Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I'll tell you why you are so scared of the Hanoi comparison. It's because Hanoi's chaos of bicycles and scooters is a nightmarish pedestrian deathtrap. Unlike in Amsterdam, bicyclists in Hanoi do not stop at stop lights or pay attention to one way streets. That's the DC scenario. If we had the Amsterdam scenario of bicyclists following the same traffic rules as cars it would not be so bad. You want the Amsterdam infrastructure with Hanoi rules and that is a bad idea.

Lol. Have you been to Hanoi or HCMC lately? The issue is not bikes -- there are very few bikes even when I was there 10 years ago. It's MOTOR BIKES. And cars don't really follow traffic rules either. The problem is the absence of traffic rules, period. Not bikes ignoring stopsigns in Vietnam BTW bikes follow rules in DC. I very, very rarely see a bike doing something really dangerous, whereas I see a car doing something dangerous every day.

(And BTW - Hanoi is actually jumping on the Open Streets bandwagon - they have blocked vehicular traffic around some popular entertainment destinations on the weekend. https://vietnamdiscovery.com/hanoi/activities/hanoi-walking-streets/. All world-class cities are doing this.)

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I'll tell you why you are so scared of the Hanoi comparison. It's because Hanoi's chaos of bicycles and scooters is a nightmarish pedestrian deathtrap. Unlike in Amsterdam, bicyclists in Hanoi do not stop at stop lights or pay attention to one way streets. That's the DC scenario. If we had the Amsterdam scenario of bicyclists following the same traffic rules as cars it would not be so bad. You want the Amsterdam infrastructure with Hanoi rules and that is a bad idea.

Lol. Have you been to Hanoi or HCMC lately? The issue is not bikes -- there are very few bikes even when I was there 10 years ago. It's MOTOR BIKES. And cars don't really follow traffic rules either. The problem is the absence of traffic rules, period. Not bikes ignoring stopsigns in Vietnam BTW bikes follow rules in DC. I very, very rarely see a bike doing something really dangerous, whereas I see a car doing something dangerous every day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the Metropolitan DC Local Politics forum, not that Transportation in Hanoi forum.

The last time you brought up the "bicyclists have an exemption to the rules" assertion, people asked you to provide proof, and you didn't (because you can't, because it's not true).

Ah, so you're just a gigantic racist since for some reason Amsterdam is an acceptable comparison but Hanoi is not. Got it. Once again, why are you so scared?

Nope, what I said last time you pulled this stunt was that I was not going to waste my time citing things that you aren't even claiming is not true. Your whole argument is deflection and cover up. I say bicyclists are exempt from having to stop at stop lights and stop signs and then you say they aren't exempt they just have different rules.

Are bicyclists required to stop at red lights in DC? Yes or No

You (or somebody) said they weren't. Please cite the law.

Are drivers required to stop at red lights in DC?

Are pedestrians required to stop at red lights in DC?

Yes, drivers and pedestrians are.

Once again, you have not claimed I am wrong about bicyclists so why would I waste my time on semantic games.

You're wasting an incredible lot of time posting on DCUM about your hatred of bicyclists. That doesn't seem to be a problem for you. Please cite the law about bicyclists and red lights in DC.

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I'll tell you why you are so scared of the Hanoi comparison. It's because Hanoi's chaos of bicycles and scooters is a nightmarish pedestrian deathtrap. Unlike in Amsterdam, bicyclists in Hanoi do not stop at stop lights or pay attention to one way streets. That's the DC scenario. If we had the Amsterdam scenario of bicyclists following the same traffic rules as cars it would not be so bad. You want the Amsterdam infrastructure with Hanoi rules and that is a bad idea.

At least 3 drivers have crashed onto the sidewalks next to schools in the past few months. Time to shut down the car infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the Metropolitan DC Local Politics forum, not that Transportation in Hanoi forum.

The last time you brought up the "bicyclists have an exemption to the rules" assertion, people asked you to provide proof, and you didn't (because you can't, because it's not true).

