Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

[Grandiagod]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

You people should come to Europe lol. In nearly every big city in the Low Countries, bikes are the best way for transportation. Riding to various places is superior to using a car in nearly every way possible.

It's your fault that initially you didn't give enough attention to bikes in the first place. If you had you wouldn't be complaining about infrastructure problems now. (by 'your' I mean America )

You act like somehow europeans had the forethought to design cities based for bicycle transport. Your cities are older than American cities by several hundred years and based upon slower modes of transportation such as walking. With narrow winding streets, few parking spaces and buildings made of materials that car exhaust would decimate a vehicle isn't great for transportation.

In America we used modernized infrastructure and urban layouts to allow for more transport. In the older east coast cities we've adapted our old European style paths to fit the automobile (to varying results) and in west coast and midwest cities they were actually designed around the car. Namely because when those cities were being built no one could imagine the negative impacts vehicles would have on our environment and the dependent relationship they put the US in with foreign oil.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Instead of creating bike paths, how about fixing up and widening sidewalks to make them good for bike riders? Cars are just so much more efficient than bikes in every single way save environmental harm, and cities really need as much road space as possible. Data from Houston, Texas shows that the more roads that are build, the less congestion there is; when they stopped building that many roads, congestion increased.

Cavernio's claim that America's dependence on cars is "pretty sad" is not well thought out. Cars are faster, go farther distances, transport more people and luggage, and are less physically exhausting than bikes. Perhaps his views as an environmentalist is skewing his opinion on what is otherwise a no-brainer: cars are better.

I feel like parking a bike anywhere on the street is basically like asking someone else to take it. And these aren't high crime cities I'm talking about either.

Lock it up.

[Tater Tot]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Instead of creating bike paths, how about fixing up and widening sidewalks to make them good for bike riders?

My sentiments exactly, sidewalks in my area suck donkey dick. They were made over 20 years ago and still haven't been re-paved, and there are god damn telephone poles sticking out of the ground on some of them. It makes it impossible to ride a bike safely with the road right next to you, because god knows if you take a spill, you'll get run over by a 95 year old grannie.

Lock it up.

If you're going to do that, be sure to buy a high quality combination lock. I had what i thought was a good lock, until my bike got jacked. FROM COLLEGE. It was a key lock, and I'm assuming they picked it, because the lock was gone along with the bike.

[devonin]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Instead of creating bike paths, how about fixing up and widening sidewalks to make them good for bike riders?

There's an intrinsic issue with this, namely that the current laws about bikes treat them as vehicles, and until they become formally reclassified as being more pedestrian than vehicle, they're going to have to basically be kept more on the road.

[Coolgamer]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

I absolutely despise urban cyclists.

They act like they own the road although they are dealing with powerful electrical moving vehicles that are capable of killing human beings in a moment. But they do dumbass things all the time that are just asking for them to get run over.

Although unrelated to the whole driving with cars thing, one time I was walking with my friend and a biker ran into his leg. It was more of just a scrape, but my friend was bleeding and it was a pretty long wound. It wasn't deep, but the guy didn't even stop and come back.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone here, and I'm sure there are bicyclers who are smart (though I've never seen one), but I wish they would get off the road, and if I hear on the news that one dies in an accident from a car, I'll just assume it's the cycler's fault.

Mentalities like this are why I happen to despise motorists. They act like they own the road although they are dealing with powerful electrical moving vehicles that are capable of killing human beings in a moment. But they do dumbass things all the time that are just asking for them to get hurt or hurt others.

One time, a friend of mine was walking and a motorist ran into his upper torso. The guy didn't even stop and come back. He died, by the way. No offense to anyone here, but if someone gets into a car accident, I'll just assume it was the drivers fault.

[Afrobean]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Mentalities like this are why I happen to despise motorists. They act like they own the road although they are dealing with powerful electrical moving vehicles that are capable of killing human beings in a moment. But they do dumbass things all the time that are just asking for them to get hurt or hurt others.

One time, a friend of mine was walking and a motorist ran into his upper torso. The guy didn't even stop and come back. He died, by the way. No offense to anyone here, but if someone gets into a car accident, I'll just assume it was the drivers fault.

