Hacker News Reader

Comment by exabrial | Hacker News Reader

YES, but.... there's a whole part of this that is missing.

Bentonville and Fayetteville have built almost 1000 miles of bike specific, particularly Mountain Biking specific trails, right through town.

This is not the faux "bike friendly" BS crap with "bike lanes" that painted in traffic that everyone ignores... These are not an attempt to squeeze bikes into an automotive infrastructure and all the other crap politicians pull... these are trails through the woods, backyards, down neighborhoods, paralleling sidewalks, etc. This is making Biking a first class citizen.

Very few people are comfortable riding bikes in automovtive traffic. You will eventually get hit by someone posting selfies on instagram or playing their friends in wordle. If cities want actual change, they need dedicated infrastructure for bikes, and these two cities have shown that it absolutely works.

View on HN

Having lived in Bentonville, the trails are absolutely meaningless if there aren't sidewalks off the trail with which to get to final destinations.

I was a pedestrian cyclist there from 2017-2020 and I frequently was walking or riding in the roads or ditches when the sidewalk ran out. Sure, I could get across town, but when I get there, who knows if there's sidewalks?

If I wanted to go grocery shopping and be on a sidewalk/bike trail, I had to go an extra mile out of my way to go under the overpass and through the community college to get to neighborhood market. That trip was already a mile if I rode along the road, so double the distance. That's not making cycling a first class citizen! That's hiding cyclists from cars who are the real first class citizen. I know, I grew up there.

Fayetteville and Rogers get this right(ish), Bentonville wants to pretend they have it right so talent will move there for Walmart after Walmart spent decades making sure brain drain was inevitable by keeping the area "small town" (they bragged about this during my corporate orientation) and fighting density that could have naturally precipitated good pedestrian and biking infrastructure.

And the separate bike lanes through the woods are not some grand way to make cycling first class they are NECESSARY or the rural drivers who come into the "city" would be playing chicken games and trying to run cyclists off the road. When I grew up this was a common thing to joke about!

> who knows if there's sidewalks?

Living in Europe this question doesn't compute at all. Such a foreign idea to even contemplate. If it doesn't have a sidewalk, it must be a country road or a highway right? Couldn't happen in a reasonably densely populated area...?

What a strange thing to read. I've been to dozens and dozens of urban places in Europe that have streets without sidewalks.

Or in many of the places, the sidewalks exist, but are useless because cars are allowed to park on them.

I've never understood how people in wheelchairs are able to get anywhere in most of "civilized" Europe.

I've been all over Europe, and I think the only places I've seen streets without pavements (sidewalks) is in historic town centres.

I think it's a little weird to reply to a counter-example with, essentially, "well I've never seen that, so it must not be a big deal".

Jup. And these historic town centers are increasingly pedestrianized anyhow. so technically they're all sidewalk and no space for cars. :P

One word: stroad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad

USA seems to be unique in the case that they think this design constitutes a finished product.

Edit: the Not Just Bikes youtube channel has great content regarding contemporary urban planning. Here's their video about stroads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

To be fair, Latin America has it far worse in terms of lack of sidewalks, even in wealthier urban areas.

Kuala Lumpur is waving at you. Some of the best beef-broth noodle meals I've had there were sitting on crates next to Jersey Kerb, which was between me and a 6 lane highway of chaos.

Sidewalks went out of style in the 1960s, and a trend that started reversing around 2000. Developers have learned that people like sidewalks and do use them so they are building them again to attract people to build on their lots.

That said, the purpose of said sidewalks is to exercise your dog, or let your kids ride their bikes around. They often don't connect up to anything in a useful way (other than nearby parks and maybe elementary schools - but only if they are very close)

> They often don't connect up to anything in a useful way (other than nearby parks and maybe elementary schools - but only if they are very close)

What should it connect to? Thanks to zoning there is no Café you can go to or a small supermarket or anything else in the vicinity. Not even public transport which then might bring you elsewhere.

