[philistine]

Don't give them the time of day. I never understood why cyclists acted the way they act until I started commuting to work. I felt unsafe at intersections when stopped. I felt unsafe at intersections when starting slowly. I read online about some road rules making my trips more dangerous for ME, not the cars. Now I know what I can do that's totally illegal that's keeping me safer.

[7e]

Cycling is dangerous when mixed with cars, for sure. But blazing through at an intersection full of cars which are expecting you to stop is even more dangerous. Stop sign rules exist for a reason (to slow vehicles down enough that everyone can see and negotiate everyone else) and it's safer for all if you obey them. This is an example of the rationalization I alluded to earlier. Cyclists lie to themselves.

Next you will be telling me that changing lanes without signaling or looking, swerving through traffic, ignoring stop signs on bike paths, riding while looking at one's phone, riding the wrong way, riding without a helmet, or at night without lights (all of which I observe all the time from cyclists) are evolved safety behaviors.

This is not to excuse drivers, who do lazy and selfish things all the time, like looking at their phones. The root cause is the same--human nature. It just so happens that the incentives are worse when cycling.

[armada651]

> Next you will be telling me that changing lanes without signaling or looking, swerving through traffic, ignoring stop signs on bike paths, riding while looking at one's phone, riding the wrong way, riding without a helmet, or at night without lights (all of which I observe all the time from cyclists) are evolved safety behaviors.

You've just described the average cyclist in Amsterdam. They'll do all of that at the same time with a passenger sitting on the rear baggage carrier.

Yet the Netherlands has one of the lowest mortality rates per mile cycled and the US has one of the highest. Despite the US having very strict full stop laws for cyclists.

[7e]

28% of vehicle fatalities in Amsterdam are cycling related. Deaths do happen. If you’re arguing that these behaviors are, in fact, safe, I would disagree strongly. The U.S. drives large trucks at high speeds because the U.S. isn't very dense, even in cities, and car centric. And bike infrastructure is lacking. I agree, making cycling safer makes cyclists safer. But none of this explains why cyclists bike like a*holes in every country, which is the point I was making. In addition to the physics of bikes encouraging selfish behavior, there is the lack of license plates and ticketing.

[armada651]

> 28% of vehicle fatalities in Amsterdam are cycling related. Deaths do happen.

Of course, none of those behaviors are safe. And mandating lights, a helmet, high visibility jacket, kneepad protectors and a license plate would make a cyclist safer. (And lights are mandatory even in Amsterdam)

But it would also discourage people from cycling by making that mode of transportation even more inconvenient than it already is compared to the car. And so because, as you noted, humans seek convenience; they will take the car instead.

> But none of this explains why cyclists bike like a*holes in every country, which is the point I was making.

Again it's self-selecting, since there is no bike infrastructure and you ride in between large trucks you have to be very assertive in traffic. Which tends to select for the more stand-offish types.