How can you stand the lopsided car infrastructure?

[Dirty Hipsters]

^This. I don't care what the laws/rules are, cyclists should use sidewalks just like pedestrians for their own safety. We have quite a few cycling groups around here; it's not uncommon to see 20-30 of them bunched up using the road with cars doing 40-50mph whizzing right by them. Not sure if you've seen cycling accidents before, but when you've got that many people riding that close together, all it takes is one crack in the road, gravel, or pot hole to turn one person's mistake into a substantial wreck for a dozen others. Now compound that with the chance a car being right there at the wrong time, several people could be injured if not killed in a split second. I always get as far away as the lanes of the road allow and I slow way down when driving near those groups.

MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T ALL BE RIDING TOGETHER IN A BIG CLUMP THEN!

I fucking hate dealing with cyclists. They don't follow the rules of the road, they often run lights and stop signs. When they do stop it takes them forever to get going so they're blocking traffic. When they ride in a massive clump they tend to take up additional lanes instead of stretching out single file in the bicycle lane the way they're meant to. Their existence slows down traffic during rush hour and the reason they're constantly getting injured by cars is because they're not riding defensively and think that they have the right of way in all situations. Bicycles should have to yield to everyone. They aren't a real mode of transportation, they're a hobby.

Also fuck cyclists on sidewalks. I had one run into me from behind when I was a kid, and ended up falling and breaking both my wrists. The fucker didn't even apologize.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I think most police understand the many times higher damage cars can do than cyclists, which is why they will so often ignore them for breaking the same laws that they ticket drivers for or let them go with a warning.

No, it's because it's difficult to actually ticket cyclists. They don't need to have any kind of license. They don't have something like a license plate to identify them. They aren't required to be carrying ID. How do you ticket someone when you don't know their name, address, or any other identifying information?

 

[Xprimentyl]

MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T ALL BE RIDING TOGETHER IN A BIG CLUMP THEN!

I fucking hate dealing with cyclists. They don't follow the rules of the road, they often run lights and stop signs. When they do stop it takes them forever to get going so they're blocking traffic. When they ride in a massive clump they tend to take up additional lanes instead of stretching out single file in the bicycle lane the way they're meant to. Their existence slows down traffic during rush hour and the reason they're constantly getting injured by cars is because they're not riding defensively and think that they have the right of way in all situations. Bicycles should have to yield to everyone. They aren't a real mode of transportation, they're a hobby.

Yeesh, ouch. But you ain't wrong...

No, it's because it's difficult to actually ticket cyclists. They don't need to have any kind of license. They don't have something like a license plate to identify them. They aren't required to be carrying ID. How do you ticket someone when you don't know their name, address, or any other identifying information?

Again, not wrong.

@Ezekiel, I can understand your personal sentiments on the issue, but the fact is, with +300M people running around, an infrastructure based on the convenience of the people being able to commute via bicycle simply isn't practical.

And while you're faulting the infrastructure for being so bicycle unfriendly, well, it wasn't made for bikes; we've simply laws that allow bikes to use it.

I think America was ruined by obsessive car infrastructure and I don't want to be a part of it.

Yet you want to use said infrastructure, just with your bike, and it's then the infrastructure to blame? Scuba divers who get bitten by sharks can't blame the sharks. The sharks are where they're supposed to be; the divers are where they choose to be...

 

[Ezekiel]

Oh my god... That argument is like the old, "You say you don't like the health car system, yet you use it." *Turns head with chin high.* Really low effort. I cycle because it keeps me in shape and doesn't swallow up a third of my income. But the situation absolutely is shit for everyone.

 

[Ezekiel]

Or, "You say you don't like pollution, yet you breathe air." How am I supposed to take you seriously now.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

They aren't a real mode of transportation, they're a hobby.

