Yes

stop making threads about this alzheimers boomer retard who actively shills for the auto industry and pretends to care about cyclists.

File: consider suicide.jpg (37 KB, 520x600)

37 KB JPG

>>2054733

>>2054733
I think "no bike lanes" is an interesting premise.
>roads keep their functionality
>no matter what the lanes are like there's always some excuse as to why it's not good and why traffic engineers are basically Hitler; never grateful
>some cyclists keep using the road anyway

>>2057102
The issue with the way bike policy is implemented is that it's always shamelessly dishonest. Green paint isn't going to make a 50 year old karen playing with her phone stop playing with her phone. Foam hat isn't going to protect your body when it's run over by 7000 pounds of steel. But karen gets away with murder because policymakers, cops, and courts have unlimited empathy for the driver (the real victim here), and nearly zero for the deceased. So you can just lay down some green paint and make riding without a foam hat a criminal offense and say "see? I care about your safety!"

>>2057103
have you tried, like, not blowing past the stop sign or running red lights?

>>2057104
Have you tried like, putting the phone down and using your eyes before you do a wild maneuver because you almost missed your turn playing fruit ninja?

>>2057108
the only wild maneuvers i had to do was avoiding hitting a suicidal cyclist that jumped in front of my car out of nowhere because he thinks his ego overwrites the laws of physics. could you make an effort and not burden innocent people with the weight of taking a human life, even if that life had the intelligence of a headless chicken?

>>2057132
>they just came outta nowhere!
Yeah that tends to happen when your situational awareness is compromised with a phone and you take a sharp turn across the bike lane without looking or signaling

>>2057103
>Green paint isn't going to make a 50 year old karen playing with her phone stop playing with her phone.
a prison sentence given by a traffic camera catching her with a phone will

>>2057135
yeah bro you ignoring the traffic rules has nothing to do with it, it's always a phone and the driver taking sharp turns towards you and nothing else. what next? "actually they want to kill me woe me the victim"?

>>2057132
strictly speaking he had right-of-way
doesn't make him sane or reasonable, but the burden of coping with insane unreasonable circumstances and people falls on the driver. always. hit something or someone and it is your fault, no matter how much they deserved it.

File: cyclist retard.webm (1.36 MB, 960x720)

1.36 MB WEBM

>>2057137
>inb4 it's the cop cam fiasco except now it's not nigs nigging but cyclists jumping in front of cars instead
i wonder if you can be held accountable if you cause an accident by making a driver attempt to avoid your dangerous maneuvering, resulting in a crash

>>2057140
there's no court or agency on the planet that would find the cyclist at fault here

>>2057138
>ignoring the traffic rules
You don't know what they are, but I'll humor you. Every time I'm not in a bike lane you're mad. Then when I'm in a bike lane and you run over me, I was "ignoring the traffic rules". Ever heard of a turn signal? A rear view mirror?

>>2057137
>a prison sentence for running over someone
Absolutely delusional. The only way to get a prison sentence with a car is to sign a notarized affidavit announcing your intent to do it in the name of ISIS (in advance) and then run over hundreds of photogenic white women while screaming allahu akbar with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.6%. Anything less and it's "no criminality suspected"

>>2057145
Oh sorry I forgot the most important part. Flee the scene of the crime, but only as police are arriving. And be black. Otherwise it's just a tragic, unforeseeable "accident". Or maybe you didn't see all those mangled bodies wedged under your hood. These things happen! Water under the bridge. The driver is the real victim here. Could have happened to any of us.

>>2057103
If you are 100% at-fault for swerving into a cyclist and killing him, there is no state where you won't go to jail for that. I'm not sure if this is just another lie crafted by cyclist/density advocates, an extrapolation of some rare case that happened once somewhere, a genuine belief that cyclists are incapable of doing wrong, or just big mad that the DA doesn't ask for Murder 1, but that just isn't true.

>>2057162
You have no idea what you're talking about

>>2057144
>Then when I'm in a bike lane and you run over me
do you get off on constructing fanciful fantasies to imagine yourself as a victim?

>>2057147
>And be black.
lol, pretending they're held accountable when they dindu nuffin

>>2057166
>You have no idea what you're talking about
I was responding to fanfiction where people can just mow down cyclists and get away with it.

