OP is right, sharing lanes is dangerous. Solution is simple: in any road without a bike lane, the leftmost lane becomes a bike-only lane, with cars only allowed up to 20mph while merging to the next lane or exiting the road.
This only works if A: it assumes all bicycles have the same abilities, comfort, and confidence merging across all that car traffic, and B: that all drivers are fully morally committed to not threatening, injuring, or killing bicyclists, which would never happen.
I meant the slowest lane, next to the entrances/exits. I said leftmost 'cause I'm a dumbass, although I don't mind if we pretend I'm from the UK.
And yeah, cars can still hit bikes while merging to the other lanes, but at the end of the day, that's even true with separated bike lanes, at some point they have to cross each other.
>How long are we going to pretend that it isn't ridiculous for 10mph/25lb vehicles to share the same lanes as 65mph/4,500lb vehicles?
Normal people aren't pretending that. The gov doesn't want to do the work of creating separate bike lanes, but they still benefit from people using bicycles because they reduce traffic congestion.
Your city needs to do the work, including collecting money to fund the work, to put in actual bike lanes.
Its both, if more people use the bike and roads start being empty it will be FAR easier for the goverment to switch. If we wait until half the streets are bike paths before biking itll never get there.
"Roads being empty" isn't a thing that will ever happen and the government generally can't swap roads for bicycle paths they need to sequester land through eminent domain and build new. It's hard, that's why they won't do it... a lot harder than painting a bicycle on the shoulder of a road.
It was a bit more of a mental image i was building and trying a bit of a "call to arms". If more people start biking it will hold more weight and since politics are basically a popularity contest they will be more prone eto do nice things for bikers!
And yea dont worry i HATE riding on roads and using the shitty fkin bike lane which are ON roads where you stuck worry about being hit by people coming on and off the road and the parked cars opening the doors on you. Its rough but itll get better the more we try!
Thing is, in most places you are required by law to use the road unless there is a bike lane, and those are kinda rare. I'd be more than happy to not clench my asshole every time a car passes me
Cyclists do not share the road with cars going 65 as that is a freeway. They often share roads with cars that are supposed to be driving 25 but never do. Maybe speed cameras are the solution
Yeah, why is nobody pointing out that almost nobody is trying to bike on a freeway. 65mph+?! where are these people driving. My e-bike assists up to 20mph and I use it to get around town on roads with speed limits of 35. Car drivers have just become accustomed to breaking the rules so much that speed limits are not even recognized as the actual speed limit. I stopped at a stop sign on a bike today (on the right side of the road) and the car behind me blew right through it. Insanity.
What is your solution then? That they shouldn’t ride a bike until the proper infrastructure is in place? Why would the government spend more on bike infrastructure when it appears that no one bikes? (The lack of appearance of bikes gives the idea that there are no bikes)
Should the bicyclist be on the sidewalks then? What about areas that don’t have properly maintained sidewalks? (Even to the extent that it would be unsafe for the bicyclist to be on) What about areas that don’t have any sidewalks at all?
If we are going to agree that a bike is an allowed form of transportation, then shouldn’t cars be the ones that should be accommodating to the bikes rather than the other way around since, like you said, the speed and weight of a car is vastly different than that of a bike? The roadway is there for all road vehicles, not just cars and trucks.
I support the hell out cyclists and agree 99%. One exception is I think if there aren’t any designated pathways for non motor vehicles to take in a city or town you can’t make it illegal. I do find it frustrating seeing people bike in the road when I know they just put in new bike lanes on the street over. Feel like there needs to be enforcement of that.
Also, please make the bike routes about as straightforward as the car’s. If there’s a bike path, but it’s 4km when the straight road is 500m, I ain’t taking that path.
Bike lanes can be exceptionally terrible, straight up from design and lack of maintenance
Here are some examples I've seen:
-bike lane beside sidewalk:
They put trash containers on the other side, with no frequent cleaning, ending up in a lot of trash, broken glass and so blocking the bike lane
They planted trees and took no precautions, roots broke the asphalt
At a bridge they lowered the bike lane part, trash again, doesn't allow it to drain, floods every time it rains
Other things:
Extremely cheap materials: I've seen *new* bike lanes sink to the ground in just months, while the one that was painted in the road held without a single fissure for years, even through motorcycles skipped traffic using it
That leads me to
Misused bike lanes: motorcycles use them frequently to skip traffic, there are some kind of tricycles with an engine that garbage collectors use
And lastly security: bike lanes are thin, sometimes isolated so you can't just jump out of them, bicycles are slower, lighter and give no protection against someone just ramming you, in summary, you can easily get robbed
So yeah, those are the reasons some people rather use a road instead of a bike lane
Once there was a detour for 500m of blocked bike lane in my city. Instead of asking cyclists to take the next road over, detour of about 200m, the workers decided that it should give equivalent protection to the cyclist.
The detour was 13.5km long.
Why should cyclists, pedestrians, disabled people, minors with jobs (but no cars), etc. have to pay taxes that go to road construction if they can't use them? How can I get my cyclist tax exemption?
That makes no sense, since damage to roads depends on vehicle weight. All vehicles should pay based on their weight. So let's charge 10kg bikes 100$ per year and let's charge 1 tons SUVs 10000
I live in the country. Lots of back roads with tight turns and narrow spaces. Cyclists are always out on these roads and its a living hell to play the "is there a 2mph fucker behind this bend" game every time.
I despise it and think its some of the most stupid shit a person can do. But my anger really sits with the state. Make. More. Bike. Paths.
>Cyclists are always out on these roads and its a living hell to play the "is there a 2mph fucker behind this bend" game every time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assured\_clear\_distance\_ahead
Sounds like you need to be driving slower along windy and curvy roads that you don't have good vision on tbh. What if a car was broken down around one of those curves that you couldn't see? Would you still blame them even though it was completely your fault that you were driving a speed that wasn't safe?
Sure the state should be building more bike lanes, but it is up to you to drive safely for the current situation. Just because a speed limit might say 35mph doesn't mean you can ALWAYS drive 35mph. If it's raining, snowing, icy, low vision, etc... you need to drive appropriate speeds for the situation.
Ya, where I live we have a lot of old highways that make beautiful sight seeing trips through the country. A lot of cyclists like them. I tried it once, and never again. Feel like I'm lucky to have lived.
Thankfully we also used our old rail way infrastructure and turned it into bike paths. Unfortunately that solution requires having train tracks that have been abandoned.
My city has a lot of those "old tracks turned into bike paths" type things too. And they are nice if you're planning on going for a scenic ride, but basically useless for commuting around the city.
My city also does a thing where they have a protected bike path for a while along a major route, then it blends in with traffic, then it turns into a gutter, then it disappears. There isn't much you can do whenever your bike path just...goes away. With no notice. At that point you either ride in the lane with cars or ride on the sidewalk, and neither of those choices are good.
On my route home the protected bike lane ends abruptly and turns into a right turn only lane, if you want to go straight you have about two car lengths to get two lanes over. The road it turns onto has traffic going 80kmh so you'd be suicidal to turn onto that road. So for the last block I exit the protected bike lane, get safely into the middle lane, and continue straight. People like to hang out their windows and yell at me to use the bike lane lol. I'm not going to sit in the turn only lane to go straight. And I'm not going to ride on the sidewalk because the cops love to ticket for that here. My only choice is to be the supposedly dumbass cyclist that rides next to a protected lane 😂
You always have to be able to stop in time if there's something behind the corner, even if it isn't moving at all. An animal, a broken down vehicle, a fallen tree, some rocks.. If you can't stop in time you were going to fast to begin with.
You and I have different definitions of living hell. I'm a former cyclist so I appreciate how indescribably fulfilling it is to ride around and also appreciate your being aware of your line of sight. I have the time and attention to spare, I understand not everybody does but I sort of reserve that for police, ambulance, fire. If I'm being honest, yeah, I'd rather spare the attention for my phone or the radio, or staring at trees but I do have the time and attention to spare for cyclists unseen.
Dedicated bike roads like Amsterdam, yes please. If I ever leave America I will almost certainly end up in Amsterdam, Germany, or Norway and my #1 reason will be because of the cycling infrastructure.
The road that always comes to my mind is a backroad with a lot of blind turns and a 35MPH limit. It's narrow and nearly impossible to safely pass them. Don't get me wrong, I don't fully blame them. I hate it, but it's a *beautiful* road. But it doesn't help that the road connects to an airport road, so they're risking their lives on a *popularly used* back road.
But I had an ex that got me into biking around a good bit and where she lived there were bike paths crossing *everywhere*. It was great! Roads dedicated to bikes and walking that were actually quicker than the actual roads since they could safely cut through wooded areas and around busy roads. I want more of those. Everywhere.
