[_feus]

Can someone please explain to me why we chose to treat one mode of transportation as the most privileged?

- Pedestrians are expected to yield to cyclists (de facto)

- Motorists are expected to yield to cyclists

- Cyclists can choose to bike at a slow pace on a busy highway, taking up the whole lane (motorists will be cited for impeding traffic)

- They are allowed to bike on the road at night with barely any visibility aids

- They aren't required to have liability insurance or pass any traffic exams

- The police is very lax about enforcing traffic laws for them

I am all for a good bike ride in the mountains, where there is no traffic, but surely the way we treat cyclists is unreasonable?

[fooblaster]

In the United States we do treat one form of transport as the most privileged, the automobile.

We force places of business to build parking, forcing lower density, and higher cost to business. We build many neighborhoods without sidewalks at all, and with no bike access, forcing pedestrians and cyclists out of dedicated lanes and into traffic where they need to contend with multi ton SUVs. We do not penalize against designing vehicles with extremely poor visibility and excessive height, which directly translates to fatalities of those not in an armored shell on the roadway.

I would strongly encourage you to read more about building our cities and towns not directly around the automobile. We need to build around people, and bikes, and not strictly around the car.

https://www.strongtowns.org/

[Metacelsus]

Can someone please explain to me why we chose to treat one mode of transportation as the most privileged?

- Motorists are provided with massive road construction subsidies

- Motorists are provided with government-mandated parking spaces

- When a motorist hits and kills a cyclist or pedestrian, punishments are usually laxer than for other forms of manslaughter

- Public spaces and shopping areas are designed with motorists in mind

- Zoning layout of cities and suburbs presumes car ownership

- Environmental costs of driving are paid by society at large

I am all for a good drive at NASCAR, but surely the way we treat motorists is unreasonable?

[_feus]

Not at all, try to support the US economy on a bicycle? Without zoning laws and motoring infrastructure you will have a city of Florence, walkable - sure, but you are in a crowd of cars, pedestrians, cyclists, mopeds, etc.

[ascorbic]

Careful because if you don't build lots of roads you might end up with one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

[dima55]

Is Florence terrible?

[_feus]

Depends on if you enjoy being on time.

[Symbiote]

It's easier being on time in a walkable city, because the number of pedestrians and cyclists required to cause 'traffic' is extreme.

(I assume you mean Florence/Firenze in Italy, if there's an American city called Florence known for its lack of cars I'm unaware of it.)

[dima55]

Would you rather live in Phoenix, or something?

[_feus]

Why, do cyclists in Phoenix don't run red lights and yield to pedestrians?

[CodeWriter23]

Wow. Way to not even recognize how you personally benefit from road subsidies. I assume you buy groceries at a grocery store, for example.

[fooblaster]

Well said!

[doug_durham]

What an odd perspective. Bicycles and Automobiles are treated the same in the law. They have the same rights and obligations. Please provide a citation that says that a car has to yield to a bicycle. They are peers. Cars have to follow the same rules that bicycles do when they choose to be on the public roads. There are some commonsense laws that allow bicycles to ride on the shoulder of a road to allow traffic to flow better. I have seen bicyclists be cited for traffic violations on multiple occasions. I've seen automobiles not be cited for violations many more times.

[_feus]

Just the fact you don't need liability insurance and a passage of traffic laws examination to ride a bicycle on any road except a freeway contradicts the core of your statement.

[r0m4n0]

I think insurance and licensing is about the risks and the government stepping in to make things more safe for society. Bikes just don’t carry very much risk to others. Of course, it’s possible a bike can crash into a pedestrian and critically injure, kill etc or cause some property damage buts just rare and going to cause minimal damage. When was the last time you heard a bike causing $1000s in property damage? I have literally never seen it happen and I’m pretty active in the biking community. When you drive around a multi ton piece of steel with the capability to kill scores within seconds, millions of dollars in property damage to others etc, there needs to be some rules. Honestly I think it’s too easy in the US to get a drivers license and the new e-bike laws are overkill. Yes cyclists break traffic laws, but the implications are minor to others (they are mostly risking their own lives). If you feel like it’s unfair, you can always ride a bike!

