5 ms·

Cyclists just don't see themselves as normal road traffic, so they don't see themselves as having the same responsibilities or held to the same standard, which

Cyclists just don't see themselves as normal road traffic, so they don't see themselves as having the same responsibilities or held to the same standard, which is something I'm guilty of myself. I've ridden against traffic for short periods or ran red lights on a bike before (where it's clearly safe to do so), since I feel "semi-pedestrian"

imabotbeep2937 2y ago
"Against traffic" is different as a bike or led though. Sometimes when lanes are very narrow and visibility isn't good, you need to go against traffic (on the shoulder) so that the driver sees your face and responds faster. And you can see to bail if someone hasn't made room. But if it's a Chicago intersection and you just said I'm on a bike all 12 lanes have to yield to me and you zoom diagonal in front of cars... the Darwin Awards are never short of applicants. E-bikes and scooters and stuff have made this 1,000 times worse. The number of drunk kids who think they can go max speed down a hill through intersections and cars will just magically make way for them... Terrifying.
idontwantthis 2y ago
Bikes don’t kill entire families when they crash. They don’t need to follow the same rules as cars. Forcing them to follow rules meant for cars makes the roads more dangerous.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  That’s why they should be kept on the sidewalk where they belong. Legalize sidewalk biking, ban road biking. The horror at this from the cyclist community is why anti-cyclist sentiment is so strong.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    In the US side walk are already hilariously under designed and roads are already hilariously over designed. In many places side walks are barley large enough for pedestrians and bikes to cross. And pedestrian infrastructure is just horrible designed for wheeled vehicles in the first place. As people with kid strollers and wheel chairs find out quickly. The actual solution, that pretty much every other first world country in the world has recognized is to start to build proper safe infrastructure for bikes (and the US overwhelmingly has plenty of space for that). Or to lower car traffic speed such that sharing can be done safely. If the US had huge sidewalks everywhere and fantastic design for access of wheeled vehicle, your suggestion might make sense, in the actual world, it doesn't, it just makes the world worse for people that walk and those that cycle. This is literally already all figured out and backed up with plenty of research but somehow people have to come up with their own 'solutions'.
    - whatindaheck 2y ago
      > In the US side walk are already hilariously under designed and roads are already hilariously over designed. So many people jog in the streets exactly for this reason. Sidewalks are often poorly maintained and falling apart. I'm not sure how anyone handicapped is supposed to get around. In a previous life, during heavy winter storms, I would commonly walk in the streets because they were maintained while the sidewalks were covered in ice. The city once changed its plowing algorithm due to angry drivers but for sidewalk maintenance they act almost powerless. Years ago I visited Amsterdam and the pedestrian experience was incredible. It was like walking around a theme park. Ever since that experience I can't unsee the hell we've created in the states with our cars-first mentality.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    That's a terrible idea. Biking on the sidewalk should be illegal for everyone except young kids. Sharing the sidewalks is dangerous when the speed difference between the average cyclist and the average pedestrian is something like 10 mph.
  - twixfel 2y ago
    Anti-cyclist sentiment is so strong because they don't want to ride on sidewalks? That makes no sense at all, something tells me you hate cyclists and will continue to hate cyclists wherever they are.
  - recursive 2y ago
    You're victim blaming. My favorite unsubstantiated theory about anti cyclist sentiment is that exposes the radically car centric nature of US society and people don't like noticing that.
    - oopsallmagic 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        You seem to misunderstand the founding principles on this country, which, among other thing favor private property and individual over society as a whole. Most people do not suggest everyone but them has to sacrifice. Me, for example, am saying 'apply rules across the board', which in this case means liceses for bikes if they want to drive on the road with everyone else, who is licensed. Is that narcissist to ask that the same standard is applied?
        oopsallmagic 2y ago
        [dead]
        recursive 2y ago
        Licenses aren't for road use. They're for motor vehicle operation. You are also free to use a road without a license if you use a vehicle that doesn't require a license. Or your feet.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        I said: << which in this case means liceses for bikes you said: << Licenses aren't for road use. They're for motor vehicle operation I am talking about what could be. You are arguing for what is currently in play in US ( in old country, for example, we did have bicycle licenses ). Otoh, your argument suggests that I could drive the following[1] on the street and expect that the cops won't stop me, because, after all, just like a bike, it does not require a license. As you can see, the argument breaks down easily. The issue is, a lot of the rules of the road depend on some common sense. Not an insignificant part of what bicycles are doing on US roads is not common sense. Hence my argument: "you want to be on the road, be subject to the same rules". I do not think it is unreasonable. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kids%27-Electric-Vehicles/zgbs/toys-and-games/166413011 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kids%27-Electric-Vehicle...
  - isthatafact 2y ago
    That can work by widening sidewalks and designing them so that bicycles can cruise safely at full speed, protected from and prioritized over cars, and also clearly separated from the walking sidewalk so there are no unpleasant interactions. The bonus is that if one acquires the space for this by removing car lanes, then the city becomes a little bit nicer for everyone.
  - throw0101b 2y ago
    > That’s why they should be kept on the sidewalk where they belong. You think mixing 2 kph pedestrian traffic with 20 kph bicycle traffic is a good idea? (Sidewalks are probably called that for a reason.)
  - oopsallmagic 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - oopsallmagic 2y ago
    [dead]
twixfel 2y ago
Different modes of transport have different capabilities, dangers, and responsibilities. Horses, bikes, cars, HGVs, pedestrians—all different, actually there's no real shame in ignoring car laws when you're not driving a car. You have to use your brain and accept the fact that these laws were only made with cars in mind.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  I don't think this is controversial but I think HGVs should obey traffic laws
  - twixfel 2y ago
    I don't think this is controversial but HGVs tend to have even more stringent traffic laws, ones that cars don't have to follow. In my country HGVs have lower speed limits than cars, for example. I don't think this is controversial but it would be strange for cars to follow rules that only apply to HGVs.

