How are you pro-bike and anti-bike lane???

Always check twice whenever someone claims "it's simple math"!
- the simple math supports the idea. the normal math does not.
  
  😸
- Right? If it’s so simple, show me the damn math! I’m happy to check your work, it being so simple.
- If it is simple, it is often an oversimplification
- "It's simply meth"

They're still on xitter, and they paid for blue checks. Who cares what opinion they hold on literally anything?
- please call it Twitter. just to piss elon off. Xitter sounds even worse than X honestly
  
  I read it as "shitter" and it makes me chuckle. Is that not how you're supposed to say it?
- Sadly, a lot of people on that platform do.

I'm anti bike lane. Roads should be for bikes and pedestrians. Cars should get their own single separated lane on the occasional road.
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. They are not needed unless you consider the entire street to be for cars by default.
Also dave is an idiot. Maximum capacity would be a cycle and transit only street because those have the highest throughput per lane. Cars are incredibly space inefficient.
- Slight disagreement there. Streets are for pedestrians and bikes and trams and the occasional car (in a dedicated car lane). Roads (as in large arterial roads in very limited areas, meant for fast travel between faraway zones when trains are inconvenient, or highways between cities) can be considered as intended for cars, and even those should have pretty good space dedicated to bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
  
  Given that a car is a priviledge in most (all?) of the world, I'd argue there should be absolutely zero car-only infrastructure because it creates second class citizens for which some parts of the street are inaccesible.
  Think of it this way, would you support the creation of a sidewalk in which only people who own a 50k ring can go?
- Relevant not just bikes about the streets in Tokyo that prioritise pedestrians: https://youtu.be/jlwQ2Y4By0U
- Bike lanes are car infrastructure. They are not needed unless you consider the entire street to be for cars by default.
  They're better when they protect cyclists from cars with more than paint. I ride, and I'm less of an arsehole to drivers when I have a separated lane with as good or better rights than the cars
  I would like to see streets slowed down and bike infrastructure better protected on roads. I don't need bike lanes on streets, as almost all of them are pretty safe for cyclists — drivers seem happy to go slower and leave metres of space when passing

- I’m stealing this.

Bike lanes suck. Separated bike paths are much better. Or just streets without cars at all, no need for a bike lane if there are no cars.
- In this paradise, where are the Rollerbladers?
  
  Rollerblade lane.
  Separate but equal. /s
  
  Dead since about 1990.

Vehicular cyclists are the fucking worst. I find that they fall into two groups:
"The John Forrester", generally oldhat nerds festooned with side mirrors and blinking lights and fluoro vests who are basically at the point of cosplaying as a car.
"The Dentist", young and middle-aged guys with money for whom cycling is purely a sport and nothing else, who annually dump $20K into prebuilt bikes and clothing like it's nothing.
Either way they're almost 100% athletic white men who for some reason never picked up on the fact that cycling in a car culture is a near-perfect analogy / example of what it's like to be a marginalized minority and a first-hand demonstration of privilege. Instead they're defenders of the status quo - By way of their own athletic, gender, or monetary privilege - All the way to their bloody meat crayon deaths. They're that one asshole who shows up to the community board meeting about a new bike lane that will make cycling accessible for children, the elderly, and any person in between who is more risk-averse or less athletic than they are in order to speak against it "As a cyclist". Because to them battling for your life in traffic, being on the bleeding edge of death, breathing in truck exhaust from the shoulder of a stroad is a gatekeeping measure. They're masochistic elites, they rake pride in the danger that they put themselves in so much that they'd deny accessibility to anyone else unwilling to accept that danger.
Gordon Ramsey is an example of someone in the dentist group. A few years ago he very nearly got meat crayoned by a car while cycling in the US. He didn't provide the details of the crash but it was obvious from his injuries that he'd been hit from the side by a car or truck and likely went over the hood. His public plea in revealing this wasn't that the US needs to make roads safer for cyclists, or more accessible to people who don't have a group of equally wealthy friends to peloton around a foreign country with, maybe separating cars from cyclists so that the two may never conflict. His one and only adamant request was that we all wear a helmet. Cycling is wasted on these myopic asshats.
Oh bother, I've gone and ranted again.
- Hey, i fall into the dentist group! But i totally advocate for bike lanes, and i'm not white...
  There are dozens of us at the local critical mass ride!!! I make it a point to show up in my ridiculous spandex gear to show people the dentists aren't all assholes. Also, good spandex is really comfy.
  Why the hate?? Yeah i sunk a lot of money into my hobby, but thats what people do. People spend tens of thousands on camera gear, gaming rigs, etc. Why hate on others' expensive hobbies?
  I'm actually not that rich, but living car free and biking every day has allowed me to allocate a lot of money towards my hobbies. Cars are a total money sink... 10yrs ago it was around $6k/year TCO. I'm sure it's more now...
  You should put an additional qualifier on your dentist description.... Carries their $20k bike on top of their $80k SUV. Drives 2 hours out of the city just to ride around for an hour...
  
