Fuck Cars
This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.
This community exists for the following reasons:
- to raise awareness around the dangers, inefficiencies and injustice that can come from car dependence.
- to allow a place to discuss and promote more healthy transport methods and ways of living.
You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.
Rules
-
Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.
-
No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.
-
Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.
-
No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
-
No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.
-
No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
-
No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.
Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.
view the rest of the comments
Let me start by saying that I fully believe in fuck cars and instead having bike lanes and public transportation everywhere.
I alternate between commuting to work by car and bicycle, and I tend to observe other cyclists when I'm driving. What I notice is that a lot of cyclists place themselves in extremely dangerous situations, considering that there are careless drivers on our roads. Running red lights and stop signs is the least of it (I haven't had a need to run red lights, but run stop signs regularly). Most of what I have observed where I live (an urban area) is not cyclists breaking the law to protect themselves, but the opposite: sometimes breaking the law and sometimes obeying the law, both in a way that makes things more dangerous for themselves and for drivers.
Some examples I've seen (more frequently than running stop signs - I very rarely if ever have seen a bicyclist running a red light and would completely understand if they had to do it because of stoplight sensors not detecting them):
Breaking the law (sometimes a combination of several of these):
Obeying the law:
So I guess I'm saying that I'm surprised by the results of this study. I only scanned the actual paper, but one thing that comes to mind is that perhaps some/many cyclists have a greater disconnect between what they think improves their safety vs. what would actually improve their safety?
Depending on the local laws, running red lights and stop signs can be perfectly legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
Studies have shown this can improve cycling safety.
Sure, I realize that. Maybe I wasn't clear or perhaps overly verbose in my previous post, but my point is that running stop signs and red lights is the mildest form of "illegal" (in most places but not all) and like you said, arguably could be said to improve cycling safety. I just thought it was a weird thing to focus on. There seemed to be no mention of either why running stop lights or stop signs can improve cycling safety, or the myriad other ways that cyclists frequently break the law and make things more dangerous for themselves. Maybe there was mention in the paper itself, I didn't read it in detail, but the article didn't mention it.
PS: I upvoted you, by the way. Not sure who downvoted you or why.
Cyclists break laws to reduce exposure to cars and their drivers. Even walking on a footpath, you're more likely to be killed by a car mounting the curb, or launching from a driveway than anything else. Car drivers are the apex predator of cyclists and pedestrians.
The reason cyclists avoid stopping is that our vehicles are pedal powered. If we lose all momentum, we take far, FAR longer to execute maneuvers. It means we spend longer in intersections, which are the MOST dangerous place for cyclists to be. Because of the cars.
And if we stop and wait, we need a far bigger gap than cars do. We cant inject fuel into our legs for a burst of speed. So drivers get impatient waiting for us to go and try to cut in front of us, turn in front of us, take any gaps we could've taken.
So the recommended action is to 'take the lane' (be in the middle of the lane so cars can't pass us) and then drivers are angry we're in the way and slowing them down and behave recklessly out of spite. Or politeness, sometimes drivers 'help' by stopping in the middle of intersections to create space, which also causes accidents.
Or we could be on the footpath, which means we now have to go much slower for safety and oh wait the biggest risk IS STILL CARS because drivers forget the footpath exist and launch out driveways at full speed without even looking. Cyclists, mobility scooters, skateboards; all irrelevant to the impatient driver.
So yeah, all the things that make using a light vehicle safer tend to make heavy vehicle users pissed off. I can do everything right, but if an impatient driver overtakes me in an intersection and collides with me, I'm still the one who ends up in hospital.
So... yeah. Being a defensive cyclists means minimizing interactions with drivers wherever possible.
the cherry on top: regardless of who’s at fault, the cyclist gets blamed
I agree with a lot of what you say and have experienced and done some of that myself. There are just a couple of minor terms of degree that I don't quite agree with:
I think that's true some of the time, but not anywhere near all the time. A few of the things I listed that I've seen don't reduce their exposure.
