3 ms·

If a cyclist has to yield to every passing car, then in any busy area (where most people travel) the cyclist effectively always has to be off to the side, which

by enneff 4y ago

If a cyclist has to yield to every passing car, then in any busy area (where most people travel) the cyclist effectively always has to be off to the side, which is not safe. If the cyclist is not occupying an actual lane to themselves then they are constantly being passed too close by fast moving vehicles, and in danger of running into the suddenly-opening doors of parked cars or surprise pedestrians. Seriously, if you go somewhere where drivers are respectful of cyclists you’ll see it’s just so easy for it all to work smoothly and safely. The impatience of drivers, at the expense of others safety, is astounding to me. Also it should be noted that motorists give each other space for selfish reasons; they may damage their car or themselves if they collide with another car. If they hit a cyclist chances are they’ll kill or permanently maim the cyclist, but do little damage to their car, and so they have little reason to care. (!!!!!!)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kazinator 4y ago
If you can't move at or above the posted speed limit, let others pass. It's as simple as that. You're not entitled to impede others. All users of the road are entitled to move at the speed limit, when there there is no problem ahead such as an accident, congestion, obstruction or construction. If you're not yourself impeded by such a predicament, and have an open road in front of you, you have no right to arbitrarily impede those behind you. It is simply rude. Don't go down roads where it's impossible to pass you, unless you can do the speed limit there. Don't go down roads where there are parked cars, but only a small clearance between parked cars and traffic moving faster than you. Or any analogous situation: like small clearance between a concrete wall and traffic or whatever. Find roads where there aren't parked cars, or else where there is a generous space between the parking strip and traffic, so that you can avoid doors, and there is room to pass you. Where I live, many of the larger streets that have two lanes in each direction, and a solid car's width between parked cars and traffic. Someone opening a small door will not door you, and you have time to avoid a large door being swung fully open. You can also find roads where there is simply not much traffic, so you can have them all to yourself most of the time. Drivers are not supposed to approach you closely when they pass; that's against the traffic code where I live, and likely in most places. A cyclist or motorcyclist must be passed as if they had an invisible car around them, so to speak. However, by straying farther into the lane, you're encouraging a reduction of the space between you and and the car that passes you anyway, which is counterproductive. Parked cars are a menace, no doubt. In some countries, they don't allow street parking in cities. To register a car, you must prove that you have some place off the street to stash it when you're not driving it. North American cities should follow suit. > little damage to their car, and so they have little reason to care You're simply a lunatic with this remark. Most drivers are normal people, not psychopaths, and are absolutely terrified of the idea of injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist. That's still true even if some of their behaviors need improvement.
- enneff 4y ago
  Your reductionist view gives no room for safe cycling in most cities. It requires nothing of the drivers and accomodations from everyone else. Why is that? Cars haven’t even been common for 100 years. Before they came along, we didn’t even need speed limits, and vehicles of different kinds could occupy the streets together. Now it’s all just cars. It doesn’t have to be that way, and in some parts of the world it isn’t. You say I’m a lunatic, but my experience and the scientific community research shows that drivers often don’t view cyclists as humans, nor do they accurately assess the risk of driving too close to (or even ramming or side swiping) cyclists. (You can find several papers on this, or just ask any cyclist.) By the way, even if it’s only 1 in 100 drivers who hold this attitude, a cyclist encounters hundreds of drivers during a typical trip. Those are not good odds.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    The reductionist view comes from any traffic code in the developed world. The traffic codes defines various entites like "highway", "vehicle" and so forth, which are the names of the parts (the whole having been reduced to those parts). It lays out numerous rules, and the good functioning behavior of the system is supposed to arise from those parts behaving according to the rules. Cycling simply is not safe without investment in safe cycling infrastructure. It's a risk-taking activity like mountain climbing and skydiving. The cyclist do a degree (perhaps an excessive one) relies on trust in the behavior of motor vehicles. The rest of it is up to the cyclist and their choices: which way to go, at what times, in what manner, helmet or not, mirrors or not, condition of bike, crappy rim brakes in wet weather or discs, etc. Few of us here remember a world without cars; it's just a dream of the past. It's not realistic to return large urban areas to car-free status. At least not instantly. Cars are becoming electric, free of exhaust gases and engine noise. Thus certain arguments against keeping them out of cities are weakening. It's also not realistic to just slow down traffic to match the slowest pedaler on every route; that is simply not a viable cycling safety plan. People have places to go. For most people, communting is pure overhead. They would rather be at their destination already doing something else. More and more electrified bicycles are appearing. These can easily keep up with city traffic. They are changing/confusing driver perceptions of what a bicycle can do. Drivers are going to be less patient with motorless cyclists due to being accustomed to motorized cyclists. They will also make poor time/distance judgments due to the variation in capability. A driver who thinks he can pass a cyclist like the cyclist is standing still will miscalculate if that cyclist has a motor and is rapidly accelerating. Electric bicycles are a threat to cyclists, and a threat which follows them right into safe cycling infrastructure. Just when you have escaped the cars and are pedaling away in a dedicated bicycle path, you're faced with marauding yahoos on what are de facto motorcycles, easily capable of going 50 km/h or more. Cycling infrastructure is still being planned for pedal bicycles, in terms of the dimensions of the lanes and whatnot. You need full roads, if the bicycles are motorized.

