Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

[Coolgamer]

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

I have no problem with cyclists. I have a problem with people drivng SUV's and Hummers on suburban roads, clearly never doing anything work-intensive with them, acting like they own the road and even honking at me while I'm on the sidewalk in attempts to freak me out.

The law has found that roads are to be shared, as long as we're not talking something insane like a highway. Bikes exist, they will share the road as is their legal right.

[Necros140606]

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

i regularly use bike for every single movement when in town. even though i am from italy and this could imply a different situation, i strongly reccomend using bikes when in 4-5 miles range. it's not only faster than car or public transport, but it's very cheap, and the more bikes there are, the less chaos there is. bikes are quiet, small and agile, and they do not cause any pollution. the incident rate of bikes is theoretically lower than cars, since bikes travel at a lower speed and due to the reduced weight can brake in very small sections. a bike hitting a pedestrian is infinitely less probable than a car hitting a pedestrian. the rate of car vs bike crash is influenced by the education of both drivers so it's highly subjective. i strongly disagree from afrobean, it seems like you're holding a grudge against bikers for some reason. you're not being subjective and your only explanation for your viewpoints is "cars have the right to be on the road while bikes don't"

[Afrobean]

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

you're not being subjective and your only explanation for your viewpoints is "cars have the right to be on the road while bikes don't"

Is there something incorrect about this stance? The roads are for automobiles, bicycles are just allowed (or forced) on them. Motor vehicles are more important to the infrastructure of the real world, so their importance is further cemented beyond "the roads are made for them".

i strongly reccomend using bikes when in 4-5 miles range. it's not only faster than car or public transport,

Traveling 5 miles would take me like an hour minimum on bike. Good use of Interstates could get me there by car in less than 10 minutes. But even without touching an interstate, I could still make the trip in as little as like 20 minutes.

but it's very cheap

So is driving. People bitch about the prices of fuel, but it's still quite cheap technically. Like I said in a previous post, I'll gladly pay about $1.50 in fuel everyday if it means I'm able to get home from work in an expedient fashion that doesn't require physical exertion.

and the more bikes there are, the less chaos there is.

I'm sorry, but what you define as "chaos", I think I'm defining as "speed" and "power". A bicycle will almost never get a person to a location faster than an automobile, and in those rare situations where it would, I would say that walking would be an even more sensible choice than cycling. In addition, a bicycle will never be able to carry the amount of passengers or weight or cargo that even a SMALL automobile can, let alone large passenger vehicles or semi trailer trucks.

ps have you guys seen that ad where they had tons of cargo being pulled by bikes? I think it was for one of those oil companies that are trying to be like "hey look at us we like the environment too!"

[Necros140606]

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

Is there something incorrect about this stance? The roads are for automobiles, bicycles are just allowed (or forced) on them. Motor vehicles are more important to the infrastructure of the real world, so their importance is further cemented beyond "the roads are made for them".

roads have been made for every vehicle that has wheels. their purpose is having a flat ground where vehicles can travel on without having that much consuming as when there was no asphalt. roads were initially made for carriages, for bikes, and note how cars are the last ones that joined the ranks of vehicles using public roads. i would agree that there are some roads (fast ones, ones with multiple lanes etc.) where bikes shouldn't be allowed on, but you can't just go by saying bikes have no right to stay on the road.

Traveling 5 miles would take me like an hour minimum on bike. Good use of Interstates could get me there by car in less than 10 minutes. But even without touching an interstate, I could still make the trip in as little as like 20 minutes.

i don't know what is your phisical condition or your bike's condition, but this is rather subjective. even so, note how you are trying to mock people using bikes by alterating the values. 5 miles in an hour means you're traveling at 5mph. are you kidding me? if this is true, then either

1) you don't know how to fucen ride a bike so i understand if you use your car for every minimal travel - you say you don't want to walk either so you're just being lazy and your reasons are mere justifications for your weaknesses.

2) your bike is old or broken, or you're so weak that you can't even face such a short and little fatigue.

for the sake of the record, i ride my bike usually around 15-20 mph without struggling, and 20 to 25 mph if i'm in a hurry.

So is driving. People bitch about the prices of fuel, but it's still quite cheap technically. Like I said in a previous post, I'll gladly pay about $1.50 in fuel everyday if it means I'm able to get home from work in an expedient fashion that doesn't require physical exertion.

a bike isn't only expensive because of fuel you know. owning a car means paying taxes related to that car's hp. then there are revisions, pieces replacement, insurance etc. if you sum all of it gas price is probably the smallest cost. and about not having to do phisical exertion this is again due to the kind of work you do. if you work in a metalmechanic factory all day long i know how you would like to relax on your way home. but if you do a static office job what's the meaning of not doing anything? do you want your body to collapse so badly? i don't understand your point at all.