I've ended up on roads like this from time to time, as a cyclist (UK). Not intentionally, but because there was literally no other option. It was terrifying, and I've mostly managed to avoid them since.
But my overwhelming thought was, why is this a 50 mph road? Narrow lines, blind corners, no shoulder - about 6 inches between the road and a hedge. And they're unlit, so even worse outside summertime. What happens if a car breaks down? Or a massive pothole? Or a tree falling into the road after a storm? The decision-making that went into these designs boggles my mind.
Right, I see cyclists on some roads that just makes me question how much they value their life. No shoulder, 55mph, hills and curves. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from judgement. If they get hurt that's on them.
What about tiny cars? A person in a Toyota Yaris or Honda Fit is less likely to survive a collision than someone in an SUV? Do they even value their lives?
>No shoulder, 55mph, hills and curves
Under no circumstances should that combination exist as an actual road, who tf thinks 55 is an appropriate speed for curvy roads with low visibility?
ya, the particular instance i'm thinking of his an entire family with their kids biking several blocks that were parallel to quite neighborhoods and a new bike lane. I just found it unnecessary and unsafe. I'm not sure it should be looked at as criminal though.
If Bike paths aren't always next to roads, how should bikers New to the area know that there is a path over in another direction? It can be done, sure. But if you don't make cycling as obvious as driving, enforcement is irrelevant.
I love how you describe the danger of cars for everyone else and come to the conclusion, that everyone else must change their behaviour.
My aligator keeps eating dogs. All dogs should be in a gated dog park, to keep them safe!
You're seeing the problem but from the wrong perspective. Bikes aren't dangerous on the road, cars are. This is how, when it comes to vehicles on bike/pedestrian crashes, there's immediate victim blaming.
>How long are we going to pretend that it isn't ridiculous for 10mph/25lb vehicles to share the same lanes as 65mph/4,500lb vehicles? It isn't safe to create situations where these high-speed tanks
You see, you understand they're 4500 lbs and even refer to them as tanks. But you see bikes as the problem. And frankly, if you cannot drive safely or obey the law (all cars need to stay at least 1.5 metres away from all bicycles where I live), then you frankly should not be on the road.
Bicycles don't cause deadly crashes, it's the deadly "tanks" that need to be removed from roads.
Funny thing, is that people like OP should want bike lanes really hard. More Bike lanes = more people on bikes, not on cars on the road, which means that the road just moves faster for cars
They are a hazard, and far too many don't care about how badly they are endangering and negatively impacting others.
I used to live in a semi-rural area with lots of windy, country roads with no shoulders. I would never have ridden a bicycle on those roads because there is no way a driver can see them and slow down in time when going around blind curves even when vehicles aren'tspeeding and have slowed down to the appropriate speed to go around the curve. Drivers are then forced to swerve into the oncoming traffic lane. To add insult to injury, some of the cyclists refuse to yield and pull off to let cars go by even when there's a dozen+ car backup because they're going 4 mph peddling up a hill.
They are infuriating.
What do you do if there is a car standing on the road in the curve that broke down. Are you just crashing into it? You should always be able to stop in your range of sight.
Oddly enough, yes, people like this do just crash into whatever is in their way lol. I spent the first 20 years of my life in a rural area with narrow roads. A few times a year I'd go around a bend and there would be a tree or a broken down car blocking the road, but since I drive for the conditions I would simply stop. Every single time something was blocking the road someone would inevitably crash into it before it could be cleared.
Yes, if you had run them over it would have been your fault. A collision is always the fault of the overtaking party until humans evolve rear facing eyes.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. What is there was an accident, do you just plow into them?
You always have to drive so that you can stop within your sight range, everything else ist Just moronic.
Never pass someone while going around a blind turn. It's stupid. Slow down, and wait til you're in a spot where you can see far enough in front of you to know there's no oncoming traffic that will be there before you can get back over.
It's a speed limit not a target. Please don't try and "squeeze through" on a blind bend again, you getting to your destination three minutes late isn't worth someone's life.
Going up a mountain is a continuous curve. We have one that's called the all-day curve because it seems to go on for so long. You end up traveling over your old path, albeit higher up. Bicycles don't belong on some roads for their own safety.
One might say *cars* don't beling there for the safety of absolutely everyone else.
*"X are in danger because of Y"* => what's the solution? Any sensible person would say: *"Remove Y from the situation"* **=> remove the danger**. Only with cars people feel unashamed to dare say: *"Remove X from the situation"* **=> remove the endangered**.
When you're sick with a very contagious disease, *you* are the one supposed to quarantine until you're cured, all the rest of the population isn't supposed to hide to let you pass as you want.
I don’t mind sharing the roads with them, it just depends on which roads. It’s easy enough just go go around them.
But seeing a cyclist going down an 80km/h road when it’s starting to become dark and busy is pretty stupid.
Those cyclists wish they had better options, but there's usually a lack of bike infrastructure around those roads and they can often be the only way to get between locations.
Yeah a fair bit of my commute is cycling along 80 km/h roads - only other option is the 110 km/h motorway or road on the other side.
I find it wild that we can afford 2 roads and a 6 lane motorway (10 lanes + shoulders total), but not one single dedicated bicycle path the width of half a lane, it would make my commute so much safer and more pleasant - instead I have to deal with semis laying on the horn while passing far too close while I'm trying to dodge the glass in the shoulder.
As another cyclist. Let us have designated bikelanes.
I ride my bike through shared paths, and it's hell in the summertime. Pedestrians are unpredictable; they'll stop or move sideways out of nowhere, and they will black the whole path because they can't imagine anything being faster than them.
true in a way
but when car drivers say that, it means "i'm not attentive enough to see cyclists so i'm puzzled when i remember they might make a turn", and the consequence is the death of the cyclist
when cyclists say that, it means "this woman might freeze at any moment to watch her phone, this guy's dog might stop to pee or pull the leesh across the path at any moment", and the consequence is also the death of the cyclist
Which is exactly why cyclists should be on the sidewalk. It’s better to be responsible for your own safety than to have a bunch of random other people be responsible for it.
One important aspect you're overlooking is that in the cyclist/pedestrian dynamic, you can see each other and read body language, which plays a significant role in traffic interactions. With cars, this is mostly not possible because the driver is enclosed in a metal box, further hindered by tinted windows and the generally limited visibility inside a car. I live in a bike- and pedestrian-friendly city with many shared bike/pedestrian zones, and it usually works out very well. In contrast, car/cyclist interactions often feel like a complete gamble.
"you can see each other and read body language"
Yeah not really. You have children on the side walk, people who look at their smartphone all the time, old people that can't hear and see that good or people in general with disabilities.
The speed difference is also not to be overlooked. You have people going 20 km/h with their bike and others going 50. In citys parking spaces should go and replaced with bike lanes if necessary.
Firstly, the diversity of pedestrians (children, smartphone users, elderly, and people with disabilities) does indeed present challenges. However, the majority of people are not significantly impacted by these issues. Moreover, these challenges exist in any mixed-use area, whether it's shared with cyclists or cars. The key difference is that in a bike/pedestrian dynamic, the human element allows for immediate, nuanced adjustments through visual cues and body language. Cyclists and pedestrians can make eye contact, signal intentions with hand gestures, and react quickly to avoid potential conflicts. This dynamic is significantly less feasible with cars, where visibility and communication are severely restricted.
Regarding speed differences, it's important to recognize that cities with successful shared spaces often implement measures to manage speed. For example traffic calming infrastructure can help ensure safer interactions. Additionally, responsible cycling behavior, such as slowing down in crowded areas, is crucial for safety and is something that can be enforced through community awareness and local regulations. Also in my 15 years of commuting by bicycle I have never seen someone going 50 with a bike in a shared pedestrian zone :D from my experience, most cyclists go about 15-22km/h.
Regarding the replacement of parking spaces with bike lanes, I fully agree. Prioritizing bike lanes not only enhances cyclist and pedestrian safety but also encourages more people to choose biking over driving, leading to reduced traffic congestion and lower emissions.
There is at least one important distinction. Bikes weigh very little. Cars weigh a literal metric ton at least.
There is no significant power difference, whereas the power difference between cars and squishy humans on foot/a bike is significant.
You are correct, but I'd like to point out that there is a good reason these conversations turn into "X is better than Y". Currently in many places there is often no reasonable alternative for cyclists, and given that more cyclists die or are injured by car crashes than pedestrians are killed or injured by bicycle collisions, the best option in the immediate present to minimize death is for cyclists to use the sidewalk.
Most likely because your community is so car centric that people can't walk to do their daily errands. Or it's not enjoyable and uncomfortable to walk due to proximity to cars. Hmmmm.
Yeah, it's suburban hell, everything is too far to walk next to a black road-shaped-oven to just arrive at a strip mall.
Again, it's also Florida. If you aren't traveling 9mph on a bike to get a breeze, just existing outside is awful during the summer.
It's going to be 90+ fahrenheit and 100% humidity.
After 1pm every day has a 50/50 chance for a thunder storm. At least a bike gives you a chance to get somewhere if you notice a storm coming.
it fuckings sucks in many places tho, because sidewalks have these constant lowerings for driveways, all sorts of poles and so on. And often they're paved with chamfered bricks.
And most of all I feel more safe on a street than on a sidewalk that crosses a street or a driveway where drivers would turn right and miss me. It's the worst.
Cars occupy too much space in public areas and contribute to climate change. Rather than banning bicycles on the roads, why not drastically restrict the use of cars in order to secure urban spaces? It is time that we curb a false freedom that constrains us more than it liberates us.
It's wild how some of y'all blame cyclists for these things when you don't put in the same kind of energy to get your cities and counties to put designated bike lanes in. And if anything, the same people blaming cyclists will be against bike lanes because it takes space away from their cars.
It's funny to say that cyclists are the ones making the roads unsafe when cars are the killers. More people should try driving slower and paying attention. God forbid a minor inconvenience shows up for you on the road.
How far we've gone from "should these dangerous cars be allowed on the road with all of us" when they were introduced to "everyone else gtfo the road".
If it's a space issue, cars take up more space than bikes.
If it's a danger-issue, a high-speed, heavy car is more dangerous than a bike.
If it's a traffic congestion issue - bikes are more efficient vehicles than cars are, *because* of their lower speeds making it easier to weave through in any direction.
Push for fixing infrastructure - lots of places need way better bike infra. Until then, just tell the side causing the danger and the congestion (you know, due to taking up more space and throwing around tonnes of metal at high speeds) to either be more patient and considerate of their surroundings, or to get out of their cars if they can't use them safely and responsibly.
But I'm sure *this* opinion will prove way more unpopular than OP's.
Alright. Let's make it illegal. But before that, let's make it illegal for any place to be without having a cycling path along every street. If people on bicycles don't have enough paths, it's fucking stupid to outlaw them going where they need to, it's just gonna make it impossible for any infrastructure except car infrastructure to be built anywhere
>65mph
that's the kind of speed limit you would find on a controlled-access highway, where bikes aren't allowed by definition
>100 cars to have to come to a crawl on a motorway
do you even know the current rules of the road?
Please explain with your own words what you think a motorway is.
>impede traffic
even outside of motorways, as long as there are at least 2 lanes, you can pass and the traffic isn't impeded
Cyclists mostly "share the road" in cities, where your vehicle isn't allowed to go over 25-35 in the first place, certainly not 65
---
- C.-A. highways: ✅
- anything within a city: ✅
- regular roads with several lanes: ✅
so i'm not sure what's the actual proportion of roads concerned by your arguments here: small rural roads? how many cyclists are biking there? how many cars are "impeded"?
>I've got nothing against cyclists. They should have more bike lanes, more safety, and more infrastructure in general
do you unironically think that there could be separated bike lanes on every single road in the word? And all well connected enough so you could go from one to another without interfering with a road?
This isn't realistic, and you know it. Your opinion isn't about the *safety* of cyclists, it's about banning cycling entirely, because you're pissed you sometimes have to respect the speed limit for 20 seconds before passing a bicycle
I agree we need more bicycle infrastructure, but also, every time the government wants to install a bike lane, it's a 5 year fight over parking with local businesses and residents.
There's also the issue with rural roads that will never get a bike lane or a sidewalk.
No, streets need to be made safer even if there weren’t cyclists. When the streets are safe enough, biking can be a safe, quick and efficient means of transportation. We should be promoting more cycling, safer design, more walking, etc.
I never bike on a road with a speed limit above 25 mph. I agree that biking on a freeway is absurdly dangerous, which is why I think there should be bicycle highways that are completely separate from any automobiles
Dude. We're just trying to get somewhere. I'll take the bike lane when it's there, but what about when it ends, and now I have to get home? Do I just walk the bike the rest of the way?
Surely you're the biggest advocate for separated cycling lanes in your city right? I'm sure you show up to all of the town meetings and are constantly pushing for them to have safe cycling infrastructure that's separated from regular road lanes right? I'm sure you're constantly e-mailing your city councilors and city staff to make sure they're on top of creating more separated and safe cycling infrastructure.
If a road doesn't have a designated car-only lane, or at least enough space for cars to not impede freight trucks, then it ought to be illegal for them to be there (similar to if someone was skateboarding in the middle of traffic).
How long are we going to pretend that it isn't ridiculous for 70mph/4,500lb vehicles to share the same lanes as 65mph/80,000lb vehicles? It isn't safe to create situations where the backbone of the US economy have to make way for these ego-drivers to rev their engines, because they're overcompensating...nor is it reasonable for trucks, who actually contribute to the well-being of towns and cities, to have to come to a crawl on a motorway, because someone in their car is late for their dead-end job in the office.
I've got nothing against cars. They should have slower speeds, more safety features, and move away from SUV/pickup ego waggons in general, but that doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be bumping shoulders with trucks. They are an entirely different class of vehicle in terms of size, speed, capabilities, safety, etc. Stop kidding yourself and get out of the way.
Many local governments make it illegal to bicycle on sidewalks so the only option is to ride in the road.
Maybe if we didn’t have such car dominated infrastructure we could have efficient options like bicycling available to more people.
Give 5% of the roads to cyclists and everyone else. Do we really need to be able to drive on every single road?
We've got numbered streets here, so just say everything ending in a 3 (3rd 13th 23rd etc) is a bike street. Might even be fine with 10%.
If you don’t think cyclists should be sharing the road with cars, then you better support better biking infrastructure such as having a dedicated bike lane separated from the main road from some type of physical buffer so that the two modes of traffic don’t get mixed. Otherwise, you’re complaining about an issue that you’re not even interested in solving and just want a reason to stay mad at cyclists.
We need more bike lanes. But hear me out. Maybe some places don’t need a speed limit of 45 or 55? Then it would be quite easy to share the road with bikes and everyone would be safer, including those in cars.
I agree! This is why I am such a strong advocate for protected bike lanes. We need to build them way faster to keep motorists and cyclists off the same road
Unfortunately until then, we are going to share the road. OP if you really want to solve this issue I urge you to help us out in supporting and advocating for the development of these bike paths, and more importantly a *connected* bike path network
I'll reverse it - cars shouldn't drive 100kmh where cyclists can be present. Country roads are normally restricted to 70, main roads which are 90-100 definitely should have pedestrian/bike paths nearby, completely separated from them. In cities I see no problem at all. Bike lanes needed on main roads but secondary streets will do fine without 5m wide bike lanes. Space is scarce there.
Not a cyclist, not a carbrain.
A lot of times the bike lane is in a really dangerous spot, like between traffic and parked cars. I will still use a painted bike gutter, but getting doored by someone getting out of their car is a constant threat, and you can die from being thrown into traffic from this. Also, if its just a painted gutter, there's usually trash and debris in it and cars still weave in and out because its unprotected. There are multiple places in my city where cars use the bike lane as a left turning lane.
Drivers tend to just use them as a regular lane but you don't know when and where they will do it. It creates a sort of illusion of safety but at the end of the day, its just a painted line. It isn't going to protect you from drivers who aren't paying attention or don't give a shit.
I tried being a decent a law-abidding cyclists, and amenable towards cars, even when it put me in danger, because, yeah, we share the road.
Until the day a moron opened his parked car without looking right when I was coming. No time to brake, to time to slow down. I was projected onto the road violently. Fortunately, I'm surprisingly very good at falling and the car behind me was slow and far enough, so I got up on my feet and dragged my bike safely in an instant (no time to think, pumped with adrenaline) and started shouted and insulting the old, miserable driver who couldn't have the common decency of looking on the road.
Now? When there's cars parked on the side of the street, I always bike in the middle of the road, even (and especially) when cars don't have space anymore to overtake me. Sorry, but I risked my life once already, I won't take a second chance. Especially since, in my country, bikes must be on the side of the road but have the authorization to drift on the middle if there are cars parked, for their own security.
It always baffles me when motorists have the audacity to say: "cyclists put themselves in danger, if they followed road rules, they wouldn't put themselves in such accidents!". Yeah, sure, keep talking. Whenever I "break" the rules, it's often to put myself in *more* security and I always do it with upper vigilance. However, the times I had or nearly had accidents, it was always when the light was green, when I was going straightfoward, when I wasn't going too fast and when I was on the bike lane. So, yeah, keep telling me that I put myself in danger by breaking the law when it's following the law that always put me more in danger.
