Yes, this is precisely what I mean by “bad faith.” Even in the most terminally car brain culture there is effort made to separate pedestrian and automobile traffic, even if that means time interleaving on the same roadway. Very few places in the developed world allow pedestrians and automobiles to share the same roadway at the same time the way bicycles and pedestrians can.
The simple and (I thought) self evident premise here is that cyclists and pedestrians can coexist in ways pedestrians and motor vehicles cannot. Blurring the line between a bicycle and a moped serves nobody besides those who seek to perpetuate the exact same legacy ideas which currently force pedestrians and motor vehicles into needless, dangerous conflict.
Furthermore, for all modes of transport (even boats), crossing situations are where most crashes occur; overtaking crashes are relatively rare. The reason for not mixing vehicle and pedestrian traffic moving in the same direction (and the reason for creating sidewalks in the first place) is for speed and convenience of drivers, at the cost of pedestrian safety. Even in places where people walk in the street, crossings are where they most often get killed.
I’m upset because the government put a bunch of roads in between my house and the other places I like to go, so I have to be around cars in order to get places. I don’t think that’s fair.
Again, nothing is preventing you from having a moped, or riding a bicycle on the street. However, there are many other places in the world where there are trails and other infrastructure meant to be shared with pedestrians, which is why it is important that the distinction between bicycle and moped/motorcycle be understood.
It’s bad faith to claim that city streets are exclusively for cars. City streets have always been mixed use spaces historically.
Cars are so dangerous they annexed the mixed use spaces they run in. Cars are a threat to everything around them. Bikes are forced into conflict with pedestrians as much as they are because of the amount space that has been seized by cars.
Roads need to be rebuilt to eliminate or control cars to make them safe to those around them. Cars are the most dangerous thing on the roads, and should be treated as the threat that they are.
I can’t speak for elsewhere but in much of Canada the situation is opposite what you’re suggesting. Bicycles are legally considered vehicles and are expected to use the road with other traffic if no bicycle lanes or designated paths are available. It is illegal for them to share the sidewalk with pedestrians.
Yes, this is precisely what I mean by “bad faith.” Even in the most terminally car brain culture there is effort made to separate pedestrian and automobile traffic, even if that means time interleaving on the same roadway. Very few places in the developed world allow pedestrians and automobiles to share the same roadway at the same time the way bicycles and pedestrians can.
The simple and (I thought) self evident premise here is that cyclists and pedestrians can coexist in ways pedestrians and motor vehicles cannot. Blurring the line between a bicycle and a moped serves nobody besides those who seek to perpetuate the exact same legacy ideas which currently force pedestrians and motor vehicles into needless, dangerous conflict.
What’s a “crosswalk” then?
That’s what a crosswalk is.
Furthermore, for all modes of transport (even boats), crossing situations are where most crashes occur; overtaking crashes are relatively rare. The reason for not mixing vehicle and pedestrian traffic moving in the same direction (and the reason for creating sidewalks in the first place) is for speed and convenience of drivers, at the cost of pedestrian safety. Even in places where people walk in the street, crossings are where they most often get killed.
I’m upset because the government put a bunch of roads in between my house and the other places I like to go, so I have to be around cars in order to get places. I don’t think that’s fair.
Again, nothing is preventing you from having a moped, or riding a bicycle on the street. However, there are many other places in the world where there are trails and other infrastructure meant to be shared with pedestrians, which is why it is important that the distinction between bicycle and moped/motorcycle be understood.
It’s bad faith to claim that city streets are exclusively for cars. City streets have always been mixed use spaces historically.
Cars are so dangerous they annexed the mixed use spaces they run in. Cars are a threat to everything around them. Bikes are forced into conflict with pedestrians as much as they are because of the amount space that has been seized by cars.
Roads need to be rebuilt to eliminate or control cars to make them safe to those around them. Cars are the most dangerous thing on the roads, and should be treated as the threat that they are.
I can’t speak for elsewhere but in much of Canada the situation is opposite what you’re suggesting. Bicycles are legally considered vehicles and are expected to use the road with other traffic if no bicycle lanes or designated paths are available. It is illegal for them to share the sidewalk with pedestrians.
This is, however, very rarely enforced.
deleted by creator
Mixing pedestrians, bicycles, and motorbikes on the same path is fine though, motorbikes can go around pedestrians in a way cars can’t.