Sidewalks went out of fashion because developers thought they took away property sq footage. So a 5000sqft SFH lot became 4800 sqft. But then homeowners realized if kids don’t have sidewalks they’ll play in the streets.

If they could get away with it developers would drop sidewalks completely. It’s only because cities and towns started mandating it that they became fashionable again.

Wait, do you mean that building sidewalks is the developer's responsibility? Do you mean like greenfield development on wholly privately owned land? Around here it's the municipality's job to plan and build (with subcontractors of course) transport infrastructure in new developments, just like power/water/etc infrastructure.

In many places afaik, sidewalks are the responsibility of the property owner.

In a lot of places, that means you only have to build a sidewalk when you're doing some kind of construction on the property. In some Seattle neighborhoods (mostly suburbs), you'll have neighborhoods with 20 houses in a row, and only the 5 or 6 newest houses will have a short sidewalk that is only the length of the property. So you're bouncing back and forth between sidewalks and ditches. Sidewalks just start, end and go nowhere.

That’s crazy.

The developes are planning and building roads too.

An alien concept but sort of explains some things.

>But then homeowners realized if kids don’t have sidewalks they’ll play in the streets.

Which was considered fine at the time and depending on where you live is still fine.

In most suburban streets it would still be fine. Though parents are more paranoid than in 1960. However suburbs need buys roads all over (many are stroads, but the fact of car living means you need busy roads to get around)

I have read that some developers deliberately omitted sidewalks in order to produce the impression of being out in the country--though given the closeness of the houses, the impression must have been pretty vague.

There is a little wedge of Washington, DC, bounded by Oregon Avenue, Western Avenue, and Chestnut St, called "Hawthorne". I used to run through and see signs reading "No Sidewalks in Hawthorne", after a while varied by signs says "Yes, Sidewalks in Hawthorne", but probably fewer. I suppose that this is six miles from the White House by air line, probably seven by road.

(And now there are sidewalks in Hawthorne, at least a few.)

Your shock is reasonable :) most midwestern US States are the size of most European countries, but with 1/10-1/100 of the population. Bentonville/Fayetteville are pretty well off the beaten path, both previously being farm communities, though Bentonville was also a trade hub in the western frotier days. Bentonville is famous from being Walmart's headquarters, which is sort of crazy given how tiny the town is. Fayetteville has a fairly large college. The two cities have really only seen extraordinary prosperity in recent years, so there's not a lot of extra money to spend on stuff that's not always needed, given their history.

It’s a big deal because it’s shovel ready for improvements.

When the Feds someday allocate billions to bike infrastructure, they’ll get the sidewalks, etc.

Imo securing rights of way that can be a framework for a future system is key.

Found the person that worked at Walmart.

Good job! But if OP hadn't mentioned in their comment that they worked at Walmart, would you have still figured it out?

Anybody on hacker news that says they are from Bentonville works at Walmart. I live in Bentonville.

Shopping at Walmart is shopping local when in Bentonville. Always makes laugh.

Just curios, are you guys Java internally? If you can't answer, no worries.

In NYC, a lot of people (especially cops) seem to be under the impression that bike lanes are just extra parking.It's pretty irritating because going around them involves getting on the street, which isn't usually an issue, but occasionally roads in NY get extremely busy, and people in here seem to lack the ability to read speed limit signs (at least in Brooklyn).

I think thats because, for all the progress NYC has made in installing bike infrastructure, they've done basically nothing to reduce the number of cars on our streets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/nyregion/nyc-congestion-p...

https://mashable.com/article/nyc-city-council-lyft-uber-cap-...

Two specific policies, but there’s also just the fact that every bike lane/pedestrian street/bus lane/low speed limit/etc. makes the city less car friendly and at some point that makes a difference.

There should be a banner for any transit discussions that state you cannot optimize environments for both individual cars and non individual car transportion.

It's strange, because NYC is simultaneously overpopulated with cars, but is also one of the only places in the US where you can reasonably live without a car (I don't have one).