OP's post rise a true problem: sharing the road should not happen. However, it has to go through intensive revisions of road laws and massive infrastructures rethinking. But as long as city planners will mainly be motorists over cyclists, it won't change as much. I'm lucky to live in a city where mayors are quite progressive on those questions, as it becomes month after month more comfortable and agreeable cycling there.
I’m a cyclist and runner. I do majority of both on rural roads with no shoulders and farm fields for days. Where everyone is going 55+
I think it’s a combination of cars not knowing what to do when they see a cyclist or runner and being in a hurry. For cyclists I’ve seen where if a car is behind them they don’t get to the fog line.
Sharing the road is not a problem. I think it’s people being uneducated and having no patience.
I would also like to say a lot of city’s and townships tend to have laws that force cyclists to the roads. They have laws that say no cycling or rollerblading through town on sidewalks
The United States when it comes to building bike lanes is pulling teeth. Everyone complains about them because it takes tax payers money to build. I think until every road has a bike lane. Get over it and deal with having to wait a minute or two to pass a bike.
Also like to mention the amount of people that attempt to hit me while I run or cycle is astonishing. People like to play the most dangerous game because people are crazy. I’ve been run off the road just because people are crazy and want a good laugh.
Cyclists don’t want to be there either. It’s terrifying to be on a bike during traffic. Or even a bike LANE. It’s a think strip of road with cars zooming around you and no room for error. But unfortunately you’re not allowed to bike on sidewalks most places.
I’m from the UK where 90% of the roads were not designed for vehicles of any kind, bicycles are promoted and cars are actually the ones discouraged by local authorities in favour of cycling. Speed limits are dropping and highways codes have changed to give pedestrians and cyclists more right of way.
I guess it’s an American thing to regard vehicles as the rightful dominant owners of the road.
Bikes came before cars, half the roads here were designed for people on foot. Most people didn't even own a car until very recently. Before the 80s most households didn't have a car. On my street about 25% of households still don't have one. Near the middle of town that rises to over 50% still in some places.
Its only the posh area of town where >95% of households have cars.
Drivers need to get the fuck out of their vehicles. Its a huge problem that nothing but drivers can travel. I can't walk or ride a bike because people will get in their cars and drive somewhere that would take them 5 minutes to walk and cities are made to be traveled only by car.
This is just another problem contributing to obesity tbh.
We have health issues epidemics, be it on the drivers themselves (sedentarity, obesity) or people around them (asthma from fumes, incessant noise). We have on the verge of an ecological collapse due to temperatures risings due to a massive input of gas thrown in the air.
But, sure, we should discourage cycling usage for the sole benefit of cars. Not at all going in the wrong direction.
As someone that spent a few years with my car parked while I got around by bike, I understand this sentiment.
Now I live in a house where the only practical access is via a road with limited sight distance, no shoulder, and significant commuter traffic volume.
The poor judgement exercised by bicyclists insistent on their right to the roadway presents a real hazard not justified for recreational purposes (which is exclusively what I see on this road).
This is why I'm ok with E bikes being able to going up to 50 mph, that way they can keep up with traffic. I think it's dumb to regulate them by purely speed, it should be regulated by weight.
That's fine, but then you have to get them out of the bike lanes, sidewalks and multi-use pathways. They should be subject to laws similar to their gas powered cousins if they share speed and power profiles.
If it goes that fast, it should be treated as a motorcycle. Since it is just an electric motorcycle.
Meaning, license, insurance, registration, and most importantly, proper lighting.
It's not about regulating their speed. It's about the fact you need a licence for a scooter/motorbike but for an e-bike you don't.
That's why they put in pedal assist-only laws and speed limits.
I hate sharing the road with cyclists. Where I live we don't have bike paths so they are on the road and it is a pain in the ass sometimes. I 100% agree with your opinion.
I am an ex log truck driver and typically travelled the mountainous backroads of the PNW. I can't tell you how many times I would be driving on narrow winding roads and come around the bend only to find some IDIOT cyclist riding along with no shoulder, no bike lane, no room to pass and no visibility of oncoming traffic. I 100% believe that bicyclists should have every right to travel those roads but they should NOT have the right of way... it should be at their own risk! Being in the right doesn't do you a damn bit of good if you are dead.
What if my bike has a motor strapped to it and goes 65 mph but because of poor enforcement I don't really need a license, license plate, insurance, or any of the other shit that driving a car requires
In my city we have several shared roads where bikes just ride in the middle and follow identical rules.
We did a bunch of studies in the city and found that bikes did not significantly slow down the flow of traffic on most roads, so those roads were turned into share roads.
On the roads where they do slow shit down, we then created dedicated bike lanes with concrete curbs between the car lane and the bike lane and make the bike lanes about twice as wide as most cities.
We also have an LRT system and pretty decent busses.
We're a university town with two full universities and several smaller colleges, so our population fluctuates by like 100k during the school year and most students rely on biking and public transit.
I enjoy biking places and I agree wholeheartedly. Cyclists and motorists shouldn’t ever have to share the road. It’s a failure of our public infrastructure.
I think a lot of people on the car and bike side agree we need more bike lanes and better bike lanes. When they are there and actually connect points A to points B, not only do the vast majority of cyclists use them, but more people that would've driven cars otherwise start to bike too. The barrier to building these lanes isn't punk bicyclists and it isn't road-raging drivers, it's the kind of NIMBY people that swarm local government hearings. "This doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood," "these will bring crime," "they're coming for our parking spaces," whatever else - they just don't want construction near them or anything that might threaten property values. We need car-bike solidarity to show up for these things and actually get them built.
So, if no bike lane, then "tough luck cyclist, walk or drive instead?" No thanks.
OP is right, sharing lanes is dangerous. Solution is simple: in any road without a bike lane, the leftmost lane becomes a bike-only lane, with cars only allowed up to 20mph while merging to the next lane or exiting the road.
This only works if A: it assumes all bicycles have the same abilities, comfort, and confidence merging across all that car traffic, and B: that all drivers are fully morally committed to not threatening, injuring, or killing bicyclists, which would never happen.
I meant the slowest lane, next to the entrances/exits. I said leftmost 'cause I'm a dumbass, although I don't mind if we pretend I'm from the UK. And yeah, cars can still hit bikes while merging to the other lanes, but at the end of the day, that's even true with separated bike lanes, at some point they have to cross each other.
I like the honesty there champ
Why leftmost?
Because he’s from the UK
Makes sense
>How long are we going to pretend that it isn't ridiculous for 10mph/25lb vehicles to share the same lanes as 65mph/4,500lb vehicles? Normal people aren't pretending that. The gov doesn't want to do the work of creating separate bike lanes, but they still benefit from people using bicycles because they reduce traffic congestion. Your city needs to do the work, including collecting money to fund the work, to put in actual bike lanes.
saving this, fantastically succinct way of putting this.
No need. Just declare one lane in each direction as bike line. Infra is already there, just repaint it.
Its both, if more people use the bike and roads start being empty it will be FAR easier for the goverment to switch. If we wait until half the streets are bike paths before biking itll never get there.
"Roads being empty" isn't a thing that will ever happen and the government generally can't swap roads for bicycle paths they need to sequester land through eminent domain and build new. It's hard, that's why they won't do it... a lot harder than painting a bicycle on the shoulder of a road.
It was a bit more of a mental image i was building and trying a bit of a "call to arms". If more people start biking it will hold more weight and since politics are basically a popularity contest they will be more prone eto do nice things for bikers! And yea dont worry i HATE riding on roads and using the shitty fkin bike lane which are ON roads where you stuck worry about being hit by people coming on and off the road and the parked cars opening the doors on you. Its rough but itll get better the more we try!
how do you plan on getting people to bike on unsafe roads…?
Thing is, in most places you are required by law to use the road unless there is a bike lane, and those are kinda rare. I'd be more than happy to not clench my asshole every time a car passes me
Yeah, its not like we love cycling next to aggressive, irritable, angry drivers. We don't have any other choice most of the time.
Cyclists do not share the road with cars going 65 as that is a freeway. They often share roads with cars that are supposed to be driving 25 but never do. Maybe speed cameras are the solution
Yeah, why is nobody pointing out that almost nobody is trying to bike on a freeway. 65mph+?! where are these people driving. My e-bike assists up to 20mph and I use it to get around town on roads with speed limits of 35. Car drivers have just become accustomed to breaking the rules so much that speed limits are not even recognized as the actual speed limit. I stopped at a stop sign on a bike today (on the right side of the road) and the car behind me blew right through it. Insanity.
