Passing two bikes requires moving over more. If you pass two bikes with the same manoeuvre you use for passing one with enough space, you’ll be far too close to the outer bike.
If those cyclists were blocking an ambulance or transit which even take up more room, those cyclists are the biggest assholes on the planet. Size really isn’t the best argument here.
cars pull over as that’s part of the drivers training. You get fined also and that’s part of the course. The cyclists take no training so if the picture were accurate, that car would have pulled over two blocks ago and the cyclists would still be blocking the fire truck. Oh and the warehouse will be burnt down killing all the workers on less than minimum wage all just cuz two cyclists felt entitled to be spiteful assholes.
I don’t think it’s a warehouse, it’s an underprivileged children’s hospital cancer ward. Also the doctors in the ward are the only doctors in the region, meaning those two bike riders committed genocide
What ever it is you’re taking, you need to either take more or less of it. And you should see a mental health expert rather soon. Also, please do the world a favour and stay away from vehicles of any kind.
Bro do you think as soon as someone gets on a bicycle they forget what sirens mean? Do you honestly think that everyone on a bike with an ambulance behind them would just be dumbfounded and confused as to what it wants? And all of a sudden they’re entitled spiteful assholes as well?
Do you realize it’s people on those bicycles, not goblins?
Can you even imagine someone on a bike going “Nope! This is my lane! I have rights! Thou shall not pass!” while a fucking fire truck goes BRAAAAAAAAAH at +100 dB behind them? 😂
Your mental gymnastics is incredible! I have seen hundreds of YouTube videos with cars blocking Ambulances but I am yet to see a cyclist blocking one. My real life experience is also consistent with this.
So, you realize that the expected action from everyone on the road almost everywhere, regardless of the type of vehicle you’re using, is to pull to the side and stop as soon as you hear sirens specifically to prevent people from blocking emergency vehicles right? And since bikes are smaller and more nimble, they can do that much more effectively than a car.
Regardless, real world data shows that there are far more cases of cars blocking emergency vehicles than bikes, so you’re demonizing the wrong mode of transport on behalf of the ambulances here.
Most of the streets around here were built when the idea that every house could have a car would be viewed as a fantasy.
So you’ve got cars parked up and down each side of the road, and if two cars want to pass each other, then you have to hope that there’s space for one of you to pull over.
If you want to overtake even one bike, forget it. It’s probably got some balaclava wearing kid on it, weaving none-handed up the middle of the road.
Those kinds of streets are actually the safest for everyone because they enforce lower speeds and more attentive driving than any posted speed limit ever can. People don’t give two shits about speed laws and will drive as fast as they feel they can, so when the road is not conducive to driving fast, surprise surprise people don’t drive fast and collisions are rarely deadly.
It does matter. It’s safer for everyone if cyclists travel side by side in one lane because then the car driver has to spend less time in the oncoming lane to complete the overtake. A long string of bikes takes more time to safely pass.
It’s especially safer for the cyclists who risk getting side swiped and crushed by drivers trying to avoid going into the adjacent lane, and since cyclists have no steel box surrounding them, it’s a one sided battle that the car initiated in the first place. Riding side by side forces the car to do a normal, legal overtake by moving into the next lane.
Would it be less of a dick move if it was a faster cyclist or a motorcyclist needing to pass by? No, it might actually be worse.
The point is that we need to do our best to respect other road users, regardless of their method of transportation. Pedestrians, cyclist, motorcyclists, cars, lorries and even animals (perhaps especially animals)
Any side-by-side vehicles increases the amount of space taken on the road, which means it should be avoided when other travellers need to pass by. It’s the same reason that lorries or cars travelling side-by-side at the same speed on the highway is often frowned upon.
I really don’t get people who want to wage a constant social war over our shared infrastructure by being assholes to each other. Being decent and considerate is safer and more pleasant for everybody involved.
A car takes up at least the width of two bikes by default. Why do they have the right to do that while bikes don’t?
Maybe we should focus more on overall efficiency and sustainability of our transport systems, and by that metric, cars shouldn’t even exist. A four lane road takes up the same width as a two track rail corridor and mixed use pedesterian/bike paths on either side, but can transport far more people per hour than private cars while being both cheaper in the long run and more environmentally friendly.
Because they can move fast enough to not be in the way for people behind them, since they are among the fastest vehicles on our roads. Bikes are considerably slower, which makes it more of a nuisance for those they’re sharing the road with if they can’t easily be passed.
