There's a route I want to bike near my house that rides down towards the bay and river, and back up it's other side (about a ten mile loop). But the problem is there's a long, winding, and hilly narrow two lane road I have to go through until I hit the larger highway part and fuck if I'm daunted about riding that part specifically because of the stuff being discussed in the last ten or so posts. Lots of blind spots where drivers who race down that road (its 30 mph, but so many people hit 40 easy) and it just makes me really nervous about going through it.
At least I finally got some lights for my bike last week which should help a little, but still.
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
no
The cyclist impeding traffic also does not want to be there (in large part because of the exact reaction people in this thread are having). Yell at your city councils to build more bike lanes.
+6
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
yes
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
I've always thought it made way more sense for bikes to be on sidewalks. Their weight and speed is far more similar to a pedestrian than a car.
Sidewalks don't go everywhere that roads do. There's also the issue of people walking in front of bikes all the time, and a cyclist crashing into a pedestrian at 15 mp/h can and does regularly kill said pedestrian, especially the young and the frail.
I've always thought it made way more sense for bikes to be on sidewalks. Their weight and speed is far more similar to a pedestrian than a car.
Sidewalks don't go everywhere that roads do. There's also the issue of people walking in front of bikes all the time, and a cyclist crashing into a pedestrian at 15 mp/h can and does regularly kill said pedestrian, especially the young and the frail.
Plus, there's a lot of places without sidewalks.
But if you're on the sidewalk you shouldn't be going more than 5 mph. In my city, 10 is the limit and I think that's too fast as well.
I've always thought it made way more sense for bikes to be on sidewalks. Their weight and speed is far more similar to a pedestrian than a car.
Sidewalks don't go everywhere that roads do. There's also the issue of people walking in front of bikes all the time, and a cyclist crashing into a pedestrian at 15 mp/h can and does regularly kill said pedestrian, especially the young and the frail.
I know, I mean in general, where they're available. That aside, I have to think that a cyclist hitting a pedestrian has to be a better accident (for lack of a better term) than a car hitting a cyclist?
I've always thought it made way more sense for bikes to be on sidewalks. Their weight and speed is far more similar to a pedestrian than a car.
Sidewalks don't go everywhere that roads do. There's also the issue of people walking in front of bikes all the time, and a cyclist crashing into a pedestrian at 15 mp/h can and does regularly kill said pedestrian, especially the young and the frail.
I know, I mean in general, where they're available. That aside, I have to think that a cyclist hitting a pedestrian has to be a better accident (for lack of a better term) than a car hitting a cyclist?
I was riding on the sidewalk once because I literally had to as the street was full of construction vehicles, going stupid slow because there were also a LOT of people there and this fucking woman walks right in front of me, turns to her friend as says loudly "AND THEN YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM OF THESE BIKES ON THE SIDEWALK". I happily told her where to shove it but you'd be surprised how many times that's happened since.
Like, twice!
+2
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
+6
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
yes
Sidewalks are decidedly not for bikes, I am firmly against that.
In one part, because it's the way my home town repeatedly tried to justify not making bike lanes. In another, because I've had a whole hell of a lot of near misses from bikes while on the sidewalk.
If you can't ride your bike on the street for some reason (and let me clear, I think that's bullshit and you should always be able to ride your bike on the street), then you should dismount and walk it.
+3
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
a good 95% of the streets i have to ride on are 20 mph. I have yet to ever see any car going that slow, it's usually 50-80
also we have several divided bike/pedestrian paths around where I live and they are clearly marked MAX 10 MPH on the bike side which is nice but they're also filled with pedestrians because they don't give a shit.
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
Like, I'm sympathetic to the cyclists here, but the answer isn't to shove them onto the sidewalk, it's to build a bike lane and/or force cars to be more conscientious.
Your problem there isn't that cyclists can't keep up with cars, it's that speed limits are too high and/or cars aren't making space for cyclists.
Straightzi on
+2
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
so no one is happy or on time?
So that people driving cars start thinking about public transit or riding a bike themselves
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
so no one is happy or on time?
So that people driving cars start thinking about public transit or riding a bike themselves
eehh
the places I have to go are too far and have no public transport
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
so no one is happy or on time?
So that people driving cars start thinking about public transit or riding a bike themselves
eehh
the places I have to go are too far and have no public transport
also I don't have a bike
Sell your car, you'll be able to buy a real fancy one
+2
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
so no one is happy or on time?
So that people driving cars start thinking about public transit or riding a bike themselves
viable public transit is not feasible with current technology and infrastructure in like 90% of the US my dude
were I to take the public bus to work, it would take me somewhere around 1-1/2 hours
or I could drive there in 15 minutes
also, bikes and cars are not equivocal outside of major cities
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
so no one is happy or on time?
So that people driving cars start thinking about public transit or riding a bike themselves
eehh
the places I have to go are too far and have no public transport
also I don't have a bike
Sell your car, you'll be able to buy a real fancy one
well 2 days a week I have to work 101 miles away from my house which is a biiiiit far to bike
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
so no one is happy or on time?
So that people driving cars start thinking about public transit or riding a bike themselves
eehh
the places I have to go are too far and have no public transport
also I don't have a bike
Sell your car, you'll be able to buy a real fancy one
Public transport should ideally be funded well enough to get you within less than 1 mile of anywhere you reasonably want to go, in a timely manner, and with accommodations for people doing shopping or laundry, and for the physically disabled and honestly for people with anxiety and sensory issues.
