Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cars NEVER stop for stop signs unless there is conflicting traffic. Seriously - stand by any stop sign and see for yourself. Every single one rolls through.

Allowing cyclists to roll through increases safety because they can proceed through the intersection when they see it's clear.

They never stop even if there is conflicting traffic. That is why the stop light cameras (like the one in Glover Park) rake in millions in fines. Because none of the drivers in this city actually knows what "stop" means. The reality is that - outside of the intersections with these cameras - the Idaho Stop is perfectly normal and accepted behavior even for heavy vehicles. The total hypocrisy of drivers on this - and other issues of compliance with traffic laws - is phenomenal.

Err, bicyclists are the ones claiming here that they should be exempt from a law (stopping at stop signs) that everyone else must follow.

Sure, you may have seen a driver run a stop sign but there's a half million vehicles in the city so you're going to see all kinds of things.

And drivers are not asking the city council to give them a special exemption from the law.

Anonymous wrote:Cars NEVER stop for stop signs unless there is conflicting traffic. Seriously - stand by any stop sign and see for yourself. Every single one rolls through.

Allowing cyclists to roll through increases safety because they can proceed through the intersection when they see it's clear.

They never stop even if there is conflicting traffic. That is why the stop light cameras (like the one in Glover Park) rake in millions in fines. Because none of the drivers in this city actually knows what "stop" means. The reality is that - outside of the intersections with these cameras - the Idaho Stop is perfectly normal and accepted behavior even for heavy vehicles. The total hypocrisy of drivers on this - and other issues of compliance with traffic laws - is phenomenal.

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?

Yes, definitely bicycles are the only vehicle that don't always stop at every single stop sign and don't get cited.

I probably stop at a higher percentage of stop signs on my bike than the drivers who approach the four-way stop outside my house do. I'd guess the share of cars that come to a complete stop — or even anything approaching a complete stop — when I'm sitting on my porch is about 30 percent. Just now while I typed this line, five different cars rolled through the intersection without even attempting to stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the law says you can treat stop signs as yields, how does that change the legal liability? If you run a yield and you get hit, that's your fault.

Charge the driver for hitting a cyclist. That’s how.


Any other ridiculously simple things you need explained? I’m here to help.

The OP said this new law would change legal liability, implying that meant the new law was a bad idea. I don't think that's the case. I also don't think this is likely to lead to any significant increase in citations for either cyclists or drivers, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Now do shoplifting.

Agreed 100%

It’s a petty charge used to harm BIPOC. Get rid of it.

What about businesses owned by BIPOC people? Is that fare to them?

Cars NEVER stop for stop signs unless there is conflicting traffic. Seriously - stand by any stop sign and see for yourself. Every single one rolls through.

Allowing cyclists to roll through increases safety because they can proceed through the intersection when they see it's clear.

Anonymous wrote:this seems pretty insane. im guessing we're in for some horrific accidents. this would also seem to raise all kinds of legal liability issues.

We were already having horrific accidents. Have you not noticed all the ghost bike memorials? Those were all human beings killed by cars.

Anonymous wrote:Good. Now do shoplifting.

Agreed 100%

It’s a petty charge used to harm BIPOC. Get rid of it.

Anonymous wrote:If the law says you can treat stop signs as yields, how does that change the legal liability? If you run a yield and you get hit, that's your fault.

Charge the driver for hitting a cyclist. That’s how.


Any other ridiculously simple things you need explained? I’m here to help.

Good. Now do shoplifting.

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?

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?

What could possibly go wrong? 🙄

If the law says you can treat stop signs as yields, how does that change the legal liability? If you run a yield and you get hit, that's your fault.

this seems pretty insane. im guessing we're in for some horrific accidents. this would also seem to raise all kinds of legal liability issues.