  Car drivers telling cyclists they spend too much :D
  
  I didn't say that all dentist-types are vehicular cyclists, just that all vehicular cyclists seem to fall into those two groups. One-way taxonomy. If you advocate for accessible bike infrastructure, good!
  I'm actually white and male, myself. Fit, though I'd stop short of claiming athletic. But for me, taking up cycling was an eye-opening first hand example of disperate privilege. Both in how cycling is treated compared to driving, and how level of access to cycling itself changes depending on who you are. While I was already primed to understand social justice, cycling is a small way for white bros to really emphatically experience it along one vector, even if temporarily. Some of us gatekeep it as a result, but like you or I some of us use that experience as motivation for advocacy.
- I'm living proof that a helmet will do nothing to protect your pancreas; sure it coulda been worse, but as an 8yo kid I had a tough recovery because they wouldn't give pain medications until the last minute, but I guess that's just another rant for another place and time.
- Either way they're almost 100% athletic white men
  Someone has never been to Europe.
  
  I have though. Go on, I'm interested to hear about the demographic difference.
- Have you been outside of the first world recently? Here in Mexico, cyclists are mostly old people with backpacks filled with tools on their way to fix a sink.
  
  No, but I'm speaking specifically about US culture. Sorry, I know this community is international and so I should have stated that.
  
  Hell even where I am about 60% of cyclists are kids. This is some basic internet strawman if I've ever seen one.
- Cause and effect. When you make cycling a challenge, the only cyclists will be the most radical/motivated. If we had the infrastructure to make cycling safe and easy, many more casual cyclists would exist. Europe proves that
  “If you build it they will come”
  As it is, building it doesn’t even work so well because we are so starved for opportunity that so many “bike paths” are overwhelmed by pedestrians that also never had options
  
  Yup, it definitely has snowball potential in either direction. Build more infrastructure, incentivize more advocates. Build less infrastructure, incentivize more privileged subcultures.

Ahh a classic vehicle cyclist!
- I can hear John Forester screaming in his grave

Hey I get it though, bike lanes are expensive new infrastructure. So pro-bike, anti bike lane just means all roads are now for bikes, cars not allowed. Ban cars and you don't need expensive new infrastructure! Sounds great!
- Yes but then we would need to kill children manually. Have you ever tried to hack up a hundred pounds of meat with a machete? Its quite the job.
  The fact us; we need cars. They just save so much labor.

"it's simple math" - read about that expression on Facebook, never actually had math themselves as they were home schooled in creationism and flat earth.
- Wtf even is simple-math? Arithmetic? Logic? The 2006 Kansas middle-school curricilum?

You all need to visit the Netherlands.
- NL is flat, Switzerland's a much more convincing example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pWnreLG_cvc&t=837s&pp=ygUOY3ljbGluZyB6dXJpY2jSBwkJsAkBhyohjO8%3D
  
  The cycling infrastructure in Switzerland is good, but the Netherlands are on a whole different level.
  The video is ok, but contains incorrect information. Fines aren't scaled by income, they're fixed. Only for major infractions that go before a court of law is the penalty scaled.
  Also, there is a shot from Bern saying "look people don't cycle when it's unsafe" but what is being shown is the roundabout of the motorway exit Ostring. No one cycles around that as there is no point. Cyclists would bypass that ugly sin from the 1970s.
  It's also funny to hear Basel being called a small city, in Switzerland it's considered one of the biggest, like Genève, Zürich, Bern, Lausanne.

I'm pro bike and anti bike lane.
The entire street should be for bikes only
- That's what happens in my city, people hella mad about it
  
  Car users arent people.

Got a friend this way. He hates bikes on the road. And yells to get on the greenways etc. Cause slow his lifted f150, that he needs to commute and get groceries, down for 30 seconds. The bike then get on the greenway and then he bitches they go too fast there.
Also he weighs about 300 lbs and doesn’t work out in any way.