Haha, this had me rolling

 

[Ezekiel]

Also, after reading the post again now that I'm home I realize that you did not even grasp what I was talking about. Bicycle infrastructure is only one part in balancing the mess. Enjoy waiting in traffic. Phoenixmgs, no shit people aren't using the gravel-covered bicycle lanes if everything is spread apart (zoned off) for cars and the cyclist has to share the road with high speed vehicles and most businesses don't even have bike racks.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Oh my god... That argument is like the old, "You say you don't like the health car system, yet you use it." *Turns head with chin high.* Really low effort. I cycle because it keeps me in shape and doesn't swallow up a third of my income. But the situation absolutely is shit for everyone.

Or, "You say you don't like pollution, yet you breathe air." How am I supposed to take you seriously now.

You can take me however you like, but the fact remains you titled this thread "How Can You Stand The Lopsided Car Infrastructure?" when the fact is, most of us "stand" it just fine because bikes aren't our primary mode of transportation, and we're not flipping over handlebars every other day to notice the ostensibly substantial problem you've identified. The "infrastructure" you're complaining about was never intended for "equal" use for bikes. Bikes are accommodated, but no one is going out and building 4-lane highways for cyclists who want to stay in shape, flip the system the bird, and ignore the fact that a 53-foot trailer likely DROVE their bikes to the location they bought them from. Oh, maybe you had it delivered; pretty sure the delivery DRIVER brought it to your house.

Your comparing my sharks and divers analogy to the healthcare system or pollution is straw-manning at least, or a false equivalence at best. Everyone needs health care. Everyone needs to breathe. No one NEEDS to cycle. Cycling is what you've chosen, then you complain that the very infrastructure of our massive and bustling society isn't more accommodating of your choice. I was sympathetic towards you, but also acknowledging that the situation (your wreck) was one you put yourself in; cycling with traffic is dangerous, and you know this now. But if your response is "everything should change to suit me," well, get in line; I can think of 100% of people who feel the same way in every other aspect of life. If each of us wants to start a new thread about our specific issues, Off Topic might rival Current Events for vitriolic Escapist Forums discussion.

 

[Ezekiel]

No, you don't stand it just fine, you put up with traffic, spend more time commuting and pay more for gasoline because of how zoning is split and because of the lack of density in properties owed to cars.



Induced demand.^ If you make driving the only viable form of transportation, everybody will drive, and it will choke the system.

I can complain about the infrastructure and still choose to cycle. That doesn't negate what I'm talking about in any way or mean that I have to be fine with it. My analogies are totally appropriate. Even if I did not cycle, I would still be hampered by this choked system in some way. It's why the roads are so broken and full of holes almost everywhere you look. Watched a video by corporate media about the cost of updating all the roads over the next few years. Wish I had saved it, because the estimate was insane, and they approve it just like that, while public transit is always so debated over and always gets stalled or badly reduced from what was envisioned.

I've made this thread on a few forums. Have to quote this user:

"'Rationalist' over-zealous zoning ideals are some of the most dated (as in, has no basis in pre-existing culture therefore falls in the wind like a rootless tree) design principles from that era - The idea that you can compartmentalise functions of society, 'the housing buildings in this quadrants, factories in that, commerce in this, etc.', is the type of ignorant and egoistical attitude which has also attempted to institute carte blanche in every other discipline. Yes, history and the forms it takes in our world are totally arbitrary relative to the human condition, make everything a perfect Euclidian grid and section it all off! It's like the populations of protestant countries were infested with a psychic parasite which inhibits their ability to see reality as anything other than a 'thing' they 'participate' in, and thus can shape accordingly to their will with no respect to its present state, when the inverse is true."

 

[Ezekiel]

Lawyer informed me they have to drop my case because their private investigator could not find an insurance policy for the nonresponsive driver. Since they could not deliver, they did not charge me for their services. I feel misled about the American way of life. The land where everyone is supposed to sue.



Can still try a civil case, but that's probably more expensive up front.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Yet you want to use said infrastructure, just with your bike, and it's then the infrastructure to blame? Scuba divers who get bitten by sharks can't blame the sharks. The sharks are where they're supposed to be; the divers are where they choose to be...

(Yes I am aware this is not 100% equivalent to what you are saying, but the argument remains the same and does not dismiss Ezekiel's concerns and criticisms)

 

[Satinavian]

The "infrastructure" you're complaining about was never intended for "equal" use for bikes

Yes, but that is the problem.

