4 ms·

I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles? We are happy for them, why do we need to join them? I perso

I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles? We are happy for them, why do we need to join them? I personally do not feel safe on a bike in a crowded city. Even if you took cars out of the equation. I also do not want to arrive to work/meetings sweaty and in need of a towel. It’s also very cold where I live. My car is warm. There are numerous reasons I’m not interested in riding a bike. Yet I can’t go more than a day without someone from the bicycle church trying to give me a pamphlet.

photonbeam 4y ago
Car free cities should have bicycles as a nice-to-have, walking and transit should be primary
pzone 4y ago
The bicycle crowd feels unsafe too. The physical risks of cycling are almost entirely due to cars. Even in icy, slippery conditions, a bicycle accident poses almost no risk of dismemberment or death, except when there are cars involved. For millions of people, cycling is a cheap, convenient, healthy and fun way to get around. This is particularly true since e-bikes became widely available. There is no way to get these riders back into cars. But almost nowhere in the US is there enough biking infrastructure to make them truly safe and separated from car traffic. This lack of infrastructure is why they can come off as a nuisance to drivers and pedestrians. I'm sorry you feel pressured by cycling advocates to change your lifestyle. Maybe that is not the best way for them to advocate for change.
- u801e 4y ago
  > The bicycle crowd feels unsafe too. Except their feelings don't correlate with actual safety. Statistically, same direction rear end collisions are the least common type of collision while collisions at intersections are the most common. The bicycle infrastructure solutions the bicycle crowd comes up with increase the risk of collisions at intersections. Specifically, right hooks (where a right turning motorist turns across the path of a cyclist going straight through the intersection), left crosses (where a left turning motorist crosses the path of a cyclist going straight through the intersection), and drive outs (where a motorist entering the road from a side street crosses the path of a cyclist). The one way to reduce the risk of intersection collisions is to ride in the center of the general purpose lane, but certain members of the bicycle crowd don't feel safe doing that. But feeling safe doesn't correlate with actual safety from a statistical point of view.
  - david-gpu 4y ago
    > The bicycle infrastructure solutions the bicycle crowd comes up with increase the risk of collisions at intersections Either cyclists don't know what sort of infrastructure makes them safe, or you have an imperfect understanding of the sort of infrastructure that they would like to see. > The one way to reduce the risk of intersection collisions is That is one way, but not "the" one way, nor the best way. Dutch-style intersections are probably the state of the art solution when sharing the road with cars is unavoidable. Car-free cyclepaths are even safer. There are other means as well, including the elimination of right turns on red, which are particularly dangerous to pedestrians as well.
    - u801e 4y ago
      > Either cyclists don't know what sort of infrastructure makes them safe Many cyclists have had no education, training or classroom instruction on how to cycle safely in traffic and have a distorted view of what infrastructure can do for them in terms of safety. For example, this cyclist[1] ended up in a crash because he failed to foresee the situation that could have easily been avoided. He evidently thought that the protected bike lane he was using made him safer. Yet, he could have easily been run over after being pushed out into the roadway. Someone with education and training would have realized that the motorist was not looking in their direction and they should anticipate that they won't yield to them. > or you have an imperfect understanding of the sort of infrastructure that they would like to see. I've seen plenty of examples of infrastructure that increases the risk of the collisions I mentioned earlier because the cyclist is hidden from the motorists' view until shortly before both arrive at the intersection. This doesn't give the motorist or the cyclist enough time to determine which of them should yield. Infrastructure that relies on traffic lights to provide a protected movement through an intersection is the best solution in those cases, but results in longer wait times for everyone. This leads to non-compliance with traffic control signals and people who will try to beat the light to avoid a several minute wait. Unfortunately, most infrastructure I've seen relies on mutual yielding to work. Mutual yielding will work with both are moving at walking speed, but not at vehicular speed. > Dutch-style intersections are probably the state of the art solution when sharing the road with cars is unavoidable This doesn't address the numerous mid-block intersections where there isn't sufficient room to install one. Second, these intersections are geometrically similar to modern roundabouts (from the point of view of a motorist making a right turn at one), yet one study[2] has shown that around 71% of motorists exiting a roundabout yield to pedestrians waiting to cross or within a crosswalk. Presumably, the rate of yielding for cyclists are are moving at 15 to 25 feet per second instead of just 3 to 5 feet a second would even be lower because the motorist would be less likely to see them because the cyclist would be further away from crossing the intersection. > Car-free cyclepaths are even safer. They are not available in all cases. > There are other means as well, including the elimination of right turns on red, which are particularly dangerous to pedestrians as well. But this doesn't address the right on green problem, which is when most right hook collisions happen. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE [2] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/nchrprpt572.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/nchrprpt572.pdf (figure 63 on page 83 in the PDF)