I'm sorry, but what you define as "chaos", I think I'm defining as "speed" and "power". A bicycle will almost never get a person to a location faster than an automobile, and in those rare situations where it would, I would say that walking would be an even more sensible choice than cycling. In addition, a bicycle will never be able to carry the amount of passengers or weight or cargo that even a SMALL automobile can, let alone large passenger vehicles or semi trailer trucks.

your concept of speed and power seems quite distorted by your views. i guess it's no use trying to explain you again what i just wrote if you can't get it.

about the rest of the paragraph, i'll just say that bikes are made for transporting a single person so what's the point of comparing them with vehicles that were built in order to carry goods or people? all you can bring on a bike is yourself and a bag. this is still enough to carry foods for your meals, books for your university, and almost anything you would buy, though. i never said cars are useless, nay, they're wonderful tools, but you should admit it when you're overusing them. i personally think that everytime a car isn't stricly necessary, it shouldn't be used. sadly, people like you don't seem to get this point and keep finding naive justifications for their waste of resources and space.

[Afrobean]

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

roads have been made for every vehicle that has wheels. their purpose is having a flat ground where vehicles can travel on without having that much consuming as when there was no asphalt. roads were initially made for carriages, for bikes, and note how cars are the last ones that joined the ranks of vehicles using public roads. i would agree that there are some roads (fast ones, ones with multiple lanes etc.) where bikes shouldn't be allowed on, but you can't just go by saying bikes have no right to stay on the road.

Roads throughout history have been created for other vehicles. Current roads are designed for cars.

i don't know what is your phisical condition or your bike's condition, but this is rather subjective. even so, note how you are trying to mock people using bikes by alterating the values. 5 miles in an hour means you're traveling at 5mph. are you kidding me? if this is true, then either

Hmm? Sorry, but I can't think of any stretch of 5 miles that I wouldn't encounter any long waits at traffic lights, especially if I can't hit the sweet-spot speeds that allow me to hit all green lights.

Maybe it was a bit of an exaggeration though. Would 45 minutes be more accurate? Maybe 30? Either way, the general idea that an automobile would get there faster is the underlying principle I was trying to get at, and you pointing out a mistake such as that doesn't make my argument invalid.

1) you don't know how to fucen ride a bike so i understand if you use your car for every minimal travel - you say you don't want to walk either so you're just being lazy and your reasons are mere justifications for your weaknesses.

I'd appreciate you cut the insults, buddy. I am on my feet, walking around basically all night at work, (roughly 7.5 to 8 hours, although on quiet nights I can usually knock about an hour out of that in breaktime). And I have naturally weak joints, particularly in my knees and ankles. Forgive me if I do not wish to walk or physically exert myself on the way home and instead opt to get there faster and easier.

2) your bike is old or broken, or you're so weak that you can't even face such a short and little fatigue.

Stand up for 8 hours straight, then tell me you feel like walking 10 miles home.

Then realize that many people commute even greater distances to and from work every day.

for the sake of the record, i ride my bike usually around 15-20 mph without struggling, and 20 to 25 mph if i'm in a hurry.

That's nice. I do 20~25 on residential streets, 30 MPH minimum on typical commercial streets (or as high as 45~50 if the speed limit allows it) and up to 80~85 MPH if I'm in a hurry (and on the freeway, of course).

a bike isn't only expensive because of fuel you know. [lol] owning a car means paying taxes related to that car's hp. then there are revisions, pieces replacement, insurance etc.

Hmm? Wasn't the whole original purpose of this thread to point out that bicyclists don't pay for the roads through taxes and such that motorists do, and by that right shouldn't be allowed on the roads?

And I don't know about you, but all of the time and effort I save is TOTALLY worth the investment I've made in my vehicle. Couple thousand initial cost and around 100$ insurance per month is worth it by far for the trouble it saves me.

your concept of speed and power seems quite distorted by your views. i guess it's no use trying to explain you again what i just wrote if you can't get it.

Your fundamental argument is flawed. An automobile outclasses a bicycle in every way, ESPECIALLY in the areas wherein I need a tool to aid my transport. Frankly, I have half a mind to take my toys and go home if you're going to resort to this "ur hopeless ur nvr gonna get it" tactic. I understand your side just fine; I just think it's totally wrong to think that a motor vehicle should be avoided like the plague.

about the rest of the paragraph, i'll just say that bikes are made for transporting a single person so what's the point of comparing them with vehicles that were built in order to carry goods or people?

