4 ms·

This would make it impossible to do any bike touring at all. The longest trip I did was 2,000 miles and I can tell you: you need to go on highways, period. Not

by exogen 11y ago

This would make it impossible to do any bike touring at all. The longest trip I did was 2,000 miles and I can tell you: you need to go on highways, period. Not the interstate, which is not allowed in many places (but is in some!) but highways, which are a different thing.

exogen 11y ago
Also, it's simply just not the direction we should be going in (especially in the US, which is already overrun with cars and sprawl). We need to make the roads more bike friendly, and that doesn't mean adding bike lanes everywhere. How about lowering the speed limits? People just need to get over the goddamn fact that sometimes another traveler is in your way, and that doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. The person in front of you turns left and needs to wait for other cars. The person in front of you turns right and needs to wait for pedestrians in the crosswalk. The person in front of you uses a slower vehicle.
- toothbrush 11y ago
  Even assuming completely benevolent car drivers (which seems a stretch), i believe that separated bike and car lanes are the only way it should be done. It is unrealistic to expect such different modes of transport (i.e., very fast 2-ton metal boxes vs. completely vulnerable meatbags on frames going 20km/h) to interact well together. If anything gies wrong (again, assume benevolent drivers: the thing going wrong might be oil on the road, a tyre blowout, sleeping driver, etc.) then the cyclist is going to come off second best, every time. This is the main point to keep in mind. Cyclists are vulnerable, and should be kept away from motorised traffic. (incidentally, i believe the same in the pedestrians vs. cyclists argument: they too should be separated. But i didn't want to get too off-topic) EDIT: grammar EDIT 2: Another point: it's not as simple as you are saying, where people should just be more patient if they're in a car behind a bicycle. That may be true, but when a cyclist falls, for example, and a car "rear ends" them, they are going to be dead with a non-zero probability. The other way around (i.e. a car stalls and a cyclist rear ends them -- this has happened to me) then it's again the cyclist who ends up somewhere between just embarrassed and in the hospital.

by exogen 11y ago

exogen 11y ago

Also, it's simply just not the direction we should be going in (especially in the US, which is already overrun with cars and sprawl). We need to make the roads more bike friendly, and that doesn't mean adding bike lanes everywhere. How about lowering the speed limits? People just need to get over the goddamn fact that sometimes another traveler is in your way, and that doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong. The person in front of you turns left and needs to wait for other cars. The person in front of you turns right and needs to wait for pedestrians in the crosswalk. The person in front of you uses a slower vehicle.

toothbrush 11y ago
Even assuming completely benevolent car drivers (which seems a stretch), i believe that separated bike and car lanes are the only way it should be done. It is unrealistic to expect such different modes of transport (i.e., very fast 2-ton metal boxes vs. completely vulnerable meatbags on frames going 20km/h) to interact well together. If anything gies wrong (again, assume benevolent drivers: the thing going wrong might be oil on the road, a tyre blowout, sleeping driver, etc.) then the cyclist is going to come off second best, every time. This is the main point to keep in mind. Cyclists are vulnerable, and should be kept away from motorised traffic. (incidentally, i believe the same in the pedestrians vs. cyclists argument: they too should be separated. But i didn't want to get too off-topic) EDIT: grammar EDIT 2: Another point: it's not as simple as you are saying, where people should just be more patient if they're in a car behind a bicycle. That may be true, but when a cyclist falls, for example, and a car "rear ends" them, they are going to be dead with a non-zero probability. The other way around (i.e. a car stalls and a cyclist rear ends them -- this has happened to me) then it's again the cyclist who ends up somewhere between just embarrassed and in the hospital.