What does /n/ think about the german concept of the Fahrradstraße?
>speed limit 18mph/30km/h
>bikes can ride side by side all the time
>cars are not allowed to overtake
I think its a perfect way to deal with traffic in big cities. The cars are not discriminated against and just have to deal with slower speeds.
I dont see any cons with that.

This would be fine considering downtown is pretty much 25mph speed limit anyways.
Wouldn't ever pass here in 'murica

>>2038668 (OP)
Perfect idea for the theme park called Europe

>>2038668 (OP)
Cars are not allowed on Fahrradstraßen at all unless explicit signage for that is added. Which it is in 99% of cases of course because we can't have nice things.

>>2038669
Also you'd get "that's not REAL cycling infrastructure" crying

Sounds perfect but
>>speed limit 18mph/30km/h
Maybe for motor vehicles (like ebikes) but there should be a 28mph speed limit for the normal bikes, that seems like a reasonable cap given that adults will be using these for transportation. As John Forester said, design your bike infrastructure for children and only children will ride bikes

>>2038668 (OP)
>I think its a perfect way to deal with traffic in big cities.
100% agreed.

>>2038668 (OP)
>I think its a perfect way to deal with traffic in big cities
Unless you're converting pedestrian paths into full vehicular areas, how would that help?

>>2038668 (OP)
>over-engineered one-off concept that's contrived and unintuitive
Yep, it's Germany alright

>>2038668 (OP)
>tops off at walking speed and has less throughput than driving through a grassy open field
as always, all urbanist proposals are about inserting themselves into people's lives and getting back at cars on the taxpayer's dime

>>2038859
To be fair, it's about time taxpayers stop subsidizing the car dependent agenda

>>2038861
>the car dependent agenda
Stuff like this always makes me laugh. The whole belief that people were content to live in cities prior to World War II, or that every argument boils down to "watch this YouTube video" or "read this PDF", in which the actual sources (if they exist) are either self-referenced or completely misinterpreted.

>>2038863
>"'''""''""content"''""''"
Tell me about this word and it's redefinition through 1950s suburban sprawl propaganda created by Big Oil and Big Auto because throughout human history, city life has provided an increase in living standards, except for the case on severe corruption the same way American politics has been corrupted

>>2038861
taxpayers are the car dependent agenda, the leeches are the urbanist scum that is assmad that they can't dictate normal people how to live even more than they already do.

>>2038866
>hroughout human history, city life has provided an increase in living standards
good thing suburbs came around and made this notion obsolete. now we can have even better living standards without all the disease, overcrowding and pollution that cities always create. but this is bad because something something big oil so everyone should live in a cell managed by mentally ill socialists using the money they extracted from them.

>>2038866
>city life has provided an increase in living standards
That's why every wealthy person had an out of city residence and only went to the city for business or political matters. Urba/n/iggers are very smart and educated.

>>2038868
>and made this notion obsolete
Lol what a blatant lie. Tell me about how much more superior your life of ultra processed boxed insta foods, lack of exercise from driving everywhere, and while we're at it tell me about your superior culture of drinking at the Walmart parking lot
>>2038869
>doesn't understand how indoctrination works

>>2038867
>leeches are the urbanist scum
>meanwhile, city centers generate the majority of tax revenue and gdp while most suburban cities have been at a drain on their local economy just trying to maintain their roads

>>2038874
>Lol what a blatant lie. Tell me about how much more superior your life of ultra processed boxed insta foods, lack of exercise from driving everywhere, and while we're at it tell me about your superior culture of drinking at the Walmart parking lot
Nta but none of those are related to suburbanization, you're just going off on a tangent.

>>2038877
>city centers generate the majority of tax revenue
Thank God for corporate headquarters keeping cities out of the red.

>while most suburban cities have been at a drain on their local economy just trying to maintain their roads
Suburban cities have to take in more money than they spend, like any other city. Weird how they're supposedly heavily burdened by roads but the suburban roads are maintained better than the larger parent city, their schools are better, crime is usually lower, housing costs less, and taxes are lower to boot. Depending on the suburb, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure can be superior in suburban cities to that of the parent city not only in scope, but upkeep as well. Now I know you want to post halifax.jpg as a response so go ahead.

It really is like the anon said in >>2038859, this is about you wanting to wield power over other people and things you dislike.

>>2038885
>none of those are related to suburbanization
It very much is related to suburbanization in regards to cultural development and how that culture influences development of transport infrastructure. My point is, suburban culture is a deprived existence not warrant of calling itself a superior wat to live life
>crime is usually lower
Lmao, imagine running on outdated propaganda. Thanks to surveillance technology (i hate to say that) crime has been shifting away from the city and towards the suburbs where there is less eyes and cameras.

>>2038887
>It very much is related to suburbanization
No, it's not. Ultraprocessed foods would've happened regardless of suburbanization. You can find fatasses in big cities, not to mention bums and vagrants drinking and openly using drugs there too.

>Lmao, imagine running on outdated propaganda.
Again, you're going off on a tangent but if you want to go by statistics, most suburban cities are have less crime than their parent city. It's one of the main reasons people choose to live in them. Unreal you chose to argue the opposite, you must like being laughed at.

>>2038888
It's not about ultra processed foods happening, is about how suburbia relies on it as a daily necessity and how that define its infrastructure. Rural zones have their food at the source, major cities have an opportunity for fresh picks during transit.

>>2038668 (OP)
They did this near where I live (Germany). As a pedestrian, I'd say it's pretty nice, but I've also noticed giant traffic jams on the neighboring streets that aren't Fahrradstrassen that weren't there before.
If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the Fahrradstrassen and instead do that thing where the parking lane and bike lane are inverted, where the parked cars provide a buffer for the bike lane. Just my opinion though.

>>2038891
You've never actually been to the US have you? You definitely don't live here.

>>2038887
>Thanks to surveillance technology (i hate to say that) crime has been shifting away from the city and towards the suburbs where there is less eyes and cameras.
this doesn't happen. what happens is crime gets willingly ignored because it's done by nationals that are protected for the sake of "cultural enrichment".

>>2038874
>>2038887
>waah, anything that gets in the way of my psychopathic communist tendencies is propaganda!

what the hell happened to this thread, fucking urbanists I swear to god

>>2038866
>redefinition through 1950s suburban sprawl propaganda created by Big Oil and Big Auto
Anyone that has had the money to live far enough from the city has done so. Streetcars from the 1910s stretched out to what were distant suburbs in areas that were zoned/deed-restricted to be primarily residential.

>>2038877
>a drain on their local economy just trying to maintain their roads
They aren't. That was sourced entirely from an article Charles Marohn wrote about the budget of Ferguson, Missouri, where all infrastructure was fully budgeted and accounted for just like any other department, except for a debt taken on commercial development subsidies. Either he knowingly lied, or he was simply wrong and misread the data.

>>2038893
This idea isnt bad too i guess.
I think we have to rethink the whole "the road belongs to the cars" thing. We could simply change that up in cities and prioritize bikes and other small vehicles. And im not talking about banning cars but rather have shared roads but with stricter laws for cars like rules that you cant overtake bicycles. You would probably rule out 95% of traffic related accidents. 30km/h speedlimits throughout the city and special times in the morning for big trucks and deliverys drivers.
Citys would be much cleaner, less noisy and generally better to live in.

>suburban areas have nicer roads than urban areas
have you ever thought that number is inflated by the intercities the den of crack zombies
and also obviously suburban welfare queens steal urban money to fund their unsustainable corpse

>>2038920
>stricter laws for cars like rules that you cant overtake bicycles
How would you enforce something like that without becoming a police state?

Europe and America both have archaic and devolved infrastructure. This idea of inter modal streets is an antiquated old world ideology.

Rebuild these cities for ones that actually make sense.
Grade seperate cars, trains, and pedestrians.
Put cars underground
trains at surface in corridors that dont disrupt pedestrian traffic
and pedestrian on at surface sidewalks accompanied by greenery and bicycles on the sides.
Kill all intersections griding and make streets longer with no turns until every 2 miles

We need innovators in the urban design space. Not scholars who are still copying and pasting urban design plans from ancient egypt

Its funny how surbubanites call us urbanites bugmen when they are living in copy and paste single family home neighborhoods with no green space aside from their poorly kept lawnd

>>2039146
retractable speed bumps. lots of them

>>2039145
>and also obviously suburban welfare queens steal urban money to fund their unsustainable corpse
Old hat; time for a new line to shill

>>2039150
I like that idea because it would piss off bicyclists too

>>2039150
>retractable speed bumps. lots of them
Now you've introduced something that dramatically increases the cost (would have to basically the rebuild the road), is subject to vandalism or mechanical failure, and probably wouldn't solve the problem anyway.

>>2039149
>Its funny how surbubanites call us urbanites bugmen when they are living in copy and paste single family home neighborhoods with no green space aside from their poorly kept lawnd
Do you even know anything about suburbs besides meme photos and content farm trash? There's parks, often neighborhood community centers, and so on. And apartment complexes exist everywhere.

>>2039153
I have lived in a suburb for 15 years
>Nearest grocery store 45-60 minute walk
>Wait in the hot sun frying on completely concrete paths waiting 5 minutes so that the car brains can pass through the intersection
>Apartments so remote and isolated transit isnt even worth taking.
>Everything that isnt a building paved over for parking lots and streets making the temperature hotter
>Have to remain vigilant for maniac drivers at all times
Needless too say fuck carbrains and the breeding grounds

>>2038668 (OP)
I have them in my city and defend them with utmost militancy. There's a few problems with them though.
>>speed limit 18mph/30km/h
Cagers see a speed limit as a minimum speed meaning they obsessively drive the speed limit +10% """slack""".
>>bikes can ride side by side all the time
>>cars are not allowed to overtake
They still do though if they think they can get away with it. So they will only yield if they physically can't in cases where there's too much bike traffic to overtake you.
Also many of them will do obnoxious engine revving or drive behind you in first gear.

>I LOVE bikes and transit but I will NEVER EVER remove space from cars
why are there so many of these faggots on this board?

>>2039170
I dont know but I love walking in between car brains cars when they are stuck in traffic to show em whos boss

>>2039170
Because those aren't mutually exclusive options?

>>2039171
Based gridlock enjoyer

>>2039201
The whole point of urbanist public trannysit movement is destroying car infrastructure and fostering dependency on the state institutions. Half of posts on this board come from jewish funds whose owners are mad that peasants are capable of travelling on their own.

