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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see about 3 cyclists max during any commute these days. Not sure why the city is spending so much to redesign the streets of dc to accommodate a small minority of predominantly wealthy, white and vocal constituents. Most low-income workers don't live on the metro and aren't riding bikes into DC.

Yeah, all I feel are these weird bumps that make ding-ding sounds but by the time I look up from my phone I don't see anything so there must not be lots of bicyclists. I'm a very stable non-psychopath.

[Anonymous]

It would be totally unsurprising if DC or MD spent millions of dollars that could be used for millions of more worthy projects simply to appease a small minority the majority of which are jerks. And once it's built the jerks will immediately complain about what is wrong with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see about 3 cyclists max during any commute these days. Not sure why the city is spending so much to redesign the streets of dc to accommodate a small minority of predominantly wealthy, white and vocal constituents. Most low-income workers don't live on the metro and aren't riding bikes into DC.

I know, right? There is a river near me that the local DOT wants to build a bridge over. But I never see anyone driving or biking or trying to cross the river there. Absurd that they would. build infrastructure to accommodate people that doesn't already exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see about 3 cyclists max during any commute these days. Not sure why the city is spending so much to redesign the streets of dc to accommodate a small minority of predominantly wealthy, white and vocal constituents. Most low-income workers don't live on the metro and aren't riding bikes into DC.

I know, right? There is a river near me that the local DOT wants to build a bridge over. But I never see anyone driving or biking or trying to cross the river there. Absurd that they would. build infrastructure to accommodate people that doesn't already exist.

Let's be honest, there are several MD drivers who try to cross a river without a bridge yet. Truly visionary.

[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

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.

+1000 you only need to commute to work on a bicycle for a week to understand this. If you haven’t, it is just too difficult a concept to understand for the average person with a car mindset.

[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.

+1000 you only need to commute to work on a bicycle for a week to understand this. If you haven’t, it is just too difficult a concept to understand for the average person with a car mindset.

Maybe you shouldn't be riding a bike next to cars on the road where cars are if it is dangerous for you to follow simple traffic regulations. Have you ever thought of that? Maybe if you drove a car for five minutes you would understand this. Bikers make driving like playing Frogger. Use the trails provided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see about 3 cyclists max during any commute these days. Not sure why the city is spending so much to redesign the streets of dc to accommodate a small minority of predominantly wealthy, white and vocal constituents. Most low-income workers don't live on the metro and aren't riding bikes into DC.

I know, right? There is a river near me that the local DOT wants to build a bridge over. But I never see anyone driving or biking or trying to cross the river there. Absurd that they would. build infrastructure to accommodate people that doesn't already exist.

Let's be honest, there are several MD drivers who try to cross a river without a bridge yet. Truly visionary.

It's visionary that you even understood that post. I was going to ask for some dressing with that word salad.

[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

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.

+1000 you only need to commute to work on a bicycle for a week to understand this. If you haven’t, it is just too difficult a concept to understand for the average person with a car mindset.

Maybe you shouldn't be riding a bike next to cars on the road where cars are if it is dangerous for you to follow simple traffic regulations. Have you ever thought of that? Maybe if you drove a car for five minutes you would understand this. Bikers make driving like playing Frogger. Use the trails provided.

I have yet to meet. a cyclist who has never driven on a road. But I have met many drivers who have never biked on a road. So who do you think has the clearer picture?

And do you really think a cyclist actually PREFERS to bike on the road with other cars rather than on a separate bike path? We are trying to get to places just like you, on the roads we pay taxes for, just like you.

Except when we are getting somewhere on bike, we are not adding to the air pollution, using up fossil fuel, adding to our earth's carbon footprint, adding to traffic congestion, or killing pedestrians and cyclists at the rate of about 7000 a year in the US.

[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

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.

+1000 you only need to commute to work on a bicycle for a week to understand this. If you haven’t, it is just too difficult a concept to understand for the average person with a car mindset.

Maybe you shouldn't be riding a bike next to cars on the road where cars are if it is dangerous for you to follow simple traffic regulations. Have you ever thought of that? Maybe if you drove a car for five minutes you would understand this. Bikers make driving like playing Frogger. Use the trails provided.

