https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1AbLu5EZLkWhat is it about bikes that so triggers Americans?
transit really is a zero sum game and the left routinely gaslights about how it's not
>why hate roadiesclass and gender reasons
>>1749872How petty and petulant
>>1749875>>1749878he's saying that making it better for cycling makes it worse for cars, or better for trains makes it worse for cycling, etc.translator's note: this is bullshit, but it is what they meant
>>1749894trains and cycling can be symbioticcars and cycling are notimo buses and bicycles also are notIt is however, a helpful delusion, that it is not a zero sum game. When your life is going to be made worse by a necessary change, it's helpful to pretend that it isn't, so that you can support the change, and make it the best version of itself, rather than psychically terrorize yourself and others, and or stay in a state of destructive stasis
>>1749872It's ok, the cyclists can console themselves with the face that they triggered the cagetrolls as they wash the exhaust fumes and blood out of their lycra :^)>>1749903>necessary change>necessarythat's where you're wrong, kiddo
>>1749903I think the argument is that for most people who just drive cause it's convenient and safe, not because of any actual affinity for cars, their life would genuinely be better if they mostly commuted by other means. But there's any good way to convince people of that, it just comes across as preachy holier than thou bullshit, cause of course in large part it is. I don't really see any flaw in the argument that improving alternate transit reduces car congestion thus making car driving, overall, better, if you're one of the people who chooses The online urbanist buzzword is "induced demand" and in typical fashion for political memes in the 21st century the people who repeat it totally miss the point. Like it's not that any other transport mode isn't susceptible to the exact fucking same thing -- it's just the uniqueness of cars and road needing so much space per person makes it physically impossible to build arterial roads that don't fill to capacity when they're the only transport available. I think visualising arterial roads as basically the root of a tree branching out into roads, streets, suburbs and ultimately residences is a great way to illustrate how pretty much the only way to win the game of car congestion is not to play. Like give roads enough lanes for the people who really need it to use it comfortably, and call it a day.
>>1749916whoops bunch of typos, yolo. it's getting late for me anyway
>>1749916>their life would genuinely be better if they mostly commuted by other meansOther than having a few more bucks in my pocket, give one concrete reason why sweating on a bike in january for a half hour at 7 am or getting culturally enriched on a bus would improve my life over sitting in a heated, comfortable car instead.
>>1749918you need the benefits of exercise explained to you?
>>1749916>. I don't really see any flaw in the argument that improving alternate transit reduces car congestion thus making car driving, overall, betterIt's complete bullshit and it creates a mindset that improving alternate transit can only be done at no expense to drivers, and that it is 'alternate'. Because you're actually telling people that. So things like vastly lowering speed limits, traffic calming, giving a lane, or god forbid, a street, to bicyclists becomes abhorrent. Actually there is -some- truth to it, but ultimately, real improvements to public transit and cycling/walking require car driving to not be prioritized and often to actively be disincentivised
>>1749916the other part about it that actually doesn't make sense, is, what is your goal? reducing car use, because it's bad [for reasons]increasing public transit use and use of cycling infrastructure [which require a mode shift away from cars and broad uptake]and then you try and say these methods don't make driving worsewell, you're implying that's good. It's actually not per your own goals on the left. It would be better to make driving less attractive, per your own goals. It's sometimes but not always helpful to pretend otherwise.
>>1749923Understood. The double meaning of "alternative" is self-defeating. I just meant it as in, alternative to the existing modes (in car dependent places).Another thought about car congestion that people do actually already know is that their average speed on a commute into a typical city from a typical suburban spot is already pretty pathetic, like 20-28km/h. At such speeds you literally would can faster on a bike, depending on total distance and your own cardio.Dunno about it being left/right. Cunts have just been memed into thinking that having to out the ass for their car, because it's been made necessary for almost all aspects of their lives, is freedom.
