[tdeck]

I think the reason more people don't use the kind of bike lanes we see in the United States is that they're not safe. Cycling in the U.S. means riding on roads with vehicles that aren't expecting bikes and that can easily kill you if the driver makes a small mistake. If you're lucky, some parts of that route will include a painted bike lane, and if you're really lucky that bike lane will be separated from deadly traffic by a physical barrier and won't be adjacent to a line of parked cars that may open their door at any moment and hit you. But neither of these "luxuries" are common in the U.S. or in most countries - bikes are simply an afterthought.

In that environment, it's no wonder that only more physically fit people will be likely to cycle, because you need some strength and agility to quickly course-correct and avoid danger. But these things aren't inherent to riding a bike. If sidewalks were a painted lane down the middle of the street people with disabilities wouldn't be safe walking on them (just as they are sometimes at risk on crosswalks), but that doesn't mean pedestrian infrastructure is ableist. As someone with a disability that prevents me from driving, I'm glad I have good pedestrian infrastructure in my city, and what passes in the U.S. for great bicycle infrastructure. But I wish I didn't have to share the road with cars.

[u801e]

> I think the reason more people don't use the kind of bike lanes we see in the United States is that they're not safe. Cycling in the U.S. means riding on roads with vehicles that aren't expecting bikes and that can easily kill you if the driver makes a small mistake.

The problem is that bike lanes are retrofitted on roads that are really not wide enough for another lane. As a result, you get a substandard width bike lane and more narrow general purpose lanes that don't slow down traffic.

This results in close passes and less margin for error.

> if you're really lucky that bike lane will be separated from deadly traffic by a physical barrier

The problem with physical barriers is the fact that they don't continue through intersections. Cyclists are lulled into a false sense of security and don't pay attention to traffic as they approach the intersection. Motorists are likewise not paying attention to cyclists on the barrier separated path. Then both are caught by surprise when their paths cross.

The best option is to just take the lane and follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You get noticed and you don't have conflicts at intersections. You don't need to be physically fit to do it (other than be physically capable of riding a bike).

[tdeck]

> The best option is to just take the lane and follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You get noticed and you don't have conflicts at intersections. You don't need to be physically fit to do it (other than be physically capable of riding a bike).

Most people won't be comfortable doing this for the simple reason that they'll be going slower than surrounding traffic and it will piss of drivers, which is scary when you're on a bike and they have two tons of metal right beside you. If the safest way to do something is mildly terrifying and generally viewed as antagonistic, we can't be surprised that most people will avoid doing that thing.

I've really been inspired lately by watching the videos on this channel about urban design in the Netherlands: https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes

I didn't realize how much urban cycling raises my blood pressure until I watched this video that compares a journey in Canada to a journey in the Netherlands, it's hard to imagine cycling being so safe and easy outside a college campus: https://youtu.be/M8F5hXqS-Ac

[u801e]

> Most people won't be comfortable doing this for the simple reason that they'll be going slower than surrounding traffic

People, in general, aren't comfortable engaging in an activity they don't have experience with. A motorist who drives a car for the first time in traffic is not comfortable.

Comfort and confidence come with experience.

> it will piss of drivers

Based on first hand experience riding a bicycle while taking the lane in traffic for more than a decade is that it's a rare occurance. My estimate is that someone shows their frustration maybe once every several years.

On the other hand, riding near the edge or in a substandard width bike lane will result in frequent close passes and frequent close calls with turning traffic (weekly, if not daily).

> which is scary when you're on a bike and they have two tons of metal right beside you

The same rationale could apply to motorcyclists versus motorists in cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks. In fact it can even apply to the latter versus bus drivers, dump trucks and tractor-trailers.

But the way that traffic consisting of vehicles that have different sizes, masses can all share the road is because the drivers follow the same set of rules. It also works for cyclists.

> If the safest way to do something is mildly terrifying and generally viewed as antagonistic

Based on first hand experience, I don't think these assumptions are really valid. If that were the case, then we wouldn't see cyclists on the road at all. But, there are many locations where cyclists ride on the road without bike lanes or separated paths.

> we can't be surprised that most people will avoid doing that thing.

Whether most people will engage in a particular activity should not affect the best practice from a safety and efficiency standpoint. For example, the motorcycle safety foundation focuses on bike handling skills and defensive driving. They're not trying to get more people to use motorcycles for transportation, nor are they trying to get infrastructure built specifically for motorcyclists on existing roads.

Similarly, we should focus on education for cyclists in terms of how to use the existing road network to get to their destinations rather than focus on piecemeal infrastructure that really makes things more dangerous for them by reinforcing bad riding habits that are unsafe.