My current pet peeve is people complaining about the ‘cost’ of protected bike lanes because “people on bikes don’t pay their way”.

Beyond even the data showing just how much private car ownership is already subsidized, can we just take a moment and acknowledge: We wouldn’t need protected lanes at all if cars were not killing and injuring so many people.

It’s like the owner of an animal bemoaning the cost of an enclosure for their animal, which keeps killing and maiming members of the public as they pass by.

It’s not the victim’s fault the enclosure is needed, and it’s not the fault of someone riding a bike they need protection in a public space.

  • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    7 months ago

    Bike lanes are car infrastructure.

    You don’t need bike lines, just have everyone drive at 30 kph max. Bike lanes just let cars go faster.

    See also sidewalks and 15 kph.

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 months ago

      As someone living in Copenhagen, a city built for biking around, I find this take kind of weird. Bike lanes just make sense to separate car and bike traffic. Nobody wants that traffic mixed, not drivers or cyclists.

      There are smaller streets in Copenhagen where there are no bike lanes, but that’s because the traffic volume in those streets is so small that a car and a bike are unlikely to even use the road at the same time.

    • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      In some cases yes, however in others where there’s speedbumps in the road and not in the bike lane, with the bike lane protected to stop cars avoiding the bumps in them, the bikes (35kph) move faster than the cars (25kph)

      It’s not every bike lane but a significant number