4 ms·

> cyclists are weird ... e-scooters are for "normal people" Could you please elaborate on this? Why do you think so (or why do you think that is a widely held

> cyclists are weird ... e-scooters are for "normal people" Could you please elaborate on this? Why do you think so (or why do you think that is a widely held belief)? If anything I would have thought that it was the opposite.

notatoad 8y ago
It's really just my perception as a cyclist - how i'm treated on the road, and how bike lanes are addressed in my community.
- robotkdick 8y ago
  Or ignored ;) A few years ago, I rode my bike around Lake Michigan and blew out a wheel while in the upper peninsula. While sitting and waiting for the replacement, mostly at a bar, one of the truck driver regulars told me when he sees a bike rider, he swerves to hit them. That actually happens in some places. I've experienced it first hand. While at a stoplight, I was also told by a driver in LA that I should be careful riding my motorcycle or someone might hit me. I asked him if he was planning on hitting me, and he said maybe. Traffic in general is a dangerous place to be, but when you combine a lack of education or intelligence or negligence, it is the most dangerous part of our lives.
samcheng 8y ago
This was clearly satire, but the idea is that only a certain subset of people are active enough to ride a bike. If e-scooters take off, that's a new/larger group of people traveling at 15mph. Infrastructure that was marginal for the small cohort of bicyclists will become obviously inadequate as people riding e-scooters, e-bikes, motor skateboards, etc. join them. As a bicyclist who wants more and safer bike lanes, I welcome them!
- ravenstine 8y ago
  That's why it's aggravating to me how many cities insist on building everything at ground level. Cars? Ground level. Bikes and pedestrians? Ground level. Trains? Ground level, creating chaos at intersections. And now we have tons of scooters. Ground level, and causing chaos as people ride them without helmets and weave into car traffic. Adding more ground level transit isn't ever going to be the solution, and widening lanes doesn't ever seem to work. Cities like LA need to stop being bought off by the developers and instead build larger versions of these for non-automobile traffic: https://www.magneticmicrosphere.com/ckfinder/userfiles/images/Skyways-Minneapolis-2005-09-27.jpg https://www.magneticmicrosphere.com/ckfinder/userfiles/image...
  - ismail 8y ago
    I recall Toronto had a labyrinth of passage ways under ground, with shops etc. It connected to the subway and it was very convenient. Guess they built under ground due to the weather?
    - ivankolev 8y ago
      Yes, the PATH is vast and convenient, and a prime commercial real estate, it feels like a dwarven city from a RPG game :). IMHO such labyrinth could never be retro fitted if it wasn't planned beforehand though.
  - clairity 8y ago
    i agree with you generally. let's put express lanes underground (for both cars and trains), since they're prioritizing getting places quickly over easy access. but to be fair, that's more (sometimes much more) expensive. not only because of the digging required to put the lanes/tracks underground, but also the extra things like ventilation systems and pedestrian exits/corridors.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Many northern (and some southern) cities have a skyway system which connects pedestrians on the second floor. Out of the weather, comfortable temperature year round. Let the cars have the icy slippery roads at ground level, no need for a sidewalk near the street. Once you leave your car head to second floor and go where you want to be. The second floor rents are the highest because that is where people are. Building tunnels is expensive. Building bridges for cars is expensive, but a bridge that only needs to handle humans is much cheaper a 500kg fatso is much lighter than a 500kg fatso in a 4000kg SUV.
- robotkdick 8y ago
  Dutch people, evidently, are nearly all fit for bicycling. That's a system that would be useful to learn from.
keerthiko 8y ago
It's just a paraphrasing of the automobile-centric nature of American demographic perception. "Normal people" in America have cars, use the traffic lanes, drive everywhere, and you're a weird millennial fitness freak (or socialist NUMTOT) if you don't own an automobile. An E-scooter is more an automobile than a bike, and thus is for "normal people" rather than for cyclists.

notatoad 8y ago

It's really just my perception as a cyclist - how i'm treated on the road, and how bike lanes are addressed in my community.

robotkdick 8y ago
Or ignored ;) A few years ago, I rode my bike around Lake Michigan and blew out a wheel while in the upper peninsula. While sitting and waiting for the replacement, mostly at a bar, one of the truck driver regulars told me when he sees a bike rider, he swerves to hit them. That actually happens in some places. I've experienced it first hand. While at a stoplight, I was also told by a driver in LA that I should be careful riding my motorcycle or someone might hit me. I asked him if he was planning on hitting me, and he said maybe. Traffic in general is a dangerous place to be, but when you combine a lack of education or intelligence or negligence, it is the most dangerous part of our lives.

samcheng 8y ago

This was clearly satire, but the idea is that only a certain subset of people are active enough to ride a bike. If e-scooters take off, that's a new/larger group of people traveling at 15mph. Infrastructure that was marginal for the small cohort of bicyclists will become obviously inadequate as people riding e-scooters, e-bikes, motor skateboards, etc. join them. As a bicyclist who wants more and safer bike lanes, I welcome them!

ravenstine 8y ago
That's why it's aggravating to me how many cities insist on building everything at ground level. Cars? Ground level. Bikes and pedestrians? Ground level. Trains? Ground level, creating chaos at intersections. And now we have tons of scooters. Ground level, and causing chaos as people ride them without helmets and weave into car traffic. Adding more ground level transit isn't ever going to be the solution, and widening lanes doesn't ever seem to work. Cities like LA need to stop being bought off by the developers and instead build larger versions of these for non-automobile traffic: https://www.magneticmicrosphere.com/ckfinder/userfiles/images/Skyways-Minneapolis-2005-09-27.jpg https://www.magneticmicrosphere.com/ckfinder/userfiles/image...
- ismail 8y ago
  I recall Toronto had a labyrinth of passage ways under ground, with shops etc. It connected to the subway and it was very convenient. Guess they built under ground due to the weather?
  - ivankolev 8y ago
    Yes, the PATH is vast and convenient, and a prime commercial real estate, it feels like a dwarven city from a RPG game :). IMHO such labyrinth could never be retro fitted if it wasn't planned beforehand though.
- clairity 8y ago
  i agree with you generally. let's put express lanes underground (for both cars and trains), since they're prioritizing getting places quickly over easy access. but to be fair, that's more (sometimes much more) expensive. not only because of the digging required to put the lanes/tracks underground, but also the extra things like ventilation systems and pedestrian exits/corridors.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Many northern (and some southern) cities have a skyway system which connects pedestrians on the second floor. Out of the weather, comfortable temperature year round. Let the cars have the icy slippery roads at ground level, no need for a sidewalk near the street. Once you leave your car head to second floor and go where you want to be. The second floor rents are the highest because that is where people are. Building tunnels is expensive. Building bridges for cars is expensive, but a bridge that only needs to handle humans is much cheaper a 500kg fatso is much lighter than a 500kg fatso in a 4000kg SUV.
robotkdick 8y ago
Dutch people, evidently, are nearly all fit for bicycling. That's a system that would be useful to learn from.

keerthiko 8y ago

It's just a paraphrasing of the automobile-centric nature of American demographic perception. "Normal people" in America have cars, use the traffic lanes, drive everywhere, and you're a weird millennial fitness freak (or socialist NUMTOT) if you don't own an automobile. An E-scooter is more an automobile than a bike, and thus is for "normal people" rather than for cyclists.