How to make American cities more bike friendly
November 18, 2013 11:43 PM Subscribe
If Henry Ford were reincarnated as a bike maker, Le Corbusier as an architect of buildings and cities for bikes, and Robert Moses as their bike-loving ally in government, today’s bike plans would be far more ambitious in scope. Ford would be aiming to sell billions of bikes, Corb would be wanting to save the whole world, and, even if it took him a lifetime, Moses would be aiming to leave a permanent mark. -- According to Steven Fleming, to make cities more biking friendly what's needed are architects who make the bike their guiding inspiration, like Robert Moses was inspired by the car.
I'd hope so. Can we get more things like these?
posted by mrzarquon at 11:50 PM on November 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by mrzarquon at 11:50 PM on November 18, 2013 [3 favorites]
How about 1 street in each direction that is bikes and feet only? Let it be the most beat up, run down street if necessary and let the bike culture economy do its thing http://midtowngreenway.org/
posted by specialk420 at 12:12 AM on November 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by specialk420 at 12:12 AM on November 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Heh. 'Bike friendly' is an interesting term. At the moment the road network has been repurposed for cars, and most car drivers appear to believe that they have sole ownership of it. so 'friendly' is both an attitude and a metaphor about infrastructure. I think it is unhelpful to merge those two ideas.
I would venture before architects can really make a difference, the whole frame of the conversation has to change. This was true in 1960s Netherlands, still true in London and even more true in America, where attitudes towards cycling and cycling infrastructure lag Europe by some margin, with the exception of a few isolated pockets.
As an example: In London six cyclists have been killed on the roads these past 13 days, so the issue of bike friendly' is quite topical. But, depending on where you go to read about it, one thing is constant - that the level of distrust, contempt and anger directed at cyclists is extraordinary. It casts cyclists at best as the architects of their own problems and at worst as the villains. it appears no comments section is complete without mention of a) road tax b) cycling on pavements c) widespread law breaking and d) the apparent epidemic of accidents and injuries caused by negligent cyclists, despite the considerable evidence to the contrary. London's mayor, Boris Johnson, who is himself a cyclist, appeared to blame cyclists.
We talk about the need to make London 'bike friendly' but this cannot happen without a fundamental change in infrastructure away from car dominance. In effect it cannot happen without popular support for the disruption, cost and short term sacrifice, which is why forked tongue Boris mouths words about cycling investment but then makes victim-blaming statements aimed squarely at the moral majority who persist in seeing cyclists as lycra-clad perverts with no right to be on the roads.
A change in attitudes has to precede the architectural and infrastructural changes needed to make [American] cities 'bike friendly'. This is especially the case in the US, where local politics will work against minority cycling interests, where the cost of fuel is half that of Europe, and where more than half a century of suburban sprawl and the decentralization of the CBD has left many cities ill equipped for easy conversion to a mass transit/cycling/walking model. I don't think good architecture can just 'nudge' people towards cycling in a meaningful way. Good architecture is an enabler of cycling culture (simple things like putting bike rack spaces in buildings, or junction design) but is secondary to the more fundamental adoption of the view that cycling is a valid, or better, preferred means of inner city personal transport.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:13 AM on November 19, 2013 [15 favorites]
I would venture before architects can really make a difference, the whole frame of the conversation has to change. This was true in 1960s Netherlands, still true in London and even more true in America, where attitudes towards cycling and cycling infrastructure lag Europe by some margin, with the exception of a few isolated pockets.
As an example: In London six cyclists have been killed on the roads these past 13 days, so the issue of bike friendly' is quite topical. But, depending on where you go to read about it, one thing is constant - that the level of distrust, contempt and anger directed at cyclists is extraordinary. It casts cyclists at best as the architects of their own problems and at worst as the villains. it appears no comments section is complete without mention of a) road tax b) cycling on pavements c) widespread law breaking and d) the apparent epidemic of accidents and injuries caused by negligent cyclists, despite the considerable evidence to the contrary. London's mayor, Boris Johnson, who is himself a cyclist, appeared to blame cyclists.
We talk about the need to make London 'bike friendly' but this cannot happen without a fundamental change in infrastructure away from car dominance. In effect it cannot happen without popular support for the disruption, cost and short term sacrifice, which is why forked tongue Boris mouths words about cycling investment but then makes victim-blaming statements aimed squarely at the moral majority who persist in seeing cyclists as lycra-clad perverts with no right to be on the roads.
A change in attitudes has to precede the architectural and infrastructural changes needed to make [American] cities 'bike friendly'. This is especially the case in the US, where local politics will work against minority cycling interests, where the cost of fuel is half that of Europe, and where more than half a century of suburban sprawl and the decentralization of the CBD has left many cities ill equipped for easy conversion to a mass transit/cycling/walking model. I don't think good architecture can just 'nudge' people towards cycling in a meaningful way. Good architecture is an enabler of cycling culture (simple things like putting bike rack spaces in buildings, or junction design) but is secondary to the more fundamental adoption of the view that cycling is a valid, or better, preferred means of inner city personal transport.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:13 AM on November 19, 2013 [15 favorites]
The pull quote is ridiculous. That's like saying if Steve Jobs was into typewriters, we'd all be clacking right along with mechanical phones right now.
posted by empath at 2:07 AM on November 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by empath at 2:07 AM on November 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
We talk about the need to make London 'bike friendly' but this cannot happen without a fundamental change in infrastructure away from car dominance.
As a daily bicycle commuter, I am convinced that there is no solution involving cars and bicycles. The car always wins. If you want to make it safe and efficient for bicycles, you have to get rid of the cars.
Also there are INDEED far too many bicyclists who ride like lawless, reckless, selfish, idiots and unless that attitude changes too, it will be no better in the carless future.
posted by three blind mice at 2:22 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
As a daily bicycle commuter, I am convinced that there is no solution involving cars and bicycles. The car always wins. If you want to make it safe and efficient for bicycles, you have to get rid of the cars.
Also there are INDEED far too many bicyclists who ride like lawless, reckless, selfish, idiots and unless that attitude changes too, it will be no better in the carless future.
posted by three blind mice at 2:22 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
As a daily bicycle commuter, I am convinced that there is no solution involving cars and bicycles.
I'm not sure whether you're disagreeing or agreeing with best practice. Amsterdam has cars. Copenhagen has cars. The trick is knowing how and where to separate and/or prioritize them - either physically along the same route or creating zones where one form of transport has priority or exclusivity.
Anyway - there's an interesting take on more recent Dutch thinking on the topic here.
I don't disagree that there are lots of idiots who cycle. But I'd rather be walking, cycling or driving around a city where the idiots are doing 15mph on 20lb of metal than one in which they are doing twice that speed in 4,000lb of metal.
posted by MuffinMan at 2:38 AM on November 19, 2013 [7 favorites]
I'm not sure whether you're disagreeing or agreeing with best practice. Amsterdam has cars. Copenhagen has cars. The trick is knowing how and where to separate and/or prioritize them - either physically along the same route or creating zones where one form of transport has priority or exclusivity.
Anyway - there's an interesting take on more recent Dutch thinking on the topic here.
I don't disagree that there are lots of idiots who cycle. But I'd rather be walking, cycling or driving around a city where the idiots are doing 15mph on 20lb of metal than one in which they are doing twice that speed in 4,000lb of metal.
posted by MuffinMan at 2:38 AM on November 19, 2013 [7 favorites]
As a daily bicycle commuter, I am convinced that there is no solution involving cars and bicycles. The car always wins. If you want to make it safe and efficient for bicycles, you have to get rid of the cars.
I know we've been doing this topic to death lately, but get rid of the drivers and automate the cars. If all the cars on the road were automated, the ex-drivers who apparently want to kill (or at least scare the fuck out of) all bicyclists and pedestrians could let go of their steering wheels, put their seats back, close their eyes, and listen to some soothing anger management recordings.