>>2057180
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but Forester documents several instances of pretty much this in his book (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.upi.com/amp/Archives/1987/04/28/Woman-who-killed-four-cyclists-avoids-jail/1344546580800/ is one, note the language, and while I can't immediately find links for the other three the principals were named Swann, Lemmings, and Wichary respectively) and I certainly see news of it happening from time to time e.g. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.krqe.com/news/larry-barker/the-last-ride-fatal-bike-crash-settles-out-of-court-for-1000000/amp/
(read the story before you think "aha, that's a lot of money, hardly 'getting away with it'")

>motorists

lmao these idiots don't even know they are brainwashed

File: monoscape-spherical-700-c(...).jpg (63 KB, 1200x800)

63 KB JPG

>Oh no not the poor distracted driver at the controls of a speeding, 3 ton, climate-controlled mobile living room with more blind spots than some tanks

Forester bases his entire argument on inherently flawed premises. One of them is that bicycles are equal to cars, therefore they deserve equal treatment on roads. The other is that the pseudo-road-racing cycling style he promoted is the only "valid" cycling style (he's openly dismissive of utility cycling).

>>2057103
>Green paint isn't going to make a 50 year old karen playing with her phone stop playing with her phone.
That's the crux of the issue. A green path right next to parked cars is useless. It's just a publicly acceptable way of playing car door whackamole (and "sorry bro, didn't see you" when a car turns right and smacks you). The only proper bike lane is a fully segregated one.
However, and this is (due to historical reasons) chiefly a US problem, "segregation" is a super-bad word, so nobody wants to say it out loud, and people like Forester believe it "demeans their existence" or something along those lines.

>>2058401
Segregation only makes sense if your motive for riding is getting some fresh air on your day off. Drive your bike to the special "segregated bike path", ride it back and forth for a bit, drive it home, get on with your cager life. If you want to make sure nobody rides to work or to the grocery store, it's your ideal solution. You might say the final solution.

>>2056764
This. /thread

>>2058399
>he's openly dismissive of utility cycling
based

>>2057339
There are going to be isolated instances where someone should've gone to jail, but didn't. Finding a news story from 40 years ago (for instance) about a woman who got off with only community service only proves that it's the exception, not the rule.

>>2058480
I got u bro, try this:

https://news.google.com/search?q="no+criminality+suspected"+driver

how do you think it is that they make that determination?

File: drunk tank.webm (2.47 MB, 856x482)

2.47 MB WEBM

>>2058392
dont talk shit about tanks. they are CUTE and have better vision than (You)

>>2058638
Looks like something from Armored Trooper Votoms

i hate modern bike lanes because every city just slaps down a 500m run of it in the middle of nowhere that joins two points with nothing of interest, usually with crazy 99% grade hills either getting to or on the path itself, and declares the city Bike Friendly™

my city did this and it has a literal 30-40% grade CORKSCREW on the one path that actually goes anywhere (across a bridge) but then also
>that Laguna Seca, But Worse corkscrew that leads into an industrial area at one end of the bridge so if you don't wipe out anytime it's below 5*C all you've done is go somewhere with nothing in it
>at the other end the path continues alongside a high-speed road with tons of turn-offs into garages and shit so while it is useful-ish you're guaranteed at least two near-misses on your way anywhere as someone pulls in/out of a parking lot
>put a giant fuckoff tubular steel fence on the corkscrew so you can't even take it into town proper, you HAVE to go down into an industrial area and back up some ridiculously steep hills to get to the trendy part of town where cyclists would hang out
>declared the bridge part of the path a "mixed-use trail" so there's sometimes people walking on it even though there is a proper walkway (no bikes allowed) on the other side, and that walkway doesn't have a fence or corkscrew at the end of it
>if you take the walkway (or god forbid the actual road) as a cyclist you WILL get ticketed because there's traffic cameras and dedicated Bridge Police patrolling 24/7
>didn't even paint lines or widen the path on the bike side so there's two fuckoff huge stanchions creating blind corners where there isn't enough room to pass
i'm pretty sure that intersection is specifically designed to kill people. unrelated to the bike path, there's also a bus stop on it that has its own crescent, but no lights or even walkway markings to get off of that little island. if you take the bus to that stop there is no way to safely, let alone legally, leave the bus stop.

>>2058487
>look mom, i posted it again!

If you're tired of seeing cyclists on public roads we pay taxes for maintaining, then maybe you should stay on highways/freeways. Without further adue, go be fat somewhere else

>>2058482
I would guess in those cases the preliminary evidence suggests those weren't reckless driving incidents, and thus not a criminal case.

NotJustBike's hit piece on Forester: https://youtu.be/pRPduRHBhHI

>>2058656
Funny how the "not a criminal case" examples outnumber the cases with criminal charges by about 500:1

Between 5k and 10k pedestrians are killed by drivers in the US each year. Just think about that for a second and then ask yourself how plausible it is that less than 1% of those results in a criminal case. Does that seem reasonable to you? If the answer is yes you're brainwashed.

>>2058670
>If the answer is yes you're brainwashed.
then what's the point of even asking? if you cross a street on a red light and get hit it's clearly your fault.

