7 ms·

In the U.S. we're struggling to get them to understand that bike lanes and sidewalks can't just randomly end mid-block and still be useful. While the idea seems

In the U.S. we're struggling to get them to understand that bike lanes and sidewalks can't just randomly end mid-block and still be useful. While the idea seems ostensibly solid, and cars very much need containment, we still have much more basic needs before we can start optimizing car infrastructure.

philwelch 4y ago
No, we can start improving car infrastructure right away because, on the types of roads that have guardrails, cars are like 98% of the traffic or more. And the rare roads that have both guardrails and sidewalks should probably have the sidewalks on the far side of the guardrails, at which point improved guardrails also protect pedestrians. Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). I'm kind of surprised more states haven't done it yet. Failing that, it's probably better to also use guardrails to physically separate the bike lanes from the motor lanes, which is yet another use-case for improved guardrails.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Same argument works for banning pedestrians from streets that cars use though. What kind of world are we trying to make here.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    We do ban pedestrians from the streets; that’s what sidewalks are for.
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      Sidewalks don't mean you're not allowed to walk on the street. Streets are for everyone, including cyclists and pedestrians.
      - shepherdjerred 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#United_States
        giraffe_lady 4y ago
        Could link to a lot of american perversions if you wanted to but that's a very narrow "we."
        philwelch 4y ago
        TFA is published by the US Department of Transportation.
        giraffe_lady 4y ago
        My point was more that "things that americans do", "things that everyone does", and "things we should be doing" is a venn diagram with a very small center when it comes to car use.
        philwelch 4y ago
        When I used the word “we”, I was talking about the US. I don’t believe in a global “we”. You live in a country where pedestrians are allowed to walk out onto the same street where cars go, and I live in a country where they aren’t. And apparently, we are both happy with how our respective countries do things. And that’s fine; I’m happy that you’re happy with your country’s laws and customs and I wouldn’t want to impose my country’s laws and customs on anyone else.
        shepherdjerred 4y ago
        There are plenty of other countries on that page with similar laws. > In Zimbabwe, jaywalking is illegal, as per the traffic laws gazetted in 2013 by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Development. > In recent years, jaywalking has become more strictly controlled in China as car traffic increased. Police have tested facial recognition to identify jaywalkers. Italy: > Pedestrians are allowed to cross a street without any recognised crossing point only if there are no zebra crossings within a range of 100 m
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Not all streets have sidewalks but you can still walk on them....
- bscphil 4y ago
  > Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). To me this sounds like the equivalent of permanently shutting down a public park because it's infested with disease carrying rats rather than trying to get rid of the rats.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    You’re comparing motorists (who are the vast majority of US road users) to rats needing to be exterminated.
    - bscphil 4y ago
      No, I'm comparing America's car culture to a rat infestation; something that causes serious problems and is a problem in its own right. This has nothing to do with the moral standing of individuals drivers...
      - philwelch 4y ago
        Which is a ludicrous, fringe viewpoint that verges on trolling when you go out of your way to bring it up in a discussion about safety barriers for motorways.
        hoseja 4y ago
        It's correct nonetheless.
        aiisjustanif 4y ago
        Your creating safety barriers for another problem though which are car speeds that aren’t regulated enough, and human and vehicle errors.
  - yarky 4y ago
    > would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). Wasn't this the same kind of argument we used in the past to justify slavery?
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Purely from a safety standpoint I bet prohibiting cars on the roads and only allowing bikes would be even better!
- Silhouette 4y ago
  Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). I'm kind of surprised more states haven't done it yet. But then you have the self-perpetuating problem of stigmatising cycling and promoting car use. Given the numerous advantages of promoting cycling for journeys where it's a reasonable alternative it seems quite understandable that governments wouldn't want to universally ban on-road cycling.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    It’s not a problem IMO. Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars, which is why a very small share of the US population uses them on the roads in the first place. Unfortunately that tiny minority of people are very outspoken about attempting to socially and physically engineer the world to cater to their preferences.
    - enriquto 4y ago
      > Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars I find this point of view amusing because it is so contradictory to my personal experience. In my case, I started commuting by bike after years of being tired to spend an unpredictable amount of time stuck on traffic, looking through the window at cyclists merrily passing by. Since becoming one of these cyclists, I feel a bit of pity every time that I see people stuck in their useless cars. I concede that cars can be more useful than bicycles in some circumstances. There are also people like you who legitimately seem to love using cars, and there's nothing wrong with that. But at least in my country: - there are more bikes than cars - there are more people who can drive bikes than cars - every year, more bikes are sold than cars - most car trips are less than 10km - most of those cars only carry a single person - most people would prefer to take the bike than the car if they could Why do most people still use cars, then? Because there is no safe infrastructure for cycling, and that is the main problem. Improving cycling infrastructure would be a net benefit for everybody, especially for car lovers who would then find their streets liberated of other drivers who just hate being there. Another problem with cars is that they are ridiculously space-inefficient. Especially when they carry a single person, which is most of the time. A street with 20 people in 20 cars is crowded in dense traffic. The same 20 people cycling or walking are almost invisible, low density occupation of the same space.
- aiisjustanif 4y ago
  > cars are like 98% of the traffic or more They didn’t always. That infrastructure was built and subsidized so they were used. > Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people Purely from safety standpoint, making less motorized roads would be a massive improvement and people would conform to new modes of travel just like when cars and interstates were introduced.

philwelch 4y ago

No, we can start improving car infrastructure right away because, on the types of roads that have guardrails, cars are like 98% of the traffic or more. And the rare roads that have both guardrails and sidewalks should probably have the sidewalks on the far side of the guardrails, at which point improved guardrails also protect pedestrians. Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). I'm kind of surprised more states haven't done it yet. Failing that, it's probably better to also use guardrails to physically separate the bike lanes from the motor lanes, which is yet another use-case for improved guardrails.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Same argument works for banning pedestrians from streets that cars use though. What kind of world are we trying to make here.
- philwelch 4y ago
  We do ban pedestrians from the streets; that’s what sidewalks are for.
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    Sidewalks don't mean you're not allowed to walk on the street. Streets are for everyone, including cyclists and pedestrians.
    - shepherdjerred 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#United_States
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        Could link to a lot of american perversions if you wanted to but that's a very narrow "we."
        philwelch 4y ago
        TFA is published by the US Department of Transportation.
        giraffe_lady 4y ago
        My point was more that "things that americans do", "things that everyone does", and "things we should be doing" is a venn diagram with a very small center when it comes to car use.
        philwelch 4y ago
        When I used the word “we”, I was talking about the US. I don’t believe in a global “we”. You live in a country where pedestrians are allowed to walk out onto the same street where cars go, and I live in a country where they aren’t. And apparently, we are both happy with how our respective countries do things. And that’s fine; I’m happy that you’re happy with your country’s laws and customs and I wouldn’t want to impose my country’s laws and customs on anyone else.
        shepherdjerred 4y ago
        There are plenty of other countries on that page with similar laws. > In Zimbabwe, jaywalking is illegal, as per the traffic laws gazetted in 2013 by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Development. > In recent years, jaywalking has become more strictly controlled in China as car traffic increased. Police have tested facial recognition to identify jaywalkers. Italy: > Pedestrians are allowed to cross a street without any recognised crossing point only if there are no zebra crossings within a range of 100 m
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Not all streets have sidewalks but you can still walk on them....
bscphil 4y ago
> Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). To me this sounds like the equivalent of permanently shutting down a public park because it's infested with disease carrying rats rather than trying to get rid of the rats.
- philwelch 4y ago
  You’re comparing motorists (who are the vast majority of US road users) to rats needing to be exterminated.
  - bscphil 4y ago
    No, I'm comparing America's car culture to a rat infestation; something that causes serious problems and is a problem in its own right. This has nothing to do with the moral standing of individuals drivers...
    - philwelch 4y ago
      Which is a ludicrous, fringe viewpoint that verges on trolling when you go out of your way to bring it up in a discussion about safety barriers for motorways.
      - hoseja 4y ago
        It's correct nonetheless.
      - aiisjustanif 4y ago
        Your creating safety barriers for another problem though which are car speeds that aren’t regulated enough, and human and vehicle errors.
- yarky 4y ago
  > would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). Wasn't this the same kind of argument we used in the past to justify slavery?
tshaddox 4y ago
Purely from a safety standpoint I bet prohibiting cars on the roads and only allowing bikes would be even better!
Silhouette 4y ago
Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people (while improving the convenience for everyone else). I'm kind of surprised more states haven't done it yet. But then you have the self-perpetuating problem of stigmatising cycling and promoting car use. Given the numerous advantages of promoting cycling for journeys where it's a reasonable alternative it seems quite understandable that governments wouldn't want to universally ban on-road cycling.
- philwelch 4y ago
  It’s not a problem IMO. Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars, which is why a very small share of the US population uses them on the roads in the first place. Unfortunately that tiny minority of people are very outspoken about attempting to socially and physically engineer the world to cater to their preferences.
  - enriquto 4y ago
    > Bicycles aren’t very useful vehicles compared to cars I find this point of view amusing because it is so contradictory to my personal experience. In my case, I started commuting by bike after years of being tired to spend an unpredictable amount of time stuck on traffic, looking through the window at cyclists merrily passing by. Since becoming one of these cyclists, I feel a bit of pity every time that I see people stuck in their useless cars. I concede that cars can be more useful than bicycles in some circumstances. There are also people like you who legitimately seem to love using cars, and there's nothing wrong with that. But at least in my country: - there are more bikes than cars - there are more people who can drive bikes than cars - every year, more bikes are sold than cars - most car trips are less than 10km - most of those cars only carry a single person - most people would prefer to take the bike than the car if they could Why do most people still use cars, then? Because there is no safe infrastructure for cycling, and that is the main problem. Improving cycling infrastructure would be a net benefit for everybody, especially for car lovers who would then find their streets liberated of other drivers who just hate being there. Another problem with cars is that they are ridiculously space-inefficient. Especially when they carry a single person, which is most of the time. A street with 20 people in 20 cars is crowded in dense traffic. The same 20 people cycling or walking are almost invisible, low density occupation of the same space.
aiisjustanif 4y ago
> cars are like 98% of the traffic or more They didn’t always. That infrastructure was built and subsidized so they were used. > Purely from a safety standpoint, outright prohibiting bicycle traffic on motorized roads would be a massive improvement at the expense of inconveniencing a small minority of people Purely from safety standpoint, making less motorized roads would be a massive improvement and people would conform to new modes of travel just like when cars and interstates were introduced.