Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Driver here and I agree with you. Current laws allow bikers to act like a vehicle or a pedestrian when it suits them. Treat them like cars, including enforcing stops.

Once cars are treated like cars, then bikes can be treated like cars. You assume cars actually follow the laws too. They don't.

...what do you think cars are treated like now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Driver here and I agree with you. Current laws allow bikers to act like a vehicle or a pedestrian when it suits them. Treat them like cars, including enforcing stops.

Once cars are treated like cars, then bikes can be treated like cars. You assume cars actually follow the laws too. They don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Driver here and I agree with you. Current laws allow bikers to act like a vehicle or a pedestrian when it suits them. Treat them like cars, including enforcing stops.

Once cars are treated like cars, then bikes can be treated like cars. You assume cars actually follow the laws too. They don't.

...what do you think cars are treated like now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Driver here and I agree with you. Current laws allow bikers to act like a vehicle or a pedestrian when it suits them. Treat them like cars, including enforcing stops.

Once cars are treated like cars, then bikes can be treated like cars. You assume cars actually follow the laws too. They don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also enforce bike's yielding to pedestrians and slower moving bike traffic on bike paths - city sidewalks are not part of the tour de france

This too. If bikes can keep up with cars on a road, they should be good. They should be fined if they're too slow and slowing down traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Driver here and I agree with you. Current laws allow bikers to act like a vehicle or a pedestrian when it suits them. Treat them like cars, including enforcing stops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Generally, if you can just proceed through the intersection as soon as you verify that it is clear, that is better for bikes, instead of stopping fully. Bikes and cars are totally different vehicles.

Right and I am sure most of the time you are right but if we are all held to the same standard it makes biking more safe to stop. If a bike cruises through a stop sign and does not realize that a car is traveling at a high speed and will not be stopping for whatever reason, then the biker is dead. I have seen too many bikers cruise through stop signs when cars are stopped assuming they have some sort of right of way. That is also inherently dangerous for the biker. Courtesy goes both ways.

I have made this point before, but drivers *think* they wants all bikes to scrupulously adhere to all laws, including the requirement to come to a complete stop, but they really, really don't. Consider that (i) there are not bike lanes in most of the city; (ii) cyclists are permitted to take the lane when there are no bike lanes; and (iii) even when there are bike lanes, cyclists aren't required to ride in them, and still may feel safer taking the lane. Then think about driving along and you come upon one or more cyclists. They are in the middle of the lane, and you can't pass them. Then they stop at each stop sigh - a complete stop, and then laboriously start up again, only to repeat the same thing at the next stop sign. Then think about the cyclist commuting home from work, taking the lane on Connecticut Avenue, with a long line of cars crawling behind him, trying to get into the left lane to pass. And then think about his neighbor, commuting home on Mass Ave., which narrows to one lane of traffic in spots because of construction, also taking the lane. And then think about . . .

See where this leads? If cyclists scrupulously observed every traffic law, and drove only in a legally permitted way, drivers would lose their freakin' minds.

Re: point 3, if it's so safe to take the regular traffic lane and cyclists aren't required to ride in them, why do they keep fighting for lanes they seldom use, like the K St bike lanes in Georgetown?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's kind of insane how much of our transportation resources have been hijacked by a tiny group of Bernie bros

Or people who think they live in the Netherlands.

Anonymous wrote:Also enforce bike's yielding to pedestrians and slower moving bike traffic on bike paths - city sidewalks are not part of the tour de france

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Generally, if you can just proceed through the intersection as soon as you verify that it is clear, that is better for bikes, instead of stopping fully. Bikes and cars are totally different vehicles.

Right and I am sure most of the time you are right but if we are all held to the same standard it makes biking more safe to stop. If a bike cruises through a stop sign and does not realize that a car is traveling at a high speed and will not be stopping for whatever reason, then the biker is dead. I have seen too many bikers cruise through stop signs when cars are stopped assuming they have some sort of right of way. That is also inherently dangerous for the biker. Courtesy goes both ways.

I have made this point before, but drivers *think* they wants all bikes to scrupulously adhere to all laws, including the requirement to come to a complete stop, but they really, really don't. Consider that (i) there are not bike lanes in most of the city; (ii) cyclists are permitted to take the lane when there are no bike lanes; and (iii) even when there are bike lanes, cyclists aren't required to ride in them, and still may feel safer taking the lane. Then think about driving along and you come upon one or more cyclists. They are in the middle of the lane, and you can't pass them. Then they stop at each stop sigh - a complete stop, and then laboriously start up again, only to repeat the same thing at the next stop sign. Then think about the cyclist commuting home from work, taking the lane on Connecticut Avenue, with a long line of cars crawling behind him, trying to get into the left lane to pass. And then think about his neighbor, commuting home on Mass Ave., which narrows to one lane of traffic in spots because of construction, also taking the lane. And then think about . . .

See where this leads? If cyclists scrupulously observed every traffic law, and drove only in a legally permitted way, drivers would lose their freakin' minds.

Anonymous wrote:I ride a bike and drive a car. I have no problem with holding bikers and motorists to the same obligations to obey all traffic signs regardless if on a bike or a car. That makes both safer. How can anyone argue that it is safer for bikers to be able to run stop signs? Again, love cycling but this is just common sense to me.

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there is a bike lobby. Yes, they shove their agenda down the throats of others. Yes, they are sociopaths who have no sense of community other than to shove their agenda down the community's throats. Do you really not know them IRL? I do. They suck.

So what have you done to make your voice heard? Have you attended any meetings? Filled in any interest forms? Voted? Anything?

Why would you make those assumptions? How crazy.