It's even stranger when you realize that probably only 20% of trips in New York are conducted by car, and yet they are by far the largest physical presence everywhere you go. Actually quite obnoxious.

> probably only 20% of trips in New York are conducted by car

I’d reckon it’s less than 20%, maybe even as low as 5%. The subway alone has a daily ridership of about 2 million, plus the massive amount of people who just walk or bike to the store, work, etc. I think it seems like more people are using cars than actually are due to their visibility, like you mention—they take up more space, they’re given more space, etc. It’s insane.

In some places the towing companies are directly allowed to tag and tow illegally parked cars, and inpound them until a fine is paid. You need to be very careful about corruption (that is they don't tow legally parked cars), but towing companies could help you as they make money from illegally parked cars.

That might work on civilian cars, but I doubt that a lot of towing companies are going to risk towing a cop car, no matter how corrupt they are. I'm certainly not brave enough to tattle on them.

Yeah, if it is police only properly filed formal complaints (sometimes get one line on the form that they avoid giving you wrong means they throw it away), or getting a large group at all city hall meetings work. Even then it takes persistence.

> You will eventually get hit by someone posting selfies on instagram or playing their friends in wordle.

You will eventually get hit by someone who punishment passes you and is dangerously negligent because they've dehumanized you, and they just don't care if they do violence to you, and its you're fault because you're slow.

Or you will get hit by people who simply don't register bikes and consciously or unconsciously think that bicyclists must yield to cars, sometimes turning left in front of you with no time for you to stop.

Or you will get right hooked by someone who just passed you a second earlier and that is too long for their minds to track the fact that you're still there, or they again think they're entitled to drive however they want and you need to yield to whatever they do.

I bought a dashcam for my car because of bicyclists:

1. randomly wandering out of the bike lane and into the car lane

2. stopped in the middle of the car lane around a blind curve

3. drafting 3 feet behind the panel truck in front of them at 40 mph

4. riding two or three abreast, with the 2 or 3 well into the car lane

5. continuing to cycle at 25 mph in the right hand bike lane while the traffic is going much slower, and there's a right hand turn coming up (it's difficult to spot these bikers while driving, heck, even cars are hard to see there which is why overtaking on the right is illegal)

None of these incidents were kids on bikes, they were all middle aged adults who really should know better.

I talked to a couple of these cyclists (in their tour de france outfits, naturally) once, and they laughed and said if they get hit by a car it'll be their big payday lawsuit. I replied getting crippled isn't worth a billion dollars.

Ride defensively, folks, regardless of what the law says or who is at fault.

Comments like yours are exactly why I'm somewhat predisposed against bike lanes - there is no such thing as a "car lane".

By all means yes, get a dashcam. The more evidence, the better. While driving, I've had a few cyclists come around around blind corners going the wrong way. Any type of road user can be an idiot. But the main commonality of your list is people clashing with your own personal expectations. Don't assume that evidence of such will exculpate you (eg #2).

I expect them to follow the rules. They don't. I'm aware they don't, so I am pretty vigilant of their expectation that they are exempt from common sense.

I took a class in performance driving once. The central rule there is to "be predictable", as that's how accidents are avoided at 200 mph when you're 2 feet off of someone else's bumper.

It's a lesson I took to heart in my everyday driving, and I wish that principle was taught regularly to other drivers, and that cyclists would have a clue about it.

Not following the rules is an issue for all road users. So yes, having that dashcam is a good thing. Getting it because of cyclists is prejudiced.

It is also worth noting that motorists sometimes create the problems themselves. I try to stick to traffic regulations while on a bike since, as you say, being predictable is important. (In fact, it's something that a lot of cyclists in my neck of the woods preach.) Then you get a driver who tries to wave a cyclist waiting to make a left turn through when they have the right of way. No thank you. I have no plans on being road kill because the motorist is trying to be nice, and the guy behind him decides to pass on the right.

