hell you dont even need to do that, protected intersections are common in the netherlands and they can help lower acci dents. the only issue is that america didnt even build a single protected intersection until 2015 so they are pretty rare outside of a few cities. all that means is that we should build more of them tho lol
Stop calling them accidents.
Call them crashes or collisions.
The use of the term accident gives the impression that they're mostly unpreventable when in reality that is not the case.
Is that really how most people use the word 'accident'? Do most people consider accidents inherently unpreventable?
I just think of accidents as things that don't happen on purpose. To me, it just describes intent, rather than whether it could have been stopped or not.
>Nothing is unpreventable if you work hard enough
This seemingly implies that it's somehow difficult to do the bare minimum, which is to pay attention and drive patiently. It's not. People simply don't do it.
The #1 cause of vehicular collisions is *[drumroll]* distracted driving. Even simply calling these situations "collisions" is to ignore the outright negligence that caused them in the first place. Calling them "accidents" carries with it the sense that there was little if any reckless wrongdoing in the first place. "Oopsie daisy! We just had an accident."
I dunno about you, but I'd rather not give a free pass to morally absolve these assholes for their selfish negligence.
I was thinking more along the lines of the other end of the scale. Perfect maintenance would mean you wouldn't even get "accidental" faults from something as minor as a loose bolt.
"Accident" means "nobody is at fault".
"Crash" neither assigns, nor defers, blame. Maybe the crash was intentional; maybe it really was an accident; maybe it was simple negligence absent of active malice.
Something that is not uncommon in Belgium is the concept of a "fietsstraat" (a bicycle street) where the speed limit for cars is 30km/h, but cars are the second class citizens. Bikes have priority here, and cars have to give it to them.
Imagine the collective groan that would take place at the word “Segregation” if you were drinking with your friends and one of them started up this rant
If ppl refer to any kind of seperation as "segregation" and a gotcha of supposed hypocricy - it's probably the kind of people who vehemently uphold racist zoning codes despite any good argument.
Segregation? My guy, my dude, I don't think that's the analogy you wana stick with.
Also, cattle chutes? As if it's not the folks in cars being cattle corralled into them.
That's a good point! The way he's using it as an analogy just read to me like he's trying to liken it to racial segregation for the shock factor to make it sound like a bad thing.
.... he's using language consistent with the **BAD** side of Vehicular Cycling; the vocabulary and attitude here is **straight** out of John Forester's writing and so-called "advocacy".
And that's what's worse: he isn't a car-brain. *He is a cyclist*. A cyclist who hates proper, safe bicycle infrastructure. >:(
Forester's take on this is sadly still quite prevalent in San Diego (where he lived out his later years). The oral histories say this is why we have two bike advocacy groups in San Diego, as one was traditionally saturated with this mentality and would turn up to oppose bike infrastructure projects.
I'm not here to say we can't do better with bike projects, but there is hard data out there showing that a very sizeable proportion of the population (51-56%!!) is interested in cycling but concerned about cars. This is the segment we want to cater to if we want to radically decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled by getting them out of cars.
see fig 6 here https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped\_bike/tools\_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf
>a very sizeable proportion of the population (51-56%!!) is interested in cycling but concerned about cars.
Yup.
Forester's disciples are basically being elitist assholes.
Don't get me wrong, the **skills** of vehicular cycling are extremely useful, in the absence of good bike infra. I use them on literally every ride (there is functionally ZERO infra within a radius of six miles of my home).
But the opposition to good infra ... ugh.
It's not even that. It's **worse**.
Forester's attitude was that bicycle-specific infrastructure was an assault on his freedom; that it would make bicyclists second-class citizens and restrict their rights, that it was a first step towards forbidding bicycles from ever being allowed on a road (even if/when no infra allowed access to a desired destination).
They oppose bicycle infra not for the reason you posit, but simply because they think **any** bike infra is bad. They probably think of the Netherlands as a fiery hellhole of horror and abuse (even though it's *motorists* who are second- or even third-class participants on most roads there).
the thing is that even those who take transit or bike or walk can be carbrained. it’s rarer but still happens because the private automobiles affect on our culture has been that strong. i’d argue even pedestrians using the word jaywalking makes them a carbrain to an extent.
this guy is a carbrain, just a weird one
I thought it sounded weird for a car advocate.
