wayfarer
1mo ago
Because people aren't qualified to determine what is or is not safe.
So why you feel qualified to say that Idaho stop is not safe?
wayfarer
1mo ago
OK, then it is not as simple as
If a cyclist is in an accident it will always be their fault (...) get hit by a car and die.
but few people are psychos
well, the problem is that just few can cause unacceptable damage (though such rule would effectively outlaw bicycle use anyway) and enough psychos have cyclist obsession for it to happen on day one
wayfarer
1mo ago
Yes, outside denser urban areas cars are going to be much faster. Noone is cycling between cities because it is faster than car.
wayfarer
1mo ago
EU bikes stop assisting at 25 kph, about 18 mph or so.
EU bikes are supposed to do so. In practice most don't, some are openly described when available for sale as capable of 50 km/h
wayfarer
1mo ago
Depends on size. It will range from "minor annoyance/breaks monotony" to "cycling is not going to happen at all".
wayfarer
1mo ago
Yeah, many e-bikes are basically electric motorcycles driving on sidewalks and cycleways.
wayfarer
1mo ago
sounds tempting but it would cause problems with at least drivers deliberately causing accidents to murder cyclists (currently rare but would become more common if it would be legal)
wayfarer
1mo ago
Bicycles are in many cases and uses strictly superior to busses and trains, while comparison with cars is more mixed.
That is why they often compete with those. Also, many strong areas of bicycles are more appealing to people with limited or no car access.
wayfarer
1mo ago
by "cyclists being complained about in this thread taken together" I meant entire comment tree, not only specifically comments you authored
If you value your time
Note that humans need some exercise anyway, by cycling you also do this. So effectively time cost may be zero or extremely low, if you planned to exercise. I guess in theory you could drive/order deliveries and do some high-intensity-training and be more efficient with your time overall.
If I cycle somewhere I can spend less time on gym or similar (that I would probably not do anyway and would get diabetes already and be standard issue land-whale, cycling is for me the primary way of exercising at all)
If you value your time, buy whatever you need and get it delivered to you.
I am not able to deliver dentist to my apartment. The same goes for many services and products. For example best pastry shop in my area is not offering deliveries at all. And deliveries often require 20+ minutes waiting time, this is more than enough to get somewhere and be already eating. And sometimes you need to wait for hour or more and you get food that needs to be reheated.
Do you really want to be all sweaty from a bike ride when you're going out to lunch?
heavily depends on local climate I guess, I can imagine in some cases it could be unavoidable. I am probably not going to cycle in Dubai if I would have misfortune to be there.
If it's still there. Huge numbers of bikes are stolen in the US and elsewhere. They're innately easy to steal.
for commuting you do not luxurious bicycle worth stealing (if you live in hellhole where people will steal everything nailed down and then steal nails that may pose problems, but if you cannot leave low-end bicycle for two weeks at bus station then something went wrong)
wayfarer
1mo ago
I think the risk to pedestrians seems minimal and bikes should just fully share the sidewalk with pedestrians.
note that it requires wider sidewalks, and as soon as total cycling+pedestrian traffic is dense you are better of with dedicated footway and dedicated cycleway
wayfarer
1mo ago
When you're going 120 and they're going 80, it's like dodging obstacles at 40, it's fun.
are you aware that you are causing more danger than all cyclists being complained about in this thread taken together?
wayfarer
1mo ago
how it solves
Busses are almost always slower than cycling on the periphery
?
Also, cycling in cities is faster than buses also in city centers.
wayfarer
1mo ago
Rich countries should have well-functioning public transport in urban centres which is apparently missing in America.
well, cycling is useful if you are getting from or out of urban centers and when public transport routes fit poorly where you want to get
Nevertheless, cycling shouldn't be needed in a rich country.
cycling is both faster and cheaper than cars, public transport and walking (if you value your time at more than Eastern European minimum wage, cycling costs per km are minimal if you are not forced to cycle at roads with 100km/h speed limits)
Yes, it is not accessible if your city has no proper infrastructure, for people disabled and/or so fat to qualify as land whale. And in cities which are more vertical than horizontal. But that leaves plenty of use.
wayfarer
1mo ago
Walking 10km for errand is not reasonable, cycling 10km works fine if you are not an invalid or land whale.
Cycling is less expensive than walking if you value your time at more than Eastern European minimum wage. In European cities it is cheaper than cars, public transport or walking.
Cycling syncs with other forms of transport well (you can leave bicycle at bus station or train station or elsewhere and cycle back when you return).
Can easily head into a shop without having to tie up a bike.
really? is that supposed to be a real obstacle? This takes less than 30 seconds, maybe minute or two if they failed to set up a bicycle parking
Can easily navigate stairs and get more direct routes.
I guess it could be a problem in La Paz or other highly-vertical cities.
wayfarer
1mo ago
Some destroyed Tu-95 had mounted Kh-101 cruise missiles under their wings, in preparation to attack Ukraine.
Geee, I wonder why Ukrainians may be trying to destroy them.
(disclaimer: I was unable to verify exact type of missile)
wayfarer
1mo ago
There are reports (supposedly with some level of confirmation) that Russian AWACS were also hit.
Sadly, turns out these planes were among already nonfunctional ones, so Russia still has plural number of AWACS planes.
wayfarer
1mo ago
It seems like this was purely (if it had been more successful) intended to try to provoke a nuclear response.
why you think that trying to disable weapons used to bomb Ukraine was in fact attempt to get bombed more?
weapons that aren't being used in the war
Russia was in fact using exactly this bombers to attack Ukraine. It is one of their methods to launch cruise missiles. It is used by Russia as Ukraine cannot target planes in flight and it gives missiles far greater range than launching them from ground.
Maybe photo is not from invasion of Ukraine, but here you have Kh-101 missiles under the wings of a Tupolev Tu-95: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tu95MSM_%22Super_Modern%22_(24912829706).jpg
Not bothered to find official video of doing this as part of bombing Ukraine, but AFAIK noone is denying this.
The pro-russian people tend to think more strategically and the pro Ukr in emotional displays
Yes, invasion of Ukraine was a masterful stroke of genius strategy and was famously considered as masterfully prepared. Unlike emotional Ukrainian defense that had no strategic thought whatsoever.
In other words you generalization is just false.
And that is leaving aside fact that morale tends to be fairly important in war, so it is rational to take care of also that.
why you think that yield on stop is bad and highway speeding is good?
More options
Context Copy link