> In fact, a car coming too close and knocking you off your bike is not a common cause of injury

Interesting question. I just googled for statistics and found some for German cities. In Berlin (2021), the majority (~50%) of accidents involving bicyclists in which the bicyclist was not at fault were caused by cars turning. But "insufficient distance" was still at 5%.

Both of my hits while riding a bike have been because of cars turning.

For one, the driver was turning right and only looked left -- I was still in front of him, and he never looked ahead; T-boned!

For the other, I pull up to a stoplight alongside a few cars, against the curb. There is only one lane for left/right/straight. No one had on turn signals. Light turns green, so myself and the first car go straight. Second car apparently wanted to turn right without signaling, and once again does not look to the right (looking left, maybe?). Cuts me off in their turn and I hit their right side door.

So yeah, can definitely confirm that people do not look when they are turning.

This is why you take the lane at intersections. Sensible jurisdictions permit this in their vehicle code.

Always prevent careless drivers from killing you and always have an escape path.

As a former bicyclist, I try to be extra mindful of bicyclists when driving. One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds.

I hate to use the common refrain, but it really seems to me that a higher percentage of bicyclists drive like maniacs. What purpose, exactly, does driving without a light at night serve? Especially when combined with barreling through a red light into a multi-lane traffic circle? And, of course, sidewalks are meant to be driven on — wouldn't want to lose your bicyclist card for ever pushing your bike. Leading to the ever popular driving across a crosswalk (I'm not so sure who's at fault if I were to hit a bicyclist on a crosswalk, and I'd rather not find out).

Granted, due to the lower weight of bicycles, accidents are considerably less deadly, but there is still a considerable injury risk to me as a pedestrian, and as an automobilist, I'd rather not have an accident on my conscience, whether I'd be legally at fault or not.

> Leading to the ever popular driving across a crosswalk (I'm not so sure who's at fault if I were to hit a bicyclist on a crosswalk, and I'd rather not find out).

It's you. If someone had left a dumpster in the cross walk it's also you. If you hit a cyclist without any lights in the dark, it's you.

You're in charge of a vehicle, unless someone jumps out at you, it's on you not to drive it into things.

> One of the right turns on a common route I take is on a downhill slope, and I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds.

So you expect to get unlawful right of way because your vehicle is big and dangerous. Allow me to not share your view about who's a maniac.

I don’t know what the law is in your country, but in Switzerland, it is unlawful to pass a moving car with its turn signals set on the right.

On a separate lane, no matter how early the signal is set? That would seem like an invitation to power abuse considering how much time queuing cars spend in that not-quite-standing state.

The situation I meant was for a bicycle passing in the gap between the right hand lane and the curb, not on a separate bicycle lane.

> That would seem like an invitation to power abuse

As in, cars could set their turn signals all the time? Pretty sure that would be against the law, and it would probably be easier to achieve that effect by hogging the right side of the lane (which is also against the law, except when combined with setting the signals and preceding a right turn).

Here in Germany filtering through the gap isn't allowed at all when the car is moving, turn indicators or not. Doesn't keep drivers from getting upset when it happens while they are standing (then it's permitted). And it's certainly allowed on a separate lane, just like pedestrians on the sidewalk aren't required to walk slower than the traffic-stricken cars to their left.

(when the lane is just painted and the right turn is unobstructed otherwise, I do like to change lanes to behind a right-indicating car: so much better flow than stopping them, while almost stopping myself to be prepared for a forced turn - one of the many reasons I prefer painted lanes)

> I've noticed cyclists passing me on the right even when I already had my turn signal on for several seconds.

Had you just overtaken these cyclists?

No. Due to the slope, cyclists have a fair amount of speed, and in anticipation of my right hand turn, I would not pass them anyway.

That's probably a severity thing. Turning collisions will almost always destroy the bike, injure the rider, and result in a police report. Sideswipe accidents will cause a minor bike crash, maybe a bit of damage and some cuts and scrapes, and the cyclist goes about his day, pissed off, but with no official report.

A popular topic in my father's complaints during family trips was that you have to watch out for cyclists when you turn because some, well, will try to race you to the intersection.

I haven't seen many do that, but I still look over my shoulder when I turn.