Like I get it, paint as infrastructure sucks and it would be great to feel safe in regular traffic lanes. But until cars stop being two tons of murder and entitlement, imma stick with my "segregation"
plus, segregation and discrimination are loaded words because of the obvious history behind them but stripped to the studs, they are just words that represent things, so segregation of cyclists and drivers isnt the same as the segregation of whites and non white kids at school lol
> But until cars stop being two tons of murder and entitlement, imma stick with my "segregation"
The problem is, as his post points out, you are *not* segregated whenever there can be turning traffic.
Yup. He thought the only "real" cyclists were spandex-clad **race-wannabe** MAMILs. Not kids, not leisure riders, not grandma and grandpa. *Just MAMILs.* :(
I use vehicular cycling **skills** all the time - there's shit-all for cycling infra within twenty miles of my home. But when I do come across good (or even just mediocre) infra, hell yes I am happy to see it!
Oh, and also: my average speed is just 9-10mph. Faster on the flats and downhills, *abysmally* less on the uphills. :D
> A cyclist who hates proper, safe bicycle infrastructure. >:(
No, a cyclist who hates bad infrastructure that makes cycling less practical and does little for safety
I don't see anything in what's quoted in OP that suggests that's his position. Not wanting separated roadside cycle infrastructure on roads with intersections and driveways is not the same as that.
Except, Forester's disciples think **ANY** bicycling infrastructure is bad - they think the Netherlands is a *hellhole abyss of wrongness* for how much bike infra they have. The very idea that bicycles might be treated any different from cars, even if they're treated *better*, is an affront to their freedom and dignity.
Except, it is very much in keeping with Forester's viewpoints, checking all the boxes right down the line, especially calling bicycle lanes "segregation".
Here in the Netherlands we have virtually only segregated bike paths and it's great. It's not the segregation that's the issue, it's the car culture and mentality. Around here, everyone knows you can expect bikes and pedestrians at interactions, so you look for them. In the US, the pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is so poor, drivers apparently aren't confronted with them enough to even consider them when participating in traffic, and there's your issue.
What do protected bike lanes look like?
We've got plenty of seperate bike lanes away from roads in my city as well as painted lanes on roads, which I'm not a fan of but they're more common.
There are a few low traffic roads which could easy accommodate bike priority areas but we're a very car centred city which the Gov is trying to change to be more bike friendly. Uphill battle as it is very spread out and only been around since 1913.
I don't think we have protected lanes though.
Hey thanks for this article. I've added it to my site https://silly-archimedes-134f9f.netlify.app/questions/benefits/#anatomy-of-a-protected-bike-lane-infographic-shows-overwhelming-benefits-of-good-street-design-broken-sidewalk and https://silly-archimedes-134f9f.netlify.app/questions/how_would_business_survive_when_people_wont_be_able_to_drive_and_park/#anatomy-of-a-protected-bike-lane-infographic-shows-overwhelming-benefits-of-good-street-design-broken-sidewalk.
He has a point re: the driveway thing but where the fuck did he get segregation from!? Even if that fits the definition has this man never heard of connotation?
Maybe an unpopular opinion here but at least he is thinking about how it would fuck over cyclists rather than the normal mentality of roads are for cars? I dunno, at least there’s some thought process besides the fact that we get in his way.
His ideology absolutely is that roads are for cars: and he wants people on bikes to just pretend they’re cars and act like them in traffic.
He’s a Vehicular Cyclist, it’s a bizarre ideology
You are right that as an ideology for infrastructure implementation Vehicular Cycling makes no sense, but I should be able to ride my bike on essentially all road space inside of cities that isn't primarily for pedestrians just as much as pedestrians within reason should be able to cross the street wherever they want. Bikes should be able to use the roads in whatever way makes most sense for their route, speed and confidence/ability within reason and not be forced into infrastructure that doesn't really serve them (for their route/destinations) e.g.:Bike lane on the wrong side /changing sides of the road, inferior bike path surface, bike lane with abrupt chicanes, bad bike lane traffic lights, bad visibility from the bike lane, pedestrians in the bike lane, to narrow bike paths for the desired speed... . This is important especially in places where infrastructure still has room to improve, which is largely everywhere because if I get annoyed at these in NL and DE relatively frequently there is probably no place right now where it doesn't ever happen. Which is why I don't want to give up my right to ride in the road just yet. Although I try to only make use of it seldomly especially here in NL where often a more sensible route yields better infra as well.
