8 ms·

I have two friends that died while cycling. It is kind of crazy how much people put the blinders on when looking at cars. I really wish more people could envisi

I have two friends that died while cycling. It is kind of crazy how much people put the blinders on when looking at cars. I really wish more people could envision a different future than a car-centric one.

hodder 7y ago
Seems like a strong argument against biking, not cars.
- levythe 7y ago
  It's an argument that cars and bicycles don't mix well.
- pieix 7y ago
  This is exactly what GP meant by "blinders" — people (including children, the elderly, the disabled) should be free to engage in healthy, enjoyable, green recreational activities without fear of death by two ton tank.
  - Noos 7y ago
    why stop at bicycles? lets make cities safe for horses too, while we are at it. Thats what bicycles are closer too when it comes to planning for traffic.
    - CalRobert 7y ago
      There are some pretty big differences. Bikes don't poop, for one.
      - Noos 7y ago
        Horses are more stable a riding platform and much more visible. Point is that trying to retrofit bikes in a city is much more similar to making horses work in a city; both simply do not work particularly well in any form of mixed traffic.
        bretthoerner 7y ago
        https://99percentinvisible.org/article/cities-paved-dung-urban-design-great-horse-manure-crisis-1894/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/cities-paved-dung-urb...
- nguoi 7y ago
  Unfortunately, I do need to go to work if I'm interested in continuing to live.
  - hodder 7y ago
    Walk/drive/train/bus are options too.
    - nguoi 7y ago
      2hrs/Illegal for medical reasons/doesn't exist/doesn't exist
- CalRobert 7y ago
  That's like saying shootings are a strong argument against school (in the US at least)
elliekelly 7y ago
The first time I visited Amsterdam it blew my mind. I don’t know why the rest of the world doesn’t use their streets as a model for more bike friendly cities.
- grenoire 7y ago
  Amsterdam works because it's a very flat and very dense city. I bet there are potential candidates in the States, but not as common as you would find in Europe. About the density, everything is just closer together over here. Public transportation is well-built and trains work great for anything further than that. Cars are mandatory by design in the US.
  - OrangeMango 7y ago
    Amsterdam works because the residents and the government want it to work. You can find any number of cities with similar attributes such as flatness, density, etc. that do not have the same desires and thus do not have the same success.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    "everything is just closer together over here." It's not "just" close together like it happened. The US has made it illegal to build human-scale dense neighbourhoods for 50% years. Parking minimums, density restrictions, street width minimums, LOS (level of service) planning, etc. all combined to make the US an unwalkable, uncyclable, unenjoyable place to be a human. As a reward the US gets about 35,000 people a year killed by drivers, and many many more indirectly through lung disease, cancer, obesity, etc. as well as parents terrified to let their kids ride a bike. Lots of free parking though. This is a fantastic series illustrating the effect of urban design policy in the US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk&t=346s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk&t=346s
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >It's not "just" close together like it happened Development gets done in whatever way makes best use of the available resources at the time. The overwhelming majority of the cities and towns in Europe were built out before transportation over land was slow and expensive so you had dense town centers surrounded by farmland and dense cities surrounded by even more farmland so to avoid spending precious resources on transportation. The practical limits on transportation constrained development. By comparison huge portions of the US were built out after the advent the automobile (often tearing down and building over places that were previously more densely developed) and being geographically large there was always more land to build into so you got sprawling development because overcoming distance was fast and cheap. The way we have more or less not built any infrastructure since the 20th century despite increasing population (and increasing clustering of the population in urban areas) is starting to catch up and incentive density but it will take time and policy sticks/carrots if you want it to happen faster than it organically would. So yes, Europe to a large extent did win the lottery in that regard though they didn't know it at the time.
CalRobert 7y ago
They do, but not in the US. https://www.duic.nl/wonen/plannen-voor-merwede-bekend-het-wordt-geen-woon-maar-autovrije-stadswijk/ https://www.duic.nl/wonen/plannen-voor-merwede-bekend-het-wo... Summary from @bicycledutch "Utrecht, Netherlands, plans a new neighbourhood with 4 to 6K homes for 12,000 people where everything is within walking and cycling distance (including the Central Railway Station). The design deliberately makes cars unnecessary." This is one of the top reasons my wife and I tried to build our life to get EU citizenship, and why I tell anyone from my former country who wants a better life about the Dutch American Friendship Treaty, letting any American who can employ themselves move to the Netherlands.
- nseggs 7y ago
  Wow this is the first I’ve heard of the Dutch American Friendship Treaty, it sounds like a great program.
- Vinnl 7y ago
  Note that those 4 to 6K homes (and others planned) are already too few for the planned population growth. Utrecht is also certainly not a car-free city, but probably about as close to it as you're going to get today.
  - Reason077 7y ago
    Cities like Utrecht show that you don’t have to be car-free to be cycling friendly. You can drive a car in Utrecht when you really need to, but most of the time it’s better and more convenient to walk or cycle.
- sailfast 7y ago
  This is true, but it's not trade-off free. It requires tight control over zoning and any new housing development. It is difficult to do this type of development in the United States without a much higher degree of centralized planning and/or restrictive zoning. In the US, freedom afforded to property owners / zoning especially in more rural areas, not to mention an immense amount of open, "unused" land that makes this kind of car-centric development the norm. I imagine it's also much "cheaper" for the developer (if we ignore the cost to the commons)

hodder 7y ago

Seems like a strong argument against biking, not cars.

