As a cyclist, two people cycling side by side while other vehicles are waiting to pass is a bit of a dick move tbh.
Not illegal, and nothing compared to the shit that drivers do to cyclists, but still a bit of a dick move.
Cycling two abreast is better for the driver, since they can overtake much quicker.
That image is quite a niche scenario and doesn’t represent the situation in the original image.
Obviously it’s different with a group of eight compared to just two people…
niche scenario
Never been to a country where road cycling is massive then? Try living in anyplace that has Alps in it lol
You’re right. I live in a city and have never seen more than four people cycling together.
It’s almost like cycling in the alps is a niche situation, and cycling in cities happens much more frequently 🤔
That all depends on the type of cycling, and what you call a city
How is it different though? In the original picture you can safely overtake the two of them in about half the time and half the available opening in traffic compared to them riding single file.
That’s not safely overtaking. That’s squeezing through and if there’s a chance vehicle will get hit he will push the cyclists out.
Because the image assumes that a driver can only ever safely overtake if they’re completely in the other lane, which simply isn’t true.
It also assumes that there will be an opportunity where the other lane is completely free for them to move into it.
Overtaking eight people in a line is going to have a large time saving if they’re cycling in twos, but when you scale that down to just two then the difference is negligible and the space saving is more important.
Your theory rests on the assumption that I value my life and safety lower than two seconds the driver could shave off of their journey time. Or thirty seconds. Or two days.
Well, buddy, you’re wrong.
Even if I’m riding alone I’m not riding in the gutter where I have a greater risk of puncture from debris, and a greater risk of some idiot close passing in a 3 ton umbrella.
I don’t think you understand the point of the image
Have a closer read of points 2 and 3 in the image. For most lanes there isn’t enough width for cyclist + wobbling side to side + 1.5m margin + car. So the car needs to overtake in the other lane, which means the other lane needs to be completely free of cars.
In my experience this is like 80% of overtaking situations when cycling. Far from niche.
Great image, but you see people really don’t want to use their steering wheels. And if possible they’d like pedestrian crossings removed as well. In ideal world there would be a race track from their home to exactly where they need to go and everyone else in traffic is a dick. Including other car drivers. Learning traffic laws and rules is too much of an effort anyway.
deleted by creator
The image appears to be from the UK. Here in the UK cyclists are supposed to stay at least 0.5m from the kerb, with a recommendation for more distance if possible (rule 72 of the Highway Code). Cars are supposed to keep at least 1.5m away from cyclists when overtaking (rule 163). Taking an average cyclist width of 60cm (some handlebars go much wider than that, as might pannier bags, but let’s use that as an average), that means a single cyclist should have control of ~2.6m of the lane at least.
Let’s say that the average lane on urban roads in the UK are around 3m wide (an estimate based on a quick google, not a rule), this means a legal overtake of a cyclist should have the car leaving no more than 40cm of the car in the lane. It’s not a big jump from that to moving entirely into the other lane.
Admittedly almost no one in the UK actually follows these rules, but this is how it’s supposed to be. Given that, adding another cyclist riding abreast shouldn’t affect overtaking time significantly, whereas the two cyclists riding in line will double the amount of time in the oncoming lane.
but if it was true you wouldn’t need an infographic.
That’s a shit argument.
This image is odd. The whole point it’s trying to make is that it’s quicker to overtake cyclists who are two abreast as opposed to in a line.
In points 3 and 4 it suggests that because the driver can go completely into the other lane, they should, it doesn’t actually ever say why they should. It completely ignores that it obviously takes longer to drive across into the other lane and then back than to pass the cyclists as closely as is safe. Maybe not a huge difference in time but it’s not like this overtake is going to take a very long time in total.
If it wanted to suggest that it’s only ever safe to overtake a cyclist by driving entirely into the other lane then the diagrams aren’t necessary. It could just say:
-
More cyclists fit onto a given stretch of road if they’re side by side.
-
You have to drive into the other lane to overtake anyway.
-
Therefore it’s always quicker to overtake cyclists who are side by side.
The other thing it doesn’t take into account is that to overtake a cyclist you’d typically be accelerating, so the 2nd cyclist in a row would be passed more quickly than the 1st.
it doesn’t actually ever say why they should. It completely ignores that it obviously takes longer to drive across into the other lane and then back than to pass the cyclists
Because it’s SAFER. Oh my god, have we really got so selfish that a human life is worth like a second.
Removed by mod
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, in the UK (which is where this image seems to be from), the “safe” passing distance for a car overtaking a bike is supposed to be 1.5m. Add that to the 0.5m minimum distance the cyclist is supposed to be from the kerb and the width of the cyclist themselves, and overtaking even a single cyclist should have the car almost entirely in the other lane anyway (UK lanes are typically narrower than their US counterparts).
Whether anyone actually follows those rules is another question, but that is how motorists are supposed to behave.
It is also written into our Highway Code that motorists should “give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”
-
I disagree since overtaking a cyclist in the same lane is unsafe anyway. In the city I always cycle in the middle of the lane because it prevents unsafe takeovers and dooring.
So it’s a bit of a conundrum. Because there are pros and cons in riding abreast.
On one hand, cyclists are more compact and more visible. On the other filling whole lane would mean drivers behind them would have to time their overtaking. However, car drivers almost never leave enough space when overtaking cyclists and 100% never think about wind that might push them or that cyclist might need more space to avoid potholes and stuff. So being a dick driver is not exclusive to cyclists.
Traffic law, at least where I live, states when overtaking cyclists driver must leave enough space between him and the cyclist so as to not inconvenience cyclist. Which is vague and not helping one bit. However I think it’s far better to be forced to slow down and time overtaking than not slowing down and flying next to a single lane of cyclists. Because if and when there’s a car coming from opposite direction, car driver won’t care or look twice to move closer to the edge of the road and push others out.
Where do you see another vehicle “waiting to pass”? There’s absolutely nothing in this picture telling you how much traffic there is, how wide the road is, etc. Nothing.
What can be seen in the picture, however, is a car that, no matter the speed, is tailgating way too close. Which is a misdemeanor in some countries.
Yes illegal, depending on the country.
If cyclists can use the whole lane (common situation in the United States for example), it is (almost always) illegal for a driver to leave their drivable portion of the road to pass someone, bicyclist or otherwise. That includes crossing any lines, going to the opposite side of the road, being on the shoulder or sidewalk, etc.
Without a separate bicycle lane, it is not permitted to pass a bicyclist.
I’m not sure I’m understanding… as a driver you can legally pass by going into the opposing lane momentarily, as long as the line in the center is dashed (not solid) on your side and there is no oncoming traffic. That’s kind of the whole reason the center line is painted like that, combined with those signs that say “do not pass” and “pass with caution” when the line goes solid and back to dashed.
In that scenario, that would be part of the drivable area yes. However, that is exceedingly rare in the United States at least from my experience in smaller cities/suburbia (east coast). I regularly see people breaking the law by driving on the shoulder to go around someone turning left, and illegally crossing a solid double yellow line to pass a bicyclist.
In my experience in midwest suburbia the center line is almost always dashed unless there’s poor visibility (seeing around a tight curve or over a hill) or more than one lane of traffic in each direction (eliminating the need to overtake in opposing traffic). Or its a pedestrian zone, with reduced speed regardless.
True, some people break the laws. I don’t see it nearly as often as you claim to, and usually not in especially unsafe conditions, but the point stands that those people are selfish and impatient. I don’t see why bicyclists should have to sacrifice either their freedom (to bike to where they please and utilize existing public infrastructure) or their safety (by leaving the illusion that a full size vehicle might squeeze by at cruising speed) for such people. It’s not bicyclists’ fault that the infrastructure fails to serve all of its users equally.
Which is why everyone hates cyclists. Y’all are the left lane campers of the freeway.
If a sign is posted saying ‘Bicyclists may use full lane’ then that lane is now a bicycle lane with cars being allowed on it for some reason. Check your car brain.
Removed by mod
Transit should ideally be on its own section anyway (preferably on rails) and literally everyone has to pull to the side and yield to emergency vehicles. If their lights and siren are off and they are driving on a road/bicycle path in this case, yes they can wait.
Removed by mod
Bro you’re just getting in peoples way. Regardless of your opinion they’re not going to like you.
Regardless of your opinion, it is illegal
There’s a line between following the law and being a dick
Don’t hate the cyclists, hate the government. We all want separate cycle lanes.
In my city people are literally protesting new separated bicycle lanes by slashing the tires of rental bikes… Ridiculous
Some of those same people will then unironically complain about being “stuck behind a cyclist”.
