You make an interesting point, but in its weakest form, what you're saying is "Some of y'all are gonna have to put your bodies out on the streets and accept the risk that you'll pay the price (by being run over), because otherwise we'll never reach critical mass and teach drivers to anticipate seeing bikes on the street".
I think that's a significant weak form.
To play the devils advocate, Im much more in favor of strategies that actively prioritize minimizing injuries and deaths to cyclists. Two strategies that do that, are:
1) "critical mass" events where cyclists cannot be overlooked because there's just too many to miss.
2) infrastructure around care trips for parents with small children. Ie. safe bike infrastructure around kindergartens, and the nearest shops/parks/homes. This can be literally just half a mile of safe infrastructure as a start. This is a very sympathetic cause - its children and parents! After that the network can expand, where its only in the long term that commuters are prioritized. Thats basically what they did in the Netherlands. Its slow, its incremental, but I think it's a remarkably robust strategy.
Pretty tone deaf when streets don’t just look deadly but are literally deadly. I’d love to cycle more, but the main arterial street near me has had two cyclist deaths in four years - in the “bike lane.”
Bicycling on the sidewalk is a great choice. It's legal in Seattle and the state of Washington. It should be legal every place. I'm 79 years old and bicycle about 3 miles per day. No longer drive - committed to minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. Https://greenbetween.home.blog.
You make an interesting point, but in its weakest form, what you're saying is "Some of y'all are gonna have to put your bodies out on the streets and accept the risk that you'll pay the price (by being run over), because otherwise we'll never reach critical mass and teach drivers to anticipate seeing bikes on the street".
I think that's a significant weak form.
To play the devils advocate, Im much more in favor of strategies that actively prioritize minimizing injuries and deaths to cyclists. Two strategies that do that, are:
1) "critical mass" events where cyclists cannot be overlooked because there's just too many to miss.
2) infrastructure around care trips for parents with small children. Ie. safe bike infrastructure around kindergartens, and the nearest shops/parks/homes. This can be literally just half a mile of safe infrastructure as a start. This is a very sympathetic cause - its children and parents! After that the network can expand, where its only in the long term that commuters are prioritized. Thats basically what they did in the Netherlands. Its slow, its incremental, but I think it's a remarkably robust strategy.
Pretty tone deaf when streets don’t just look deadly but are literally deadly. I’d love to cycle more, but the main arterial street near me has had two cyclist deaths in four years - in the “bike lane.”
So when I say many streets are safe to ride bikes, you interpret that as every street is safe to ride bikes?
Bicycling on the sidewalk is a great choice. It's legal in Seattle and the state of Washington. It should be legal every place. I'm 79 years old and bicycle about 3 miles per day. No longer drive - committed to minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. Https://greenbetween.home.blog.