Ah, so you're just a gigantic racist since for some reason Amsterdam is an acceptable comparison but Hanoi is not. Got it. Once again, why are you so scared?

Nope, what I said last time you pulled this stunt was that I was not going to waste my time citing things that you aren't even claiming is not true. Your whole argument is deflection and cover up. I say bicyclists are exempt from having to stop at stop lights and stop signs and then you say they aren't exempt they just have different rules.

Are bicyclists required to stop at red lights in DC? Yes or No

You (or somebody) said they weren't. Please cite the law.

Are drivers required to stop at red lights in DC?

Are pedestrians required to stop at red lights in DC?

Yes, drivers and pedestrians are.

Once again, you have not claimed I am wrong about bicyclists so why would I waste my time on semantic games.

Anyway, I'll tell you why you are so scared of the Hanoi comparison. It's because Hanoi's chaos of bicycles and scooters is a nightmarish pedestrian deathtrap. Unlike in Amsterdam, bicyclists in Hanoi do not stop at stop lights or pay attention to one way streets. That's the DC scenario. If we had the Amsterdam scenario of bicyclists following the same traffic rules as cars it would not be so bad. You want the Amsterdam infrastructure with Hanoi rules and that is a bad idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the Metropolitan DC Local Politics forum, not that Transportation in Hanoi forum.

The last time you brought up the "bicyclists have an exemption to the rules" assertion, people asked you to provide proof, and you didn't (because you can't, because it's not true).

Ah, so you're just a gigantic racist since for some reason Amsterdam is an acceptable comparison but Hanoi is not. Got it. Once again, why are you so scared?

Nope, what I said last time you pulled this stunt was that I was not going to waste my time citing things that you aren't even claiming is not true. Your whole argument is deflection and cover up. I say bicyclists are exempt from having to stop at stop lights and stop signs and then you say they aren't exempt they just have different rules.

Are bicyclists required to stop at red lights in DC? Yes or No

You (or somebody) said they weren't. Please cite the law.

Are drivers required to stop at red lights in DC?

Are pedestrians required to stop at red lights in DC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven't produced any evidence that bicyclists in DC don't follow the rules - or don't follow the rules more than drivers don't follow the rules.

Cyclists in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that’s a fair assessment.

Drivers in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that's a fair assessment.

^^^Seriously, I think that people are conditioned to see a driver rolling through a stop sign and think "that driver stopped at the stop sign" and see a bicyclist rolling through a stop sign and think "that bicyclist blew the stop sign".

If you're annoyed by bicyclists in front of you slowing you down when you're driving, you really really don't want bicyclists in front of you coming to a full and complete stop when you're driving.

I dont think anyone is worried about rolling stops, for either drivers or bicyclists. What people are concerned about are bicyclists (and drivers although for drivers it's universay thought of as bad) completely blowing through stop signs which is quite common.

DP. I rarely see bikes blow through lights and stop signs without looking. I often see cars making very fast turns without looking for pedestrians or bikes in the crosswalk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven't produced any evidence that bicyclists in DC don't follow the rules - or don't follow the rules more than drivers don't follow the rules.

Cyclists in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that’s a fair assessment.

Drivers in DC that stop at stop signs are in a small minority. I think that's a fair assessment.

^^^Seriously, I think that people are conditioned to see a driver rolling through a stop sign and think "that driver stopped at the stop sign" and see a bicyclist rolling through a stop sign and think "that bicyclist blew the stop sign".

If you're annoyed by bicyclists in front of you slowing you down when you're driving, you really really don't want bicyclists in front of you coming to a full and complete stop when you're driving.

I dont think anyone is worried about rolling stops, for either drivers or bicyclists. What people are concerned about are bicyclists (and drivers although for drivers it's universay thought of as bad) completely blowing through stop signs which is quite common.

Anonymous wrote:This is the Metropolitan DC Local Politics forum, not that Transportation in Hanoi forum.

The last time you brought up the "bicyclists have an exemption to the rules" assertion, people asked you to provide proof, and you didn't (because you can't, because it's not true).

