6 ms·

I've experienced this same anecdote in similar situations for the past 20 years as well. There has been a long push by auto manufacturers to make anything other

I've experienced this same anecdote in similar situations for the past 20 years as well. There has been a long push by auto manufacturers to make anything other than cars that use the roads seen as both illegitimate and illegal. For example, see the history of Jaywalking laws: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797. Starting around 1920's the auto-industry encouraged laws around the US to make crossing the street illegal. These laws have the downside of making car drivers feel entitled to the road. Cyclists and other non-car users of roads have a deep hole to climb out of to change these laws, and to change the perception that streets are only for cars. Infrastructure is probably the only real mechanism we have that can make tangible changes, that don't allow the personal feelings of car drivers to get angry at being inconvenienced by cyclists and other road users. We need to slow down auto-traffic and encourage more non-vehicular use of the roads, while making those roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, skate boarders, etc.

rayiner 8y ago
> We need to slow down auto-traffic and encourage more non-vehicular use of the roads, while making those roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, skate boarders, etc. Is that the most efficient use of the roads? Especially in a place like Boston, where most people in the metro area don’t live in (and can’t afford to live in) the city itself. At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestrians and cyclists actually end up being a preference for wealthier people who can afford to live downtown, versus those who need to access the city but can’t live within walking or biking distance? (Note that bicyclists and skateboarders also slow down busses, which are what lower income people use to get around.)
- snazz 8y ago
  It might not be as efficient, but it sure is better for the environment, for traffic, and for health, among others. In most of the US, the wealthier people live in suburbs, though your point still stands. Many European cities are nicer places to live as a result of better cycling infrastructure and a culture of road-sharing.
- stefan_ 8y ago
  You mean the roads downtown should be inaccessible to people living downtown so suburban people can commute in on 2 ton steel boxes that they then store for the day in downtown? No, that is indeed not the most efficient use of the roads. The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport. (Bus transport is also not slowed down by cyclists, or of all things, skateboarders.)
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport. More efficient for who? The software developer who lives in a condo downtown, or the lady who cleans his office that drives in from the suburbs?
    - stefan_ 8y ago
      For both? This isn't policy, this is what you already mentioned: space is becoming rapidly more expensive downtown, and that doesn't stop with such mundane things as roads or parking spaces. These are not magically guaranteed their place, forever. This article and things like congestion charge in NYC are the natural consequence. So the choice isn't some faux gentrification debate on optimizing roads for the strawman "cleaning lady from the suburbs" or the "downtown software developer", it's for the cleaning lady to be out of a job in 10 years because the only cars driving downtown will be worth a century of her yearly income - or taking the train...
    - ocschwar 8y ago
      In Boston? The cleaning lady takes the T. No way she can afford parking downtown.
      - wtetzner 8y ago
        But how does she get to the T? It doesn't go very far.
        8y ago
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  It depends on what you mean by efficient, I guess. I like the graphic on this article, https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/how-much-space-do-people-take-different-modes-transport.html https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/how-much-space-do-pe... It shows how many more people can efficiently use roads while on bikes than in cars. So, if we define efficiency by that measure (obviously this matters more in cities and congested areas), then yes, it's more efficient.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    I see that graphic a lot, but it's not a very useful one, because it ignores residential patterns. Most people can't use a bike. So if you displace one car, you're not going to replace it with one bike, much less than 5 that would otherwise fit in the same space. The efficiency question is: what minimizes the amount of collective time people spend getting where they need to go. Bike infrastructure might actually make that worse, slowing down the majority for the sake of a tiny minority that can use a bike to get where they're going.
    - bluejekyll 8y ago
      > it ignores residential patterns I would argue that what we need to discuss more, is how do we make transit more efficient for the different residential patterns. Is driving to a parking lot, and then getting on a bike, scooter, skateboard, a more efficient option? Or transferring to a train/bus? Do we really want people driving into city centers? > Most people can't use a bike. I don't think you mean that exactly, I think you're extrapolating from your residential patterns comment. Most people can ride a bike, we just need to make it a better option in different areas. > what minimizes the amount of collective time people spend getting where they need to go. Bike infrastructure might actually make that worse. This isn't supported by my personal experience (live in a city), it's faster for me to bike somewhere, than drive and look for parking. Here's a 538 article specifically on this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bike-lanes-dont-cause-traffic-jams-if-youre-smart-about-where-you-build-them/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bike-lanes-dont-cause-t... "This is an important point: Bike lanes don’t cause a lot more congestion if you put them on the right streets. If you cut down the size of streets that are already near capacity, you’ll create severe congestion. But if you start with roads that are well under capacity, you’ll only increase the congestion a little bit. And it may not even be noticeable."
