4 ms·

> Bikes aren't automobiles no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with cars. I think you're confusing roads with highways. A

by iak8god 12y ago

> Bikes aren't automobiles no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with cars. I think you're confusing roads with highways. A highway is a place that cars goes and bikes can't go. A bike path is a place that bikes go and cars can't go. Roads are for cars and bikes and for people to live on and near and cross on foot regularly. Imagine a cyclist saying "Cars don't operate at human-scale speeds no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with bikes and people." See how car-centric the debate is, that such a statement will be immediately dismissed. > Bikes shouldn't be sharing the road with cars, they should have their own designated travel areas. Everyone agrees that bikes should have their own designated areas, and cyclists especially would like nothing more than to see designated bike lanes and paths everywhere. Where those are absent, which is nearly everywhere even in urban centers in the US, traffic laws and infrastructure should be designed to accommodate all different types of road users, and preferably without killing as many of them as are currently killed each year.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bane 12y ago
> See how car-centric the debate is, that such a statement will be immediately dismissed. It's car centric because roads are car centric. From design to paving, the vast vast majority of roads are designed purely for the automobile. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But it is what it is. I'm definitely not talking about highways. I'm talking about the average kind of road that you see for millions upon millions of miles all over the U.S. This http://enews.ntta.org/images/2014-01/Open%20Road.jpg http://enews.ntta.org/images/2014-01/Open%20Road.jpg is not a road meant for bikes or pedestrians. But it's a typical road that you'll find almost anywhere. This one at least has some designated space for people on bikes http://velotraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bike-lane.jpg http://velotraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bike-lane.... but it's definitely not pedestrian friendly. However it clearly has a "cars go here" and "bikes go here" aspect to the marking design. I would personally love to see every road everywhere at least have that. But I'd love it if the average road segregated bikes and cars even further. http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2013/01/13/fd/f3/jwj-Bike-Lane-091.jpg http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960... I'm picking these non-urban pictures on purpose, because cyclists seem to think they only exist in cities and that any problems people have about cyclists comes from angry car drivers in cities or I'm some asshole with issues with highways or something. But there are more than 4 million miles of roads (8.61 million lane miles) and almost 3 million of those are in non-urban environments. I'm personally interested in the 75% of all roads that aren't in cities because that's mostly what I and about half the U.S. population drives on. Of all these roads, less than 300,000 can be called highways. Which includes roads that look like this https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8810165,-77.3978133,3a,75y,138.29h,74.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOLY679YTfCrfgQOZM9q4iA!2e0 https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8810165,-77.3978133,3a,75y,1... for which I think there should also be good cycling infrastructure.

by iak8god 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

bane 12y ago

> See how car-centric the debate is, that such a statement will be immediately dismissed. It's car centric because roads are car centric. From design to paving, the vast vast majority of roads are designed purely for the automobile. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But it is what it is. I'm definitely not talking about highways. I'm talking about the average kind of road that you see for millions upon millions of miles all over the U.S. This http://enews.ntta.org/images/2014-01/Open%20Road.jpg http://enews.ntta.org/images/2014-01/Open%20Road.jpg is not a road meant for bikes or pedestrians. But it's a typical road that you'll find almost anywhere. This one at least has some designated space for people on bikes http://velotraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bike-lane.jpg http://velotraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bike-lane.... but it's definitely not pedestrian friendly. However it clearly has a "cars go here" and "bikes go here" aspect to the marking design. I would personally love to see every road everywhere at least have that. But I'd love it if the average road segregated bikes and cars even further. http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2013/01/13/fd/f3/jwj-Bike-Lane-091.jpg http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960... I'm picking these non-urban pictures on purpose, because cyclists seem to think they only exist in cities and that any problems people have about cyclists comes from angry car drivers in cities or I'm some asshole with issues with highways or something. But there are more than 4 million miles of roads (8.61 million lane miles) and almost 3 million of those are in non-urban environments. I'm personally interested in the 75% of all roads that aren't in cities because that's mostly what I and about half the U.S. population drives on. Of all these roads, less than 300,000 can be called highways. Which includes roads that look like this https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8810165,-77.3978133,3a,75y,138.29h,74.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOLY679YTfCrfgQOZM9q4iA!2e0 https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8810165,-77.3978133,3a,75y,1... for which I think there should also be good cycling infrastructure.