Please find your way to Minnesota Urban Moms where you can talk about your extensive trail network.

In DC the road network is for bicyclists. You're welcome to not drive here if you can't figure out how to without, say, driving into a hotel lobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

+1000 you only need to commute to work on a bicycle for a week to understand this. If you haven’t, it is just too difficult a concept to understand for the average person with a car mindset.

Maybe you shouldn't be riding a bike next to cars on the road where cars are if it is dangerous for you to follow simple traffic regulations. Have you ever thought of that? Maybe if you drove a car for five minutes you would understand this. Bikers make driving like playing Frogger. Use the trails provided.

I have yet to meet. a cyclist who has never driven on a road. But I have met many drivers who have never biked on a road. So who do you think has the clearer picture?

And do you really think a cyclist actually PREFERS to bike on the road with other cars rather than on a separate bike path? We are trying to get to places just like you, on the roads we pay taxes for, just like you.

Except when we are getting somewhere on bike, we are not adding to the air pollution, using up fossil fuel, adding to our earth's carbon footprint, adding to traffic congestion, or killing pedestrians and cyclists at the rate of about 7000 a year in the US.

And by the way, be sure to thank that cyclist on the road for subsidizing your daily car use with her tax dollars. You are wearing the roads down with your 1.5 ton vehicle, so that she can pay taxes for the road crews to fix YOUR wear and tear. You're welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

+1000 you only need to commute to work on a bicycle for a week to understand this. If you haven’t, it is just too difficult a concept to understand for the average person with a car mindset.

Maybe you shouldn't be riding a bike next to cars on the road where cars are if it is dangerous for you to follow simple traffic regulations. Have you ever thought of that? Maybe if you drove a car for five minutes you would understand this. Bikers make driving like playing Frogger. Use the trails provided.

I have yet to meet. a cyclist who has never driven on a road. But I have met many drivers who have never biked on a road. So who do you think has the clearer picture?

And do you really think a cyclist actually PREFERS to bike on the road with other cars rather than on a separate bike path? We are trying to get to places just like you, on the roads we pay taxes for, just like you.

Except when we are getting somewhere on bike, we are not adding to the air pollution, using up fossil fuel, adding to our earth's carbon footprint, adding to traffic congestion, or killing pedestrians and cyclists at the rate of about 7000 a year in the US.

And by the way, be sure to thank that cyclist on the road for subsidizing your daily car use with her tax dollars. You are wearing the roads down with your 1.5 ton vehicle, so that she can pay taxes for the road crews to fix YOUR wear and tear. You're welcome.

Are you really this stupid? Roads in this country are financed by the gas tax which is included in the price of gasolines. Drivers pay for roads. Cyclists are freeloaders. Actually even worse than freeloaders since DC has spent more than a billion dollars on bike infrastructure that’s used by roughly 12 people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

+1000 you only need to commute to work on a bicycle for a week to understand this. If you haven’t, it is just too difficult a concept to understand for the average person with a car mindset.

Maybe you shouldn't be riding a bike next to cars on the road where cars are if it is dangerous for you to follow simple traffic regulations. Have you ever thought of that? Maybe if you drove a car for five minutes you would understand this. Bikers make driving like playing Frogger. Use the trails provided.

I have yet to meet. a cyclist who has never driven on a road. But I have met many drivers who have never biked on a road. So who do you think has the clearer picture?

And do you really think a cyclist actually PREFERS to bike on the road with other cars rather than on a separate bike path? We are trying to get to places just like you, on the roads we pay taxes for, just like you.

Except when we are getting somewhere on bike, we are not adding to the air pollution, using up fossil fuel, adding to our earth's carbon footprint, adding to traffic congestion, or killing pedestrians and cyclists at the rate of about 7000 a year in the US.

And by the way, be sure to thank that cyclist on the road for subsidizing your daily car use with her tax dollars. You are wearing the roads down with your 1.5 ton vehicle, so that she can pay taxes for the road crews to fix YOUR wear and tear. You're welcome.

