Why the hate for Cyclists?

[jamil]

Apparently FedDOT has a whole book on it

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/about/fhwasa22017.pdf

16. ABSTRACT
Intersections are critical points of access to local and regional destinations for all roadway users. When designed with pedestrians and bicyclists explicitly in mind, all types of intersections can facilitate safe, accessible, convenient, and comfortable walking and bicycling. The purpose of this guide is to inform the state of the practice concerning intersection planning and design to implement solutions that help achieve the goal for zero fatalities and serious injuries while improving mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians.
The primary intersection types discussed in this guide include traditional signalized intersections, roundabouts, Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections, Reduced Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections, Quadrant Roadway (QR) intersections, Displaced Left Turn (DLT) intersections, and Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDI). This guide also includes discussion about stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersection crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians. This guide illustrates integration of bikeways and pedestrian pathways at and across traditional and alternative intersections, describes countermeasures applicable to pedestrian and bicyclist crossings at intersections,
and summarizes the application of intersection analysis methods for the safety and mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists.
This guide serves as a supplement to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) series of intersection informational guides and makes direct connections to other FHWA bikeway and pedestrian facility selection guides. Part I presents three foundational principles for planning and designing intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists. Part 2 presents design concepts for each of the intersection types discussed in this guide and illustrates options and design flexibility for incorporating a variety of pedestrian and bicycling facility types. This guide is intended to supplement, but not replace, design guidance, traffic control standards, and countermeasure selection criteria.

'Intersection planning isn't part of road planning' in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... ?

No. Intersection planning is obviously a part of road planning. This is a guideline. Not a mandate that every road shall consider other users. As long as cars don't fall into road grates, I'm fine with foregoing the added expense of putting in road grates that aren't bike friendly. But do go on searching the laws to find instances where minimal considerations are made for bikes. It's your time to spend how you see fit.

 

[chipbennett]

No. Intersection planning is obviously a part of road planning. This is a guideline. Not a mandate that every road shall consider other users. As long as cars don't fall into road grates, I'm fine with foregoing the added expense of putting in road grates that aren't bike friendly. But do go on searching the laws to find instances where minimal considerations are made for bikes. It's your time to spend how you see fit.

This guide, published in 2022, would not need to be published at all, if the engineering design of road intersections already/previously considered bicycles. Once again, he proves my point that engineering design of roads generally and primarily considers motor vehicles.

 

[jamil]

I amended that statement to say that roads are designed generally and primarily for motor vehicles.

But wasn't that always the claim? Most roads are designed for motor vehicles. Lately, because progressives hate cars, more legislation is being passed to increase the accommodation of bicycles. So we have special road grates here. Maybe some paint added there. Maybe some bike friendlier intersections.

And in many cases, they take lanes away originally intended for cars, and make bike lanes that I never see anyone use. They do this because special interest groups tell legislators that employers won't be able to attract younger workers because they want to ride bikes to work. **** that. They want to work from home. Why did New Albany put a bike lane on Spring street, for **** sake. I drive that road often and they've been in place for a few years now. I have NEVER seen anyone riding a bike in the bike lane. I've seen many people ride on sidewalks! Waste of money!

But. Point is, the primary user of roads are autos. Bicycle use is an afterthought at best. And not even a thought, for most existing roads.

 

[Ingomike]

You guys are welcome to live in your fantasy world that NO consideration is given to any road users other than motorists. When discussing modern “road design” That encompasses more than just the road surface. And once upon a time roads don’t seem to have considered anything other than laying down a strip of pavement. No drainage considerations etc. and drainage is not even a legally defined roadway user and certainly does not pay taxes…

 

[jamil]

You guys are welcome to live in your fantasy world that NO consideration is given to any road users other than motorists. When discussing modern “road design” That encompasses more than just the road surface. And once upon a time roads don’t seem to have considered anything other than laying down a strip of pavement. No drainage considerations etc. and drainage is not even a legally defined roadway user and certainly does not pay taxes…

I dunno man. You must live in a world of only on/off. I haven't said that NO consideration is given to bicycles for any road. But, you'd have to live in a fantasy world to believe that most roads were built with bicycles in mind. They obviously were not. And to the extent they are, it's because of lobbying. And I don't begrudge trying to make roads safer for bikes. But bikes are not a primary use of roads. Motor vehicles are. I hate to break it to you. On a bike on a road, you're not equal. You're at most accommodated. It's only recently that bicycle uses are given more attention, and that's mainly because progressives don't like people to drive cars.

 

[chipbennett]

But wasn't that always the claim? Most roads are designed for motor vehicles. Lately, because progressives hate cars, more legislation is being passed to increase the accommodation of bicycles. So we have special road grates here. Maybe some paint added there. Maybe some bike friendlier intersections.

Yes, this was always the intent. But I inelegantly made a statement of absolute, was proven wrong, and conceded the point regarding that absolute. Holding me to a statement that I have since conceded (see the comment following yours) is a tactic, of course.

 

[chipbennett]

You guys are welcome to live in your fantasy world that NO consideration is given to any road users other than motorists. When discussing modern “road design” That encompasses more than just the road surface. And once upon a time roads don’t seem to have considered anything other than laying down a strip of pavement. No drainage considerations etc. and drainage is not even a legally defined roadway user and certainly does not pay taxes…

Who is living in that fantasy world? Who is making that claim? Do tell.

 

[chipbennett]

I dunno man. You must live in a world of only on/off. I haven't said that NO consideration is given to bicycles for any road. But, you'd have to live in a fantasy world to believe that most roads were built with bicycles in mind. They obviously were not. And to the extent they are, it's because of lobbying. And I don't begrudge trying to make roads safer for bikes. But bikes are not a primary use of roads. Motor vehicles are. I hate to break it to you. On a bike on a road, you're not equal. You're at most accommodated. It's only recently that bicycle uses are given more attention, and that's mainly because progressives don't like people to drive cars.

The absolute refusal to concede this point by bicyclists in this thread only serves to reinforce the premise of the OP's question. But, given the arguments made in this thread, it seems that they simply must hold on to this point. It's a box that they have painted themselves into.

 

[Ingomike]

I dunno man.

True.

You must live in a world of only on/off.

To believe modern road design includes consideration of all permitted uses.

I haven't said that NO consideration is given to bicycles for any road.

Didn't say you did.

But, you'd have to live in a fantasy world to believe that most roads were built with bicycles in mind.

Most roads were built with no considerations of anything they just keep paving over what was built 100 years ago.

They obviously were not. And to the extent they are, it's because of lobbying.

You mean road designers were alerted to the needs of legal users?

And I don't begrudge trying to make roads safer for bikes. But bikes are not a primary use of roads. Motor vehicles are.

There are more cars than bikes

I hate to break it to you. On a bike on a road, you're not equal. You're at most accommodated.

If you were ever on trial for hitting a bicycle this attitude would lose you the case. Just because motor vehicles are more prevalent on the road does not make bicycles an unequal user.

It's only recently that bicycle uses are given more attention, and that's mainly because progressives don't like people to drive cars.

I would say the last 50 years.

 

[Ingomike]

It's only recently that bicycle uses are given more attention, and that's mainly because progressives don't like people to drive cars.

I disagree with this reason. The technology has made bicycles far more specialized and useful than they once were. 50 years ago, even in the city few people rode a bike to work that did not have to. That has all changed now.

Those that call bicycles toys are just ignorant idiots, for an INGO type example though I have no road bikes I have quality transportation bicycles for recreation and as a prep. Including spare parts to keep them going and the tools to fix them.

 

[Creedmoor]

I disagree with this reason. The technology has made bicycles far more specialized and useful than they once were. 50 years ago, even in the city few people rode a bike to work that did not have to. That has all changed now.

Those that call bicycles toys are just ignorant idiots, for an INGO type example though I have no road bikes I have quality transportation bicycles for recreation and as a prep. Including spare parts to keep them going and the tools to fix them.

What is this "new" technology that wasn't available in 1974 to me with the last bicycle I built?
And why in the decades I've lived in Northern Madison co have I never seen, any bicycles on Rt 9 or Rt 37 commuting in the mornings or evenings?

