The lack of protected bike lanes is a direct consequence of the policy of providing free overnight car storage on both sides of every residential/commercial street. The days of “share the road” are over: cycling advocates need to advocate for 1/2 street parking on every street if we actually want change, because this is a zero-sum game where only one side continues to murder and maim the other because they think they have a right to get somewhere faster. Temporarily repurposing street parking is a great tactic to get people to realize how much public space is given to 1 person which could serve many. See https://www.fastcompany.com/90342223/the-newest-hot-coworkin....
back
3 comments
Temporarily repurposing street parking is a great tactic to get people to realize how much public space is given to 1 person which could serve many
I think all it would do is enrage drivers that their parking space is being taken up by cyclists. To think that they'd finally recognize how much space is taken up by cars assumes that drivers are looking at this rationally.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate...
My pet armchair theory is because driving a car is the one time a lot of human beings feel powerful. Where I live (provincial New Zealand) car traffic is slowed down just as much by tractors moving from farm to farm as it is by cyclists. Yet I never hear people tell me their elaborate fantasies about murdering tractor drivers. Why? Because it's not a realistic fantasy - the tractors are bigger than them.
If you work a menial job, or your family doesn't respect you, or you're looked down on by society - or maybe a combination - then your commute home is maybe the only time you have real power, protected by a big metal shell. So the anger at cyclists is more about 'how dare they slow me down when during the small pocket of time in my existence when I wield power?'.
I'm a long time cycle commuter relucantly turned auto-commuter. I thought I'd start hating cyclists too once I joined the herd but they're practically a non issue.
> I'm a long time cycle commuter relucantly turned auto-commuter.
I just made that transition last month after getting hit by someone driving a truck while I was on my way to the bike trail. In the report the police lied and said I changed lanes by crossing a broken white line. The motorist and I were in the same lane, and there isn't even a broken white line on the road. If I can't safely make it just half mile to the trail and if the cops are going to blame me after someone plows into me from behind, I guess I'd better put myself in a huge metal cage with crumple zones and airbags.
On the plus side, I'm finding that I kind of like jogging for exercise.
I ask this out of genuine curiosity, and with respect. I am a guy who has had several unpleasant dealings with police. But what could they gain by lying in their report?
They get to put it in the pile of completed cases and not have to start a long process of figuring out what's what. I have had similar experiences.
One time I even included in the report the full photo ID of the driver, the name and phone number of a witness, and I got a letter back saying "We're not investigating this case further for two reasons: 1. lack of evidence, 2. not knowing whether there's a traffic camera in the area." I called the witness and they had never been contacted by the police. And why is it ever a reason that they don't know whether there's a traffic camera in the area? Can't they at least just check that first and then say that there is no traffic camera in the area??
Man, I hate hearing that. Really sorry you’re going through it.
I think it might be as simple as a driver will not generalize about drivers, because they are one. They might generalize about categories of drivers, but not all drivers. A driver that is also never a cyclist is free to generalize about all cyclists without including themselves.
Once you manage to overtake a tractor once, it doesn’t ever re-overtake you and make you do that work again. On sections of road with large amounts of traffic and stoplights, I’ve had to wait behind and overtake the same bicycle 5 times before I finally got far enough ahead. Most bicycle encounters are non-issues, but it’s these extended ones where it seems to the driver that they’ll never be done with this one particular bicyclist that stick in the memory and cause long-term resentment.
I sympathize with this. And I, as a biker, don't really like being passed repeatedly either. But there are few good options: stopping in the bike lane but behind you defeats the purpose of the separate lane; I can join the car lane, and sometimes do if the flow is indeed slow enough, but then I risk being in the way if things do start moving faster, and/or pissing off a different driver who wonders why I'm not in my own lane, even though the average speed ends up being the same.
I'd suggest that the driver that is repeatedly getting ahead and then finding herself waiting at a stoplight might try driving slower between the lights, but that depends on the road conditions, and whether the lights are actually correctly timed. And on short blocks it risks causing jams. There's not really any way to apportion blame: it's a situation where it's hard for any of us to win. Maybe we just have to try to relax and get along as best we can.
