In Canada the fight has gotten nasty, with governments in Alberta and Ontario putting forward legislation that could remove existing bike lanes.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-ford-bike-lan...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-b...
Maybe "hatred" is too strong of a word, but if I were a cyclist in Toronto or Edmonton I'd feel rather victimized.
You’ll also see them run red lights, cut off pedestrians, bike right into oncoming traffic (in the same lane, no less), cut across three lanes of without blinking. All in the name of laziness, not safety.
Bikes are different machines with different capabilities and parameters. That they aren't used like cars isn't laziness or even lack of personal safety, but maybe lack of discipline to operate as if it has the capabilities and parameters of a car.
Whatever the motive, it's still dangerous because everything on the road needs to operate in an integrated system of rules. Bikes acting like bikes are unpredictable and using different rules.
But consider the functional differences:
> Contested stop signs are a prime example. For every cyclist who stops properly, 99 blaze through with attitude.
Bicycles both stop much more quickly than cars and take more effort to restart. Restarting from a stop and accelerating to full speed takes energy and wears on tired muscles - and it's not just one intersection but 100 in one ride.
So many times I've seen bikes approach the intersection at moderate speed. That's dangerous in a car - you might need to stop short, you might hit someone or something with your 2,000 lbs metal object which could cause serious harm even at slow speeds. On a bike it's fine - you can easily stop your 200 lbs object, which is also much smaller and more maneuverable and thus avoids collisions easily, and which does little harm at slow speeds.
So the bike does the bike thing, but the car sees a car thing: The car see the bike moving at a normal rate, and assumes it will act like a car and drive right into the intersection. The car stops and lets the bike go first.
> run red lights
At lights, bikes are like (very fast) pedestrians. On foot, at least in the US and many parts of the world, if the road is clear people don't wait for the light, they just cross. Functionally, there's no reason for bikes to do differently. That's dangerous to do in a car because their size and lack of maneuverability makes them big targets and makes accidents hard to avoid, and because they cause serious harm even at slow speeds.
> cut across three lanes of without blinking
Again, bikes are much smaller (able to fit in small spaces) and much moremanueverable. It makes some sense for a cyclist; it would be far more dangerous in a car.
They really don't. Even if you slam brakes and OTB on a bike you will still fly further ahead than a car doing double your speed will travel after applying brakes normally. This is the insanity of running stop signs on a bike - you can't stop, you cannot swerve nearly as quickly as a car and you will take much more damage when T-boned than a car driver would yet you believe it's safer because:
> take more effort to restart.
Yeah, it's not laziness, it's science and shiet.
I will give you that they're much more maneuverabile and accidents can often be avoided by putting the bike into a space in the road that a car couldn't go into.
I've long wondered about that tradeoff: I've heard some (non-physics-aware) people say that heavier cars/trucks stop faster because they have more traction, but obviously there's a big tradeoff in that equation. As a guess, on a moving wheeled vehicle, 1 kg adds forward energy proportional to velocity, and downward energy constant and independent of velocity? And maximizing that tradeoff would seem to be an engineering goal in order to minimize muscle/gas expenditure. (I'm sure it's well-known but I'm too lazy to look up the details.)
That ignores road/tire and air resistance which are proportional to velocity. And I suppose a key question is the degree to which traction depends on vehicle weight: maybe it depends more on tire and road characteristics, for example. Certainly ice or some kind of low-grip tire would be a big factor.
And that ignores locking up the wheel, as you pointed out.
You have crazy bikers, and you have crazy drivers. I’ve seen way more of one in my life, and that one’s definitely more dangerous.
Cyclists quite literally do it every single day
I don’t think the behavior is equally distributed
Driving a car, bicycles are hard to see - I wouldn't be surprised if visibility in cars is specified to be sufficient to see other cars. Bicycles appear out of nowhere and disappear. Also, cyclists - no better or worse than their automobile counterparts - don't always drive well, and they do things that cars don't such as weaving through small spaces between cars; running lights as if they are pedestrians, but on the road; appearing from sidewalks and other places - really anyplace. I don't object to creative driving - as I said, (city) drivers aren't much different in their way - but it makes bikes unpredictable and hard to see. Then there's the speed difference - bikes much slower than traffic are as dangerous as cars driving that speed (again, except I can see the cars). As long as there's one lane - and if cyclists 'own the lane' and don't let cars squeeze by - it's safe: you can see the bike; multiple lanes and the bike ends up in blind spots, weaving back and forth itself, etc.
I read that in (Belgium? The Netherlands?) the law is that if there is a small (10 km/h?) difference in speed between cars and bikes, they cannot share the road.
> The great majority don't care about it
My own dad will take any opportunity to actively bitch about perceived annoyances perpetrated by cyclists and opine about how useless bike lanes are expensive and not actually productive because people only use them for exercise. Why don't you try actually bringing up cyclists and bike lanes somewhere, especially in the south, and then you tell me what people think.
I haven't met those Americans, somehow. Maybe it's just more social media nonsense - people joining the mob fun and far overestimating the loud voices?
that could easily be another row of houses or a pretty big park, over and over and over again through the whole city.
its an incredible amount of government money and city land tied up in black top that needs regular resurfacing, cleaning, plowing, etc
You happen to have a social circle that doesn't have any issues with cyclists, perhaps there are a number of them in your group.
But there are almost assuredly social circles that feel otherwise, that revel at the opportunity to roll coal as they pass a group of cyclists, that joke about running them off the road.
A quick google indicates there have been numerous studies on the subject that seem to support the idea that bicyclists are often reviled by some portion of the population, correlated with those who rely heavily on automobiles.
And, I mean, just scrolling this thread seems to show plenty of anecdotes to support the idea. Seems pretty systemic given the breadth of the anecdata.
> just scrolling this thread seems to show plenty of anecdotes to support the idea. Seems pretty systemic given the breadth of the anecdata
That reasoning is the epitome of social media self-deception.
I now live in rural suburban Michigan, and even on these rural backroads I have jerks in trucks yelling at me on my e-bike going 20+ mph to "get out of the f***ing way".
Maybe those people do not represent the majority, but it feels like they do, and those actions feel threatening when coming from a multi-ton vehicle directed at a 75 pound vehicle. (Fat-bike ebikes are heavy.) It's also odd to experience this on a rural road on a lake shoreline because isn't the countryside supposed to be slow paced?
1. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-han...
Second favorite was, a truck did an illegal pass maneuver around me on a blind turn (another 15s and we'd be around the curve) and almost hit another truck head on, then raced off. The driver of the truck that almost got hit rolled down his window and asked me "do you really have to ride here?"
> not if you sign this to get dedicated infrastructure put in
My impression is that only people in the bicycling social world believe that. It seems like a victim mentality that they reinforce by repeating it to each other. It's always possible I just haven't seen it, but localities around the country are building bicycling infrastructure, which doesn't correspond to hatred. Where do you see it?
I hardly ever hear someone expressing hatred of cyclists. People who ride obviously like it. The great majority don't care about it - it has little impact on their lives. In cities, on streets I see people honk at, yell at, and flip off cyclists just like they honk, flip off, and yell at other drivers. IME the cyclists generally 'drive' as well/poorly as the automobile drivers.
I do notice that people in spandex racing outfits on road bikes tend to behave with attitude problems toward everyone - pedestrians, non-racing cyclists, cars, etc. They are aggressive and fly by people, often with little margin, at dangerous speeds without warning. It's as if they think they own the road. I was just talking to a bike mechanic I know who brought it up. If people don't like them, it's obvious why.