7 ms·
Bicyclists Deserve the Right to Free Movement
- CalRobert 3y agoIt is hard to describe the utter freedom I feel from being able to get on my bike and safely go... Anywhere. Even with my kids as passengers. It feels like I've escaped prison. Too bad I had to move to the Netherlands for it. But it's wonderful.
- hypertele-Xii 3y agoIf you add to that the right to camp in private woods, it becomes truly liberating. Here in Finland we call it "jokamiehenoikeus", "every man's right", or "freedom to roam". You can set up tent in any forest, regardless of land ownership.
- mulmen 3y agoHuh, that sounds neat but is a foreign concept to my American sensibilities. How far does that right extend? What's the line between a tent and a cabin? How much are you allowed to modify the environment to make it suitable for camping? How long are you allowed to stay before moving on? Are you required to remove your waste? How close can you be to an established dwelling?
- voisin 3y agoSomewhat related: in New Hampshire your rural property taxes go up if you post no trespassing/hunting signs. And if these signs are not posted, others have the right to roam over your land and hunt. I love the concept which I here fly recognizes the social value of land but preserves the right of landowners to pay for exclusivity.
- mulmen 3y agoAre there protections to prevent squatting? I admit that this is intriguing, I'm just curious what the rules are. It seems easy to exploit so I assume someone already has.
- banannaise 3y agoIf someone is spending extended time on land that is otherwise completely unused... I fail to see the problem. In this way, "squatting" is like "jaywalking" -- a perfectly normal thing that we invented a crime for (typically on behalf of wealthier people against poorer ones). You can, of course, ask someone to leave your land if you need to use it. There's a reason that adverse possession takes years to decades.
- mulmen 3y agoCome take a look at the greenbelts in Seattle for an idea of how bad it can be. Trash, human waste, clear cutting, erosion, fire, etc.
- voisin 3y agoI believe it is for movement over land (roaming/hunting), not unrestricted access to set up shop and squat, leave a mess, etc. in that instance I assume the usual legal resolutions apply.
- eesmith 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam gives a good overview, with a specific entry for Finland. Here is a Finnish web site on the topic: https://www.visitfinland.com/en/articles/finnish-everyman-rights-the-right-to-roam/ https://www.visitfinland.com/en/articles/finnish-everyman-ri... . Here is another: https://www.nationalparks.fi/everymansright https://www.nationalparks.fi/everymansright . > "What's the line between a tent and a cabin?" You can pitch a tent. Not build a cabin, nor park a camper. Only temporarily. It looks like motorized transport on land isn't included (I wonder if e-bikes are allowed.) Though you can drive a motor vehicle on frozen lakes, rivers, and the sea, so perhaps you can take your camper out then and do some ice fishing? > "How much are you allowed to modify the environment to make it suitable for camping?" Not much: "It’s NOT allowed to… cut down or damage trees … collect moss, lichen, or fallen trees from other people's property … light open campfires without permission, except in an emergency". "In short, leave nothing but footprints behind." > "How long are you allowed to stay before moving on?" I can't find it for Finland. For Norway, "Tourists are allowed to stay in one spot for up to two days." > "Are you required to remove your waste?" It's forbidden to litter. I can't find what to do with poop - probably the usual burial is okay, depending on where you are. I would expect more notice about needing to carry it all out if that were required. > " How close can you be to an established dwelling?" A "reasonable distance from homes." Not "very near homes and other private buildings or through farm fields and nursery plantations which could easily be damaged". It looks like "200-300 feet" is reasonable, from one site.
- mulmen 3y agoThanks! That all sounds very reasonable, except maybe the poop. I wouldn't want a creek on my land to become popular on Instagram and then have to treat my water supply for the rest of my life. But maybe there are already laws about not leaving human waste in an area that threatens water supply.
- cjs_ac 3y agoThe limits of the right to roam vary significantly between countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam?wprov=sfla1
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoScotland also has freedom to roam. I don't know if goes as far as camping, but it definitely allows walking on private property.
- sershe 3y agoThat's how I felt after finally ditching car-free lifestyle at 30 (including selling my 2nd bike and letting my main one rot in sheds/parking garages/basements) and starting to drive everywhere ;)
- errantmind 3y agoLiving in the US, I often fantasize about living somewhere I can bike freely in the sense the article describes. Somewhere bikes are actually prioritized over cars, not just accommodated. Preferably no cars at all. So far, my search had come up dry.
- CalRobert 3y agoDutch American friendship treaty is worth a look
- ipnon 3y agoPortland is probably the best biking city. It’s not perfect but in many neighborhoods it’s very cumbersome to drive and easy to bike. Drivers are also much less hostile in general.
- vanilla_nut 3y agoI have heard that bicycle commuting has dropped significantly in Portland since 2020. And I've experienced enough of an increase in broken glass, aggressive driving, tents, and trash in bike lanes in other US cities to be a bit worried about the current state of bicycling in Portland. But I'm also aware that reporting has significant biases, and I haven't been back to Portland since 2019 or so. What's the current situation like?
- blacksmith_tb 3y agoHmm, I have been commuting by bike in Portland since the late 80s. The city did achieve some good things during that time, but has lost steam more recently. The pandemic may have shifted people slightly off of public transit and onto bikes, but not as much as it moved desk jockeys like me into remote work. Still, there have been some recent new interesting bike infrastructure projects, there's a bike/ped only bridge over I-84 that opened recently, and a couple years back a new train/bus only bridge over the Willamette river opened with nice bike and ped amenities. Drivers have become a little more reckless and hostile, but I don't find broken glass / tents to be much of an issue on any of the routes I regularly ride (8mi / 13km round trip 4X per week).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ftxbro 3y ago> In America, a bicyclist is usually not envisioned as being on par with someone who drives a car. They are stereotyped as either a rich hobbyist in spandex or as drunks who lost their driver’s license and have to rely on a lesser form of transport. So they acknowledge this but expect it to change somehow?
- mcmcmc 3y agoThat stereotype might exist in some places or in some crowds, but it's far from a universally held belief. And it's definitely not true.
- etrautmann 3y agoYeah this does not ring true anywhere I’ve lived (mostly coastal cities)
- jmclnx 3y agoI live in one of those cities, and yes that is the stereotype, with one addition, Bicycles are only really for kids to ride in parks or on the sidewalk.
- banannaise 3y agoRight, the upper middle class and above tend to categorize anything they don't do as profoundly unserious, and therefore only done by unserious people with whom something is seriously wrong.
- sershe 3y agoI mean, upper middle class are the people who bike, at least in the coastal cities. I've never met anyone who wasn't a tech worker/realtor/doctor/..., or at least a teacher or a PhD student in something abstract, who commuted by bike.
- Georgelemental 3y agoThere is a road near my house with a wide, shaded bike lane. It's very nice, I use and enjoy it regularly. But regularly bikers decide, for no discernible reason at all, to use the main road anyway, slowing down traffic. What's the point of investing in bike infrastructure if (some) bikers refuse to use it?
- colpabar 3y agoWhen you say “slow down traffic”, by how much? Do you actually mean you can’t go over the speed limit?
- Georgelemental 3y agoPosted speed limit in that area is 35 mph, faster than the bikers I see there. In practice traffic doesn't slow much because cars just pass the bikes, but I am a new driver and doing so always makes me nervous (especially as the road curves somewhat, so visibility can be limited).
- mulmen 3y agoI took driver's education in 2000 so I admit I may be a bit rusty. When I learned to drive the "speed limit" was the upper limit. I don't recall there being a universal right to a minimum speed, that is unique to freeways. Depending on your state the bicyclist may be required to yield if they are delaying some number of other vehicles, but that is likely to vary. Maybe you can educate us on why you believe you have a right to pass these cyclists.
