Seriously. Driving in NYC or SF can be obnoxious and frustrating, sure...but it virtually never feels downright life-threatening, the way biking can very frequently feel.
Your lawful right on roads in both cities is that you may occupy any traffic lane at any time on a bicycle. Be sure to ride in the center (maybe even slightly to the left) to avoid encouraging those behind you to try to squeeze by.
Motorists are used to cyclists being slow because of this overly cautious approach that novice cyclists take to riding bikes on roadways. Another way to help retrain motorists' expectations is to do better to keep up with traffic. If you are causing traffic blockages while on a bike, then you are not riding fast enough. There are multiple ways to address this, the simplest (though not easiest) being improving your cardio and strength. A more long-term, better solution would be to redesign infrastructure either to keep cyclists separate from motor traffic or to make motor traffic slow enough that bikes don't seriously impede traffic flow when they take the lane.
> Another way to help retrain motorists' expectations is to do better to keep up with traffic.
Whether a cyclist can maintain 20 mph or just 10 mph isn't going to make a difference to the motorists. But taking the lane by default will train them to change lanes to pass like they would when encountering any other slow vehicle.
How does the bicyclist get hurt when the driver changes lanes to pass? Bicyclists actually get more lateral clearance when that happens compared to when they're keeping further right and the motorist tries to squeeze their vehicle between them and oncoming traffic.
When they 'learn to change lanes to pass'. Because they're not doing that now, and won't all learn the same day. Until then bicyclist put their life on the line every time they go out on the road.
Do you have any statistics to back up your assertion that faster traffic does not change lanes to pass a cyclist taking the lane where taking the lane is defined as riding between the center of the lane and left your track? One experiment [1] demonstrated that motorists consistently changed lanes to pass when cyclists rode in the position I described.
I do ride at least 1000 miles a year on roads with traffic speeds ranging from 0 to 50 mph. I've been doing this for over 15 years at this point and my personal experience matches up with the results of that experiment I linked to in my previous comment.
Do you cycle? Do you ride in the primary position that I described earlier by default?
>A more long-term, better solution would be to redesign infrastructure either to keep cyclists separate from motor traffic
That's what I'd propose. Carving up the already scarce roadways to try and squeeze in a "safe" lane for cyclists is going to make it far more dangerous for both bikes and cars. Bike lanes that run above the street would be far safer.
That's a ridiculous proposal. Imagine the cost of creating a whole secondary road network above the current road network and the extra spaces needed for ramps up and down the elevated cycleway. This is something you can do in very special circumstances, but nowhere close to a general solution.
Imagine not being able to imagine something as simple as what most European cities have already figured out, which is to put the bike lane between parked cars and the pedestrian sidewalk.
And suggesting that we try and squeeze cyclists onto already-overcrowded streets is any less ridiculous? I should have known that you're not allowed to speak ill of bikes here, jesus christ.
On the contrary, if you act like a car, using the same streets as the cars is quite safe in my experience. I've safely cycled with a cello on my back by simply following the rules most cyclists claim to follow but ignore: stopping at stop lights, signalling when I'm about to turn.
You know, looking out for my own safety.
EDIT: If following the same rules as everyone else is too much to ask, maybe you should just stay off the road no matter what you're driving.
This is victim blaming. Plenty of cyclists follow the rules and then get slammed by cars.
The last year before I moved to Germany, I got hit by cars twice, and neither time was I at fault. Once I got t-boned by someone who didn't look before turning, the other time someone suddenly went across the bike lane to pull into a parking lot. Neither crash was serious, but the first rattled me quite a bit -- my son was on my bike with me and got a scratch (and the bike rear wheel was totaled).
For that first crash, the more serious one, a cop showed up and wrote a report, but didn't even give the guy a ticket. In the US, driving a car makes you the privileged class, and you can get away with a lot.
My near misses have never been at intersections or due to missing hand signals.
My near misses have been because some idiot decides to hug or even drive in the cycling lane (usually while texting) or when someone parks a car in the cycling lane forcing me to move into the road (with cars being incapable of waiting for me to get around the idiot that decided to park in the cycling lane).
Those are instances of following the road rules perfectly yet still nearly getting in a dangerous wreck.
It's not a problem of rules, it's a problem of cyclists not having safe places to cycle. It's a problem of cities not planning for cyclists. It's a problem of cities not enforcing rules that ultimately protect cycling.
There simply aren't enough cyclists to be a voting block so it's a chicken and egg problem. People aren't going to cycle because it's dangerous because there aren't enough people to vote in change for cyclists. It just goes around in circles.
Correct. Where you do get progress, it's mostly an ideology thing: more politically progressive people view more support for biking and transit as good things even when they don't currently use those things themselves.
Cyclists encounter problems at intersections because they're in the wrong position. They should be in the lane that serves their destination so that same direction traffic didn't have to cross their path when making a turn. For example, when proceeding straight through an intersection, the cyclist should be to the left of right turning traffic and directly in line with traffic going straight.
While this is correct, people often make outrageous last minute decisions in cars because they’re not paying attention. If you’re not taking the time to really look at your mirrors and blind spots you’re not going to see a cyclist. This is common behavior that I witness as both a driver and a cyclist.
How can you think that every bike accident or bike death is caused by the person on the bicycle, and not the person in the 4,000 lb ram?
there will be cases of fault by all kinds of parties, but to type out something like "Well I've never died and I'm safe, so if you died you must be dangerous" is mind-numbingly shallow.
If the only way to cycle safely in the city is to pretend you're a full sized motor vehicle, it sounds like you understand how ridiculous it is that the roads are designed for and devoted to cars.
I think this is the wrong framing. The correct framing is, each lawful user of a roadway has equal rights to occupying space on that roadway.
As a frequent city cyclist, I take the lane early and often as is my lawful right, signalling unequivocally my intention and impending action to merge into the traffic lane. Most often I use this right when avoiding someone double-parked in the bike lane, or when turning left at an intersection.
In the eyes of the law, sure it's not the right framing. But I'm looking at what I think makes sense for the future. I think our cities would be better with more cyclists and less cars.
I don't think that's accomplished by encouraging equal use of roadways. I think that means space currently designated for cars should be reduced to make way for other modes of transportation.
No, because cycling is not for everyone. Multiple modes of transportation should be equally available, but that doesn't mean you should expect that everyone be able to use every mode.
For instance I don't see any particular utility to making infrastructure so that there's enough room for every person to use a motorized wheelchair.
The point was about, or at least could be made, beyond just cycling.
Replace "Accessible Cycling" with "Accessible form of transport that does not endanger other people not using that form." Whether that's bicycles or wheelchairs or scooters, etc.
The point is that putting them with cars is dangerous.
So what, you want to intentionally exclude people from the benefits of biking? Why? How is that better than making biking accessible to a wide range of people, like some countries already do?
