14 ms·
Spoken like someone who's never driven in a city. City streets are narrow and extremely uncomfortable to drive on as it is.
by moistbar 6y ago
Spoken like someone who's never driven in a city.
City streets are narrow and extremely uncomfortable to drive on as it is.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoThat's weird, I don't remember consenting to mind reading. Of course I've driven in big cities. I agree that it's not great...which is why the solution is to make alternative options as viable as possible: walking, biking, transit. Then you don't have to drive in big cities, and more space on roads is freed up for those who do. Cities are defined by their population density, and cars by their nature are geometrically inefficient. The solution is higher efficiency modes, not doubling down on something ill-suited to its environment.
- alex_g 6y agoThis reads like you're someone who's never cycled in a city.
- moistbar 6y agoOn the contrary, if you act like a car, using the same streets as the cars is quite safe in my experience. I've safely cycled with a cello on my back by simply following the rules most cyclists claim to follow but ignore: stopping at stop lights, signalling when I'm about to turn. You know, looking out for my own safety. EDIT: If following the same rules as everyone else is too much to ask, maybe you should just stay off the road no matter what you're driving.
- alex_g 6y agoIf the only way to cycle safely in the city is to pretend you're a full sized motor vehicle, it sounds like you understand how ridiculous it is that the roads are designed for and devoted to cars.
- uoaei 6y agoI think this is the wrong framing. The correct framing is, each lawful user of a roadway has equal rights to occupying space on that roadway. As a frequent city cyclist, I take the lane early and often as is my lawful right, signalling unequivocally my intention and impending action to merge into the traffic lane. Most often I use this right when avoiding someone double-parked in the bike lane, or when turning left at an intersection.
- alex_g 6y agoIn the eyes of the law, sure it's not the right framing. But I'm looking at what I think makes sense for the future. I think our cities would be better with more cyclists and less cars. I don't think that's accomplished by encouraging equal use of roadways. I think that means space currently designated for cars should be reduced to make way for other modes of transportation.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoAnd how well will that work for 8 year olds and 80 year olds?
- uoaei 6y agoCycling on roadways with motor traffic is not for everyone...
- TulliusCicero 6y agoExactly, it only works for the very few. Accessible cycling is what we need, and that usually means physical separation from cars.
- uoaei 6y agoNo, because cycling is not for everyone. Multiple modes of transportation should be equally available, but that doesn't mean you should expect that everyone be able to use every mode. For instance I don't see any particular utility to making infrastructure so that there's enough room for every person to use a motorized wheelchair. Different conditions demand different solutions.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoThis is victim blaming. Plenty of cyclists follow the rules and then get slammed by cars. The last year before I moved to Germany, I got hit by cars twice, and neither time was I at fault. Once I got t-boned by someone who didn't look before turning, the other time someone suddenly went across the bike lane to pull into a parking lot. Neither crash was serious, but the first rattled me quite a bit -- my son was on my bike with me and got a scratch (and the bike rear wheel was totaled). For that first crash, the more serious one, a cop showed up and wrote a report, but didn't even give the guy a ticket. In the US, driving a car makes you the privileged class, and you can get away with a lot.
- cogman10 6y agoMy near misses have never been at intersections or due to missing hand signals. My near misses have been because some idiot decides to hug or even drive in the cycling lane (usually while texting) or when someone parks a car in the cycling lane forcing me to move into the road (with cars being incapable of waiting for me to get around the idiot that decided to park in the cycling lane). Those are instances of following the road rules perfectly yet still nearly getting in a dangerous wreck. It's not a problem of rules, it's a problem of cyclists not having safe places to cycle. It's a problem of cities not planning for cyclists. It's a problem of cities not enforcing rules that ultimately protect cycling.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoThere simply aren't enough cyclists to be a voting block so it's a chicken and egg problem. People aren't going to cycle because it's dangerous because there aren't enough people to vote in change for cyclists. It just goes around in circles.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoCorrect. Where you do get progress, it's mostly an ideology thing: more politically progressive people view more support for biking and transit as good things even when they don't currently use those things themselves.
- u801e 6y agoCyclists encounter problems at intersections because they're in the wrong position. They should be in the lane that serves their destination so that same direction traffic didn't have to cross their path when making a turn. For example, when proceeding straight through an intersection, the cyclist should be to the left of right turning traffic and directly in line with traffic going straight.
- veggieburglar 6y agoWhile this is correct, people often make outrageous last minute decisions in cars because they’re not paying attention. If you’re not taking the time to really look at your mirrors and blind spots you’re not going to see a cyclist. This is common behavior that I witness as both a driver and a cyclist.
- unethical_ban 6y agoHow can you think that every bike accident or bike death is caused by the person on the bicycle, and not the person in the 4,000 lb ram? there will be cases of fault by all kinds of parties, but to type out something like "Well I've never died and I'm safe, so if you died you must be dangerous" is mind-numbingly shallow.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoSeriously. Driving in NYC or SF can be obnoxious and frustrating, sure...but it virtually never feels downright life-threatening, the way biking can very frequently feel.
- uoaei 6y agoYour lawful right on roads in both cities is that you may occupy any traffic lane at any time on a bicycle. Be sure to ride in the center (maybe even slightly to the left) to avoid encouraging those behind you to try to squeeze by. Motorists are used to cyclists being slow because of this overly cautious approach that novice cyclists take to riding bikes on roadways. Another way to help retrain motorists' expectations is to do better to keep up with traffic. If you are causing traffic blockages while on a bike, then you are not riding fast enough. There are multiple ways to address this, the simplest (though not easiest) being improving your cardio and strength. A more long-term, better solution would be to redesign infrastructure either to keep cyclists separate from motor traffic or to make motor traffic slow enough that bikes don't seriously impede traffic flow when they take the lane.
