond

I have personally done it and I will never do it again. Between the people screaming at me and the cars gunning their engines to illegally pass me, never again.

This is super weird argument. So you're saying you shouldnt have to obey a traffic law because a driver "might" scowl at you if you do? I drive and I wish bicyclists would stop at every stop sign. It seems not great for the city life in general for one class of travelers to think they're just completely exempt from traffic laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bicyclists hate having to stop at the end of each block for a stop sign because they think it's too physically tiring to constantly have to stop and start again. That's why they're doing this.

The safety argument (which makes zero sense) is just a fig leaf.

Well to be fair, when a cyclist take the lane as they are legally allowed to do, the cars stacked up behind them don't want to stop for the cyclist at each stop sign either.

Yeah, next time you're driving behind a bicycle, see how happy you are if the cyclist stops at every stop sign.

Pretty sure this has never happened so I guess we'll never know how a driver would respond

I have personally done it and I will never do it again. Between the people screaming at me and the cars gunning their engines to illegally pass me, never again.

This is super weird argument. So you're saying you shouldnt have to obey a traffic law because a driver "might" scowl at you if you do? I drive and I wish bicyclists would stop at every stop sign. It seems not great for the city life in general for one class of travelers to think they're just completely exempt from traffic laws.

I personally think it's safer if everyone does what the other people around are expecting them to do, based on the law. But I will say that pretty often what happens is that I approach a stop sign on my bike while a car is already stopped there or is arriving before I will. I wave at the car to go as I approach the stop sign, while I'm slowing down. Instead, it sits there waiting for me and gestures for me to go. Which just slows down the process of everyone making it through the intersection. And then, yes, often the driver gives me a dirty look for ... I guess expecting them not to yield to me when it's not my right of way? Not sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bicyclists hate having to stop at the end of each block for a stop sign because they think it's too physically tiring to constantly have to stop and start again. That's why they're doing this.

The safety argument (which makes zero sense) is just a fig leaf.

Well to be fair, when a cyclist take the lane as they are legally allowed to do, the cars stacked up behind them don't want to stop for the cyclist at each stop sign either.

Yeah, next time you're driving behind a bicycle, see how happy you are if the cyclist stops at every stop sign.

Pretty sure this has never happened so I guess we'll never know how a driver would respond

I have personally done it and I will never do it again. Between the people screaming at me and the cars gunning their engines to illegally pass me, never again.

This is super weird argument. So you're saying you shouldnt have to obey a traffic law because a driver "might" scowl at you if you do? I drive and I wish bicyclists would stop at every stop sign. It seems not great for the city life in general for one class of travelers to think they're just completely exempt from traffic laws.

I personally think it's safer if everyone does what the other people around are expecting them to do, based on the law. But I will say that pretty often what happens is that I approach a stop sign on my bike while a car is already stopped there or is arriving before I will. I wave at the car to go as I approach the stop sign, while I'm slowing down. Instead, it sits there waiting for me and gestures for me to go. Which just slows down the process of everyone making it through the intersection. And then, yes, often the driver gives me a dirty look for ... I guess expecting them not to yield to me when it's not my right of way? Not sure.

I drive and my main problem with cyclists is how unpredictable they are. You have no idea what they're going to do or which traffic law they're going to decide to follow. I never feel that way about other drivers. Sure, some of them do stupid things but in general drivers obey the law and can be counted on obeying the law and that makes car traffic generally pretty predictable. This proposal by the city council will just make bicycle traffic that must more unpredictable (partly because who knows what an "open intersection" or whatever stupid terminology they're using even means). I don't get how that helps anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Now do shoplifting.

Agreed 100%

It’s a petty charge used to harm BIPOC. Get rid of it.

OR...we start teaching people not to steal???

This reeks of some low expectation bullshit. Seriously, this is disgusting. HAVE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY for once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Now do shoplifting.

Agreed 100%

It’s a petty charge used to harm BIPOC. Get rid of it.

Shoplifters of the world, unite and take over! I never would have guessed Morrissey would be so prophetic.

[Anonymous]

The city endlessly harasses drivers and yet there seem to be no rules at all imposed on cyclists. They don't have to wear helmets. They're free to put young children on bikes in incredibly dangerous situations. And now they can ignore stop signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bicyclists hate having to stop at the end of each block for a stop sign because they think it's too physically tiring to constantly have to stop and start again. That's why they're doing this.

The safety argument (which makes zero sense) is just a fig leaf.