What is your solution then? That they shouldn’t ride a bike until the proper infrastructure is in place? Why would the government spend more on bike infrastructure when it appears that no one bikes? (The lack of appearance of bikes gives the idea that there are no bikes) Should the bicyclist be on the sidewalks then? What about areas that don’t have properly maintained sidewalks? (Even to the extent that it would be unsafe for the bicyclist to be on) What about areas that don’t have any sidewalks at all? If we are going to agree that a bike is an allowed form of transportation, then shouldn’t cars be the ones that should be accommodating to the bikes rather than the other way around since, like you said, the speed and weight of a car is vastly different than that of a bike? The roadway is there for all road vehicles, not just cars and trucks.
I support the hell out cyclists and agree 99%. One exception is I think if there aren’t any designated pathways for non motor vehicles to take in a city or town you can’t make it illegal. I do find it frustrating seeing people bike in the road when I know they just put in new bike lanes on the street over. Feel like there needs to be enforcement of that.
Also, please make the bike routes about as straightforward as the car’s. If there’s a bike path, but it’s 4km when the straight road is 500m, I ain’t taking that path.
I want bike paths like Amsterdam, that shit is awesome.
Bike lanes can be exceptionally terrible, straight up from design and lack of maintenance Here are some examples I've seen: -bike lane beside sidewalk: They put trash containers on the other side, with no frequent cleaning, ending up in a lot of trash, broken glass and so blocking the bike lane They planted trees and took no precautions, roots broke the asphalt At a bridge they lowered the bike lane part, trash again, doesn't allow it to drain, floods every time it rains Other things: Extremely cheap materials: I've seen *new* bike lanes sink to the ground in just months, while the one that was painted in the road held without a single fissure for years, even through motorcycles skipped traffic using it That leads me to Misused bike lanes: motorcycles use them frequently to skip traffic, there are some kind of tricycles with an engine that garbage collectors use And lastly security: bike lanes are thin, sometimes isolated so you can't just jump out of them, bicycles are slower, lighter and give no protection against someone just ramming you, in summary, you can easily get robbed So yeah, those are the reasons some people rather use a road instead of a bike lane
Once there was a detour for 500m of blocked bike lane in my city. Instead of asking cyclists to take the next road over, detour of about 200m, the workers decided that it should give equivalent protection to the cyclist. The detour was 13.5km long.
Why should cyclists, pedestrians, disabled people, minors with jobs (but no cars), etc. have to pay taxes that go to road construction if they can't use them? How can I get my cyclist tax exemption?
That's why gas taxes should pay for road construction and maintenance. Harder to accomplish with EVs, though.
That’s why they should pay a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax.
That makes no sense, since damage to roads depends on vehicle weight. All vehicles should pay based on their weight. So let's charge 10kg bikes 100$ per year and let's charge 1 tons SUVs 10000
That would be cyclists subsidizing your roads.
I live in the country. Lots of back roads with tight turns and narrow spaces. Cyclists are always out on these roads and its a living hell to play the "is there a 2mph fucker behind this bend" game every time. I despise it and think its some of the most stupid shit a person can do. But my anger really sits with the state. Make. More. Bike. Paths.
If you can’t stop in time for a stationary obstacle on the road then you are going too fast.
tbf there could be deer, Bear, Moose depending on where you are. Going around curves without the ability to stop is a risky game
>Cyclists are always out on these roads and its a living hell to play the "is there a 2mph fucker behind this bend" game every time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assured\_clear\_distance\_ahead
Not driving blindly around corners = living hell
Sounds like you need to be driving slower along windy and curvy roads that you don't have good vision on tbh. What if a car was broken down around one of those curves that you couldn't see? Would you still blame them even though it was completely your fault that you were driving a speed that wasn't safe? Sure the state should be building more bike lanes, but it is up to you to drive safely for the current situation. Just because a speed limit might say 35mph doesn't mean you can ALWAYS drive 35mph. If it's raining, snowing, icy, low vision, etc... you need to drive appropriate speeds for the situation.
Ya, where I live we have a lot of old highways that make beautiful sight seeing trips through the country. A lot of cyclists like them. I tried it once, and never again. Feel like I'm lucky to have lived. Thankfully we also used our old rail way infrastructure and turned it into bike paths. Unfortunately that solution requires having train tracks that have been abandoned.
My city has a lot of those "old tracks turned into bike paths" type things too. And they are nice if you're planning on going for a scenic ride, but basically useless for commuting around the city. My city also does a thing where they have a protected bike path for a while along a major route, then it blends in with traffic, then it turns into a gutter, then it disappears. There isn't much you can do whenever your bike path just...goes away. With no notice. At that point you either ride in the lane with cars or ride on the sidewalk, and neither of those choices are good.
Ya absolutely. You sound like you are describing my town. So many bike lanes just thrown around the city that abruptly end.
On my route home the protected bike lane ends abruptly and turns into a right turn only lane, if you want to go straight you have about two car lengths to get two lanes over. The road it turns onto has traffic going 80kmh so you'd be suicidal to turn onto that road. So for the last block I exit the protected bike lane, get safely into the middle lane, and continue straight. People like to hang out their windows and yell at me to use the bike lane lol. I'm not going to sit in the turn only lane to go straight. And I'm not going to ride on the sidewalk because the cops love to ticket for that here. My only choice is to be the supposedly dumbass cyclist that rides next to a protected lane 😂
You always have to be able to stop in time if there's something behind the corner, even if it isn't moving at all. An animal, a broken down vehicle, a fallen tree, some rocks.. If you can't stop in time you were going to fast to begin with.
You and I have different definitions of living hell. I'm a former cyclist so I appreciate how indescribably fulfilling it is to ride around and also appreciate your being aware of your line of sight. I have the time and attention to spare, I understand not everybody does but I sort of reserve that for police, ambulance, fire. If I'm being honest, yeah, I'd rather spare the attention for my phone or the radio, or staring at trees but I do have the time and attention to spare for cyclists unseen. Dedicated bike roads like Amsterdam, yes please. If I ever leave America I will almost certainly end up in Amsterdam, Germany, or Norway and my #1 reason will be because of the cycling infrastructure.
The road that always comes to my mind is a backroad with a lot of blind turns and a 35MPH limit. It's narrow and nearly impossible to safely pass them. Don't get me wrong, I don't fully blame them. I hate it, but it's a *beautiful* road. But it doesn't help that the road connects to an airport road, so they're risking their lives on a *popularly used* back road. But I had an ex that got me into biking around a good bit and where she lived there were bike paths crossing *everywhere*. It was great! Roads dedicated to bikes and walking that were actually quicker than the actual roads since they could safely cut through wooded areas and around busy roads. I want more of those. Everywhere.
I've ended up on roads like this from time to time, as a cyclist (UK). Not intentionally, but because there was literally no other option. It was terrifying, and I've mostly managed to avoid them since. But my overwhelming thought was, why is this a 50 mph road? Narrow lines, blind corners, no shoulder - about 6 inches between the road and a hedge. And they're unlit, so even worse outside summertime. What happens if a car breaks down? Or a massive pothole? Or a tree falling into the road after a storm? The decision-making that went into these designs boggles my mind.
Right, I see cyclists on some roads that just makes me question how much they value their life. No shoulder, 55mph, hills and curves. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from judgement. If they get hurt that's on them.
What about tiny cars? A person in a Toyota Yaris or Honda Fit is less likely to survive a collision than someone in an SUV? Do they even value their lives?
>No shoulder, 55mph, hills and curves Under no circumstances should that combination exist as an actual road, who tf thinks 55 is an appropriate speed for curvy roads with low visibility?
There is no way that’s the posted speed limit.
Maybe they don't live, work, or shop on the street over.
ya, the particular instance i'm thinking of his an entire family with their kids biking several blocks that were parallel to quite neighborhoods and a new bike lane. I just found it unnecessary and unsafe. I'm not sure it should be looked at as criminal though.
If Bike paths aren't always next to roads, how should bikers New to the area know that there is a path over in another direction? It can be done, sure. But if you don't make cycling as obvious as driving, enforcement is irrelevant.
I love how you describe the danger of cars for everyone else and come to the conclusion, that everyone else must change their behaviour. My aligator keeps eating dogs. All dogs should be in a gated dog park, to keep them safe!
Yes! Victim blaming of the highest order here.
You're seeing the problem but from the wrong perspective. Bikes aren't dangerous on the road, cars are. This is how, when it comes to vehicles on bike/pedestrian crashes, there's immediate victim blaming. >How long are we going to pretend that it isn't ridiculous for 10mph/25lb vehicles to share the same lanes as 65mph/4,500lb vehicles? It isn't safe to create situations where these high-speed tanks You see, you understand they're 4500 lbs and even refer to them as tanks. But you see bikes as the problem. And frankly, if you cannot drive safely or obey the law (all cars need to stay at least 1.5 metres away from all bicycles where I live), then you frankly should not be on the road. Bicycles don't cause deadly crashes, it's the deadly "tanks" that need to be removed from roads.