What made him think they were trying to race him?

I actually saw it a few times because my father would make note of it beforehand.

Guy going in parallel to the road on the sidewalk, looking sideways and gunning it to make it before the car makes a turn.

Or worse: also going in parallel, but making a left turn onto the road without looking.

Looking sideways from a bicycle is not something you do for fun, it's a way to see what drivers are up to. Especially when they drive up beside you it's pretty hard to know what they will do.

Let's be honest: given the opportunity (multiple lanes, etc.), the car would likely overtake a slow car as well, and stop at a red light right after that. I see that all the time (albeit I'm in Japan, not in the US)

Edit: point being, for some reason, some drivers really like to reach red light as quickly as they can, and that's not necessarily related to bikes.

The longer you're at the red light, the more time you have to scroll on your phone

I think safely overtaking a slow car before a red light makes sense, if you make the reasonable assumption that 3 minutes in the future they will also be traveling slower than you intend to go.

Very few of the people who do this are thinking that far ahead, though. Most of them are clearly only thinking about the gap between them and the next car – you can tell from how often they make high risk passes only to immediately brake hard for a turn or off-ramp.

Exactly. It's always better to pass slow vehicles as soon as it is safe to do so, red light or not. That they managed to catch up because of a red light is irrelevant. They're still behind me and no longer blocking my advance.

I just want as much distance as possible between other drivers. Less stuff to deal with.

I would imagine it happens a lot more than hospital visits would let on. Being nudged into the curb - or getting spooked by a too-close car and hitting it yourself - would likely result in just scrapes and bruises, especially if you're wearing a helmet. But it's terrifying.

It's controversial because it is often more dangerous to drive on a bicycle lane, at least outside the Netherlands with its well designed bicycle lanes. There is a higher risk that car drivers will not see you when turning right at a crossing etc. In addition, you are exposed to car drivers or passengers who open the door without looking. On the road, with a safe distance to the right, you are annoying to cars but far more visible. For this reason, many bicycle enthusiasts have recommended people to ride on the road if there is no mandatory and well maintained bicycle lane.

At least that was the situation a few years ago when bicycle lanes were just narrow lanes directly next to the road or the sidewalk. As I wrote, it can work if done correctly (see the Netherlands). Perhaps the road planners and drivers have learned "their" lesson in the meantime. I say that as a car driver.

Hans Monderman was the world's most famous traffic engineer! ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman

>Hans Monderman (19 November 1945 – 7 January 2008) was a Dutch road traffic engineer and innovator. He was recognised for radically challenging the criteria used to evaluate engineering solutions for street design. His work compelled transportation planners and highway engineers to look afresh at the way people and technology relate to each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wte5-_gCDQ

>de Kaden shared space.wmv: Shared space traffic intersection in Drachten, The Netherlands. Traffic signals removed in 2002. The junction handles around 17,000 vehicles per day. One of many projects led by the late Hans Monderman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpHlj5j7nyY

>Shared space intersection, Drachten - The Netherlands 3,824 views Apr 29, 2009 Drachten, Drift/De Kaden, shared-space-intersection. From the centre of expertise on bicycle policy: http://www.bicyclecouncil.org. The intersection Drift and De Kaden is an example of shared space in the purest sense. Despite a quite high traffic volume hardly any measures have been taken to regulate traffic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8

>Unbelievably busy bicycle crossing in Amsterdam: The Netherlands, Amsterdam, May 8, 2018 Bicycle and car traffic at the crossing Korte Prinsengracht and Haarlemmerstraat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBGokenEhQ

>Hans Monderman: Rethinking the design of streets and public space.

>An Urban Design London and Urban Design Group Lecture Hans Monderman has been one of the most significant influences on the current debate about the design of streets and spaces in the UK. A traffic engineer and road safety specialist from Northern Holland, he is celebrated as the pioneer of shared space as a means to influence speed and driver behaviour. Monderman has been the inspiration behind scores of towns and villages which work without road markings, traffic signs, signals, kerbs, barriers and bollards. ‘Most engineers, when faced with a problem, try to add something,’ he says. ‘My instinct has always been to take something away.’ Following a short introduction by Rob Cowan, Hans explains his approach, work and experiences. Copyright: Esther Kurland. Director. Urban Design London

Have you ever tried riding a bicycle in the city?

