5 ms·

I've been American my whole life and now I've become pretty anti-driver. Here's a short list of beefs that spring to mind: - Drivers will park in the bike lane

I've been American my whole life and now I've become pretty anti-driver. Here's a short list of beefs that spring to mind: - Drivers will park in the bike lane. They'll try to excuse it by saying, "it'll just be a few minutes", as if that makes it okay. - Drivers will change lanes without signaling. - Drivers will speed up at yellows and run red lights. - Drivers will consistently go 5-10 mph over the speed limit on the freeway. - Drivers will intrude into the crosswalk at intersections. - Drivers will tailgate each other as well as cyclists. - Drivers will pass cyclists with only a foot or so of passing space so they can save a few seconds of time. - Drivers will be looking at their phone half the time when driving around. Like goddamn, your text can wait! - Drivers will complain endlessly about cyclist behavior, even though they see much more dangerous driver behavior every hour of every day. - Drivers will expect cyclists to obey the law perfectly even though the bike lane network is a hodge podge assortment of randomly starting and ending bike paths covering a tiny percentage of streets, most of which are dangerous to ride in anyway. I did a mix of biking and driving when I was in the US; my commute was either biking or biking + transit, and other trips were mostly driving. It always amazes me how much Americans nitpick cyclist behavior that at most endangers the cyclists themselves or inconveniences others -- and that while using a road network that either makes no consideration for them or is often actively hostile -- while being muted on driver behavior that is vastly more dangerous and common. Oh sure, people will sometimes complain about the bad drivers in their state or city, but nobody reflexively responds to infrastructure discussion with "okay, but before we talk about fixing that intersection/widening that highway, lemme get all my driver complaints off my chest" with the implication that no money should be spent on car infrastructure until every driver is fastidiously obeying the law. The last year before I moved to Germany, I got hit by drivers twice on my bike. The first time I had my son on my bike, we were fine but my bike was messed up. An officer came out, but did the driver get a ticket for t-boning us at an intersection, since they were clearly at fault? Ha ha no, of course not, this is America.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Oh come on. Your argument is the same list of gripes that every driver has with cyclists. Every class of traffic hates every other class of traffic. Always has been that way, always will be. Go talk to some local government in a town that has a lake and they'll tell you it's exactly the same with all the different things people want to use the lake for (sailing, kayaking, jet skis, water skiing, fishing, etc). I don't know what it is about public resources (like roads and lakes) that turns people into idiots incapable of seeing the other side's point of view but it is damn good at it. In this case there's a vocal minority of the population that thinks their way of doing things (in this case it's means of transit that we're arguing over) is best and wanting government to prioritize it (at the expense of others, resources are not infinite). It's the same tired old "the way I want is right and everyone else is wrong or less right and should be forced to do things differently" bunch of whining that is found in HOAs and local governments across the country. I and most people don't really care what kind of transportation modes we optimize for as long as it's low cost in both time and money and no less flexible than the existing set of options. To play devils advocate here (is it really devils advocate if you don't really have a horse in the race?): >Drivers will change lanes without signaling. cyclists have hand signals and use them with enough regularity to make BMW drivers look good. >Drivers will speed up at yellows and run red lights. When it comes to traffic signals cyclists calling drivers bad is a clear cut case of the pot calling the kettle black. Both groups violate the letter of the law here and both mostly do it in the same predictable ways. I don't see this as a problem for either group, it's just how things are and will be. >Drivers will consistently go 5-10 mph over the speed limit on the freeway. Because speed limits are unrealistically slower than reasonable for good conditions on most limited access roads. Why does it matter what they do on limited access roads anyway? >Drivers will intrude into the crosswalk at intersections. As if the pedestrians used the crosswalks. >Drivers will tailgate each other as well as cyclists. If you're going slower than everyone else wants to go expect to be tailgated (whether there's someone in front of you does not matter). It happens on bike paths with just bike traffic, in hallways, stairwells and even with boats and people operating industrial machinery. People need to take tailgating less personally. > Drivers will pass cyclists with only a foot or so of passing space so they can save a few seconds of time. Cyclists will roll stops with near zero regard to the traffic flow (car and pedestrian) at intersections just to save themselves the mild inconvenience of starting from a stop. >Drivers will be looking at their phone half the time when driving around. Like goddamn, your text can wait! Cyclists will have headphones in while they ride then have the gall to complain about the situational awareness of drivers. ;) >but nobody reflexively responds to infrastructure discussion with "okay, but before we talk about fixing that intersection/widening that highway, lemme get all my driver complaints off my chest" Back in the early 1900s when cars were gaining market share this is exactly what happened.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > Oh come on. Your argument is the same list of gripes that every driver has with cyclists. Every class of traffic hates every other class of traffic. Always has been that way, always will be. Yes, this is exactly my point. Nobody fully obeys the law, but cyclists get called out as "scofflaws" far more than pedestrians or motorists, even though they're also operating in the worst conditions by far. Like, pedestrians in the US are clearly second-class citizens compared to cars, but at least they get protected walk lanes (aka sidewalks) on most streets, and walk signals where there are stoplights. Bikes generally don't get those things, so they're more like third-class citizens. > In this case there's a vocal minority of the population that thinks their way of doing things (in this case it's means of transit that we're arguing over) is best and wanting government to prioritize it (at the expense of others, resources are not infinite). Actually that's not what is happening. In America, what is usually is happening is the vocal majority (people who drive, and only drive) insisting that driving stay hyper-dominant -- that it continue to receive the vast majority of land and money. You're right that they don't care about other modes, though. On the other side, people with more urbanist leanings like myself usually want a more balanced set of options: for walking, biking, driving, and transit to each be viable. This is often considered "social engineering" by the "cars cars cars, everywhere all the time" crowd. There are a lot of parallels between cars and being white or male in terms of privilege. Driving is the default, and those who only drive don't really have to think about people who are reliant on walking or biking or transit, and the issues they face. That the system is oriented to support them in particular seems to them to just be The Natural State of Things, such that they don't even notice how much advantage they have. And those who are treated as second or third class are generally much better informed on the issues for that domain, because they have to be. Example: sometimes, in the bay area, I would be biking along, and a painted bike lane would suddenly end by turning into the sidewalk. And then maybe a few hundred feet later, it might pop up again. It's like if you were driving along, and suddenly the road just ended with no warning and you were expected to drive on train tracks for a little while until it started again. Nobody who drives would find this acceptable, but it's par for the course for biking.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

