3 ms·

You're making an argument to authority, which is not what I was doing. In fact, I was saying I think the authority is wrong. Physics says bikes and cars shoul

You're making an argument to authority, which is not what I was doing. In fact, I was saying I think the authority is wrong. Physics says bikes and cars should not share the same space. At a certain point, if you want to push it that far, you have to answer the question of why bicycle riders aren't required to have a driver license, carry insurance, register their bikes, and have license plates. Because if you think a bike can't cause a serious accident, you haven't driven the roads too much. Bikes should have an actual bike lane dedicated to them. Full stop. Putting them on roadways just makes everyone less happy and less safe.

tjr225 4y ago
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  That's a bit over the top, don't you think? And you make it kinda personal, calling me an asshole for suggesting that we'd all be better off if we built actual bike infrastructure. I'm very courteous to other road users, whether they be driving cars, riding bikes, or walking. I'm not the asshole in this conversation.
  - tjr225 4y ago
    No, I do not think the following is over the top- it is hypothetical. You can choose whether or not you want to follow the rules we've settled on and you can choose whether or not you want to behave nicely/kindly: > If for some reason you think that the physics of your vessel makes you immune to being nice, kind, or otherwise agreeable to our societal constructs, I’m forced to assume you are an asshole.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
> if you want to push it that far, you have to answer the question of why bicycle riders aren't required to have a driver license, carry insurance, register their bikes, and have license plates. Because both the scale of destruction and death a cyclist is capable of is nowhere near that of someone driving even a small compact economy car, and the relation between damage caused vs suffered is nowhere as disproportionate? A driver can plow through a crowd of dozens of people, killing and maiming, and not suffer the slightest injury. > Because if you think a bike can't cause a serious accident, you haven't driven the roads too much. Never has a cyclist damaged a building, much less obliterated a storefront or killed people sitting inside said building. Or taken out a traffic light, or telephone pole. Never has a structural engineer had to evaluate a building or bridge after a cyclist hit it. Never has a cyclist caused a mass casualty event. A cyclist causing a death is so unheard of it's literally national news.
- john_the_writer 4y ago
  Do not forgot that people also conflate cyclists and commuters. A cyclist might be going really fast, but most commuters go along at a gentler pace. Even so, I so wish more people realised how on point your words are. In Sydney getting on a bike is almost a death sentence. For a place with zero snow, it's shocking how scary it is.
  - lupire 4y ago
    In US commuters are mainly fast cyclists because they have to cover a long distance.
    - milkytron 4y ago
      I think this depends, and I'd like to see numbers on it. When I commuted by bike to work, I would go at a gentle pace so that I didn't end up drenched in sweat. Lots of my coworkers also just cruised in and very few of them showered at the office after arriving. I think in cities, bike commuters generally just try to go at a safe speed that isn't too exhausting. The furthest anyone in my office rode one way was about 10 miles, and that guy hustled and did competitions. He certainly was the outlier.
      - john_the_writer 4y ago
        I base most of my speculations on "not just bikes" videos. Well and that I used to bike to work, and took my time (after I got used to the trip).. It was about 8 miles.. If I'd have had an E-bike, I would have gone about the same speed, but with less sweat.
lupire 4y ago
You are right. So cars should slow down until separated roads are built that don't interfere with pedestrians (natural humans) and bikes. Blame the politicians that there aren't enough separted Hugh speed car lanes.
xorcist 4y ago
Motorcars should have dedicated motorcar lanes. It was a mistake to let them share paved roads with unprotected road users. That unfortunate bit of history almost scared everyone else off roads. It's not too late to repair that.

tjr225 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago
That's a bit over the top, don't you think? And you make it kinda personal, calling me an asshole for suggesting that we'd all be better off if we built actual bike infrastructure. I'm very courteous to other road users, whether they be driving cars, riding bikes, or walking. I'm not the asshole in this conversation.
- tjr225 4y ago
  No, I do not think the following is over the top- it is hypothetical. You can choose whether or not you want to follow the rules we've settled on and you can choose whether or not you want to behave nicely/kindly: > If for some reason you think that the physics of your vessel makes you immune to being nice, kind, or otherwise agreeable to our societal constructs, I’m forced to assume you are an asshole.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

> if you want to push it that far, you have to answer the question of why bicycle riders aren't required to have a driver license, carry insurance, register their bikes, and have license plates. Because both the scale of destruction and death a cyclist is capable of is nowhere near that of someone driving even a small compact economy car, and the relation between damage caused vs suffered is nowhere as disproportionate? A driver can plow through a crowd of dozens of people, killing and maiming, and not suffer the slightest injury. > Because if you think a bike can't cause a serious accident, you haven't driven the roads too much. Never has a cyclist damaged a building, much less obliterated a storefront or killed people sitting inside said building. Or taken out a traffic light, or telephone pole. Never has a structural engineer had to evaluate a building or bridge after a cyclist hit it. Never has a cyclist caused a mass casualty event. A cyclist causing a death is so unheard of it's literally national news.

john_the_writer 4y ago
Do not forgot that people also conflate cyclists and commuters. A cyclist might be going really fast, but most commuters go along at a gentler pace. Even so, I so wish more people realised how on point your words are. In Sydney getting on a bike is almost a death sentence. For a place with zero snow, it's shocking how scary it is.
- lupire 4y ago
  In US commuters are mainly fast cyclists because they have to cover a long distance.
  - milkytron 4y ago
    I think this depends, and I'd like to see numbers on it. When I commuted by bike to work, I would go at a gentle pace so that I didn't end up drenched in sweat. Lots of my coworkers also just cruised in and very few of them showered at the office after arriving. I think in cities, bike commuters generally just try to go at a safe speed that isn't too exhausting. The furthest anyone in my office rode one way was about 10 miles, and that guy hustled and did competitions. He certainly was the outlier.
    - john_the_writer 4y ago
      I base most of my speculations on "not just bikes" videos. Well and that I used to bike to work, and took my time (after I got used to the trip).. It was about 8 miles.. If I'd have had an E-bike, I would have gone about the same speed, but with less sweat.

lupire 4y ago

You are right. So cars should slow down until separated roads are built that don't interfere with pedestrians (natural humans) and bikes. Blame the politicians that there aren't enough separted Hugh speed car lanes.

xorcist 4y ago

Motorcars should have dedicated motorcar lanes. It was a mistake to let them share paved roads with unprotected road users. That unfortunate bit of history almost scared everyone else off roads. It's not too late to repair that.