Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

[Magewout]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Again, I point you to the fact that typical urban roads are of a vastly different breed than bike paths.


Right, I'd be walking. You know, it's that thing that has an even lesser monetary cost than a bicycle.

Not to mention that walking on a sidewalk is safer for me than riding a bicyle in the street, and it's also safer for fellow pedestrians compared to cycling on the sidewalk.


That's illegal.

Yeah, sure, put bicycles on the road, but don't make them follow traffic laws. Great idea!


Not necessarily. If the infrastructure is modified to support them things wouldn't be much worse, and for the few pedestrians that it could be worse for, I submit that it's better for those pedestrians to be deterred than the bicyclist to be in the unsafe environment of the common roads with automobiles.

Because they've been adapted to also allow cars on them, not to allow only cars on them.

In terms of time efficiency vs. cost of transportation, bikes > cars > walking.

If you wear a helmet and a fluorescent shirt, bikes are safe, unless there's some blind or drunk car driver out there, and in that case it's not the biker who should adapt.

Is that illegal? Wtf. Well everyone knows your government is retarded so yeah. It isn't in civilized countries (read: Europe).

I know from experience that biking on the sidewalk is a hundred times more dangerous, especially if parents with their kids in one of those carts (don't know the English word) take up all the space.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Magewout

Because they've been adapted to also allow cars on them, not to allow only cars on them.

No... the roads are literally designed for automobiles and it's happenstance that other vehicles can use them. It's not that they made roads and modified the roads so that cars could use them in addition to bicycles, it's that these roads were built at a time when cars were already the primary mode of transport.

In terms of time efficiency vs. cost of transportation, bikes > cars > walking.

Paying a little more to get more power is totally worth it a lot of the time. Again, I point out that fact that a bicycle is only good for a single person, traveling a relatively short distance, and not needing to carry any large goods. Furthermore, it becomes more and more ineffective the more exhausted a person is, while an automobile doesn't suffer from this negative trait.

If you wear a helmet and a fluorescent shirt, bikes are safe, unless there's some blind or drunk car driver out there, and in that case it's not the biker who should adapt.

Why should the motorist have to adapt to a person invading their space when the invader can't even keep up? I'd be all for allowing bicycles on the roads if they didn't REQUIRE that motorists pass them. You do 20 MPH on a bicycle on a residential street. That's not too bad. You do 10 MPH on a commercial road where the speed limit is in excess of 30? **** that. Get the **** off the road.

Is that illegal? Wtf. Well everyone knows your government is retarded so yeah. It isn't in civilized countries (read: Europe).

It's retarded to think that all vehicles on the road should follow the same road laws? How so?

In addition, what is wrong with you? I don't appreciate the condescension, particularly since America's roadway infrastructure are actually more modern than a large selection of European roadways that were not designed with automobiles in mind.

I know from experience that biking on the sidewalk is a hundred times more dangerous, especially if parents with their kids in one of those carts (don't know the English word) take up all the space.

This is where I get the feeling that you're not reading the thread in its entirety. Sidewalks as they currently exist are not necessarily particularly safe, even if I assert them to be a safer alternative to the road. The best proposal in my opinion would be to have an extra wide sidewalk that would be functional both as a pedestrian walk way and also a "bike lane" of sorts for miscellaneous low max speed vehicles.

[Vendetta21]

The distinction between a vehicle and a non-vehicle is whether or not the person is riding something. Give me macro statistics that prove your point that they cause congestion if you seek to win my approval here. Otherwise it seems wholly philosophical and I can't agree to it because I think I've made sufficiently clear a philosophy which has a higher priority weight (the fact that roads are a public sphere with rules and all who can adhere to them should be allowed.)

There is a difference between banning something which has the capacity to follow the rules and not enforcing the rule of law to those who don't follow it. Do you see my point here?

[Afrombean]

I think the disconnect here is that in addition to the laws of the road, I feel vehicles should also follow common sense rules, like, you know, being able to maintain a safe speed.

By your definition, a skateboarder doing 5MPH has just as much right to use a commercial road as an automobile at a speed of 35 MPH, and I don't think that's right at all.

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by Afrombean

By your definition, a skateboarder doing 5MPH has just as much right to use a commercial road as an automobile at a speed of 35 MPH, and I don't think that's right at all.

Severe misinterpretation. A skateboarder going 5MPH is causing significant congestion and should be pulled over. A biker going 15 on 25 road (we are talking about urban neighborhood roads here, and this is the highest amount of usage) is not. A 35MPH hour road in a city is probably arterial and not in a place where a whole lot of bikers would access it, and those that do would be going significantly faster I imagine, in favor of their own safety. Now if they don't, and they are going below the minimum threshold, that is when you pull them over.

Going really slow is grounds for being ticketed and is against the law for all vehicles where I'm at. Don't know if it differs there.

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

Severe misinterpretation. A skateboarder going 5MPH is causing significant congestion and should be pulled over. A biker going 15 on 25 road (we are talking about urban neighborhood roads here, and this is the highest amount of usage) is not. A 35MPH hour road in a city is probably arterial and not in a place where a whole lot of bikers would access it, and those that do would be going significantly faster I imagine, in favor of their own safety. Now if they don't, and they are going below the minimum threshold, that is when you pull them over.

Going really slow is grounds for being ticketed and is against the law for all vehicles where I'm at. Don't know if it differs there.

oh~

THUMBS UP THEN

[Lipidman]

Today was National Ride Your Bike To Work day for Australia. It was pretty awesome. They had a gathering in the city and supplied free breakfasts, engravings, helmet hair repairs (XD), massages, fluro straps and backlights.

They also had a jazz band playing and organised people to form a human bicycle. It was an enjoyable start to the day.