I think, especially in cities, you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side.
Bike lanes historically do not deliver as they increase traffic pattern complexity significantly for all three participants.
I have seen some very ambitious plans to make city Centers free of anything that can go faster than 25kph and I root for such plans but they are all very naive usually.
Still, happy to see the world move in such a direction. Until then I think we will have to live with the fact that there are some legitimate reasons to hate on the bicycle.
PS: before you all get worked up for what a bicycle hating subhuman I must be. I own a mountain bike, I happily use it in forests and mountainous regions and get huge amounts of recreational value out of it.
> I think, especially in cities, you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side
Replace that bicycles with cars and the argument still holds up. "historically" here is really an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Both cars and bicycles are fairly modern inventions which both appeared around the same time.
In fact, city streets were mostly dominated by pedestrians, horses and carriages up to the late 19th / early 20th century. Moreover, there was a backlash against early cars as well. The more interesting question is this: how did cars really ended up overtaking streets in cities and towns? Why did infrastructure / urban planning ended up favoring car use in the public space?
> I have seen some very ambitious plans to make city Centers free of anything that can go faster than 25kph and I root for such plans but they are all very naive usually
Why are they naive? I live in a historic city center. Streets used to be cramped with cars, it smelled horribly with exhaust gasses, soot covered historic buildings, parking space is extremely limited and small sidewalks were crowded forcing you to teeter into traffic.
Over the past decades, that all changed as car use was gradually disincentivized and in some areas downright banned. All I can say is that it has been a massive improvement. The city is far more appealing then it used to be... and these days I know few people contesting that it's "unfeasible" or "unpractical".
Would it work everywhere? No, not really. Let's be realistic. But let's not venture into the other extreme dismissing wholesale as a naive idea either.
I think the experience of the Netherlands shows that bicycles can happily be part of the transport mix if they are properly catered for; dedicated traffic lanes separated from car traffic. It's the half hearted measures that typically fail.
>not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes.
Bicycles were invented first, cars came later. It's the cars that don't fit. They're too big and too dangerous.
Next time you go outside, take a look around you and count all the gizmos and contrivances that litter the streets, all of which are for cars or because of cars or to protect from cars. Traffic lights, painted crossings, bollards, metal protective barriers, pedestrian islands, bike lanes, parking spaces, speed cameras, on and on it goes.
We only need all this ugly junk because of cars. We've trained ourselves not to see it, like a hoarder who doesn't properly see his piles of clutter.
When it's just pedestrians, bikes, and maybe a tram or two, it's amazing how tidy and calm a street can be.
There's no legitimate reason to hate on any other mode of transportation. Unless you're on an interstate or other highway that specifically forbids certain vehicles or has a minimum speed, everyone else has the same right to use the road you do.
Generally yes, but, especially in California, people often forget that it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic, regardless of the type of slower vehicle.
EDIT: Yield here is a misnomer, what I mean to convey is that slower moving traffic by law is supposed to pass faster moving traffic if it's possible to do so safely, and this is a feat that I rarely see take place, be it with cyclists or drivers.
> it's the slower vehicle's responsibility to yield to faster traffic
WTF is wrong with you in America?
When a bike goes on the pavement it's the bike that has to yield. When a pedestrian or a bike goes on a road - it's the cars that have to yield (usually, there's exceptions).
I was referring to traffic on roads, not sidewalks. Slower vehichles on the road have to yield to faster vehichles in so far that they have to let them pass.
No they don't. Do you drive? Cause if so - you're a threat to other people...
When a pedestrian crosses a street - cars and bikes have to stop for example. When a bike and a car meet on an intersection of equal roads with no lights or signs - whoever is on the left has to yield, no matter what their speed is. When signs or lights show who has to yield - it also doesn't matter if you drive a car/bike or walk.
I can't think of a single instance where the law says you should yield just because you're slower.
And if law doesn't say who should yield - it's customary to let the slower/more vulnerable to go first.
Pedestrians are not vehichles. I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them - in this case it's the responsibility of the slower vehicle to let the faster traffic pass in a safe manner. Seems like I've worded myself poorly here given that people are clearly misunderstanding me.
Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I will let bicycles and pedestrians cross first if there's a stop sign or the traffic is moving slowly. However, when I'm driving my Prius on the highway and I don't feel like doing 15 MPH over the speed limit, I will move over and let the soccer mom pass. 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same.
> Yes, at intersections, as a driver, I will let bicycles and pedestrians cross first if there's a stop sign or the traffic is moving slowly.
There's no if, and you're not in a position to "let" them do anything. Doesn't matter how fast they go. If they have the right of way - they do. If they don't - they don't. Speed doesn't matter and it's not your decision.
> I am specifically referring to a situation where there's traffic going one way on a road and slower vehicles are impeding on traffic behind them
There's law about that, and you won't like it :) If a bike is driving on a road and you're behind it and forced to slow down because of that - you can overtake the bike only if you have at least 1 meter of safety margin. If the road is too narrow to do that or there's a continuous line or overtaking ban sign - you are required by law to slow down and drive behind the bike waiting for a safer place to overtake that bike.
