City council voted today to allow bicyclists to ignore stop signs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I take it that this is one of those Mary Cheh is retiring special interest giveaways. Didn't Catania do something similar with weed and weren't there charter school ones as well? Don't even need to get into Fenty, Gray, Barry or Evans. It's long past time for some ethical reform on the Council. They don't even pretend to represent the general populace at this point.

The vote was 13-0 in favor. Are you suggesting the entire council is on the take from “Big Bike”?

[Anonymous]

Share the road! Ignore traffic signs! Act surprised when you are smashed by a vehicle!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bicyclists can blow through stop signs but they aren't required to wear helmets? It seems like the city's policy is really just "bicyclists don't have to follow any rules."

They have to follow the rules- the rules are that they yield at stop signs and don’t have to wear helmets. You don’t seem to LIKE the rules but that doesn’t mean they aren’t following them.

When I drive I prefer cyclists doing the Idaho Stop- I generally prefer that they clear the intersection as fast as possible. If I am coming up to an intersection a second or two after a cyclist it is to my benefit that they go right through- I will stop and be able to proceed knowing I won’t hit them. There is more room for error in an intersection with a bike- if two cars go at the same time they can stop more easily. A cyclist making a sudden stop is more likely to wipe out or fall.

If it's that hard to stop, maybe the cyclist is just going too fast.

Ding ding ding! Too many biker bros racing through the intersection already. Slow down and yield to pedestrians especially when cutting down a crowded sidewalk!

This has nothing to do with sidewalks or biker bros. You lost this one pal

Allowing biker bros to ignore stop signs will just make them even more reckless...

The other day I saw a biker bro almost crash into a mom with a stroller crossing the intersection. He even had the gall to yell at her for daring to use the crosswalk in front of him

I was at a stop sign. Came to a full stop. A biker sis pass me on the right, cut in front and hit a woman with a dog.

Wow. Sorry you had to experience that. Hopefully someone here can recommend you a good psychologist to help you deal with the trauma of seeing such a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bicyclists can blow through stop signs but they aren't required to wear helmets? It seems like the city's policy is really just "bicyclists don't have to follow any rules."

They have to follow the rules- the rules are that they yield at stop signs and don’t have to wear helmets. You don’t seem to LIKE the rules but that doesn’t mean they aren’t following them.

When I drive I prefer cyclists doing the Idaho Stop- I generally prefer that they clear the intersection as fast as possible. If I am coming up to an intersection a second or two after a cyclist it is to my benefit that they go right through- I will stop and be able to proceed knowing I won’t hit them. There is more room for error in an intersection with a bike- if two cars go at the same time they can stop more easily. A cyclist making a sudden stop is more likely to wipe out or fall.

If it's that hard to stop, maybe the cyclist is just going too fast.

It doesn't matter how fast you're going, if you make a sudden stop on something balanced on just two wheels, you're likelier to wipe out or fall. Has to do with balance, not with speed.

But I disagree with the PP whose post you're responding to, though they're defending cyclists and you're not -- it's not actually true that cars can stop more easily or more safely. They tend to be going significantly faster than bikes, they weigh thousands of pounds, and they need a lot more space to stop safely than bikes do. And even if a bike crashes or wipes out when trying to stop, odds are, the only person injured in the process will be the cyclist. (Especially if they just fall over.) That is not the case if a car fails to stop in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to?

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have). Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive. Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.

This is just hysterical. So “stop” is a fluid thing now? Kinda like gender, right? Please consult a dictionary, dear poster. Not to spoil surprise, but I don’t think you can be stopped if you are still moving.

It is reality. Deny it to your hearts content but that doesn't make it any less real.

Go and look it up in a dictionary. I dare you.

Maybe you should look at that post again and try to work on your reading comprehension.

Anyone who thinks that there is a functional difference between a “stop” and a “complete stop” doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “stop”. And if you struggle to understand the meaning of that very simple word, you have much more serious problems that others’ reading comprehension.

Lol, you are completely out of touch.

Out of touch with what? The very unique meanings you apply to the most basic words in the English language? Guilty as charged!

[Anonymous]

This bill still has to be voted on a second time and would need the mayor to sign it, just FWIW, so it's not actually law yet. In case anyone plans to start complaining about how it's already ruined their driving commute.

[Anonymous]

Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bicyclists can blow through stop signs but they aren't required to wear helmets? It seems like the city's policy is really just "bicyclists don't have to follow any rules."

They have to follow the rules- the rules are that they yield at stop signs and don’t have to wear helmets. You don’t seem to LIKE the rules but that doesn’t mean they aren’t following them.

