The highway is already there. It’s likely the city was built up around / with it, not the other way around.

I’m all for less cars and more bikes and it is unfortunate the way cities in the US were built. Making wider bike lanes means either making narrower car lanes or wider general vehicle paths to accommodate both, which is fine when there’s still enough room to do so. Lots of cities have narrow-ish roads that butt up to sidewalks that butt up to buildings. So, you gotta start removing sidewalks and buildings, or make the roads too narrow for cars / trucks / emergency vehicles, etc., just to have a better bike lane.

Then there is the fact that most small to medium sized (and some even bigger) cities’ current public transportation consists of a few busses at best. You have to be in a huge metro for any kind of train or even consistent non-uber taxi service. Also they only run in the city, where most people work, but not many live. It’s common to live in the suburbs or a rural area 20 - 50 miles away from the place of work, for various reasons, but currently mostly influenced by cost and existing infrastructure.

Ever tried to bike 50 mi in the rain / snow / 100°F to get to work? Me neither, and it’s not just for lack of bikepaths.

There are places making efforts to make cities more walkable and bikeable but it takes time and every solution I see from the fuck cars crowd is, "stop living in the suburbs then, move to a city where everything was built perfectly to be walkable and bikable 150 years ago! And if you can’t find one, just destroy all the sidewalks and buildings to accommodate a bike lane and rebuild everything else, I guess. Sell your suburban or country home, change the zoning laws and build a house in an already tightly packed city. Once you’ve done these very easy things, you can bike all the way across town in 100° weather, or take a bus and be an hour early or 30 minutes late to where you need to be. If that’s inconvenient, destroy more buildings or start digging holes and invest in trains!

In the smaller cities like where I’m originally from it’s also laugable. There arent enough people or roadways for biking to be dangerous and the only thing to bike to is a gas station at the single flashing red light and you’d have to take 3 dirt roads to get to the pavement. There’s no bus, no taxi, no uber, and the nearest town is 30 miles away with nothing in between. But those folks should sell their cars and homes and uproot their entire lives too, because not doing so means they’ll drive to a city to survive, and fuck cars.

You make it sound like the people behind the wheels of said cars have no choice. They do: slow down and vote for non-car-centric infrastructure. Motor vehicles are in the top ten causes of death, ahead of kidney disease, AIDS, and homicide. We should probably stop forcing ourselves to engage in such an extremely risky activity.

Yeah, it used to be that cars made way to people, but now people make way for cars. It’s stupid.

I’ve also been frustrated with some cyclists, especially now that ebikes have lowered the barrier and brought the uninformed masses onto the streets.

Here are the relevant laws in my area, just in case some of it is relevant to what you’re seeing:

• stop-light - must stop, but may proceed if the light is obviously not recognizing you (local law is 90sec, but I’ve seen anything from 60-120)
• stop sign - treated as a yield, which means stop of there’s contention, but only slow if there aren’t other cars
• sidewalk - not for cyclists, and cyclists must yield to pedestrians if they use it; cyclists should use the road
• bike lane - not technically part of the roadway, and the law states that cyclists should stay within 3’ (1m) of the roadway unless there are obstructions; likewise, cars must give cyclists 3’ of space, so cyclists will often “take the lane” (be in the middle) of they’re not getting that space
• crosswalks - treated as cars (must wait behind) or pedestrians (if crossing the road with pedestrians)

In short, cyclists:

• may use the crosswalk, but must yield to pedestrians (and cycling 15mph would certainly present a hazard and could be ticketed)
• may use the roads, but need to stay within 3’ of the edge (not including bike lane of shoulder) unless there are obstructions
• may yield at stop signs and treat stoplights as stop signs if they don’t change for the cyclist

For every cyclist I’ve seen that does that, dozens of drivers do the same, and dozens of cyclists don’t. Don’t label the whole based on the actions of a very visible minority.

That said, “weaving in and out of traffic” is legal in many places and called “filtering.” The idea is to get to the front where drivers are more likely to see you, cross the intersection without getting run over, and then move to the side of the road to let cars pass. In many cities, they put a special painted area in front of cars at intersections specifically for bikes to enable exactly this behavior.

Likewise for “running red lights,” there’s also an issue where some lights don’t trigger when a bicycle approaches, and many areas have a law that cyclists may proceed once that’s clear (usually 60-90sec).

I’m not saying either is what you’re describing, just clarifying what laws typically look like so you can distinguish the legitimate, lawful actions from what also frustrates law-abiding cyclists.

Removed by mod