There's no law forcing the bike to "let you overtake it" - the only relevant law AFAIK is that the bike has to drive near the right side (except for intersections where they turn left). But so do anybody else, including cars - it has nothing to do with speed.
> soccer mom
No idea what that is and how it matters.
> cycling enthusiasts
Do you call people "walking enthusiasts" and car drivers "car enthusiast"? This whole approach to cyclists as if they were somehow "less serious" road users than car drivers is toxic.
The soccer mom comment is a bit insensitive, but I meant to imply that the person operating their vehicle isn't paying attention to driving much.
As for the cycling enthusiast remark, if you're cycling on mountain roads for the purpose of recreation, I think it's fair to say that you'd be interested in cycling more than most other people. I might be very wrong. I don't have anything against cyclists, I am one myself. And yes, I will call people hill-walking enthusiasts if they enjoy hill walking. I will also call some people driving enthusiasts, if they enjoy the act of driving. These are distinct groups of people for whom these labels seem justified. Don't take this the wrong way but it might be you who's assigning some moral value to the use of these labels, my intention was to use them in a more matter-of-fact kind of a way.
> There's no law forcing the bike to "let you overtake it" - the only relevant law AFAIK is that the bike has to drive near the right side (except for intersections where they turn left). But so do anybody else, including cars - it has nothing to do with speed.
Yes there is. In the UK, as per the latest changes to the highway code, slower traffic should let faster traffic pass, when possible to do so in a safe manner. I was certain it was the same in California, but I cannot find any source claiming this just now - however, there are plenty of signs saying that slower traffic should use turnouts to let others pass.
> There's law about that, and you won't like it :) If a bike is driving on a road and you're behind it and forced to slow down because of that - you can overtake the bike only if you have at least 1 meter of safety margin. If the road is too narrow to do that or there's a continuous line or overtaking ban sign - you are required by law to slow down and drive behind the bike waiting for a safer place to overtake that bike.
I take no issue with such a law - if it's not safe to pass, then there's nothing one can do. I think it's pretty obvious that safety always comes first. However, given a situation where there's 5 or more cars behind me when I'm cycling, I'll be aware of this and I will stop whenever possible to let them pass if they are able to go faster than I am on my bike. This is not difficult to do, and I'd much prefer the 2 tonnes of metal that's powered by paleolithic compost and not rarely operated by someone looking at their phone were in front of me rather than behind me.
> Yes there is. In the UK, as per the latest changes to the highway code, slower traffic should let faster traffic pass, when possible to do so in a safe manner.
I haven't been able to find this change sorry, where did you see it? It's not mentioned in any of the update articles I've been able to find[0]. The pre-existing rule 169 is the closest match and only suggests that road users do not create long queues of traffic. This doesn't mean that slower road users are required to pull over for any faster vehicle, only that they should try to if a longer queue begins to form behind them.
Older articles[1] indicate that 169 doesn't apply to cyclists at all but I imagine this is an overgeneralisation of the rule that allows cyclists to take a lane position that prevents cars from overtaking when it is unsafe to do so.
Maybe I was reading too much into this and interpreting your post uncharitably. Sorry for that.
In any case - I don't think the law you refer to means what you think it means. For example if you're driving a farming equipment (or a bike) at the top comfortable speed - you don't have to speed up or stop on a nearest parking to "let people pass". You just continue driving as normal, close to the right side of the road. What's forbidden is slowing down on purpose to block the traffic, which is a whole different thing (usually done as a form of a political protest). At least that's how it works in Poland and I suspect in the rest of EU.
> 30 minutes later when on a mountain road, I expect the soccer mom and the cycling enthusiasts to do the same.
I have a feeling that you'll end up killing someone on one of these mountain roads with that attitude.
You wait behind them until you're on a clear stretch of straight road, and then overtake. If you don't have a clear stretch of road, you continue to wait behind them. Anything else, and you're putting either the cyclist in danger, or yourself and the oncoming traffic in danger.
What specifically about that statement implies that I have an attitude that tends towards being dangerous on the road?
I'm not saying that I'll be driving at inappropriate speeds or trying to tail-gate other cars or god-forbid cyclists on mountain roads. I prefer to keep my distance, especially around cyclists. All I'm saying is that it'd be nice if the slower traffic in front would actively let the faster traffic pass, using the turnouts or whatever they're called to stop and let others pass.
No. Traffic is supposed to flow. A vehicle that's moving too slowly is an obstacle on the road. There is such a thing as a minimum speed and cyclists violate that every single day.
> There is such a thing as a minimum speed and cyclists violate that every single day.
On every road where minimum speed is introduced bikes are banned anyway. At least in my country. It's just motorways and expressways. Every other road does not have minimum speed and bikes can go as slow as they wish. Anything else would be discriminatory towards less fit people.
Where do you live? Cause I'm walking A LOT (over 9 km per day on average for the last 2 years - yes I'm recording stats, I'm a nerd) and I bike a little (but much less - about 3 km per day in that period) and I've never had a guy on a bicycle threaten me when I'm walking or biking.