- moistbar 6y ago>A more long-term, better solution would be to redesign infrastructure either to keep cyclists separate from motor traffic That's what I'd propose. Carving up the already scarce roadways to try and squeeze in a "safe" lane for cyclists is going to make it far more dangerous for both bikes and cars. Bike lanes that run above the street would be far safer.
- adrianN 6y agoThat's a ridiculous proposal. Imagine the cost of creating a whole secondary road network above the current road network and the extra spaces needed for ramps up and down the elevated cycleway. This is something you can do in very special circumstances, but nowhere close to a general solution.
- 6y ago
- colpabar 6y ago>City streets are narrow and extremely uncomfortable to drive on as it is. I agree. I live in a city and am constantly afraid of all the gigantic cars that fly by me whenever I walk anywhere. I'm also constantly (albeit much less) afraid of someone stepping out onto the street when they're not supposed to and not being able to stop in time. But maybe, just maybe, the cars (that get bigger every year) are the problem? Maybe instead of declaring that roads are for cars and roads are too small so nothing can be improved, we could make it easier to get around cities without a car? I just find it ridiculous that anyone who lives in a city has to live with the fact that a 3 inch curb is all that's stopping a massive hunk of metal from running them over. I find it ridiculous that bike (or non-car) lanes are considered evil because of the idea that not being able to park directly in front of your destination means that no one will go there. And I say this as someone who drives a car and rides a bike in a city, because I'm well aware that a lot of people who ride bikes do so in a very unsafe way. But I'd take getting hit by someone on a bike over getting hit by even a moped every single time. People live in cities, not cars. I shouldn't have to fear for my life while walking down the street.
- carlhjerpe 6y agoIn Stockholm, Sweden there's 36 cars to a 100 people, the rest use a combination of walking, cycling, electric scooters, taxis and public transport. There are still jams in Stockholm, but only for people who chose to ride by car, their problem!
- null_object 6y ago> In Stockholm, Sweden there's 36 cars to a 100 people, the rest use a combination of walking, cycling, electric scooters, taxis and public transport. I can’t really tell from your comment whether you think this is a high or low number of people using cars(?) but I certainly hope you’re not trying to give the impression that Stockholm or Sweden in general is some sort of haven for cycling, because it’s a terrible country for cyclists. Country roads are notoriously dangerous to cycle on, and cycle infrastructure in towns and cities is most often under-dimensioned and very poorly designed - often with dangerous features such as posts or obstacles stuck in the cyclist’s path. I wish Stockholm was better than this, but it’s a hellhole for cyclists - unlike Oslo or Copenhagen.
- TomSwirly 6y agoThen _don't drive in the city._ Why is this so hard to understand? Unless you're a delivery vehicle, driving in a city is just antisocial.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoIf you're just used to regular US cities, this is hard to grasp. Average US cities -- even bigger ones -- the public transport is slow, sparse, and unreliable; biking is uncomfortable and dangerous; and everything is so spread out that walking is mostly impractical. When you're thinking in that context and imagine switching modes...it just sounds terrible. Because it is. That doesn't mean the solution is everyone driving forever though: the solution is improving the infrastructure and land use to where other options ARE more viable. They should be good enough to where you don't have to convince anyone to use them; their usefulness should speak for themselves.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- stjohnswarts 6y agoAlso cycling in 100+ degree weather is rough in Texas, Arizona, etc
- TulliusCicero 6y agoObviously it's not ideal weather, but I think people maybe exaggerate how much that matters relative to infrastructure. I haven't heard of any examples in the more southern US (or comparable parts of the world) where they built great infrastructure and people ignored it because of the heat.
- rtlfe 6y agoPeople say the same thing about winter in the Northeast. Then when they see how convenient and freeing it is to ride a bike, they quickly learn to deal with the weather.
- Ericson2314 6y agoAs it should be!
- moistbar 6y agoI don't know about you, but I don't drive better when I'm stressed.
- sudosysgen 6y agoTo put it bluntly; Your car is too big.
- moistbar 6y agoI drive a Nissan Juke when I go to the city. If you consider that a big car, I don't know what to tell you. EDIT: Since I can't respond to the comment below me, the Juke is slightly taller than a Mini Cooper and about as long and wide. I literally can't find a smaller car that I'd be comfortable driving on the highway.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThat's an SUV/crossover. Yes, it is too big. Cars got way too big since a few decades, especially in North America, and that is a huge part of why people feel that roads are too small.
- FDSGSG 6y agoAre you kidding? The Juke is smaller than a 1 series, smaller than a VW Golf and much smaller than a Prius. Even by European standards it's a tiny car.
- sudosysgen 6y agoBy definition, if the streets feel too small, then the car you're driving is too big. The Juke, while smaller in length than those cars, is wider than both the Prius (by a longshot) and the Golf. And ultimately it's width that matters for the feeling of street size. Also, by European standards the Golf or the Prius isn't a tiny car, it's more or less average (though that's changing). Small would be a Polo, a Citroen C1, a Mercedes B-Class, etc...
- moistbar 6y ago>The Juke, while smaller in length than those cars, is wider than both the Prius (by a longshot) No, it's 50 mm wider. If you're going to call that a longshot, just wait till you see a Ford Explorer. The Juke is 4 mm wider than the B-class and 200 mm shorter. Tell me again how huge it is. EDIT: In fact, only one car you mentioned is appreciably narrower than a Nissan Juke, and even then it's only by 200 mm https://cararac.com/dimensions/mercedes-benz/b-class.html https://cararac.com/dimensions/mercedes-benz/b-class.html https://cararac.com/dimensions/nissan/juke.html https://cararac.com/dimensions/nissan/juke.html