• “unsafe for both”? What is the bike going to do to the car? Scratch the paint? Get blood on the tires?

      That said, I agree that separated bike infrastructure saves lives and encourages biking by making people feel safer.

      •  mreiner   ( @mreiner@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        77 months ago

        I mean, if a car doesn’t see a cyclist until the last moment, swerves to avoid it, and hits something else, the cyclist being there created a dangerous situation for the driver.

        Even just considering a driver hitting a cyclist, the driver still has to live with that outcome for the rest of their life. Unless your expectation is that the driver is a psychopath who only cares about the condition of their vehicle, which I suppose is a possibility.

    • Agreed.

      If a city wants to reduce cars on the road, buses/trains/subways yeah that helps a little bit.

      But make a dedicated network where it’s only pedestrians, bikes and electric vehicles under a certain speed limit. Especially if it’s covered in some way,

      There a TON of people that would absolutely prefer that over cars

    • I hate riding my bike in the street for exactly this reason. I really shouldn’t be of the mindset that every time I get on my bike could be my last.

    • The Woodlands Development north of Houston did this very well in the first phase of development. Bike paths wound through the woods on the backside of property while streets wound through the front. This gave more street facing property while bike travel was typically shorter distances. It was really amazing. It was abandoned for more square property lines and conventional development in later phases.