It's not JUST that they can carry goods or people, although that is a highly important quality that I require in a large portion of my transport other than work. It's that it is done FASTER and with greater ease.

all you can bring on a bike is yourself and a bag. this is enough to carry foods for your meals, books for your university, and almost anything you would buy.

I don't think you should be using the pronoun "you", because most of what you said doesn't apply to me at all.

I think what you were meaning was that a bicycle is ample for YOU. Next time just say "This is enough to carry foods for my meals, books for my university, and almost everything I would buy", and use that as a point to say that I should be able to be like you. Don't make assumptions about me.

Incidentally, I am unable to, as I put it above, "be like you" in those respects. When I go to the store, I will almost always get more things than I could fit in a knapsack, be it groceries or otherwise. Books are a reasonable argument, but I haven't needed to carry books with me for quite some time now, and I doubt if most typical adults would either.

i never said cars are useless, nay, they're wonderful tools, but you should admit it when you're overusing them. i personally think that everytime a car isn't stricly necessary, it shouldn't be used. sadly, people like you don't seem to get this point and keep finding naive justifications for their waste of resources and space.

It's not a waste of resources if I am putting the resource toward a goal. You might not appreciate the goal (such as taking me to work and back, or going up to Best Buy to get a Bluray player and a ton of movies), but that doesn't mean that it's a waste of resources. In fact, I'd say the only way it could be truly wasted resources would be if the person using the resources themselves decided that they were wasting the resource.

[Magewout]

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

Roads aren't designed specifically for cars. They're designed to facilitate transport for every kind of vehicle in the most efficient way, i.e. so that any vehicle with wheels could use them. It's true that most roads have been changed so that they could also support a high load of car traffic, this doesn't mean that cars have the only rights to that road, or that they're specifically designed for them.

Also, 5 miles takes 20 minutes maximum when using a bike. Counting traffic lights is retarded because you also encounter those when using a car. Further, in a busy city, in a car you're braking and accellerating all the time, when biking you can maintain a good speed.

Your argument about standing up for 8 hours straight and not feeling like walking home is trying to convince people that it's actually bad. I stand up for 8.5 hours each workday and cycle home after that, you don't see me complaining.

Lastly, I notice that the only reason you hate bikes is that you are apparently unable to use them, and that while you drive your car they seem to irritate you. Guess what, people like you who drive in a car and think the road is designed solely for them irritate bikers. I assume they should complain as well?

I wonder if some biker has accidentally hit your car when it was new and that you now hold a grudge against that kind of transportation.

[Afrobean]

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

Roads aren't designed specifically for cars. They're designed to facilitate transport for every kind of vehicle in the most efficient way, i.e. so that any vehicle with wheels could use them. It's true that most roads have been changed so that they could also support a high load of car traffic, this doesn't mean that cars have the only rights to that road, or that they're specifically designed for them.

I already addressed this before.

Imagine a world without automobiles, where only bicycles existed. Would the roads be the same as they are?

Imagine a world without bicycles, where only motor vehicles existed. Would the roads be the same as they are?

Also, 5 miles takes 20 minutes maximum when using a bike. Counting traffic lights is retarded because you also encounter those when using a car.

You think so? Funny, because I only come across 6 driving my car to work, but by bicycle I would hit... hmm... like 30+ at least. Are you familiar with the concept of freeways?

Further, in a busy city, in a car you're braking and accellerating all the time, when biking you can maintain a good speed.

If a bicycle is assumed to be on the same road as the automobile, why would the automobile be stopping and going constantly, but the bicycle would maintain constant speed?

Your argument about standing up for 8 hours straight and not feeling like walking home is trying to convince people that it's actually bad. I stand up for 8.5 hours each workday and cycle home after that, you don't see me complaining.

You're clearly a great stronger than I or the typical person even. Most folks wouldn't even want to cycle a small distance even if they're fully rested up.

And I wouldn't even be physically able to manage it, to be honest. On bad nights I can barely even stand by the end of the night. The worst part is that my joints didn't used to be this bad either, they've gotten to be like this over time. I'm sure that if I put additional stain on them, they'd deteriorate much faster even.

Lastly, I notice that the only reason you hate bikes is that you are apparently unable to use them,

Actually, I like bikes, and if I had more time, I'm sure I would go riding from time to time myself. Probably even for minor errands, such as going up to the bank or the occasional light purchasing. Really, back before I had a job or a care in the world, I used to ride all of the time for recreation.

and that while you drive your car they seem to irritate you.

