That explains the behavior of all the drivers as I cycle to work.
They are all moral philosophers and believe that by killing me they provide donor organs to save 6 others.
Maybe I need a cycling top that says "I don't carry a donor card"
Maybe I need a cycling top that says "I don't carry a donor card"
A typical response is that these sorts of mental games are silly, but how people answer these questions actually forms the basis of legal systems throughout the world.
Another good question is ask them why they don't become civil engineers - good drains save a lot more people than doctors ever did.
After that he gave up biking and switched to tennis.
He also discovered that drivers gave a female cyclist much more space - although since he did the experiment himself in a blonde wig he did consider that perhaps they just give unconvincing transvestites more room !
I experience this nearly every day on a road I drive to/from work. This is a four-lane highway with a posted speed limit of 45mph. It is a favorite of bicyclists for some reason so there are a lot of riders on the road, even during rush hour. There are a handful of stoplights on this road over about a 5 mile stretch.
I have yet to see an bicyclist able to maintain a speed of 45mph nor do I see them have the ability to accelerate away from a stoplight with the same ability as an automobile. This leads to many traffic issues and numerous dangerous situations. The issue is only barely related to the bicyclists. It is mostly related to their abilities relative to other motorists. A car/motorcycle that was driving on the same road with the same acceleration and speed capabilities would be a nearly equivalent danger.
While I would never endanger a cyclist, I have seen many drivers put in danger by the habits of cyclists. And in my personal opinion, there should be a law that states that a cyclist should only be able to ride on roads for which they can maintain the proper speed.
Same on sidewalks - I'm jogging along and the sidewalk is crowded with old people that can't maintain a 50min 10K time, they should get out of my way.
BTW, I have a Subura WRX STI (2006).
I even beat the neighbors Porsche on the bike - I don't have the STI and the WRX is detuned in this market so it can't beat the Porshce on it's own!
The ride back home was not as fast, though.
[1] I don't buy the safety argument one bit--cars put cyclists in danger far more than cyclists put cars in danger.
I ride my bike to work (almost) every day and do about 100 miles of road riding a week in addition to that. Rarely do I have problems on the streets of Chicago, because I choose wide roads that are "off the beaten path" and there is plenty of room for cars to use the other 3 lanes (giving me one to myself). People interact safely because it doesn't inconvenience them.
The other day, though, I had an interesting encounter with the driver of (you guessed it) an SUV. I was waiting to go straight through an intersection where there is only one lane for left turns, going straight, and turning right. I'm stopped at the red light. The car comes up behind me, and the driver gets out of the car and asks if I can "get off the road" so she can "make a right on red". I told her the lane is not marked for that, and I tried to choose the safest position for myself while waiting for the light to change. This annoys her, so she drives over the curb, onto the sidewalk... and has to wait for pedestrians crossing the street. The light turns green and there are pedestrians crossing the other way, so there she waits... stuck on the sidewalk.
The reason I don't feel bad about making her wait is that if there was a car there waiting to turn left or go through, then she'd be stuck, too. But the mentality of drivers is "us vs. them"; a car is a normal, a red light is normal... but a bike in my way! That's some selfish bastard (her words) stealing 15 seconds of my life!
Now I know why most people drive to work -- they don't want to get yelled at (or be endangered by) other drivers. You have to have a thick skin if you want to cycle and survive. And thus the cycle continues; "those damn cyclists need to get off my God-given roads, because someone told me that the one time I wanted to ride my bike to the store."
If a bicyclist wants to be equivalent to an automobile on areas that are designated for travel by automobile, then that bicyclist should be able to safely travel with other automobiles. If they cannot do so, they should not travel on those roads. The same rational as to why you don't see bicyclists on highways.
I see your request as me deciding that I want to drive my car down the train tracks and then asking trains to work around what the limitations of my car are on the tracks.
It just isn't sustainable, but sustainable infrastructure costs too much money. So it's time to get rid of the cars, and let bikes fill the gap while we wait for proper mass transit to become affordable.
It's already happened everywhere except the US.
Your vision of the future basically kills every suburb and urban area and would reduce humans to extremely high population densities in highly concentrated areas. Leading to problems of it's own. But we're really off-topic at this point.
Interestingly enough, you said above you are in chicago. The area I am talking about above is in the western suburbs of chicago.
Not really a solution. The problem is the sheer energy required to move a 1-2 ton steel cage, not the specific source of that energy, though petroleum is an especially bad one.
"You could increase the amount of telecommuting allowed by the workforce."
While that would help, it would also be useful if you could, for instance, buy groceries or really just leave the house without having to bring the steel cage with you.
"I would think those things are more likely in the US than making everyone ride a bike."
The current infrastructure policy in the US can be described as "making everyone drive a car", even if they live in cities which are easily large enough to make other solutions more practical. I don't want to make anyone ride a bike--but I sure want to allow people to safely ride bikes if they so choose, maybe even encourage it.
The suburbs were created 50-60 years ago in the era of cheap petroleum and post-war infrastructure development. They aren't anything important to be preserved or saved--for various reasons it would be more accurate to view them as a failed social experiment.
It just seems that that path is more likely than everyone in the suburbs giving up their homes and communities and moving within biking distance of home and work. I support initiatives that allow people to safely ride bikes. What I don't particularly like is expecting multi-ton vehicles driving at high speeds to negotiate 1/10th ton people going much slower speeds. There has to be a better/safer solution.
Very few people die because they get hit from behind, despite that seeming like the most likely way to get hit. Drivers use the "see and avoid" principle -- if they see you, then it's likely they'll avoid you. If they can't see you (because you're way off to the side of the road), then they have no opportunity to avoid you.
When you "take the lane" as a cyclist and drive your bicycle with traffic, it's very hard to not see you. People will get annoyed, honk, and call you a bastard, but you'll get to your destination safely. And for me, being able to safely go anywhere I want on 20 pounds of steel is much more important than letting a few cars get to the next red light a few seconds faster.
Anyway, we don't need any new infrastructure for cyclists. We need automobile drivers to have a better attitude, and learn to share their resources.
The worst is when the bike lane is sandwiched between automobile traffic on one side and parked cars on the other. That way, not only do you have the problem you point out, but there's also the risk of going headfirst into some guy and his open car door.
The only special cycling facilities I want are those signs that say "bicycles have equal use of road" and the picture of the bicycle on all the lanes. Those make drivers aware that I am not being an ass and trying to delay them, but am rather trying to find a compromise between banning cars and me dying on my bike.
They are pretty good about doing this in Chicago, and I don't detect much resentment that I exist. It's even better in Seattle. (They don't even need signs there anymore, everyone is used to all the bikes.)
Bicycles can travel safely with automobiles. Automobiles, on the other hand, can often not travel safely with each other. Perhaps you mean "quickly" rather than "safely"?
Is your username some kind of a joke?
If you want to get to work fast, take the train.