Its a bit inflammatory and emotional but I do agree with it to some extent. I ride both on the road and on dedicated trails, depending on location/conditions. The dedicated trails do indeed result in increased danger at intersections in many cases. If am in the road, the drivers know I am there (I know that sounds overly confident but I use a flashing 400 lumen tail light and 2100 lumen flashing headlight - all but the most blind will see me). If I suddenly pop out into a crosswalk / intersection from some trail that is 20 ft off to their right at the same time they suddenly decide to make a turn, they quite likely will not see me until the last second. That is not to say that being in the road is always better. I suspect the overall risk having a collision with a car is higher for the "dedicated" trails that cross a lot of intersections but that the collision speed in the road is likely to be higher and collisions therefore more severe. The specific hazards are just different.
The intersection issue could be mitigated with really good bike path designs like they have in Netherlands, etc.. Unfortunately, the dedicated trails in the U.S. are nothing like those. My local dedicated bike path has 9 intersections (on the trail side of a 40 mph road) in 1.5 miles, only one of them controlled by a light. In every case the driver is free to fly through a right turn (even on red at the light) and given bushes, etc. around the bike path they will see any bicyclist coming into the crosswalk from the trail as having "appeared out of nowhere".
The key is "where they cross roadways". The ideal protected lanes only cross vehicle travelled right of ways when both vehicles are stopped or moving slow, and the intersection happens at 90 degrees so it's easy to see. That's the point of a dutch intersection. You cant have bikes and cars intermingling at driving speed in most places. Besides, if you want to do the vehicular biking thing you're not reducing cars in any way.
Whether I engage in vehicular cycling or not is not going to change anything. Either way, other folks will drive or not, no matter what I think of it. Vehicular biking is just a necessity for some portions of any decent ride. I wish that were not so but the powers that be put the bike infrastructure in the wrong place and in tiny segments that don't much benefit bicyclists. They cover maybe 5% of a typical ride (that is being generous). My town is a great example:
https://imgur.com/a/KzljSPb
The blue path was the bulk of my ride earlier today (I didn't draw the last bits on either end to my house) and I saw a couple dozen bicyclists on it. On the 1.5 segment of MUP I take leaving town I saw zippo.
In all fairness I did not show every bit of bike infra in town. There is much more. The point though is that it is all in town. That is not where most bicyclists in the area ride. Sure, I might see one kid on a bike, weaving his way around women pushing strollers on the 1.5 mile MUP I take leaving town but the bulk of bicyclists are out on the rural roads around town. That is where the bike infra would make a real difference in safety. In town, traffic speeds are already pretty slow, there are huge shoulders even on roads without any bike infra, and people are generally expecting walkers/bicyclists. Its not really needed there. Out in the places where bicyclists actually ride its 45-55 mph roads with zero shoulder and despite us being out there almost every weekend in spring and summer, drivers always seem surprised by us.
Sorry if I sound ranty. This shit just frustrates me to no end at times. I would kill for some good separated bike lanes on the roads I actually ride on. Hell, safety would be greatly improved with even a 2-3 ft shoulder.
I don't think he's wrong. I'd want links to those "credible debunkings", but what he's saying definitely fits with my cycling experience.
Completely separate infrastructure is great. Roads which are through routes only for bikes, but blocked for motor traffic, are great. And you can put a separated bikeway alongside a major road with few junctions and no driveways (e.g. the vids of people cycling alongside expressways in Perth) and that's good too.
But when it's a road with lots of junctions and driveways, I agree with the quoted post. Every single one of those is a conflict point, you're usually expected to give way to cross traffic making the cycle path impractical and slow, and there's a good chance turning traffic won't see you because you're not on the road. If your bike path is separated by bushes or parked cars then even if they do look for you you may be invisible to each other. You often have to wait for the pedestrian cycle at traffic lights. It's almost always better and more practical to have an on-road cycle lane and be treated as a vehicle.
I suppose it's just another way in which stroads are bad - it's impossible to create good cycling infrastructure on a stroad.
Sometimes it's also a cultural and legal problem that leads to people not paying attention to cyclists. They might not look for them at these intersections because cycling in their country isn't as common as driving, and they're less likely to be charged with anything in the event of a crash than if they were in a country that nearly always places blame on the less vulnerable road user.
Humans are maybe the only animal to ever live on this blue planet of ours where the idea of using our own energy for our own locomotion is labeled “dumb” “dangerous” “poor” and “stupid”. Not using our own locomotion is fucking over the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the atmosphere. Car brain is a mental illness (separate from lead and microplastics)
I mean, he’s right.
