6 ms·

What little legitimacy cyclists have established for themselves was accomplished by being pushy, not by being pushovers. With cars it was the same, they secured

What little legitimacy cyclists have established for themselves was accomplished by being pushy, not by being pushovers. With cars it was the same, they secured their rights to the road by running people over back in the early days, which makes critical mass look pretty quaint by comparison.

Tomte 8y ago
Breaking law doesn‘t give you legitimacy. Injuring pedestrians doesn‘t give you legitimacy, either. You simply illustrate the extremist biker that will achieve nothing but more hatred from all other participants in traffic. That‘s why I‘m hoping for more „casual“ bikers who don‘t see the war on the street as their focal point of life.
- Fricken 8y ago
  You're uttering mindless platitudes without anything to back it up. Look at how Trump, or Uber got their way. It certainly wasn't by taking the advice of people who disagree with them. And sure, they're hated, but they've proven that their tolerance for hate has more endurance than the hate people have to dish out on them. The 'extremist' cyclists paved the way for the more casual cyclists by not giving up.
  - dang 8y ago
    We've warned you before that posting uncivilly will get you banned here. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- francisofascii 8y ago
  Not disagreeing, but it can go both ways. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and broke the law, I'm sure that created some angry white hatred, but in the end advanced equal rights for African Americans.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Unfortunately there is a lot of anti-cyclist sentiment going on, and it seems to have been increasing over the last decade or so. From my perspective in Copenhagen -- one of the foremost cycling cities in the world -- I think this is happening because policies are increasingly being enacted to favor cyclists and public transit. A lot of road improvements have favored bicycle lanes, often by decreasing the number of lanes available for cars, or by making a lot of streets one-way only for cars. Some car drivers see these as direct attacks on their chosen mode of transportation, or even their lifestyle as a whole. I see this as a necessary evil. You cannot improve conditions for one type of transport beyond a certain point, without also making conditions worse for other types of transport. Cycling, walking and public transit go very well hand-in-hand, but personal car traffic doesn't really mesh that well with anything other than car traffic. So for high-density living, car traffic must necessarily be down-prioritized in favor of higher-density and less polluting traffic, namely cycling and public transit, both of which work best in cities. Roads and parking lots simply take up way too much space that could be used for parks, homes, shopping streets and people instead. Conversely, it is hard to make public transit work efficiently in rural areas, and cycling 10-15km between towns for social activities (in all kinds of weather) is not acceptable to most people. Electric bicycles mitigate this somewhat, but in most less densely populated areas, cars still make a lot of sense for most people. I'm a city person, so I favor cycling and public transit, and I would love to see the center of Copenhagen completely closed off to personal car traffic, only allowing delivery drivers and other professionals with a legitimate need to drive through the city center. I don't condone violent activism or similar methods, nor do I condone breaking traffic laws through methods like Critical Mass and the like. The "critical mass" I want is simply for there to be so many cyclists in traffic that they cannot be ignored or marginalized. I would also never try to ban cars in other less-densely populated places, because that's simply not realistic. At least not yet, not without some major revolution in living conditions or public transit feasibility. At some point, we have to realize just how ridiculously wasteful personal car traffic really is, and do something major to disrupt it. I don't think self-driving cars are the answer.

Tomte 8y ago

Breaking law doesn‘t give you legitimacy. Injuring pedestrians doesn‘t give you legitimacy, either. You simply illustrate the extremist biker that will achieve nothing but more hatred from all other participants in traffic. That‘s why I‘m hoping for more „casual“ bikers who don‘t see the war on the street as their focal point of life.

Fricken 8y ago
You're uttering mindless platitudes without anything to back it up. Look at how Trump, or Uber got their way. It certainly wasn't by taking the advice of people who disagree with them. And sure, they're hated, but they've proven that their tolerance for hate has more endurance than the hate people have to dish out on them. The 'extremist' cyclists paved the way for the more casual cyclists by not giving up.
- dang 8y ago
  We've warned you before that posting uncivilly will get you banned here. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
francisofascii 8y ago
Not disagreeing, but it can go both ways. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and broke the law, I'm sure that created some angry white hatred, but in the end advanced equal rights for African Americans.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
Unfortunately there is a lot of anti-cyclist sentiment going on, and it seems to have been increasing over the last decade or so. From my perspective in Copenhagen -- one of the foremost cycling cities in the world -- I think this is happening because policies are increasingly being enacted to favor cyclists and public transit. A lot of road improvements have favored bicycle lanes, often by decreasing the number of lanes available for cars, or by making a lot of streets one-way only for cars. Some car drivers see these as direct attacks on their chosen mode of transportation, or even their lifestyle as a whole. I see this as a necessary evil. You cannot improve conditions for one type of transport beyond a certain point, without also making conditions worse for other types of transport. Cycling, walking and public transit go very well hand-in-hand, but personal car traffic doesn't really mesh that well with anything other than car traffic. So for high-density living, car traffic must necessarily be down-prioritized in favor of higher-density and less polluting traffic, namely cycling and public transit, both of which work best in cities. Roads and parking lots simply take up way too much space that could be used for parks, homes, shopping streets and people instead. Conversely, it is hard to make public transit work efficiently in rural areas, and cycling 10-15km between towns for social activities (in all kinds of weather) is not acceptable to most people. Electric bicycles mitigate this somewhat, but in most less densely populated areas, cars still make a lot of sense for most people. I'm a city person, so I favor cycling and public transit, and I would love to see the center of Copenhagen completely closed off to personal car traffic, only allowing delivery drivers and other professionals with a legitimate need to drive through the city center. I don't condone violent activism or similar methods, nor do I condone breaking traffic laws through methods like Critical Mass and the like. The "critical mass" I want is simply for there to be so many cyclists in traffic that they cannot be ignored or marginalized. I would also never try to ban cars in other less-densely populated places, because that's simply not realistic. At least not yet, not without some major revolution in living conditions or public transit feasibility. At some point, we have to realize just how ridiculously wasteful personal car traffic really is, and do something major to disrupt it. I don't think self-driving cars are the answer.