Eye-Q;n3553448 said:
[...] Once again a generalization which only perpetuates the (IMHO wrong) view of "car drivers vs. cyclists". Many cyclists are car drivers as well, but when you don't cycle at all there is a chance that you can't put yourself in the other position. I don't want to say that you can't ever, but it seems you are affixed to that idea of "cyclists want to abolish cars altogether" which for the majority isn't true.
But this is not what I said. I agreed specifically on the fact that cyclists are the same people who drive (in a broad, inclusive sense), and that for this reason they should be treated equally, while the general perception is that the cyclists are "the good guys" and drivers "the bad guys".
By what you said it appears that you categorized me according not to what I said but to what you think I am.
If you don't believe me, read again my words (and not just from yesterday) and see for yourself that I don't want cyclists to be abolished, only that they take their responsabilities for what they do (including safety) and that they are punished when they do wrong.
Well, cyclists are asking for a better treatment because they were treated like shit in the last 50 years since the car really caught on, at least everywhere else than in the Netherlands and Copenhagen.
No they are not.
The problem is that the cities we live in are designed for cars (no, not the roads, the entire cityies - roads just follow naturally), and bicycles are incredible bad at being cars. So they have been abandoned.
Now (in the last 15 years?), because of pollution and overpopulation, there is a push to increase the use of bicycles (to fight those two problems). Except, they'd be a total failure on their own because cities are not designed for them (again, not roads, but cities).
So they have been "incentivised" in foolish ways: speed limits (that should exist considering the physics of the vehicle) have never been put in place, rather car's limits have been reduced; the cycle paths design mostly has gigantic flaws, the bigger of which is they put the bulk of safety on the vehicle with the less manouverability and the less visibility, because cars are baaaaaaaaad (I tell you! Baaaaaaaaaad); cyclists, which have been growing in numbers are not held accountable for what they do, not even for the most dangerous of behaviours, rather they are petted and aknowledged in even the most disgusting of their behaviours
In this regard, I admire you for trying to stick to rules, and it shows that this is heavy on you, because you see what a colossal prick you could have been and yet you chose not to only to be constantly reminded that other cyclists around you get away with basically everything (even murder - see the NY case). Yet it's wrong to fight me, you should fight those a**holes throwing such a bad light on cyclists.
Err, that's not what cyclists generally want, that would be preposterous. They/we usually "just" want to cycle without being threatened to be injured or killed by car and lorry drivers who either don't pay attention (for example by being on the phone) or don't care about others and overtake with inches to spare.
I want that too, yet cars and bicycles are not designed to be on the road together. I support the creation of -completely- separated cycle paths, outside of the road.
In the meantime, I constantly find cyclists using the road instead of -usable- cycle paths because... they are quicker this way... Your honest hopes are being run over by bicycles' wheels.
Plus, if distance is this important, why on earth bicycles try to squeeze to my right when I am waiting to turn right with my right indicator on? Why is safe distance only important when the cyclist are overtaken and not when they swoosh in traffic like wet fishes? This is hypocrisy.
I'm not saying that this justifies people not caring, but rest assured that when I see cyclists behaving badly, I treat them with the same safeness and care I'd use with motorbikes, not with the extra care I would grant them in normal conditions.
I know of course that the majority of car and lorry drivers do tend to respect the safety of other road users, but that minority which doesn't respect the safety of other road users really threaten their/our lives.
Then why this discussion, which started with "hey, look at these two a**holes cyclists, I'd like cyclists to be treated eqaul to me and being punished when they are being dangerous" ended up in a "you are considering all cyclists as bad people"?
There is public reinforcement of "cyclists should be allowed to run red lights"? That's new to me...
Actually, there is. Last year the municipality here made a campaign against undisciplined cyclists. In a day, they issued 140 tickets for riding in the wrong way, running red lights, ignoring yield signs...
In the same day, they issued 100 tickets to drivers illegally using the phone or doing the same things as the cyclists.
Cylists raised their voices, complaining; drivers stayed silent. Or at least the newspaper only gave voice to cyclists, lamenting that "yes, they do bad things, but it is because they don't have safe paths!".
And it's not like our municipality is not thinking of the cyclists; levels of pollution have risen up like crazy because of the sheer amount of traffic lights built to allow crossing and traffic congestion has shot up because of roads being narrowed to allow the construction of cycle lanes or paths. Not counting the ridiculous lack of parking.
Source:
https://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/bologna/cronaca/multe-ciclisti-1.3516255
No driver could even -dare- to say something similar. Imagine a driver saying that they run a red light because there are too many, and useless. It is true, yet they would be massacred; and rightly so. It is DANGEROUS!
This needs to be valid for cyclists too. SAFETY must be prioritized. Safety, awareness, accountability.
For this, I suggest New cycle lane and paths design, speed limits, better education and registration of bycicles.