Won’t anybody think of the poor cars? But seriously, resources are better utilised by bicycles to the benefit of all. There are no losers here other than the oil companies and car manufacturers.
I don’t disagree with the plans to make the city careless. I answered the question what would be so bad about cycling. I think the time factor is often forgotten when talking about cycling and public transport
The time factor is always forgotten when discussing ways to make society more efficient. As if the primary thing that the working poor are poor in isn’t time itself.
Time, as a resource to be paid for these various solutions, is treated like a throwaway resource. IMO it’s positively dehumanizing to wantonly allocate other people’s time like that.
How is a driving person going to benefit from there being more people biking exactly?
Think that through. Why are there more people biking? Because the cost of driving went up.
If those who drive benefit from this system, it will mean more people choosing to drive as a result of driving being more valuable.
Don’t think you’re making the utility of cars better by this. If it made cars more useful it would result in more car trips. If it makes cars more useful and doesn’t result in more car trips, it must have forced some subset of people to stop using cars for the other drivers’ benefit.
The costs don’t have to go up at all. Merely uncover the costs that are already there but hidden. Everything from noise, space usage, wars in far off countries, lack of exercise, or just the surprise $1200 repair expense.
No, lose it making money to maintain and feed the car ( how many working hours a year that is?) and sitting in a car for an hour in one direction. Correct time of commuting is time spent in traffic + time spent to earn the money for fuel. If you bikemute, you can actually consider a part of that time as free gym.
I think that the problem here is that your definition of “losing” equates to “slight reduction in the massive subsidy that society provides to drivers, and forcing them to drive slower in cities because the lanes are narrower so that other people don’t have to die.” Yeah, technically “losing,” but it still sounds pretty childish to complain about.
I don’t really know that taking a person’s chosen lifestyle away is gonna make them happier, or that we have the right to force people for the sake of happiness.
Health wise, maybe. Maybe they have more stress because they spend more time in their car due to reallocation of road space from cars to bikes.
You’re dancing around the fact that you are taking from and giving to. It’s a reallocation of wealth from one group to a different group.
I don’t get why people are just one or the other. I use a car, a bicycle and I walk. I experience shitty cyclists when in my car, shitty car drivers when I’m riding the bike, and as a pedestrian, usually both groups can be shitty lol
Whenever I tell people I like to walk places they always say something along the lines of “aren’t you wasting your investment in your car and insurance?”
No, I’m not. I have to pay for my insurance to get to work most days. I can still save money on gas/wear and tear by walking. This also saves carbon from the atmosphere, in theory lets me keep my car for a longer period of time, and walking is better for my physical and mental health.
By giving more space to bicycles, that space can be used by many more people at the same time. Wherever this was done, congestion reduced and traffic improved for all participants.
It’s only a zero sum game if they view driving as an essential and immutable part of themselves, and even then, not really.
Charging adequate prices for street parking, for example, guarantees that you’ll always be able to park easily if you need to, a luxury not provided by free parking.
And then, of course, they could always just get out of their cars and immediately start benefitting from the changes.
zero sum in that there is limited amount of space… so space from something but be subtracted in order to add it to the space of something else….
it’s not a metaphor, it’s about the total being the same. it’s mathematical and squarely fits the definition of zero sum.
what? no it doesn’t, and yeah people need some sort of transportation and the city will have limited space to accommodate all of those.
so in that sense: zero sum.
Yep. Lots of times road traffic is worsened in order to improve bike infrastructure with no simultaneous improvement of non-bike alternatives like public transit. Not everyone can replace their cars with bikes, especially not in America.
Because the cities are being actively altered in a way that transfers space and other resources from cars, to bikes.
Zero sum game, resources being reallocated, obviously the people whose resources are being taken away are going to view that as a war.
Won’t anybody think of the poor cars? But seriously, resources are better utilised by bicycles to the benefit of all. There are no losers here other than the oil companies and car manufacturers.
ironically, they win.
whenever the road diet where i live, traffic improves. because it slows down to one lane and it prevents accidents.
Oops sorry I just noticed your last sentence. Yes there are losers. They include all the people whose lifestyles involve driving.
Pretending otherwise is childish and lame.
And what exactly are those people going to lose if they get on a bike sometimes? Their diabetes?
I’m going to lose my lifetime, literally, by biking a total of 80+ km to work and back. And public transportation takes 2+ hrs one way.