It's not just that. It's that roads are designed for motor vehicles, they are paid for by drivers of motor vehicles, motor vehicles are able to contribute a lot more to society, and finally, motor vehicles are able to complete almost every task in a more expedient fashion.

The only argument in favor of bicycles are that they don't add pollution like most automobiles do. You know what else doesn't? Walking, skateboarding, inline skating, scooter, running, etc. Should these things be allowed on the road with automobiles as well?

Guess what, people like you who drive in a car and think the road is designed solely for them irritate bikers. I assume they should complain as well?

The road IS designed for cars. Take a look at bike paths or even bike lanes. Those are designed for bicycles. Notice how different they are from normal roads that run everywhere.

I wonder if some biker has accidentally hit your car when it was new and that you now hold a grudge against that kind of transportation.

No, I just don't appreciate the higher-than-thou "avoid motor vehicles because they're bad for the environment" shtick, and I also don't appreciate the fact that bicyclists are putting themselves on the road with these vehicles that could literally rip them apart.

[Necros140606]

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

last time i checked, public works are made out of taxes payed by everyone, not only from those who have cars. i understand your point because roads in america are probably a bit less filled with vehicles, but if you lived in a city like mine, bikes are always faster than any means of transportation, except during night or when the roads are completely free. our traffic is so chaotic just because there's so much people like you who don't want to waste his/her precious sweat that the roads are completely filled with cars going at a walking man's speed. that's why bikes will aways be infinitely better than cars as long as there isn't an education.

also, my average speeds are calculated since stops and traffic lights are no longer a problem with a bike. i haven't crashed in years though i use my bike everyday in the mid of the traffic and on top of that i can bypass any road sign without putting people in danger. a scooter works too, since it doesn't pollute as much as a car and it's rather fast. the only problem is a scooter isn't free, while a bike is.

[Cavernio]

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

So, I know I'm just reiterating about the cost of cars, but they're damned expensive. I suppose if I bought a ****heap I could pay only a few thousand for it, or even less. However, I'd probably have to spend as much money repairing it over its lifespan than I would if I had bought something quality to begin with, plus there's a major hassle in having to repair it. (Although, that said, if cars needed as much tuning up as bikes did, they'd never be bought. At least it's fairly easy to learn for oneself how to adjust break-tension, spokes, etc.) I've known a (usually) smart person who lived a 20-30 min. walk from campus, a 5min bus ride which cost her nothing because her tuition got her a bus pass on a bus that ran minimum every 15 minutes during the day on weekdays where the bus stop was literally right outside her door, spend so much money on her car that she just had to have, that she couldn't afford a winter coat. I also lived with someone who was going to school part-time who had a used car that she needed for work, who ended up putting all the money she made back into the car for repairs.

I don't know the distance it was for me to bike to work that one summer, but it took me ~45min. to get there, a little longer to get back since there was lots of uphill. I've also walked 45min. to get to another job I had.

Lord carbo: I don't bike on sidewalks because I don't feel safe on them because I've had an accident on them. I know this is absolutely partially due to me just being human and not being totally rational about it, but I do think it true that motorists don't pay nearly enough attention when they cross sidewalks, and this problem is made serious when you throw a cyclist moving almost as fast as a car on the sidewalk. Furthermore, if I bike on the sidewalk, I'm expected to follow sidewalk rules. That means getting off my bike at intersections, which is a total pain. I've been yelled at by a motorist who was turning left, telling me to get off my ****ing bike, because they had to stop and wait for me because I was just a little bit faster than a pedestrian at the crosswalk, and he couldn't scoot in front of me. I wish I could've yelled back at him, but he was right.
I've also walked with someone who, embarassingly to me, refused to move aside for a cyclist to pass, all because they're not supposed to be on the sidewalk. As a cyclist, you just can't seem to win. Bike lanes seem to be the easiest and safest 'solution'.

I'm sure any planner would cringe at you calling urban development simply 'cramming more people together'. Also, your description about having traffic jams in cities is, uhhh, not exactly proof that people shouldn't live together. It can totally be construed as the opposite in fact. That there's terrible traffic in major cities is in fact largely due to the number of people commuting into those cities for their work, from the suburbs. People who live in large cities, if they've got any head on their shoulders and if tax money's being used wisely towards even just a half-assed public transportation system, would not use a car for everyday needs like going to work. So even if you were to solely 'jam more people into large cities', one could expect that traffic jams during rush hour to in fact decrease because the number of people commuting and needing cars, would decrease.

