5 ms·

> Or going the wrong way in a one-way? why should cyclists be required to follow one-way signs? the point of one-way streets is that the street can be narrowed

> Or going the wrong way in a one-way? why should cyclists be required to follow one-way signs? the point of one-way streets is that the street can be narrowed to a single car width; cars are too wide to pass in narrow streets, so a single direction of travel must be shown on both ends, otherwise cars will be stuck in the middle and have to reverse to get out. bicycles don't have this problem. the only justification for one-way cycling is high-traffic streets with danger of collision, but in such high-traffic scenarios I think 99.99% of cyclists will self-organize into reasonably consistent traffic flows, no sign required.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
Are you trolling, to make cyclists look bad? If I drive and hit a cyclist going ignoring the one way, the following things happen: -Emotional trauma for the driver -Death or serious injury for the cyclist -No punishment; or maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  Not the person you're replying to, but why would you think this is trolling? In some countries it's quite common for streets to be one-way for vehicle traffic but two-way for bikes. I don't think the suggestion is for cyclists to ignore the law, but for the road signage to be changed to allow this to happen legally.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics). Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
    - _dain_ 4y ago
      >Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics). I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough. There are also "advisory cycle lanes", where there is physically one car lane, but cars can go in both direction. They are expected to (slowly and carefully!) go into the cycle lanes either side in order to pass each other. Speed limit is very low on these ofc. >Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed? Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Take an existing two-lane road, cut it down to a single lane down the middle and have half-width cycle lanes either side. It's easier to do that on a wide road than a narrow European city road. (American lanes are too wide anyway.) The problem is not "roads designed for cars", it is politics designed for cars. The roads are not immutable, they can be modified, if there is political will. It can be done: Netherlands was rebuilt after WW2 to be car-dependent in the American pattern, and then that was undone in the 1970s onwards after the oil crisis and record pedestrian fatalities: https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screenshot-2021-11-22-at-18.20.33-1024x627.png https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/... There is a myth that European cities have always been pedestrian and bike friendly because they inherit their street design from a time before cars -- not always so! Things have gone back and forth.
      - nobodyandproud 4y ago
        > Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide. What should worry you is that going the wrong way in a one-way isn’t obviously dangerous. It really should be, and perhaps that’s a failure in US road rules and education. Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.
        _dain_ 4y ago
        >Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide. Yeah that's precisely my point; the physical space is there. Narrow the lanes and use the freed space for more sidewalk, bike lane, trees, etc. It means there's an opportunity. >Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists. Absolutely not!
- Hello71 4y ago
  this reeks of American-style "those are the rules, and some people made those rules, so people need to follow the rules, because the rules are meant to be followed." reasoning. as far as i can tell, your claim is that you are perfectly justified in running over cyclists committing minor traffic violations, and in fact your list makes your "emotional trauma" equal to or in fact even more important than "death or serious injury for the cyclist", simply "Because the cyclist was in the wrong". nowhere in this comment or even further down the replies do you actually explain why they're wrong, merely more circular logic that they're wrong because they're wrong.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    That’s not what I’m saying at all, but you’re either too worked up or don’t want to understand this. I’m saying that right of way is the least concern; instead, cyclists should be cycling very defensively. You seem very happy to let cyclists get killed, to promote your own PoV though.
    - Hello71 4y ago
      Your avoidance of the issue is almost impressive. You should run for president! First you aggressively claim "maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong."; now you claim that "I’m saying that right of way is the least concern". Forgive my skepticism that I am the one that wants cyclists to be killed.
      - nobodyandproud 4y ago
        You’re the one suggesting cyclists can safely go the wrong way down a one-way. Maybe in other countries, but that’s a no-no in the US. If you care about cyclist safety, then don’t spread misinformation. Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437517307338 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224... Wrong-way cycling the single largest cause of cycling accidents, where it was the cyclists fault.
bombcar 4y ago
Because people driving on one way streets will be looking for traffic coming only one way. They won’t look the other way except to check for pedestrians, and a bike can move much faster. However, much of the problem is resolved if street parking is reduced or eliminated.
- Hello71 4y ago
  > will be looking for traffic coming only one way which direction is that, exactly? any cyclists or pedestrians coming the wrong way down the street will be in front of the vehicle. are you saying that drivers will exclusively look behind their vehicle while driving down a one-way street, and only very occasionally look in front?
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    Not the OP but do you believe every oneway road has infinite visibility? No bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions? And what happens when a car and cyclist both go at a 20 mph pace? How much time does the driver have to react, if the cyclist doesn’t?
    - Hello71 4y ago
      Firstly, googling "cycling 20 mph", the first result is "20mph is a speed most cyclists are not able to average." Setting that aside, this is the exact purpose of speed limits, not one-way streets. One-way streets do not prevent pedestrians from popping out behind "bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions", or children, or debris, or potholes, or stopped or malfunctioning cars, or construction, or sudden road ends... Edit: If you can't stop in time for a bicycle, you can't stop in time for anything, and you need to drive slower. Unfortunately, many American drivers seem to believe that they own the road, and if dumb children run out onto the road and get flattened, that's their own fault for breaking the law.
      - nobodyandproud 4y ago
        25 mph for a car is quite slow. It’s the standard around school zones. Are you suggesting cars go even slower? When two vehicles move towards each other at 25 mph, that’s 50 mph. It’s not 50 mph of automobile kinetic energy, but the human reaction time suffers the same. Reacting to a 10 to 20 feet distance at 50 mph isn’t easy nor realistic, in roads designed for 25 mph travel.

nobodyandproud 4y ago

Are you trolling, to make cyclists look bad? If I drive and hit a cyclist going ignoring the one way, the following things happen: -Emotional trauma for the driver -Death or serious injury for the cyclist -No punishment; or maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong.

