5 ms·

On 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

On 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 ago
If 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    In 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 ago
    And how well will that work for 8 year olds and 80 year olds?
    - uoaei 6y ago
      Cycling on roadways with motor traffic is not for everyone...
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
        Exactly, it only works for the very few. Accessible cycling is what we need, and that usually means physical separation from cars.
        uoaei 6y ago
        No, 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.
        alex_g 6y ago
        The point was about, or at least could be made, beyond just cycling. Replace "Accessible Cycling" with "Accessible form of transport that does not endanger other people not using that form." Whether that's bicycles or wheelchairs or scooters, etc. The point is that putting them with cars is dangerous.
        TulliusCicero 6y ago
        So what, you want to intentionally exclude people from the benefits of biking? Why? How is that better than making biking accessible to a wide range of people, like some countries already do?
TulliusCicero 6y ago
This 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 ago
My 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 ago
  There 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 ago
    Correct. 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 ago
  Cyclists 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 ago
    While 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 ago
How 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.

alex_g 6y ago

If 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 ago
I 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 ago
  In 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 ago
  And how well will that work for 8 year olds and 80 year olds?
  - uoaei 6y ago
    Cycling on roadways with motor traffic is not for everyone...
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      Exactly, it only works for the very few. Accessible cycling is what we need, and that usually means physical separation from cars.
      - uoaei 6y ago
        No, 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.
        alex_g 6y ago
        The point was about, or at least could be made, beyond just cycling. Replace "Accessible Cycling" with "Accessible form of transport that does not endanger other people not using that form." Whether that's bicycles or wheelchairs or scooters, etc. The point is that putting them with cars is dangerous.
        TulliusCicero 6y ago
        So what, you want to intentionally exclude people from the benefits of biking? Why? How is that better than making biking accessible to a wide range of people, like some countries already do?

TulliusCicero 6y ago

This 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 ago

My 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 ago
There 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 ago
  Correct. 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 ago
Cyclists 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 ago
  While 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 ago

How 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.