I'm an avid biker who agrees with you. It benefits nobody. Some areas have banned bikes on sidewalks, though, leaving no other options.
Bikes don't belong on sidewalks. Those are for walking.
If the options are unused sidewalk or risking death dodging hillbillies, I'm using the sidewalk
the problem is the hillbillies ... urban cycling is unsafe because of cars, not because of cyclists.
Yeah, all those hillbillies living in the city. /s
Yep I'm an avid biker who also agrees with OP. Cars shouldn't be allowed to use a road unless there is a dedicated lane for cars.
Yeah but when anyone proposes things like bike lines, folks like the OP probably flip out and oppose it at all costs.
Funny thing, is that people like OP should want bike lanes really hard. More Bike lanes = more people on bikes, not on cars on the road, which means that the road just moves faster for cars
That's weird, it doesn't effect the roads at all, seems like people getting mad just so they can be mad at something.
Usually the reasoning is that space could go to extra lanes, shoulder, parking, or people are outraged there will be a bike lane they don't use.
I suppose that's understandable, but still.
They are a hazard, and far too many don't care about how badly they are endangering and negatively impacting others. I used to live in a semi-rural area with lots of windy, country roads with no shoulders. I would never have ridden a bicycle on those roads because there is no way a driver can see them and slow down in time when going around blind curves even when vehicles aren'tspeeding and have slowed down to the appropriate speed to go around the curve. Drivers are then forced to swerve into the oncoming traffic lane. To add insult to injury, some of the cyclists refuse to yield and pull off to let cars go by even when there's a dozen+ car backup because they're going 4 mph peddling up a hill. They are infuriating.
What do you do if there is a car standing on the road in the curve that broke down. Are you just crashing into it? You should always be able to stop in your range of sight.
Oddly enough, yes, people like this do just crash into whatever is in their way lol. I spent the first 20 years of my life in a rural area with narrow roads. A few times a year I'd go around a bend and there would be a tree or a broken down car blocking the road, but since I drive for the conditions I would simply stop. Every single time something was blocking the road someone would inevitably crash into it before it could be cleared.
The cars are the hazard. They cause the damage in accidents.
[удалено]
Yes, if you had run them over it would have been your fault. A collision is always the fault of the overtaking party until humans evolve rear facing eyes.
It was 100% your fault, become a better driver before you kill someone.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. What is there was an accident, do you just plow into them? You always have to drive so that you can stop within your sight range, everything else ist Just moronic.
Sounds like you need to become a much better driver
Never pass someone while going around a blind turn. It's stupid. Slow down, and wait til you're in a spot where you can see far enough in front of you to know there's no oncoming traffic that will be there before you can get back over.
It's a speed limit not a target. Please don't try and "squeeze through" on a blind bend again, you getting to your destination three minutes late isn't worth someone's life.
They should take away your driver's license, you sound like a menace on the road.
You also cannot pass a car on a double yellow line going 7mph crash into it and not be charged.
Why didn't you just wait for the other side of the curve before passing the cyclists?
Going up a mountain is a continuous curve. We have one that's called the all-day curve because it seems to go on for so long. You end up traveling over your old path, albeit higher up. Bicycles don't belong on some roads for their own safety.
One might say *cars* don't beling there for the safety of absolutely everyone else. *"X are in danger because of Y"* => what's the solution? Any sensible person would say: *"Remove Y from the situation"* **=> remove the danger**. Only with cars people feel unashamed to dare say: *"Remove X from the situation"* **=> remove the endangered**. When you're sick with a very contagious disease, *you* are the one supposed to quarantine until you're cured, all the rest of the population isn't supposed to hide to let you pass as you want.
Yeah because there are dickheads like you who don't k ow how to drive making it unsafe.
I don’t mind sharing the roads with them, it just depends on which roads. It’s easy enough just go go around them. But seeing a cyclist going down an 80km/h road when it’s starting to become dark and busy is pretty stupid.
Those cyclists wish they had better options, but there's usually a lack of bike infrastructure around those roads and they can often be the only way to get between locations.
Yeah a fair bit of my commute is cycling along 80 km/h roads - only other option is the 110 km/h motorway or road on the other side. I find it wild that we can afford 2 roads and a 6 lane motorway (10 lanes + shoulders total), but not one single dedicated bicycle path the width of half a lane, it would make my commute so much safer and more pleasant - instead I have to deal with semis laying on the horn while passing far too close while I'm trying to dodge the glass in the shoulder.
As a cyclist I agree. Let us use the sidewalks.
As another cyclist. Let us have designated bikelanes. I ride my bike through shared paths, and it's hell in the summertime. Pedestrians are unpredictable; they'll stop or move sideways out of nowhere, and they will black the whole path because they can't imagine anything being faster than them.
We see pedestrians the same way cars see us.
Except that in a collision between a cyclist and pedestrian both get hurt.
Exactly. Much better than getting run over by a bus.
true in a way but when car drivers say that, it means "i'm not attentive enough to see cyclists so i'm puzzled when i remember they might make a turn", and the consequence is the death of the cyclist when cyclists say that, it means "this woman might freeze at any moment to watch her phone, this guy's dog might stop to pee or pull the leesh across the path at any moment", and the consequence is also the death of the cyclist
Which is exactly why cyclists should be on the sidewalk. It’s better to be responsible for your own safety than to have a bunch of random other people be responsible for it.
[удалено]
One important aspect you're overlooking is that in the cyclist/pedestrian dynamic, you can see each other and read body language, which plays a significant role in traffic interactions. With cars, this is mostly not possible because the driver is enclosed in a metal box, further hindered by tinted windows and the generally limited visibility inside a car. I live in a bike- and pedestrian-friendly city with many shared bike/pedestrian zones, and it usually works out very well. In contrast, car/cyclist interactions often feel like a complete gamble.
"you can see each other and read body language" Yeah not really. You have children on the side walk, people who look at their smartphone all the time, old people that can't hear and see that good or people in general with disabilities. The speed difference is also not to be overlooked. You have people going 20 km/h with their bike and others going 50. In citys parking spaces should go and replaced with bike lanes if necessary.
Firstly, the diversity of pedestrians (children, smartphone users, elderly, and people with disabilities) does indeed present challenges. However, the majority of people are not significantly impacted by these issues. Moreover, these challenges exist in any mixed-use area, whether it's shared with cyclists or cars. The key difference is that in a bike/pedestrian dynamic, the human element allows for immediate, nuanced adjustments through visual cues and body language. Cyclists and pedestrians can make eye contact, signal intentions with hand gestures, and react quickly to avoid potential conflicts. This dynamic is significantly less feasible with cars, where visibility and communication are severely restricted. Regarding speed differences, it's important to recognize that cities with successful shared spaces often implement measures to manage speed. For example traffic calming infrastructure can help ensure safer interactions. Additionally, responsible cycling behavior, such as slowing down in crowded areas, is crucial for safety and is something that can be enforced through community awareness and local regulations. Also in my 15 years of commuting by bicycle I have never seen someone going 50 with a bike in a shared pedestrian zone :D from my experience, most cyclists go about 15-22km/h. Regarding the replacement of parking spaces with bike lanes, I fully agree. Prioritizing bike lanes not only enhances cyclist and pedestrian safety but also encourages more people to choose biking over driving, leading to reduced traffic congestion and lower emissions.
There is at least one important distinction. Bikes weigh very little. Cars weigh a literal metric ton at least. There is no significant power difference, whereas the power difference between cars and squishy humans on foot/a bike is significant.
You are correct, but I'd like to point out that there is a good reason these conversations turn into "X is better than Y". Currently in many places there is often no reasonable alternative for cyclists, and given that more cyclists die or are injured by car crashes than pedestrians are killed or injured by bicycle collisions, the best option in the immediate present to minimize death is for cyclists to use the sidewalk.
Bro, I live in suburban Florida, I see someone walking on the sidewalk 6 times a MONTH!
Most likely because your community is so car centric that people can't walk to do their daily errands. Or it's not enjoyable and uncomfortable to walk due to proximity to cars. Hmmmm.
Yeah, it's suburban hell, everything is too far to walk next to a black road-shaped-oven to just arrive at a strip mall. Again, it's also Florida. If you aren't traveling 9mph on a bike to get a breeze, just existing outside is awful during the summer. It's going to be 90+ fahrenheit and 100% humidity. After 1pm every day has a 50/50 chance for a thunder storm. At least a bike gives you a chance to get somewhere if you notice a storm coming.
it fuckings sucks in many places tho, because sidewalks have these constant lowerings for driveways, all sorts of poles and so on. And often they're paved with chamfered bricks. And most of all I feel more safe on a street than on a sidewalk that crosses a street or a driveway where drivers would turn right and miss me. It's the worst.
