Old thread from 2023 finally hit bump limit >>1955863New thread. "Cycling infrastructure" is harm reduction. But not in the way you probably think. The anti-bike crowd considers riding a bicycle on public roads as an offense against the interests of motorists. An so, they wish to create infrastructure to reduce cycling (harm). Yes! Those who advocate for "separate but equal" are (whether they admit it or not) working against the interests of bicycle users:-The American Automobile Association strongly supports bike lanes-Countries that place responsibility on car drivers have 70-90% fewer fatalities per billion km traveled by bike. This is of course beyond the pale, drivers must always have total immunity. But hey, look, green paint! We solved safety!-The true purpose of bike lanes is to neutralize the opposition by corrupting the discourse. Don't support bike lanes? Then you must not care about safety!-Bike lanes have a curious pattern of appearing where they are superfluous, and vanishing as you approach potential traffic conflict zones. This way, when you get run over by a dump truck making a turn, it's your fault! You shoulda been in the bike lane that wasn't there!In conclusion: bike lane activists hate cyclists and want to eradicate cycling as a form of transportation.
Yes
stop making threads about this alzheimers boomer retard who actively shills for the auto industry and pretends to care about cyclists.
>>2054733
>>2054733I think "no bike lanes" is an interesting premise.>roads keep their functionality>no matter what the lanes are like there's always some excuse as to why it's not good and why traffic engineers are basically Hitler; never grateful>some cyclists keep using the road anyway
>>2057102The issue with the way bike policy is implemented is that it's always shamelessly dishonest. Green paint isn't going to make a 50 year old karen playing with her phone stop playing with her phone. Foam hat isn't going to protect your body when it's run over by 7000 pounds of steel. But karen gets away with murder because policymakers, cops, and courts have unlimited empathy for the driver (the real victim here), and nearly zero for the deceased. So you can just lay down some green paint and make riding without a foam hat a criminal offense and say "see? I care about your safety!"
>>2057103have you tried, like, not blowing past the stop sign or running red lights?
>>2057104Have you tried like, putting the phone down and using your eyes before you do a wild maneuver because you almost missed your turn playing fruit ninja?
>>2057108the only wild maneuvers i had to do was avoiding hitting a suicidal cyclist that jumped in front of my car out of nowhere because he thinks his ego overwrites the laws of physics. could you make an effort and not burden innocent people with the weight of taking a human life, even if that life had the intelligence of a headless chicken?
>>2057132>they just came outta nowhere!Yeah that tends to happen when your situational awareness is compromised with a phone and you take a sharp turn across the bike lane without looking or signaling
>>2057103>Green paint isn't going to make a 50 year old karen playing with her phone stop playing with her phone.a prison sentence given by a traffic camera catching her with a phone will
>>2057135yeah bro you ignoring the traffic rules has nothing to do with it, it's always a phone and the driver taking sharp turns towards you and nothing else. what next? "actually they want to kill me woe me the victim"?
>>2057132strictly speaking he had right-of-waydoesn't make him sane or reasonable, but the burden of coping with insane unreasonable circumstances and people falls on the driver. always. hit something or someone and it is your fault, no matter how much they deserved it.
>>2057137>inb4 it's the cop cam fiasco except now it's not nigs nigging but cyclists jumping in front of cars insteadi wonder if you can be held accountable if you cause an accident by making a driver attempt to avoid your dangerous maneuvering, resulting in a crash
>>2057140there's no court or agency on the planet that would find the cyclist at fault here
>>2057138>ignoring the traffic rulesYou don't know what they are, but I'll humor you. Every time I'm not in a bike lane you're mad. Then when I'm in a bike lane and you run over me, I was "ignoring the traffic rules". Ever heard of a turn signal? A rear view mirror?
>>2057137>a prison sentence for running over someoneAbsolutely delusional. The only way to get a prison sentence with a car is to sign a notarized affidavit announcing your intent to do it in the name of ISIS (in advance) and then run over hundreds of photogenic white women while screaming allahu akbar with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.6%. Anything less and it's "no criminality suspected"
>>2057145Oh sorry I forgot the most important part. Flee the scene of the crime, but only as police are arriving. And be black. Otherwise it's just a tragic, unforeseeable "accident". Or maybe you didn't see all those mangled bodies wedged under your hood. These things happen! Water under the bridge. The driver is the real victim here. Could have happened to any of us.
>>2057103If you are 100% at-fault for swerving into a cyclist and killing him, there is no state where you won't go to jail for that. I'm not sure if this is just another lie crafted by cyclist/density advocates, an extrapolation of some rare case that happened once somewhere, a genuine belief that cyclists are incapable of doing wrong, or just big mad that the DA doesn't ask for Murder 1, but that just isn't true.
>>2057162You have no idea what you're talking about
>>2057144>Then when I'm in a bike lane and you run over medo you get off on constructing fanciful fantasies to imagine yourself as a victim?
>>2057147>And be black.lol, pretending they're held accountable when they dindu nuffin
>>2057166>You have no idea what you're talking aboutI was responding to fanfiction where people can just mow down cyclists and get away with it.
