33 ms·
Cars are more dangerous than bicycles because they’re larger and faster, yes. But when you compare cars vs. bicycles on the same road, together, bicyclists are
by treyfitty 2y ago
Cars are more dangerous than bicycles because they’re larger and faster, yes. But when you compare cars vs. bicycles on the same road, together, bicyclists are in more danger. I can only surmise the people that tell you “bicycles are dangerous,” are just looking out for your well being and meant “you’re putting yourself in danger.”
Unfortunately, roads were designed for cars first. Even more unfortunate, people are not accustomed to sharing the road with bicyclists and only glance at their mirrors to check for large familiar cars. Thus, to say that “cars are the ones that are dangerous,” implies you think bicyclists have the de facto right of way and everyone should adjust to your presence.
- bwestergard 2y agoIn the U.S., roads were paved for cyclists first. There was a political fight over whether and how to regulate cars to prevent them from crowding out other road users. See "Fighting Traffic". https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Technology/dp/0262516128/ref=mp_s_a_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Tech...
- kube-system 2y agoAnd more broadly, paved roads were invented between 2600 and 2200 BC.
- treyfitty 2y agoI meant to reference modern roads. Lane markings, signage, and setbacks are clearly spaced, designed, and optimized for traveling in a car. Those 45mph signs and the intentional spacing of lane markers were not designed because of bicyclists.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoBad road design. We can do better.
- rolph 2y agoroads predate cars.
- alpaca128 2y ago> you think bicyclists have the de facto right of way and everyone should adjust to your presence They think that because that's how the law works, yes. Also many roads aren't designed for cars either, at least not in terms of safety or efficiency.
- treyfitty 2y agoWhat law? Bicyclists do not automatically have the right of way. They are users of the road and must follow the same road laws as cars. You say many roads… if you go by miles, you think major interstates weren’t designed for cars? How about rural roads… who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars?
- BytesAndGears 2y agoSlight tangent, but when I lived in a country in Europe, this was the way the law worked for car-cyclist collisions. 1. The car driver is assumed to be at fault. In absence of other evidence, the car driver is always 100% at fault for the accident. Including all consequences for hitting/killing someone. 2. If it is proved that the cyclist broke the law and acted negligently, the car driver is still 50% at fault for the accident, since they’re driving a more dangerous vehicle and should’ve actively prevented the accident. People were extremely respectful to cyclists there, and gave a ton of space when passing
- alpaca128 2y agoWhen a vehicle would have to cross other paths (bike lanes etc), the priority is: pedestrian > cyclist > car. A bike lane crossing the road always has priority over cars unless signs say otherwise. At least that's how it works in Europe. > who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars? The roads are usually intended for cars, yes. But they often aren't designed for safe, efficient travel with cars. Or anyone else, really. It's possible to design roads to be safe for everyone, but they often are the opposite. Just like planners still think that adding more lanes makes travel by car faster, when in reality it's long been known that it actually has the opposite effect.
- 2y ago