>>2039237
You've been tricked
true blooded Americans have been using the streetcar for generations before Fords started mass manufacturing cars.
True Americans use horses and trains to move around.
Instead of being physically bound with a car you are contractually bound by insuarance companies.
The street cars of old had proper families and working class citizens commuting from their town to work.
The streetcar required a sense of social cohesion and a high trust society
which the car takes away by isolating commuters to a sardine can on wheels.
It is in fact the proliferation of the car that allowed American cities to become so bad and crime ridden.
By destroying small talks on a street car and replacing it with stress waiting for the crappy street lights that cost 0.01 cents per month to run to turn green.
Society has been atomized by the car and you are too slow to realize it

>>2039239
This is so worn out. Please get new material

>>2039237
>fostering dependency on the state institutions.
>anon would rather be a debt slave to the oil and auto corporations

>>2039241
>be anon
>lives in cul-de-sac sandwhiched between two interstates
>no pedestrian exits
>State removes drivers liscence
>Car insuarance pulls out
>Be stranded on a suburban island
Imagine being a car cuck

>>2039241
Too old

>>2039244
Too unrealistic

>>2039237
> destroying car infrastructure and fostering dependency on the state institutions.
>car infrastructure
>implying car infrastructure isnt state owned and maintained
Anon, I...

>>2039241
>yes, I live in a home with electricity and heating
>yes, I buy my groceries and merchandise from a vast logistics network that uses oil in some way to grow, manufacture, or move product
>but because I haven't personally touched a gas pump it means I'm not reliant on the oil industry; checkmate chuds

>>2039257
Other corporations choosing to be debt slaves for Big Oil and Auto is not my problem, before Big Auto, Big Oil was in bed with Rail during the first industrial revolution, look what happened to Rail when the Auto Age began. We're at the the if the Auto Age, anyone still clinging to the failed suburban sprawl experiment will be left in the dust when Big Oil busts.

>>2039260
>We're at end the of the Auto Age,

>>2039260
How's college?

>Be a carbrain in western Europe
>Have to sit through perpetual gridlock to commute thanks to urban sprawl.

I've never understood the need for these gay designs. I've never been halted by a cyclist while driving and I've never been in danger from a mad cager while biking on reasonably normal roads. Just build safe, high quality roads and streets. Bike lanes are death traps and treating cagers like niggers with street design, while satisfying, always ends up making traffic worse for everyone.

>>2039282
>when you need to grade seperate transit modes but are too cheap to do so

>>2039283
All the urbanist/anti-car circles hate pedestrian overpasses/underpasses for some reason.

>>2038887
>City dwellers are so smug eating their avocado toast and almond milk while being proud of their inability to drive a car. They'd be completely helpless out of the city!
See, I can make unflattering generalizations too.

>>2039299
Pedestrian grade separation is a meme. Nobody wants to walk up and down a flight of stairs every time they cross the road.

>>2039316
>You need a car to travel out of town
Why do carbrains repeat this meme so much? Your ancestors literally explored the west on horse back

>>2039327
Automotive propaganda
>"With a car, you're '''""""'''""free'""''''""""

>>2039327
>>2039330
Boring

>>2039333
>Boring

>>2039275
>western Europe
>urban sprawl

>>2039327
>Your ancestors literally explored the west on horse back
How do you expect to ride a horse if you can't even handle a car?

>>2039330
There's really not a mode of transportation that is free from schedules AND allows you to carry something larger than a bag of groceries with you (with no restrictions). When pointed out on Internet urbanist circles, they respond with a picture of a dangerously overloaded bicycle or a stock image of a cargo bike. Neither are very practical comparisons.

>>2039338
>western europe
>having power

>>2039343
Bruh >>2039327

>>2039343
You can also carry a small handholdable wagon and attach it to an atv

>>2039343
even if you make the arguement that you cant carry furniture with that, most cars are not equipped to carry furniture either.
You either use pick up trucks or trailer trucks

>>2039381
>most cars are not equipped to carry furniture either
Hell of a lot easier to tow this with a car than a bicycle

>>2039379
you don't know a thing about horses and just chase some retarded gotcha like the seethinbg r/fuckcars refugee you are, don't you?

>>2039381
you can carry tons of furniture in your normal car, as long as it's not an arm chair or a fridge, especially the boxes of disassembled stuff.

>>2038668 (OP)
>speed limit is...
We already have speed limits but retards don't respect them. Same would happen there.
>bikes can ride side by side all the time
Still vehicles, which are annoying for pedestrians and can cause mortal accidents.
>cars are not allowed to overtake
The no overtaking sign has always existed and can be put on every corner or be written in the transit rulebook if thats what makes that idea "good"

TL/DR: I think it is a stupid concept

>>2039394
You seem to love dick riding your car, are you sure you want to marry a woman instead?

>>2039436
Pitiful

>>2038668 (OP)
>bikes can ride side by side all the time
It's suicide.
I mean, it's OK if your mommy has to hold your handlebar. But ride single file otherwise.

>>2039147
>Kill all intersections griding and make streets longer with no turns until every 2 miles

wtf does this even look like? hellscape suburban maze or NEOM-core line? What do you have against grids they're easily the best walkable layout

>>2039147
>Put cars underground
The train operators want to be underground
>trains at surface in corridors that dont disrupt pedestrian traffic
Trains on the surface. Sounds like our poor neighborhoods.

