8 ms·

Can someone please explain to me why we chose to treat one mode of transportation as the most privileged? - Pedestrians are expected to yield to cyclists (de f

by _feus 2y ago

Can someone please explain to me why we chose to treat one mode of transportation as the most privileged? - Pedestrians are expected to yield to cyclists (de facto) - Motorists are expected to yield to cyclists - Cyclists can choose to bike at a slow pace on a busy highway, taking up the whole lane (motorists will be cited for impeding traffic) - They are allowed to bike on the road at night with barely any visibility aids - They aren't required to have liability insurance or pass any traffic exams - The police is very lax about enforcing traffic laws for them I am all for a good bike ride in the mountains, where there is no traffic, but surely the way we treat cyclists is unreasonable?

Retric 2y ago
A lot of cyclist rules are designed around kids. Thus zero licensing requirements etc.
- _feus 2y ago
  that actually explains it well
fooblaster 2y ago
In the United States we do treat one form of transport as the most privileged, the automobile. We force places of business to build parking, forcing lower density, and higher cost to business. We build many neighborhoods without sidewalks at all, and with no bike access, forcing pedestrians and cyclists out of dedicated lanes and into traffic where they need to contend with multi ton SUVs. We do not penalize against designing vehicles with extremely poor visibility and excessive height, which directly translates to fatalities of those not in an armored shell on the roadway. I would strongly encourage you to read more about building our cities and towns not directly around the automobile. We need to build around people, and bikes, and not strictly around the car. https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/
Metacelsus 2y ago
Can someone please explain to me why we chose to treat one mode of transportation as the most privileged? - Motorists are provided with massive road construction subsidies - Motorists are provided with government-mandated parking spaces - When a motorist hits and kills a cyclist or pedestrian, punishments are usually laxer than for other forms of manslaughter - Public spaces and shopping areas are designed with motorists in mind - Zoning layout of cities and suburbs presumes car ownership - Environmental costs of driving are paid by society at large I am all for a good drive at NASCAR, but surely the way we treat motorists is unreasonable?
- fooblaster 2y ago
  Well said!
- _feus 2y ago
  Not at all, try to support the US economy on a bicycle? Without zoning laws and motoring infrastructure you will have a city of Florence, walkable - sure, but you are in a crowd of cars, pedestrians, cyclists, mopeds, etc.
  - dima55 2y ago
    Is Florence terrible?
    - _feus 2y ago
      Depends on if you enjoy being on time.
      - dima55 2y ago
        Would you rather live in Phoenix, or something?
        _feus 2y ago
        Why, do cyclists in Phoenix don't run red lights and yield to pedestrians?
doug_durham 2y ago
What an odd perspective. Bicycles and Automobiles are treated the same in the law. They have the same rights and obligations. Please provide a citation that says that a car has to yield to a bicycle. They are peers. Cars have to follow the same rules that bicycles do when they choose to be on the public roads. There are some commonsense laws that allow bicycles to ride on the shoulder of a road to allow traffic to flow better. I have seen bicyclists be cited for traffic violations on multiple occasions. I've seen automobiles not be cited for violations many more times.
- _feus 2y ago
  Just the fact you don't need liability insurance and a passage of traffic laws examination to ride a bicycle on any road except a freeway contradicts the core of your statement.
  - r0m4n0 2y ago
    I think insurance and licensing is about the risks and the government stepping in to make things more safe for society. Bikes just don’t carry very much risk to others. Of course, it’s possible a bike can crash into a pedestrian and critically injure, kill etc or cause some property damage buts just rare and going to cause minimal damage. When was the last time you heard a bike causing $1000s in property damage? I have literally never seen it happen and I’m pretty active in the biking community. When you drive around a multi ton piece of steel with the capability to kill scores within seconds, millions of dollars in property damage to others etc, there needs to be some rules. Honestly I think it’s too easy in the US to get a drivers license and the new e-bike laws are overkill. Yes cyclists break traffic laws, but the implications are minor to others (they are mostly risking their own lives). If you feel like it’s unfair, you can always ride a bike!
    - _feus 2y ago
      A cyclist can easily cause 1000s in damage by causing an accident with a vehicle, or simply by hitting a pedestrian. Mending a scratch is expensive even for cheap cars. An ER visit, even for a simple fall, can result in a hefty bill. Since cyclist don't carry liability insurance, they likely have to be personally sued in court for damages, with all associated costs to both parties. Are you claiming this is a fair responsibilities and risk distribution? How is it appropriate to "risk your own life" by breaking traffic laws on a public road?
resoluteteeth 2y ago
Before cars, we did not need things like registration, insurance, traffic signals, speed limits, complicated traffic rules, or even sidewalks for pedestrians or cyclists. All these things needed to be created solely because cars are extremely dangerous machinery, like forklifts. Saying that cyclists should need liability insurance because drivers need liability insurance is like saying that it's unfair that people who lift boxes by hand don't need licenses when people who operate forklifts do. It isn't required because bicycles simply aren't anywhere near as dangerous to people other than the person riding them as cars and the conditions that necessitates these requirements being created for cars don't exist for bikes in the first place.
Symbiote 2y ago
Almost all of this also applies to pedestrians, and I expect you'd feel it would be a significant restriction on personal freedom if one had to be licenced, carry liability insurance and so on to walk somewhere. In Denmark (where I live) pedestrians and cyclists will generally yield to each other according to circumstances. Almost everyone knows what it's like to ride a bike, and that it's easy (no extra effort) to pause for 1 second while walking to allow a bike to pass, which can save the cyclist having to stop and restart.

by _feus 2y ago

Retric 2y ago

A lot of cyclist rules are designed around kids. Thus zero licensing requirements etc.

