It disgusts me how today's so-called "cycling activists" are doing the work of the automotive lobby while thinking that they're the good guys.Imagine if a bunch of politicians started pushing for a special residential area for a certain group, after having them habitually assaulted with weapons for many years. "We're terribly sorry about all the bloodshed but can't guarantee your safety, if you want to be safe, you have to go in this special place we designated for you".That is what bike lanes are. We've tried "separate but equal". It doesn't work, because tyranny of the majority means a highly flexible definition of "equal".People who have been riding bikes for many decades know what the game is. But zoomers and corona cyclists believe they know best. Instead of demanding justice, they demand segregation. Which is exactly what the automotive supremacists want.
Sooo... you're telling me the auto-moto-oil lobby and similairly thinking cagies DON'T want things to be the way they've been for the last half century?Then the US must be a safe haven for cyclists and benelux countries must be the biggest pofit drivers for the car industry.
>>1955863Do all cyclists constantly delude themselves into stupid justifications?The only possible reason you could have for wanting to "share the road" as opposed to separate bike lanes, which is faster and safer for literally everyone involved, is because you're poor and want to make other people suffer because of your idiotic "cause."No one ever really cared how you got to work until you people made it an issue, but of course the point of all lefty causes isn't to be effective, it's to make everyone miserable.
>>1955897not op, but i just want to use normal side streets, which have room for a cyclist and a driver, without fear. not every street needs a bike lane. that being said, i want to use a major artery - nice bike lane there makes it good.
>>1955899There's a big difference between a neighborhood street and a major road, but honestly if neighborhoods do decide to make good, dutch-style bike lanes, I really don't see the problem. It puts physical space between the cyclists and cars, and bikes still get to brag about not having to stop for traffic and getting to work faster than "cagers."
Man you’re really that asshurt from the other thread lol. No one a buying your horseshit.
Bike lanes are proven to be safer for all users of the road, and good for the economy. 0/10 OP
>>1955897This is a perfect distillation of the segregationist mentality. They claim to be interested in safety, but their solution to safety is to get rid of the cyclist and make it so that the only place he's allowed to ride is in a few wealthy neighborhoods. Don't actually hold anyone responsible for their actions. Don't try to punish drivers for running over someone while texting at 55mph in a 25mph zone. No, that's "lefty" and would make *drivers* (the only people who matter) miserable.I look forward to "but in amsterdam" and some random garbage about how I'm a communist cagetroll NIMBY boomer for not wanting to die at the hands of a karen in a minivan.
>>1955900but that separation shouldn't be needed in calmer traffic contexts. i just want to trust drivers to not be a dick in a low speed neighborhood environment.
>>1955863>>1955899>>1955900most streets in the netherlands don't have bike lanes, you only need them separate from high traffic volumes like highways and access roads. john forester was an annoying retard with his vehicular cycling telling people to ride 35mph(!) like they're in the tour de france and pretend to be cars which is fucking stupid.
>>1955946forester literally shilled for the auto lobby at the end of his life and he was a miserable hypocritical retard. I'm at the point that he was an actual astroturfer.
>>1956101we can have things without everything being the fucking netherlands. kys
>>1956107Horseshoe principle. For me, cycling comes first. The "cycling politics" are a means to an end. I'm going to ride either way. Not like these dutch karens who discovered cycling as a way to rebel against mommy and daddy, along with the belly button piercing and the che guevara poster.If your erestwhile "allies" the so-called "cycling activists" turn against you and try to destroy you, you'll use whatever means are necessary to keep the insane at bay. If motor vehicle interests oppose bike lanes, then so be it. It's only logical to side with the motor vehicle interests.Remember, the PRC and the ROC both believe in "One China". They can agree on that. Hardliners on both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict believe in a "one state" option.Sometimes when you're pushed into a corner there's only one sane option left and that is to reject "moderates" who have nothing to offer except betrayal.
I've been riding bikes my whole life, and being where I am, have been practicing 'vehicular cycling' as described by John Forester that entire time. I didn't encounter a protected bike lane or multi use path until college. While he got a lot wrong, he did have a point that these solutions will never be able to replace the main road, and I think the American implementation of mixed use paths and protected bike lanes are more annoying than helpful. If the places I want to get to are connected by roads, why not just take the roads? Why detour on this separate path? The paths and bike lanes are also never wide enough to allow safe overtaking, and if everyone who was driving switched to bikes they would be overwhelmed very quickly.Riding with traffic is only dangerous and scary because of the difference in speed. The solution is to slow down cars, not remove the bikes. When I ride in major downtowns I'm faster than the cars most of the time, and It feels safe to ride, because the speed limit is 30mph and it doesn't feel safe going much faster than that. If you were slower, you went into the bike lane. Riding in my hometown where the speed limit is 50mph, it feels more dangerous even with a bike lane.The real answer is 30mph max road speeds in cities or streets with driveways and turn outs that's strictly enforced with traffic calming, and a normal bike lane for slow riders.
>>1956125
Bumping a good thread
>>1955863>Imagine if a bunch of politicians started pushing for a special residential area for a certain group, after having them habitually assaulted with weapons for many years. "We're terribly sorry about all the bloodshed but can't guarantee your safety, if you want to be safe, you have to go in this special place we designated for you".Wait a minute, isn't that zionism ? Also I agree with you, bike lanes are subpar, I want cars to fuck off and to ride that sweet two-lane blacktop.