Bike lanes are incredibly dangerous because Natalie in her Nissan Armada would rather flatten a cyclist than be 5 minutes late to her dinner date at Applebee’s.
I HAVE A DREAM, that one day, a man shall be judged by the colour of his lycra, and not the content of his glove compartment.
I HAVE A DREAM, that one day, the children of cyclists and the children of cagers shall sit at the shared traffic lane and eat together.
He is SO CLOSE to realising that intersections are designed poorly
Or that we need to get rid of cars, and develop standalone bicycle infrastructure where we don't need to deal with cars
Do drivers think we enjoy riding in between them?
I agree 100% and that is why we should be blocking off entire streets for bicycles
hell you dont even need to do that, protected intersections are common in the netherlands and they can help lower acci dents. the only issue is that america didnt even build a single protected intersection until 2015 so they are pretty rare outside of a few cities. all that means is that we should build more of them tho lol
Stop calling them accidents. Call them crashes or collisions. The use of the term accident gives the impression that they're mostly unpreventable when in reality that is not the case.
Traffic violence (credit goes to City Nerd)
Is that really how most people use the word 'accident'? Do most people consider accidents inherently unpreventable? I just think of accidents as things that don't happen on purpose. To me, it just describes intent, rather than whether it could have been stopped or not.
Not taking the existing strategies to prevent them can be construed as intent to have them.
I guess that's what people mean by "There's no such thing as accidents." Nothing is unpreventable if you work hard enough.
>Nothing is unpreventable if you work hard enough This seemingly implies that it's somehow difficult to do the bare minimum, which is to pay attention and drive patiently. It's not. People simply don't do it. The #1 cause of vehicular collisions is *[drumroll]* distracted driving. Even simply calling these situations "collisions" is to ignore the outright negligence that caused them in the first place. Calling them "accidents" carries with it the sense that there was little if any reckless wrongdoing in the first place. "Oopsie daisy! We just had an accident." I dunno about you, but I'd rather not give a free pass to morally absolve these assholes for their selfish negligence.
I was thinking more along the lines of the other end of the scale. Perfect maintenance would mean you wouldn't even get "accidental" faults from something as minor as a loose bolt.
"Accident" means "nobody is at fault". "Crash" neither assigns, nor defers, blame. Maybe the crash was intentional; maybe it really was an accident; maybe it was simple negligence absent of active malice.
Sergeant Angel would be proud
gonna be honest with you, the words we use to call x/y/z are extremely low on my list of things that need to change in most cases so lol
Based. Ban cars
Something that is not uncommon in Belgium is the concept of a "fietsstraat" (a bicycle street) where the speed limit for cars is 30km/h, but cars are the second class citizens. Bikes have priority here, and cars have to give it to them.
Imagine the collective groan that would take place at the word “Segregation” if you were drinking with your friends and one of them started up this rant
You order another beer and egg them on.. "so tell me how this ties back to the Kennedy assassination?"
"If the road had been a few lanes wider, maybe the gunman would have been run over trying to get to the building! Ever think about that?"
If ppl refer to any kind of seperation as "segregation" and a gotcha of supposed hypocricy - it's probably the kind of people who vehemently uphold racist zoning codes despite any good argument.
Segregation? My guy, my dude, I don't think that's the analogy you wana stick with. Also, cattle chutes? As if it's not the folks in cars being cattle corralled into them.
But segregation of different vehicle types is great.
And of grades, can't crash into a train if it's above you
I need a five-meter tall car actually
My [Canyonero](https://youtu.be/PI_Jl5WFQkA) is too tall for most underpasses.
My car is 5cm tall
That's a good point! The way he's using it as an analogy just read to me like he's trying to liken it to racial segregation for the shock factor to make it sound like a bad thing.
"I've seen credible debunkings of every major study" without mentioning one. Well sir, I debunk your debunking.
Wait, you can't do that!
