3 ms·
No, but in the aggregate the loss of efficiency + wasted fuel has a real social cost, which shouldn't be dismissed so glibly. Cyclists significantly slowing tr
by hsod 12y ago
No, but in the aggregate the loss of efficiency + wasted fuel has a real social cost, which shouldn't be dismissed so glibly.
Cyclists significantly slowing traffic on major arterials IS a problem and sanctimonious truisms are not the solution. The solution is bike lanes or entire separate "bike arterials" which run parallel to "car arterials" so the two wildly different transportation mechanisms don't get in each others way too much.
- auxbuss 12y agoThe solution is for all road-users to continuously adapt to what's happening around them. Folk who aren't capable of that shouldn't be allowed on the road. Cyclists are not a problem. They are a group of road-users. Equally entitled to use the roads as every other legal road-user.
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago"Share the road? Then share the rules!"(tm)
- auxbuss 12y agoI got down-voted for this! After n years. Time to sign out from HN.
- dllthomas 12y agoRandom stuff gets downvoted sometimes. It might not even have been intentional, what with no way to correct it. Obviously some people disagree with your statement, though, so who knows.
- copperheart 12y agoPlease explain how you think cyclists are equally entitled to use a road that was built solely for motor vehicles.
- soneil 12y agoSlowing down is a social cost, but killing people isn't?
- hsod 12y agoWhich part of my post implied that I think that? Was it the part where I specifically suggested a solution that would keep cyclists safe and speed up traffic?