If there’s a real bike lane, the overtaking shouldn’t be a problem as it should be safe for cars to pass in their own lane without needing to take any of the next lane over. Unfortunately, many “bike lanes” are too narrow and too poorly maintained and filled with parked cars. Then there’s the cyclists that think it’s appropriate to ride on the divider between the bike lane and the car lanes instead of in the lane itself.
>Maybe we just have to try and relax and get along as best we can.
That seems like the best plan, certainly. Once everybody can see each other as people instead of the enemy, there might be some chance of getting the infrastructure fixed.
>Then there’s the cyclists that think it’s appropriate to ride on the divider between the bike lane and the car lanes instead of in the lane itself.
People don't want to get doored. That's the main reason why I do this and deem this necessary. There are well traveled bike lanes out where where you do need to ride on the margin of the lane because it wasn't built parking protected and there was no space buffer set aside for car doors.
So your problem isn't with the cyclist, its with having so many cars on the roads that you can't drive faster than biking speed?
What do you expect would happen if those riders weren't on bikes? When I'm not on my bike, I'm driving (if transit worked for me, I wouldn't be on my bike)
No, my problem is with the city planners that can’t get their act together and build the appropriate infrastructure to support all the road users.
And it’s with bicyclists that don’t understand the idea of a queue for controlling access to limited resources.
And it’s with drivers that think they own the road and pass bicyclists at patently unsafe speeds and distances.
There’s plenty of blame to go around; there’s no need to restrict it to just one party.
So in that situation, aren't you the annoying vehicle that needs to be passed? You're holding up faster traffic for those 5 blocks!
I beg to differ.
The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement - not dissimilar to Prius drivers who are known to be some of the worst drivers on the road [1][2] - that their chosen mode of conveyance is morally superior to other modes and so they're owed certain privileges like being not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules.
[1] The aggressive driving antics of some Prius drivers have been attributed to a lack of engine noise in the Prius and thus absence of revs found in an ICE vehicle
[2] Science Confirms That BMW And Prius Drivers Are The Worst
https://jalopnik.com/science-confirms-that-bmw-and-prius-dri...
edit: punctuation
In my jurisdiction, cyclists are not held to the same degree of responsibility for flouting traffic rules as drivers are (for instance, the fines are halved). This makes sense, because the consequences of cyclists disregarding the rules are not as dangerous to other road users.
I don't think these opinions are mutually exclusive. I have certainly observed both. Entitled cyclists are very common around the urban area I live, but when I ride to the outer suburbs there's more of a car culture where they people invest heavily into the self-image that their vehicle supports. Their need to rev engines as they pass suggests that the power play is important to them.
The problem-cyclists everyone has at one time or the other, encountered have this air of entitlement
You betray yourself by the language you use - 'entitlement'. They are entitled to use the road, etc, just like any other user. I see many dangerous road users (all vehicles), but I never think of them as entitled - as if they shouldn't be there. Just sloppy/dangerous/ignorant.
It bothers people more because they know they could kill them with their car. The same way you might call out a smaller person acting rudely, but not a large, fit looking person.
An air of entitlement not to the road, they feel entitled to flouting the rules & to not be penalized or reprimanded for doing so -- like not stopping at signals or intersections as if its beneath them.
Similar to how car drivers feel entitled to being able to go 5mph over the speed limit without being penalized or reprimanded.
Cycling is morally superior to driving a car alone as an able bodied person. Cars pollute a lot and they and their infrastructure take up a lot of valuable space in cities.
As someone who is concerned about climate change and enjoys cycling, I'm still going to have to strongly disagree with this one. There are plenty of reasons why one might choose to drive over bike; calling one strictly morally superior to the other is extreme. Morality isn't that simple.
There are many good reasons to burn coal too.
Please take off your selection bias glasses and start observing the behavior of all motorists through the same lens that you use to view cyclists. I think you will find that the proportion of bad behavior is not meaningfully different.
I don't like that the article implies cyclists are breaking the rules, but then they list behaviors that are legal in most places and make sense:
> overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside.
It also blames bikes for both moving too fast and too slow, and ignores that drivers'd be way more pissed if bikes took the entire lane (like they're entitled to in most places).
The article is explaining why many drivers dislike cyclists. This accurately describes some of the complaints I've heard from non-cyclists:
Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside.
