77
This is Why Cycling is Dangerous in America (i.ytimg.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/bicycles@lemmy.ca
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

The faster you ride, the better you blend in with vehicular traffic. The trouble is, not everyone can ride that fast. Now that I'm old, I appreciate dedicated MUPs and bike lanes because they're better suited to my current abilities than they were 30 to 40 or even 20 years ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    But also, the faster you ride, the more tiring it is, the more stressful it is, and the more severe the consequences when anybody - especially nearby drivers - makes a serious error.

    Cycling doesn't have to be that way. No matter what Forester and other ableists say. If you remove most of the motorists, it can be fun! And proper fun, not the 'I jousted with drivers and survived' type.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well, 40 years ago it wasn't all that tiring because I was a very fit young bike racer, but I get what you mean.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    Maybe, but still more tiring than being able to coast through on a more direct, comfortable and convenient cycleway instead of a motorway limited by sucky truck turning radii and visibility.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sure, but riding among cars will never be the safest option. Good, dedicated separated bike paths ought to be the most comfortable to exercise-oriented riders too, given that they have all the upsides of roads (and then some; no potholes!) with no cars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I'll beg to differ... Stanley Park in Vancouver is an example. Stanley Park Drive is an automobile path but running alongside it is the Seawall, a bike and separated pedestrian path. In many sections the path is too narrow to pass, due to a cliff face. They've improved it somewhat in the last couple years, but I think very fast riders still prefer going on the car path so that they don't have to wait to pass people on rented bikes going slowly trying to simply take in the park.

    I do think fast cyclists should be able to select their risk level and speed, though speed limits should be no more than 40km/h (25mph) to even begin considering a road to be a safe path for cycling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent