412
Carbrains casually joking about using their 2-tonne murder weapons on cyclists (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (20 children)

If it's Fayetville, Arkansas, it looks like it has some gravel and mountain bike paths, but also low-traffic mountain roads that probably have poor passing opportunities. And it also looks like people might come to cycle there.

From Fayetteville, road cyclists will discover one of the largest road networks in Arkansas – with over 400 miles of scenic paved roads accessible from town. Low traffic density, high road quality, and diverse mountain topography make Fayetteville the ideal destination for your next road cycling vacation.

https://www.experiencefayetteville.com/experience/cycling

So there's a possibility local traffic is being held up by tourists cycling nowhere in particular on roads where you might have to wait a while for a safe passing opportunity, made even longer by people struggling with an incline.

What would be a good infrastructure solution to this problem?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 days ago (17 children)

    What would be a good infrastructure solution to this problem?

    Is this a serious question? You have a separate bike pathway/trail that twins the road.

    Like in Banff National Park

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Yes, I guess that's really the only good answer. Just on mountain roads, space might be at a premium, but there are probably alternate routes a bike path could take.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago*

    Yes, but with all the construction equipment already there, it’s a fraction of the cost to build it alongside. Also that way you can wildlife protect it along with the highway. A seperate route would be at risk of animals (and need to be wary of migration paths) or need its own protection and animal crossovers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 2 days ago (14 children)

    You have a separate bike pathway/trail that twins the road

    For this specific use case, that's only a viable alternative if the separated bike path is just as wide as the road itself. Normal bike paths designed for cyclists commuting or otherwise transporting themselves can be half the width for a bi-directional cycleway as a single car lane, but for cyclists training in the hills, they need the road width to be able to take corners at speed safely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago* (13 children)

    Uhh… the pathways have 20/km limit, it’s also for pedestrians, roller bladders, skateboarders etc. and your risking your life going fast in the mountains wildlife can be around any corner. If you’re treating a pathway or trail like a road, you’re an ass.

    If you’re road training, than you do it on roads… they don’t need to make a specific trail just for that. Don’t go on a busy road, there’s plenty of less used roads that you can do that on.

    And how would you be going fast UPHILL, this is mountainous territory that’s being talked about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 days ago (12 children)

    Road training is literally what we're talking about here?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago* (11 children)

    Do you think the only people biking on scenic mountain highways are trainers?

    We get plenty of overseas tourists who would be a disaster on the regular roads, it’s also illegal on some roads to cycle as well since it’s so dangerous for everyone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (10 children)

    I think this post clearly shows a picture of a sports cyclist, the post referenced a location with clear advertising aimed at attracting sports cyclists, and the discussion thread above makes it very unambiguously clear that we're talking about sports cycling. One would have to be completely oblivious or wilfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.

    As someone who does both sports cycling and transport cycling, I fucking hate it when people from one side act as though the other side doesn't exist or is lesser than or not worth considering. The fuckwits who complain about "tour de france wanabees" while claiming to be cycling advocates are no better than NIMBYs complaining about their parking. We're all on the same side here, and anyone who acts otherwise can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago* (9 children)

    Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers? Where no one else could safely use that trail safely? Not even a pedestrian or a person with disabilities? That’s a great use of resources lol.

    The link also talks about all types of cycling.

    There’s plenty of roads with almost no traffic that road cyclists can use, why do you think they’re being ignored? They aren’t the problem demographic here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 days ago (8 children)

    Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers?

    No. And only an intentionally bad-faith reading of my comment could come away thinking it was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago* (7 children)

    Like you’re doing in this chain with a post link you’re ignoring that started this whole topic….?

    I’ve addressed your concerns, you’re saying these trails need to be road wide, I provided reasons why they don’t need to be. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean I’m here in bad faith. It just means you have a bias and are the one not wanting to discuss something, you just want to be heard and your view is the only one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago (6 children)

    you’re saying these trails need to be road wide

    No, I'm saying in the context where the intended audience is road cyclists they would need to be road wide. The fact that you're completely ignoring the context is what makes you an arsehole.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

    And for the last time, road cyclists aren’t the only ones out there. If you make the track for road cyclists so they can fast, it’s useless for anyone else since it’s not safe. Meaning you’re making it for one group of people only…. Like I’ve said.

    I’m not ignoring context, I’ve explained everything multiple times, you just refuse to listen.

    And unless you’re in a large group and clustered together (which in stupid and dangerous) you don’t need more than a regular multi use pathway. Why do you think you need 12 feet of width to make massively large sweeping turns?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    I'm done with you. Go away troll.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (3 children)

    This community truly has some of the most ridiculous and ignorant users.

    How am I trolling for answering your concerns? You’re the one whinging and bitching, and not contributing to the conversation, those are what a troll does.

    Take the L and go home.

    If the point you’re making isn’t that all pathways should be road wide, you’re doing a shit job of it, and not answering questions or providing information so you can help be steered to the right information.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    How am I trolling for answering your concerns?

    You're not. You're ignoring them. This was always a conversation about one thing and you insist on turning it into something else and you blame me for not going along with your offtopic nonsense. Piss off dickhead.

    On the very, very slight chance that you're genuinely confused and not being a dickhead, or for the benefit of any audience, this started with someone observing that maybe in this circumstance local traffic is genuinely being held up be people out for exercise. I pointed out that if you wanted to have fully separated paths for those users, you would need it to be just as wide as the road. Nowhere in there was I talking about anyone other than road bikers, because nowhere before that was anyone talking about anyone other than road bikers.

    Then you came in and decided to shoehorn in an irrelevant topic. If we were talking about people riding on off-road trails, the solution would be obvious. So obvious it's not really necessary to talk about it in an already un-motornormative space. Or at least, I try to assume that level of good faith from users here unless they prove otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago*

    I responded to someone’s comment about a post link you muppet, how is that not on topic! Lmfao, you truly are a special one.

    Everyone but you has been able to follow along, you’re the only one dude, so who’s the troll?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago*

    Why would you need to build a road width trail when there’s already thousands of other roads? The point you’re making isn’t even relevant let alone valid. You have a solution to your problem already, choose a less busy road….

    Everyone else shouldn’t be on a road, so they need a safe pathway, so you can make one for them, and than everyone has a way to travel, instead of only road bikers.

    You’re view on this is far too narrow and only about you. I think most of us understand road bikers already have other options. If they choose to use a poor one, everyone else shouldn’t have to compromise, how’s that fair? A trail designed for road bikers could only be used by them, it’s a massive waste of resources, so that’s why it’s not done.

    Also, a road biker needs max 6 foot wide trails, that’s around the same width of a multi use pathway, what and why are you going off about needing “road width” for turning?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    A simple solution is to have extra wide bits where the topology allows it, with the width added to the uphill side of the road. Adding an unseparated bike lane on long straighter sections or round the bend is usually going to be sufficient for relatively low-speed mountain overtakes. What you should never do is encourage anyone to overtake a cyclist going downhill.

    Here's some examples from Australia:

    image

    image

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago

    I’ll add that even in the US, it’s somewhat common for mountain roads to periodically have an extra passing lane, pull-off points, or an extra wide shoulder so motorists can get around slower traffic.

    So there’s really no excuse for not adding a bike lane on uphill portions in cycling heavy areas whenever those roads need to be repaved.
    …so maybe we’ll see some of that in the next 50 years…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent