6 ms·

In regards to bike-rider behavior on roads, of course cyclists appear "misbehaved" on roads. The roads are not designed for cyclists, so we have to fight with t

In regards to bike-rider behavior on roads, of course cyclists appear "misbehaved" on roads. The roads are not designed for cyclists, so we have to fight with the design of the transport network to get anywhere Car-oriented transport infrastructure has been a terrible mistake. Don't blame the cyclists for trying to salvage something from the wreckage.

elzbardico 5y ago
Car-oriented infra structure was responsible for a sizable portion of the economical development for quite a while.
- erect_hacker 5y ago
  Because we made it that way, cars had nothing to do with it. Hong Kong is not car oriented and it develop just fine…
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    Hong Kong is inserted on the global economy last time I've checked.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  But it seems to produce economically terrible outcomes longer term... Induced demand is a good example - you get to the point where you need to pay huge amounts of money to expand road infrastructure, but as soon as you do it encourages even more use so after widening a highway, there is often an increase in travel times fairly soon after the upgrade after the initial short-term benefit! Strong Towns also have some good examples of how car-oriented infrastructure can also be economically unsustainable in that it encourages low-density neighbourhoods with a lot of roads, so long term cities can't afford to maintain the roads without cross-subsidising it from new developments. So if the city stops growing, it often can't sustain the infrastructure it has! Whereas somewhat more dense areas (especially where retail and small business tenancies are mixed in with housing) can have much more property tax income per unit area as well as less road infrastructure to maintain which can tip the balance to being economically sustainable in itself.
- danny_codes 5y ago
  I would argue the opposite actually. If the US had embraced trains as people movers early on, with local subway systems, I'd imagine we'd have seen even more economic growth than we did. Our cities would be far more prosperous, our people healthier, our energy footprint lower. Better social mobility.. It seems likely that cars actually hindered average GDP growth from '45 to today, rather than helping it.
BackBlast 5y ago
There is no significant tax pool coming from cyclists to build or maintain said infrastructure. I don't blame them for trying to salvage/use something from what exists, I've been there. I found the behavior of ignoring established traffic law as if it were optional to be dangerous and selfish.
- desas 5y ago
  > There is no significant tax pool coming from cyclists to build or maintain said infrastructure. Don't they pay income tax? I think I read that most of the cost of roads in the USA is raised from income tax and sales tax. > I found the behavior of ignoring established traffic law as if it were optional to be dangerous and selfish. A lot of car drivers are out there too running lights, breaking speed limits and driving under the influence. People are the problem, not their transport.
- erect_hacker 5y ago
  What’s a “tax pool”?
baq 5y ago
running red lights is not 'fighting'. it's being an ass.

elzbardico 5y ago

Car-oriented infra structure was responsible for a sizable portion of the economical development for quite a while.

erect_hacker 5y ago
Because we made it that way, cars had nothing to do with it. Hong Kong is not car oriented and it develop just fine…
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Hong Kong is inserted on the global economy last time I've checked.
stephen_g 5y ago
But it seems to produce economically terrible outcomes longer term... Induced demand is a good example - you get to the point where you need to pay huge amounts of money to expand road infrastructure, but as soon as you do it encourages even more use so after widening a highway, there is often an increase in travel times fairly soon after the upgrade after the initial short-term benefit! Strong Towns also have some good examples of how car-oriented infrastructure can also be economically unsustainable in that it encourages low-density neighbourhoods with a lot of roads, so long term cities can't afford to maintain the roads without cross-subsidising it from new developments. So if the city stops growing, it often can't sustain the infrastructure it has! Whereas somewhat more dense areas (especially where retail and small business tenancies are mixed in with housing) can have much more property tax income per unit area as well as less road infrastructure to maintain which can tip the balance to being economically sustainable in itself.
danny_codes 5y ago
I would argue the opposite actually. If the US had embraced trains as people movers early on, with local subway systems, I'd imagine we'd have seen even more economic growth than we did. Our cities would be far more prosperous, our people healthier, our energy footprint lower. Better social mobility.. It seems likely that cars actually hindered average GDP growth from '45 to today, rather than helping it.

BackBlast 5y ago

There is no significant tax pool coming from cyclists to build or maintain said infrastructure. I don't blame them for trying to salvage/use something from what exists, I've been there. I found the behavior of ignoring established traffic law as if it were optional to be dangerous and selfish.

desas 5y ago
> There is no significant tax pool coming from cyclists to build or maintain said infrastructure. Don't they pay income tax? I think I read that most of the cost of roads in the USA is raised from income tax and sales tax. > I found the behavior of ignoring established traffic law as if it were optional to be dangerous and selfish. A lot of car drivers are out there too running lights, breaking speed limits and driving under the influence. People are the problem, not their transport.
erect_hacker 5y ago
What’s a “tax pool”?

baq 5y ago

running red lights is not 'fighting'. it's being an ass.