It makes me laugh how much effort this cagetroll puts into shitposting.People like urbanism and bike lanes. They make streets safer and they’re good for our health and the planet’s. Get the fuck over it lol.
>>1958326Thing is, bike lanes SOUND like a good idea.... if you've never actually used bikes as a means of transportation. The problem is there are too many "urbanists" who have never set foot in an area more densely populated than Shawnee Mission, Kansas. So they'll return home after a long day of driving around for hundreds of miles to buy groceries, and shit up online discussions of transportation with their armchair opinions on how people in cities ought to be told how to live
>>1955946Why do cyclist advocates salivate over "hold people responsible for their actions", but then get all defensive when things like "don't blow through stoplights" get brought up?
>>1958342The only time I've been physically attacked by a cager (got out of his car and chased me) was when I stopped for a stop sign as the law says I should, and he exploded in rage because apparently I'm supposed to "blow through" the intersection just like they say we shouldn't. First he starts honking like mad, then I'm like "wtf dude I'm stopping because it's a stop sign", then he leapt out of his shitbox and lunged at me.Anyway yes I know you are all individuals and stuff, just wondering why the hypocrisy and violence all the time.
>>1958342because "stop lights" [sic] (transl. traffic lights) are for motor vehicles. believe it or not.
>>1958385>>1958342Cageoids are almost as irrational about this stuff as the "urbanists" trying to shove PBLs down our throats.The difference is that cageoids and normal people (cyclists) actually do interact in the meatspace and have to come to something resembling a stalemate. Whereas for "urbanists" who all live in a corn field somewhere in the vast, irrelevant uninhabited hellscape between the appalachian mountains and the diablo range, this is all an abstract internet argument about a thing that the funny YIMBY twitter guy likes to talk about, so it's significantly less productive than arguing with a monkey hammering on an iphone handset sporting a particularly well trained autocomplete model.
Expecting cyclists to "just behave like cars" simply doesn't work, neither does putting responsibility for their safety on the individual. Most cyclists can't adhere to the flow and speed of cars, nor do they have anywhere near the same safety mechanisms, in fact they're basically prey in the kinetic hierarchy. And if plain logic doesn't sway you, just look at any country that has preached and designed their infrastructure around "just use a car lane", first and foremost the US, and you'll realise they're all deadly hellholes for cyclists.
>>1958423There is no such thing as a "car lane" except in the context of "bike lanes" created for the express purpose of blaming people for their own deaths
>>1958436Semantics. The bottom line is trying to get cagers to share space safely is a failed experiment.
He did a ton of things wrong. His ideas were stupid and impractical.
>>1955897Why is it idiotic?
>>1955863Lol, I rule the road when I am out on my bicycle. And, oh yeah, I make sure to brake check every Toyota that I see.
>>1959480One more thing, if you are sick of how you are treated on the road, change your attitude. I used to be pushed around all the time on the road, now I honestly do not give two shits of a fuck for anyone else on the road and I am alright with that.So go and do yourselves a favor and start doing stupid shit today.
>>1955913No op, but my point is bikes shouldn't be equal, they should be prioritized. Good behavior should be incentivized.
>>1958450Great argument.
>>1955863Hes a faggot
>>1955863Bicycle lanes everywhere are cheaper than the equivalent length of road. *FACT*
>>1961898I think he was a great guy too but your micro-aggression against straight people is not appropriate
The real redpill is getting a motorbike
>>1958386>cageoids and normal people (cyclists) actually do interact in the meatspaceI love seeing deranged urbanoids try to describe what they perceive as "normal"
>>1962771Fastest way to the emergency room
>>1956101Even the paradise for shady social engineers, Netherlands, sort of agreed with those ideas then.
>>1963065john forester's ideas? the very opposite. with the problem being a difference in speed, forester wanted cyclists to go as fast as cars everywhere, which is retarded. in the netherlands, 'shady social engineers' instead want to slow down cars in local mixed traffic and separate cars and bikes completely outside of that, which works very well.
>>1963075It's the other way around though. Forester was appalled by the bucket of crabs mentality that bicycles should be treated as slow useless toys because that is at odds with the reality of how bicycles behave in urban traffic. The top speed of a car on an interstate freeway in bumfuck nowhere is not relevant when deciding if bikes should take the left turn lane like a vehicle operated by an intelligent adult, or swerve across multiple lanes of cars going 25mph like a vehicle operated by a 4 year old toddler tripping on ayahuascaToo many "cycling infrastructure" decisions are made by people who have never been near a bicycle and generally think of them as a nuisance to be eliminated rather than as a normal form of transportation used by normal people who are going to ride whether you karens like it or not
>>1955897>separate bike lanes, which is faster and safer for literally everyone involvedthese need to be actively policed because they become parking lanes for shitbirds and karens.
>>1963240i feel like you're shitposting, but yes, urban bicycle infrastructure should be designed to safely accomodate even the weakest users like children and the elderly. that's why all subway stops have elevators, because not everybody can walk up and down stairs. it's not to drag down people who walk fast. the system forester advocated for is no bicycle infrastructure whatsoever, with high speed/high risk manouvres which only appeals to thrillseekers. this ironically reduces cycling to a nuisance to others instead of a valid mode of transit. if you want cycling to be "a normal form of transportation used by normal people" you should be advocating for bicycle highways outside of outside of- and safer street design in urban areas.
>>1955863Having lived in Japan for almost 2 years now, they don't really have bike lanes anywhere I've been with limited exceptions on some of the busier roads in Kyoto and Fukuoka. Hell, half of smaller urban streets don't even have sidewalks. They basically get around this by people not being shitheads with their cars and setting the expectation that there will be mixed traffic when off of the highway. Generally speaking everyone is respectful of one another and it's not unusual to see women with cargo bikes laden with kids mixed into slow urban traffic. This would never work in America because sociopathic boomers, blacks on they shell foams, and drunk Latinos would be committing vehicular homicide left and right. I used to bike by taking the lane and being assertive when I lived in Boston and got doored by a squatemalan and had a boomer follow me home and threaten to kill me.The problem is a cultural one and endless billions spent on infrastructure redevelopment can't correct for this. Having a comfy, safe bike commute isn't possible without this country being destroyed and something else erected in its place, frankly.
>>1955897>which is fasterAhahaha.
>>1963332>that's why all subway stops have elevatorsNow who's shitposting?>the system forester advocated for is no bicycle infrastructure whatsoever,Have you actually read Forester or are you just regurgitating some garbage you read on a REBNY-sponsored twitter bot account?
>this kills the segregationist
>>1963577>Now who's shitposting?what, do they not have those where you live? do they use giant ramps instead?
>>1963645They have elevators at about 25% of stations. In order to fix this they would have to shut down the trains overnight which is a non-starter because numtots have been brainwashed into thinking that advertising a "24/7 system" (which is broken most of the time anyway) is somehow the only thing separating the city from going the way of detroit
>>1963650damn that sounds like a shitty place, hope you're able to migrate somewhere better. stay strong anon!
>>1955899This is reasonable.I rhink the OP claims are mostlyunreasonable.
>>1955913>mind your business going bike-appropriate and peak efficient 25 km/h>in front of you is a grandma going leisurely 10>behind you is a roadie fred going 40>behind him is a delivery boy deliiiivering at 70 on one of these>you all have to somehow fit in a 1-bike wide lanethe speed delta within bike lane ghetto is by far the highest, so why are they made so narrow? They are narrower than sidewalks 100% of the time.
>>1964926they should be about 2 meters wide per lane/direction according to CROW guidelines. considering there's space for multiple 3-4m wide car lanes in most main/high traffic streets where you would built bike lanes that shouldn't be a problem.
>>1963333You're not mentioning that they limit the number of parking spaces and make having a space a prerequisite for owning a car depending on your address.So while homogeneity and not having blacks are essential components of successful cycling infrastructure, they're not sufficient.It used to be worse than it currently is in Japan. In the 70's and 80's the streets were rammed with cars just like everywhere else.
>>1963333>black people are the only bad drivers>>1964962>black people not wanting to get title frauded out of their investment are why there are bad driversLeave it to YIMBY pond scum to blame black people and black people for motorized violence, let me guess black people are "cagetrolls" now?
>>1964962>make having a space a prerequisite for owning a car depending on your addressYes. You should be able to store your private property on your private or rented land, not expect it to be stored on public land.I can't believe some peopel consider this controversial.
>>1964973No, you don't understand, this has nothing to do with the standard of driving. Black people are the reason you need a steel and glass cage around you at all times in major US cities.You don't go on safari on a bike, you go in a jeep and the driver has a gun.
>>1955897THIS (apart from the last lie holy shit not all lefties are like that brah).>>1955863But you're probably OK with faggoty suicidal e-bikes and Deliverootards leaving a wake of dead bodies to gain a £3.50 tip? If you are, then you're a hypocrite.
>>1965508No, I'm not very ok with ebikes, in fact I have a whole thread about why they are a menace
Bike lanes are proven to be good for the economy, increase bike ridership, and make streets safer for all users of the road.
Forester dropping another truth bomb on the separate but equal mob
inb4 segregationist rage
>>1964926Reducing the difference in speed (due to improved the safety equipment, aerodynamics, human-powered propulsion efficiency, electric assistance...) is very important if you don't want to support the mobility apartheid.
>>1967238Forester was a fred who liked to boast about how he could ride at 30mph. The fact that badly built bike lanes (eg without proper consideration for corners) are dangerous doesn't mean that there isn't a better way to build them. He also complains about having to ride on the sidewalk (!), something that nobody pro infrastructure is arguing for.
Trolling this badly should be bannable offense.
>>1969820In your mind, what is the practical difference between being forced to ride on the sidewalk and being forced to ride on a PBL? I guess a sidewalk gives you a bit more "freedom" assuming the sidewalks aren't being used for anything else, such as walking. But either way you're limited to routes where there exists a surface designated for non-motor-vehicle use, which is a pretty dumb thing to be advocating for, unless of course you want to get rid of cycling as transportation
Funny how being a competent cyclist is apparently now a disqualifier for having opinions on the best way to arrange traffic laws for harm reduction, is there any other kind of "advocacy" that demands we pay the most attention to people who know nothing about the topic. When did flat earthers invade the community and what can be done to root them out and ostracize the cancer?
Bike lanes are proven to be safer for all users of the road, and good for the economy.
>>1969907>But either way you're limited to routes where there exists a surface designated for non-motor-vehicle useYou're the only one implying you can't ride on streets with no bike lanes.There is not a single person other than some lead-brained cageniggers who unironically think that you can't ride on the road if there is no bike lane.