>>2040280
>we lost many of our tram networks to make space for cars
Wrong

>>2040282
nope, that's exactly how it happened in my city.
https://holzmann-bildarchiv.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/U-BAHN-HAMBURG.pdf
>Durch ein immer größer werdendes Aufkommen von Pkw’s auf den Straßen hatten die Straßenbahnen häufiger Schwierigkeiten die Fahrgäste zeitlich von A nach B zu befördern. Um die Konflikte zwischen Auto und Straßenbahn zu verringern, sollte die Straßenbahn weitestgehend aus dem Straßenverkehr verschwinden und die U-Bahn sollte dieses Defizit des öffentlichen Verkehrsnetzes auffangen.
>Due to the ever-increasing number of cars on the roads, trams were increasingly having difficulty transporting passengers from A to B in a timely manner. In order to reduce conflicts between cars and trams, trams were to be largely removed from road traffic, and the subway was to compensate for this shortfall in the public transport network.
we lost all the red lines in pic related. most of the subway lines proposed in 1955 still haven't been built despite the bus network being overloaded (big surprise)

>>2040283
Oh I don't care about Europe, I was talking about America

>>2040284
America was so retarded, they let streetcar systems close down because they weren't profitable, only for cities to end up taking over public transit anyway and in such a sorry state that it loses even more money than the streetcars ever did.

>>2040310
Trolley operators were getting rid of them in favor of buses as soon as ICE technology matured enough for buses to become practical. No tracks & wire to maintain were substantial cost savings.

>>2040313
>No tracks & wire to maintain were substantial cost savings.
in the short term, yes. they had aging fleets of streetcars which were comparable to busses in size. private investors also irrationally hate infrastructure investment, no matter how much sense it actually makes - see Class 1 railroads - and would rather remain inefficient.
trams have technologically matured a lot since then. so by now, the higher capacity and lower personnel & maintenance costs of trams beat busses on relations with medium to high demand. which is why leaving these decisions to private companies was stupid of American cities to begin with

>>2038737
who the fuck is going to ride faster than 30 in the city??..

>>2040326
>they had aging fleets of streetcars
Depended on the system, some were buying modern equipment until nearly the end and some weren't.

>which is why leaving these decisions to private companies was stupid of American cities to begin with
The cities didn't own the streetcar systems in most cases (maybe all) so it wasn't their call.

In the end the diesel engine could offer trolley companies more flexibility, more routes, less maintenance, and more revenue. It was an easy decision to make from their point of view.

>>2040331
>Depended on the system,
yeah, I generalized a bit
>The cities didn't own the streetcar systems in most cases (maybe all) so it wasn't their call.
which is precisely what I'm criticizing. the cities should've bought them out by the 1920-'30s to prevent these short-sighted closures. to be fair, even public ownership didn't save some streetcar lines, but it definitely made it less likely

This is an American "bike route." Bikes must stay on the shoulder as cars and tractor trailers whiz by with their 65 mph speed limit

>>2041866
You demanded access
You got access

>>2041866
there's nothing wrong with that

>>2038675
It's a nice thing because you can run over cyclists

>>2038674
All those flavors and you choose to be bitter.

>>2039237
This comment is sponsored by palantir and has been made by a nazi pedophile.

What a weird thread

>>2039257
There's gradations of dependency and resilience/fragility

>>2041869
>>2041870
Separation is vastly safer for everyone involved and has better outcomes
It might even be better maintenance wise because bike paths see much less loads and can be built lighter/cheaper if separated from the road

>>2044837
You can build stuff like that and lycratards will still be over there on the road because the pavers hurt their little taints

If you paved it with asphalt like the road there would be some other problem like other people using it too

They're impossible to work with

>>2040283
>mfw even smaller sized towns used to have several tram lines, tore them out post-WW2 and are are just beginning to undo some of the damage
>picrel, city of 50k used to have 5 tram lines
>got rid of all of them
>rebuilt a single line in the 2010s after growing to 130k inhabitants
>mfw I have no face
we've been robbed

>>2044847
You cagers should just stay on your freeways and autobahns where you belong.
Absolutely no chance of getting annoyed by a cyclist there.
If you choose to use another road, you accept that they're built for all vehicles, not just your shitty Nissan Versa.

>>2044847
I am talking about cycling as part of infrastructure and everyday transportation
Nicer paths are always welcome of course, but these tiled paths also have their advantages especially as it relates to dealing with tree roots and maintenance work for utilities/etc.
Either way, separated bike paths are extremely important and literally a matter of life and death so deferring to a few buttheads that'll cycle on the road regardless of present bike path (and be fined by police for doing so - here in Germany at least) is not an argument
And same goes for cars or motorists using a bike path which is also rare if they are built and detailed in a sensible way and - again -separated from the road properly.
Illegality and traffic enforcement also applies
Just look at picrel, there's many permutations of this kind of thing that prevents esp. car operators from intruding on it for any appreciable length where cars traffic is closer
Really well built cities make it so that bike paths go where cars don't and are essentially urban shortcuts, further evaporating traffic for those that must drive cars for their trip and making things better for cyclists too
Exact point is visualized and mentioned in this video at 3:35
https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?t=208


Separated bike paths are a matter of life and death
Mike here died due to no separated bike path and was "sharing the road" just like you mentioned
An inattentive driver killed him
https://youtu.be/Roszl69kY6k?t=975
A bike path like pic >>2044837 and he would still be alive and there for his two children and wife and community.

