8 ms·

Cyclists and cars should not be on the same roads. It's silly to pretend that drawing some chevrons on the road or making a law that you need to do whatever aro

Cyclists and cars should not be on the same roads. It's silly to pretend that drawing some chevrons on the road or making a law that you need to do whatever around cyclists will make a difference. People who want cycling options should be advocating for separate paths dedicated to cycling, with proper signals when they need to cross car lanes so there is no ambiguity

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Very much so, going so far as to convert some amount of street inventory into bike and pedestrian only. Barcelona superblocks and such. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18273894/barcelona-urban-planning-superblocks-poblenou https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18273894... Can’t take the lizard brain out of the human behind several tons of metal, so put in firm infra guardrails (literally) to mitigate harm.
theossuary 4y ago
I'd think the motorists who want them off the roadway should be avocating for more bike paths actually. In the meantime it should be completely legal to use roadways, because otherwise there'd be no way to commute by bike.
choeger 4y ago
I wholeheartedly disagree. Wherever bicycles and cars share the same routes, at roughly the same speed, they should share the same roads - at a speed that is safe for everyone, so about 30km/h. For routes and speeds that are different (highways), roads should be separated.
- akvadrako 4y ago
  30 kph is absurdly fast for city bikes and really slow for cars on any long stretch of road. So it's only relevant for like 1% of roads that are very windy and only sport cyclists go.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    That is BS. Because that is my default speed on a 3-speed from about 1985 on flat grounds. Damn! So absurd, I must be from the future, or something.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      My fast speed now is about 22 kph. I'm definitely not as fast as I was when I was a teenager in 1985. I'm even slower when carrying a kid on the back. Looks like Google Maps uses 20 kph for their average bike speed. (I measured a rails-to-trails route; 12.3 miles in 1 hour = 19.8 km.)
      - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
        I didn't speak about teenager. Then it would be a different bike, 10- or 12-speed, and effortless 45 to 55 kph, with peak speeds for a few minutes to up to 70+ kph. I know about that google thing, and similar sites. They are useless to me, because I'm always 3 to 4 times faster. /me shrugs and thinks most of you are doing it wrong and/or have terrible bicyles.
        eesmith 4y ago
        https://metrosaga.com/speed-professional-cyclists-ride/ https://metrosaga.com/speed-professional-cyclists-ride/ says "The Bicycling Magazine reports that a professional Tour de France cyclist maintains the average speed depending on the terrain. On flat ground, the speed of the rider is between 25 and 28 mph." That's 40 to 45 kph. https://www.road-bike.co.uk/articles/average-speed.php https://www.road-bike.co.uk/articles/average-speed.php says "Quite competent club rider, some regular training likely, medium-long distances (say 50-60 miles): 20-24 mph" (for "'mixed' terrain (ie rolling hills about 30% of the time, and pretty flat the rest of the time"). That's 32 to 39 kph. Have you considered that Lance Armstrong might not be a good baseline for the median bike rider on the streets?
        4y ago
- kitkat_new 4y ago
  I think streets with speed limits of 20km/h or pedestrian velocity should be fine, too
ars 4y ago
The absolutely can be on the same road - but bikes need to acknowledge they are slower than car, and act that way. Move over and let cars pass. And cars need to give bikes space when passing them. If we just respected each other, it's easy to share. And I say this as someone who rides both, about equally.
enneff 4y ago
It’s true, cyclists should not be on roads with cars. But they can share the same streets. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad) Streets that are cyclist-friendly are also pedestrian-friendly.
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  As a pedestrian I've had more bad encounters with bicycles in San Francisco than cars.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    I'll agree motorists are more careful than cyclists. Some cyclists will pass you at 20km/h and 5cm distance, motorists will keep much more distance than that. But they have more speed and more weight too, and their greater distance doesn't compensate, so if you look at who kills you with their carelessness, the answer is plain: Motorists. Cyclists are careless and give you a bruise or a fractured wrist.
jschveibinz 4y ago
I was downvoted for saying the same thing two days ago in a very constructive way. It seems this is a very contentious issue.
r00fus 4y ago
Cyclists do demand it. It's just hard to fight against the car culture that's built up in the US. I think the things to break it will be a) better mass transit options b) more WFH and c) cheaper e-bikes so longer commutes/grocery trips can be done without a car.
- cirrus3 4y ago
  Car culture hasn't "built up". It has always been. It is on cyclists to change it, if they aren't winning, there is a reason - people like this guy are not helping their cause at all.
rektide 4y ago
This seems to be where we are. But it's so shit, so bad. Few agree, but as a bicyclist I much greater enjoyed being a part of traffic than assigned to a small narrow detached lane that has to at evey junction re-assess speedy mortal death threats abundant. Having freedom of the road & being part of the stream of traffic felt way better to me than being cordoned to a 2 ft wide lane that still regularly crosses the irresponsible/reckless/jerkwad zone. Having one multi-speed lane of traffic feels less complex to me, easier & safer than having a lot of different paces, different decoupled lanes: dealing with one another & sharing the space felt simpler easier & better, evemngiven how broadly ignorant rude & useless drivers were with their death metal machines versus bikes. But my city is pretty advantageous naturally towards bikes; cars just dont matter, are always slow, always encumbered, & bicyclists co-relationship is much better, much less limited & obviously more free, just mnturally. The bicyclists co-relational advantage is basically ignored & unappreciated. The scariness of drivers is overwhelming. They behave horribly & are constant terrible mortal threat. So we each need separate lanes. Even though they are very limiting & scary, create totally different systems of people not recognizing & seeing each other that are so horrible, but limited to intersections & crossings, versus a pattern of coexistence. As a bicyclist, I preffered coexistence, but drivers are absurs insane disrespectful manslaugtering easily triggered monsters with little perception or awareness & worse behavior. So! Separate lanes it is. I liked where we were better; I'd risk it. But I get why separate lanes is the shitry pathetic place we have to be to make this all reasonable. To defend against abundantly terrible & killing drivers.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Very much so, going so far as to convert some amount of street inventory into bike and pedestrian only. Barcelona superblocks and such. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18273894/barcelona-urban-planning-superblocks-poblenou https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18273894... Can’t take the lizard brain out of the human behind several tons of metal, so put in firm infra guardrails (literally) to mitigate harm.