I totally agree with afrobean and lord carbo with what they said about commerce and about being so widespread in North America. That is why I mentioned urbanization as a solution. Also, when I said 'it's sad that this is the way things are' seems very true at this point in time. North America pollutes hugely, and whatever the reasons, it's sad! However, its true I am also critizing what people want. I'm allowed, am I not? Particularly when it has an impact on the entire world's environment. If I were to own slaves because I wanted them to do all my work, and if everyone else in North American were to do the same, would you not think it fair to critize them? North America as a whole is basically a rich jackass in terms of the environment, so to speak. But I suppose that's simply human nature.

Having cars that are less polluting only solves carbon emissions. Definitely a good thing. But it doesn't solve traffic problems, parking problems (ever tried to park in a major city in the downtown? 5$/hour is good?? Yikes!) or the problem that cars are still damned expensive, yet they're being forced to be a necessity for many people.

[Afrobean]

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

last time i checked, public works are made out of taxes payed by everyone, not only from those who have cars.

That's not how funding for the roadways works, and if you had read the thread, you would know this.

i understand your point because roads in america are probably a bit less filled with vehicles, but if you lived in a city like mine, bikes are always faster than any means of transportation, except during night or when the roads are completely free. our traffic is so chaotic just because there's so much people like you who don't want to waste his/her precious sweat that the roads are completely filled with cars going at a walking man's speed. that's why bikes will aways be infinitely better than cars as long as there isn't an education.

If the roads are so packed with cars, how can a bicycle get by them faster while also following all the laws of the road? The only way I can figure would be if they weren't on the roads (but on sidewalk instead), or simply didn't follow the rules of the road.

also, my average speeds are calculated since stops and traffic lights are no longer a problem with a bike.

This makes no sense. Elaborate, because the understanding I am getting from this is: "with my bike, I don't have to stop for red lights or stop signs."

i haven't crashed in years though i use my bike everyday in the mid of the traffic

The problem isn't cyclists crashing into things or people, it's automobiles crashing into cyclists.

and on top of that i can bypass any road sign without putting people in danger.

This is DEFINITELY illegal.

a scooter works too, since it doesn't pollute as much as a car and it's rather fast. the only problem is a scooter isn't free, while a bike is.

Actually, I was referring to the sort of scooter a child may have, not the motorized vehicle also sometimes erroneously called a moped. Also: bicycles are most certainly not free... seriously, go into a bike shop and ask them to give you a free bike and they'll laugh in your face. In addition, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has a cost. In the case of bicycle, you're paying not only the cost of the initial purchase of the thing, but you're also paying the additional time and effort required to use this thing instead of another thing.

But I think you missed the point I was trying to make. These things are not safe on roadways because they cannot keep up with automobiles. A bicycle cannot keep up, a skateboard cannot keep up, a person running cannot keep up. This is a major safety issue, aside from the basic fact that a person on the road using one of these has basically zero protection, but I'll let that slide because motorcycles also have minimal protection yet are able to maintain safe speeds alongside cars.

______________________

So, I know I'm just reiterating about the cost of cars, but they're damned expensive. I suppose if I bought a ****heap I could pay only a few thousand for it, or even less. However, I'd probably have to spend as much money repairing it over its lifespan than I would if I had bought something quality to begin with, plus there's a major hassle in having to repair it. (Although, that said, if cars needed as much tuning up as bikes did, they'd never be bought. At least it's fairly easy to learn for oneself how to adjust break-tension, spokes, etc.) I've known a (usually) smart person who lived a 20-30 min. walk from campus, a 5min bus ride which cost her nothing because her tuition got her a bus pass on a bus that ran minimum every 15 minutes during the day on weekdays where the bus stop was literally right outside her door, spend so much money on her car that she just had to have, that she couldn't afford a winter coat. I also lived with someone who was going to school part-time who had a used car that she needed for work, who ended up putting all the money she made back into the car for repairs.

What other people spend their money on is irrelevant. I've spent well over 2,000 dollars on my "home theatre" system, and likely will continue to spend hundreds more. Is it something I need? No. Is it something I want? Absolutely. For your friend, the automobile was more than a means of travel from A to B, just as for me, my TV and assorted related equipment is more than a means to see visual media.

I don't know the distance it was for me to bike to work that one summer, but it took me ~45min. to get there, a little longer to get back since there was lots of uphill. I've also walked 45min. to get to another job I had.

Again, I'd like to point out that this is not typical of the average American. If they can get there notably faster by car, they will almost always take this path, especially if the difference in time expended is large.

