You'd think white car would be a fan of separated bike lanes...

Cycling two abreast is better for the driver, since they can overtake much quicker.

I disagree since overtaking a cyclist in the same lane is unsafe anyway. In the city I always cycle in the middle of the lane because it prevents unsafe takeovers and dooring.

So it's a bit of a conundrum. Because there are pros and cons in riding abreast.

On one hand, cyclists are more compact and more visible. On the other filling whole lane would mean drivers behind them would have to time their overtaking. However, car drivers almost never leave enough space when overtaking cyclists and 100% never think about wind that might push them or that cyclist might need more space to avoid potholes and stuff. So being a dick driver is not exclusive to cyclists.

Traffic law, at least where I live, states when overtaking cyclists driver must leave enough space between him and the cyclist so as to not inconvenience cyclist. Which is vague and not helping one bit. However I think it's far better to be forced to slow down and time overtaking than not slowing down and flying next to a single lane of cyclists. Because if and when there's a car coming from opposite direction, car driver won't care or look twice to move closer to the edge of the road and push others out.

Yes illegal, depending on the country.

Where do you see another vehicle "waiting to pass"? There's absolutely nothing in this picture telling you how much traffic there is, how wide the road is, etc. Nothing.

What can be seen in the picture, however, is a car that, no matter the speed, is tailgating way too close. Which is a misdemeanor in some countries.

If cyclists can use the whole lane (common situation in the United States for example), it is (almost always) illegal for a driver to leave their drivable portion of the road to pass someone, bicyclist or otherwise. That includes crossing any lines, going to the opposite side of the road, being on the shoulder or sidewalk, etc.

Without a separate bicycle lane, it is not permitted to pass a bicyclist.

Wrong, it's easier and safer to overtake two cyclists abreast because you don't have to be in the oncoming lane for as long

And just so we’re clear, the reason it’s a dick move is the car can move faster than the bike so blocking the car robs the people in the car if its full utility. They’re now forced to go your speed, which is probably less than the speed limit.

Mostly one country.

Fun fact, humans actually produce only trace amounts on methane in our farts because we're not ruminants. Most of our farts are nitrogen swallowed from the air and CO2 produced by gut bacteria. The bad smelling chemicals are in even lower concentrations and barely make up a rounding error by volume, we simply evolved to be really sensitive to them because it's beneficial to our survival to avoid poop.

And they left out that emergency vehicles and transit take up more room but really shouldn’t be blocked on speed just on argument of size and space alone. Not even cars would block based on ‘me smaller than them and take up less room’. So it’s a shit attitude and argument here all the way through about size and space as somehow more entitled.

You are assuming drivers respect the safety distance from a lone biker...

It does matter. It's safer for everyone if cyclists travel side by side in one lane because then the car driver has to spend less time in the oncoming lane to complete the overtake. A long string of bikes takes more time to safely pass.

Most of the streets around here were built when the idea that every house could have a car would be viewed as a fantasy.

So you've got cars parked up and down each side of the road, and if two cars want to pass each other, then you have to hope that there's space for one of you to pull over.

If you want to overtake even one bike, forget it. It's probably got some balaclava wearing kid on it, weaving none-handed up the middle of the road.

If my vehicle had the ability to change its width when I needed to, I'd agree with you, but my car does not have that option, the two bikes do, it wouldn't take much effort for one to slide behind the other to let the vehicle behind pass, it's a give and take with society, I'll actively make sure to keep you safe from my vehicle, while bikes should actively try to allow larger or faster vehicles to pass safely instead of putting themselves at risk over something that takes no effort to do.

Are you really arguing that passing two bikes is the same maneuver as passing one? That second bike isn't going to like it.

If those cyclists were blocking an ambulance or transit which even take up more room, those cyclists are the biggest assholes on the planet. Size really isn’t the best argument here.

Using millimeters is pretty common in engineering.

Yeah, I only use furlongs, rods, chains, and links in my calculations.

In countries that aren't America, we use centimetres and metres. But it was suggested that yanks are a bit thick and might be happier using woodworkers units of millimetres and metres.

No one uses deci anything, in my experience.