Wrong, it’s easier and safer to overtake two cyclists abreast because you don’t have to be in the oncoming lane for as long
And just so we’re clear, the reason it’s a dick move is the car can move faster than the bike so blocking the car robs the people in the car if its full utility. They’re now forced to go your speed, which is probably less than the speed limit.
While we’re at it let’s just block emergency vehicles cuz they are even bigger taking up more space. Boo them for not all just havin bycycles and saving on emissions
Great image, however slightly wrong. In some countries car pictured should be a huge fucking truck which people use to go and buy Starbucks because of deadly combination of ego issues and laziness.
Mostly one country.
Canada is rapidly mirroring America with car centric design and “you’re only a man if you own a truck” mentality.
Canada is kind of split on between urban and rural it seems. The major Canadian cities are all investing tons of money into public transportation with mostly positive reception, but as soon as you get out of the metro area it’s basically hillbilly truck country.
Even small rural towns can be designed to very walkable and less car centric.
Exactly, but not in Canada because we don’t want to for whatever reason. Ironic thing is that public transport takes up a lot less physical space for infrastructure than freeway of similar capacity with interchanges, so public transportation actually protects farmers from having their livelihood encroached on by highway development. Two tracks and a station not much larger than the average barn leaves way more arable land than a 6-lane looping highway interchange, not to mention rail infrastructure is way narrower than a similar capacity road to begin with.
Actually, Canada used to have pretty good rural rail transport pre WWII, on par with rural Europe in the same time period. Passenger and freight trains used the same tracks without issue before the rise of precision scheduled railroading (which was implemented purely to save costs and gives lower quality freight service than the conventional system). You can thank CN and CP for being openly hostile to passenger rail nowadays.
I wish the diagram would have put little fart clouds labeled ‘Methane’ behind the bicyclists.
What I’m trying to say is that I crop dust a lot when I bike.
Fun fact, humans actually produce only trace amounts on methane in our farts because we’re not ruminants. Most of our farts are nitrogen swallowed from the air and CO2 produced by gut bacteria. The bad smelling chemicals are in even lower concentrations and barely make up a rounding error by volume, we simply evolved to be really sensitive to them because it’s beneficial to our survival to avoid poop.
They do catch fire. How so?
Law of Comedy.
You left out the part where the ones on the bikes are going the fraction of the speed
deleted by creator
That’s only used in bike races, to act as a booster for extra speed/acceleration, much like a rocket does
Or as a smokescreen. Like in Spyhunter.
Don’t ask about the oilslick.
And they left out that emergency vehicles and transit take up more room but really shouldn’t be blocked on speed just on argument of size and space alone. Not even cars would block based on ‘me smaller than them and take up less room’. So it’s a shit attitude and argument here all the way through about size and space as somehow more entitled.
Why state a car’s length in millimeters? Why state any length over a meter in millimeters?
Why doesn’t the world use the decimeter? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it used anywhere.
Using millimeters is pretty common in engineering.
So is using meters.
millimeters allow these numbers to be displayed as integers
Is that how numbers work, fascinating.
I’ve seen technical drawings where the dimension of something is 10000+ mm. At that point I feel like the whole utility of the metric system is moot.
I disagree with you. If you need five digits of precision, 12345 mm is precise and perfectly usable (and slightly less complex than 12,345 meters). Others might just say that the machine (or whatever) is twelve meters long. And all the math you need is removing three digits.
Yeah, I only use furlongs, rods, chains, and links in my calculations.
Don’t forget hectares!
This guy gets it!
In countries that aren’t America, we use centimetres and metres. But it was suggested that yanks are a bit thick and might be happier using woodworkers units of millimetres and metres.
No one uses deci anything, in my experience.
I’ve seen deciliters around some places for beverages.
Interesting, only place I have seen them is in science fiction books, and the occasional scifi themed bar.
We use deci-bells to measure sound volume
Good point well argued. I had not thought of them!
Builders, carpenters, plumbers etc all state any length up to 10m in mm
My decimeters be decimating
I’m curious to see how the arguments for using mm instead of dm varies from the argument for using imperial vs metric. You’re right that there’s way better units to use here, but I think mm is used out of convention. Which is the exact same reason that feet and miles are used, because everyone is used to it.