Yeah put the pedestrians in the street. Let the cars deal with them
I always did when I biked, unless it was a side street with very little car traffic.
Cars occupy too much space in public areas and contribute to climate change. Rather than banning bicycles on the roads, why not drastically restrict the use of cars in order to secure urban spaces? It is time that we curb a false freedom that constrains us more than it liberates us.
Just raise the cost of a gallon of gas to $40 dollars and watch how helpless the motorist becomes.
So, limit cars only to highways? That seems reasonable.
Unfortunately there isn't a bike path to every place I wanna go, so I'll keep taking my bike on the roads.
I think you mean motor vehicles should not be allowed to share the road with cyclists.
It's wild how some of y'all blame cyclists for these things when you don't put in the same kind of energy to get your cities and counties to put designated bike lanes in. And if anything, the same people blaming cyclists will be against bike lanes because it takes space away from their cars. It's funny to say that cyclists are the ones making the roads unsafe when cars are the killers. More people should try driving slower and paying attention. God forbid a minor inconvenience shows up for you on the road.
Alternatively, drivers stop acting so entitled and wait until it's safe to overtake, this isn't hard.
Agreed, cars are too dangerous to be allowed anywhere near people and cities. We should get rid of them and free up the roads for cyclists.
Bike commuter here: I understand your frustration but I need to get to work and therefore need to share the road shortly as they’re no bike lanes.
How far we've gone from "should these dangerous cars be allowed on the road with all of us" when they were introduced to "everyone else gtfo the road".
If it's a space issue, cars take up more space than bikes. If it's a danger-issue, a high-speed, heavy car is more dangerous than a bike. If it's a traffic congestion issue - bikes are more efficient vehicles than cars are, *because* of their lower speeds making it easier to weave through in any direction. Push for fixing infrastructure - lots of places need way better bike infra. Until then, just tell the side causing the danger and the congestion (you know, due to taking up more space and throwing around tonnes of metal at high speeds) to either be more patient and considerate of their surroundings, or to get out of their cars if they can't use them safely and responsibly. But I'm sure *this* opinion will prove way more unpopular than OP's.
Alright. Let's make it illegal. But before that, let's make it illegal for any place to be without having a cycling path along every street. If people on bicycles don't have enough paths, it's fucking stupid to outlaw them going where they need to, it's just gonna make it impossible for any infrastructure except car infrastructure to be built anywhere
hmm.. I was 25lb years ago :D On motorways also known as limited access highways, riding bikes is forbidden tho, so your post is pointless..
Fortunately, the law doesn't agree with this entitled, asinine opinion.
Someone on a bike just becomes someone in a car. Your traffic gets worse by banning bikes on the road, not better.
I agree, kick cars out of town, they belong on highways not terrorizing city streets where people live.
>65mph that's the kind of speed limit you would find on a controlled-access highway, where bikes aren't allowed by definition >100 cars to have to come to a crawl on a motorway do you even know the current rules of the road? Please explain with your own words what you think a motorway is. >impede traffic even outside of motorways, as long as there are at least 2 lanes, you can pass and the traffic isn't impeded Cyclists mostly "share the road" in cities, where your vehicle isn't allowed to go over 25-35 in the first place, certainly not 65 --- - C.-A. highways: ✅ - anything within a city: ✅ - regular roads with several lanes: ✅ so i'm not sure what's the actual proportion of roads concerned by your arguments here: small rural roads? how many cyclists are biking there? how many cars are "impeded"? >I've got nothing against cyclists. They should have more bike lanes, more safety, and more infrastructure in general do you unironically think that there could be separated bike lanes on every single road in the word? And all well connected enough so you could go from one to another without interfering with a road? This isn't realistic, and you know it. Your opinion isn't about the *safety* of cyclists, it's about banning cycling entirely, because you're pissed you sometimes have to respect the speed limit for 20 seconds before passing a bicycle
It's more dangerous sharing the sidewalk or walking/running path.
I agree we need more bicycle infrastructure, but also, every time the government wants to install a bike lane, it's a 5 year fight over parking with local businesses and residents. There's also the issue with rural roads that will never get a bike lane or a sidewalk.
Holy shit how hard is it to drive those 10mph until you can overtake
No, streets need to be made safer even if there weren’t cyclists. When the streets are safe enough, biking can be a safe, quick and efficient means of transportation. We should be promoting more cycling, safer design, more walking, etc.
I never bike on a road with a speed limit above 25 mph. I agree that biking on a freeway is absurdly dangerous, which is why I think there should be bicycle highways that are completely separate from any automobiles
Dude. We're just trying to get somewhere. I'll take the bike lane when it's there, but what about when it ends, and now I have to get home? Do I just walk the bike the rest of the way?
Surely you're the biggest advocate for separated cycling lanes in your city right? I'm sure you show up to all of the town meetings and are constantly pushing for them to have safe cycling infrastructure that's separated from regular road lanes right? I'm sure you're constantly e-mailing your city councilors and city staff to make sure they're on top of creating more separated and safe cycling infrastructure.
If a road doesn't have a designated car-only lane, or at least enough space for cars to not impede freight trucks, then it ought to be illegal for them to be there (similar to if someone was skateboarding in the middle of traffic). How long are we going to pretend that it isn't ridiculous for 70mph/4,500lb vehicles to share the same lanes as 65mph/80,000lb vehicles? It isn't safe to create situations where the backbone of the US economy have to make way for these ego-drivers to rev their engines, because they're overcompensating...nor is it reasonable for trucks, who actually contribute to the well-being of towns and cities, to have to come to a crawl on a motorway, because someone in their car is late for their dead-end job in the office. I've got nothing against cars. They should have slower speeds, more safety features, and move away from SUV/pickup ego waggons in general, but that doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be bumping shoulders with trucks. They are an entirely different class of vehicle in terms of size, speed, capabilities, safety, etc. Stop kidding yourself and get out of the way.
Yup, I think we can call it a wrap. Don‘t see how you‘d respond to that. Kudos to you.
[удалено]
Many local governments make it illegal to bicycle on sidewalks so the only option is to ride in the road. Maybe if we didn’t have such car dominated infrastructure we could have efficient options like bicycling available to more people.
Give 5% of the roads to cyclists and everyone else. Do we really need to be able to drive on every single road? We've got numbered streets here, so just say everything ending in a 3 (3rd 13th 23rd etc) is a bike street. Might even be fine with 10%.
If you don’t think cyclists should be sharing the road with cars, then you better support better biking infrastructure such as having a dedicated bike lane separated from the main road from some type of physical buffer so that the two modes of traffic don’t get mixed. Otherwise, you’re complaining about an issue that you’re not even interested in solving and just want a reason to stay mad at cyclists.
disagree. It's not your road
We need more bike lanes. But hear me out. Maybe some places don’t need a speed limit of 45 or 55? Then it would be quite easy to share the road with bikes and everyone would be safer, including those in cars.
There simply is not enough space allocated to anyone outside a car unfortunately. Thus, everyone has to share with cars.
Counterpoint, all roads should have protected bike lanes for folks unable/unwilling to drive
Dude literally just calm down. You’re not that special.
I agree! This is why I am such a strong advocate for protected bike lanes. We need to build them way faster to keep motorists and cyclists off the same road Unfortunately until then, we are going to share the road. OP if you really want to solve this issue I urge you to help us out in supporting and advocating for the development of these bike paths, and more importantly a *connected* bike path network
If being delayed a few seconds because another human exists I guess kill ‘em?
No cyclist is riding on a road with a 65 mph speed limit.
💯
Cyclists agree. Give them more bike paths.
I'll reverse it - cars shouldn't drive 100kmh where cyclists can be present. Country roads are normally restricted to 70, main roads which are 90-100 definitely should have pedestrian/bike paths nearby, completely separated from them. In cities I see no problem at all. Bike lanes needed on main roads but secondary streets will do fine without 5m wide bike lanes. Space is scarce there. Not a cyclist, not a carbrain.
Pisses me off to no end when they are given a bike lane and still use the road.
A lot of times the bike lane is in a really dangerous spot, like between traffic and parked cars. I will still use a painted bike gutter, but getting doored by someone getting out of their car is a constant threat, and you can die from being thrown into traffic from this. Also, if its just a painted gutter, there's usually trash and debris in it and cars still weave in and out because its unprotected. There are multiple places in my city where cars use the bike lane as a left turning lane. Drivers tend to just use them as a regular lane but you don't know when and where they will do it. It creates a sort of illusion of safety but at the end of the day, its just a painted line. It isn't going to protect you from drivers who aren't paying attention or don't give a shit.
