[_delirium]

He was killed by an automobile driver. The U.S. is notorious [1] for bicyclists (and pedestrians) being hit by cars at a relatively high rate, because it prioritizes automobile infrastructure and speed (and culture) over bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure/accessibility/safety.

[1] Not to say it's the worst, just relatively bad for an advanced country.

[bti]

The U.S. is huge and spread out. Not everyone has the luxury of having all their needs within a 10 minute bike ride. We need that automobile infrastructure to get places so it makes sense that it is prioritized.

[moskie]

But you've got it backwards. The point is that the "spread out" nature you're talking about was created with the idea in mind that everyone will have a car and will drive. That was a conscious decision, and not a necessary one.

Also realize that it was by design that you don't view having a car to be the luxury.

[jwoah12]

I'm fairly certain that the US was large and spread out well before cars were invented.

[TillE]

On a large scale, yes. But urban sprawl is directly caused by the automobile.

The design of US cities is just godawful from any perspective (environmental, social, business efficiency, crime rates, ghettoization, etc), compared to those in Europe. I'm fairly certain that Manhattan and San Francisco are so vibrant and livable largely because they're constrained by geographical barriers.

[scott_karana]

It's a bit of a stretch to refer to most large European cities being "designed", at least recently, isn't it?

[_delirium]

The urban cores are very old, but many of them are surprisingly small, with the bulk of the city dating to the past 100-150 years. Copenhagen's old center, for example, was less than 10km across (confined within city walls until the 1850s), so nearly the entire city was laid out according to 19th- and 20th-century urban plans (the 20th-century one was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_Plan).

The city where it's architecturally most visible is probably Barcelona, where you can see the medieval core's winding streets, and then a massive expanse of centrally planned regular squares outside of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eixample_aire.jpg

[antitrust]

I thought it was people fleeing the inner city for the suburbs that caused sprawl.

It sucks, but so do the cramped cities like SF and Manhattan. You can never get a moment's peace and contemplation, and they're even more crassly commercial than your average strip mall.

[moskie]

Sure, it was always large, but suburban sprawl was not always a thing. As cars became ubiquitous, things got more spread out, and designed with cars as the assumed primary mode of transportation. This was not necessarily a good idea.

[clarky07]

Or it could be that not everyone wants to live in a crowded city in a small apartment. Some people prefer to be a bit more spread out, perhaps near nature.

[betterunix]

The US was huge and spread out before the automobile was invented. People used to live close enough to local markets that they could get by on foot, bicycle, or horseback. We used to have train stations everywhere, enabling long-distance travel, but day-to-day travel did not require mechanization.

There is no reason we cannot create towns and cities where people do not require cars. New York City is like this (having grown up there, I did not get my driver's license until I was 25 and living in a different state). We can create local transit systems with buses, trolleys, and light rail. The only place where cars really make sense is in very rural areas, where the population is extremely sparse.

[hillbillyjack]

Without living in the US it is hard for you to come up with a valid argument against prioritizing automobile infrastructure.

Population density alone makes it an issue outside of large cities like New York, because of that you'll also find most cities have pretty lackluster public transportation.

It is tragic that people are hurt and worse because of automobiles but they are a fact of life in America and cyclists are a very minor subset of the population for which taxes rarely cater.

One of the major problems with bicycling is the lack of respect between the cyclist and the motorist, it goes both ways but there are plenty of motorists who do not understand the laws and despise cyclists. But there are also many cyclists who fail to follow the laws which helps perpetuate the hate from motorists.

If more cities had the budget for dedicated cycling paths and road usage I'm sure they would use it but as it is now only some "greener" cities are able to do anything.

[_delirium]

> Without living in the US it is hard for you to come up with a valid argument against prioritizing automobile infrastructure.

I'm American, and have lived in the U.S. for about 90% of my life, so I'm pretty familiar with the issues. Even leaving aside major change, and just taking cities as they exist today, pedestrian/bicyclist access and safety is just not prioritized even within cities. I lived in midtown Atlanta for three years, and two people I know were hit by automobiles while crossing in a crosswalk (fortunately neither killed, but one injured seriously). Bicycling safely was pretty much impossible, because the roads were designed exclusively for cars. And god help you if you were anywhere worse for pedestrians than midtown, which was relatively good.

It's partly infrastructure and partly culture imo. If you compare how drivers and pedestrians interact in, say, a German city center, with how they interact in Atlanta, the German intersections give much more formal protection: more crosswalks have lights, whereas many Atlanta crosswalks are not signalized, and the lights will typically give at least a short fully protected period to cross, while the Atlanta ones leave you dodging left/right turning cars even on a 'walk' signal. And culturally, the German drivers are just much more conscientious about yielding right of way when the law says they should. Pedestrians in a crosswalk are supposed to have right of way in the U.S., too, but at least in Atlanta you can't rely on it.

