Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Just like those motherf*ers who want neverending breadsticks at Olive Garden. The nerve.

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Bikers want to do this really dangerous thing -- ride their bikes is a huge, congested city -- but they don't want to take any responsibility for anything that would make it safer. It's always someone else's job to make it safer, and always someone else's fault when they get hurt. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else.

They want also special exemptions from existing safety rules like having to stop at 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Bikers want to do this really dangerous thing -- ride their bikes is a huge, congested city -- but they don't want to take any responsibility for anything that would make it safer. It's always someone else's job to make it safer, and always someone else's fault when they get hurt. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else.

What specific rules are you so upset about?

Still waiting on those specific rules.

The one about not allowing drivers to turn right on red anywhere is kind of hilarious. What is this supposed to accomplish? My guess is there was an accident one time, somewhere, where someone was turning right on red and of course that prompts the city to change the law. Government by anecdote. If that driver had instead been wearing a blue hat at the time of the accident, it would now be illegal for drivers to wear blue hats.

No evidence that banning people from turning right on red protects anyone, but no one cares. Meanwhile there's a mountain of evidence that helmets save lives, but somehow that's not good enough for bikers.

I'm a driver and I actually stopped turning red on most lights in DC at busy intersections anyway. I pretend I'm not turning then turn on my blinker when the light changes to green and then proceed to turn.

I hate creeping into crosswalks at red lights just to appease impatient people behind me.

I don't do it to avoid getting a red light camera ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Bikers want to do this really dangerous thing -- ride their bikes is a huge, congested city -- but they don't want to take any responsibility for anything that would make it safer. It's always someone else's job to make it safer, and always someone else's fault when they get hurt. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else.

They want also special exemptions from existing safety rules like having to stop at stop signs.

I'm a driver and I don't care about this because if I see a biker as I approach a stop sign, and I actually stop fully, I see what they're doing. I always let them proceed anyways (along with any pedestrians, whoever), before I go. So what do I care?

Generally when I am at a stop sign, I will stop and see if there are other cars before me at the stop sign. I'm not checking for some bike from far away that will blow through the stop sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Bikers want to do this really dangerous thing -- ride their bikes is a huge, congested city -- but they don't want to take any responsibility for anything that would make it safer. It's always someone else's job to make it safer, and always someone else's fault when they get hurt. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else.

They want also special exemptions from existing safety rules like having to stop at stop signs.

Is this the "rule" you're so upset about? That you have to stop at a stop sign anyways? So stop, pause, don't proceed if you see a biker. If you actually stop, like the legal way to stop, at a stop sign, this isn't a big deal.

Seems like there's at least a couple issues here:

1. Passing restrictions on drivers that have little to do with safety and that everyone knows will never be enforced (like banning people from turning right on red) while simultaneously excusing some people (bikers) from having to follow common safety rules just makes a mockery of the law. It teaches the public that traffic laws in D.C. mean nothing and that makes everyone less safe.

2. The main issue most drivers probably have with cyclists is how unpredictable they are. You just have no idea which traffic laws they will choose to obey. Making it official that they dont have to respect stop signs just ups that unpredictability, which is going to lead to more accidents.

Would it surprise you to know that RTOR is not permitted in the 5 boroughs of NYC in the absence of a posted sign?

[Anonymous]

It’s cute that people pretend to think that traffic lsws are directed in DC snd but for prohibiting right turn on red drivers would scrupulously avoid using their cellphones while yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks and coming to a full and complete stop at signed intersections. But for no right on red there would be no aggressive driving, road rage or overturned vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Bikers want to do this really dangerous thing -- ride their bikes is a huge, congested city -- but they don't want to take any responsibility for anything that would make it safer. It's always someone else's job to make it safer, and always someone else's fault when they get hurt. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else.

They want also special exemptions from existing safety rules like having to stop at stop signs.

Is this the "rule" you're so upset about? That you have to stop at a stop sign anyways? So stop, pause, don't proceed if you see a biker. If you actually stop, like the legal way to stop, at a stop sign, this isn't a big deal.

Seems like there's at least a couple issues here:

1. Passing restrictions on drivers that have little to do with safety and that everyone knows will never be enforced (like banning people from turning right on red) while simultaneously excusing some people (bikers) from having to follow common safety rules just makes a mockery of the law. It teaches the public that traffic laws in D.C. mean nothing and that makes everyone less safe.

2. The main issue most drivers probably have with cyclists is how unpredictable they are. You just have no idea which traffic laws they will choose to obey. Making it official that they dont have to respect stop signs just ups that unpredictability, which is going to lead to more accidents.

Would it surprise you to know that RTOR is not permitted in the 5 boroughs of NYC in the absence of a posted sign?