Unfortunately, tonnes of situations like that pop up. Stopping for pedestrians when they have the right of way can be quite scary. I have had pedestrians to the right thing (push the button, wait to cross), I've stopped, and the car behind me decides to race through. They had plenty of time to stop. I know because I always do a shoulder check before stopping for pedestrians. Not doing so can be fatal. I have had motorists get angry at me for stopping for pedestrians in intersections where pedestrians had the right of way under similar circumstances.

I realize that this is by no means a one way relationship. Some cyclists are idiots, either taking to many risks or by being to timid. Both result in unpredictability. I also realize that the behaviour of some motorists and some cyclists may be due to a "bad day". Let's face it, some people have to be on their bikes or in their cars even if they know they are unable to be fully attentive.

I also realize that there are many incentives to behave properly on the roads because bad behaviour can have nasty consequences. Unfortunately, it often feels as though a lot of drivers failed basic physics and don't understand their larger mass and higher speeds gives them a great deal more kinetic energy.

> Getting it because of cyclists is prejudiced

Let's explore the prejudice angle.

Not long ago in Seattle, a truck driver was going down a street under the speed limit, passing a line of cars all parked along the side of the road. As he approached a crosswalk, a cyclist suddenly was in the crosswalk, and the driver was unable to stop in time and smacked him, killing him.

The driver was slapped with a huge lawsuit, on the grounds that the cyclist was in a crosswalk.

Fortunately for the driver, there were many eyewitnesses who attested that the cyclist suddenly turned and angled into the crosswalk at high speed. The view of the approaches to the crosswalk were hidden by the parked cars. The driver was judged not at fault, yet there was still a hew and cry in the paper to hang him.

The driver was pre-judged as guilty, and had to prove his innocence. Without several eyewitnesses testifying in his defense, there's no doubt what the outcome would have been.

Hence I have a dashcam.

> it often feels as though a lot of drivers failed basic physics and don't understand their larger mass and higher speeds gives them a great deal more kinetic energy.

And the cyclists need to understand that cars have larger mass and higher speeds and are less maneuverable and have less 360 visibility, hence should not assume that the drivers can see and avoid the cyclist. For their own safety. I do not understand adults failing to look after themselves.

Have you even been in a bus garage? It's basically yellow lines painted everywhere, and associated safety rules around them. They let staff know where buses are supposed to drive, where they are stored, where the pits and hoists are, and so on. If staff ignore the rules, the staff are disciplined. If management tells the staff to ignore the rules, management is disciplined. Heavy machinery has to be dealt with respect, both sides can break the rules, and neither side is presumed to be of blame. Well, at least ideally. If all of that was tossed aside, we would be back to the factory days of a century ago. Lives were lost simply because certain lives were disposable, at least in the eyes of many factory owners. Incidentally, the disposable lives were not those of the factory owners.

Like I said, I understand why you have a dashcam. It can be a valuable tool to prove your innocence should the need arise. The thing I take issue with is the presumed guilt of cyclists. Yes, there are times when cyclists are to blame. On the other hand, there are times when motorists are to blame. Those circumstances are common since most cyclists realize that they are the ones who are going to die. A lot of motorists don't seem to have the realization that they are the ones who can take lives. At least in the moment.

Here are some things that I have encountered as a cyclist:

- I have been in a hit-and-run. The impact was hard enough that I chunk of their car was broken off in the accident and loud enough that people could hear the crash in their houses. Witnesses said there was no way the driver could have not noticed they hit someone, yet they left me for dead. That is not how you treat another human being. I don't know who is to blame here since visibility may have been an issue, though I was following traffic laws to the letter, but the police said the driver's behaviour after the fact was likely the product of drunk driving.

- I have been intentionally hit by a driver. At least that is the only way I can explain it since they were stopped behind me at a red light and decided to go straight through me while I was waiting for an opening to make a left turn. Yes, I was signalling. Again, a hit and run. The police did not want to deal with it.

