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 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)
Basically no one is ever willing to wait for anyone else, as OP's reasoning shows pretty adamantly.
Of course they're grossly incorrect.
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?
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.
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...
> 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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".
> 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.
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.
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
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).
>> 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.
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.
You are in control of your car 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?
> 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pretty telling that you think that but at the same time defend drivers squeezing past cyclists at high speed.
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.
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.
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.
We should never take such posts too seriously.
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...
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.
> 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
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...
They are actually, biking improves health a lot more than any negative aspect. It's a ridiculously good way to save lives.
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.
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.