PSA: There is no such thing as “car lanes.” I understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of calling them that, but we should really try to avoid it.
There are only “general purpose” lanes and lanes that exclude cars in favor of vehicles that don’t suck, such as bicycles or buses. Calling general-purpose lanes “car lanes” is car-supremacist loaded language because it implies that other types of vehicles using them are interlopers, rather than valid road users who are also being entitled to be there.
Edit: any of you downvoters care to explain what reason you have for doing so that isn’t car apologism?
People refer to them as car lanes because they are designed and prioirtized for cars. Can a bicycle fit in the lane? Sure, but the lane was not designed for bicycle and in most places the lanes are not designed to share with a bicycle. Many people feel unsafe on a bike with 60+km/h traffic flying by them with barely enough room to pass.
Intended for all users but designed quite specifically for one type of user. I can make a product designed to clean glass, it can clean other things but its intended purpose is to clean glass, this doesn’t change it from glass cleaner to an all-purpose cleaner. “General lanes” are designed for cars and the vast difference of needs between different transport types means we should do more at building and seperating specific lanes.
They seem just as well-suited for busses like in the post.
When there’s no bike lane available I’ll bike in the middle of the next general lane, so they’ll need to use another general lane to pass. They won’t give us barely enough room, it’s safer to just take the whole lane.
You will be tailgated, honked at, rolled coal, maybe even hit by a mirror on an agressive pass by a truck if caught doing that in my area. I barely even feel safe walking on the sidewalk as most people don’t look for pedestrians at intersections or entrances. Yes the lanes are meant for everyone, but the nature of a car or truck means they can easily take more than their fair share of the lane if they want.
In my area they’ll do that anyways no matter what we do, they just hate cyclists for being in the way at all. So it’s safer to take the lane when they’re flying past you with barely any room to pass.
I’d rather take the safer option that makes them angry, than the polite unsafe option and then they’re still aggressive anyways.
PSA: There is no such thing as “car lanes.” I understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of calling them that, but we should really try to avoid it.
There are only “general purpose” lanes and lanes that exclude cars in favor of vehicles that don’t suck, such as bicycles or buses. Calling general-purpose lanes “car lanes” is car-supremacist loaded language because it implies that other types of vehicles using them are interlopers, rather than valid road users who are also being entitled to be there.
Edit: any of you downvoters care to explain what reason you have for doing so that isn’t car apologism?
People refer to them as car lanes because they are designed and prioirtized for cars. Can a bicycle fit in the lane? Sure, but the lane was not designed for bicycle and in most places the lanes are not designed to share with a bicycle. Many people feel unsafe on a bike with 60+km/h traffic flying by them with barely enough room to pass.
None of that makes them “car lanes.” They are intended for all road users and car drivers have no more right to them than anybody else.
(Source: my traffic engineering degree)
Intended for all users but designed quite specifically for one type of user. I can make a product designed to clean glass, it can clean other things but its intended purpose is to clean glass, this doesn’t change it from glass cleaner to an all-purpose cleaner. “General lanes” are designed for cars and the vast difference of needs between different transport types means we should do more at building and seperating specific lanes.
They seem just as well-suited for busses like in the post.
When there’s no bike lane available I’ll bike in the middle of the next general lane, so they’ll need to use another general lane to pass. They won’t give us barely enough room, it’s safer to just take the whole lane.
You will be tailgated, honked at, rolled coal, maybe even hit by a mirror on an agressive pass by a truck if caught doing that in my area. I barely even feel safe walking on the sidewalk as most people don’t look for pedestrians at intersections or entrances. Yes the lanes are meant for everyone, but the nature of a car or truck means they can easily take more than their fair share of the lane if they want.
In my area they’ll do that anyways no matter what we do, they just hate cyclists for being in the way at all. So it’s safer to take the lane when they’re flying past you with barely any room to pass.
I’d rather take the safer option that makes them angry, than the polite unsafe option and then they’re still aggressive anyways.
Compared to a proper bike lane, that is not a safe option. What happens if a distracted driver rear ends you?
Oh no disagreement there, a proper bike lane is safest.