>>2058668
>>2058646

>>2058673
Look I know you're at the age when you hate your parents and you want all the nimby boomers to go ahead and die already so you can get a free house but when you're older and matured a little, try crossing literally any crosswalk in america, on the green, with an elderly relative who doesn't have the agility of a cheetah. Do it 2 or 3 times, and then try and tell me that 499 out of 500 pedestrian fatalities are because they were crossing on a red

>>2058670
>Funny how the "not a criminal case" examples outnumber the cases with criminal charges by about 500:1
I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from, and if these are adjusted for drunk drivers or not (taking drunks and other impaired driving would change those numbers), but assuming those statistic is right (which I doubt, but okay), what would an "acceptable" number be? 5%? 25%? 100%?

>>2057143
Except the court that can clearly see the cyclist blowing by a "STOP SIGN" and then cycling across a "Cross walk" which is illegal.

I don't wanna instantly go full pol and r9k here but i'd love to see the statistics for the race and gender of people killing cyclists cause I bet its not white males.

>>2058640
what did you expect them to build for you a bicycle elevator, how long do you want them to build the approach to the bridge just cause you can't go up a grade. Like think about it how much space in the middle of a city are they gonna use to make you a super long 5% grade slope. Also I guarantee you are retarded and the actual grade of your 30-40% corkscrew is close to 10-15% at MAX cause 30-40% is almost fucking vertical you nonce.

>>2058697
bicycling around is a hood classic (no plates to run, can get into spaces cop cars can't, can ditch vehicle easily and at low cost for foot pursuit loss) and niggers like to drive slow to show off their car. it's 99% white [spoiler]fe[/spoiler]males killing cyclists.

>>2057145
a guy literally did this, ramming his truck through a well advertized bike race, and did get off without jail time

>>2057140
>neither party even slows down
AMERICA #1 SMARTEST ON EARF!!!!

>>2058713
>black doesn't low down because he's black
>driver doesn't stop because he's legally ramming into a black
big IQ play unironically

>>2057143
>there's no court or agency on the planet that would find the cyclist at fault here
I bet the driver never saw the cyclist because of the A-pillar in the vehicle. You do have an obligation to avoid collisions.

Looks like someone is driving a massive anti-forester astroturf on reddit now

>>2059120
What do you mean thats been the movement for years from these seperate but equal (Not just bikes) or whatever that youtubers name is. The only way anyone has supported cycling infrastructure in the last 10 years is pushing for infinite money to be spent to intentionally piss off car users so that there can be a reactionary pushback.

>>2059123
The separate but equal crowd has been loud for a while but they haven't *specifically* malded over Forester to this extent. His name would come up every now and then but right now it's like every bicycle related subreddit has a circlejerk about how Forester is literally the KKK and Ted Bundy combined

>>2059126
I just went and checked and its because the Not just bikes guy specifically did an hour and thirty five minute slam piece on forester. released 9 days ago 643k hits.

>>2059132
If NJB guy hates Forester that just makes it clearer how right he was

File: wp7193641-272690770~2.jpg (179 KB, 1066x720)

179 KB JPG

I just want to peacefully ride to work without having to deal with picrel trying to kill me. Is that too much to ask?

>>2059135
yes if you live in a rural area.

>>2059135
if you live anywhere except for new york yeah, those things and their drivers are basically like wild moose. you cant stop them

>>2054733
>the Godfather of all Freds did nothing wrong
Begone, lycra industry shill.

>>2059144
I live in new york and I've never seen one of those things here. I saw some trucks that looked like that at a trump rally in upstate, might have been putnam county, when I was on a longer weekend bike ride once. But never in the actual city

>>2059148
I like how self-described "bike activists" are blaming the guy who tried to make the best of what we have, instead of blaming the people who made the situation what it is

Your god NJB literally wants to destroy america, I'll just leave it at that.

>>2059162
If what you have is dogshit, you should want to have something else instead of convincing yourself the smell is bearable if you cover it in perfume.
Crab in a bucket mentality.

>>2059165
Forester:
>see this, and this, and this? I have this many years of direct personal experience and the following credentials. Here is a plan to make it suck less. here is data showing why this should work. I intend to keep trying until things get better. I invite you to join me and make the world a better place!

NJB:
>no! this sucks! boomer! I hate you mom! no you don't get it, it's not even walkable! I'm leaving!

You're welcome to leave now, bye!

>>2059161
putnam county is not upstate lmao

>>2059168
Anything north of van cortlandt park is upstate

>>2059168
if that anon has actually only seen a truck like that once it means he has literally never left an area of density in his life.

File: enid-ick.jpg (34 KB, 800x500)

34 KB JPG

>>2059132
>Not just bikes

>>2059135
> just want to peacefully ride to work without having to deal with picrel trying to kill me. Is that too much to ask?
Lol, nobody is "trying to kill you". If you're getting coal-rolled on a semi-normal basis you're probably doing something to receive that treatment.

