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.

Ok then why do we share a road? Why do I have to creep behind the Little Engine that Could if we are different vehicles with different capabilities.

And I see how its better to slow down than make a full stop....but tell that to all the bikers that I almost hit when I have the right of way, use my turn signal and safely proceed and they run through a stop sign. Share the road, share the rules.

The same reason a Prius and a turbocharged F-350 share a road?

Nice try, but a Prius and F-350 can both keep traffic moving at 25mph.

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.

Ok then why do we share a road? Why do I have to creep behind the Little Engine that Could if we are different vehicles with different capabilities.

And I see how its better to slow down than make a full stop....but tell that to all the bikers that I almost hit when I have the right of way, use my turn signal and safely proceed and they run through a stop sign. Share the road, share the rules.

The same reason a Prius and a turbocharged F-350 share a road?

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.

Anonymous wrote:I actually agree with OP even though I think DC needs to reduce it's car infrastructure and would be in favor of drastic measures like shutting down parts of the city to cars or taxing cars using city streets during rush hour. I just think DC's current transportation trajectory, which seems to rely on continually increasing the number of cars moving in and out of the city, is totally unsustainable. I've lived in LA. At some point you have to invest in public transportation and car alternatives or you just wind up living in this sprawling traffic jam that decreases the quality of life for everyone on a daily basis. It's miserable. It's hard for people to transition to other forms of transportation but especially for commuters, it's really the only longterm option that makes economic and environmental sense. We can't just keep increasing road capacity. There is an upper limit.

But I find the bike lobby in DC tedious because it does often feel like all they want to do is add bike lanes and promote more biking. I bike places and even I think this is dumb. We do need to change streetscapes to make them safer, and bike lanes should be part of that. But the main goal should actually be pedestrian safety and reducing car speeds within the city. Instead we just stick a bike lane on an existing road where cars already go too fast. Great? This doesn't actually solve anything even if the bike lane is amazing for cyclists.

I wish the bike lobby would stop taking about bikes and instead focus exclusively on pedestrian safety and better infrastructure. If you do that, the city will naturally get safe for cyclists. But the truth is you are not going to convert a bunch of people into bike commuters. You might be able to convince them to take regional trains, light rail, metro, and buses, if you invest money in these options and make them affordable and convenient. Some people might also choose to bike. But why would this be your main focus? It's dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's kind of insane how much of our transportation resources have been hijacked by a tiny group of Bernie bros

Or people who think they live in the Netherlands.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's kind of insane how much of our transportation resources have been hijacked by a tiny group of Bernie bros

Or people who think they live in the Netherlands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You lost me at “Bike Lobby.”

People should be able to ride bicycles safely, without constantly being at risk of injury or death. In places like the Netherlands, this is the norm. Maybe you should broaden your thinking to realize there’s more to transplantation and infrastructure than car culture.

I'm not against that, but what my issue is is that we are effectively bending over backwards to accommodate them by allowing them to skirt through red lights or building bike infrastructure in certain areas of the city but not others. Its disgusting, to see how badly the Council has kowtowed to them.

Anonymous wrote:did you know bicyclists aren't required to wear helmets?

all this talk about safety and yet they fight any proposal to require them or even to require children on bikes to wear helmets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's kind of insane how much of our transportation resources have been hijacked by a tiny group of Bernie bros

Or people who think they live in the Netherlands.

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.

Ok then why do we share a road? Why do I have to creep behind the Little Engine that Could if we are different vehicles with different capabilities.

And I see how its better to slow down than make a full stop....but tell that to all the bikers that I almost hit when I have the right of way, use my turn signal and safely proceed and they run through a stop sign. Share the road, share the rules.

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.

Ok then why do we share a road? Why do I have to creep behind the Little Engine that Could if we are different vehicles with different capabilities.

And I see how its better to slow down than make a full stop....but tell that to all the bikers that I almost hit when I have the right of way, use my turn signal and safely proceed and they run through a stop sign. Share the road, share the rules.

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.

Ok then why do we share a road? Why do I have to creep behind the Little Engine that Could if we are different vehicles with different capabilities.

And I see how its better to slow down than make a full stop....but tell that to all the bikers that I almost hit when I have the right of way, use my turn signal and safely proceed and they run through a stop sign. Share the road, share the rules.

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.

Anonymous wrote:They practically run the council or damn near close to it! We don't need more bike lanes, we need more ENFORCEMENT of existing laws and infrastructure.