[treyfitty]

Cars are more dangerous than bicycles because they’re larger and faster, yes. But when you compare cars vs. bicycles on the same road, together, bicyclists are in more danger. I can only surmise the people that tell you “bicycles are dangerous,” are just looking out for your well being and meant “you’re putting yourself in danger.”

Unfortunately, roads were designed for cars first. Even more unfortunate, people are not accustomed to sharing the road with bicyclists and only glance at their mirrors to check for large familiar cars. Thus, to say that “cars are the ones that are dangerous,” implies you think bicyclists have the de facto right of way and everyone should adjust to your presence.

[bwestergard]

In the U.S., roads were paved for cyclists first. There was a political fight over whether and how to regulate cars to prevent them from crowding out other road users. See "Fighting Traffic".

https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Tech...

[kube-system]

And more broadly, paved roads were invented between 2600 and 2200 BC.

[treyfitty]

I meant to reference modern roads. Lane markings, signage, and setbacks are clearly spaced, designed, and optimized for traveling in a car. Those 45mph signs and the intentional spacing of lane markers were not designed because of bicyclists.

[amanaplanacanal]

Bad road design. We can do better.

[alpaca128]

> you think bicyclists have the de facto right of way and everyone should adjust to your presence

They think that because that's how the law works, yes. Also many roads aren't designed for cars either, at least not in terms of safety or efficiency.

[treyfitty]

What law? Bicyclists do not automatically have the right of way. They are users of the road and must follow the same road laws as cars.

You say many roads… if you go by miles, you think major interstates weren’t designed for cars? How about rural roads… who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars?

[BytesAndGears]

Slight tangent, but when I lived in a country in Europe, this was the way the law worked for car-cyclist collisions.

1. The car driver is assumed to be at fault. In absence of other evidence, the car driver is always 100% at fault for the accident. Including all consequences for hitting/killing someone. 2. If it is proved that the cyclist broke the law and acted negligently, the car driver is still 50% at fault for the accident, since they’re driving a more dangerous vehicle and should’ve actively prevented the accident.

People were extremely respectful to cyclists there, and gave a ton of space when passing

[kube-system]

> must follow the same road laws as cars.

This actually isn't true in some parts of the US. Cyclists sometimes do have different laws that apply to them while using the road. For instance, in some places, cyclists may legally yield at stop signs. They do not have to stop at them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

[alpaca128]

When a vehicle would have to cross other paths (bike lanes etc), the priority is: pedestrian > cyclist > car. A bike lane crossing the road always has priority over cars unless signs say otherwise. At least that's how it works in Europe.

> who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars?

The roads are usually intended for cars, yes. But they often aren't designed for safe, efficient travel with cars. Or anyone else, really. It's possible to design roads to be safe for everyone, but they often are the opposite. Just like planners still think that adding more lanes makes travel by car faster, when in reality it's long been known that it actually has the opposite effect.

[rolph]

roads predate cars.