>>2059166
The following credentials being
>I'm a Fred and I've hit 50km/h once
Dismissing utility cycling entirely should tell you everything you need to know about Forester.
Why yes, drop bars are going to be great on a front-loading cargo bike, excellent idea John.
>here's my plan to make it suck less : do nothing and say it's the riders' fault for not being fast enough
Infrastructure isn't set in stone forever so again : you have every right to wish for something better instead of pretending the reason it's bad is because you're not riding right (you are riding right unless you're an actual retard)

>>2057102
the problem is cars and their drivers dont have the spatial awareness than cyclists and bikers have, plus they will always feel more "Protected" and wont suffer any injuries from fender benders or even minor crashes while the same crash could send a cyclist or a biker to the hospital
Id say its a big issue in USA because car drivers are way worse than in europe generally, more easily distracted due to driving assistance (i do count automatic transmission as assistance) etc, and its even worse in the 3rd world countries in Asia

>>2059170
why do you choose to be retarded?

>>2059231
>i do count automatic transmission as assistance
Opinion instantly discarded.

>>2059223
Why do you people always say "utility cycling" to mean "pedaling a boat anchor for 30 seconds and tossing it in a canal" and "practical" to mean "completely impractical useless piece of shit", you've never commuted by bicycle in the US, so shut up, adults are talking

File: an-american-pickup-in-eur(...).jpg (93 KB, 640x480)

93 KB JPG

>>2059223
>Infrastructure isn't set in stone forever so again : you have every right to wish for something better instead of pretending the reason it's bad is because you're not riding right (you are riding right unless you're an actual retard)
The problem with the infrastructure argument is that it gets used only selectively. Cycling advocates will often put everything on "it's dangerous because of insufficient infrastructure", etc. until they see something like pic related, then it's "the infrastructure is fine, it's YOUR vehicle that is a problem".

>>2059223
>weird old hippie who has spent entire life cycling and has seen what works and what doesn't
>tech guy who took an early retirement, makes videos for fun that regurgitates articles and opinions from others
Not exactly a high bar but in the land of the blind...

>>2059126
he is the erebus of cycling viability and infrastructure in America
you whiny little faggot
and he will be attacked for the retarded ideas he spread and the now glaringly obvious harm it has done

>>2059270
forester was demonstrably wrong and NJB lists multiple studies proving this
you know what, I think I'll dig in here and make your retarded delusional viewpoint into the laughing stock it is in common parlance here

>>2059275
>>2059277
Do you actually have thoughts of your own or do you just regurgitate shit you saw on youtube? It's extremely obvious you've never commuted by bike in the US, likely not anywhere

>>2059279
I ride to work every day of the year on my bike and I can safely and comveniently do it due to a bike path
And of course groceries
One does ise the road as well of course
Risking my life daily by using an interstate highway is the exact opposite of effective cycling
The reality of cycling in the US is so scarce and deadly exactly because of retards like forester
The scarcity amd deadliness of cycling in the US is a statistical fact that has been well understood
There are counterexamoles accross the world
Cycling is shit in the US due to (lacking) infrastrcture and shitty drivers, both systematically incentivized
This is beyond debate

>>2059280
So someone built a nice little path for you taking you to the only places you care to go, and therefore you feel qualified to delete cycling for anyone else if their daily life doesn't conform to your own personal experience, does that about cover it?

>>2059277
>lists multiple studies proving this
It's not hard to find studies that agree with you. It's harder to defend those studies or address conflicting studies. NJB being the urbanist equivalent of a flat-earther doesn't make him right, sorry

>>2059250
I mean, how can you look at this image and not conclude the pickup is in the wrong? Nigga's blocking a Tram ROW for chrissakes

>>2059280
>I ride to work every day of the year on my bike and I can safely and comveniently do it due to a bike path
part of my commute takes me on a "mixed use path" and it is the least safe part because it is the worst maintained, has the wildest curves and grade changes, and is constantly full of retarded boomers walking tiny poorly trained dogs who seemingly thirst specifically for being caught in a front fork at all times on top of being walked by a retarded boomer who stands in the middle of the path and refuses to even acknowledge even someone shouting "GET THE FUCK OUT MY MOTHERFUCKING WAY FAGGOT STOP WASTING MY MOTHERFUCKING TIME" at them and then chimp out threatening to call the police when you finally pass them

>>2059335
Truck is trying to park, but sticks out too far because the parking lot is too small. My point is, cyclists will often excuse bad behavior as "it is an infrastructure issue" yet immediately turn around and point out as something like this with the truck driver in the wrong.

In both cases, it either is or it isn't. Can't pick and choose.

