That’s like saying “I’m pro-life and anti-gun control”.
Oh. Wait.
Edit: Guy confirmed that he is, indeed, pro-life and anti-gun control.
That’s like saying “I’m pro-life and anti-gun control”.
Oh. Wait.
Edit: Guy confirmed that he is, indeed, pro-life and anti-gun control.
I’m anti bike lane. Roads should be for bikes and pedestrians. Cars should get their own single separated lane on the occasional road.
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. They are not needed unless you consider the entire street to be for cars by default.
Also dave is an idiot. Maximum capacity would be a cycle and transit only street because those have the highest throughput per lane. Cars are incredibly space inefficient.
They’re better when they protect cyclists from cars with more than paint. I ride, and I’m less of an arsehole to drivers when I have a separated lane with as good or better rights than the cars
I would like to see streets slowed down and bike infrastructure better protected on roads. I don’t need bike lanes on streets, as almost all of them are pretty safe for cyclists — drivers seem happy to go slower and leave metres of space when passing
Relevant not just bikes about the streets in Tokyo that prioritise pedestrians: https://youtu.be/jlwQ2Y4By0U
Slight disagreement there. Streets are for pedestrians and bikes and trams and the occasional car (in a dedicated car lane). Roads (as in large arterial roads in very limited areas, meant for fast travel between faraway zones when trains are inconvenient, or highways between cities) can be considered as intended for cars, and even those should have pretty good space dedicated to bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Given that a car is a priviledge in most (all?) of the world, I’d argue there should be absolutely zero car-only infrastructure because it creates second class citizens for which some parts of the street are inaccesible.
Think of it this way, would you support the creation of a sidewalk in which only people who own a 50k ring can go?
Only because its funny. Yes.
A bus in a kind of car. Biking 30km in one go is a bit much too.
@Tlaloc_Temporal @stevedice One of those carries 30-100 people with lower carbon emissions, using significantly less road space, is highly affordable, and is driven by a professional driver.
The other is a private car.
Busses use car infrastructure, is my point. Almost all car infrastructure can be used to run busses. You can expand that to most utility vehicles too, postage trucks and garbage trucks need to get around too. There is no such thing as car-only infrastructure. Car-centric, sure, but not car-only.
“Robert Moses” has entered the chat
Busses can use car infrastructure, but sometimes they use mode-specific infrastructure that cars cannot use.
Like what? Are there special roads that busses can drive down but a sedan gets stuck on? Some kind of road made especially for the tires of the bus and no other vehicles? Like a tram system, or gondolas maybe?
Cars and busses are both road vehicles, and roads serve them both. We can put up signs and write rules about which vehicle can go where, but those are basically free to change.
The best kind of correct!
I very clearly meant private cars, friend. Come on.
Private jets are also a privilege, should we demolish all airports? Private schools too, should we have no education-only infrastructure?
The issue with car-centric infrastructure is that it prioritizes expensive and inefficient systems over others. It’s the priority that’s the issue, not the existence of roads at all.
What would car-only infrastructure even look like? A highway that busses aren’t allowed on? No utility vehicles? No firefighters?
Public airports aren’t exclusive to private jets and private schools aren’t publicly funded.
Please be more careful next time, you’re scaring all the birds.
Every single road where pedestrians or alternative modes of transportation aren’t allowed and isn’t part of a public bus route is car-only infrastructure.
These exist. You are aware these exist, right?
Roads aren’t exclusive to cars and most of the private schools around here do receive public funding. Just because something is used poorly doesn’t mean it’s completely useless.
The only road around here that pedestrians and bicycles are explicitly barred from are the freeways, where blocking traffic is very dangerous, but busses, utility vehicles, and industrial vehicles use those all the time.
No, I’m not aware of public roads where it’s physically impossible to run a bus line or ride a bike. If a sedan can use it, a bike can use it. If a delivery truck can fit, so can a bus.
I am aware of roads too dangerous to bike on and roads too sparce of destinations to run busses on, but that’s because of how roads are used, not a condemnation of roads themselves. If the city decides to add a bus route to a road, no infrastructure needs to be changed. If someone decides to send a charter bus or shuttle, the roads are open to them.
Part of me wants to correct all the ways youre wrong; part of me wants to clap.
Aaaaaand we’re 3 for 3 with bad the faith comments.