Bicycle lanes in many cities are close to unusable.

For example:

- they are right next to parked cars and you can't ride on them without constant fear of getting doored

- they abruptly stop and there is no obvious place where to continue riding

- cars park on the bicycle lanes

- bicycle lanes go right next to crowded bus stops and there are so many people that it's impossible to ride

- crossings are designed in such a way that you need to wait for three (!) traffic lights to cross a single road, leading to a waiting time of at least 3 minutes

There are only a handful of roads with usable bicycle lanes in my city. And guess what: In places where bicycle lanes are usable, people use them. Nobody rides a bicycle on the road if there is a usable alternative.

some more reasons from a UK perspective:

- if you want to turn across the road, you have to merge onto the road which can be dangerous and awkward, so it's better to be on the road for longer before you want to turn than you might expect.

- cycle lanes are often too narrow (if just painted onto an existing road), so push you closer to the curb than is really safe. i often feel like the best position would be on the edge of the cycle lane, but then cars will not overtake properly

- ungraded cycle lanes tend to fill up with the dirt and detritus that's flung off the road by vehicles if they're not cleaned regularly enough (this is especially a problem if there are bollards or other street furniture that is supposed to separate the bike lane from the road, as it makes them harder to clean)

- cars are more likely to cut you off when turning across a cycle lane, than if they are forced to overtake properly

most cyclists I've talked to here think the kind of cycle lanes we have are worse than useless

Almost all cyclists would cycle in bicycle lanes if they existed.

I beg to pardon.

This video came out yesterday and talks about this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pcAfeGCrUc

The vast majority of roads do not have separate cycle lanes - this is obviously not a good-faith argument.

And if a pedestrian has no sidewalk?

Pedestrians use much less space than cyclists and move slower, they typically also move away when they hear a car and most of them on such roads go in direction opposite to traffic flow so they see when a car approaches. Bicycles go in the same direction as traffic, sometimes swerve and go in small zigzag pattern, they don't have mirrors, don't look back and bicyclists are many times already tired from bicycling, they are also in more hurry than pedestrians (hurrying pedestrians also more often have accidents). In places where there are no sidewalks typically there are almost no pedestrians.

> car squeezes past you at high speed

many cyclist don't understand this because they are bad drivers

the point of passing a bike on the road is to avoid the danger you as a driver pose for the bike in the case of an unexpected event.

like if the biker falls.

clearing up the way as fast as possible is safer for both.

Doesn't matter who's faster in the end, if that was the purpose, it would suffice for drivers to not respect traffic laws, like many bikers do, for the exact purpose of arriving to the destination sooner.

Of course you are faster if your parking technique involves blocking the road for pedestrian, especially hadicapped people, like this

https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-0...

or this

https://blog.urbanfile.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-0...

(real pictures in Milan one of the cities where bikes are more popular in Italy and they have become a problem for everyone else)

the point is also that bikers should be in charge of their own safety, if a road is very narrow they are voluntarily endangering themselves for no reason, no other road user should be responsible for your safety more than you!

that also apply to motorbikes, mopeds, scooters etc

which are harder to drive because they rely on the gyroscope effect and only.have two wheels, they do not stand in case of sudden stop, the user can only fall or be shoot forward with grave consequences.

so they should care for their life more than a driver that is protected by the car case.

I wish I could show you the suicidal moves tourists make in my city (Rome) while riding electric scooters, two people, while the regulation says only one person can ride them, in the middle of high speed roads, with no knowledge of how the traffic works in a city they do not know, like it's OK to be idiots trying to die (and possibly ruin the life of someone else who happens to cross their path on a motor vehicle)

Not saying people shouldn't use alternatives means of transport, I do.not drive often anymore, I walk

As a pedestrian bikes are much more disruptive than cars for me, even though I'd like to ban cars from every city center in Italy.

> 40% of non-cyclists in London say the danger of cycling is a significant factor in their decision not to cycle.

people make a lot of excuses when confronted with something that they do not want to do.

if they asked them why they do not exercise they would say that they have no time due to work or that the water of the pool is too cold, but the real reason is that they prefer the couch with Netflix.

we should never take those polls too seriously.

