yeah, i think some people go too fast in crowded areas of mixed use paths. but that’s just my opinion, are people actually getting injured?
i don’t think so, but i admittedly don’t know for sure. my guess is motor vehicles kill more people per mile than fast bicycles injure or kill on shared paths.
I’m not from Winnipeg, but this never works. Obviously, these people have not looked into the legal ramifications. A bicycle is unlicensed. This means there is no requirement to have qualified vision, testing, competency, there is no established form of measurement of speed, and no standardization of devices. Places have tried to license bikes for the last 150 years and all have failed. This has an extremely long history of being useless nonsense.
Absolutely every issue involving bikes is extremely simple to solve. All it takes is a designated right if way. Right of way applies to everyone all the time. Foot traffic needs to be reminded of this constantly. A right of way means one person in one lane. It is not a sidewalk, or optional. If you are in North America, and you are not on the right side as far to the right as practicable, you are on the wrong side. Every single problem happens because of stupid people that do not follow the right of way.
Sharing the roadway in the same direction is foolish. When a cycle must share the road, safest to be on the opposite side, to more clearly see oncoming traffic.
I was responding not to the article, but to the comment above me, which was stating that a cyclist in North America must be to the right as far as possible.
I grew up cycling on automobile roads, and was taught to ride on the left, so that I could be more aware and prepared for oncoming traffic. Riding on the right is trusting the drivers to avoid you, while riding on the left allows vision of the drivers as they approach.
This was overturned practice all the way back in the 1970’s IIRC. It creates higher speed collisions, panick situations, it is impossible for the faster approaching vehicle to gauge the speed of intersection, and it steals the ability to slow down to mitigate potential conflict and collision. It is wrong and it is based on terrible logic. I have commuted full time by bike for many years. I have been hit by 7 cars. Riding backwards is illegal and absolutely will get you killed. A car hitting you from behind is rare but is not even close to the biggest cause of crashes. The biggest issue is illegal u-turns and driveways entering and exiting the road. A driver in never going to look for backwards traffic before exiting a driveway. Drivers are licensed if a driver is incompetent, they should not have a license. This is the key legal issue that should be addressed but isn’t. There is a western culture stupidity about unqualified drivers allowed behind the wheel. This is incompatible with a completely inadequate public transit system and so there is no practical low bar for terrible drivers. The result of this lack of effective public transit is that we pay in blood and deaths instead of funded public infrastructure. Riding backwards as a policy only makes the problems worse; this has been proven legally and is the law everywhere.
You’re making huge changes to avoid one of the smaller risks of riding on the road, while introducing entirely new ones. Statistically, you are extremely unlikely to be hit from behind by an automobile while you are driving down the middle of the lane. You are less likely to be hit in the middle of the lane than at the far right. Yes, both do happen, but compared to other forms of car/cyclist collisions, they are not worth making a priority. You should be concentrating on entirely different issues to maximize your safety on the road.
The middle of what lane? Here in Michigan, bicycles are not considered at all during road planning. The most we get is a painted gutter called a ‘cycle lane’, which gets blocked by parked automobiles if it even exists. Recently a pedestrian was killed in a hit and run, and it didn’t sound as though the driver is even facing charges. Anyone not in an automobile is unofficially considered at-fault for such type of incidents.
If you ride 20 mph on a road with 35 mph traffic, going the opposite direction is a 55 mph closing speed. With traffic is only a 15 mph difference.
Not to mention people typically only scan for what they expect to see. My city has some bike lanes that go in both directions on one way streets. No way I use the bike lane going in the opposite direction because few people will be looking in the oncoming direction when at intersections.
Walking in the opposite direction makes sense because there is minimal difference in the closing speeds and a person can step sideways off the road to avoid danger.
Yeah, my sister had her driver’s license suspended last year because of medical reasons, but she can still walk or ride a bike or ride public transit with zero issue. An electric bike has been a godsend for her in her hilly, car-dependent neighborhood, although there’s still a nigh-complete lack of dedicated bike infrastructure. It’s long bothered me how people who defend car dependency implicitly believe people like you or my sister don’t deserve the right to safe, independent mobility and will ignore your existence because they only care about using the vague notion of disability as an excuse to not have to rethink our car-dependent society.
Of course it is…mostly because you can use it no matter the weather outside…and you can use it to travel much further distances… do I really need to explain why a car is a car and why cars are more expensive? But, I can find a used car cheaper than I’ve found used/new hand pedal bikes…
Can’t imagine spending 5k on something that can’t be my main mode of transport…
I was responding to the thread about a disabled guy on a scooter and offered a reasonable answer as to why not all disabled folks would be able to go this route easily. Especially if it can’t replace their current means of transportation, and costs THE FUCKING SAME IF NOT MORE.
Yes, I want easily accessible transit. Yes, I hate the idea of everyone needing a fucking car to do anything. Yes, I believe it is the duty of the municipality to create efficient and non discriminating means of transport.
The shit I’m responding to, is the capitalist fix to disabled movement. Anything thats made for people with “different” bodies, is going to be like 5x the price of a normal thing and probably still the quality of the lowest tiered object out there. (Hand pedal bikes being the prime example.)
Fuck. I knew the fuck cars group would have some ignorant able-bodied ideals, but this shit is getting silly.
I haven’t said anything ablist, I’ve merely objected to your needlessly hostile and antagonistic tone. Calling me ablist without any basis is a transparent attempt to insulate yourself from criticism, you fragile dink.
AKTCUALLY, “technically” I never said you said “fuck you”, I said you made fucks at people. And you did. So don’t pull that “technically” shit, just gather up all your fucking fucks and fuck off with them.
I guess one could retort with, “You’re right, but ending of your opening statement with ‘too’ has an implication of a previous ‘fuck, you’…” or something along the lines of, “if you find my tone hostile maybe you’re oblivious to your own ableist views and how rampant of an issue it is.” Or possibly “why the fuck do you find the word fuck so offensive you sensitive twat?”
But, maybe you’re right…in fact…you’re right. Wasting my time responding at this point, has made me a loser. And in turn, you, a winner.
You win, jerkface. Take the internet points, and have a good life. Best of luck.
In Toronto shared paths are limited to 20Kph, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
If close calls or accidents were happening, we should study the causes. Is it due to bikes going faster than it is safe? Due to pedestrians walking in the left/middle of the path? Due to poor visibility around tight corners? Each of those problems have different solutions.
We barely study the cause of accidents on our roadways in Canada and refuse to believe we could design them safer and instead consider fatal interactions with cars as “accidents”. I doubt governments are willing to study this in active transportstion paths given they barely want to fund the paths anyway and most municipalities still consider bicycle gutters as safe.
I have a disability that would benefit from a car, in the immediate short term. Sure I’d be more able to get around on bad days, but being less active makes everything significantly worse. I’d likely end up bed bound again.
Cycling and walking, even when I’m barely able to, dramatically increases my quality of life. It’s one of the reasons I chose an area with a lot of isolated walking/cycling trails
fuckcars
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.