In regards to bike-rider behavior on roads, of course cyclists appear "misbehaved" on roads. The roads are not designed for cyclists, so we have to fight with the design of the transport network to get anywhere

Car-oriented transport infrastructure has been a terrible mistake. Don't blame the cyclists for trying to salvage something from the wreckage.

There is no significant tax pool coming from cyclists to build or maintain said infrastructure.

I don't blame them for trying to salvage/use something from what exists, I've been there. I found the behavior of ignoring established traffic law as if it were optional to be dangerous and selfish.

> There is no significant tax pool coming from cyclists to build or maintain said infrastructure.

Don't they pay income tax? I think I read that most of the cost of roads in the USA is raised from income tax and sales tax.

> I found the behavior of ignoring established traffic law as if it were optional to be dangerous and selfish.

A lot of car drivers are out there too running lights, breaking speed limits and driving under the influence. People are the problem, not their transport.

Car-oriented infra structure was responsible for a sizable portion of the economical development for quite a while.

But it seems to produce economically terrible outcomes longer term... Induced demand is a good example - you get to the point where you need to pay huge amounts of money to expand road infrastructure, but as soon as you do it encourages even more use so after widening a highway, there is often an increase in travel times fairly soon after the upgrade after the initial short-term benefit!

Strong Towns also have some good examples of how car-oriented infrastructure can also be economically unsustainable in that it encourages low-density neighbourhoods with a lot of roads, so long term cities can't afford to maintain the roads without cross-subsidising it from new developments. So if the city stops growing, it often can't sustain the infrastructure it has! Whereas somewhat more dense areas (especially where retail and small business tenancies are mixed in with housing) can have much more property tax income per unit area as well as less road infrastructure to maintain which can tip the balance to being economically sustainable in itself.

I would argue the opposite actually. If the US had embraced trains as people movers early on, with local subway systems, I'd imagine we'd have seen even more economic growth than we did. Our cities would be far more prosperous, our people healthier, our energy footprint lower. Better social mobility..

It seems likely that cars actually hindered average GDP growth from '45 to today, rather than helping it.

Because we made it that way, cars had nothing to do with it.

Hong Kong is not car oriented and it develop just fine…

Hong Kong is inserted on the global economy last time I've checked.

running red lights is not 'fighting'. it's being an ass.

I have been explicitly told by my local bike coalition not to stop fully for stop signs. Stopping fully is not particularly safe and local motorists don't even expect it. Given that information, what do you think is the correct behavior for a beginner cyclist like me?

I don't know about the US, but a stop sign here in Australia means complete stop. If you fail to fully stop in your driving test it's an instant fail. If you fail to fully stop and there is an accident, you will be at fault.

In Australia, bikes are required to follow the same rules as cars when on the road.

In some US states rolling stops for bikes have been legalized as "Idaho stops".

I have used a bike as my primary transportation for 15 years. The majority of rides are in traffic - there's very little dedicated bike infrastructure (painted sharrows or gutters don't count)

Trust me when I say, in the US, an intersection is the most dangerous place to be. You are a sitting duck if you aren't moving when clear.

A lot of drivers straight up don't pay attention at lights, due to phones or spacing out, and don't give you space when coming up behind you. Mix in right-on-reds, unprotected left turns, and the general drivers failure to negotiate turns - if it's clear I'm going. It's also safer for me to stay at a relatively consistent speed for predictable passing than accelerating in mixed traffic with very different acceleration curves.

Yeah, and it's generally bad for bikes. Stop signs are designed for cars - cyclists are approaching an intersection much slower, so have way more time to look, and can much more easily see around them than a driver (no pillars or vehicle parts around them blocking visibility), so most of the time are able to make a better decision about whether they need to stop or not than cars.

At the same time, it takes a cyclist far longer to start off from being stopped, so every time they stop when they didn't really need to, it puts them in a vulnerable position for much longer time than was necessary. So apparently it turns out a lot safer to let cyclists slow at stop signs but not have to fully stop if it's safe to continue.

