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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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When I got more experienced and started using my better judgment over following outdated traffic rules designed for cars and not bikes, I had a lot less of these close calls.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

I probably wouldn’t even be charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

I probably wouldn’t even be charged

Nothing more pathetic than a keyboard warrior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

I probably wouldn’t even be charged

Nothing more pathetic than a keyboard warrior.

What is actually pathetic dear fellow keyboard warrior is bikers pointing out how dangerous cars in order to bolster their argument that they should jump right into the mix with them. How convoluted is that logic?????

[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: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...

I probably wouldn’t even be charged

Nothing more pathetic than a keyboard warrior.

What is actually pathetic dear fellow keyboard warrior is bikers pointing out how dangerous cars in order to bolster their argument that they should jump right into the mix with them. How convoluted is that logic?????

You're right. when things are dangerous, instead of making them safer we should just give up and not do them. What's the point of medicine, right? Life is dangerous and people shouldn't participate.

[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: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...

I probably wouldn’t even be charged

Nothing more pathetic than a keyboard warrior.

What is actually pathetic dear fellow keyboard warrior is bikers pointing out how dangerous cars in order to bolster their argument that they should jump right into the mix with them. How convoluted is that logic?????

That's the point of protected bike lanes. It's less likely for you morons to drive into them while looking at your phones.

[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: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...

I probably wouldn’t even be charged

Nothing more pathetic than a keyboard warrior.

What is actually pathetic dear fellow keyboard warrior is bikers pointing out how dangerous cars in order to bolster their argument that they should jump right into the mix with them. How convoluted is that logic?????

You're right. when things are dangerous, instead of making them safer we should just give up and not do them. What's the point of medicine, right? Life is dangerous and people shouldn't participate.

I'm not arguing against making things safer. But I look at at a situation what it is, not what I wish it would be. Some of the comments here suggest that cars shouldn't be on the road where cars drive. Bike riding in high traffic areas is risky and more so when so many bikers seem to have no rules and are very unpredictable. The driver who has to maneuver around you causing them to go into the on coming lane. The driver is not at fault for attempting to do this safely. You are an obstruction. When you dress like some character in Cirque Du Soleil and pad your butt do you simply stop when a turtle is in front of you? Of course not. You can't even stop at a stop sign.

[Anonymous]

"The driver who has to maneuver around you causing them to go into the on coming lane. The driver is not at fault for attempting to do this safely."

If you can't pass safely, it's on you to wait until you can. That's driver's ed 101.

[Anonymous]

I’d support Mary Cheh … good stuff.

[Anonymous]

My drivers ed teacher told me even he thinks cyclists are the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My drivers ed teacher told me even he thinks cyclists are the worst.

Shocking that someone whose entire career rests on people continuing to drive doesn’t like it when people choose other modes of transportation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The driver who has to maneuver around you causing them to go into the on coming lane. The driver is not at fault for attempting to do this safely."

If you can't pass safely, it's on you to wait until you can. That's driver's ed 101.

Seriously. Yes, if you attempt to do something safely but then don’t do it safely then you are at fault for the accident

[Anonymous]

The truth is, the same jerk who is going to be an a-hole as a driver, is also going to be an a-hole as a cyclist. In my experience, however, I have seen a LOT more a-hole drivers than I have seen a-hole cyclists.

And because I both drive and bike, I can tell the difference when a cyclist is being an a-hole vs when they are biking in a manner that is safest for them. Sometimes it's safer to roll through that stop sign, rather than stop at it, and I know that from experience as a cyclist. And sometimes it's safer to take the full lane rather than hug the right of the road - and I know that from experience as a cyclist.

If every driver would be required to ride a certain number of hours on the road as a cyclist, it really would be a no-brainer for all. Most cyclists also drive or have driven, so it's not like they don't understand what it's like to drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is, the same jerk who is going to be an a-hole as a driver, is also going to be an a-hole as a cyclist. In my experience, however, I have seen a LOT more a-hole drivers than I have seen a-hole cyclists.

