5 ms·
> The other thing worth mentioning is that bikes/pedestrians can go anywhere cars can, but the opposite is not true. Your statement is only true for low speed
by galdosdi 10y ago
> The other thing worth mentioning is that bikes/pedestrians can go anywhere cars can, but the opposite is not true.
Your statement is only true for low speed roads. At higher speeds, it is impossible or unsafe for anyone to use the road unless they are also going at an equally high speed.
So in practice, cars do NOT function as a lowest common denominator, but actively drive out other means of transportation because the roads they prefer -- high speed roads -- cannot be safely used by pedestrians or cyclists!
- jdavis703 10y agoThere's nothing that stops setting the speed limit on a highway to 25 MPH and allowing non-motorized transit. In San Francisco they did that to a highway along the waterfront, and vehicular traffic still moves fine.
- galdosdi 10y agoExactly right. Jurisdictions need to make these decisions intentionally, or else it is possible to make roads that not all users can use. Manhattan avenues are very similar to this, and are surprisingly usable for all three modes -- they are limited to 25 MPH, and are not limited access freeways, but can feel like one to a motorist in medium or better traffic because they are one way and the signals "travel" up the avenues at 25 MPH -- so as long as you can go the speed limit, you never need to stop, which is great for motorists, yet they're still reasonably usable by pedestrians and cyclists -- it helps that the speed limit is self enforcing in that there's no point in going much faster since then you'll hit a red light. The only thing that could make it better is probably to reduce to 20 MPH.