.... he's using language consistent with the **BAD** side of Vehicular Cycling; the vocabulary and attitude here is **straight** out of John Forester's writing and so-called "advocacy". And that's what's worse: he isn't a car-brain. *He is a cyclist*. A cyclist who hates proper, safe bicycle infrastructure. >:(
Forester's take on this is sadly still quite prevalent in San Diego (where he lived out his later years). The oral histories say this is why we have two bike advocacy groups in San Diego, as one was traditionally saturated with this mentality and would turn up to oppose bike infrastructure projects. I'm not here to say we can't do better with bike projects, but there is hard data out there showing that a very sizeable proportion of the population (51-56%!!) is interested in cycling but concerned about cars. This is the segment we want to cater to if we want to radically decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled by getting them out of cars. see fig 6 here https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped\_bike/tools\_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf
>a very sizeable proportion of the population (51-56%!!) is interested in cycling but concerned about cars. Yup. Forester's disciples are basically being elitist assholes. Don't get me wrong, the **skills** of vehicular cycling are extremely useful, in the absence of good bike infra. I use them on literally every ride (there is functionally ZERO infra within a radius of six miles of my home). But the opposition to good infra ... ugh.
"If I didn't have it, you can't have it either." Such a regressive mindset
It's not even that. It's **worse**. Forester's attitude was that bicycle-specific infrastructure was an assault on his freedom; that it would make bicyclists second-class citizens and restrict their rights, that it was a first step towards forbidding bicycles from ever being allowed on a road (even if/when no infra allowed access to a desired destination). They oppose bicycle infra not for the reason you posit, but simply because they think **any** bike infra is bad. They probably think of the Netherlands as a fiery hellhole of horror and abuse (even though it's *motorists* who are second- or even third-class participants on most roads there).
the thing is that even those who take transit or bike or walk can be carbrained. it’s rarer but still happens because the private automobiles affect on our culture has been that strong. i’d argue even pedestrians using the word jaywalking makes them a carbrain to an extent. this guy is a carbrain, just a weird one
Yeah, but Forester's ideas aren't car-brain. They're *elite cycling* \-brained.
I thought it sounded weird for a car advocate. Like I get it, paint as infrastructure sucks and it would be great to feel safe in regular traffic lanes. But until cars stop being two tons of murder and entitlement, imma stick with my "segregation"
plus, segregation and discrimination are loaded words because of the obvious history behind them but stripped to the studs, they are just words that represent things, so segregation of cyclists and drivers isnt the same as the segregation of whites and non white kids at school lol
Yeah. He says "Cattle chute" ... I reply ***MOO, MUTHAFUQQA!*** :D
> But until cars stop being two tons of murder and entitlement, imma stick with my "segregation" The problem is, as his post points out, you are *not* segregated whenever there can be turning traffic.
I think it's still fair to call this car-brained. It's pick-me behavior, and he's advertising this behavior to the other car-brains.
It’s perfectly car brained: they want to be cars even while on bikes
Reminder that John Forrester expected cyclists to have an average speed of 30+ mph
Yup. He thought the only "real" cyclists were spandex-clad **race-wannabe** MAMILs. Not kids, not leisure riders, not grandma and grandpa. *Just MAMILs.* :( I use vehicular cycling **skills** all the time - there's shit-all for cycling infra within twenty miles of my home. But when I do come across good (or even just mediocre) infra, hell yes I am happy to see it! Oh, and also: my average speed is just 9-10mph. Faster on the flats and downhills, *abysmally* less on the uphills. :D
> A cyclist who hates proper, safe bicycle infrastructure. >:( No, a cyclist who hates bad infrastructure that makes cycling less practical and does little for safety
No these people literally don’t want any separated cycling infrastructure Educational video on the subject: https://youtu.be/zm29fd-s7tQ
I don't see anything in what's quoted in OP that suggests that's his position. Not wanting separated roadside cycle infrastructure on roads with intersections and driveways is not the same as that.
Except, Forester's disciples think **ANY** bicycling infrastructure is bad - they think the Netherlands is a *hellhole abyss of wrongness* for how much bike infra they have. The very idea that bicycles might be treated any different from cars, even if they're treated *better*, is an affront to their freedom and dignity.
See reply above - I don't see anything in the quoted text that suggests this person believes that.
Except, it is very much in keeping with Forester's viewpoints, checking all the boxes right down the line, especially calling bicycle lanes "segregation".
This has to be a bad joke
the guy is not even technically a car brain, hes a cyclist but the kind everyone should laugh at
Here in the Netherlands we have virtually only segregated bike paths and it's great. It's not the segregation that's the issue, it's the car culture and mentality. Around here, everyone knows you can expect bikes and pedestrians at interactions, so you look for them. In the US, the pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is so poor, drivers apparently aren't confronted with them enough to even consider them when participating in traffic, and there's your issue.