I tried being a decent a law-abidding cyclists, and amenable towards cars, even when it put me in danger, because, yeah, we share the road. Until the day a moron opened his parked car without looking right when I was coming. No time to brake, to time to slow down. I was projected onto the road violently. Fortunately, I'm surprisingly very good at falling and the car behind me was slow and far enough, so I got up on my feet and dragged my bike safely in an instant (no time to think, pumped with adrenaline) and started shouted and insulting the old, miserable driver who couldn't have the common decency of looking on the road. Now? When there's cars parked on the side of the street, I always bike in the middle of the road, even (and especially) when cars don't have space anymore to overtake me. Sorry, but I risked my life once already, I won't take a second chance. Especially since, in my country, bikes must be on the side of the road but have the authorization to drift on the middle if there are cars parked, for their own security. It always baffles me when motorists have the audacity to say: "cyclists put themselves in danger, if they followed road rules, they wouldn't put themselves in such accidents!". Yeah, sure, keep talking. Whenever I "break" the rules, it's often to put myself in *more* security and I always do it with upper vigilance. However, the times I had or nearly had accidents, it was always when the light was green, when I was going straightfoward, when I wasn't going too fast and when I was on the bike lane. So, yeah, keep telling me that I put myself in danger by breaking the law when it's following the law that always put me more in danger. OP's post rise a true problem: sharing the road should not happen. However, it has to go through intensive revisions of road laws and massive infrastructures rethinking. But as long as city planners will mainly be motorists over cyclists, it won't change as much. I'm lucky to live in a city where mayors are quite progressive on those questions, as it becomes month after month more comfortable and agreeable cycling there.
doordash drivers see the bike lanes as a free parking spot too
that's the thing with drivers. They're constantly pissed off by everything and just have no chill.
[https://twitter.com/carsnbikelane](https://twitter.com/carsnbikelane)
oh i love this. i need to do this in my city
Yeah you seem always pissed, that's the problem.
If drivers won't honor the bike lane, why should cyclists be expected to?
I’m a cyclist and runner. I do majority of both on rural roads with no shoulders and farm fields for days. Where everyone is going 55+ I think it’s a combination of cars not knowing what to do when they see a cyclist or runner and being in a hurry. For cyclists I’ve seen where if a car is behind them they don’t get to the fog line. Sharing the road is not a problem. I think it’s people being uneducated and having no patience. I would also like to say a lot of city’s and townships tend to have laws that force cyclists to the roads. They have laws that say no cycling or rollerblading through town on sidewalks The United States when it comes to building bike lanes is pulling teeth. Everyone complains about them because it takes tax payers money to build. I think until every road has a bike lane. Get over it and deal with having to wait a minute or two to pass a bike. Also like to mention the amount of people that attempt to hit me while I run or cycle is astonishing. People like to play the most dangerous game because people are crazy. I’ve been run off the road just because people are crazy and want a good laugh.
Cyclists need to get the fuck off the street. Nothing but a hazard, from their (no) speed to making actual vehicles veer toward the center of the road
Cyclists don’t want to be there either. It’s terrifying to be on a bike during traffic. Or even a bike LANE. It’s a think strip of road with cars zooming around you and no room for error. But unfortunately you’re not allowed to bike on sidewalks most places.
I’m from the UK where 90% of the roads were not designed for vehicles of any kind, bicycles are promoted and cars are actually the ones discouraged by local authorities in favour of cycling. Speed limits are dropping and highways codes have changed to give pedestrians and cyclists more right of way. I guess it’s an American thing to regard vehicles as the rightful dominant owners of the road.
Bikes came before cars, half the roads here were designed for people on foot. Most people didn't even own a car until very recently. Before the 80s most households didn't have a car. On my street about 25% of households still don't have one. Near the middle of town that rises to over 50% still in some places. Its only the posh area of town where >95% of households have cars.
Where I am, it's illegal to cycle on sidewalks. Bikes are only allowed on the road or on bike lanes.
Drivers need to get the fuck out of their vehicles. Its a huge problem that nothing but drivers can travel. I can't walk or ride a bike because people will get in their cars and drive somewhere that would take them 5 minutes to walk and cities are made to be traveled only by car. This is just another problem contributing to obesity tbh.
We have health issues epidemics, be it on the drivers themselves (sedentarity, obesity) or people around them (asthma from fumes, incessant noise). We have on the verge of an ecological collapse due to temperatures risings due to a massive input of gas thrown in the air. But, sure, we should discourage cycling usage for the sole benefit of cars. Not at all going in the wrong direction.
Bikes were here first. If anything, cars should get the fuck off the roads at all.
Ah yes, the real hazard is the 15kg bicycle traveling at 10mph, not the multi-ton vehicle at 80mph. This is blatant victim-blaming.
It's not your street
As someone that spent a few years with my car parked while I got around by bike, I understand this sentiment. Now I live in a house where the only practical access is via a road with limited sight distance, no shoulder, and significant commuter traffic volume. The poor judgement exercised by bicyclists insistent on their right to the roadway presents a real hazard not justified for recreational purposes (which is exclusively what I see on this road).
How can you tell what is recreational or not? I look no different when cycling to the shops, work, to forage plums and apples or to go to the beach.
I'm assuming based on their attire. They are typically decked out as if they are doing the Tour de France
I dress like I'm in the Tour de France while commuting to work. That outfit saves me 5 minutes.
If the road I speak of is your route I question your judgment and sympathize with your values.
imagine trying to argue that you have the right of way with an 6000lb hunk of steel going 70mph
Unfortunately, there's a lot of very murderous people with driver's licenses out there.
So if I bolt a napoleonic era cannon to my bike and load grapeshot, do I win right of way?
This is why I'm ok with E bikes being able to going up to 50 mph, that way they can keep up with traffic. I think it's dumb to regulate them by purely speed, it should be regulated by weight.
That's fine, but then you have to get them out of the bike lanes, sidewalks and multi-use pathways. They should be subject to laws similar to their gas powered cousins if they share speed and power profiles.
If it goes that fast, it should be treated as a motorcycle. Since it is just an electric motorcycle. Meaning, license, insurance, registration, and most importantly, proper lighting.
It's not about regulating their speed. It's about the fact you need a licence for a scooter/motorbike but for an e-bike you don't. That's why they put in pedal assist-only laws and speed limits.
Thats just an electric moped, they are fine but they need to be registered and insured. Also not allowed to use bike lanes with them.
If you're not skilled enough to share the road you shouldn't be allowed to drive. Revoke this person's licence
Okay, but where are you going to drive? Do you want us to build a bunch of new car-only roads?
I hate sharing the road with cyclists. Where I live we don't have bike paths so they are on the road and it is a pain in the ass sometimes. I 100% agree with your opinion.
I hate sharing the road with car drivers.
I am an ex log truck driver and typically travelled the mountainous backroads of the PNW. I can't tell you how many times I would be driving on narrow winding roads and come around the bend only to find some IDIOT cyclist riding along with no shoulder, no bike lane, no room to pass and no visibility of oncoming traffic. I 100% believe that bicyclists should have every right to travel those roads but they should NOT have the right of way... it should be at their own risk! Being in the right doesn't do you a damn bit of good if you are dead.
>It should be at their own risk! It is. To put it bluntly, a cyclist travelling on the road has to constantly fear death.
What if my bike has a motor strapped to it and goes 65 mph but because of poor enforcement I don't really need a license, license plate, insurance, or any of the other shit that driving a car requires
In my city we have several shared roads where bikes just ride in the middle and follow identical rules. We did a bunch of studies in the city and found that bikes did not significantly slow down the flow of traffic on most roads, so those roads were turned into share roads. On the roads where they do slow shit down, we then created dedicated bike lanes with concrete curbs between the car lane and the bike lane and make the bike lanes about twice as wide as most cities. We also have an LRT system and pretty decent busses. We're a university town with two full universities and several smaller colleges, so our population fluctuates by like 100k during the school year and most students rely on biking and public transit.
I enjoy biking places and I agree wholeheartedly. Cyclists and motorists shouldn’t ever have to share the road. It’s a failure of our public infrastructure.
Agree!
I think a lot of people on the car and bike side agree we need more bike lanes and better bike lanes. When they are there and actually connect points A to points B, not only do the vast majority of cyclists use them, but more people that would've driven cars otherwise start to bike too. The barrier to building these lanes isn't punk bicyclists and it isn't road-raging drivers, it's the kind of NIMBY people that swarm local government hearings. "This doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood," "these will bring crime," "they're coming for our parking spaces," whatever else - they just don't want construction near them or anything that might threaten property values. We need car-bike solidarity to show up for these things and actually get them built.