I would trust a thousand automated cars whizzing by me much more than I would trust a thousand manually operated cars whizzing by me. The automated cars would not be crazy, drunk, half asleep, talking on the phone to girlfriends, weeping over a broken relationship, worried about being late for work, fixing their makeup, scolding children in the back seat, or trying to show the other automated cars just how tough it was. Automated cars wouldn't be enjoying themselves -- "Woohoo, I'm barreling down residential streets in a deadly machine! Look at me!" -- at the expense of everyone else's safety.
posted by pracowity at 3:36 AM on November 19, 2013 [11 favorites]
I know we've been doing this topic to death lately, but get rid of the drivers and automate the cars. If all the cars on the road were automated, the ex-drivers who apparently want to kill (or at least scare the fuck out of) all bicyclists and pedestrians could let go of their steering wheels, put their seats back, close their eyes, and listen to some soothing anger management recordings.
I would trust a thousand automated cars whizzing by me much more than I would trust a thousand manually operated cars whizzing by me. The automated cars would not be crazy, drunk, half asleep, talking on the phone to girlfriends, weeping over a broken relationship, worried about being late for work, fixing their makeup, scolding children in the back seat, or trying to show the other automated cars just how tough it was. Automated cars wouldn't be enjoying themselves -- "Woohoo, I'm barreling down residential streets in a deadly machine! Look at me!" -- at the expense of everyone else's safety.
posted by pracowity at 3:36 AM on November 19, 2013 [11 favorites]
I'm not sure whether you're disagreeing or agreeing with best practice. Amsterdam has cars.
Amsterdam also has canals and narrow streets and trams that provide impediment to car traffic. "Best practice" in the Netherlands isn't even practicable in most places.
I don't want bike lanes. I want car lanes to be used for bicycles with maybe some few special lanes off to the side for cars. Like today, only opposite. Car lanes and bicycle streets.
posted by three blind mice at 3:44 AM on November 19, 2013
Amsterdam also has canals and narrow streets and trams that provide impediment to car traffic. "Best practice" in the Netherlands isn't even practicable in most places.
I don't want bike lanes. I want car lanes to be used for bicycles with maybe some few special lanes off to the side for cars. Like today, only opposite. Car lanes and bicycle streets.
posted by three blind mice at 3:44 AM on November 19, 2013
It's a nice idea, but I think it needs to address two more fundamental problems:
1) The car is deeply ideologically and culturally ingrained at this point. It's been romanticized, fetishized, and politicized. In particular, Henry Ford, Le Corbusier, and Robert Moses reflect (mong other things) a kind of technological fetishism in which the bicycle is inferior to the car because the car reflects industrial and postindustrial technologies, while the bike is "merely" mechanical. Put more simply, you have to ask why the Fordes and the Moseses aren't inspired by the bicycle in the first pace (other than their being authoritarian jerks, which is part of but nowhere near all of the answer.
The bicycle is almost the wrong kind of individualism for the individualists: all the precarity of just having yourself to rely on, none of the solipsistic luxury of pretending no one else and nothing else matters. The bicycle means no more rolling along in total control of the temperature and the sounds around you. It's also a technology that goes againt the grain of certain, mostly American technological fantasies of power over distance and time; the American mythic landscape is the vast frontier, conquered, tamed, and mastered by railroads and later by cars. it think it's no accident that bicycling takes off in places that have either a stronger tradition of collectivism or places where spatial compression, not the vast expanse, characterize the mythos of national life.
2) It also doesn't help that the bicycle and bicycle culture in America, specially, are often lumped in with the "moral" sacrifices of technocratic elites. Bicycle culture's advocates often seem to come from the middle-to-upper-middle-class urbanite, prepackaged with lectures on the environment, physical fitness, and so forth. In other words, it looks very much like finger-wagging self-mythoogization to people already captured by other myths, the automobile-myth in particular. And then you start talking about massive infrastructual changes in addition to the implied massive lifestyle changes, and the bike starts to look like the kind of pantomime self-denial practiced most devotedly by those who are otherwise rarely denied.
This isn't true, really, but decades of kulturkamp have ingrained a particular set of reactive
notions. And of course billions of dollars have spent over that span to sell cars and reactance for commercial/political purposes. The simple practicality of the bicycle becomes lost in all of that, as does the real distinction between the practicality and enjoyability of bicycling and the supposed luxury of choosing bicycling over "needing" a car, or of "giving up" driving rather than finding in driving a small place of power in a world that often renders one powerless.
Here, perhaps, the solution is perhaps to mobilize the perceived vulnerability of the bicyclist, but I'm not sure how to do so without falling into trap #1.
posted by kewb at 4:16 AM on November 19, 2013 [22 favorites]
1) The car is deeply ideologically and culturally ingrained at this point. It's been romanticized, fetishized, and politicized. In particular, Henry Ford, Le Corbusier, and Robert Moses reflect (mong other things) a kind of technological fetishism in which the bicycle is inferior to the car because the car reflects industrial and postindustrial technologies, while the bike is "merely" mechanical. Put more simply, you have to ask why the Fordes and the Moseses aren't inspired by the bicycle in the first pace (other than their being authoritarian jerks, which is part of but nowhere near all of the answer.
The bicycle is almost the wrong kind of individualism for the individualists: all the precarity of just having yourself to rely on, none of the solipsistic luxury of pretending no one else and nothing else matters. The bicycle means no more rolling along in total control of the temperature and the sounds around you. It's also a technology that goes againt the grain of certain, mostly American technological fantasies of power over distance and time; the American mythic landscape is the vast frontier, conquered, tamed, and mastered by railroads and later by cars. it think it's no accident that bicycling takes off in places that have either a stronger tradition of collectivism or places where spatial compression, not the vast expanse, characterize the mythos of national life.
2) It also doesn't help that the bicycle and bicycle culture in America, specially, are often lumped in with the "moral" sacrifices of technocratic elites. Bicycle culture's advocates often seem to come from the middle-to-upper-middle-class urbanite, prepackaged with lectures on the environment, physical fitness, and so forth. In other words, it looks very much like finger-wagging self-mythoogization to people already captured by other myths, the automobile-myth in particular. And then you start talking about massive infrastructual changes in addition to the implied massive lifestyle changes, and the bike starts to look like the kind of pantomime self-denial practiced most devotedly by those who are otherwise rarely denied.
This isn't true, really, but decades of kulturkamp have ingrained a particular set of reactive
notions. And of course billions of dollars have spent over that span to sell cars and reactance for commercial/political purposes. The simple practicality of the bicycle becomes lost in all of that, as does the real distinction between the practicality and enjoyability of bicycling and the supposed luxury of choosing bicycling over "needing" a car, or of "giving up" driving rather than finding in driving a small place of power in a world that often renders one powerless.
Here, perhaps, the solution is perhaps to mobilize the perceived vulnerability of the bicyclist, but I'm not sure how to do so without falling into trap #1.
posted by kewb at 4:16 AM on November 19, 2013 [22 favorites]
I've seen this article posted elsewhere, and all I can say is, if anyone thinks that there would be a "Robert Moses of bikes", they really, really need to read The Power Broker, Robert Caro's book about him. (For the record, Moses did in fact include bike paths in many of his urban projects, but in the end he was all about the highways and bridges and so forth, and not so much about the bikes.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 4:42 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 4:42 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Amsterdam also has canals and narrow streets and trams that provide impediment to car traffic. "Best practice" in the Netherlands isn't even practicable in most places.
The solutions in the Netherlands are practicable for most places -- the country is more varied that just Amsterdam and provides a variety of solutions. I've ridden a bike from Amsterdam to Amersfoort to Utrecht and back to Amsterdam, through suburbs and rural countryside, all without leaving the bike lane except when in town centers that have narrow roads and slow speeds, as you see in the Jordaan in Amsterdam.
Here is a suburban avenue, with 2 lanes of car traffic, 2 dual-direction bike lanes, and 2 sidewalks.
And here is a more rural area with a single lane road. I never saw a car speed on these types of roads, and I'm sure the markings, psychologically, would make you hesitant to do so.
If you want to get from town to town quickly in a car, there are highways where you can do that. But you don't want people driving at those speeds in the areas where people live, as we do in the US.
I don't want bike lanes. I want car lanes to be used for bicycles with maybe some few special lanes off to the side for cars. Like today, only opposite. Car lanes and bicycle streets.