- outerspace 8y ago
  > At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestrians and cyclists actually end up being a preference for wealthier people who can afford to live downtown, versus those who need to access the city but can’t live within walking or biking distance? Reducing the number of cars (and therefore traffic) on the roads will benefit everybody, especially if cars and bikes don't get in each other's way (such as in the case of dedicated and protected bike lanes). > Note that bicyclists and skateboarders also slow down busses, which are what lower income people use to get around I don't think this is true. Busy streets and traffic jams slow down buses.
  - wozniacki 8y ago
    Reducing the number of cars (and therefore traffic) on the roads will benefit everybody You seem to have a rose-tinted view of the world we live in. Have you ever had to commute in less-than-ideal conditions? Heavy snow? Sleet? Black ice? Have you ever lived in places that are not perfectly flat? or lived in places that are hot that make bicycling unfeasible? Did you have sporting gear / work gear that you had to lug? Did you know some people have to fetch their own gear to work Did you have to take calls during transit? Did you know its common practice for employees to call into meetings during their commute and/or help assist operations via conference calls? Have you had to shop for more than a baguette or a bagel at a store? You know how cumbersome that gets for even a family of three? Do you have the slightest clue how much casual violence and crime happen on public transit?[1] Not to belabor the point but there simply are dozens of cases where bicycles or public transit just don't cut it. Not to mention the hygiene, personal safety (from other passengers for example) and personal space aspects involved in someone choosing a mode of transportation other than public transit or bicycling. Ride-sharing, autonomous vehicles and emission-free vehicles should all alleviate the issues we currently face with traffic, parking and accidents. However doing away with cars or vehicular traffic is just pollyannaish madness. [1] Teen robbed at gunpoint at Fruitvale, BART officer says writing a report is a 'waste of resources' https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bart-police-refuse-report-video-phone-call-oakland-13760013.php https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bart-police-refuse-repo...
    - 8y ago
- paulsutter 8y ago
  Sending distance commuters underground is the best way to minimize big deadly metal boxes on the road, and thus the best way to make pedestrian use of the streets safer, more convenient, and faster. Transportation planning should be based on minimizing door to door times. "Without tunnels we'll be in traffic hell forever" - Elon Musk
- amalcon 8y ago
  > Note that bicyclists and skateboarders also slow down busses, which are what lower income people use to get around. Bicyclists are substantially faster than downtown buses (due to stop frequency). It seems unlikely that they are slowing down the buses very much. Push skateboarders use the sidewalk; electric skateboarders move at the same speed as bicyclists.
  - atoav 8y ago
    As somebody who took buses regularily at one point in his live I can assure you that the most slowdown I experienced was due to cars. It rarely ever happens that a cyclist is sustancially slowing down a bus.
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    Indeed. I am always faster than the bus. And, in the city, bicycling is usually faster than driving.
- fooblitzky 8y ago
  https://twitter.com/TheRicMan/status/1002373087424274432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1002373087424274432&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.treehugger.com%2Fwalking%2Fpeople-who-walk-bike-and-ride-scooters-are-all-fighting-over-crumbs.html https://twitter.com/TheRicMan/status/1002373087424274432?ref...
- rebuilder 8y ago
  I hate driving in cities. It's stressful because you need to pay attention to so much going in around the streets, and be prepared to slam the brakes at all times. But I also think that's how it should be. Driving in cities should be discouraged IMO. A city is the perfect place for mass transit. Park the cars away from the centre, provide good public transport and municipal bike rentals, and you reduce congestion and free up space for urban development. This idea of having multilane roads running through prime real estate so people can spend an hour or so driving a few kilometres in stop-and-go traffic is just nuts to me. There's nothing efficient about it, and I expect as we try to bring co2 emissions down to sustainable levels, we'll have to give up on designing cities around private cars anyway.
u801e 8y ago
> Cyclists and other non-car users of roads have a deep hole to climb out of to change these laws, and to change the perception that streets are only for cars. Infrastructure is probably the only real mechanism we have that can make tangible changes, that don't allow the personal feelings of car drivers to get angry at being inconvenienced by cyclists and other road users. The problem is that the infrastructure is often inferior compared to the actual road due to bad intersection management, bad surface conditions, significantly longer routes, or routes that don't take you where you need to go. Another approach would be to repeal the keep as far right as practicable laws and allow cyclists the right to use an entire traffic lane when riding and require faster vehicles to change lanes to pass.
microtherion 8y ago
The next round of laws that criminalize non-cars at the expense of cars might be impending with the rise of autonomous cars. Cf this recent tweet where zoox called a law abiding pedestrian a "Jaywalker": https://twitter.com/zoox/status/1115622929192980480 https://twitter.com/zoox/status/1115622929192980480
- JohnFen 8y ago
  I am really amazed they haven't deleted that tweet out of embarrassment for being so utterly wrong.
megaremote 8y ago
> There has been a long push by auto manufacturers to make anything other than cars that use the roads seen as both illegitimate and illegal. And the absolutely disgusting thing about this is we can't get away from roads. Every building has roads in front, and to get anywhere you have to cross a lot of roads.