Lord carbo: I don't bike on sidewalks because I don't feel safe on them because I've had an accident on them. I know this is absolutely partially due to me just being human and not being totally rational about it, but I do think it true that motorists don't pay nearly enough attention when they cross sidewalks, and this problem is made serious when you throw a cyclist moving almost as fast as a car on the sidewalk. Furthermore, if I bike on the sidewalk, I'm expected to follow sidewalk rules. That means getting off my bike at intersections, which is a total pain. I've been yelled at by a motorist who was turning left, telling me to get off my ****ing bike, because they had to stop and wait for me because I was just a little bit faster than a pedestrian at the crosswalk, and he couldn't scoot in front of me. I wish I could've yelled back at him, but he was right.

This sounds to me that you just don't like the bicyclists don't fit well into the world as it is. But that's how it is. Crossing the sidewalk where an outlet vehicles drive over is going to be a risky situation no matter what, even if you're just walking. You just need to be cautious, and drivers also need to be more cautious. But more than anything, the drivers need to be more cautious, since they're the ones moving tons of metal with forces that can obliterate any person they come in contact with.

I've also walked with someone who, embarassingly to me, refused to move aside for a cyclist to pass, all because they're not supposed to be on the sidewalk. As a cyclist, you just can't seem to win. Bike lanes seem to be the easiest and safest 'solution'.

So because someone is bullheaded about the sidewalk, the roads need to change to accommodate bicyclists? What about all of the motorists who are just as bullheaded about "their" roads as this pedestrian is about "their" sidewalk?

I think a perfectly reasonable solution would be to make sidewalks a bit wider wherever necessary to maintain reasonable safety for both bicyclist's and pedestrians.

Having cars that are less polluting only solves carbon emissions. Definitely a good thing. But it doesn't solve traffic problems, parking problems (ever tried to park in a major city in the downtown? 5$/hour is good?? Yikes!) or the problem that cars are still damned expensive, yet they're being forced to be a necessity for many people.

For urbanization, traffic will always be a concern. Remove cars from the mix and there are still a lot of people there, only instead of traffic jams on the streets, they'd be shuffling along sidewalks, equally jammed. And there are plenty of things in this world which are expensive, yet are forced to be a necessity. Food, water, electricity. Clothing, shelter, health care. These things are all expensive in one way or another, but they're all necessities of modern life.

[Cavernio]

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

Food, water, electricity, clothes, and if you really want, shelter, are all individually cheaper than owning a car. (Exceptions apply, obviously, but for the purposes of necessity, they are cheaper.) Furthermore, except for electricity, are necessary by nature, not man-made necessity. If I were American, I'd also be supporting public healthcare, and as such it wouldn't be nearly as expensive. However, even if the entirety of your point were true, it is not valid as an argument. You can't simply point out how life is expensive and expect that to be a counter argument for one particular aspect of life being expensive. Its irrelevant, at least the way you've used it, which is basically "that's how things work", particularly when things don't have to work that way.

Only in extreme cases of people living crammed together would there be congestion from pedestrians. Cars take up way more room than people or cyclists, even car pooled cars. Also, we can assume that if the number of pedestrians increased drastically, there'd be more room alloted for them, so that whatever the maximum number of pedestrians that there's room for now would be increased.

I understand your point about my friend choosing what's important to her, however her choice of having a car has a far reaching, if not large, negative impact on others. For one year, no, that's not much of an impact in terms of gas. But over 4 or 5 years, that's a lot of pollution. It's also room that is taken up in parking lots that people who live much farther away from campus, who have a much better reason to drive, didn't have. Parking space was certainly an issue at the university, at least parking space that would have gotten her closer than a 10 minute walk to where most classes were held. Someone who decides to bike on the road, for the most part, only have a negative impact on themselves.

You're right, I don't like how cyclists don't fit into the world right now. Currently, the law is that they must be on the streets, and fitting with that law, bike lanes are put on some streets. Having bike lanes is better than having no bike lanes, and is still IMO better than having a larger sidewalk. Sidewalks can't have the visibility that roads do, since they're right beside buildings (at least ubran areas). This lack of visibility is why, even if you're careful, accidents can still happen. To put the cyclists on the outside edge of a sidewalk (the side closest to the street), I can see. But of course, since there are things like street lights, stop signs, telephone poles in the way, they're just a little bit further over on the street. I suppose if sidewalks were widened enough to accomodate a cyclist in a designated lane next to the road, I'd like that a lot. Other fast moving non-motorized people could go there too maybe, like roller bladers and skaeboarders. That'd also be hard to do in downtowns though, with all the limited space.
Also, just to note, some cities actually have bike paths which are dedicated to them, separate from sidewalks and roads. I believe Ottawa has quite a few. They also have a great public transportation system, so I've been told, which has lanes dedicated purely to buses. It's also sprawlingly large for its population :-\

[Coolgamer]

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

Afrobean seems to have some issues with the idea that the law and general populous feel that the road should be shared since it is a zone open to the public.

