Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
None of what you claim takes place in the area I am referring to. And I do my best to give as much space and look after cyclist even though they seem to want to share the road but never respect road rules (like stop signs or red lights)
But sure, pointing out a reason why people who do not bike may not want to support bike lanes that even cyclists do not want to use, makes me the bad guy and I am immediately hit with a strawman accurately highlighting you just had no other way to turn this bad cyclist behaviour on me
Imagine if anyone came here claiming they ride the shoulder regularly because it's less bumpy and saves some time... then insult anyone asking why are people driving on the shoulder
How often do you see drivers roll stop signs or rush amber lights? When's the last time you drove at or below the speed limit for an entire trip? I constantly hear drivers complaining about cyclists who pose no danger to drivers, meanwhile the drivers continue to exceed the speed limit, roll stop signs, and be one of the leading causes of death in this country despite having fully dedicated infrastructure everywhere.
Not as often as cyclists to be honest... running yellows MAYBE... but I rarely see a car taking a glance and running a red light that has been red for a while.
Look if cyclists want to endanger their lives, well it completely sucks for everyone but it definitely sucks for them more. A cyclist would always lose against a car. And I am x100000 for all of us using bikes more but we ALL need to be responsible. The mentality here is that this is a car problem and if cyclists break rules well so do car drivers so two wrongs make a right and all is good?
I think what they're actually trying to say is that you have some observational bias, not that two wrongs make a right.
I also kinda want to point out that bikes rolling stop signs isn't dangerous (for a few reasons that we can get into if people want), but that's why some places allow "Idaho Stops" which allow bikes to yield at stop signs instead of stopping. But either way, bikes should have to obey their regional laws.
I don't think it's a bias. The issue here is that if a car causes a low speed collision with another car, as bad as it is, there is a good chance the "worst" damage is property damage. If a cyclist is involved, on the other hand, there is a HUGE risk of bodily harm or death.
It is incredibly if they are going straight on the same road a car is turning right.
I DO see a bigger problem if a cyclist runs a Stop sign, not because it's a worse road infraction but because the risk they are taking is orders of magnitude greater. And to boot, if I as a driver see a pedestrian, I assume they will follow pedestrian rules, if I see a car I assume they will behave as a car. Cyclist on the other hand usually follow a hybrid pattern, they may jump on or off the road as they please, they may or may not stop at signs of red lights, they may or may not signal turns (yes, I know, car drivers do the same but I know a car cannot turn where there is no road, a cyclist can turn whenever)
The problem is that if you simply ask a question here, it immediately goes "car bad, bike good" and a conversation cannot take place
The Idaho Stop says they must yield, I'm not saying that a bike going 40kmph can safely run a stop sign. I specifically said "roll" a stop sign. And yeah, the data shows that it is safe (just not legal everywhere).
But to your point about car turning and bike going straight, this situation is actually dangerous whether the bike stops or rolls. The car needs to see the bike or the bike needs to wait in order to not be ran over. There are multiple intersections of this exact make on my daily commute. It's always scary. Stopping or rolling doesn't change if I'm seen though. I always have to wait to go until it's safe. To be clear, rolling doesn't mean not waiting for your turn at a 4 way stop or anything. It just means you don't have to come to a complete stop.
You can read about the safety of Idaho Stops here: Understanding the Idaho Stop/Stop-as-Yield Law.
This is totally true and definitely a safety concern. Driving (or biking) predictably is always safest. It's something taught to motorcycles too. But yeah sometimes a bike has to move from the bike path into the road. It often happens at intersections and it's not really possible to predict. Mind you, tons and tons of bike paths abruptly end, forcing this situation. I don't really know what the solution is. I do think it's an exaggeration to say that bikes regularly jump on or off the road though (not that you specified frequency).
I still do not believe your question was a good faith one. Maybe it was, but you just refuse to accept any answers. Like I mentioned in other comments, I gave some answers and perspective, but the goal post has shifted. Feels to me more like you simply just wanted to complain about bikes on the road. As if there could be no reason for it when a bike path exists. Hoping you have time to watch the video I linked in another comment. Your opinions are not unique, but even though lots of drivers share them, doesn't mean they carry much weight. But undoubtedly I could go on for hours on why cars are bad and bikes are good. That's a joke, but it's also not.
