Things people blamed on bicycles

The space and design parameters optimizing for personal cars, especially at US vehicle sizes, is contradictory to design parameters for other modes of transport.

it is fear of uncertainty. not knowing how to deal with something or even assess because you don't know the problem.

there is big business in people with answers as well con men.

My calculator is not good with numbers.

I obviously had to wait a few hours, because while I may have a concussion and broken some bones, there are people with far worse injuries in the ER.

One time I had to wait 12 hours because a major car accident had happened, and I saw them move the victims of that into the ER.

I was instantly reminded of the difference in danger, and very glad that my injuries happened with a 20 kg vehicle at 20 km/h, and not a 2000 kg vehicle at 100 km/h.

when I had my motorcycle most near misses were also with SUV drivers not paying attention when changing lanes. The more expensive the SUV the more dangerous.

I have no idea what causes this, but I've noticed it in many others. Maybe because if you do wait a bit, some drivers behind you will get irritated and honk, flash their lights, tailgate, and pass you via some dangerous maneuver? That might be enough to associate waiting with anxiety for people who'd normally be ok with waiting.

So evolutionarily we should see men on SUVs riding down other men and rounding up women, I suppose.

However I think it is hard (and unwise) to ignore the role which (car) culture has played in this. Before car culture streets were a thing one shared with pedestrians, horses, carriages and cars. If you change that culture and priorize other things in your public spending for a decade you can end up somewhere entirely else [queue pictures of Amsterdam in the 70s vs today]. This influences culture and therefore the way motorists will treat cyclists.

I am not saying that the nature-side of the nature vs. nurture debate isn't existing. It is quite clear that both sides exist from what we can observe. Thr nature side is much harder and riskier to change in our favour than the culture side.

The way it worked in the Netherlands is a good example. If your bicycle infrastructure is good enough, more people will bicycle. If more people bicycle, more motorists bicycle. This means more motorists understand what it feels like as someone cycling. This in turn means there is less conflict for both sides.

Most car ads always show the car as alone on the road or street, as a symbol of ultimate freedom ("own the road" often comes back as a catchphrase). Yet this can't be further from the actual reality of driving.

Maybe the cognitive dissonance is what drives (pun intended) driver entitlement and anger when challenged.

I hate to use the common refrain, but it really seems to me that a higher percentage of bicyclists drive like maniacs. What purpose, exactly, does driving without a light at night serve? Especially when combined with barreling through a red light into a multi-lane traffic circle? And, of course, sidewalks are meant to be driven on — wouldn't want to lose your bicyclist card for ever pushing your bike. Leading to the ever popular driving across a crosswalk (I'm not so sure who's at fault if I were to hit a bicyclist on a crosswalk, and I'd rather not find out).

Granted, due to the lower weight of bicycles, accidents are considerably less deadly, but there is still a considerable injury risk to me as a pedestrian, and as an automobilist, I'd rather not have an accident on my conscience, whether I'd be legally at fault or not.

Always prevent careless drivers from killing you and always have an escape path.

please understand than bikers don't make a good judge, because they are biased to think everyone is trying to kill them because everyone hates how free and both environmentally and physically better they are than everyone else.

this thread started with someone claiming that bikes are "healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians"

which are only claims, not facts.

the fact that I sometimes drive for 30kms with a car and walk the rest of the times, doesn't make me less healthy or more polluting,it's just propaganda fueled by self righteousness which doesn't help the matter at hands: why bikers love to take on cars, while, like it or not, cars are still the main users of roads because the astonishing amount of taxes road users have to pay, pay for those roads and their maintenance.

I hate cars in walkable cities, but I understand that walking is better for me, I don't blame people driving, I just avoid them.

I would like to avoid bikes too, but they use the pavement I'm walking on 'because roads aren't safe', like their right to defend their safety overrides my right to not be bothered where only pedestrian should walk.

I don't feel safe walking in the middle of the street, even though no law here prohibits it, I simply don't do it.

If a road is too dangerous to walk, I change directions.

There'll be a day when all of this won't b necessary, in the meantime, while some scientist invents the "no danger machine" everyone risk their life by simply living.

House accidents cause more death than accidents between bikes and cars in my Country, heck, they cause 4x more deaths than car accidents!, so bikes are still much safer than staying home anyway, enjoy the biking and stop complaining.

that's absurd.

ever seen a traffic light from a car?

