Ambulances aren't though. Same with delivery vehicles. Public transport is, but typically one associated with less cars.
All of these are both dangerous to cyclists and essential in a functioning city.
Last year in my neighborhood we had a cyclist die from making a sharp left turn straight into a tram. It was a track x cycle lane intersection and between the tracks and cycle lane parallel to it from which he turned there's a strip of pavement, so unless you really cut that turn, the tram should be in your field of vision.
Also there's a yield sign for cyclists, but obviously that didn't work.
But I would rather restrict cycling than trams, as the latter perform a valuable service.
He got up and rode away with no explanation.
people forget that cyclists can also get off their bikes and push them along like pedestrians. just put a big sign, and if needed, post a policeman with a ticket book. or make the pavement bumpy enough and they'll get off voluntarily.
All that's needed is for city infrastructure designers to take into account the existence and needs of cyclists. An impossible challenge for 99% of them, sadly.
On one long bridge here, pedestrians and bikes have dedicated roads, on the opposites sides. I regularly see bikers use the sidewalk side, and the same with pedestrians on the biker side; neither is "fun" nor safe. I've actually been yelled at by a biker on the pedestrian side for not noticing him zipping by me... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elsewhere, I regularly see people walking in the middle of the bike lane, where it's a mixed use sidewalk. The road is clearly marked, yet these people are walking there, playing chicken with each cyclist, on purpose.
The reality is that these people are a fairly small minority, but we tend to notice them. So, I wouldn't make blanket statements.
I did not do anything to put said pedestrian cunt at risk. the shared path was wide enough for 5 people, and I passed far enough away from them that I was in no danger of hitting them. I also passed them at barely over walking speed, because I always slow down when passing potentially inattentive creatures.
he, like you, assumed too much and make a fool of himself.
I'm paranoid though and just assume hostile intentions. I slow down to walking speed or even just stop until I'm certain they're clued in.
Are you serious? How can you say that? Cars are, by themselves, much higher risk than bikes. If bikes are dangerous at all is because of cars. The main--heck, I'd say the only--spreaders of dangerosity are cars. In a car-free city, none of the main causes of premature death would be traffic-related.
And we can have ambulances (or not have them!) with or without car-dependent infrastructure. It turns out that non-car-dependent areas also have ambulances and get people to medical care quickly.
And we could get rid of ambulances and even still keep rapid emergency response by having mobile doctors distributed close to people.
Plus, ambulances are not dangerous to bicyclists. Come on. The danger is distracted drivers without blaring sirens on top of them.
Saying "we" in this context assumes you have political power.
It's all there in the public record, easy to find.
All the decisions are politics by definition.
In nearly all of the US it is literally illegal to build out infrastructure with out prioritizing cars and car infrastructure over everything.
This was a political choice that we made, as we do live in a representative democracy.
But that the comparison seems apt is pretty endemic of how cars are treated: an absolute must, as if they were a force of nature.
Never mind that a huge chunk of our population can not drive, and are therefore excluded from society by cars. Car dependency is a very exclusionary way to build a town. (Note that there is a difference between allowing cars, and car dependency. Making cars the only permissible way to navigate is car dependency. And it's possible to allow car travel without forcing car dependency, but it requires work and is not the default in the US)