donrhummy

Which of these situations would you rather comes true?

Machka 

Definitely NOT the first one!!!!!!

Bicycles are vehicles of the road ... they should be on the road with the rest of the traffic!

robs02elantra

+1. We just need more respect from other drivers. And a 500$ tax rebate.

chicbicyclist

I would choose "Other". Start redevelopment in the inner cities first, then encourage dense projects(anything but one story buildings!).

An increase in bicycling should be easier then.

thelung

I chose the last option because I would like to never have to deal with cars again, but I don't think heavy handed authoritarian laws are the way to go about doing this. I would like to see an end to automotive and oil subsidies, and a redesigning of cities to actually make them convenient, livable, and sustainable for people, rather than their current designs that put cars before anything else.

CommuterRun

I think if 50% of commuters switched to bikes it would have the widest positive impact, meaning of all the options in the poll this one would affect the most people in a positive way.

The tax break is more likely to happen, sooner, but of the other options, commuters switching to bikes is the most realistic.

Your town/city puts bike lanes EVERYWHERE, separated by concrete lines from the cars.
This one would benefit no one except the contractors that build them. I completely agree that bicycles are vehicles and belong on the road.

Every car becomes electric/solar powered.
Even if this were implemented next year, it would take a great many years to phase out the cars that are in use today and would be of the most benefit to the manufacturers and dealers.

50% of the commuters switch to bikes
I don't know if the percentage will ever be half, but cycling is growing and will continue to grow as gas prices rise. This would benefit everyone in a number of ways, not the least of which, there would be half the amount of daily pollution from cars.

You get a $500 tax break for commuting on a bike.
This is the easiest to implement, but is very self serving. Although it may compliment the one above.

Every commuter must use a 1/2-size car for commute.
This will never happen in America and will benefit no one except car manufacturers and dealerships. It would also be unenforcable.

Cars (except for buses, taxis) are outlawed in cities.
This one is just rediculous.

Domromer

#1 it's the most realistic thing that could happen and it would make big changes, I think a lot more people would ride if they never had to mix it up with cars

bluehurry

Completely agree w/CommuterRun. The infrastructure isn't going to change, so completely giving up the car is difficult to impossible for a large percentage of the population. I think that baby steps are the way to go, and it would be a great big baby steps if commuting habits change and 50% of commuters bike instead of drive.

patc

Why not allow more than once choice on this poll?

1- If there is any separation, concrete or otherwise, its not a bike lane. I want bike lanes on most major roads, available space permitting. I don't want side-paths, I see them as being about as dengerous as sidewalks. I would rather see "human powered vehicle" lanes than bike lanes.

2- Moving to electric or solar powered motor vehicles would be a good step, but fails to address the other problems of cars.

3- Tax breaks would be a minor incentive, I think, although one I would welcome.

4-Sometimes a half-way solution is worth it, other times it just delays the inevitable.

5- I am all for banning cars from urban cores. "Cars" here being defined as personal use vehicles. The first step would be to ban cars from downtown areas, other then for people who live there (most of whom don't have cars anyway).

MarkS

None of the above. A national speed limit of 45MPH or lower would accomplish more than special lanes, special incentives, and mandatory car-downsizing. It would level the playing field, making electric cars and mass transit immediately competitive. It would make it possible to open virtually all roads to bikes. And it would drastically reduce our energy dependence, which would take the pressure off more important uses like home heating, agriculture, and plastics. It would help prevent war, drought, and global warming and set an example for other countries which are rapidly catching up with us.

BroMax

If that seems too extreme, there are more moderate practises that are in place now. For example, London charges a toll to drive into high traffic areas; some old cities with streets made more for horses and pedestrians than motorcars have car-free zones with perimeter parking--I've seen this in Europe but in America it's rarely more than a few blocks converted into a pedestrian mall; in Portland, Oregon it's just to darn inconvenient to drive on the west side of the river, so I park and ride the free rapid transit as do others who drive into (or close to) the city. I live about twenty miles beyond the most distant reaches of the transit district.

Roody

Absolutely not. Bikes should be taking over the streets, not getting pushed off them.

Solar would be OK, but it will be a long time before the technology exists. Electric is still causing global warming, so it's unacceptable to me.


That would be cool, a good base to build on.


Nice, but the money could be better spent on something else.

Not a bad idea, but not my first choice. Probably the most likely to actually happen, however. I didn't vote for this one, but probably would if the poll allowed do-overs.
This is the one I actually voted for. Get rid of the worst of the congestion and the most concentrated pollution, and make city centers a haven for sane transportation,

genericbikedude

I want them to ban cars, then I want them to give me $500, then I want a solar-powered blender on every corner making organic smoothies for the masses of thirsty cyclists, from fruits and veggies planted where the asphault used to be.

