3 ms·
People are having a strong reaction to what you're saying because you're fundamentally presuming a car-centric infrastructure where others have to accommodate c
by ak217 8y ago
People are having a strong reaction to what you're saying because you're fundamentally presuming a car-centric infrastructure where others have to accommodate cars.
Bikes are vehicles and have as much of a right to be on the road as cars do. It is car drivers' and regulators' responsibility to make cars avoid colliding with bikes, not vice versa. There are plenty of collisions between cars and big rigs on freeways, yet we don't ban cars from going on freeways, instead we insist on more stringent safety standards for big rigs.
> Let's first acknowledge that between mixed traffic (whatever the mix may be) collisions will happen, and then discuss how to minimize harm.
Sure. It's best to separate the traffic. Either build bike paths, or (if that's not an option) take lanes away from cars and make them into bike lanes (protected by curbs and bulbouts).
- foobar1962 8y ago> Bikes are vehicles and have as much of a right to be on the road as cars do. Only vehicles that have been built to safety and performance standards, checked for roadworthiness, been registered and insured, and are under the control of licensed operators are allowed on the road. When bicycles accept the same responsibilities they can enjoy the right to be be on the road.
- ak217 8y agoIn places where such laws exist, sure. If you want all bicyclists to go through that, go pass a law in your municipality. Otherwise you are not the authority on this. International law codifies cyclists' right to the road. Most large American municipalities and states explicitly state in their municipal codes that bikes have the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles. The US federal government doesn't state that outright, but implicitly treats bikes as equal to other vehicles as well.