Ok. Not sure how that's relevant. (Right turns on right are permitted throughout virtually the entire United States -- New York is a rare exemption)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Bikers want to do this really dangerous thing -- ride their bikes is a huge, congested city -- but they don't want to take any responsibility for anything that would make it safer. It's always someone else's job to make it safer, and always someone else's fault when they get hurt. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else.

They want also special exemptions from existing safety rules like having to stop at stop signs.

Is this the "rule" you're so upset about? That you have to stop at a stop sign anyways? So stop, pause, don't proceed if you see a biker. If you actually stop, like the legal way to stop, at a stop sign, this isn't a big deal.

Seems like there's at least a couple issues here:

1. Passing restrictions on drivers that have little to do with safety and that everyone knows will never be enforced (like banning people from turning right on red) while simultaneously excusing some people (bikers) from having to follow common safety rules just makes a mockery of the law. It teaches the public that traffic laws in D.C. mean nothing and that makes everyone less safe.

2. The main issue most drivers probably have with cyclists is how unpredictable they are. You just have no idea which traffic laws they will choose to obey. Making it official that they dont have to respect stop signs just ups that unpredictability, which is going to lead to more accidents.

It would be better if they city only passed laws it intends to vigorously enforce. No more press release laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how I’ve survived 40 years of biking as a kid and adult biking… a lot… never once wearing a helmet with no injuries. Safety is more than regulations and rules. It’s being responsible and aware.

This reminds me of those movies where there's a guy who wrestles with bears or tigers or whatever and says he has a special connection with them and he's been doing it for decades and they would never hurt him so clearly it's safe. Then, one day, he gets disemboweled.

Why are there no safety regulations to prevent people from hiking in woods where there are bears??

You think you’re being clever but actually there are requirements to have bear canisters in order to camp in national parks with significant presence of bears.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Oh that's great, but wouldn't it be safer for them to just not go out there at all?

It sounds like you're advocating for a reasonable balance of risk with freedom to enjoy the outdoors and all the benefits that come with that.

The “reason balance” is to require use of mitigation, e.g. use a bear canister or wear a helmet. Clearly you have not thought this through.

The nice thing about drivers, unlike bears, is that you can make rules that govern their behavior and expect them to at least understand them, if not actually follow them. You can also change cars' habitats more readily than you can bears'. Which is all to say, unlike with bears, people who want protection from cars don't have to do all the work themselves.

First, the vast majority of bike accidents have nothing to do with vehicles. So you are focused on the wrong thing.

Second, it’s never either or. Safety always should be multi-faceted such that you are not solely reliant on one point of potential failure.

Wear a friggin’ helmet. And if you don’t have helmets on your kids you should be criminally prosecuted.

I see parents carrying children in their laps on ebikes without helmets.

I see drivers running red lights and stop signs without repercussion every day, what's your point? Can we start with enforcement of drivers? I only drive, but I have to get my kid into their school and it's sometimes a bit challenging with the number of people who don't bleeping know to fully stop before the line at a stop sign. Can we start with those idiots first?

We could slash the number of head injuries overnight with a helmet requirement. Pretty simple and effective and costs the government nothing. It's odd the bikers who claim to care about safety are so angry about the idea that they should have to wear a helmet.

Are we going to start making pedestrians wear helmets? Otherwise, I still prefer to enforce the driving law as a priority and when that is fixed, fix the bike helmets. As it is, what do you think, DC MPD is going to chase down bicyclists about helmets when they don't pull anyone over, EVER for running lights and stop signs? I mean 15 years in this city and never saw a cop pull anyone over for a traffic infraction but they are going to start pulling bikers over?

Sorry, no, pull the drivers over first. Start there, please.

Bikers want to do this really dangerous thing -- ride their bikes is a huge, congested city -- but they don't want to take any responsibility for anything that would make it safer. It's always someone else's job to make it safer, and always someone else's fault when they get hurt. No rules for them, endless rules for everyone else.

What specific rules are you so upset about?

Still waiting on those specific rules.

The one about not allowing drivers to turn right on red anywhere is kind of hilarious. What is this supposed to accomplish? My guess is there was an accident one time, somewhere, where someone was turning right on red and of course that prompts the city to change the law. Government by anecdote. If that driver had instead been wearing a blue hat at the time of the accident, it would now be illegal for drivers to wear blue hats.

No evidence that banning people from turning right on red protects anyone, but no one cares. Meanwhile there's a mountain of evidence that helmets save lives, but somehow that's not good enough for bikers.

This is a uniquely D.C. thing, constantly changing the law in response to every little event.

[Anonymous]

DcCouncil is too lazy