Things people blamed on bicycles

Post by tomjakubowski » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

batiudrami wrote: post #241

Jochim wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the prevalence of this behaviour can be explained by the fact that in car centric infrastructure only people willing to take a fairly significant risk will be cycling in the first place. As a result you've selected for people willing to engage in risky behaviour towards themselves resulting in a fair few of them running red lights recklessly. Couple this with the fact that the infrastructure was clearly not b…

I don't run red lights but I do cross on pedestrian signals from the road in such a way that probably makes drivers some angry. The fact is it's much safer for me to clear the intersection ahead of drivers rather than have them try to pass me at the intersection. If there are two lanes of cars banked up behind me impatient people will try and pass without changing to the far lane; getting too close to me in the proce…

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:29 PM UTC

montebicyclelo wrote: post #114

Cycling is cheap, often faster than driving (in my city), healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians... And I'd guess that about 95% of drivers that I come across are respectful of the danger they present - overtaking with enough space, and not at too high a speed (my city doesn't have great bike lanes). Unfortunately, a typical journey involves passing more than 20 cars, which…

Post by bostik » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:40 PM UTC

seszett wrote: post #439

slingnow wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if energy output is your reasoning: then it's orders of magnitude more energy for a car to come to a full stop and re-accelerate than it is for a pedestrian to let it pass. Should cars then have priority over people in a crosswalk?

I hesitated talking about this in my post, but I should have. There are two different reasons to consider for pedestrians having priority over cars, unlike over bikes. First, as the sibling comment says, there is no energy personally spent by the driver to stop and start their car. It's effortless, while in the case of a bike, the energy is the biker's own. The other reason is that it is generally more difficult to c…

Post by shagie » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:42 PM UTC

dqpb wrote: post #633

whatever1 wrote: post #550

Bicycles convert their owners to horrible people. And I speak from personal experience, when I ride my bike I always become super angry at others. Cars that might cut me off (ok that is mostly fair), but I also get angry with pedestrians, traffic lights, uphills, bad paving etc. I think know why, because any of the above require me to pedal even harder, when I am already tired. Maybe e-bikes are a better option for m…

And after all that, you show up to work with bicycle face, coworkers muttering “wheelman” to themselves as you walk by.

Post by sirmarksalot » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 6:43 PM UTC

admax88qqq wrote: post #531

alistairSH wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, note he stated "if head injuries are more common with helmets". There have been some studies that correlate higher levels of head injuries with mandatory helmet laws. The thesis was that wearing a helmet induces more reckless cycling (higher speeds, etc) due to feeling safer. I don't remember seeing any good follow-ups studies either way and don't necessarily agree with the study.

The other theory is that helmet laws reduce casual cycling by adding an impediment to just hoping on and going. And that those short trips to the strore tend to be safer. Personally my wife can't find a helmet that fits, Asians have rounder heads and north American helmet manufacturers are oblivious. As a result we never cycle.