Time to Revisit Bike Lanes on Busy Roads

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s absolutely reasonable and timely to start requiring registration and tag fees and licensing riders, given that so many more people are riding bikes now.

It’s basically a revenue stream that’s going untapped at the moment, and any fiscally responsible municipality owes it to its residents to ensure that all possible avenues of revenue are exploited.

And with licensing on bikes, tickets could then be issued to riders who ride through red lights or stop signs. That’s yet another unrealized revenue stream, and it will make cyclists safer because it will eliminate the rampant red light running they do now.


Loopholes like this need to be closed.

You can be ticketed without having a bike registration. Want enforcement, ask for enforcement.

Registration and license plates are two different things. Registration just means you’ve paid the city to register the bike. But plates should be required to ride that bike on public roads. And tags would allow for a means of issuing tickets to the registered owners of bikes that run red lights or stop signs.

This is about safety. It’s about encouraging cyclists to ride safely and not run red lights.


Why would anyone oppose this?

It's helpful if you label sarcasm. I can't tell if you're making fun of the anti-bike curmudgeons or if you are one.

I want people on bikes using our roads to help pay for our roads the same way people with cars help pay for them - with registration fees and license plate fees.

I also want bikes to have license plates so that automated ticket enforcement cameras can ticket the registered owners of bikes that are pedaled through red lights or stop signs, just like cars. Because this will make cycling safer, by reducing the number of cyclists that run red lights and get hit by cars.


This is about maximizing city revenue for roads and safety for cyclists.


It has nothing to do with sarcasm.

Big difference between cars and bikes, though, is that if a car runs a red light, it could hit other cars and injure people, whereas if a bike runs a red light, it could get hit by a car and the cyclist gets injured. Why do I want to spend any public funds keeping someone safe from his own stupidity? If you get hit by a car on a bike because you ran a light, sorry, but that's on you. We don't need additional enforcement to deter you.

(Also, and I realize you're trolling so this point won't matter to you, but bikes don't weigh as much as cars, so the cost for them using the roads is negligible.)

No, if a bike runs a red light it can hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s absolutely reasonable and timely to start requiring registration and tag fees and licensing riders, given that so many more people are riding bikes now.

It’s basically a revenue stream that’s going untapped at the moment, and any fiscally responsible municipality owes it to its residents to ensure that all possible avenues of revenue are exploited.

And with licensing on bikes, tickets could then be issued to riders who ride through red lights or stop signs. That’s yet another unrealized revenue stream, and it will make cyclists safer because it will eliminate the rampant red light running they do now.


Loopholes like this need to be closed.

You can be ticketed without having a bike registration. Want enforcement, ask for enforcement.

Registration and license plates are two different things. Registration just means you’ve paid the city to register the bike. But plates should be required to ride that bike on public roads. And tags would allow for a means of issuing tickets to the registered owners of bikes that run red lights or stop signs.

This is about safety. It’s about encouraging cyclists to ride safely and not run red lights.


Why would anyone oppose this?

It's helpful if you label sarcasm. I can't tell if you're making fun of the anti-bike curmudgeons or if you are one.

I want people on bikes using our roads to help pay for our roads the same way people with cars help pay for them - with registration fees and license plate fees.

I also want bikes to have license plates so that automated ticket enforcement cameras can ticket the registered owners of bikes that are pedaled through red lights or stop signs, just like cars. Because this will make cycling safer, by reducing the number of cyclists that run red lights and get hit by cars.


This is about maximizing city revenue for roads and safety for cyclists.


It has nothing to do with sarcasm.

Big difference between cars and bikes, though, is that if a car runs a red light, it could hit other cars and injure people, whereas if a bike runs a red light, it could get hit by a car and the cyclist gets injured. Why do I want to spend any public funds keeping someone safe from his own stupidity? If you get hit by a car on a bike because you ran a light, sorry, but that's on you. We don't need additional enforcement to deter you.

(Also, and I realize you're trolling so this point won't matter to you, but bikes don't weigh as much as cars, so the cost for them using the roads is negligible.)

No, if a bike runs a red light it can hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street.