Because too many people don’t understand sig figs
Its quite common around here to see height restrictions signed in mm. For example a car park entrance might have a sign labeled 1800mm max height
So people saying the bikes side by side are a dick move are implying that you have more right to the road because you’re driving a car?
Generally speaking, to do an overtake, a car needs to leave the lane completely, so it doesn’t matter whether it’s one or two bikes.
You are assuming drivers respect the safety distance from a lone biker…
It does matter. It’s safer for everyone if cyclists travel side by side in one lane because then the car driver has to spend less time in the oncoming lane to complete the overtake. A long string of bikes takes more time to safely pass.
It’s especially safer for the cyclists who risk getting side swiped and crushed by drivers trying to avoid going into the adjacent lane, and since cyclists have no steel box surrounding them, it’s a one sided battle that the car initiated in the first place. Riding side by side forces the car to do a normal, legal overtake by moving into the next lane.
Most of the streets around here were built when the idea that every house could have a car would be viewed as a fantasy.
So you’ve got cars parked up and down each side of the road, and if two cars want to pass each other, then you have to hope that there’s space for one of you to pull over.
If you want to overtake even one bike, forget it. It’s probably got some balaclava wearing kid on it, weaving none-handed up the middle of the road.
Those kinds of streets are actually the safest for everyone because they enforce lower speeds and more attentive driving than any posted speed limit ever can. People don’t give two shits about speed laws and will drive as fast as they feel they can, so when the road is not conducive to driving fast, surprise surprise people don’t drive fast and collisions are rarely deadly.
More info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbqNUqdZlwM
Gurl, what’s with the spooky bike fanfic
If my vehicle had the ability to change its width when I needed to, I’d agree with you, but my car does not have that option, the two bikes do, it wouldn’t take much effort for one to slide behind the other to let the vehicle behind pass, it’s a give and take with society, I’ll actively make sure to keep you safe from my vehicle, while bikes should actively try to allow larger or faster vehicles to pass safely instead of putting themselves at risk over something that takes no effort to do.
I’ll actively make sure to keep you safe from my vehicle
As someone who cycles on the road, I don’t trust you. Not in the slightest. Far too many close calls with cars trying to “sneak” by me because “oh I’m sure there’s plenty of room to the right” even in a bike-oriented city. I ride alone the vast majority of the time but having someone ride beside would actually make me feel safer because it means you actually have to perform a legal overtake which involves moving into the passing lane. Also, drivers are distracted all the time and I absolutely do not trust that every driver will actually notice a bike that’s off to their side when drivers are prone to straight up miss traffic lights that are right in front of their eyeline.
Ohh and I don’t trust the bikes I see riding around, the amount of people on bikes who have crossed In front of me while I’m driving the speed limit while never once looking behind them, causing me to have to slam my brakes on because I don’t want to hit someone on a bike.
Both sides of this argument need to show respect to each other on the road, it’s not a bikes are the problem or cars are the problem, people are the problem.
Like I said I actively try to ensure you guys are safe on the road when I pass you or see you coming up in front.
Would it be less of a dick move if it was a faster cyclist or a motorcyclist needing to pass by? No, it might actually be worse.
The point is that we need to do our best to respect other road users, regardless of their method of transportation. Pedestrians, cyclist, motorcyclists, cars, lorries and even animals (perhaps especially animals)
Any side-by-side vehicles increases the amount of space taken on the road, which means it should be avoided when other travellers need to pass by. It’s the same reason that lorries or cars travelling side-by-side at the same speed on the highway is often frowned upon.
I really don’t get people who want to wage a constant social war over our shared infrastructure by being assholes to each other. Being decent and considerate is safer and more pleasant for everybody involved.
A car takes up at least the width of two bikes by default. Why do they have the right to do that while bikes don’t?
Maybe we should focus more on overall efficiency and sustainability of our transport systems, and by that metric, cars shouldn’t even exist. A four lane road takes up the same width as a two track rail corridor and mixed use pedesterian/bike paths on either side, but can transport far more people per hour than private cars while being both cheaper in the long run and more environmentally friendly.
The answer is simple really. The car is one unit, the bikes (in this scenario) are two units, they don’t have to be considerate, but they have the option to do so.
I’ll give an equivalent example. Where I live we have a class of vehicles referred to as “moped cars”, same form factor as cars, but speed restricted to either 30 or 45 km/h. Usually they’re used by teens to get arouns in rural areas with poor public transit options, so they’ll often be trundling along on 70-90km/h roads at slow speed.
