Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bikes don't belong in the category of everyone-except-cars? I see people biking on side paths and they don't seem to have a problem.

Yes, of course bicycles belong in the category of everyone-except-cars. That category is the problem. Like, here's lots of space for drivers, and over there is a narrow space for everyone else to try to share. It's not comfortable walking on a "sidepath" where lots of people are bicycling, and it's not comfortable bicycling on a "sidepath" where lots of people are walking. The only group that "sidepaths" really work for is drivers.

Just tell the truth-bikers don't like the paths because the peds slow them down so they bike on the road and slow down the cars. Got it. It has nothing to do with comfort level. It's just that common it's-all-about-me biker mentality.

Yes, you're right, one of the reasons I don't like bicycling on the sidewalk is that, even when I'm bicycling slowly (like 10 mph, which is a slow running pace), I'm still bicycling fast enough to make pedestrians uncomfortable. (Another reason I don't like bicycling on the sidewalk is that, on slower roads, it's less safe for me than bicycling in the road.)

In contrast, when I'm bicycling in the road, I'm not making drivers uncomfortable, though I may be annoying some drivers who don't understand that what's really slowing them down is other cars.

Regardless, the solution to both issues is bicycle infrastructure.

Other cars are able to maintain the speed limit. Bikers are not. You are not very bright.

When there are more cars than the road can handle, then no, cars cannot maintain the speed limit. YOU are not very bright.

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.

This is exactly right. People think cars that sort of slow down for a stop sign are "stopping," though I see plenty of cars at the stop sign in front of my house that don't even bother doing that. Meanwhile, you see a bicycle doing the same thing and you feel like you're justified in declaring all cyclists to be dangerous scofflaws.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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?