_feus 2y ago
that actually explains it well

fooblaster 2y ago

In the United States we do treat one form of transport as the most privileged, the automobile. We force places of business to build parking, forcing lower density, and higher cost to business. We build many neighborhoods without sidewalks at all, and with no bike access, forcing pedestrians and cyclists out of dedicated lanes and into traffic where they need to contend with multi ton SUVs. We do not penalize against designing vehicles with extremely poor visibility and excessive height, which directly translates to fatalities of those not in an armored shell on the roadway. I would strongly encourage you to read more about building our cities and towns not directly around the automobile. We need to build around people, and bikes, and not strictly around the car. https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/

Metacelsus 2y ago

Can someone please explain to me why we chose to treat one mode of transportation as the most privileged? - Motorists are provided with massive road construction subsidies - Motorists are provided with government-mandated parking spaces - When a motorist hits and kills a cyclist or pedestrian, punishments are usually laxer than for other forms of manslaughter - Public spaces and shopping areas are designed with motorists in mind - Zoning layout of cities and suburbs presumes car ownership - Environmental costs of driving are paid by society at large I am all for a good drive at NASCAR, but surely the way we treat motorists is unreasonable?

fooblaster 2y ago
Well said!
_feus 2y ago
Not at all, try to support the US economy on a bicycle? Without zoning laws and motoring infrastructure you will have a city of Florence, walkable - sure, but you are in a crowd of cars, pedestrians, cyclists, mopeds, etc.
- dima55 2y ago
  Is Florence terrible?
  - _feus 2y ago
    Depends on if you enjoy being on time.
    - dima55 2y ago
      Would you rather live in Phoenix, or something?
      - _feus 2y ago
        Why, do cyclists in Phoenix don't run red lights and yield to pedestrians?

doug_durham 2y ago

What an odd perspective. Bicycles and Automobiles are treated the same in the law. They have the same rights and obligations. Please provide a citation that says that a car has to yield to a bicycle. They are peers. Cars have to follow the same rules that bicycles do when they choose to be on the public roads. There are some commonsense laws that allow bicycles to ride on the shoulder of a road to allow traffic to flow better. I have seen bicyclists be cited for traffic violations on multiple occasions. I've seen automobiles not be cited for violations many more times.

_feus 2y ago
Just the fact you don't need liability insurance and a passage of traffic laws examination to ride a bicycle on any road except a freeway contradicts the core of your statement.
- r0m4n0 2y ago
  I think insurance and licensing is about the risks and the government stepping in to make things more safe for society. Bikes just don’t carry very much risk to others. Of course, it’s possible a bike can crash into a pedestrian and critically injure, kill etc or cause some property damage buts just rare and going to cause minimal damage. When was the last time you heard a bike causing $1000s in property damage? I have literally never seen it happen and I’m pretty active in the biking community. When you drive around a multi ton piece of steel with the capability to kill scores within seconds, millions of dollars in property damage to others etc, there needs to be some rules. Honestly I think it’s too easy in the US to get a drivers license and the new e-bike laws are overkill. Yes cyclists break traffic laws, but the implications are minor to others (they are mostly risking their own lives). If you feel like it’s unfair, you can always ride a bike!
  - _feus 2y ago
    A cyclist can easily cause 1000s in damage by causing an accident with a vehicle, or simply by hitting a pedestrian. Mending a scratch is expensive even for cheap cars. An ER visit, even for a simple fall, can result in a hefty bill. Since cyclist don't carry liability insurance, they likely have to be personally sued in court for damages, with all associated costs to both parties. Are you claiming this is a fair responsibilities and risk distribution? How is it appropriate to "risk your own life" by breaking traffic laws on a public road?

resoluteteeth 2y ago

Before cars, we did not need things like registration, insurance, traffic signals, speed limits, complicated traffic rules, or even sidewalks for pedestrians or cyclists. All these things needed to be created solely because cars are extremely dangerous machinery, like forklifts. Saying that cyclists should need liability insurance because drivers need liability insurance is like saying that it's unfair that people who lift boxes by hand don't need licenses when people who operate forklifts do. It isn't required because bicycles simply aren't anywhere near as dangerous to people other than the person riding them as cars and the conditions that necessitates these requirements being created for cars don't exist for bikes in the first place.

Symbiote 2y ago

Almost all of this also applies to pedestrians, and I expect you'd feel it would be a significant restriction on personal freedom if one had to be licenced, carry liability insurance and so on to walk somewhere. In Denmark (where I live) pedestrians and cyclists will generally yield to each other according to circumstances. Almost everyone knows what it's like to ride a bike, and that it's easy (no extra effort) to pause for 1 second while walking to allow a bike to pass, which can save the cyclist having to stop and restart.