rayiner 8y ago

> We need to slow down auto-traffic and encourage more non-vehicular use of the roads, while making those roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, skate boarders, etc. Is that the most efficient use of the roads? Especially in a place like Boston, where most people in the metro area don’t live in (and can’t afford to live in) the city itself. At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestrians and cyclists actually end up being a preference for wealthier people who can afford to live downtown, versus those who need to access the city but can’t live within walking or biking distance? (Note that bicyclists and skateboarders also slow down busses, which are what lower income people use to get around.)

snazz 8y ago
It might not be as efficient, but it sure is better for the environment, for traffic, and for health, among others. In most of the US, the wealthier people live in suburbs, though your point still stands. Many European cities are nicer places to live as a result of better cycling infrastructure and a culture of road-sharing.
stefan_ 8y ago
You mean the roads downtown should be inaccessible to people living downtown so suburban people can commute in on 2 ton steel boxes that they then store for the day in downtown? No, that is indeed not the most efficient use of the roads. The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport. (Bus transport is also not slowed down by cyclists, or of all things, skateboarders.)
- rayiner 8y ago
  > The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport. More efficient for who? The software developer who lives in a condo downtown, or the lady who cleans his office that drives in from the suburbs?
  - stefan_ 8y ago
    For both? This isn't policy, this is what you already mentioned: space is becoming rapidly more expensive downtown, and that doesn't stop with such mundane things as roads or parking spaces. These are not magically guaranteed their place, forever. This article and things like congestion charge in NYC are the natural consequence. So the choice isn't some faux gentrification debate on optimizing roads for the strawman "cleaning lady from the suburbs" or the "downtown software developer", it's for the cleaning lady to be out of a job in 10 years because the only cars driving downtown will be worth a century of her yearly income - or taking the train...
  - ocschwar 8y ago
    In Boston? The cleaning lady takes the T. No way she can afford parking downtown.
    - wtetzner 8y ago
      But how does she get to the T? It doesn't go very far.
      - 8y ago
bluejekyll 8y ago
It depends on what you mean by efficient, I guess. I like the graphic on this article, https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/how-much-space-do-people-take-different-modes-transport.html https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/how-much-space-do-pe... It shows how many more people can efficiently use roads while on bikes than in cars. So, if we define efficiency by that measure (obviously this matters more in cities and congested areas), then yes, it's more efficient.
- rayiner 8y ago
  I see that graphic a lot, but it's not a very useful one, because it ignores residential patterns. Most people can't use a bike. So if you displace one car, you're not going to replace it with one bike, much less than 5 that would otherwise fit in the same space. The efficiency question is: what minimizes the amount of collective time people spend getting where they need to go. Bike infrastructure might actually make that worse, slowing down the majority for the sake of a tiny minority that can use a bike to get where they're going.
  - bluejekyll 8y ago
    > it ignores residential patterns I would argue that what we need to discuss more, is how do we make transit more efficient for the different residential patterns. Is driving to a parking lot, and then getting on a bike, scooter, skateboard, a more efficient option? Or transferring to a train/bus? Do we really want people driving into city centers? > Most people can't use a bike. I don't think you mean that exactly, I think you're extrapolating from your residential patterns comment. Most people can ride a bike, we just need to make it a better option in different areas. > what minimizes the amount of collective time people spend getting where they need to go. Bike infrastructure might actually make that worse. This isn't supported by my personal experience (live in a city), it's faster for me to bike somewhere, than drive and look for parking. Here's a 538 article specifically on this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bike-lanes-dont-cause-traffic-jams-if-youre-smart-about-where-you-build-them/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bike-lanes-dont-cause-t... "This is an important point: Bike lanes don’t cause a lot more congestion if you put them on the right streets. If you cut down the size of streets that are already near capacity, you’ll create severe congestion. But if you start with roads that are well under capacity, you’ll only increase the congestion a little bit. And it may not even be noticeable."
outerspace 8y ago
> At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestrians and cyclists actually end up being a preference for wealthier people who can afford to live downtown, versus those who need to access the city but can’t live within walking or biking distance? Reducing the number of cars (and therefore traffic) on the roads will benefit everybody, especially if cars and bikes don't get in each other's way (such as in the case of dedicated and protected bike lanes). > Note that bicyclists and skateboarders also slow down busses, which are what lower income people use to get around I don't think this is true. Busy streets and traffic jams slow down buses.
- wozniacki 8y ago
  Reducing the number of cars (and therefore traffic) on the roads will benefit everybody You seem to have a rose-tinted view of the world we live in. Have you ever had to commute in less-than-ideal conditions? Heavy snow? Sleet? Black ice? Have you ever lived in places that are not perfectly flat? or lived in places that are hot that make bicycling unfeasible? Did you have sporting gear / work gear that you had to lug? Did you know some people have to fetch their own gear to work Did you have to take calls during transit? Did you know its common practice for employees to call into meetings during their commute and/or help assist operations via conference calls? Have you had to shop for more than a baguette or a bagel at a store? You know how cumbersome that gets for even a family of three? Do you have the slightest clue how much casual violence and crime happen on public transit?[1] Not to belabor the point but there simply are dozens of cases where bicycles or public transit just don't cut it. Not to mention the hygiene, personal safety (from other passengers for example) and personal space aspects involved in someone choosing a mode of transportation other than public transit or bicycling. Ride-sharing, autonomous vehicles and emission-free vehicles should all alleviate the issues we currently face with traffic, parking and accidents. However doing away with cars or vehicular traffic is just pollyannaish madness. [1] Teen robbed at gunpoint at Fruitvale, BART officer says writing a report is a 'waste of resources' https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bart-police-refuse-report-video-phone-call-oakland-13760013.php https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bart-police-refuse-repo...
  - 8y ago
paulsutter 8y ago
Sending distance commuters underground is the best way to minimize big deadly metal boxes on the road, and thus the best way to make pedestrian use of the streets safer, more convenient, and faster. Transportation planning should be based on minimizing door to door times. "Without tunnels we'll be in traffic hell forever" - Elon Musk
amalcon 8y ago
> Note that bicyclists and skateboarders also slow down busses, which are what lower income people use to get around. Bicyclists are substantially faster than downtown buses (due to stop frequency). It seems unlikely that they are slowing down the buses very much. Push skateboarders use the sidewalk; electric skateboarders move at the same speed as bicyclists.
- atoav 8y ago
  As somebody who took buses regularily at one point in his live I can assure you that the most slowdown I experienced was due to cars. It rarely ever happens that a cyclist is sustancially slowing down a bus.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  Indeed. I am always faster than the bus. And, in the city, bicycling is usually faster than driving.
fooblitzky 8y ago
https://twitter.com/TheRicMan/status/1002373087424274432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1002373087424274432&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.treehugger.com%2Fwalking%2Fpeople-who-walk-bike-and-ride-scooters-are-all-fighting-over-crumbs.html https://twitter.com/TheRicMan/status/1002373087424274432?ref...
rebuilder 8y ago
I hate driving in cities. It's stressful because you need to pay attention to so much going in around the streets, and be prepared to slam the brakes at all times. But I also think that's how it should be. Driving in cities should be discouraged IMO. A city is the perfect place for mass transit. Park the cars away from the centre, provide good public transport and municipal bike rentals, and you reduce congestion and free up space for urban development. This idea of having multilane roads running through prime real estate so people can spend an hour or so driving a few kilometres in stop-and-go traffic is just nuts to me. There's nothing efficient about it, and I expect as we try to bring co2 emissions down to sustainable levels, we'll have to give up on designing cities around private cars anyway.

