5 ms·

Where I live, the cars greatly outnumber bikes. Cyclists that go in the main traffic lane will slow things down substantially, and I think that is inconsiderate

Where I live, the cars greatly outnumber bikes. Cyclists that go in the main traffic lane will slow things down substantially, and I think that is inconsiderate.

avianlyric 4y ago
I think hitting cyclists with cars and horrifically injuring them is inconsiderate. But each to their own.
- jfabre 4y ago
  Both are. I've done both for a long time, forcing everyone to go at 30 km/h in a 50 zone is inconsiderate. Not as inconsiderate as not being careful around cyclists when you drive. This looks like a system design problem to me. The needs of the cyclists don't match the needs of the drivers. This is why we are fighting over this. There has to be a solution, but I know nothing about civil engineering.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    There is a solution! Protected cycle lanes! Keep cycles, cars and pedestrians physically separated. Inside towns and cities we should be looking to give up road space for cars, to put in dedicated cycle infrastructure. Dedicated cycle infrastructure keeps cars and cycles separate, makes cycling safer, and most importantly more accessible and friendly. Every additional cycle on the road during rush hour is one less car. If removing a car lane reduces the capacity of a road segment by 20 cars, but causes 50 additional to swap their car for a bike, then you’ve just created an 30 cars of capacity on your road. That’s just the start, a bike lane can easily carry 10 times more people than a car lane, and requires basically zero maintenance. They don’t get pot holes because cycles weigh so little their damage to the road surface is practically unmeasurable.
    - Lanolderen 4y ago
      Or cyclists can be incentivised to move to small motorcycles (pedelec if they want to stay fit) and we avoid the whole issue of converting car lanes to bicycle lanes and then reverting that decision because a traffic jam occurred and residents were not impressed, wasting money in the process ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - avianlyric 4y ago
        What about people that can’t drive a motorcycle, like children? Or people that can’t afford a motorcycle? Or people that have nowhere to store a motorbike (I’ll like to see you hang a motorbike on a wall)? Do we just abandon them? > we avoid the whole issue of converting car lanes to bicycle lanes and then reverting that decision because a traffic jam occurred and residents were not impressed, wasting money in the process There are huge piles of empirical evidence that shows the complete opposite of this happens. Introducing bike infrastructure, at the cost of car infrastructure, almost always reduces congestion after a short adaptation period passes. Turns out if you give people cheaper easier ways of moving a round a city or town, they’ll pick them over a car.
        Lanolderen 4y ago
        Kids are legislatively forbidden from riding motorcycles. Just let them do AM or another form of certification for small bikes that get to 50ish kmh. It's not like they can't get to 50 with a bicycle. I'd even argue it's safer since it's easier to wear protective gear when you don't have to pedal. Affording it isn't a real issue either. (i)Second hand motorcycles can be had for really cheap since they're treated as toys in the western world. I just opened up the listings for where I live (smallish town in Germany) and there are 44 ads for working bikes under 1000$ in 25km radius of me. Some are even proper 600cc+ machines. (ii)16 brand new bikes in that same area can be bought for under 2000$. (iii)Public transport. Storage: Small bikes can be manhandled into an apartment if it's about long term storage. Short term, just park it on the street like a normal person. Put a tracker on it if you're worried. I get that it improves over time but the short term effects are what determines whether whoever implements it remains in power long enough to see that. And I'd argue still that motorcycles are way faster and therefore better at decreasing congestion than bicycles. Regarding inclusivity they are also friendlier to less fit people, especially in uneven terrain since even at my ripe age in the mid twenties I can get out of breath climbing some streets on my bicycle.
    - Eigenstate 4y ago
      How do protected cycle lanes mitigate the crash types in the article? I see how they may prevent getting rear ended or doored, but all the intersection conflict points remain and in many cases are exacerbated by the "protection." I've seen lane designs that force cyclists to pass right turning cars on the right at intersections. Often the barriers reduce visibility and tell drivers they don't have to be aware of bikes, increasing the chances for conflict. While infrastructure does need to be improved, I don't think this is a complete solution.
      - avianlyric 4y ago
        Pretty simple, cycles get their own cycle on lights at crossing, and you ban right turns on red. Right turns on red are such a stupid idea, a tiny time saving for a minority of people, but a huge increase in risk for vulnerable road users. As for branch junctions along the road, priority is given to bikes going in the direction of traffic, and you build tables across the junction, reduce junction radius, both force cars to slow down when turning into junctions, and make it clear they need to look for other road users. These are all solved problems. The Netherlands publishes an extremely well respected guide on exactly how to build people-centric road infrastructure that massively reduces collisions and road incidents. There’s no need to reinvent anything, just look at countries that have road death rates at a fraction of what the US has.
        DonHopkins 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman >Hans Monderman (19 November 1945 – 7 January 2008) was a Dutch road traffic engineer and innovator. He was recognised for radically challenging the criteria used to evaluate engineering solutions for street design. His work compelled transportation planners and highway engineers to look afresh at the way people and technology relate to each other. >His design approach is the concept of "shared space", an urban design approach that seeks to minimise demarcations between vehicle traffic and pedestrians, often by removing features such as kerbs, road surface markings, traffic signs, and regulations. Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Hans Monderman: Rethinking the design of streets and public space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBGokenEhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBGokenEhQ Unexpected interview in Groningen (Homage to Hans Monderman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQASVz4xun8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQASVz4xun8 HANS MONDERMAN ON THE IMPORTANCE OF HUMAN INTERACTION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGMFNxCJyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGMFNxCJyQ Monderman (3of10) - Drachten Roundabout Traffic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGCE6vI5j68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGCE6vI5j68 Monderman (5of10) - Drachten Intersection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L39gNtsaZfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L39gNtsaZfI Road signs suck. What if we got rid of them all? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbsFtLkGN8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbsFtLkGN8