Right, so no one should be allowed on the roads.

Except that people in cars are more important than people on bicycles. Productivity that drives the infrastructure of the world is directly related to how effectively people can move themselves and cargo large distances.

Basically, both sides have ticks against them and are equally unworthy of the roads, but the world only relies on one of them to keep spinning.

[Coolgamer]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Right, so no one should be allowed on the roads.

Except that people in cars are more important than people on bicycles. Productivity that drives the infrastructure of the world is directly related to how effectively people can move themselves and cargo large distances.

Basically, both sides have ticks against them and are equally unworthy of the roads, but the world only relies on one of them to keep spinning.

Your logic is faulty. Bikes have just as much of a valid place in our transit system as do cars. Perhaps if less people on cars treated all bikers like pricks then we could all just get along. We follow the same traffic laws that you do, and we have a legal right to the road. Can't we all just get along?

[Afrobean]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Your logic is faulty. Bikes have just as much of a valid place in our transit system as do cars. Perhaps if less people on cars treated all bikers like pricks then we could all just get along. We follow the same traffic laws that you do, and we have a legal right to the road. Can't we all just get along?

Do people transport goods on bicycles? Do people use bicycles to commute to work? Do people use bicycles to go to the store and to move possessions? Of those people who do use bicycles for these purposes, how do their numbers compare to those who do not, particularly as far as transporting freight and commuting to work?

Imagine that tomorrow you wake up all cars in the world have vanished. How would the world be different?

Now imagine that tomorrow you wake up and all bicycles in the world have vanished. How would the world be different?

Seriously consider these questions, then tell me again that bicyclists are as important as motorists.

EDIT: by the way, I just realized the problem with what you said. You basically said "You're wrong," and didn't use any supportive evidence.

I have the basic fact that the world only functions thanks to motor vehicles. Where is your supportive evidence stating that bicycles are so important that they deserve massive upheaval of the status quo?

[Lipidman]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Do people transport goods on bicycles? Do people use bicycles to commute to work? Do people use bicycles to go to the store and to move possessions? Of those people who do use bicycles for these purposes, how do their numbers compare to those who do not, particularly as far as transporting freight and commuting to work?

Imagine that tomorrow you wake up all cars in the world have vanished. How would the world be different?

Now imagine that tomorrow you wake up and all bicycles in the world have vanished. How would the world be different?

Seriously consider these questions, then tell me again that bicyclists are as important as motorists.

EDIT: by the way, I just realized the problem with what you said. You basically said "You're wrong," and didn't use any supportive evidence.

I have the basic fact that the world only functions thanks to motor vehicles. Where is your supportive evidence stating that bicycles are so important that they deserve massive upheaval of the status quo?

Whether or not cars are more important than bicycles is irrelevant. The fact is that it's an alternative method of transport that is environment friendly, cost effective and health beneficial. It's more of a personal luxury than a world commodity. But just because they don't necessarily contribute as much to our society as cars, that doesn't mean they are any less road worthy. They're classified as vehicles and are deemed safer on roads than on sidewalks (I hope this sentence doesn't confuse you as I don't want you taking this out of context).

[iceefudgesickle]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Mentalities like this are why I happen to despise motorists. They act like they own the road although they are dealing with powerful electrical moving vehicles that are capable of killing human beings in a moment. But they do dumbass things all the time that are just asking for them to get hurt or hurt others.

One time, a friend of mine was walking and a motorist ran into his upper torso. The guy didn't even stop and come back. He died, by the way. No offense to anyone here, but if someone gets into a car accident, I'll just assume it was the drivers fault.

They should own the road because honestly, cars were what the roads were basically made for. There are DEFINITELY MANY MANY MANY dumbass drivers out there who do careless things from drinking while driving to just not paying any attention, but my point is that bikers are sharing the roads with large powerful vehicles which just shouldn't happen. They should stay confined to the sidewalks.

[Magewout]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Right, so no one should be allowed on the roads.

