What they're missing is the simple fact that the more people who ride bikes, the fewer parking spots you need!
I still say we should re-brand bike lanes as "Get bikes out of the way of our wonderful precious cars lanes" and then maybe they will realize that bike lanes make driving better too.
Theyre ripping out already installed bike lanes in Toronto, after their own reports indicate it wont likely help congestion. They won a court case to override the city and do it.
I cant wait to see the stats showing more accidents and more congestion and how it was stupid pandering to the low IQ voters and big oil, and the connection the premier has to the removal people earning $$$.
It's insane to me that a province would think it knows more than a municipality about how best to utilize its infrastructure. City administration would have a much better idea of how the bike lanes are doing and what ripping them up would do to traffic.
The problem with that logic is this is a residential area. Getting people out of cars and into cycling is great and reduces how often cars are needed. All good things, but probably not enough to eliminate the need for cars.
When I lived downtown, I was able to walk or take the train almost everywhere. But there were always a few remaining things where I needed a car. It was great having the option to rarely use a car but I wasn’t able to get away from the need to have one. It greatly reduced how often I used a car but did not at all rescue that I needed a parking spot
Assuming this is residential and the spots were needed, we’d be better off finding a long term storage solution for cars, an alternate location for vehicles that are needed but rarely used
But I’ll agree with your logic if this is mostly retail
Every house has a driveway and there's almost always one car in the driveway an one car parked in the street out front. There is some retail that relies on street parking, but when bike lanes go in, such businesses always seem to find that it leads to more people being able to get to their businesses instead of fewer. I agree having bike-able neighborhoods doesn't eliminate the need for cars. Heck I have a car that I hardly ever use and have off-street parking available so I recognize my car privilege, but it might reduce the need for two-car families. Or at least reduce the number of families so dependent on having both cars with immediate access to the street at all times that they couldn't park both cars in the driveway.
There's also an elementary school along the route, a park and community center, and a little local grocery market, which would all become safely bike-able for families. It really seems like it would improve the quality of life and not be such a major inconvenience. I saw a few "We support bike lanes on Hopkins St." in yards. It sounds more to me like a vocal minority of curmudgeons gumming up the works as usual.
Here's a map of the bike lane network in Berkeley. Not bad but you'll notice the vast majority of streets don't have them, including some that are quite busy. And some of these existing lanes aren't really safe with the speed of traffic on them.
I'm allowed to have an opinion on it. And If you make poor, false arguments, expect pushback.
And I'd wager good money that the residents of Berkeley are for it, which is why the council voted for it 7-2. But there are always going to be entitled children who whine about things nonetheless.
Sometimes. But this statement shows a very poor understanding of politics. Politicians don't just do unpopular things for fun. They do them when their political constituency demands it. And that constituency can only override political will when they have a lot of unaccountable power.
Flock is popular with cops. That's why flock gets approved. There's no major institutional force out there pushing for bike lanes. Just grassroots advocates. If anything, you can see from this lawsuit how wealthy people are opposed to it, so it must be really popular to override that.
But regardless, taking issue with my evidence but only offering your own feelings in return is a very weak argument. So I'd say put up or shut up.
Maybe someone should invest in building a paid parking deck if it's sucg a problem, instead of relying on public infrastructure to support inefficient transportation.
Have you been to Berkley? It’s the least car-friendly city in the Bay Area. Has great public transportation. Again, it’s a poor example for a fuck cars argument.
Have you been? You keep spelling it wrong lol. Public transportation there is far from perfect. And as someone that rode a bike there as my primary mode of transportation for 4.5 years (aside from walking and the occasional bus ride when the route was convenient), I can confidently say it's in definite need of some updated biking infrastructure. There were some very sketchy places to ride.
I lived there from 2017-2022. I saw some of those upgrades, and I have been back a few times. As was mentioned with that map, is that some of those bike paths still aren't exactly safe with how close you are to traffic. Many of those are just cross streets with a bicycle painted on the ground.
Here's a map of proper bike lanes, and areas of high and low stress in the city. You can see there's still work to be done. Don't get me wrong, you can get around most places, but those high stress areas are hard to avoid sometimes.
