783
You'd think white car would be a fan of separated bike lanes...
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
783 points (85.6% liked)
Fuck Cars
9663 readers
72 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This image is odd. The whole point it's trying to make is that it's quicker to overtake cyclists who are two abreast as opposed to in a line.
In points 3 and 4 it suggests that because the driver can go completely into the other lane, they should, it doesn't actually ever say why they should. It completely ignores that it obviously takes longer to drive across into the other lane and then back than to pass the cyclists as closely as is safe. Maybe not a huge difference in time but it's not like this overtake is going to take a very long time in total.
If it wanted to suggest that it's only ever safe to overtake a cyclist by driving entirely into the other lane then the diagrams aren't necessary. It could just say:
More cyclists fit onto a given stretch of road if they're side by side.
You have to drive into the other lane to overtake anyway.
Therefore it's always quicker to overtake cyclists who are side by side.
The other thing it doesn't take into account is that to overtake a cyclist you'd typically be accelerating, so the 2nd cyclist in a row would be passed more quickly than the 1st.
Because it's SAFER. Oh my god, have we really got so selfish that a human life is worth like a second.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, in the UK (which is where this image seems to be from), the "safe" passing distance for a car overtaking a bike is supposed to be 1.5m. Add that to the 0.5m minimum distance the cyclist is supposed to be from the kerb and the width of the cyclist themselves, and overtaking even a single cyclist should have the car almost entirely in the other lane anyway (UK lanes are typically narrower than their US counterparts).
Whether anyone actually follows those rules is another question, but that is how motorists are supposed to behave.
It is also written into our Highway Code that motorists should "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"