So how does more bike lanes in inner cities affect that?
Then when you get into the city, you’ll benefit immensely from 80% of the people being on separated bike paths rather than cars on the road.
There’s no realistic plan where cities become carless, but can they not be the default?
I don’t disagree with the plans to make the city careless. I answered the question what would be so bad about cycling. I think the time factor is often forgotten when talking about cycling and public transport
The time factor is always forgotten when discussing ways to make society more efficient. As if the primary thing that the working poor are poor in isn’t time itself.
Time, as a resource to be paid for these various solutions, is treated like a throwaway resource. IMO it’s positively dehumanizing to wantonly allocate other people’s time like that.
How is a driving person going to benefit from there being more people biking exactly?
Think that through. Why are there more people biking? Because the cost of driving went up.
If those who drive benefit from this system, it will mean more people choosing to drive as a result of driving being more valuable.
Don’t think you’re making the utility of cars better by this. If it made cars more useful it would result in more car trips. If it makes cars more useful and doesn’t result in more car trips, it must have forced some subset of people to stop using cars for the other drivers’ benefit.
The costs don’t have to go up at all. Merely uncover the costs that are already there but hidden. Everything from noise, space usage, wars in far off countries, lack of exercise, or just the surprise $1200 repair expense.
No, lose it making money to maintain and feed the car ( how many working hours a year that is?) and sitting in a car for an hour in one direction. Correct time of commuting is time spent in traffic + time spent to earn the money for fuel. If you bikemute, you can actually consider a part of that time as free gym.
They’re losing the ability to use their car with the same level of utility as before.
You’re squirming to not recognize this basic fact. It takes a lot of energy expenditure to not acknowledge this fact.
Just be okay with what you’re doing. Own it.
I think that the problem here is that your definition of “losing” equates to “slight reduction in the massive subsidy that society provides to drivers, and forcing them to drive slower in cities because the lanes are narrower so that other people don’t have to die.” Yeah, technically “losing,” but it still sounds pretty childish to complain about.
However, they’d on average be healthier and happier, that’s not losing.
I don’t really know that taking a person’s chosen lifestyle away is gonna make them happier, or that we have the right to force people for the sake of happiness.
Health wise, maybe. Maybe they have more stress because they spend more time in their car due to reallocation of road space from cars to bikes.
You’re dancing around the fact that you are taking from and giving to. It’s a reallocation of wealth from one group to a different group.
The group with wealth taken away loses.
I don’t see how this isn’t a win for car-people and bike-people.
All of that is beside my point.
I don’t get why people are just one or the other. I use a car, a bicycle and I walk. I experience shitty cyclists when in my car, shitty car drivers when I’m riding the bike, and as a pedestrian, usually both groups can be shitty lol
Whenever I tell people I like to walk places they always say something along the lines of “aren’t you wasting your investment in your car and insurance?”
No, I’m not. I have to pay for my insurance to get to work most days. I can still save money on gas/wear and tear by walking. This also saves carbon from the atmosphere, in theory lets me keep my car for a longer period of time, and walking is better for my physical and mental health.
By giving more space to bicycles, that space can be used by many more people at the same time. Wherever this was done, congestion reduced and traffic improved for all participants.
It’s only a zero sum game if they view driving as an essential and immutable part of themselves, and even then, not really.
Charging adequate prices for street parking, for example, guarantees that you’ll always be able to park easily if you need to, a luxury not provided by free parking.
And then, of course, they could always just get out of their cars and immediately start benefitting from the changes.
zero sum in that there is limited amount of space… so space from something but be subtracted in order to add it to the space of something else….
it’s not a metaphor, it’s about the total being the same. it’s mathematical and squarely fits the definition of zero sum.
That accepts the framing that we’re designing for cars/bikes/peds. We’re not. We’re designing for people, whether they’re in a car, on a bike, etc.
In that sense it’s very much not zero-sum.
what? no it doesn’t, and yeah people need some sort of transportation and the city will have limited space to accommodate all of those.
so in that sense: zero sum.
Whether the road space is dedicated to cars or bikes, it’s still dedicated to people.
of course
Yep. Lots of times road traffic is worsened in order to improve bike infrastructure with no simultaneous improvement of non-bike alternatives like public transit. Not everyone can replace their cars with bikes, especially not in America.