- Bostonian 4y ago
  You are putting words in my mouth. Of course I am against hitting cyclists, and I have never done so.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    Bikes cycle as part of traffic because it far safer, and substantially reduces the chances of them being hit and seriously injured. If you think cycling in manner to improves your safety as a cyclist is inconsiderate. Then how do you suggest they cycle if they don’t want to be hit by a car?
  - DonHopkins 4y ago
    Do you think you deserve praise for not taking out your anger on bikers you consider inconsiderate even though you outnumber them? And how does outnumbering them give you any more right to hit them, or you being in a hurry make them deserve any less consideration, or owe you any more consideration? I was driving in Boston and stopped at a light that just turned red, while it had just started raining, so all the oil on the road had just gotten slick but hadn't washed off yet. The Boston driver who rear-ended me at the red light was furious and tried to blame me, saying "I thought you were going to run the red light too!" So yeah, it's provably true what they say about Boston drivers. https://www.allstate.com/americas-best-drivers/index.htm https://www.allstate.com/americas-best-drivers/index.htm https://www.boston.com/cars/commute/2018/08/31/boston-drivers-are-the-worst/ https://www.boston.com/cars/commute/2018/08/31/boston-driver... https://www.bcheights.com/2019/11/17/why-boston-drivers-and-boston-roads-are-terrible/ https://www.bcheights.com/2019/11/17/why-boston-drivers-and-... In The Netherlands, bicyclists don't need to wear helmets, because Dutch drivers don't act like Boston drivers, because they drive safely and respectfully, and don't get pissed off when bicyclists slow them down, and drivers vote for politicians who build safe bike lanes and pay taxes to fund them, which are ubiquitous and well maintained. It's a cultural thing, and the wrong kind of culture kills bicyclists. And it's not just Boston driver culture: Rolling Coal on bicyclists is also a uniquely American Red State cultural thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHmJSsRLgj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHmJSsRLgj4 https://www.bicycling.com/news/a39797952/driver-posts-video-rolling-coal-in-texas https://www.bicycling.com/news/a39797952/driver-posts-video-... But then again, after looking at your posting history to see what other words come out of your own mouth, I bet you'd probably hate the Dutch culture, because it's so easy to get great health care, birth control, abortion, morning after pills, non-procreative sex is not stigmatized, same sex marriage has been legal and widely accepted for so long here, conversion therapy is banned, and of course teen pregnancy is much much lower than in the US. More of those pesky progressive cultural things that really make a big difference in the quality and duration of life.
kqr 4y ago
You live around a lot of long, straight stretches of road, right? In my experience, cars take way longer to navigate across intersections, roundabouts, and sharper turns than bicycles, simply because of their size and momentum and limited view.
Arbortheus 4y ago
I find a hybrid approach works well in these cases. Most of the time when I am cycling in a straight line where risk is low I stick to the side of the lane to allow cars to more easily overtake me, but at points where it is particularly risky, such as when there are parked cars (risk getting ‘doored’) or at an intersection, I will take a more primary cycling stance. It’s important to share the road and be considerate, but not if it risks your safety.
anamexis 4y ago
What would you suggest the cyclists do?
DoughnutHole 4y ago
You can always pull into another lane to overtake like you would with a slower-moving car. The only situation I can see a cyclist making a difference like this is on an uninterrupted country road where it's dangerous to overtake. In any urban area the time lost to waiting behind a cyclist will be negligible compared to the minutes lost stuck behind cars at every red light.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  In many urban areas traveling by bicycle is objectively and measurably quicker than by car, even without allowing for additional time for parking/walking to/from wherever you can park.
sydd 4y ago
Where I live its the legal right of bicyclists to use the road in the same manner as cars do. Just because your vehicle is less agile than yours, they are not inconsiderate, e.g. you would not honk on trucks just because they accelerate slower. Or on school buses because they need to stop often.
- Fatnino 4y ago
  If you are driving a camper up a mountain road and you are going slower than traffic you are supposed to pull over when you get too many cars backed up behind you. I've heard the number is six cars backed up till you have to let them pass. I see no reason a similar rule doesn't apply to bikes or anyone else legally using the road but traveling slower than the flow.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    That would really only be feasible if a cyclist could safely make such a judgment while keeping their eyes on the road. If as a cyclist I'm holding up more than 6 cars behind me it's because whoever is in charge of building/ maintaining the road wasn't doing their job. I'd also say I've seen plenty times where cars have held up 20+ cyclists and given no indication they intend to let them pass.
  - hammock 4y ago
    (OP here) I agree and if you can safely let cars pass you, you should. But not to the detriment of your safety.
- jimmaswell 4y ago
  Where do you live? Every road law on bicycles I've ever read has said something to the effect of "ride as far to the right as practiceable, except to avoid dangerous debris or make a left turn."

Where I live, the cars greatly outnumber bikes. Cyclists that go in the main traffic lane will slow things down substantially, and I think that is inconsiderate.

avianlyric 4y ago

I think hitting cyclists with cars and horrifically injuring them is inconsiderate. But each to their own.

jfabre 4y ago
Both are. I've done both for a long time, forcing everyone to go at 30 km/h in a 50 zone is inconsiderate. Not as inconsiderate as not being careful around cyclists when you drive. This looks like a system design problem to me. The needs of the cyclists don't match the needs of the drivers. This is why we are fighting over this. There has to be a solution, but I know nothing about civil engineering.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  There is a solution! Protected cycle lanes! Keep cycles, cars and pedestrians physically separated. Inside towns and cities we should be looking to give up road space for cars, to put in dedicated cycle infrastructure. Dedicated cycle infrastructure keeps cars and cycles separate, makes cycling safer, and most importantly more accessible and friendly. Every additional cycle on the road during rush hour is one less car. If removing a car lane reduces the capacity of a road segment by 20 cars, but causes 50 additional to swap their car for a bike, then you’ve just created an 30 cars of capacity on your road. That’s just the start, a bike lane can easily carry 10 times more people than a car lane, and requires basically zero maintenance. They don’t get pot holes because cycles weigh so little their damage to the road surface is practically unmeasurable.
  - Lanolderen 4y ago
    Or cyclists can be incentivised to move to small motorcycles (pedelec if they want to stay fit) and we avoid the whole issue of converting car lanes to bicycle lanes and then reverting that decision because a traffic jam occurred and residents were not impressed, wasting money in the process ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - avianlyric 4y ago
      What about people that can’t drive a motorcycle, like children? Or people that can’t afford a motorcycle? Or people that have nowhere to store a motorbike (I’ll like to see you hang a motorbike on a wall)? Do we just abandon them? > we avoid the whole issue of converting car lanes to bicycle lanes and then reverting that decision because a traffic jam occurred and residents were not impressed, wasting money in the process There are huge piles of empirical evidence that shows the complete opposite of this happens. Introducing bike infrastructure, at the cost of car infrastructure, almost always reduces congestion after a short adaptation period passes. Turns out if you give people cheaper easier ways of moving a round a city or town, they’ll pick them over a car.
      - Lanolderen 4y ago
        Kids are legislatively forbidden from riding motorcycles. Just let them do AM or another form of certification for small bikes that get to 50ish kmh. It's not like they can't get to 50 with a bicycle. I'd even argue it's safer since it's easier to wear protective gear when you don't have to pedal. Affording it isn't a real issue either. (i)Second hand motorcycles can be had for really cheap since they're treated as toys in the western world. I just opened up the listings for where I live (smallish town in Germany) and there are 44 ads for working bikes under 1000$ in 25km radius of me. Some are even proper 600cc+ machines. (ii)16 brand new bikes in that same area can be bought for under 2000$. (iii)Public transport. Storage: Small bikes can be manhandled into an apartment if it's about long term storage. Short term, just park it on the street like a normal person. Put a tracker on it if you're worried. I get that it improves over time but the short term effects are what determines whether whoever implements it remains in power long enough to see that. And I'd argue still that motorcycles are way faster and therefore better at decreasing congestion than bicycles. Regarding inclusivity they are also friendlier to less fit people, especially in uneven terrain since even at my ripe age in the mid twenties I can get out of breath climbing some streets on my bicycle.
  - Eigenstate 4y ago
    How do protected cycle lanes mitigate the crash types in the article? I see how they may prevent getting rear ended or doored, but all the intersection conflict points remain and in many cases are exacerbated by the "protection." I've seen lane designs that force cyclists to pass right turning cars on the right at intersections. Often the barriers reduce visibility and tell drivers they don't have to be aware of bikes, increasing the chances for conflict. While infrastructure does need to be improved, I don't think this is a complete solution.
    - avianlyric 4y ago
      Pretty simple, cycles get their own cycle on lights at crossing, and you ban right turns on red. Right turns on red are such a stupid idea, a tiny time saving for a minority of people, but a huge increase in risk for vulnerable road users. As for branch junctions along the road, priority is given to bikes going in the direction of traffic, and you build tables across the junction, reduce junction radius, both force cars to slow down when turning into junctions, and make it clear they need to look for other road users. These are all solved problems. The Netherlands publishes an extremely well respected guide on exactly how to build people-centric road infrastructure that massively reduces collisions and road incidents. There’s no need to reinvent anything, just look at countries that have road death rates at a fraction of what the US has.
