5 ms·

Culture helps a lot. In the US bikes are seen as an annoyance by many drivers. I was in Amsterdam this summer and without much knowledge of the city, found it

Culture helps a lot. In the US bikes are seen as an annoyance by many drivers. I was in Amsterdam this summer and without much knowledge of the city, found it easy, safe and fun to get around by bike. Went to Paris and Barcelona as well and didn't feel as comfortable on a bike in either of those cities.

vvanders 9y ago
That's because most us roads aren't safe for biking. Just a couple weeks ago I was heading down 101, 55mph with blind curves and came around the corner to a pack of bikes doing 5mph uphill. I managed to slow down in time but the people behind me almost lost it. I don't know if they had a deathwish or what but I can't imagine why they thought biking on 101 was a good idea.
- the_gastropod 9y ago
  This is victim blaming. If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? Clearly, yours. If you are traveling so fast that you cannot stop at the limits of your vision, you are diving dangerously. Full stop.
  - vvanders 9y ago
    > If you are traveling so fast that you cannot stop at the limits of your vision ... I could stop just fine, I'm worried about the idiots behind me. Taking the moral highground doesn't help if you end up dead in the end. There's a ton of motorhomes, boats and equipment trailers on these roads. Even at 35mph they may not be able to stop in time when they are towing ~15-20k GVW. There's a large difference between being rear ended in a car and rear ended on a bicycle. One is engineered to do everything to keep you alive, the other ends up with you plastered across someone's bumper. The solution is to build these roads to be safe, however riding on them in their current state just makes the roads more dangerous for everyone.
    - sampo 9y ago
      So those roads would require lower speed limits?
      - the_gastropod 9y ago
        Most of these kinds of roads do have low speed limits (especially around "blind" corners). The problem is, drivers feel confident traveling at speeds higher than the posted speed limit. Roads need to be designed better so that the speed limits more closely match speeds a normal human would feel comfortable driving. Narrowing lanes is one trick for accomplish this.
        vvanders 9y ago
        Yeah, it's less speed limits and more that people don't leave proper following distance. Most people leave 1-2 car lengths yet even at 40mph you'd need to leave 3 cars not to be kissing bumpers(40mph = 60ft/sec, 1/2sec reaction = 30ft). I don't brake for small animals on these roads for similar reasons and I've lost count the number of times I've had to dive for the shoulder when someone overruns their stopping distance behind me(which is why you should always keep an eye on your rear mirror in a panic brake situation). Intentionally biking on these roads put everyone at a higher risk of these types of situations happening and a bad outcome for all because of it.
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        And then they'd be even more dangerous since you'd have fast cars vs slow cars vs bikes instead of just fast cars vs bikes. People don't follow the speed limits. They optimize for a constant amount of risk. Depending on conditions that's 20-over or 15 under or anywhere between.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    > If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? I see the point, but that's a different situation. A stalled vehicle is an accident. A group of cyclists going slowly uphill is a deliberate choice, on their part. I have a hard time laying blame completely on one party when both parties have made choices that increase the danger of a situation. I don't know exactly what happened in the previous comment's story (conditions on the 101 may be different in other areas), but large groups of bicycles in my area tend to spill out of the marked bike lanes and into motor vehicle lanes, but bicycles aren't common enough that their presence is always expected. Anytime something less-than-expected happens, there's a higher risk of someone getting hurt.