Bike lanes are a good thing, and being courteous is a good thing- that goes both for passing when safe and being respectful of bike riders when you’re driving a car, and also for allowing cars to pass where possible when you’re moving significantly slower than the average traffic speed on a bicycle. It doesn’t have to be adversarial.
Tracked vehicles tend to have priority against all other methods of transport on land. They’re just as incompatible with pedestrians and bikes as with busses, lorries and cars.
It’s far easier, cheaper, faster, and more space efficient to build a pedestrian or bike over/underpass than one for cars. A pedestrian overbridge is usually a community project with city involvement, a car overbridge is at the very least a city/country project potentially with state or federal funding.
Being courteous does solve that…? First off, trains don’t share the road, they follow tracks, so thats somewhat of a convoluted comparison. But more importantly, you stop at train crossings so the train can go first…? Is your argument that that’s inefficient? Everything is inefficient. Any solution to a really complicated problem like how multiple forms of transportation co-exist is going to have inefficiencies
Also, no idea where you got the idea that I would be opposed to building more rail and less cars? Cars should increasingly be de-prioritzed in favor of bikes, ebikes, and public transit, but bike riders should be courteous of those who are driving and vice versa, and cars should continue to stop at train tracks to allow trains to go by. Where on earth did you get the idea that my logic of “be considerate of those who are using a different means of transportation” means cars should go away or that cars shouldn’t go away? Also we definitely should be building rail, if we’re gonna deprioritze cars we need public transportation to help fill that gap for people who aren’t in a position to commute or travel by bike/ebike, but all of our infrastructure is currently built around cars, and even in a distant future there will be a need for cars in addition to bikes and trains, we just have way too many of them
I don’t mean to come across as rude, but your response to my comment honestly does really confuse me.
Be respectful of those you share the road with. That means driving in a way that’s safe for cyclists. That means letting cars go by (when safe to do so) when you’re cycling since they travel much faster than you. And definitely stop at train tracks so that trains can go by.
The answer is simple really. The car is one unit, the bikes (in this scenario) are two units, they don’t have to be considerate, but they have the option to do so.
I’ll give an equivalent example. Where I live we have a class of vehicles referred to as “moped cars”, same form factor as cars, but speed restricted to either 30 or 45 km/h. Usually they’re used by teens to get arouns in rural areas with poor public transit options, so they’ll often be trundling along on 70-90km/h roads at slow speed.
This can quickly lead to queues building up behind them during high traffic hours in areas with few passing opportunities. Quite often, when this happens, they’ll pull off to the side for a few seconds at an opportune spot to let other, faster vehicles, pass by. They don’t have to do this, but it is considerate.
As for the second half of your comment, each method of transportation has its niche and purpose. The best system is one that utilizes the strengths of each to complement the others. Attempting to apply a monolithic solution everywhere will generally lead to frustrations and inefficiencies.
Pedestrian - Trivial distances, any density.
Bike - Trivial -> Short distances, any density.
Cars - Short -> Long distances, low density.
Busses - Short -> Long distances, medium density.
Rail - Short -> Long distances, high density.
High Speed Rail - Medium -> Extreme distances, high density.
If my vehicle had the ability to change its width when I needed to, I’d agree with you, but my car does not have that option, the two bikes do, it wouldn’t take much effort for one to slide behind the other to let the vehicle behind pass, it’s a give and take with society, I’ll actively make sure to keep you safe from my vehicle, while bikes should actively try to allow larger or faster vehicles to pass safely instead of putting themselves at risk over something that takes no effort to do.
I’ll actively make sure to keep you safe from my vehicle
As someone who cycles on the road, I don’t trust you. Not in the slightest. Far too many close calls with cars trying to “sneak” by me because “oh I’m sure there’s plenty of room to the right” even in a bike-oriented city. I ride alone the vast majority of the time but having someone ride beside would actually make me feel safer because it means you actually have to perform a legal overtake which involves moving into the passing lane. Also, drivers are distracted all the time and I absolutely do not trust that every driver will actually notice a bike that’s off to their side when drivers are prone to straight up miss traffic lights that are right in front of their eyeline.
Ohh and I don’t trust the bikes I see riding around, the amount of people on bikes who have crossed In front of me while I’m driving the speed limit while never once looking behind them, causing me to have to slam my brakes on because I don’t want to hit someone on a bike.
Both sides of this argument need to show respect to each other on the road, it’s not a bikes are the problem or cars are the problem, people are the problem.
Like I said I actively try to ensure you guys are safe on the road when I pass you or see you coming up in front.
I live in a neighboring community and oh my god the whining on the nextdoor app about “muh property values, won’t anybody think of the cars!!!” and making excuses about it hurting businesses that have only seen more business with the road closures was unreal.