> the point is also that bikers should be in charge of their own safety, if a road is very narrow they are voluntarily endangering themselves for no reason

They really aren't endangering themselves, the city planners are endangering them.

In the Netherlands if there is a street or junction with too many accidents they consider it a design failure and redraw the whole thing, often to slow down cars, separate cyclists and to make cyclists more visible.

> people make a lot of excuses when confronted with something that they do not want to do.

So why do bikes outnumber people in the Netherlands but not in London? Why don't the Dutch make up excuses for not wanting to exercise.

Maybe exercise is actually enjoyable and healthy and the little in London would actually like to do it safely?

if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver.

if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad driver.

You should drive within safe limits. If you cannot brake in the distance between you and the car in front, you are _too close_. If you squeeze to overtake, you are too close. Potholes exist. Wind exists. In the UK, the (edit) guidance is that you should pass a cyclist with as much a gap as you would pass a car (1m). The suggestion is 1.5m at 30mph (~50kmh). In other words, you should basically be in the other lane, as you would be if overtaking a car.

YES, driving slowly can cause accidents as drivers are impatient, but in most roads, waiting 10s for a clear passing spot isnt going to drastically change your journey time

...and if more people cycle, that means less people are in vehicles, so you have _more_ space on the road and less congestion. cars are very space-inefficient

(edit: formatting)

OP lives in Rome, where the average driver mentality is somewhere between "need for speed" and "carmageddon".

Basically no one is ever willing to wait for anyone else, as OP's reasoning shows pretty adamantly.

Of course they're grossly incorrect.

Worst drivers I've seen are not in Rome.

It used to be like that around 2000s, things have vastly improved here though.

Have you ever tried Barcelona or New York or Paris or Krakow or Milan or, god forbid it, Naples?

Prejudices are fun, but usually they are grossly incorrect.

Also as I've said, I drive very little (less than 2.000km/year) and cyclists in Rome are still from Rome. they are not Martians so their mentality must be the same of everybody else don't you think?

if romans are bad drivers, isn't it safe to assume they are also bad cyclists?

I haven't driven in Rome, but I've tried the North of Italy, in Aoste. I'm from Paris and drive / ride my motorbike here quite often [0].

The only time in my life when I felt people were out to get me was in Italy. They drove like absolute maniacs. And I was on a big motorbike, not a bicycle going at 10 kmph. The road was wide, too (outside a city), with very light traffic, but for some reason they really couldn't be bothered to move over to the other lane when overtaking. Weren't going particularly faster, either.

---

[0] I'm not saying Paris is great, mind. I'd even say that in the last few years it has deteriorated a lot: whenever a light turns red, at least one person is guaranteed to run it.

> The only time in my life when I felt people were out to get me was in Italy.

Of course, you're French!

In Aosta!

You usually forget how shitty your country has been.

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tentative_de_rattachement_de...

you are not up to date with the UK traffic rules:

> Cars must leave at least 1.5 metres room when passing bicycles - while revised guidance also says "it can be safer" for cyclists to ride two abreast.

Yeah. and it's usually much more than that, because people know that bikers can't go straight and compensate for that.

But cyclists will always complain, because they don't talk about reality. they talk about their perceptions because they are scared and need to blame someone.

Cyclist also make the worst drivers I know, because they really can't stop thinking they are the victims.

I feel compelled to ask, how much time have you spent experiencing the reality of cycling yourself?

> if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver

if they do not kill you, they are not.

or maybe if you are scared of other road users and need a "safe space" you aren't a good road user.

just maybe

> if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad

welcome to the reality.

I'm not driving too close to you, you are zig-zaging in the middle of the street and you wear noise canceling headphones and no rearview mirror and no stop signal when you brake.

Thanks, but no thanks, I'm passing you, I don't trust your abilities, sorry.

let's not pretend that the majority of cyclists are Tour de France participants, they are usually terrible.

The good ones do not complain and they are those passing you left and right because are very confident and know what they are doing.

I'm also simply trying to not be responsible of your injuries if you injure yourself.

By the law I have to stop and check on you and stay there until.an ambulance or the police arrives. It usually takes hours.