by enneff 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kazinator 4y ago

If you can't move at or above the posted speed limit, let others pass. It's as simple as that. You're not entitled to impede others. All users of the road are entitled to move at the speed limit, when there there is no problem ahead such as an accident, congestion, obstruction or construction. If you're not yourself impeded by such a predicament, and have an open road in front of you, you have no right to arbitrarily impede those behind you. It is simply rude. Don't go down roads where it's impossible to pass you, unless you can do the speed limit there. Don't go down roads where there are parked cars, but only a small clearance between parked cars and traffic moving faster than you. Or any analogous situation: like small clearance between a concrete wall and traffic or whatever. Find roads where there aren't parked cars, or else where there is a generous space between the parking strip and traffic, so that you can avoid doors, and there is room to pass you. Where I live, many of the larger streets that have two lanes in each direction, and a solid car's width between parked cars and traffic. Someone opening a small door will not door you, and you have time to avoid a large door being swung fully open. You can also find roads where there is simply not much traffic, so you can have them all to yourself most of the time. Drivers are not supposed to approach you closely when they pass; that's against the traffic code where I live, and likely in most places. A cyclist or motorcyclist must be passed as if they had an invisible car around them, so to speak. However, by straying farther into the lane, you're encouraging a reduction of the space between you and and the car that passes you anyway, which is counterproductive. Parked cars are a menace, no doubt. In some countries, they don't allow street parking in cities. To register a car, you must prove that you have some place off the street to stash it when you're not driving it. North American cities should follow suit. > little damage to their car, and so they have little reason to care You're simply a lunatic with this remark. Most drivers are normal people, not psychopaths, and are absolutely terrified of the idea of injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist. That's still true even if some of their behaviors need improvement.

enneff 4y ago
Your reductionist view gives no room for safe cycling in most cities. It requires nothing of the drivers and accomodations from everyone else. Why is that? Cars haven’t even been common for 100 years. Before they came along, we didn’t even need speed limits, and vehicles of different kinds could occupy the streets together. Now it’s all just cars. It doesn’t have to be that way, and in some parts of the world it isn’t. You say I’m a lunatic, but my experience and the scientific community research shows that drivers often don’t view cyclists as humans, nor do they accurately assess the risk of driving too close to (or even ramming or side swiping) cyclists. (You can find several papers on this, or just ask any cyclist.) By the way, even if it’s only 1 in 100 drivers who hold this attitude, a cyclist encounters hundreds of drivers during a typical trip. Those are not good odds.
- kazinator 4y ago
  The reductionist view comes from any traffic code in the developed world. The traffic codes defines various entites like "highway", "vehicle" and so forth, which are the names of the parts (the whole having been reduced to those parts). It lays out numerous rules, and the good functioning behavior of the system is supposed to arise from those parts behaving according to the rules. Cycling simply is not safe without investment in safe cycling infrastructure. It's a risk-taking activity like mountain climbing and skydiving. The cyclist do a degree (perhaps an excessive one) relies on trust in the behavior of motor vehicles. The rest of it is up to the cyclist and their choices: which way to go, at what times, in what manner, helmet or not, mirrors or not, condition of bike, crappy rim brakes in wet weather or discs, etc. Few of us here remember a world without cars; it's just a dream of the past. It's not realistic to return large urban areas to car-free status. At least not instantly. Cars are becoming electric, free of exhaust gases and engine noise. Thus certain arguments against keeping them out of cities are weakening. It's also not realistic to just slow down traffic to match the slowest pedaler on every route; that is simply not a viable cycling safety plan. People have places to go. For most people, communting is pure overhead. They would rather be at their destination already doing something else. More and more electrified bicycles are appearing. These can easily keep up with city traffic. They are changing/confusing driver perceptions of what a bicycle can do. Drivers are going to be less patient with motorless cyclists due to being accustomed to motorized cyclists. They will also make poor time/distance judgments due to the variation in capability. A driver who thinks he can pass a cyclist like the cyclist is standing still will miscalculate if that cyclist has a motor and is rapidly accelerating. Electric bicycles are a threat to cyclists, and a threat which follows them right into safe cycling infrastructure. Just when you have escaped the cars and are pedaling away in a dedicated bicycle path, you're faced with marauding yahoos on what are de facto motorcycles, easily capable of going 50 km/h or more. Cycling infrastructure is still being planned for pedal bicycles, in terms of the dimensions of the lanes and whatnot. You need full roads, if the bicycles are motorized.