      - DonHopkins 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman >Hans Monderman (19 November 1945 – 7 January 2008) was a Dutch road traffic engineer and innovator. He was recognised for radically challenging the criteria used to evaluate engineering solutions for street design. His work compelled transportation planners and highway engineers to look afresh at the way people and technology relate to each other. >His design approach is the concept of "shared space", an urban design approach that seeks to minimise demarcations between vehicle traffic and pedestrians, often by removing features such as kerbs, road surface markings, traffic signs, and regulations. Monderman found that the traffic efficiency and safety improved when the street and surrounding public space was redesigned to encourage each person to negotiate their movement directly with others. Hans Monderman: Rethinking the design of streets and public space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBGokenEhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBGokenEhQ Unexpected interview in Groningen (Homage to Hans Monderman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQASVz4xun8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQASVz4xun8 HANS MONDERMAN ON THE IMPORTANCE OF HUMAN INTERACTION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGMFNxCJyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGMFNxCJyQ Monderman (3of10) - Drachten Roundabout Traffic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGCE6vI5j68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGCE6vI5j68 Monderman (5of10) - Drachten Intersection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L39gNtsaZfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L39gNtsaZfI Road signs suck. What if we got rid of them all? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbsFtLkGN8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbsFtLkGN8
Bostonian 4y ago
You are putting words in my mouth. Of course I am against hitting cyclists, and I have never done so.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  Bikes cycle as part of traffic because it far safer, and substantially reduces the chances of them being hit and seriously injured. If you think cycling in manner to improves your safety as a cyclist is inconsiderate. Then how do you suggest they cycle if they don’t want to be hit by a car?
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  Do you think you deserve praise for not taking out your anger on bikers you consider inconsiderate even though you outnumber them? And how does outnumbering them give you any more right to hit them, or you being in a hurry make them deserve any less consideration, or owe you any more consideration? I was driving in Boston and stopped at a light that just turned red, while it had just started raining, so all the oil on the road had just gotten slick but hadn't washed off yet. The Boston driver who rear-ended me at the red light was furious and tried to blame me, saying "I thought you were going to run the red light too!" So yeah, it's provably true what they say about Boston drivers. https://www.allstate.com/americas-best-drivers/index.htm https://www.allstate.com/americas-best-drivers/index.htm https://www.boston.com/cars/commute/2018/08/31/boston-drivers-are-the-worst/ https://www.boston.com/cars/commute/2018/08/31/boston-driver... https://www.bcheights.com/2019/11/17/why-boston-drivers-and-boston-roads-are-terrible/ https://www.bcheights.com/2019/11/17/why-boston-drivers-and-... In The Netherlands, bicyclists don't need to wear helmets, because Dutch drivers don't act like Boston drivers, because they drive safely and respectfully, and don't get pissed off when bicyclists slow them down, and drivers vote for politicians who build safe bike lanes and pay taxes to fund them, which are ubiquitous and well maintained. It's a cultural thing, and the wrong kind of culture kills bicyclists. And it's not just Boston driver culture: Rolling Coal on bicyclists is also a uniquely American Red State cultural thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHmJSsRLgj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHmJSsRLgj4 https://www.bicycling.com/news/a39797952/driver-posts-video-rolling-coal-in-texas https://www.bicycling.com/news/a39797952/driver-posts-video-... But then again, after looking at your posting history to see what other words come out of your own mouth, I bet you'd probably hate the Dutch culture, because it's so easy to get great health care, birth control, abortion, morning after pills, non-procreative sex is not stigmatized, same sex marriage has been legal and widely accepted for so long here, conversion therapy is banned, and of course teen pregnancy is much much lower than in the US. More of those pesky progressive cultural things that really make a big difference in the quality and duration of life.

kqr 4y ago

You live around a lot of long, straight stretches of road, right? In my experience, cars take way longer to navigate across intersections, roundabouts, and sharper turns than bicycles, simply because of their size and momentum and limited view.

Arbortheus 4y ago

I find a hybrid approach works well in these cases. Most of the time when I am cycling in a straight line where risk is low I stick to the side of the lane to allow cars to more easily overtake me, but at points where it is particularly risky, such as when there are parked cars (risk getting ‘doored’) or at an intersection, I will take a more primary cycling stance. It’s important to share the road and be considerate, but not if it risks your safety.

anamexis 4y ago

What would you suggest the cyclists do?

DoughnutHole 4y ago

You can always pull into another lane to overtake like you would with a slower-moving car. The only situation I can see a cyclist making a difference like this is on an uninterrupted country road where it's dangerous to overtake. In any urban area the time lost to waiting behind a cyclist will be negligible compared to the minutes lost stuck behind cars at every red light.

wizofaus 4y ago
In many urban areas traveling by bicycle is objectively and measurably quicker than by car, even without allowing for additional time for parking/walking to/from wherever you can park.

sydd 4y ago

Where I live its the legal right of bicyclists to use the road in the same manner as cars do. Just because your vehicle is less agile than yours, they are not inconsiderate, e.g. you would not honk on trucks just because they accelerate slower. Or on school buses because they need to stop often.

Fatnino 4y ago
If you are driving a camper up a mountain road and you are going slower than traffic you are supposed to pull over when you get too many cars backed up behind you. I've heard the number is six cars backed up till you have to let them pass. I see no reason a similar rule doesn't apply to bikes or anyone else legally using the road but traveling slower than the flow.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  That would really only be feasible if a cyclist could safely make such a judgment while keeping their eyes on the road. If as a cyclist I'm holding up more than 6 cars behind me it's because whoever is in charge of building/ maintaining the road wasn't doing their job. I'd also say I've seen plenty times where cars have held up 20+ cyclists and given no indication they intend to let them pass.
- hammock 4y ago
  (OP here) I agree and if you can safely let cars pass you, you should. But not to the detriment of your safety.
jimmaswell 4y ago
Where do you live? Every road law on bicycles I've ever read has said something to the effect of "ride as far to the right as practiceable, except to avoid dangerous debris or make a left turn."