I share many of the New Urbanist ideas for cities, but I can’t cast my lot in with the group because they are screwball-daft when the subject of cars comes up, and will entertain any inconvenience as long as it’s anti-car. I don’t want to ride a got-damned bicycle to work. Most people don’t. Period. So you have to force them out of their cars into something else. If a neighborhood is made sufficiently inconvenient for cars, some will adapt, and some will find a home in a placewhere they can have a car. That’s your choice. If you stay, fine; glad you’re happy. If you go out into the far-flung exurbs because you want to drive, and are willing to endure a few inconveniences, then fine; that’s yhour choice. You’d think the Critics of Everyone Else’s Choices would be happy that people are living far out and taking the train in, but no, a fresh new horror has revealed itself as people continue to show the depthless roiling stinky-pitch of their hearts:
While city planners generally welcome transit hubs to their community, they are concerned that, if improperly located, the stations will actually increase sprawl by encouraging people to drive to rail stations instead of walking, biking or taking the bus.
People are driving to the train.
And PARKING.
The monsters.
Of course, here in Massachusetts we’re in the vanguard of making driving ever more inconvenient for the sake of cyclists. Cutting out full lanes by adding bike lanes and widening the sidewalks has become a feverish habit. And what am I supposed to do when a lane is painted indicated it’s to be ‘shared’ with bikes? Does that mean that all cars in it have to drive as slowly as a bike when one is encountered? Just wondering, I have no intention of going to ‘war’ with any bikes, folks.
In liberal communities, the needs of one bicyclist outweighs the needs of ten thousand motorists.
Because Gaia.
I greatly prefer that if people are going to ride bikes, that they do so on roads or in areas where their hobby can be safely accommodated. Including bikes lanes and what not seems like a good idea as long as the people using it help pay the bill, especially since many of the people riding bikes are wealthy and bike because of ideological choices.
Far too often, people on bikes have disregard for other’s safety and ride where their hobby puts everyone’s lives at risk.
Maybe Washington will come up with a pay by the mile scheme for bikes?
Most bike lanes are poorly designed, a narrow lane next to where cars are parked: a major hazard for road cyclists is parked cars suddenly and unexpectedly opening their doors (a growing problem with people sitting in their cars doing something with their phones before existing their cars, often without checking to see if a bicycle is about to pass them.) If Massachusetts is taking away entire lanes to convert to bike lanes then probably this would reduce the problem at a pretty high cost to motorists.
I don’t know what Massachusetts has in their driver’s manual, but I suspect any “shared lanes” marking has no effect on laws or regulations, but is merely a reminder; except for limited access highways which prohibit vehicles which cannot maintain high speeds (i.e. no bicycles, tractors, or horses), all lanes are shared by all vehicles. You stay behind the vehicle ahead of you unless it is legal and safe to pass. I note that cars often ignore the legal part and sometimes the safe part, when it comes to slowly moving vehicles like bicycles, tractors, etc; I’ve seen some very dangerous passing.
It seems that driving to a bus or train station is pretty efficient. Busses and trains can’t go to everyone’s doorstep but sometimes the destinations are close enough to a stop to make using mass transit worth the effort. Can’t wait to see how autonomous cars disrupt the system.
On bikes, it may be time to require bikes and their riders to both have licenses, get insurance, and undergo safety inspections. Riders need to demonstrate they know the laws. Bikes need to be identifiable in the case of an accident or a crime. It needs to be verified every so many years, that bikes are in good working condition. Riding bikes can be dangerous to the rider and to those around them and some form of insurance is needed to protect both. The revenue generated from licenses and inspections would help pay to maintain and create bike habitat and keep children safe.
I generally think kids should be allowed to ride bikes in exemption of the above but maybe not. Young people are more likely to be in and cause accidents. Also, going through the legalization process at an early age is a great learning experience for their life as a responsible adult.
In theory, bicyclists have to obey the same traffic laws that motorcycles and cars do. In practice, I’ve seen many cyclists ignore many traffic signs when it suits them. However, if police start ticketing cyclists for ignoring stop signs/lights, the word gets around fast so it won’t take much effort from the police to drastically increase cyclist compliance.
Sam
a cyclist who obeys traffic signs far more than most cyclists
To supplement my note above, a couple of months ago I saw a sign “No Right on Red” where another strip had been added below, “Except Bikes.” Of course bikes never paid attention to the first part anyway.
Then a couple of days ago I saw my first green traffic light for bikes (a silhouette of a bike in front of the light). No time to check the whole cycle…[pun intended].