I was a pedestrian cyclist there from 2017-2020 and I frequently was walking or riding in the roads or ditches when the sidewalk ran out. Sure, I could get across town, but when I get there, who knows if there's sidewalks?
If I wanted to go grocery shopping and be on a sidewalk/bike trail, I had to go an extra mile out of my way to go under the overpass and through the community college to get to neighborhood market. That trip was already a mile if I rode along the road, so double the distance. That's not making cycling a first class citizen! That's hiding cyclists from cars who are the real first class citizen. I know, I grew up there.
Fayetteville and Rogers get this right(ish), Bentonville wants to pretend they have it right so talent will move there for Walmart after Walmart spent decades making sure brain drain was inevitable by keeping the area "small town" (they bragged about this during my corporate orientation) and fighting density that could have naturally precipitated good pedestrian and biking infrastructure.
And the separate bike lanes through the woods are not some grand way to make cycling first class they are NECESSARY or the rural drivers who come into the "city" would be playing chicken games and trying to run cyclists off the road. When I grew up this was a common thing to joke about!
Living in Europe this question doesn't compute at all. Such a foreign idea to even contemplate. If it doesn't have a sidewalk, it must be a country road or a highway right? Couldn't happen in a reasonably densely populated area...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad
USA seems to be unique in the case that they think this design constitutes a finished product.
Edit: the Not Just Bikes youtube channel has great content regarding contemporary urban planning. Here's their video about stroads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM
That said, the purpose of said sidewalks is to exercise your dog, or let your kids ride their bikes around. They often don't connect up to anything in a useful way (other than nearby parks and maybe elementary schools - but only if they are very close)
What should it connect to? Thanks to zoning there is no Café you can go to or a small supermarket or anything else in the vicinity. Not even public transport which then might bring you elsewhere.
If they could get away with it developers would drop sidewalks completely. It’s only because cities and towns started mandating it that they became fashionable again.
Which was considered fine at the time and depending on where you live is still fine.
Or in many of the places, the sidewalks exist, but are useless because cars are allowed to park on them.
I've never understood how people in wheelchairs are able to get anywhere in most of "civilized" Europe.
There is a little wedge of Washington, DC, bounded by Oregon Avenue, Western Avenue, and Chestnut St, called "Hawthorne". I used to run through and see signs reading "No Sidewalks in Hawthorne", after a while varied by signs says "Yes, Sidewalks in Hawthorne", but probably fewer. I suppose that this is six miles from the White House by air line, probably seven by road.
(And now there are sidewalks in Hawthorne, at least a few.)
When the Feds someday allocate billions to bike infrastructure, they’ll get the sidewalks, etc.
Imo securing rights of way that can be a framework for a future system is key.
Just curios, are you guys Java internally? If you can't answer, no worries.
I’d reckon it’s less than 20%, maybe even as low as 5%. The subway alone has a daily ridership of about 2 million, plus the massive amount of people who just walk or bike to the store, work, etc. I think it seems like more people are using cars than actually are due to their visibility, like you mention—they take up more space, they’re given more space, etc. It’s insane.
https://mashable.com/article/nyc-city-council-lyft-uber-cap-...
Two specific policies, but there’s also just the fact that every bike lane/pedestrian street/bus lane/low speed limit/etc. makes the city less car friendly and at some point that makes a difference.
You will eventually get hit by someone who punishment passes you and is dangerously negligent because they've dehumanized you, and they just don't care if they do violence to you, and its you're fault because you're slow.
Or you will get hit by people who simply don't register bikes and consciously or unconsciously think that bicyclists must yield to cars, sometimes turning left in front of you with no time for you to stop.
Or you will get right hooked by someone who just passed you a second earlier and that is too long for their minds to track the fact that you're still there, or they again think they're entitled to drive however they want and you need to yield to whatever they do.