> Literally nobody keeps the necessary distance to the car/cyclists in front of them in city

you mean literally no cyclist keeps the distance between them and the car in front of them, tailgate them at traffic lights, and then keep everybody else stuck because they are slow to move?

they are forbidden by the law to pass other vehicles in my country and keep the right lane, they never do it.

have you ever seen a bike wait behind a slower car or in line at a traffic light?

cameras could fine cars not behaving, but bikes?

> When a cyclists falls in front of a car it's fatal.

then why they do it all the time?

because I literally saved tens of them in the past 30 years.

> Cars must leave at least 1.5 metres room when passing bicycles - while revised guidance also says "it can be safer" for cyclists to ride two abreast.

Basically no one is ever willing to wait for anyone else, as OP's reasoning shows pretty adamantly.

Of course they're grossly incorrect.

if they do not kill you, they are not.

or maybe if you are scared of other road users and need a "safe space" you aren't a good road user.

just maybe

> if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad

welcome to the reality.

I'm not driving too close to you, you are zig-zaging in the middle of the street and you wear noise canceling headphones and no rearview mirror and no stop signal when you brake.

Thanks, but no thanks, I'm passing you, I don't trust your abilities, sorry.

let's not pretend that the majority of cyclists are Tour de France participants, they are usually terrible.

The good ones do not complain and they are those passing you left and right because are very confident and know what they are doing.

I'm also simply trying to not be responsible of your injuries if you injure yourself.

By the law I have to stop and check on you and stay there until.an ambulance or the police arrives. It usually takes hours.

when lockdown happened, cars weren't around, people started using electric scooters, with no cars around

results?

ER saw a spike of brain I juries because people where falling from them!

Is that the cars fault or it's people that are reckless?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/25/rome-to-impose...

two wrongs don't make a right.

but I've never seen a car chained to the subway gate

> yes, for you. for the collectivity, the cost of cars killing people a

spare me the "pistolotto"

I use public transport and my feet, bikes are not saving anyone and frankly having to hear people defending the right of bikers to break the law is ridiculous.

At least cars don't disrupt my mother in laws's whose almost blind walks.

Why bikers never walk their bikes on pedestrians only paths, like they are supposed to?

there are no cars there.

No wonder bikers are considered by the book selfish people

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/black-belt-brain/201...

if they wanted to be safe, they wouldn't go when cars are allowed to go 90km/h, side by side.

if you are suicidal, I don't wanna be part of your plan.

> Cyclists are doing the best with an infrastructure built in favour of cars,

that's so boring that is gives me nausea

Americans don't understand that they are not the center of the world.

Most of the bikes accidents in.my country happen far away from cities.

Most of those roads are the same that 200 years ago were used only by mules and cows

people didn't complain at the time when they used them with bikes, but complain now that bikes are 100x times better and roads are 100x times easier and safer.

the only "new" infrastructure have been highways in the 60s of the 1900

Viale Trastevere is kinda new in Rome, it was made by Mussolini in the late 1920s

that's the "infrastructure" you're talking about.

It just happens that now the main users of roads are cars, get over it, they won and will keep being the most used vehicle's form factor even after the electric transition.

I just want as much distance as possible between other drivers. Less stuff to deal with.

As for the law, it's good to have limits to drunk cycling, but it's important to have them tolerate a considerably higher BAC than those for driving.

I am ok with people killing themselves but it's not OK do something stupid that makes another person kill you. An example would be jumping in front of a train to commit suicide. These things leave deep trauma in the people this happened to. I view drunk cycling in that category.

achenet: The officer will direct you to the separate bike lanes for Ketamine and LSD.

[0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code

A helmet requirement is wholly incompatible with the role of cycling in NL. You hop on a bike anywhere, regardless of what you're wearing. It's a casual transportation mode, just like walking, not a sport activity. This proposal can only make sense for people who don't live in this reality.

In addition, as mentioned by another commenter, when the dutch traffic rules were written decades ago, it was found that helmet usage correlated to increased accident rates - people take more risks when they feel safer, and that in turn makes pedestrians less safe.

>Crucially, the Dutch distinguish between everyday cycling (fietsen) and competitive cycling (wielrennen). Fietsers (cyclists) are found everywhere. ... The term wielrennen, on the other hand, is reserved for the sweaty, colourful and seemingly endless cycle races on which the people of Benelux are so keen.

In my experience, at least in my area of the US, mostly kids do fietsen - biking to their friends' houses, or the park, etc. Grown-ups on bikes are typically serious about their wielrennen and wear skin-tight gear and ride fancy road bikes.