>>1749919I can exercise whenever I want. And "when I want" is not at 7am outdoors in January.>>1749922>if they won't eat the bugs voluntarily we will force them to eat the bugs
>>1749916>I don't really see any flaw in the argument that improving alternate transit reduces car congestion thus making car drivingThe flaw is that it's not true. Take a look at this study, https://transfersmagazine.org/magazine-article/issue-2/does-light-rail-reduce-traffic/ which is a pretty ideal case study, as the Expo line runs directly parallel to the 10 freeway. >Our research suggests that the Expo Line Phase 1 had a modest and highly localized impact on weekday peak-period roadway traffic system performance within the first 5 to 7 months of opening. The number of daily Expo Line trips was small compared to the total volume of traffic within the service corridor, so even if all Expo Line riders were previous car users, it is unlikely that the reduction in traffic volume would translate into significant improvements in speed and travel time reliability within the highly congested corridor.>In the longer term, any short-term traffic reductions on arterials would likely be offset by latent demand. When traffic improves, drivers who shifted to less preferred modes or time periods, or stopped making the trip altogether in response to congestion, will be attracted back to previous behavior, using up the available capacity and eventually any performance improvements in the corridor.But most car drivers don't need a study to tell them that. A huge reason projects like that fail at the local level is that urbanists with their head up their own ass think people who drive are unenlightened idiots and they will support anything that supposedly lowers traffic without doing any actual thinking about if it will or not. But car drivers know it won't and they know that these things like new transit and bike lanes necessitate making driving slower, more uncomfortable, more expensive, and out of reach for more people to work, and even then they don't.The expo line ended up receiving special light timings that make cars wait longer, making car traffic even worse.
>>1749932>if they won't eat the bugs voluntarily we will force them to eat the bugsthis is exactly it. except the bugs you are eating is that you are forced to drive, to buy a car and pay to run it, because that is the only safe/viable option
>>1749937I’d rather be forced to drive than forced to ride public transportation.
Americans are really sensitive.Either the driver thinks the rider is implying they are better than them, and take offense, or the driver thinks the cyclist is throwing money in their face, and takes offense (Which is hysterical because that crowd is the bootstraps crowd)Bike infra would not be needed if most motorists were blubbering children without CDLs>>1749932>And "when I want" is not at 7am outdoors in January.So drive your car and anyone who isn't a weeping pussy can bike safely and be one less car contributing to your traffic?
>>1749872I think Americans are just dumber than other people and even more car obsessed. Behavior like that doesn't happen anywhere in the civilized world, just in the USA. Any other country in the world cars modified like that would not be street legal and anyone trying to run over cyclists would spend decades in prison and never have a driver license ever again, but in the US it is just normal. Shows you how completely fucked up the country and the people are.
>>1749937If the only reason I use a car is because I'm scared of being run over if I use a bike, then why do I also ride a bike ten hours a week for fun (except in winter, obviously)?
>>1749938you americans have such a depressingly bleak worldview
>>1749942If it's not true for you, it's pretty silly to imply it isn't for others.I've cycled in nearly every state East of the Rockies and I can tell you it was never surprising which states I got harrased in
>>1749940Literally rent free. Don't mistake being culturally hostile to commie bullshit with "stupidity". If you want to ride your dutch bike 5 miles every day to your job fellating muslim transsexual syrians then be my guest. Just keep that shit the fuck over there.
>>1749937>>1749947>yuro thinks everyone in a country with a 98% obesity rate is secretly dying to add 2 hours of hard cardio to their daily routines
>>1749935This article is a case study about light rail in particular which is the only kind of rail that necessarily competes with car traffic, and its point isn't to connect e.g. suburbia to urban centres, but rather convenient transit within urban areas. The station in the photo there looks pretty fucking inconvenient to use, more like a heavy rail station. Ideal for light rail is basically just trams that you can hop on and off with ease. Maybe retrofitting other kinds of rail onto existing US cities involves chopping up existing road or building new overpasses; dunno, it's surely a case-by-case thing.>The expo line ended up receiving special light timings that make cars wait longer, making car traffic even worse.Well, that's what you say, but it isn't what the study you linked says.