- pandaman 3y agoMost states have rules against driving too slowly and impeding normal flow of traffic. Furthermore, most states have specific rules for bicycles and other slow vehicles to drive furthest to the right they can with exceptions allowed for left turns, obstacles etc.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
- veavo 3y ago[flagged]
- Tiktaalik 3y ago> In 2018 alone, a bicyclist was killed approximately every third day in the greater Chicago area. Completely insane horrifying stat. The incredible amount of injury and death has been so normalized.
- throw9away6 3y ago[flagged]
- taeric 3y agoAgreed. Is the kind of stat I think I reflexively refuse to believe at face value. :( How did things get that bad?
- Retric 3y agoThat’s one of those comparisons where the goal is to underestimate the greater Chicago area’s population, but it’s not even an accurate statistic. From 2005 to 2016 Chicago with a population of 2.7 million had between 3 and 8 cycles deaths per year vs 27 to 65 pedestrian deaths and 282 to 487 motorists. https://activetrans.org/sites/files/crash%20report%202018%20V3.pdf https://activetrans.org/sites/files/crash%20report%202018%20... Edit: The closest to 1/3 days I could find was 13 bicycle deaths and 95 pedestrian fatalities totaling to 108 for the region. Which is 1 cyclist death per 28 days out of ~10 million people.
- woodruffw 3y ago
- vanilla_nut 3y agoNotably, Europe doesn't just accommodate bicycles in cities: it's also much more comfortable to bike on rural roads, thanks to lower speed limits, smaller cars, better drivers, and more conscious design when it comes to designating roads vs. streets vs. highways. Bicycle routes (sometimes called byways) are also a hell of a lot better, and are actually viable ways to travel between nearby cities in many cases. I just spent a month bicycling around the UK. I knew the infrastructure was better than in the USA, but it blew my mind to see how even motorways often had bicycle & pedestrian paths off to the side. And almost all bridges seem to have a sidewalk, often one big enough to comfortably fit bikes and pedestrians. That's something we don't even get in the most pedestrian friendly US cities (citation: the Queensborough bridge in NYC). And the funniest part? People in the UK complain about their infrastructure constantly, and frequently asked me why I was cycling there instead of the Netherlands, or France, or Spain, or Italy, or any other European country. Infrastructure in the USA is a nightmare and an absolute embarrassment. I fear for my life every time I walk or bike here in shared space with drivers. I suspect a lot of this stems from the fact that around half of Americans have never left the continent of North America [1]. It's hard to realize just how bad our infrastructure is when you have no point of comparison and all of our infra sucks. It's so frustrating because it's so simple: I just want to ride my bike and walk around. That requires very little infrastructure. I shouldn't have to wrap up my entire identity up in bicycling and walking just because most of our country doesn't bother with those activities. [1](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/05/02/percentage-of-americans-who-never-traveled-beyond-the-state-where-they-were-born-a-surprise/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/05/02/percentage-o...).
- basisword 3y ago>> blew my mind to see how even motorways often had bicycle & pedestrian paths off to the side Unless something changed recently I don't think this is true of the UK. You can't ride anything under 125CC on a UK motorway and cycling/walking is illegal. Maybe you mean dual carriageways?
- Lio 3y agoI don’t think the comment is about riding on the motorway, which as you say is illegal, but to the side next to the motorway on an adjacent path.
- korse 3y agoYes, they do... but As a commuter cyclist and former member of the 'bicycle industry', I'm going to propose an alternate view. Call this the 'libertarian theory of bike commuting' perhaps. I love the bicycle situation in the United States. Why? Because freedom. With increased investment in bicycle infrastructure comes increasing oversight and enforcement. This is something I cannot abide. I love riding a bicycle because I can, with reasonable caution and situational awareness, ride anywhere I choose (almost entirely) unburdened by bureaucratic annoyances such as speed cameras, parking garage gates, signals, signage, pedestrian areas, traffic and lurking police officers. Appreciate what you have, or else we're all going to have to start wearing running clothes and doing shenanigans like joggers... because you know a properly attired and sweating jogger is ultimate stealth mode. It is just slow and makes you smell even worse + carrying cargo sort of breaks the facade. Keep the USA weird.