Whether or not the cyclists are actually following the law is irrelevant, there's still the perception that they are not. I've had a motorist pull up beside me at a stop sign and yell at me to get off the road and ride on the sidewalk -- I pointed out the bike stencil on the bike lane I was in and pointed to the "No bicycles on sidewalks" sign, and he still told me to get off the road. Laws (even with clear evidence that I was following them) didn't matter to him.
We usually say that the only thing that angers motorists more than cyclists breaking the rules of the road is cyclists following the rules of the road :)
The implication is that while they get angered by cyclists running reds, doing illegal turns, or lane splitting (assuming it's illegal), they also get angered if by following the rules the cyclists slow them down.
You're kind of confirming a feeling I have.
I am a daily cyclist and I started strictly following the rules after being scared by an accident I had. I realized eventually that I don't feel safer by following the rules. In fact there are a lot of days when I feel even more in danger than before (namely: rain days and friday nights).
I used to think that was because of the shock from the accident.
I'd like some material on that if you happen to know about it.
I'm a four season bike commuter too (boosted board when it's hot out). I'm done following the rules of the road just because— I'll do what's safest for me. If the police want people outside of cars to follow the rules "for our safety", they need to make the first move and actually enforce the car-side rules that would help make us safer as well.
The big one in Ontario is yielding to crosswalks. As of September last year, failing to yield to a crosswalk is supposed to be $1000 (!) fine. But as far as I know, there hasn't been one single instance of that ticket being handed out in my city, yet I witness pedestrians cut off by vehicles literally daily. I've even posted helmet cam videos of it happening to Facebook and YouTube and tagged my local politicians. Nothing happens.
The "Idaho stop" [1] is the best example I know of, with some studies showing that it's safer than the alternative. It's where cyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yields (as opposed to coming to a full stop at each one).
I'm also interested in more examples like this
Yes I've heard of that through the Paris experiment cited in this article. Although when I talked about it with Parisian friends :
* Cyclists have not heard of it and keep getting insulted daily for behaviors allowed by this experiment * Motorist had the typical knee-jerk reaction along the lines of "This is crazy! Cyclists are madmen! Actual dangers to pedestrians and to themselves, ..." yadda yadda
Of course I don't assume that every cyclist I talked with is respectful of the actual crossroads where this is enforced so my little biased survey is worth nothing.
But I guess if it's not backed up with proper propaganda this kind of new road rules are doomed to create new tensions between cyclists and motorist.
Or just give cyclists proper protected bike lanes, like there have in the Netherlands. But I kind of have lost hope on the French Government and Community Governments for that.
The reason these behaviors are frustrating to drivers is that bicycles are hard to overtake. They’re unpredictable and fragile compared to a car, and so the driver has to give them a wide berth, often having to wait behind them for a long time until there’s a break in oncoming traffic to get around them.
That’s not so much of a problem, as that’s the same with every slow-moving vehicle. Bicycles, however, are the only ones that will re-overtake while the car is standing in a queue, forcing the driver to do all of that work again instead of just relaxing into the normal flow of traffic.
When they overtake a standing queue, Bicyclists, from the point of view of drivers, are acting against the common interest of smoothly flowing traffic for their own gain and taking advantage of a temporary situation to screw up the natural order of faster vehicles at the front of the line and slower ones at the back.
The obvious solution here is separate infrastructure for cars and bicycles as they have such different acceleration profiles that there will inevitably be problems putting them in the same space. But as long as bicyclists don’t extend the common courtesy of remaining overtaken in shared situations, they will be viewed as more worthy of punishment than appeasement.
> When they overtake a standing queue, Bicyclists, from the point of view of drivers, are acting against the common interest of smoothly flowing traffic for their own gain and taking advantage of a temporary situation to screw up the natural order of faster vehicles at the front of the line and slower ones at the back.
Now compare that behaviour with motorists, who are acting against the common interest of society and the environment by using a 2 tonne metal box to move around, leaving air and noise pollution, death, destruction and congestion in their wake.
I realize you're only explaining the behaviours, but we've built a society that chooses convenience at the cost of over a million road deaths per year, envelops cities in smog, and is responsible for a huge chunk of CO₂ emissions.