>>1969954I'm going to say something that's going to shatter your little brain so sit down before reading more.......the entirety of the world is "lead brained cageniggers" and those are the people pushing the narrative that "we" (sic) "need" (sic) bike lanes to protect drivers from being mildly inconvenienced at someone going 5mph under the speed limit, oh wait we're supposed to pretend going 20mph is totally unreasonable and for "the freds" my bad I mean 20mph under the speed limit because hey that sounds about right when you've never touched a bicycle in your life but still insist on having an opinion on the topic
>>1969908Think about how infrastructure for cars is generally safe for people in cars despite how many careless, distracted, and barely trained drivers are on the road. Infrastructure should be that safe for everyone regardless of their mode of travel.
>>1970015So you agree that Forester was right, cool. Not sure why you quoted that specific post but maybe your point was that he’s more knowledgeable about the topic than the average self-appointed “cycling activist” who is actively making cycling worse while decrying subject matter expertise
>>1970016No - I don't think think he was completely right (or completely wrong). We need both educated, confident cyclists and dedicated, protected infrastructure wherever it makes sense. These things aren't mutually exclusive.
>>1970017Most things aren’t mutually exclusive when the scope of the discussion is undefined but in the real world when people push for “separate but equal” they mean at the exclusion of integrated spaces which would be the default if not for cage hegemonists and their loyal foot soldiers the common batavophile whose true agenda is the elimination of bicycles from everywhere other than designated bantustans
Something to think about--a lot of so-called "road diets" will often eliminate a lane for a bike lane, which often takes the second lane, leaving one lane for vehicular traffic. Assuming there's a turning lane or median for cars turning left, shouldn't anti-bike lane advocates argue that more lanes = better so that bicycles can be treated as simply as slower-moving vehicles that can be passed in the second lane?
>>19700211. Bicycle traffic is vehicular traffic, perhaps you meant "automobile traffic"?2. More space is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it potentially means more room for different kinds of vehicles to mix, which in some ways under some conditions can potentially be good for quality of life and safety. On the other hand, there's a well established phenomenon where the perception of "less space" discourages certain kinds of motorist behavior that can put cyclists at higher risk. So a wider road is not automatically a safer road and in some ways is more dangerousThere's no single-point strategy that would, in a vacuum, reduce cycling injuries and fatalities, other than eliminating cyclists, which of course is the name of the game for the segregationists. The correct answer to this problem is that motorist behavior needs to be altered, by making motorists bear a more reasonable proportion of the risk of dangerous driving. However, this doesn't impact the P&L statements of any megaprojects. Remember that most of the narrative in these "urbanism" arguments is driven by real estate speculators, and the most profitable approach that appears to protect cyclists (while actually having the opposite effect) is to promote stenciling stick figures of bicycles on a few paved surfaces so they can get higher profits on their new construction projects. So you will rarely hear anyone promoting solutions that benefit cyclists, because any voices of reason are shouted down immediately by a mob of angry young zoomers who were promised a cool loft apartment in the gentrified neighborhood if they would only fall in line and retweet the official policy positions of the real estate lobby.in short, launch YIMBYs (segregationists) into the sun
>>1970024>So you will rarely hear anyone promoting solutions that benefit cyclists, because any voices of reason are shouted down immediately by a mob of angry young zoomers who were promised a cool loft apartment in the gentrified neighborhood if they would only fall in line and retweet the official policy positions of the real estate lobbyMany of the big "urbanist" types (NJB, many articles on Strong Towns, /r/fuckcars) take the position of "if it benefits cars in some ways, it's bad", like a new pedestrian overpass (even if it's actually easy to get into and around) or improved crossings. Compounding this is the push for 15-minute cities, which indicated governments would at the very least re-design whole neighborhoods, and when the inevitable pushback against the idea happened, the press maligned those people as conspiracy theorists instead of specifically addressing the points brought up. The way things are going there's going to be a bigger backlash against urbanism and the progress of 40+ years of more cycling-friendly infrastructure will be wiped out.
>>1970029"Cycling friendly infrastructure" is basically an oxymoron with the emphasis on moron as in anyone who actually thinks that bike lane will make it safer for cyclists is a moronAlso whenever you see an apparent paradox in "urbanism" you are probably misunderstanding the motives behind the characters. In the majority of cases, it's people who either will profit in some way, or have been tricked into thinking they will profit in some way. But profit-seeking is stigmatized, so they wrap their agenda into some bullshit "I support cycling" nonsense, which appears incoherent when you take that claim at face value but makes a lot more sense when you realize they were promised some material gain directly related to the use of real estate as a speculative asset
>>1969998I've done more lane splitting and traffic following than you can ever dream of doing, slowfag.The overwhelming majority of people can't or will not do 20 mph to get to their workplace or their local market. That's why people actually cycle in Benelux countries (where you pretend the actuall opposite is happening) and why nobody cycles in places with little to no cycling infrastructure, whether it's in Romania or the US.You will never adress this properly.
>>1970049What the fuck did you just say about me you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated at the top of my spin class in the Orangetheory Fitness, and have been involved in numerous critical mass rides, and have over 300,000 confirmed post karma on /r/urbanplanning/. I am trained in gorilla urbanism and I'm the creator of /r/YIMBY/ and a mod on /r/neoliberal/, you are nothing to me but just another cagetroll. I will get your account suspended with precision the likes of which has never before been seen on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of numtots across urbanism twitter and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can ratio you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my main account. Not only am I extensively trained in ringing my Crane Suzu bell at boomers but I have access to the entire Gazelle Bikes catalogue and I will use it to wipe your miserable ass off the gentrified parts of this city you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
>>1970061lmao i like this permutation of an old classic copypasta
>>1970061top kek
>>1970061Kek. Saved as bikecucks.txt thank you.