This can quickly lead to queues building up behind them during high traffic hours in areas with few passing opportunities. Quite often, when this happens, they’ll pull off to the side for a few seconds at an opportune spot to let other, faster vehicles, pass by. They don’t have to do this, but it is considerate.
As for the second half of your comment, each method of transportation has its niche and purpose. The best system is one that utilizes the strengths of each to complement the others. Attempting to apply a monolithic solution everywhere will generally lead to frustrations and inefficiencies.
Pedestrian - Trivial distances, any density.
Bike - Trivial -> Short distances, any density.
Cars - Short -> Long distances, low density.
Busses - Short -> Long distances, medium density.
Rail - Short -> Long distances, high density.
High Speed Rail - Medium -> Extreme distances, high density.
Air - Long -> Extreme distances, high density.
Because they can move fast enough to not be in the way for people behind them, since they are among the fastest vehicles on our roads. Bikes are considerably slower, which makes it more of a nuisance for those they’re sharing the road with if they can’t easily be passed.
Bike lanes are a good thing, and being courteous is a good thing- that goes both for passing when safe and being respectful of bike riders when you’re driving a car, and also for allowing cars to pass where possible when you’re moving significantly slower than the average traffic speed on a bicycle. It doesn’t have to be adversarial.
Trains are even faster than cars despite being more efficient. Cars actually get in the way of trains, as level crossings are among the worst bottlenecks to both speed and frequency on a railroad, even if every single driver obeys the rules perfectly, the existence of an intersection between two fundamentally incompatible modes of transport introduces a conflict point which inevitably creates inefficiencies. In this way, cars are a “nuisance” to trains in the same way bikes are to cars, and being courteous won’t solve that. So by your own logic, we should get rid of cars and build rail instead.
Tracked vehicles tend to have priority against all other methods of transport on land. They’re just as incompatible with pedestrians and bikes as with busses, lorries and cars.
It’s far easier, cheaper, faster, and more space efficient to build a pedestrian or bike over/underpass than one for cars. A pedestrian overbridge is usually a community project with city involvement, a car overbridge is at the very least a city/country project potentially with state or federal funding.
Being courteous does solve that…? First off, trains don’t share the road, they follow tracks, so thats somewhat of a convoluted comparison. But more importantly, you stop at train crossings so the train can go first…? Is your argument that that’s inefficient? Everything is inefficient. Any solution to a really complicated problem like how multiple forms of transportation co-exist is going to have inefficiencies
Also, no idea where you got the idea that I would be opposed to building more rail and less cars? Cars should increasingly be de-prioritzed in favor of bikes, ebikes, and public transit, but bike riders should be courteous of those who are driving and vice versa, and cars should continue to stop at train tracks to allow trains to go by. Where on earth did you get the idea that my logic of “be considerate of those who are using a different means of transportation” means cars should go away or that cars shouldn’t go away? Also we definitely should be building rail, if we’re gonna deprioritze cars we need public transportation to help fill that gap for people who aren’t in a position to commute or travel by bike/ebike, but all of our infrastructure is currently built around cars, and even in a distant future there will be a need for cars in addition to bikes and trains, we just have way too many of them
I don’t mean to come across as rude, but your response to my comment honestly does really confuse me.
Be respectful of those you share the road with. That means driving in a way that’s safe for cyclists. That means letting cars go by (when safe to do so) when you’re cycling since they travel much faster than you. And definitely stop at train tracks so that trains can go by.
Are you really arguing that passing two bikes is the same maneuver as passing one? That second bike isn’t going to like it.
How so?
Passing two bikes requires moving over more. If you pass two bikes with the same manoeuvre you use for passing one with enough space, you’ll be far too close to the outer bike.
If those cyclists were blocking an ambulance or transit which even take up more room, those cyclists are the biggest assholes on the planet. Size really isn’t the best argument here.
Operative word here being “were”.
There is no ambulance in this picture, nor do you know if the bikers are “blocking up the road”.
Do you always make up stories about barking up imaginary trees in a fantasy forest?
In my made up story the bikes are doing 40 in a 25 so the car has nothing to complain about anyway.
Ambulance and transit are both very different arguments from a single car.
Both the bikes and the car are supposed to make room for the ambulance.
Regulation about right of way for buses probably changes a lot between jurisdictions, so I don’t really have anything to say about that.
