5 ms·

Electric assist bikes could serve you well if the distance works out

xrd 6y ago
I've got a cargo electric bike. My route has a few 35 mph roads that wind through rolling hills and no bike lanes. I've tried biking it, but the cars are aggressive. I really want a car for this commute.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  CSC's city slicker might do the trick. Or it might not. Needs you to have a motorcycle licence, though.
- dazc 6y ago
  I have a similar issue although only a two-mile each way journey, perfect for an e-bike or scooter but other drivers are the problem.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  There are definite cultural problems to blame for this. A significant number of drivers get angry or offended at any non-car vehicle on "their" roads, because they see them as a threat or an impediment them. There are probably many reasons for this that are not directly related to cars or traffic, but rather to general worldviews, politics, prejudices, aspiration and many others, including seeing bicycles in particular as toys and for recreation by Tour de France-inspired cyclists. However, I think one of the biggest factors is the insistence on "vehicular cycling"[1], which is the foundation for forcing bicycles to follow traffic laws in place for motorized traffic, instead of having bicycle-specific laws that take into account the properties and limitations of human-powered transport.[2][3] Forcing cyclists to "take the lane" and perform left turns as if they were cars (and having to cross multiple lanes of traffic) is ridiculous, because of the speed and weight disparity. It's extremely dangerous to the cyclists and aggravating to motorists, because of the huge speed differentials and because a collision will almost always result in severe injuries for the cyclist. Even the most basic changes, such as making hook turns[4] the mandated method for left-turning cyclists, would make a gigantic improvement in safety and traffic flow. After that comes the bike lanes and paths, plus tweaks to intersections to avoid right turn accidents and reduce the number of times different types of traffic have to cross paths. The cultural issues of entitlement and refusal to share common infrastructure are a separate issue, but I believe at least some of that tension could be reduced with a few sensible tweaks to traffic laws and road planning. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling [2] http://shifter.info/vehicular-cycling-is-dead-just-dont-bury-the-body-yet/ http://shifter.info/vehicular-cycling-is-dead-just-dont-bury... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H75jnRW23X8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H75jnRW23X8 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn
  - rank0 6y ago
    People don't like bicyclists because they are observably more dangerous. I think cyclists should have their own paths where possible. But honestly, I think the cyclists are the ones being selfish by disrupting traffic, endangering themselves and others so they can feel "green" or workout or whatever.
    - mattbk1 6y ago
      They aren't disrupting traffic, they are traffic.
      - rank0 6y ago
        Sure. Just like how a reckless driver is traffic too. Doesn't mean cyclists or the reckless drivers are automatically justified.
        mattbk1 6y ago
        I'm not even sure how to respond to this type of lumping. > Good drivers and reckless drivers are both traffic. Doesn't mean they are both automatically justified.
        rank0 6y ago
        Your original point seems to be: "bicyclists are not disrupting traffic because they are part of traffic" My counter point is that "being part of traffic does not preclude you from disrupting traffic. See reckless driver example." Did I misunderstand your original comment?
        mattbk1 6y ago
        It seems like you got it. I'm trying to parse how you choose to blame people on bicycles for disrupting traffic but not people in cars.
    - 6y ago

xrd 6y ago

I've got a cargo electric bike. My route has a few 35 mph roads that wind through rolling hills and no bike lanes. I've tried biking it, but the cars are aggressive. I really want a car for this commute.

renewiltord 6y ago
CSC's city slicker might do the trick. Or it might not. Needs you to have a motorcycle licence, though.
dazc 6y ago
I have a similar issue although only a two-mile each way journey, perfect for an e-bike or scooter but other drivers are the problem.
KozmoNau7 6y ago
There are definite cultural problems to blame for this. A significant number of drivers get angry or offended at any non-car vehicle on "their" roads, because they see them as a threat or an impediment them. There are probably many reasons for this that are not directly related to cars or traffic, but rather to general worldviews, politics, prejudices, aspiration and many others, including seeing bicycles in particular as toys and for recreation by Tour de France-inspired cyclists. However, I think one of the biggest factors is the insistence on "vehicular cycling"[1], which is the foundation for forcing bicycles to follow traffic laws in place for motorized traffic, instead of having bicycle-specific laws that take into account the properties and limitations of human-powered transport.[2][3] Forcing cyclists to "take the lane" and perform left turns as if they were cars (and having to cross multiple lanes of traffic) is ridiculous, because of the speed and weight disparity. It's extremely dangerous to the cyclists and aggravating to motorists, because of the huge speed differentials and because a collision will almost always result in severe injuries for the cyclist. Even the most basic changes, such as making hook turns[4] the mandated method for left-turning cyclists, would make a gigantic improvement in safety and traffic flow. After that comes the bike lanes and paths, plus tweaks to intersections to avoid right turn accidents and reduce the number of times different types of traffic have to cross paths. The cultural issues of entitlement and refusal to share common infrastructure are a separate issue, but I believe at least some of that tension could be reduced with a few sensible tweaks to traffic laws and road planning. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling [2] http://shifter.info/vehicular-cycling-is-dead-just-dont-bury-the-body-yet/ http://shifter.info/vehicular-cycling-is-dead-just-dont-bury... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H75jnRW23X8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H75jnRW23X8 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn
- rank0 6y ago
  People don't like bicyclists because they are observably more dangerous. I think cyclists should have their own paths where possible. But honestly, I think the cyclists are the ones being selfish by disrupting traffic, endangering themselves and others so they can feel "green" or workout or whatever.
  - mattbk1 6y ago
    They aren't disrupting traffic, they are traffic.
    - rank0 6y ago
      Sure. Just like how a reckless driver is traffic too. Doesn't mean cyclists or the reckless drivers are automatically justified.
      - mattbk1 6y ago
        I'm not even sure how to respond to this type of lumping. > Good drivers and reckless drivers are both traffic. Doesn't mean they are both automatically justified.
        rank0 6y ago
        Your original point seems to be: "bicyclists are not disrupting traffic because they are part of traffic" My counter point is that "being part of traffic does not preclude you from disrupting traffic. See reckless driver example." Did I misunderstand your original comment?
        mattbk1 6y ago
        It seems like you got it. I'm trying to parse how you choose to blame people on bicycles for disrupting traffic but not people in cars.
  - 6y ago