theossuary 4y ago

I'd think the motorists who want them off the roadway should be avocating for more bike paths actually. In the meantime it should be completely legal to use roadways, because otherwise there'd be no way to commute by bike.

choeger 4y ago

I wholeheartedly disagree. Wherever bicycles and cars share the same routes, at roughly the same speed, they should share the same roads - at a speed that is safe for everyone, so about 30km/h. For routes and speeds that are different (highways), roads should be separated.

akvadrako 4y ago
30 kph is absurdly fast for city bikes and really slow for cars on any long stretch of road. So it's only relevant for like 1% of roads that are very windy and only sport cyclists go.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  That is BS. Because that is my default speed on a 3-speed from about 1985 on flat grounds. Damn! So absurd, I must be from the future, or something.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    My fast speed now is about 22 kph. I'm definitely not as fast as I was when I was a teenager in 1985. I'm even slower when carrying a kid on the back. Looks like Google Maps uses 20 kph for their average bike speed. (I measured a rails-to-trails route; 12.3 miles in 1 hour = 19.8 km.)
    - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
      I didn't speak about teenager. Then it would be a different bike, 10- or 12-speed, and effortless 45 to 55 kph, with peak speeds for a few minutes to up to 70+ kph. I know about that google thing, and similar sites. They are useless to me, because I'm always 3 to 4 times faster. /me shrugs and thinks most of you are doing it wrong and/or have terrible bicyles.
      - eesmith 4y ago
        https://metrosaga.com/speed-professional-cyclists-ride/ https://metrosaga.com/speed-professional-cyclists-ride/ says "The Bicycling Magazine reports that a professional Tour de France cyclist maintains the average speed depending on the terrain. On flat ground, the speed of the rider is between 25 and 28 mph." That's 40 to 45 kph. https://www.road-bike.co.uk/articles/average-speed.php https://www.road-bike.co.uk/articles/average-speed.php says "Quite competent club rider, some regular training likely, medium-long distances (say 50-60 miles): 20-24 mph" (for "'mixed' terrain (ie rolling hills about 30% of the time, and pretty flat the rest of the time"). That's 32 to 39 kph. Have you considered that Lance Armstrong might not be a good baseline for the median bike rider on the streets?
        4y ago
kitkat_new 4y ago
I think streets with speed limits of 20km/h or pedestrian velocity should be fine, too