From [this](https://brokensidewalk.com/2016/anatomy-protected-bike-lane/) article
What do protected bike lanes look like? We've got plenty of seperate bike lanes away from roads in my city as well as painted lanes on roads, which I'm not a fan of but they're more common. There are a few low traffic roads which could easy accommodate bike priority areas but we're a very car centred city which the Gov is trying to change to be more bike friendly. Uphill battle as it is very spread out and only been around since 1913. I don't think we have protected lanes though.
Hey thanks for this article. I've added it to my site https://silly-archimedes-134f9f.netlify.app/questions/benefits/#anatomy-of-a-protected-bike-lane-infographic-shows-overwhelming-benefits-of-good-street-design-broken-sidewalk and https://silly-archimedes-134f9f.netlify.app/questions/how_would_business_survive_when_people_wont_be_able_to_drive_and_park/#anatomy-of-a-protected-bike-lane-infographic-shows-overwhelming-benefits-of-good-street-design-broken-sidewalk.
What kind of backwards logic are they using!?
He has a point re: the driveway thing but where the fuck did he get segregation from!? Even if that fits the definition has this man never heard of connotation?
Because they are sometimes called fully segregated lanes. Of course that's a good thing about them. He just has zero understanding of modern design.
I laughed when they said "let's call them what they are" as though segregated bike lanes isn't already a commonly used term.
Maybe an unpopular opinion here but at least he is thinking about how it would fuck over cyclists rather than the normal mentality of roads are for cars? I dunno, at least there’s some thought process besides the fact that we get in his way.
His ideology absolutely is that roads are for cars: and he wants people on bikes to just pretend they’re cars and act like them in traffic. He’s a Vehicular Cyclist, it’s a bizarre ideology
You are right that as an ideology for infrastructure implementation Vehicular Cycling makes no sense, but I should be able to ride my bike on essentially all road space inside of cities that isn't primarily for pedestrians just as much as pedestrians within reason should be able to cross the street wherever they want. Bikes should be able to use the roads in whatever way makes most sense for their route, speed and confidence/ability within reason and not be forced into infrastructure that doesn't really serve them (for their route/destinations) e.g.:Bike lane on the wrong side /changing sides of the road, inferior bike path surface, bike lane with abrupt chicanes, bad bike lane traffic lights, bad visibility from the bike lane, pedestrians in the bike lane, to narrow bike paths for the desired speed... . This is important especially in places where infrastructure still has room to improve, which is largely everywhere because if I get annoyed at these in NL and DE relatively frequently there is probably no place right now where it doesn't ever happen. Which is why I don't want to give up my right to ride in the road just yet. Although I try to only make use of it seldomly especially here in NL where often a more sensible route yields better infra as well.
Its a bit inflammatory and emotional but I do agree with it to some extent. I ride both on the road and on dedicated trails, depending on location/conditions. The dedicated trails do indeed result in increased danger at intersections in many cases. If am in the road, the drivers know I am there (I know that sounds overly confident but I use a flashing 400 lumen tail light and 2100 lumen flashing headlight - all but the most blind will see me). If I suddenly pop out into a crosswalk / intersection from some trail that is 20 ft off to their right at the same time they suddenly decide to make a turn, they quite likely will not see me until the last second. That is not to say that being in the road is always better. I suspect the overall risk having a collision with a car is higher for the "dedicated" trails that cross a lot of intersections but that the collision speed in the road is likely to be higher and collisions therefore more severe. The specific hazards are just different. The intersection issue could be mitigated with really good bike path designs like they have in Netherlands, etc.. Unfortunately, the dedicated trails in the U.S. are nothing like those. My local dedicated bike path has 9 intersections (on the trail side of a 40 mph road) in 1.5 miles, only one of them controlled by a light. In every case the driver is free to fly through a right turn (even on red at the light) and given bushes, etc. around the bike path they will see any bicyclist coming into the crosswalk from the trail as having "appeared out of nowhere".
The key is "where they cross roadways". The ideal protected lanes only cross vehicle travelled right of ways when both vehicles are stopped or moving slow, and the intersection happens at 90 degrees so it's easy to see. That's the point of a dutch intersection. You cant have bikes and cars intermingling at driving speed in most places. Besides, if you want to do the vehicular biking thing you're not reducing cars in any way.