- mns 4y ago
  I’m living in one of the most cyclist friendly cities in Europe (according to the city officials :) ). I used to ride to work for almost 5 years until I moved too close to work so now I just walk. I love my city, I love how you can cycle, use public transport or just walk and a car is more of a nuisance here. Having said all this, the only group of people that I can’t stand and I almost hate is cyclists. They are the most entitled and loud group, even here, and for me, even as I still almost cycle everywhere when the weather allows me, I am more scared of other cyclists than I am of cars. It is amazing how the majority of cyclists ignore all possible rules, traffic lights, traffic signs, bike paths (and we have them EVERYWHERE). You will always have some asshole on a bike grunting at a pedestrian, another cyclist or at a car, while riding with no lights on the wrong side of the street on the walkway, when there is a proper bike path right next to him. Just this winter the cycling community was outraged that after an ice rain the city didn’t clean the paths, which was almost impossible to do, all while they were riding in the winter on ice with no special tires and then complaining that while it was not even recommended to go outside, it is dangerous for them to ride their bikes. In the end I think there is a lot left to go, especially in educating people, because as e-bikes becomes more popular, more people get access to bikes that run faster than they could ever do (and we now have more accidents because of this), it will get worse before it gets better when it comes to cycling.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    I'm a careful cyclists, purely out of self-preservation, and also because traffic in general is already stressful enough without me adding to it. Plus, I care about less cars in cities and not adding to the perception of "asshole cyclist" is helpinig, a teeny tiny bit. Still, you will get a lot of hate. Twice people have tried to run me off the cycle path followed by some unhinged diatribe about how the cycle path should not be there and that it's all a waste of taxpayer money and a bunch of nonsense. People are free to have that opinion, and I don't even especially mind of they go off on some rant about it, but they're not free to to consciously drive their fucking cars in my direction. Then, of course, there's all the places where there aren't cycle paths. I've lost count of the number of provocations. Minding your business, cycling how you should be, and someone overtakes you – no way they didn't know you were there – and just veers in to you because "toot toot I'm a car motherfucker imma driving here now". Then there's the pedestrians who will complain if you cycle on the cycle path because they don't realize it's a cycle path, or because they don't care. Or the cycle paths just ends with nowhere to go and you will get complaints if you go over the footpath because that's literally the only way to go other than the 80mph road (and not doing that). Basically, you will get hate no matter what you do. Plus everything tends to be extremely car-centric anyway, so if you're not careful it's not that hard to go to "I get abuse from entitled assholes no matter what I do so fuck you all then". No saying this as a justification, but there's some pretty bad feedback loops going on here.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  > The physical risks of cycling are almost entirely due to cars I'm a regular cyclist (~200km a week) and I don't really agree. I'd say at least 50% of cycling accidents don't involve cars at all (in fact, if I were personally representative of all cyclists, it'd be more like 80%!). If you're talking accidentals likely to be fatal or result in permanent injury (which thankfully I've never had, touch wood), sure, you'd be closer to the mark, but that's a very small percentage of all cycling accidents - which is hard to prove statistically because of course the vast majority of minor incidents are never reported (even times I've ended up in hospital I'm not convinced the details of the incident ever made it into any official government statistics). Cycling is never (*) going to be quite as safe as driving or walking, but yes, there's a lot we could to make it safer. (*) Though I'm secretly hoping at some point someone will invent a bicycle incapable of falling over or hitting anything that's likely to result in injury to the rider. Not holding my breath though!
tinyspacewizard 4y ago
> I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles? Driving a car in a urban area is great for the driver but pretty terrible for everyone else: - Congestion - Air pollution - Noise pollution - Space taken up by parking - Danger of being run over It doesn't really matter if you walk, cycle or get public transport. These have much lower externalities. > I personally do not feel safe on a bike in a crowded city. Even if you took cars out of the equation This is a shame because the cars (and other motor traffic) are in fact the main danger. Retirees and children cycle everywhere in NL because it feels safe enough for them to do so.
- JimBlackwood 4y ago
  Is driving in an urban area really great for the driver? Genuine question, btw. Everytime I’ve driven in EU capitals, I’ve been more frustrated than ever while driving. In every scenario walking, cycling or a tube would’ve felt more pleasant and quicker. Traffic light after traffic light, constant congestion. What a mess. 20 minutes for a few kilometers.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Depends a bit on the city, where in the city, etc. Once you go outside of the inner city things usually tend to be better, but not always. Capitals are probably worse than average. "Tube" implies London and London is definitely worse than average. When I lived in Bristol (England), it wasn't so bad for the most part (not that I had a car). Some smaller cities can still be pretty bad though; e.g. inner city traffic in Cork (Ireland) is just horrible. I was quite a bit faster cycling to the city centre from work than some coworkers were with cars, especially if you take parking in to account.
  - nicbou 4y ago