Ah yes, I'm sure no bikes have to take a left around you. I'm sure you even spoke with the cyclists and found out first hand that they do in fact not want bike paths and prefer to share the road with cars... Like how am I supposed to believe this? Of course there's a reason they chose to ride in the road. Maybe it is to piss off cars, but you would probably be surprised to learn that cyclists don't hate cars the way drivers hate bikes. Most of us cyclists actually own and use a car. We just prefer not to when possible.
I like how the connotation of this is that you have some sort of valid excuse to endanger their lives. Anyway, I believe bikes should have to obey all laws. I'm positive that most of the bikes around you do obey laws and that your opinion is the result of observational bias. I'm sure you also see cars break laws all the time (I sure do), but i don't pretend all drivers are anarchist-suicidal-menaces lol.
I like how I gave real reasons that I personally occasionally don't use a bike lane and pointed out that you don't know why a cyclist might chose to be in the road instead but you're just like, "not ah, strawman!" Like I for real don't know what part of my response you think was a strawman, except maybe my sarcastic final paragraph, but you seem to agree with the sentiment, so then I don't see how I could be misrepresenting you... But here, I'll give you another chance; what nefarious reason might bikes chose the road over the bike path?
Where I live a cyclist may take the lane for any reason. They don't have to prove a need or anything like that. So how is this bad behavior? Just because you don't like it? The bike infrastructure simply doesn't always meet the needs of a commuter on a bike.
Yes imagine if busy roads caused cars to choose routes through neighborhoods instead of larger throughput roads; or if cars went into the other lane to avoid potholes; or went around speed bumps; or even went off road to avoid large bumps (common where I live on dirt roads). Like all those things really happen and I'm not criticizing it. But you pretend to be criticizing it to say a bike shouldn't be allowed in the road to avoid a bumpy bike lane. Sorry, but bikes simply are allowed in the road. No matter how unjust you feel it is, it's allowed. Meanwhile plenty of those car examples probably would result in a citation.
Some of what I've said comes off as hot headed, I don't mean to be insulting. At least not overly insulting. But I think you lack perspective. I think if you got on a bike for a while you'd realize how much bike infrastructure is missing. How often you have to get in the road to get to your destination. And how scary it is to share the road with cars. Ain't no one sharing the road for no reason.
It's actually something like a 3 Km straight run (the path I am talking about). There is 1 service road that opens some times in the year but it sits at a full intersection.
No, which is why I posted my comment, I don't get what they do this, sometimes even with kid carries in the back
Same way I am believing the points on your reply.. you know, before you just started getting mad for no reason. Do you want to know what path I am talking about? here it is: https://maps.app.goo.gl/3ZZ2eDbovvypowbM8
Did you get that from the part I said I do everything possible to give them space? it is hard when you have a vehicle on the road that does not follow the road rules. A cyclist that goes through a red light is as dangerous as a car doing the same...
The strawman was the sarcastic comment about how cyclists "just don't want" to use the road... you can't even keep your argument straight
Maybe the cyclists don't like the stop signs that the path frustratingly has but the road does not? Around that stop there are two within a few hundred metres, and frequently stopping (or slowing down fot a rolling stop) makes riding slower and more tiring. That's probably not nearly the entire motivation, though.
Thanks for the reply
Yeah that bike path looks sweet, not sure why a cyclist would go in the road. But lets not pretend the reason is nefarious (unless, again, you have a good reason to think so). I'll also mention that kid carriers are often used for cargo and not just for kids - I wouldn't want to bring my kid on a road with cars while biking - but maybe some do.
Mate, you are advocating against some of the infrastructure I care about most, and that saves lives, and your reasoning is literally just that some bikes are still on the road. Bad opinions that disagree with my own (hopefully justified ones) are frustrating. Feel free to help me see your point of view, but you aren't any more right just because you claim I'm mad.
No, I got if from the part I quoted... :
It's the "even though" part. That rhetoric suggests that you'd be in the right to not give space or something
As far as I'm concerned those sarcastic comments of mine are still your opinion. I did ask for clarification. It's in bold lol. This doesn't mean my argument isn't straight - at least as far as I'm concerned. But please feel free to clarify...