u801e 8y ago

> Cyclists and other non-car users of roads have a deep hole to climb out of to change these laws, and to change the perception that streets are only for cars. Infrastructure is probably the only real mechanism we have that can make tangible changes, that don't allow the personal feelings of car drivers to get angry at being inconvenienced by cyclists and other road users. The problem is that the infrastructure is often inferior compared to the actual road due to bad intersection management, bad surface conditions, significantly longer routes, or routes that don't take you where you need to go. Another approach would be to repeal the keep as far right as practicable laws and allow cyclists the right to use an entire traffic lane when riding and require faster vehicles to change lanes to pass.

microtherion 8y ago

The next round of laws that criminalize non-cars at the expense of cars might be impending with the rise of autonomous cars. Cf this recent tweet where zoox called a law abiding pedestrian a "Jaywalker": https://twitter.com/zoox/status/1115622929192980480 https://twitter.com/zoox/status/1115622929192980480

JohnFen 8y ago
I am really amazed they haven't deleted that tweet out of embarrassment for being so utterly wrong.

megaremote 8y ago

> There has been a long push by auto manufacturers to make anything other than cars that use the roads seen as both illegitimate and illegal. And the absolutely disgusting thing about this is we can't get away from roads. Every building has roads in front, and to get anywhere you have to cross a lot of roads.