3 ms·
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
by _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 agoIt 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.