This is a highly idealistic myth. Most drivers are not "cyclists a few hours earlier/later", and many definitely aren't empathetic. The split between bike lanes and car lanes, as well as the law favoring cyclists, should make that obvious. Cyclists even get away not showing their direction despite this being taught from early age.

This is how we can tell you are not a cyclist.

It is very difficult to use the brakes and indicate a change in direction at the same time.

While cyclists should indicate, the nature of the vehicle does make it hard under some conditions.

Here's a question for you. If i am stopped at a red light on my bike in what is clearly a left turn lane, why do cars attempt to pull up in front of me anyhow?

Cant be bothered waiting for me to make the left so they just force themselves in front of me? is this because i didn't signal?

50% of my miles and 90% of my travel time is on a bike.

Signalling a change in direction should only be done with your left hand, per manuals.

Braking can be achieved with only the right hand (rear brake, typically).

Dismounting and signalling/braking is hard to do at once though. And you're right it should be obvious that a cyclist is turning left if they are in the left turn lane.

None of what you said has to do with the reality of the matter, nor does you trying to flip the script change things. Look past your own emotions instead of trying to low blow immediately.

Comment in question claims people are more empathetic because individuals seem to switch between biking and driving cars almost daily. This is not happening. Live a 30 minute drive away from work, most individuals would take the bike every weekend at best. Most individuals do in fact live that far from work. Furthermore, car usage continues to increase, and roads continue to be expanded as a result. You can say all you want, most individuals are not going to cycle after an 8 hour workday and spending at least an hour commuting.

>While cyclists should indicate, the nature of the vehicle

>why do cars attempt to pull up in front of me anyhow?

Way too focused on cyclist vs vehicle. There are plenty of roads where it isn't always obvious which way someone is going, no matter cyclist or vehicle. These are old roads, but they exist nonetheless. Vehicles are actively punished for not indicating, cyclists are not. Both are hazards for everyone else, themselves and pedestrians included. That's not exactly something that would instill empathy.

That should also make it obvious the inverse situation doesn't create empathy either. It's a two-way street and neither is particularly giving to the other. That has nothing to do with automobile vs cyclist vs pedestrian vs whatever, it has to do with.. who would've guessed, people being people.

Why do you think laws were made to accommodate cyclists in particular? Why do you think lanes are split? Why do you think many individuals have a particular distaste for sport cyclists, who go high speed through busy roads and expect everyone to adapt to them? It's not empathy, it's a lack of empathy, followed by individuals not wanting to get in trouble over petty little things, and a legal system not wanting to spend thousands of manhours covering he-said-she-said scenarios.

The comment in question is (I believe) referring specifically to how things are in the Netherlands, where my understanding is that long commutes are much less common than they are in the United States, and many more people cycle as well as drive.

Is it actually true that "[motor] vehicles are actively punished for not indicating, cyclists are not"? So far as I can tell, it's extremely rare for anyone to be punished for not indicating. (Which is probably the Right Thing; the police surely have better things to spend their time on than watching for drivers or cyclists who fail to indicate.)

Would we tolerate a car on our roads with turn signals and brakes that couldn't be used at the same time?

Why should cyclists, who got the roads built in the first place, be driven from the roads by motorists?

Bicycles aren't the problem, the singular focus on cars in our societies is the real problem. Roads used to be shared between horses, carriages, bicycles, vendors, and pedestrians.

The car is a monotheistic religion, there can only be one god, the car, and you have to devote your whole life and society to it.

> Why should cyclists, who got the roads built in the first place, be driven from the roads by motorists?

This feels a bit like saying that the US shouldn't have abolished slavery since it was founded by slave owners.

> Roads used to be shared between horses, carriages, bicycles, vendors, and pedestrians.

Lead used to be in paint and gas. Doctors used to perform surgery without even washing their hands first. People used to use chamber pots instead of toilets. And roads used to be disgusting from being covered in horse manure.

> The car is a monotheistic religion, there can only be one god, the car, and you have to devote your whole life and society to it.

No, we just want different spaces to be used for different means of transportation, similarly to how you wouldn't want someone riding a motorcycle on the sidewalk.

> No, we just want different spaces to be used for different means of transportation, similarly to how you wouldn't want someone riding a motorcycle on the sidewalk.

So does every cyclist. Yet it's motorists that protest against that every time they'd have to sacrifice a lane.

Distinguish being against bike paths vs. being against losing a lane from a road that already has too few lanes.

Demand dynamically adjusts to supply. People have a distance they're willing to commute to work, and this distance is measured in minutes.

People also want to have as low rent/housing costs as possible, so they'll often want to move as far away from the city as possible.

e.g., I'll never move to a place where my commute to work is over 30 minutes.

If you add lanes, travel time decreases, so more people move further away. This increases demand, so that congestion quickly becomes just as bad as it is today.

This means there are never enough lanes. If you reduce the lanes, over the next years people will move closer to the city again, demand will decrease, and the congestion won't be any worse than it is today.

You can never have enough or too many lanes, all you can do is decide whether you want to subsidize people moving further away while making cars required for transportation, or if you do something against this, and reduce the lanes available to cars.

Considering this is a zero-sum game, if you reject replacing lanes with bike lanes, you reject bike lanes pretty much everywhere.

Isn't a current big problem that housing is way too expensive? If so, isn't it silly to do things that reduce the number of viable housing options for most people?

The issue of “housing is too expensive” is primarily because of zoning. Most of Germany has zoning only in new, in-development districts. Major parts of most cities are not zoned at all.

This allows development of mixed use, middle-density (think: 3-8 floors) buildings, which provide a lot of housing at far lower cost compared to high rises.

These mixed, often mostly walkable, neighborhoods are what can help provide living space. Single-family housing is something that just gets cities into debt, increases traffic, yet does not improve the housing situation at all.

No we wouldn’t.

I would argue that they are not the same thing. I find it easy to tell which direction a cyclist will go even when they don’t/can’t signal. I see it in their head movement, the orientation of the bike, etc. Especially when driving behind a cyclist.

When cars don’t signal, I find it harder to guess where they are going.

My experience is the complete opposite of what you describe.

That's cool, but the stats continue to show wealth causes increase in driving and people continue to live pretty far away from work. Most people are not going to cycle after getting home from work or prior. The few Amsterdam anecdotes in this thread don't weight up against the masses driving 20+ minutes and the high traffic roads being expanded again.

Now add the many laws favorable towards cyclists and measurements taken to accommodate them. It's not empathy. It's saving one's own hide from causing a lot of harm, a sense of guilt and the potential lawsuit waiting to happen. There's no special empathy given to cyclists in particular, only universal respect towards any non-motorized vehicle and individuals (e.g. children, individuals with heavy groceries).

Your experience is dispelled the moment you take an hour cycling to and from work. That's pretty easy for anyone not on a SDE salary.

Amsterdam is a pretty shitty place to bike if you compare it to the rest of the Netherlands.

The point these posts are making is that you need dedicated infrastructure to get people to cycle. Roads need to be walkable as well. So NA's car centric infra is the cause. Not the cyclists.