▲ 52 ▼ Cities Start to Backpedal on Bike Lanes: A Growing Crisis for Cyclists (momentummag.com) submitted 2 years ago by _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works [M] to c/micromobility@lemmy.world 8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Skunk@jlai.lu 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) North American cities* permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where I live in Western Australia they're not ripping bike lanes out per se, but existing bike infrastructure is just pitiful, and improvements are so painfully slow. There's just no cycling culture here. It's considered a sport rather than a mode of transport. It's not really clear whether scooters are going to have a positive impact by increasing demand for this infrastructure, or a negative impact by increasing animosity towards anything which is not a car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Skunk@jlai.lu 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Where I live in Western Australia they're not ripping bike lanes out per se, but existing bike infrastructure is just pitiful, and improvements are so painfully slow. There's just no cycling culture here. It's considered a sport rather than a mode of transport. It's not really clear whether scooters are going to have a positive impact by increasing demand for this infrastructure, or a negative impact by increasing animosity towards anything which is not a car. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Skunk@jlai.lu 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) Bike lanes have no future in cities that also do not adopt a public transit first approach to city planning and development. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] AceBonobo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because as population increases so will the car congestion. The city can’t physically move skyscrapers further apart, so they’ll sacrifice bike lanes to support cars. If they instead invest in public transit reducing the need for cars in the first place, then there will be plenty of space for bikes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JC1@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago You're right that this is the thinking. But it's so wrong though. I'm quite sure that a strong bike network reduces cars on the road, aiding car congestion. But you're right that it's not what people perceive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago What does that really mean though? Pretty sure any city would tell you that they're doing their best to improve public transport. The only question is whether their efforts would meet your subjective definition of "public transport first". permalink fedilink source parent [–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 2 years ago I am all for public transit, but I still disagree with that statement. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AceBonobo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because as population increases so will the car congestion. The city can’t physically move skyscrapers further apart, so they’ll sacrifice bike lanes to support cars. If they instead invest in public transit reducing the need for cars in the first place, then there will be plenty of space for bikes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JC1@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago You're right that this is the thinking. But it's so wrong though. I'm quite sure that a strong bike network reduces cars on the road, aiding car congestion. But you're right that it's not what people perceive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because as population increases so will the car congestion. The city can’t physically move skyscrapers further apart, so they’ll sacrifice bike lanes to support cars. If they instead invest in public transit reducing the need for cars in the first place, then there will be plenty of space for bikes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JC1@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago You're right that this is the thinking. But it's so wrong though. I'm quite sure that a strong bike network reduces cars on the road, aiding car congestion. But you're right that it's not what people perceive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JC1@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago You're right that this is the thinking. But it's so wrong though. I'm quite sure that a strong bike network reduces cars on the road, aiding car congestion. But you're right that it's not what people perceive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago What does that really mean though? Pretty sure any city would tell you that they're doing their best to improve public transport. The only question is whether their efforts would meet your subjective definition of "public transport first". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works [S] 1 point 2 years ago I am all for public transit, but I still disagree with that statement. permalink fedilink source parent
all 9 comments