Oh come on. Your argument is the same list of gripes that every driver has with cyclists. Every class of traffic hates every other class of traffic. Always has been that way, always will be. Go talk to some local government in a town that has a lake and they'll tell you it's exactly the same with all the different things people want to use the lake for (sailing, kayaking, jet skis, water skiing, fishing, etc). I don't know what it is about public resources (like roads and lakes) that turns people into idiots incapable of seeing the other side's point of view but it is damn good at it. In this case there's a vocal minority of the population that thinks their way of doing things (in this case it's means of transit that we're arguing over) is best and wanting government to prioritize it (at the expense of others, resources are not infinite). It's the same tired old "the way I want is right and everyone else is wrong or less right and should be forced to do things differently" bunch of whining that is found in HOAs and local governments across the country. I and most people don't really care what kind of transportation modes we optimize for as long as it's low cost in both time and money and no less flexible than the existing set of options. To play devils advocate here (is it really devils advocate if you don't really have a horse in the race?): >Drivers will change lanes without signaling. cyclists have hand signals and use them with enough regularity to make BMW drivers look good. >Drivers will speed up at yellows and run red lights. When it comes to traffic signals cyclists calling drivers bad is a clear cut case of the pot calling the kettle black. Both groups violate the letter of the law here and both mostly do it in the same predictable ways. I don't see this as a problem for either group, it's just how things are and will be. >Drivers will consistently go 5-10 mph over the speed limit on the freeway. Because speed limits are unrealistically slower than reasonable for good conditions on most limited access roads. Why does it matter what they do on limited access roads anyway? >Drivers will intrude into the crosswalk at intersections. As if the pedestrians used the crosswalks. >Drivers will tailgate each other as well as cyclists. If you're going slower than everyone else wants to go expect to be tailgated (whether there's someone in front of you does not matter). It happens on bike paths with just bike traffic, in hallways, stairwells and even with boats and people operating industrial machinery. People need to take tailgating less personally. > Drivers will pass cyclists with only a foot or so of passing space so they can save a few seconds of time. Cyclists will roll stops with near zero regard to the traffic flow (car and pedestrian) at intersections just to save themselves the mild inconvenience of starting from a stop. >Drivers will be looking at their phone half the time when driving around. Like goddamn, your text can wait! Cyclists will have headphones in while they ride then have the gall to complain about the situational awareness of drivers. ;) >but nobody reflexively responds to infrastructure discussion with "okay, but before we talk about fixing that intersection/widening that highway, lemme get all my driver complaints off my chest" Back in the early 1900s when cars were gaining market share this is exactly what happened.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
> Oh come on. Your argument is the same list of gripes that every driver has with cyclists. Every class of traffic hates every other class of traffic. Always has been that way, always will be. Yes, this is exactly my point. Nobody fully obeys the law, but cyclists get called out as "scofflaws" far more than pedestrians or motorists, even though they're also operating in the worst conditions by far. Like, pedestrians in the US are clearly second-class citizens compared to cars, but at least they get protected walk lanes (aka sidewalks) on most streets, and walk signals where there are stoplights. Bikes generally don't get those things, so they're more like third-class citizens. > In this case there's a vocal minority of the population that thinks their way of doing things (in this case it's means of transit that we're arguing over) is best and wanting government to prioritize it (at the expense of others, resources are not infinite). Actually that's not what is happening. In America, what is usually is happening is the vocal majority (people who drive, and only drive) insisting that driving stay hyper-dominant -- that it continue to receive the vast majority of land and money. You're right that they don't care about other modes, though. On the other side, people with more urbanist leanings like myself usually want a more balanced set of options: for walking, biking, driving, and transit to each be viable. This is often considered "social engineering" by the "cars cars cars, everywhere all the time" crowd. There are a lot of parallels between cars and being white or male in terms of privilege. Driving is the default, and those who only drive don't really have to think about people who are reliant on walking or biking or transit, and the issues they face. That the system is oriented to support them in particular seems to them to just be The Natural State of Things, such that they don't even notice how much advantage they have. And those who are treated as second or third class are generally much better informed on the issues for that domain, because they have to be. Example: sometimes, in the bay area, I would be biking along, and a painted bike lane would suddenly end by turning into the sidewalk. And then maybe a few hundred feet later, it might pop up again. It's like if you were driving along, and suddenly the road just ended with no warning and you were expected to drive on train tracks for a little while until it started again. Nobody who drives would find this acceptable, but it's par for the course for biking.