Granted... I don't think we'll get this anytime soon...
Tallahasseeriel on
+2
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
so no one is happy or on time?
So that people driving cars start thinking about public transit or riding a bike themselves
viable public transit is not feasible with current technology and infrastructure in like 90% of the US my dude
were I to take the public bus to work, it would take me somewhere around 1-1/2 hours
or I could drive there in 15 minutes
also, bikes and cars are not equivocal outside of major cities
I'm well aware
That still doesn't mean that bikes should be relegated to sidewalks and not treated like vehicles in their own right
If the problem is that driving is significantly better than public transit (or using another alternate form of transportation, like a bicycle), then the solution isn't to model society after driving, but rather find ways to make public transit more accessible, or biking a safer alternative
Or just make driving such a miserable fucking experience that nobody wants to do it, I'd be cool with that too
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
yes
Edit: Nah, nevermind. Fuck cars, but that's all.
Straightzi on
+1
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, roads with names are for cyclists, roads with numbers are for cars
not even remotely true in most cities
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
so no one is happy or on time?
So that people driving cars start thinking about public transit or riding a bike themselves
eehh
the places I have to go are too far and have no public transport
also I don't have a bike
Sell your car, you'll be able to buy a real fancy one
fuck off with this
I'm not the one who came in here with "I want pedestrians to be in more danger of being struck by vehicles because I'm scared of killing someone with my big expensive murder machine"
Posts
that's what we pay you for
At least I finally got some lights for my bike last week which should help a little, but still.
Sidewalks are also for bikes, just don't bike like an asshole.
And all roads are for bikes.
Sidewalks don't go everywhere that roads do. There's also the issue of people walking in front of bikes all the time, and a cyclist crashing into a pedestrian at 15 mp/h can and does regularly kill said pedestrian, especially the young and the frail.
Plus, there's a lot of places without sidewalks.
But if you're on the sidewalk you shouldn't be going more than 5 mph. In my city, 10 is the limit and I think that's too fast as well.
I know, I mean in general, where they're available. That aside, I have to think that a cyclist hitting a pedestrian has to be a better accident (for lack of a better term) than a car hitting a cyclist?
I was riding on the sidewalk once because I literally had to as the street was full of construction vehicles, going stupid slow because there were also a LOT of people there and this fucking woman walks right in front of me, turns to her friend as says loudly "AND THEN YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM OF THESE BIKES ON THE SIDEWALK". I happily told her where to shove it but you'd be surprised how many times that's happened since.
Like, twice!
not even remotely true in most cities
In one part, because it's the way my home town repeatedly tried to justify not making bike lanes. In another, because I've had a whole hell of a lot of near misses from bikes while on the sidewalk.
If you can't ride your bike on the street for some reason (and let me clear, I think that's bullshit and you should always be able to ride your bike on the street), then you should dismount and walk it.
If you have numbered city streets, yeah, fair. It's a generalization I grew up with where numbered exclusively meant either major highway or freeway (and major highways I would still ride a bike on sometimes, but it's largely not my preference).
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I have streets where the speed limit is 40-55mph because urban sprawl
you cannot reasonably ride a bike on those
a. safely
b. without violating traffic law by holding up traffic
now we must battle
oh please i'm not that young
a good 95% of the streets i have to ride on are 20 mph. I have yet to ever see any car going that slow, it's usually 50-80
also we have several divided bike/pedestrian paths around where I live and they are clearly marked MAX 10 MPH on the bike side which is nice but they're also filled with pedestrians because they don't give a shit.
Your cities need to get some better laws then. Here it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks if you're over the age of 12.
Like, I'm sympathetic to the cyclists here, but the answer isn't to shove them onto the sidewalk, it's to build a bike lane and/or force cars to be more conscientious.
Your problem there isn't that cyclists can't keep up with cars, it's that speed limits are too high and/or cars aren't making space for cyclists.
holding up traffic should absolutely be a moving violation
most streets in downtown have bike lanes, and in various thoroughfares
skateboarding is a crime
The way you do it is
Then lower the damn speed limits so that you're not unfairly favoring one type of vehicle over another
what the FUCK
I'm pretty sure if I did now, I'd instantly eat shit and break about 4 bones
so no one is happy or on time?
So that people driving cars start thinking about public transit or riding a bike themselves
Because bikes only work if you are physically fit
And cars are dangerous and bad for the environment
eehh
the places I have to go are too far and have no public transport
also I don't have a bike
edit: but I'm all for better public transport
Sell your car, you'll be able to buy a real fancy one
were I to take the public bus to work, it would take me somewhere around 1-1/2 hours
or I could drive there in 15 minutes
also, bikes and cars are not equivocal outside of major cities
well 2 days a week I have to work 101 miles away from my house which is a biiiiit far to bike
fuck off with this
Granted... I don't think we'll get this anytime soon...
I'm well aware
That still doesn't mean that bikes should be relegated to sidewalks and not treated like vehicles in their own right
If the problem is that driving is significantly better than public transit (or using another alternate form of transportation, like a bicycle), then the solution isn't to model society after driving, but rather find ways to make public transit more accessible, or biking a safer alternative
Or just make driving such a miserable fucking experience that nobody wants to do it, I'd be cool with that too
cool, you're doing some strawman bad faith shit
I'm out