>>1963333>The problem is a cultural one and endless billions spent on infrastructure redevelopment can't correct for thisit can by making curb protected bike lanes, or raised bike lanesif all on-street parking was converted to curb protected bike lanes overnight, the problem would go away very quickly
>>1970061>>1970090>>1970150>>1970388>"True cycling advocate" turns out to be a mouthbreathing concern trollShocker
@1971265Who are you quoting?
>>1971264>curb protected bike lanesAlmost all bike/car collisions happen at intersections.
>>1955863This.Thank you for makimg a thread specifically for THIS.I keep preaching this. And they call me all sorts of names.The motorcripples are sending undercover agents disguised as cyclists and pedestrians on false flag missions.
>>1970049>lacls foot retention, not even the inadequate hipster straps>calls people 'slow'KEK my sidesYou probably half rep your squats.
>>1972862I broke the right strapHow many straps have you pulled apart with your legs?
>>1972862>>1972901No, actually, how many pedals did you pulll apart?
>>1972901You seem to not have read my post. Moron.But yes I sure have bent and broken cranks, pedals, cages and proper straps but breaking things is not the point.
>>1972906>You seem to not have read my post. Moron.No I definitely have. I've not missed anything.>But yes I sure havePics, you won't.
>>1972907You must be terribly idiotic in that case, sorry for you.Just to touch on a few points:So you managed what every child can do: Breaking totally inadequate equiptment that serves only one purpose: Save goofy hipsters from slipping of their BMX platforms.Also Wow. So you found out what everyone else already knows: Bicycles are delicate pieces of equiptment and not the squat rack. In case one doesn't at least accept the possibility of breaking things one must practice restraint when it comes to application of force.You're very likely one of the slowest guys here. You seem to not even understand the very basic fact that no race was ever won when setting off since anyones ability is inversely proportionally to velocity and it is ultimately power that wins races. At the velocity where you (speak anyone else because you probably don't) produce anywhere near 2 kw you're not even doing single legged BW squats anymore. It's a fact basedboys like to contest when daydreaming but that is very much the reason why bodyweight does not win sprints: Because at speed you're not limited by bodyweight and no one (I know I know but you... sure) ever exerts forces more than double their BW on a bicycle, no pro and not anyone else.Sadly, you still squat less than me and probably less than the people you call slow. That's the first part of the training you never had.Also theres a reason why a) proper kit exist and b) no one but slow hipsters uses BMX platforms and hispter straps and youre just slow and doing goofy tricks all day.
>>1972910That's a lot of words and no pics.Go for a ride, you've been here for at least two hours.
>gets confronted about the success of European bike infrastructure>"uhhh that only works because its on medieval streets, America is a young country">doesn't elaborateI love taking my bike around the medieval roundabout down the medieval boulevard
>>1955897every roadie i've ever known has been middle class, conservative and also a /o/utist. meanwhile ever bike fearing cagie seems to be overweight wageslaves
>>1958423>Expecting cyclists to "just behave like cars" simply doesn't workworks for my country
>>1972993Yeah because you never talk to anyone outside your conservative middle class transit desert suburbt. brownoid commie roadie (though as far as you're concerned I'm a cagetroll because I actually live in a city and speak from experience rather than regurgitating YIMBY twitter talking points)
>>1973221I'm working class, twitterfag
>>1973314every rightoid with a 40 foot yacht thinks they're "working class" because their neighbor has a 60 foot
>>1956167Very well said
>>1958423>Expecting cyclists to "just behave like cars" simply doesn't workLiterally the only way to ride in SoCal. This is a car centric state. And guess what? It works. Get a rear view mirror and you'll stop being afraid
>>1963277Just slash their tires until they stop
>>1955863agree. all very sound and sensible.but we live in a irrational world. not going to happen. we don't even prosecute drug addicts or shoplifters, and law enforcement is the only thing that's going to change peoples attitudes towards cyclists using the roadway.
>>1974077if you are under the age of 18 discontinue browsing immediately
He notably did quite a lot of things wrong. Troll harder OP.
>>1976674The only thing he did wrong was die before he could spread the good news of Vehicular Cycling
There should be a separate bike path network, not a painted line that will be ignored by cars and used as parking.
>>1978893If someone wants to build a private bike path for shits and giggles I'm not going to try to stop them but it's not a solution for transportation. Maybe for recreational riding.
>>1978893>making a "bicycle lane" so wide that cars can fit comfortably in and park thereThat's more of a traffic engineer problem
>>1955863>Every facility for promoting cycling should be designed for 30 mph (48 km/h). It if is not, it will not attract the serious cyclist . and hence it will not be an effective part of the transportation system. A facility that is designed only for childlike and incompetent cyclists encourages the 'toy bicycle' attitude and discourages cycling transportation. - John ForesterI just heard of this guy and holy shit he is based.
>>1958423In London most of the time I'm actually moving faster than the cars. If there are any Londoners here let me illustrate why I hate bike lanes. The A1010 Hertford Road in North London, a wide open, straight flat road (think it used to be Roman), used to race down that road on my bike when I was 17. Now they installed an awful bike path that always has pedestrians and parked cars in it slowing me to a crawl. I put up with this all the way from Tottenham to Enfield Wash where I finally had enough and went into the road. Sure enough some asshole starts honking me and shouts at me to get back in the bike lane. This is why I hate bike lanes because 1) They are usually shit and 2) they are defacto mandatory. I was so relieved when I got to Watham Cross/Cheshunt and I could just cycle normally on the road. Just let rip and tailed cars the whole way to Broxbourne. Oh yeah I forgot the best part: Nobody even uses this fucking bike path because it's way out in the suburbs. it's always empty and what did they expect? That the casuals it is aimed at will start cycling from zone 5 to central??