    It usually isn't. I have a car, a motorcycle, a bike and a public transit pass. I almost never use the first two unless I'm heading outwards, and even then. Driving might be faster, but with traffic and parking it's unpredictable. Public transit lets you see read on the way. Cycling gets you exercise and a usually entertaining ride.
stickyricky 4y ago
You should give it a try! It's a lot of fun. In Chicago (as an example) you can drive your car downtown, park it, and rent a bike with the Lyft app. They have bike stations all over the city. Try to rent one near the lakefront and bike up and down on the car-free lakeside trail. Its safe, fun, and you can get around the city really quickly. If you want to understand what cyclists are upset about, be adventurous. Ride in the urban core and then work your way outwards to the suburbs. You may develop an understanding for their perspective!
gfsdgfsdgfds 4y ago
What does this have to do with the bicycle crowd?
Tiktaalik 4y ago
The bicycle crowd isn't pushing for people to ride bicycles, they're pushing for basic, safe, all ages and abilities cycling infrastructure so they're not killed by a car.
mint2 4y ago
>” I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles?” Stop and reflect a moment that essentially any development in the US over the past 60 years was built in a manner that REQUIRES cars and assumes cars are the default and that pedestrians and bikers are annoyances that do not belong and were not planned in. Hmm why in that world would bikers need to advocate loudly for change?
voussoir 4y ago
One of my favorite youtube channels at the moment is Not Just Bikes. And, it's right in the name: it's not just about bikes. It's about trains, busses, pedestrianization, mixed-use zoning, more options for housing density besides single family homes with front lawns. We waste so much potential with car dependency. Bikes are just one of the puzzle pieces.
- hooverd 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4y ago
    We ban accounts that post flamebait like this, so could you please not? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
david-gpu 4y ago
If you don't want to bike, then don't. But some of us _want_ to bike and find it unnecessarily dangerous at present because of all the privately-owned vehicles driving far too fast, far too close to us. It's not the ambulances or the delivery vans that put us in danger -- there aren't enough of them to make a difference. The danger consistently comes from roads that are designed to maximize the speed and convenience of drivers rather than the safety of everybody else. My kids' school is 3Km (2mi) from where we live, a short bike ride away. However, can my family ride to school in the morning? Not at all, it's too dangerous for kids to ride with all the traffic, but it doesn't have to be this way. With simple traffic calming measures like having narrower residential streets the cars wouldn't be driving much faster than the bikes. This isn't science-fiction, it's how things work in plenty of livable cities around the world. So, don't drive a bike if you don't want to, but me driving my bike doesn't put you in danger, and I wish I could say the same about your car.
bratbag 4y ago
This is the cry of someone who has run out of good arguments.
gumby 4y ago
> I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles? I have never understood why the automobile crowd feel the need to push everyone else to accommodate their desires and their restructuring of towns and landscapes around cars. Not to mention their sacrificing safety for people not in cars! If you want to be a car person, OK: you be you. But they don't deserve the primacy they have managed to seize.
numtel 4y ago
I never understood why does the car crowd feel the need to push everyone else to drive cars? They make the thoroughfares dangerous and increase the distances between things so much that the only way to exist is to have a car. They require paving huge areas so that temperatures are more extreme since there's so few tree anymore. Driving is extremely stressful, always worrying that someone could die if anyone driving stops paying attention for a second. There are numerous reasons why I'm not interested in driving. Yet [sic] I can't go more than a day without someone from the car church complaining that their "rights" are being infringed.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
moving_sofa 4y ago
The car infrastructure built to provide you that comfort has very big negative externalities to others. Among them: 1/ The massive amount of space dedicated to cars, taken away from pedestrians and cyclists. Cars are the most space-inefficient way of moving people around, if anything they should be the _least_ prioritized in public space allocation. 2/ Streets become hostile places to pedestrians, to children, to communities. Why do children not play outside anymore? No, its not the phones+internet, its the cars. Phones+internet are symptoms. Streets have been made into traffic sewage. 3/ Economics. If you need a 1500kg / 15000$ machine to carry a 70kg adult to a nearby grocery store, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your city planning. Alternatives should be there by default: walking and cycling infra is the solution. Cars were meant to give us freedom, it seems they took it away from us. 4/ Air pollution. EVs will partially solve it and no I am not going to wait for them, many micro particles PM are from tires wear and tear and engine (I dont have full details). 5/ Inclusivity. Cars are only for adults 18+. Children and teens have no mobility freedom. They are hostage to their parents to go from A to B. American suburbs are the most teen boredom place for a reason. Elderly and disabled are also restricted. Cycles are much more inclusive to all these groups. And cycle infra is not only for bicycles: its for mobility chairs, three-wheeld cycles, basically any humans-on-wheels vehicle. This is not about bicycles, its about civil rights issue. Bicycles just happen to be one of (the preferred, the most visible?) method of traveling at a human scale.
pkphilip 4y ago
Not sure why this reply is being downvotted. Is downvotting a way of saying that I disagree with your point of view?

photonbeam 4y ago

Car free cities should have bicycles as a nice-to-have, walking and transit should be primary

pzone 4y ago

The bicycle crowd feels unsafe too. The physical risks of cycling are almost entirely due to cars. Even in icy, slippery conditions, a bicycle accident poses almost no risk of dismemberment or death, except when there are cars involved. For millions of people, cycling is a cheap, convenient, healthy and fun way to get around. This is particularly true since e-bikes became widely available. There is no way to get these riders back into cars. But almost nowhere in the US is there enough biking infrastructure to make them truly safe and separated from car traffic. This lack of infrastructure is why they can come off as a nuisance to drivers and pedestrians. I'm sorry you feel pressured by cycling advocates to change your lifestyle. Maybe that is not the best way for them to advocate for change.

u801e 4y ago
> The bicycle crowd feels unsafe too. Except their feelings don't correlate with actual safety. Statistically, same direction rear end collisions are the least common type of collision while collisions at intersections are the most common. The bicycle infrastructure solutions the bicycle crowd comes up with increase the risk of collisions at intersections. Specifically, right hooks (where a right turning motorist turns across the path of a cyclist going straight through the intersection), left crosses (where a left turning motorist crosses the path of a cyclist going straight through the intersection), and drive outs (where a motorist entering the road from a side street crosses the path of a cyclist). The one way to reduce the risk of intersection collisions is to ride in the center of the general purpose lane, but certain members of the bicycle crowd don't feel safe doing that. But feeling safe doesn't correlate with actual safety from a statistical point of view.
- david-gpu 4y ago
  > The bicycle infrastructure solutions the bicycle crowd comes up with increase the risk of collisions at intersections Either cyclists don't know what sort of infrastructure makes them safe, or you have an imperfect understanding of the sort of infrastructure that they would like to see. > The one way to reduce the risk of intersection collisions is That is one way, but not "the" one way, nor the best way. Dutch-style intersections are probably the state of the art solution when sharing the road with cars is unavoidable. Car-free cyclepaths are even safer. There are other means as well, including the elimination of right turns on red, which are particularly dangerous to pedestrians as well.
  - u801e 4y ago
    > Either cyclists don't know what sort of infrastructure makes them safe Many cyclists have had no education, training or classroom instruction on how to cycle safely in traffic and have a distorted view of what infrastructure can do for them in terms of safety. For example, this cyclist[1] ended up in a crash because he failed to foresee the situation that could have easily been avoided. He evidently thought that the protected bike lane he was using made him safer. Yet, he could have easily been run over after being pushed out into the roadway. Someone with education and training would have realized that the motorist was not looking in their direction and they should anticipate that they won't yield to them. > or you have an imperfect understanding of the sort of infrastructure that they would like to see. I've seen plenty of examples of infrastructure that increases the risk of the collisions I mentioned earlier because the cyclist is hidden from the motorists' view until shortly before both arrive at the intersection. This doesn't give the motorist or the cyclist enough time to determine which of them should yield. Infrastructure that relies on traffic lights to provide a protected movement through an intersection is the best solution in those cases, but results in longer wait times for everyone. This leads to non-compliance with traffic control signals and people who will try to beat the light to avoid a several minute wait. Unfortunately, most infrastructure I've seen relies on mutual yielding to work. Mutual yielding will work with both are moving at walking speed, but not at vehicular speed. > Dutch-style intersections are probably the state of the art solution when sharing the road with cars is unavoidable This doesn't address the numerous mid-block intersections where there isn't sufficient room to install one. Second, these intersections are geometrically similar to modern roundabouts (from the point of view of a motorist making a right turn at one), yet one study[2] has shown that around 71% of motorists exiting a roundabout yield to pedestrians waiting to cross or within a crosswalk. Presumably, the rate of yielding for cyclists are are moving at 15 to 25 feet per second instead of just 3 to 5 feet a second would even be lower because the motorist would be less likely to see them because the cyclist would be further away from crossing the intersection. > Car-free cyclepaths are even safer. They are not available in all cases. > There are other means as well, including the elimination of right turns on red, which are particularly dangerous to pedestrians as well. But this doesn't address the right on green problem, which is when most right hook collisions happen. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE [2] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/nchrprpt572.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/nchrprpt572.pdf (figure 63 on page 83 in the PDF)
