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
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
Service vehicle never "have" to block the bike lane. They could simply block the general purpose lane instead.
In other words, they are making a deliberate choice to fuck cyclists' safety in order to prioritize convenience for car drivers.
I think you're attributing malice to laziness.
I cant think of a single courier or delivery driver that would actively think "let me take an extra 20 seconds to reverse into this driveway just to fuck with bikes". They just want to get it done and get to the next
I think the word "deliberate" might be a little strong, because it's not one person's choice alone. It probably is laziness, but the way the road is made makes the lazy choice the one that screws over everyone else to prioritise cars. They could leave the van in the middle of the road, but drivers would get angry, so they make a subconscious choice.
Cars are large, cumbersome, dangerous objects with horns on them, and the road's design centers them. If you park in the middle of the road, cars are so space-inefficient that you cause a traffic jam and people get upset and honk, but nobody's in much more danger. If you block a pathway for pedestrians and cyclists, they can get around, but it's much more dangerous, especially for children and the disabled, but most of the time the delivery driver isn't forced to deal with that fact. Those people are much less visible.
So the result is that the mode of transport which causes the most problems for the people around it is also prioritised above all others. Decisions were made at the city planning level that put cycle paths together with cars. There are much better ways of doing things, for instance separate paths, with bollards so cars can't just leave the road. You could make delivery vehicles smaller and lighter, with dedicated delivery bays. You could narrow roads and slow them down to disincentivise inner-city traffic, and encourage the use of bypasses, and subtly teach drivers to expect frequent stops in town.
it would be far easier to simply stop in the lane they are already in. No, they go out of their way to park in the bike lane.
Either way it's block lane A or block lane A and B
Right, but that's the point: cyclists' safety should be a superior concern to drivers' convenience. They aren't equivalent, and the status-quo habit is to pick the one that causes more harm!
The cyclist is also just inconvenienced, they could just get off the bike and go around and then just continue on with their day. Unlike the car, what's their stock until the guy comes back and moves the van. The biker is less inconvenienced than the car is.
Do you actually not understand how the cyclist is endangered in this scenario? Do you actually need that explained?
Dude, the cyclist is not endangered in this scenario. Let me explain since you have trouble because I guess you're 5. Guy on bike sees truck in way, guy gets off bike, guy walks bike with other people who are also also walking on sidewalk, once guy gets past truck, guy gets back on bike, back in bike lane, back doing bike stuff, bike guy does this as many times that are needed, bike guy never has to come in any danger from big scary 2 ton metal things he don't understand wizzing by.
When bike guy - or child, or elderly person, or wheelchair-bound person, the people who are also also walking on the sidewalk - goes around the van, how do they get around the van? Where do they go?
You were very careful to lay out every single detail for a small child like me, but you left out that one specific detail. Why was that? Was it somehow detrimental to your point?
Why can't the cars just pass then? Why do cyclists have to give away a lane that is made for them just so cars wouldn't have to wait 10 seconds to pass the van?
Do you really think that anyone riding a bike in the bike lane would come off a bike iust to avoid a stationary obstacle? Most would pass them on the road (which is what makes the van parking in the bike lane dangerous).
Things aren't gonna change for cyclists so you have a choice, either use the sidewalk (safe choice)or join car traffic. Up to you. Either face reality or don't.
I bike every day to work and don't expect any vehicle to ever yield to me for anything. I either go around or , when available, use the sidewalk, and I don't complain
Things can change if you complain enough to the right people. It isn't "it is how it is so we shouldn't do anything". Contacting government officials or consistently reporting illegally parked vehicles might some day improve things.
I also bike to school every day and I do expect cars to yield when they should. If you let them go when they should've yielded, they ain't going to yield to the next cyclist and might kill them. I'd rather not condition drivers into thinking that bikes will always give them priority.
I also drive a tiny car and subscribe to the lugnut theory--that is, the more lugnuts, the more out of its way you get, same applies to anything else. Think about it this way, would you rather be right and dead, or wrong and alive to go see your family?
Well...yes, in most areas that inconveniences 3 people vs 300. Bicyclists, despite their entire personality being geared around it, are not by default better or more valuable than people driving cars.
What cyclists are more of, compared to people driving cars, is vulnerable, which means they're more important to protect -- by not blocking bike lanes and forcing them to mix with car traffic, for example!
But that's an irrelevant point if you live, as most Americans do, in an area where nobody is biking to begin with.
Do you not see cyclists because they don't exist or you don't see them because they use different roads than you?
Just because most don't doesn't mean that no one does.
Again when did say it did? Good God bicycles-are-my-identity people are fucking annoying.
However to answer your question, the main st in Cambridge has 1000 cars for every bike. There are times of day that isn't true, but for the most part it's accurate. There's also 1000 pedestrians for every bike, and amazon and other drivers and bikes block them too. Bikes are probably the bigger danger due to being ridden on the sidewalk at road speeds through dense pedestrians.
If cycling wasn't so dangerous and given lower priority there would be many more cyclists and fewer cars. We see this wherever town planners make this change.
Less car traffic in general is better for everyone, even the drivers. It doesn't matter if you think that cyclists are annoying or holier than thou. It doesn't matter what kind of people they are at all. They could all be assholes, that doesn't change the fact that cars are bad actually.
Cool story. Not really relevant to anything I said but cool nonetheless.
I can see how you'd think that if you didn't read it or pay attention to any of the pertinent details.
Blocked and reported
Cool story. Not really relevant to anything I said but cool nonetheless.
But are people driving cars better and more valuable than cyclists?
Have you ever been to China? Holland?
Nowhere did I say that, I do wish people would stop making irrelevant comments.
I know. I asked you a question - I didn’t make a statement.
Your claim is that this is a genuine question about my beliefs and not a rhetorical question aka statement?
Even though that claim is disingenuous on its face, the very clear answer is No.
I’m not claiming anything but thanks for answering the (first) question.