I ride daily through my country's largest city. I'm not scared. I don't need a 'safe space' (or your desire to start a culture war, as your provocative wording imples). I don't jump red lights. I pull over if the road is busy and fast and wave drivers to overtake if possible. I'm simply asking that, given we share the road, people should drive with some damn courtesy rather than entitlement?

Most people think they are good drivers and its "the others" that are bad, regularly driving and behaving in a way that leaves little to no contingency. You can't control the environment. You can't control other road users. So if you are 'squeezing' then you are reducing your contingency, making it more dangerous for you and everyone else, and leaving yourself much more susceptible to negative events. So yes, a bad driver.

> Most people think they are good drivers and its "the others"

Most cyclists think they can ride a bike and it's the cars.

How is that different?

The main issue is don't harm.other road users, you don't do that?

Fine with me

I've never been in an accident that was my fault in my career as a driver, than now spans 3 decades.

The only accidents I've been were:

- a bike hit me laterally because the rider was going too fast on a wet road, panicked and hit the front brake. He almost killed himself and ruined my day.

- a moped took a turn too fast and hit me straight on the drivers door. When the father of the rider arrived he apologized saying his son "is a bloody idiot" (my adaptation of his Italian words, which are probably NSFW)

- I stopped at a stop sign and two teens on a motorbike hit me on the back because they were running too close to me. They also attacked me for braking, I showed them the stop sign, I threatened to call the police, they calmed down and gave me some money asking me to not make it official or their parent would be furoious at them. it wasn't their first time.

people are people, people make mistakes, people who think cars are dangerous for bikes usually aren't aware how shitty as cyclists they are, I'm sure they are bad drivers too.

Riding is dangerous, do it at your own risk, but nobody is really trying to kill you, because you are not that important.

Be careful and you'll live.

Wanna be safe on a bike?

Don't use it! Walk!

have you noticed that in motor sports at 300km/h nobody dies while every year in professional bike competitions someone dies or injure himself badly?

Because bikes are dangerous.

> Most cyclists think they can ride a bike and it's the cars.

The consequences of riding a bike badly are much lower. 10kg bike vs 1500kg car? ~14mph cyclist vs ~30mph+ car?

> I've never been in an accident that was my fault in my career as a driver, than now spans 3 decades.

That doesn't say _anything_ about whether your driving caused an adverse reaction from other road users. Merely that there was nothing severe enough to legally mark you as 'at fault'.

> people are people, people make mistakes, people who think cars are dangerous for bikes usually aren't aware how shitty as cyclists they are, I'm sure they are bad drivers too.

Cars _are_ dangerous. Cars cut across cyclists path (hence why the UK highway code received clarification/updates this year). Cars pass without enough space and clip cyclists (which you just seem to completely ignore and think it's "safe enough" and "the bloody safe-space demanding cyclists' fault").

> Riding is dangerous, do it at your own risk, but nobody is really trying to kill you, because you are not that important.

Riding, in general, isn't dangerous. For the average cyclist who is using it for commuting, and _maybe_ getting up to ~20kmh? Other than slick road surfaces from spilled oil or deep rain puddles or ice, there's not much that would cause random danger.

> have you noticed that in motor sports at 300km/h nobody dies while every year in professional bike competitions someone dies or injure himself badly? Because bikes are dangerous.

Road racing, where the racers are travelling in bunches of 40 cyclists at average speeds of 30mph, deliberately taking risks to try to win, is _nothing at all_ like typical road use for a commuting cyclist. You seem determined to strawman cyclists, and think that cyclists should just accept dangerous roads. You seem utterly unwilling to accept that car drivers can be a significant danger.

I accept that there can be bad cyclists. I shake my head if I see one jump a traffic light. How much of your perception of cyclists is just because you _expect_ car drivers to be bad, and whatever way they behave is just 'typical' so doesnt stand out to you...but when you see a cyclist it's obviously different, so much more memorable? In the UK there were more than 150,000 road traffic accidents in 2019. In Italy, around 190,000. That suggests to me there is a lot of bad driving.

My general position is that most road users (not just cars) are incredibly entitled and so we should figure out ways (such as the Netherlands' road design) that make everyone's life better, rather than just accepting things are shit and saying "suck it up and find a safe space".

