This is straightout rant, that belongs on a personal blog, not on the Atlantic. commentor Jim Brown: “This is one of the least helpful articles I’ve read on the subject of bicycling. Stereotyping self-righteousness isn’t going to solve the deficiencies of a roadway system that isn’t configured or operated around the needs of bike-riders.”
I commented (and i rarely comment on these things because it’s gonna suck me into “debates” and i hate arguing, but I wanted to reiterate Mikael Coville-Andersen’s comment):
“Levelling the playing field just reinforces the myth that bicycles are “just like” cars. They’re not. Bicycle users are still forced to abide by a traffic culture and traffic laws invented to serve the automobile.” — Mikael
Exactly. Bicycles are not cars and should not abide by the same rules because the same rules do not work for two things that function differently. Gotta change the stupid vehicle code that forces people to become “vehicular cyclists”.
Install more proper cycle infrastructure like bike-specific traffic lights, timed at an average cycling speed, and I’ll bet less cyclists will “run red lights”.
And why are you even complaining about people salmoning??? If you are a cyclist yourself, you should understand that you need to see things in context. Maybe there are a bunch of people on the sidewalk so that cyclist can’t bike on the sidewalk the opposite direction. Maybe a bike lane needs to be installed on that street.
Your post is definitely a rant and a disappointment to the Atlantic.
and then this guy who’s a frequent commentor replied back,
Why do I complain about people salmoning? To start with I HATE playing chicken in the bike lane or on the shoulder. I ride with traffic. Secondly, riding against traffic is very dangerous. It makes bicyclists effectively invisible to all cross traffic because motorists don’t expect to find traffic travelling at speed in that direction on that side of the road. Most collisions occur at driveways and intersections. Wrong way riders significantly increase their risk there. Wrong way riders become road pizza in higher percentages than with traffic riders.
Vehicular cycling works once you fully understand and utilize it.
As for facilities, give me a bike freeway with pedestrians prohibited that actually goes where I want to go and I might be interested. Too many paths are shared with pedestrians, don’t go where I want to go and still subject me to crossing conflicts at every intersection and even often still have driveway crossings. No thanks. Badly designed facilities are worse than none at all.
like, wtf, dude??? did i ask you?? I commented on the article, which means my comment was aimed at the author of the article.
I hate those dumb commentors who just talk about their personal experiences. I didn’t even say anything to provoke some personal response from some random probably old guy.
but, yeah, seems i did with the term “vehicular cycling”. gyahhd these stupid old men still exist (ie. john forester and his cohorts).
i decided to reply for clarification since he didn’t catch it,
My comment on salmoning was focused on one-way streets where the person is attempting to go the opposite direction. The sidewalk may be full of people so the cyclist cannot safely ride on the sidewalk as law mandates.
Go ahead and advocate for vehicular cycling. I hope you get your kid and mother feeling safe cycling like that on the road.
I was going to say something like
If you fully understood vehicular cycling, you would know that it exists to prevent bicycle infrastructure from being built.
but that would have set off a whole vehicular cycling debate, which is pointless, and i hate arguing, especially online arguing with outdated old men.