[mh-]

in short: you're (incorrectly) extrapolating what you know about one midsized city to the rest of the US.

[_delirium]

I could tell you about the years I lived in Houston or Los Angeles if you prefer. The situation for pedestrians there was not any better. I've also, more relevant to this article, spent a little time in Raleigh, though I haven't lived there. There is about a 2 block by 8 block area of downtown Raleigh that is reasonably safe for pedestrians.

Maybe somewhere like Portland is different; I haven't been there.

[thebordella]

I don't find any difficulty when being a pedestrian in L.A., besides actual distances.

As a pedestrian you don't need to "share the road", only to cross it. Sidewalks seem plentiful, even if underutilized, and most road crossings have been well marked and signaled. Cars have generally been respectful when I cross.

Cycling here would certainly make me more nervous, outside of the corridors with well-spaced dedicated bike lanes. But walking is fine. It's good exercise and the weather's great.

[akgerber]

LA has 4000 hit-and-runs a year, including 100 pedestrians killed (in 2009). The police department doesn't do a very good job of investigating. http://www.laweekly.com/2012-12-06/news/los-angeles-hit-and-...

I am willing to bet very few drivers will stop for you at an unmarked crosswalk, as well.

[jlgreco]

All three of the cities you've lived in are notorious for sprawl. It would be reasonable to strive for improvement in those cities, but don't make the mistake of thinking that the problems those cities have is representative of the rest of the country.

It's like living in rural Idaho then complaining that America needs to learn how to pave roads because packed dirt just isn't cutting it.

[chrischen]

You've never been to China then.

I've never been to any country where the drivers are more courteous to pedestrians than the USA.

[jlgreco]

Drivers are courteous to pedestrians to a fault in the north-west US.

Sometimes several times a day I will be approaching (as a pedestrian) an intersection (double stop-sign), say 10 to 15 feet away, and a car will stop and refuse to move until I reach the intersection, step into it, and fully cross it.

Contrast this with the east coast where a car will stop and pause for one second. If after that second nobody is in the crosswalk, they will continue. This allows pedestrians to comfortably stand in the general area of intersections without feeling as though they are holding up traffic. It also allows considerate pedestrians, like I consider myself, to allow a car to continue first (I often (try to) do this when I notice that a car has waited for several pedestrians already by the time I arrive). It also allows cautious pedestrians (as I am) to courteously opt-out of stepping in front of a car that seems impatient but begrudgingly stopped, or cars that appear distracted.

It drives me crazy. It reminds me of my mother/aunts all arguing that they should be the one that pays for everyone's meal; trying to be "polite" but ultimately just making the situation worse for no reason. Absolutely maddening. Cars and pedestrians should have a safe but adversarial attitude towards each other, it just makes everything run smoother for everybody involved.

[alxndr]

> Contrast this with the east coast where a car will stop...

You've seen cars stop on the east coast?!? Not me...

[moskie]

The US is a big place. Some areas are OK for pedestrians and bicyclists. Many are not so friendly or accommodating.

[chrischen]

I've been around the US.

Even in this article, the driver didn't seem to have done it because of disregard for cyclers or pedestrians. It claimed s/he moved out of the way to avoid traffic, and probably didn't see the cycler.

In China, they might actually go on the sidewalk intentionally and drive at you assuming you will move out of the way for them.

[droopybuns]

I quit biking because I realized it was unsafe.

I am not sure why ostensibly intelligent people would engage in any activity where you are one texting teenager away from crippling injury or death.

[xioxox]

For goodness, stop this hyperbole. At least in the UK, the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the danger: http://cyclehelmets.org/1015.html

[droopybuns]

I do not think you understand the definition of hyperbole.

I live 40 minutes outside of Seattle, in a rural area that is considered a great destination for a full day weekend bike loop. Our highways are curvy, have very little shoulders and are regularly traveled by speeding logging trucks. I am a former biker. I know what I have seen and it is just not a safe hobby. Your disagreement with the reality of a 50 ton truck traveling blind corners at high speed will be of little solace to your family at your funeral.

Hyperbole is a word reserved for exaggerated claims. I am not exaggerating. It is a dangerous hobby here in the states, and the biking community might as well be shaking their fists at rain clouds.

[jessaustin]

You're letting your perception of a local situation determine a proposition about the entire concept of bicycling. That is exaggeration and that is hyperbole.

[clarky07]

For the population as a whole maybe. That doesn't take away the not insignificant risk to any one individual of being killed or crippled.

Biking "could" give you an increased life span of 5-10 years IF you don't replace it with other exercise. In exchange for this, you have a slightly increased chance of being crippled or killed far sooner. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but don't dismiss his argument as being unreasonable. It's not unreasonable at all. I can happily get the benefits on biking on a closed course or at a gym while not subjecting myself to the dangers of biking near people in cars that don't always pay enough attention.