Motor vehicles are more important to the infrastructure of the real world

Oh god, I ride a bicycle so I must be living in some magical fantasy land where I have the legal right to do so without being treated like a douche by other drivers and people.

Oh wait, I do have that legal right, I do live in the real world, and Afrobean seems to live in some magical fantasy land where bikes are illegal to use on the road and everyone is required to purchase a fine automotive and motor around like every true American should, damn it!

You go ahead and live in that world, but as soon as you start trying to take away the rights I have in the real one, I'm going to be angry.

[Magewout]

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

I already addressed this before.

Imagine a world without automobiles, where only bicycles existed. Would the roads be the same as they are?

Imagine a world without bicycles, where only motor vehicles existed. Would the roads be the same as they are?


You think so? Funny, because I only come across 6 driving my car to work, but by bicycle I would hit... hmm... like 30+ at least. Are you familiar with the concept of freeways?


If a bicycle is assumed to be on the same road as the automobile, why would the automobile be stopping and going constantly, but the bicycle would maintain constant speed?

You're clearly a great stronger than I or the typical person even. Most folks wouldn't even want to cycle a small distance even if they're fully rested up.

And I wouldn't even be physically able to manage it, to be honest. On bad nights I can barely even stand by the end of the night. The worst part is that my joints didn't used to be this bad either, they've gotten to be like this over time. I'm sure that if I put additional stain on them, they'd deteriorate much faster even.


Actually, I like bikes, and if I had more time, I'm sure I would go riding from time to time myself. Probably even for minor errands, such as going up to the bank or the occasional light purchasing. Really, back before I had a job or a care in the world, I used to ride all of the time for recreation.


It's not just that. It's that roads are designed for motor vehicles, they are paid for by drivers of motor vehicles, motor vehicles are able to contribute a lot more to society, and finally, motor vehicles are able to complete almost every task in a more expedient fashion.

The only argument in favor of bicycles are that they don't add pollution like most automobiles do. You know what else doesn't? Walking, skateboarding, inline skating, scooter, running, etc. Should these things be allowed on the road with automobiles as well?


The road IS designed for cars. Take a look at bike paths or even bike lanes. Those are designed for bicycles. Notice how different they are from normal roads that run everywhere.


No, I just don't appreciate the higher-than-thou "avoid motor vehicles because they're bad for the environment" shtick, and I also don't appreciate the fact that bicyclists are putting themselves on the road with these vehicles that could literally rip them apart.

Your argument about the roads is wrong. The roads aren't made specifically for cars. They've been made so they can support as many vehicles as possible, and cars are only one kind of vehicle they're designed for. It's not as if there's roads, and that bikes can accidentally also use them.

Sorry, but freeways are not everywhere. If you need to move something to 2 streets away, you won't be using a freeway.

In any kind of traffic jam, cars have to drive directly behind each other, so when the first stops the second has to stop as well. Bikes are small enough to fit between the narrow space between the sidewalk and the car so they can keep going.

Your suggestion, putting bikes on the sidewalk would cause even more accidents because they'd constantly be hindered by pedestrians.

[Vendetta21]

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

Hmm? Wasn't the whole original purpose of this thread to point out that bicyclists don't pay for the roads through taxes and such that motorists do, and by that right shouldn't be allowed on the roads?

And I don't know about you, but all of the time and effort I save is TOTALLY worth the investment I've made in my vehicle. Couple thousand initial cost and around 100$ insurance per month is worth it by far for the trouble it saves me.

The point was that bicyclists are a major contingent of urban consumer transportation, and that while they should be accommodated, our tax scheme should also make them pay their fair share. It isn't that their fair share will necessarily cover all costs, but if they aren't paying we can't improve their situation justifiably as a collective.

Safety of the bicyclists is a bigger issue than safety of the cars. Bicyclists don't contribute significantly to congestion as far as I'm aware so it's a personal safety choice question that is solely on their part. Roads are public and should be kept that way for all vehicles capable of following the rules of the road. I would prefer something other than anecdotal evidence if you're going to tell me that bicyclists shouldn't be allowed because they can't observe the rules of the road on most of the roadways that are used by bicyclists. (Typically neighborhood type roads.)

Afro I am just wondering if your argument is based on principle, if it is based on defending a claim made to the end, if it is based on personal frustrations, or a combination of the three? Not trying to be antagonistic because I think all three are justified, I'm just curious.