>>1749950Take it as respect for what the US has done and does represent that we want you to be a nation of strong and healthy people, not lonely and emasculated fatassess
>>1749948lemme guess, not having unions and forcing 30% of your population to work 2 jobs is a great freedom, doesn't matter anyway, china will have bought up your country in a couple of decades, and you'll be working foxcon tier conditions,
>>1749935even if it doesn't reduce congestion in the here and now, good transit reduces any additional congestion, by making any trip that uses the transit system a set time, discouraging any car trip that is longer than that set time.
>>1749903>cars and cycling are notYeah thats bullshit. I ride on the paved shoulders and do just fine. Doesnt matter what you drive or ride, just dont be a cunt.
>>1749957So you're saying the easiest way to get people on transit is to make driving slower? Woah.You people would have a lot more success if every one of your policies didn't involve making the one form of transportation people like the most shittier. Urbanists gleefully and proudly call to ban cars and extol their evils at any given moment then turn around and say "hey car drivers! we want to make your commute way better with this new idea ;) ;)" and act like we dont know exactly what's going to happen.
>>1749950I'm an American retard do you know where the Rockies are?Point is, you might not like alternative options, you don't have to take advantage of them, but right now, they're not even there to try.>>1749968>So you're saying the easiest way to get people on transit is to make driving slower? WoahYou don't make driving slower, you make transfit faster.And, yes, there's been a million times in my life that I've taken the trolley or train instead of driving because retards block intersections and make traffic hell.I've been honked at *to* block an intersection FFSAutotravel doesn't need an incentive to be inefficient
>>1749968Get some reading comprehension up ya, that isn't what >>1749957 said at all. Say you build a metro. Negligible effect on existing roads. You can make it operate at really consistent timings. If your trip from station A to B is appreciably quicker than by car using the existing infra as-is that's a huge incentive to using the train. But it's irrelevant to you if no such improvement is had.
>>1749903Cars and cycling aren't symbiotic and they clash if your idea of cycling infrastructure is painting bike lanes to existing roads. But that's not how you should do bike infrastructure. In an ideal world bikes and cars don't ever share the same road. That's unfortunately not possible so the next best thing is only having to cross roads, which is quite feasible. With good infrastructure for both they're actually symbiotic. More bikes means less cars on the road.>>1749918>>1749932So you rather sit in a car doing nothing on your commute instead of riding a bike and getting some exercise that you need anyway so that you have to drive to a gym and ride a stationary bike indoors. Makes a ton of sense. And that time sitting in a car is largely wasted and you need to sacrifice more time for the separate exercise later on. If you don't want to ride to work you could take public transit and either spend that time working/reading/watching netflix/etc.
>>1749970You know, I had to think about that one. Obviously it's a mental experiment because no one actually lives at station A and commutes to station B for work, most people connect with things like buses or only ride buses because they go more places, and those would be affected by traffic, as would park and ride setups. Additionally car commuting allows for the combination of trips (like grocery runs and picking up the kids on the way home from work) which is a necessity to a lot of people. Take into consideration that many car drivers don't prefer driving because of travel time alone as well. But yeah, if the population grows and roads are denied the ability to expand or adapt to suit, people who hold travel time as their highest priority will be forced to use transit instead, provided they live and work in locations that don't require them to ever touch road-based transportation, like in places like NYC.
>>1749976You cannot compare US car use to our current system which is nerfed to hell and back and set up to send our citizens bad onto the high ways at every possible turn.Try again.We're saying lets make it not suck and your answer is that it sucks so don't try, ignoring all the people who stand to benefit (Or think they stand to benefit) monetarily
>>1749948Thanks for proofing my point. Disgusting shit pieces like you really only exist in the US.
