5 ms·

It's a chicken+egg problem. I've considered riding a bicycle to work (it's only about 6 miles), but there are busy streets without bicycle lanes (or even sidewa

It's a chicken+egg problem. I've considered riding a bicycle to work (it's only about 6 miles), but there are busy streets without bicycle lanes (or even sidewalks), and drivers in the area are known to be actively aggressive against cyclists. These things drive down the numbers of cyclists, which increases the general feeling that they aren't accepted, and that it's not worth it to cater to them. > if we could just use those forbidden things called school buses and public transportation. If they were available and timely? Sure. We have buses in my area. They come hourly. They aren't practical unless you have a lot of spare time, and each connecting bus compounds the problem. I can get to some nearby cities by train, but it's almost always more convenient, faster, and cheaper to drive there myself. Cars will become a luxury instead of a necessity when those problems are fixed...and those problems will be fixed when cars become unnecessary for a reasonable quality of life.

Brakenshire 10y ago
I suspect a lot of it is pure population density. The US needs to make downtown areas pedestrian and bike friendly, and then allow high density development near the centre. That makes the bike lanes and the bus network self supporting. In London there was a very big push to extend the bus network about 15 years ago, by the left-wing mayor (who had been given newly created powers). He also introduced a congestion charge for other vehicles. Both policies were quickly supported across the political spectrum. In central London few people use cars now, it is just far more of a hassle. The last mayor expanded bike lanes a lot, and now bike journeys are on course to overtake car journeys in central London. The big development definitely helped to establish the network, but it happened on top of high density (in the number of people working in the centre, if not actually living there). And now we are getting much more housing closer to the centre.
- ropiku 10y ago
  Also the intentional lack of parking. Even if I would get a car I wouldn't have where to park it (or it would be very expensive). The US mandates parking which prevents high density benefits and increases building costs.
- khedoros 10y ago
  If I lived in London (only part of the UK I've been to) or most cities in Europe, I doubt that I'd need to rely heavily on a car. Between the Tube and walking, we got where we wanted/needed without much hassle. As an example closer in size to where I live right now: Heidelberg, Germany. Trains made it easy to get between nearby cities. Streetcars and such made it easy to get around within the city. Walking and biking were both pleasant and common. Population density didn't seem much higher than in my neighborhood, but useful businesses (groceries, bakeries, etc) were in easy walking distance from our hotel.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Meh. The streets of Beijing are even busier, the motorist even more aggressive, most of the bike lanes have become parking for cars, and it still seems to work.
- khedoros 10y ago
  A lot of people do things that I wouldn't consider doing myself and live in conditions that I'd (strongly) prefer not to, given reasonable alternatives. If my area were like Beijing, I wouldn't live here. If it were like, say, some parts of Tokyo or various cities in Europe, I wouldn't have a problem.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Hard to imagine they could be more aggressive. Ever had an F-150 try to run you over, or aim for your head with his mirror?
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Imagine if no driver could see you, or they pretended not to see you. They aren't aiming at you specifically, but they refuse to acknowledge your existence. If you are in Mississippi redneck country...ya, you aren't going to bike their. But most cities should be ok.
u801e 10y ago
> there are busy streets without bicycle lanes The real problem is that the lane isn't wide enough for a cyclist and motor vehicle to travel side by side with the motor vehicle remaining in the same lane. When a bicycle lane is added despite that, it leads to a bicycle lane that's too narrow and vehicles will pass without leaving sufficient clearance (at least 3 feet). > (or even sidewalks) Riding on the sidewalk isn't safe (and in many jurisdictions, is illegal). Mixing unpredictable pedestrian traffic with cyclists is not safe, and the number of potential conflicts that cyclists have with motor vehicle traffic when approaching an intersection is far greater compared to riding on the road and following traffic rules. Also having to slow or stop for each driveway and intersection will significantly lengthen the time of the trip.
- khedoros 10y ago
  > The real problem is that the lane isn't wide enough for a cyclist and motor vehicle to travel side by side with the motor vehicle remaining in the same lane. If that were true, it would be the real problem. As it is, even though there is space, cars frequently ride the shoulder. Most of the streets around here are pretty wide. > Mixing unpredictable pedestrian traffic with cyclists is not safe A problem, in theory...but not much of one with the low volume of foot+bike traffic around here. People here love their cars.

Brakenshire 10y ago

I suspect a lot of it is pure population density. The US needs to make downtown areas pedestrian and bike friendly, and then allow high density development near the centre. That makes the bike lanes and the bus network self supporting. In London there was a very big push to extend the bus network about 15 years ago, by the left-wing mayor (who had been given newly created powers). He also introduced a congestion charge for other vehicles. Both policies were quickly supported across the political spectrum. In central London few people use cars now, it is just far more of a hassle. The last mayor expanded bike lanes a lot, and now bike journeys are on course to overtake car journeys in central London. The big development definitely helped to establish the network, but it happened on top of high density (in the number of people working in the centre, if not actually living there). And now we are getting much more housing closer to the centre.

ropiku 10y ago
Also the intentional lack of parking. Even if I would get a car I wouldn't have where to park it (or it would be very expensive). The US mandates parking which prevents high density benefits and increases building costs.
khedoros 10y ago
If I lived in London (only part of the UK I've been to) or most cities in Europe, I doubt that I'd need to rely heavily on a car. Between the Tube and walking, we got where we wanted/needed without much hassle. As an example closer in size to where I live right now: Heidelberg, Germany. Trains made it easy to get between nearby cities. Streetcars and such made it easy to get around within the city. Walking and biking were both pleasant and common. Population density didn't seem much higher than in my neighborhood, but useful businesses (groceries, bakeries, etc) were in easy walking distance from our hotel.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

Meh. The streets of Beijing are even busier, the motorist even more aggressive, most of the bike lanes have become parking for cars, and it still seems to work.

khedoros 10y ago
A lot of people do things that I wouldn't consider doing myself and live in conditions that I'd (strongly) prefer not to, given reasonable alternatives. If my area were like Beijing, I wouldn't live here. If it were like, say, some parts of Tokyo or various cities in Europe, I wouldn't have a problem.
sliverstorm 10y ago
Hard to imagine they could be more aggressive. Ever had an F-150 try to run you over, or aim for your head with his mirror?
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Imagine if no driver could see you, or they pretended not to see you. They aren't aiming at you specifically, but they refuse to acknowledge your existence. If you are in Mississippi redneck country...ya, you aren't going to bike their. But most cities should be ok.

u801e 10y ago

> there are busy streets without bicycle lanes The real problem is that the lane isn't wide enough for a cyclist and motor vehicle to travel side by side with the motor vehicle remaining in the same lane. When a bicycle lane is added despite that, it leads to a bicycle lane that's too narrow and vehicles will pass without leaving sufficient clearance (at least 3 feet). > (or even sidewalks) Riding on the sidewalk isn't safe (and in many jurisdictions, is illegal). Mixing unpredictable pedestrian traffic with cyclists is not safe, and the number of potential conflicts that cyclists have with motor vehicle traffic when approaching an intersection is far greater compared to riding on the road and following traffic rules. Also having to slow or stop for each driveway and intersection will significantly lengthen the time of the trip.

khedoros 10y ago
> The real problem is that the lane isn't wide enough for a cyclist and motor vehicle to travel side by side with the motor vehicle remaining in the same lane. If that were true, it would be the real problem. As it is, even though there is space, cars frequently ride the shoulder. Most of the streets around here are pretty wide. > Mixing unpredictable pedestrian traffic with cyclists is not safe A problem, in theory...but not much of one with the low volume of foot+bike traffic around here. People here love their cars.