- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1473 Hour
- Reading permission
I hate people that ride bikes. They are a menace to society. I think that bike sharing is a very stupid idea and no solution to pollution. |
Do cyclists have to wear helmets in China? Probably not. No. And can people just ride a bike on the footpath/sidewalk in China? China needs better bike laws. NSW has the best laws for pushbikes -
The NSW road rules consider bikes to be vehicles and stipulate it is illegal to ride on the footpath. It also says a bell or horn must be fitted to help warn pedestrians. “The $106 fine is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence,” he told news.com.au. ... Finally, there is the $319 fine for not wearing a helmet.
A bike is a vehicle and they should stay on roads or in bike lanes. It is not cool to have people riding bikes on footpaths and in pedestrian zones. Cyclists are not only dangerous but also very annoying.
Here in Australia a lot of people hate cyclists and there are many cases of cyclists being attacked by motorists. And it is not just Australian motorists that hate cyclists -
Something about cyclists seems to provoke fury in other road users. If you doubt this, try a search for the word "cyclist" on Twitter. As I write this one of the latest tweets is this: "Had enough of cyclists today! Just wanna ram them with my car." This kind of sentiment would get people locked up if directed against an ethnic minority or religion, but it seems to be fair game, in many people's minds, when directed against cyclists. Why all the rage?
I've got a theory, of course. It's not because cyclists are annoying. It isn't even because we have a selective memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of boring, non-annoying ones (although that probably is a factor). No, my theory is that motorists hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
Driving is a very moral activity – there are rules of the road, both legal and informal, and there are good and bad drivers. The whole intricate dance of the rush-hour junction only works because people know the rules and by-and-large follow them: keeping in lane; indicating properly; first her turn, now mine, now yours. Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside.
You could argue that driving is like so much of social life, it’s a game of coordination where we have to rely on each other to do the right thing. And like all games, there's an incentive to cheat. If everyone else is taking their turn, you can jump the queue. If everyone else is paying their taxes you can dodge them, and you'll still get all the benefits of roads and police.
In economics and evolution this is known as the "free rider problem"; if you create a common benefit – like taxes or orderly roads – what's to stop some people reaping the benefit without paying their dues? The free rider problem creates a paradox for those who study evolution, because in a world of selfish genes it appears to make cooperation unlikely. Even if a bunch of selfish individuals (or genes) recognise the benefit of coming together to co-operate with each other, once the collective good has been created it is rational, in a sense, for everyone to start trying to freeload off the collective. This makes any cooperation prone to collapse. In small societies you can rely on cooperating with your friends, or kin, but as a society grows the problem of free-riding looms larger and larger.
How does this relate to why motorists hate cyclists? The key is in a detail from that classic 2002 paper. Did the players in this game sit there calmly calculating the odds, running game theory scenarios in their heads and reasoning about cost/benefit ratios? No, that wasn't the immediate reason people fined players. They dished out fines because they were mad as hell. Fehr and Gachter, like the good behavioural experimenters they are, made sure to measure exactly how mad that was, by asking players to rate their anger on a scale of one to seven in reaction to various scenarios. When players were confronted with a free-rider, almost everyone put themselves at the upper end of the anger scale. Fehr and Gachter describe these emotions as a “proximate mechanism”. This means that evolution has built into the human mind a hatred of free-riders and cheaters, which activates anger when we confront people acting like this – and it is this anger which prompts altruistic punishment. In this way, the emotion is evolution's way of getting us to overcome our short-term self-interest and encourage collective social life.
So now we can see why there is an evolutionary pressure pushing motorists towards hatred of cyclists. Deep within the human psyche, fostered there because it helps us co-ordinate with strangers and so build the global society that is a hallmark of our species, is an anger at people who break the rules, who take the benefits without contributing to the cost. And cyclists trigger this anger when they use the roads but don't follow the same rules as cars.
Now, cyclists reading this might think "but the rules aren't made for us – we're more vulnerable, discriminated against, we shouldn't have to follow the rules." Perhaps true, but irrelevant when other road-users perceive you as breaking rules they have to keep. Maybe the solution is to educate drivers that cyclists are playing an important role in a wider game of reducing traffic and pollution. Or maybe we should just all take it out on a more important class of free-riders, the tax-dodgers.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/ ... eally-hate-cyclists
Cyclists are freeloaders. Cyclists are like tax dodgers. I have said for a long time that bike riders should have to register their bikes and also get a specific license to ride them on public roads. Why shouldnt they? People that drive cars or trucks or ride motosycles need to get specific licenses so why dont cyclists have to do the same?
A study of the Hangzhou bike sharing program found that users of the program were more likely to own a vehicle than people that did not use the program. So the bike sharing programs do not reduce vehicle ownership. They are only used for short distances I would assume so all they really do is cut into the point-to-point transport market. This kind of thing is also totally gay and China should not want to copy gay cities like Paris or London. Bike riders are dangerous and annoying. Bike-sharing is stupid. God I hate people. Who the hell would want to ride a bike somewhere? That is so stupid. People should walk or if it is too far then get a taxi. What the hell? Who the hell are these hippies riding bikes around? Tourists riding around as if the city they are in is some kind of zoo or something? Why would Chinese people want to ride bikes around again? This is the future. Bike sharing? It is ridiculous.
Maybe the kid hates bike riders like many of us do and that is why he threw the share bike into the water.