Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/best-e-bike-motors/

E-bikes have motors. They're just electric mopeds with different branding.

E-bikes are not propelled by internal combustion engines. Again, you are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so if you want us to take a lane rather than stay to the right, we will start doing that. On Wisconsin Ave, on Mass Ave, on Ct ave, you name it. Is that what you really want?

Why do bicyclists argue against safety? Annoying drivers by being safe is more important than not inconveniencing drivers.

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/best-e-bike-motors/

E-bikes have motors. They're just electric mopeds with different branding.

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so if you want us to take a lane rather than stay to the right, we will start doing that. On Wisconsin Ave, on Mass Ave, on Ct ave, you name it. Is that what you really want?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a bike with a motor. Otherwise known as a motor-cycle.

Wrong

Anonymous wrote:It's a bike with a motor. Otherwise known as a motor-cycle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. This post has gone off the rails but I'm still very confused by the argument in favor of the Idaho stop. Seems PPs have been saying:

1. No one follows stop signs any way, bikers shouldn't have to
2. It requires more physical exertion to stop
3. Cars are dangerous so let me get to my destination more quickly

Please help me understand. I do not see how this is SAFER for the cyclist. Regardless of the relative statistics on crime, car accidents, etc. How does this make it SAFER for CYCLISTS?

Try biking when there's one lane in each direction, and come to a complete stop. You need to be in the middle of the lane because there isn't enough room in a normal lane for drivers to pass you (let me know if you need a source for that). What happens is that impatient drivers start crossing the double yellow line to pass in very aggressive and unsafe ways. Or even worse, passing in the parking lane. Being able to treat a stop sign as a yield let's me keep more momentum, travel more closely to car speeds between stop signs.

DP here is the problem I have seen in the past few days. Both of these are cyclists “not trying to not losing momentum”. First at T intersection with one stop sign. I come up to the stop sign, stop look left, right, then left again. I start to move through the stop sign and a cyclist comes from behind on my right and cut left in front of my car. Lucky I saw her. Another time on 4 lane(Nebraska Avenue by AU) at a stop light. Cyclists rides between stops cars stopped waiting for light to change and cuts in front of the car in the right lane right as the light changes. No one is looking for that.

Also cyclists have started riding in the street when there is a dedicated by bike lane go the same way.
Here is

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. This post has gone off the rails but I'm still very confused by the argument in favor of the Idaho stop. Seems PPs have been saying:

1. No one follows stop signs any way, bikers shouldn't have to
2. It requires more physical exertion to stop
3. Cars are dangerous so let me get to my destination more quickly

Please help me understand. I do not see how this is SAFER for the cyclist. Regardless of the relative statistics on crime, car accidents, etc. How does this make it SAFER for CYCLISTS?

Try biking when there's one lane in each direction, and come to a complete stop. You need to be in the middle of the lane because there isn't enough room in a normal lane for drivers to pass you (let me know if you need a source for that). What happens is that impatient drivers start crossing the double yellow line to pass in very aggressive and unsafe ways. Or even worse, passing in the parking lane. Being able to treat a stop sign as a yield let's me keep more momentum, travel more closely to car speeds between stop signs.

Anonymous wrote:NP. This post has gone off the rails but I'm still very confused by the argument in favor of the Idaho stop. Seems PPs have been saying:

1. No one follows stop signs any way, bikers shouldn't have to
2. It requires more physical exertion to stop
3. Cars are dangerous so let me get to my destination more quickly

Please help me understand. I do not see how this is SAFER for the cyclist. Regardless of the relative statistics on crime, car accidents, etc. How does this make it SAFER for CYCLISTS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Please share the police reports in the cases you have knowledge of where a bicyclist was killed in DC because I've not seen any of the police reports.

In the two most recent cases the evidence was pretty clear that the person on the bike was killed when the overtaking driver passed them and then turned into their path which is completely on the driver and not the bicyclist.

But apparently you have info that no one else has access to?

The bicyclist was undertaking the truck that turned right.

Banning passing on the right would be more effective than banning right turns. Or at least, it would be if bicyclists obeyed and stopped doing it.

No that is not what happened in either case - in both cases the truck passed the bicyclist than cut across their path - the responsibility to yield and safely turn is entirely on the driver in these cases.

The bikers aren't here to tell us what happened but I bet in neither case did the driver even bother with their turn signal - betting they were instead accelerating around the biker to try to beat them to the turn and screwed up running over them instead.

Your post will not increase safety or save lives. When you're on a car or truck's right side, you need to make sure they know you are there and that they do not run over you. That applies to cars, bikes, and pedestrians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait... does this apply to atvs and dirt bikes?

DCUM readers can't tell the difference between a bicycle, ATV, and a dirt bike.

‘Twas a joke. Bicycle riders are so damn earnest.

I'm not joking. DCUM posters claim that DC law is so ambiguous, a dirt bike could be considered a bicycle. It has two wheels and isn't a motorcycle, therefore it's a bicycle and legal on the street.

This goes over 40 MPH and had pedals. You tell me how it should be regulated.

Motorcycle. It has a motor. It goes over 25mph. I know, that's confusing for you.

That is definitely not a motorcycle. It’s an eBike.

If it goes over 30 mph, it's legally a motorcycle in DC (18 DMCR 9901)

Whew. Usain Bolt was almost a motorcycle. You know the pedantic wouldn't let this pass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait... does this apply to atvs and dirt bikes?

DCUM readers can't tell the difference between a bicycle, ATV, and a dirt bike.

‘Twas a joke. Bicycle riders are so damn earnest.

I'm not joking. DCUM posters claim that DC law is so ambiguous, a dirt bike could be considered a bicycle. It has two wheels and isn't a motorcycle, therefore it's a bicycle and legal on the street.

This goes over 40 MPH and had pedals. You tell me how it should be regulated.

Motorcycle. It has a motor. It goes over 25mph. I know, that's confusing for you.

That is definitely not a motorcycle. It’s an eBike.

If it goes over 30 mph, it's legally a motorcycle in DC (18 DMCR 9901)