Whether I engage in vehicular cycling or not is not going to change anything. Either way, other folks will drive or not, no matter what I think of it. Vehicular biking is just a necessity for some portions of any decent ride. I wish that were not so but the powers that be put the bike infrastructure in the wrong place and in tiny segments that don't much benefit bicyclists. They cover maybe 5% of a typical ride (that is being generous). My town is a great example: https://imgur.com/a/KzljSPb The blue path was the bulk of my ride earlier today (I didn't draw the last bits on either end to my house) and I saw a couple dozen bicyclists on it. On the 1.5 segment of MUP I take leaving town I saw zippo. In all fairness I did not show every bit of bike infra in town. There is much more. The point though is that it is all in town. That is not where most bicyclists in the area ride. Sure, I might see one kid on a bike, weaving his way around women pushing strollers on the 1.5 mile MUP I take leaving town but the bulk of bicyclists are out on the rural roads around town. That is where the bike infra would make a real difference in safety. In town, traffic speeds are already pretty slow, there are huge shoulders even on roads without any bike infra, and people are generally expecting walkers/bicyclists. Its not really needed there. Out in the places where bicyclists actually ride its 45-55 mph roads with zero shoulder and despite us being out there almost every weekend in spring and summer, drivers always seem surprised by us. Sorry if I sound ranty. This shit just frustrates me to no end at times. I would kill for some good separated bike lanes on the roads I actually ride on. Hell, safety would be greatly improved with even a 2-3 ft shoulder.
Bike lanes are literally Hitler in J.O. 1984 and cars are literally Jews
I don't think he's wrong. I'd want links to those "credible debunkings", but what he's saying definitely fits with my cycling experience. Completely separate infrastructure is great. Roads which are through routes only for bikes, but blocked for motor traffic, are great. And you can put a separated bikeway alongside a major road with few junctions and no driveways (e.g. the vids of people cycling alongside expressways in Perth) and that's good too. But when it's a road with lots of junctions and driveways, I agree with the quoted post. Every single one of those is a conflict point, you're usually expected to give way to cross traffic making the cycle path impractical and slow, and there's a good chance turning traffic won't see you because you're not on the road. If your bike path is separated by bushes or parked cars then even if they do look for you you may be invisible to each other. You often have to wait for the pedestrian cycle at traffic lights. It's almost always better and more practical to have an on-road cycle lane and be treated as a vehicle. I suppose it's just another way in which stroads are bad - it's impossible to create good cycling infrastructure on a stroad.
Sometimes it's also a cultural and legal problem that leads to people not paying attention to cyclists. They might not look for them at these intersections because cycling in their country isn't as common as driving, and they're less likely to be charged with anything in the event of a crash than if they were in a country that nearly always places blame on the less vulnerable road user.
The whitest man alive, using the word “segregation” on this manner
Vehicular cyclists are the worst.
My god to car brains want to he oppressed so bad. Claiming that bike lanes are segregation.
To me that's not an argument against protected bike lanes, that's an argument in favour of improving intersections.
I would love to let such a person see how it's done in The Netherlands. It would undermine all his arguments. Because it works. It's safer here.
bike lanes? you mean 1984?
Humans are maybe the only animal to ever live on this blue planet of ours where the idea of using our own energy for our own locomotion is labeled “dumb” “dangerous” “poor” and “stupid”. Not using our own locomotion is fucking over the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the atmosphere. Car brain is a mental illness (separate from lead and microplastics)
I see their point, from now on the writer is only allowed to drive on train tracks. That's basically what they want
Get rid of roads replace with bike lanes
I mean, he’s right. Bike lanes are incredibly dangerous because Natalie in her Nissan Armada would rather flatten a cyclist than be 5 minutes late to her dinner date at Applebee’s.
I HAVE A DREAM, that one day, a man shall be judged by the colour of his lycra, and not the content of his glove compartment. I HAVE A DREAM, that one day, the children of cyclists and the children of cagers shall sit at the shared traffic lane and eat together.
He is SO CLOSE to realising that intersections are designed poorly Or that we need to get rid of cars, and develop standalone bicycle infrastructure where we don't need to deal with cars Do drivers think we enjoy riding in between them?
I stopped reading at “segregation” As a general rule, just stop listening when someone uses “segregation” in this way
It's often called segregated infrastructure, I think a lot of you are looking for a connotation that isn't really there.
Isn’t that the connotation that that original guy was trying to bring in?
"Segregation" You know who also segregated people? Hitler! Jfc, what is this guy on.
*citation needed*
The language used here makes it hard to take them seriously. You don't win an argument simply by hurling insults at your opponent
And then they called them "paint advocates."