>>2044929
I don't think he's being unreasonable expecting cyclists to use bike paths when there though the way and context he's using it in is somewhat disingenuous and probably more a diversion than an argument following from the topic at hand (regaring "just share the road lmao xD" in >>2041866 and saying "yup nothing wrong with that").

>>2044936
>Separated bike paths are a matter of life and death
>An inattentive driver killed him
See the flaw in your reasoning?
PSA: The 'bicycle infrastructure' shill is always a motorist.

>>2044938
Well you could lower speeds to 30Km/h but I think that comes with higher infeasability and probably is still less safe than just having a bike path like picrel
I think I understand where you're coming from and the lack of a full spectrum approach to transportation and urban planning as well as bending lives and liberties to appease the sloth and expediency of car drivers is shit, but I don't think properly built bike paths and bike infrastructure that has proper inhibitors and design that deconflicts traffic modes is part of that cancerous motorism mindset.
I think it's a smooth transition between these concepts in reality
For example picrel is perhaps the "undue privilege for motorist" version of bike infrastructure
But if the bike/pedestrian path were raised like is often done in the Netherlands and other countries that plan urban infra competently so as to form a speed bump that physically forces the driver to slow down lest he pay a few grand for the underbody damage it is slightly more just in the sense of not sacrificing peoples health and lives for seconds of convenience anymore at all like before

>>2044939
Forgot the picture like a dummy

>>2044938
Well you could lower speeds to 30Km/h but I think that comes with higher infeasability and probably is still less safe than just having a bike path like picrel
I think I understand where you're coming from and the lack of a full spectrum approach to transportation and urban planning as well as bending lives and liberties to appease the sloth and expediency of car drivers is shit, but I don't think properly built bike paths and bike infrastructure that has proper inhibitors and design that deconflicts traffic modes is part of that cancerous motorism mindset.
I think it's a smooth transition between these concepts in reality
For example picrel is perhaps the "undue privilege for motorist" version of bike infrastructure
But if the bike/pedestrian path were raised like is often done in the Netherlands and other countries that plan urban infra competently so as to form a speed bump that physically forces the driver to slow down lest he pay a few grand for the underbody damage it is slightly more just in the sense of not sacrificing peoples health and lives for seconds of convenience anymore at all like before

>>2044936
>I'm always glad when a car driver keeps lots of passing distance, or when a cyclist wears a reflective vest, just cause that's a sign people are looking out for each other.
Holy fucking shit, how deep do you have to be drenched in cager propaganda to think these 2 things are equivalent?
So a cyclist who wears normal fucking clothes isn't "watching out" for cagers?

>>2044942
Yeah, I think it's pretty silly too but to an extent I also view being visible as just common sense given the reality we live in
How we talk about and frame these measures taken or not taken is important of course

>>2044940
I tried writing a long reply but it just started to become an essay and also its all being said many times before. So in short:
Yes perhaps it can work and would be better if you went all in with that. Build a second(that will cost some money), physically seperated road adjacent to every other road (you'll be tearing down alot of buildings), contruct all crossings, where a user of one road wants to take a turn in the direction of the adjacent road(its not getting cheaper isnt it), to either go over or under, so they never cross. Since roads don't exist in a vacuum but lead from ome property to another, you'll have to come up with a solution here too(guess you're not getting around two storie driveways here). Etc. etc. and eventually you'll have perfect seperation and the motorist wont have a reason to concern themselves with the morality of their actions. But if you skop any of those measures, if your design only has one single flaw where contact takes place, the result will be worse because for reasons I'm leaving out modern traffic works very well when it is just an endless row of repeatet standardized situations occuring with high frequency. The motorist carelessly adapts to this and as a result rarer occurances are more dangerous. On average this leads to a net safety gain in traffic.
Alternatively you could improve the situation without needing to invest the entire GDP into infrastructure for the next few decades, seize land and raze buildings to make room. You could make changes to the law such that motorists will finally be held accountable. Society could stop pretending it wasn't in the power of the motorist anyways to prevent the crash they caused from happening, even if they had done at leasg their due diligence. In cases where crashes happen it should at least be the case thag the victim gets the medical care required so whatever function can be restored will be.
>cont.

>>2044957
>cont.
You could make changes to the law so that a motoring license expires every two years and if the holder wishes so must acquire a new one. Instead of simply pretending the mental and physical abilities of an 18 yo wont ever change and people would neither forget about the law and also always make sure to stay up to date on most recent changes, like Fahrradstraße. The one in the city closest to me. makes it very clear the motorist did not read about it but they wouldnt care anyways. You could make changes to the law that make testing for character mandatory, after all as things are now drivers licenses are handed out to psychopaths which is not a secret. You could make changes to the law whereafter the difficulty to obtain the license reflects the dangers and responsibility associated with the subject of the license and not popular demand for the license. Oh well one could even simply agree to enforce traffic laws to begin with it would probably immediately end alot of the douchebaggery and also generate some awareness about the issues associated with motorism.
Imo the best case scenario would be not having laws but decent people but thats far fetched too.