I try to drive safely around any cyclists, but I think it's easier to cut folks in the first category a break - they're aware they're slow, they try not to be in the way, etc. Folks in the second category are sometimes frustrating to drive near - at traffic lights they cut to the front, only to advance relatively slowly when the light turns green, or they blow through a stop sign as a car is approaching, etc.

I wonder if we would have better rules, better set expectations, etc, if we similarly had 2 words to talk about cyclists in English.

0: https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/how-do-y...

Neurosurgeons have a very skewed view of the statistical likelihood of head injury. They see such injuries every day, and it can most definitely make them believe that the risks involved are much greater than they actually are.

Requiring a helmet has apparently been shown to depress the use of bikes for every day activities. Going grocery shopping with a bike is less convenient if you have to juggle a helmet along with a liter of milk.

Less biking means roughly more pollution, more obesity, bigger roads, more car accide ts.

On the other side of this equation is the death and injury that helmets prevent. This is non-zero, but apparently in the Netherlands we have judged this marginal benefit of helmets to be less than the advantages of more cycling.

The calculation might be different in countries with inferior cycling infrastructure.

There are a couple of problem with mandatory helmets, including:

* It discourages a healthy activity.

* It shifts the responsibility from the person causing to danger (drivers) to the potential victims.

* It creates a false sense of safety (e.g. biking slower reduces risk of injuries far more then a helmet).

Here are some important conclusions:

1) Cycling as a commuter is quite safe, with or without a helmet.

2) Cycling is safer with a helmet.

3) If you found yourself in some binary where your only options were "cycle without a helmet" or "don't cycle at all", the health benefits of "cycle without a helmet" likely outweigh the risk of serious injury due to not wearing a helmet.

4) Because of #3 and other factors, helmet laws for adults aren't generally a net positive.

5) BUT - it's a good idea to wear a helmet whenver you can, and even the Dutch (fore example) would be better off if they kept their usage of cycling high, but culturally embraced wearing helmets as well.

6) Things are very different in higher-risk forms of cycling like BMX, road racing and MTB, where crashes are much more frequent and higher impact, and you'd be an idiot to not wear a helmet.

I have a hefty Abus “sold secure” (requirement of insurance) D lock that I lock through the frame, but I’ve watched enough lock picking lawyer to know this won’t stop thieves with angle grinders (most thieves now) or ones handy with a disc detainer pick.

Please don't - this is typical 'tough on crime' trick: promise long sentences, so easy - longer sentence-less crime, right? Wrong. Sentenses are useless if no-one ever gets caught. Look at countries with the toughest sentenses in the world, and you will find they have loads of crime

You actually have to use your brain, and think and plan, on how to make sure criminals are caught. You have to take real action like training investigators, installing trackers, registering property, etc.

For example in UK concervatives have been in power for 12 years, punishment got much harsher but crime is growing because they have cut police numbers, and you chance of getting caught is ~0%. The longer people get away with crime, the better they become at crime. Now we have a large 'talent pool' of highly trained thieves.

Right, in The Netherlands, where there are a lot of bikes, this is the basic rule: just make sure that there are other bikes that are more attractive to steal, even if it's a new bike. The second basic rule is: use a chain lock to attach your bike frame to an unmovable object, so that a thief cannot just throw your bike in a van and remove the locks elsewhere.

What I do:

- Use a ring lock for the back wheel. Makes it unattractive to steal just the wheel. The lock needs to be unscrewed from the frame to remove the wheel.

- Use a chain lock and make it go through the frame, front wheel, and attach it to an unmovable object. In order to steal the frame, the thief would have to saw through the chain in plain sight.

- If there is no supervised parking, park the bike in an area where there are enough people where someone will notice a thief trying to break the locks.

- Get bike insurance. It's usually only 10 Euro per month and if your bike gets stolen, you get back the bike's value.

- Some insurers also install a tracker. This has double value: bikes with a tracker are less attractive to steal. Secondly, bikes with a tracker are usually moved to a 'cool-off' location first. This is usually just some place removed a few streets from where the bike was stolen. If it's still there after a few days, the thieves know that nobody is actively tracking the bike and they can take it somewhere to comfortably break the lock. So, it's likely that the insurer will find the bike at the cool-off location without much damage.

I mean thief can steal one for their own purpose, but then what? He steal another one every weeks?

I dont get it.

