3 ms·

So you think your particular mode of transport should have exclusive use of a public right of way that everyone owns and everyone's tax dollars pay to build and

So you think your particular mode of transport should have exclusive use of a public right of way that everyone owns and everyone's tax dollars pay to build and maintain, but it's cyclists that have the shitty entitled attitude?

tzs 12y ago
Wait...you don't think particular modes of transport should have exclusive access to particular public rights of way that everyone owns and everyone's tax dollars pay to build and maintain? So does that mean you think motorcycles should have access to the sidewalks, and pedestrians should be able to walk in the street?
- apendleton 12y ago
  Lack of exclusivity might mean sharing the same lanes for multiple modes (what you're suggesting), or it might mean giving up some real estate to build dedicated infrastructure for other modes of transport (e.g. bike lanes, etc.). Which is appropriate will depend on context. But I don't think drivers have a right to object to both having to share lanes with cyclists and to giving up car lanes to build bike lanes. Cyclists are taxpayers, too, and should be entitled to something, but to hear some drivers talk about it, any infrastructural decision that doesn't lead to cars moving as quickly as possible ought to be verboten. That's what I find objectionable. But to more bluntly answer your question: actually, yes, at least sometimes. Though I would instead phrase it as erasing the distinction between sidewalks and streets: http://nacto.org/usdg/commercial-shared-street/ http://nacto.org/usdg/commercial-shared-street/ This kind of streetscape is common in Europe and Asia, but much less so in the States.
bane 12y ago
No, I think cyclists should also have a dedicate right of way and transport infrastructure. At least as comprehensive as the automobile road network. Even if it costs me more in the form of higher tax dollars and yes, even if if I lose a travel lane because of it. Why is that controversial or problematic? I don't understand the shitty entitled attitude of bikers honestly. I'm not only advocating for something that's safer, more pleasant and more convenient for them, but I'm willing to put my wallet to work and inconvenience myself to support it. All I'm getting is flak over it and the responses to it are doing little to dissuade me of my already negative opinion of cyclists as a population.

tzs 12y ago

Wait...you don't think particular modes of transport should have exclusive access to particular public rights of way that everyone owns and everyone's tax dollars pay to build and maintain? So does that mean you think motorcycles should have access to the sidewalks, and pedestrians should be able to walk in the street?

apendleton 12y ago
Lack of exclusivity might mean sharing the same lanes for multiple modes (what you're suggesting), or it might mean giving up some real estate to build dedicated infrastructure for other modes of transport (e.g. bike lanes, etc.). Which is appropriate will depend on context. But I don't think drivers have a right to object to both having to share lanes with cyclists and to giving up car lanes to build bike lanes. Cyclists are taxpayers, too, and should be entitled to something, but to hear some drivers talk about it, any infrastructural decision that doesn't lead to cars moving as quickly as possible ought to be verboten. That's what I find objectionable. But to more bluntly answer your question: actually, yes, at least sometimes. Though I would instead phrase it as erasing the distinction between sidewalks and streets: http://nacto.org/usdg/commercial-shared-street/ http://nacto.org/usdg/commercial-shared-street/ This kind of streetscape is common in Europe and Asia, but much less so in the States.

bane 12y ago

No, I think cyclists should also have a dedicate right of way and transport infrastructure. At least as comprehensive as the automobile road network. Even if it costs me more in the form of higher tax dollars and yes, even if if I lose a travel lane because of it. Why is that controversial or problematic? I don't understand the shitty entitled attitude of bikers honestly. I'm not only advocating for something that's safer, more pleasant and more convenient for them, but I'm willing to put my wallet to work and inconvenience myself to support it. All I'm getting is flak over it and the responses to it are doing little to dissuade me of my already negative opinion of cyclists as a population.