>>1749948>Don't mistake being culturally hostile to commie bullshit with "stupidity"Stop being fucking stupid, then
>>1749872Because of the two-party system, every american is socially obligated to assume the contrary position to whatever position their "enemy" takes first, even if there are no reasonable grounds for disagreement. The positions are keyed to social class (upper=liberal or dem; lower=conservative or GOP). The relevant class signifiers for cycling are:1. Leisure exercise. A working person with a "real job" uses his hands, or his body, to earn a living. He doesn't have time or energy to waste sweating for fun.2. Leisure travel. Cycling advocates are addicted to saying "when I was in the Netherlands..." or "when I was in Denmark..." followed by a statement about bicycles that implies that the country in question (which their interlocutor is presumed not to have visited) is better in myriad ways. This also touches upon...3. Patriotism. Conservatives have essentially appropriated the word "patriotism", to the point where describing oneself as "patriotic" or expressing love of one's country are really statements about domestic political alignment. Saying America could learn from another place in even the most trivial way is highly "unpatriotic".4. Right of access to contested public spaces. If a lower class person enters a contested public space they can expect open hostility (violence is also justified). Upper class people love to enter contested public spaces to show how "easy" it is i.e. how the system unconditionally protects them: look nothing happens, why don't "we" do this more often? Roads of course are a contested space with regard to bikes. Same with office elevators, etc.There are also other reasons but basically cycling is one of the best virtue signaling activities for liberals who want to seem down to earth (what?!?? but bicycles are cheaper than cars!!~!~!!one - the average disingenuous liberal). That makes it "liberal" or "democratic" and therefore REAL americans are required to hate it.
>>1749987>1. Leisure exercise. A working person with a "real job" uses his hands, or his body, to earn a living. He doesn't have time or energy to waste sweating for fun.Hilarious since this is almost never true of the accuser eitherMy cyclist ass broke two bones at my last job pulling 16ers and drove semis before that but I'm the wimp
>>1749980Orly? And we're supposed to believe cycling outside of the US is all sunshine and roses and no one ever gets road rage or abuses people on bikes?
>>1750022Half as bad or a quarter as bad already sounds double as good or quadruple as good.
>>1749872have you ever ridden in coronado? they just dont need bike lanes, its a low speed low traffic suburb on an island thats about a mile and a half across.those bitches did say some crazy shit though.
are we gonna pretend the whole issue behind american car reliance is not how they build cities?in places where city planning isn't complete dogshit you can still opt for walking even though there might be zero infrastructure for biking and cars are the dominant transit
>>1750055It's a vicious cycle. Complacent entitlement enabling one minded planning enabling complacent entitlement enabling one minded planning enabling omplacent entitlement enabling one minded planning and so on.
>>1749944We have a group that commits a bunch of violent crime completely unprovoked and it destroys morale.
I only notice bicyclists trigger car traffic when they are riding in the middle of the lane not letting anybody pass. Especially here in the US, our lanes are almost wide enough for two cars to fit, its ridiculous for a biker to take up a whole lane and back up faster traffic behind them.When it comes to the diesel coal rollers, they'll roll coal on anybody and everybody in a position to eat their exhaust because these people don't care about the wellbeing of anybody else and just want to shit all over society for the lulz.
>>1750088Tell your friends not to park in the bike lane and I'll stay out of the 'car lane', deal?
>>1750090couldn't you just, you know, not ride in the center of the car lane?I'm a motorcyclist so I don't really give a shit about your dilemma, but even if the bike lane is occupied it doesn't make sense for you to position a bicycle in the center of the lane.motorcyclists don't even ride in the center of the lane
>>1750092If there isn't space for a car to safely pass within the same lane, a bike should absolutely be in the middle of the lane to force cars to change lanes fully while passing
>>1750093thats just it, there would be space for a car to safely pass if the bike wasn't in the dead center of the lane.Motorbike riders know this, thats why we keep out of the middle. People will try it whether there is safe room or not so you might as well give them room to do it safely, after all it is your life on the line. see this chart on cyclist fatalities>>1750022
>>1749872Fringies think their 20lb sòymobile that tops out at 15 mph max should be in the middle of a 60mph lane.