Amen to that.
posted by antinomia at 4:47 AM on November 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
The solutions in the Netherlands are practicable for most places -- the country is more varied that just Amsterdam and provides a variety of solutions. I've ridden a bike from Amsterdam to Amersfoort to Utrecht and back to Amsterdam, through suburbs and rural countryside, all without leaving the bike lane except when in town centers that have narrow roads and slow speeds, as you see in the Jordaan in Amsterdam.
Here is a suburban avenue, with 2 lanes of car traffic, 2 dual-direction bike lanes, and 2 sidewalks.
And here is a more rural area with a single lane road. I never saw a car speed on these types of roads, and I'm sure the markings, psychologically, would make you hesitant to do so.
If you want to get from town to town quickly in a car, there are highways where you can do that. But you don't want people driving at those speeds in the areas where people live, as we do in the US.
I don't want bike lanes. I want car lanes to be used for bicycles with maybe some few special lanes off to the side for cars. Like today, only opposite. Car lanes and bicycle streets.
Amen to that.
posted by antinomia at 4:47 AM on November 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
Whenever there's a story about a bike accident involving a car around here, you usually see someone comment in the newpaper story something to the effect of "streets here were designed for cars, not bikes." Somehow they've forgotten that 90% of thid city was designed and built before the car was even invented. Pedestrians and bikes were here before cars came and usurped the streets.
posted by octothorpe at 5:16 AM on November 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 5:16 AM on November 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Placing "Le Corbusier" and "friendly" in the same sentence strikes me as extremely odd. Or perhaps just misinformed.
His architecture, and most especially his large form estate planning, represent some of the coldest products a cold fish ever drew up. People are, in his schemata, a problem to be solved by architecture. Perhaps he could solve bicycles in the same manner.
I'm not sure this is the correct approach.
posted by Wolof at 5:29 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
His architecture, and most especially his large form estate planning, represent some of the coldest products a cold fish ever drew up. People are, in his schemata, a problem to be solved by architecture. Perhaps he could solve bicycles in the same manner.
I'm not sure this is the correct approach.
posted by Wolof at 5:29 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
The car is deeply ideologically and culturally ingrained at this point. It's been romanticized, fetishized, and politicized.
But so was the horse, and we managed to make a very rapid shift away from that. I think it's more doable than we are giving it credit, with important allowances for the ways in which the US is different from the Netherlands or Denmark (ie much larger, harsher winter and summer weather, lower population densities...).
There's a really complicated chicken/egg problem with bicycles in the US -- to get mass adoption, you need to rework the infrastructure and laws in significant ways. But to get the support to do so, you first need a mass of people demanding better bicycle infrastructure. Right now we have neither and outside of a very few cities it doesn't feel like we are at all moving that way.
Even before we tackle the infrastructure challenges, I think the first step is adjusting laws and enforcement to stop making roads so hostile to everything that isn't an automobile. Even in the very calm neighborhood I live in, with good sidewalks, slow speeds, and low traffic volumes, being a pedestrian or bicyclist feels risky, in large part because anyone who runs me over is going to at worst get a traffic citation.
We need to reverse that, so that whenever I drive my car I feel nervous about the enormous penalties that should exist for injuring a pedestrian or bicyclist. That risk should be fully on me as a driver, and supported by better infrastructure (eg bicycle lanes, pedestrian-friendly intersections, etc). Make walkers and cyclists feel safe, and we will have taken a huge step towards enabling a much better and more varied transportation system.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:38 AM on November 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
But so was the horse, and we managed to make a very rapid shift away from that. I think it's more doable than we are giving it credit, with important allowances for the ways in which the US is different from the Netherlands or Denmark (ie much larger, harsher winter and summer weather, lower population densities...).
There's a really complicated chicken/egg problem with bicycles in the US -- to get mass adoption, you need to rework the infrastructure and laws in significant ways. But to get the support to do so, you first need a mass of people demanding better bicycle infrastructure. Right now we have neither and outside of a very few cities it doesn't feel like we are at all moving that way.
Even before we tackle the infrastructure challenges, I think the first step is adjusting laws and enforcement to stop making roads so hostile to everything that isn't an automobile. Even in the very calm neighborhood I live in, with good sidewalks, slow speeds, and low traffic volumes, being a pedestrian or bicyclist feels risky, in large part because anyone who runs me over is going to at worst get a traffic citation.
We need to reverse that, so that whenever I drive my car I feel nervous about the enormous penalties that should exist for injuring a pedestrian or bicyclist. That risk should be fully on me as a driver, and supported by better infrastructure (eg bicycle lanes, pedestrian-friendly intersections, etc). Make walkers and cyclists feel safe, and we will have taken a huge step towards enabling a much better and more varied transportation system.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:38 AM on November 19, 2013 [6 favorites]
I see all these subway lines running in flat and straight lines all over East Coast cities and curse that they didn't make the right of ways for them just eight feet wider so that we could easily add narrow bike lanes today. What would have been easy years ago is next to impossible today thanks to too many narrow overpasses.
Oh and to add...yes, there are lots of idiot cyclists. This is not special to bicycles. There are a lot of idiots. Some of them ride bikes, some of the ride cars and some of them walk. I do all three!
posted by BearClaw6 at 5:50 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Oh and to add...yes, there are lots of idiot cyclists. This is not special to bicycles. There are a lot of idiots. Some of them ride bikes, some of the ride cars and some of them walk. I do all three!
posted by BearClaw6 at 5:50 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
The best way to make New York bike-friendly, at least, is to start ticketing the cars who park in the bike lanes - and, to start ticketing the bikes who run red lights. And to come up with some penalty for the joggers who jog on dedicated bike paths.
This city already has an infrastructure that would be just fine for bikes, what it needs is enforcement. All around (you'll note I include us bikers in that score).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:14 AM on November 19, 2013 [5 favorites]
This city already has an infrastructure that would be just fine for bikes, what it needs is enforcement. All around (you'll note I include us bikers in that score).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:14 AM on November 19, 2013 [5 favorites]
But so was the horse, and we managed to make a very rapid shift away from that.
The problem is that the shift from horse to car was an increase in speed and comfort right from the beginning, and car drivers now ride around in their own private smoking/eating/listening lounges with airtight protection from the elements and other people. The only workable move would be to let people keep their mobile private lounges while expanding support for mass transit, bikes, etc. Route around the cars.
I would focus 100 percent on getting kids riding bikes to school again, with all of the changes that might entail, but mainly building bike paths and sidewalks from residential areas to local schools and providing safe bicycle locking at schools. Push the facts that it's fun, safe, and healthy, that it would give time back to busy parents who are currently driving kids to and from school, and that it would be (in advertisements with glowing golden images) a return to the good old days. If you get kids on bicycles five days a week riding to and from school, you are going to end up with pressure to make the rest of the town safe for bicycles. Kids will want to ride to the park, to the shops, etc., and kids will grow up to be adults who still want to ride their bikes, just not to school anymore.
If you shifted the debate to be nice little kids riding to school vs grumpy commuters going to work, there would be less sympathy for the guy always complaining that the racka frackin bikes are just a nuisance and that what this town needs is more car lanes and fewer bikes damn it.
posted by pracowity at 6:27 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
The problem is that the shift from horse to car was an increase in speed and comfort right from the beginning, and car drivers now ride around in their own private smoking/eating/listening lounges with airtight protection from the elements and other people. The only workable move would be to let people keep their mobile private lounges while expanding support for mass transit, bikes, etc. Route around the cars.
I would focus 100 percent on getting kids riding bikes to school again, with all of the changes that might entail, but mainly building bike paths and sidewalks from residential areas to local schools and providing safe bicycle locking at schools. Push the facts that it's fun, safe, and healthy, that it would give time back to busy parents who are currently driving kids to and from school, and that it would be (in advertisements with glowing golden images) a return to the good old days. If you get kids on bicycles five days a week riding to and from school, you are going to end up with pressure to make the rest of the town safe for bicycles. Kids will want to ride to the park, to the shops, etc., and kids will grow up to be adults who still want to ride their bikes, just not to school anymore.