Pedestrians in the cities are on the pavements. You cannot really bike over 15 km/h on a pavement. And depending on the kind of the pavement 10 km/h might be more realistic. You'll shake and your wrists will hurt if you do more than that. And it's hard to maintain over 15 km/h for long if you're not very fit. I know I can't, and I'm more fit than the average cyclist. Going 15 km/h on a pavement you pose no threat to anybody.
Outside of the cities cyclists and pedestrians do meet on the roads - but pedestrians walk the other side of the road than cyclists. And the average cyclist in countryside is a grandma going back from church/cemetary/grocery shop. Really not a threat either.
The only cyclists that might theoretically put you in danger are the hardcore sport kind, but they are very rare and they just go on the streets with cars.
> you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side.
The biggest problems I've had have actually been in places where this isn't the case: slow-moving inner city traffic here you can just keep up with cars.
In some traffic situations this is certainly a problem, but I think it's just part of the overall problem.
Uh, what? Reaching 15km/h is not unheard of for running either, so why would that be waaaaay too fast on a bike in mainly pedestrian areas? Sure, the bike should slow down to lower speeds than their norm to ensure safety for all people involved in traffic, but isn't that no different from how cars shouldn't go 100km/h+ in city centers?
I see your point, but Amsterdam generally has separate lanes for cars, bikes and foot traffic.
The point I was making is that it is safe to use a bike in foot traffic areas if you slow down to match the expected speeds of your surrounding traffic; such as using a bike in the historical city center of e.g. Amersfoort or Utrecht, where there is usually a lot of foot traffic and little car traffic, and no separate bike lanes.
A colision at 100km/h, even 60 for sure, the pedestrian or cyclist has a near zero chance of surviving it. Especially if we talk of vehicles with more than 1000Kg of mass.
The cyclist has all the reason to be there as a driver would, none at all. Go driving on the sidewalk, at a speed presumably appropriate for "guests" (15 km/h? would that really be appropriate?) and look how welcome you are.
The existence of a sidewalk implies the existance of a road that is used for all traffic except foot traffic, such as bikes. Why are you forcing the situation onto the sidewalk?
I was talking about a pedestrian road, considering the 'historical' setting of the GP post.
I'm not. I'm trying to illustrate how wrong it is to expect cyclists to retreat to the sidewalk, sorry if that wasn't clear. Actually I have trouble tolerating cyclists retreating to the sidewalk (mostly because they give drivers the illusion that this could be the norm), outside of certain exceptions (small children and those accompanying them). Limited access roads tend to not have sidewalks anyways.
Do you really need it explained to you how a bike is more dangerous to pedestrians than a runner? A bike has way more inertia, is harder to stop than someone running, and is a tangle of metal that can seriously injure someone, and more difficult to safely maneuver around short of standing the side and stopping to let them pass. Takes half a second of thought to realize all this but you chose to play incredulous instead.
This is how people rationalize, but there is one problem with it. When it no longer convenient to see bikes as dangerous then people instantly stop doing it, as accident data actually show extremely few cases of bikes causing injury to pedestrians outside of intersections.
This is shown directly by city planners. When construction closes down bike lines or walkways, which ever remains get temporarily converted to be both bike and walkway. Since that doesn't carry any increase in risk, it is safe to do so.
Similar, parents with strollers often use bike lanes. During winter when the road conditions is at its worst you often see strollers on bike lines. No one acts as if this puts the baby at mortal danger. Statistics also support this since bikes crashing into a stroller is unheard of.
However lanes that share bikes and pedestrians make people feel unease. The low speed and short breaking distance of bikes allow them to avoid causing accidents, but it doesn't remove the fear completely. Thus Swedish city planners don't generally combine pedestrians and bikes unless there is a good reason, like construction.
Your point is backed up by the custom in Japan. Most cyclists stick to the sidewalk and there are of course some accidents, but it's nothing to be particularly concerned about and it works fine even with incredibly high cycling rates.
> Do you really need it explained to you how a bike is more dangerous to pedestrians than a runner?
No, I do understand that there is (some) more danger to a bike. But a bike also provides an elevated viewpoint to the cyclist, allowing for a better overview of the traffic situation, allowing the cyclist to better participate in traffic.
> more difficult to safely maneuver around short of standing the side and stopping to let them pass.
Most of the time roads are wider than the turning radius of a bike, especially at low speeds (approx 1.5m). Why would you need to stand aside to let someone pass if you have such wide roads?
I think, especially in cities, you just have the problem of bicycles not fitting in either of the two historically present transport modes. They are too slow for the street and waaaaay to fast for the pedestrian side.
Bike lanes historically do not deliver as they increase traffic pattern complexity significantly for all three participants.
I have seen some very ambitious plans to make city Centers free of anything that can go faster than 25kph and I root for such plans but they are all very naive usually.
Still, happy to see the world move in such a direction. Until then I think we will have to live with the fact that there are some legitimate reasons to hate on the bicycle.
PS: before you all get worked up for what a bicycle hating subhuman I must be. I own a mountain bike, I happily use it in forests and mountainous regions and get huge amounts of recreational value out of it.