11 ms·

Re: hate for bicycles I think, especially in cities, you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport mode

by theK 4y ago

Re: hate for bicycles I think, especially in cities, you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. Bike lanes historically do not deliver as they increase traffic pattern complexity significantly for all three participants. I have seen some very ambitious plans to make city Centers free of anything that can go faster than 25kph and I root for such plans but they are all very naive usually. Still, happy to see the world move in such a direction. Until then I think we will have to live with the fact that there are some legitimate reasons to hate on the bicycle. PS: before you all get worked up for what a bicycle hating subhuman I must be. I own a mountain bike, I happily use it in forests and mountainous regions and get huge amounts of recreational value out of it.

tankenmate 4y ago
I think the experience of the Netherlands shows that bicycles can happily be part of the transport mix if they are properly catered for; dedicated traffic lanes separated from car traffic. It's the half hearted measures that typically fail.
Beltalowda 4y ago
> you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. The biggest problems I've had have actually been in places where this isn't the case: slow-moving inner city traffic here you can just keep up with cars. In some traffic situations this is certainly a problem, but I think it's just part of the overall problem.
mattashii 4y ago
> waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. Uh, what? Reaching 15km/h is not unheard of for running either, so why would that be waaaaay too fast on a bike in mainly pedestrian areas? Sure, the bike should slow down to lower speeds than their norm to ensure safety for all people involved in traffic, but isn't that no different from how cars shouldn't go 100km/h+ in city centers?
- hellweaver666 4y ago
  I live in Amsterdam, 15km/h is a "slow" bike. Most fit adults cruise at around 20km/h and e-bikes are often blasting along at 25km/h+ The problem with bikes is that most don't have a speedo so they have no clue how fast they are travelling.
  - mattashii 4y ago
    I see your point, but Amsterdam generally has separate lanes for cars, bikes and foot traffic. The point I was making is that it is safe to use a bike in foot traffic areas if you slow down to match the expected speeds of your surrounding traffic; such as using a bike in the historical city center of e.g. Amersfoort or Utrecht, where there is usually a lot of foot traffic and little car traffic, and no separate bike lanes.
- usrusr 4y ago
  And why would cyclists go 15 km/h? By that matter, cars aren't too fast for the sidewalk either.
  - mattashii 4y ago
    Because the cyclist is considered a guest in foot traffic areas, it should slow down to match safe speeds in those situations.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      The cyclist has all the reason to be there as a driver would, none at all. Go driving on the sidewalk, at a speed presumably appropriate for "guests" (15 km/h? would that really be appropriate?) and look how welcome you are.
      - mattashii 4y ago
        The existence of a sidewalk implies the existance of a road that is used for all traffic except foot traffic, such as bikes. Why are you forcing the situation onto the sidewalk? I was talking about a pedestrian road, considering the 'historical' setting of the GP post.
imgabe 4y ago
There's no legitimate reason to hate on any other mode of transportation. Unless you're on an interstate or other highway that specifically forbids certain vehicles or has a minimum speed, everyone else has the same right to use the road you do.
- eptcyka 4y ago
  Generally yes, but, especially in California, people often forget that it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic, regardless of the type of slower vehicle. EDIT: Yield here is a misnomer, what I mean to convey is that slower moving traffic by law is supposed to pass faster moving traffic if it's possible to do so safely, and this is a feat that I rarely see take place, be it with cyclists or drivers.
  - andrewshadura 4y ago
    No? It absolutely isn't, why would you even think so?
  - watwut 4y ago
    Do you have driving license?
  - ajuc 4y ago
    > it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic WTF is wrong with you in America? When a bike goes on the pavement it's the bike that has to yield. When a pedestrian or a bike goes on a road - it's the cars that have to yield (usually, there's exceptions).
    - eptcyka 4y ago
      I was referring to traffic on roads, not sidewalks. Slower vehichles on the road have to yield to faster vehichles in so far that they have to let them pass.
      - ajuc 4y ago
usrusr 4y ago
Ah, good old "one of my best friends is a mountain bike I drive to the trailhead" Bikes have been historically present for a generation or two longer than cars. https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-hi...
CaptArmchair 4y ago
> I think, especially in cities, you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side Replace that bicycles with cars and the argument still holds up. "historically" here is really an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Both cars and bicycles are fairly modern inventions which both appeared around the same time. In fact, city streets were mostly dominated by pedestrians, horses and carriages up to the late 19th / early 20th century. Moreover, there was a backlash against early cars as well. The more interesting question is this: how did cars really ended up overtaking streets in cities and towns? Why did infrastructure / urban planning ended up favoring car use in the public space? > I have seen some very ambitious plans to make city Centers free of anything that can go faster than 25kph and I root for such plans but they are all very naive usually Why are they naive? I live in a historic city center. Streets used to be cramped with cars, it smelled horribly with exhaust gasses, soot covered historic buildings, parking space is extremely limited and small sidewalks were crowded forcing you to teeter into traffic. Over the past decades, that all changed as car use was gradually disincentivized and in some areas downright banned. All I can say is that it has been a massive improvement. The city is far more appealing then it used to be... and these days I know few people contesting that it's "unfeasible" or "unpractical". Would it work everywhere? No, not really. Let's be realistic. But let's not venture into the other extreme dismissing wholesale as a naive idea either.
ajuc 4y ago
> waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. Where do you live? Cause I'm walking A LOT (over 9 km per day on average for the last 2 years - yes I'm recording stats, I'm a nerd) and I bike a little (but much less - about 3 km per day in that period) and I've never had a guy on a bicycle threaten me when I'm walking or biking. Pedestrians in the cities are on the pavements. You cannot really bike over 15 km/h on a pavement. And depending on the kind of the pavement 10 km/h might be more realistic. You'll shake and your wrists will hurt if you do more than that. And it's hard to maintain over 15 km/h for long if you're not very fit. I know I can't, and I'm more fit than the average cyclist. Going 15 km/h on a pavement you pose no threat to anybody. Outside of the cities cyclists and pedestrians do meet on the roads - but pedestrians walk the other side of the road than cyclists. And the average cyclist in countryside is a grandma going back from church/cemetary/grocery shop. Really not a threat either. The only cyclists that might theoretically put you in danger are the hardcore sport kind, but they are very rare and they just go on the streets with cars.
shapefrog 4y ago
7.1 mph in central London is the average traffic speed. Bikes are way too fast for the roads.
_dain_ 4y ago
>not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. Bicycles were invented first, cars came later. It's the cars that don't fit. They're too big and too dangerous. Next time you go outside, take a look around you and count all the gizmos and contrivances that litter the streets, all of which are for cars or because of cars or to protect from cars. Traffic lights, painted crossings, bollards, metal protective barriers, pedestrian islands, bike lanes, parking spaces, speed cameras, on and on it goes. We only need all this ugly junk because of cars. We've trained ourselves not to see it, like a hoarder who doesn't properly see his piles of clutter. When it's just pedestrians, bikes, and maybe a tram or two, it's amazing how tidy and calm a street can be.
tremon 4y ago
not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes You mean on foot or by horse?

by theK 4y ago

tankenmate 4y ago

I think the experience of the Netherlands shows that bicycles can happily be part of the transport mix if they are properly catered for; dedicated traffic lanes separated from car traffic. It's the half hearted measures that typically fail.

Beltalowda 4y ago

> you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. The biggest problems I've had have actually been in places where this isn't the case: slow-moving inner city traffic here you can just keep up with cars. In some traffic situations this is certainly a problem, but I think it's just part of the overall problem.

mattashii 4y ago

> waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. Uh, what? Reaching 15km/h is not unheard of for running either, so why would that be waaaaay too fast on a bike in mainly pedestrian areas? Sure, the bike should slow down to lower speeds than their norm to ensure safety for all people involved in traffic, but isn't that no different from how cars shouldn't go 100km/h+ in city centers?

hellweaver666 4y ago
I live in Amsterdam, 15km/h is a "slow" bike. Most fit adults cruise at around 20km/h and e-bikes are often blasting along at 25km/h+ The problem with bikes is that most don't have a speedo so they have no clue how fast they are travelling.
- mattashii 4y ago
  I see your point, but Amsterdam generally has separate lanes for cars, bikes and foot traffic. The point I was making is that it is safe to use a bike in foot traffic areas if you slow down to match the expected speeds of your surrounding traffic; such as using a bike in the historical city center of e.g. Amersfoort or Utrecht, where there is usually a lot of foot traffic and little car traffic, and no separate bike lanes.
usrusr 4y ago
And why would cyclists go 15 km/h? By that matter, cars aren't too fast for the sidewalk either.
- mattashii 4y ago
  Because the cyclist is considered a guest in foot traffic areas, it should slow down to match safe speeds in those situations.
  - usrusr 4y ago
    The cyclist has all the reason to be there as a driver would, none at all. Go driving on the sidewalk, at a speed presumably appropriate for "guests" (15 km/h? would that really be appropriate?) and look how welcome you are.
    - mattashii 4y ago
      The existence of a sidewalk implies the existance of a road that is used for all traffic except foot traffic, such as bikes. Why are you forcing the situation onto the sidewalk? I was talking about a pedestrian road, considering the 'historical' setting of the GP post.

