Laws aside, I don't think Cyclists should block lanes esp' during peak traffic time. I actually would like a ban on main roads during rush hours, number of folks change lanes and create very dangerous situations for all.
Yet, what choice do I have? Sidewalks are obstacle courses of pedestrians, trashbins, bus stops, sign posts, etc. Bicycle lanes are blocked by taxis/uber/lyft, delivery vans, double parked cars.
I know. I do it too, though I keep my speed down to a brisk walking pace unless I'm in an area where I know it's safe to speed up. Laws are laws, though... At least here in Dublin the cars are mostly good about keeping away, even if there aren't many bike trails.
Also, in my case, it takes the same amount of time to travel by bike as a car and costs a whole lot less.
Taxi/Uber/Lyft is, what, $5-15 per one-way trip? That's between $10 and $50 per day to commute. And that's before errands, weekend activities, and unexpected emergencies.
My spouse and I have a six-figure household income and I'd have a hard time finding an extra ~$10k/yr for transportation costs. It would be a complete nonstarter on minimum wage. Snarky or no, "be rich enough you don't have to worry about it" is a really shitty piece of "advice".
There are many cases where the safest way to ride is for a cyclist to take an entire lane. Note that in many states (including mine), this is absolutely legal and recommended. But of course, there are many motorists who don't know this, and get very angry (https://ashevilleonbikes.com/asheville-cyclist-punched-face-...).
Agreed. The sooner we get cars off the road the better, and... Oh, not what you meant?
I like the lane-segregation San Francisco that is (slowly) rolling out, and I understand other cities mostly in Europe already have (haven't personally been to the right city lately). A particularly dangerous corner near me has gotten far better because of it, and it seems to work well, at least so far - the intersection was averaging about a death a year, and while it is still too soon, nothing now. A side effect is that the sidewalks are more pleasant, too - the bikers, then a line of parking, then traffic just feels much more pleasant.
Drivers don't technically lose any roadway, but in practice, they can't take over the bike lane because of parking, so they seem to dislike it[1]. But that's also what makes it safer, and was the law anyway, so the complainers have mostly settled on sillier rationales.
[1] In San Francisco, the conflict is severe enough that I think certain bikers and drivers have progressed to spite-driven zero-sum bullshit, so its hard to tell who is even arguing sincerely. I don't mind the new configuration when I drive - makes right turns slightly more complicated, and of course I'm not a professional driver, so I don't care about stealing the bike lane for drop-offs/deliveries.
While people do get hit and killed on back country roads, the vast majority of collisions and fatalities are within cities where cycling on roads with that speed is ill-advised.
Most cyclists are on roads with 25-35mph speed limits. If you can't see potential hazards and react in time, you're driving too fast and should slow down. This is why there's a push for lower speed limits in urban areas: It has an almost immediate effect on collisions.
Reacting to something at 20mph and 40mph are worlds apart. You'll have no trouble stopping at 20, but at 40 you run someone over and crash into something.
Put another way, it takes 3x as much energy to go from 40 to 20 as it does from 20 to 0.