Not to mention all the perfectly able people too lazy to walk a block from parking acting like it’s a virtue and the world should cater to cars because some people have mobility issues… issues that probably resulted in the first place from there being so few reasons to walk around here. Not to throw strays at the disabled but I doubt these people would ever support any alternative that would let those with mobility issues get around town without a car.
Definitely not practical and not designed for the person that uses it. Great way for companies like Amazon to save a buck while making life harder for the people that get paid the least.
Hardly any protection from the elements
no place to put a drink or anything
have you ever been on a bicycle seat all day?
not safe if your on a road with cars/trucks
Maybe it would work for a college campus or something, but small electric box trucks would be far better for the person doing the work.
The main question for me is what kinds of paths this is expected to use.
If you can take this on bike paths and into pedestrianized areas, it clearly already has a small niche. If it can only fit on a regular car lane, it’s terrible.
It is clearly much wider than any normal bike, meaning it would allways use up most of the space on the bike path, it is heavy and dangerous to other bikes in a collision, and since it has to stop for deliveries it will clog up the bike paths.
No, just use a milk float on normal roads, way better than a normal van, and it can use existing infrastructure that it was actually designed for.
Trucks have their uses, but you run into problems with them in cities. Think of the stories you hear about trucks double parking in NYC, and the crackdowns on that there.
The advantage of this seems to be that it’s narrow. You’ll probably be able to take them onto bike paths and into pedestrianized areas easier, and have fewer problems parking them.
Yes, they’re not a great solution for deliveries to a suburban stroad. But equally, a truck is a terrible delivery vehicle in downtown Barcelona.
I’ve never understood why driverless cars are the solution everyone is obsessed with. Surely better train and bus networks would solve the issue, and then add some bike lanes (golf cart compatible for those with accessibility needs) and you’d also tackle the obesity crisis. But no, I guess that’s just not quite enough ‘convenience’ for people.
Well I can explain why I thought driverless cars were great when I was in highschool. A perception of cars being necessary and the idea that driverless cars solve most of the issues with cars, like accidents parking and traffic (to a degree). I only changed that opinion when I became more informed of the idea of car dependency and how it affects cities.
Right cuz cyclists are totally paying the road fees to use keep the road maintained just as much as the motorists do. What was it called? Ah yes. Registration
Right cuz cyclists are totally paying the road fees to keep the road maintained even they don’t cause any damages at all. What was it called? Ah yes. Taxes
Didn’t argue that it requires more for a car hence why Registration is a lot more. If it was taxes in general and only for bikes it would not be built for cars to use either. You have to share it. Just like you expect them to share with bikes.
And speaking of taxes : Just like you expect transit such as buses to also exist for people moving. Which is also paid by taxes and bikes should also have to share with them. if you put a bus or any emergency vehicle in place of that car in that cartoon, those cyclists are the bigger asshole in the equation.
I’m all for cutting down emissions but putting people in danger or doubling down inconsideration is a foolish, abusive and negligent stance to be taking.
Except pedestrians and cyclists subsidize the roads through taxes while cars wouldn’t even break even with high cost of road maintenance. This is not including the insane parking requirements that most US cities have.
Some are fees. Some are Fuel taxes for roads. Cyclists don’t use fuel. But if it’s road space they believe they are entitled to then from that picture they benefit from fuel and they don’t want that to stop. Fuel pays for those bike lanes.
Depends on your country. Here in the UK roads are maintained using funds from the general tax pool, so the cyclists are actually subsidising the motorists, who proportionally do a lot more damage to the road surface.
If they are subsidizing they are paying a portion. If they are then they should be but they should also not be acting like it was entirely built entirely by cyclists for cyclists who have equal use of the road as if they are the same as a car with the same intentions as a car or transit or emergency vehicle. Yes they can have their lane but acting like they can act as wide as a car for an argument to act like an entitled asshole on the road even on a ‘subsidy’ is an inane comparison.
If you are saying that you support the construction of comprehensive segregated cycle paths then I am very much on your side.
Yes they can have their lane
It would be nice if motorists also kept to their lane, then. Too often I find my cycle lanes blocked by drivers who feel that the road was"entirely built entirely by motorists for motorists". I would also be happy to keep to my lane if it always existed. As it is, a lot of the time I’m left with no other choice but to join with the motor traffic as the cycle lanes just stop existing. In the UK it’s illegal to ride on the pavement, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to become another cyclist who just ignores the law for his own benefit?
It’s also important to note here that the UK now has the Hierarchy of Road Users, which explicitly states that the more vulnerable the road user, the more priority they should be given. Pedestrians have top priority, followed by horses, followed by cyclists, and then with motorised traffic at the bottom. It’s a very new development, and one that I don’t think has been tested in law yet, but it’s there in our Highway Code.
emergency vehicles and transit are motorized as well which hold vulnerable people(if not the most vulnerable). That should be taken into account.
and I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to become another cyclist who just ignores the law for his own benefit?
As a cyclist I don’t do this as it’s my decision. so you don’t speak for all cyclists. Don’t hold me hostage with your behaviour decisions as I’m not holding you hostage with mine. You can Manage your own behaviour like a responsible person without making threats as a bad faith argument. It’s beneath all of us to act this way and undermining legitimate arguments at best.
Roads are maintained with taxpayer dollars because car registration is insignificant. Potholes form due to weight/usage of the road and cars are much much harder on roads than bicycles. So in reality, people riding bikes are subsidizing all the damage caused by cars using the roads. Not to mention that many people on bikes also own cars and pay for registration…
Actually Much of those repairs are from fuel taxes and cyclists don’t use fuel. But they are certainly benefitting from it. You can’t have it both ways.
Right, and I don’t have kids so why am I paying for kids to go to public school? And I have never had to call the fire department, my taxes should not go to them!
The argument that taxes should only be used for things you use is wrong. The whole point of taxes is to benefit society as whole. Roads are used for many purposes and for different reasons. No one owns the roads! They’re public!
Ha. As a cyclist I hear this all the fucking time. Road tax is based on emissions. Regular tax pays for road maintenance. People also forget that the majority of cyclists are also car owners themselves.
No shit Im one of them. But doesn’t mean I agree that you can act like an entitled ass regardless of vehicle you drive. Fuel tax also pays for road maintenance that benefits cyclists. Maybe don’t demonize while using it then. By the by I agree with a bike lane. I disagree that you have to make bullshit arguments about size to make that point. You all want to fuck cars but really you are benefiting from them.
I do. I have both vehicles. So do many cyclists also own cars. And most people may need an ambulance or may take transit .
Just cuz you personally think you don’t use something doesn’t absolve that you could still benefit from it just cuz there’s a majority who made it possible. you benefit from vehicles paying a fuel tax. You could also benefit from emergency and transit vehicles having a road to drive on if you had to ever have to be in one. That fuel moving your body is paying for the road.
that car would have pulled over two blocks ago and the cyclists would still be blocking the fire truck.
Now you say
I do. I have both vehicles.
What are you trying to say? Are you saying that you block emergency vehicles like an inconsiderate pos when you are riding a bike but immediately pull over and act like a sensible person when you are driving? Is that what you’re trying to say?
Yes they are, roads are mostly build and maintained with taxpayer dollars.
So cyclist only use a portion of the road, don’t generate any wear unlike the other 2 tons vehicles they are sharing the road with but still pay the same amount than car users.
The issue isn’t with cyclists being on the road, it’s with them blocking the road while going significantly slower than traffic. Motorbikes aren’t a similar problem because they’re quick enough not to disrupt everyone else on the road.
Edit: For the benefit of the downvoters - I’m a cyclist, you dopey fucks - I’m just honest about the issue drivers have with us. Making up this bullshit just makes us look like liars that don’t understand the people we’re sharing the road with, and our reality-based arguments work perfectly well. Be better.
Oh - absolutely - I just think that grounding the argument on this dishonest nonsense only undermines a good idea that can stand on the reality of its merits.
…those downvoting a simple reality-check from someone that otherwise agrees with you only demonstrate a willful disconnect from reality.
What are we supposed to do? We can’t cycle on the sidewalk, and if we get closer to the curb, it gives many drivers the false impression that they can overtake without crossing into the other lane, not to mention all the potholes, drains, and trash that we then have to cycle over.
It seems like a dick move, but I promise you that most cyclists are purposefully being in your way to make sure you notice, slow down, and give us space. We’re just as unhappy about being around your car as you are to see us. We’d happily fuck the fuck off to our own little lane if someone gave us one.
I’m a cyclist too - it’s not an easy situation. It’s easy to say the answer is good bike lanes, but we’ve also got to deliver on that. I’m the meantime, it’s a case of riding responsibly on the road - without inventing unnecessary, dishonest strawman arguments about what concerns motorists. That does more harm than good.
I imagining driving around a giant AI server, like hedonism-bot, and it just yells at the driver to pedal harder because he’s using too much electricity.
fuckcars
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.