And the solution would be to replace the infrastructure with a cyclist friendly one. That means speed limits, cutting lanes from car use maybe even more no-car-zones.

No one NEEDS to cycle

And no one NEEDs to use a car.

Private car traffic is a main driver of climate change. We should take far more steps to encourage people to give up cars and use bikes as primary mode of transport.

 

[Bedinsis]

Private car traffic is a main driver of climate change. We should take far more steps to encourage people to give up cars and use bikes as primary mode of transport.

That or public transport; biking everywhere is not realistic for all routes.

 

[Ezekiel]

That or public transport; biking everywhere is not realistic for all routes.

Or for all people. Which reminds me, we haven't even talked about how this lopsided car infrastructure takes mobility from the elderly and physically disabled (unless I missed somebody's post).

 

[Gordon_4]

Yes, but that is the problem.

And the solution would be to replace the infrastructure with a cyclist friendly one. That means speed limits, cutting lanes from car use maybe even more no-car-zones.



And no one NEEDs to use a car.

Private car traffic is a main driver of climate change. We should take far more steps to encourage people to give up cars and use bikes as primary mode of transport.

Public transport becomes viable for 90% of people the second it doesn’t add an hour to each way of a commute. Or necessitate needing a party of five to do any kind of decent grocery shop. Or traverse a city in an emergency.

Which sadly is going to be never.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Private car traffic is a main driver of climate change.

No it's not.

 

[Xprimentyl]

No, you don't stand it just fine, you put up with traffic, spend more time commuting and pay more for gasoline because of how zoning is split and because of the lack of density in properties owed to cars.

View attachment 9948

Induced demand.^ If you make driving the only viable form of transportation, everybody will drive, and it will choke the system.

I can complain about the infrastructure and still choose to cycle. That doesn't negate what I'm talking about in any way or mean that I have to be fine with it. My analogies are totally appropriate. Even if I did not cycle, I would still be hampered by this choked system in some way. It's why the roads are so broken and full of holes almost everywhere you look. Watched a video by corporate media about the cost of updating all the roads over the next few years. Wish I had saved it, because the estimate was insane, and they approve it just like that, while public transit is always so debated over and always gets stalled or badly reduced from what was envisioned.

I've made this thread on a few forums. Have to quote this user:

"'Rationalist' over-zealous zoning ideals are some of the most dated (as in, has no basis in pre-existing culture therefore falls in the wind like a rootless tree) design principles from that era - The idea that you can compartmentalise functions of society, 'the housing buildings in this quadrants, factories in that, commerce in this, etc.', is the type of ignorant and egoistical attitude which has also attempted to institute carte blanche in every other discipline. Yes, history and the forms it takes in our world are totally arbitrary relative to the human condition, make everything a perfect Euclidian grid and section it all off! It's like the populations of protestant countries were infested with a psychic parasite which inhibits their ability to see reality as anything other than a 'thing' they 'participate' in, and thus can shape accordingly to their will with no respect to its present state, when the inverse is true."

Correct, I put up with traffic as a fellow driving commuter that understands the rules of the road and that I am a part of the system as imperfect as it is, but not one corrected by opting for two wheels over four. So I'll clarify myself and say when I say we "stand it just fine," I mean we accept automobile traffic comes with the inevitable congestion and subsequent inconvenience, and that inconvenience is further hampered when we drivers get stuck behind someone on a bike risking their life and our insurance premiums doing a fraction of the posted speed limit with a helmet and spandex shorts as their sole protection from a potentially high-speed impact with a multi-ton vehicle. I'll reiterate that we don't expect to be the only vehicle on the road, for everyone to observe us as the most important thing on the road, or for everything to be smooth sailing because our chosen choice of commute is the most economically convenient.

Your analogies are not appropriate. A broken health care system and pollution? If you and I went to the doctor with the same medical insurance plan, and I needed insulin, and you wanted a nose job, I'd argue that one of us is there by necessity and the other by choice. Does that dismiss how good the insurance coverage is, or does that call in to question our individual use of it? If I have asthma, and you're a smoker, pollution is a problem for us both, but one of us has chosen our desire to do a thing over what's best for ourselves; pollution helps neither, but affects both.