If you shifted the debate to be nice little kids riding to school vs grumpy commuters going to work, there would be less sympathy for the guy always complaining that the racka frackin bikes are just a nuisance and that what this town needs is more car lanes and fewer bikes damn it.
posted by pracowity at 6:27 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm so very glad that the Atlanta Beltline got name checked in the article, since it really is a terrific example of the kind of creative approach to urban infrastructure that let's all parties feel like they've won. Atlanta, not having any major geographic barriers, has instead had its skeletal structure shaped by the courses of the rail-lines (and later interstates) running though the city, dividing areas like shitty industrial rivers.
Problem is, those later interstates co-opted a lot of the rail traffic and the ATL ended up with a bunch of abandoned, if well graded, land. Perfect for laying out ped/bike trails running right next to and between a lot of prime real estate.
I'd be surprised if a lot of cities that grew up in the automobile era didn't also have some hidden infrastructure and negative space just waiting to be re-purposed into mixed use paths through. There solution to making U.S. cities more bike-friendly can't ignore bike lanes and cycle tracks running alongside car traffic, since it uses existing street infrastructure and planning, but there's something to be said for investing in parallel architecture. Particularly when it has the secondary effect of utilizing spaces that were already neglected.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:48 AM on November 19, 2013
Problem is, those later interstates co-opted a lot of the rail traffic and the ATL ended up with a bunch of abandoned, if well graded, land. Perfect for laying out ped/bike trails running right next to and between a lot of prime real estate.
I'd be surprised if a lot of cities that grew up in the automobile era didn't also have some hidden infrastructure and negative space just waiting to be re-purposed into mixed use paths through. There solution to making U.S. cities more bike-friendly can't ignore bike lanes and cycle tracks running alongside car traffic, since it uses existing street infrastructure and planning, but there's something to be said for investing in parallel architecture. Particularly when it has the secondary effect of utilizing spaces that were already neglected.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:48 AM on November 19, 2013
The problem is that the shift from horse to car was an increase in speed and comfort right from the beginning, and car drivers now ride around in their own private smoking/eating/listening lounges with airtight protection from the elements and other people. The only workable move would be to let people keep their mobile private lounges while expanding support for mass transit, bikes, etc. Route around the cars.
Self-driving cars offer a middle ground on this. At the moment, your vehicle is just sitting there, depreciating, only in use for the specific times you need it. Furthermore, people pick bigger cars than they might otherwise need for the times they have passengers, baggage etc.
In theory, self-driving cars eliminate all of those constraints. Rather than owning cars you rent them just for the times you need them. Rather than rent a massive pick up each time you drive to post office, you just rent what you need. In effect, self-driving cars start to blur the lines between taxis, mass transit and private vehicles. A secondary bonus is that if you don't own a car, your car is never in the wrong place.
In practice, the economics of this model are unknown. There would be a premium for peak time usage. There would be people willing to pay a premium for never having to wait. There are all sorts of variables around regulation and competition which could make it expensive and complex or cheap and simple, and less/more attractive than outright ownership.
So self-driving vehicles should make more efficient use of road space, a more efficient use of rolling stock, should have a far lower total cost of ownership, could integrate better with mass transit hubs, and could encourage people to switch to mass transit where there was a noticeable cost/benefit advantage to doing so. They should also make it easier to integrate a better cycling infrastructure too, because they are more predictable, more directable, safer and because they should lead to smaller, and less cars on the road.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:51 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Self-driving cars offer a middle ground on this. At the moment, your vehicle is just sitting there, depreciating, only in use for the specific times you need it. Furthermore, people pick bigger cars than they might otherwise need for the times they have passengers, baggage etc.
In theory, self-driving cars eliminate all of those constraints. Rather than owning cars you rent them just for the times you need them. Rather than rent a massive pick up each time you drive to post office, you just rent what you need. In effect, self-driving cars start to blur the lines between taxis, mass transit and private vehicles. A secondary bonus is that if you don't own a car, your car is never in the wrong place.
In practice, the economics of this model are unknown. There would be a premium for peak time usage. There would be people willing to pay a premium for never having to wait. There are all sorts of variables around regulation and competition which could make it expensive and complex or cheap and simple, and less/more attractive than outright ownership.
So self-driving vehicles should make more efficient use of road space, a more efficient use of rolling stock, should have a far lower total cost of ownership, could integrate better with mass transit hubs, and could encourage people to switch to mass transit where there was a noticeable cost/benefit advantage to doing so. They should also make it easier to integrate a better cycling infrastructure too, because they are more predictable, more directable, safer and because they should lead to smaller, and less cars on the road.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:51 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Self-driving cars [...]
Well, yeah. I agree. I just didn't want to repeat the other thread.
posted by pracowity at 6:55 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, yeah. I agree. I just didn't want to repeat the other thread.
posted by pracowity at 6:55 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Whenever I see the self driving vehicle thing, I think: why not just a train? It seems like the logical progression to me, and is a lot more efficient than one engine per person.
posted by antinomia at 7:00 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by antinomia at 7:00 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ctrl f bloomberg
Ctrl f NYC
Ctrl f bikeshare
0
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:12 AM on November 19, 2013
Ctrl f NYC
Ctrl f bikeshare
0
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:12 AM on November 19, 2013
I've wished that my city- famous for its supposed bike-friendliness- would devote a network of existing side streets to bike priority. Not just sharrows and "bike route" signs: streets with a recognized and enforced 10mph car speed limit, and maybe a couple of new nonmotorized traffic bridges across I-84 to create better crosstown bike routes. Instead, new bike infrastructure seems to be designed around the idea that all cyclists want to move as if they were in cars, using the same crowded arterials.
posted by pernoctalian at 7:13 AM on November 19, 2013
posted by pernoctalian at 7:13 AM on November 19, 2013
Whenever I see the self driving vehicle thing, I think: why not just a train? It seems like the logical progression to me, and is a lot more efficient than one engine per person.
The infrastructure problem, and lining up rights to build through private property. More trains would be great, but it's such an uphill struggle - I don't think anyone who's optimistic about self-driving vehicles is all "screw trains, do this instead", it's more that it's just a new tool that completely avoids a lot of the transit problems that are so big with other vehicles. Uses existing infrastructure, doesn't need a huge municipal investment because it's just another consumer/fleet car product and its use will grow naturally where there's demand, and doesn't need any special accommodation from other drivers.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:24 AM on November 19, 2013
The infrastructure problem, and lining up rights to build through private property. More trains would be great, but it's such an uphill struggle - I don't think anyone who's optimistic about self-driving vehicles is all "screw trains, do this instead", it's more that it's just a new tool that completely avoids a lot of the transit problems that are so big with other vehicles. Uses existing infrastructure, doesn't need a huge municipal investment because it's just another consumer/fleet car product and its use will grow naturally where there's demand, and doesn't need any special accommodation from other drivers.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:24 AM on November 19, 2013
Whenever I see the self driving vehicle thing, I think: why not just a train?
Flexibility is a big reason. A hundred electric cars going in a hundred directions at a hundred times on a hundred streets instead of one train going in one direction on one fixed track.
And car-driving people are used to that sort of flexibility. How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?
posted by pracowity at 7:37 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Flexibility is a big reason. A hundred electric cars going in a hundred directions at a hundred times on a hundred streets instead of one train going in one direction on one fixed track.
And car-driving people are used to that sort of flexibility. How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?
posted by pracowity at 7:37 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Whenever I see the self driving vehicle thing, I think: why not just a train? It seems like the logical progression to me, and is a lot more efficient than one engine per person.
I think we may well end up seeing self-driving as trains eventually in certain circumstances. Cars going down the freeway can basically become trains in the sense that they can join up and benefit from the aerodynamic advantages. The challenges are:
- How to engage/disengage cars on the go
- The best way to power the train.
- What balance there is between convenience (i.e. going exactly when you want) and efficiency (delaying or slowing your journey so you can join a train).
posted by MuffinMan at 7:39 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think we may well end up seeing self-driving as trains eventually in certain circumstances. Cars going down the freeway can basically become trains in the sense that they can join up and benefit from the aerodynamic advantages. The challenges are:
- How to engage/disengage cars on the go
- The best way to power the train.
