4 ms·

All true. But one should also consider the cyclist's view, which is that once the cars are gone, people walk wherever and however they want, bike lane or not.

All true. But one should also consider the cyclist's view, which is that once the cars are gone, people walk wherever and however they want, bike lane or not. That's not to say that "it's their own fault for getting hit", of course. The proper comparison should be cars there vs no cars there. Once the cars are gone everything changes. No longer do bikes need to swerve around cars. Suddenly there's room for them. So that could reduce the risk of them hitting a pedestrian. Very often a car can block an entire intersection, because they gambled that they'd get through, but then got stuck. A bike will never block things like that. And I'd wager those cases are much more dangerous for all kinds of accidents. The car may be blocking visibility, so that the cyclist and the pedestrian can no longer see each other. But my comment was actually not about safety. It was about quality of life. It just happens that it ALSO improves safety.

hooverd 2y ago
Cyclists can never be at fault, they can only be faulted. It's always the responsibility of drivers, transit, pedestrians to watch out. If you are a cyclist, you have the divine right to scream obscenities at anyone who dares interrupt your path. Although, if two cyclists collide in an intersection, that's the unstoppable force vs immovable object scenario of assigning blame. I am a bike commuter, but guys like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dFimQobFGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dFimQobFGo) give us a bad reputation.
- knorker 2y ago
  I do see many cyclists blatantly violating traffic rules. But I'm not even sure cyclists are more prone to do so than drivers. Stand at an intersection and count how many times light turning red does not have a car sneak right after. Or stop with half the car over the stop line. Or motorcycles being in front, in the bike-only area. Or drivers who treat bike lanes as "oh I'll just stop here 10 minutes, who cares?". My experience with cycling in cities is that you quickly discover that basically nobody obeys any traffic rules. Cyclists are just the ones doing it the most blatantly, because honestly when they do it it's not actually that unsafe.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    > I do see many cyclists blatantly violating traffic rules. But I'm not even sure cyclists are more prone to do so than drivers I think it's likely that many cyclists blatantly violate traffic rules because they aren't even required to remotely know traffic rules before riding There is no training or licensing required to cycle Car drivers are required to be both licensed and insured I would guess some percentage of cyclists, the very serious cyclists, will know the traffic rules better than almost anyone on the road. The rest will be on par or worse than your average driver
    - Mawr 2y ago
      No, it's because roads are designed with cars in mind and bicycles are not cars. It does not make sense to have the same exact set of rules apply to such different vehicles. Somehow we understand motorcycles aren't cars so we allow them to lane split but a cyclist rolling through a red light is the end of the world even though they pose minimal danger to others. Not that this matters; we're discussing a local maxima of vehicular cycling. These issues largely disappear once you build separated cycling infrastructure.
      - bluefirebrand 2y ago
        > cyclist rolling through a red light is the end of the world even though they pose minimal danger to others. Much like a deer running in front of traffic, cyclists behaving unexpectedly is a danger of causing other people to wreck in reaction to their behavior > It does not make sense to have the same exact set of rules apply to such different vehicles. It actually does because the rules define how we use the space not how we drive our vehicles
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      I think most cyclists who ignore rules do so because they feel unnecessary: the cyclist has an excellent view (compared to a car), and can easily see there's very little danger in turning right past a red light, or crossing a side street with no other traffic. Exactly the same reasons in some countries it's common for pedestrians to walk against a red light.

hooverd 2y ago

Cyclists can never be at fault, they can only be faulted. It's always the responsibility of drivers, transit, pedestrians to watch out. If you are a cyclist, you have the divine right to scream obscenities at anyone who dares interrupt your path. Although, if two cyclists collide in an intersection, that's the unstoppable force vs immovable object scenario of assigning blame. I am a bike commuter, but guys like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dFimQobFGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dFimQobFGo) give us a bad reputation.

knorker 2y ago
I do see many cyclists blatantly violating traffic rules. But I'm not even sure cyclists are more prone to do so than drivers. Stand at an intersection and count how many times light turning red does not have a car sneak right after. Or stop with half the car over the stop line. Or motorcycles being in front, in the bike-only area. Or drivers who treat bike lanes as "oh I'll just stop here 10 minutes, who cares?". My experience with cycling in cities is that you quickly discover that basically nobody obeys any traffic rules. Cyclists are just the ones doing it the most blatantly, because honestly when they do it it's not actually that unsafe.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  > I do see many cyclists blatantly violating traffic rules. But I'm not even sure cyclists are more prone to do so than drivers I think it's likely that many cyclists blatantly violate traffic rules because they aren't even required to remotely know traffic rules before riding There is no training or licensing required to cycle Car drivers are required to be both licensed and insured I would guess some percentage of cyclists, the very serious cyclists, will know the traffic rules better than almost anyone on the road. The rest will be on par or worse than your average driver
  - Mawr 2y ago
    No, it's because roads are designed with cars in mind and bicycles are not cars. It does not make sense to have the same exact set of rules apply to such different vehicles. Somehow we understand motorcycles aren't cars so we allow them to lane split but a cyclist rolling through a red light is the end of the world even though they pose minimal danger to others. Not that this matters; we're discussing a local maxima of vehicular cycling. These issues largely disappear once you build separated cycling infrastructure.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      > cyclist rolling through a red light is the end of the world even though they pose minimal danger to others. Much like a deer running in front of traffic, cyclists behaving unexpectedly is a danger of causing other people to wreck in reaction to their behavior > It does not make sense to have the same exact set of rules apply to such different vehicles. It actually does because the rules define how we use the space not how we drive our vehicles
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    I think most cyclists who ignore rules do so because they feel unnecessary: the cyclist has an excellent view (compared to a car), and can easily see there's very little danger in turning right past a red light, or crossing a side street with no other traffic. Exactly the same reasons in some countries it's common for pedestrians to walk against a red light.