Got in an argument with a friend today. Referring to the uk in a none city centre.
Obviously not talking about the legal answer but which is the less cancerous for other people overall.
Got in an argument with a friend today. Referring to the uk in a none city centre.
Obviously not talking about the legal answer but which is the less cancerous for other people overall.
If the pedestrian path is empty or almost empty and the road has no shoulder or is faster than 50, it's better for everyone involved if the cyclist is off the road.
on the bike path
t. never drove a bicycle before
into the trash
>drove
Well I do both, I ride my bike to work because my Foxbody gets like 12mpg on a good day. And to be honest I never understood all the enmity because cars and bicycles. Bicycles belong on the road, it's a flat surface and the sidewalk isn't. It's not safe for me or pedestrians to be going 20+mph on the sidewalk. As well, it makes my commute take three times as long when I have to use crosswalks instead of just flowing with traffic. So basically, the bike haters are telling me to slow myself down to a third of my cruising speed so that they aren't slightly inconvenienced. Tell me, how do YOU react when someone tells you to go slower?
put a 50cc engine on it and stop being a crybaby bitch
On the bike lanes
>suddenly need plates, insurance and motorcycle helmet
>suddenly no health benefit anymore
Why don't you stop crying about people violating your sacred metal box space?
>living in a place that requires licensing for 50cc engines
This, it's not cyclists in bike lanes that are the problem, it's "vehicular cyclists" that refuse to use them
>suddenly need plates, insurance and motorcycle helmet
>suddenly no health benefit anymore
the absolute fucking state of soymerica
As a human powered vehicle you are quite literally driving the bicycle.
If your city is too dangerous for vehicular cycling, your city is too dangerous for personal vehicles period.
I biked fuckin' everywhere as a child, why would you be on the road next to several ton machines moving at far greater speeds when a smoother bikepath exists?
>living in a place that makes no demands to vehicle operators
>Foxbody owner
>cyclist
>understands road sharing
You seem like a decent reasonable person. Now post pics of the fox.
It's a 3k rattle canned piece of shit. LX with a 5.0 swap.
Herp derp I'm a retard what is a picture
Because in a lot of areas a bike path doesn't exist. I agree there should be bike paths though, but driving on the sidewalk isn't an alternative for lack of a bike path.
Cycle path. Or the bin.
Road bicycle everywhere up until i was 17 and then still road it if my destination was less than an hour away by bike.
>bikes belong in bike lanes 100%
>too dangerous on most sidewalks
>way too fucking dangerous on yhe road.
>ive been almost ran the fuck over too many times to think bicycles should be treated as vehicles.
>if a tour de france tier cyclist hits a jogger at 2tmph with his aluminum, thin wheeled, prostate stimulator they both have a much higher chance of survival than if he gets hit by a dodge 1500 or a nissan altima.
25mph.
Fuck my typing lately goddamn
Nice! As long as its a hatchback it's all good. Notchbacks are fucking disgusting.
Bicycles should be in dedicated cycle lanes or on the road. But only on the road if there is no cycle lane and only if the speed limit is 30 mph or lower.
Bicycles should not be on any road were traffic normally exceeds 30mph. It's just common sense.
Acceptable cycling areas:
>bike lane
>bike path
>sidewalk
Unacceptable cycling areas:
>the middle of the fucking road
>anywhere on the road
Are we the same person?
No yours is 5 lug.
And has paint.
...
If you want to pretend that your bicycle is a car then you need plates and insurance like a car.
if your city isn't "too dangerous" for vehicular cycling, your speed limits are cuck-tier
5 lug, yeah. Paint? Barely.
Califag here. Children should ride on the sidewalk and adult/teens in the bike lane. It's not that complicated.
Not in front of my fucking car going 15 in a 50 that's for sure. It should be legal to run you over
I don't mind cyclists on the road, if there's no bike lane or space on the side, provided they follow the same laws and maintain the allowed speed limit like everyone else. If the limit is 35 and you can't get any faster than 15, then you're on the wrong fucking road. If someone drives that slow, you can be assured other drivers would lay on their horn while trying to get around them. Expect the same reaction and then some of you're lycra wearing ass is slowing down traffic because you're a dumbfuck.
Bikes should be required to pay a small mount of money for bike registration that would be used to extend the shoulder of main roads into bike paths
Or you could be required to grow up and stop acting like an entitled child. What next? Horse paths? Tractor paths? Faggot your car isn't even fast.
Are you saying I'm an entitled child because I don't want have to share 100km/h roads with slow moving, zero safety bikes or because I'd like to be able to ride my bike to work without being turned into road jerky by some overworked/underslept wage slave?
there should be bike paths along with walking paths and roads.
I agree.
imagine 12 year old kids getting a bicylce licence, being properly taught how to ride and then paying $20 a year for registering a bike.
suddenly kids can ride properly, and safely on bike paths
>cycling on side of road, slower than traffic
>cars pass me
>reee why is he going so slow get off the road
>cycling on side of road, faster than traffic
>passing cars
>reee this isn't fair what are you doing
Yes. Share the road, follow the rules and suddenly there's no problem.
but some ppl cant follow the rules even when they want to
then get them off the road.
you get them off the road. I personally don't really find to be such a problem.
Nice way to admit you're wrong.
wrong about what?
So bike riders who want a bike lane and drivers who want bikers off roads that they can't travel safe speeds on are both childish in your opinion?