|
| ▲ | anon7000 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| No turn on red is a pedestrian safety issue. Many intersections don’t have adequate visibility, and right on red is very frequently dicey. So I’m glad that my city (Seattle) is banning it. That’s different for small-town low-traffic areas. On bike lanes, it takes up such a tiny amount of space relative to cars. The real problem is that they are not put in with much thought, not made very safe and are ultimately not very attractive. But in cities with a higher level of decent bike lanes (Seattle), you’ll absolutely get many people using them. But it also depends on the culture. Reality is that Seattle is geographically constrained, and I’m sorry, there is no room for more car lanes essentially anywhere in the city without destroying property. So finding smarter, more efficient, cost-effective ways to use that space (like bikes and public transit, which are vastly more space efficient) is a fantastic idea. If you go all-in on car infra (eg everywhere in the USA, including places like Seattle), you still get congested roads. Cars just use space so poorly that a small increase in number of cars when the streets are full will have massive compounding effect on how long it takes anyone to get anywhere. Besides, your city is already fully designed around the MOST EXPENSIVE form of local transit, by far. You know what might help stimulate the economy? Make it easy for someone to take a bike to a restaurant. No gas or car payment (or parking, in the city), and now you might have more money to treat yourself |
|
| ▲ | steve_gh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it takes time for demand to build. Certainly cities like London have seen huge growth in bike use. In my own home town(which is by no means flat) I'm seeing lots of cargo bikes, especially around tge school run. To your point on bike owners not contributing to the economy. They probably have a similar income, and are paying similar taxes. They are still buying groceries. But where they choose to spend their money is different. It's all still economic activity though. |
|
| ▲ | magicalhippo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Here in Oslo, Norway they've also been ripping up roads to make bike lanes, make streets one-way to accommodate the bike lane and so on. And yeah, initially not a lot of bikers. But it's been a few years, and in the meantime good e-bikes are affordable for most here now, so these days there's quite a lot of bike riders all over. Of course when the snow and ice sets in there are fewer, though a fair few carry on with studded tires and good clothing. It took some years but there's no denying there are significantly more people riding bikes to and from work, to and from kindergarten or similar. Build it and they will come... |
| |
| ▲ | pmontra 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | However I can see my 80 yo self driving a car (I know plenty of them that still drive) but I can't see my 80 yo self riding a bicycle in winter, especially on snow. I know some 80 yo cyclist but not many of them. So there must be some balance. In cities the balance often takes into account metro, buses and trains. In the countryside it's almost only cars. |
|
|
| ▲ | Oanid 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > People on bikes are not doing these things and are not contributing to the tax base as much as car drivers If you live in car dependent suburbia, sure. And it sounds like you do. And again, little of what you said is based on fact, only grievance. |
| |
| ▲ | quantified 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | As someone who enjoys riding their own bike, but uses their car for needs that cannot be met by bikes, I don't think this is just grievance. You can be sour about reality. SF in particular can be a pain in the butt. There are scearios where public transit works, and many where it doesn't. Biking there from anywhere else is not viable. I need to drive into it in cases when transit doesn't work, and the city is hostile to me trying to spend money. Great for some of its own residents, not for all of them, definitely not for visitors. |
|
|
| ▲ | alextingle an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just get a bike, and stop moaning. |
|
| ▲ | imtringued 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Right turn on red is an insane idea that any sane person would heavily disagree with. Only North Americans are crazy enough to believe that a red light should mean go. >The bike lanes are gender and age inequitable, How? Everyone can ride a bicycle, even kids and seniors, meanwhile cars are locked behind expensive driving lessons, licenses and exams. Not to mention car ownership is inherently expensive due to fuel, maintenance and insurance requirements. E-bikes give anyone a motor assist and can carry you uphill without any problems while still being good for your health. >and hamper productive economic activities. Most productive economic activities just require people to show up to work. Buying something is not a productive activity by definition and nobody is suggesting that deliveries should be done on bicycles. >I drive a car because I'm buying things, traveling with family, and spending hundreds of dollars. People on bikes are not doing these things and are not contributing to the tax base as much as car drivers. Ok now this is turning into a parody. Do you know what's even more expensive than driving a car? Building and maintaining a road for cars. European bike lanes cost almost nothing in maintenance.
Sprawl in North America is actively bankrupting cities because drivers don't bring in enough tax revenue to maintain the roads they drive on. Driving to a property tax optimized big box store at the outskirts of the city doesn't bring in as much property tax as you think it does. |
| |
| ▲ | jjav an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Right turn on red is an insane idea that any sane person would heavily disagree with. Obviously not since it is so widely adopted. Right on red is an extremely useful optimization so you don't sit waiting for nothing when it is clearly safe to turn. |
|