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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

DP: Why do you think you can legislate what you do with our bodies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

So by your logic, are pedestrians and drivers putting themselves at unnecessary risk, since they are killed at far higher numbers than cyclists? Should people stop walking and driving and just "try metro"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

So by your logic, are pedestrians and drivers putting themselves at unnecessary risk, since they are killed at far higher numbers than cyclists? Should people stop walking and driving and just "try metro"?

Citation? Also, not sure what your point is.

Even cyclists admit that cycling is risky. What cyclists want is for everyone to manage their risk for them. Unfortunately, when we engage in risky activity we should accept the inherent risks involved in that activity. Seeing that most cyclists don’t stop at stop signs anyway. What the goal of legalizing this behavior amounts to is requesting others to accept liability for their risky behavior and that is unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

So by your logic, are pedestrians and drivers putting themselves at unnecessary risk, since they are killed at far higher numbers than cyclists? Should people stop walking and driving and just "try metro"?

Citation? Also, not sure what your point is.

Even cyclists admit that cycling is risky. What cyclists want is for everyone to manage their risk for them. Unfortunately, when we engage in risky activity we should accept the inherent risks involved in that activity. Seeing that most cyclists don’t stop at stop signs anyway. What the goal of legalizing this behavior amounts to is requesting others to accept liability for their risky behavior and that is unacceptable.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/bicyclists

2019 - 36,096 total motor vehicle crash related deaths, 6205 of which were pedestrian deaths , 843 of which were bicyclist deaths

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

So by your logic, are pedestrians and drivers putting themselves at unnecessary risk, since they are killed at far higher numbers than cyclists? Should people stop walking and driving and just "try metro"?

Citation? Also, not sure what your point is.

Even cyclists admit that cycling is risky. What cyclists want is for everyone to manage their risk for them. Unfortunately, when we engage in risky activity we should accept the inherent risks involved in that activity. Seeing that most cyclists don’t stop at stop signs anyway. What the goal of legalizing this behavior amounts to is requesting others to accept liability for their risky behavior and that is unacceptable.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/bicyclists

2019 - 36,096 total motor vehicle crash related deaths, 6205 of which were pedestrian deaths , 843 of which were bicyclist deaths

Don't worry about accepting liability, the stats also show that drivers get no consequences even when they are clearly at fault for killing a pedestrian or cyclist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

So by your logic, are pedestrians and drivers putting themselves at unnecessary risk, since they are killed at far higher numbers than cyclists? Should people stop walking and driving and just "try metro"?

Citation? Also, not sure what your point is.

Even cyclists admit that cycling is risky. What cyclists want is for everyone to manage their risk for them. Unfortunately, when we engage in risky activity we should accept the inherent risks involved in that activity. Seeing that most cyclists don’t stop at stop signs anyway. What the goal of legalizing this behavior amounts to is requesting others to accept liability for their risky behavior and that is unacceptable.

Walking is super risky. I can't believe those pesky walkers wanted people to manage their risks with red lights and stop signs and cross walks. How dare anyone else take liability for walkers and their choice to engage in risky behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

So by your logic, are pedestrians and drivers putting themselves at unnecessary risk, since they are killed at far higher numbers than cyclists? Should people stop walking and driving and just "try metro"?

Citation? Also, not sure what your point is.

Even cyclists admit that cycling is risky. What cyclists want is for everyone to manage their risk for them. Unfortunately, when we engage in risky activity we should accept the inherent risks involved in that activity. Seeing that most cyclists don’t stop at stop signs anyway. What the goal of legalizing this behavior amounts to is requesting others to accept liability for their risky behavior and that is unacceptable.

Walking is super risky. I can't believe those pesky walkers wanted people to manage their risks with red lights and stop signs and cross walks. How dare anyone else take liability for walkers and their choice to engage in risky behavior.

Yup. Those annoying walkers thinking they own the crosswalks. And they should be wearing bright clothing and helmets. It makes me so mad to see one without one. They should stay on the walking trails where they belong, instead of crossing streets. They don’t even pay gas taxes so they are freeloaders using our streets. Unbelievable. If you are crossing my street, you should be accepting that you are engaging in inherently risky behavior and should assume all liability for what happens to you.

