this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
794 points (85.5% liked)
Fuck Cars
9808 readers
236 users here now
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:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So people saying the bikes side by side are a dick move are implying that you have more right to the road because you're driving a car?
Generally speaking, to do an overtake, a car needs to leave the lane completely, so it doesn't matter whether it's one or two bikes.
You are assuming drivers respect the safety distance from a lone biker...
It does matter. It's safer for everyone if cyclists travel side by side in one lane because then the car driver has to spend less time in the oncoming lane to complete the overtake. A long string of bikes takes more time to safely pass.
It's especially safer for the cyclists who risk getting side swiped and crushed by drivers trying to avoid going into the adjacent lane, and since cyclists have no steel box surrounding them, it's a one sided battle that the car initiated in the first place. Riding side by side forces the car to do a normal, legal overtake by moving into the next lane.
Most of the streets around here were built when the idea that every house could have a car would be viewed as a fantasy.
So you've got cars parked up and down each side of the road, and if two cars want to pass each other, then you have to hope that there's space for one of you to pull over.
If you want to overtake even one bike, forget it. It's probably got some balaclava wearing kid on it, weaving none-handed up the middle of the road.
Those kinds of streets are actually the safest for everyone because they enforce lower speeds and more attentive driving than any posted speed limit ever can. People don't give two shits about speed laws and will drive as fast as they feel they can, so when the road is not conducive to driving fast, surprise surprise people don't drive fast and collisions are rarely deadly.
More info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbqNUqdZlwM
Gurl, what's with the spooky bike fanfic
Would it be less of a dick move if it was a faster cyclist or a motorcyclist needing to pass by? No, it might actually be worse.
The point is that we need to do our best to respect other road users, regardless of their method of transportation. Pedestrians, cyclist, motorcyclists, cars, lorries and even animals (perhaps especially animals)
Any side-by-side vehicles increases the amount of space taken on the road, which means it should be avoided when other travellers need to pass by. It's the same reason that lorries or cars travelling side-by-side at the same speed on the highway is often frowned upon.
I really don't get people who want to wage a constant social war over our shared infrastructure by being assholes to each other. Being decent and considerate is safer and more pleasant for everybody involved.
A car takes up at least the width of two bikes by default. Why do they have the right to do that while bikes don't?
Maybe we should focus more on overall efficiency and sustainability of our transport systems, and by that metric, cars shouldn't even exist. A four lane road takes up the same width as a two track rail corridor and mixed use pedesterian/bike paths on either side, but can transport far more people per hour than private cars while being both cheaper in the long run and more environmentally friendly.
The answer is simple really. The car is one unit, the bikes (in this scenario) are two units, they don't have to be considerate, but they have the option to do so.
I'll give an equivalent example. Where I live we have a class of vehicles referred to as "moped cars", same form factor as cars, but speed restricted to either 30 or 45 km/h. Usually they're used by teens to get arouns in rural areas with poor public transit options, so they'll often be trundling along on 70-90km/h roads at slow speed.
This can quickly lead to queues building up behind them during high traffic hours in areas with few passing opportunities. Quite often, when this happens, they'll pull off to the side for a few seconds at an opportune spot to let other, faster vehicles, pass by. They don't have to do this, but it is considerate.
As for the second half of your comment, each method of transportation has its niche and purpose. The best system is one that utilizes the strengths of each to complement the others. Attempting to apply a monolithic solution everywhere will generally lead to frustrations and inefficiencies.
Pedestrian - Trivial distances, any density.
Bike - Trivial -> Short distances, any density.
Cars - Short -> Long distances, low density.
Busses - Short -> Long distances, medium density.
Rail - Short -> Long distances, high density.
High Speed Rail - Medium -> Extreme distances, high density.
Air - Long -> Extreme distances, high density.
Because they can move fast enough to not be in the way for people behind them, since they are among the fastest vehicles on our roads. Bikes are considerably slower, which makes it more of a nuisance for those they're sharing the road with if they can't easily be passed.
Bike lanes are a good thing, and being courteous is a good thing- that goes both for passing when safe and being respectful of bike riders when you're driving a car, and also for allowing cars to pass where possible when you're moving significantly slower than the average traffic speed on a bicycle. It doesn't have to be adversarial.
Trains are even faster than cars despite being more efficient. Cars actually get in the way of trains, as level crossings are among the worst bottlenecks to both speed and frequency on a railroad, even if every single driver obeys the rules perfectly, the existence of an intersection between two fundamentally incompatible modes of transport introduces a conflict point which inevitably creates inefficiencies. In this way, cars are a "nuisance" to trains in the same way bikes are to cars, and being courteous won't solve that. So by your own logic, we should get rid of cars and build rail instead.
Being courteous does solve that...? First off, trains don't share the road, they follow tracks, so thats somewhat of a convoluted comparison. But more importantly, you stop at train crossings so the train can go first...? Is your argument that that's inefficient? Everything is inefficient. Any solution to a really complicated problem like how multiple forms of transportation co-exist is going to have inefficiencies
Also, no idea where you got the idea that I would be opposed to building more rail and less cars? Cars should increasingly be de-prioritzed in favor of bikes, ebikes, and public transit, but bike riders should be courteous of those who are driving and vice versa, and cars should continue to stop at train tracks to allow trains to go by. Where on earth did you get the idea that my logic of "be considerate of those who are using a different means of transportation" means cars should go away or that cars shouldn't go away? Also we definitely should be building rail, if we're gonna deprioritze cars we need public transportation to help fill that gap for people who aren't in a position to commute or travel by bike/ebike, but all of our infrastructure is currently built around cars, and even in a distant future there will be a need for cars in addition to bikes and trains, we just have way too many of them
I don't mean to come across as rude, but your response to my comment honestly does really confuse me.