1. randomly wandering out of the bike lane and into the car lane
2. stopped in the middle of the car lane around a blind curve
3. drafting 3 feet behind the panel truck in front of them at 40 mph
4. riding two or three abreast, with the 2 or 3 well into the car lane
5. continuing to cycle at 25 mph in the right hand bike lane while the traffic is going much slower, and there's a right hand turn coming up (it's difficult to spot these bikers while driving, heck, even cars are hard to see there which is why overtaking on the right is illegal)
None of these incidents were kids on bikes, they were all middle aged adults who really should know better.
I talked to a couple of these cyclists (in their tour de france outfits, naturally) once, and they laughed and said if they get hit by a car it'll be their big payday lawsuit. I replied getting crippled isn't worth a billion dollars.
Ride defensively, folks, regardless of what the law says or who is at fault.
I also never saw any other bicyclists on my commute do anything particularly dangerous or come near to causing collisions. I saw a few of them brake the law, but I saw a lot of cars break the laws as well.
The last time I think I saw a truly dangerous bicyclist was probably 10 years ago when some idiot blew a 4 way hauling ass after coming down a hill and given a minute one way or the other I would have killed him.
I really need to get a dashcam because of all the bad drivers out there though. Just the level of tailgating at highway speeds out there is fucking insanity, with every other driver convinced that their testicles will shrivel up if someone changes lanes in front of them.
As an operator of a motor vehicle, it is my responsibility to not endanger or injure other road users. It drives people nuts usually, but I take it seriously. I stop at stop signs and red lights. I take turns slowly. I don't pass in an un-safe manner. I drive slower. Cyclists riding like idiots doesn't really bother me because it doesn't really HURT me in any way. They aren't the ones driving multi-ton machines.
By all means yes, get a dashcam. The more evidence, the better. While driving, I've had a few cyclists come around around blind corners going the wrong way. Any type of road user can be an idiot. But the main commonality of your list is people clashing with your own personal expectations. Don't assume that evidence of such will exculpate you (eg #2).
Bikers ride like shit all the time. Drivers drive like shit all the time. Hell, pedestrians do stupid shit all the time too. Nobody is in some superior transportation group.
None of them know the actual rules of the road, and all assume they are correct and the ones in the right. You do any one of these things long enough, you'll see the stupid things the others do.
I took a class in performance driving once. The central rule there is to "be predictable", as that's how accidents are avoided at 200 mph when you're 2 feet off of someone else's bumper.
It's a lesson I took to heart in my everyday driving, and I wish that principle was taught regularly to other drivers, and that cyclists would have a clue about it.
It is also worth noting that motorists sometimes create the problems themselves. I try to stick to traffic regulations while on a bike since, as you say, being predictable is important. (In fact, it's something that a lot of cyclists in my neck of the woods preach.) Then you get a driver who tries to wave a cyclist waiting to make a left turn through when they have the right of way. No thank you. I have no plans on being road kill because the motorist is trying to be nice, and the guy behind him decides to pass on the right.
Unfortunately, tonnes of situations like that pop up. Stopping for pedestrians when they have the right of way can be quite scary. I have had pedestrians to the right thing (push the button, wait to cross), I've stopped, and the car behind me decides to race through. They had plenty of time to stop. I know because I always do a shoulder check before stopping for pedestrians. Not doing so can be fatal. I have had motorists get angry at me for stopping for pedestrians in intersections where pedestrians had the right of way under similar circumstances.
I realize that this is by no means a one way relationship. Some cyclists are idiots, either taking to many risks or by being to timid. Both result in unpredictability. I also realize that the behaviour of some motorists and some cyclists may be due to a "bad day". Let's face it, some people have to be on their bikes or in their cars even if they know they are unable to be fully attentive.
I also realize that there are many incentives to behave properly on the roads because bad behaviour can have nasty consequences. Unfortunately, it often feels as though a lot of drivers failed basic physics and don't understand their larger mass and higher speeds gives them a great deal more kinetic energy.
Let's explore the prejudice angle.