imgabe 4y ago

There's no legitimate reason to hate on any other mode of transportation. Unless you're on an interstate or other highway that specifically forbids certain vehicles or has a minimum speed, everyone else has the same right to use the road you do.

eptcyka 4y ago
Generally yes, but, especially in California, people often forget that it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic, regardless of the type of slower vehicle. EDIT: Yield here is a misnomer, what I mean to convey is that slower moving traffic by law is supposed to pass faster moving traffic if it's possible to do so safely, and this is a feat that I rarely see take place, be it with cyclists or drivers.
- andrewshadura 4y ago
  No? It absolutely isn't, why would you even think so?
- watwut 4y ago
  Do you have driving license?
- ajuc 4y ago
  > it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic WTF is wrong with you in America? When a bike goes on the pavement it's the bike that has to yield. When a pedestrian or a bike goes on a road - it's the cars that have to yield (usually, there's exceptions).
  - eptcyka 4y ago
    I was referring to traffic on roads, not sidewalks. Slower vehichles on the road have to yield to faster vehichles in so far that they have to let them pass.
    - ajuc 4y ago

usrusr 4y ago

Ah, good old "one of my best friends is a mountain bike I drive to the trailhead" Bikes have been historically present for a generation or two longer than cars. https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-history https://www.vox.com/2015/3/19/8253035/roads-cyclists-cars-hi...

CaptArmchair 4y ago

> I think, especially in cities, you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side Replace that bicycles with cars and the argument still holds up. "historically" here is really an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Both cars and bicycles are fairly modern inventions which both appeared around the same time. In fact, city streets were mostly dominated by pedestrians, horses and carriages up to the late 19th / early 20th century. Moreover, there was a backlash against early cars as well. The more interesting question is this: how did cars really ended up overtaking streets in cities and towns? Why did infrastructure / urban planning ended up favoring car use in the public space? > I have seen some very ambitious plans to make city Centers free of anything that can go faster than 25kph and I root for such plans but they are all very naive usually Why are they naive? I live in a historic city center. Streets used to be cramped with cars, it smelled horribly with exhaust gasses, soot covered historic buildings, parking space is extremely limited and small sidewalks were crowded forcing you to teeter into traffic. Over the past decades, that all changed as car use was gradually disincentivized and in some areas downright banned. All I can say is that it has been a massive improvement. The city is far more appealing then it used to be... and these days I know few people contesting that it's "unfeasible" or "unpractical". Would it work everywhere? No, not really. Let's be realistic. But let's not venture into the other extreme dismissing wholesale as a naive idea either.

ajuc 4y ago

> waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side. Where do you live? Cause I'm walking A LOT (over 9 km per day on average for the last 2 years - yes I'm recording stats, I'm a nerd) and I bike a little (but much less - about 3 km per day in that period) and I've never had a guy on a bicycle threaten me when I'm walking or biking. Pedestrians in the cities are on the pavements. You cannot really bike over 15 km/h on a pavement. And depending on the kind of the pavement 10 km/h might be more realistic. You'll shake and your wrists will hurt if you do more than that. And it's hard to maintain over 15 km/h for long if you're not very fit. I know I can't, and I'm more fit than the average cyclist. Going 15 km/h on a pavement you pose no threat to anybody. Outside of the cities cyclists and pedestrians do meet on the roads - but pedestrians walk the other side of the road than cyclists. And the average cyclist in countryside is a grandma going back from church/cemetary/grocery shop. Really not a threat either. The only cyclists that might theoretically put you in danger are the hardcore sport kind, but they are very rare and they just go on the streets with cars.

shapefrog 4y ago

7.1 mph in central London is the average traffic speed. Bikes are way too fast for the roads.

_dain_ 4y ago

>not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. Bicycles were invented first, cars came later. It's the cars that don't fit. They're too big and too dangerous. Next time you go outside, take a look around you and count all the gizmos and contrivances that litter the streets, all of which are for cars or because of cars or to protect from cars. Traffic lights, painted crossings, bollards, metal protective barriers, pedestrian islands, bike lanes, parking spaces, speed cameras, on and on it goes. We only need all this ugly junk because of cars. We've trained ourselves not to see it, like a hoarder who doesn't properly see his piles of clutter. When it's just pedestrians, bikes, and maybe a tram or two, it's amazing how tidy and calm a street can be.

tremon 4y ago

not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes You mean on foot or by horse?