Why is Riding a Bicycle in the City Turning Into a Culture War
Why is Riding a Bicycle in the City Turning Into a Culture War
Here are some key reasons why a safety and efficiency issue is turning into a bicycle culture war.
-
Because everyone needing a car makes the auto industry more cash than God as well as several neighboring industries.
-
I see the reality they're describing talked about in online forums. In reality bikes aren't a safe option on the east side of Cincinnati and I have seen exactly one bike commuter here in more than the last ten years. He lasted a month, I hope he didn't die.
The people fever-screaming for protected bike lanes - I've ridden vast distances on bikes and I get it. But there are hundreds of millions of people who don't even have unprotected bike lanes. It needs to get better everywhere, but it also feels like the areas that are in the top 20% best are screaming that it should be like the 0.1% best everywhere. Okay, so start by bringing the worst places up to at least a standard where biking is a viable option. Then you'll get more people agreeing that improvements still need to be made.
-
Areas without existing bike infrastructure will have a lot of trouble getting the political will to spend and implement bicycle lanes (it will be viewed as wasteful)
The utility of a bicycle network expands exponentially as you build it. The further out you can go safely by bike, more people can make use of it going to more places. Going from nothing to 1 unprotected gutter lane, might not do much for bicycle adoption.
-
"Going from nothing to 1 unprotected gutter lane, might not do much for bicycle adoption."
I would agree, if the world wasn't changing so quickly. People in the suburbs can't afford cars, and they can't afford to move out of the suburbs, and they can't ride bicycles without risking their lives. Adding a gutter lane would give these people multiple new options including e-bikes. Right now they're just getting ticketed for trying to drive them in the road.
-
-
Okay, so start by bringing the worst places up to at least a standard where biking is a viable option. Then you'll get more people agreeing that improvements still need to be made.
The problem is that what constitutes a viable option is not going to be the same everywhere, even in the same region, state, or city. Some places merely need to reallocate space for bikes, even if that means on an expanded sidewalk. Other places already have the space for bikes allocated, but car-centric sprawl makes the distances unappealing.
In almost all circumstances though, I would think protected bikes lanes -- ie with physical infra like bollards, curbs, planters -- should be the standard, since paint is not infrastructure and half-heartedly dedicating road space benefits no-one: not the bicyclists that want somewhere safe to ride, nor the motorists and delivery drivers that gamble whether they'll get tickets for parking there.
A "bright-line" delineation serves everyone and is unambiguous. Quick build projects around the USA show that protected bike lanes can be cobbled together on the cheap. But if the political wherewithal isn't there, it's not happening. And I don't think there's enough political capital to bring everywhere up to painted bike lanes, let alone protected lanes.
I wish I were wrong though.
-
I don't live in the space you're describing. I live in a space where the bike lane is 2 cm. And then there's a ditch. And the cars go really fast, and there's tons of huge to trucks too. You literally can't ride your bike a mile without risking your life every single time. I want to see that fixed. Yeah barriers and all the nice things would be great, but I want to be able to ride a bike. I can't do that right now. I think we should fix all of those places, even just making it 0.6m /2 feet wide of a shoulder on the road with no other markings or protections would make me ecstatic. So forgive me for not giving a fuck about protected bike lanes at this point in my life.
-
-