Cyclists just don't see themselves as normal road traffic, so they don't see themselves as having the same responsibilities or held to the same standard, which is something I'm guilty of myself. I've ridden against traffic for short periods or ran red lights on a bike before (where it's clearly safe to do so), since I feel "semi-pedestrian"
Bikes don’t kill entire families when they crash. They don’t need to follow the same rules as cars. Forcing them to follow rules meant for cars makes the roads more dangerous.
In the US side walk are already hilariously under designed and roads are already hilariously over designed. In many places side walks are barley large enough for pedestrians and bikes to cross.
And pedestrian infrastructure is just horrible designed for wheeled vehicles in the first place. As people with kid strollers and wheel chairs find out quickly.
The actual solution, that pretty much every other first world country in the world has recognized is to start to build proper safe infrastructure for bikes (and the US overwhelmingly has plenty of space for that). Or to lower car traffic speed such that sharing can be done safely.
If the US had huge sidewalks everywhere and fantastic design for access of wheeled vehicle, your suggestion might make sense, in the actual world, it doesn't, it just makes the world worse for people that walk and those that cycle.
This is literally already all figured out and backed up with plenty of research but somehow people have to come up with their own 'solutions'.
> In the US side walk are already hilariously under designed and roads are already hilariously over designed.
So many people jog in the streets exactly for this reason. Sidewalks are often poorly maintained and falling apart. I'm not sure how anyone handicapped is supposed to get around.
In a previous life, during heavy winter storms, I would commonly walk in the streets because they were maintained while the sidewalks were covered in ice. The city once changed its plowing algorithm due to angry drivers but for sidewalk maintenance they act almost powerless.
Years ago I visited Amsterdam and the pedestrian experience was incredible. It was like walking around a theme park. Ever since that experience I can't unsee the hell we've created in the states with our cars-first mentality.
That's a terrible idea. Biking on the sidewalk should be illegal for everyone except young kids. Sharing the sidewalks is dangerous when the speed difference between the average cyclist and the average pedestrian is something like 10 mph.
That can work by widening sidewalks and designing them so that bicycles can cruise safely at full speed, protected from and prioritized over cars, and also clearly separated from the walking sidewalk so there are no unpleasant interactions. The bonus is that if one acquires the space for this by removing car lanes, then the city becomes a little bit nicer for everyone.
My favorite unsubstantiated theory about anti cyclist sentiment is that exposes the radically car centric nature of US society and people don't like noticing that.
You seem to misunderstand the founding principles on this country, which, among other thing favor private property and individual over society as a whole. Most people do not suggest everyone but them has to sacrifice. Me, for example, am saying 'apply rules across the board', which in this case means liceses for bikes if they want to drive on the road with everyone else, who is licensed.
Is that narcissist to ask that the same standard is applied?
Licenses aren't for road use. They're for motor vehicle operation. You are also free to use a road without a license if you use a vehicle that doesn't require a license. Or your feet.
<< Licenses aren't for road use. They're for motor vehicle operation
I am talking about what could be. You are arguing for what is currently in play in US ( in old country, for example, we did have bicycle licenses ).
Otoh, your argument suggests that I could drive the following[1] on the street and expect that the cops won't stop me, because, after all, just like a bike, it does not require a license. As you can see, the argument breaks down easily.
The issue is, a lot of the rules of the road depend on some common sense. Not an insignificant part of what bicycles are doing on US roads is not common sense. Hence my argument: "you want to be on the road, be subject to the same rules". I do not think it is unreasonable.
> As you can see, the argument breaks down easily.
I'm not following. I'm definitely not seeing any such thing. Do you think someone should be allowed to drive this [1] on a public road as long as they have a driver's license? Obviously (I hope) not. The vehicles that are allowed to be used on a road are already regulated separately.
> Not an insignificant part of what bicycles are doing on US roads is not common sense.
One of the problems with appealing to "common sense" is that no one agrees on which things are common sense. It's common sense to me that bicycles should be ridden on the road, and rarely ever on the sidewalk. Yet there are people that I think honestly believe that common sense should dictate the opposite. Where does that leave us?
A lot of bicyclists run stop signs and ride the wrong way. That bothers me. A lot of motor vehicle drivers exceed the speed limit and use cell phones while driving. That also bothers me.
More traffic calming measures? Commercial licenses for those giant pickups SUVs? Less "free" parking? Require 100 miles of transportation cycling to get a drivers' license, for those physically able? Higher gas taxes?
Different modes of transport have different capabilities, dangers, and responsibilities. Horses, bikes, cars, HGVs, pedestrians—all different, actually there's no real shame in ignoring car laws when you're not driving a car. You have to use your brain and accept the fact that these laws were only made with cars in mind.
I don't think this is controversial but HGVs tend to have even more stringent traffic laws, ones that cars don't have to follow. In my country HGVs have lower speed limits than cars, for example. I don't think this is controversial but it would be strange for cars to follow rules that only apply to HGVs.
"Against traffic" is different as a bike or led though. Sometimes when lanes are very narrow and visibility isn't good, you need to go against traffic (on the shoulder) so that the driver sees your face and responds faster. And you can see to bail if someone hasn't made room.
But if it's a Chicago intersection and you just said I'm on a bike all 12 lanes have to yield to me and you zoom diagonal in front of cars... the Darwin Awards are never short of applicants.
E-bikes and scooters and stuff have made this 1,000 times worse. The number of drunk kids who think they can go max speed down a hill through intersections and cars will just magically make way for them... Terrifying.