Not long ago in Seattle, a truck driver was going down a street under the speed limit, passing a line of cars all parked along the side of the road. As he approached a crosswalk, a cyclist suddenly was in the crosswalk, and the driver was unable to stop in time and smacked him, killing him.
The driver was slapped with a huge lawsuit, on the grounds that the cyclist was in a crosswalk.
Fortunately for the driver, there were many eyewitnesses who attested that the cyclist suddenly turned and angled into the crosswalk at high speed. The view of the approaches to the crosswalk were hidden by the parked cars. The driver was judged not at fault, yet there was still a hew and cry in the paper to hang him.
The driver was pre-judged as guilty, and had to prove his innocence. Without several eyewitnesses testifying in his defense, there's no doubt what the outcome would have been.
Hence I have a dashcam.
> it often feels as though a lot of drivers failed basic physics and don't understand their larger mass and higher speeds gives them a great deal more kinetic energy.
And the cyclists need to understand that cars have larger mass and higher speeds and are less maneuverable and have less 360 visibility, hence should not assume that the drivers can see and avoid the cyclist. For their own safety. I do not understand adults failing to look after themselves.
Like I said, I understand why you have a dashcam. It can be a valuable tool to prove your innocence should the need arise. The thing I take issue with is the presumed guilt of cyclists. Yes, there are times when cyclists are to blame. On the other hand, there are times when motorists are to blame. Those circumstances are common since most cyclists realize that they are the ones who are going to die. A lot of motorists don't seem to have the realization that they are the ones who can take lives. At least in the moment.
Here are some things that I have encountered as a cyclist:
- I have been in a hit-and-run. The impact was hard enough that I chunk of their car was broken off in the accident and loud enough that people could hear the crash in their houses. Witnesses said there was no way the driver could have not noticed they hit someone, yet they left me for dead. That is not how you treat another human being. I don't know who is to blame here since visibility may have been an issue, though I was following traffic laws to the letter, but the police said the driver's behaviour after the fact was likely the product of drunk driving.
- I have been intentionally hit by a driver. At least that is the only way I can explain it since they were stopped behind me at a red light and decided to go straight through me while I was waiting for an opening to make a left turn. Yes, I was signalling. Again, a hit and run. The police did not want to deal with it.
- The right hook is famous amongst cyclists. Believe it or not, these aren't always the result of cyclists passing to the right. I never pass to the right since I realize that many motorists don't signal turns. (I cannot predict what they will do, so I don't know when it is safe to pass.) Then there is the visibility factor that you mentioned. Yet vehicles will pass me and turn across me on a regular basis. I have even had that happen when the vehicle is in another lane.
- I have had vehicles make left turns from behind me because they are impatient and had poor judgment on the speed of oncoming traffic. I have seen several near collisions between two automobiles because of that, and it places me as a cyclist at greater risk.
- Certain groups of people like to distract cyclists. I'm not talking about people honking or screaming expletives here. I'm talking about people screaming absolutely nonsensical things at me in an attempt to pull my attention from the road.
I'm not bringing up these examples to say that motorists are always to blame. I know they aren't. I've certainly had my sloppy days on the road, though, ironically, those seem to be the times when I had the fewest issues. I'm bringing it up because there are plenty of times when large bundles of kinetic energy aren't following the law and are endangering people's lives. I'm not saying this is because your veering cyclist should avoid the blame. Most of the cyclists I know would frown upon such behaviour even if there wasn't an accident. I'm saying it because there are all too many cases where motorists seem to believe they are never to blame, even when they are not paying attention to the rules of the road themselves, or they make a bad judgment call, or even when they are acting in malice. It's like that because they have no skin to loose in the game (or, at least, not as much).
Those are all problems with the road, and not limited to bicycles. Eg. I see cars overtake on the right all the time
Nope. I thought I was pretty clear. There's no sane reason to park in the middle of the road around a blind corner. Or draft. Or wander randomly in and out of the bike lane into traffic.
> I see cars overtake on the right all the time
It's still illegal, and for good reason.
