Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bicyclists can blow through stop signs but they aren't required to wear helmets? It seems like the city's policy is really just "bicyclists don't have to follow any rules."

They have to follow the rules- the rules are that they yield at stop signs and don’t have to wear helmets. You don’t seem to LIKE the rules but that doesn’t mean they aren’t following them.

When I drive I prefer cyclists doing the Idaho Stop- I generally prefer that they clear the intersection as fast as possible. If I am coming up to an intersection a second or two after a cyclist it is to my benefit that they go right through- I will stop and be able to proceed knowing I won’t hit them. There is more room for error in an intersection with a bike- if two cars go at the same time they can stop more easily. A cyclist making a sudden stop is more likely to wipe out or fall.

If it's that hard to stop, maybe the cyclist is just going too fast.

Ding ding ding! Too many biker bros racing through the intersection already. Slow down and yield to pedestrians especially when cutting down a crowded sidewalk!

This has nothing to do with sidewalks or biker bros. You lost this one pal

Allowing biker bros to ignore stop signs will just make them even more reckless...

The other day I saw a biker bro almost crash into a mom with a stroller crossing the intersection. He even had the gall to yell at her for daring to use the crosswalk in front of him

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to?

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have). Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive. Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.

This is just hysterical. So “stop” is a fluid thing now? Kinda like gender, right? Please consult a dictionary, dear poster. Not to spoil surprise, but I don’t think you can be stopped if you are still moving.

It is reality. Deny it to your hearts content but that doesn't make it any less real.

Go and look it up in a dictionary. I dare you.

Maybe you should look at that post again and try to work on your reading comprehension.

Anyone who thinks that there is a functional difference between a “stop” and a “complete stop” doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “stop”. And if you struggle to understand the meaning of that very simple word, you have much more serious problems that others’ reading comprehension.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bicyclists hate having to stop at the end of each block for a stop sign because they think it's too physically tiring to constantly have to stop and start again. That's why they're doing this.

The safety argument (which makes zero sense) is just a fig leaf.

Well to be fair, when a cyclist take the lane as they are legally allowed to do, the cars stacked up behind them don't want to stop for the cyclist at each stop sign either.

Yeah, next time you're driving behind a bicycle, see how happy you are if the cyclist stops at every stop sign.

Pretty sure this has never happened so I guess we'll never know how a driver would respond

I have personally done it and I will never do it again. Between the people screaming at me and the cars gunning their engines to illegally pass me, never again.

This is super weird argument. So you're saying you shouldnt have to obey a traffic law because a driver "might" scowl at you if you do? I drive and I wish bicyclists would stop at every stop sign. It seems not great for the city life in general for one class of travelers to think they're just completely exempt from traffic laws.

I am saying I obeyed traffic laws and drivers yelled at me (not just scowl, but bodily threats) and crossed double yellow lines to pass me, only to blow through subsequent stop signs themselves. You are making light of what was a harrowing situation because I, as a cyclist, was following the laws on the books rather than what makes sense on the road.

If I were to make a list of the top 1000 reasons why the public hates cyclists, "cyclists obeying stop signs" would not make the list.

I just found your list and, you know what? You’re right! It didn’t make the list! I don’t have the time to copy all of the 1,000 reasons to show everyone, but let me do the top ten just so the readers can have a better sense of why you (and maybe a few people like you) “hate cyclists”:

1. Base intolerance of people who are not like you;
2. Uncontrollable frustration at being dependent on a mode of transport that is more expensive, less healthy, slower, and more boring than available alternatives;
3. Jealousy at those who had avoided the same poor choices.
4. Psychological need to blame others for chronic time mismanagement and a tendency to make hyper-optimistic assignments about traffic densities and commute times;
5. Subconscious guilt for not avoiding choices that contribute to slowly rendering large parts of the planet unfit for human civilization;
6. Shame in not knowing how to ride a bike;
7. Narcissistic belief that you must have the road to yourself, unencumbered by lesser mortals bound by silly considerations like speed limits and traffic laws;
8. Tendency to develop and disseminate invidious stereotypes about groups of the population that you are not a part of;
9. Bigotry
10. Miscellaneous untreated psychological issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to?

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have). Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive. Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.

This is just hysterical. So “stop” is a fluid thing now? Kinda like gender, right? Please consult a dictionary, dear poster. Not to spoil surprise, but I don’t think you can be stopped if you are still moving.

It is reality. Deny it to your hearts content but that doesn't make it any less real.

Go and look it up in a dictionary. I dare you.

Maybe you should look at that post again and try to work on your reading comprehension.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to?

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have). Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive. Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.

This is just hysterical. So “stop” is a fluid thing now? Kinda like gender, right? Please consult a dictionary, dear poster. Not to spoil surprise, but I don’t think you can be stopped if you are still moving.

Anyone who thinks that there is a functional difference between a “stop” and a “complete stop” doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “stop”. If you struggle to understand the meaning of that very simple word, you have much more serious problems that others’ reading comprehension.

It is reality. Deny it to your hearts content but that doesn't make it any less real.

Go and look it up in a dictionary. I dare you.

Maybe you should look at that post again and try to work on your reading comprehension.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bicyclists hate having to stop at the end of each block for a stop sign because they think it's too physically tiring to constantly have to stop and start again. That's why they're doing this.

The safety argument (which makes zero sense) is just a fig leaf.

Well to be fair, when a cyclist take the lane as they are legally allowed to do, the cars stacked up behind them don't want to stop for the cyclist at each stop sign either.

