view the rest of the comments
Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
The electric bicycle doesn't require a license to use. Supposedly you have been properly trained in the operation of a vehicle and are licensed to use it before getting behind the wheel. Supposedly. In reality the DMV hands licenses out like Halloween candy.
I hit 50 MPH on downhills on my regular human-powered bicycle. Don't need a license or training for that either.
The arguments made for bicycles being speed limited make sense, because it's not just about licensing requirements (what precious few there are...) but also mechanical limits on safe operation and a need to find a balance between individual freedom and public safety.
This is also the reason why, in Europe at least, all trucks have a 90 km/h governor by law, even though truck drivers are licensed to a higher standard than car drivers.
Cars being excluded from the conversations we are having about trucks and bicycles and motorcycles is nothing but pure hypocrisy. But then again, when has hypocrisy ever stopped a politician?
Arguably regular bicycles should require a license to use, especially if they're ridden on roads (and I'm an avid cyclist saying this). Something I've seen a lot in recent years is people (full-grown adults who should know better as well as children) riding on the wrong side of the road, against traffic. It's just beyond insane how dumb this is - not to mention completely illegal.
I few weeks ago I was riding home and came face-to-face with a woman on a bike towing her two little children, riding on the wrong side of the road around a completely blind turn. I was barely able to avoid hitting her, and I was on a bike. A car going a normal 25 mph around that turn likely would have crashed into her. I stopped and tried to talk to her about what she was doing, but she gave me that bland cow look that people adopt when they decide not to listen to criticism and rode on down the wrong side of the street.
The wrong side thing I'd say is probably because many bikes (even ebikes!) don't come with a mirror. So the rider lacks awareness if they aren't doing regular head-turns.
Similar lacking bell, which can be used to announce your presence to other people who might be around the corner (when you wouldn't want to use a loud horn).
I’d guess it’s more likely because they don’t want to have to cross the street (twice!) because their destination is on the same side of the street. They judge (maybe correctly) that it’s safer to ride the wrong way for a short distance than to cross four lanes twice.
Maybe, but that's circumstantial.
What I said is just... fear of getting ran over because by the time you notice* the sound of the motor of an extremely heavy and fast vehicle approaching you it's probably right behind you. This logic also assumes you're getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn't a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic though. Either way, not preferred.
This was my own logic (not that I actually rode very much like that) until I got myself a mirror.
* also knowing that it's approaching you, not going some other direction
So ... you think the absence of a safety device (mirror or bell) turns riding on the wrong side of the road against traffic, around a completely blind corner with no shoulder, with two little children in tow, into a good idea? I don't understand what would make someone think that.
My point is just that there is some reasoning behind it, even if it isn't preferred. As I said in another comment, plus the caveat:
I mention safety devices because obviously I think people should have them. There should be free/cheap options (or already on the bike when bought). A mirror should fix the desire to be going the wrong way, but even a bell used (her or you) could've improved the situation either way.
A bell would have been useless had it been a car instead of me on my bike.
Hence why this isn't "logic" at all. There are many situations in which a cyclist riding against traffic has nowhere to go - like almost every road and street in my district, which have no shoulders and often high curbs and dense vegetation. Riding against traffic also happens to be illegal, as bikes are required to obey the same traffic laws as motorized vehicles. Not all laws reflect common sense, but these sure as hell do.
Seems to me that building distinct infrastructure for non-motor vehicles is much better solution than growing out the bureaucratic machinery that would be required to license every damn bicycle, and that any time we get the misplaced urge to self-harm by suggesting that this joy of a transportation mode be made to comply with the same licensing requirements as 2+ ton combustion machine we instead redirect that energy into something positive like infrastructure advocacy.
I mean, it's not really an either/or thing. Even good bicycle infrastructure requires cyclists to be knowledgeable in how to use it. For example, I'm religious about saying "on your left" when passing other cyclists or pedestrians on our local bicycle path. I probably say it 20-30 times a ride. But in twenty years of regular riding, almost every day, I don't think I've heard it said to me by a passing cyclist even 10 times total - they just never do it. I don't think it's because they just want to be dicks, I think they genuinely have no idea they should be doing it, same reason they never use hand signals - because there's no requirement for them to learn this. Knowing what to do on a public road is even more important.
Actually, it's not an either/or thing - it's neither/nor in the United States.
Yeah it's nice that you're so considerate and it's definitely not unappreciated, but you're certainly in a small minority of cyclists in wanting those behaviors to be the norm. I'm confident that most cyclists consider those to generally be car behaviors and unless you're in close quarters with another cyclist or around cars, they're never really required and absolutely not expected. There is no world in which I'm going to want or expect other cyclists to be making hand signals meant to get the attention of drivers every time they need to make a turn, and so long as I'm not in a very tight spot on the path I'd rather that other cyclists pass me without having to make a ritual of it. Yours is definitely not an axe that most of us want to grind. Just so you're aware.
We're mostly trained to drive at 60kmph and not 150kmph, yet there's no limiter at 90kmph.
But yes i agree, these rule are to protect the rider, not others, just like the mandatory helmet rule on moped and motorcycle.