- The right hook is famous amongst cyclists. Believe it or not, these aren't always the result of cyclists passing to the right. I never pass to the right since I realize that many motorists don't signal turns. (I cannot predict what they will do, so I don't know when it is safe to pass.) Then there is the visibility factor that you mentioned. Yet vehicles will pass me and turn across me on a regular basis. I have even had that happen when the vehicle is in another lane.

- I have had vehicles make left turns from behind me because they are impatient and had poor judgment on the speed of oncoming traffic. I have seen several near collisions between two automobiles because of that, and it places me as a cyclist at greater risk.

- Certain groups of people like to distract cyclists. I'm not talking about people honking or screaming expletives here. I'm talking about people screaming absolutely nonsensical things at me in an attempt to pull my attention from the road.

I'm not bringing up these examples to say that motorists are always to blame. I know they aren't. I've certainly had my sloppy days on the road, though, ironically, those seem to be the times when I had the fewest issues. I'm bringing it up because there are plenty of times when large bundles of kinetic energy aren't following the law and are endangering people's lives. I'm not saying this is because your veering cyclist should avoid the blame. Most of the cyclists I know would frown upon such behaviour even if there wasn't an accident. I'm saying it because there are all too many cases where motorists seem to believe they are never to blame, even when they are not paying attention to the rules of the road themselves, or they make a bad judgment call, or even when they are acting in malice. It's like that because they have no skin to loose in the game (or, at least, not as much).

I am not presuming the guilt of cyclists. I am objecting to the presumed guilt of the driver. I am for assigning guilt fairly based on the evidence. That is why I got a dash cam.

These arguments between drivers and bikes are stupid.

Bikers ride like shit all the time. Drivers drive like shit all the time. Hell, pedestrians do stupid shit all the time too. Nobody is in some superior transportation group.

None of them know the actual rules of the road, and all assume they are correct and the ones in the right. You do any one of these things long enough, you'll see the stupid things the others do.

I think you mean becausr if bicyle infrastructure rather than bicyclists.

Those are all problems with the road, and not limited to bicycles. Eg. I see cars overtake on the right all the time

> I think you mean becausr if bicyle infrastructure rather than bicyclists.

Nope. I thought I was pretty clear. There's no sane reason to park in the middle of the road around a blind corner. Or draft. Or wander randomly in and out of the bike lane into traffic.

> I see cars overtake on the right all the time

It's still illegal, and for good reason.

> It's still illegal, and for good reason.

Not in every state, not every context:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.115

For bikes it is even more nuanced (in my state):

https://www.dugganbikelaw.com/perilous-passing-on-the-right

I never did any of those things back when I was bike commuting and I still got punishment passed regularly and had drivers turn left in front of me when I had the right of way nearly causing collisions (when I was wearing a glaringly bright yellow jacket).

I also never saw any other bicyclists on my commute do anything particularly dangerous or come near to causing collisions. I saw a few of them brake the law, but I saw a lot of cars break the laws as well.

The last time I think I saw a truly dangerous bicyclist was probably 10 years ago when some idiot blew a 4 way hauling ass after coming down a hill and given a minute one way or the other I would have killed him.

I really need to get a dashcam because of all the bad drivers out there though. Just the level of tailgating at highway speeds out there is fucking insanity, with every other driver convinced that their testicles will shrivel up if someone changes lanes in front of them.

It's not a car lane. It's just a lane. There are tractors, construction vehicles, children crossing or playing street hockey, horse drawn carriages, broken down vehicles, construction workers, neighborhood electric vehicles and bicycles which are all allowed to use them.

As an operator of a motor vehicle, it is my responsibility to not endanger or injure other road users. It drives people nuts usually, but I take it seriously. I stop at stop signs and red lights. I take turns slowly. I don't pass in an un-safe manner. I drive slower. Cyclists riding like idiots doesn't really bother me because it doesn't really HURT me in any way. They aren't the ones driving multi-ton machines.

