"People more likely to do thing if thing doesn't carry the potential to kill them."
Was this a necessary study?
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
131 points (99.2% liked)
science
19557 readers
589 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh it is.
There's a lot of cyclist groups I know that oppose separate bike lanes for a plethora of strange reasons.
They are some of the most pro-cycling people I know. But they are blinded by what I call the "pro"-blindness, thinking that because they can effortlessly ride in traffic everyone should do it as well.
It also clarifies that bikes are not cars. There is another strange, probably overlapping, group of cyclists that don’t want that distinction to be made so they can oscillate being vehicular and pedestrian rules at their convenience.
When dealing with carbrain bad faith, it could help to have studies to point out the obvious.
Honestly, I would bike more if places I need to go like the supermarket had protected bike lanes. The main roads around me get pretty crazy and are not fun to bike on
They only had to look at the Dutch bicycle culture, to find that conclusion
In the US we have to re-invent the wheel for every little infrastructure project we do.
No, just for bike and pedestrian projects. Automobile capacity expansion projects often just happen without having to justify themselves to anywhere near the same extent.
Biking is great fun, and very practical. Getting run off the road is not fun. Dying in a dangerous intersection is impractical and unsustainable, for the average non-imortal worker.
Who knew knowing you were not likely to die when you ride your bike on public roads increases peoples desire to ride on public roads.
How strong are these posts or barriers?
I hope they are capable of holding off the stupid oversized american trucks.
This isn't sarcasm, I'm just curious