Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

Saw a parent who put maybe a three year old on their handle bars while riding in rush hour. Thought I'd only seen that kind of insanity in third world countries.

You do you. Maybe the parent had no other options?

Am surprised (and not surprised) that bicyclists condone putting children's lives in danger. You'd think some behavior would be out of bounds. Apparently not.

Not condoning it, but who are you to judge? I saw a guy texting while eating a pizza while driving his car today. He had his kid in the back seat, not in a booster. That was bad too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

Saw a parent who put maybe a three year old on their handle bars while riding in rush hour. Thought I'd only seen that kind of insanity in third world countries.

You do you. Maybe the parent had no other options?

Am surprised (and not surprised) that bicyclists condone putting children's lives in danger. You'd think some behavior would be out of bounds. Apparently not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

Because *checks notes* they don't actually stop.

THAT is the problem. Since the law has been in place for decades, the aggressiveness of drivers had gotten worse. Since driver abused the freedom, they now lose it.

Of course they stop. The hyperbole on this thread is ridiculous. If as many drivers ignored stop signs as you say, traffic would be completely unpredictable -- they would be *thousands* of accidents every day, the death toll would be staggering and bicyclists would have to be insane to venture out into the streets. Of course none of that is happening because the nearly every driver follows the rules.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

Saw a parent who put maybe a three year old on their handle bars while riding in rush hour. Thought I'd only seen that kind of insanity in third world countries.

You do you. Maybe the parent had no other options?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

Because *checks notes* they don't actually stop.

THAT is the problem. Since the law has been in place for decades, the aggressiveness of drivers had gotten worse. Since driver abused the freedom, they now lose it.

Anonymous wrote:wait, you have to follow stop signs in DC? I've never seen a car come to a complete stop.

Anonymous wrote:wait, you have to follow stop signs in DC? I've never seen a car come to a complete stop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

Saw a parent who put maybe a three year old on their handle bars while riding in rush hour. Thought I'd only seen that kind of insanity in third world countries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

In cars, children must be strapped into approved car seats. On bikes, they don't even have to wear helmets. It's a real blind spot in the law. But, sure, let's focus on the real problem...(checks notes)...cars turning right on red after they've stopped?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I beg you to review the list of people who died on DC’s streets last year. That list includes at least two young children who were killed on a crosswalk by drivers. If you truly cared about the safety of children on DC streets, your focus would be on the actual threats to their safety as borne out by the data.

Yikes. I guess it's ok to put your child's life in danger so long as you're really into bikes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you ride a bike in DC, you should probably expect to be hit by a car sooner or later, just like you should expect to get mugged sooner or later.

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.

Because you are a prig (look it up - it's very apt) I did.

Stop - to halt the progress or motion of
Halt - to pause

As you can see there is no requirement to prevent the capability of moving forward and there is also no extended time requirement. Examples of things that are stops but are not vomplete stops. Halting one's progress before the line and then inching forward. Halting one's progress past the line. Halting one's progress and then taking their foot off the break. Halting one's progress for a second and then moving forward. Moving forward directly after halting one's progress because they were waiting their turn. Halting one's progress but not coming to a complete standstill. All of those examples are things that meet the definition of stop in common parlance but that do not meet the traffic law definition which requires one to come to a complete standstill at the line for a short but extended period of time. All of those examples are the ways you, and everyone else, stop. None of those examples are complete stops. Stop as a word is broad and open to interpretation. Complete stop is much more specific and has elements besides the mere pausing of progress.

Complete, as an adjective, modifies the term stop and provides more specificity to the meaning. All complete stops are stops but not all stops are complete stops. The use of adjectives in the English language should be a relatively straight forward concept but clearly is something that eludes your ken.

When it comes to safety I am more concerned with the utility of the stop than the technicality of its completeness. Whether it's a California, Idaho or complete stop does not matter to me unless it is done in an unsafe manner with a disregard to the context of the particular situation. I am concerned with the spirit and not the letter of the law. You on the other hand seem obsessed with the letter of the law regardless of context. You are not Diogenes.

Nice try. Everyone who now read that is now dumber.

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.

Because you are a prig (look it up - it's very apt) I did.

Stop - to halt the progress or motion of
Halt - to pause

As you can see there is no requirement to prevent the capability of moving forward and there is also no extended time requirement. Examples of things that are stops but are not vomplete stops. Halting one's progress before the line and then inching forward. Halting one's progress past the line. Halting one's progress and then taking their foot off the break. Halting one's progress for a second and then moving forward. Moving forward directly after halting one's progress because they were waiting their turn. Halting one's progress but not coming to a complete standstill. All of those examples are things that meet the definition of stop in common parlance but that do not meet the traffic law definition which requires one to come to a complete standstill at the line for a short but extended period of time. All of those examples are the ways you, and everyone else, stop. None of those examples are complete stops. Stop as a word is broad and open to interpretation. Complete stop is much more specific and has elements besides the mere pausing of progress.

Complete, as an adjective, modifies the term stop and provides more specificity to the meaning. All complete stops are stops but not all stops are complete stops. The use of adjectives in the English language should be a relatively straight forward concept but clearly is something that eludes your ken.

When it comes to safety I am more concerned with the utility of the stop than the technicality of its completeness. Whether it's a California, Idaho or complete stop does not matter to me unless it is done in an unsafe manner with a disregard to the context of the particular situation. I am concerned with the spirit and not the letter of the law. You on the other hand seem obsessed with the letter of the law regardless of context. You are not Diogenes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I beg you to review the list of people who died on DC’s streets last year. That list includes at least two young children who were killed on a crosswalk by drivers. If you truly cared about the safety of children on DC streets, your focus would be on the actual threats to their safety as borne out by the data.

Yikes. I guess it's ok to put your child's life in danger so long as you're really into bikes.