Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Like saints. You all have "accidents" when you negligently smash your cars into people and property. You are excused from most fault if you just inform police that "that pedestrian came out of nowhere!" like we're some kind of wormhole travelling magicians.

Drivers aren't asking for real increased enforcement, they're asking for increased enforcement against those they don't like or who inconvenience them.

You realize that roads were built for cars, right?

Actually, the L'Enfant Plan designed DC streets for accommodating horse drawn carriages. The first cars adopted the chassis of horse drawn carriages with the addition of a motorized drivetrain. That’s why they were initially called “horseless carriages”.

Thanks bud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say let DC do whatever it wants with bikes. It’s neither the region’s main population nor job center anymore.

Exactly. They are only accelerating the decline. Already losing population and commercial tax base. Accelerating anti-growth transportation policies in the face of that headwind is an interesting policy choice and I think the pace at which they are trying to do this makes clear that the proponents know these changes will not stand up to the test of time.

So the contention that the people who are buying up 7 figure properties now are going to be financial losers. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Like saints. You all have "accidents" when you negligently smash your cars into people and property. You are excused from most fault if you just inform police that "that pedestrian came out of nowhere!" like we're some kind of wormhole travelling magicians.

Drivers aren't asking for real increased enforcement, they're asking for increased enforcement against those they don't like or who inconvenience them.

You realize that roads were built for cars, right?

Actually, the L'Enfant Plan designed DC streets for accommodating horse drawn carriages. The first cars adopted the chassis of horse drawn carriages with the addition of a motorized drivetrain. That’s why they were initially called “horseless carriages”.

Anonymous wrote:I say let DC do whatever it wants with bikes. It’s neither the region’s main population nor job center anymore.

Exactly. They are only accelerating the decline. Already losing population and commercial tax base. Accelerating anti-growth transportation policies in the face of that headwind is an interesting policy choice and I think the pace at which they are trying to do this makes clear that the proponents know these changes will not stand up to the test of time.

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.

Again the ignorance of the average numbskull aggressive driver.

One of the reasons drivers in DC get so frustrated with bikers is because they are often travelling the same speed or slower on DC roads and keep having to pass the same person on a bike.

That is because the average travel speed on most DC roads is between 10-12 MPH which is a speed even most casual cyclists can keep up with.

So Joe Olney and Jane Germantown hit an open stretch of Connecticut or Mass Ave and gun it and get their panzer wanker SUV up to 45MPH for a block before getting enraged at having to slow down for someone on a bike going 15MPH who they then go around before doing a rage acceleration back to 45MPH only to have that same biker coast past them 2 blocks later. And then they again gun it between the lights only to again be passed by the same biker.

Now you'd think with this happening over and over again a lightbulb would go off in Freddy Frederick's head and he would realize despite what the car commercial advertised that he in fact is not blissfully racing around an urban area with no other cars on the road but that he and his gas guzzling SUV are the traffic and are not making any better time than someone coasting along on their $300 bike.

But that would require Henry Herndon and Sammy Sterling to have working brains instead of being unthinking American consumers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Like saints. You all have "accidents" when you negligently smash your cars into people and property. You are excused from most fault if you just inform police that "that pedestrian came out of nowhere!" like we're some kind of wormhole travelling magicians.

Drivers aren't asking for real increased enforcement, they're asking for increased enforcement against those they don't like or who inconvenience them.

You realize that roads were built for cars, right?

dp That isn't true. Roads were built for the public which includes walkers...it was the automobile lobby that was strong and made "jay walking" a crime!

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

That's funny - sad

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?

Because people are different. Cyclists don't have a hive mind.

Anonymous wrote: I wish the bike lobby was stronger..I would love to ride my bike but, I am too afraid.

Same. I live on Capitol Hill which is very bikeable and has lots of (unprotected) bike lanes, but the unbelievable aggressive driving makes it way too scary.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Like saints. You all have "accidents" when you negligently smash your cars into people and property. You are excused from most fault if you just inform police that "that pedestrian came out of nowhere!" like we're some kind of wormhole travelling magicians.

Drivers aren't asking for real increased enforcement, they're asking for increased enforcement against those they don't like or who inconvenience them.

You realize that roads were built for cars, right?

dp That isn't true. Roads were built for the public which includes walkers...it was the automobile lobby that was strong and made "jay walking" a crime!

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

I wish the bike lobby was stronger..I would love to ride my bike but, I am too afraid.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Like saints. You all have "accidents" when you negligently smash your cars into people and property. You are excused from most fault if you just inform police that "that pedestrian came out of nowhere!" like we're some kind of wormhole travelling magicians.

Drivers aren't asking for real increased enforcement, they're asking for increased enforcement against those they don't like or who inconvenience them.

You realize that roads were built for cars, right?

LOL, nope

https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history

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.

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?

Like saints. You all have "accidents" when you negligently smash your cars into people and property. You are excused from most fault if you just inform police that "that pedestrian came out of nowhere!" like we're some kind of wormhole travelling magicians.

Drivers aren't asking for real increased enforcement, they're asking for increased enforcement against those they don't like or who inconvenience them.

You realize that roads were built for cars, right?

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.

As a walker, I agree. Bikers never stop at cross walks for pedestrians, and it drives me crazy!! I walk my kid to school, and need to cross at a crosswalk in the middle of the street where there’s a sign that says cars and bikes need to stop for pedestrians. Cars will stop, but bikers— never! They just move to one dude and whizz through.

au contraire: the car lobby is too powerful in the USA. That's why this country is such an ecological mess.

I say let DC do whatever it wants with bikes. It’s neither the region’s main population nor job center anymore.