>>1964926Yes bike lanes are obsolete now that e-vehicles exist. They're dropping speed limits in UK towns to 20mph so all they have to do is raise e-bike and scooter limits to 20 and then why the fuck do they need a separate lane?
They recently opened another bike path closer to the city center (Holloway) and I was actually optimistic about this one because it's a legitimately nasty area to cycle through (busy dual carriageways) but they fucked it up again. Heading towards Finsbury Park the bike lane is on the right. It is a one way system but this means I have to cross 4 lanes of traffic just to get to it. Also causes cyclists to use it to go the other way Have to be on my guard all the way up Seven Sisters Road because of motorists making right turns. Again this was another straight wide road that I could absolutely bang it down back in the day. Going the other way it shares with two bus stops but it's not the worst version of this I've seen. The worst part of this section is cyclists now have to detour practically to Caledonian Road just to go up the hill towards Camden. I notice bike path planners like to throw in fat detours forgetting that I have to fucking pedal. That junction outside Argos is scary but I had spent 15 years perfecting getting in lane and keeping up with the cars through it all to be told I now need to detour half a mile because casuals can't be bothered to put in the work.
>>1978918Having a wide bike lane isn't an inherently bad problemIt gives more room for when rainwater accumulates, keeps you further away from moving traffic, and allows people to pass comfortablyOn top of that, separating more road space from cars helps calm speeds by narrowing traffic lanes, which makes it safer for cyclists and pedestriansThe main issue is just that it isn't fully segregated from motor traffic, which causes problems because cars going in and out of it causes points of conflict with the oncoming traffic and forces cyclists to have to move out into the other lane, increasing risks of accidentsCars will still try to park on bike lanes even if they're more narrow, the way to fix it is to put up bollards to fully filter the different modes of transit
>>1978940You CAN have a dual bike path/parking lane, provided that there's enough parking on a day-to-day basis for residents, like a suburban area, with street parking only needed during parties and gatherings.The main reason to put bollards or other barriers between a bike lane and a main lane is ostensibly for safety reasons, but that's not where collisions actually happen.
>>1958342Idaho Stops are legal for cyclists in several states because it's actually safer in many cases.
>>1955863One way motor vehicle activists get people killed is by fooling them into thinking that riding a bicycle in traffic with no physical barriers is safe.
>>1978990>The Idaho stop is the common name for laws that allow bicyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign.Every time I see a cyclist blow a red light they don't stop at all.
>>1978999If the conditions are good enough where you have both the opportunity and cognitive bandwidth to process something like that happening, you can rest assured (a) there's plenty of visibility and (b) their field of view is much better than yours since they are on a bicycle and not trapped in a La-Z-Boy recliner surrounded by a metal box with some glass panels above the shoulder lineYou'd have seethed at them for coming to a complete stop and "holding you up" so you should be glad they took the opportunity to clear the way so you don't have a meltdown when the light turns green and you can't apply full throttle instantly
>>1978999As a matter of fact, yield signs are actually not stop signs. Hope this helps!
"Vehicular Cycling" only makes sense as a concept in a setting where drivers treat the speed limit as a LIMIT rather than a target. Such a setting does not exist in the US.Verification not required.
>>1978924"Children and older adults are not permitted to ride bicycles in public" is part of the vehicular cyclist DNA.
>>1979101Weird how urbanists and yimbys want to remove "disgusting old people" from public tranport but when it serves their interests they're suddenly activists for the elderly
>>1979106>weird how STRAWMAN but when STRAWMAN they're suddenly STRAWMAN Verification not required.
>>1963333Checked and true, no amount of infrastructure will ever triumph over cultural attitudes.Having lived in both Belgium and Japan, they are 2 countries that are perfectly fine and safe to cycle in, though with nearly opposite approaches to cycling.
>>1979112you people don't even need a strawman, you literally advertise your abhorrent agenda for all to see
>>1963277You can kust build bike lanes that can't be parked on, like have small barriers seperating them from the road.
>>1979264>strawmaning even harder
Are you genuinely retarded enough to believe this bitch's ACTUAL average cycling speed was 30MPH?
>>1980620Urbanists/yimbys have a very poor grasp of numbers. They're a lot like children. Remember when you were a small child and when someone said they were say, 25 or 35, it sounded like grandma age to your ears? That's urbanists trying to imagine riding a bicycle. 15 mph might as well be 50 because either way they're not riding.
>>1955897>The only possible reason you could have for wanting to "share the road" as opposed to separate bike lanes,Anti-car people like to mix the bicycles into traffic. Because they make excellent speed bumps for traffic calming.Not everyone who is anti-car is pro bicycle.
