4 ms·

This is a disingenuous argument - cars are "full members of the public traffic" and are regularly involved in minor and major collisions with each other. Driver

by jnty 9y ago

This is a disingenuous argument - cars are "full members of the public traffic" and are regularly involved in minor and major collisions with each other. Drivers are rarely killed or seriously injured in these collisions, whereas it's almost impossible for a cyclist to escape these collisions without an injury. "Some people are terrified" because injury and death is a very real possibility in traffic. The primary issue with road safety is not the speed of cycling but the presence of motor vehicles. The only adequate mitigation is to make them go very slowly to reduce the energy of collision (on side streets) or eliminate them (on well-designed, segregated bike paths). The fact that Germany is not very good at segregation does not invalidate the concept - just look at the Netherlands for an example of what can be achieved.

_ph_ 9y ago
The point is, if you drive in the normal car lane, it is pretty impossible for a driver, who is not asleep, to miss you and hit you. So while it looks scary, it is very safe, as I assume that every driver tries not to hit a bicyclist. But I have not seen a bike infrastructure inside towns which don't involve crossings. At those crossings it is very easy to hit a bicycle, even if you pay a lot of attention as a driver. So, unless it does not cross car traffic, bike paths are more dangerous than being in lane with cars.
- jnty 9y ago
  It is unfortunately very possible for a driver to be asleep, texting or just to make a massive misjudgement. As you say, crossing situations are some of the most dangerous on a bike, but there's no reason why a properly designed bike lane junction need be more dangerous than a normal road junction. In fact, intuitively, general road junctions are more dangerous as drivers are looking for other road vehicles, rather than bikes, and can very easily miss them. If you're going to continue making this argument, I'd root it in stats - show me a place which has no cycling infrastructure yet which is safer than Copenhagen or Utrecht.

by jnty 9y ago

_ph_ 9y ago

The point is, if you drive in the normal car lane, it is pretty impossible for a driver, who is not asleep, to miss you and hit you. So while it looks scary, it is very safe, as I assume that every driver tries not to hit a bicyclist. But I have not seen a bike infrastructure inside towns which don't involve crossings. At those crossings it is very easy to hit a bicycle, even if you pay a lot of attention as a driver. So, unless it does not cross car traffic, bike paths are more dangerous than being in lane with cars.

jnty 9y ago
It is unfortunately very possible for a driver to be asleep, texting or just to make a massive misjudgement. As you say, crossing situations are some of the most dangerous on a bike, but there's no reason why a properly designed bike lane junction need be more dangerous than a normal road junction. In fact, intuitively, general road junctions are more dangerous as drivers are looking for other road vehicles, rather than bikes, and can very easily miss them. If you're going to continue making this argument, I'd root it in stats - show me a place which has no cycling infrastructure yet which is safer than Copenhagen or Utrecht.