Not at all if the argument is size alone or just spouting emissions. It’s a dumb cartoon to pair with the title.
If the argument is size alone then there’s no concept of transit or ambulance or priorities.
It’s ridiculous to try to make a case against bikes by bringing up an imaginary emergency, but then taking that scenario away.
It’s simple. Replace that car with a fire truck. The cyclists look like the biggest asshole regardless of size of vehicle.
Look, if we’re inventing hypothetical scenarios, imagine there was a fire truck behind the car. Now the car drivers are clearly the bigger assholes.
cars pull over as that’s part of the drivers training. You get fined also and that’s part of the course. The cyclists take no training so if the picture were accurate, that car would have pulled over two blocks ago and the cyclists would still be blocking the fire truck. Oh and the warehouse will be burnt down killing all the workers on less than minimum wage all just cuz two cyclists felt entitled to be spiteful assholes.
So, you realize that the expected action from everyone on the road almost everywhere, regardless of the type of vehicle you’re using, is to pull to the side and stop as soon as you hear sirens specifically to prevent people from blocking emergency vehicles right? And since bikes are smaller and more nimble, they can do that much more effectively than a car.
Regardless, real world data shows that there are far more cases of cars blocking emergency vehicles than bikes, so you’re demonizing the wrong mode of transport on behalf of the ambulances here.
How I wish I lived in a part lf the world built and designed for bycicles or proper public transit.
Lemme tell you, that place does not exist in America 😂
Why must you hurt me like this?
Missed the part where the people in the car are obese.
I’m obese and I ride a bike. I just like to break the stereotype.
Update the picture to include the particulate pollution from the tires and you got a solid piece
It also works fine with just one person in the car.
Yeah, that’s the most unrealistic part of that. Almost every car here has only one person in it.
I love this sub so much. It’s as if confidently incorrect had a weird little clone with just the right mix of sass, poorly thought out arguments, and environmental awareness to vex both cyclists and drivers in equal amounts.
Oh gosh, metric that is too confusing. Can you convert it into units we can all understand like yards, feet, inches
/s
yeah, a global standard like imperial units 🙏
As a usual biker, i say bikers riding like this why others want to overtake them (even other bikers), are jerks. Same for pedestrians, and everyone…
i was like, why is an ostrich riding a bike? and why are the people at the back not happier with it?
Drafting an ostrich on a bike sounds easier than drafting a human on a bike. Why haven’t we invested more in this technology?
Where have you ever heard car drivers say something like this? Do you guys just make up fake arguments to have with yourselves?
I heave heard this many times before, yes.
I’ve seen people say this here and on Reddit. I guarantee you the dickheads doing close passes and yelling at me to get off the road would say this.
EDIT: There’s literally people in this thread saying this…
The issue isn’t with cyclists being on the road, it’s with them blocking the road while going significantly slower than traffic. Motorbikes aren’t a similar problem because they’re quick enough not to disrupt everyone else on the road.
Edit: For the benefit of the downvoters - I’m a cyclist, you dopey fucks - I’m just honest about the issue drivers have with us. Making up this bullshit just makes us look like liars that don’t understand the people we’re sharing the road with, and our reality-based arguments work perfectly well. Be better.
What are we supposed to do? We can’t cycle on the sidewalk, and if we get closer to the curb, it gives many drivers the false impression that they can overtake without crossing into the other lane, not to mention all the potholes, drains, and trash that we then have to cycle over.
It seems like a dick move, but I promise you that most cyclists are purposefully being in your way to make sure you notice, slow down, and give us space. We’re just as unhappy about being around your car as you are to see us. We’d happily fuck the fuck off to our own little lane if someone gave us one.
I’m a cyclist too - it’s not an easy situation. It’s easy to say the answer is good bike lanes, but we’ve also got to deliver on that. I’m the meantime, it’s a case of riding responsibly on the road - without inventing unnecessary, dishonest strawman arguments about what concerns motorists. That does more harm than good.
Agreed, which is why we need bike lanes so that traffic isn’t slowed down.
Oh - absolutely - I just think that grounding the argument on this dishonest nonsense only undermines a good idea that can stand on the reality of its merits.
…those downvoting a simple reality-check from someone that otherwise agrees with you only demonstrate a willful disconnect from reality.
Maybe you should visit Britain, you will hear it there