Yeah, next time you're driving behind a bicycle, see how happy you are if the cyclist stops at every stop sign.

Pretty sure this has never happened so I guess we'll never know how a driver would respond

I have personally done it and I will never do it again. Between the people screaming at me and the cars gunning their engines to illegally pass me, never again.

This is super weird argument. So you're saying you shouldnt have to obey a traffic law because a driver "might" scowl at you if you do? I drive and I wish bicyclists would stop at every stop sign. It seems not great for the city life in general for one class of travelers to think they're just completely exempt from traffic laws.

I am saying I obeyed traffic laws and drivers yelled at me (not just scowl, but bodily threats) and crossed double yellow lines to pass me, only to blow through subsequent stop signs themselves. You are making light of what was a harrowing situation because I, as a cyclist, was following the laws on the books rather than what makes sense on the road.

If I were to make a list of the top 1000 reasons why the public hates cyclists, "cyclists obeying stop signs" would not make the list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to?

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have). Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive. Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.

This is just hysterical. So “stop” is a fluid thing now? Kinda like gender, right? Please consult a dictionary, dear poster. Not to spoil surprise, but I don’t think you can be stopped if you are still moving.

It is reality. Deny it to your hearts content but that doesn't make it any less real.

Go and look it up in a dictionary. I dare you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to?

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have). Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive. Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.

This is just hysterical. So “stop” is a fluid thing now? Kinda like gender, right? Please consult a dictionary, dear poster. Not to spoil surprise, but I don’t think you can be stopped if you are still moving.

It is reality. Deny it to your hearts content but that doesn't make it any less real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they also vote to get rid of right turns on red?

That has killed a couple bicyclists this year. Maybe if we just banned cars entirely, bicycling would be safer.

Maybe don't ride your bike here? If you want to ride your bike on city streets, move to the suburbs. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable there. There's a lot of people here, and riding a bike just isn't safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to?

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have). Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive. Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.

This is just hysterical. So “stop” is a fluid thing now? Kinda like gender, right? Please consult a dictionary, dear poster. Not to spoil surprise, but I don’t think you can be stopped if you are still moving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bicyclists can blow through stop signs but they aren't required to wear helmets? It seems like the city's policy is really just "bicyclists don't have to follow any rules."

They have to follow the rules- the rules are that they yield at stop signs and don’t have to wear helmets. You don’t seem to LIKE the rules but that doesn’t mean they aren’t following them.

When I drive I prefer cyclists doing the Idaho Stop- I generally prefer that they clear the intersection as fast as possible. If I am coming up to an intersection a second or two after a cyclist it is to my benefit that they go right through- I will stop and be able to proceed knowing I won’t hit them. There is more room for error in an intersection with a bike- if two cars go at the same time they can stop more easily. A cyclist making a sudden stop is more likely to wipe out or fall.

If it's that hard to stop, maybe the cyclist is just going too fast.

Ding ding ding! Too many biker bros racing through the intersection already. Slow down and yield to pedestrians especially when cutting down a crowded sidewalk!

This has nothing to do with sidewalks or biker bros. You lost this one pal

Allowing biker bros to ignore stop signs will just make them even more reckless...

The other day I saw a biker bro almost crash into a mom with a stroller crossing the intersection. He even had the gall to yell at her for daring to use the crosswalk in front of him

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city endlessly harasses drivers and yet there seem to be no rules at all imposed on cyclists. They don't have to wear helmets. They're free to put young children on bikes in incredibly dangerous situations. And now they can ignore stop signs.

I am not sure where you get that drivers are harassed given they control, disproportionately, the public space they use, they decreasingly follow the rules of the road, etc. the entitlement of drivers is astounding.

Bicyclists amount to just two percent of commuters in DC, per the Census Bureau. That's down by more than half from recent years (bikes seem to be getting *less* popular). They are a super minority.

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Washington%20city,%20District%20of%20Columbia&t=Commuting&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0801

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bicyclists can blow through stop signs but they aren't required to wear helmets? It seems like the city's policy is really just "bicyclists don't have to follow any rules."

They have to follow the rules- the rules are that they yield at stop signs and don’t have to wear helmets. You don’t seem to LIKE the rules but that doesn’t mean they aren’t following them.

When I drive I prefer cyclists doing the Idaho Stop- I generally prefer that they clear the intersection as fast as possible. If I am coming up to an intersection a second or two after a cyclist it is to my benefit that they go right through- I will stop and be able to proceed knowing I won’t hit them. There is more room for error in an intersection with a bike- if two cars go at the same time they can stop more easily. A cyclist making a sudden stop is more likely to wipe out or fall.

If it's that hard to stop, maybe the cyclist is just going too fast.

Ding ding ding! Too many biker bros racing through the intersection already. Slow down and yield to pedestrians especially when cutting down a crowded sidewalk!

This has nothing to do with sidewalks or biker bros. You lost this one pal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A law that is universally ignored shouldn’t be on the books. This was the proper action for DC council to take.

If cars stopped for stop signs and red lights, this wouldn’t be an issue. But cars don’t stop for stop signs or red lights. So why should cyclists have to?

Cars do stop (they just don't come to a complete stop.and never have). Bicylists don't even do that.

The only reason I know this is because my dad was a stickler for it when teaching me to drive. Despite that neither he nor I nor anybody I have ever seen comes to a complete stop according to the letter of the law so I am not claiming I am better than anyone else in this regard.