Not in every state, not every context:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.115
For bikes it is even more nuanced (in my state):
It's true that shitty bike lanes on auto-oriented streets are shitty, and that off-street paths are great. But lanes and paths are not the same thing, and neither of them is the reason this policy is working in Fayetteville.
And what's worse, I've had drivers stop to yell at me for riding on the (completely empty) sidewalk when crossing a narrow bridge busy with car traffic. As if hundreds of bikers don't die every year from getting whacked by careless drivers.
Some people are jerks in every situation. I don't believe bicyclists stand out as victims, except the expectation that they ride in traffic and the consequences of colliding with a car.
It's not clear to me why there should be any right for bicyclists to be allowed on the road.
It's conceivable a bicyclist can get away without paying any tax whatsoever on the road, especially if their income is small. Free rider, welfare queens of the road.
>Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous
In urban areas that's actually typically what the sidewalk for, and it's often illegal to walk on the road.
But this is why I'm against public roads, there are all sorts of bad problems associated with this being a public good.
Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years.
>Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years.
Historically, thousands of years ago, women commonly died in childbirth, a large fraction of children died before reaching age 5, and the only way for the greatest portion of the population to survive was manual labor in agriculture or some sort of subsistence existence. Most roads at least in US were not built thousands of years ago, a overwhelming portion of the total road area in America was designed with motor vehicle transportation in mind.
To suggest American roads are built as places for walking, for the vast portion of mileage, is just laughable at face and you only have to witness them to see this. And, in many cases, illegal.
Privatize the roads, IMO, and let the market decide how to efficiently allocate costs. It would be the fastest way to move towards more efficient systems in urban areas, such as much more bicyclists rather than wasteful cars. Bicyclists would pay their share, but see that it is very low. Car drivers may just see how wasteful it is to drive everywhere, when the cost is in front of them. It could lead to a rejuvenation and revival of the age of the urban bicyclist -- and just maybe a safer and cleaner world for everyone.
I would be in favor of moving to a per mile, per pound (scaled by actual wear estimates) axle weight tax system for all vehicles including bicycles. Based on the data though, it could get very expensive for some cars and would likely be nothing but an administrative burden for bicycles.
[1] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ [2] https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...
As the dude I overhead in some backcountry bar in the middle of nowhere put it: the government should pay for two things - clean water, smooth roads, and that's it.
They enhance the use of parks, they don't make parks more noxious, they increase property values, they keep the city valuable.
E-bikes are going to magnify the value of cities with good biking infrastructure. All of a sudden car trips become bike trips, and there are no concerns about hills or headwinds or towing a burly of stuff: the electric motor handles some or all of the required needed power. Need to haul ten bags of groceries and a kiddo up the big hill on the Mississippi? the electric motor will get you there.
It hopefully will reduce the amount of surface area dedicated to cars, and switch those over to more parks and more recreation.
Weather down there seems even more conducive.
My dad can bike from their house to downtown in 15 minutes (more like 30 as getting older). It's amazing. Completely protected separate bike lane going through old rail corridor. I can bike to whole foods from there too without having to go on a busy street.
They are expanding light rail there too but seems like similar to most cities it isn't great yet. Hopefully we'll see more density around the stops. My city Denver feels the same it's not actually used as much as it could be.
Bentonville and Fayetteville have built almost 1000 miles of bike specific, particularly Mountain Biking specific trails, right through town.
This is not the faux "bike friendly" BS crap with "bike lanes" that painted in traffic that everyone ignores... These are not an attempt to squeeze bikes into an automotive infrastructure and all the other crap politicians pull... these are trails through the woods, backyards, down neighborhoods, paralleling sidewalks, etc. This is making Biking a first class citizen.
Very few people are comfortable riding bikes in automovtive traffic. You will eventually get hit by someone posting selfies on instagram or playing their friends in wordle. If cities want actual change, they need dedicated infrastructure for bikes, and these two cities have shown that it absolutely works.