And because I both drive and bike, I can tell the difference when a cyclist is being an a-hole vs when they are biking in a manner that is safest for them. Sometimes it's safer to roll through that stop sign, rather than stop at it, and I know that from experience as a cyclist. And sometimes it's safer to take the full lane rather than hug the right of the road - and I know that from experience as a cyclist.

If every driver would be required to ride a certain number of hours on the road as a cyclist, it really would be a no-brainer for all. Most cyclists also drive or have driven, so it's not like they don't understand what it's like to drive.

They certainly don't behave like they understand what it's like to drive. The posts on here indicate that cyclists hate cars and think they are terrible, unsafe and cause pollution. Are they hypocrites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is, the same jerk who is going to be an a-hole as a driver, is also going to be an a-hole as a cyclist. In my experience, however, I have seen a LOT more a-hole drivers than I have seen a-hole cyclists.

And because I both drive and bike, I can tell the difference when a cyclist is being an a-hole vs when they are biking in a manner that is safest for them. Sometimes it's safer to roll through that stop sign, rather than stop at it, and I know that from experience as a cyclist. And sometimes it's safer to take the full lane rather than hug the right of the road - and I know that from experience as a cyclist.

If every driver would be required to ride a certain number of hours on the road as a cyclist, it really would be a no-brainer for all. Most cyclists also drive or have driven, so it's not like they don't understand what it's like to drive.

They certainly don't behave like they understand what it's like to drive. The posts on here indicate that cyclists hate cars and think they are terrible, unsafe and cause pollution. Are they hypocrites?

DP: I drove for a long time and then when I got a job that was in the city proper I switched to a bike commute. It's been a decade and I'm never going back. On a rainy day I'd rather take metro than use the car that sits patiently on the street (for emergencies). Does that make me a hypocrite, or have I evolved in how I use transportation in the city. I think cars cause pollution, but I think DRIVERS are what make them terrible and unsafe, particularly in the DMV area. I'm glad Mary Cheh and other members of DC government are working to make bike commuting safer so that more people will abandon their cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is, the same jerk who is going to be an a-hole as a driver, is also going to be an a-hole as a cyclist. In my experience, however, I have seen a LOT more a-hole drivers than I have seen a-hole cyclists.

And because I both drive and bike, I can tell the difference when a cyclist is being an a-hole vs when they are biking in a manner that is safest for them. Sometimes it's safer to roll through that stop sign, rather than stop at it, and I know that from experience as a cyclist. And sometimes it's safer to take the full lane rather than hug the right of the road - and I know that from experience as a cyclist.

If every driver would be required to ride a certain number of hours on the road as a cyclist, it really would be a no-brainer for all. Most cyclists also drive or have driven, so it's not like they don't understand what it's like to drive.

They certainly don't behave like they understand what it's like to drive. The posts on here indicate that cyclists hate cars and think they are terrible, unsafe and cause pollution. Are they hypocrites?

DP: I drove for a long time and then when I got a job that was in the city proper I switched to a bike commute. It's been a decade and I'm never going back. On a rainy day I'd rather take metro than use the car that sits patiently on the street (for emergencies). Does that make me a hypocrite, or have I evolved in how I use transportation in the city. I think cars cause pollution, but I think DRIVERS are what make them terrible and unsafe, particularly in the DMV area. I'm glad Mary Cheh and other members of DC government are working to make bike commuting safer so that more people will abandon their cars.

3 years ago, I also replaced most car trips with my bike. Every car trip I replace with a bike trip means less environmental impact, better physical and mental health for me, less car congestion , more fuel savings. And as for safety, traveling by bike makes it a whole lot less likely that you will severely injure or kill someone compared to if you are traveling in a 2 ton hunk of steel.

So I'm not sure how that makes us hypocrites to have realized that one mode of transportation IS better than the other.