[vaseem]

It can be very difficult for someone to notice a bicycle on 40~55mph roads. Cyclists are definitely taking a risk. I wear Neon cycling shirt and avoid peak time when cycling.

Laws aside, I don't think Cyclists should block lanes esp' during peak traffic time. I actually would like a ban on main roads during rush hours, number of folks change lanes and create very dangerous situations for all.

[yardie]

As a cyclist I hate travelling on the main road. Not only do I feel guilty for slowing traffic but all it takes is one inattentive knucklehead to end my life.

Yet, what choice do I have? Sidewalks are obstacle courses of pedestrians, trashbins, bus stops, sign posts, etc. Bicycle lanes are blocked by taxis/uber/lyft, delivery vans, double parked cars.

[kylec]

Not to be snarky, but have you considered driving or taking a taxi/Uber/Lyft? If you're going to spend a bunch of time on the main road, why not do it in a car?

[vec]

A cheap used car costs a couple thousand dollars up front, plus license, insurance, maintenance, gas. Plus even cheap parking rental in a city can run to hundreds of dollars a month.

Taxi/Uber/Lyft is, what, $5-15 per one-way trip? That's between $10 and $50 per day to commute. And that's before errands, weekend activities, and unexpected emergencies.

My spouse and I have a six-figure household income and I'd have a hard time finding an extra ~$10k/yr for transportation costs. It would be a complete nonstarter on minimum wage. Snarky or no, "be rich enough you don't have to worry about it" is a really shitty piece of "advice".

[yardie]

Because as a citizen I'm entitled to use the road as well. The city decided that cars and bikes can share the lane so that is what I will do.

Also, in my case, it takes the same amount of time to travel by bike as a car and costs a whole lot less.

[kylec]

If you have weighted the costs of driving vs the increased injury and fatality rate of cycling and have concluded that cycling is be better option for you, then that totally makes sense.

[Filligree]

Riding on the sidewalk probably isn't even legal; you might hit a pedestrian.

I know. I do it too, though I keep my speed down to a brisk walking pace unless I'm in an area where I know it's safe to speed up. Laws are laws, though... At least here in Dublin the cars are mostly good about keeping away, even if there aren't many bike trails.

[csinchok]

This seems like you're viewing cycling as a hobby, where many people (including myself) use it as a sole means of transportation.

There are many cases where the safest way to ride is for a cyclist to take an entire lane. Note that in many states (including mine), this is absolutely legal and recommended. But of course, there are many motorists who don't know this, and get very angry (https://ashevilleonbikes.com/asheville-cyclist-punched-face-...).

[_jal]

> I actually would like a ban on main roads during rush hours

Agreed. The sooner we get cars off the road the better, and... Oh, not what you meant?

I like the lane-segregation San Francisco that is (slowly) rolling out, and I understand other cities mostly in Europe already have (haven't personally been to the right city lately). A particularly dangerous corner near me has gotten far better because of it, and it seems to work well, at least so far - the intersection was averaging about a death a year, and while it is still too soon, nothing now. A side effect is that the sidewalks are more pleasant, too - the bikers, then a line of parking, then traffic just feels much more pleasant.

Drivers don't technically lose any roadway, but in practice, they can't take over the bike lane because of parking, so they seem to dislike it[1]. But that's also what makes it safer, and was the law anyway, so the complainers have mostly settled on sillier rationales.

[1] In San Francisco, the conflict is severe enough that I think certain bikers and drivers have progressed to spite-driven zero-sum bullshit, so its hard to tell who is even arguing sincerely. I don't mind the new configuration when I drive - makes right turns slightly more complicated, and of course I'm not a professional driver, so I don't care about stealing the bike lane for drop-offs/deliveries.

[argv_empty]

If you can't see what's in front of your car in time to react appropriately, you are going too fast for the current road conditions. Reckless driving is a risk created entirely by the driver, not the cyclist who happens to be in front of the driver at the time.

[kylec]

Right, but if the risk backfires, who pays the cost? The driver has a few scrapes on the bumper and the cyclist is seriously injured or dead.

[manicdee]

And then in any civilised country the driver faces manslaughter charges and goes to gaol.

[PoachedSausage]

In many urban areas at peak times, cyclists are likely traveling faster than other traffic.

[astrodust]

> It can be very difficult for someone to notice a bicycle on 40~55mph roads...

While people do get hit and killed on back country roads, the vast majority of collisions and fatalities are within cities where cycling on roads with that speed is ill-advised.

Most cyclists are on roads with 25-35mph speed limits. If you can't see potential hazards and react in time, you're driving too fast and should slow down. This is why there's a push for lower speed limits in urban areas: It has an almost immediate effect on collisions.

Reacting to something at 20mph and 40mph are worlds apart. You'll have no trouble stopping at 20, but at 40 you run someone over and crash into something.

[uoaei]

For some perspective, consider kinetic energy. You possess 4x as much energy travelling 40mph as 20mph.

Put another way, it takes 3x as much energy to go from 40 to 20 as it does from 20 to 0.

[smsm42]

I've seen many times cyclists driving on poorly lit one-lane roads without dedicated bike lane, wearing black or dark clothes. It's positively scary, especially when they turn out of the side street right in front of you. I personally try to stay as far away as possible from them.