imabotbeep2937 2y ago

"Against traffic" is different as a bike or led though. Sometimes when lanes are very narrow and visibility isn't good, you need to go against traffic (on the shoulder) so that the driver sees your face and responds faster. And you can see to bail if someone hasn't made room. But if it's a Chicago intersection and you just said I'm on a bike all 12 lanes have to yield to me and you zoom diagonal in front of cars... the Darwin Awards are never short of applicants. E-bikes and scooters and stuff have made this 1,000 times worse. The number of drunk kids who think they can go max speed down a hill through intersections and cars will just magically make way for them... Terrifying.

idontwantthis 2y ago

Bikes don’t kill entire families when they crash. They don’t need to follow the same rules as cars. Forcing them to follow rules meant for cars makes the roads more dangerous.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
That’s why they should be kept on the sidewalk where they belong. Legalize sidewalk biking, ban road biking. The horror at this from the cyclist community is why anti-cyclist sentiment is so strong.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  In the US side walk are already hilariously under designed and roads are already hilariously over designed. In many places side walks are barley large enough for pedestrians and bikes to cross. And pedestrian infrastructure is just horrible designed for wheeled vehicles in the first place. As people with kid strollers and wheel chairs find out quickly. The actual solution, that pretty much every other first world country in the world has recognized is to start to build proper safe infrastructure for bikes (and the US overwhelmingly has plenty of space for that). Or to lower car traffic speed such that sharing can be done safely. If the US had huge sidewalks everywhere and fantastic design for access of wheeled vehicle, your suggestion might make sense, in the actual world, it doesn't, it just makes the world worse for people that walk and those that cycle. This is literally already all figured out and backed up with plenty of research but somehow people have to come up with their own 'solutions'.
  - whatindaheck 2y ago
    > In the US side walk are already hilariously under designed and roads are already hilariously over designed. So many people jog in the streets exactly for this reason. Sidewalks are often poorly maintained and falling apart. I'm not sure how anyone handicapped is supposed to get around. In a previous life, during heavy winter storms, I would commonly walk in the streets because they were maintained while the sidewalks were covered in ice. The city once changed its plowing algorithm due to angry drivers but for sidewalk maintenance they act almost powerless. Years ago I visited Amsterdam and the pedestrian experience was incredible. It was like walking around a theme park. Ever since that experience I can't unsee the hell we've created in the states with our cars-first mentality.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  That's a terrible idea. Biking on the sidewalk should be illegal for everyone except young kids. Sharing the sidewalks is dangerous when the speed difference between the average cyclist and the average pedestrian is something like 10 mph.
- twixfel 2y ago
  Anti-cyclist sentiment is so strong because they don't want to ride on sidewalks? That makes no sense at all, something tells me you hate cyclists and will continue to hate cyclists wherever they are.
- recursive 2y ago
  You're victim blaming. My favorite unsubstantiated theory about anti cyclist sentiment is that exposes the radically car centric nature of US society and people don't like noticing that.
  - oopsallmagic 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      You seem to misunderstand the founding principles on this country, which, among other thing favor private property and individual over society as a whole. Most people do not suggest everyone but them has to sacrifice. Me, for example, am saying 'apply rules across the board', which in this case means liceses for bikes if they want to drive on the road with everyone else, who is licensed. Is that narcissist to ask that the same standard is applied?
      - oopsallmagic 2y ago
        [dead]
      - recursive 2y ago
        Licenses aren't for road use. They're for motor vehicle operation. You are also free to use a road without a license if you use a vehicle that doesn't require a license. Or your feet.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
        I said: << which in this case means liceses for bikes you said: << Licenses aren't for road use. They're for motor vehicle operation I am talking about what could be. You are arguing for what is currently in play in US ( in old country, for example, we did have bicycle licenses ). Otoh, your argument suggests that I could drive the following[1] on the street and expect that the cops won't stop me, because, after all, just like a bike, it does not require a license. As you can see, the argument breaks down easily. The issue is, a lot of the rules of the road depend on some common sense. Not an insignificant part of what bicycles are doing on US roads is not common sense. Hence my argument: "you want to be on the road, be subject to the same rules". I do not think it is unreasonable. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kids%27-Electric-Vehicles/zgbs/toys-and-games/166413011 https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kids%27-Electric-Vehicle...
- isthatafact 2y ago
  That can work by widening sidewalks and designing them so that bicycles can cruise safely at full speed, protected from and prioritized over cars, and also clearly separated from the walking sidewalk so there are no unpleasant interactions. The bonus is that if one acquires the space for this by removing car lanes, then the city becomes a little bit nicer for everyone.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > That’s why they should be kept on the sidewalk where they belong. You think mixing 2 kph pedestrian traffic with 20 kph bicycle traffic is a good idea? (Sidewalks are probably called that for a reason.)
- oopsallmagic 2y ago
  [flagged]
- oopsallmagic 2y ago
  [dead]

twixfel 2y ago

Different modes of transport have different capabilities, dangers, and responsibilities. Horses, bikes, cars, HGVs, pedestrians—all different, actually there's no real shame in ignoring car laws when you're not driving a car. You have to use your brain and accept the fact that these laws were only made with cars in mind.

bowsamic 2y ago
I don't think this is controversial but I think HGVs should obey traffic laws
- twixfel 2y ago
  I don't think this is controversial but HGVs tend to have even more stringent traffic laws, ones that cars don't have to follow. In my country HGVs have lower speed limits than cars, for example. I don't think this is controversial but it would be strange for cars to follow rules that only apply to HGVs.