Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the first person in the thread. I think that lets me choose the terms of the thread? Or is that no loner part of netiquette?
No, you don't get to "choose the terms". We are not your minions. You are having a public discussion with other human beings who are not obliged to cater to your whims and post-hoc rationalizations for your abusive and threatening behavior.
Oh okay
> What you're doing is being an asshole
> There's something very wrong with you.
> I don't think you should be permitted in public unsupervised.
Did I get all of them? Thanks for being a nice human being to exchange viewpoints on. Great examples of being an unfriendly and insulting conversation partner to other people behind the veil of on-line anonymity. You haven't even put contact information in your profile.
All I've said so far in the entire thread, if you bother to read it, is that I don't feel safe for cyclists sharing the same road space as cars in many cases and that I strongly support (at personal cost and convenience) designing, building and funding millions of road miles of dedicated bikeways for people who choose to cycle based on the kind of template given in the OP. I gave examples of how sharing space with cars is dangerous for cyclists despite laws permitting it. I gave examples of where legal circumstances don't always spell out what's smart.
I also pointed out that cyclists often respond to people like me, who are honestly trying to make the roads safer for all involved, with hostility and self-entitled venom (see examples above and throughout the thread). My singular humorous metaphor for what it's like as a driver, dealing with cyclist's bad attitudes over road sharing, was met with me essentially being called a violent and disturbed person who shouldn't be "permitted to drive a car" and that there is "something wrong with [me]" despite not advocating any violent action on or towards any person or property.
So thanks. Thanks for calling me a bad and violent person. Thanks for shitting all over my concern for other people and insinuating I'm some kind of psychopath. Thanks for considering that even though I have consistent and considerable bad experience with cyclists (some minor examples are now recorded all over this thread both in my testimony and in cyclists response to me and in this conversation), I still am trying to find a good solution so they can enjoy their transport decisions and I can drive safely.
Here's my quotes from this thread for the record and thanks again for saying I'm horrible human being without basic empathy:
> It's not that I have to share, but between slowing traffic down, pure safety concerns for the biker (who I as the automobile driver am responsible for in the case of an accident)...
> I'm absolutely in favor of this kind of road engineering. Regardless of making traffic faster or not, it's just smart design. Between roads, sidewalks and bike lanes, this provides a designated travel area for everybody regardless of the mode they choose to travel with. Bikes shouldn't be sharing the road with cars, they should have their own designated travel areas.
> ...they're a valid form of transport. But clearly distinct from both other modes. So I fully support bikes having distinct travelways. I'm even delighted that my tax dollars might help pay for it.
> Well, up top, I specifically endorsed the protected bike lanes as a good idea. I'm not sure if that counts as "separate" or not, but I'm on board with the idea.
> I had a full on collision last year that sprained my elbow so bad I may have to get surgery. I'm waiting to see if it heals up. The bicyclist gave me an earful about blocking the shared-use trail with my walking until I called pulled out my phone to call the cops and then he high tailed it out there. It was literally a vehicular hit and run. And if I need surgery will cost me thousands of dollars and months of physical therapy on top of the medical and physical therapy bills I've already paid.
> I support cycling, I think it's great. I wish it was easier and more practical to do in the U.S.
> As somebody who doesn't live in a city, this trend is not good for me because it makes it hard to get in and out of the city. But I recognize it as a better way for more people than just me and my car and I can get myself over my minor inconvenience and just drive to the local mass transit link and walk a bit instead of fighting for parking downtown.
> I recognize that not all cyclists are like this, but damn if the ones around my area aren't some kind of special crop of bastards (and there's enough of a population that bikes to support a very nice local bike shop I can walk to). I'm actually hoping that with better bike infrastructure more people get on bikes and drown these kinds of assholes out. The more people biking, the greater the political lobby to continue building out good balanced infrastructure for everybody and the more unacceptable it will be for bad cyclists to get onto automobile roads.
> To be clear, I don't really have a problem with this https://imgur.com/E8CGnmt other than I hope the guy on the left doesn't fall over or veer into highway traffic. But they're both off the road, not bothering anybody and doing their thing. You know what I'd love to see in that second picture? A barrier between me and them and that shoulder turned into a dedicated, clearly marked bike trail. At intersections, I'd love to see tunnels and overpasses purpose built for them. I'd love love love that.
> So the problem I have is that bikes are allowed on roads, but I don't think they should be. The cry then is "well where will they go?" and I strongly propose that purpose built bike lines be built to accommodate cyclists. I recognize that it won't happen overnight, but it is happening.
> ...I think the right way to deal with it is not to ban bikes, but to give them a better place to go and start enforcing cyclist's responsibilities.
> I support this kind of road having dedicated bike-only zones off the shoulders.
> My conclusion though is not that bikes should be off of roads, but that they should have dedicated infrastructure so this guy has a way to enjoy a perfectly reasonable bike ride without causing trouble.
> the same road as you that they're responsible for your safety.
> If somebody wants to ride a bike and wants to lobby for better bike riding infrastructure, I will be right there with them, even if it raises my taxes.
> The biggest possible problem is that as the auto driver you become responsible for any bike rider you come into contact with because they are unprotected regardless of the circumstances of the contact. I didn't ask them to get on the road with me, but I'll sure as hell be held responsible for their decision if something happens.
> I tend to operate under the assumption that killing a cyclist or pedestrian will probably make me feel pretty miserable and try to make sure I'm not in situations where that could happen.
> Yeah, because heaven forbid a cyclist hits a rock or something and ends up as a bumper decoration on my car through absolutely no fault of my own. I don't want to deal with the risk or guilt of something like that happening...
> No, nobody bike commutes around here. I drive the main arteries out of my area every day and never see a cyclist. Not once in 8 years. It's no surprise because the bike infrastructure stinks on those roads (which I'd be more than happy to support with my tax dollars to fix, and even give up a travel lane to make it happen).
> I don't know if that's a lot or not. It's not a mirror of the road system in terms of size (which I'd personally like to change)...
> I agree with everything you say here which is why I support any initiative which increases the dedicated bike trail system in my area and makes it more useful.
> No, I think cyclists should also have a dedicate right of way and transport infrastructure. At least as comprehensive as the automobile road network. Even if it costs me more in the form of higher tax dollars and yes, even if if I lose a travel lane because of it.
> Because by and large the road system is already there (and being used for cyclists). Extended the shoulder out a bit and putting a stick figure on a bike every quarter mile to show it's a place where bikes are supposed to go is at a minimum what I'm calling for.
> From design to paving, the vast vast majority of roads are designed purely for the automobile. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But it is what it is.
> I've never felt safe sharing pavement with a cyclist. Ever. Not for my own personal safety, or because of some dubious legal requirement, but for the safety of the cyclist.
> > Make all traffic lanes in city cores bikes only, and make public transit free for everyone. I was against you until this part. And now I'm totally with you. In the states it's tough though, the public transport system is woefully inadequate to support this idea.
> While it may be legally untrue, it's not ethically or emotionally untrue. If you were to take out a cyclist and be legally not at fault, don't you think you'd carry around some sense of responsibility?
> If they want to lobby for better bike trails and safer areas to bike. I'll be right out there holding the sign at the rally. I'll even give up extra income in the form of tax dollars to make it a reality. Because it's good for everybody.