3 ms·

This gets into the vehicular cycling argument. If you want an inclusive cycle network that works for all the population, not just the physically fit and brave,

by awjr 9y ago

This gets into the vehicular cycling argument. If you want an inclusive cycle network that works for all the population, not just the physically fit and brave, design for those that want to cycle but feel they can't as it is too dangerous. That does not mean design a two tier infrastructure, that is kids using shared pavements and real men riding with HGVs. Take a universal approach that enables all ages and all abilities to cycle safely.

usrusr 9y ago
It's indeed somewhat close to the vehicular cycling argument, but far from identical. I see a lot of cycling infrastructure that follows the philosophy of "better force them to dismount, someone might hurt themselves here" and it's really not caring of cyclists but disrespectful towards them. I fear that overuse of childproof-argument will only strengthen that mindset. "Really, you have to take that nice, scenic, ten minutes detour because I would not let my child ride the direct route. If you're in a hurry, take a car". This is not how you make people switch to bikes, this is how you teach them that bikes are merely toys for a nice Sunday afternoon ride. I'm fine with designing for humans, but not all infrastructure has to be child proof, as the interstate network clearly shows. We have the technology to create motor vehicle infrastructure ready for unattended children (bumper car floors, yay!), but for various reasons we chose to take very different tradeoffs. Two tier infrastructure can by the way also mean that children up to a certain age legally share the sidewalk, which is a much better place than sharing even the most segregated bike lanes with texting pedelec pilots.
- rhinoceraptor 9y ago
  Dedicated bike lanes will also have people walking in them, as well as casual cyclists riding slowly side by side. If you're a fit cyclist, you're doing 25-30 MPH so it's safer to just ride in the road.

by awjr 9y ago

usrusr 9y ago

It's indeed somewhat close to the vehicular cycling argument, but far from identical. I see a lot of cycling infrastructure that follows the philosophy of "better force them to dismount, someone might hurt themselves here" and it's really not caring of cyclists but disrespectful towards them. I fear that overuse of childproof-argument will only strengthen that mindset. "Really, you have to take that nice, scenic, ten minutes detour because I would not let my child ride the direct route. If you're in a hurry, take a car". This is not how you make people switch to bikes, this is how you teach them that bikes are merely toys for a nice Sunday afternoon ride. I'm fine with designing for humans, but not all infrastructure has to be child proof, as the interstate network clearly shows. We have the technology to create motor vehicle infrastructure ready for unattended children (bumper car floors, yay!), but for various reasons we chose to take very different tradeoffs. Two tier infrastructure can by the way also mean that children up to a certain age legally share the sidewalk, which is a much better place than sharing even the most segregated bike lanes with texting pedelec pilots.

rhinoceraptor 9y ago
Dedicated bike lanes will also have people walking in them, as well as casual cyclists riding slowly side by side. If you're a fit cyclist, you're doing 25-30 MPH so it's safer to just ride in the road.