Agreed. There are totally appropriate times to take the lane and I do it to but not as a matter of default.
Related to the other portion. Generally the bicycle advocacy groups lobby for the political agenda of the left. Climate change, electric cars, less cars on road through public transport, smaller vehicles, increased emission standards, increased fuel taxes, etc. This can lead to people in cars associating every cyclist with this agenda unfortunately. So the ire related to impacts of this agenda gets targeted at cyclists along with the other issues we cause by blocking traffic when not necessary. They are basically pissing everyone off by the way some people and groups ride and then they are doubly pissing off people on the right by demonizing their lifestyle and vehicles.
Two things here: I think it is horrific that people are afforded consideration and care depending on their inferred political views. This just doesnât happen in other industrialized countries. You focussed quite a bit on not making other people mad. If the mere fact that drivers see what they think is a liberal and that makes them mad, the problem does not lie with whether cyclists ride in the center of the lane or as far to the right of the lane as possible.
Iâd also say that this inference is just plain wrong in many places, and mixes different types of cyclists. In my experience, urbanists prefer bikes, because they are cheaper and much more convenient. Where I live, a car would be expensive to keep, not least because Iâd need to rent a parking place.
If you look to other countries, being a cyclists is statistically much less dependent on your political leanings. In the Netherlands, most people are cyclists, i. e. most drivers are also cyclists. Iâd argue that has much more impact than their political opinions. It is the same reason the opinion on women working has shifted: it wasnât some great conspiracy of âthe Leftâ, but just that most families canât make ends meet (comfortably) unless both parents are working full time.
Although Iâd add that for many drivers, what matters is the perception that it is unnecessary. They donât care if there are potholes or tire-slicing stones on the road where cyclists are âsupposed toâ ride.
Sorry, but I think this reaction is highly inappropriate and wrong-headed, and smells of perversely enjoying being aggrieved. Pestering a cyclist on the road restores a feeling of superiority. A cyclist on the road is not going to take their SUV away. Nor are they preventing them from driving to the grocery store, whether it is 2 miles away or 25 miles away. They donât even know that person.
At the end of the day, itâs a question of legitimacy: There are a lot of people who think cycling on the road is illegitimateâperiodâbecause itâs seen to adversely affect the only legitimate road users: drivers. But the right to ride a bicycle on the road actually supersedes the right to drive on the road. The former is a right (the right to travel), while the latter is a privilege. The state can revoke your driving privileges, but it canât revoke your right to walk or bicycle, or ride a buggy into town if thatâs your thing.
How it Started: âCourtesy knows no political affiliation.â
How It Ended: âYou lefty tree-huggers get exactly whatâs coming to you.â
If there is a bias towards the left end of the spectrum for folks who ride on the road a lot, I suspect itâs because amplifying and exploiting in-group/out-group tensions is 99% of the politics of the right these days.
I think youâre completely missing the point here. As per usual on the internet, it seems you are assuming I feel this way and am advocating for harassing cyclists. I am, of course, not doing that. Rather Iâm trying to provide another point of view as to why there is animosity toward cyclists. Doesnât make them right, but if we understand some of the reasons we can be more cognizant of how we can reduce the anger.
You just underscored my point. The only reason those issues affect everyone is through government mandates. You think a person that lives 150 miles from a big city, has 40 acres, is retired, is âclearly affectedâ by public transport, electric cars, smaller vehicles, increased emission standards, increased fuel taxes, except by government mandates? Or additional equipment added to their tractors and trucks that make them less reliable, more expensive, and harder to maintain? It doesnât clearly affect them.
The overall point here is that I donât believe bicycle groups should not be advocating for these obviously political policies.
You know what? I donât like government over reach, but I would much rather see them advocating for requiring cell phone screens to not work as soon as you go over 10 mph⌠Apple and Google can very easily do this and all theyâve done is half a⌠measures that donât do anything to get you from using your phone in your vehicle. This is a FAR better use of their advocacy then trying to force people to commute by bicycle when they donât want to.
Hereâs just a few ideas of advocacy instead:
Legislate phone screens to not work in vehicles over 10 mph
Car/Bike integration. Beacons between the two to notify drivers of their presence (Varia, etc.)
Newspapers: Car accident = this statement in news story, âDrugs or alcohol are/are not expected to be involvedâ. Why do they not include cell phone usage in that quote? Everyone knows damn well that a HUGE portion of accidents, especially rear end and drifting into other lanes or off the road are caused by people looking at phones.
Legal: Way too light of sentences or none at all for people hitting cyclists by not paying attention to the road.
they are bicycle related issuesâŚyou choose to view them as political issues. Their job is to advocate for improved access to cycling and infrastructure. A lot of that involves commuting, micromobility, etc.
I donât think I misunderstand you, I just disagree with your framing.
Why shouldnât these groups advocate for better infrastructure and more visibility of cycling-related issues?
The point is you are conflating cycling groups with cyclists. It seems to me the same mechanism is at work here that you have described in others and needlessly endangers cyclists.
Of course they are affected by that, everybody is affected by the infrastructure. Big infrastructure like major roads and the like have always been paid for by the government, and revisiting how to allocate money has huge impact. Even though it is not viewed this way, but building roads rather than funding train lines is effectively a subsidy of the car industry. You can be for or against that, but I think it is important to be cognizant of that fact. Ditto for high-speed internet in rural areas, it doesnât make financial sense, yet is (in my opinion at least) important for the state the ensure that every citizen has fast internet access.
Nobody is forcing anyone, it is simple economics. Iâm commuting by bike, because it is way quicker and way, way cheaper. A good, new bike for my costs a tiny fraction of what a car costs. Just paying for a parking spot for about a year would pay for a new bike (the duration depends on how nice I want my bike to be). Once you add taxes and car insurance, I can get a really nice commuter. And thatâs for just one year, ignoring the cost of the car when it is standing still doing nothing, needing no repairs.
The argument for infrastructure is that people use what is there, i. e. usually demand follows infrastructure. For example, in the US there is a connotation of public transportation with either really, really huge cities or being poor. In Europe and Japan, public transportation is used by everyone, poor people and literal millionaires alike. You use public transportation because it is more convenient and people do not feel âpunishedâ or âforcedâ in any way. In the Netherlands, you have safe bike parking for literally thousands of bikes in the fraction of the space youâd need for an equivalent number of cars. People then use bikes, because it is the most convenient option.
Iâm waiting for Bidenâs Cesar Chavez bust to start calling the shots and setup a new Wet Line at the border. The placement behind the Resolute Desk will allow for extraordinary voice modulation from the statue.
I literally was in a meeting with City officials who were discussing narrowing roads and closing lanes to make it uncomfortable and longer to drive to FORCE people to use public transportation or bicycle. This was not just one meeting, but many, where I heard these EXACT words. In areas of the US they are absolutely doing this.
I think we all have better things to do than continue to argue this but ultimately what Iâm trying to tell you is that not every cyclist is represented by bicycle groups advocating for these policies. And by doing so they are bringing additional ire to people just out there trying to ride there bike because of it. No group is monolithic including people in cars or on bikes.
Far be it from me to say this is a misrepresentation, since I donât know which city you heard this in, but I live in DC, follow bike advocacy pretty closely, and thereâs not a single bike advocate in my city advocating ânarrowingâŚlanes to make itâŚlonger to drive [and] force people to use public transportation or bicycle.â Itâs a question of allocation of scarce resourcesâin most American cities, every square inch of public space is given over to cars. Whether thatâs preferable for the people who live in those cities and towns is as much (or more) a question of self-determination as who gets to drive what and where.
To paraphrase an old saying, âWhen youâre used to getting 100% of what you want, getting 99% of what you want feels like oppression.â
To be honest, I am an American living in Europe and I would never think of wearing an American flag jersey because I feel it would specifically make me a target. Which is sad because many of my other cycling friends in our club wear their national colors often. And that is after living abroad for 17 years.
Iâm still confused why you chose to go down this tangent. Itâs alright if you donât agree with every cycling advocate. I still donât see why anger directed cycling advocacy groups justifies anger against and endangerment of cyclists you meet on the road?
I donât know what this person has or has not said.
On substance, Having to close or narrow car lanes is one of the few ways to carve out space for safe cycling lanes. Another one is nixing parking spots. Thatâs because inside cities the total width of the road is fixed.
However, even closing a lane could relieve congestion, because people on bikes take up way less space on the road than if they were in cars.
I think this is the default in many places, including Germany and Japan. Bicycle traffic in Germany is exploding and because infrastructure isnât expanded at the same rate, this causes many problems. E-bikes and Covid have accelerated that trend, because ebikes essentially extend the range of bikes (because they are willing to travel longer distances and average people are not discouraged by small hills). Japan has similar problems, where I live there are few dedicated bike lanes and most of them are not safe with e. g. a trailer. Politicians in both countries see their countriesâs prosperity in their car industries, and they see that if people move away from cars that costs tens of thousands to bikes that cost a few hundred to a few thousand at most will be a net loss to the GDP.
I think this is correct, although at least in my experience, I donât think the issue is that you are unsafe. It is more that people will tell you how unhappy they are with the US. Being an expat myself (a German living in Japan), I wouldnât want to hear all the time how unpopular my country is either. Worldwide the image of America has been on a continuous decline since the invasion of Afghanistan and especially Iraq. The fact that the criticisms voiced by many Europeans and Americans has turned out to be largely correct means you will have to put up with a, well, some attitude at times. Although, of course, not all criticism is fair. The last 4 years under President Trump certainly did not help matters to say the least.(*)
I donât know where you live, but I think cultural difference can also play a role. In e. g. the Netherlands and Germany people tend to be much more direct (than what you are used to), and this might add to the aggravation.
(*) There are also cases where things are reversed. AFAIK President Bush Sr. is not well-regarded by Americans, because they mostly judge him by his domestic policies (e. g. him breaking his promise not to raise taxes). In many European countries like Germany and Poland, he is loved for his role in prying the Iron Curtain open and the peaceful reunification of Europe.
