813
Guess which one of these vehicles has a motor that prevents it from going too fast for the safety of others? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
128 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The wrong side thing I'd say is probably because many bikes (even ebikes!) don't come with a mirror. So the rider lacks awareness if they aren't doing regular head-turns.

Similar lacking bell, which can be used to announce your presence to other people who might be around the corner (when you wouldn't want to use a loud horn).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I’d guess it’s more likely because they don’t want to have to cross the street (twice!) because their destination is on the same side of the street. They judge (maybe correctly) that it’s safer to ride the wrong way for a short distance than to cross four lanes twice.

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

    Maybe, but that's circumstantial.

    What I said is just... fear of getting ran over because by the time you notice* the sound of the motor of an extremely heavy and fast vehicle approaching you it's probably right behind you. This logic also assumes you're getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn't a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic though. Either way, not preferred.

    This was my own logic (not that I actually rode very much like that) until I got myself a mirror.

    * also knowing that it's approaching you, not going some other direction

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    The wrong side thing I’d say is probably because many bikes (even ebikes!) don’t come with a mirror.

    So ... you think the absence of a safety device (mirror or bell) turns riding on the wrong side of the road against traffic, around a completely blind corner with no shoulder, with two little children in tow, into a good idea? I don't understand what would make someone think that.

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

    My point is just that there is some reasoning behind it, even if it isn't preferred. As I said in another comment, plus the caveat:

    This logic also assumes you’re getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn’t a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic though. Either way, not preferred.

    I mention safety devices because obviously I think people should have them. There should be free/cheap options (or already on the bike when bought). A mirror should fix the desire to be going the wrong way, but even a bell used (her or you) could've improved the situation either way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    even a bell used (her or you) could’ve improved the situation

    A bell would have been useless had it been a car instead of me on my bike.

    This logic also assumes you’re getting over as much as you can (even totally off the road if it isn’t a ditch) whenever you see oncoming traffic

    Hence why this isn't "logic" at all. There are many situations in which a cyclist riding against traffic has nowhere to go - like almost every road and street in my district, which have no shoulders and often high curbs and dense vegetation. Riding against traffic also happens to be illegal, as bikes are required to obey the same traffic laws as motorized vehicles. Not all laws reflect common sense, but these sure as hell do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent