9 ms·

The lack of protected bike lanes is a direct consequence of the policy of providing free overnight car storage on both sides of every residential/commercial str

The lack of protected bike lanes is a direct consequence of the policy of providing free overnight car storage on both sides of every residential/commercial street. The days of “share the road” are over: cycling advocates need to advocate for 1/2 street parking on every street if we actually want change, because this is a zero-sum game where only one side continues to murder and maim the other because they think they have a right to get somewhere faster. Temporarily repurposing street parking is a great tactic to get people to realize how much public space is given to 1 person which could serve many. See https://www.fastcompany.com/90342223/the-newest-hot-coworking-space-costs-just-2-25-an-hour-because-it-is-a-parking-spot https://www.fastcompany.com/90342223/the-newest-hot-coworkin....

Johnny555 7y ago
Temporarily repurposing street parking is a great tactic to get people to realize how much public space is given to 1 person which could serve many I think all it would do is enrage drivers that their parking space is being taken up by cyclists. To think that they'd finally recognize how much space is taken up by cars assumes that drivers are looking at this rationally. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate...
- bikeshaving 7y ago
  If you’re conceding that most motorists are irrational, then we as cycling advocates have all the more reason to adopt more aggressive tactics to eliminate parking. Cycling advocates should consider, in addition to legal pop-up parking replacements, sabotaging parked cars and parking spaces, blocking roads without permission, and other forms of protest to reclaim our streets. This is how Amsterdam was won (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY6PQAI4TZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY6PQAI4TZE). What’s at stake is literally lives, both in the short-term in terms of victims of traffic violence, and in the long-term in terms of victims of climate disaster. I have zero interest in catering to a group of people who, as you describe, are irrational.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Driver getting angry for a few minutes vs wanton acts of sabotage, vandalism, and violence... This is why most drives regard cyclists as irrational and why most people choose not to cycle or not to identify as cyclists. And I say that as someone who both drives and bikes.
    - bikeshaving 7y ago
      When two sides see each other as “irrational,” conflict is inevitable, and notions of rationality are coopted to promote the interests of the more dominant force. I fail to see how protest or even intentional damage to property is worse than to date 15 cyclist deaths (intentional or otherwise) in NYC this year. I’m tired of people acting like owning both a car and a bike somehow makes them objective in this conflict, when the whole point of contention is that there are simply too many cars on our streets. I will gladly accept infinite downvotes on this site if I can get like-minded people to Google “stop de kindermoord” and consider adopting more radical tactics to take back our streets.
    - crygin 7y ago
      Drivers getting angry for a few minutes kills more people than all the named acts of protest combined.
- Phrodo_00 7y ago
  I don't like that the article implies cyclists are breaking the rules, but then they list behaviors that are legal in most places and make sense: > overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside. It also blames bikes for both moving too fast and too slow, and ignores that drivers'd be way more pissed if bikes took the entire lane (like they're entitled to in most places).
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    The article is explaining why many drivers dislike cyclists. This accurately describes some of the complaints I've heard from non-cyclists: Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside. Whether or not the cyclists are actually following the law is irrelevant, there's still the perception that they are not. I've had a motorist pull up beside me at a stop sign and yell at me to get off the road and ride on the sidewalk -- I pointed out the bike stencil on the bike lane I was in and pointed to the "No bicycles on sidewalks" sign, and he still told me to get off the road. Laws (even with clear evidence that I was following them) didn't matter to him.
    - cataphract 7y ago
      We usually say that the only thing that angers motorists more than cyclists breaking the rules of the road is cyclists following the rules of the road :) The implication is that while they get angered by cyclists running reds, doing illegal turns, or lane splitting (assuming it's illegal), they also get angered if by following the rules the cyclists slow them down.
      - remicmacs 7y ago
        You're kind of confirming a feeling I have. I am a daily cyclist and I started strictly following the rules after being scared by an accident I had. I realized eventually that I don't feel safer by following the rules. In fact there are a lot of days when I feel even more in danger than before (namely: rain days and friday nights). I used to think that was because of the shock from the accident. I'd like some material on that if you happen to know about it.