_dain_ 4y ago
Not the person you're replying to, but why would you think this is trolling? In some countries it's quite common for streets to be one-way for vehicle traffic but two-way for bikes. I don't think the suggestion is for cyclists to ignore the law, but for the road signage to be changed to allow this to happen legally.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics). Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    >Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics). I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough. There are also "advisory cycle lanes", where there is physically one car lane, but cars can go in both direction. They are expected to (slowly and carefully!) go into the cycle lanes either side in order to pass each other. Speed limit is very low on these ofc. >Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed? Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Take an existing two-lane road, cut it down to a single lane down the middle and have half-width cycle lanes either side. It's easier to do that on a wide road than a narrow European city road. (American lanes are too wide anyway.) The problem is not "roads designed for cars", it is politics designed for cars. The roads are not immutable, they can be modified, if there is political will. It can be done: Netherlands was rebuilt after WW2 to be car-dependent in the American pattern, and then that was undone in the 1970s onwards after the oil crisis and record pedestrian fatalities: https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Screenshot-2021-11-22-at-18.20.33-1024x627.png https://one-handed-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/... There is a myth that European cities have always been pedestrian and bike friendly because they inherit their street design from a time before cars -- not always so! Things have gone back and forth.
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      > Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide. What should worry you is that going the wrong way in a one-way isn’t obviously dangerous. It really should be, and perhaps that’s a failure in US road rules and education. Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.
      - _dain_ 4y ago
        >Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide. Yeah that's precisely my point; the physical space is there. Narrow the lanes and use the freed space for more sidewalk, bike lane, trees, etc. It means there's an opportunity. >Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists. Absolutely not!
Hello71 4y ago
this reeks of American-style "those are the rules, and some people made those rules, so people need to follow the rules, because the rules are meant to be followed." reasoning. as far as i can tell, your claim is that you are perfectly justified in running over cyclists committing minor traffic violations, and in fact your list makes your "emotional trauma" equal to or in fact even more important than "death or serious injury for the cyclist", simply "Because the cyclist was in the wrong". nowhere in this comment or even further down the replies do you actually explain why they're wrong, merely more circular logic that they're wrong because they're wrong.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  That’s not what I’m saying at all, but you’re either too worked up or don’t want to understand this. I’m saying that right of way is the least concern; instead, cyclists should be cycling very defensively. You seem very happy to let cyclists get killed, to promote your own PoV though.
  - Hello71 4y ago
    Your avoidance of the issue is almost impressive. You should run for president! First you aggressively claim "maybe a lawsuit against the cyclist for damages, if I want to be an asshole. Because the cyclist was in the wrong."; now you claim that "I’m saying that right of way is the least concern". Forgive my skepticism that I am the one that wants cyclists to be killed.
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      You’re the one suggesting cyclists can safely go the wrong way down a one-way. Maybe in other countries, but that’s a no-no in the US. If you care about cyclist safety, then don’t spread misinformation. Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437517307338 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224... Wrong-way cycling the single largest cause of cycling accidents, where it was the cyclists fault.

bombcar 4y ago

Because people driving on one way streets will be looking for traffic coming only one way. They won’t look the other way except to check for pedestrians, and a bike can move much faster. However, much of the problem is resolved if street parking is reduced or eliminated.

Hello71 4y ago
> will be looking for traffic coming only one way which direction is that, exactly? any cyclists or pedestrians coming the wrong way down the street will be in front of the vehicle. are you saying that drivers will exclusively look behind their vehicle while driving down a one-way street, and only very occasionally look in front?
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Not the OP but do you believe every oneway road has infinite visibility? No bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions? And what happens when a car and cyclist both go at a 20 mph pace? How much time does the driver have to react, if the cyclist doesn’t?
  - Hello71 4y ago
    Firstly, googling "cycling 20 mph", the first result is "20mph is a speed most cyclists are not able to average." Setting that aside, this is the exact purpose of speed limits, not one-way streets. One-way streets do not prevent pedestrians from popping out behind "bends, turns, hills/humps, or other obstructions", or children, or debris, or potholes, or stopped or malfunctioning cars, or construction, or sudden road ends... Edit: If you can't stop in time for a bicycle, you can't stop in time for anything, and you need to drive slower. Unfortunately, many American drivers seem to believe that they own the road, and if dumb children run out onto the road and get flattened, that's their own fault for breaking the law.
    - nobodyandproud 4y ago
      25 mph for a car is quite slow. It’s the standard around school zones. Are you suggesting cars go even slower? When two vehicles move towards each other at 25 mph, that’s 50 mph. It’s not 50 mph of automobile kinetic energy, but the human reaction time suffers the same. Reacting to a 10 to 20 feet distance at 50 mph isn’t easy nor realistic, in roads designed for 25 mph travel.