>>2044957
>>2044961
I didn't mean that so far-reaching, I was merely pissed about the flippant "just share the road" statement with respect to separated bike paths on these suburban/exurban roadsides not being there which leads to death for those that try to "share the road" as is technically legal and envisioned.
It's just about that, I didn't mean that everything has or should be built separately.
Competent drivers are important as is holding them to account when they do fucked up shit.
I reflexively thought "getting the license again and again is way too expensive" but maybe that's the kind of pressure needed to cause a shift in traffic planning and usage here in Germany.
Then again, I doubt something like this will happen here given how corrupt- I mean lobbyism wormed its way into the legislative here.
It's a complicated issue and it ties into so many other issues that it's hard to know where to start or stop talking and what can be realistically done and changed.
Just recently I thought how friction and fear of not finding a new apartment if you leave your current one also poses hurdles to good public transit.
If you can easily move close to wherever you are working and move again pretty easily without having to fear exorbitant rent then it'd be much more realistic to have way more people taking the bus/train or cycling or even just walking which could turn a vicious cycle of lack of usage, lack of investment, lack of awareness, lack of improvement into a virtuous cycle of increased participation and usage, interest in transit and appreciation of urban design by traveling <10Km to work instead of >30Km which vastly limits the transport options and makes it harder to have public transit make sense and be pleasant/convenient to use
But back to your point: I agree that there could be more done to create better drivers but infrastructure design is just as important imo

>>2044979
>too expensive
well they recently even made the price of drivers education a political debate, leanding credibility to my point: The bar has not been set according to the dangers associated but the demand. Democracy has such effects. After all in germany it takes more effort and time and a generally more comoetent person to acquire a fishing license compared to a drivers license. I wonder how many people you could kill being careless going fishing.
>I doubt something will happen
Nothing will happen. But it will be even worse if people fall for the motorist tricks, like bike lanes, 'Fahrradstraße', 'e-bikes' and such.
>hard to know where to start
It's something almost everyone completely gives up on after a few decades of trying. Partially because of disagreements like ITT, partially because of larpers and also because see above: Nothing changes.
>bus/train
Motorists are motorists. Altho I agree that there is better and worse motorists. On a sidenote I start foaming just thinking about the bus drivers. Their driving is usually amongst the worst the roads have to offer.
>30 km limits...
nah its really just a question if the mindset, I remember two periods of time where I walked the 16 km to work because of recent cager attacks and fhe doctor telling me I can, under no circumstances, cycle. In both cases I couldnt run either. Sure there is a limit to what can phyically be done but in densely populated areas like the countries of western / central europe you'll always find residence within 30km of a given point.
>infrastructure design: Those things have a very high potential to actually make matters worse, regardless of who is behind it and their intention. It's always the motorist behind that. And the intention is obvious. You hardly ever find anyone advocating for that but the motorist. Also it's just a slippery slope to the motorists goal: Banning the public from public roads (the irony) aka road belongs to the motorist.

>>2044929
This precisely is why the feedback loop promotes cyclists being as hated by the "cagers" as they are
>I will demand my own infrastructure and cause property damage if you dare touch it
>no I will not stop using the middle of the streets, I am entitled to it
Obviously not every cyclist behaves or thinks like this but the loudest voice has given them this reputation.

>>2045090
Now apply your quote to car drivers. Except they're even willing to cause death and injury if you date try to use the infrastructure they claim for themselves (that everyone's taxes paid for).

>>2045094
No, they don't. Find me a car forum where mods will let psychos fantasize about damaging stationary bicycles that are just sitting there, or actually harming cyclists, or demanding to drive in any bike lane or dedicated cycling infrastructure (that was never even converted from a main lane).

All this "muh cagers want us to kill us all" comes off as projection every time.

>>2044982
It's genuinely interesting for me to hear your view that is in some way different to mine and to such an extent I find it implausible.
And all that without immediately sinking into shitflinging - just wanted to state this much without any subtext.
Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough to be imaginative but when you say "not falling for motorist tricks like bike lanes,... ,..." what exactly would a better solution look like?
Physically, legally, geographically, socially?
I'm just having a hard time associating a tangible layout/thing/strategy to these judgements and metapolitical commentary you present on infrastructure and how to manage different modes of transport in it.

Wishing you best of health and luck for the future, anon, may you eternally ride chrome and awesome.

Out of the flow of conversation - I live in midsized USA city and have minimized my car use enough that I only fill the tank a few times each year. This means biking alongside cars sometimes...which means picking non-busy times of day. An eventual crash is assured if onroad bike lanes are used during traffic hours.

I think the problem is self-perpetuating: people do not feel safe biking to get groceries/hardware/to work/to daycare, and so they don't learn how good it feels to do it. They don't learn that it's only a bit slower for many things, and that in some cases it can be quicker (if I ever order Panera I can bike the 1.2 miles to pick it up faster than I can drive, due to a bike path + non-busy road facilitating bike transport).

There's a connection to the world, satisfaction, and exercise that make me wish I could use the bike for more of my routes. I wish that a USA city would experiment with integrating biking into their transportation network without an anti-car bias. Just have a pro-bike bias and make all transportation infrastructure functional and safe.

