Interesting! To me the best bike "lanes" are not lanes at all, they are bike paths through the Forrest, no cars allowed or even in sight. Paths like this [0]. The air is clean, it's safe and relaxing. When taking my kids to school I go over such bike paths, it's nice, I don't have to worry so much about the kids. Then we hit the road again, I'm breathing fumes, I keep telling my kids to stay at the side, tell them exactly where to brake and cross the road... We should separate cars from bikes as much as possible.

https://cobblescycling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/4-gave...

Yes, but this can be used as an argument against supporting bicycles for commuting. E.g., "We will build recreational bike paths in the forest so streets can be kept for cars. We need to keep cars and bikes separate."

So, I personally believe that building brick roads with bike lanes in dense areas is a great solution. With brick, cars naturally slow and people naturally shop more.

That might work for recreational cycling but what about commuting?

I think this idea can be transferred to cities. To me the best bike network is one that is independent of the road network. Look at the 606 or lake front path in Chicago.

Look at Boulder Colorado which has an extensive network where many of the paths hug the creek running through the city.

The easiest place to start in most cities is to just build paths along rivers and streams that go beneath or above roads.

Yeah there are cities that build along rivers and streams, but we really need a cycle network built for connecting residential areas with employers via a direct path, the way we build roads.

Yeah, we'll just demolish a few houses to build a completely independent road network, just for bicycles. I'm sure that'll work.

It works in Houten, The Netherlands [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houten

Come visit!

>The design principle of separating cycling and walking from car traffic has been pushed to the limit. Houten is unique in this. Cycling comfort and safety are extremely high (optimal), even by Dutch standards. A large network of bike paths makes it convenient to cycle to various destinations and within the town the bike is the most popular means of transport. > The city of Houten is known as, nationally and internationally, and in growing interest from home and abroad, as the worlds best practical example for bicycle friendliness. A growing number of groups with politicians, developers, designers and students visit cycling city Houten for study purposes and inspiration.

You live there!?! It sounds wonderful.

This sort of thing is a big part of why places like Houten (and Odense - basically second or third tier cities with good infra but lower cost of living than capitals) are on our short list.

It's what they do for cars, and trucks, and anything that the municipality seems useful, so what's the difference?

When was the last time houses were demolished in a city for building more roads? We should treat space for traffic infrastructure as a fixed supply and take away space from cars for building cycling infrastructure. Building paths along rivers or through parks or such is almost always completely useless for commuters. Existing roads define the efficient connections between places people want to go. If you want cycling infrastructure that people use, you either need to put it where the roads are, or demolish housing to build new efficient routes.

A project to widen the 5 and 605 freeways means that approximately 200 homes in North Downey could be demolished if a Metro project goes ahead. https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/hundreds-of-homes-c...

Yes, Bikes, small e motar divery carts and a lane fore walking.

Been commuting daily through forests in different parts of Europe and had no problem, people regularly walked to work through the same paths. What's your concern?

The concern is that it's not often that your commute just goes through a forest. Usually it goes through some urban environment instead.

Many cities here have urban environment interlaced with parks. Although usually not our inner cities, but there cars are often banned altogether.

Accusing people involved in accidents of murder might not be the best way to make them sympathetic and gain their support.

We've played nice for decades and motorists have kept causing thousands of preventable deaths and show no signs of stopping. At some point we have to stop pretending these negligent homicides are "accidents".

People are self-centered assholes and this is reflected in their driving. An “accident” is an innocent, honest mistake. Incidents involving vehicles and pedestrians are cyclists are closer to negligence than an innocent mistake.

Nowadays, you can get yourself sentenced for murder for a traffic accident: https://m.dw.com/en/berlin-car-race-death-top-german-court-p...

Good. Punishments for bad driving ought to be much more severe.

The only thing more severe than a life sentence is execution... so... execute bad drivers?

I meant more generally. Drivers get off very easily for very poor behavior that is often negligent and sometimes maliciously so, especially in their treatment of pedestrians and cyclists.

"More severe" includes "any at all."

If you intentionally race through a city.

If I get hurt or killed because you're either careless or not experienced enough to drive a heavy vehicle what's the alternative solution you have in mind?