[Anonymous]

Do bicyclists want to be treated like cars or pedestrians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do bicyclists want to be treated like cars or pedestrians?

Neither! Like bicyclists, duh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

So by your logic, are pedestrians and drivers putting themselves at unnecessary risk, since they are killed at far higher numbers than cyclists? Should people stop walking and driving and just "try metro"?

Citation? Also, not sure what your point is.

Even cyclists admit that cycling is risky. What cyclists want is for everyone to manage their risk for them. Unfortunately, when we engage in risky activity we should accept the inherent risks involved in that activity. Seeing that most cyclists don’t stop at stop signs anyway. What the goal of legalizing this behavior amounts to is requesting others to accept liability for their risky behavior and that is unacceptable.

To add, no driver should be held responsible for any interaction with a cyclist on the road unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver intentionally hurt the cyclist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

So by your logic, are pedestrians and drivers putting themselves at unnecessary risk, since they are killed at far higher numbers than cyclists? Should people stop walking and driving and just "try metro"?

Citation? Also, not sure what your point is.

Even cyclists admit that cycling is risky. What cyclists want is for everyone to manage their risk for them. Unfortunately, when we engage in risky activity we should accept the inherent risks involved in that activity. Seeing that most cyclists don’t stop at stop signs anyway. What the goal of legalizing this behavior amounts to is requesting others to accept liability for their risky behavior and that is unacceptable.

To add, no driver should be held responsible for any interaction with a cyclist on the road unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver intentionally hurt the cyclist.

Well good luck explaining to the judge that you can't be held liable because your negligence was not intentional.

Some things only get said on anonymous boards...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some fun facts:

Car crashes kill 34,000 people each year in the US and car emissions kill 30,000.

In 2020, 932 cyclists and 6,700 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes.

Some more bad news for drivers: Motorists at fault in 90% of crashes with pedestrians and cyclists.

Good news for drivers: Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. They don't get charged, cited or, often even found.

So let's talk again about how drivers who don't stop at stop signs are the problem. I would rather risk the chance of my vision or judgment being flawed as I roll through a stop sign, rather than stop and risk being rear-ended by a distracted driver behind me and end up under their car.

Congrats. You win the contest for dumbest argument on DCUM (and that is such a low bar!). You can just say you're too lazy to stop at stop signs. We all know that's the answer anyway.

And what exactly is your argument? That I should be penalized for choosing to do what I feel is safer for myself and others?

When I first started biking on the roads, I followed all the "traffic rules" like stopping at every stop sign. Multiple times, I experienced one of the 3 scenarios- a driver in a rush to pass me at a stop sign, zoom past me, and cut me off to make a right turn, almost crashing into me in the process. A driver behind me, slamming on their brakes at the last minute and honking very loudly. A frustrated driver tailgating me, and then revving their engine to close-pass me after.

When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.

Maybe your judgment will truly improve when you start to figure out that you are putting yourself at your unnecessary risk. Try Metro. And no dopey cyclists now is not the time to list a bunch of train accidents in another feeble attempt to justify your own stupidity.

So by your logic, are pedestrians and drivers putting themselves at unnecessary risk, since they are killed at far higher numbers than cyclists? Should people stop walking and driving and just "try metro"?

Citation? Also, not sure what your point is.

Even cyclists admit that cycling is risky. What cyclists want is for everyone to manage their risk for them. Unfortunately, when we engage in risky activity we should accept the inherent risks involved in that activity. Seeing that most cyclists don’t stop at stop signs anyway. What the goal of legalizing this behavior amounts to is requesting others to accept liability for their risky behavior and that is unacceptable.

To add, no driver should be held responsible for any interaction with a cyclist on the road unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver intentionally hurt the cyclist.

Well good luck explaining to the judge that you can't be held liable because your negligence was not intentional. Sounds pretty likely according to another poster that I probably wouldn’t be charged so no judge to have to explain things to .

Some things only get said on anonymous boards...