>>2045115
The equivalency you try to draw between bike and car in usage dispute is invariably false because of the stark assymmetry between the two.
Cars are everyhwere and their infra is well established and sometimes supported well beyond the point of reason
Bike infra takes away way less from society than car infra and usually actually even improves and adds to it once reinstated yet you try to make it seem the other way around as if it was bikes and not cars that are disturbing some implied better/more optimal state of affairs in infra/transportation
And beyond all that you whole premise of arguing against better bike infra because "hurr durr cyclists sometimes don't drive on designated bike paths" is just frankly dumb and false in the absolutely overwhelming majority of cases empirically and epistemologically.
I view this point you're trying to make as mostly rhetorical diversion.
Having bike infrastructure is good and it's better than trying to merge car traffic faster than 30Km/h with bike traffic or high throughput car traffic with bike traffic
Exact point is visualized and mentioned in this video at 3:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=208&v=Uhx-26GfCBU

(disclaimer: attached pic is just a generic example and doesn't really relate directly to anything I'm talking about in this comment - in a perfect world there'd be some sort of alternative route for cyclists altogether because they can go where cars can't but outside of cities and more dense urban zones such 1:1 parallel integrations are the more suitable concept imo)

>>2045119
>I wish that a USA city would experiment with integrating biking into their transportation network without an anti-car bias. Just have a pro-bike bias and make all transportation infrastructure functional and safe.
Invariably car karens will assert it's anti-car anyways and thus the only way to get anything done is to be slightly or even largely vindictive.
Just look at democlaps and republicunts.
(ex)republicans are evil and ghoulish for sure but at least they are playing to win.
Working within the framework of car-appeasement is not playing to win.
I hope doug ford suffers a debilitating stroke, that fat dumb piece of car-brained shit that actively disregards empirical evidence on how bike lanes make traffic better and raise quality of life.

>>2045121
If I were trying to formulate a perspective to turn people away from making efforts in this regard - and a post to represent it - yours would be similar to what I'd come up with.

Making enemies out of everybody with an all-or-nothing thinking is offputting. Rotterdam did not become functional with that spirit. Enemies do not cooperate with you unless you can force them. Be kind and reasonable. I think the only way this happens in the USA is with some model cities and optimism, along the lines of Le Plessis-Robinson, Poundbury, and Brandevoort. These will inspire a change, as they seem to be inspiring Europeans to return to traditional building design.

>>2045118
I never said I have solutions. I mean sure I have wishes. I wish for a world where everyone is considerate of others, mindful about everything they do and decisions they make. Where everyone thinks and questions and then does what they truly believe is the right thing to do, instead of simply going with what is the norm or most beneficial to oneself. Sure not everyone comes up with the same beliefs about what is wrong and right but I believe what we are seeing is actually people not thinking at all or people choosing other incentives, such as convenience or personal gain, over their convictions. They often times can even be observed actively fooling themselves to retrospectively improve the morality of their decisions and habits
But you see I do know what I do not approve of
I do not like laws. Just like states, nations, territories and so on desu. As stated I prefer a world where everyone acts good out of conviction and not out of fear of repercussion. I also believe laws often have a negative effect too. They trigger a race to the bottom. Once there is a law many seek to maximize their own utility by touching on the subject of the law as much as they can without burning themselves. They get to delude themselves that this - actual bare minimum - behaviour was just, after all a group of smart people drew the line there, right? People will insinuate that somehow being decent beyond the bare minimum the law demands was somehow disadvantageous because there is someone else that will not. To stay on topic: Why do you think the motorist chooses to go 50, or 55, or 60 when the signs indicate 50? Even when the conditions do not allow for it and the code technically says it means 50 in perfect conditions. If anything is imperfect, be it something about you or your vehicle, traffic, illumination, weather etc. then it means less than 50.
>cont.

>>2045134
>cont.
The whole seperationist agenda too has megative effects. If this sort of infrastructure manages to keep bicycles of the roads (public roads, roads youre even forced to pay for, without having access to) it will lead to inceased amnesia amongst the motorists when it comes to bicycles and thus increased danger should a cyclist be on the road.
Also there is alot of personal experience that goes in this. Most of my severe crashes, that means those that caused injuries that have lasting effects, which desu sucks ass (if youre young you dont know yet but in a few decades you'll have racked up plenty of motorist induced injuries and youll learn that eventually things start healing slower or not at all entirely) were associated with 'bicycle infrastructure' but I will admit it usually was 'Radschutzstreifen' which, I understand, is explicitly not what you're talking about but just paint instead.
Then there's the practicality: Why not simply have a road for everyone, be a decent human being and also educate people about dangers. This works.All the cycling infrastructure ideas bring new hallenges (as outlined before) having two sets of roads is almost like the idea of having two sets of train grids that never share a single track, switch or station but somehow lead to all the same places. The legal side of things is confusing as hell, for example:
How do you overtake (in the just paint example), do you think cyclists should switch two lanes, or overtake on the right?
The just paint case even worsens the legal situation of cyclists directly. If cagers respected the code then here is how to overtake: Make sure there is room, then without violating safety distance switch lanes, overtake and switch back, again without violating safety distance. Funny enough now that the cyclist is, per definition, "on another lane" (in the door zone) the code doesn't require switching lanes anymore (which the cager doesn't do anyways ik).
>cont.

