5 ms·

Going on the street without paying attention to all signs, rules and potential dangers is NEVER OK. That's paramount (for everyone on the road) and I'm not ques

• sneak 6y ago
  > That said, bikes are dangerous for everyone involved. If you encounter a bike you slow down all traffic (because you can't overtake safely, and that's difficult on busy roads), you have to keep distance and account to the fact that you could run over the iker AT ANY TIME because bikes are NOT reliable when roads are not 100% correctly maintained. Going slower isn't unsafe, it's safer. You're confusing inconvenience for lack of safety. Going slower and driving as if the vehicle in front of you may stop at any time is safe, responsible driving.
  • prower 6y ago
    That's not true when you're forced to do 10km/h for prolonged periods of time (that's hindrance to traffic and you can usually get a fine for that) because you can't safely overtake a bycicle that's going in a zig-zag way on the lane to avoid a myriad of potholes, or because it's an uphill road and it's too physically taxing for the biker, sice he choose the wrong vehicle for the wrong road. That's only stress and useless danger for everyone involved.
    • jamil7 6y ago
      > sice he choose the wrong vehicle for the wrong road If we use that logic we can make all kinds of arguments about a car being the wrong vehicle for the wrong roads. For example, is an SUV in the city the right vehicle for the right road? or is that causing useless stress and danger for everyone involved?
      • prower 6y ago
        > For example, is an SUV in the city the right vehicle for the right road? or is that causing useless stress and danger for everyone involved? Yes, SUVs are stupid and totally the wrong type of vehicle for a city, but for a different set of reasons.
    • orwin 6y ago
      Yeah, more like 20km/h, the horror. And any young cyclist will take it to 30kmh which happen to be the limit in crowded city center. And with electric bikes, i think even elderly could make it. Idc anyway, my 2nd gear lowest speed is 18km/h and i am slower than most cyclists. You should overtake the cyclist the same way you overtake a car, in my country there is a fine if you're doing it wrong.
    • gerl1ng 6y ago
      What people like you don't get is that 90+% of the roads are open for all kinds of traffic. Do you have the same problems when you need to stay behind a digger or horse drawn carriages? All of this is traffic in the sense of getting from A to point B and are totally valid to use the streets payed by their tax dollars. But you don't see people complaining about such traffic. It's always only the cycling specific traffic that is the "wrong vehicle for the road". And it would also be the very same people who would complain about a cycle path beside the road as it's a waste of tax dollars in their mind if it's not used by thousands of cyclists a day. I don't get it. If you just hate people that power their transportation themselves say it, but don't use such excuses.
      • prower 6y ago
        A digger, a horse, a motorbike, a roman chariot or a cow are all preferable alternatives to cyclists on road, for the simple fact that, with all other means of transport, you get a lot more leeway if something goes awry for whatever reason (e.g. a pothole). With a bike in front of you, you are always 0.8 seconds away from committing a murder. Again, I'm 100% in favour of totally abolishing cars in every city, I look forward to that actually. But having bikes and cars together is a glaring design failure and, quite honestly, nothing more than pure insanity.
  • DanBC 6y ago
    > You're confusing inconvenience for lack of safety. Going slower and driving as if the vehicle in front of you may stop at any time is safe, responsible driving. Yes. And this doesn't just take into account cyclists, it also takes into account car doors suddenly opening or pedestrians suddenly walking into the road.
• jamil7 6y ago
  None of those groups of people "hate cyclists", this is a flat out lie and generalisation.
• matsemann 6y ago
  To use your logic about "everyone hating cyclists" (which is not true, but believe what you want..): If traffic with cars+cars have thousands lethal accidents, cars+cyclists have lots of lethal accidents, but cyclists+cyclists have almost no lethal accidents, isn't it worth investigating? Maybe the problem here is the cars on the road. Hmm, removing them is probably a good idea.
  • prower 6y ago
    >If traffic with cars+cars have thousands lethal accidents, cars+cyclists have lots of lethal accidents, but cyclists+cyclists have almost no lethal accidents, isn't it worth investigating? Maybe the problem here is the cars on the road. Hmm, removing them is probably a good idea. I totally and completely agree. I'm OK with car-free cities. But having both on the same road is wrong and insane.
• julenx 6y ago
  If roads are busy, it's worth noting traffic is created by motorized vehicles in the first place... plus, if slowing down is required to make roads safer, what? why is that a problem attributed to cyclists if usually (depending on which part of the world you live) cyclists don't have alternatives?
• DanBC 6y ago
  There's a sense of ownership in your posts -- the roads are for cars, and everyone else gets to use them with your permission. But that's cobblers, isn't it? The roads are there for everyone. People get to use them because they're members of our society and following the law, not because they happen to use one particular type of vehicle.
• aembleton 6y ago
  > I know I sound like an asshole but if drivers hate cyclists, and pedestrians hate cyclists, and motorbikers hate cyclists, and public transport drivers hate cyclists, and truck drivers hate cyclists, and politicians hate cyclists.. Because cyclists need their own dedicated cycleways which at least in the UK there aren't many of. Cyclists are going too slow for motorised vehicles and too fast for pedestrians.