Ah, so you're just a gigantic racist since for some reason Amsterdam is an acceptable comparison but Hanoi is not. Got it. Once again, why are you so scared?

Nope, what I said last time you pulled this stunt was that I was not going to waste my time citing things that you aren't even claiming is not true. Your whole argument is deflection and cover up. I say bicyclists are exempt from having to stop at stop lights and stop signs and then you say they aren't exempt they just have different rules.

Are bicyclists required to stop at red lights in DC? Yes or No

It's a beautiful day outside. Maybe you'd be happier if you were outside riding a bike?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the trick here is to make an unsubstantiated claim, when asked for a source vigorously Google and link whatever you can find without reading. Then when confronted with that, change the burden. Then when presented with a factual claim to deflect and engage in whataboutism.

Good job guys. You’re only convincing yourselves.

"I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

So if I understand correctly, your belief is that cyclists in DC scrupulously follow all rules. Which is interesting, because then why would cyclists in VA lobby for the state to pass a law specifically exempting them from stopping at stop signs? There should be no reason to do that at all.

You are engaged in I don’t know what purpose or goal. But it really does a disservice to other cyclists.

No, my belief is that "I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

PP here. I mean, except insofar that it's factually correct that you do think that.

This is literally gibberish.

Only if you use "literally" to mean "figuratively", which many people do, these days.

DP, the PP is correct. Your second sentence is quite literally gibberish. At any rate, you made the assertion that "I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is a factual claim (it's not), and then projected onto the PP what you assumed their position to be after they quite gently informed you of your ignorance, and upon a very kind refresher of what the PP's actual position is, you once again projected onto the PP what you assumed their position to be.

Do you ever listen to people and respond to the points they're making, rather than the points you assume they're making because they're disagreeing with you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the trick here is to make an unsubstantiated claim, when asked for a source vigorously Google and link whatever you can find without reading. Then when confronted with that, change the burden. Then when presented with a factual claim to deflect and engage in whataboutism.

Good job guys. You’re only convincing yourselves.

"I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

So if I understand correctly, your belief is that cyclists in DC scrupulously follow all rules. Which is interesting, because then why would cyclists in VA lobby for the state to pass a law specifically exempting them from stopping at stop signs? There should be no reason to do that at all.

You are engaged in I don’t know what purpose or goal. But it really does a disservice to other cyclists.

No, my belief is that "I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

PP here. I mean, except insofar that it's factually correct that you do think that.

This is literally gibberish.

Only if you use "literally" to mean "figuratively", which many people do, these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the trick here is to make an unsubstantiated claim, when asked for a source vigorously Google and link whatever you can find without reading. Then when confronted with that, change the burden. Then when presented with a factual claim to deflect and engage in whataboutism.

Good job guys. You’re only convincing yourselves.

"I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

So if I understand correctly, your belief is that cyclists in DC scrupulously follow all rules. Which is interesting, because then why would cyclists in VA lobby for the state to pass a law specifically exempting them from stopping at stop signs? There should be no reason to do that at all.

You are engaged in I don’t know what purpose or goal. But it really does a disservice to other cyclists.

No, my belief is that "I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

PP here. I mean, except insofar that it's factually correct that you do think that.

This is literally gibberish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the trick here is to make an unsubstantiated claim, when asked for a source vigorously Google and link whatever you can find without reading. Then when confronted with that, change the burden. Then when presented with a factual claim to deflect and engage in whataboutism.

Good job guys. You’re only convincing yourselves.

"I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

So if I understand correctly, your belief is that cyclists in DC scrupulously follow all rules. Which is interesting, because then why would cyclists in VA lobby for the state to pass a law specifically exempting them from stopping at stop signs? There should be no reason to do that at all.

You are engaged in I don’t know what purpose or goal. But it really does a disservice to other cyclists.

No, my belief is that "I think bicyclists don't stop at stop signs" is not a factual claim.

PP here. I mean, except insofar that it's factually correct that you do think that.