>>2059286
Driving on the highway is still a thing, obviously
A coworker of mine did it but it was always a risk.
Get it through your thick stupid skull that these things aren't mutually exclusive you obstinate retard.
This isn't my personal experience, it is a statistical fact and even the 1970s studies the anti-utility-cycling retard john forrester quoted threw up doubts and even explicitly warned against the very conclusions this retard john forester advertised.
I merely bring up my personal experience because it was you that brought it up in the very post I replied to with my personal experience.
You dishonest sophist asswipe.
Having a bike path next to an interstate road significantly increases safety, makes it viable for daily use and increases the overall cycling % in the general population that just want to get from A to B and perhaps integrate a healthy bit of low intensity movement into their everyday lives.
This has been proven with multiple studies.
The entire idea john forester tried to push that "cycling doesn't need proper infrastructure consideration and cyclists totally all go at 30mph on the unmodified roadway like a car and everyone that doesn't isn't a cyclist" is provably anti-empirical and literally deadly.
Just shut the fuck up you obstinate moron.

>>2059223
>>here's my plan to make it suck less : do nothing and say it's the riders' fault for not being fast enough
exactly
this fucking retard directly contributed to many deaths by hindering, obfuscating and downplaying the necessity of cycling infrastructure in north America when an important point in time was at hand and things could have changed
The deaths of many cyclists would've been prevented
Just do the exact opposite of the anti-empirical and provably false idiotic recommendations john forester made of cycling(infrastructure) in political and municipal debates.
Rest in fucking piss.

>>2059250
>>2059381
It's a cost-benefit analysis.
Building some bike infrastructure is much more useful than committing to an xx% increase of many tens of thousands of parking lots and massively bloating up cities and wasting space just so people can drive and park unnecessarily large cars.
These cars only came to be represented more at all because American politicians pretended to help the little man and made an exemption "for hard working farmers" that in the end was just a sweeping loophole for auto makers to avoid emission standards overall as long as they made the cars bigger.
You stupid, dishonest, whatabouting, deflecting, smarmy fucking retard.

>>2059387
>Infrastructure for me but not for thee
How quickly the mask slips.

>>2059387
>It's a cost-benefit analysis.
I've seen roads that go from having more lanes and carrying cars in all lanes to, after an expensive project, have fewer lanes with a bike lane that rarely gets used, and definitely doesn't replace the traffic carried in replaced bicycle traffic.
>Building some bike infrastructure is much more useful than committing to an xx% increase of many tens of thousands of parking lots
Why do parking lots cause so much butthurt, even if they get used, while bike lanes, even if they're rarely used, get praised?
>These cars only came to be represented more at all because American politicians pretended to help the little man
In wealthy countries more people have cars, and as wealth increases, they will switch to cars as wealth increases (see Hong Kong). The idea that this is some sort of government conspiracy, or that people are content to be crammed into public transit if they had a choice, is laughable.
>>2059393
Indeed.

>>2059394
carrying less traffic is upside not downside
anything that is terrible for drivers is good for everyone, as any driver will demonstrate.

>>2059237
midwit detected
it does take attention off the road and off your driving in general, if you dont even have to shift

>>2059394
>I've seen roads that go from having more lanes and carrying cars in all lanes to, after an expensive project, have fewer lanes with a bike lane that rarely gets used, and definitely doesn't replace the traffic carried in replaced bicycle traffic.
You see now you shifted the goalpost.
You were initially pretending to care about the merits of some oversized pickup truck vs bike paths - clearly in a city setting with parking spaces as the abominacion americano automobil hangs over into a tram track
Now you pretend to care about some worthless anecdotes about cycle paths
Yeah fucko, if the paths aren't part of a coherent network (which is usually the fault of obstinate retarded and osbtructionist politicians like doug ford in ontario for example) then it's not going to be used a lot
The moment viable routes are there they are used within weeks
>Why do parking lots cause so much butthurt, even if they get used, while bike lanes, even if they're rarely used, get praised?
It's not parking lots in general for me, they have their place and they must have their price for their users
What pissed me off was your attempt to equate upsizing tens of thousands of parking lots to fit bigger cars in terms of investment/benefit to the usefulness of having a cycling path network in a urban setting in terms of investment/benefit
It's not even remotely on the same level
>wealth = cars, more wealth = more cars
That's not how it works and there are a few very wealthy countries that build competent transportation systems because they have good laws, regulations, zoning and planning processes and there are a few very rich countries - some say the richest in the world - that in spite of their wealth build abysmal dogshit that does indeed have a lot of cars and a lot of "rich" people living paycheck to paycheck while sitting in traffic jams in roads that are regularly 8 lanes wide in the middle of sprawling suburban areas they can barely or outright canNOT afford to maintain

>>2059399
>having to fiddle with gear switches makes you pay attention to the road actually
Always the best takes on /n/.

