> This doesn’t do anything when cars decide to park in your bike lane anyways
When there's a stopped vehicle in the lane you're in, you can simply check for traffic in the next lane and switch lanes.
> your bike lane has maybe a foot clearance to traffic in the other side.
You're not restricted to the bike lane if there's an obstruction.
> that cars are so much more important than bikes that it’s not car drivers who should check the road when opening their door
No one is saying that they shouldn't check before opening their door, but I am saying that you can eliminate the risk of being doored if you ride far enough away from parked vehicles. It's far easier to take responsibility for your own safety than to rely on others to do it for you.
> but bikers who should lose the 6 feet of street space near parked cars which is the only semi-safe place for bikes in New York
Riding in the door zone is not safe, period. It's safer to just ride in the general purpose traffic lane far enough away from parked vehicles. There's a reason why drivers of motor vehicles don't typically drive in the door zone.
> When there's a stopped vehicle in the lane you're in, you can simply check for traffic in the next lane and switch lanes.
> You're not restricted to the bike lane if there's an obstruction.
These comments proves my whole second point. If a car were to just park in the car lane because it felt like it, there would be outrage, tickets, and the car would get towed immediately. Nobody would say "no big deal, just change lanes". But when a biker says "I don't like using the street because it's dangerous", it's just dismissed like this.
You also ignore that bikers DO just change lanes into the street, which can be quite dangerous somewhere like New York. I don't know if you've ever ridden a bike in New York, but drivers, especially taxis, are at best ignorant of you and often antagonistic. There's a reason bike lanes exist in the first place, and it's because the car lanes are dangerous.
> It's far easier to take responsibility for your own safety than to rely on others to do it for you
Imagine somebody saying this when a car driver complains about somebody else running a red light, or cutting them off in a lane - you would get laughed out of the room. But when drivers act dangerously towards a biker it's the biker who should be taking responsibility.
When bikers do all the terrible biker things like roll through stop signs, or "act like pedestrians", or roll to the front of the line, that IS taking our own safety into our hands by doing legally dubious things that make biking much safer, yet everybody hates that as well.
> There's a reason why drivers of motor vehicles don't typically drive in the door zone.
Have you ever been in New York? Plenty of car lanes themselves are near the door zone, not to mention bike lanes themselves ARE the door zone usually.
I don't mean to be aggressive, but the endless victim blaming towards bicyclists gets really tiresome. I really wish that people who just dismiss these complaints out of hand would bike to work in NYC for just a week.
You're arguing past the GP. They're saying "here's some practical tips, in the real world, at this point in space time, to stay safe while riding a bicycle". And you're talking about how that sucks, and it shouldn't have to be that way. Ok right, it shouldn't. But that's how it is. Do you want to ride a bicycle safely or not?
> If a car were to just park in the car lane because it felt like it, there would be outrage, tickets, and the car would get towed immediately.
And drivers of those cars would switch lanes to get around it in the interim. Cars can develop mechanical issues that prevent them from proceeding and if they driver can't get to the side of the road, then they remain in the general purpose traffic lane (which isn't for the exclusive use of cars).
> But when a biker says "I don't like using the street because it's dangerous", it's just dismissed like this.
What's dangerous about changing lanes after checking for traffic in the adjacent lane? People do this all the time while driving cars, trucks and motorcycles. Why would it be any different when on a bicycle?
> There's a reason bike lanes exist in the first place, and it's because the car lanes are dangerous.
According to NY state law, they exist so that cyclists do not interfere with traffic[1]. It's not for safety. It's just to keep cyclists out of the way.
> Imagine somebody saying this when a car driver complains about somebody else running a red light
When I drive a car or ride a bike, I check for approaching traffic when I enter an intersection. This is out of self-preservation. People are going to screw up (whether intentionally or not). But if you can avoid a collision regardless of what someone else did, then that's a far better alternative.
> When bikers do all the terrible biker things like roll through stop signs, or "act like pedestrians", or roll to the front of the line, that IS taking our own safety
No, that's for the cyclist's convenience. If everyone followed the same set of rules, then everyone's actions are predictable and there would be fewer conflicts and lower risk of collision. Imagine if drivers of motor vehicles started following the same strategy you mentioned. They can justify it by saying they needed to stay out of the way of the bus and they saved time as well.
> Plenty of car lanes themselves are near the door zone, not to mention bike lanes themselves ARE the door zone usually.
If other lanes are present, then drivers stay out of the door zone. That is always true when there is a door zone bike lane.
> I don't mean to be aggressive, but the endless victim blaming
Providing advice in order to prevent others from becoming victims is not victim blaming.
This is definitely not victim blaming. It is sound advice based on the usual flow of traffic and the uniform vehicle code.
Bike lanes of various types are experimental parallel transport systems dropped into an existing system with which most people have experience and education. The bizarre undertaking on the inside and right-hook problems at intersections are completely predictable.
When there's a stopped vehicle in the lane you're in, you can simply check for traffic in the next lane and switch lanes.
> your bike lane has maybe a foot clearance to traffic in the other side.
You're not restricted to the bike lane if there's an obstruction.
> that cars are so much more important than bikes that it’s not car drivers who should check the road when opening their door
No one is saying that they shouldn't check before opening their door, but I am saying that you can eliminate the risk of being doored if you ride far enough away from parked vehicles. It's far easier to take responsibility for your own safety than to rely on others to do it for you.
> but bikers who should lose the 6 feet of street space near parked cars which is the only semi-safe place for bikes in New York
Riding in the door zone is not safe, period. It's safer to just ride in the general purpose traffic lane far enough away from parked vehicles. There's a reason why drivers of motor vehicles don't typically drive in the door zone.