Oh, good point. The risk from cars and bikes is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about any of the stuff you are arguing about. I care that a 15 minute trip now takes 35. More idling leads to more pollution, more gas, and more wasted time. If the bike lanes were being utilized more, I might be ok with it, but they seem to be barely used while thousands of cars are stuck in more traffic

Your observations do not count as evidence, and I'm not being glib.

And if you're sick of being stuck in traffic... get out of your car and find a better way to get to work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s absolutely reasonable and timely to start requiring registration and tag fees and licensing riders, given that so many more people are riding bikes now.

It’s basically a revenue stream that’s going untapped at the moment, and any fiscally responsible municipality owes it to its residents to ensure that all possible avenues of revenue are exploited.

And with licensing on bikes, tickets could then be issued to riders who ride through red lights or stop signs. That’s yet another unrealized revenue stream, and it will make cyclists safer because it will eliminate the rampant red light running they do now.


Loopholes like this need to be closed.

You can be ticketed without having a bike registration. Want enforcement, ask for enforcement.

Registration and license plates are two different things. Registration just means you’ve paid the city to register the bike. But plates should be required to ride that bike on public roads. And tags would allow for a means of issuing tickets to the registered owners of bikes that run red lights or stop signs.

This is about safety. It’s about encouraging cyclists to ride safely and not run red lights.


Why would anyone oppose this?

It's helpful if you label sarcasm. I can't tell if you're making fun of the anti-bike curmudgeons or if you are one.

I want people on bikes using our roads to help pay for our roads the same way people with cars help pay for them - with registration fees and license plate fees.

I also want bikes to have license plates so that automated ticket enforcement cameras can ticket the registered owners of bikes that are pedaled through red lights or stop signs, just like cars. Because this will make cycling safer, by reducing the number of cyclists that run red lights and get hit by cars.


This is about maximizing city revenue for roads and safety for cyclists.


It has nothing to do with sarcasm.

Big difference between cars and bikes, though, is that if a car runs a red light, it could hit other cars and injure people, whereas if a bike runs a red light, it could get hit by a car and the cyclist gets injured. Why do I want to spend any public funds keeping someone safe from his own stupidity? If you get hit by a car on a bike because you ran a light, sorry, but that's on you. We don't need additional enforcement to deter you.

(Also, and I realize you're trolling so this point won't matter to you, but bikes don't weigh as much as cars, so the cost for them using the roads is negligible.)

No, if a bike runs a red light it can hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street.

Oh, good point. The risk from cars and bikes is the same.

Hitting a pedastrian with a bike going full speed can hurt or kill them just as if it was car. Your argument is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about any of the stuff you are arguing about. I care that a 15 minute trip now takes 35. More idling leads to more pollution, more gas, and more wasted time. If the bike lanes were being utilized more, I might be ok with it, but they seem to be barely used while thousands of cars are stuck in more traffic

Your observations do not count as evidence, and I'm not being glib.

And if you're sick of being stuck in traffic... get out of your car and find a better way to get to work!

It's not just his observation... I haven't seen anyone on here (even those arguing for bike lanes) saying that commutes have not gotten longer... most pro bike lane folks (and jackasses like you with "just find a faster way to get to work" "just bike" etc) keep saying that longer commute times are fine as long as a few people can use the bike lanes... good of the very few outweighing the good of the majority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about any of the stuff you are arguing about. I care that a 15 minute trip now takes 35. More idling leads to more pollution, more gas, and more wasted time. If the bike lanes were being utilized more, I might be ok with it, but they seem to be barely used while thousands of cars are stuck in more traffic

This is the only right answer and you will have half this forum trying to make you look like a fool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about any of the stuff you are arguing about. I care that a 15 minute trip now takes 35. More idling leads to more pollution, more gas, and more wasted time. If the bike lanes were being utilized more, I might be ok with it, but they seem to be barely used while thousands of cars are stuck in more traffic

This is the only right answer and you will have half this forum trying to make you look like a fool

yup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s absolutely reasonable and timely to start requiring registration and tag fees and licensing riders, given that so many more people are riding bikes now.

It’s basically a revenue stream that’s going untapped at the moment, and any fiscally responsible municipality owes it to its residents to ensure that all possible avenues of revenue are exploited.