>>1750093nobody is forcing the car to change lanes entirely. you're just hoping that they will so they don't run your ass over. I personally wouldn't take that risk
>>1750097>there would be space for a car to safely passCager concepts of "safely" are mediated by a reinforced steel cage and a legal system that considers murder by car to be a minor offense on par with littering, I'll judge what's safe and what isn't, thanks for your "concern" though
>>1749975>That's unfortunately not possible so the next best thing is only having to cross roads, which is quite feasible. With good infrastructure for both they're actually symbiotic. More bikes means less cars on the road.to actually build that comprehensive bicycle infrastructure means completely cuckolding motor vehicles
>>1750103sure dudejust keep positioning yourself directly in front of cars. gotta keep yourself safe. I understand
>>1750116Don't worry I will. Keep assuming that since you can't understand why I did something, that therefore I can't understand why I did something.Object permanence, cagers don't possess it.
>>1749976>Obviously it's a mental experiment because no one actually lives at station A and commutes to station B for workThat's not really true at all. Last 2 places I've lived (Sydney au, hardly a city renown for it's amazing public transport) I was walking distance to a train station and it made my commute really nice. Or look at basically every city in China their metros are really quite good.
>>1750118I understand why you're doing it.I don't understand why you'd think a car would be "forced to change lanes completely" just because a bicycle is in the center. If the bike is on the edge of the lane, a car driver will attempt to pass you within the lane, getting too close for your personal safety (not their safety) i understand thatbut If the bike is in the center of the lane the car driver only needs to get around you enough to pass, same as they did when you were on the edge. But passing while you're in the center requires them spilling over into the next lane over, which might be oncoming traffic, might not. Regardless of the state of the next lane over, drives will be hesitant to spill over into that lane, at the very least they'll have to check their blind spot to do it safely, which means taking their eyes off you the rider. I've seen a bunch of times where the rider in the center of a lane gets clipped by an overtaking car. You do you, just remember: "object permanence, cagers don't possess it."
>>1750118lol what a retard
>>1750129>But passing while you're in the center requires them spilling over into the next lane over, which might be oncoming traffic, might notThen don't pass?
>>1750097I cycle quite a lot myself, but somehow I turn into an absolute cager whenever I see a 40-something tourist on a $3k carbon fibre bike in skin tight cycling clothes pedalling up the main road in the exact middle of the lane, followed by a que of 15 cars during the evening rush. Especially when there's a separate cycle path running parallel to that road literally 5 meters away.It's always the middle aged tryhard cyclists that piss me off. Even little kids know to stay off the main fucking road when there's a convenient alternative.
>>1749872they are children's toys being used by adults on a place designed for motorized vehicles.you wanna ride a bike, go to a park or mountain trail, not a road where you slow down traffic. cars weren't invented to go 10mph, the goal with cars was to go faster, further, and in comfort to you destination and bikes just slow things down.>just pass themi do but they shouldn't be on the road to begin with, same for fags on mopeds
>>1750383It pisses you off because you're too cowardly to see your 'might makes right' principles throughHe had every right to be there whether you think he's silly or not and it pisses you off you can't impose your will on him anyhow>>1750392No thanks
>>1750394well, i hope you never get gun over and i won't be doing anything harmful but i will laugh when i see a 2 wheeler get what they deserve
>>1750397>well, i hope you never get gun overI've been hit a number of times, actually.Only one of them was really my fault, cause I was rushing wrong way on the sidewalk and this 4 wheeler only looked left before pulling out on a major roadway>i will laugh when i see a 2 wheeler get what they deserveTry 18, retard. You ought to see for yourself what you guys get up to our there
>>1750099>narrows ahead>please use only large devices???
