B. Carfree

And the segregationists will always insist that the only way to do it right is a complete separation of motorized vehicles from all other means of transport. I have a problem with this claim due to the fact that I lived in a city with almost no "bikey" infra that nonetheless had the vast majority of trips made by bike. Social infrastructure, including but not limited to law enforcement, is a lot more effective, IMO.

Easy, cheap solution: just set the speed limits lower and enforce the laws on the surface streets. There is no need to remake the entire thing or make excuses. To be honest, this constant harping on how dangerous cycling is or appears to be seems to be a big part of why many parents are not allowing their kids to ride. Sure, what risks there are are mostly unnecessary and should be reduced, but those risks are quite low and are no where near as deadly as what people accept for sedentary transportation.

Ekdog

"The vast majority of trips by bike"? Where was that?



I'm all for lowering the speed limits, and we're pushing for that here in Europe, but we still need segregated infrastructure if people are going to feel safe sending their kids to school on their bikes. If you don't believe it, try selling your vehicular cycling schemes to folks who live in cities that already have quality networks of bike lanes with physical separation. Tell them you have a plan to tear out the bike lanes and lower the speed limit instead.

Machka 

+1

And education.

B. Carfree

Davis, CA from the mid-'70s to the mid-'80s. After that, the city began putting in many miles of segregated facilities and the rate of bike use plummeted (for many reasons). It's recovered slightly in the past decade, but is still but a shadow of its former self.



I'm all for lowering the speed limits, and we're pushing for that here in Europe, but we still need segregated infrastructure if people are going to feel safe sending their kids to school on their bikes. If you don't believe it, try selling your vehicular cycling schemes to folks who live in cities that already have quality networks of bike lanes with physical separation. Tell them you have a plan to tear out the bike lanes and lower the speed limit instead.[/QUOTE]

Try selling your segregation to the parents who won't let their kids ride alone on the often-remote segregated paths like the Springwater corridor in PDX. These locations often get overrun by bums, many of whom either make money stealing bikes, sometimes from under their riders, or are repeat sex offenders staying under the radar.

And no, we don't NEED segregation to get kids to school on bikes. At least we didn't BEFORE you segregationists began screaming at everyone that they couldn't ride until everything gets segregated because it's too dangerous. I watched the bike racks at my son's elementary school go from full-up to empty over just a few years, and no one removed any infrastructure (actually, they added a bit). Don't confuse your dogma with necessity.

Also, since far too many bike lanes are of the door-zone variety, it's not such a tough sell to convince the parents of cycling kids that we would be better off removing them (or better still, removing the parking). Several of the people who are working with me to do just that are in fact parents. It's tough sledding against the combined forces of the segregationists and the pro-car administrators, but we're making some progress.

How ever do you manage to ride anywhere if you are afraid of using shared lanes on the road?

Ekdog

Now we're going in circles. Do I have to repeat that we need to insist on good bike lanes? The ones I ride on every day are not of the door-zone variety.

Ekdog

I've read that Davis failed to maintain their bike lanes, which explains why the modal share dropped between the years 1980 and 2000, and that recent improvements to the lanes have brought about a resurgence in cycling.

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com...surfacing.html

Roody

I think this thread is about riding the bus, not bike lanes.

Ekdog

You're right. We got sidetracked. I'll shut up.

fietsbob

Denmark because they have Greenland as part of their Territory, is still staking a claim on the Arctic sea oil reserves. Busses use Oil.

tandempower

Probably not intentionally but people are generally brainwashed by the ideology that democracy equals majority-domination. In the case of cycling infrastructure improvements, basing support on voting or contributions implies that if popular support is insufficient, it's legitimate to ignore cycling in public planning.

Even if cycling overwhelming unpopular in an area, it deserves consideration if for no other reasons than giving present and future generations the choice to bike. Without bike lanes/paths, motorized traffic has to be sparse enough to make road-cycling comfortable. If automotive traffic is so busy that it creates an impetus for people to avoid any alternative to driving, you end up with a self-reinforcing culture of compulsive driving.

Such a culture already exists for many people subjectively. Driving is the only viable option in their minds. While they may technically have the choice to bike by sharing lanes with the cars, they wouldn't dare. Bike infrastructure makes it so a person who doesn't want to bike somewhere is doing so purely out of free choice (or social-cultural issues) and not because the infrastructure is lacking.

Roody

I think democracy is based more on special interest groups trying to get what they want. Especially on a local level, politicians know that citizens who take the trouble to come to meetings and write emails are likely to vote and contribute to campaigns.

I remember that years ago in Lansing there was a proposal to put a federally funded bike lane along a major street, A hundred people came to the city council meeting to say they did not want the bike lane. The council voted against it. After that defeat, local bike advocacy groups started getting their members to come to subsequent meetings in large numbers. AFIK, no bike lanes since then have been voted down.

Bike groups also formed coalitions with retiree groups, poverty advocates, youth groups, fitness enthusiasts, and the chamber of commerce. It doesn't seem like these groups would have much in common. But they all--for different reasons--believe that the city streets should be walkable and bikable. It's hard for politicians to vote against such a broad based coalition, so a lot of bike-friendly programs have been enacted in the last few years.

tandempower

Some things are just beyond the need for popular support. These are things the constitution does or should cover. If a local majority votes down the option to bike or walk for transportation, it unduly limits freedom.

The people who are closest to legitimacy are the ones who argue that public roads don't preclude cyclists and pedestrians from using them. Their claim is accurate in principle but often not in practice, because cycling and walking are not convenient or comfortable enough on many roads with heavy motor traffic.

When you talk about forming coalitions to achieve goals of walkability/bikability, it implies that if a similar coalition was put together to stop such infrastructure reforms, or if the coalition wasn't broad or large enough, that it would be legitimate to have public roads where cyclists and pedestrians are practically excluded from traveling. That's not any more legitimate than voting precincts where eligible voters are practically precluded by literacy tests or other practical hurdles to actually exercising their rights.

For freedom to exist, it has to be practicable. Courts and policy-makers should focus on creating metrics that objectively distinguish practically bikable/walkable roads from practically unbikable/unwalkable ones. The ones that are determined to be practically unbikable/unwalkable should then be assessed as having a bikable/walkable bypass route that is practical and otherwise modifications should be put on the agenda.

People shouldn't have to form a political coalition to exercise their fundamental right to walk/bike places.