Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1vjjq6 wrote

Reply to comment by hellionlord in Brett Smiley looks to change / eliminate bicycle lane on South Water Street by Locksmith-Pitiful

> My experience is limited to talking to people, I’m unaware if any polling was done, but I don’t believe this is supported by low income of minority communities.

>A populations support of X is mostly irrelevant to whether X is beneficial.

3

hellionlord t1_j1vq74f wrote

This isn’t a soda tax or cigarette tax, this has a measurable negative affect on the community it is effecting. Bike commuting simply isn’t viable for many people and to try to stretch this into a way it forces them to is both ludicrous and harmful.

7

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1vrvle wrote

I agree, there is a measureable negative effect when we only cater to cars.

4

Sarcofaygo t1_j1w5uyt wrote

Do you actually think it's possible to make Providence suitable for traveling without cars? You need a car or a bus pass to get around. A bike isn't gonna get it done for long distances. Plus a lot of bikers use the sidewalk instead of the bike lane, even on roads WITH the bike lanes.

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1we3w9 wrote

> Do you actually think it's possible to make Providence suitable for traveling without cars?

Considering we are one of the smallest, densest cities around yet other modern cities do it, I think the question answers itself.

It becomes challenging when people continually fight against public transit and this accessible infrastructure though... Quite hard to even walk 5 minutes without nearly being killed, but hey, we got parking 🥴

5

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wejep wrote

Would you say that many bikers choosing to use the sidewalk instead of the bike lanes right next to them is helping increase or decrease support for more bike lanes?

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1weyq0 wrote

Pointing to a few bikers using sidewalks is such a deflection and I hope you're not using it as any reasonable argument. I have never seen this used in any meetings or in any community so I have no idea. I've never seen a cyclist use one either except a few children.

If anything, a cyclist (or even a kid) using the sidewalk likely indicates a safe lane should be constructed.

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wfp7c wrote

I'm talking about when a bike lane is available....

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wfyw3 wrote

Why are you posing hypotheticals that rarely, if ever, happen?

My answer above is applicable.

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wgcn6 wrote

It's actually very common for bikers to be extremely aloof. Like the ones who bike directly In traffic when a sidewalk is available. It's a hazard for both themselves and the people driving

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wgpe9 wrote

>Like the ones who bike directly In traffic when a sidewalk is available

That's the law. Maybe they should have an accessible lane on the street.

And wait, weren't we talking about riding on the sidewalk?

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wifmn wrote

I'm using it as an example of how biking and cars do not coexist well in general. Both the bicyclist and the automobile driver are put into danger. Especially at night. Idc if it's legal, it's not safe

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wj8l9 wrote

I agree. It's also not safe for them to be on sidewalks.

Let's not blame the 10 pound bicycle... Maybe, just maybe, 5 ton vehicles that 16 year olds can drive with little training weren't a good idea - that's my super liberal part talking.

Let's build safe, accessible, streets for everyone.

1

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wla3s wrote

Banning cars & buses isn't gonna happen, sorry

And doing so would probably disproportionately impact disabled people who can't ride a bike... Doesn't sound very "liberal" to me!

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wnymu wrote

I never insinuated banning cars, please reread what I wrote. If you're going to operate a motor vehicle, you should have much, much more training and continual renewal. This is a big reason why so many people die on the road, bad drivers.

You've also strawmanned and deflected so many of my points. We get it. You hate bikes.

1

lestermagnum t1_j1w8t0x wrote

Another problem is that most of Providence relies on people coming in from outside of the city, either to work or dine or to support events. Those people need car infrastructure.

3

Sarcofaygo t1_j1w93fe wrote

Exactly. The notion of a walkable city is a great idea, but it has to be planned that way from the start. It's too late to retroactively change, in my opinion.

As-is, it's potentially fatal to travel by bike because there is many roads without adequate sidewalks.... Let alone bike lanes

3

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1wazu9 wrote

I think there's probably room for improvements in areas. Some wholesale change like a car free downtown or something is ranging between very difficult and impossible.

All things considered, the city isn't that bad for walkability. There's plenty of spots that you could point to and say "That needs to be better" in terms of design, traffic calming , etc but I think the walkability and bike-ability issues aren't really one in the same.

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wbo0i wrote

That's fair. I think what I'm trying to say is that there is areas where that is true, but they are little "zones". However to go a long distance from one zone to another is where difficulties are encountered

1

jconti1233 t1_j1wgrrn wrote

Pvd was built before cars existed

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wiad6 wrote

Genius take. How does that apply to today? Best of luck biking across the city with all the cars

0

jconti1233 t1_j1winet wrote

The point being pvd was originally retrofitted to fit cars. Making pvd more walkable puts the city back in line with it's original design

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wlprq wrote

Wouldn't reducing accessibility by car/bus disproportionately impact disabled people who can't walk or bike? OP of this thread has implied they no longer want PVD to be a car city. I guess disabled people will have to shelter in place for the rest of their lives

1

jconti1233 t1_j1wmtib wrote

Not an expert in the topic, but valid concern. Imho A nice bike lane is a lot easier to use than the sidewalk for low accessibility people. I agree with your premise though, Public transit for low accessibility residents is the mark of a solid public transit system

1

bbristow6 t1_j1wrtj7 wrote

You don’t need a car or a bus to get around. I’ve lived in Providence for 6 years and have never owned/used a car. I started biking 4 years ago and will go down to Bristol just to get food. I also teach bike safety, so I know that riding on the sidewalk is a big no no. Meaning I ride on the street where I’m supposed to be

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1ws45q wrote

Riding on the street is where you are legally supposed to be, but it's also a dangerous place to be for both the bike rider and the car drivers. That was the impetus for making the bike lanes in the first place IIRC. Otherwise why not just ride bikes on the street in traffic

1

bbristow6 t1_j1ws952 wrote

So, you’re saying every street in Rhode Island should have a bike lane because it’s possible to get all over the state on a bike? I agree

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wsgkl wrote

Is that logistically possible? And where does the money for this come from? Tax hikes?

1

bbristow6 t1_j1wslru wrote

Exactly. It’s not. So car drivers should just accept that bicycles are supposed to be on the road, and stop freaking out when someone on a bike is in front of them

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wwydy wrote

So true, head on collisions caused by cars having to swerve left to avoid bikers is a small price to pay

1

bbristow6 t1_j1wx3g5 wrote

If they’re choosing to pass when there’s a car coming in the other lane, then it’s the drivers fault and I hope they get in an accident

1

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wxzux wrote

Very sane take. It'd be much better if they kept driving straight ahead and collided with you instead, right?

1

bbristow6 t1_j1wy8g9 wrote

Nope! They slow down and wait 5 seconds. I know it’s a super inconvenience to have to wait a whole 5 seconds; but if you can do it, you’ll be saving your life and the other driver or cyclist

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1x24d7 wrote

So that the car behind them can potentially ram into them instead? Still a collision potential. All because you want to play in traffic

1

bbristow6 t1_j1x29qp wrote

If the car behind you is so close that they hit you for SLOWING DOWN, not a full stop, then they’re way to close😂 I can do this all day my dude

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1x3fya wrote

Lmao at you thinking it'd reasonable for people to risk car accidents so that you can weave in and out of the traffic lane

1

bbristow6 t1_j1x3l56 wrote

You’re lumping all cyclists into the “wheelie boy” category. Some of us do actually follow the rules of the road

2

bbristow6 t1_j1x3s67 wrote

And I’ve been hit by dumbass car drivers who have pulled out of side streets, without stopping at the very clear stop sign. There are idiots everywhere. It’s not dependent on what their choice of vehicle is

2

hellionlord t1_j1wdoh4 wrote

Everything you say seems to suggest you only care about your own view in this situation

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wfdsm wrote

When I'm in a conversation with conspiracy theorists, Republicans, or science deniers, they often claim the same.

I go by the evidence, that's all. If accessible infrastructure was demonstrated to be shit, I'd say it's shit. Unfortunately for you, the evidence strongly suggests the opposite.

0

hellionlord t1_j1wg4on wrote

What an embarrassing cop out. If you want to advanced green transportation initiatives you should do so in way that is productive and inclusive. You seem to be pretty uninformed about this topic so I get why you don’t want to talk about it in a detailed way.

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wgest wrote

What evidence do you have that catering to only cars in a city provides more benefit than a city that has accessible infrastructure for everyone?

All my reasoning is based literally on the US and global transit positions and goals and evidence in urban planning journals.

1

hellionlord t1_j1wl1ln wrote

I don’t need evidence to argue for that position, as I haven’t advocated for that. What evidence do you have that increased idling and stagnant traffic is good for the environment?

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wo9mp wrote

You've railed against accessible infrastructure. What evidence do you have it isn't a good idea?

>What evidence do you have that increased idling and stagnant traffic is good for the environment?