Again, I generally agree, except that I think "all" is excessive. Plenty of things that cyclists do that piss off car drivers don't make them safer.
Absolutely, but the same idiots that text while driving and microwave grapes can also buy bikes, so the existence of idiots on bikes cannot be assumed to represent a philosophy for cyclists at large (in your area, anyway). Are these things you see many cyclists doing? Or just things you've seen a cyclist do?
I see the concerns you've listed, and I agree they're not safe. But I know why people choose several of them, even if I personally don't do them. I have headlights and a reflective vest, but if your hobby bike doesn't and you need to get home after dark, you deal. If there's no safe space on the road, or the visibility is too poor, you deal.
Some of the other things you name, I haven't seen and cannot fathom why somebody would do such things. We're probably not from the same country (let alone area) so our cycling infrastructure will be different.
One of them I have done: riding the footpath in the opposing direction. I'm going at low speed so I can brake, but the only risk is of a bad driver being impatient - the same risk a mobility scooter, mailbuggy, skateboarder etc would have. And I do this if a) the road only has one path, and the otherside i would be exposed on the shoulder, or b) when my destination is close on the same side because it makes no sense to cross the road twice within 100m. Both are decisions I make to reduce my exposure to cars.
I've personally seen each of the things I listed multiple times. Sometimes several of those items at the same time (ex: cyclist riding at night, without lights and without a helmet, on the busiest street possible).
I understand why people would do some of those things, but not others. Like you, I have sometimes ridden without a helmet or without lights, and I understand that sometimes one is just caught unprepared. The main thing for me is that when I see extremely risky behavior, especially a combination of them like my example above, I worry tremendously for those people. I also seriously wonder if they are actively trying to get themselves killed.
Yes, I imagine that our cycling infrastructure and conditions are probably very different. I also feel that this study may have focused on some places that have better conditions and infrastructure (and cyclist education) than my area. This may explain the discrepancy in what the study found and my experiences.
What you've described all sounds very reasonable. I guess all I was trying to say is that the study had surprising results for me, and I worry that potentially misleading results could encourage cyclists to take more risky behavior. My concern is for cyclists' safety and for the perception of cycling in general.
That's fair, and you raise good points. Thank you for sharing and explaining your perspective.
The perception of cycling in general is already negative, but I suspect it has less to do with idiots on bikes and more that bikes can't help but be in drivers' way. Yet I still hear NIMBYs actively fight against bike lanes because they think cyclists are entitled, and don't want to lose parking spaces to them, or get longer commutes if roads are converted to one-way. That's not something responsible cycling can fix; that's a direct result of car-centric culture being resistant to having a smaller slice of the pie.
EDIT: One thing to add. Human psychology is weird, and it treats being inside a car as like being in one's own house. 'Road rage' is a real phenomenon of drivers feeling 'territorial' in protecting 'their' space. It means theyre more reactive, more impulsive, and often more spiteful. No doubt in part because driving is a highly demanding activity mentally, especially at higher speeds, so adrenaline spikes easily.
By comparison, we don't get widespread 'supermarket rage' with our shipping trolleys, because it feels like a public space in a way 'inside of my car' doesn't (and we're slower and have time to think). And unfortunately, there isn't anything cyclists can do about that, either.
Also, correction: I didn't say all the things that piss off drivers are being done to make us safer. I said all the things that make us safer still tend to piss off drivers. Part of the Road Rage issue is that drivers get pissed off over any perceived infraction, regardless of context: even if their own inattention is at fault (like blaming people on the footpath for being in their way). Usually, the feeling passes In a couple seconds, but every now and then some asshole tries to run you off the road to 'make a point'...
Thank you as well. I agree with pretty much everything you say.
Thanks for the clarification as well. That totally makes sense.
I hope we can eventually make cycling and public transportation more popular.
Take care.