levythe 7y ago
It's an argument that cars and bicycles don't mix well.
pieix 7y ago
This is exactly what GP meant by "blinders" — people (including children, the elderly, the disabled) should be free to engage in healthy, enjoyable, green recreational activities without fear of death by two ton tank.
- Noos 7y ago
  why stop at bicycles? lets make cities safe for horses too, while we are at it. Thats what bicycles are closer too when it comes to planning for traffic.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    There are some pretty big differences. Bikes don't poop, for one.
    - Noos 7y ago
      Horses are more stable a riding platform and much more visible. Point is that trying to retrofit bikes in a city is much more similar to making horses work in a city; both simply do not work particularly well in any form of mixed traffic.
      - bretthoerner 7y ago
        https://99percentinvisible.org/article/cities-paved-dung-urban-design-great-horse-manure-crisis-1894/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/cities-paved-dung-urb...
nguoi 7y ago
Unfortunately, I do need to go to work if I'm interested in continuing to live.
- hodder 7y ago
  Walk/drive/train/bus are options too.
  - nguoi 7y ago
    2hrs/Illegal for medical reasons/doesn't exist/doesn't exist
CalRobert 7y ago
That's like saying shootings are a strong argument against school (in the US at least)

elliekelly 7y ago

The first time I visited Amsterdam it blew my mind. I don’t know why the rest of the world doesn’t use their streets as a model for more bike friendly cities.

grenoire 7y ago
Amsterdam works because it's a very flat and very dense city. I bet there are potential candidates in the States, but not as common as you would find in Europe. About the density, everything is just closer together over here. Public transportation is well-built and trains work great for anything further than that. Cars are mandatory by design in the US.
- OrangeMango 7y ago
  Amsterdam works because the residents and the government want it to work. You can find any number of cities with similar attributes such as flatness, density, etc. that do not have the same desires and thus do not have the same success.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  "everything is just closer together over here." It's not "just" close together like it happened. The US has made it illegal to build human-scale dense neighbourhoods for 50% years. Parking minimums, density restrictions, street width minimums, LOS (level of service) planning, etc. all combined to make the US an unwalkable, uncyclable, unenjoyable place to be a human. As a reward the US gets about 35,000 people a year killed by drivers, and many many more indirectly through lung disease, cancer, obesity, etc. as well as parents terrified to let their kids ride a bike. Lots of free parking though. This is a fantastic series illustrating the effect of urban design policy in the US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk&t=346s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lvUByM-fZk&t=346s
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >It's not "just" close together like it happened Development gets done in whatever way makes best use of the available resources at the time. The overwhelming majority of the cities and towns in Europe were built out before transportation over land was slow and expensive so you had dense town centers surrounded by farmland and dense cities surrounded by even more farmland so to avoid spending precious resources on transportation. The practical limits on transportation constrained development. By comparison huge portions of the US were built out after the advent the automobile (often tearing down and building over places that were previously more densely developed) and being geographically large there was always more land to build into so you got sprawling development because overcoming distance was fast and cheap. The way we have more or less not built any infrastructure since the 20th century despite increasing population (and increasing clustering of the population in urban areas) is starting to catch up and incentive density but it will take time and policy sticks/carrots if you want it to happen faster than it organically would. So yes, Europe to a large extent did win the lottery in that regard though they didn't know it at the time.

CalRobert 7y ago

They do, but not in the US. https://www.duic.nl/wonen/plannen-voor-merwede-bekend-het-wordt-geen-woon-maar-autovrije-stadswijk/ https://www.duic.nl/wonen/plannen-voor-merwede-bekend-het-wo... Summary from @bicycledutch "Utrecht, Netherlands, plans a new neighbourhood with 4 to 6K homes for 12,000 people where everything is within walking and cycling distance (including the Central Railway Station). The design deliberately makes cars unnecessary." This is one of the top reasons my wife and I tried to build our life to get EU citizenship, and why I tell anyone from my former country who wants a better life about the Dutch American Friendship Treaty, letting any American who can employ themselves move to the Netherlands.

nseggs 7y ago
Wow this is the first I’ve heard of the Dutch American Friendship Treaty, it sounds like a great program.
Vinnl 7y ago
Note that those 4 to 6K homes (and others planned) are already too few for the planned population growth. Utrecht is also certainly not a car-free city, but probably about as close to it as you're going to get today.
- Reason077 7y ago
  Cities like Utrecht show that you don’t have to be car-free to be cycling friendly. You can drive a car in Utrecht when you really need to, but most of the time it’s better and more convenient to walk or cycle.
sailfast 7y ago
This is true, but it's not trade-off free. It requires tight control over zoning and any new housing development. It is difficult to do this type of development in the United States without a much higher degree of centralized planning and/or restrictive zoning. In the US, freedom afforded to property owners / zoning especially in more rural areas, not to mention an immense amount of open, "unused" land that makes this kind of car-centric development the norm. I imagine it's also much "cheaper" for the developer (if we ignore the cost to the commons)