Accessible infrastructure reduces car use and congestion. It's the same notion that "to decrease congestion, we need more lanes" but in reality, congestion and pollution increases because it encourages car use.

1

hellionlord t1_j1wqcl9 wrote

I haven’t railed against anything, I’ve simply stated that the bike lanes as they are, are underutilized and increased traffic congestion.

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wv10h wrote

>I’ve simply stated that the bike lanes as they are, are underutilized and increased traffic congestion.

Fuck these arguments are horribly illogical but I'll take the bait.

I'd love to see the stats on that, not that it matters, we make investments all the time because we know from the evidence it works out in the long run, right? You also know that in that long run, congestion decreases and this infrastructure is more used, right...? How do you think cars came about? Or acceptance of renewable energy? Or literally anything else? It's a mindset shift through infrastructure, something we do all the time to advance society.

Anyhoo, all the more reason to keep moving forward with building more.

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1yjizm wrote

There’s not an increase in traffic. South Water Street is empty 95% of the day and barely has traffic at rush hour. That’s partially why the bike lane makes sense at that location—the road was previously way over capacity for how many cars used it.

1

jconti1233 t1_j1wi1fw wrote

The vast majority of Streets has side walks on both sides, car lanes on both sides and parking on both sides.

As a bicycler I know I'm in a minority, but minority rights are important. Being able to travel safely seems like a right, no?

It's just hard and frustrating that there is one discontinuous bike lane to get across town and to see the mayor go after them in his first 4 topics seems like the wrong direction for a brand new administration

1

hellionlord t1_j1wofjb wrote

Orrrrr it highlights how unpopular they are among most folks.

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1ww7t2 wrote

The general public doesn't always know what's best for them ffs... hence why we have experts for everything, and take a wild guess on what transportation and urban academics and engineers suggest. And fun fucking fact, if the public had 100% control, we wouldn't even have the fucking cars you seem to suck off to.

God damn, your arguments are poor and lack any sort of empathy. The person you replied to just wants to get to work fucking safely. I promise you, bike lanes aren't your fucking enemy dude

3

hellionlord t1_j1x1upy wrote

“The general public doesn’t always know what’s best for them” is a disturbing thing to say as well

4

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x2m5a wrote

They don't. For fucks sake, the general public was against cars, gay marriage, evolution and other mainstream science being taught in schools, fuck... a good portion of the population still think fucking Trump is fucking president.

Do you have any idea on how progress is made? You consult and rely on the fucking experts, not the public, and not solely businesses which is what Smiley is doing. What the fuck is the point of science and experts if we don't listen to them?

Accessible infrastructure is supported by mountains of evidence and all urban and transit orgs. You don't need to listen to fucking Billy down the street who knows fuck all about it.

−1

hellionlord t1_j1x4f33 wrote

I don’t know why you seem to believe there is a universally scientific consensus that the bike lanes in Providence are good as they are designed.

4

hellionlord t1_j1x4mnj wrote

Also, you seem like a lunatic. We are having a discussion about bike lanes and you bring up marriage equality and trump?

2

Dunder72 t1_j1z24ne wrote

Speaking of Trump, does he ride a bike?

0

hellionlord t1_j1x1h1h wrote

Please talk to a civil engineer about their thoughts on the new bike lanes. Unlike you, I actually have.

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x1tuq wrote

The fact you think civil engineers solely have the hand in neighborhood building shows your ignorance -- in fact, civil engineers widely likely support this because it's what they're taught in schools because it's grounded in the fucking evidence. I've already went to meetings and talked to crowds of not just civil engineers, but everyone else involved.

Please consult an urban studies or transit academic journal. You're kind of behind on the times. Cars aren't the way forward anymore.

2

hellionlord t1_j1x669m wrote

Recommend me the people you have talked to, I’d love to talk to them.

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x6oxd wrote

Come to the many meetings around transportation, accessible infrastructure, and urban planning in the city. These are often held by the city itself and elected officials from lawmakers to individual council members. Do let them know cars are the best way forward, perhaps if they have the patience, they'll explain to you why you're behind.

1

hellionlord t1_j1x91yx wrote

What meetings?

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x9d4z wrote

I suggest you email your local council person, follow the Providence planning social media (there was an event just like this the other week starring a Lego artist), as well as look at the cities upcoming meeting agendas.

1

hellionlord t1_j1vqzog wrote

It also seems like to fled the “low income/minority groups” support this to they don’t know what’s best for them VERY quickly

4