3 ms·

I think the article's argument is framed terribly bad. It's not about "increasing traffic jams". It's about bringing back a vital and necessary balance in our

by Steltek 11y ago

I think the article's argument is framed terribly bad. It's not about "increasing traffic jams". It's about bringing back a vital and necessary balance in our infrastructure, city planning, and our cultural approach. You can not solve automobile traffic and long travel times by adding ever bigger roads/overpasses/tunnels without facing exponentially increasing maintenance costs, expensive land requirements, and massive works projects. On top of that, the surrounding property value and economic generation plummets as roads expand and become congested. Everything points to an urgent call to scale back our automobile oriented country: for our health, humans lives, economy, foreign policy, and environment.

sandworm101 11y ago
Funny, I thought the article was about safety, about not killing people, rather than any sort of car-bike urban balance. >>One way to improve safety on this type of urban street is through a road diet. [...] with any leftover space going to curb parking and perhaps bike lanes. It would seem that making thing better for bikes is a lower priority in the OP than pedestrian safety, even lower than on-street parking for cars. Given that the author draws the bike lanes between parked and moving cars, bicycle safety is clearly not the goal. They are out to protect pedestrians from all things faster than a walking pace. I wouldn't read in any car v. bike politics.
- Steltek 11y ago
  Unsurprisingly, I usually bike to work and take a keen interest on bike safety improvements. I hate the "protected bike lane" phenomenon with a passion. My most common incidents with cars start with not being seen by the driver. A "protected" bike lane destroys whatever little visibility I have to begin with and worse, the increased turning radius means that what was once a mild sideswipe will become a T-bone. As a protected bike lane is usually also a wider than normal bike lane, ~8' vs ~4', I posit that you see a huge perceived and actual safety increase by just taking the existing normal bike lane and widening it.

by Steltek 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

Funny, I thought the article was about safety, about not killing people, rather than any sort of car-bike urban balance. >>One way to improve safety on this type of urban street is through a road diet. [...] with any leftover space going to curb parking and perhaps bike lanes. It would seem that making thing better for bikes is a lower priority in the OP than pedestrian safety, even lower than on-street parking for cars. Given that the author draws the bike lanes between parked and moving cars, bicycle safety is clearly not the goal. They are out to protect pedestrians from all things faster than a walking pace. I wouldn't read in any car v. bike politics.

Steltek 11y ago
Unsurprisingly, I usually bike to work and take a keen interest on bike safety improvements. I hate the "protected bike lane" phenomenon with a passion. My most common incidents with cars start with not being seen by the driver. A "protected" bike lane destroys whatever little visibility I have to begin with and worse, the increased turning radius means that what was once a mild sideswipe will become a T-bone. As a protected bike lane is usually also a wider than normal bike lane, ~8' vs ~4', I posit that you see a huge perceived and actual safety increase by just taking the existing normal bike lane and widening it.