I find it kind of funny that your stance is basically "It's never my fault". Try to self reflect at least a little when you're attempting to make a point.

> let's not pretend that the majority of cyclists are Tour de France participants, they are usually terrible.

Let's not pretend that the majority of drivers are Formula 1 participants, they are usually terrible.

> or maybe if you are scared of other road users and need a "safe space" you aren't a good road user.

It’s not cyclists who feel the need to bring a climate-controlled metal protection bubble onto the road with them.

Fear of other road users is in part what is fueling the SUV boom.

> It’s not cyclists who feel the need to bring a climate-controlled metal protection bubble onto the road with them

what foes that even mean?

do you live in the woods and only feed yourself with carcasses?

> Fear of other road users is in part what is fueling the SUV boom.

maybe in America

here it's micro cars that are booming

because after all SUV are stupid cars for stupid rich people with small dicks

> what foes that even mean?

Your implication is that cyclists who don’t want to be close-passed are wimps who shouldn’t be on the road. You used the term “safe space”, which is usually pejorative. My point is that those cyclists are braver than the drivers who wouldn’t be on the road without a protective, climate-controlled bubble (their vehicle).

edit: and to follow on from your significant edits/addendums

>> if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad

> welcome to the reality.

So you are admitting that they are bad drivers, and thats just reality? Ok. I'm saying we should face reality and give ourselves space to fuck up with less consequence.

Again, you seem very confident in your _own_ abilities. I don't know them. I just know that very few drivers ever consider _themselves_ to be at fault. Overconfidence.

I am comfortable weaving in and out of busy traffic. I can hold 20mph+ comfortably. I ride both for commuting and recreation, and have done 40mph+ on my bike. That doesn't stop me being able to see that other drivers are bad, and even if I know what I'm doing, can hope for society to be better.

You're the kind of driver who makes me want to kick cars off of roads in densely populated area. What a ridiculous notion that it's the soft participants in traffic that need to heed the hard ones!

> You're the kind of driver who makes me want to kick cars off of road

I'm also the kind of driver that when you trip from your bike because you are on death on wheels vehicle, stops and helps you

And when you burn. ared light, brakes

and when you miscalculate a turn and go wide, leaves you room, because I an actually looking around me when I drive, you aren't, because you don't care.

maybe I should stop doing all that, I guess a couple of weeks with a broken leg teach a lot of lessons to people like you.

We don't hand out medals to normal people, but incarcinate the ones "who want to teach you a lesson". What you just described is what normal people do on the road. There is a lot of research on this and cyclists are not any different than other road users.

> welcome to the reality.

You are in control of your car no?

you are in control of your bike no?

if you die riding something that runs on two minuscule strips of rubber that requires movement to stay in equilibrium and has no protection whatsoever for the rider, that usually don't even protect themselves because "who cares", why should be other people's fault?

As a community, we decided bikes can use the road like they used to before cars. You are responsible for driving your vehicle around them responsibly. At no poiny have you considered thst the risk as actually the car, you think the lack of a car is the risk. If everyone were on foot or bicycles there would be no issue, but that's not reality so when we take our cars into the city we have to accept that we brought the danger into the city.

> the point of passing a bike on the road is to avoid the danger you as a driver pose for the bike in the case of an unexpected event.

> like if the biker falls.

In this scenario the driver is not leaving sufficient space ahead of them, given road conditions. There should always be enough space for the driver to react & bring their vehicle to a stop safely--if not then the driver is not driving safely.

There is nothing wrong with overtaking at a sensible speed and at a sensible distance. "car squeezes past you at high speed" means that the driver is failing on both accounts.

If you wanted to keep cyclists safe, you would just stay behind them at a safe distance until a safe passing moment appears, just like you must do for cars. It sounds to me like you aren't keeping a safe distance and you are percieving the risk you are putting on others. At a safe distance, the problem you describe is not an issue.

When I am near cyclist or motorbikes there is a lot of ways I can not put them in danger, but the biggest ones are being attentive and keeping safe distances when folllwing or passing. This gives everyone space and time to react to any issues. Simple stuff.

Cyclists are doing the best with an infrastructure built in favour of cars, if they could be riding on a separated bike path out of your way they would definitely prefer that.

> If you wanted to keep cyclists safe, you would just stay behind them

if they wanted to be safe, they wouldn't go when cars are allowed to go 90km/h, side by side.

if you are suicidal, I don't wanna be part of your plan.

> Cyclists are doing the best with an infrastructure built in favour of cars,

that's so boring that is gives me nausea

Americans don't understand that they are not the center of the world.

Most of the bikes accidents in.my country happen far away from cities.

Most of those roads are the same that 200 years ago were used only by mules and cows

people didn't complain at the time when they used them with bikes, but complain now that bikes are 100x times better and roads are 100x times easier and safer.

the only "new" infrastructure have been highways in the 60s of the 1900

Viale Trastevere is kinda new in Rome, it was made by Mussolini in the late 1920s

that's the "infrastructure" you're talking about.

It just happens that now the main users of roads are cars, get over it, they won and will keep being the most used vehicle's form factor even after the electric transition.

Bike accidents are correlated to popoulation densisty in all the statistics I have seen. Is it really that different in Italy?

I'm not American.

We might agree on one thing, ridin on high speed roads outside of the city is pretty crazy. But I would still say it's my responsibility to not kill the cyclist and not their responsibility, again it's my car, I am in control of it, it's on me to not hit stuff with it.

> clearing up the way as fast as possible is safer for both.

No. Speed kills, especially in the form of massive objects like a car. The car should slow and stay behind the cyclist until it is safe to overtake with adequate margin.

No - as someone who has cycled extensively in London, it is very obviously not the case that drivers are squeezing past cyclists out of a desire to keep them safe. It’s a pretty laughable idea.

The vast majority of drivers are actually totally fine and courteous on the road. But when a moderate cycle can take you past literally hundreds of cars, even a tiny percentage of discourteous drivers can make the whole experience of cycling extremely unpleasant.

they are not tying to save you, they are trying to save themselves from hitting you because the cars behind don't see the bike and assume you are going slowly just because and road rage is the most dangerous thing while driving.

please understand than bikers don't make a good judge, because they are biased to think everyone is trying to kill them because everyone hates how free and both environmentally and physically better they are than everyone else.

this thread started with someone claiming that bikes are "healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians"

which are only claims, not facts.

the fact that I sometimes drive for 30kms with a car and walk the rest of the times, doesn't make me less healthy or more polluting,it's just propaganda fueled by self righteousness which doesn't help the matter at hands: why bikers love to take on cars, while, like it or not, cars are still the main users of roads because the astonishing amount of taxes road users have to pay, pay for those roads and their maintenance.

I hate cars in walkable cities, but I understand that walking is better for me, I don't blame people driving, I just avoid them.

I would like to avoid bikes too, but they use the pavement I'm walking on 'because roads aren't safe', like their right to defend their safety overrides my right to not be bothered where only pedestrian should walk.

I don't feel safe walking in the middle of the street, even though no law here prohibits it, I simply don't do it.

If a road is too dangerous to walk, I change directions.

There'll be a day when all of this won't b necessary, in the meantime, while some scientist invents the "no danger machine" everyone risk their life by simply living.

House accidents cause more death than accidents between bikes and cars in my Country, heck, they cause 4x more deaths than car accidents!, so bikes are still much safer than staying home anyway, enjoy the biking and stop complaining.

> I would like to avoid bikes too, but they use the pavement I'm walking on 'because roads aren't safe', like their right to defend their safety overrides my right to not be bothered where only pedestrian should walk.

Pretty telling that you think that but at the same time defend drivers squeezing past cyclists at high speed.

> people make a lot of excuses when confronted with something that they do not want to do

I am a cyclist who would want to do it a LOT more. And the main reason is two-fold.

One: cycling in London is scary, dangerous and extremely stressful. The cycling lanes, where they exist, are poorly maintained, tend to hop between the sides of the road at a rapid pace, and far too often cross with bus stops. On a bike you are forced to mix with car traffic more than if you simply _walked_ on the side of the road!

Two: I live at the bottom of a valley. Going anywhere starts by cycling a minimum of 2.5km uphill. Going anywhere interesting requires to take on a 5-7km uphill drive. Combined with the dangerous environment, being exhausted all the time adds to the risk. (FYI: on flat terrain I can do 25km on one go with little effort.)