And with licensing on bikes, tickets could then be issued to riders who ride through red lights or stop signs. That’s yet another unrealized revenue stream, and it will make cyclists safer because it will eliminate the rampant red light running they do now.


Loopholes like this need to be closed.

You can be ticketed without having a bike registration. Want enforcement, ask for enforcement.

Registration and license plates are two different things. Registration just means you’ve paid the city to register the bike. But plates should be required to ride that bike on public roads. And tags would allow for a means of issuing tickets to the registered owners of bikes that run red lights or stop signs.

This is about safety. It’s about encouraging cyclists to ride safely and not run red lights.


Why would anyone oppose this?

It's helpful if you label sarcasm. I can't tell if you're making fun of the anti-bike curmudgeons or if you are one.

I want people on bikes using our roads to help pay for our roads the same way people with cars help pay for them - with registration fees and license plate fees.

I also want bikes to have license plates so that automated ticket enforcement cameras can ticket the registered owners of bikes that are pedaled through red lights or stop signs, just like cars. Because this will make cycling safer, by reducing the number of cyclists that run red lights and get hit by cars.


This is about maximizing city revenue for roads and safety for cyclists.


It has nothing to do with sarcasm.

Big difference between cars and bikes, though, is that if a car runs a red light, it could hit other cars and injure people, whereas if a bike runs a red light, it could get hit by a car and the cyclist gets injured. Why do I want to spend any public funds keeping someone safe from his own stupidity? If you get hit by a car on a bike because you ran a light, sorry, but that's on you. We don't need additional enforcement to deter you.

(Also, and I realize you're trolling so this point won't matter to you, but bikes don't weigh as much as cars, so the cost for them using the roads is negligible.)

No, if a bike runs a red light it can hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street.

Oh, good point. The risk from cars and bikes is the same.

Hitting a pedastrian with a bike going full speed can hurt or kill them just as if it was car. Your argument is silly.

With all the ebikes and scooter the risk is greater. I cross a very well used bike lane in DC. It's difficult. First I cross the car lanes and then immediately am in a whole different set of lanes. The bikers do not stop at the cross walks.its dangerous (though I do like to see the bikes busy unlike the ones in Rockville)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s absolutely reasonable and timely to start requiring registration and tag fees and licensing riders, given that so many more people are riding bikes now.

It’s basically a revenue stream that’s going untapped at the moment, and any fiscally responsible municipality owes it to its residents to ensure that all possible avenues of revenue are exploited.

And with licensing on bikes, tickets could then be issued to riders who ride through red lights or stop signs. That’s yet another unrealized revenue stream, and it will make cyclists safer because it will eliminate the rampant red light running they do now.


Loopholes like this need to be closed.

You can be ticketed without having a bike registration. Want enforcement, ask for enforcement.

Registration and license plates are two different things. Registration just means you’ve paid the city to register the bike. But plates should be required to ride that bike on public roads. And tags would allow for a means of issuing tickets to the registered owners of bikes that run red lights or stop signs.

This is about safety. It’s about encouraging cyclists to ride safely and not run red lights.


Why would anyone oppose this?

It's helpful if you label sarcasm. I can't tell if you're making fun of the anti-bike curmudgeons or if you are one.

I want people on bikes using our roads to help pay for our roads the same way people with cars help pay for them - with registration fees and license plate fees.

I also want bikes to have license plates so that automated ticket enforcement cameras can ticket the registered owners of bikes that are pedaled through red lights or stop signs, just like cars. Because this will make cycling safer, by reducing the number of cyclists that run red lights and get hit by cars.


This is about maximizing city revenue for roads and safety for cyclists.


It has nothing to do with sarcasm.

Big difference between cars and bikes, though, is that if a car runs a red light, it could hit other cars and injure people, whereas if a bike runs a red light, it could get hit by a car and the cyclist gets injured. Why do I want to spend any public funds keeping someone safe from his own stupidity? If you get hit by a car on a bike because you ran a light, sorry, but that's on you. We don't need additional enforcement to deter you.

(Also, and I realize you're trolling so this point won't matter to you, but bikes don't weigh as much as cars, so the cost for them using the roads is negligible.)

No, if a bike runs a red light it can hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street.

Oh, good point. The risk from cars and bikes is the same.

Hitting a pedastrian with a bike going full speed can hurt or kill them just as if it was car. Your argument is silly.

You are either fascinatingly stupid or stupidly partisan on this topic. Maybe both!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s absolutely reasonable and timely to start requiring registration and tag fees and licensing riders, given that so many more people are riding bikes now.

It’s basically a revenue stream that’s going untapped at the moment, and any fiscally responsible municipality owes it to its residents to ensure that all possible avenues of revenue are exploited.

And with licensing on bikes, tickets could then be issued to riders who ride through red lights or stop signs. That’s yet another unrealized revenue stream, and it will make cyclists safer because it will eliminate the rampant red light running they do now.


Loopholes like this need to be closed.

You can be ticketed without having a bike registration. Want enforcement, ask for enforcement.

Registration and license plates are two different things. Registration just means you’ve paid the city to register the bike. But plates should be required to ride that bike on public roads. And tags would allow for a means of issuing tickets to the registered owners of bikes that run red lights or stop signs.

This is about safety. It’s about encouraging cyclists to ride safely and not run red lights.


Why would anyone oppose this?

It's helpful if you label sarcasm. I can't tell if you're making fun of the anti-bike curmudgeons or if you are one.

I want people on bikes using our roads to help pay for our roads the same way people with cars help pay for them - with registration fees and license plate fees.

I also want bikes to have license plates so that automated ticket enforcement cameras can ticket the registered owners of bikes that are pedaled through red lights or stop signs, just like cars. Because this will make cycling safer, by reducing the number of cyclists that run red lights and get hit by cars.


This is about maximizing city revenue for roads and safety for cyclists.


It has nothing to do with sarcasm.

Big difference between cars and bikes, though, is that if a car runs a red light, it could hit other cars and injure people, whereas if a bike runs a red light, it could get hit by a car and the cyclist gets injured. Why do I want to spend any public funds keeping someone safe from his own stupidity? If you get hit by a car on a bike because you ran a light, sorry, but that's on you. We don't need additional enforcement to deter you.

(Also, and I realize you're trolling so this point won't matter to you, but bikes don't weigh as much as cars, so the cost for them using the roads is negligible.)

No, if a bike runs a red light it can hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street.

Oh, good point. The risk from cars and bikes is the same.

Hitting a pedastrian with a bike going full speed can hurt or kill them just as if it was car. Your argument is silly.

You are either fascinatingly stupid or stupidly partisan on this topic. Maybe both!

Look at the coment right above yours... bikes persistently do not stop, the blow through most stop signs and crosswalks. You are saying that someone weighing under 150 lbs and getting hit at 30 miles per hour would be fine? You sir are a fool, an ignorant fool at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s absolutely reasonable and timely to start requiring registration and tag fees and licensing riders, given that so many more people are riding bikes now.

It’s basically a revenue stream that’s going untapped at the moment, and any fiscally responsible municipality owes it to its residents to ensure that all possible avenues of revenue are exploited.

And with licensing on bikes, tickets could then be issued to riders who ride through red lights or stop signs. That’s yet another unrealized revenue stream, and it will make cyclists safer because it will eliminate the rampant red light running they do now.


Loopholes like this need to be closed.

You can be ticketed without having a bike registration. Want enforcement, ask for enforcement.

Registration and license plates are two different things. Registration just means you’ve paid the city to register the bike. But plates should be required to ride that bike on public roads. And tags would allow for a means of issuing tickets to the registered owners of bikes that run red lights or stop signs.

This is about safety. It’s about encouraging cyclists to ride safely and not run red lights.


Why would anyone oppose this?

It's helpful if you label sarcasm. I can't tell if you're making fun of the anti-bike curmudgeons or if you are one.

I want people on bikes using our roads to help pay for our roads the same way people with cars help pay for them - with registration fees and license plate fees.

I also want bikes to have license plates so that automated ticket enforcement cameras can ticket the registered owners of bikes that are pedaled through red lights or stop signs, just like cars. Because this will make cycling safer, by reducing the number of cyclists that run red lights and get hit by cars.


This is about maximizing city revenue for roads and safety for cyclists.