Except that people in cars are more important than people on bicycles. Productivity that drives the infrastructure of the world is directly related to how effectively people can move themselves and cargo large distances.

Basically, both sides have ticks against them and are equally unworthy of the roads, but the world only relies on one of them to keep spinning.

They're more important? Wtf. Get over yourself please. If you live 10 miles away from where you live, go by bike. It's better for everyone. And just so you know it's quite easy to transport packages on a bike as long as they're not too big or too heavy.

[Cavernio]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

afro: No one is saying that cars shouldn't exist, or that bicycles can transport large quantities of goods. Although, to answer your question, when I had a bicycle, I did indeed use it to go to work, and at one summer job I had, it was faster than taking public transit, which was my only other option. (Of course, that speaks more about the public tranportation system in the city I was in than how fast it was to bike.) I did groceries on it too, either that or walked. I did not own a car. Myself, I personally still don't own a car, and I still can't afford one either. As far as picking up larger things, honestly, how often do you actually transport larger items? Are there times when you've used a car when you could have walked, taken public transport, or biked instead? How much money would you save if you didn't have to own and use a car to get places constantly? But really, this is besides the point of the discussion, which is that bicyclists should have their own bike paths.

lord carbo: I'm a she, firstly. Secondly, I did not anywhere claim or imply that every car should be replaced with a bike. I've already said this though. Thirdly, do you honestly think I didn't lock up my bike? True, I did not decide to buy an uber lock that was more expensive than my bike itself, because to do so is ridiculous. Fourthly, widening sidewalks, as Devonin said, is not a good solution.

Cars are more expensive and take up more room than bicycles, and in those 2 regards, they are NOT better. But, again, I am NOT SAYING that cars aren't useful. Furthermore, If I wanted to get into a discussion about how to reduce traffic, it would involve trying to get rid of suburbs and totally changing the urban landscape of cities so that there would not be the need to travel long distances. It's stupid that much of north american has been designed so that cars are as necessary as they are.

I should note that I do not bicycle and will not bike in some urban city streets. Like in Toronto, I would not bike down younge st, sidewalk or street. Also, biking and walking places is about the only excersise I get. It makes sense for me to walk somewhere and take an extra 20 minutes than to spend money on a car or a bus to get there, and then spend money with a gym membership so I can go on a treadmill and walk/run in place for a half hour, and then take a bus back home from the gym.

I should say that the only other 2 people who've had bicycle accidents with a car that I know about, it wasn't their fault either. One of them was hit by someone who didn't stop at a stop sign, and the other person was hit because the motorist decided to take a right hand turn into her.

[Afrobean]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

afro: No one is saying that cars shouldn't exist, or that bicycles can transport large quantities of goods. Although, to answer your question, when I had a bicycle, I did indeed use it to go to work, and at one summer job I had, it was faster than taking public transit, which was my only other option. (Of course, that speaks more about the public tranportation system in the city I was in than how fast it was to bike.)

How far was it though? Many people commute VERY large distances to get to their place of employment. Hell, I live in a suburb of Detroit and one of my high school teachers came across from Canada every morning and went back every day.

As far as picking up larger things, honestly, how often do you actually transport larger items?

You may be surprised at how I use my money. Seems every couple of weeks I'm getting something else rather large.

Are there times when you've used a car when you could have walked, taken public transport, or biked instead?

Not typically. My limits are a bit low for walking though, so you might consider a mile an ok amount to walk, but the massive increase in time taken make it too much for me. And if I'm going out for lunch and planning on bringing food back home, it'd be cold by the time I got back.

I don't have a bike anymore though. Or rather, I do, but it's a piece of junk and rusted to hell and the pedals fall off from normal use. Either way, it'd still be tough for me a lot of the time to use a good bicycle for some of the relatively short distance travel I do. Not like it's that easy to go up to 7-Eleven, grab some snacks, a couple 2 liters, and a slurpee.

How much money would you save if you didn't have to own and use a car to get places constantly? But really, this is besides the point of the discussion, which is that bicyclists should have their own bike paths.

