3 ms·

Road damage is proportional to the square of vehicle axle weight. The difference in weight between a bike and a car is so great, that bike do effectively zero d

Road damage is proportional to the square of vehicle axle weight. The difference in weight between a bike and a car is so great, that bike do effectively zero damage to roads. A high quality segregated cycle lane requires effectively no maintenance. It won’t develop potholes, it won’t need resurfacing, it just needs cleaning. A standard road will need regular maintenance and resurfacing for its entire life. You could make cyclists cover the full cost of their infrastructure usage, but you would spend far more on collecting the money, than would actually collect. Off normal road, cycle damage is measured in cents/pence per year. > cyclists increase traffic congestion So you think putting that person in car is going to reduce congestion? Cyclists are people too, many of them cycle to go somewhere, if they didn’t cycle they would drive. > People that drive cars pay taxes on gas and their vehicle to fund and maintain streets but city councils around the country are expropriating lanes for cyclist use. No municipality in world makes drivers pay the full cost of externalities they create. Most municipalities don’t even make drivers cover the cost of road building and maintenance, zero make them cover the costs created from the pollution and environmental damage they cause.

notch656a 4y ago
>>Road damage is proportional to the square of vehicle axle weight >No municipality in world makes drivers pay the full cost of externalities they creat The interesting conclusion here: 1) Semis / tractor-trailer and delivery vehicles are then vastly underpaying for their externalities as their gas tax and vehicle-specific charges don't tend to be square of weight. 2) By vastly underpaying, the clients of those buying goods transported by these vehicles are vastly underpaying for these externalities. 3) Exclusive pedestrians/bicyclists, who are highly dependent on large delivery vehicles to take goods from point of manufacture to places they can access via walking/biking, are vastly underpaying for these externalities.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  > By vastly underpaying, the clients of those buying goods transported by these vehicles are vastly underpaying for these externalities. > 3) Exclusive pedestrians/bicyclists, who are highly dependent on large delivery vehicles to take goods from point of manufacture to places they can access via walking/biking, are vastly underpaying for these externalities. Are you honestly trying to say that all, or the majority of, HGVs on the road are exclusively delivering items for pedestrians and cyclists? Or that if you drive a car, your local supermarket no longer needs HGVs for delivery? Or that moving those goods in hundreds of private cars is more efficient than moving them in a single HGV?
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Are you honestly trying to say that all, or the majority of, large fluffy bunnies are invading the universe with a lust for power and a resentment for the human race?
MisterMower 4y ago
That road or lane had to be built. And even with very lightweight traffic, they still require maintenance. Even with foot traffic only, sidewalks eventually need maintenance. I don't think it's controverial to say there are costs involved with maintaining a bike lane. We can argue about how large those costs are, but they are greater than zero and not insignificant. And yes, bicycle lanes increase traffic congestion for cars. A bicycle lane is one less lane that vehicles can use. They impose costs on drivers by forcing them to interact with cyclists who have much slower acceleration rates and slower speeds. Again, I don't think this is controversial. I'm not arguing against bike lanes or cyclists. I'm arguing against them receiving the benefits of dedicated lanes and preferential traffic rules without bearing any of the costs. Both drivers and cyclists should pay for their usage. The fact that drivers don't currently pay all of those costs doesn't mean that cyclists should pay none of those costs.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  > And yes, bicycle lanes increase traffic congestion for cars. A bicycle lane is one less lane that vehicles can use. Counterintuitively reducing lanes doesn’t generally increase congestion, it normally lowers it. Equally adding lanes also doesn’t decrease congestion, instead it frequently increases. Of course there are situations where this doesn’t hold true, but for most cities today it does. Ultimately adding lanes just creates more capacity for traffic, it doesn’t increase flow rate, because the bottlenecks at junctions etc cause congestion long before the width of the road does. Making a road wider won’t change that. Add a cycle lane does improve things for drivers. By making it possible for people to cycle rather than drive (cyclist don’t spring from nowhere) you reduce the number of cars on the road. A cycle lane can move substantially more people than a single lane of traffic. In most cities building out good cycle infrastructure, the cycles lanes move substantially more people per hour at rush hour than the car lanes ever have. Every single one of those bikes being one less car in car lanes. The net effect of the above is that adding cycle lanes, and making cycling safe and attractive creates a net increase in available road space for those that must drive.

notch656a 4y ago

>>Road damage is proportional to the square of vehicle axle weight >No municipality in world makes drivers pay the full cost of externalities they creat The interesting conclusion here: 1) Semis / tractor-trailer and delivery vehicles are then vastly underpaying for their externalities as their gas tax and vehicle-specific charges don't tend to be square of weight. 2) By vastly underpaying, the clients of those buying goods transported by these vehicles are vastly underpaying for these externalities. 3) Exclusive pedestrians/bicyclists, who are highly dependent on large delivery vehicles to take goods from point of manufacture to places they can access via walking/biking, are vastly underpaying for these externalities.

avianlyric 4y ago
> By vastly underpaying, the clients of those buying goods transported by these vehicles are vastly underpaying for these externalities. > 3) Exclusive pedestrians/bicyclists, who are highly dependent on large delivery vehicles to take goods from point of manufacture to places they can access via walking/biking, are vastly underpaying for these externalities. Are you honestly trying to say that all, or the majority of, HGVs on the road are exclusively delivering items for pedestrians and cyclists? Or that if you drive a car, your local supermarket no longer needs HGVs for delivery? Or that moving those goods in hundreds of private cars is more efficient than moving them in a single HGV?
- notch656a 4y ago
  Are you honestly trying to say that all, or the majority of, large fluffy bunnies are invading the universe with a lust for power and a resentment for the human race?

MisterMower 4y ago

That road or lane had to be built. And even with very lightweight traffic, they still require maintenance. Even with foot traffic only, sidewalks eventually need maintenance. I don't think it's controverial to say there are costs involved with maintaining a bike lane. We can argue about how large those costs are, but they are greater than zero and not insignificant. And yes, bicycle lanes increase traffic congestion for cars. A bicycle lane is one less lane that vehicles can use. They impose costs on drivers by forcing them to interact with cyclists who have much slower acceleration rates and slower speeds. Again, I don't think this is controversial. I'm not arguing against bike lanes or cyclists. I'm arguing against them receiving the benefits of dedicated lanes and preferential traffic rules without bearing any of the costs. Both drivers and cyclists should pay for their usage. The fact that drivers don't currently pay all of those costs doesn't mean that cyclists should pay none of those costs.

avianlyric 4y ago
> And yes, bicycle lanes increase traffic congestion for cars. A bicycle lane is one less lane that vehicles can use. Counterintuitively reducing lanes doesn’t generally increase congestion, it normally lowers it. Equally adding lanes also doesn’t decrease congestion, instead it frequently increases. Of course there are situations where this doesn’t hold true, but for most cities today it does. Ultimately adding lanes just creates more capacity for traffic, it doesn’t increase flow rate, because the bottlenecks at junctions etc cause congestion long before the width of the road does. Making a road wider won’t change that. Add a cycle lane does improve things for drivers. By making it possible for people to cycle rather than drive (cyclist don’t spring from nowhere) you reduce the number of cars on the road. A cycle lane can move substantially more people than a single lane of traffic. In most cities building out good cycle infrastructure, the cycles lanes move substantially more people per hour at rush hour than the car lanes ever have. Every single one of those bikes being one less car in car lanes. The net effect of the above is that adding cycle lanes, and making cycling safe and attractive creates a net increase in available road space for those that must drive.