Vehicular cycling advocates have set cycling back decades in USA, with the result being this thought.
A car or a bicycle travelling at 30% of the speed of traffic introduces a considerable risk. It’s why bike lanes aren’t also sidewalks. But it’s not a reason for vehicular homicide!
I get why getting behind any vehicle moving at 30% of the expected rate of speed is an annoyance, and that annoyance is doubly so when it’s a person just doing recreation.
But what I come back to is that cycling isn’t just recreation. It’s also a legitimate form of transportation for some people who cannot drive (for various reasons) or for those who cannot afford it. It’s also one of the last remaining forms that isn’t privacy-invasive (either by the state or corporations).
People on two wheels should be conscious of holding up traffic, but those on four don’t own the roads. We’re all in this together.
I wonder how many people I get stuck behind on the road that are just driving to the gym, when they could run out their front door instead of on a treadmill
One thing people don’t get is that car people think that the cyclist took his car to ride his bike as a fun activity. Nobody could be doing anything “legitimate” like going to work on a bicycle.
That’s also part of the Vehicular Cycling/Forester problem. Forester, distilled and paraphrased, was a proponent of “serious” cyclists, which included the MAML (Middle-Aged Man in Lycra) on racing bikes and excluded the person picking up groceries on a bike with baskets. Which summs up to “cycling is for recreation”. And visibly, the aggressive cyclists tend towards that MAML image, rather than dad picking up groceries or mom cycling to work.
I mean if everyone involved has concented to forfeiting someone’s life, then I guess there’s no issue. Though I’d prefer to be the shitbox driver in this case
So true! If we didn’t have cycling advocates, we’d definitely have at least 100x more bike infrastructure by now. It’s pretty common that major infrastructure projects get done without advocacy.
Vehicular cycling advocates have set cycling back decades in USA, with the result being this thought.
A car or a bicycle travelling at 30% of the speed of traffic introduces a considerable risk. It’s why bike lanes aren’t also sidewalks. But it’s not a reason for vehicular homicide!
I get why getting behind any vehicle moving at 30% of the expected rate of speed is an annoyance, and that annoyance is doubly so when it’s a person just doing recreation.
But what I come back to is that cycling isn’t just recreation. It’s also a legitimate form of transportation for some people who cannot drive (for various reasons) or for those who cannot afford it. It’s also one of the last remaining forms that isn’t privacy-invasive (either by the state or corporations).
People on two wheels should be conscious of holding up traffic, but those on four don’t own the roads. We’re all in this together.
I wonder how many people I get stuck behind on the road that are just driving to the gym, when they could run out their front door instead of on a treadmill
One thing people don’t get is that car people think that the cyclist took his car to ride his bike as a fun activity. Nobody could be doing anything “legitimate” like going to work on a bicycle.
That’s also part of the Vehicular Cycling/Forester problem. Forester, distilled and paraphrased, was a proponent of “serious” cyclists, which included the MAML (Middle-Aged Man in Lycra) on racing bikes and excluded the person picking up groceries on a bike with baskets. Which summs up to “cycling is for recreation”. And visibly, the aggressive cyclists tend towards that MAML image, rather than dad picking up groceries or mom cycling to work.
I get your point, but more often than not, the car lanes are the only option for cyclists
If you’re driving your 2 ton shitbox in public, then you have to drive knowing that one mistake of yours or someone else’s can and will cost lives
I mean if everyone involved has concented to forfeiting someone’s life, then I guess there’s no issue. Though I’d prefer to be the shitbox driver in this case
What is a vehicular cycle and why would one advocate for it?
Video Essay or Wikipedia
Tl;DW/R: pretending bikes are cars and claiming bike lanes are dangerous.
This is like if women’s MMA didn’t exist so they had to come up with a lot of copium to justify women competing against men.
Removed by mod
The guy who came up with it was a lycra guy.
So true! If we didn’t have cycling advocates, we’d definitely have at least 100x more bike infrastructure by now. It’s pretty common that major infrastructure projects get done without advocacy.
It is important to understand what Vehicular Cycling is and how it has entrenched carbrained infrastructure. https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/28614295