- What balance there is between convenience (i.e. going exactly when you want) and efficiency (delaying or slowing your journey so you can join a train).
posted by MuffinMan at 7:39 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Speaking as somebody who *gasp* both drives and cycles, I think it's interesting how the conversation is always about the "negligent" bicyclists who flout traffic laws and nobody mentions the motorists who CONSTANTLY DO THE SAME THING.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:46 AM on November 19, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 7:46 AM on November 19, 2013 [12 favorites]
& the owner of the first vehicle gets bitcoin micro payments for the additional fuel cost, and is chosen by the technology based on efficiency considerations.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:47 AM on November 19, 2013
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 7:47 AM on November 19, 2013
Cars going down the freeway can basically become trains in the sense that they can join up and benefit from the aerodynamic advantages.
Yes, but I don't think there will be middle-aged men in anoraks standing on the side of the freeway and obsessively tracking "car trains."
*pauses, thinks about this thread*
I could be wrong about that, actually.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:55 AM on November 19, 2013
Yes, but I don't think there will be middle-aged men in anoraks standing on the side of the freeway and obsessively tracking "car trains."
*pauses, thinks about this thread*
I could be wrong about that, actually.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:55 AM on November 19, 2013
I think it's interesting how the conversation is always about the "negligent" bicyclists who flout traffic laws and nobody mentions the motorists who CONSTANTLY DO THE SAME THING.
You'll note my comment about enforcement pointed a finger at the cars first.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:09 AM on November 19, 2013
You'll note my comment about enforcement pointed a finger at the cars first.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:09 AM on November 19, 2013
Mod note: Come on folks don't turn this into the same old cars vs bikes GRAR. Please?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:20 AM on November 19, 2013
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:20 AM on November 19, 2013
EmpressCallipygos: My comment was in retort to three blind mice's comment, not yours.
I get upset when cyclists break traffic laws in a dangerous way. Unlike a lot of motorists, I don't get upset when I see a cyclist blow through an otherwise empty four-way stop down the block. A busy four-way stop? Yeah, that's not cool. Do I think motorists should be held to a higher standard? Absolutely.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:22 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
I get upset when cyclists break traffic laws in a dangerous way. Unlike a lot of motorists, I don't get upset when I see a cyclist blow through an otherwise empty four-way stop down the block. A busy four-way stop? Yeah, that's not cool. Do I think motorists should be held to a higher standard? Absolutely.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:22 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
(Oops, sorry. Just saw the mod admonishment.)
posted by entropicamericana at 8:23 AM on November 19, 2013
posted by entropicamericana at 8:23 AM on November 19, 2013
So, here in Boston, the general area is becoming more bike friendly, and this whole notion that American culture is irredeemably car obsessed is being pretty well refuted.
I blame global warming. No, really.
This is hockey country, and Massachusetts had a strong tradition of pond hockey. Except nowadays the ponds don't freeze enough, and in residential areas you'll see a lot more street hockey all through the year. So there's already an ingrained notion that the street isn't only there to be an automobile channel. Drive aggressively around my block and you'll be relieved to see the police arrive, because otherwise angry parents will give you a frank expression of their opinion of you.
The city proper is expanding the network of bike lanes. The left bank of the Charles is expanding the dedicated bike path network, and towns are starting to plow them in the winter.
And since this is a dotcom area, employers are congregating in city centers and abandoing the Route 128 office park corridor. And for good reason, too. The 90's generation of programmers and sysadmins is approaching middle age. We've seen people in theiur 50's get laid off for failur to keep up with the state of the art and the latest buzzwods. And we don't want to be next. We CANNOT AFFORD to spend an hour a day in a car. For me, that would be an hour in which I am not working, not learning, and not being a father to my daughter. That's why dotcom hipsters in the BOS area bike everywhere. On a bike, you're getting much needed exercise. On the T, you can read. In a car, you're just stuck, frittering away your scarce time.
This is where America is heading. And it doesn't suck.
posted by ocschwar at 8:29 AM on November 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
I blame global warming. No, really.
This is hockey country, and Massachusetts had a strong tradition of pond hockey. Except nowadays the ponds don't freeze enough, and in residential areas you'll see a lot more street hockey all through the year. So there's already an ingrained notion that the street isn't only there to be an automobile channel. Drive aggressively around my block and you'll be relieved to see the police arrive, because otherwise angry parents will give you a frank expression of their opinion of you.
The city proper is expanding the network of bike lanes. The left bank of the Charles is expanding the dedicated bike path network, and towns are starting to plow them in the winter.
And since this is a dotcom area, employers are congregating in city centers and abandoing the Route 128 office park corridor. And for good reason, too. The 90's generation of programmers and sysadmins is approaching middle age. We've seen people in theiur 50's get laid off for failur to keep up with the state of the art and the latest buzzwods. And we don't want to be next. We CANNOT AFFORD to spend an hour a day in a car. For me, that would be an hour in which I am not working, not learning, and not being a father to my daughter. That's why dotcom hipsters in the BOS area bike everywhere. On a bike, you're getting much needed exercise. On the T, you can read. In a car, you're just stuck, frittering away your scarce time.
This is where America is heading. And it doesn't suck.
posted by ocschwar at 8:29 AM on November 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
Yes, but I don't think there will be middle-aged men in anoraks standing on the side of the freeway and obsessively tracking "car trains."
You're going to have a published and partly legislated set of rules about how cars are to communicate and itneract for course correction and speed control. Those rules will conbine to produce emergent properties in the traffic stream that are a lot more predictable than what you see with human controlled cars, and probably a lot more elegant. Not sure about any institutionalized things like trainspotters, but we can safely predict that autonomous cars will turn certain highway overpasses into magnets for people with Asperger's syndrome for the same reasons that slow moving watercourses function that way.
posted by ocschwar at 8:39 AM on November 19, 2013
You're going to have a published and partly legislated set of rules about how cars are to communicate and itneract for course correction and speed control. Those rules will conbine to produce emergent properties in the traffic stream that are a lot more predictable than what you see with human controlled cars, and probably a lot more elegant. Not sure about any institutionalized things like trainspotters, but we can safely predict that autonomous cars will turn certain highway overpasses into magnets for people with Asperger's syndrome for the same reasons that slow moving watercourses function that way.
posted by ocschwar at 8:39 AM on November 19, 2013
I want car lanes to be used for bicycles with maybe some few special lanes off to the side for cars. Like today, only opposite. Car lanes and bicycle streets.
Oh, for the day that motorists complain about bikes parking in the car lane...
posted by ambrosia at 9:05 AM on November 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
Oh, for the day that motorists complain about bikes parking in the car lane...
posted by ambrosia at 9:05 AM on November 19, 2013 [4 favorites]
Oh, and I totally forgot to mention this, shame on me:
The official policy of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts until a few years ago was that we would not build any new highways or widen existing ones within the area circled by Route 128. It is now the Commonwealth's policy that we will not add any more roads anywhere in Massachussetts. And it's not even controversial here.
posted by ocschwar at 9:24 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
The official policy of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts until a few years ago was that we would not build any new highways or widen existing ones within the area circled by Route 128. It is now the Commonwealth's policy that we will not add any more roads anywhere in Massachussetts. And it's not even controversial here.
posted by ocschwar at 9:24 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Vancouver has created a few separated bike lanes downtown by dedicating former parking lanes to two way bike use and placing a barrier, not just a painted line, between the bike lane and the cars.
This has also had the effect of making it more difficult and expensive to park downtown, which many regard as a good thing.
posted by islander at 9:45 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
This has also had the effect of making it more difficult and expensive to park downtown, which many regard as a good thing.
posted by islander at 9:45 AM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think it's interesting how the conversation is always about the "negligent" bicyclists who flout traffic laws and nobody mentions the motorists who CONSTANTLY DO THE SAME THING.
I think it pays to remember that bicyclist are usually also drivers and the characteristics that make people ride/drive like idiots are independent the vehicle they happen to be using at the time. When I hear a driver complain that cyclists break laws, what I'm really hearing is, "cyclists break different laws than me!"
posted by klanawa at 10:35 AM on November 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think it pays to remember that bicyclist are usually also drivers and the characteristics that make people ride/drive like idiots are independent the vehicle they happen to be using at the time. When I hear a driver complain that cyclists break laws, what I'm really hearing is, "cyclists break different laws than me!"
posted by klanawa at 10:35 AM on November 19, 2013 [3 favorites]
Speaking as somebody who *gasp* both drives and cycles, I think it's interesting how the conversation is always about the "negligent" bicyclists who flout traffic laws and nobody mentions the motorists who CONSTANTLY DO THE SAME THING.
