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

[Anonymous]

Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

[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.

Sweetie, every single thing about riding a bike in a major city is dangerous. It's not just the part where you have to obey traffic laws. Seriously, it's like ya'll are in some crazy cult and have convinced yourself of some insane bullshit.

I don't think you realize that you haven't made a single real point.

I don't understand what it means to be "dangerous" aka do you have statistics or data that you'd like to use, or is your assessment on a scale of dangerous to not as dangerous.

If it is dangerous, then it would make sense that our leaders would work to make it safer, as it is a more sustainable, efficient, environmentally friendly way to travel.

Any other questions, sweetheart?

Drivers have made many salient and intelligent points here you just don't agree because you like to go fast on your bike. And not one biker has answered the question of why bike if it's so dangerous and there are so many bad drivers? How are YOU sharing the road when you bike two by two or in large packs?

You keep asserting that cycling is dangerous without offering a whisper of a scintilla of a shred of evidence.

You're right. You should get on your bike and pull out in front of a SUV just to show us how un-dangerous it is. That'll show us.

By that logic, you should just drive the wrong way on the highway to show us how un dangerous driving is. These examples are hilariously bad.

It's hard to tell if you're really this obtuse or if being really into bikes is like being in a cult and you just believe nonsensical things.

The "proof" about why biking is dangerous is that it is dangerous to "pull out in front of an SUV." So that means biking isn't dangerous unless there is an SUV around that is being driven by someone who isn't paying attention? Which is what everyone is arguing- it isn't biking that is dangerous it is inattentive drivers in vehicles that are too big. Which is why people advocate for bike lanes and traffic calming.

The proof that cycling is dangerous is because absent cars, a group of cyclists can send themselves to the hospital in ambulances cycling at Hains Point.

Falling on a bicycle happens frequently without extrinsic factors involved and leads to significant injury.

[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.

Sweetie, every single thing about riding a bike in a major city is dangerous. It's not just the part where you have to obey traffic laws. Seriously, it's like ya'll are in some crazy cult and have convinced yourself of some insane bullshit.

I don't think you realize that you haven't made a single real point.

I don't understand what it means to be "dangerous" aka do you have statistics or data that you'd like to use, or is your assessment on a scale of dangerous to not as dangerous.

If it is dangerous, then it would make sense that our leaders would work to make it safer, as it is a more sustainable, efficient, environmentally friendly way to travel.

Any other questions, sweetheart?

Drivers have made many salient and intelligent points here you just don't agree because you like to go fast on your bike. And not one biker has answered the question of why bike if it's so dangerous and there are so many bad drivers? How are YOU sharing the road when you bike two by two or in large packs?

You keep asserting that cycling is dangerous without offering a whisper of a scintilla of a shred of evidence.

You're right. You should get on your bike and pull out in front of a SUV just to show us how un-dangerous it is. That'll show us.

By that logic, you should just drive the wrong way on the highway to show us how un dangerous driving is. These examples are hilariously bad.

It's hard to tell if you're really this obtuse or if being really into bikes is like being in a cult and you just believe nonsensical things.

The "proof" about why biking is dangerous is that it is dangerous to "pull out in front of an SUV." So that means biking isn't dangerous unless there is an SUV around that is being driven by someone who isn't paying attention? Which is what everyone is arguing- it isn't biking that is dangerous it is inattentive drivers in vehicles that are too big. Which is why people advocate for bike lanes and traffic calming.

The proof that cycling is dangerous is because absent cars, a group of cyclists can send themselves to the hospital in ambulances cycling at Hains Point.

Falling on a bicycle happens frequently without extrinsic factors involved and leads to significant injury.

And no one driving solo ever hurts themselves.

/s

[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.

Sweetie, every single thing about riding a bike in a major city is dangerous. It's not just the part where you have to obey traffic laws. Seriously, it's like ya'll are in some crazy cult and have convinced yourself of some insane bullshit.

I don't think you realize that you haven't made a single real point.