File: fig3-how_often_do_you_use(...).png (50 KB, 844x501)

50 KB PNG

>>2059419
>f the paths aren't part of a coherent network (which is usually the fault of obstinate retarded and osbtructionist politicians like doug ford in ontario for example) then it's not going to be used a lot
Real bike paths haven't been tried before.
>That's not how it works and there are a few very wealthy countries that build competent transportation systems because they have good laws, regulations, zoning and planning processes and there are a few very rich countries - some say the richest in the world - that in spite of their wealth build abysmal dogshit that does indeed have a lot of cars
Let's consult the graph.

>>2059419
>"rich" people living paycheck to paycheck while sitting in traffic jams in roads that are regularly 8 lanes wide in the middle of sprawling suburban areas they can barely or outright canNOT afford to maintain
Is this comedy?

>>2059423
having no interaction other than stepping on a gas pedal makes you less attentive than stepping on a pedal plus actioning a clutch and the gear shifter every now and then. Yes.

>>2059427
>Is this comedy?
I sometimes ask that question myself anon
Yes, America is the richest nation on earth yet can't even build proper mixed mode traffic like other rich (but less so) countries like for example Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and heck, even Germany albeit not that much compared to the others

>>2059424
Pointing at the UK and saying "hah they don't have good transit systems that integrate different modes well" is not the gotcha you think it is.
The UK is fucking fucked m8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5aJ-57_YsQ
The elites there pride themselves on cutting every public service and investment, no wonder there's not much there in the way of well funded modern infrastructure in a way that adapted to the needs of the people

File: 1733659166879647.jpg (194 KB, 749x890)

194 KB JPG

>>2059424
And of course your "graph" is over a decade old though sadly I can't find anything for today that used the same methodology.
It's not that complicated, you build bike paths and if they can get people to where they want in the vicinity and the place hasn't been bloated apart by wide roads and many dozens of square kilometers of parking lots per 10 km radius around points of interest people are gonna use it

Let's just agree to this: if you're American I just don't care what you have to say because it's likely based on ignorance of how things can work differently.
Yeah, won't work in many american places due to massive urban sprawl (but even then there could be localized pilot projects that can be built if chosen in a way that they can form part of a coherent strategy and network rather than a patchwork where a bike path crops up and ends both at the side of some road without going anywhere or having branches like the road systems it accompanied for that brief bit)

>>2059431
>having an interaction to distract you from the road makes you... uhhh... more attentive to the road

File: daily_commuting_time_minutes.png (12 KB, 900x422)

12 KB PNG

>>2059432
I simply wish to see that elusive 8 lane wide traffic jam in the middle of a suburb that is endemic to America. Could you point me to such an example?

>>2059442
>Let's just agree to this: if you're American I just don't care what you have to say because it's likely based on ignorance of how things can work differently.
Haven't you spent all your previous posts itt seething about Americans and how angry they make you feel by not considering your opinions on bike paths, or your existence in general?

>>2059453
No, what I am seething about is morons who honestly adhere to the retarded ideology that john forester offered on how there shouldn't be cycling infrastructure.
If you want to make sure only very few people use bikes to get anywhere then yeah, that's the best way to reach that goal because most people wont bother.
He was a retarded lycrafaggot that was worried cycling infrastructure would erode the possibility for him and his cycling club to use roads.
And for that he sabotaged every bit of bike infrastructure with his retarded post-hoc ideology about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H75jnRW23X8&t=30s
Rest in piss john forester.

>>2059452
I'm mocking the famous-for-that I-10 in Houston
Sprawling suburbs are generally financially insolvent and of course car dependent because the distances become too big to connect and additionally the zoning not being mixed leads to having to travel very far to get to e.g. a convenience store which will just be a costco or walmart that is a 10-15min. drive away but not really reachable by bike even if you wanted to cycle those >10Km

>>2059419
>You see now you shifted the goalpost.
I never shifted the goalpost. I was merely referring to the fact that the large truck in Europe is similar to bike paths in that is an infrastructure issue or a vehicle that shouldn't be there and shouldn't be accommodated. You were the one that said something about "cost benefit analysis" as if bike lanes and train megaprojects weren't just vanity projects pushed through and benefitting only certain interest groups.
>That's not how it works and there are a few very wealthy countries that build competent transportation systems because they have good laws, regulations, zoning and planning processes and there are a few very rich
What, Europe? They lack a comprehensive system, they have maybe one ring highway (not very fast) and a bunch of wide but slow avenues, as a result despite much smaller cities it takes just as long to go through them as a "wasteful" American city.
>sprawling suburban areas they can barely or outright canNOT afford to maintain
Ah, the old "can't maintain roads" lie parroted by NJB as if all the roads are going to spontaneously fall apart and cities will declare bankruptcy for. I looked into where this idea came from, it came from a Strong Towns article where he completely misunderstood the budget and thought that the outstanding debt was from road maintenance. Meanwhile road maintenance takes up a tiny amount of a city's given budget and most of the municipal bankruptcies have to do with pensions and stuff.