Agreed that the recreational biking infrastructure in NW Arkansas is great, but not enough Fayetteville people bike for transportation for that to be a big part of this outcome. It's just 1% of all commutes, for example. Compare that to 4%-10% in university towns that use a lot of on-street bike lanes that take you more directly to destinations: Eugene, Corvallis, Bozeman, Madison, Fort Collins, Palo Alto, Berkeley, Ann Arbor. (Not saying those cities are perfect either, to be clear.)

It's true that shitty bike lanes on auto-oriented streets are shitty, and that off-street paths are great. But lanes and paths are not the same thing, and neither of them is the reason this policy is working in Fayetteville.

> Very few people are comfortable riding bikes in automovtive traffic. You will eventually get hit by someone posting selfies on instagram or playing their friends in wordle.

And what's worse, I've had drivers stop to yell at me for riding on the (completely empty) sidewalk when crossing a narrow bridge busy with car traffic. As if hundreds of bikers don't die every year from getting whacked by careless drivers.

I can do you one better, I've been yelled out by drivers for riding my bike through a bike lane that happened to be in the way of the turning lane. You just can't win if you're trying to cycle in the US.

Because bikes DO NOT belong on roads. Getting hit by a car while you're on a bike is deadly. A bike running into a pedestrian on a sidewalk is an inconvenience.

Then give them someplace appropriate! As soon as I have dedicated/safe bike lanes, I’ll get out of your road. Until then, please try not to kill me.

I disagree agree with poster, but to play devils advocate bicyclists are a free rider problem on public roads. It's pretty clear based on the design of most roads they were designed for motor vehicles, not bicycles. Fuel taxes are a major way these roads are funded and maintained, and bicyclists don't pay registration / licensing / fuel tax. Especially in heavily urban areas, roads have extremely high land value that bicyclists are unjustly profiting from.

It's not clear to me why there should be any right for bicyclists to be allowed on the road.

I'm not clear that there should be any right for cars to be on the road either. Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous. They're paid for by people who largely don't need them, too - the folks who live in the inner city

People driving fuel consuming vehicles are paying for the roads via fuel tax, and registration fees to the states maintaining those roads. These drivers are funding these roads thus it makes sense for them to be compensated for their payment.

It's conceivable a bicyclist can get away without paying any tax whatsoever on the road, especially if their income is small. Free rider, welfare queens of the road.

>Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous

In urban areas that's actually typically what the sidewalk for, and it's often illegal to walk on the road.

But this is why I'm against public roads, there are all sorts of bad problems associated with this being a public good.

I own two expensive cars that get driven. So, I’m paying my share of fuel taxes and above average registration/property taxes. When the wear cyclists pit on roads becomes a problem, we can discuss mitigating it. But, we’re nowhere near that point.

Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years.

You're probably way overpaying for your use of the road if you have 2 cars. It's just an insane system to have public roads, where people like you are subsidizing large vehicles that wear the road much faster as well as many bicyclists who pay nothing. Public roads where the land value sometimes unjustly supports motor vehicles when bike only roads would far more represent judicial use of public coffers, other times supports free-rider bicyclists when others bear the burden of providing the road.

>Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years.

Historically, thousands of years ago, women commonly died in childbirth, a large fraction of children died before reaching age 5, and the only way for the greatest portion of the population to survive was manual labor in agriculture or some sort of subsistence existence. Most roads at least in US were not built thousands of years ago, a overwhelming portion of the total road area in America was designed with motor vehicle transportation in mind.

To suggest American roads are built as places for walking, for the vast portion of mileage, is just laughable at face and you only have to witness them to see this. And, in many cases, illegal.

Privatize the roads, IMO, and let the market decide how to efficiently allocate costs. It would be the fastest way to move towards more efficient systems in urban areas, such as much more bicyclists rather than wasteful cars. Bicyclists would pay their share, but see that it is very low. Car drivers may just see how wasteful it is to drive everywhere, when the cost is in front of them. It could lead to a rejuvenation and revival of the age of the urban bicyclist -- and just maybe a safer and cleaner world for everyone.

