Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-1-2008, 05:53 AM   #41
Magewout
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
Magewout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Belgium
Age: 32
Posts: 306
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
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.
__________________
Best AAA: Diamond Heart (FFR edit)
Best sightread AAA: Ninjitsu (I know, I suck )


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRubix View Post
EDIT: Wow Magewout just slayed my riddles
Magewout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-1-2008, 10:10 AM   #42
Cavernio
sunshine and rainbows
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
Default 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.
Cavernio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-1-2008, 12:02 PM   #43
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-1-2008, 12:09 PM   #44
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
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.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-1-2008, 07:05 PM   #45
lord_carbo
FFR Player
 
lord_carbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: fighting villains from afar, NJ
Age: 28
Posts: 6,223
Send a message via AIM to lord_carbo
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio View Post
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.
__________________
last.fm

Last edited by lord_carbo; 10-1-2008 at 07:10 PM..
lord_carbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-1-2008, 10:40 PM   #46
Coolgamer
Old-School Player
FFR Veteran
 
Coolgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Age: 33
Posts: 675
Send a message via AIM to Coolgamer Send a message via MSN to Coolgamer Send a message via Skype™ to Coolgamer
Default 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.
__________________




Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthlight View Post
St1cky only proves that he has no life and that his parents are alcoholics. They probably abused him with rubber duckies when he was a baby. Why else would you exploit scores on FFR?
Coolgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-6-2008, 04:40 PM   #47
Necros140606
FFR Player
 
Necros140606's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Italy
Age: 32
Posts: 1,088
Send a message via AIM to Necros140606 Send a message via MSN to Necros140606
Default 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"
__________________
Necros140606 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-7-2008, 07:49 AM   #48
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!"
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-7-2008, 09:10 AM   #49
Necros140606
FFR Player
 
Necros140606's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Italy
Age: 32
Posts: 1,088
Send a message via AIM to Necros140606 Send a message via MSN to Necros140606
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
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.
__________________

Last edited by Necros140606; 10-7-2008 at 09:19 AM..
Necros140606 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-7-2008, 09:47 AM   #50
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necros140606 View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-7-2008, 09:59 AM   #51
Magewout
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
Magewout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Belgium
Age: 32
Posts: 306
Default 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.
__________________
Best AAA: Diamond Heart (FFR edit)
Best sightread AAA: Ninjitsu (I know, I suck )


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRubix View Post
EDIT: Wow Magewout just slayed my riddles

Last edited by Magewout; 10-7-2008 at 10:02 AM..
Magewout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-7-2008, 10:21 AM   #52
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magewout View Post
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-7-2008, 10:58 AM   #53
Necros140606
FFR Player
 
Necros140606's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Italy
Age: 32
Posts: 1,088
Send a message via AIM to Necros140606 Send a message via MSN to Necros140606
Default 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.
__________________
Necros140606 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-7-2008, 11:30 AM   #54
Cavernio
sunshine and rainbows
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
Default 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.

Last edited by Cavernio; 10-7-2008 at 11:37 AM..
Cavernio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-7-2008, 12:14 PM   #55
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necros140606 View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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."

Quote:
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.

Quote:
and on top of that i can bypass any road sign without putting people in danger.
This is DEFINITELY illegal.

Quote:
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.

______________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavernio View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-7-2008, 02:11 PM   #56
Cavernio
sunshine and rainbows
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
Default 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 :-\
Cavernio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2008, 08:31 AM   #57
Coolgamer
Old-School Player
FFR Veteran
 
Coolgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Age: 33
Posts: 675
Send a message via AIM to Coolgamer Send a message via MSN to Coolgamer Send a message via Skype™ to Coolgamer
Default 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
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.
__________________




Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthlight View Post
St1cky only proves that he has no life and that his parents are alcoholics. They probably abused him with rubber duckies when he was a baby. Why else would you exploit scores on FFR?
Coolgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2008, 09:23 AM   #58
Magewout
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
Magewout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Belgium
Age: 32
Posts: 306
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
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.
__________________
Best AAA: Diamond Heart (FFR edit)
Best sightread AAA: Ninjitsu (I know, I suck )


Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRubix View Post
EDIT: Wow Magewout just slayed my riddles
Magewout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2008, 09:30 AM   #59
Vendetta21
Sectional Moderator
Sectional Moderator
 
Vendetta21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle
Age: 32
Posts: 2,753
Send a message via AIM to Vendetta21
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean View Post
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.
__________________

Last edited by Vendetta21; 10-12-2008 at 09:37 AM..
Vendetta21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2008, 02:50 PM   #60
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: Urban cyclists, and what to do about them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolgamer View Post
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.

_______________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magewout View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.

____________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by vendetta
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution