[uriegas]

Transportation influences urban development. That is why most houses have a garage. There is no such thing as private transport (streets are public). Transportation has been heavily centralized since the New Deal. The bicycle was okay for most people living in cities in the 30s, now it is not because the government has favored the car infrastructure over the last decades. I think we need to start with not letting government develop their big infrastructure projects which are not resilient. Advocating for the use of bicycles might make sense in some places yet bicycle infrastructure is required.

[pandaman]

Where I live there is plenty of bike infrastructure. I and many others don't use bike for transportation because of crime. Homeless steal bikes and parts of bikes if they cannot defeat the lock somehow. Recently a cyclists got killed in a "bike-jacking". People even get bikes stolen from their balconies on the 2nd floor. Reign in crime if you want people to use bikes more.

[DauntingPear7]

By “plenty of bike infrastructure” do you mean gutter lanes for bikes or proper, separated, useful and safe bike infrastructure?

[pandaman]

I don't know what you mean by proper, but there are bike lanes, often separated with curbs or bollards going everywhere.

[s-y]

This is true. But it does not negate the comment you are replying to. Once you introduce kids into the mix (esp infants) - this whole narrative falls apart quite quick, ditto for elders/people with disabilities. Bikes, public transport are not a substitute for the vehicle.

I do agree that the vehicle should not be the default transportation even if I do consider myself a "car guy".

[iknowstuff]

No, it does not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo

Car centrism TAKES AWAY independence of kids, elderly, and disabled people.

[s-y]

This is not a serious comment. Infants on bikes.

[iknowstuff]

Ever hear of a stroller

[s-y]

Ever heard of weather? Long distances? Sickness? Hills? A stroller is walking with a handicap.

Arguing for the sake of arguing in this case is really poor on your part.

[newsoftheday]

> the government has favored the car infrastructure over the last decades

It was a combination of federal push for highways and consumer demand for greater distance and easier travel.

[iamnothere]

Also, federal highways are partially a national security issue, and are designed for quickly moving military equipment across otherwise isolated areas. Guidelines for federal interstates are specified jointly with the DoD to ensure that military transport can fit under bridges, and that bridges can support their weight. Industry is the other most important user, while individual consumers/families are the least considered users.

Everyone always assumes that individual choices and consumer behavior drives this stuff, and then they wonder why nothing changes even though we all started using reusable tote bags and LED bulbs. Stop blaming the consumer!

(The DoD is the largest institutional polluter in the world, by the way.)

[uriegas]

That is very interesting. It is funny to see how influential the federal government has been on society, infrastructure and other areas of life. Specially considering that some people opposed to it during the confederation period because they saw it as another centralized authority (anti-federalist papers).

[iknowstuff]

trains are pretty good at that too I hear

[iamnothere]

Trains are cheaper per mile but are less flexible and easier to sabotage. They are also important but there’s a reason that every country with a powerful military maintains both options.