Also to the cyclists: bicycling will not solve the climate crisis if you believe there to be one. I just want to make sure you understand this. If you are riding a bike to reduce emissions please remember that this should be about your personal integrity and a symbol of your desire of a new direction for society, because it isn't solving anything. That is a macro issue which can only be solved by macro solutions, unfortunately.

[Afrobean]

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

Afrobean seems to have some issues with the idea that the law and general populous feel that the road should be shared since it is a zone open to the public.



Oh god, I ride a bicycle so I must be living in some magical fantasy land where I have the legal right to do so without being treated like a douche by other drivers and people.

Oh wait, I do have that legal right, I do live in the real world, and Afrobean seems to live in some magical fantasy land where bikes are illegal to use on the road and everyone is required to purchase a fine automotive and motor around like every true American should, damn it!

You go ahead and live in that world, but as soon as you start trying to take away the rights I have in the real one, I'm going to be angry.

hahaha

RIGHTS.

Try and exercise your right to public space by walking out onto the interstate. See how far that gets you.

_______________________

Your argument about the roads is wrong. The roads aren't made specifically for cars. They've been made so they can support as many vehicles as possible, and cars are only one kind of vehicle they're designed for. It's not as if there's roads, and that bikes can accidentally also use them.

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

Sorry, but freeways are not everywhere. If you need to move something to 2 streets away, you won't be using a freeway.

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.

In any kind of traffic jam, cars have to drive directly behind each other, so when the first stops the second has to stop as well. Bikes are small enough to fit between the narrow space between the sidewalk and the car so they can keep going.

That's illegal.

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

Your suggestion, putting bikes on the sidewalk would cause even more accidents because they'd constantly be hindered by pedestrians.

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.

____________________

Roads are public and should be kept that way for all vehicles capable of following the rules of the road.

So if a person is walking on a major roadway, that should be allowed so long as they follow laws of the road such as adhering to stop signs and traffic signals?

How about this: minimum speed limit in addition to the traditional max. If a vehicle can't keep maintain a reasonably safe speed, it has no place on the road. And no, 10 MPH in a 35MPH zone is not a reasonably safe speed, Mr. early-morning-bicyclist-get-the-****-off-the-road-you-are-going-to-get-****ing-smashed-to-bits.

Afro I am just wondering if your argument is based on principle, if it is based on defending a claim made to the end, if it is based on personal frustrations, or a combination of the three? Not trying to be antagonistic because I think all three are justified, I'm just curious.

It's grossly irresponsible in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, a person cycling in the street is no safer than a person thinking it's ok for them to walk on a road as a car drives on it. That's not right and it's highly unsafe for them, and I still stand by the idea that it can also be unsafe for others on the road.

But yeah, I guess a combination of all 3 sounds good. I especially don't like the bastards that ride at unsafe slow speeds on roads when there isn't even a single pedestrian on the sidewalk. Why are you endangering yourself and making me have to change lanes to pass you when you could just as easily keep yourself safe without endangering others and also not cause a burden on the drivers of the road (of whom I still remain solid in the stance that roads are what they are because of motor vehicles and bicycles being put on them is a matter of happenstance in that it's silly to include special paths or lanes in most areas specifically for these cyclists).

And yeah, when I get set in a way, I push it as far as it'll go.

Also to the cyclists: bicycling will not solve the climate crisis if you believe there to be one. I just want to make sure you understand this. If you are riding a bike to reduce emissions please remember that this should be about your personal integrity and a symbol of your desire of a new direction for society, because it isn't solving anything. That is a macro issue which can only be solved by macro solutions, unfortunately.

Incidentally, for you ecochumps out there, how do you think they manufacture bicycles? Do you think oil wasn't burned at all to get the energy to produce that thing? How about the store you purchased your bicycle from? Did they truly not indirectly cause oil to be used? How was the bicycle (or individual components) shipped from the manufacturer to the retail store?

Burning oil is unavoidable in the current society. It's silly to so heatedly avoid it, when in fact, EVERYTHING is touched by oil. The solution, like vendetta said, is not to avoid personally using oil on a micro level, it's to be able to move beyond it on a macro level. You can stop using all the oil you like and ride your bicycle 10+ miles to work every day and back, but you're not going to stop the wheels of the machine from turning. Until we can get cheap electricity from a source other than oil, until motor vehicles can drive without a bit of oil, until freight trucks can drive hundreds of miles without a drop of oil, you riding your bicycle won't do jack **** to make a positive change, nor will you driving an automobile for convenience make a notable negative change.