- lacampbell 7y ago
  My pet armchair theory is because driving a car is the one time a lot of human beings feel powerful. Where I live (provincial New Zealand) car traffic is slowed down just as much by tractors moving from farm to farm as it is by cyclists. Yet I never hear people tell me their elaborate fantasies about murdering tractor drivers. Why? Because it's not a realistic fantasy - the tractors are bigger than them. If you work a menial job, or your family doesn't respect you, or you're looked down on by society - or maybe a combination - then your commute home is maybe the only time you have real power, protected by a big metal shell. So the anger at cyclists is more about 'how dare they slow me down when during the small pocket of time in my existence when I wield power?'. I'm a long time cycle commuter relucantly turned auto-commuter. I thought I'd start hating cyclists too once I joined the herd but they're practically a non issue.
  - wozniacki 7y ago
    I beg to differ. The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement - not dissimilar to Prius drivers who are known to be some of the worst drivers on the road [1][2] - that their chosen mode of conveyance is morally superior to other modes and so they're owed certain privileges like being not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules. [1] The aggressive driving antics of some Prius drivers have been attributed to a lack of engine noise in the Prius and thus absence of revs found in an ICE vehicle [2] Science Confirms That BMW And Prius Drivers Are The Worst https://jalopnik.com/science-confirms-that-bmw-and-prius-drivers-are-the-wor-1120783177 https://jalopnik.com/science-confirms-that-bmw-and-prius-dri... edit: punctuation
    - cataphract 7y ago
      In my jurisdiction, cyclists are not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules as drivers are (for instance, the fines are halved). This makes sense, because the consequences of cyclists disregarding the rules are not as dangerous to other road users.
    - lacampbell 7y ago
      The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement You betray yourself by the language you use - 'entitlement'. They are entitled to use the road, etc, just like any other user. I see many dangerous road users (all vehicles), but I never think of them as entitled - as if they shouldn't be there. Just sloppy/dangerous/ignorant. It bothers people more because they know they could kill them with their car. The same way you might call out a smaller person acting rudely, but not a large, fit looking person.
vonmoltke 7y ago
> the policy of providing free overnight car storage on both sides of every residential/commercial street You make it sound like there is some sort of federal policy covering every road in the US. Not only is there not, but your statement is far from the truth. There are many, many streets in the US where parking is restricted or paid
- MBlume 7y ago
  The policy in every major city is to treat free overnight car storage on both sides of every road as the default
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    That is not the policy in a large chunk of Manhattan. It was not the policy on major (more than two-lane) or downtown roads in Dallas (and its two independent enclaves prohibited overnight street parking entirely). It's not the policy on the vast majority of streets in Miami or the surrounding cities.
    - slewis 7y ago
      Anecdotes dont override the claim of “default” here.
      - lojack 7y ago
        No, but this anecdote of one is infinitely more data points than the original claim.
      - vonmoltke 7y ago
        It overrides the "every major city". I don't understand why some people here are hell-bent on exaggerating or misrepresenting the situation.
Fnoord 7y ago
Hi, I am from The Netherlands. Based on my experience in my country I have the following to add. The main issue you have is a chicken egg (network effect esque) lack of bicycle drivers. Once there are enough you can defend their rights (safety and accessibility) easier. Safety is first for bicyclists in The Netherlands. Hence no helm necessary. E-bike go pretty fast though and with elder people preferring these, amount of bikes may increase. There are several solutions to this problem you described each with their drawbacks. You can speed limit. For example to 30 km/hour. Aldo increases safety for playing kids. You can disallow parking. Variations are one side or both sides, time based parking allowed (e.g. at night OK), allowed to stop with engine running, and possibly others. You can repurpose the road to a one way street. There are two variations on this: with allowing bicycles one way and with allowing bicycles two way. Another variation is not allowing bicycles at all but I cover that later. You can broaden the road. Not always viable, especially in city, but you be able to combine it with repurposing the housing. You can make the road for bicyclists only. Do this too much and car drivers will complain about accessibility. You can disallow cars in your city with too high Co2 emissions. You can disallow bicycles. Useful at highways, near highways, or at choke points.

Johnny555 7y ago

Temporarily repurposing street parking is a great tactic to get people to realize how much public space is given to 1 person which could serve many I think all it would do is enrage drivers that their parking space is being taken up by cyclists. To think that they'd finally recognize how much space is taken up by cars assumes that drivers are looking at this rationally. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate...

bikeshaving 7y ago
If you’re conceding that most motorists are irrational, then we as cycling advocates have all the more reason to adopt more aggressive tactics to eliminate parking. Cycling advocates should consider, in addition to legal pop-up parking replacements, sabotaging parked cars and parking spaces, blocking roads without permission, and other forms of protest to reclaim our streets. This is how Amsterdam was won (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY6PQAI4TZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY6PQAI4TZE). What’s at stake is literally lives, both in the short-term in terms of victims of traffic violence, and in the long-term in terms of victims of climate disaster. I have zero interest in catering to a group of people who, as you describe, are irrational.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Driver getting angry for a few minutes vs wanton acts of sabotage, vandalism, and violence... This is why most drives regard cyclists as irrational and why most people choose not to cycle or not to identify as cyclists. And I say that as someone who both drives and bikes.
  - bikeshaving 7y ago
    When two sides see each other as “irrational,” conflict is inevitable, and notions of rationality are coopted to promote the interests of the more dominant force. I fail to see how protest or even intentional damage to property is worse than to date 15 cyclist deaths (intentional or otherwise) in NYC this year. I’m tired of people acting like owning both a car and a bike somehow makes them objective in this conflict, when the whole point of contention is that there are simply too many cars on our streets. I will gladly accept infinite downvotes on this site if I can get like-minded people to Google “stop de kindermoord” and consider adopting more radical tactics to take back our streets.
  - crygin 7y ago
    Drivers getting angry for a few minutes kills more people than all the named acts of protest combined.
Phrodo_00 7y ago
I don't like that the article implies cyclists are breaking the rules, but then they list behaviors that are legal in most places and make sense: > overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside. It also blames bikes for both moving too fast and too slow, and ignores that drivers'd be way more pissed if bikes took the entire lane (like they're entitled to in most places).
- Johnny555 7y ago
  The article is explaining why many drivers dislike cyclists. This accurately describes some of the complaints I've heard from non-cyclists: Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside. Whether or not the cyclists are actually following the law is irrelevant, there's still the perception that they are not. I've had a motorist pull up beside me at a stop sign and yell at me to get off the road and ride on the sidewalk -- I pointed out the bike stencil on the bike lane I was in and pointed to the "No bicycles on sidewalks" sign, and he still told me to get off the road. Laws (even with clear evidence that I was following them) didn't matter to him.
  - cataphract 7y ago
    We usually say that the only thing that angers motorists more than cyclists breaking the rules of the road is cyclists following the rules of the road :) The implication is that while they get angered by cyclists running reds, doing illegal turns, or lane splitting (assuming it's illegal), they also get angered if by following the rules the cyclists slow them down.
    - remicmacs 7y ago
      You're kind of confirming a feeling I have. I am a daily cyclist and I started strictly following the rules after being scared by an accident I had. I realized eventually that I don't feel safer by following the rules. In fact there are a lot of days when I feel even more in danger than before (namely: rain days and friday nights). I used to think that was because of the shock from the accident. I'd like some material on that if you happen to know about it.
lacampbell 7y ago
My pet armchair theory is because driving a car is the one time a lot of human beings feel powerful. Where I live (provincial New Zealand) car traffic is slowed down just as much by tractors moving from farm to farm as it is by cyclists. Yet I never hear people tell me their elaborate fantasies about murdering tractor drivers. Why? Because it's not a realistic fantasy - the tractors are bigger than them. If you work a menial job, or your family doesn't respect you, or you're looked down on by society - or maybe a combination - then your commute home is maybe the only time you have real power, protected by a big metal shell. So the anger at cyclists is more about 'how dare they slow me down when during the small pocket of time in my existence when I wield power?'. I'm a long time cycle commuter relucantly turned auto-commuter. I thought I'd start hating cyclists too once I joined the herd but they're practically a non issue.
- wozniacki 7y ago
  I beg to differ. The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement - not dissimilar to Prius drivers who are known to be some of the worst drivers on the road [1][2] - that their chosen mode of conveyance is morally superior to other modes and so they're owed certain privileges like being not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules. [1] The aggressive driving antics of some Prius drivers have been attributed to a lack of engine noise in the Prius and thus absence of revs found in an ICE vehicle [2] Science Confirms That BMW And Prius Drivers Are The Worst https://jalopnik.com/science-confirms-that-bmw-and-prius-drivers-are-the-wor-1120783177 https://jalopnik.com/science-confirms-that-bmw-and-prius-dri... edit: punctuation
  - cataphract 7y ago
    In my jurisdiction, cyclists are not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules as drivers are (for instance, the fines are halved). This makes sense, because the consequences of cyclists disregarding the rules are not as dangerous to other road users.
  - lacampbell 7y ago
    The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement You betray yourself by the language you use - 'entitlement'. They are entitled to use the road, etc, just like any other user. I see many dangerous road users (all vehicles), but I never think of them as entitled - as if they shouldn't be there. Just sloppy/dangerous/ignorant. It bothers people more because they know they could kill them with their car. The same way you might call out a smaller person acting rudely, but not a large, fit looking person.