Here's what some of those "paths" look like from that original map posted above.
And here is the street in question, for the proposed upgrade.
Exactly, the fuck cars movement already won in Berkeley. Calm the fuck down and let the residents park their cars. And STFU if you don’t drive or bike in Berkley on a regular basis.
Park their cars where? On public streets restricting their intended use? Why are you trying to prevent cars from driving in the road because you don’t have a place to put your car?
Yeah that's why I said I doubt it, not I know for a fact that's not the case. Because I don't know first hand. That's literally what the text of my comment implies and was meant to imply.
The doubt comes from the fact that I literally can't envision any scenario at all whatsoever where prioritizing car parking anywhere for anything is actually beneficial to anyone, including car users themselves.
79 replies
What they're missing is the simple fact that the more people who ride bikes, the fewer parking spots you need!
I still say we should re-brand bike lanes as "Get bikes out of the way of our wonderful precious cars lanes" and then maybe they will realize that bike lanes make driving better too.
Theyre ripping out already installed bike lanes in Toronto, after their own reports indicate it wont likely help congestion. They won a court case to override the city and do it.
I cant wait to see the stats showing more accidents and more congestion and how it was stupid pandering to the low IQ voters and big oil, and the connection the premier has to the removal people earning $$$.
Yeah, I saw that. Such infuriating stupidity.
It's insane to me that a province would think it knows more than a municipality about how best to utilize its infrastructure. City administration would have a much better idea of how the bike lanes are doing and what ripping them up would do to traffic.
The problem with that logic is this is a residential area. Getting people out of cars and into cycling is great and reduces how often cars are needed. All good things, but probably not enough to eliminate the need for cars.
When I lived downtown, I was able to walk or take the train almost everywhere. But there were always a few remaining things where I needed a car. It was great having the option to rarely use a car but I wasn’t able to get away from the need to have one. It greatly reduced how often I used a car but did not at all rescue that I needed a parking spot
Assuming this is residential and the spots were needed, we’d be better off finding a long term storage solution for cars, an alternate location for vehicles that are needed but rarely used
But I’ll agree with your logic if this is mostly retail
Every house has a driveway and there's almost always one car in the driveway an one car parked in the street out front. There is some retail that relies on street parking, but when bike lanes go in, such businesses always seem to find that it leads to more people being able to get to their businesses instead of fewer. I agree having bike-able neighborhoods doesn't eliminate the need for cars. Heck I have a car that I hardly ever use and have off-street parking available so I recognize my car privilege, but it might reduce the need for two-car families. Or at least reduce the number of families so dependent on having both cars with immediate access to the street at all times that they couldn't park both cars in the driveway. There's also an elementary school along the route, a park and community center, and a little local grocery market, which would all become safely bike-able for families. It really seems like it would improve the quality of life and not be such a major inconvenience. I saw a few "We support bike lanes on Hopkins St." in yards. It sounds more to me like a vocal minority of curmudgeons gumming up the works as usual.
Parking in Berkley is harder to find than the abundance of existing bike lanes
Here's a map of the bike lane network in Berkeley. Not bad but you'll notice the vast majority of streets don't have them, including some that are quite busy. And some of these existing lanes aren't really safe with the speed of traffic on them.
https://bikeeastbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Berkeley-bike-map-2026.pdf
What do you suppose a map of street parking would look like? Does the fact that there is no such map tell us anything?
You know, I’m glad this is up to the residents of Berkley and not some internet warriors on Lemmy.
I'm allowed to have an opinion on it. And If you make poor, false arguments, expect pushback.
And I'd wager good money that the residents of Berkeley are for it, which is why the council voted for it 7-2. But there are always going to be entitled children who whine about things nonetheless.
City council decisions are not a public vote. But hey, that’s like your opinion, man.
Sure, but they're correlated with public opinion. If you've got polling data then feel free to share. But I'm guessing this is the best we've got.
I hate to break it to you, but most city councils give zero fucks about public opinion. See flock.
Sometimes. But this statement shows a very poor understanding of politics. Politicians don't just do unpopular things for fun. They do them when their political constituency demands it. And that constituency can only override political will when they have a lot of unaccountable power.
Flock is popular with cops. That's why flock gets approved. There's no major institutional force out there pushing for bike lanes. Just grassroots advocates. If anything, you can see from this lawsuit how wealthy people are opposed to it, so it must be really popular to override that.
But regardless, taking issue with my evidence but only offering your own feelings in return is a very weak argument. So I'd say put up or shut up.
FWIW, Most of your points here are valid and many against you are not
But, resident or not, arguing against a bike lane in fuckcars isn't going to change any minds.
Maybe someone should invest in building a paid parking deck if it's sucg a problem, instead of relying on public infrastructure to support inefficient transportation.
Have you been to Berkley? It’s the least car-friendly city in the Bay Area. Has great public transportation. Again, it’s a poor example for a fuck cars argument.
Have you been? You keep spelling it wrong lol. Public transportation there is far from perfect. And as someone that rode a bike there as my primary mode of transportation for 4.5 years (aside from walking and the occasional bus ride when the route was convenient), I can confidently say it's in definite need of some updated biking infrastructure. There were some very sketchy places to ride.
"I mean have you even been to Broccoli??"
Go back and check it out. It has been updated. There’s even a map in this thread.
I lived there from 2017-2022. I saw some of those upgrades, and I have been back a few times. As was mentioned with that map, is that some of those bike paths still aren't exactly safe with how close you are to traffic. Many of those are just cross streets with a bicycle painted on the ground.
Here's a map of proper bike lanes, and areas of high and low stress in the city. You can see there's still work to be done. Don't get me wrong, you can get around most places, but those high stress areas are hard to avoid sometimes.
Here's what some of those "paths" look like from that original map posted above.
And here is the street in question, for the proposed upgrade.
From european perspective these streets look plenty wide to me - to fit bike lanes and parking just fine.
Maybe some of those lanes (when there is 2 lanes going to same direction) could be even made bus lanes.
What is general speed limit in roads like these in us?
25 mph (~40 kmh) usually.
That’s well put together comment. Upvoted.
Good public transit can be argued to be car-friendly tho, as it reduces traffic jams. At least, that is what I tell carbrained people.
I have a dream of a world where bikes, cars and public transit can all live together in peace and harmony.
Globally, or just there in that country?
Answered with a down vote like a child.
It’s ok friend. Internet downvotes don’t define you.
No no, I feel like this is just signs that its working.
Exactly, the fuck cars movement already won in Berkeley. Calm the fuck down and let the residents park their cars. And STFU if you don’t drive or bike in Berkley on a regular basis.
No thanks, go put your car somewhere else. The fact you're crying about it means its working as intended for the people who live there.
Park their cars where? On public streets restricting their intended use? Why are you trying to prevent cars from driving in the road because you don’t have a place to put your car?
It seems driving and parking are difficult concepts for some of you.
Being the least bad doesn't mean it's any good
Lucky for you, on a bike you won't need to find car parking spots
Some people would take that as a hint
Berkley is a poor example for the fuck cars arguments
I doubt it
Sounds like you’ve never been there
Maybe stick your commenting on Canadian topics instead of cities you’ve never visited.The previous comment was rude and uncalled for. I apologize.
Yeah that's why I said I doubt it, not I know for a fact that's not the case. Because I don't know first hand. That's literally what the text of my comment implies and was meant to imply.
The doubt comes from the fact that I literally can't envision any scenario at all whatsoever where prioritizing car parking anywhere for anything is actually beneficial to anyone, including car users themselves.
I've been there and you're full of shit.
It's better than most American cities but that's like saying it smells better than most dead fish.
In the last year?
I think it's been slightly more than a year but somehow I doubt they've transformed the entire city in the last 18 months.
InfoSec.pub user, you probably make 6+ figures and haven’t ridden a bike in iver a decade.
To be fair, in my experience that's exactly the kind of person I'd expect to see on a bike.
While these sets do overlap, they aren’t as complete as most might think. There’s still a lot of pinkertons lurking around in that crowd.
Cry about it
Buddy, you can't even make a convincing argument.
Quiet, piggie.
Case in point, you want to make policy that you’ve only seen one side of the story without living the other end of it.