Not the person you're replying to, but why would you think this is trolling? In some countries it's quite common for streets to be one-way for vehicle traffic but two-way for bikes. I don't think the suggestion is for cyclists to ignore the law, but for the road signage to be changed to allow this to happen legally.
Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics).
Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
>Fair, but which countries? It may explain some of the huge disconnect I’m seeing (demographics).
I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough.
There are also "advisory cycle lanes", where there is physically one car lane, but cars can go in both direction. They are expected to (slowly and carefully!) go into the cycle lanes either side in order to pass each other. Speed limit is very low on these ofc.
>Would you agree, though, that in roads that are designed for cars (most of the US), that’s an obviously bad idea and recipe for getting maimed or killed?
Actually no, "roads designed for cars" tend to be pretty wide. Take an existing two-lane road, cut it down to a single lane down the middle and have half-width cycle lanes either side. It's easier to do that on a wide road than a narrow European city road. (American lanes are too wide anyway.)
The problem is not "roads designed for cars", it is politics designed for cars. The roads are not immutable, they can be modified, if there is political will. It can be done: Netherlands was rebuilt after WW2 to be car-dependent in the American pattern, and then that was undone in the 1970s onwards after the oil crisis and record pedestrian fatalities:
There is a myth that European cities have always been pedestrian and bike friendly because they inherit their street design from a time before cars -- not always so! Things have gone back and forth.
> I think a lot of places have them. Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, the UK ... basically any European country. I mean it's not like every (or even most) one-way street is like that in those places, but they're common enough.
I think this warrants a further response.
One of the best things NYC has done was to reduce lanes of traffic.
So there’s a lot of QoL improvements to narrowing.
However, driveways will pose significant danger to two-way bike traffic in one-way roads; especially near corners.
It’s safer cycle center or the opposite side, to be fully visible.
> What should worry you is that going the wrong way in a one-way isn’t obviously dangerous.
How is this claim different from the oft-heard claim that "not stopping at stop signs is obviously dangerous", ignoring TFA and the substantial evidence therein regarding cyclists and stop signs? I have presented arguments for my proposition that one-way signs are not appropriate in the vast majority of circumstances for cyclists. As far as I can tell, you have presented no arguments in favor of your position except 1) assertions that it is "obvious", 2) claims that anybody that disagrees with you should not be allowed to cycle, and 3) vague insinuations that running over cyclists is appropriate retribution for traffic violations.
>Wider isn’t safer, so width is irrelevant. The most dangerous local roads in NYC are extremely wide.
Yeah that's precisely my point; the physical space is there. Narrow the lanes and use the freed space for more sidewalk, bike lane, trees, etc. It means there's an opportunity.
>Perhaps licensing is in order for adult cyclists.
>Then I don’t see any other obvious choice other than testing and licensing cyclists.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Empirically the countries that are safest for cyclists don't have licensing for cyclists, and they have the infrastructure and laws I talked about.
