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?

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

24 is 24 too many. Zero died in Oslo this year, a similarly sized city. Letting people be slaughtered on our streets is a choice.

I would say the same is largely true about murders, and we should do much more to bring those down too.

Ummm, it does not sound like cyclists share the road with cars in Oslo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-03/oslo-bans-cars-builds-a-bike-lane-haven

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?

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

24 is 24 too many. Zero died in Oslo this year, a similarly sized city. Letting people be slaughtered on our streets is a choice.

I would say the same is largely true about murders, and we should do much more to bring those down too.

It’s open season!

Wait... does this apply to atvs and dirt bikes?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

This is one thing I don't get. 24 is really low. How much lower do people think it can get? It will never get to zero. It will never get even close to zero. No city in the world has done that.

Yeah, better not to even try, if it’s going to make my drive to work take 4 more minutes than it does!

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

I don't entirely see what that comparison is supposed to show. We also devote enormous resources in this city to police (even though I know a lot of people think we should be devoting more), including an entire homicide unit. So far there have been 150 homicides in D.C. this year, but I don't think we spend 1/6 as much energy or money on keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe as we do on MPD.

It's funny how people act like 24 is a huge number but 150 is a tiny number.

The bike lobby would have you think the streets are drenched in blood and that we're all about to be run over by some crazy driver. Yet no one is particularly concerned about being murdered.

But more than six times as many people are murdered than killed in traffic accidents. And while homicides and basically every violent crime is way, way up this year, the number of traffic deaths is down.

The reality is very different from the rhetoric.

But it’s much easier to prevent drivers from killing people than it is to prevent murders. You can make the streets safer for pedestrians and bicycles. We know it works. People just don’t want to do it. There is no similar fix that can prevent homicide.

Also, I won’t pretend to speak for anyone else who supports bike infrastructure, but I don’t think 150 murders is an incredibly small number. I think both figures are unacceptably high. I also don’t think this comparison makes any sense, because one has nothing to do with the other except in the very rare cases of vehicular homicide.

(Finally, you say homicides are way way up this year, but just for the sake of accuracy, I do think it’s worth noting that compared to this time last year, homicide in D.C. is actually down 3 percent.)

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?

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

This is one thing I don't get. 24 is really low. How much lower do people think it can get? It will never get to zero. It will never get even close to zero. No city in the world has done that.

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?

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.

Almost no driver comes to a complete stop at every stop sign, as the law is supposed to require. See for instance this one stop-sign camera in Northwest D.C. that brought in $1.3 million in revenue in two years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/stop-sign-camera-northwest-washington/

Does an accident result every time a driver rolls through a stop sign or only slows down a bit? No, of course not. But the risk is greater for a pedestrian or a cyclist when a driver does decide to mostly ignore a stop -- both because they're inherently more vulnerable than someone in a car is and because they're harder to see than a car because they're smaller, which means a driver who's only slowing for a stop sign is likelier to hit them than to hit another car.

What bicyclists have been saying over and over again is that it often DOES feel like it's insane to venture out into the streets, and that some measures to make it safer are warranted. But people who oppose these changes either (a) say cyclists are making it all up or (b) argue that inconvenience to drivers is much worse than danger to non-drivers.

Or, the truly bonkers people who oppose these changes because (c) efforts to make biking safer are unwarranted because they saw a bicyclist run a red light one time on the way in to work.

One time?? You don’t get out much.

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?

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

I don't know the details of all those 24 deaths. But the ones I do know, it was the bicyclist at fault. Should bicyclists be more protected from their mistakes? Probably, so I support the red light changes. But I'm not sure that the Idaho stops will increase safety for everyone in DC, especially pedestrians, who are a miniscule population in Idaho.

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?

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

It should be zero. That you think 24 is acceptable is quite a tell.

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?

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

I don't entirely see what that comparison is supposed to show. We also devote enormous resources in this city to police (even though I know a lot of people think we should be devoting more), including an entire homicide unit. So far there have been 150 homicides in D.C. this year, but I don't think we spend 1/6 as much energy or money on keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe as we do on MPD.

It's funny how people act like 24 is a huge number but 150 is a tiny number.

The bike lobby would have you think the streets are drenched in blood and that we're all about to be run over by some crazy driver. Yet no one is particularly concerned about being murdered.

But more than six times as many people are murdered than killed in traffic accidents. And while homicides and basically every violent crime is way, way up this year, the number of traffic deaths is down.

The reality is very different from the rhetoric.

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?

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

I don't entirely see what that comparison is supposed to show. We also devote enormous resources in this city to police (even though I know a lot of people think we should be devoting more), including an entire homicide unit. So far there have been 150 homicides in D.C. this year, but I don't think we spend 1/6 as much energy or money on keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe as we do on MPD.

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.

24 people have died on D.C. streets this year, out of tens of millions of trips. You're much, much, much more likely to be murdered.

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?

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.

Almost no driver comes to a complete stop at every stop sign, as the law is supposed to require. See for instance this one stop-sign camera in Northwest D.C. that brought in $1.3 million in revenue in two years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/stop-sign-camera-northwest-washington/

Does an accident result every time a driver rolls through a stop sign or only slows down a bit? No, of course not. But the risk is greater for a pedestrian or a cyclist when a driver does decide to mostly ignore a stop -- both because they're inherently more vulnerable than someone in a car is and because they're harder to see than a car because they're smaller, which means a driver who's only slowing for a stop sign is likelier to hit them than to hit another car.

What bicyclists have been saying over and over again is that it often DOES feel like it's insane to venture out into the streets, and that some measures to make it safer are warranted. But people who oppose these changes either (a) say cyclists are making it all up or (b) argue that inconvenience to drivers is much worse than danger to non-drivers.

Or, the truly bonkers people who oppose these changes because (c) efforts to make biking safer are unwarranted because they saw a bicyclist run a red light one time on the way in to work.

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.

Almost no driver comes to a complete stop at every stop sign, as the law is supposed to require. See for instance this one stop-sign camera in Northwest D.C. that brought in $1.3 million in revenue in two years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/stop-sign-camera-northwest-washington/

Does an accident result every time a driver rolls through a stop sign or only slows down a bit? No, of course not. But the risk is greater for a pedestrian or a cyclist when a driver does decide to mostly ignore a stop -- both because they're inherently more vulnerable than someone in a car is and because they're harder to see than a car because they're smaller, which means a driver who's only slowing for a stop sign is likelier to hit them than to hit another car.

What bicyclists have been saying over and over again is that it often DOES feel like it's insane to venture out into the streets, and that some measures to make it safer are warranted. But people who oppose these changes either (a) say cyclists are making it all up or (b) argue that inconvenience to drivers is much worse than danger to non-drivers.