I don't understand what it means to be "dangerous" aka do you have statistics or data that you'd like to use, or is your assessment on a scale of dangerous to not as dangerous.

If it is dangerous, then it would make sense that our leaders would work to make it safer, as it is a more sustainable, efficient, environmentally friendly way to travel.

Any other questions, sweetheart?

Drivers have made many salient and intelligent points here you just don't agree because you like to go fast on your bike. And not one biker has answered the question of why bike if it's so dangerous and there are so many bad drivers? How are YOU sharing the road when you bike two by two or in large packs?

You keep asserting that cycling is dangerous without offering a whisper of a scintilla of a shred of evidence.

You're right. You should get on your bike and pull out in front of a SUV just to show us how un-dangerous it is. That'll show us.

By that logic, you should just drive the wrong way on the highway to show us how un dangerous driving is. These examples are hilariously bad.

It's hard to tell if you're really this obtuse or if being really into bikes is like being in a cult and you just believe nonsensical things.

The "proof" about why biking is dangerous is that it is dangerous to "pull out in front of an SUV." So that means biking isn't dangerous unless there is an SUV around that is being driven by someone who isn't paying attention? Which is what everyone is arguing- it isn't biking that is dangerous it is inattentive drivers in vehicles that are too big. Which is why people advocate for bike lanes and traffic calming.

The proof that cycling is dangerous is because absent cars, a group of cyclists can send themselves to the hospital in ambulances cycling at Hains Point.

Falling on a bicycle happens frequently without extrinsic factors involved and leads to significant injury.

The proof that sleeping is dangerous is that, absent cars, people sometimes don’t wake up.

The proof that eating is dangerous is that, absent cars, people sometimes can choke on their food.

[Anonymous]

Look I've learned from past discussions that cyclists don't have a great deal of common sense and logic eludes them. These arguments go nowhere because they are too focused on their own desire to bike and have absolutely no regard for anyone else they might come in contact with. If they are not concerned about their own safety they are certainly not going to be concerned about someone else's safety. They say drivers shouldn't complain about a minor inconvenience as they ride on the road adjacent to a trail because that is more convenient for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look I've learned from past discussions that cyclists don't have a great deal of common sense and logic eludes them. These arguments go nowhere because they are too focused on their own desire to bike and have absolutely no regard for anyone else they might come in contact with. If they are not concerned about their own safety they are certainly not going to be concerned about someone else's safety. They say drivers shouldn't complain about a minor inconvenience as they ride on the road adjacent to a trail because that is more convenient for them.

I think it's pretty clear here who the logic is in fact eluding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

Except bikers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, bikers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it doesn't happen that often doesn't mean a ped killed by a biker is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if cars don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a bike in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Bikers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

Except bikers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, bikers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it doesn't happen that often doesn't mean a ped killed by a biker is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if cars don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a bike in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Bikers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

Except drivers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, drivers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it happens often doesn't mean a ped killed by a driver is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if bikes don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a car in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Drivers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

[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.

Sweetie, every single thing about riding a bike in a major city is dangerous. It's not just the part where you have to obey traffic laws. Seriously, it's like ya'll are in some crazy cult and have convinced yourself of some insane bullshit.

I don't think you realize that you haven't made a single real point.

I don't understand what it means to be "dangerous" aka do you have statistics or data that you'd like to use, or is your assessment on a scale of dangerous to not as dangerous.

If it is dangerous, then it would make sense that our leaders would work to make it safer, as it is a more sustainable, efficient, environmentally friendly way to travel.

Any other questions, sweetheart?

Drivers have made many salient and intelligent points here you just don't agree because you like to go fast on your bike. And not one biker has answered the question of why bike if it's so dangerous and there are so many bad drivers? How are YOU sharing the road when you bike two by two or in large packs?

You keep asserting that cycling is dangerous without offering a whisper of a scintilla of a shred of evidence.

