7 ms·

> Very few people are comfortable riding bikes in automovtive traffic. You will eventually get hit by someone posting selfies on instagram or playing their frie

> Very few people are comfortable riding bikes in automovtive traffic. You will eventually get hit by someone posting selfies on instagram or playing their friends in wordle. And what's worse, I've had drivers stop to yell at me for riding on the (completely empty) sidewalk when crossing a narrow bridge busy with car traffic. As if hundreds of bikers don't die every year from getting whacked by careless drivers.

thesuitonym 5y ago
I can do you one better, I've been yelled out by drivers for riding my bike through a bike lane that happened to be in the way of the turning lane. You just can't win if you're trying to cycle in the US.
- fuzzer37 5y ago
  Because bikes DO NOT belong on roads. Getting hit by a car while you're on a bike is deadly. A bike running into a pedestrian on a sidewalk is an inconvenience.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    Then give them someplace appropriate! As soon as I have dedicated/safe bike lanes, I’ll get out of your road. Until then, please try not to kill me.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      I disagree agree with poster, but to play devils advocate bicyclists are a free rider problem on public roads. It's pretty clear based on the design of most roads they were designed for motor vehicles, not bicycles. Fuel taxes are a major way these roads are funded and maintained, and bicyclists don't pay registration / licensing / fuel tax. Especially in heavily urban areas, roads have extremely high land value that bicyclists are unjustly profiting from. It's not clear to me why there should be any right for bicyclists to be allowed on the road.
      - 8note 5y ago
        I'm not clear that there should be any right for cars to be on the road either. Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous. They're paid for by people who largely don't need them, too - the folks who live in the inner city
        notch656a 5y ago
        People driving fuel consuming vehicles are paying for the roads via fuel tax, and registration fees to the states maintaining those roads. These drivers are funding these roads thus it makes sense for them to be compensated for their payment. It's conceivable a bicyclist can get away without paying any tax whatsoever on the road, especially if their income is small. Free rider, welfare queens of the road. >Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous In urban areas that's actually typically what the sidewalk for, and it's often illegal to walk on the road. But this is why I'm against public roads, there are all sorts of bad problems associated with this being a public good.
        alistairSH 5y ago
        I own two expensive cars that get driven. So, I’m paying my share of fuel taxes and above average registration/property taxes. When the wear cyclists pit on roads becomes a problem, we can discuss mitigating it. But, we’re nowhere near that point. Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years.
        notch656a 5y ago
        You're probably way overpaying for your use of the road if you have 2 cars. It's just an insane system to have public roads, where people like you are subsidizing large vehicles that wear the road much faster as well as many bicyclists who pay nothing. Public roads where the land value sometimes unjustly supports motor vehicles when bike only roads would far more represent judicial use of public coffers, other times supports free-rider bicyclists when others bear the burden of providing the road. >Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years. Historically, thousands of years ago, women commonly died in childbirth, a large fraction of children died before reaching age 5, and the only way for the greatest portion of the population to survive was manual labor in agriculture or some sort of subsistence existence. Most roads at least in US were not built thousands of years ago, a overwhelming portion of the total road area in America was designed with motor vehicle transportation in mind. To suggest American roads are built as places for walking, for the vast portion of mileage, is just laughable at face and you only have to witness them to see this. And, in many cases, illegal. Privatize the roads, IMO, and let the market decide how to efficiently allocate costs. It would be the fastest way to move towards more efficient systems in urban areas, such as much more bicyclists rather than wasteful cars. Bicyclists would pay their share, but see that it is very low. Car drivers may just see how wasteful it is to drive everywhere, when the cost is in front of them. It could lead to a rejuvenation and revival of the age of the urban bicyclist -- and just maybe a safer and cleaner world for everyone.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > I've been yelled out by drivers for riding my bike through a bike lane that happened to be in the way of the turning lane. You just can't win if you're trying to cycle in the US. Some people are jerks in every situation. I don't believe bicyclists stand out as victims, except the expectation that they ride in traffic and the consequences of colliding with a car.

thesuitonym 5y ago

I can do you one better, I've been yelled out by drivers for riding my bike through a bike lane that happened to be in the way of the turning lane. You just can't win if you're trying to cycle in the US.

fuzzer37 5y ago
Because bikes DO NOT belong on roads. Getting hit by a car while you're on a bike is deadly. A bike running into a pedestrian on a sidewalk is an inconvenience.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Then give them someplace appropriate! As soon as I have dedicated/safe bike lanes, I’ll get out of your road. Until then, please try not to kill me.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    I disagree agree with poster, but to play devils advocate bicyclists are a free rider problem on public roads. It's pretty clear based on the design of most roads they were designed for motor vehicles, not bicycles. Fuel taxes are a major way these roads are funded and maintained, and bicyclists don't pay registration / licensing / fuel tax. Especially in heavily urban areas, roads have extremely high land value that bicyclists are unjustly profiting from. It's not clear to me why there should be any right for bicyclists to be allowed on the road.
    - 8note 5y ago
      I'm not clear that there should be any right for cars to be on the road either. Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous. They're paid for by people who largely don't need them, too - the folks who live in the inner city
      - notch656a 5y ago
        People driving fuel consuming vehicles are paying for the roads via fuel tax, and registration fees to the states maintaining those roads. These drivers are funding these roads thus it makes sense for them to be compensated for their payment. It's conceivable a bicyclist can get away without paying any tax whatsoever on the road, especially if their income is small. Free rider, welfare queens of the road. >Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous In urban areas that's actually typically what the sidewalk for, and it's often illegal to walk on the road. But this is why I'm against public roads, there are all sorts of bad problems associated with this being a public good.
        alistairSH 5y ago
        I own two expensive cars that get driven. So, I’m paying my share of fuel taxes and above average registration/property taxes. When the wear cyclists pit on roads becomes a problem, we can discuss mitigating it. But, we’re nowhere near that point. Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years.
        notch656a 5y ago
        You're probably way overpaying for your use of the road if you have 2 cars. It's just an insane system to have public roads, where people like you are subsidizing large vehicles that wear the road much faster as well as many bicyclists who pay nothing. Public roads where the land value sometimes unjustly supports motor vehicles when bike only roads would far more represent judicial use of public coffers, other times supports free-rider bicyclists when others bear the burden of providing the road. >Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years. Historically, thousands of years ago, women commonly died in childbirth, a large fraction of children died before reaching age 5, and the only way for the greatest portion of the population to survive was manual labor in agriculture or some sort of subsistence existence. Most roads at least in US were not built thousands of years ago, a overwhelming portion of the total road area in America was designed with motor vehicle transportation in mind. To suggest American roads are built as places for walking, for the vast portion of mileage, is just laughable at face and you only have to witness them to see this. And, in many cases, illegal. Privatize the roads, IMO, and let the market decide how to efficiently allocate costs. It would be the fastest way to move towards more efficient systems in urban areas, such as much more bicyclists rather than wasteful cars. Bicyclists would pay their share, but see that it is very low. Car drivers may just see how wasteful it is to drive everywhere, when the cost is in front of them. It could lead to a rejuvenation and revival of the age of the urban bicyclist -- and just maybe a safer and cleaner world for everyone.
wolverine876 5y ago
> I've been yelled out by drivers for riding my bike through a bike lane that happened to be in the way of the turning lane. You just can't win if you're trying to cycle in the US. Some people are jerks in every situation. I don't believe bicyclists stand out as victims, except the expectation that they ride in traffic and the consequences of colliding with a car.