Yes, because that cyclist is SUCH a hazard to you in your car. - Edit 1
Before modification by LadyLorraine at 29/06/2010 01:15:34 AM
Your health is very much in danger.
Snarky comment aside, I think you're under a bit of delusion if you think cities are going to just magically build bike paths (it'll be SAFER!!), particularly since bike paths really don't make things much safer (They're right where a bike should be riding ANYWAYS).
If you can't ride on the road, don't. I totally agree that a cyclist IS safer off the road (although the pedestrians they're riding with aren't!), but there are significant problems with riding on the sidewalk as well. I can't tell you how many times I've honked my horn as I approached a pedestrian walking or jogging, and shocked the hell out of them as I politely went on the grass to go around them...because they had their iPods in their ears blaring and couldn't hear me. A few months ago, I was riding home from classes in the dark and I almost hit someone because my town isn't well lit, and they were a black person in dark clothing. On the Road, we're too slow. On the sidewalk, we're too fast.
What would you have a cyclist do, particularly in towns where they are not allowed to ride on the sidewalk? Simply not ride their bikes anywhere at all? How will that encourage legislatures to fund improved infrastructure?
Bike lanes would be nice, but that is not the reality that people have to work with most of the time. And even with bike lanes, cars would still need to pay attention and respect the biker's space, which remains as a central issue to cyclists in general.
So pretty much, with your opinions of cycling, the only GOOD option is to simply not cycle at all and either walk (Extending your travel time by at least double, making it implausible for people living over a certain distance from their destinations), or pay for a car/bus. Oh, and I'd like to also point out, that there are many small towns and cities that don't have public transport. I know my college town doesn't.
So what would you have them do?
Snarky comment aside, I think you're under a bit of delusion if you think cities are going to just magically build bike paths (it'll be SAFER!!), particularly since bike paths really don't make things much safer (They're right where a bike should be riding ANYWAYS).
If you can't ride on the road, don't. I totally agree that a cyclist IS safer off the road (although the pedestrians they're riding with aren't!), but there are significant problems with riding on the sidewalk as well. I can't tell you how many times I've honked my horn as I approached a pedestrian walking or jogging, and shocked the hell out of them as I politely went on the grass to go around them...because they had their iPods in their ears blaring and couldn't hear me. A few months ago, I was riding home from classes in the dark and I almost hit someone because my town isn't well lit, and they were a black person in dark clothing. On the Road, we're too slow. On the sidewalk, we're too fast.
What would you have a cyclist do, particularly in towns where they are not allowed to ride on the sidewalk? Simply not ride their bikes anywhere at all? How will that encourage legislatures to fund improved infrastructure?
Bike lanes would be nice, but that is not the reality that people have to work with most of the time. And even with bike lanes, cars would still need to pay attention and respect the biker's space, which remains as a central issue to cyclists in general.
So pretty much, with your opinions of cycling, the only GOOD option is to simply not cycle at all and either walk (Extending your travel time by at least double, making it implausible for people living over a certain distance from their destinations), or pay for a car/bus. Oh, and I'd like to also point out, that there are many small towns and cities that don't have public transport. I know my college town doesn't.
So what would you have them do?