You're right. You should get on your bike and pull out in front of a SUV just to show us how un-dangerous it is. That'll show us.

By that logic, you should just drive the wrong way on the highway to show us how un dangerous driving is. These examples are hilariously bad.

It's hard to tell if you're really this obtuse or if being really into bikes is like being in a cult and you just believe nonsensical things.

The "proof" about why biking is dangerous is that it is dangerous to "pull out in front of an SUV." So that means biking isn't dangerous unless there is an SUV around that is being driven by someone who isn't paying attention? Which is what everyone is arguing- it isn't biking that is dangerous it is inattentive drivers in vehicles that are too big. Which is why people advocate for bike lanes and traffic calming.

Not sure what difference the size of someone's car makes. And there's no evidence that people are any more or less distracted than they used to be. How would you even measure that?

Here's an idea: Maybe it's just not a very smart idea to be a tubby white guy in spandex on a bike going down Connecticut Avenue with thousands of two two cars whizzing within a couple feet of you. It only takes one stoned driver or drunk or someone arguing with their kid to put you in your grave.

Seems like common sense, but you sound like the sort who would want to know why children aren't allowed to ride pogo sticks on the beltway.

So OK, you don't think we should spend any money making it safer to ride a bike in the city, because not enough people do that. And you also don't think anyone should ride a bike in the city, because it's too dangerous. Guess it's going to be hard for anyone else to win this argument, then!

[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.

Sweetie, every single thing about riding a bike in a major city is dangerous. It's not just the part where you have to obey traffic laws. Seriously, it's like ya'll are in some crazy cult and have convinced yourself of some insane bullshit.

I don't think you realize that you haven't made a single real point.

I don't understand what it means to be "dangerous" aka do you have statistics or data that you'd like to use, or is your assessment on a scale of dangerous to not as dangerous.

If it is dangerous, then it would make sense that our leaders would work to make it safer, as it is a more sustainable, efficient, environmentally friendly way to travel.

Any other questions, sweetheart?

Drivers have made many salient and intelligent points here you just don't agree because you like to go fast on your bike. And not one biker has answered the question of why bike if it's so dangerous and there are so many bad drivers? How are YOU sharing the road when you bike two by two or in large packs?

You keep asserting that cycling is dangerous without offering a whisper of a scintilla of a shred of evidence.

You're right. You should get on your bike and pull out in front of a SUV just to show us how un-dangerous it is. That'll show us.

By that logic, you should just drive the wrong way on the highway to show us how un dangerous driving is. These examples are hilariously bad.

It's hard to tell if you're really this obtuse or if being really into bikes is like being in a cult and you just believe nonsensical things.

The "proof" about why biking is dangerous is that it is dangerous to "pull out in front of an SUV." So that means biking isn't dangerous unless there is an SUV around that is being driven by someone who isn't paying attention? Which is what everyone is arguing- it isn't biking that is dangerous it is inattentive drivers in vehicles that are too big. Which is why people advocate for bike lanes and traffic calming.

Not sure what difference the size of someone's car makes. And there's no evidence that people are any more or less distracted than they used to be. How would you even measure that?

Here's an idea: Maybe it's just not a very smart idea to be a tubby white guy in spandex on a bike going down Connecticut Avenue with thousands of two two cars whizzing within a couple feet of you. It only takes one stoned driver or drunk or someone arguing with their kid to put you in your grave.

Seems like common sense, but you sound like the sort who would want to know why children aren't allowed to ride pogo sticks on the beltway.

If the cars are whizzing by within a couple of feet, they're breaking the law -- in D.C., you have to give bikes at least three feet of space when you pass them. Also, the speed limit is 30, so they probably shouldn't be going super fast, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

Except bikers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, bikers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it doesn't happen that often doesn't mean a ped killed by a biker is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if cars don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a bike in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Bikers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

Except drivers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, drivers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it happens often doesn't mean a ped killed by a driver is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if bikes don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a car in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Drivers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

Except none of that is true. Drivers are NOT completely unpredictable. The majority of them DO stop at lights, stop signs and crosswalks. Bikers do not. Simply taking my statement and changing the word biker to driver is lame. Also drivers drive on the road. Not the sidewalk not the trail and not the bike lane. Is it impossible for you to simply admit you suck?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

Except bikers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, bikers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it doesn't happen that often doesn't mean a ped killed by a biker is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if cars don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a bike in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Bikers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

Except drivers DO impede traffic, it is a dangerous thing to do in traffic, drivers are completely unpredictable in their behaviors and of course peds are scared of them. Just because it happens often doesn't mean a ped killed by a driver is ok. You are deluding yourself by acting as if bikes don't exist and that someday they will all be off the roads. The reality is that riding a car in heavy traffic on main roads comes with an inherent risk. Drivers do absolutely nothing to minimize the risk and flying through stop signs and red lights underscores that fact.

Except none of that is true. Drivers are NOT completely unpredictable. The majority of them DO stop at lights, stop signs and crosswalks. Bikers do not. Simply taking my statement and changing the word biker to driver is lame. Also drivers drive on the road. Not the sidewalk not the trail and not the bike lane. Is it impossible for you to simply admit you suck?

Bikers are NOT completely unpredictable. The majority of them DO stop at lights, stop signs and crosswalks. Drivers do not. Simply taking my statement and changing the word biker to driver is super cool. Also bikers drive on the road. Sometimes circumstances allow them to use the sidewalk not the trail and not the bike lane. Is it impossible for you to simply admit you are the best?

Good question: not impossible at all. Sorry you're still mad. See you on the roads!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safety is the wrong lens to look at this through. If you talk to people who really study traffic safety, they'll tell you that nobody really knows anything about bicycle safety, and the reason is that no one knows the denominators. They have a pretty good grasp on the numbers of injuries and deaths to cyclists, but to get a ratio you need to divide by exposure level, and nobody really knows how many miles cyclists ride per year or how many trips they take. But the consensus is that cycling, on a per-mile or per-trip basis, is in the same ballpark as driving and walking, it's neither radically more dangerous nor radically less dangerous.

What this is about is about convenience and comfort for cyclists. DDOT (and Mary Cheh) want to encourage more people to cycle, and they feel the way to do that is to make it more convenient and comfortable. And a big part of comfort is the perception of safety, so changes that increase cyclists' perception of safety, whether they do in fact increase actual safety, promote that goal.

Now clearly not everyone agrees that promoting cycling is a worthy goal. In fact, it's clear that a substantial number of people feel that cycling is something that should instead be discouraged. If you feel that cycling should be discouraged, then it's logical to be opposed to measures meant to encourage cycling. But it's more intellectually honest to just start from that position, rather than trying to manufacture justifications.

Having worked in bike advocacy, I agree with you. There will always be that 20-30 percent of the population that is anti-bicycling and don't think they belong on the roads at all. And there will also always be that 1 percent of the population that would bike in almost any road conditions whether or not there is any bike infrastructure.

What we need to focus on is advocating for the remaining 70 or so percent of the population who WOULD start biking or bike more to get to places if it felt safer and easier. In DC, I'm sure this number is actually much higher than the national average.

Exactly. And what's frustrating about those who feel that cyclists just don't belong on the road is that it's an emotional reaction, logic is not involved. They've arrived at that conclusion, then fish around for justifications for their position. Some of the "reasons" they come up with that cyclists/cycling are bad include:
* It's dangerous
* They impede traffic
* They don't pay taxes
* They frighten pedestrians
* They dress funny
* It's elitist

Since none of those arguments are coming from a position of logic, the facts don't matter. You can harpoon any one of these points and they'll just move blithely onto the next one.

So why is DDOT -- like transportation departments in cities across the country -- so hot to promote cycling? Because traveling by private automobile has a ton of negative externalities. A ton. And almost any other mode has fewer.

+1. You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.