mns 4y ago
I’m living in one of the most cyclist friendly cities in Europe (according to the city officials :) ). I used to ride to work for almost 5 years until I moved too close to work so now I just walk. I love my city, I love how you can cycle, use public transport or just walk and a car is more of a nuisance here. Having said all this, the only group of people that I can’t stand and I almost hate is cyclists. They are the most entitled and loud group, even here, and for me, even as I still almost cycle everywhere when the weather allows me, I am more scared of other cyclists than I am of cars. It is amazing how the majority of cyclists ignore all possible rules, traffic lights, traffic signs, bike paths (and we have them EVERYWHERE). You will always have some asshole on a bike grunting at a pedestrian, another cyclist or at a car, while riding with no lights on the wrong side of the street on the walkway, when there is a proper bike path right next to him. Just this winter the cycling community was outraged that after an ice rain the city didn’t clean the paths, which was almost impossible to do, all while they were riding in the winter on ice with no special tires and then complaining that while it was not even recommended to go outside, it is dangerous for them to ride their bikes. In the end I think there is a lot left to go, especially in educating people, because as e-bikes becomes more popular, more people get access to bikes that run faster than they could ever do (and we now have more accidents because of this), it will get worse before it gets better when it comes to cycling.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  I'm a careful cyclists, purely out of self-preservation, and also because traffic in general is already stressful enough without me adding to it. Plus, I care about less cars in cities and not adding to the perception of "asshole cyclist" is helpinig, a teeny tiny bit. Still, you will get a lot of hate. Twice people have tried to run me off the cycle path followed by some unhinged diatribe about how the cycle path should not be there and that it's all a waste of taxpayer money and a bunch of nonsense. People are free to have that opinion, and I don't even especially mind of they go off on some rant about it, but they're not free to to consciously drive their fucking cars in my direction. Then, of course, there's all the places where there aren't cycle paths. I've lost count of the number of provocations. Minding your business, cycling how you should be, and someone overtakes you – no way they didn't know you were there – and just veers in to you because "toot toot I'm a car motherfucker imma driving here now". Then there's the pedestrians who will complain if you cycle on the cycle path because they don't realize it's a cycle path, or because they don't care. Or the cycle paths just ends with nowhere to go and you will get complaints if you go over the footpath because that's literally the only way to go other than the 80mph road (and not doing that). Basically, you will get hate no matter what you do. Plus everything tends to be extremely car-centric anyway, so if you're not careful it's not that hard to go to "I get abuse from entitled assholes no matter what I do so fuck you all then". No saying this as a justification, but there's some pretty bad feedback loops going on here.
wizofaus 4y ago
> The physical risks of cycling are almost entirely due to cars I'm a regular cyclist (~200km a week) and I don't really agree. I'd say at least 50% of cycling accidents don't involve cars at all (in fact, if I were personally representative of all cyclists, it'd be more like 80%!). If you're talking accidentals likely to be fatal or result in permanent injury (which thankfully I've never had, touch wood), sure, you'd be closer to the mark, but that's a very small percentage of all cycling accidents - which is hard to prove statistically because of course the vast majority of minor incidents are never reported (even times I've ended up in hospital I'm not convinced the details of the incident ever made it into any official government statistics). Cycling is never (*) going to be quite as safe as driving or walking, but yes, there's a lot we could to make it safer. (*) Though I'm secretly hoping at some point someone will invent a bicycle incapable of falling over or hitting anything that's likely to result in injury to the rider. Not holding my breath though!

tinyspacewizard 4y ago

> I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles? Driving a car in a urban area is great for the driver but pretty terrible for everyone else: - Congestion - Air pollution - Noise pollution - Space taken up by parking - Danger of being run over It doesn't really matter if you walk, cycle or get public transport. These have much lower externalities. > I personally do not feel safe on a bike in a crowded city. Even if you took cars out of the equation This is a shame because the cars (and other motor traffic) are in fact the main danger. Retirees and children cycle everywhere in NL because it feels safe enough for them to do so.

JimBlackwood 4y ago
Is driving in an urban area really great for the driver? Genuine question, btw. Everytime I’ve driven in EU capitals, I’ve been more frustrated than ever while driving. In every scenario walking, cycling or a tube would’ve felt more pleasant and quicker. Traffic light after traffic light, constant congestion. What a mess. 20 minutes for a few kilometers.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Depends a bit on the city, where in the city, etc. Once you go outside of the inner city things usually tend to be better, but not always. Capitals are probably worse than average. "Tube" implies London and London is definitely worse than average. When I lived in Bristol (England), it wasn't so bad for the most part (not that I had a car). Some smaller cities can still be pretty bad though; e.g. inner city traffic in Cork (Ireland) is just horrible. I was quite a bit faster cycling to the city centre from work than some coworkers were with cars, especially if you take parking in to account.
- nicbou 4y ago
  It usually isn't. I have a car, a motorcycle, a bike and a public transit pass. I almost never use the first two unless I'm heading outwards, and even then. Driving might be faster, but with traffic and parking it's unpredictable. Public transit lets you see read on the way. Cycling gets you exercise and a usually entertaining ride.

stickyricky 4y ago

You should give it a try! It's a lot of fun. In Chicago (as an example) you can drive your car downtown, park it, and rent a bike with the Lyft app. They have bike stations all over the city. Try to rent one near the lakefront and bike up and down on the car-free lakeside trail. Its safe, fun, and you can get around the city really quickly. If you want to understand what cyclists are upset about, be adventurous. Ride in the urban core and then work your way outwards to the suburbs. You may develop an understanding for their perspective!

gfsdgfsdgfds 4y ago

What does this have to do with the bicycle crowd?

Tiktaalik 4y ago

The bicycle crowd isn't pushing for people to ride bicycles, they're pushing for basic, safe, all ages and abilities cycling infrastructure so they're not killed by a car.

mint2 4y ago

>” I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles?” Stop and reflect a moment that essentially any development in the US over the past 60 years was built in a manner that REQUIRES cars and assumes cars are the default and that pedestrians and bikers are annoyances that do not belong and were not planned in. Hmm why in that world would bikers need to advocate loudly for change?

voussoir 4y ago

One of my favorite youtube channels at the moment is Not Just Bikes. And, it's right in the name: it's not just about bikes. It's about trains, busses, pedestrianization, mixed-use zoning, more options for housing density besides single family homes with front lawns. We waste so much potential with car dependency. Bikes are just one of the puzzle pieces.

hooverd 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  We ban accounts that post flamebait like this, so could you please not? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

david-gpu 4y ago

If you don't want to bike, then don't. But some of us _want_ to bike and find it unnecessarily dangerous at present because of all the privately-owned vehicles driving far too fast, far too close to us. It's not the ambulances or the delivery vans that put us in danger -- there aren't enough of them to make a difference. The danger consistently comes from roads that are designed to maximize the speed and convenience of drivers rather than the safety of everybody else. My kids' school is 3Km (2mi) from where we live, a short bike ride away. However, can my family ride to school in the morning? Not at all, it's too dangerous for kids to ride with all the traffic, but it doesn't have to be this way. With simple traffic calming measures like having narrower residential streets the cars wouldn't be driving much faster than the bikes. This isn't science-fiction, it's how things work in plenty of livable cities around the world. So, don't drive a bike if you don't want to, but me driving my bike doesn't put you in danger, and I wish I could say the same about your car.

bratbag 4y ago

This is the cry of someone who has run out of good arguments.

gumby 4y ago

> I never understood why does the bicycle crowd feel the need to push everyone else to ride bicycles? I have never understood why the automobile crowd feel the need to push everyone else to accommodate their desires and their restructuring of towns and landscapes around cars. Not to mention their sacrificing safety for people not in cars! If you want to be a car person, OK: you be you. But they don't deserve the primacy they have managed to seize.

numtel 4y ago

I never understood why does the car crowd feel the need to push everyone else to drive cars? They make the thoroughfares dangerous and increase the distances between things so much that the only way to exist is to have a car. They require paving huge areas so that temperatures are more extreme since there's so few tree anymore. Driving is extremely stressful, always worrying that someone could die if anyone driving stops paying attention for a second. There are numerous reasons why I'm not interested in driving. Yet [sic] I can't go more than a day without someone from the car church complaining that their "rights" are being infringed.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

moving_sofa 4y ago

The car infrastructure built to provide you that comfort has very big negative externalities to others. Among them: 1/ The massive amount of space dedicated to cars, taken away from pedestrians and cyclists. Cars are the most space-inefficient way of moving people around, if anything they should be the _least_ prioritized in public space allocation. 2/ Streets become hostile places to pedestrians, to children, to communities. Why do children not play outside anymore? No, its not the phones+internet, its the cars. Phones+internet are symptoms. Streets have been made into traffic sewage. 3/ Economics. If you need a 1500kg / 15000$ machine to carry a 70kg adult to a nearby grocery store, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your city planning. Alternatives should be there by default: walking and cycling infra is the solution. Cars were meant to give us freedom, it seems they took it away from us. 4/ Air pollution. EVs will partially solve it and no I am not going to wait for them, many micro particles PM are from tires wear and tear and engine (I dont have full details). 5/ Inclusivity. Cars are only for adults 18+. Children and teens have no mobility freedom. They are hostage to their parents to go from A to B. American suburbs are the most teen boredom place for a reason. Elderly and disabled are also restricted. Cycles are much more inclusive to all these groups. And cycle infra is not only for bicycles: its for mobility chairs, three-wheeld cycles, basically any humans-on-wheels vehicle. This is not about bicycles, its about civil rights issue. Bicycles just happen to be one of (the preferred, the most visible?) method of traveling at a human scale.

pkphilip 4y ago

Not sure why this reply is being downvotted. Is downvotting a way of saying that I disagree with your point of view?