>>1979003>If the conditions are good enough where you have both the opportunity and cognitive bandwidth to process something like that happening, you can rest assured (a) there's plenty of visibility and (b) their field of view is much better than yours since they are on a bicycle and not trapped in a La-Z-Boy recliner surrounded by a metal box with some glass panels above the shoulder lineNot that guy but you are totally wrong.I've seen cyclists blow red lights at intersections I've actually ridden through on a bicycle and know exactly what the visibility is like. Some people are just retarded and either incapable of calculating risk or really just don't fucking care at all. Look how many retards don't even wear a helmet.I'm not saying every red light violation, even a "blow through without stopping" is unsafe. Sometimes it is safer. But you're a delusional idiot if you don't think cyclists can't be just as stupid as cagers. (But then, delusional idiots are the norm on /n/ it seems)
>>1980684Oh ok, you totally changed my mind (NOT)
Burn every carDig up every parking lotBury every cagie in the dirt beneathPlant flowers to be fertilized by their corpses
>>1980708I wonder, would "urbanists" be willing to self-immolate in a gruesome public spectacle, as part of a social agreement to get rid of the cages? Like we could put them all in yankee stadium during the off season (whenever that is, desu not sure the rules on sportsball), hand them each a little 20 oz bottle full of gasoline and the NJB logo on it, and a zippo, and stream it all on pay per view? It would be extremely painful, not to mention smell pretty bad, but that's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make.
>>1980693no shit I didn't change your mind. I can't fix a broken brain or force you to experience more of the world than your little bubble.
>>1980708based>>1980761out of touch idiot, gasoline is a product of big oil, why would they burn themselves with something produced by big oil?
>>1980776Whale oil is fine too
>>1980708Yes but don't forget batavophiles, segregationists, and other anti-bike fifth columnists
Do segregationists start with hating cyclists and derive their agenda from that, or do they just love abusing power and imposing their abhorrent values on others, and cyclists are an easy target?What do you think accounts for the insane amount of effort they put into ensuring that nobody can use bikes for transportation, only for leisurely weekend rides in the bike park?
>>1982699Do auto lobby shills start with trying to gaslight people into committing suicide and derive their agenda from that, or do they just love abusing power and imposing their abhorrent values on others, and cyclists are an easy target?
>>1982699are the segregationists in the room right now?
>>1982756Yes theres plenty of those on this board. Most are easily identified through car ownership and never actually riding their bike.
>>1982756see >>1982740
Cringe thread
>>1980648I don't think you know what YIMBYS and urbanists are.Hint: They're not the ones giving the 30mph number.
>>1969820>Forester was a fraud who liked to boast about how he could like totally ride at 30mph, for realizies guysFTFY
>>1967240Looks like a book worth reading, thanks for the excerts. What I’m getting from reading this is that the key problem is the way cycle paths meet intersections. This is a problem we all know about, and why it’s important to take the lane if you’re not confident a motorist will see you or be able to stop in time. Either way, I’ll read the book and judge for myself. Thanks again mate.
>>1983279that's one problem with them if you scope the problem as a usage issue. scoped more broadly the problem with them is that, much like the mandatory helmet laws, they are pushed as a simplistic panacea that reduces safety to a single disingenuous talking point. instead of designing and implementing an organic system of multiple different individual safety reforms including intersection design, enforcement, driver education, and so on, which would ironically get us much closer to what the "but amsterdam" people would actually get if we accurately attempted to mimic the dutch, the segregationists will argue that nothing can or should be done to improve cyclist safety other than building mandatory side paths.it's just another anti-cyclist knee-jerk "safety" concern troll. when yet another person trying to get from point A to point B gets turned into hamburger meat by 20,000 pounds of truck, the victim blaming begins:-but was he wearing bright clothes?-but was he wearing a helmet?-but was he on the side path?nobody ever asks-but was the driver on the phone-but did the driver check his mirrors before turning-but was that street a designated truck route?if they really cared about cyclists wouldn't they ask the important questions? of course we know the answer which is they don't care. or better put, they do care, in the sense that they care to kill all cyclists while crying batavophiliac crocodile tears
>>1978924>Every facility for promoting cycling should be designed for 30 mph (48 km/h).2023 Tour de France winner averaged 41 kph (25 mph). If you want to keep all the "non serious cyclists" off the road who are not capable of this, I'm fine with that. I won't have to share the road with more than one or two people each day.
>>1983286Yeah but they were doing that up a mountain. Every day for the entire tour.I’m a slow fatass on hi-ten steel and can hit and hold 40kmh on flat ground for a while. And obviously any descent down a hill can go over 50kmh even if you’re coasting. So this design rule doesn’t seem all that excessive.
>>1983302Urbanists don't ride so you can't expect them to understand numbers. Like I average 11mph on most rides. Average. But I still routinely hit 30mph, on those same rides. Max 37-39mph on those same rides. Multiple times a week. Car traffic averages about 11mph too but the cagers would be rioting if someone proposed limiting car traffic to 11mph "for the children".
>>1983302>So this design rule doesn’t seem all that excessive.It does if you are mixing bicycles, care, trucks and pedestrians together. It's not just about how fast you can pedal.
>>1955897SPBPOP is a murderer.
I support bike lanes because they increase bicycle ridership and make roads safer for everyone. Only reason to oppose bike lanes is if you hate cycling.
>>1984038Bike lanes are statistically unsafer than riding on the road. Skill issue, faggot.
>>1984103Blatant lie
>>1955897I posted a thread restating this obvious objective fact an got a warning for "trolling". Behead jannies.
>>1984131A broken clock is right twice a day
>>1984131it was literally pasta. braindead pasta on top of that. Had you read the replies the thread got you would have gone back to >>>/o/ and also had you thought about the replies the thread got and been objective about it your delusions would have been cured.
>>1984182A basic truth triggers you so much you have to throw projections at him.
>>1955897>which is faster and saferAhahahaha. Didn't see a single bike lane which is faster than the road. Are you retarded?
idk why it's road infrastructure is so hard for americans
>>1985349We have over 4 million miles of roads, Nigel (that's 6.5 million km). Plenty of those roads have bike infrastructure even bike stoplights. But it's not a priority everywhere.