Rights don't depend on what you pay taxes for; those would be fees and services. Roads are generally considered a public good, a commons, not a service you pay for (beyond toll highways)

Bicyclists are a tragedy of the commons. This is yet another reason why I'm in favor of complete elimination of public roads in favor of private/toll roads. There is no 'right' to a bicyclists being provided a free public road in the way there is say a right to free speech.

Access to good roads is among the very few things that is so vastly important to the general prosperity of the population that leaving them to private companies would do more harm than good.

As the dude I overhead in some backcountry bar in the middle of nowhere put it: the government should pay for two things - clean water, smooth roads, and that's it.

I'd argue precisely because they are so important, is why I'm so sure the government should have its hand out of it.

Must not have been back into the country very far as water from a well doesn't need to be supplied by the government and rough roads keeps the outsiders outside.

I'd argue cars are the tragedy of the commons. Roads existed before cars, and they were for people and, yes, bicycles. Cars came and took them over, made them extremely unpleasant and unsafe places to be, require much more infrastructure and are much less efficient for short trips.

Fuel taxes are a major source of funding, but depending on state it is not even the majority. California sits at about 50% funding by fuel tax [1]. Road wear does not scale linearly with vehicle weight either; larger vehicles add significant damage to the roads while pedestrians and bicycles have virtually no impact [2]. This matches my experience as well, a bike and pedestrian only trail in my hometown has been repaved only once in the last thirty years and is in good condition, while the roads have received more maintenance and are in poorer condition.

I would be in favor of moving to a per mile, per pound (scaled by actual wear estimates) axle weight tax system for all vehicles including bicycles. Based on the data though, it could get very expensive for some cars and would likely be nothing but an administrative burden for bicycles.

[1] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ [2] https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...

Cars have a free rider problem. Public transport is expected to pay itself but since car infrastructure is subsidized public transport has to be subsidized to be competitive.

OTOH it's not cyclists that require roads to have extensive groundwork and be ten metres wide

> I've been yelled out by drivers for riding my bike through a bike lane that happened to be in the way of the turning lane. You just can't win if you're trying to cycle in the US.

Some people are jerks in every situation. I don't believe bicyclists stand out as victims, except the expectation that they ride in traffic and the consequences of colliding with a car.

Minneapolis has a lot of bike paths through its city parks (there are a lot of parks in Minneapolis: the chain of lakes, the Mississippi river, etc) and they really enhance the city when snow isn't on the ground.

They enhance the use of parks, they don't make parks more noxious, they increase property values, they keep the city valuable.

E-bikes are going to magnify the value of cities with good biking infrastructure. All of a sudden car trips become bike trips, and there are no concerns about hills or headwinds or towing a burly of stuff: the electric motor handles some or all of the required needed power. Need to haul ten bags of groceries and a kiddo up the big hill on the Mississippi? the electric motor will get you there.

It hopefully will reduce the amount of surface area dedicated to cars, and switch those over to more parks and more recreation.

e-bikes in parks need to be limited in speed though. Don't turn our parks into dangerous for pedestrians bike freeways. Bicycles in walkers do not mix very well, while it isn't as deadly as a car, getting hit by a bike still hurts.

Minneapolis takes biking seriously. In huge amounts of snow and horrible weather!!

Weather down there seems even more conducive.

My dad can bike from their house to downtown in 15 minutes (more like 30 as getting older). It's amazing. Completely protected separate bike lane going through old rail corridor. I can bike to whole foods from there too without having to go on a busy street.

They are expanding light rail there too but seems like similar to most cities it isn't great yet. Hopefully we'll see more density around the stops. My city Denver feels the same it's not actually used as much as it could be.

The town I grew up in spent millions of dollars criss crossing the whole place with bike trails.

Cyclists still just rode on the roads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com