>>1750113Why do cagies insist that bike infrastructure funding comes from taking money that would have went to motor vehicle roads? Why can't bike infrastructure funding come from nuking welfare or school budget or stopping drinking water quality monitoring just like cities already do to increase car infrastructure budget?
>>1749872>white stripes on a road takes away from your outlook on life>road markers are like tattoosI hate boomers like you wouldn't believe it and these are some of the most retarded reasons one could think of. Honestly if I attended a council meeting I will probably start insulting this people.
>>1750169leave it anon, a car drivers mindset interprets everything that might slow their roll, is a personal attemt on their being
>>1749987>If a lower class person enters a contested public space they can expect open hostility (violence is also justified).What in the cinnamon toast fuck are you babbling about?
>>1750426they both come from a transport budgetfunding isn't even the major issue though, it's use of space. >>1750426>Why do cagies insistwhat makes you think I don't want this to happen?
>>1750593>funding isn't even the major issue though, it's use of space.It's not unique to car drivers, but I think it's all ultimately about status; taking away a lane, curb-side parking, or narrowing a road, even if it ultimately doesn't change car congestion (or even if it improves it), is seen as a reduction in personal status -- an insult against them like "you don't *deserve* to park here". Currently car use and ownership is a marker of status, and environmental types are trying to make it the opposite while extolling the virtues of bikes and mass transit. So conflict is inevitable regardless of facts about stress, average speeds, trip times, etc.At least where I am, the roads are already cartoonishly wide. There's genuinely no issue of space. But there is a real issue of people just needing to retain their privileged status. Any spending done on improving separated bike infra is seen as a personal insult, even if it's basically the cheapest infra you can build. Cunts have spent many tens of thousands of $$ on their cars and maintenance so they're literally quite invested in getting the most out of it -- and then some greenie idiot starts telling them they wasted their money. So of course it always goes down like a lead balloon.
>>1750097Depends on the jurisdiction I suppose. In California by law a driver must give a cyclist 3 feet when overtaking. Lanes are typically 10-12 feet wide. Your car is 6-7 ft wide average. Even if a bike was riding with their tires rubbing the curb their 3ft width + 3ft passing + 6 ft of your car =12ft. So riding in the lane to prevent passing is more appropriate.
>>1751049>So riding in the lane to prevent passing is more appropriateThis is where the disconnect with cyclists happen. Slower vehicles like tractors or heavy trucks know they ARE slower and sometimes pull over in the shoulder area to allow faster vehicles to pass. Most cyclists lack the self-awareness or common courtesy to allow others to pass, and when people get (rightfully) pissed off, they act like they're being discriminated against.
>>1749875the cager cope
>>1751055I'm not a cager though, I want cycling to take precedence
>>1751053>Most cyclists lack the self-awareness or common courtesy to allow others to pass>Slower vehicles like tractors or heavy trucks know they ARE slower and sometimes pull over in the shoulder area to allow faster vehicles to passSometimes is the keyword. Most cyclists I think do sometimes do it, and will do it in specific circumstances (namely, to allow heavy trucks to pass, or on roads with no traffic), it's just not really viable to do it as a matter of course, or else you will constantly be stopping, and will never get anywhere. >when people get (rightfully) pissed off, they act like they're being discriminated against.except drivers are not very good at gauging when it is infact reasonable for a cyclist to stop and let them pass, and they see themselves as an individual motorist being held up, rather than as one of thousands. the real ask when it's broken down is not for a cyclist to stop and let them past, it's for a cyclist to not be on the road to begin with.
>>1751053yeah its circumstantial. But when you pass a tractor a tractor has more equal mass to your car and you dont try to intimidate the tractor by getting within an inch of it
>>1751049That law has done absolutely fucking nothing.