vonmoltke 7y ago

> the policy of providing free overnight car storage on both sides of every residential/commercial street You make it sound like there is some sort of federal policy covering every road in the US. Not only is there not, but your statement is far from the truth. There are many, many streets in the US where parking is restricted or paid

MBlume 7y ago
The policy in every major city is to treat free overnight car storage on both sides of every road as the default
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  That is not the policy in a large chunk of Manhattan. It was not the policy on major (more than two-lane) or downtown roads in Dallas (and its two independent enclaves prohibited overnight street parking entirely). It's not the policy on the vast majority of streets in Miami or the surrounding cities.
  - slewis 7y ago
    Anecdotes dont override the claim of “default” here.
    - lojack 7y ago
      No, but this anecdote of one is infinitely more data points than the original claim.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      It overrides the "every major city". I don't understand why some people here are hell-bent on exaggerating or misrepresenting the situation.

Fnoord 7y ago

Hi, I am from The Netherlands. Based on my experience in my country I have the following to add. The main issue you have is a chicken egg (network effect esque) lack of bicycle drivers. Once there are enough you can defend their rights (safety and accessibility) easier. Safety is first for bicyclists in The Netherlands. Hence no helm necessary. E-bike go pretty fast though and with elder people preferring these, amount of bikes may increase. There are several solutions to this problem you described each with their drawbacks. You can speed limit. For example to 30 km/hour. Aldo increases safety for playing kids. You can disallow parking. Variations are one side or both sides, time based parking allowed (e.g. at night OK), allowed to stop with engine running, and possibly others. You can repurpose the road to a one way street. There are two variations on this: with allowing bicycles one way and with allowing bicycles two way. Another variation is not allowing bicycles at all but I cover that later. You can broaden the road. Not always viable, especially in city, but you be able to combine it with repurposing the housing. You can make the road for bicyclists only. Do this too much and car drivers will complain about accessibility. You can disallow cars in your city with too high Co2 emissions. You can disallow bicycles. Useful at highways, near highways, or at choke points.