5 ms·

I don’t think everyone wants to ride around in bikes. I really don’t like the idea of forcing municipalities to spend tax dollars retrofitting cities for bikes.

by lvl102 4y ago

I don’t think everyone wants to ride around in bikes. I really don’t like the idea of forcing municipalities to spend tax dollars retrofitting cities for bikes. It’s quite literally ripping apart the streets to satisfy 5-10% of the population. No thank you.

ako 4y ago
As a dutch person, i'm very happy our governments made this choice: makes cities way more liveable, benefits those who can't afford a car, saves many lives, improves the health of 1000s, and reduces healthcare costs due to improved health. It impacts way more people than just the 5-10% actually cycling. Everybody benefits from others cycling. Even if you're still driving a car, you should be happy with reduced traffic jams due to others leaving their cat at home.
Dalewyn 4y ago
[flagged]
- japhyr 4y ago
  Nobody uses half-implemented unsafe bike lanes that: - cars sometimes drive in - cars and delivery vehicles park in - have frequent gaps that dump you into the road - have no meaningful separation from vehicular traffic - are not clean enough to ride on easily People are happy to use well-designed and maintained bicycling infrastructure.
  - ben-schaaf 4y ago
    To add to that, nobody uses bike lanes that: - Have missing intersections; where making your turn is impossible from the bike lane - Are mixed use with heavy foot traffic - Make you cross high speed traffic, or have otherwise unsafe intersections - Don't connect to the existing network - Don't lead to any destinations - Have many potholes, or otherwise unpleasant surface - Don't get plowed
- detrites 4y ago
  This really depends on where you are. Some European cities the bike lanes are in constant use, to the point if you're not as accustomed to it as the locals you may well cause an accident if you try join them. (And take care crossing them.)
- foolswisdom 4y ago
  I've found the bike lanes in NYC to be minimally helpful, and in some cases, I think the way they are is downright dangerous. I've seen where the car lane merges into where the bike lane is (and the bike lane at that point ceases to exist), and it's incredibly non obvious. To say nothing of the places where the bike lane is actually in the car lane the whole time anyway, and cars are meant to (swerve and) pass the bikes on the left (?!).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vineyardmike 4y ago
Maybe people would want to use bikes if the opportunity existed. I don’t bike because it doesn’t feel safe next to cars, but I also don’t drive because I know it isn’t safe.
toshredsyousay 4y ago
As opposed to forcing everyone to have to use cars? Cars are expensive, dangerous, and incredibly space-inefficient, and car infrastructure is very expensive. A car lane can move max 1600 people per hour, where as a bike lane can move up to 7500 people per hour (according to nacto.org). Note that even in Amsterdam you can still drive, it just is often a slower option than biking because you will have to take longer routes. And remember, that a bike lane doesn't have to just be human-powered bikes: it could be e-scooters, e-bikes or perhaps even microcars.
amrocha 4y ago
Your theoretical argument against bikes is actually just a practical argument against cars. Most people hate driving, they do it because they have to. Cities ripped apart streets to satisfy a minority of the people.
mcv 4y ago
Should municipalities instead be forced to spend tax dollars on more roads? Bike paths are cheaper, more people on bikes leaves more space for cars, and less cars means less traffic deaths. Lots of people want to bike or would appreciate it once they get used to it, but often the infrastructure simply isn't there. If you build good bike infrastructure (nut just the occasional bike path, but a network of them), it will be used, and will remove a lot of strain from the car infrastructure.
vanilla_nut 4y ago
Imagine yourself in the year 1920: I don't think many people want to ride around short distances downtown in a car, hunting for parking spaces at both ends. I really don't like the idea of forcing municipalities to spend tax dollars retrofitting cities for cars. It's quite literally ripping apart the streets to satisfy 5-10% of the population. No thank you. Do you live in a US city centre? Or do you live in the suburbs, miles out, and want the privilege of driving your large vehicle directly into those city centres when you want to cosplay as an urbanite? I don't know many folks who live in downtowns in US cities who want to drive a personal vehicle around everywhere they go; it's inefficient, expensive, and stressful.

by lvl102 4y ago

ako 4y ago

As a dutch person, i'm very happy our governments made this choice: makes cities way more liveable, benefits those who can't afford a car, saves many lives, improves the health of 1000s, and reduces healthcare costs due to improved health. It impacts way more people than just the 5-10% actually cycling. Everybody benefits from others cycling. Even if you're still driving a car, you should be happy with reduced traffic jams due to others leaving their cat at home.

Dalewyn 4y ago

[flagged]

japhyr 4y ago
Nobody uses half-implemented unsafe bike lanes that: - cars sometimes drive in - cars and delivery vehicles park in - have frequent gaps that dump you into the road - have no meaningful separation from vehicular traffic - are not clean enough to ride on easily People are happy to use well-designed and maintained bicycling infrastructure.
- ben-schaaf 4y ago
  To add to that, nobody uses bike lanes that: - Have missing intersections; where making your turn is impossible from the bike lane - Are mixed use with heavy foot traffic - Make you cross high speed traffic, or have otherwise unsafe intersections - Don't connect to the existing network - Don't lead to any destinations - Have many potholes, or otherwise unpleasant surface - Don't get plowed
detrites 4y ago
This really depends on where you are. Some European cities the bike lanes are in constant use, to the point if you're not as accustomed to it as the locals you may well cause an accident if you try join them. (And take care crossing them.)
foolswisdom 4y ago
I've found the bike lanes in NYC to be minimally helpful, and in some cases, I think the way they are is downright dangerous. I've seen where the car lane merges into where the bike lane is (and the bike lane at that point ceases to exist), and it's incredibly non obvious. To say nothing of the places where the bike lane is actually in the car lane the whole time anyway, and cars are meant to (swerve and) pass the bikes on the left (?!).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vineyardmike 4y ago

Maybe people would want to use bikes if the opportunity existed. I don’t bike because it doesn’t feel safe next to cars, but I also don’t drive because I know it isn’t safe.

toshredsyousay 4y ago

As opposed to forcing everyone to have to use cars? Cars are expensive, dangerous, and incredibly space-inefficient, and car infrastructure is very expensive. A car lane can move max 1600 people per hour, where as a bike lane can move up to 7500 people per hour (according to nacto.org). Note that even in Amsterdam you can still drive, it just is often a slower option than biking because you will have to take longer routes. And remember, that a bike lane doesn't have to just be human-powered bikes: it could be e-scooters, e-bikes or perhaps even microcars.

amrocha 4y ago

Your theoretical argument against bikes is actually just a practical argument against cars. Most people hate driving, they do it because they have to. Cities ripped apart streets to satisfy a minority of the people.

mcv 4y ago

Should municipalities instead be forced to spend tax dollars on more roads? Bike paths are cheaper, more people on bikes leaves more space for cars, and less cars means less traffic deaths. Lots of people want to bike or would appreciate it once they get used to it, but often the infrastructure simply isn't there. If you build good bike infrastructure (nut just the occasional bike path, but a network of them), it will be used, and will remove a lot of strain from the car infrastructure.

vanilla_nut 4y ago

Imagine yourself in the year 1920: I don't think many people want to ride around short distances downtown in a car, hunting for parking spaces at both ends. I really don't like the idea of forcing municipalities to spend tax dollars retrofitting cities for cars. It's quite literally ripping apart the streets to satisfy 5-10% of the population. No thank you. Do you live in a US city centre? Or do you live in the suburbs, miles out, and want the privilege of driving your large vehicle directly into those city centres when you want to cosplay as an urbanite? I don't know many folks who live in downtowns in US cities who want to drive a personal vehicle around everywhere they go; it's inefficient, expensive, and stressful.