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
[–] 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