Lunatech @Lunatech@social.cleverlibre.org

@anubis2814 @dangillmor I don't know why you insist on bringing the Netherlands into this, Americans do not want to live in the Netherlands. But since you mentioned them, I would love to know what you mean by "they took away cars subsided privilege ". What subsided privilege? Why do you think is is a special privilege for people to be able to get where they need to go in comfort and safety? It's exactly that type of phrasing that will make voters wonder what you are up to, and conservative commentators pounce on language like that as if it were some kind of communist plot to take away people's cars.

It's reassuring that you say "Only a few weirdos want to end all cars, we don't want special treatment we just want equal treatment" but that is not the vibe I've got from previous discussions on this subject. There are a lot of bicyclists out there would would love nothing more than if cars were very rare and almost everyone used bicycles for basic transportation (and they aren't even talking about e-bikes). They would like the USA to be like Communist China or the Netherlands. But most people in the USA want no part of that lifestyle. A few may THINK they want it, but that's only because they have never actually lived in one of those other countries in the winter.

I will admit that the USA could do a lot better with bike paths PROVIDED the local unit of government maintains then, like they do the roads. But bicyclists have to take some responsibility also. Just because you are on a bike doesn't mean you can throw your trash along the bike trails, or yell at the top of your lungs in random places, or blow through traffic controls and expect cars to give you the right of way. The biggest problem I see with bike paths is they often run parallel to major roads, and when cars make a turn from the main road onto a side streeet they just don't expect a bicycle to be there and that's where a lot of accidents happen. But yet some bicyclists act like they always have the right of way. As the saying goes, cemetaries are full of people who were in the right.

I understand that bicyclists don't want to stop at every intersection but if they aren't going to do that then they need to be very aware of the traffic around them. I think every car driver lives with a little bit of fear that one day they are going to nail a bicyclist because so many of seem to think there are no other vehicles on the road but them. You probably don't think like that but I will bet you have seen others who do (like the ones who fly though red lights, or go full speed between lanes of cars just assuming no one is going to open their car door. American car drivers just don't expect anyone to be coming up between two lanes of cars; motorcycles sometimes get nailed that way too).

The best plan would be if there were underpasses or overpasses for bikes at every intersection but now you are not talking low maintenence anymore. Or if bike paths could be set back from intersections at least a couple of hundred feet but then you'd be cutting through people's back yards and nobody will go for that. So I don't know how you can ever give both cars and bicyclists equal treatment - it's one of those ideals that sounds good if you say it fast but when you really drill into the implications of that I am not sure it's possible. But that said I agree that there could be many more bike paths, again assuming the city or county will actually maintain them.

@anubis2814 @dangillmor

Kids used to be able to walk to school because there was a time when the media didn't have parents believing there was a child abductor/molestor hiding behind every tree.

If the battery fires have been debunked, the news media hasn't got the word yet. Anything can be debunked if you pay the right "expert" enough money.

What you call work and education some might call propaganda and forcing unwanted choices on people. People pay for car insurance and gas and maintenence because they don't want to be caught out in the rain/wind/snow/cold on a bike. For such people a bicycle is just an added expense and if you have a car you have no need for a bicycle.

I am not opposed to bike paths in general as long as the county or municipality or whatever maintains them (and that includes picking up trash discared by thoughtless bicyclists). In other words don't force adjacent landowners to maintain them. But even then, a lot depends on the area - a bike path in the wrong place can attract people you might not want to attact. Not all NIMBY's are just ranting; some people (including bicyclists) are just thoughtless assholes. We have that problem now with snowmobilers.

Don't get me wrong, what I am screaming about is the people who say things like "we've got to get people to stop using cars and start riding bicycles, like in the Netherlands" THAT is the big turn off and promoptes a visceral "fuck you" response. There are ways to promote bike paths that frame it as strictly a matter of choice and safety for those who choose of their own free will, without coercion, to ride a bike, but those who want to win on that point should NEVER EVER mention the possibility of getting people out of their cars. If that happens organically then you win but the minute people think you are trying to force them to give up their cars and ride bicycles like in the Netherlands, you lose. And people WILL vote Rebublican to avoid that, if they think the Republicans will tell the bicycle proponents where to go.