>>2059457
Oh you mean that one picture that's just a super-long distance shot (10 miles) so it looks like cars are closer together? It's just a camera trick, like how Breezewood looks bigger.

>>2059457
I don't see any suburbs around that road, nor have i seen them along any interstate. Could you point them out for me?

>>2059485
If you wanna get around with a bike in a city you need some degree of sepearation in the zones that are more than 30kmh
Else it's too risky and barely anyone will do it
john forester argued against this, this is the core of why I am in this thread

>>2059487
uburbs struggle to afford road maintenance due to a combination of factors, including large, sprawling networks that are expensive to maintain, a reliance on new development to fund existing infrastructure, and a decrease in external funding. Many suburban communities have more roads than their tax base can support, a problem often exacerbated by long-term financing schemes that delay necessary maintenance and can lead to a financial crisis later.
Reasons for the affordability gap

Sprawling infrastructure: The typical suburban model creates a large, expansive road network that is costly to build and maintain, especially when compared to more compact city neighborhoods.
Financial dependency on new growth: Funding for existing roads is often dependent on the revenue from new development. When development slows or a suburb runs out of space, the funding for maintenance collapses.
Reliance on borrowed money: Instead of using tax revenue, many communities have financed growth through borrowing, a practice that creates large debts and is unsustainable in the long run.
Decreased external funding: Many states and local governments have seen a decrease in federal and state funding for infrastructure projects, forcing them to rely more on local funds for maintenance.
"Ponzi scheme" model: Some critics argue that the suburban model is a "ponzi scheme" where new development is used to pay for the maintenance of previous development, which is an unsustainable financial cycle that eventually leads to insolvency.

What happens as a result

Roads fall into disrepair: When a city cannot afford to maintain all its roads, it often prioritizes major thoroughfares over less-trafficked suburban streets, leading to deteriorating local roads.
"Un-paving" roads: Some towns are resorting to drastic measures, such as removing pavement from roads they can't afford to maintain.
Increased debt: To cope with the costs, cities often take

>>2059487
>I don't see any suburbs around that road,
Yeah, my bad, of course no one would want to live there in the first place, just another concrete desert

>>2059508
>>2059509
So about that that elusive 8 lane wide traffic jam in the middle of a suburb that is endemic to America. May i see it?

File: OIP-1625325249.k4xggDyBw2(...).jpg (41 KB, 474x312)

41 KB JPG

>>2059533
?
this isn't difficult, every big city has one.
outside of Atlanta, in suburban Norcross, we have this.
during rush hour, the two interstates and the stack interchanges are somewhere between jogging pace and parking lot, five days a week, every week

>>2059541
I don't see any suburbs anywhere in that picture. It shouldn't be hard to find me the 8 lane wide traffic jam in the middle of a suburb that you kept talking about, it's everywhere isn't it? Please post an example for me.

>>2059508
Cool AI post that has nothing to do with the post you replied to. Do you get paid for this?

>>2059550
nta but this disingenuous bullshit does not serve you well. obviously highways don't run directly through suburbs, but are often the only public road one can take to get into or out of one

>>2059541
It's only four lanes and Atlanta's road and highway system sucks because there's one loop highway despite massive growth, all other highways go through downtown, and almost no major thoroughfares that help take pressure off of the freeway system. Their commute time is notoriously awful for the population it has.

File: Screenshot_20251123-192212.jpg (388 KB, 720x1600)

388 KB JPG

>>2059550
Norcross is a suburb of Atlanta. here's the houses since that's important for you to see
>>2059557
many of these sections are 5 lanes for merging and they're all clogged at the same time. but anyway, 4 lanes each way is 8, times two interstates is 16. you were being hyperbolic about 8 lanes (presumably) but why quibble?
>Atlanta doesn't count because reasons
nice try

>>2059395
you do not produce any physical output in the economy. In a proper system your vote would be diminished based on how densely your area is populated.

>>2059507
Why should everyone else have to go slow because you want to bicycle. What makes your preference above everyone elses. I understand that you for some reason have a dead set assumption that everyone is fiending to get on a bicycle but the infrastructure prevents it, whereas what the average person actually desires is a self driving car. Cars just can't be beat in a multicultural society, its the only way to encapsulate yourself from the dangers of the world.

>>2059555
I'm sorry i was so surprised by anon claiming there are 8 lane wide traffic jams in the middle of suburbs across America that i had to ask him to point me to an example. I guess i should've just said something like "death to cagies" or something to not appear disingenous to you instead. I'm sorry for my minute curiosity.

