mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
some do, some don’t. but people on this forum seem to care about ending the tyranny of the automobile, i’m just not sure how many understand the cause and effect relationship.
How to improve bike and pedestrian safety
- Thread starter Alaskan
- Start date
Out of curiosity, are all automobiles tyrannical, or just those powered by dino squeezings?
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
i’m referring to their effect on urban planning, which is the primary driver of the bike-unfriendliness of our cities. doesn’t really matter if electric or gas, i suppose.
their effect on the environment, health, etc is probably pretty far off topic here!
This is a timely topic because there was a blurb from a local newspapers facebook page that our county commissioners are going to lower the speed limits on several roads "for safety" reasons. The speed will be lowered from 50mph to 35. I am skeptical, a few years ago they tried to lower the speed on several roads so there could be more loops for ATVs to ride on. ATVs are only allowed on roads with speed limits of 35 or lower. Since speed limits are seldom enforced here, I doubt that safety is the reason for this. I guess one has to go sit through their next meeting to find out which roads.
ATVs are godly in this area. More of them = more recreation dollars for a few businesses.
ATVs are godly in this area. More of them = more recreation dollars for a few businesses.
Now I understand. My perception is that planners do what they do because it is what the population wants. Although he has moved, our city planner used to live across the street from me.
If biking is not a big thing (in the past) in an area, why would appropriate infrastructure be included in the plan? Not a lot more disturbing than allocating resources to things that won't be used by many.
In the present, biking is a bigger thing. Bike friendly being added regularly now.
I do not fault planners of the past for doing what they did then. I do fault planners if they do not change to meet current needs.
PatriciaK
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Pacific Northwest and Piedmont Triad
The tyranny is in the fact that our public spaces have been designed to prioritize automobile convenience over everything else, in the US.
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
well, yes and no. "planners" are supposed to be thinking of the future, not the present and the past. that's why it's urban "planning" and not urban reacting. the profession was very slow to react to the well known societal and environmental ills of sprawl and auto-centric planning. lots of theories and conspiracy theories about why that is/was, from being in the pocket of the auto industry, given too much sway to local opinion of the moment, to honestly believing it was the right thing to do and a way towards a better/more mobile society. now we see the effects with perfect hindsight - an obese, ailing population, millions of injuries and tens of thousands of deaths a year on the road, social isolation and depression, habitat destruction, pollution of a dozen kinds, a massive housing affordability crisis, a huge trade deficit to supply us with vehicles and fuel and rubber, etc etc etc.
I agree in principle. Should planners be designing around Jetson style transportation now? News flash no one can predict needs for 10 years from now. Everything being planned now is based on 20/20 hindsight.
Comparing infrastructure needs between countries (or for that matter cites) with drastically different population densities really doesn't make sense either. One size does not fit all.
Countries by Population Density | Countries by Density 2024
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
I agree in principle. Should planners be designing around Jetson style transportation now? News flash no one can predict needs for 10 years from now. Everything being planned now is based on 20/20 hindsight.
Comparing infrastructure needs between countries (or for that matter cites) with drastically different population densities really doesn't make sense either. One size does not fit all.
Countries by Population Density | Countries by Density 2024
worldpopulationreview.com
flat density is not a meaningful statistic - most of russia, canada, the untied states, etc is essentially uninhabited or very sparsely inhabited with a teeny fraction of the population. population-weighted density is the statistic you want, which measures how densely people actually live, not how much empty land there is…
one has to think of it from both sides. it’s not a classic chicken-egg problem but there certainly are elements of that…
And that's why I added cities.
In my opinion the train system in Europe makes sense, would not make sense in US.
Subway makes sense in Montreal and NYC. Would not make sense in any city in Iowa.
I could see local use of monorails under some conditions. For example, after the big one in New Orleans, I would have closed down the flooded neighborhoods and moved housing out a bit with a monorail into the city.
In my opinion the train system in Europe makes sense, would not make sense in US.
Subway makes sense in Montreal and NYC. Would not make sense in any city in Iowa.
I could see local use of monorails under some conditions. For example, after the big one in New Orleans, I would have closed down the flooded neighborhoods and moved housing out a bit with a monorail into the city.
PatriciaK
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Pacific Northwest and Piedmont Triad
We need to plan, and start acting, based on what we KNOW, right now, about our impending climate disaster. We KNOW that dependence on fossil fuels has to end. We KNOW that the way we currently plan and design our communities contributes dependence on those fuels. We KNOW that walking, cycling, and public transportation are healthier, more efficient, and better for our climate. We just lack the will to make the changes we need. When it's too late, there will be much weeping, wailing, moaning and nashing of teeth... But until then, it's business as usual.
So, is it fossil fuels or the general tyranny of automobiles that is most offensive? Do you own, lease or periodically rent a motor vehicle or motorcycle? If yes, why? Addicted? Love the "dependence on fossil fuels" tagline; keep the troops riled up! There are times when walking and cycling are appropriate, there are times when motor vehicles are appropriate.
I agree that it is a good thing to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, but not "at any cost". Many are proponents of Personal Responsiblity.
"We KNOW that walking, cycling, and public transportation are healthier, more efficient, and better for our climate." Nice grouping, and I agree they are likely to affect climate less. I disagree that in general thay are more efficient (depending on your definition of efficient), with the exception of in some big city downtowns. Not sure how public transportation is healthier for me.
There was just a $1.2 Billion Interstate bridge replacement in my community; personally disagreed with the expense, but what the heck it was mostly federal $. Even though there are 2 other bridges in town that service pedestrians and cycles just fine, they included the equivalent of another lane on this Interstate for ped/cycle. Probably fairly small % of project, but still unecessary.
Gotta love Mathew 13:42.
Comfortably Numb
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. I walked, rode and took transit for over twenty years.
I owned a car for less than three years of the twenty and put only 10K miles on it.
My brain is simply not wired for car ownership. Still don't own one, and never will again.
I couldn't give a rat's a** about traffic either and used to just laugh and laugh prior to retiring at all the whiners at work disparaging the city from putting bike lanes in. The more the better IMO.
CN
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
we own a car. two - actually! but they get a few thousand miles a year or something, a few road trips to visit family, a couple errands a month. bikes and e-bikes have been a great supplement to walking and transit.
tomjasz
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Minnesnowta
Blather.
jhonmartin692
New Member
- Region
- United Kingdom
I assume Lowering speed limits in areas where bikes and pedestrians are present can improve bike and pedestrian safety.
Or disallow peds/cycles on certain urban roads.
PatriciaK
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Pacific Northwest and Piedmont Triad
Lowering speed limits, raising sidewalks and bike lanes (like in the video), providing physical barriers (instead of "magic paint") between motorized vehicles and bikes, there is a lot that COULD be done to improve safety - we just need to give up the belief that motorized vehicles are entitled to the roads at the expense of everything else.
PatriciaK
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- Pacific Northwest and Piedmont Triad
Tom, it's just another addition to the ignore list
.
Last edited:
Similar threads