    - vvanders 9y ago
      Thank you, this is the point that I was getting at. The stretch of road in question has no bike lane and half of foot of pavement to the right of the lane at most. The right solution is to put in a dedicated bike lane, in absence of that you're putting everyone else on the road in danger by choosing bike with a large delta of speed.
    - the_gastropod 9y ago
      Again, this is just victim blaming. The cyclists are not putting anyone at danger. People operating x,000 lb machines at speeds capable of killing others while being unable to see the part of road they could effectively stop at are putting people at danger. This is not an acceptable defense, whether it's a cyclist, a stalled car, traffic, a deer, or any other "obstruction" sharing the road.
      - vvanders 9y ago
        You're missing the distinction between legal and safe. Is it legal to ride your bike on 101? Totally. In the same way that it's legal to go bombing down trails in a mountain bike. Now is either of those things safe? I would argue not. The difference is that if you wipe out on the trail you just injure yourself, probably with some scrapes and the occasional broken bones. Where I draw the line is when your actions put me or my family at risk. The chances of death or serious injury is much higher in a bike vs car(either for the cyclist, in another car crossing the double-yellow to "dodge" the cyclist or pile-up for someone following too close).
- rockostrich 9y ago
  All roads that allow bikes (pretty much anything except a highway) are safe for biking because they don't have minimum speed limits and you should always be prepared to stop. At least, that's the case in states that have laws like Massachusetts that say "There is no law that requires bicycles to ride as far to the right as practicable". It may be different for your state though.
wnevets 9y ago
>Culture helps a lot. In the US bikes are seen as an annoyance by many drivers. Which is a silly opinion for drivers to have IMO. The more people are biking the less cars that are in my way.
- sampo 9y ago
  Maybe drivers are like herd animals and are happiest when surrounded by other cars.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  True, but with the infrastructure setup in the US, more people biking means more bicycles on the road for you to deal with and drive around. Most places don't have bicycle routes and the ones that do have them usually just have a single, fairly narrow painted lane between parked cars and traffic. In some places, you aren't allowed to ride on sidewalks because you are technically a vehicle. So while it is a silly opinion to have in some cases, in others there are actual reasons for it which have some solutions.
- woolvalley 9y ago
  In the usa, there are many roads without explicit bike lanes. Bicyclists on these lanes are like cars that drive very slowly and you have to overtake, in busy traffic. This is fairly rage inducing for most drivers. A lot of times on top of that, a single road will have dedicated bike dispersed through it. So one segment will have a bike lane, then cross an intersection and it doesn't have a bike lane anymore. A few more intersections later it starts having bike lanes again.
Fricken 9y ago
Culture is slow to change. The Netherlands has been nurturing bike culture since the 70s, and it's only recently that cycling's modal share of the transportation pie hit 48% in Amsterdam. Cycling saw a big popularity explosion in North America as well in the 70s, but we quickly came to our senses and opted to triple the obesity rate instead.

vvanders 9y ago

That's because most us roads aren't safe for biking. Just a couple weeks ago I was heading down 101, 55mph with blind curves and came around the corner to a pack of bikes doing 5mph uphill. I managed to slow down in time but the people behind me almost lost it. I don't know if they had a deathwish or what but I can't imagine why they thought biking on 101 was a good idea.

the_gastropod 9y ago
This is victim blaming. If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? Clearly, yours. If you are traveling so fast that you cannot stop at the limits of your vision, you are diving dangerously. Full stop.
- vvanders 9y ago
  > If you are traveling so fast that you cannot stop at the limits of your vision ... I could stop just fine, I'm worried about the idiots behind me. Taking the moral highground doesn't help if you end up dead in the end. There's a ton of motorhomes, boats and equipment trailers on these roads. Even at 35mph they may not be able to stop in time when they are towing ~15-20k GVW. There's a large difference between being rear ended in a car and rear ended on a bicycle. One is engineered to do everything to keep you alive, the other ends up with you plastered across someone's bumper. The solution is to build these roads to be safe, however riding on them in their current state just makes the roads more dangerous for everyone.
  - sampo 9y ago
    So those roads would require lower speed limits?
    - the_gastropod 9y ago
      Most of these kinds of roads do have low speed limits (especially around "blind" corners). The problem is, drivers feel confident traveling at speeds higher than the posted speed limit. Roads need to be designed better so that the speed limits more closely match speeds a normal human would feel comfortable driving. Narrowing lanes is one trick for accomplish this.
      - vvanders 9y ago
        Yeah, it's less speed limits and more that people don't leave proper following distance. Most people leave 1-2 car lengths yet even at 40mph you'd need to leave 3 cars not to be kissing bumpers(40mph = 60ft/sec, 1/2sec reaction = 30ft). I don't brake for small animals on these roads for similar reasons and I've lost count the number of times I've had to dive for the shoulder when someone overruns their stopping distance behind me(which is why you should always keep an eye on your rear mirror in a panic brake situation). Intentionally biking on these roads put everyone at a higher risk of these types of situations happening and a bad outcome for all because of it.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      And then they'd be even more dangerous since you'd have fast cars vs slow cars vs bikes instead of just fast cars vs bikes. People don't follow the speed limits. They optimize for a constant amount of risk. Depending on conditions that's 20-over or 15 under or anywhere between.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? I see the point, but that's a different situation. A stalled vehicle is an accident. A group of cyclists going slowly uphill is a deliberate choice, on their part. I have a hard time laying blame completely on one party when both parties have made choices that increase the danger of a situation. I don't know exactly what happened in the previous comment's story (conditions on the 101 may be different in other areas), but large groups of bicycles in my area tend to spill out of the marked bike lanes and into motor vehicle lanes, but bicycles aren't common enough that their presence is always expected. Anytime something less-than-expected happens, there's a higher risk of someone getting hurt.
  - vvanders 9y ago
    Thank you, this is the point that I was getting at. The stretch of road in question has no bike lane and half of foot of pavement to the right of the lane at most. The right solution is to put in a dedicated bike lane, in absence of that you're putting everyone else on the road in danger by choosing bike with a large delta of speed.
  - the_gastropod 9y ago
    Again, this is just victim blaming. The cyclists are not putting anyone at danger. People operating x,000 lb machines at speeds capable of killing others while being unable to see the part of road they could effectively stop at are putting people at danger. This is not an acceptable defense, whether it's a cyclist, a stalled car, traffic, a deer, or any other "obstruction" sharing the road.
    - vvanders 9y ago
      You're missing the distinction between legal and safe. Is it legal to ride your bike on 101? Totally. In the same way that it's legal to go bombing down trails in a mountain bike. Now is either of those things safe? I would argue not. The difference is that if you wipe out on the trail you just injure yourself, probably with some scrapes and the occasional broken bones. Where I draw the line is when your actions put me or my family at risk. The chances of death or serious injury is much higher in a bike vs car(either for the cyclist, in another car crossing the double-yellow to "dodge" the cyclist or pile-up for someone following too close).
rockostrich 9y ago
All roads that allow bikes (pretty much anything except a highway) are safe for biking because they don't have minimum speed limits and you should always be prepared to stop. At least, that's the case in states that have laws like Massachusetts that say "There is no law that requires bicycles to ride as far to the right as practicable". It may be different for your state though.

wnevets 9y ago

>Culture helps a lot. In the US bikes are seen as an annoyance by many drivers. Which is a silly opinion for drivers to have IMO. The more people are biking the less cars that are in my way.

sampo 9y ago
Maybe drivers are like herd animals and are happiest when surrounded by other cars.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
True, but with the infrastructure setup in the US, more people biking means more bicycles on the road for you to deal with and drive around. Most places don't have bicycle routes and the ones that do have them usually just have a single, fairly narrow painted lane between parked cars and traffic. In some places, you aren't allowed to ride on sidewalks because you are technically a vehicle. So while it is a silly opinion to have in some cases, in others there are actual reasons for it which have some solutions.
woolvalley 9y ago
In the usa, there are many roads without explicit bike lanes. Bicyclists on these lanes are like cars that drive very slowly and you have to overtake, in busy traffic. This is fairly rage inducing for most drivers. A lot of times on top of that, a single road will have dedicated bike dispersed through it. So one segment will have a bike lane, then cross an intersection and it doesn't have a bike lane anymore. A few more intersections later it starts having bike lanes again.

Fricken 9y ago

Culture is slow to change. The Netherlands has been nurturing bike culture since the 70s, and it's only recently that cycling's modal share of the transportation pie hit 48% in Amsterdam. Cycling saw a big popularity explosion in North America as well in the 70s, but we quickly came to our senses and opted to triple the obesity rate instead.