So, queue jumping is a moral act as long as the people you’re jumping in front of are bad people? Even if so, they’re most of the population and making someone angry is rarely a good tactic to convince them to help you.
It’s possible to disagree with everything someone stands for and still treat them with civility. Many people on both sides of this debate that are concerned primarily with their own convenience, and this should be a rational policy discussion instead of a holy war.
> So, queue jumping is a moral act as long as the people you’re jumping in front of are bad people?
I see it as more like a "10 items or less" queue: if you're taking up less (checkout/road) space then you get to go in a shorter queue that moves faster than the queues of the people who are taking up more space. That's fair, isn't it?
> The reason these behaviors are frustrating to drivers is that bicycles are hard to overtake.
It's a lot easier to see around a bicycle compared to other slower vehicles with bigger profiles. Also, since you're driving at a lower speed before and during the overtake, you're going to require less distance overall to complete the maneuver.
> They’re unpredictable
If they're following the rules of the road, then they're not unpredictable.
> and fragile compared to a car,
So are motorcyclists, for example.
> so the driver has to give them a wide berth
Four (or more) wheeled vehicles, by their nature, make it difficult to judge their precise extent from the driver's seat (the passenger side going more difficult compared to the driver's side). Roads typically have lines that help drivers laterally position their vehicles such that they have sufficient distance between the edge of the road and other vehicles traveling in the same direction.
Commonly, when overtaking another vehicle, one will completely change lanes before doing so (regardless of the vehicle type). The same rule should also apply to overtaking a cyclist.
> Bicycles, however, are the only ones that will re-overtake while the car is standing in a queue
I've seen people on motorcycles and other motor driven two wheel vehicles do the same.
> The obvious solution here is separate infrastructure for cars and bicycles as they have such different acceleration profiles that there will inevitably be problems putting them in the same space.
The same could argued for HGVs, but we do drive on the same roads they do without any issues despite the fact that their acceleration is much less compared to a typical car.
Unless the separate infrastructure is truly separate (i.e. grade separated), then these types of facilities cause more problems at intersections where they put cyclists on the wrong side of turning vehicles or even on the wrong side of the road relative to the direction of traffic).
It seems like city drivers prefer that cyclists move forward in the queue rather than stop in the middle of the lane 5 or 6 cars back in line.
Some car drivers will even block bikes (both the motorized and pedal-poweered kind) from lane splitting, even in hurisdictions where it is legal.
Hi, I am from The Netherlands. Based on my experience in my country I have the following to add.
The main issue you have is a chicken egg (network effect esque) lack of bicycle drivers.
Once there are enough you can defend their rights (safety and accessibility) easier. Safety is first for bicyclists in The Netherlands. Hence no helm necessary. E-bike go pretty fast though and with elder people preferring these, amount of bikes may increase.
There are several solutions to this problem you described each with their drawbacks.
You can speed limit. For example to 30 km/hour. Aldo increases safety for playing kids.
You can disallow parking. Variations are one side or both sides, time based parking allowed (e.g. at night OK), allowed to stop with engine running, and possibly others.
You can repurpose the road to a one way street. There are two variations on this: with allowing bicycles one way and with allowing bicycles two way. Another variation is not allowing bicycles at all but I cover that later.
You can broaden the road. Not always viable, especially in city, but you be able to combine it with repurposing the housing.
You can make the road for bicyclists only. Do this too much and car drivers will complain about accessibility.
You can disallow cars in your city with too high Co2 emissions.
You can disallow bicycles. Useful at highways, near highways, or at choke points.
> the policy of providing free overnight car storage on both sides of every residential/commercial street
You make it sound like there is some sort of federal policy covering every road in the US. Not only is there not, but your statement is far from the truth. There are many, many streets in the US where parking is restricted or paid
The policy in every major city is to treat free overnight car storage on both sides of every road as the default
That is not the policy in a large chunk of Manhattan. It was not the policy on major (more than two-lane) or downtown roads in Dallas (and its two independent enclaves prohibited overnight street parking entirely). It's not the policy on the vast majority of streets in Miami or the surrounding cities.
Anecdotes dont override the claim of “default” here.
It overrides the "every major city". I don't understand why some people here are hell-bent on exaggerating or misrepresenting the situation.
No, but this anecdote of one is infinitely more data points than the original claim.