I almost hit a biker this morning.

[Anonymous]

It's great to say that cyclists have every right to be out there with cars (and they do) but we are kidding ourselves if anyone expects them to follow the traffic laws that cars are required to. They don't. If they did it would almost defeat the purpose of them riding their bikes. No one rides a bike in downtown DC to sit in traffic with the other cars. They do it because they make much better time because they don't stop at red lights, stop signs, or intersections. They can weave in and out of cars and be on their way while the cars are stuck waiting. It's just the way it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's great to say that cyclists have every right to be out there with cars (and they do) but we are kidding ourselves if anyone expects them to follow the traffic laws that cars are required to. They don't. If they did it would almost defeat the purpose of them riding their bikes. No one rides a bike in downtown DC to sit in traffic with the other cars. They do it because they make much better time because they don't stop at red lights, stop signs, or intersections. They can weave in and out of cars and be on their way while the cars are stuck waiting. It's just the way it is.

I notice too many cyclists riding in the street who fail to stop at lights and stop signs. They simply keep going as if the rules designed to avoid collisions don't apply. This is a problem that puts everyone at risk, (including the pedestrians who step out into the intersection with legal expectations of having the right of way over all vehicles).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I appreciate your concerns, the reality is that this is a legal mode of transportation. So the issue is how to maximize safety and awareness for all parties involved -- motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Yes, it's legal, just as it was legal to drive cars without seatbelts in the olden days. And to adevertise cigarettes. And to sell liquor to minors. But that was all changed, and bikes should also be banned for safety reasons except on separate bike paths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's great to say that cyclists have every right to be out there with cars (and they do) but we are kidding ourselves if anyone expects them to follow the traffic laws that cars are required to. They don't. If they did it would almost defeat the purpose of them riding their bikes. No one rides a bike in downtown DC to sit in traffic with the other cars. They do it because they make much better time because they don't stop at red lights, stop signs, or intersections. They can weave in and out of cars and be on their way while the cars are stuck waiting. It's just the way it is.

I don't disagree. The problem arises when cyclists expect to benefit from flouting the rules themselves (better speed) but also expect to be protected from the consequences of said rule-flouting. You'll never hear a situation where a cyclist who ran a light and got hit by a car says "yeah, I've got a broken leg and collarbone, but I broke the law, and that's just the way it is" *happy shrug*.

Until cyclists follow the rules that other moving vehicles follow, I don't think we owe them any special consideration. You can't have it both ways.

And get that FUCKING THING OFF MY SIDEWALK!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I appreciate your concerns, the reality is that this is a legal mode of transportation. So the issue is how to maximize safety and awareness for all parties involved -- motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Yes, it's legal, just as it was legal to drive cars without seatbelts in the olden days. And to adevertise cigarettes. And to sell liquor to minors. But that was all changed, and bikes should also be banned for safety reasons except on separate bike paths.

Ban Hummers, Escalades, and everything too big for DC streets, including people who never use their turn signals. Ban jerks, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's great to say that cyclists have every right to be out there with cars (and they do) but we are kidding ourselves if anyone expects them to follow the traffic laws that cars are required to. They don't. If they did it would almost defeat the purpose of them riding their bikes. No one rides a bike in downtown DC to sit in traffic with the other cars. They do it because they make much better time because they don't stop at red lights, stop signs, or intersections. They can weave in and out of cars and be on their way while the cars are stuck waiting. It's just the way it is.

I don't disagree. The problem arises when cyclists expect to benefit from flouting the rules themselves (better speed) but also expect to be protected from the consequences of said rule-flouting. You'll never hear a situation where a cyclist who ran a light and got hit by a car says "yeah, I've got a broken leg and collarbone, but I broke the law, and that's just the way it is" *happy shrug*.

Until cyclists follow the rules that other moving vehicles follow, I don't think we owe them any special consideration. You can't have it both ways.

And get that FUCKING THING OFF MY SIDEWALK!!!!!

Next time I pass you I'll be sure to run over your foot.

[Anonymous]

More people die in car collisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Next time I pass you I'll be sure to run over your foot.

Excellent job of proving exactly why motorists and pedestrians shouldn't give a damn about cyclists. I feel more justifed than ever in sticking my umbrella in your spokes.

[Anonymous]

And then I'll still be there alll un-anonymous, not-on-the-internet, and angry and not leaving. Won't that be fun? Grow up and get a real problem.

[Anonymous]

Well, this has devolved, hasn't it?

Biker here. The one who was hit by a car. Drivers, please double check your mirrors and use your turn signals. Bikers, be visible and predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't disagree. The problem arises when cyclists expect to benefit from flouting the rules themselves (better speed) but also expect to be protected from the consequences of said rule-flouting. /quote]

I totally agree with this. I can't tell you how many times I have driven behind a cyclist at like 10 mph, giving them plenty of space and waiting until it is safe to pass them, only to have the cyclist then run the next red light, putting me in the exact same situation. Sometimes over and over again. If cyclists want to be treated the same as other vehicles, they should follow all of the rules, not just pick and choose what is convenient for them. If they are going to ignore the rules to save time, they shouldn't complain when others do the same.

[Anonymous]

Oops, coded quote wrong. This was me:

I totally agree with this. I can't tell you how many times I have driven behind a cyclist at like 10 mph, giving them plenty of space and waiting until it is safe to pass them, only to have the cyclist then run the next red light, putting me in the exact same situation. Sometimes over and over again. If cyclists want to be treated the same as other vehicles, they should follow all of the rules, not just pick and choose what is convenient for them. If they are going to ignore the rules to save time, they shouldn't complain when others do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oops, coded quote wrong. This was me:

I totally agree with this. I can't tell you how many times I have driven behind a cyclist at like 10 mph, giving them plenty of space and waiting until it is safe to pass them, only to have the cyclist then run the next red light, putting me in the exact same situation. Sometimes over and over again. If cyclists want to be treated the same as other vehicles, they should follow all of the rules, not just pick and choose what is convenient for them. If they are going to ignore the rules to save time, they shouldn't complain when others do the same.

I can actually speak to this. Sometimes it's better to just pass the cyclist (and thank you for doing so safely). It's not so much that I'm looking to save time as I'm sometimes just trying to get some space between myself and someone who isn't really paying attention (hello cell phone users). Also, it's freaky when someone is behind you at 10 miles an hour. If I can SAFELY place myself so that you can pass me, I will. If moving over puts me in the door zone, or into another dangerous situation, I usually just keep goign, make eye contact i fpossible to let you know I see you, and hope you will wait the 30 seconds it takes for me to get to a place where there is more room for both of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And then I'll still be there alll un-anonymous, not-on-the-internet, and angry and not leaving. Won't that be fun? Grow up and get a real problem.

I'll just hop in a cab and leave your sorry two wheeled ass on the sidewalk. You grow up and get a real mode of transportation. This ain't mawmaw's old farm lane, you know.

[Anonymous]

Oh my.