[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.