I've never had a driver try to convince me that it's OK for them to wantonly flout stop signs, red lights, etc. On the other hand, I know bicyclists who consider breaking traffic laws to be legitimate form of civil disobedience, in spite of the obvious safety problems. Bikes are fast and much harder to see than cars, so they need to follow traffic laws (with teeth) compatible with those for cars in order to share the road.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 11:51 AM on November 19, 2013
I've never had a driver try to convince me that it's OK for them to wantonly flout stop signs, red lights, etc. On the other hand, I know bicyclists who consider breaking traffic laws to be legitimate form of civil disobedience, in spite of the obvious safety problems. Bikes are fast and much harder to see than cars, so they need to follow traffic laws (with teeth) compatible with those for cars in order to share the road.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 11:51 AM on November 19, 2013
"Pedestrians and bikes were here before cars came and usurped the streets."
One of the mindblowing things for me in reading LA history was finding out that before the car really took over in the '30s, the average worker in LA walked five miles each way to and from work.
posted by klangklangston at 11:52 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
One of the mindblowing things for me in reading LA history was finding out that before the car really took over in the '30s, the average worker in LA walked five miles each way to and from work.
posted by klangklangston at 11:52 AM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
cosmic.osmo, put yourself on a bike in traffic. You're stopped at a stoplight alongside a line of cars. You know when the light goes green you'll all be taking off together, with you in everyone's blindspot, while also in the door zone. Since bikes are slow to get going, you know you'll end up slipping back a couple of cars at first, and then will end up passing everyone -- maximizing your time in the blindspot/door zone/danger zone. You could choose to take the lane instead, and get into the line of waiting cars -- but in the US that means having to stand in front of a two ton vehicle that could crush you like a grape, with the driver honking and you and cursing at you out the window. So, blindspot, road rage, or choice number 3, which is looking both ways and crossing against the red, and getting well ahead of the cars and their blind spots and irate drivers.
The problem is not who is breaking the laws -- the problem is that we ask cyclists to sacrifice their safety in order to obey the laws. The problem is the infrastructure. The solution is separated bike paths with clear demarcations of right-of-way, as they have the in the Netherlands (and as we're starting to get in NYC).
posted by antinomia at 12:34 PM on November 19, 2013 [10 favorites]
The problem is not who is breaking the laws -- the problem is that we ask cyclists to sacrifice their safety in order to obey the laws. The problem is the infrastructure. The solution is separated bike paths with clear demarcations of right-of-way, as they have the in the Netherlands (and as we're starting to get in NYC).
posted by antinomia at 12:34 PM on November 19, 2013 [10 favorites]
One of the mindblowing things for me in reading LA history was finding out that before the car really took over in the '30s, the average worker in LA walked five miles each way to and from work.
Suggesting that average commute times have remained almost constant for 80 years.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:03 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Suggesting that average commute times have remained almost constant for 80 years.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:03 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
One of the mindblowing things for me in reading LA history was finding out that before the car really took over in the '30s, the average worker in LA walked five miles each way to and from work.
A 5 mile walk through a smog-free LA sounds like a nice way to start a day.
posted by ocschwar at 1:22 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
A 5 mile walk through a smog-free LA sounds like a nice way to start a day.
posted by ocschwar at 1:22 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Depending on where you go to read about it, one thing is constant - that the level of distrust, contempt and anger directed at cyclists is extraordinary. It casts cyclists at best as the architects of their own problems and at worst as the villains.
But they run stop signs!
The bicycle and car are so at odds with each other, I don't think there's going to be a good solution anytime soon (fwiw, i'm a longtime cyclist who now drives more than i ride :( ).
In the meantime, streets with "car lanes" are intriguing. If you make traffic bad enough and parking super expensive, people's behavior will change. Good luck, though.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:26 PM on November 19, 2013
But they run stop signs!
The bicycle and car are so at odds with each other, I don't think there's going to be a good solution anytime soon (fwiw, i'm a longtime cyclist who now drives more than i ride :( ).
In the meantime, streets with "car lanes" are intriguing. If you make traffic bad enough and parking super expensive, people's behavior will change. Good luck, though.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:26 PM on November 19, 2013
In the meantime, streets with "car lanes" are intriguing. If you make traffic bad enough and parking super expensive, people's behavior will change. Good luck, though.
Maybe not driving behavior so much as voting behavior, though.
posted by kewb at 2:35 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Maybe not driving behavior so much as voting behavior, though.
posted by kewb at 2:35 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
If you make traffic bad enough and parking super expensive, people's behavior will change.
Don't forget the price of gas.
posted by ambrosia at 3:30 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Don't forget the price of gas.
posted by ambrosia at 3:30 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
number 3, which is looking both ways and crossing against the red, and getting well ahead of the cars and their blind spots and irate drivers.
...
The solution is separated bike paths with clear demarcations of right-of-way
I just can't agree with anyone running a red light or a non-all-way stop sign in any circumstance. When they're present, traffic on the cross street has permission to proceed at full speed, and everyone who wants to cross (cars, pedestrians*, and cyclists) needs to stop to allow that to happen safely, no exceptions. I think an option 4, stop close to the to the pedestrian crosswalk and cross on/next to it, would be even safer than your option 3.
However, I agree that the ultimate solution is separating bike-like traffic into it's own little paths (preferably on the other side of the curb from car traffic). It will still need to stop at intersections, though.
* who also have their own signals, which are even less permissive than the car signals
posted by cosmic.osmo at 3:59 PM on November 19, 2013
...
The solution is separated bike paths with clear demarcations of right-of-way
I just can't agree with anyone running a red light or a non-all-way stop sign in any circumstance. When they're present, traffic on the cross street has permission to proceed at full speed, and everyone who wants to cross (cars, pedestrians*, and cyclists) needs to stop to allow that to happen safely, no exceptions. I think an option 4, stop close to the to the pedestrian crosswalk and cross on/next to it, would be even safer than your option 3.
However, I agree that the ultimate solution is separating bike-like traffic into it's own little paths (preferably on the other side of the curb from car traffic). It will still need to stop at intersections, though.
* who also have their own signals, which are even less permissive than the car signals
posted by cosmic.osmo at 3:59 PM on November 19, 2013
I just can't agree with anyone running a red light or a non-all-way stop sign in any circumstance.
It's legal is some states, and it's spreading, because of the safety issues I mentioned. This is how the Idaho law is written:
"A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution."
posted by antinomia at 4:15 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's legal is some states, and it's spreading, because of the safety issues I mentioned. This is how the Idaho law is written:
"A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution."
posted by antinomia at 4:15 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
"I just can't agree with anyone running a red light or a non-all-way stop sign in any circumstance. When they're present, traffic on the cross street has permission to proceed at full speed, and everyone who wants to cross (cars, pedestrians*, and cyclists) needs to stop to allow that to happen safely, no exceptions. "
You're either misunderstanding the practice or mistaking the map for the territory. Traffic laws serve safety; when safety suffers due to laws, the best response is not to reiterate the laws more forcefully. But it's not like cyclists are just blowing through opposing traffic either, and treating stop signs as yields makes more sense at cycle scale.
posted by klangklangston at 4:23 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
You're either misunderstanding the practice or mistaking the map for the territory. Traffic laws serve safety; when safety suffers due to laws, the best response is not to reiterate the laws more forcefully. But it's not like cyclists are just blowing through opposing traffic either, and treating stop signs as yields makes more sense at cycle scale.
posted by klangklangston at 4:23 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Three Blind Mice: "Also there are INDEED far too many bicyclists who ride like lawless, reckless, selfish, idiots and unless that attitude changes too, it will be no better in the carless future.”
Would you rather have a callous idiot barreling toward you in a 3,000 pound vehicle at 60 MPH or would you rather have a callous idiot barreling toward you in a 30 pound vehicle going at 15 MPH?
Hint: The risk of being killed or seriously injured scales exponentially according to the mass and speed of the thing hitting you. http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm
The car-free future is going to be awesome.
posted by Skwirl at 8:56 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Would you rather have a callous idiot barreling toward you in a 3,000 pound vehicle at 60 MPH or would you rather have a callous idiot barreling toward you in a 30 pound vehicle going at 15 MPH?
Hint: The risk of being killed or seriously injured scales exponentially according to the mass and speed of the thing hitting you. http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm
The car-free future is going to be awesome.
posted by Skwirl at 8:56 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
pracowity: "If you shifted the debate to be nice little kids riding to school vs grumpy commuters going to work, there would be less sympathy for the guy always complaining that the racka frackin bikes are just a nuisance and that what this town needs is more car lanes and fewer bikes damn it.”
Done and done and done.
* Kidical Mass.
* Bike Trains.
* Safe Routes to Schools.
All of these things need votes, funding, publicity and participants in order to become more mainstream.
posted by Skwirl at 9:16 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
Done and done and done.
* Kidical Mass.
* Bike Trains.
* Safe Routes to Schools.
All of these things need votes, funding, publicity and participants in order to become more mainstream.
posted by Skwirl at 9:16 PM on November 19, 2013 [2 favorites]
cosmic.osmo, put yourself on a bike in traffic. You're stopped at a stoplight alongside a line of cars. You know when the light goes green you'll all be taking off together, with you in everyone's blindspot, while also in the door zone. Since bikes are slow to get going, you know you'll end up slipping back a couple of cars at first, and then will end up passing everyone -- maximizing your time in the blindspot/door zone/danger zone. You could choose to take the lane instead, and get into the line of waiting cars -- but in the US that means having to stand in front of a two ton vehicle that could crush you like a grape, with the driver honking and you and cursing at you out the window. So, blindspot, road rage, or choice number 3, which is looking both ways and crossing against the red, and getting well ahead of the cars and their blind spots and irate drivers.
I don't think your average driver (and I am one; I'm also a cyclist -- both pedal and motor -- and of course a pedestrian) is upset about someone looking both ways and then crossing against the red. I think it's things like running red lights/stop signs without slowing down (forcing cars, pedestrians and other bicyclists to take action to avoid accidents), riding at speed down the sidewalk out of blind spots and into intersections in front of drivers who are starting to make a legal right-on-red turn, balancing precariously on a fixie inches from a stopped cars' bumper (or doing laps around the car) instead of putting their feet down, and other behaviors that are unpredictable, startling and (by some) interpreted as aggressive. We can't co-exist if we can't predict each others' behavior.
Having said that, I do think there's something to be gained by eliminating right-on-red (as New York does) in large cities, and by including more training on granting bicycles right-of-way (especially when they're taking a lane.) I also think there's something to be gained by licensing bicycles (complete with plates) and ticketing/confiscating bikes from riders who walk on the sidewalks or ride recklessly. I also think bicyclists who don't drive should take driving lessons, so that they'll realize drivers have a great deal of attention wrapped up in not injuring the pedestrians/cyclists/drivers/animals that they can see and anticipate, so ignoring traffic laws and riding with disregard for blind spots and stopping distances is just setting drivers up to fail at not hitting you (even if they are paying attention and have the best intentions.)
posted by davejay at 11:18 PM on November 19, 2013
I don't think your average driver (and I am one; I'm also a cyclist -- both pedal and motor -- and of course a pedestrian) is upset about someone looking both ways and then crossing against the red. I think it's things like running red lights/stop signs without slowing down (forcing cars, pedestrians and other bicyclists to take action to avoid accidents), riding at speed down the sidewalk out of blind spots and into intersections in front of drivers who are starting to make a legal right-on-red turn, balancing precariously on a fixie inches from a stopped cars' bumper (or doing laps around the car) instead of putting their feet down, and other behaviors that are unpredictable, startling and (by some) interpreted as aggressive. We can't co-exist if we can't predict each others' behavior.
Having said that, I do think there's something to be gained by eliminating right-on-red (as New York does) in large cities, and by including more training on granting bicycles right-of-way (especially when they're taking a lane.) I also think there's something to be gained by licensing bicycles (complete with plates) and ticketing/confiscating bikes from riders who walk on the sidewalks or ride recklessly. I also think bicyclists who don't drive should take driving lessons, so that they'll realize drivers have a great deal of attention wrapped up in not injuring the pedestrians/cyclists/drivers/animals that they can see and anticipate, so ignoring traffic laws and riding with disregard for blind spots and stopping distances is just setting drivers up to fail at not hitting you (even if they are paying attention and have the best intentions.)
posted by davejay at 11:18 PM on November 19, 2013
The car-free future is going to be awesome.
Except for folks who are too old, too young, too unhealthy or too disabled (mentally or physically) to ride a bike. Or have a relative that meets any of those criteria. Or have to carry something heavy somewhere. Or have to get somewhere in the pouring rain or a snowstorm. Or are sick and running a fever and need to get to urgent care. We do care about those people too, right?
Bicycles are a great option for many, and we all (including bicyclists) should take the steps necessary to make it safer and more practical for those who can leverage it, but it would be best if we could find a way to do that without taking away the benefits that so many derive from cars (and cannot derive from bicycles under any conditions.)
So if you're going to envision a car-free future, at least see if you can find room to visualize subsidized buses and trains running everywhere that people need to go on a timely and reliable schedule.
posted by davejay at 11:24 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
Except for folks who are too old, too young, too unhealthy or too disabled (mentally or physically) to ride a bike. Or have a relative that meets any of those criteria. Or have to carry something heavy somewhere. Or have to get somewhere in the pouring rain or a snowstorm. Or are sick and running a fever and need to get to urgent care. We do care about those people too, right?
Bicycles are a great option for many, and we all (including bicyclists) should take the steps necessary to make it safer and more practical for those who can leverage it, but it would be best if we could find a way to do that without taking away the benefits that so many derive from cars (and cannot derive from bicycles under any conditions.)
So if you're going to envision a car-free future, at least see if you can find room to visualize subsidized buses and trains running everywhere that people need to go on a timely and reliable schedule.
posted by davejay at 11:24 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
One more thing: if we could redesign the cities, it would make sense to simply set up wide N/S/E/W streets for motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles, narrow NE/SE/SW/NW streets for pedestrians and bicycles only, and three-cycle (no pun intended) intersections where they met: one for N/S, one for E/W, and one for NE/SE/SW/NW traffic (which of course would have to be mindful of not running into each other as they crossed, but without cars in the mix it should be doable.)
posted by davejay at 11:28 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by davejay at 11:28 PM on November 19, 2013 [1 favorite]
"and ticketing/confiscating bikes from riders who walk on the sidewalks or ride recklessly."
I think you meant, "ride on the sidewalks." Ticketing for walking a bike on the sidewalk seems a little silly.
But even from that, look, I regularly ride my bike home from work. If I can, I ride a good portion of that on Santa Monica, but the pavement can be amazingly shitty, and drivers don't understand why I sometimes have to weave suddenly to avoid broken chunks. So that means sometimes, I'll take a couple blocks on the sidewalk. It's entirely legal, and while I prefer riding in the street, sometimes that's not as safe.
I'm just wary that any time this stuff comes up, there are a ton of suggestions based on, "Let's restrict biking more," which just ends up decreasing ridership.
posted by klangklangston at 11:50 PM on November 19, 2013
I think you meant, "ride on the sidewalks." Ticketing for walking a bike on the sidewalk seems a little silly.
But even from that, look, I regularly ride my bike home from work. If I can, I ride a good portion of that on Santa Monica, but the pavement can be amazingly shitty, and drivers don't understand why I sometimes have to weave suddenly to avoid broken chunks. So that means sometimes, I'll take a couple blocks on the sidewalk. It's entirely legal, and while I prefer riding in the street, sometimes that's not as safe.
I'm just wary that any time this stuff comes up, there are a ton of suggestions based on, "Let's restrict biking more," which just ends up decreasing ridership.
posted by klangklangston at 11:50 PM on November 19, 2013
Back to Boston....
They tell me that Boston is BECOMING more bike friendly. It makes me shudder to think what it must have been like before I moved here from Seattle four years ago! Every (and I do mean EVERY) intersection has a stop sign, traffic light, instruction sign that is ignored by at least one driver/cyclist every time a light changes. Red light means that you should hurry through it. Cyclists, cars, pedestrians take every signal or instruction as informational, not required. This happens literally in front of police...this happens BY police. And....it isn't the people's fault. This is just a really wacky, scrunched up city where the roads are so messed up that you can't get anywhere if you drive like a law-abiding Seattle goody goody (yes, I do mean like me). Here is the problem with that....when two vehicles are ignoring the laws, the smaller one (bicycle) gets crushed into a bloody pile of traffic jam in the middle of the intersection where ordinarily caring and wonderful people (Bostonians, they are way nicer than I was lead to believe!) turn into nasty animals who want to know who just ruined their already-horrible commute.
It is going to either take a tripling of gasoline prices or a lot of new infrastructure that fixes all the stupid 300-year old bad compromises to make a place like this bike friendly. I suspect that a lot of places have similar problems.
Here's a joke for you...Why do Boston police cars have blue lights? Because Bostonians don't stop for red lights!
posted by BearClaw6 at 5:48 AM on November 20, 2013
They tell me that Boston is BECOMING more bike friendly. It makes me shudder to think what it must have been like before I moved here from Seattle four years ago! Every (and I do mean EVERY) intersection has a stop sign, traffic light, instruction sign that is ignored by at least one driver/cyclist every time a light changes. Red light means that you should hurry through it. Cyclists, cars, pedestrians take every signal or instruction as informational, not required. This happens literally in front of police...this happens BY police. And....it isn't the people's fault. This is just a really wacky, scrunched up city where the roads are so messed up that you can't get anywhere if you drive like a law-abiding Seattle goody goody (yes, I do mean like me). Here is the problem with that....when two vehicles are ignoring the laws, the smaller one (bicycle) gets crushed into a bloody pile of traffic jam in the middle of the intersection where ordinarily caring and wonderful people (Bostonians, they are way nicer than I was lead to believe!) turn into nasty animals who want to know who just ruined their already-horrible commute.
It is going to either take a tripling of gasoline prices or a lot of new infrastructure that fixes all the stupid 300-year old bad compromises to make a place like this bike friendly. I suspect that a lot of places have similar problems.
Here's a joke for you...Why do Boston police cars have blue lights? Because Bostonians don't stop for red lights!
posted by BearClaw6 at 5:48 AM on November 20, 2013
Hey davejay, folks in cycle-topia do think about the disabled and elderly. Good cycling infrastructure also works for them. But yes, buses and trains are also an important part of good transit infrastructure.
Also, licensing is a dead end. Here in NY there are ticketing blitzes against cyclists all the time, all they need to give you a ticket is an ID. If you're not carrying an ID, they just take you in. And cops are allowed to confiscate your bike if you ride it on the sidewalk. Technically there's supposed to be bike registration here, but if you go into the station to try to get registered they'll look at you like you're from mars. It just costs too much to register bikes, and to separately license cyclists, that even in places where it's on the books no one bothers to waste money enforcing it. And there's no benefit to doing so because the authorities can ticket and arrest you without it.
In places where the infrastructure is so bad that only daredevils dare to ride, cyclist behavior tends to be bad. When cycling infrastructure makes people feel safe, then everyone bikes, parents with their kids, grandparents, etc., and these people not only obey the rules, they also make it inconvenient for other cyclists to break the rules because they ride more slowly, block the way, and confront idiots who put them in danger.
posted by antinomia at 6:08 AM on November 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Also, licensing is a dead end. Here in NY there are ticketing blitzes against cyclists all the time, all they need to give you a ticket is an ID. If you're not carrying an ID, they just take you in. And cops are allowed to confiscate your bike if you ride it on the sidewalk. Technically there's supposed to be bike registration here, but if you go into the station to try to get registered they'll look at you like you're from mars. It just costs too much to register bikes, and to separately license cyclists, that even in places where it's on the books no one bothers to waste money enforcing it. And there's no benefit to doing so because the authorities can ticket and arrest you without it.
In places where the infrastructure is so bad that only daredevils dare to ride, cyclist behavior tends to be bad. When cycling infrastructure makes people feel safe, then everyone bikes, parents with their kids, grandparents, etc., and these people not only obey the rules, they also make it inconvenient for other cyclists to break the rules because they ride more slowly, block the way, and confront idiots who put them in danger.
posted by antinomia at 6:08 AM on November 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
"A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution."
I think that's actually a pretty reasonable law, and if that's what cyclists want, I'm OK with it. Some of the cyclists I know think they should not have to stop at a red and should be able to run it at speed. They're quite outspoken about that view, I very much disagree with it, and it's been in the back of my mind in this thread.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 7:17 PM on November 20, 2013
I think that's actually a pretty reasonable law, and if that's what cyclists want, I'm OK with it. Some of the cyclists I know think they should not have to stop at a red and should be able to run it at speed. They're quite outspoken about that view, I very much disagree with it, and it's been in the back of my mind in this thread.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 7:17 PM on November 20, 2013
davejay — It’s really disappointing for someone to make a disability based argument and not address the many ways that our current urban, rural and suburban design harms people with disabilities. Have you ever seen someone in a motorized wheelchair who has to navigate the desert of five-lane suburban highways, often without sidewalks, crosswalks or cut-outs? I have. I’ve also seen people in motorized wheelchairs zipping along in bike lanes or, best of all, zipping along in a separated multi-use path.
Not to mention, you just totally blew off the roughly 30,000 people who die from automobile accidents each year. Increased cycling on any given road increases that road’s safety for all road users, including drivers and pedestrians. It doesn’t even matter if we’re talking about crazy happy-go-lucky stop sign running psycho cyclists or average safety abiding cyclists. The mechanism is that average automobile drivers are so negligently lacking in attention that the sudden increase in bicyclists on a given roadway will train those drivers to pay more attention to the road. Every cyclist on the road is literally making your drive safer.
Spare a thought for people whose disabilities prevent them from driving a car altogether, or for people who cannot afford a car. There are 2.2 million Americans with epilepsy, which can prevent driving but may allow you to ride a bike. People with certain vision impairments as well.
Thoughtful, multi-modal urban, high density design will benefit people with disabilities the most. When comparing the difficulties of urban and rural disability, individuals in rural settings reported significant difficulties with access to medical care due to transportation.
Not to mention there will be some fewer people with disabilities to begin with because of fewer automobile crash related injuries and greater access to cardiovascular exercise.
I have a medical injury that has kept me from riding a bicycle for the past several months. It could be chronic for all I know so far. That doesn’t matter to me with regards to supporting multi-modal infrastructure, because the rising tide of bicycles is going to improve cities for everyone.
posted by Skwirl at 8:46 PM on November 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
Not to mention, you just totally blew off the roughly 30,000 people who die from automobile accidents each year. Increased cycling on any given road increases that road’s safety for all road users, including drivers and pedestrians. It doesn’t even matter if we’re talking about crazy happy-go-lucky stop sign running psycho cyclists or average safety abiding cyclists. The mechanism is that average automobile drivers are so negligently lacking in attention that the sudden increase in bicyclists on a given roadway will train those drivers to pay more attention to the road. Every cyclist on the road is literally making your drive safer.
Spare a thought for people whose disabilities prevent them from driving a car altogether, or for people who cannot afford a car. There are 2.2 million Americans with epilepsy, which can prevent driving but may allow you to ride a bike. People with certain vision impairments as well.
Thoughtful, multi-modal urban, high density design will benefit people with disabilities the most. When comparing the difficulties of urban and rural disability, individuals in rural settings reported significant difficulties with access to medical care due to transportation.
Not to mention there will be some fewer people with disabilities to begin with because of fewer automobile crash related injuries and greater access to cardiovascular exercise.
I have a medical injury that has kept me from riding a bicycle for the past several months. It could be chronic for all I know so far. That doesn’t matter to me with regards to supporting multi-modal infrastructure, because the rising tide of bicycles is going to improve cities for everyone.
posted by Skwirl at 8:46 PM on November 20, 2013 [2 favorites]
« Older That's not a selfie... | Why are you so fluffy? Why are you so feathery? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by MartinWisse at 11:44 PM on November 18, 2013 [1 favorite]