4 ms·

I spent a few weeks recently cycling from LA to the Mexican border across non-coastal Southern California. Zero complaints about cycling in that part of the USA

I spent a few weeks recently cycling from LA to the Mexican border across non-coastal Southern California. Zero complaints about cycling in that part of the USA: I was pleased by how many hard shoulders had been turned into bike lanes, and drivers seemed courteous. But man, was walking in towns a drag. If I left the bike safely at a hotel and wanted to stroll over to a restaurant or supermarket, every intersection was button-operated traffic lights where pedestrians wait ages for their turn to cross. Then, the pedestrian light flashes for almost too little time to cross the six or seven lanes of traffic. The sheer width of ordinary US roads must have a deterrent effect.

TulliusCicero 3y ago
> I was pleased by how many hard shoulders had been turned into bike lanes, and drivers seemed courteous. But how many are protected bike lanes, instead of just paint? Painted bike lanes are only helpful for relatively confident cyclists, and obviously do virtually nothing to actually protect people on bikes. Imagine if we started replacing sidewalks with painted walk lanes! > The sheer width of US roads must have a deterrent effect. Yup. In Munich, not only are roads generally not as wide, but if they're even sorta of wide, they get a pedestrian island or two.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  Painted bike lanes of this sort are quite common in the EU (and even a step up from painted shared lanes), I can't regard the US ones I experienced as inferior. Moreover, because the roads are often as multi-lane and wide as I described, cyclists over in that painted lane might even feel well removed from the main flow of vehicles.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    Yeah, and they suck there too. In Munich, there's a lot of protected bike lanes, but also some painted ones (especially closer to the city center) and the painted ones sucked. No way would I ever bike with a six year old on those, like I did on the protected lanes. Would a child or elderly person feel comfortable on such a lane? Generally, no. They're not accessible, and generally a waste of space. It's largely municipalities cheaping out on infrastructure, because outside of, say, the Netherlands, biking is a second class citizen at best, and often more like third class.
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      We are talking about two separate things. You are thinking of urban cycling where elderly and children commonly move about. I am talking about US rural roads, where a guaranteed paved shoulder and some lane marking now offers a respite from what bicycle tourers have historically considered a downside of cycling in the USA: sharing a lane with rural drivers. As I said, even in most of the EU one can't expect completely separated bike infrastructure for dozens of km of rural cycling.
      - TulliusCicero 3y ago
        Even for rural areas, it should be separated paths. The US actually has some of those (way more than it has protected bike lanes, anyway). Fair though, a painted bike lane is probably better than nothing. > even in most of the EU Why are you saying this like the EU is some kind of exemplar? Most of the EU sucks for biking. It's better on average than the US, but most countries there aren't like the Netherlands, which is probably the only country there where biking is treated with similar seriousness to driving in terms of investment.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        OfSanguineFire 3y ago
        Why do I compare to the EU? Besides that fact I am from there (and you say you’re from there, so we have a shared frame of reference), rural commuting there is vastly more common compared to the USA. Over the last decade I have lived in villages in two EU countries where the nearest shop has been over in the next village, a few km along a tertiary highway, and the bicycle serves as a common way for me and my neighbours to travel that distance – and most of my neighbours are older people, since such are the demographics of rural areas. That gives me an idea of what minimum infrastructure and driver behaviour is required for ordinary people to cycle. And in spite of your preference for 100% separated infrastructure, that doesn’t seem obligatory and I don’t think it crosses any of my neighbours’ minds.

TulliusCicero 3y ago

> I was pleased by how many hard shoulders had been turned into bike lanes, and drivers seemed courteous. But how many are protected bike lanes, instead of just paint? Painted bike lanes are only helpful for relatively confident cyclists, and obviously do virtually nothing to actually protect people on bikes. Imagine if we started replacing sidewalks with painted walk lanes! > The sheer width of US roads must have a deterrent effect. Yup. In Munich, not only are roads generally not as wide, but if they're even sorta of wide, they get a pedestrian island or two.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Painted bike lanes of this sort are quite common in the EU (and even a step up from painted shared lanes), I can't regard the US ones I experienced as inferior. Moreover, because the roads are often as multi-lane and wide as I described, cyclists over in that painted lane might even feel well removed from the main flow of vehicles.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  Yeah, and they suck there too. In Munich, there's a lot of protected bike lanes, but also some painted ones (especially closer to the city center) and the painted ones sucked. No way would I ever bike with a six year old on those, like I did on the protected lanes. Would a child or elderly person feel comfortable on such a lane? Generally, no. They're not accessible, and generally a waste of space. It's largely municipalities cheaping out on infrastructure, because outside of, say, the Netherlands, biking is a second class citizen at best, and often more like third class.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    We are talking about two separate things. You are thinking of urban cycling where elderly and children commonly move about. I am talking about US rural roads, where a guaranteed paved shoulder and some lane marking now offers a respite from what bicycle tourers have historically considered a downside of cycling in the USA: sharing a lane with rural drivers. As I said, even in most of the EU one can't expect completely separated bike infrastructure for dozens of km of rural cycling.
    - TulliusCicero 3y ago
      Even for rural areas, it should be separated paths. The US actually has some of those (way more than it has protected bike lanes, anyway). Fair though, a painted bike lane is probably better than nothing. > even in most of the EU Why are you saying this like the EU is some kind of exemplar? Most of the EU sucks for biking. It's better on average than the US, but most countries there aren't like the Netherlands, which is probably the only country there where biking is treated with similar seriousness to driving in terms of investment.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
        Why do I compare to the EU? Besides that fact I am from there (and you say you’re from there, so we have a shared frame of reference), rural commuting there is vastly more common compared to the USA. Over the last decade I have lived in villages in two EU countries where the nearest shop has been over in the next village, a few km along a tertiary highway, and the bicycle serves as a common way for me and my neighbours to travel that distance – and most of my neighbours are older people, since such are the demographics of rural areas. That gives me an idea of what minimum infrastructure and driver behaviour is required for ordinary people to cycle. And in spite of your preference for 100% separated infrastructure, that doesn’t seem obligatory and I don’t think it crosses any of my neighbours’ minds.