I disagree. Chiefly because this "bike path" would likely just be adopted into the main roads. It would be a "bike lane". There is a road around here that has a bike lane in it, and stupid ass drivers are always being ****ing stupid about it, going into it like it's a right lane, or going into it like it's a right turn lane.

BUT. The point that automobiles are more expensive than biking doesn't matter. The additional investment is made up for. If I had to ride a bike 10 miles to work and 10 miles back, I'd be saving a small amount of money in gas, but I'd be paying for it by using a lot more time, AND a large amount more of physical pain through the exertion necessary after completing the work for the day. Paying like a dollar's worth of gas is totally worth it to save a lot of time and a lot of pain.

It's stupid that much of north american has been designed so that cars are as necessary as they are.

You can't have all places of commerce close to everyone. The only way to do this would be by having a LOT of them all over the place, but this would mean individual markets would be competing with too many other similar markets. Look at Starbucks. They put them everywhere, and the individual stores ended up getting minimal returns on their investment due to the customers being split across too many stores. They're having to close a lot of them just because they're not getting enough business... customers need to bottlenecked into single locations to get a good profit and remain in business.

Basically the system works so that stores and such are further apart, because that's the only way it is profitable for them to remain in business. If there was a restaurant and a grocery store on every street corner, they wouldn't be sustainable.

[devonin]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Paying like a dollar's worth of gas is totally worth it to save a lot of time and a lot of pain.

I just did the entire length of my university degree without owning or using a car. I walked, cycled and used mass transportation. My older sister and brother both insisted on owning cars for the same duration of their education. Rents and Tuition were roughly similar in all of our cases, and I came out of school with several THOUSAND less dollars of debt than they did. Most of that difference? Purchase price of cars, cost of gas, cost of insurance, cost of repairs and maintenance.

My brother and I both had our vehicles stolen once during university. Mine cost 200.00 to replace, his cost 2500.00 to replace.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Fourthly, widening sidewalks, as Devonin said, is not a good solution.

I can't find where he said this, and I said that it should be coupled with making the sidewalks much more manageable for bicycles. Some sidewalks are just terrible for riding on and I'd much rather ride on the street for any . Making the sidewalks wider would include getting rid of the silly grass between the path and the curb. There's still telephone polls but that's just a cross-section of the path that occurs once in a while.

But, again, I am NOT SAYING that cars aren't useful. Furthermore, If I wanted to get into a discussion about how to reduce traffic, it would involve trying to get rid of suburbs and totally changing the urban landscape of cities so that there would not be the need to travel long distances.

Cramming more people together would not get rid of traffic, it'd just create more of an incentive to walk. According to The Road More Traveled (Balaker & Staley, p. 5), in 2003 there were 25 urban areas where the average driver spent 40 or more hours stuck in rush hour traffic, which isn't very impressive when you consider how geographically close things are in urban areas. Suburbs are less congested than cities so this eases the burden of traffic, albeit it makes driving distances longer. There's no panacea; urbanization won't help.

It's stupid that much of north american has been designed so that cars are as necessary as they are.

Much of North American is suburban, and this is in fact due to the existence of cars. Cars made it so people can be spread somewhat apart. For example, Ancient Rome had a population similar to Dallas's current population, but the population only lived in an area 1/50th the size of modern Dallas!

Now while cars make spread-out suburbs possible, the reasons they actually exist are that America has a whole bunch of useless land between the coasts so that it's extremely easy to build things spaced out without paying much more... and people prefer (preferred?) it; people wouldn't buy what they don't want especially with so many choices in America. So in effect, by criticizing that America has been designed so that cars are necessary, you're criticizing the personal preferences of those who continue to buy what they want according to their own self-interests.

Also, biking and walking places is about the only excersise I get. It makes sense for me to walk somewhere and take an extra 20 minutes than to spend money on a car or a bus to get there,

Yeah, except it doesn't make sense for most Americans, especially in un-congested suburbs where the opportunity costs of driving a car are diminutive. In other words, it's a lot worse to walk somewhere in a suburb where you can drive 35 down the main road to get when you can just drive without stopping for traffic.