When I drive I prefer cyclists doing the Idaho Stop- I generally prefer that they clear the intersection as fast as possible. If I am coming up to an intersection a second or two after a cyclist it is to my benefit that they go right through- I will stop and be able to proceed knowing I won’t hit them. There is more room for error in an intersection with a bike- if two cars go at the same time they can stop more easily. A cyclist making a sudden stop is more likely to wipe out or fall.

If it's that hard to stop, maybe the cyclist is just going too fast.

Ding ding ding! Too many biker bros racing through the intersection already. Slow down and yield to pedestrians especially when cutting down a crowded sidewalk!

This has nothing to do with sidewalks or biker bros. You lost this one pal

Allowing biker bros to ignore stop signs will just make them even more reckless...

The other day I saw a biker bro almost crash into a mom with a stroller crossing the intersection. He even had the gall to yell at her for daring to use the crosswalk in front of him

I was at a stop sign. Came to a full stop. A biker sis pass me on the right, cut in front and hit a woman with a dog.

Wow. Sorry you had to experience that. Hopefully someone here can recommend you a good psychologist to help you deal with the trauma of seeing such a thing.

It is actually traumatizing to see a dog run over! But a biker bro like you wouldn't get that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bicyclists can blow through stop signs but they aren't required to wear helmets? It seems like the city's policy is really just "bicyclists don't have to follow any rules."

They have to follow the rules- the rules are that they yield at stop signs and don’t have to wear helmets. You don’t seem to LIKE the rules but that doesn’t mean they aren’t following them.

When I drive I prefer cyclists doing the Idaho Stop- I generally prefer that they clear the intersection as fast as possible. If I am coming up to an intersection a second or two after a cyclist it is to my benefit that they go right through- I will stop and be able to proceed knowing I won’t hit them. There is more room for error in an intersection with a bike- if two cars go at the same time they can stop more easily. A cyclist making a sudden stop is more likely to wipe out or fall.

If it's that hard to stop, maybe the cyclist is just going too fast.

Ding ding ding! Too many biker bros racing through the intersection already. Slow down and yield to pedestrians especially when cutting down a crowded sidewalk!

This has nothing to do with sidewalks or biker bros. You lost this one pal

Allowing biker bros to ignore stop signs will just make them even more reckless...

The other day I saw a biker bro almost crash into a mom with a stroller crossing the intersection. He even had the gall to yell at her for daring to use the crosswalk in front of him

I was at a stop sign. Came to a full stop. A biker sis pass me on the right, cut in front and hit a woman with a dog.

Wow. Sorry you had to experience that. Hopefully someone here can recommend you a good psychologist to help you deal with the trauma of seeing such a thing.

It is actually traumatizing to see a dog run over! But a biker bro like you wouldn't get that.

I can imagine it would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

You are welcome to stand at whatever crosswalk you want, record whatever happens, and do whatever you would like with that footage.

Please also feel free to consult DDOT’s crash statistics and compare the number of pedestrians who have been killed or seriously injured as a result of being hit by a bike with the number of pedestrians who have been killed or seriously injured as a result of being hit by a car. That should help you understand what the actual menace is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

Good thing only a tiny number of people here bike. It would suck if there were a lot of them:

As Bikers Throng the Streets, ‘It’s Like Paris Is in Anarchy’

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/world/europe/paris-bicyles-france.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When was the last time you saw a cyclist stop at a stop sign? When was the last time you saw a cyclist cited for ignoring traffic laws?

+1

[Anonymous]

The best thing drivers can do to protect themselves from bogus lawsuits from cyclists who ride dangerously is to get a dash cam. Everyone is going to need it in court. It's on my Christmas list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cyclists (versus casual bikers) are a menace to pedestrians. In dense business areas and high volume traffic areas, they should be required to carry a license and registration — probably insurance too.

I’d also like to see cameras on crosswalks.

They're a menace to their own children. I saw a cyclist this morning with a small child on the back of his back riding down the middle of New Hampshire, between the two lanes, during rush hour. Spectacularly dangerous. How are people allowed to put children in this situation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best thing drivers can do to protect themselves from bogus lawsuits from cyclists who ride dangerously is to get a dash cam. Everyone is going to need it in court. It's on my Christmas list.

And what can cyclists do to protect ourselves from drivers who drive dangerously? I've been in one bike accident in nearly 15 years of bike commuting, and it was very much the driver's fault: He hit me while I was in a bike lane riding to work, which he drove into because, as he told me when we stopped, "I didn't see you." I didn't bother calling police about it because it was raining and I wanted to get to work, but he damaged his side-view mirror, and my wrist hurt for a few weeks. If he'd had a dash cam, the only thing it would have been useful for in court would be for me to subpoena the footage.