The solution to this is physical infrastructure that helps people shift trips from cars to bikes, scooters, and public transportation — like a connected network of protected bike lanes, and Transit-Only Lanes — rather than car infrastructure (e.g. bollards) that entrenches cars.
Until Mayor Breed — or a new mayor — takes immediate action to transform our streets to help more people shift trips from cars to bikes, scooters or public transportation, car crashes and roadway fatalities/injuries will continue to occur throughout our city.
If you’re thinking, “Geez, it seems like there are car crashes happening all over the city in seemingly random places,” it’s because our streets are dangerously designed and Mayor Breed has deprioritized or obstructed the necessary work to help people shift trips away from cars.
In recent years, mayors/electeds in cities in the U.S. and around the world (e.g. NYC, Paris, London, Barcelona, Cambridge, MA) have proactively led their cities with more safe, equitable, and sustainable streets.
Mayor Breed — or a new mayor — can still transform our streets.
As an example, Fulton Street — where this crash occurred and a person was killed less than two months ago — can be made instantly safer (and more equitable and sustainable) by installing Transit-Only Lanes that are physically separated.
@LukeBornheimer I wholeheartedly agree. In North America, people often drive because that's the only way they can get to their destinations. Safer and connected cycling infra and better public transport are desparately needed to mitigate that problem.
@daihard@LukeBornheimer people may believe that they couldn't bike or take transit but the vast majority who are deciding to drive are choosing cars for the comfort, status, and dignity vs what they would experience biking or walking on car supremacist street designs. If govt spent as much per mile to subsidize bikes as they do car use, there would be staff at the bottom of every hill to give you a fiver and a push.
@enobacon@LukeBornheimer It depends on where you live. Even in Japan, the town my mom is from is the middle of nowhere, where the bus comes every two hours (!) and the only road that connects it to the nearest city centre about 4 miles away is a 4-lane highway with no cycling accommodation whatsoever.
I cycle everywhere in Seattle. If I lived in that city, I'd likely drive there, at least for most of my trips.
@daihard@LukeBornheimer yes exactly, but I'm saying four miles is easily 20 min by eBike and four car lanes is obviously 4x more than required for access but there's zero space, funding, or effort for transit or bikes there. Getting honked at is very different than being unable to ride there, but people act like it's outer space. It's not the rocket science it gets made into.
@enobacon@LukeBornheimer I gave a counterpoint to your argument that "the vast majority who are deciding to drive are choosing cars for the comfort, status, and dignity vs what they would experience biking or walking on car supremacist street designs." I agree that's probably the case in urban areas, but unfortunately, there are places in the world where it's just not possible to get around without cars.
@daihard@LukeBornheimer I understand but I don't agree that "what's possible" should be defined so narrowly. Some examples could at least be more than four miles and made inhospitable by something besides car traffic, as you're basically still in the realm of typical urban car-inflicted immobility there. But if you get far enough from density, there aren't enough people to generate the amount of traffic & indignity that gets us stuck in cars, or it doesn't matter much if a dozen people drive.
@enobacon@LukeBornheimer So are you saying that you live in a rural area with low population, then car traffic should be low enough that you should consider cycling on arterials, otherwise you're actively choosing to drive?
@daihard@LukeBornheimer in a spectrum of variables depending on the person's strength, stamina, particular details of their e-bike's capabilities, cargo, terrain, weather, and schedule, all of which are within many people's ability to easily change or adapt to without getting in a car and becoming part of the problem, yes. Even after getting in a car, many people could lean into fixing the problem and not tolerate infrastructure which leads to entitled drivers honking at people on bikes.
@daihard@LukeBornheimer but the status-quo of a 4-lane arterial through the countryside is itself absurd (as is the tendency to excuse cars being the only option for that long-tail of use cases even when they're only 4 miles). Even in the context of SF where the population is much denser and some places might require car access, the lane allocations of existing space are the main thing keeping people driving. There needs to be space & status for bikes. #InducedDemand
That's exactly what I've been saying since the first reply. First and foremost, we need to have safe and connected infrastructure to convince more people to cycle for transport. It should be followed by the authorities providing incentivies to cycle instead of driving, which can come in many forms.
@daihard@LukeBornheimer yes but "because that's the only way they can get to their destinations" is framing cars as essential rather than the barrier to mobility that they become (physically and politically) when infrastructure coerces people into believing that cars are essential. Sorry if I'm seeming seeming more argumentative than constructive, I recognize why people choose cars for many reasons but I think we need to remember it is a choice (and not everyone can drive.)
@enobacon@LukeBornheimer Argumentative vs constructive might be the point of contention here, indeed, but I believe we're on the same page when it comes to what needs to be done in order to get more people out of cars.
@enobacon@daihard@LukeBornheimer I also used to hear "driving is a privilege", growing up in Texas, of all places. But maybe they only meant that when it meant having more reasonable hours/staffing in a lower income area for getting a license. 🤔
@inliuofjoan@daihard@LukeBornheimer the myth of personal responsibility and rugged individualism / freedom of driving are the same lie of education + enforcement [vs infrastructure]. In reality, induced demand governs, and driving is a burden we bear as part of our duty to contribute toward society making billionaires richer.
Add comment