>Motorcyle larpers legitimately believe it's safest to be as close as possible to the two ton death machines without protection
>>1973596Don't delude yourself bicycle has no power and stability to keep up with cars pace.
>>1986279Don't know about SoCal but in a congested city full of stoplights, a bike can do pretty well
>>1955863The only possible reason you could have for thinking it's "safer" to ride in front of cars on a 40mph road rather than using the empty sidewalk that puts space between you and the multi-ton death machines is that you're a wanker and want to legally get away with inciting suicide.
>>1955863Why is always black and white? Either you risk your life with carbrains or you go at a snail's pace on the cuck "lanes"Why not high speed wide bike lanes with two lanes each. One for overtaking, going fast, one for slowpokes on dutch bikes etc
>>1956101The Netherlands is horrible for cycling unless you like going max 15km/h behind a bunch of kids and their mom
Notice the convergence between the yimby/urbanism karens and the "I want to run you down and kill you" road rage karens. Bike lanes are anti-bike.
>>1958342Oh gee I don't know. Maybe it's because if a cage runs a red light and a pedestrian tries to cross then there's not enough space to maneuver or time to break due to the car's size, weight and speed.If a bike runs a red it can simply stop before hitting the pedestrian or slightly change it direction.
It's interesting how the "avid cyclists" who are passionately in favor of putting up bike lanes everywhere will instantly take the side of motorists when there's a social media picture of a cyclist using taxpayer-funded public roads to operate a vehicle with 2 wheels, really activates those almonds doesn't it>reeeeeee he gives all cyclists a bad name, doesn't he realize he's holding up traffic!?!?!?!??!
>>1969820If you think 30mph is an implausible speed on a bicycle, it is implausible that you have ever used a bicycle to get around. Literally just don't deathgrip the brakes down an incline, and wait 30 seconds. Wa la, you are now going 30mph.
>>1988477Because in reality and not your anti-bike alternative reality, nobody with a working brain thinks bikes are just going to replace cars through hand waving and buzzwords. They're going to have to coexist, because both have a valid purpose, and for them to coexist, motorists are going to need to stop being given a free pass to murder whoever they want. But segregationists consider it justifiable homicide if not a humane form of euthanasia for a motorist to execute a cyclist for the crime of using a "car lane", which is why they think special segregated "lanes for bikes" are the final solution to the cyclist problem. It's no different from trying to "solve" race relations by putting everyone who doesn't look like you on a boat and sending it off to "anywhere but here".
>>1955863I've noticed that the bike paths built in the last few years are designed in a way that you have to yield to car traffic all the goddamn time for no reason. They're even rerouting existing ones so you get partial blame if someone crashes into you
>>1991927>so you get partial blame if someone crashes into youIt's not a bug it's a feature
>>1991929I'm really pissed. Instead of riding on a bike path next to a heavy traffic road and having the right of way I have to cross it twice now. Guess I'm back to driving to work more often
My commute now takes about 20 minutes on roads where people drive around 45 - 50 mph. It would take over an hour if I had to spend the whole time stuck behind some retard riding his child's toy on the road. Why do cyclists have a fetish for showing normal people down and making life worse for everyone else? It should made fully legal to run you over or shoot you on sight.
>>1992139It is, there just needs to be a bike lane existing literally anywhere, and that gives you a full license to run me down and drag my mangled corpse around for the next hour. That is why bike lanes are so important. Without them, you can't be like "they should have been in the bike lane! they came outta nowhere!!!! and they weren't even wearing a safety helmet or bright clothing!!!!!"
>>1992140Why do you want to make it take hours for anyone to get anywhere?
>>1992141Why would it though? Doesn't your car have enough "horse power" to drag around 150 lb of mangled flesh without getting slowed down? Perhaps you should have sprung for the "hemi", I heard that makes it rev up more DOHCs or whatever. Are you poor?
>>1992143>Why would it though?Because it's sadly not currently legal to kill you on sight, so the presence of cyclists would in fact slow traffic to a crawl. Why do you want normal people to be stuck in traffic for hours?
>>1992144It is though. Try it some time. Even if they don't buy the "it was an accident they weren't in a bike lane" you can just say "I feared for my life officer" and mumble something about BLM, and flash the PBL card your uncle gave you, that always works
>>1992145*PBA card, sorry I have segregationist brainrot apparently, PBL cards aren't a thing yet (but probably will be soon)
>>1992145Why don't you answer the question? Why do you want everyone stuck moving at a crawl for hours on end every day?
>>1992147Why didn't you get the "hemi"? Don't you support freedom, Small Business Owners™, First Responders™, and Think Of The Children™? Sounds to me like you support Hamas and Communism instead.
>>1992152Typical cowardly evasive cyclist response. Wanting to destroy the economy then just acting smug when called out on it. I pray you are run over soon
>>1992153>I pray you are run over soonGod helps those who help themselves. What's the point of all those bike lanes if you're not going to kill me?
>>1992143He's too dumb to pass a cyclist. Many such cases
>>1978893I've always wanted to ride my bike right into one of these
>>1992147You and every cager deserve to live a life of misery, far more than you currently do. I'm happy to help with that. Every honk tells me I'm doing it right.Oh, you want to run me down? Too bad, I can hear your revs increase and swerve out the way, keying your car on the way past. Oops? That's a 20k bill to repaint. You don't want every cager in your neighbourhood to think your poor, right?