Builders, carpenters, plumbers etc all state any length up to 10m in mm

I'm curious to see how the arguments for using mm instead of dm varies from the argument for using imperial vs metric. You're right that there's way better units to use here, but I think mm is used out of convention. Which is the exact same reason that feet and miles are used, because everyone is used to it.

Its quite common around here to see height restrictions signed in mm. For example a car park entrance might have a sign labeled 1800mm max height

Because too many people don't understand sig figs

My decimeters be decimating

Lemme tell you, that place does not exist in America 😂

I'm obese and I ride a bike. I just like to break the stereotype.

Yeah, that's the most unrealistic part of that. Almost every car here has only one person in it.

yeah, a global standard like imperial units 🙏

Drafting an ostrich on a bike sounds easier than drafting a human on a bike. Why haven't we invested more in this technology?

it looks like a Chrysler Sebring, so, yeah, by default.

I heave heard this many times before, yes.

I've seen people say this here and on Reddit. I guarantee you the dickheads doing close passes and yelling at me to get off the road would say this.

EDIT: There's literally people in this thread saying this...

Maybe you should visit Britain, you will hear it there

If there's only ten cars per hour you should have plenty of options to pass them ...

Public transport? Or cars. Some people on here may be militant about getting rid of all cars, but most of us aren't that extreme. We simply want to have the option to not use cars, which is currently not the case in many regions of the world.

Chill. We are working on the temperature. It just takes time, but I think we got one or two degrees already

Dont give me that it's not always 10 below excuse. It is often 10 below or lower for long stretches in the north. Biking is simply not viable or practical.

"It's sometimes cold, therefore you can never bike"

Solid take there.

This sub is pointless until it can provide a solution to having to get somewhere 30 miles from here when it's 10 below outside for most of the winter.

-10F or -10C?

-10C really isn't very cold. The average low in Oulu, Finland in February is -12C, and ~10% of all trips there in the winter are via bike because they have an extensive network of well-plowed bike paths.

Biking in -10C is really just a matter of having appropriate gear to block the wind - similar to what you'd wear skiing like a jacket, mittens and a neck gator/ski mask. -10C isn't warm, but people do outdoor winter sports literally all the time in -10C. It's fine.

-10F needs better cold gear, and is probably going to be pretty uncomfortable for most people. You definitely have to worry about preventing frostbite, and I definitely know skiers who would stay inside.

But most places don't really stay -10F. That's like Fargo or Fairbanks cold, not Buffalo or Boston cold. Chicago has only gotten down to -10F in three years in the past decade. Relatively few people live in places that regularly stay -10F.

Although there's a standard solution for 30 mile trips that works in basically all temperatures: a bus or train. Which isn't really practical in American style suburban sprawl, but is very practical in denser walkable European towns and cities.

https://piped.araozu.dev/watch?v=xB1tgkOM6Bw&t=0

If we assume there isn't another solution to that, why does it matter? Why does your need for a car for your specific use negate any use of alternatives anywhere? We can still advocate for better transportation and land use in cities, even if the proposed solution doesn't work for your journey between Plunkett and Blucher.

Right cuz cyclists are totally paying the road fees to keep the road maintained even they don't cause any damages at all. What was it called? Ah yes. Taxes

Depends on your country. Here in the UK roads are maintained using funds from the general tax pool, so the cyclists are actually subsidising the motorists, who proportionally do a lot more damage to the road surface.

Roads are maintained with taxpayer dollars because car registration is insignificant. Potholes form due to weight/usage of the road and cars are much much harder on roads than bicycles. So in reality, people riding bikes are subsidizing all the damage caused by cars using the roads. Not to mention that many people on bikes also own cars and pay for registration....

Ha. As a cyclist I hear this all the fucking time. Road tax is based on emissions. Regular tax pays for road maintenance. People also forget that the majority of cyclists are also car owners themselves.

It would make sense that the ones doing the majority of the damage to the roads (cars) should be the ones paying for it.

Also, cyclists taxes pay for things like public parking even though we never use it.

Registration fees just fund the DMV... Not road repairs

Yes they are, roads are mostly build and maintained with taxpayer dollars.

So cyclist only use a portion of the road, don't generate any wear unlike the other 2 tons vehicles they are sharing the road with but still pay the same amount than car users.

You are right that it is quite unfair.

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures

exactly.

both groups abuse their power to deny pedestrians their domain over the roads.