Instead of just electrifying vehicles, cities should be investing in alternative methods of transportation. This article is by the Scientific Foresight Unit of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), a EU’s own think tank.

  • @DoYouNot
    link
    English
    578 months ago

    The worst is when they install bike infrastructure that will just randomly end and dump you onto a busy street, and then complain no one is using the fancy new bike lanes…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      118 months ago

      Have some of these here. Absolutely wild, that the bike lane ends where it would become useful: Before a traffic light, so that you have to take part in the traffic jam of cars.

      But what am I even talking about. Traffic lights per se are an anti-pattern of city design.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Traffic lights per se are an anti-pattern of city design.

        It’s a pro and a con. Cars waiting is a good thing. Car drivers chose cars for convenience so anything that makes them inconvenient is a positive factor to getting them out of cars. I’m in a place where bicycles can turn right on red but cars cannot. And there are cycle paths through woods and fields and niche trafficlight-free places cars cannot go.

        I love traffic jams because cyclists are immune to them and car drivers can only sit in frustration as they get passed by cyclists.

        A couple intersections are still fucked up though, where cyclists might have to wait for ~2-3 differently timed lights to cross an intersection. Luckly red light running is not generally enforced against cyclists.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          Car drivers chose cars for convenience so anything that makes them inconvenient is a positive factor to getting them out of cars.

          That’s the wrong way. Bike should be made more convenient. But artificial worsening is no good thing.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            That doesn’t work. Making cycling more convenient is only noticed by cyclists. Car drivers see the inconvenience of pedaling. To them it’s harder work to move slower. You can’t offset that in any material way that’s noticed by car drivers from the comfort of their loungy cars as extensions of their living room.

            This is why I did not transition from car to bicycle. I needed a mass transit middle step. Mass transit includes the notable convenience of being chauffeured around, not having to look for parking, maintenance free. Then after getting accustomed to waiting for the tram and being locked to the public transport schedule, cycling becomes a viable upgrade from public transport (no waiting and more autonomy).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I agree on everything, but the conclusion that they are a pro and a con.

          Under the constraint, that the same rules apply to bicycles and cars and they are enforced, then traffic lights are definitely an anti-pattern.

          Under the assumption, that the alternative would be that pedestrians and cyclicsts would have always the right of way over cars in an urban environment, they would be neutral.

          But are they ever a good thing? I see where you are coming from with this: Traffic lights make cars wait. But they are installed to optimise car-flow, in the first place. So, if they were not there, cars would wait longer, because they are inherently inefficient vehicles that would clogg up intersections immediatly and consequentially bring car-flow to a total halt. Hence, every traffic not participating in car-flow would drastically accelerate if traffic lights were abolished.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I think the top purpose is safety and from there it’s an attempt at optimization. Or perhaps those priorities are flipped. But if you consider Europe which largely favors traffic circles over lights, that’s probably the optimum for keeping cars moving. If I were a selfish car driver in the US, I would want probably ~70% of the traffic lights at all the low-flow intersections to be replaced with traffic circles.

            I suppose it won’t be long before this discussion becomes moot. People on their tablets in self-driving cars won’t care whether the car is moving or not.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      108 months ago

      Oh yea, here they painted the gutter red and called it a day. One such red gutter directs you right into a busy 6 way intersection and just ends there, it’s unofficially called the suicide lane.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      18 months ago

      Well obviously you can’t put bike infrastructure in places with high traffic. There is too much traffic and all that traffic stuck in traffic it is better if it’s stuck in 2 lanes or 3. Bike lanes work on quiet roads and out in the countryside. But in cities it would mean that the bikes go much faster than cars which doesn’t make any sense because cars go faster than bikes.

      It’s just a waste of money. What is need is road widening. Or you know where that metro line is that doesn’t connect to the other metro line. If we dig a tunnel between those lines we will have a super fast and efficient way to transfer cars from the traffic on one side of the city to the traffic on the other side.