4 ms·

It is so tiring to hear the same silly argument again and again. Roads are already the best biking infrastructure, period. We cyclists don't want to lose our ri

It is so tiring to hear the same silly argument again and again. Roads are already the best biking infrastructure, period. We cyclists don't want to lose our right to use it by being kicked off to segregated bike facilities. We don't need no cyclist apartheid: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/26/how-apartheid-killed-johannesburgs-cycling-culture- https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/26/how-apartheid...

bildung 7y ago
This is no either-or situation. In Germany a cyclist has to used a bike lane if available and else uses the road. Kids <= 8 are allowed to cycle on the pedestrian paths.
- rerx 7y ago
  This is not true. In Germany bike lanes are only required to be used when there is a sign saying so (and when they usable and safe, which you cannot expect, sadly). By default bike lanes are optional.
  - anonymou2 7y ago
    I am curious, how do motorists react when you ride on a regular road with an optional bike lane adjacent to it? Because where I live, in Spain, they have built such "optional" lanes and when I ride adjacent to them I get a lot of harassment, which I didn't get prior to their construction in such places. So it seems the politicians build them and the motorists do the dirty job.
    - rerx 7y ago
      Some drivers indeed use the existence of such lanes as extra fuel for their harassment, which sucks: Very often these lanes are objectively dangerous for cyclists because they are way easier to be "overlooked" at intersections. While driving culture generally is terrible in Germany, in my opinion, with people driving way to aggressively, the situation may be improving gradually. The idea of having to keep some distance when passing cyclists seems to have reached some drivers. (From court rulings 1.5 meters is the absolute minimum)
  - bildung 7y ago
    I stand corrected, thanks :)
- anonymou2 7y ago
  So wherever there is a bike lane he lost his right to use the road, it works just as designed.
  - bildung 7y ago
    Nope I was wrong on that part, see rerx' reply above
    - anonymou2 7y ago
      My point is that even when they are "optional" they are not. At least that's my experience riding in Spain, where they have built optional bike lanes but you get plenty of harassment from idiots who think you have to use. This happens in places where there was no prior harassment whatsoever.
Fradow 7y ago
The article you mention isn't related to segregated bike facilities, it talks about discrimination. Car-centered road are not a good biking infrastructure, as cyclist don't feel safe on them, and only a marginal part of the population is willing to cycle when there is no proper cycle infrastructure. For an example of cities actively encouraging bicycles, go see in the Netherlands, where they decided in the 50s/60s they actively decided didn't want cities to be car-centric. You'll see a lot of bicycle-only lanes, segregated from the road. And tiny roads, that force cars to go slow.
- anonymou2 7y ago
  That's exactly what segregated bicycle facilities are all about, discrimination. Of course in South Africa you were also discriminated by the color of your skin not just by your vehicle of choice. From the article: "When in 1935 a cycle lane was painted on Louis Botha Avenue, the city authorities touted it as a safety solution, but its true purpose was to get black cyclists from Alex out of the way of white motorists." Roads are not car-centered. They are built for vehicles, and bicycles are vehicles. Bike lanes are built to keep us off the road that motorists believe it is theirs. Do you think cyclists didn't ride on the roads in the Netherlands before they built bike lanes? Of course they built them to let "progress" (i.e. the car) pass unimpeded.
  - majewsky 7y ago
    A knife can be used to kill people, yet only a minority of all knifes are used for that purpose. A bike lane can be built because of racist motives, yet only a minority of bike lanes are built because of that.
    - anonymou2 7y ago
      Then why do I always bump into at least on or two car drivers (certainly not all) that harass me when I do not ride on the bike lane but on the road adjacent to it? Why do the motorists care where I ride if it wasn't built to clear the road for them?
  - 7y ago
Doctor_Fegg 7y ago
Speak for yourself. As a cyclist I much prefer having segregated facilities on high-traffic roads.
majewsky 7y ago
By that same argument, pedestrians should be allowed on the roads because everything else is pedestrian apartheid.
- anonymou2 7y ago
  yeah right, and 1 month old infants too.

bildung 7y ago

This is no either-or situation. In Germany a cyclist has to used a bike lane if available and else uses the road. Kids <= 8 are allowed to cycle on the pedestrian paths.

rerx 7y ago
This is not true. In Germany bike lanes are only required to be used when there is a sign saying so (and when they usable and safe, which you cannot expect, sadly). By default bike lanes are optional.
- anonymou2 7y ago
  I am curious, how do motorists react when you ride on a regular road with an optional bike lane adjacent to it? Because where I live, in Spain, they have built such "optional" lanes and when I ride adjacent to them I get a lot of harassment, which I didn't get prior to their construction in such places. So it seems the politicians build them and the motorists do the dirty job.
  - rerx 7y ago
    Some drivers indeed use the existence of such lanes as extra fuel for their harassment, which sucks: Very often these lanes are objectively dangerous for cyclists because they are way easier to be "overlooked" at intersections. While driving culture generally is terrible in Germany, in my opinion, with people driving way to aggressively, the situation may be improving gradually. The idea of having to keep some distance when passing cyclists seems to have reached some drivers. (From court rulings 1.5 meters is the absolute minimum)
- bildung 7y ago
  I stand corrected, thanks :)
anonymou2 7y ago
So wherever there is a bike lane he lost his right to use the road, it works just as designed.
- bildung 7y ago
  Nope I was wrong on that part, see rerx' reply above
  - anonymou2 7y ago
    My point is that even when they are "optional" they are not. At least that's my experience riding in Spain, where they have built optional bike lanes but you get plenty of harassment from idiots who think you have to use. This happens in places where there was no prior harassment whatsoever.

Fradow 7y ago

The article you mention isn't related to segregated bike facilities, it talks about discrimination. Car-centered road are not a good biking infrastructure, as cyclist don't feel safe on them, and only a marginal part of the population is willing to cycle when there is no proper cycle infrastructure. For an example of cities actively encouraging bicycles, go see in the Netherlands, where they decided in the 50s/60s they actively decided didn't want cities to be car-centric. You'll see a lot of bicycle-only lanes, segregated from the road. And tiny roads, that force cars to go slow.

anonymou2 7y ago
That's exactly what segregated bicycle facilities are all about, discrimination. Of course in South Africa you were also discriminated by the color of your skin not just by your vehicle of choice. From the article: "When in 1935 a cycle lane was painted on Louis Botha Avenue, the city authorities touted it as a safety solution, but its true purpose was to get black cyclists from Alex out of the way of white motorists." Roads are not car-centered. They are built for vehicles, and bicycles are vehicles. Bike lanes are built to keep us off the road that motorists believe it is theirs. Do you think cyclists didn't ride on the roads in the Netherlands before they built bike lanes? Of course they built them to let "progress" (i.e. the car) pass unimpeded.
- majewsky 7y ago
  A knife can be used to kill people, yet only a minority of all knifes are used for that purpose. A bike lane can be built because of racist motives, yet only a minority of bike lanes are built because of that.
  - anonymou2 7y ago
    Then why do I always bump into at least on or two car drivers (certainly not all) that harass me when I do not ride on the bike lane but on the road adjacent to it? Why do the motorists care where I ride if it wasn't built to clear the road for them?
- 7y ago

Doctor_Fegg 7y ago

Speak for yourself. As a cyclist I much prefer having segregated facilities on high-traffic roads.

majewsky 7y ago

By that same argument, pedestrians should be allowed on the roads because everything else is pedestrian apartheid.

anonymou2 7y ago
yeah right, and 1 month old infants too.