Cyclists create more traffic?

[The Moon]

The title should be "do cyclists slow up the traffic?", that's surely what the OP meant, but yet 10 people concurred with the notion that cyclists "cause more traffic", lol.

[Cyclone]

10 people who don't have the guts to try to explain themselves.

[Pyrotequila]

I didn't expect the aggression I'm feeling in some of these posts, ouch

[truman]

I didn't expect the aggression I'm feeling in some of these posts, ouch

 

You're joking? Criticising cyclists on here is one of the subjects guaranteed to create aggression... happens every time

Edited July 9, 2018 by truman

[Pyrotequila]

You're joking? Criticising cyclists on here is one of the subjects gauranteed to create aggression... happens every time

 

In that case I'm glad I haven't spoken my mind in other threads about road cyclists

(I'm a mountain biker myself, don't go near roads)

[RootsBooster]

But you don't add a cyclist. You take away a car and replace it with a cyclist, not always but in many cases and so when you see a cyclist you see a reduction in road space being consumed, therefore less traffic. Your assumption seems to be similar to that of a great many people that cyclists are like a different breed of people that have their bikes physically attached to them and who are not able to travel by any other means.

Okay, so you make a bunch of assumptions to rationalise that I'm making an assumption myself, that's cool.

 

Whether the cyclist would alternatively be a driver is irrelevant, if you take the current volume of traffic and add more (wether it be a scooter, car, bicycle, velomobile, horse-drawn carriage, etc.) You are literally creating more traffic.

Take the vehicle away and you are reducing traffic. Put the same person back on the road in another vehicle and you are increasing traffic again. Literally.

[Cyclone]

In that case I'm glad I haven't spoken my mind in other threads about road cyclists

(I'm a mountain biker myself, don't go near roads)

 

Well, you've heard the various counter arguments, do you still believe that cyclists create congestion?

Would it somehow reduce congestion if I get my car out of the garage in a few minutes instead of my bike and then spend longer on the road, taking up far more space?

 

---------- Post added 10-07-2018 at 07:32 ----------

 

Okay, so you make a bunch of assumptions to rationalise that I'm making an assumption myself, that's cool.

 

Whether the cyclist would alternatively be a driver is irrelevant, if you take the current volume of traffic and add more (wether it be a scooter, car, bicycle, velomobile, horse-drawn carriage, etc.) You are literally creating more traffic.

Take the vehicle away and you are reducing traffic. Put the same person back on the road in another vehicle and you are increasing traffic again. Literally.

 

You both have to make assumptions. Assuming that the cyclists would otherwise stay at home is probably incorrect though.

If the OP had been more precise with the language and said congestion instead of traffic then this discussion wouldn't need to happen.

Anyway, cycles are part of the traffic, they don't create it nor destroy it, einstein said that traffic can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be moved around.

Depending on the alternatives, staying at home, walk, run, bus, tram, car, van, HGV, the alternative to cycling could be anywhere from marginally better to much much worse.

[Annie Bynnol]

In that case I'm glad I haven't spoken my mind in other threads about road cyclists

(I'm a mountain biker myself, don't go near roads)

 

How do you get to the mountain?

 

Do you drive a car -causing extra traffic congestion, pollution, etc.?

Do you park your car -causing extra congestion, eyesore, pollution, etc.?

[TimmyR]

Okay, so you make a bunch of assumptions to rationalise that I'm making an assumption myself, that's cool.

 

Whether the cyclist would alternatively be a driver is irrelevant, if you take the current volume of traffic and add more (wether it be a scooter, car, bicycle, velomobile, horse-drawn carriage, etc.) You are literally creating more traffic.

Take the vehicle away and you are reducing traffic. Put the same person back on the road in another vehicle and you are increasing traffic again. Literally.

 

ok it was a useful point to make and I'm glad I spent time discussing it.

Edited July 10, 2018 by TimmyR

[The Moon]

Okay, so you make a bunch of assumptions to rationalise that I'm making an assumption myself, that's cool.

 

Whether the cyclist would alternatively be a driver is irrelevant, if you take the current volume of traffic and add more (wether it be a scooter, car, bicycle, velomobile, horse-drawn carriage, etc.) You are literally creating more traffic.

Take the vehicle away and you are reducing traffic. Put the same person back on the road in another vehicle and you are increasing traffic again. Literally.

 

You're being a bit pedantic there. When a cyclist is on the roads, for the most part they can be passed by the motor traffic almost as if they weren't there, so in effect you can say a motorist becoming a cyclist is reducing traffic, or a non motoring cyclist isn't adding to the traffic. One thing is for sure their carbon emissions are zero.