[avidiax]

You can get doored on either side of the car, and when you are forced to pass, you have to enter the traffic lane, which pressures you to maintain speed.

Whereas in the bike lane, you can slow down a bit anticipating that a door may open.

Waymo does at least warn the occupants if there's a vehicle or bicycle approaching.

[Saline9515]

It is well known that by stopping, the cyclist will burn and be consumed in flammes in mere seconds.

[atoav]

Cyclists, other than motorists (1) build that momentum up with their legmuscles and (2) speed is required for stability on two-wheeled vehicles, meaning stopping with a bicycle is more exhausting and annoying than, say with a car.

I am not saying stopping isn't the right option in many situations, what I am saying is that a good bicycle infrastructure is planned in a way that understands that a person on a bicycle having to stop is not the same as a person in a car having to stop (unless you use a car where you have to pedal with your legs).

Building traffic infrastructure in a way that avoids (potentially dangerous and thus costly to society) conflicts between different participants should be a no-brainer. It is not secret knowledge how to do that, you just put a barrier and space inbetween each mode of transportation: Road, curbstone up, small pedestrian platform, curbstone down, bicycle path, curbstone up, actual pedestrian area. This way the waymo can stop on the road, where cars belong, guests can exit safely and without pressure into a pedestrian area and have s curb-shaped reminder they enter a bicycle path when they cross over. Additionally both pedestrians and motorists can be reasonably sure cyclists won't suffenly cross over into their domain.

Why is this not the norm? One of the main reasons is space. In most existing infrastructure this would likely mean one or two car lanes have to get either narrower or be sacrificed. It would also mean taking bicycling (and other vehicles using that infrastructure) as a mode of transportation seriously, which a certain group of people appears to be deeply allergic to. You know, the type of person who nearly commits vehicular manslaughter and then does as if the cyclist had it coming by merely existing.

In the end everybody would profit from better infrastructure, especially since good bicycle infrastructure is also usable for children and older people. And that is the test good bicycle infrastructure needs to pass: Would you send your 9 year old kid down that path. If not, than it has been done incorrectly at the cost of cyclists.

[Saline9515]

Yes, cycling is a sport. Should we also flatten hills as they have the inconvenience of requiring to push harder on pedals?

If the physical aspect of cycling (involving stopping for taxis, pregnant women, children, or distracted pedestrian plebs) is too hard, solutions exist: public transports, walking, or electric bikes (whose riders seem equally annoyed to slow down, for some reason).

The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.

Space is also not infinite in cities, so you can't change the infra without sacrificing other users, be they pedestrians, delivery vehicles, or car users.

Last, cycling is mostly for a specific type of people, who are alone, fit and with a small cargo. It excludes older and younger ones, disabled plebs, and families. Those people are better served with quality public transport - which could be improved with the money used to make costly bicycle road arrangements. Public transport is also always convenient, not just when it's sunny. I live in a city with temperatures under 0 celsius for 4 months of the year, including some days at -20. I'm glad I can use my car in winter to take my children to school. Apparently, other cyclists seem to think the same since no one uses a bike in winter (the new urban equestrian class seems a bit shy when it's cold?).

Helsinki is a city I like, because while there are mostly non-invasive bike lanes on large arteries, it's easy to go around by car and by walk. The secret is that the public transport system is top-notch, so a pregnant woman can use it to go to the maternity ward - something that you can't do by cycling (but who is stupid enough to have kids nowadays in city centers, right?).

[atoav]

> The problem with "building infrastructure" is that plebs' money is not infinite, so public works to please the high lords of the pedal may not be possible.

That was my point, thanks for making it: There is money for building and maintaining 6 lanes of sophisticated road surface that needs to withstand trucks¹ we surely have the money to replace part of it with a cheaper to maintain bicycle path that sees next to no road wear aside from weather effects. I'd argue that we cannot afford to not have bicycle infrastructure.

You appear to be propping up public transportation against cycling, when in reality they are a match made in heaven. Why not both?

¹: weight factors into road wear by power of four. Double weight equals 16 times the road wear

[Saline9515]

Google maps is your friend to discover that most cities of the world don't have 6 lanes in every street!

And ready to invest in your shipping container-on-a-cargo-bike startup, which will be used to make deliveries to supermarkets in the city centers (for the last plebs who don't order their slop on Uber Eats ofc)! Or cement deliveries using drones!

[atoav]

What are you even talking about?

1. Even with a single lane the upkeep for a bicycle path is lower than for a road lane. There being more or less lanes doesn't change the math. The only difference is that for single lane road a bicycle path may be unnecessary to begin with since maybe it is a calm backwater anyways. Modal splits can be a good idea then.

2. Do you think trucks magically lose their ability to drive when there are bicycle paths nearby? Or which strawman variant of my argument are you arguing against? I said: a decent network of bicycle paths is needed, not that all roads should be torn up. If this is your style of arguing for your position, it doesn't really reflect well on you or the position.

The way it works is very simple: a better and safer network of bicycle infrastructure means everybody can more easily use the bicycle and public transport, of course people coming with the public transport and locals get the most out of it. That means less cars on the road, that means less road wear, noise, dirt and other bad side effects that mostly just affect the people living there. And who is going to decide how to use the space a city owns? Ideally the people who live there.

I live 2 hours from Kopenhagen and it works perfectly fine there. I visited the Netherlands quite often ot works fine there. Trucks also still work and you can still buy stuff at the grocery store, crazy huh? It is also a thousand times more enjoyable to get around than in some brutalist hellscape where you need to go everywhere with the car. In my own city my commute is 15 mins with bike, 20 mins with subway and 30 mins with car. Guess which one I pick most often.

[expedition32]

Why should cyclists be inconvenienced by taxis? They have just as much right to get to their destination.

[Saline9515]

Because taxis and cyclists are road users like others, car drivers also have to stop if a taxi has to drop off someone as long as it's quick. Same with buses, also. Or trams.

It's the same with pedestrians : if an old person walks on a small sidewalk, I will stop or slow down. Or if I see two guys carrying a washing machine.

As a pedestrian, I don't see cyclists stopping often when they ride on the sidewalk, though.

[derwiki]

How often do you see two guys carrying a washing machine?

[Saline9515]

It depends how lively/busy the street is, but in towns like Paris, every day I would have to accommodate fellow pedestrians unloading trucks or doing deliveries in the street. The macha lattes doesn't appear magically in your favorite coffee shop.