>>1751092get a yard stick attached to your bars
>>1749932Nobody ever needed to eat bugs retard. That idea has even disappeared from the hypocritical meat-eating left. Only dimwitted rightwingers and 4channers even mention that meme anymore.
>>1749948You literally aren't even making a point. And its true, there are way too many retards in the US who are overly selfish. But americans are overall still pretty nice. I am one, but I still believe anyone who rolls coal like that deserves a bullet.
>>1750092Motorcyclists ride on the middle edge of the lane for visibility lmao
>>1750120>Or look at basically every city in China their metros are really quite good.China has more cars than US.China has more highways than US and build more at supersonic speeds China has 50 lanes highway.
>>1751123Motorcyclists can keep up with the traffic tempo
>>1750120KekThey may be good but due to CCP's disregard for human life they are also extremely dangerous
>>1749872>retired boomers have more time and aimless indignation than workers and students>only boomers show up to hearings>"well apparently people don't want paint lines on the road after all">>1750392Dilate.
>>1751434I wonder what the story is behind them all showing up and saying almost the exact same thing about how some paint on a road is a blight on the beautiful ... asphalt ... That part really does boggle the mind, because if anything the paint improves the aesthetic lol.I'm not saying it's some car industry conspiracy but they are clearly coordinated so there must be a coordinator and I struggle to believe they _really_ care this much about some road paint. That whole video plays like a scene out of Better Call Saul.
>>1749872I like bicycles. They are clean, easy to maintain, burn calories, give you a sense of adventure. But I do not like bike riders. They are not like your bikest. a bike rider who hates his fellow bike riders
>>1749956>muh unions! Why is it always shitwits that wine about unions? Why is it that no one who uses their brain to get a paycheck bitch about unionism unless they're woke faggots? You're basically saying you're retarded
>pulling trailer on 2 lane high way with busy traffic>pair of cyclists riding SIDE BY SIDE in bike lane>absolutely zero fucks given that they are impeding the travel of hundreds of other motorists>see a Saturday bike congregation or tour going on >convoy of hundreds of fat lesbians and middle aged fat fucks riding on Highway without a bike lane>dozens riding side-by-side>holding up semis and commercial traffic for countless miles>cyclists holding up the left lane of traffic, to take a left turn at the the light, instead of riding the bike lane all the way and then using the cross walk to take a left>often see cyclists not giving a fuck about traffic laws I love bicycling as much as the next person on this board, but cyclists are often insufferable and dangerous on the road.
>>1751922>dangerousall your examples are just perceived inconvenience
>>1751923Are you dense or just stupid?Riding doubles in a bike lane, especially in tight roads, is ignorant. Thinking you’re only inconveniencing others, is downright terminal hubris. Get clipped by a car, since they’re just bothered to not sHaRe ThE rOaD.
>>1751922Thats a lovely strawman argument. Got any proof of this spandex nightmare?
>>1751922>help! I've been slightly inconvenienced for a few moments!I like your deflection of "haha I'm totally a cyclist too guys"; nice save dingus
>>1751922>absolutely zero fucks given that they are impeding the travel of hundreds of other motorists"Assuming its properly designed you should be able to pass them without a issue. As for side by side riding its literally safer and easier to pass. Ever tried passing 10+ cyclists single file? Its hard as fuck.>">often see cyclists not giving a fuck about traffic laws"lmfao yea and drivers totally follow the rules of the road too right? Not like I've been hit several times by DUIs/DDs and inbreds not even beginning to follow the rules of the road. But yea, me jumping that empty red light because they suck ass at building a bike lane (T junction with a protected bikelane) is totally dangerous. What I am doing maybe 20 tops? Whereas when I see a driver jump a red light its 50+? Shit why is it in 50k km cycled I've pulled out on 3 cars by not stopping at a stop sign whereas I've hit 10+ cars from them blowing a stop sign and on a good day have <5 people do it to me with 1-2 forcing me to take evasive actions? lmfao.