::SIGH::

Machka 

Even if they did that (which, thank goodness, will not likely ever happen) ... I'd still be riding on the road with the cars. I feel MUCH more comfortable there than on some sort of path with other bicycles, pedestrians, and who knows what all.

Lamplight

Not sure about where you live, but around here most people pay no attention to speed limits as it is. Sometimes I'll ride in my brother's car with him and he will literally be the only person I encounter going the speed limit. If there is a driver behind him, they WILL ride his bumper until they can pass him.

MarkS

Just because some people disregard laws doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them. With that theory, we wouldn't have any laws. During WWII, people AND law enforcement realized that it was their patriotic duty to enforce and abide by 35MPH limits. We need a new ethic that recognizes that our survival as a species and a country depends on conserving oil. Compared to the other choices in the poll, a 45 MPH speed limit is easy, inexpensive, and non-bureaucratic to implement and will achieve instant results.

Lamplight

That's true. It would just be nice if the speed limits around here were actually enforced more often. When I was a teenager I would speed sometimes, but after a few tickets I learned better. Now nearly everyone speeds all the time but rarely gets ticketed for it.

CommuterRun

Not a jab at anyone, very self serving and not gonna' happen.

I'd like the government, federal, state or both together, to buy me a new bike, of my choice, every year as long as I can document that I rode at least 300 days the year prior. Heck, I would even start back keeping my log if they did this.

attercoppe

Only if you trade in your "old" bike each time for reuse by someone else. Too much waste otherwise.

CommuterRun

True, didn't think of that, and a good idea. But I would also like the option to remit the used value of the bike in cash, in lieu of turning it in. Just in case it's a bike I really like.

mrkott3r

$500 off a bike sounds good to me!
In all seriousness the last one sounds the best.

donrhummy

I think maybe everyone misunderstood this one. There would still be a sidewalk, so the bike lane would NOT allow pedestrians. The plus of separating the bike lane from the car lane this way is you'll never again have cars parking in the bike lane, cutting across the bike lane, or driving in the bike lane. It'll be ONLY bikes.

CommuterRun

Your town/city puts bike lanes EVERYWHERE, separated by concrete lines from the cars

Some of the reasons I don't like this one is there would have to be a constant maintenance crew to remove garbage in residential areas and inner cities don't have the space to build such an infrastructure.

The biggest reason I would work against something like this, is that in suburban and particularly rural areas, like this one, it would mean an unnecessary reduction in green space.

adgrant

I think that is a terrible idea. Most cars (rather than SUVs) are quite economical at current highway speeds and 45mph is still much faster than an average bike will travel. To reduce energy dependence we need to reduce the number of cars on the road and eliminate SUVs (and pickup trucks without commercial use). We need to tax cars based on weight (and introduce a weight cap) and increase the number of Lexus lanes on the highways.

Bermuda limits the size of cars that can be sold, taxes cars based on length and limits cars to one per household.

Hopefully high gas prices will curb demand for SUVs and high home heating costs will curb demand for huge houses in the outer suburbs.

MarkS

Sigh. Another person who doesn't get it. The automotive propaganda machine, with all its lying, pretty pictures has done such a good brain-washing job. They show such nice images of SUVs traveling at high speeds through winding, empty, roads and it all looks so good. But the reality is bumper-to-bumper traffic, smog, and congestion.

SUV's are not economical at highway speeds. Wind resistance kicks in at speeds above 35MPH and increases according to the cube of the speed. I ride places where people do 45, and others where they do 55, and I can tell you that the 45 feels a lot safer. I would say 35MPH, but I can only imagine how much whining there would be about that.

The planet is running out of oil. We will run out. Its not a question of if, but a question of when. And the planet is rapidly heating up now. Some scientists say we have less than a decade to turn things around if we're to prevent runaway global warming. Playing around the edges of problems, raising luxury taxes, etc. will not accomplish anything. Dropping the national speed limit to 45MPH will have an instant impact on oil resources. Maybe grandma won't have to sell the farm in order to stay warm this winter. Maybe we'll slow the inflationary spiral that occurs when oil prices get hiked up as happened in the early 70s.

Oh well. I guess while people are munching on grass blades in their unheated hovels, missing loved ones conscripted for the oil wars, at least they'll have all those fond memories of whole afternoons they used to spend in bumper-to-bumper traffic.