4 ms·
> we do need bike lanes because cars are too dangerous Cars only are a danger when the driver can't easily see you. A bike lane tells a cyclist to ride close t
by u801e 7y ago
> we do need bike lanes because cars are too dangerous
Cars only are a danger when the driver can't easily see you. A bike lane tells a cyclist to ride close to the edge of the road. That's not where most drivers focus their attention on. Bike lanes also encourage cyclists to pass traffic making a right turn on the right, make cyclists harder to see for traffic making a left turn, and can catch drivers pulling out from side streets and driveways off guard.
If cyclists rode in the middle of the rightmost general traffic lane, then they are much more easily seen by others, get more clearance when passed by faster traffic, and don't have issues with right it left turning traffic or traffic pulling out from side streets.
- jakecopp 7y agoSorry when I say bike lane I mean separated bike lane or cycleway, with a physical curb between traffic and the bikes. This is much safer than biking on the road or on the edge. In Sydney we have dedicated bike signals at intersections (with dedicated infrastructure) so turning is no issue. I agree with your point that it is safer to ride with traffic in the middle of the lane rather than an unseparated bike lane - that's not infrastructure, that's paint on a road. A good friend of mine was cycling in a painted on bike lane and got car doored by a policeman. There is no hope of the general population checking their mirrors when opening car doors if policeman can't!