5 ms·

> Make the city better for bike doesn’t mean making it hell for cars. It doesn’t, but it does mean that you can’t dedicate 100% of street space and 75% of spac

> Make the city better for bike doesn’t mean making it hell for cars. It doesn’t, but it does mean that you can’t dedicate 100% of street space and 75% of space for businesses to cars. And some drivers seem to interpret losing any sliver of their dominance over the streets as “hell for cars,” making this a tough battle.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
The opposite is true of course. Bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks can transport more people per minute than the car lane(s). So if/when you do need to use a car, you'll actually find less people in your way.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Yep. If everyone’s only reasonable option for getting around is to drive, then everyone will drive, and there will be a lot of cars on the road.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> making this a tough battle. well, they have some strong arguments. In my Country cars are worth 77 billion euros in taxes every year. If my country was a free market utopia like US, people would be screaming that they paid for those roads and it's their right to use them exclusively. Bikes aren't worth that much, unfortunately.
- tremon 4y ago
  Cars also cause a lot more road wear than bikes do, and they require a lot more road surface area than bikes. It makes perfect sense that car users pay for the majority of road maintenance.
- uavals 4y ago
  Its not so simple as “I paid I, so I do what I want”. Are roads funded exclusively from tax collected from car taxes? Aren’t bicycle and public transport users also funding roads also? Even if indirectly, by going to a shop that use those roads for supplies. As far as I heard, roads cost a LOT to maintain (and more to build). 77 billion might be a small bucket in the ocean depending on the country. This is public space, your freedom to drive a car impacts my commute time by bus.

5 ms·

> Make the city better for bike doesn’t mean making it hell for cars. It doesn’t, but it does mean that you can’t dedicate 100% of street space and 75% of spac

by ryukafalz 4y ago

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
The opposite is true of course. Bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks can transport more people per minute than the car lane(s). So if/when you do need to use a car, you'll actually find less people in your way.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Yep. If everyone’s only reasonable option for getting around is to drive, then everyone will drive, and there will be a lot of cars on the road.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> making this a tough battle. well, they have some strong arguments. In my Country cars are worth 77 billion euros in taxes every year. If my country was a free market utopia like US, people would be screaming that they paid for those roads and it's their right to use them exclusively. Bikes aren't worth that much, unfortunately.
- tremon 4y ago
  Cars also cause a lot more road wear than bikes do, and they require a lot more road surface area than bikes. It makes perfect sense that car users pay for the majority of road maintenance.
- uavals 4y ago
  Its not so simple as “I paid I, so I do what I want”. Are roads funded exclusively from tax collected from car taxes? Aren’t bicycle and public transport users also funding roads also? Even if indirectly, by going to a shop that use those roads for supplies. As far as I heard, roads cost a LOT to maintain (and more to build). 77 billion might be a small bucket in the ocean depending on the country. This is public space, your freedom to drive a car impacts my commute time by bus.