Be respectful of those you share the road with. That means driving in a way that's safe for cyclists. That means letting cars go by (when safe to do so) when you're cycling since they travel much faster than you. And definitely stop at train tracks so that trains can go by.
Tracked vehicles tend to have priority against all other methods of transport on land. They're just as incompatible with pedestrians and bikes as with busses, lorries and cars.
It's far easier, cheaper, faster, and more space efficient to build a pedestrian or bike over/underpass than one for cars. A pedestrian overbridge is usually a community project with city involvement, a car overbridge is at the very least a city/country project potentially with state or federal funding.
If my vehicle had the ability to change its width when I needed to, I'd agree with you, but my car does not have that option, the two bikes do, it wouldn't take much effort for one to slide behind the other to let the vehicle behind pass, it's a give and take with society, I'll actively make sure to keep you safe from my vehicle, while bikes should actively try to allow larger or faster vehicles to pass safely instead of putting themselves at risk over something that takes no effort to do.
As someone who cycles on the road, I don't trust you. Not in the slightest. Far too many close calls with cars trying to "sneak" by me because "oh I'm sure there's plenty of room to the right" even in a bike-oriented city. I ride alone the vast majority of the time but having someone ride beside would actually make me feel safer because it means you actually have to perform a legal overtake which involves moving into the passing lane. Also, drivers are distracted all the time and I absolutely do not trust that every driver will actually notice a bike that's off to their side when drivers are prone to straight up miss traffic lights that are right in front of their eyeline.
Ohh and I don't trust the bikes I see riding around, the amount of people on bikes who have crossed In front of me while I'm driving the speed limit while never once looking behind them, causing me to have to slam my brakes on because I don't want to hit someone on a bike.
Both sides of this argument need to show respect to each other on the road, it's not a bikes are the problem or cars are the problem, people are the problem.
Like I said I actively try to ensure you guys are safe on the road when I pass you or see you coming up in front.
Are you really arguing that passing two bikes is the same maneuver as passing one? That second bike isn't going to like it.
How so?
Passing two bikes requires moving over more. If you pass two bikes with the same manoeuvre you use for passing one with enough space, you'll be far too close to the outer bike.
If those cyclists were blocking an ambulance or transit which even take up more room, those cyclists are the biggest assholes on the planet. Size really isn’t the best argument here.
Operative word here being "were".
There is no ambulance in this picture, nor do you know if the bikers are "blocking up the road".
Do you always make up stories about barking up imaginary trees in a fantasy forest?
In my made up story the bikes are doing 40 in a 25 so the car has nothing to complain about anyway.
Ambulance and transit are both very different arguments from a single car.
Both the bikes and the car are supposed to make room for the ambulance.
Regulation about right of way for buses probably changes a lot between jurisdictions, so I don't really have anything to say about that.
Not at all if the argument is size alone or just spouting emissions. It’s a dumb cartoon to pair with the title.
If the argument is size alone then there's no concept of transit or ambulance or priorities.
It's ridiculous to try to make a case against bikes by bringing up an imaginary emergency, but then taking that scenario away.
It’s simple. Replace that car with a fire truck. The cyclists look like the biggest asshole regardless of size of vehicle.
Look, if we're inventing hypothetical scenarios, imagine there was a fire truck behind the car. Now the car drivers are clearly the bigger assholes.
cars pull over as that’s part of the drivers training. You get fined also and that’s part of the course. The cyclists take no training so if the picture were accurate, that car would have pulled over two blocks ago and the cyclists would still be blocking the fire truck. Oh and the warehouse will be burnt down killing all the workers on less than minimum wage all just cuz two cyclists felt entitled to be spiteful assholes.
Bro do you think as soon as someone gets on a bicycle they forget what sirens mean? Do you honestly think that everyone on a bike with an ambulance behind them would just be dumbfounded and confused as to what it wants? And all of a sudden they're entitled spiteful assholes as well?
Do you realize it's people on those bicycles, not goblins?
Can you even imagine someone on a bike going "Nope! This is my lane! I have rights! Thou shall not pass!" while a fucking fire truck goes BRAAAAAAAAAH at +100 dB behind them? 😂
What ever it is you're taking, you need to either take more or less of it. And you should see a mental health expert rather soon. Also, please do the world a favour and stay away from vehicles of any kind.
You know what, how about we execute all cyclists immediately to prevent this scenario from happening in the future.
I don't think it's a warehouse, it's an underprivileged children's hospital cancer ward. Also the doctors in the ward are the only doctors in the region, meaning those two bike riders committed genocide
Your mental gymnastics is incredible! I have seen hundreds of YouTube videos with cars blocking Ambulances but I am yet to see a cyclist blocking one. My real life experience is also consistent with this.
Exhibit A: https://youtube.com/shorts/WfqEpJVTuXM?si=PrDIhu1v2yODJyCW
Exhibit B: https://youtube.com/shorts/pp6Szqqt6lM?si=lgCNakcBflEmnBDa
Well you get the idea.
So, you realize that the expected action from everyone on the road almost everywhere, regardless of the type of vehicle you're using, is to pull to the side and stop as soon as you hear sirens specifically to prevent people from blocking emergency vehicles right? And since bikes are smaller and more nimble, they can do that much more effectively than a car.
Regardless, real world data shows that there are far more cases of cars blocking emergency vehicles than bikes, so you're demonizing the wrong mode of transport on behalf of the ambulances here.