Are you really this stupid? Roads in this country are financed by the gas tax which is included in the price of gasolines. Drivers pay for roads. Cyclists are freeloaders. Actually even worse than freeloaders since DC has spent more than a billion dollars on bike infrastructure that’s used by roughly 12 people.

You pay for part of the highways, which I am happy to not bike on.

Local roads in DC are largely paid for by local taxes.

Also, you're pulling numbers out of your rabbit-hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

+1000 you only need to commute to work on a bicycle for a week to understand this. If you haven’t, it is just too difficult a concept to understand for the average person with a car mindset.

Maybe you shouldn't be riding a bike next to cars on the road where cars are if it is dangerous for you to follow simple traffic regulations. Have you ever thought of that? Maybe if you drove a car for five minutes you would understand this. Bikers make driving like playing Frogger. Use the trails provided.

I have yet to meet. a cyclist who has never driven on a road. But I have met many drivers who have never biked on a road. So who do you think has the clearer picture?

And do you really think a cyclist actually PREFERS to bike on the road with other cars rather than on a separate bike path? We are trying to get to places just like you, on the roads we pay taxes for, just like you.

Except when we are getting somewhere on bike, we are not adding to the air pollution, using up fossil fuel, adding to our earth's carbon footprint, adding to traffic congestion, or killing pedestrians and cyclists at the rate of about 7000 a year in the US.

And by the way, be sure to thank that cyclist on the road for subsidizing your daily car use with her tax dollars. You are wearing the roads down with your 1.5 ton vehicle, so that she can pay taxes for the road crews to fix YOUR wear and tear. You're welcome.

Are you really this stupid? Roads in this country are financed by the gas tax which is included in the price of gasolines. Drivers pay for roads. Cyclists are freeloaders. Actually even worse than freeloaders since DC has spent more than a billion dollars on bike infrastructure that’s used by roughly 12 people.

This is a blatant big fat lie that's often repeated by bike-haters. Local roads, which are the roads that cyclists use, are almost fully funded by local taxpayer money. So yeah. Cyclists are paying for you to drive on their roads.

Another fun fact: Governments spend more of "non-user" tax dollars on highways than on transit, bicycling, walking and passenger rail, travel, combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

+1000 you only need to commute to work on a bicycle for a week to understand this. If you haven’t, it is just too difficult a concept to understand for the average person with a car mindset.

Maybe you shouldn't be riding a bike next to cars on the road where cars are if it is dangerous for you to follow simple traffic regulations. Have you ever thought of that? Maybe if you drove a car for five minutes you would understand this. Bikers make driving like playing Frogger. Use the trails provided.

I have yet to meet. a cyclist who has never driven on a road. But I have met many drivers who have never biked on a road. So who do you think has the clearer picture?

And do you really think a cyclist actually PREFERS to bike on the road with other cars rather than on a separate bike path? We are trying to get to places just like you, on the roads we pay taxes for, just like you.

Except when we are getting somewhere on bike, we are not adding to the air pollution, using up fossil fuel, adding to our earth's carbon footprint, adding to traffic congestion, or killing pedestrians and cyclists at the rate of about 7000 a year in the US.

And by the way, be sure to thank that cyclist on the road for subsidizing your daily car use with her tax dollars. You are wearing the roads down with your 1.5 ton vehicle, so that she can pay taxes for the road crews to fix YOUR wear and tear. You're welcome.

Are you really this stupid? Roads in this country are financed by the gas tax which is included in the price of gasolines. Drivers pay for roads. Cyclists are freeloaders. Actually even worse than freeloaders since DC has spent more than a billion dollars on bike infrastructure that’s used by roughly 12 people.

You pay for part of the highways, which I am happy to not bike on.

Local roads in DC are largely paid for by local taxes.

Also, you're pulling numbers out of your rabbit-hole.

Look at the budget. The amount of money the city spends on bike lanes is obscene. If we spent money on poor black kids like we spend money on white bikers, there would be no childhood poverty.

And yes the gas tax pays for roads. That’s why the gas tax exists.

[Anonymous]

If we took all the tax dollars of all the people who used bike lanes, we could…buy a stop sign? Their money doesn’t amount to jack shit.