It's a really frustrating problem, and has changed the way I feel about this city a lot. Being able to just casually ride around with friends socializing in summer evenings was really great. Now it's everyone taking ubers.

Often I don’t think the bike theives check if the bike is “good”. My cousins bike was just over $150 new and was stolen. He had a cheap lock because he thought who would steal this.

I’ve been riding 10 years a moderately decent bike. No issues but I use a U lock which is decent.

Please lock through the frame. I’ve seen like 6 front wheels locked to bike racks with the rest of the bike gone..

If the lock is a cable lock, it's worthless. If the lock is solid metal over 5mm, it can only be cut by angle grinder. Once you are in angle grinder territory, whether it's 5mm or 15mm doesn't seem to matter. So i think there is no point spending over $100 on a lock.

Additionaly, you can use a hydrawlick jack to break d-locks, but that doesnt work on chains and is very dependant on how exactly you locked up

The thing is people aren't stealing them to always sell them. Sometimes it's just easier to quickly grab a bike when the thief needs to get across town for some other reason. When they get to where they want to go, they just ditch the bike. Sometimes I think some people just want to steal a bike for no real reason.

In Seattle, I've seen gigantic piles with hundred of bikes in them just sitting in a homeless camp. They clearly aren't selling those bikes, as they've been sitting out in the rain for months, or even years now. And I guarantee those homeless camps aren't full of multi-thousand dollar bikes.

The great thing about the Dutch bicycle structure is that it spans the entire country. It's not just the big cities. Every city, town and village has high quality bicycle lanes. You can easily bike around the country on dedicated bicycle routes in The Netherlands.

It is very difficult to use the brakes and indicate a change in direction at the same time.

While cyclists should indicate, the nature of the vehicle does make it hard under some conditions.

Here's a question for you. If i am stopped at a red light on my bike in what is clearly a left turn lane, why do cars attempt to pull up in front of me anyhow?

Cant be bothered waiting for me to make the left so they just force themselves in front of me? is this because i didn't signal?

Depending on region, children cycling on their own to school typically starts somewhere between ages 6-10.

How did I make any cyclist unhappy by just standing still with my car on red light in a row of other cars?

How did I insult cyclists by daring to cross on green light as pedestrian?

I don't talk about outliers, I talk about daily experience for past 10 years I live here. Consistently the same. As with cars, you don't notice normal drivers/riders, but a-holes you notice well. And a-holes on bikes I do notice practically every single day, unlike any other traffic on the roads which respects basic traffic rules.

That being said, I do have the impression in the local town (but definitely not everywhere) the behavior of cyclists in general became worse in the last decades. I'd really wish I had a way to make sure, but I just don't remember seeing multiple highest category rule violations every single day.

The average speed of a bike, as measured in Netherlands, is around 15km/h. When there is snow the speed is generally even lower. It is also fairly common where I live to see parents use strollers on snowy days since the bike roads tend to be clear of snow before sidewalk. No one, neither police or other pedestrians, acts as if those parents are putting their children at mortal danger. Statistics also support this.

A motorized two wheeler that can travel 50 km/h is not a bicycle, it is a moped. If its electrical then its an electric moped. Mopeds are not allowed where I live to use bike lanes unless they travel at the maximum speed of bikes. Mopeds also require a moped driving license and a license plate, and police can and has apprehended people who break the traffic law in this way.

in 2017 over 900 americans died in accidents involving running a red light

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/08/red-light-running-deaths-hi...

Motorists exceed the speed limit, roll through stop signs, sometimes blow through red lights (every light cycle at one intersection on my daily commute), and drive while distracted (I see the cell phones from my bike).

Cyclists blow through stop signs, sometimes blow red lights, and often take shortcuts that are technically illegal.

The city is badly designed. Busses shouldn't stop on traffic.

However, e-bikes can give unconditioned people “superhuman” strength and endurance. Physical training tends to give individuals intuitive limits for personal safety, but using a modified e-bike short-circuits this intuition.

I am thinking that limits on stuff like diameter of frame tubing or tire width (which would not stand up to riding at speeds outside of normal “human” parameters) can help.

I like e-bikes, they are getting more people to ride bicycles, and I’m especially seeing a surge in older people getting out and riding far. This is a good thing for all cyclists. But parent is correct: e-bikes are motorized vehicles. There are bicycle trails where I live where motorized vehicles are not allowed, and that includes e-bikes, and it is enforced.

Cyclists who behave badly are cyclists. People riding vehicles with motors that let them go that fast simply aren't cyclists. We don't call ICE motorcycle riders "cyclists" in that sense either.

