How is this claim different from the oft-heard claim that "not stopping at stop signs is obviously dangerous", ignoring TFA and the substantial evidence therein regarding cyclists and stop signs? I have presented arguments for my proposition that one-way signs are not appropriate in the vast majority of circumstances for cyclists. As far as I can tell, you have presented no arguments in favor of your position except 1) assertions that it is "obvious", 2) claims that anybody that disagrees with you should not be allowed to cycle, and 3) vague insinuations that running over cyclists is appropriate retribution for traffic violations.
Like I said to another poster: You make a compelling case for requiring cyclist licensing.
Yeah that's precisely my point; the physical space is there. Narrow the lanes and use the freed space for more sidewalk, bike lane, trees, etc. It means there's an opportunity.
>Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.
Absolutely not!
Why not? Everything I’ve seen here and in the real world strongly suggests otherwise.
If safety is really the overarching concern and assumptions on basics like one-ways are not so obvious and cannot be taken for granted…
Then I don’t see any other obvious choice other than testing and licensing cyclists.
It won’t happen, but that’s the rational conclusion.
Even if you take away everyday motorists, the same safety issues remain with delivery vehicles, mass transit, and taxis.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Empirically the countries that are safest for cyclists don't have licensing for cyclists, and they have the infrastructure and laws I talked about.
Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide.
What should worry you is that going the wrong way in a one-way isn’t obviously dangerous.
It really should be, and perhaps that’s a failure in US road rules and education. Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.