Well to be fair, when a cyclist take the lane as they are legally allowed to do, the cars stacked up behind them don't want to stop for the cyclist at each stop sign either.

Yeah, next time you're driving behind a bicycle, see how happy you are if the cyclist stops at every stop sign.

Pretty sure this has never happened so I guess we'll never know how a driver would respond

I have personally done it and I will never do it again. Between the people screaming at me and the cars gunning their engines to illegally pass me, never again.

This is super weird argument. So you're saying you shouldnt have to obey a traffic law because a driver "might" scowl at you if you do? I drive and I wish bicyclists would stop at every stop sign. It seems not great for the city life in general for one class of travelers to think they're just completely exempt from traffic laws.

I personally think it's safer if everyone does what the other people around are expecting them to do, based on the law. But I will say that pretty often what happens is that I approach a stop sign on my bike while a car is already stopped there or is arriving before I will. I wave at the car to go as I approach the stop sign, while I'm slowing down. Instead, it sits there waiting for me and gestures for me to go. Which just slows down the process of everyone making it through the intersection. And then, yes, often the driver gives me a dirty look for ... I guess expecting them not to yield to me when it's not my right of way? Not sure.

I drive and my main problem with cyclists is how unpredictable they are. You have no idea what they're going to do or which traffic law they're going to decide to follow. I never feel that way about other drivers. Sure, some of them do stupid things but in general drivers obey the law and can be counted on obeying the law and that makes car traffic generally pretty predictable. This proposal by the city council will just make bicycle traffic that must more unpredictable (partly because who knows what an "open intersection" or whatever stupid terminology they're using even means). I don't get how that helps anyone.

But that’s what makes it fun! You never know who— or what — is going to come shooting out from your blind spot and cut you off before your right turn. Dc driving has never felt so exciting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bicyclists hate having to stop at the end of each block for a stop sign because they think it's too physically tiring to constantly have to stop and start again. That's why they're doing this.

The safety argument (which makes zero sense) is just a fig leaf.

Well to be fair, when a cyclist take the lane as they are legally allowed to do, the cars stacked up behind them don't want to stop for the cyclist at each stop sign either.

Yeah, next time you're driving behind a bicycle, see how happy you are if the cyclist stops at every stop sign.

Pretty sure this has never happened so I guess we'll never know how a driver would respond

I have personally done it and I will never do it again. Between the people screaming at me and the cars gunning their engines to illegally pass me, never again.

This is super weird argument. So you're saying you shouldnt have to obey a traffic law because a driver "might" scowl at you if you do? I drive and I wish bicyclists would stop at every stop sign. It seems not great for the city life in general for one class of travelers to think they're just completely exempt from traffic laws.

I personally think it's safer if everyone does what the other people around are expecting them to do, based on the law. But I will say that pretty often what happens is that I approach a stop sign on my bike while a car is already stopped there or is arriving before I will. I wave at the car to go as I approach the stop sign, while I'm slowing down. Instead, it sits there waiting for me and gestures for me to go. Which just slows down the process of everyone making it through the intersection. And then, yes, often the driver gives me a dirty look for ... I guess expecting them not to yield to me when it's not my right of way? Not sure.

I have the same experience. I will always yield to a driver that arrives at the intersection first but most will just waive me through anyway. If I know I will make it their first, I will go through to make things quicker for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the law says you can treat stop signs as yields, how does that change the legal liability? If you run a yield and you get hit, that's your fault.

Charge the driver for hitting a cyclist. That’s how.


Any other ridiculously simple things you need explained? I’m here to help.

DC is a contributory negligence jurisdiction. This is very bad for cyclists in accidents with cars and great for drivers who hit cyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The city endlessly harasses drivers and yet there seem to be no rules at all imposed on cyclists. They don't have to wear helmets. They're free to put young children on bikes in incredibly dangerous situations. And now they can ignore stop signs.

How does it harm you if a cyclist doesn't wear a helmet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the law says you can treat stop signs as yields, how does that change the legal liability? If you run a yield and you get hit, that's your fault.

Charge the driver for hitting a cyclist. That’s how.


Any other ridiculously simple things you need explained? I’m here to help.

DC is a contributory negligence jurisdiction. This is very bad for cyclists in accidents with cars and great for drivers who hit cyclists.

The bullshit on here just never stops. DC is NOT a contributory negligence jurisdiction and has not been one for many years. Google shit before you spout out misinformation, please!