I mostly ride to work across the CBD in my city (Perth, Western Australia).
Three times I have been knocked off my bike by cars, with many more near misses. Luckily the worst outcome was one day off work and a couple of weeks off the bike.
Perth has a car culture and urban sprawl similar in some ways to Los Angeles. Most people drive to work if they can.
The majority of cars on the road during peak hour have only the driver inside (ie single occupant). Traffic congestion on the major arteries is a problem.
Encouraging more people to ride bikes to work is one way to lessen traffic and parking problems. It also reduces environmental impact and as the article states - has health benefits. The state government here also encourages cycling and other car alternatives for commuting for these reasons.
My regular year-round cycle commuting has inspired a some of my colleagues to try it over driving and/or public transport (note this is not through any pro-active evangelizing on my behalf). A few of them have converted to semi-regular cycle commuters. Other colleagues who can't convert to cycle commuting due to distance, time or family constraints have been inspired to restart recreational cycling.
So while I am painfully aware of the risks of cycle commuting I also believe that leading by example is a powerful thing.
The more cyclists on the road, the more accustomed car drivers become to their presence which should lead to safer driving behaviors.
However, if no one is willing to take the risk of cycling on the road, how will it ever get wider adoption and acceptance?
People who get on the road go through govt regulated test to certify them to be capable of using the road and know what are the rules they are supposed to follow.
I've seen people who have never driving a vehicle buy a bike from walmart and ride next to 18 wheelers on the road.
That to me is insanity , why are people supporting this?
I see motorists conflate irresponsible cyclists with all cyclists all the time and this argument(? if it is one, I'm not sure what the argument is) doesn't hold any water.
Also, The next time you are on the road take a look around you and note how many drivers are distracted by their mobile devices. Just because the motorist has gone through government regulated tests doesn't mean that they are obeying the law.
Three times I have been knocked off my bike by cars, with many more near misses. Luckily the worst outcome was one day off work and a couple of weeks off the bike.
Perth has a car culture and urban sprawl similar in some ways to Los Angeles. Most people drive to work if they can. The majority of cars on the road during peak hour have only the driver inside (ie single occupant). Traffic congestion on the major arteries is a problem.
Encouraging more people to ride bikes to work is one way to lessen traffic and parking problems. It also reduces environmental impact and as the article states - has health benefits. The state government here also encourages cycling and other car alternatives for commuting for these reasons.
My regular year-round cycle commuting has inspired a some of my colleagues to try it over driving and/or public transport (note this is not through any pro-active evangelizing on my behalf). A few of them have converted to semi-regular cycle commuters. Other colleagues who can't convert to cycle commuting due to distance, time or family constraints have been inspired to restart recreational cycling.
So while I am painfully aware of the risks of cycle commuting I also believe that leading by example is a powerful thing.
The more cyclists on the road, the more accustomed car drivers become to their presence which should lead to safer driving behaviors.
However, if no one is willing to take the risk of cycling on the road, how will it ever get wider adoption and acceptance?