It has nothing to do with sarcasm.

Big difference between cars and bikes, though, is that if a car runs a red light, it could hit other cars and injure people, whereas if a bike runs a red light, it could get hit by a car and the cyclist gets injured. Why do I want to spend any public funds keeping someone safe from his own stupidity? If you get hit by a car on a bike because you ran a light, sorry, but that's on you. We don't need additional enforcement to deter you.

(Also, and I realize you're trolling so this point won't matter to you, but bikes don't weigh as much as cars, so the cost for them using the roads is negligible.)

No, if a bike runs a red light it can hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street.

Oh, good point. The risk from cars and bikes is the same.

Hitting a pedastrian with a bike going full speed can hurt or kill them just as if it was car. Your argument is silly.

You are either fascinatingly stupid or stupidly partisan on this topic. Maybe both!

Look at the coment right above yours... bikes persistently do not stop, the blow through most stop signs and crosswalks. You are saying that someone weighing under 150 lbs and getting hit at 30 miles per hour would be fine? You sir are a fool, an ignorant fool at that.

Riding a bike at 30mph is not normal. Hitting 20 outside a downhill is not normal.

Cars go much faster and are much bigger.

Do you understand the concepts of mass, velocity, momentum, and energy as they affect an impact?
Even if not, do you understand the statistics that show how much damage people do with their cars?
It's the reason you have to buy insurance, because you're so damaging.

You're too dumb to warrant a driver's license.

[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:I think it’s absolutely reasonable and timely to start requiring registration and tag fees and licensing riders, given that so many more people are riding bikes now.

It’s basically a revenue stream that’s going untapped at the moment, and any fiscally responsible municipality owes it to its residents to ensure that all possible avenues of revenue are exploited.

And with licensing on bikes, tickets could then be issued to riders who ride through red lights or stop signs. That’s yet another unrealized revenue stream, and it will make cyclists safer because it will eliminate the rampant red light running they do now.


Loopholes like this need to be closed.

You can be ticketed without having a bike registration. Want enforcement, ask for enforcement.

Registration and license plates are two different things. Registration just means you’ve paid the city to register the bike. But plates should be required to ride that bike on public roads. And tags would allow for a means of issuing tickets to the registered owners of bikes that run red lights or stop signs.

This is about safety. It’s about encouraging cyclists to ride safely and not run red lights.


Why would anyone oppose this?

It's helpful if you label sarcasm. I can't tell if you're making fun of the anti-bike curmudgeons or if you are one.

I want people on bikes using our roads to help pay for our roads the same way people with cars help pay for them - with registration fees and license plate fees.

I also want bikes to have license plates so that automated ticket enforcement cameras can ticket the registered owners of bikes that are pedaled through red lights or stop signs, just like cars. Because this will make cycling safer, by reducing the number of cyclists that run red lights and get hit by cars.


This is about maximizing city revenue for roads and safety for cyclists.


It has nothing to do with sarcasm.

Big difference between cars and bikes, though, is that if a car runs a red light, it could hit other cars and injure people, whereas if a bike runs a red light, it could get hit by a car and the cyclist gets injured. Why do I want to spend any public funds keeping someone safe from his own stupidity? If you get hit by a car on a bike because you ran a light, sorry, but that's on you. We don't need additional enforcement to deter you.

(Also, and I realize you're trolling so this point won't matter to you, but bikes don't weigh as much as cars, so the cost for them using the roads is negligible.)

No, if a bike runs a red light it can hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street.

Oh, good point. The risk from cars and bikes is the same.

Hitting a pedastrian with a bike going full speed can hurt or kill them just as if it was car. Your argument is silly.

You are either fascinatingly stupid or stupidly partisan on this topic. Maybe both!

Look at the coment right above yours... bikes persistently do not stop, the blow through most stop signs and crosswalks. You are saying that someone weighing under 150 lbs and getting hit at 30 miles per hour would be fine? You sir are a fool, an ignorant fool at that.

Riding a bike at 30mph is not normal. Hitting 20 outside a downhill is not normal.

Cars go much faster and are much bigger.

Do you understand the concepts of mass, velocity, momentum, and energy as they affect an impact?
Even if not, do you understand the statistics that show how much damage people do with their cars?
It's the reason you have to buy insurance, because you're so damaging.

You're too dumb to warrant a driver's license.

Maybe, but I sleep better at night knowing that I likely have a higher net worth than you and (though too dumb to warrant a driver's license) drive a very nice Porsche. To your other BS comments, I am not arguing cars having more mass or causing more injuries, I am saying that bikes can also cause severe injuries. And many bikers are absolute a-holes who do not follow any traffic rules (I assume you are one, since you are arguing very hard). So, to sum it up - eat my shorts!

[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:I think it’s absolutely reasonable and timely to start requiring registration and tag fees and licensing riders, given that so many more people are riding bikes now.

It’s basically a revenue stream that’s going untapped at the moment, and any fiscally responsible municipality owes it to its residents to ensure that all possible avenues of revenue are exploited.

And with licensing on bikes, tickets could then be issued to riders who ride through red lights or stop signs. That’s yet another unrealized revenue stream, and it will make cyclists safer because it will eliminate the rampant red light running they do now.


Loopholes like this need to be closed.

You can be ticketed without having a bike registration. Want enforcement, ask for enforcement.

Registration and license plates are two different things. Registration just means you’ve paid the city to register the bike. But plates should be required to ride that bike on public roads. And tags would allow for a means of issuing tickets to the registered owners of bikes that run red lights or stop signs.

This is about safety. It’s about encouraging cyclists to ride safely and not run red lights.


Why would anyone oppose this?

It's helpful if you label sarcasm. I can't tell if you're making fun of the anti-bike curmudgeons or if you are one.

I want people on bikes using our roads to help pay for our roads the same way people with cars help pay for them - with registration fees and license plate fees.

I also want bikes to have license plates so that automated ticket enforcement cameras can ticket the registered owners of bikes that are pedaled through red lights or stop signs, just like cars. Because this will make cycling safer, by reducing the number of cyclists that run red lights and get hit by cars.


This is about maximizing city revenue for roads and safety for cyclists.


It has nothing to do with sarcasm.

Big difference between cars and bikes, though, is that if a car runs a red light, it could hit other cars and injure people, whereas if a bike runs a red light, it could get hit by a car and the cyclist gets injured. Why do I want to spend any public funds keeping someone safe from his own stupidity? If you get hit by a car on a bike because you ran a light, sorry, but that's on you. We don't need additional enforcement to deter you.

(Also, and I realize you're trolling so this point won't matter to you, but bikes don't weigh as much as cars, so the cost for them using the roads is negligible.)

No, if a bike runs a red light it can hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street.

Oh, good point. The risk from cars and bikes is the same.

Hitting a pedastrian with a bike going full speed can hurt or kill them just as if it was car. Your argument is silly.

You are either fascinatingly stupid or stupidly partisan on this topic. Maybe both!

Look at the coment right above yours... bikes persistently do not stop, the blow through most stop signs and crosswalks. You are saying that someone weighing under 150 lbs and getting hit at 30 miles per hour would be fine? You sir are a fool, an ignorant fool at that.

Riding a bike at 30mph is not normal. Hitting 20 outside a downhill is not normal.

Cars go much faster and are much bigger.

Do you understand the concepts of mass, velocity, momentum, and energy as they affect an impact?
Even if not, do you understand the statistics that show how much damage people do with their cars?
It's the reason you have to buy insurance, because you're so damaging.

You're too dumb to warrant a driver's license.

Maybe, but I sleep better at night knowing that I likely have a higher net worth than you and (though too dumb to warrant a driver's license) drive a very nice Porsche. To your other BS comments, I am not arguing cars having more mass or causing more injuries, I am saying that bikes can also cause severe injuries. And many bikers are absolute a-holes who do not follow any traffic rules (I assume you are one, since you are arguing very hard). So, to sum it up - eat my shorts!

So you admit that cars are a bigger risk to pedestrians? (To everyone really)

Of course bicyclists are a risk too, just much lower. So are runners, just even less. I have a friend who knocked someone over while running on the national mall.

Oh, and your quips about net worth? Thanks for showing us you're insecure as well as dumb. Anything else to share?