If you redo roads to only permit bikes instead of cars, it's an effective car ban. Sure, you can still have your car, but you can't take it anywhere because the roads only fit bikes now.
Of course there's nuance to be had, but most discussions just devolve into "why would anyone need a car?"
No one wants that. We want separated bike lanes. I also don't see why this angers drivers, you should want it too because now there's no cyclists on your car road. Everyone wins.
Regarding the obvious tax comment someone will make, infrastructure budgets usually come from city and council taxes, it does not come from car registration or even fuel tax when you wring out the details.
In other words cyclists have been paying their share of infra budget and getting nothing for it for a long time.
If you can't picture what it actually looks like, look up the Not Just Bikes video on Stroads. It does a good job of describing the current situation, and why it's hard for people to imagine how bikes could fit with current road infra without impacting them.
> No one wants that. We want separated bike lanes. I also don't see why this angers drivers, you should want it too because now there's no cyclists on your car road. Everyone wins.
You may want that, and indeed, I would highly prefer that, but most people who discuss this can only think about political punishments to affect behavior and go back to thinking that driving must absolutely suck in order for people to choose other options, rather than making alternatives even better than driving.
You don't need to begin with the mindset of "too many car lanes, destroy them until people are forced to use the nonexistant bus". It should begin with "people prefer driving. How many we make something even better so they don't prefer driving anyone?"
Sure, that will begin a competition between transportation modes, but when it comes from trying to make something even better, not out of wrath of driving/cars, then perhaps people will listen.
I'm in total agreeance, this can be a hard conversation to have online because I think each side assumes the worst version of the other.
Separated bike lanes does not imply removing total car throughput, in many cases separated bike lanes can be routed down low-traffic areas, alongside drainage canals or railways, through parks and such. Areas where maybe a handful of cars are using it, but hundreds of cyclists would use since it's the bike thoroughfare.
Modern city planning is often a story of "Worst of both worlds", in that because we can't even get these small projects done, people are are on foot or cycling have no choice but to be in the way of car traffic (be that cycling in traffic or making it so there has to be pedestrian crossings on major roads and that kind of thing). It's terrible for everyone when it could have been excellent had there just been some better planning and more budget toward non-car infra.
> No one wants that. We want separated bike lanes. I also don't see why this angers drivers, you should want it too because now there's no cyclists on your car road. Everyone wins.
The reason why you don't see why this "angers" drivers, is because it doesn't. No driver is angered by a bicyclist on their own road not interfering with the flow of traffic. Drivers are angered by cyclists that impede the flow of traffic and create safety hazards (yes, mostly for themselves) by having a bicycle share the road with a 2000 pound steel car going twice the speed. Move cyclists to a grade separated lane and no one will be bothered.
The problem is the population of bicyclists is large enough to support such an infrastructure project in only a few places. Whereas the cost of laying down a white strip of paint is sufficiently cheap that it can be done in many more places. So it boils down to money.
Arguing that cyclists pay taxes which are used to fund roads and so should have this major infrastructure project funded just for them (if they can direct their taxes this way, will they promise to never to drive a car? Are other people allowed to dedicate their tax funds to support projects just for them? Can childless people opt out of funding public schools and instead fund special centers just for them?) -- is not going to work. Public spending is about pooled resources and public benefits. Everyone benefits from roads -- e.g. even the bicyclists purchase goods shipped to them via roads. Roads allow the economy to function so that bikes can be produced and purchased, etc. At the same time, one can argue that cars benefit from cyclists who reduce traffic. These things are sorted out via a political process -- as a result of power, not some kind of mathematical algorithm.
Gain political power and you will gain the power to have these types of infrastructure funds directed for your group, otherwise it wont happen. That means cyclists need to win over the rest of the public whose representatives vote on these matters -- which up to this point is not something cyclists have been interested or capable of doing -- e.g. having good public relations and outreach to other taxpayers who aren't cyclists. Cyclists have an image problem with the rest of the public, which results in their political power being disproportionately small. That is why, in most places, all they get is the white strip of paint.
Your comment is rooted so far into car centrism it's hard for me to read through such a different lens. We see the world, very, very differently. That makes for an interesting conversation I guess. I have cars, I am a car enthusiast even. I use roads. But I also know there's people in the city who don't drive, and for them life is still dominated by cars. Sometimes that's me, sometimes I'm in my car.
Every sliver of spare space in our cities has been claimed by car infrastructure, and that's not fair to every other possible way to live. I'm not suggesting we remove roads, but we can do better than this for everyone else in cities.
> Arguing that cyclists pay taxes which are used to fund roads and so should have this major infrastructure project funded just for them
I only drive on a handful of roads, but I'm happy to fund all the others because other people do. That's exactly the same position cycle/pedestrians are in, they pay taxes too so why can't the community cater a little bit to them as well? People far and away pay for more car roads they'll never use than they ever will bike lanes they don't use.
My taxes go to many things I don't use and that's fine, because that's how communities work. I'm even glad we're building a car super-highway project because it'll improve commutes for people who do drive. It's fine to drive, I'm not against it.
I get it, we're not going to be paying for bike highways in suburbia where there aren't even footpaths for walking, because it's so far entrenched that no-one is even trying to walk or ride. But there are so many places in our cities that with just a bit of planning we could have catered to both cars and peds/cyclists at the same time.
Again, I don’t think anyone is arguing for making regions of the US unreachable by car. But when there are 6+ car lanes and no separated bike infrastructure there are clearly regions unreachable by bike.
Of course there's nuance to be had, but most discussions just devolve into "why would anyone need a car?"