>>2045137
>cont.
Which is why they felt like introducing that 1,5m law (which the cager doesn't heed anyways) and this law would be fully redundant (not that redundancy had ever stopped them from slapping another law and 0 enforcement onto a problem) /if it weren't for the bike lanes (redundant because of a combination of the code requiring the use of the right side of the lane and the code requiring switching lanes for overtaking and the code - indirectly - requiring a lane to be wider than 1,5m).
And all the seperatist bicycle infrastructure agenda is almost certainly always a ploy by the motorist to keep those pesky unmotorized people of the road (that everyone is forced to pay for) and confine them to a dysfunctional, slow and undermaintained inclusion zone. The german state for example has already enacted that next step of the 'plan' or natural progression: Require you to use it and ban you from using the roads.
So long story short: Even if you like it it's still a ploy by the motorist to keep you off the road and I don't think it's a problem giving them the gratification of you going with it because you genuinely like it. Let them have it. But not everyone likes it and they shouldn't be forced then.
In its current most common form it's more dangerous, not less (cagers taking a right turn, cagers cutting across it in a right turn... but I mean cagers cant even wait at a roundabout if theres a cyclist in it so meh).
And it may make cycling more dangerous in all forms, because a bicycle will become an even rarer event and traffic only works as good as it does because its highly standardized and just a never ending sequence of a small number of identical repeating situations with limited implications. This is generally good, it works. But also makes rare situations even more dangerous.
And the current most common implementation (just paint) has countless logical flaws
>cont.

>>2045139
>cont.
and the design you expressed you wish for (completely physically seperated) can also not ever become entirely real, it has plenty of flaws like shown before (mostl, related to network theory). It just serves to harden the notion that nothing but motorvehicles belomg on roads (which funny enough are far older than motorvehicles).
And no I still dont have solutions. The cagers aren't going away anytime soon. They wont get better education or god forbid even become decent people.
I think one underused solution that just shows where the cagers priorities lie is the possibilities of modern technology:
It would be EASY with modern computing power, computer vision systems, positioning, etc. to equip all cars, even retrofit existing ones, with systems that assist the driver and for example prevent them from 'accidentially' going over the speed limit, 'accidentially' running people over, 'accidentially' crossing into another lane and so on. But aparently the individual cager is always a better cager than all the others and does not require any assitance, it's the others that cause crashes and such device would be an unneccessary expense ( just like energy efficient vehicles or exhaust systems etc.) and in any case it would aparently be an infringement on freedoms every cager should have (such a system could of course be overwritten by decisive driver input).

>>2041866
at least it actually has a shoulder

I have a problem with the amount of noise cars and bikes make. Ideally it should be none, but I do have an idea of what they could have done.
They should have never allowed loud cars and bikes to exist in the first place, because why would you even do that.
You know how countries are usually separated by sections / states. A solution to the problem that is already there would have been to make a forbidden loud car and loud bike state. If you are unhappy with the noise in your state you could simply move to the one with the right rules. People could “vote” for what they want by simply moving.

>>2045404
Heck, you might as well make it forbidden to allow dogs in that state as well. Ahh, peace and quiet at last. Sounds closer to heaven.

>>2045404
Loud engines were sort of a necessity when the combustion engine was invented. People considered themselves lucky to get it working at all so didn't bother muffling it. But they sure realised the flaw. The technology soon advanced and the people behind it naturally added mufflers, masking one of the flaws they were aware of at the time.
But then (((certain people))) started using and abusing the technology and instead of feeling shame for being reliant on glorified mobility scooters like a cripple they somehow managed to delude themselves into being proud of it and with that (((certain people))) even felt the need to announce to everyone on the vincinity that they are such degenerates.
>>2045404 Its contradictionary almost to the point of comedy how some people will always argue 'you can always leave if you dont like it' (which in itself is not a great sense of justice but thats another discussion) and at the same time it is those very same people who always advocate for making every place on earth the same, especially in terms of governance, jurisdiction, culture etc.
Perhaps it's time /n/ hatch a master plan where a location is selected then unincorporated land is bought in that location by everyone to their ability and posts signs reading the motorist will be shot at if they trespass.

>>2045130
you really have an insanely ignorant idea of the average person in the US. the concessions to car use that a city like brandevoort must make is completely untenable to the average US citizen. they'd see the density, the small tight roads, low speed limits and call you a communist faggot trying to make them live in bug pods.

>>2045435
We're not trying to change people who don't want to change. We're inviting the people who want to change city design. They'll populate a city with the nonconventional design and show its merits (or flaws) in an undeniable way. That will inspire the people in the middle, who don't care much and haven't spent any time to imagine how things can improve, to want the undeniable improvements (or want to avoid them). We already have inspiration for this with Denmark and The Netherlands reverting some of their major cities from their car-centric model to a bike-friendly model, to the acclaim of their public. Unfortunately that's overseas and will not be proximate enough for most Americans to experience the merits. But I was telling that anon that they did not get those projects done with an "us vs. them" mentality. They did it with public goodwill and, from what I've learned, it wasn't very popular at first.

>>2045404
There are truck engine brake bans in some towns.

>>2045404
Isn't the main problem with noise that past 40-ish km/h, rolling itself becomes noisier than engines?

>>2045471
Only jake brakes really, that is engine brakes that open an exhaust valve or additional braking valve at the top of the compression stroke. All other engine brakes are perfectly fine because they do not rely on the most brutish idea someone could have come up with but instead for example just throttle the exhaust.
Luckily eurofags don't have such problems. Euros simply rely on hydro- or electrodynamic retarders.

>>2038668 (OP)
unless you impose a minimum speed limit youll have a group of retards riding at 5km/hour while you drive behind them for 2km without being able to overtake , a retarded idea if you ask me.