 

[jamil]

True.

We agree on something. I don't get you. You're an enigma to rational thinking.

To believe modern road design includes consideration of all permitted uses.

No. To believe that any extent to which roads have any consideration for bicycles that is more than minor. Okay, so you get road grates made so that your tires don't get stuck in the slots. That's probably a lot safer for you.

Didn't say you did.

Most roads were built with no considerations of anything they just keep paving over what was built 100 years ago.

Still works that way. When they last chipped and sealed hwy 62 they made no consideration for bikes at all. When they last resurfaced my road, all they did was add another layer of tar. I think roads like that are more common. But in the city, I suppose mayors want to pretend that putting in bike lanes will attract the best and brightest zoomers to add to the workforce. I would think if it did, I'd see people actually using the bike lanes they put in.

You mean road designers were alerted to the needs of legal users?

No. I mean what I said.

There are more cars than bikes

Hey. We're getting somewhere now. You've acknowledged what "primary users" are.

If you were ever on trial for hitting a bicycle this attitude would lose you the case. Just because motor vehicles are more prevalent on the road does not make bicycles an unequal user.

No. I understand the difference between is and ought. I understand that bicycles are given disproportionate deference. Bicycles being considered as equal is disproportionate. But, still, negligence is always negligence even if things were what they ought to be.

If you're doing all you can to ride safe (which doesn't include making up your own laws because **** those motorists) and a motor vehicle hits you, it's their fault. That's always the case. But you shouldn't get equal deference just because you're on a bike.

The onus for your safety should be on you, and I think laws should reflect that responsibility. That doesn't absolve motorists of their responsibility to be safe and aware. But I believe it is safest for cyclists to give motor vehicles the right of way.

I would say the last 50 years.

Not in any significant way. But, as I've said, in many cities, they're doing a lot more to make roads more traffic friendly for bikes, but at the expense of traffic-friendlyness for motor vehicles. Taking lanes away that were intended for cars and making them exclusively for bikes is retarded. It's definitely disproportionate deference for bikes.

 

[Ingomike]

What is this "new" technology that wasn't available in 1974 to me with the last bicycle I built?

It would be easier for you to visit a bike super store and see it all first hand. It is as radical of a change there as at a gun super store. Just like gun stores had revolvers and a few other configurations of pistols, now technology allows one to buy or build a gun specific for a use, same with rifles.

Bicycle manufacturers now offer frames for being cool, frames for comfort, frames for mountain biking, frames for trail riding, frames for fitness, and of course frames for road use and every different style of racing, even many different frames for children besides just a bike frame. This is just a partial list of frame styles, construction design, materials, and weight available.

A lot of technological changes for both guns and bikes…

And why in the decades I've lived in Northern Madison co have I never seen, any bicycles on Rt 9 or Rt 37 commuting in the mornings or evenings?

I don't know why don't you? Maybe they have been assaulted by those blowing diesel smoke at them too often. What importance is an anecdotal area?

 

[jamil]

I disagree with this reason. The technology has made bicycles far more specialized and useful than they once were.

You mean like e-bikes?

50 years ago, even in the city few people rode a bike to work that did not have to. That has all changed now.

I think the push for popularity of bikes has mainly been from the left. Not that people who enjoy cycling are all progressive lunatics. I enjoy cycling too. But I'm not rabid about it. In SF, cycling is way more popular than it is in any given city in Indiana. I think that has more to do with culture.

Certainly cycling has become more popular, but I don't think enough so that there are hordes of people begging legislatures to pass laws to give disproportional deference to them. If that were true I'd see a lot more people riding in downtown Louisville, for example. The bike lanes I see are mostly empty. And like I said, New Albany spent who knows how much money taking away a lane intended for cars to put in a bike lane. I don't think anyone uses it. So that bike lane did not get funded because of demand. It got funded because of ideological whims.

Those that call bicycles toys are just ignorant idiots, for an INGO type example though I have no road bikes I have quality transportation bicycles for recreation and as a prep. Including spare parts to keep them going and the tools to fix them.