You have identified that they give cyclists a bad reputation, and we all suffer due to it. :(

> Our study also found that there are simple changes that could reduce exposure to emissions for professional drivers, such as keeping windows closed when driving, or changing routes to avoid tunnels. Having an air-tight vehicle cabin can also play an important part in reducing driver exposure. Technological fixes such as specialised in-vehicle cabin pollution filters may also be a short-term solution to reduce exposure for professional drivers.

* https://airqualitynews.com/2019/10/07/drivers-are-exposed-to...

How many vehicles are air tight?

We all agree about common sense. It's just your perception of what represents danger doesn't align with reality. It's important to understand where the danger comes from (for both cyclists and pedestrians) so you can support measures that actually makes everyone safer instead of just some people feeling better.

Streets with bicycle paths are a safer for pedestrians, I think there is research from NYC/Brooklyn comparing streets before and after bike paths.

Sure, let me hang down the cable with electricity from the 3rd floor window of the apartment building I live in, that will work great. (Can I even charge the car from regular socket? I would hope yes, albeit slowly I assume.)

> You don't have experience so you think how it would be different .. and different is .. bad?

For me the car is a handy tool, so don't care much about "feel of the motor" or whatever. But the tool should be practical. So in this case, when I compare 5m to fill the tank and pay to 25m (Level 3, here [0]) to charge the EV, the gas variant comes out as superior. And the car itself is cheaper. And has bigger range (well, not that that one matters too much to me. Anything over 400km would be enough for me).

So I just don't see why I should prefer EV (disclaimer: I'm not sold on the whole "it's greener" thing, for multitude of reasons).

0: https://mechanicbase.com/electric/how-long-does-it-take-to-f...

> petrol car fill up was about 130EUR, the electric to do the same distance between 2 and 40 EUR depending price of electricity and whether I do fast charge.

At current gas prices, full tank is ~43 EUR for me (using conversion rate from google). At my income (low by US standard, reasonable by the local ones), that is low enough I mostly don't care about it since it's once every month or two.

Out of curiosity, might I ask what car did you drive before? 130 EUR for full tank sounds... like a lot. So I'm wondering if it was due to car being huge or due to gas price.

If you think that’s too much and you don’t have a serious physical handicap, you are about likely to have one.

For several days pedestarians complained that cyclists drive like crazy and it's "when" not "if" some cyclist will hit someone. That unfortunately proved to be accurate.

https://tvn24.pl/tvnwarszawa/ulice/warszawa-rowerzysta-potra... [PL]

That’s what happened to me. Only reason I didn’t get trampled was because I had a funny feeling and decided to slow down as I approached the intersection (buildings obscured my view of possible traffic).

They had zero sense of self preservation, let alone any regard for anyone else.

One seriously distinct American thing is to claim deadly dangers in extraordinary safe situations and places.

First result [0] says there were zero pedestrian or cyclist fatalities in 2019, with ping-term trend being increasing safety.

Another result [1] on how it was achieved: “cut speed limits, changed street design, removed space for cars and generally made life harder for motorists”.

Huh… sounds like cars are doing the killing…

[0]: https://news.cision.com/city-of-helsinki/r/zero-pedestrian-a...

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/how-helsinki-a...

What less than a second away means to you?

I think there is a bias based on perception. When people see a cyclists going in their direction they assume said cyclist will ran into them on purpose while a bicycle comes into a complete stop in just a handful of meters and can avoid objects easily. I am not condoning riding fast and recklessly in path shared to pedestrian and cyclists and I tend to lower my speed at barely more than running pace but a lot of that comes from perception.

One other example, I have been riding MTB for years in swiss Alps, in trails shared by hikers and mountain bike. If I am in a descent I tend to go quite fast when visibility is good and I can see what is at the exit of a corner. When there is no visibility I will reduce my speed dramatically to be able to stop for any hiker, cattle or whatever that could be in the way. The thing is braking hard on a mountain bike with aggressive tires on dirt/rocks is quite a noisy affair and involve a bit of sliding, which is fair and nice. Hikers on the other side of the corner would often end up being afraid by the sound and shouting insults at me like I was a criminal while I had preventively braked to a safe speed in order for anyone to be safe. Perception bias. In later years I started braking much earlier and in a longer distance has to do less noise, removing fun just so that people are less afraid. It didn't change a thing regarding their safety. Sad.