You choose to cycle. Fine. The world choses to continue to spin despite you. Reality.

(Yes I am aware this is not 100% equivalent to what you are saying, but the argument remains the same and does not dismiss Ezekiel's concerns and criticisms)

So what exactly is your point if you took the time to post this cartoon while acknowledging that it's not pertinent to the conversation? I didn't say his criticisms don't have merit, simply that they are self-imposed. Not saying he should just drive everywhere, simply that he shouldn't be disappointed that the world hasn't conformed to what most conveniently accommodates him.

Yes, but that is the problem.

And the solution would be to replace the infrastructure with a cyclist friendly one. That means speed limits, cutting lanes from car use maybe even more no-car-zones.

"Replace the infrastructure," you're hilarious. "Maybe even more no-car-zones," surprise, they're called sidewalks.

And no one NEEDs to use a car.

Private car traffic is a main driver of climate change. We should take far more steps to encourage people to give up cars and use bikes as primary mode of transport.

You must live an ideal life, everything you might ever possibly need only a bike ride away? Not sure what country you live in, but quite a bit is out of practical reach if you're not using a road, and public transport (much less a fucking bike) can't get you there. But if your point was simply to provide a contrarian argument, congrats, you did it! Made no practical sense, but you did it!

 

[Ezekiel]

He's right, though, about (most) people not NEEDING to use a car. Most commutes aren't that far. It's a choice, as hard as it might be for you to see as a resident of fricking Texas, yet you act like it should be the default for everyone, just like the automakers who bought up public rail lines and scrapped them so that more people would be forced to drive. It's not self-imposed, it's imposed upon me, and you don't get the point of the cartoon.

 

[Satinavian]

"Replace the infrastructure," you're hilarious. "Maybe even more no-car-zones," surprise, they're called sidewalks.

What is hilarious about replacing infrastructure ? There are many cities building back car infrastructure and replacing it with bike lanes and expanded sidewalks (and greenery).

As for "no-car-zones i mean" i mean exactly that : car-free inner cities. Which are on the rise in Europe at least.

You must live an ideal life, everything you might ever possibly need only a bike ride away? Not sure what country you live in, but quite a bit is out of practical reach if you're not using a road, and public transport (much less a fucking bike) can't get you there. But if your point was simply to provide a contrarian argument, congrats, you did it! Made no practical sense, but you did it!

I have never owned a car in my live. Mostly out of environmental concerns. And indeed i can get basically everywhere without one.

As for public transport : Did you know you often can combine it ? At least here all the local trains except the high-speed ones make accommodations for people taking their bikes with them. As do trams (but not buses). Additionally there are various rent-a-bike stations at all mayor train stations. Of course most people just use the bike between home and train station which is why our main train station has more parking space for bikes than for cars.


Now we don't have your strange american suburbia and don't want it, thank you very much. But that is a choice as well. You (as society) are not forced to build only single family homes with large gardens in a ways that basically nothing is in walking distance and so poory populated that public transport is inefficient. And you (as individual) are not forced to live there.

 

[Bedinsis]

As an experiment, I got on Google maps to set up a bike route in Plano, Texas, just to get a feel of what the commute for a biker is. My takeaway is that you have some narrow sidewalks, as if made to only allow either pedestrians or bikers simultaneously. I don't know if the intention for bikers is that they are meant to travel on the roads themselves or the sidewalks, but I understand if the former causes frustration among car drivers since they have to share traffic with bikers, and I understand if the latter causes people to not want to bike, that looks rather dangerous for pedestrians. On another part of the route the space was even more cramped.

I compared that to a route in my hometown, and the thing I noted was that most of the time bikers and pedestrians shared spaces and there actually was room for both of them and explicit lines on the ground to separate the mode of transportation. And when cars and bikes shared roads it was explicitly marked how bikers were supposed to behave.

This is a minor experiment, but it looks like the sidewalk could be made wider to accommodate bikers.