Maybe this is the problem. This sounds like you resent people who have no need for bikes, expressing their views. I think to you it's a big part of your identity. So you are offended by people who diss your thing. I think the world would be better off if humans learned to override the instinct for identity. It's an outdated trait. It causes people to be offensive towards whole identity groups, and and causes people to be offended on behalf of whole identity groups.

 

[printcraft]

 

[jamil]

It would be easier for you to visit a bike super store and see it all first hand. It is as radical of a change there as at a gun super store. Just like gun stores had revolvers and a few other configurations of pistols, now technology allows one to buy or build a gun specific for a use, same with rifles.

Bicycle manufacturers now offer frames for being cool, frames for comfort, frames for mountain biking, frames for trail riding, frames for fitness, and of course frames for road use and every different style of racing, even many different frames for children besides just a bike frame. This is just a partial list of frame styles, construction design, materials, and weight available.

A lot of technological changes for both guns and bikes…

I don't dispute that there have been a lot of technical advancements applied to bikes. I built a 10 speed when I was 16. Bought a junk bike for $20. Put new hardware on it and painted it. It was a good bike. But it's **** compared to what's available now. I dispute that the increase in consideration of bikes has more to do with that than it does with ideological lobbying.

I don't know why don't you? Maybe they have been assaulted by those blowing diesel smoke at them too often. What importance is an anecdotal area?

Or maybe way more people in the city find bicycles more practical for city riding than in the country.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 343099

dead man riding.

 

[klausm]

I was once hit by a guy on a bike. The light turned green, I was the third car back and turning right when zippy ran into my front passenger tire and went over my hood. There was no bike lane, he just wanted to pass everybody on the right and then act exasperated that I didn't see him.

 

[Ingomike]

We agree on something. I don't get you. You're an enigma to rational thinking.

And you are stuck in your preconceived bias.

No. To believe that any extent to which roads have any consideration for bicycles that is more than minor. Okay, so you get road grates made so that your tires don't get stuck in the slots. That's probably a lot safer for you.

Would they build a road that the surface would not accommodate bicycles but would motor vehicles? I have never seen one. Is that just a happy accident for bicyclists?

Still works that way. When they last chipped and sealed hwy 62 they made no consideration for bikes at all. When they last resurfaced my road, all they did was add another layer of tar. I think roads like that are more common. But in the city, I suppose mayors want to pretend that putting in bike lanes will attract the best and brightest zoomers to add to the workforce. I would think if it did, I'd see people actually using the bike lanes they put in.

Resurfacing is not designing.

No. I mean what I said.


Hey. We're getting somewhere now. You've acknowledged what "primary users" are.

There you go again trying to make one user more important than others just based on numbers that I did acknowledge. There are permitted users of which motorists are more prevalent.

No. I understand the difference between is and ought. I understand that bicycles are given disproportionate deference. Bicycles being considered as equal is disproportionate. But, still, negligence is always negligence even if things were what they ought to be.

If you're doing all you can to ride safe (which doesn't include making up your own laws because **** those motorists) and a motor vehicle hits you, it's their fault. That's always the case. But you shouldn't get equal deference just because you're on a bike.

The onus for your safety should be on you, and I think laws should reflect that responsibility. That doesn't absolve motorists of their responsibility to be safe and aware. But I believe it is safest for cyclists to give motor vehicles the right of way.

Glad you don’t write the laws for road use. The onus for safety is equally on all users. Define “give motor vehicles the right of way”.

Not in any significant way. But, as I've said, in many cities, they're doing a lot more to make roads more traffic friendly for bikes, but at the expense of traffic-friendlyness for motor vehicles. Taking lanes away that were intended for cars and making them exclusively for bikes is retarded. It's definitely disproportionate deference for bikes.

There obviously is enough bike usage to warrant all this hate for bicycles on the road but they are not accommodated. Got it…

 

[Ingomike]

I was once hit by a guy on a bike. The light turned green, I was the third car back and turning right when zippy ran into my front passenger tire and went over my hood. There was no bike lane, he just wanted to pass everybody on the right and then act exasperated that I didn't see him.

Yep, he should not do that. Did you get damage?