>>2059508
based on what.

>>2059454
the majority of people never used bicycles as transportation they are toys. inb4 before cars cause sometimes you dunces will actually say that . Horses

>>2059567
>here's the houses since that's important for you to see
I'm curious as to why you chose to seek a map instead of just posting a picture featuring it but it's probably because that edge of a suburb is too distant from the road to capture it on cam.

I still wish to see that traffic jam in the 8 lane wide road in the middle of a suburban area that you mentioned, which US is apparently full of. So surely there's at least a couple of examples of that you can think of, even if by chance you're unable to take a photo outside of your suburban house window and post it here with how regularly occuring it is.

>>2059573
>"Oh? Traffic is slow in some places? POST AN EXAMPLE!!"
>anon posts an example
>"NO NOT LIKE THAT"
idk why you are so unwilling to believe that road networks sometimes have bottlenecks or are simply at capacity

>>2059567
>two interstates is 16
Who's talking about 16 lanes? I thought the "8 lane highways" was hyperbole about the Katy Freeway is wider than most freeways but still jams up. Or is it one of these "2 hour commute" issues where idiots accidentally keep multiplying the commute time?
>nice try
I wasn't the one claiming that freeway jams don't occur. I'm just pointing out that Atlanta has an atrocious road system and it makes sense. Actual moderate urbanist Road Guy Rob explained why that's the case and that they don't have a functional road network.

>>2059572
you separate that shit exactly because they got at diff speeds and so people dont die
this isnt about me this is about having the general availiability of not having to take a car for <5Km trips
But of course with urban sprawl many trips are over 5Km that wouldn't have to be in normal mixed use neighborhoods rather than the school shooter incubators kids are isolated in and only ferried out via car until 16 years old

either way: john forrster was a fucking retard
bike paths are the sensible way to service demand for cycling and lower death and injury
only reason he was so retarded was he was concerned his club of lycrafaggot MAMILs would be unable to go fast in riding groups on the roads if there are more bike paths while claiming cyclusts go 60Kmh

>>2059578
Anon, you clearly stated in your post you were talking about 8 lane wide roads in the middle of suburbs. Why are you trying to change the topic now?

>>2059581
>ather than the school shooter incubators kids are isolated in
nobody is talking about social housing majority black hoods bro

>>2054733

>>2059572
cars go slow when they choose. they have to go slower than bikes to make a right angle turn at every intersection and driveway. little old grannies going to church go 15-20 mph. people check their map on the phone and slow way down. it's just a fact of life. you have to slow down, too and wait for a safe opportunity to pass. bikes are just more of the same .
why are you infringing on my freedom to choose my method of travel on roads I pay for?
but anyway bike lanes are ok, separate mups are fine, but until they go everywhere (which will be never) I need to use the roads.

File: cyclistss.png (51 KB, 375x320)

51 KB PNG

>>2059597
>cars need to slow down to turn so they can go slower than bycicles which need to slow down even more to turn, which is why it's my freedom to be an obstacle to traffic on the road and be protected from concequences of disrupting faster traffic
Holy shit /n/iggers are always such disingenous faggots.

>>2059581
It doesn't matter how many bike paths you build no one will cycle its that way in your precious netherlands aswell look at their stats they are nowhere near majority bicycle use.

>>2059597
You aren't paying for the road with a bicycle? There is no gas tax and honestly the roads are not paid for by consumer traffic but business logistics traffic anyways. Box trucks and medium duty work vehicles need to get places efficiently.

>>2059631
roads are built from property taxes

>>2059674
yes property, owned by people with cars.

>>2059600
I hate this idea too, it's not feasible
t.cyclist that us effective due to bike paths existing, I wouldnt want to ridr on the road, it is - as you also state - dangerous and deadly

>>2059629
Who said that "majority bike use" is the goal you sneaky fuck
There's a difference between <2% usage as in these afflicted areas in the US and a 25-35% as in the Netherlands
And even in the precious Netherlands there are differences depending on how good the infrastructure is designed in the region (and how the housing market looks - how much is there where its needed, is supply artificially limited, how far out do people have to go to afford ->longer commute->cars) and other factors that also just make life better for the people there
Utrecht for exampke does have 51% (so the... ma-jo-ri-ty) of trafficshare in bicycles and bike-like things, lol

>>2059676
everybody pays for roads, and we pay well for it
you're just making a slightly recursive "its always been this way" argument
most people who own cars arent ideological car drivers like you
if there's a nicer or overall cheaper, or more convenient option they will use it and eventually view it as just as natural as you view car dependency
being less dependent on car transit allows the building of better cities where more people would gladly raise their kids, they are just better places to live