Back in Finland I used to cycle ~170km a week during summers. In London, not a chance.

In London it is worth trying to optimize where you live so you can get by bicycle where you need to go. Some parts are terribly connected for cyclists others much better. You can use citymapper to find and check for cycling routes (do not use Google to find cycling routes). I found that North (Islington) and East are better for cycling than South or West.

(Snark incoming!)

Entitled much? Try having a family, and getting a place with a garden. Around Islington decent places like that go for around £2M. With the most lenient lenders you can get a mortgage for 5.5x your annual income, so in order to afford one, I would have to make about £365k a year.

Which would likely put me in the 99.99th percentile in terms of income.

Yeah. Sure.

I always think London is only good for students or rich people. Since I am neither, I moved away.

Islington is massive with expensive and cheaper areas, but all of it is fairly cycleble. But if you want to go further away, I did cycle from Lea bridge road close to Walhamstrow every day for years to around Euston. That's North East and used to be cheap the live back then. I tried Tottenham, too. That's harder to cycle to and from.

An electric bicycle will make a huge difference in getting you out of the valley. But unfortunately you can't do anything about the atrocious non-design of London streets and the endless traffic gumming them up.

Acting like what makes Rome's traffic dangerous are cyclists or moped drivers (even if those can often be quite reckless) is basically victim-blaming.

We should never take such posts too seriously.

it's too many vehicles in general, too many, not a.specific kind of vehicle

when lockdown happened, cars weren't around, people started using electric scooters, with no cars around

results?

ER saw a spike of brain I juries because people where falling from them!

Is that the cars fault or it's people that are reckless?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/25/rome-to-impose...

If drivers overtook cyclists for the cyclists' safety you'd expect them to tailgate cyclists much less often. Literally nobody keeps the necessary distance to the car/cyclists in front of them in city traffic. That's why rear-end collisions are so frequent. Between two cars at city speeds that not really dangerous. When a cyclists falls in front of a car it's fatal.

> you'd expect them to tailgate cyclists much less often.

that's absurd.

ever seen a traffic light from a car?

> Literally nobody keeps the necessary distance to the car/cyclists in front of them in city

you mean literally no cyclist keeps the distance between them and the car in front of them, tailgate them at traffic lights, and then keep everybody else stuck because they are slow to move?

they are forbidden by the law to pass other vehicles in my country and keep the right lane, they never do it.

have you ever seen a bike wait behind a slower car or in line at a traffic light?

cameras could fine cars not behaving, but bikes?

> When a cyclists falls in front of a car it's fatal.

then why they do it all the time?

because I literally saved tens of them in the past 30 years.

if you mention bikes in Milan becoming "a problem" because they are parked like that maybe we should also talk about the absolute chaos of cars parked everywhere (on bike lanes, in the middle of the road, on sidewalks), otherwise one might think that in Milan bikes are the worst offenders regarding parking.

> As a pedestrian bikes are much more disruptive than cars for me

yes, for you. for the collectivity, the cost of cars killing people all the time outweighs the discomfort of seeing mopeds parked, you'll understand

> we should also talk about the absolute chaos of cars parked everywhere

two wrongs don't make a right.

but I've never seen a car chained to the subway gate

> yes, for you. for the collectivity, the cost of cars killing people a

spare me the "pistolotto"

I use public transport and my feet, bikes are not saving anyone and frankly having to hear people defending the right of bikers to break the law is ridiculous.

At least cars don't disrupt my mother in laws's whose almost blind walks.

Why bikers never walk their bikes on pedestrians only paths, like they are supposed to?

there are no cars there.

No wonder bikers are considered by the book selfish people

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/black-belt-brain/201...

> bikes are not saving anyone

They are actually, biking improves health a lot more than any negative aspect. It's a ridiculously good way to save lives.

>many cyclist don't understand this because they are bad drivers

So charitable of you to assume that they are only bad at driving.

I find that people who don't "get" mixed traffic create uncertainty and danger for everyone else around them whether they are on two wheels, four wheels or two feet. And then many of them have the gall to assume it's everyone else who's doing it wrong.