In the US, the letter of the law is that cyclists must make a full stop, yes. But cycling activists often argue that this is a law that needs changing, and would help get more casual riders on bikes. Additionally, most bike riders in cities are on the lower income side; this would reduce how much they're cited for what is fairly accepted behavior.

Stop signs here in Australia, like most of the world, are only placed where the visibility actually makes it necessary to come to a stop. They're far more common over in the US. Pick any random intersection, it probably has a stop sign or four.

If all the give way signs on my commute were replaced with stop signs, I'd sure feel like rolling through them.

Rolling stops are fine, I have no problem with that. That's a good effort, gives you time to really examine the area. Don't blast through at full speed even if it looks clear. That's a bad unsafe habbit.

> Now, as a driver, I am appalled at the behavior of cyclists. With my experience I take interest in and carefully watch their behavior.

> Running red lights and not stopping for stop signs is the worst. And it's pretty universal.

Some areas have a yield at stop signs law for bikes so the stop signs could be legal, but I think a major driver of this kind of behavior is bike hostile infrastructure. If you've stopped for your 20th red light that prioritises non existent car traffic and that won't turn green today, or you're going past your fifth intersection that requires crossing at signals 3 times, waiting 2 minutes a piece on an empty road with visibility 500m in each direction it starts seeming pointless. Once someone is in the habit of disobeying clearly pointless (or in the case of many stop signs, actively unsafe because there is no visibility at the sign and accelerating up hill from a stop rather than 2mph causes you to spend far more time in the danger zone) signals and signage I can see it being easy to start ignoring others.

Respect works both ways, and when your city and laws clearly disrespect someone you shouldn't be surprised they stop respecting you.

The only cyclists I actively disliked were those who had stripped their reflectors and then rode around dressed in black at night. Scared me half to death when I finally saw them. That move agitated me quite a bit. Thank goodness I've only run into that once.

Seems to me that it's a very bad idea to disrespect in ways that actively make your own life less safe. Especially on something as fragile as a bicycle. Regardless of the disrespect heaped your way.

Rude behavior goes both ways, but one way is much deadlier than the other.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/43060/coal-rolling-teen-that-h...

>Coal-Rolling Teen That Hit Cyclists Charged With Six Felonies

>The 16-year-old was not arrested after the incident, but has now surrendered to authorities.

>On September 25, a group of cyclists riding near Waller, Texas, were hit by a Ford Super Duty driven by a 16-year old youth. Reports from witnesses indicated the driver had been "rolling coal" on the group immediately prior to striking six cyclists, four of whom were hospitalized due to injuries sustained. Now, news out of Texas is that the teen driver is finally in custody according to the District Attorney of Waller County, over a month after the incident occurred.

>[...] Cyclist Chase Ferrell, who saw the events unfold, told Fox 26 at the time that the crash happened "because [the driver] was accelerating to blow more diesel fuel on these cyclists," adding that the driver "ended up hitting 3 people before his brakes even started." Ferrell noted that the teen remained at the scene after hitting the cyclists, and spoke to police. However, the driver was not arrested in the wake of the crash. "I don't understand, if it was me who had struck someone else, I would be in jail," noted Ferrell.

https://www.thedrive.com/article/9930/colorado-bans-rolling-...

>Colorado Bans Rolling Coal: Hallelujah!

>It doesn't matter that it will be nearly impossible to enforce: this legislation is more than welcome.

>For those not in the know, rolling coal is the name for blasting black smoke out the exhaust of a diesel-engined vehicle. It is done by modifying the air and fuel mixture in forced induction diesel engines to make the engines run rich, the result of which is a cloud of soot blowing out the tailpipes. This is done for the childish sake of annoying people, typically anyone that a coal-roller doesn't like, which includes but is not limited to hybrid drivers, convertible drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and anyone who so much as looks like they don't attend the same evangelical megachurch. Why do people do it? Nobody one can say for sure, though it has been suggested that it has its roots in anti-environmentalism.

Aren't people of lower economic means also more overweight? Some exercise doesn't seem like a bad idea.

There is a significant difference between recreational level exercise and work-every-day-because-you-have-no-other-method that's burning potentially >1000 calories per day and measurably increasing your food bill.