You lie. That's how. They aren't pro bike they are just saying it to make their point

Sorry but I will not take infrastructure advice from someone with the last name "carr".... /s

Some of them are against bike lanes because they say it gives drivers a false sense of entitlement and cyclists a false sense of security when they're supposed to be sharing the road.
That doesn't sound like this guy, though.
- I ride an odd bike, a recumbent. I have seen a few cars watching me rather than the road, which is good for me — they give me loads of space — but bad for anyone ahead of me as the drivers show no lane control for a good 50m after they pass me. Where that happened most recently is also where a driver killed a cyclist by wandering into the bike lane despite having a six metre wide lane to themselves (even the cycle lane there is three metres wide)

Pro-life + anti-gun control = pro-birth.
- Or in other words: He's pro after-birth abortions.
  
  Birth them all; let school shooters sort them out

Even better is the pro life /pro death penalty.
- I can at least see the logic in that one. No child is born deserving to die, but some adults have absolutely earned it.
  
  Couldn't you say that no child deserves to be born?

who the fuck said anything about novelty?

I disagree, but I’ve definitely heard this argument before. NYC bike lanes are almost never respected. Cyclists need to be just as aware in a bike lane as they are splitting lanes.
- That's because most of them are unprotected and drivers are assholes. Paint doesn't mean shit to them
- Yep the concept is called "vehicular cycling". Proponents argue that cyclists fare the best when they act like and are treated as any other vehicle in traffic. It's bullshit of course, cyclists are safer in dedicated infrastructure and we should try to transform urban areas to be less car-centric and more walkable in general.
  Oh The Urbanity! youtube channel made a video about this in particular: https://youtu.be/XpnZy7RrO3I
  
  I'm all for separated bike lanes etc. They're nicer and safer than riding on the road. however when that doesn't exist the safest way to ride is to behave like a car, so holding the leave etc. Otherwise people try to squeeze past you or your less visible and it gets really dangerous
- Places that implement bike lanes in a decent way have physical dividers between the car and bike lanes, not just paint.

This is funny to me because the one time I was in NYC, the streets were empty but the sidewalks were congested as fuck.

If we add a novelty bike lane, what's next? Novelty unicycle lane? Novelty camel lane? There is no end to silly positions on things that nobody is asking for but I can pretend they do. You people need some common sense.
- At least in Canada, people were literally cycling before automobiles came to our streets. Streetcars/trams were originally just falled "cars" before the automobile industry appropriated it.

Dave must be an "avid cyclist" you see at public meetings.

Dave isn’t very bright
- That's obvious. He pays to use Twitter.

Weird. I had a convo with one who said that protected bike lanes in crowded streets are dangerous as ambulances cannot get through the tight traffic.
And parallel to that was a fully car-restricted street. As an ambulance driver I would take that, as it is likely free.
So I think car-free roads are better, but it feels wrong being restricted to smaller roads when using the bike, especially if shops etc are all on bigger roads.

Ironic that the replier's last name is (assumedly) carr

Im pro bike, but we should round up all the cyclists
- Damm cyclists... they ruined cycling!

Bike lanes are fine as long as we don't get rid of roads in the process. Living 10 miles from a city, terrible public transport and chronic pain means I'm not about to use my bike for actual errands. Before we say "just fix public transport" there is a balance of how much it will cost vs how much it is worth and no, I don't think it will be worth fixing

I am anti-bike lane. Honestly at least 50% of it is from the shitty bike posts. Probably more. Some of it is from the massive unused bike lane they built in my neighborhood. It cut though yards and 50ish trees and permanently fucked traffic. But half of it is the sorry-ass bike memes.
- If traffic is so fucked, you should just ride your bike instead. Sounds like you'd have a nice traffic-free bike lane all to yourself.
  
  Yeah! Great! If the bike path led to anything. You have inspired me to show up for town hall meetings to try and remove the bike path. Good job!
- "I don't like some pictures online so cyclists should have to ride in the street."
  lol
- Some of it is from the massive unused bike lane they built in my neighborhood.
  It probably isn't unused. You probably just think it's unused because a bike lane has a lot more capacity than a car lane, so they appear a lot less full for the same amount of traffic.
  https://transportist.org/2016/03/30/on-why-bike-lanes-might-appear-underutilized/
- The thing is that bike lanes need to be built intelligently. As a bike commuter I want to have bike lanes that don't force me to ride close to parked cars because that is dangerous for the cyclist and people getting in and out of the cars. I want to be able to conserve momentum and not have to stop everywhere, because building up speed costs effort. In my country if there is a bike lane its use is compulsary, but some lanes are so unsafe or so built to kill your speed that I often do avoid them wholly or partially.
  I admit to being somewhat of a vehicular cyclist but I support easier safe options for those who are not.