Being born and raised in the Netherlands, this was a bit of a nasty surprise when I moved here. I really think you can cut down car use significantly by improving the infrastructure. The distances and landscape lend themselves well to biking, but the roads do not.

Should cars then have priority over people in a crosswalk?

The argument sounds ridiculous when framed from a drivers point of view. And it's the same from the cyclists. Either you want traffic laws to be obeyed or you don't. Offering up that "really sucks" isn't a valid reason to ignore the laws.

The point I was making is that it is safe to use a bike in foot traffic areas if you slow down to match the expected speeds of your surrounding traffic; such as using a bike in the historical city center of e.g. Amersfoort or Utrecht, where there is usually a lot of foot traffic and little car traffic, and no separate bike lanes.

No, I do understand that there is (some) more danger to a bike. But a bike also provides an elevated viewpoint to the cyclist, allowing for a better overview of the traffic situation, allowing the cyclist to better participate in traffic.

> more difficult to safely maneuver around short of standing the side and stopping to let them pass.

Most of the time roads are wider than the turning radius of a bike, especially at low speeds (approx 1.5m). Why would you need to stand aside to let someone pass if you have such wide roads?

This is shown directly by city planners. When construction closes down bike lines or walkways, which ever remains get temporarily converted to be both bike and walkway. Since that doesn't carry any increase in risk, it is safe to do so.

Similar, parents with strollers often use bike lanes. During winter when the road conditions is at its worst you often see strollers on bike lines. No one acts as if this puts the baby at mortal danger. Statistics also support this since bikes crashing into a stroller is unheard of.

However lanes that share bikes and pedestrians make people feel unease. The low speed and short breaking distance of bikes allow them to avoid causing accidents, but it doesn't remove the fear completely. Thus Swedish city planners don't generally combine pedestrians and bikes unless there is a good reason, like construction.

WTF is wrong with you in America?

When a bike goes on the pavement it's the bike that has to yield. When a pedestrian or a bike goes on a road - it's the cars that have to yield (usually, there's exceptions).

Did they make a mistake? Is this not consistent with what motorists are being taught to expect? Are motorists commonly not being taught what to expect, and getting confused about this?

Bicycles are supposed to be on the road, pedestrians are not.

In many other countries, bicycles turning left are expected to move to the middle of the leftmost lane and make the turn exactly as a car would. It's hardly surprising that those countries don't have so many people cycling as Denmark or the Netherlands.

> who in their right mind opens a door straight into traffic. If it's a bike it's going to unpleasant for the rider, if it's a car, your car door comes off [...] I mean dooring happens, but very rarely.

Here in the U.S., I believe it's the most common cause of cyclist injuries in some cities (!). Opening doors into traffic without looking is not that unusual, and there's a lot of discussion about how to change that habit.

Edit: the sibling comment points out that the habit of looking before opening doors may be different for drivers versus passengers. Anecdotally, I think some of the worst offenders are taxi and rideshare passengers (in the back seat).

No, it's on the right (i.e. correct) side of the car - drivers are trained to look into the side mirror before opening the door, passengers not (and even if they were, they can't use the mirror on their side).

But yeah when I am not on my daily commute you still get that kind of behaviour.

I think that's a really interesting law since it actually makes an exception for slow bicycles. Looks like they're such a nuisance that cars are actually allowed to overtake them despite the solid line.

If you e.g. see pedestrians, brake and continue to roll slowly towards them in your car, you might think: "This is perfectly fine, I saw them!". But the question is: Did they see that you saw them? If not, then your slowly rolling car communicates; "Yo, I am gonna kill you!" to these pedestrians. This means in that situation the act of stopping is the clearest communication that you saw them.

Using blinkers, hand signs in the way they are intended (to communicate intent) makes also sense. On the highway check your damn mirrors before blinking unless your intent is to ram that car that could be there.

Sure it's risky for me to ride drunk - but the risk is mostly on me. I've also had far more near misses sober in peak hour than drunk at 2am. The biggest risk at 2am is a drunk driver wilfully or accidentally runs a red light and t-bones me.

The fact is it's much safer for me to clear the intersection ahead of drivers rather than have them try to pass me at the intersection. If there are two lanes of cars banked up behind me impatient people will try and pass without changing to the far lane; getting too close to me in the process.

Some signals in my city have bike boxes and secondary lights for bikes which change a few seconds before the car signals to give riders a head start - this accomplishes the same thing and feels much safer.

For example - https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-31.9548303,115.8601648,3a,5...