[_feus]

A cyclist can easily cause 1000s in damage by causing an accident with a vehicle, or simply by hitting a pedestrian. Mending a scratch is expensive even for cheap cars. An ER visit, even for a simple fall, can result in a hefty bill.

Since cyclist don't carry liability insurance, they likely have to be personally sued in court for damages, with all associated costs to both parties.

Are you claiming this is a fair responsibilities and risk distribution? How is it appropriate to "risk your own life" by breaking traffic laws on a public road?

[r0m4n0]

I kinda agree with what you are saying on damage. It just doesn’t happen so it’s not really a problem anyone cares about. Cyclists don’t regularly cause $10000s in damage. If they hurt themselves, you use your own health insurance. On the other hand, my friend who was mowed down on his bike sharing the road was killed when someone had the sun in their eyes. That woman’s insurance had to pay hundreds of thousands in medical bills and damages. The same with my great aunt, killed in front of her house by a car. The same for my best friend who was killed in elementary school crossing a road. I think that’s 100x more common than the other way around.

Traffic laws are in place to ensure each other’s safety and also reasonably get folks places. Cars are an extreme risk to peds and cyclists, not the other way around so yes, they have more rules and must follow them more strictly. My 3 year old toddler on her trike doesn’t need a license to ride down our neighborhood street because she isn’t risking anyone’s life but her own.

[_feus]

Thank you for engaging in an argument rather than just feeling attacked.

Cycling accidents definitely happen, and they’ve become a lucrative industry. Just look up "bicycle injury attorney" and you will see tons of ads claiming that they "have recovered over 50 million for bicycle injury clients". The market here speaks for itself. Of course, a reasonable person doesn’t set out expecting to mow down a cyclist, but accidents happen despite the traffic laws designed to ensure everyone’s safety, and, to follow your example, a 3 y/o toddler doesn’t need a license to ride her trike down the street, but there’s nothing in the law, aside from common sense, stopping the child from continuing down the street and joining a major highway. At least "a multi-ton piece of steel" is visible and moves at the speed of traffic.

What I don't understand, why is it accepted, that both pedestrians and motorists should "watch out for cyclists", yet there is absolutely no campaigns for cyclists to watch out for cars and pedestrians and to follow the law. The easiest solution, imho, is to make the requirements equal for all - if someone wants to use a public road, they should be licensed and insured.

[Retric]

There’s also ~100x more miles driven than biked. Bikes riders do cause a significant number of major medical incidents per mile and even some fatalities, but it simply doesn’t get much attention.

[kevin_thibedeau]

I was hit by a driver while having the right of way on a bicycle. New York has mandatory personal injury protection of $50K. Because the insurance companies don't want to fulfill their mandated obligations, there was an attempt to secure my own car insurance as the primary coverage despite not being applicable under the law.

In the end I burned through the whole $50K in medical expenses without having to pay for for somebody else's screwup out of pocket. Despite being clearly at fault, the driver was not held accountable due to systemic bias against bicyclists even when we obey the law.

[resoluteteeth]

Before cars, we did not need things like registration, insurance, traffic signals, speed limits, complicated traffic rules, or even sidewalks for pedestrians or cyclists.

All these things needed to be created solely because cars are extremely dangerous machinery, like forklifts.

Saying that cyclists should need liability insurance because drivers need liability insurance is like saying that it's unfair that people who lift boxes by hand don't need licenses when people who operate forklifts do.

It isn't required because bicycles simply aren't anywhere near as dangerous to people other than the person riding them as cars and the conditions that necessitates these requirements being created for cars don't exist for bikes in the first place.

[Symbiote]

Almost all of this also applies to pedestrians, and I expect you'd feel it would be a significant restriction on personal freedom if one had to be licenced, carry liability insurance and so on to walk somewhere.

In Denmark (where I live) pedestrians and cyclists will generally yield to each other according to circumstances. Almost everyone knows what it's like to ride a bike, and that it's easy (no extra effort) to pause for 1 second while walking to allow a bike to pass, which can save the cyclist having to stop and restart.

[Retric]

A lot of cyclist rules are designed around kids.

Thus zero licensing requirements etc.

[_feus]

that actually explains it well