[flagged]
The arrogance of cyclists is truly awe inspiring. Convince a city to spend multiple hundreds of millions on rebuilding infrastructure only to not only not use it, but actively and arrogantly NOT use it just to be the arrogant pricks that they have the image of.
I use to defend cyclists until that particular failure of a project. They worked overtime to ensure that the stereotype was no longer just a stereotype.
Very badly, it was actually a double failure. Due to traffic being restricted to fewer lanes, sitting there in idle increased drastically, actually making the bike lane infrastructure actively worse for the environment. This giving climate change denialists ammo for their handicapped idiotic propaganda.
Several cities have opted to remove their protected bike lanes for exactly the same reasons. Cyclists just don’t use them.
> Several cities have opted to remove their protected bike lanes for exactly the same reasons.
Sure, but many cities are rapidly _expanding_ their network of protected bike lanes because of how widely they're used.
I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect that many more miles of protected bike lanes are being added each year than removed. For example, NYC [1]. For another, here's a compilation of many cities. [2]
What cities are removing bike infrastructure?
[1] https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2023/dot-expand-bike-inf...
[2] https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/the-best-new-u.s.-bike-l...
Not that you probably care, but in most places, investment and growth of cycling results in a net gain for the community and government, both directly and indirectly.
Cycling infrastructure is cheap to put in, cheap to maintain, and has social + health benefits too. The state + city I live in love putting in cycling infra (even if it’s a bit flawed and wonky) because it literally gains money. Road maintenance costs go down, short and long-term health spending decreases because people are healthier.
First reason, at least in the north, is cause it’s below zero for half the year.
Second reason is cause, at least in the south, cause it’s fucking hot
Third reason is cause most of us are incredibly lazy.
Do you have sources that measure your other purported benefits? By source, I mean actual measured sources in a study. Not “it’s true because this article also states it, but does so with bad anecdotes”
I’m not against reducing cars on the road. I am against doing it wrong though.
https://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/injuries/the-bice-study/
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-06...
With the skimming of abstracts, that took < 5 minutes from opening google to typing this. Three will suffice, I trust? I don't have hours to read abstracts for the other fifty.
>at least in the north, is cause it’s below zero for half the year.
Oh, okay, in the north. If you're American, I'm currently north of you unless you happen to be in Alaska, and I bike 9-10 months a year, basically until it gets below zero. Someone forgot to tell Canadians it's below zero here for half the year :)
> it’s also almost like being a cyclist instantly turns you in to an egomaniac with a death wish,
Cyclists are paying far far far far more attention than your average driver. Motorist kills 50k Americans a year.
Don’t even get me started on these completely unregulated motorized bikes zipping down the sidewalks at 30 mph. Those things need to be shitcanned till regulation is in place.
Motorists kill a lot of people per year, bikes don't.