I never did... I literally said I just did not understand the behaviour... that is all... the entire "bad faith argument" is in your head
No, I am trying to understand why they are not used when they are, by far, the safest option.
So it's a surprise to you that erratic behaviour on the road may lead to more accidents?! If I had said the same thing about drunk drivers, would you assume I am giving myself the permission to go out and hurt them? I think this interpretation says more about you than me bud. The only reason I even posted here was to try and understand why cyclist do not use their safer options, precisely because I cannot understand why people would choose to put themselves in harms way... it turns out, people like you rather put themselves in danger and blame everyone else for, saving a few minutes in commute
Oh so you issue an opinion, assign it to me and then attack me for it?.... well that's a new level of strawmaning
I am starting to think you're trolling. We've gone in a few circles... Could be a communication issue on my part, but it feels more like dishonest debating on your part, to me... Benefit of the doubt and all that though:
I gave reasons why I sometimes don't use the bike path, hopefully you understood those reasons. If not, just say so and I can try to explain better. Unfortunately I can't say why some bikers don't use your specific 3k section, but feel free to ask them I guess. But I do still think "In Ottawa, bike lanes mean nothing" is rhetoric against bike lanes/paths. Even if your next statement is that you don't understand why bikes are still in the road.
A bit unrelated but a bike lane (or even just the car lane) is sometimes safer than a bike path due to visibility at crosswalks (probably not in your 3k bike path situation though).
I... actually didn't say that though... So who is assigning opinions? I pointed out that what you said implies that another's behavior may not justify your extra caution if they're doing something illegal. The correct drunk driving example would be this statement:
See how the "even if" part suggest they might not deserve your goodwill? As if you'd be more inclined to give space to bikes if they never broke the law. Maybe my interpretation of your statement isn't what you actually meant? (Side note, just checked your original comment and it actually said "even though" - doesn't change anything I think).
This is kinda rich. Because while I did say that the road is more dangerous than a separated bike path, I didn't suggest that I blamed cars or others for the increased risk I take when I chose the road over the bike path. I weigh the risks and chose convenience. If I had it my way, bike infrastructure would just meet my needs on a bike better than road infrastructure so that I never wanted/needed to be in the road. So then is this a moot point? Maybe even a strawman? You've accused me of a few strawmans but I'm starting to think you either don't know what that means, or just don't hold yourself to a similar standard.
Also, all people in all parts of life do dangerous things for convenience? Cars speed, or maintenance is ignored, actually just driving at all is likely the most dangerous thing anyone does in their life on a regular basis. Biking and walking are safer without cars around, but around cars, cars disproportionately endanger bikes and pedestrians. Most people don't care (because of personal convenience at the expense of others), but I think it could make a legitimate argument for the need for safer biking and walking infrastructure.
This actually kind of is the fault of me - I was thinking you never answered my question of ~"so then what nefarious reason are bikes in the road when a bike path exists?" But you actually did clarify that you don't know and don't think the answer has to be nefarious. Where I got confused is that my base claim is that <they probably have a reason, and it probably isn't to make cars angry> and since it felt like you didn't accept my claim, it led me to believe that you hold <they don't have a good reason, or the reason could be to make cars angry>. So I guess maybe we agree here, and maybe we don't. I'd appreciate some clarity though
Edit: I also want to throw in that your original claim was for Ottawa but the goal post has shifted to your 3k section of bike path. Yet you haven't specified that you're only confused about the actions of cyclists at your 3k section of bike path. But since I've sort of exhausted any input for your 3k section, here's a video that may give you some clarity: Why Don’t Cyclists Use Bike Lanes?
You're wondering why cyclists would rather use that lovely, low-throughput park road -- literally named a "scenic driveway" -- than the multi-use path mixed with pedestrians and dogs and whatnot. Perhaps they like going more than 15km/h. They are not getting in anyone's way, there. It's a frigging park. This road goes nowhere you need to get in a hurry. Frigging un-clench.
I regularly see people use the shoulder or part of another lane to avoid potholes in their car.