ars 4y ago

The absolutely can be on the same road - but bikes need to acknowledge they are slower than car, and act that way. Move over and let cars pass. And cars need to give bikes space when passing them. If we just respected each other, it's easy to share. And I say this as someone who rides both, about equally.

enneff 4y ago

It’s true, cyclists should not be on roads with cars. But they can share the same streets. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad) Streets that are cyclist-friendly are also pedestrian-friendly.

Gibbon1 4y ago
As a pedestrian I've had more bad encounters with bicycles in San Francisco than cars.
- Arnt 4y ago
  I'll agree motorists are more careful than cyclists. Some cyclists will pass you at 20km/h and 5cm distance, motorists will keep much more distance than that. But they have more speed and more weight too, and their greater distance doesn't compensate, so if you look at who kills you with their carelessness, the answer is plain: Motorists. Cyclists are careless and give you a bruise or a fractured wrist.

jschveibinz 4y ago

I was downvoted for saying the same thing two days ago in a very constructive way. It seems this is a very contentious issue.

r00fus 4y ago

Cyclists do demand it. It's just hard to fight against the car culture that's built up in the US. I think the things to break it will be a) better mass transit options b) more WFH and c) cheaper e-bikes so longer commutes/grocery trips can be done without a car.

cirrus3 4y ago
Car culture hasn't "built up". It has always been. It is on cyclists to change it, if they aren't winning, there is a reason - people like this guy are not helping their cause at all.

rektide 4y ago

This seems to be where we are. But it's so shit, so bad. Few agree, but as a bicyclist I much greater enjoyed being a part of traffic than assigned to a small narrow detached lane that has to at evey junction re-assess speedy mortal death threats abundant. Having freedom of the road & being part of the stream of traffic felt way better to me than being cordoned to a 2 ft wide lane that still regularly crosses the irresponsible/reckless/jerkwad zone. Having one multi-speed lane of traffic feels less complex to me, easier & safer than having a lot of different paces, different decoupled lanes: dealing with one another & sharing the space felt simpler easier & better, evemngiven how broadly ignorant rude & useless drivers were with their death metal machines versus bikes. But my city is pretty advantageous naturally towards bikes; cars just dont matter, are always slow, always encumbered, & bicyclists co-relationship is much better, much less limited & obviously more free, just mnturally. The bicyclists co-relational advantage is basically ignored & unappreciated. The scariness of drivers is overwhelming. They behave horribly & are constant terrible mortal threat. So we each need separate lanes. Even though they are very limiting & scary, create totally different systems of people not recognizing & seeing each other that are so horrible, but limited to intersections & crossings, versus a pattern of coexistence. As a bicyclist, I preffered coexistence, but drivers are absurs insane disrespectful manslaugtering easily triggered monsters with little perception or awareness & worse behavior. So! Separate lanes it is. I liked where we were better; I'd risk it. But I get why separate lanes is the shitry pathetic place we have to be to make this all reasonable. To defend against abundantly terrible & killing drivers.