msu2001la

This is exactly the point of the NYT editorial. Most/all of the US has prioritized driving above all other modes of transport, and therefore our roadways are designed to prioritize driving, and are generally not very safe for biking or walking.

This is not just a "city" problem. Suburban streets are often multi-lane arterials with large intersections that are difficult to cross, have no sidewalks. Most suburban commercial development relies on massive parking lots, etc. The expectation in the suburbs is that walking and biking only occurs as a recreational activity in parks or on designated trails. The only people riding bikes in the road are "enthusiasts" willing to get up at 5am.

Other parts of the world decided that this wasn't acceptable and changed their thinking. In many European cities, the idea of driving a 5000lb SUV's to ferry kids to/from schools that would otherwise be a 10-15 minute walk or bike ride is insane. In the US, it's not just the norm, it's often the only option.

WhyFi

It's a vicious cycle - now, only a good guy with a motor vehicle can stop a bad guy with a motor vehicle, so we obviously need more motor vehicles.

genejockey 

Or low-wage workers who can't afford a car, and get around on an old Bike Boom-aged bike with the drops turned up to the sky, or a 30 year old mountain bike. You see a lot of them here.

A350driver

It would be great if every city was like Amsterdam, with dedicated bike lanes and bike parking everywhere but that’s never going to happen in America, we’re too addicted to our SUVs and most Americans think anyone on a bicycle should be riding on the sidewalk. Maybe if our gas prices get up to over $6/gallon and stay there for the next 10 years attitudes towards bicycles in cities will change but until that happens, look out for the idiots!

msu2001la

Amsterdam wasn't always like that either. It was full of cars in the 1970's with car-focused roadways. The change you see today is a direct result of decades of policy shift.

We could have that in the US if people wanted it. Too many people just throw their hands up and say "we can't do that here" though, and we end up designing roadways and cities around cars instead because it's just the way it is.

msu2001la

Yup. And our vehicles get bigger and bigger in some kind of weird arms race, which is perceived as safer for the occupants, but is actually far more dangerous for anyone on foot or bike. A modern 3 row SUV is so difficult to see out of that they require multiple cameras and sensors to avoid crashing into anything. If you hit a pedestrian with one of these, they get pulled under the vehicle and crushed, rather than knocked up and over the hood where they have a better chance of surviving.

WhyFi

Yeah, the front ends getting higher and more blocky is pretty noticeable, which is funny, because I thought I recalled semi-recent (decade or so) legislation to lower the front ends of vehicles. I specifically remember a split image of a BMW to show how it would affect the aesthetics. Maybe it was a proposal that didn't get anywhere.

msu2001la

You never see this though:

msu2001la

It's all about the macho marketing:

genejockey 

Decisions were made 70-80 years ago that put us on this path, and they will be hard to undo. I live in a suburb which was designed for convenient walking. All the housing is within 1/2 mile of the train station that would take residents to jobs in the city. There are parks and a shopping center, and once upon a time a supermarket all within an easy walk. The development started before WWII. Those built later spread the houses out more, put them farther from transit and shopping, and essentially built them around the car. For the last 60 years, suburbs have been almost exclusively designed around cars.

WhyFi

Ugh - it's so dumb. I forget why, but I needed to rent a vehicle and ended up with an SUV. It was a blocky, wanna-be macho ****er and it sucked. The worst visibility that I've experienced and it actually had less cargo space than my considerably smaller VW wagon.

indyfabz

I have seen some of that or similar in Philly.

datlas 

Where is the dislike button?!?

Disliked

datlas 

Next time, ask for a Saturn.

genejockey 

The problem is, it tends to lead to an "arms race" - the more people who drive pickups and SUVs, the more people feel the need for one. Not so much to "keep up with the Joneses" as simply to feel safe, or even just see through the vehicle ahead. It used to be, when the vast majority of vehicle were sedans and wagons, that you'd see through the car ahead of you to alert you to traffic issues ahead. Now the vehicle ahead is likely taller, and wider, and basically blocks your view. So you feel less safe unless you, too sit higher so you can once again see around/through the vehicle ahead. And of course if everyone else is driving 5000 lbs of blocky steel, a 3000 lb sedan is at a disadvantage in a collision.

WhyFi

Yup. See my previous, snarky, NRA-inspired post.

wolfchild

The size and style of a vehicle is completely irrelevant....A distracted driver in small car is more deadly and dangerous than a responsible driver in a large full size truck.

WhyFi

That's some bargain-basement logic - seeing as distracted drivers aren't limited to a particular kind of vehicle, the increasing size of vehicles is absolutely relevant.

BlazingPedals

It's been mentioned before that the currently popular style is to have 'battering ram' front ends on trucks because it makes them look 'tougher' and even bigger than they actually are. Admittedly they need lots of radiator, but current design goes well beyond the requirement.

wolfchild

Distracted drivers and aggressive drivers are the problem.....not the type or style of a vehicle.

msu2001la

A distracted driver in a large full size truck is more deadly and dangerous than a responsible driver in a large full size truck.

genejockey 

Two things can both be problematic. They're not mutually exclusive.

wolfchild

So what ???....we all have to be punished and have our choices limited because of few bad apples out there ???

wolfchild

You can't blame or punish an inanimate object for causing death or damage. It's the human using that particular object who is to blame and should be punished if they misuse that object .

njkayaker

The shift happened fairly quickly. What you see today (a high level of cycling infrastructure) was the result of the shift being quick.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ng-kindermoord

There were a few things (geographical, historical, demographical) that made it much easier in the Netherlands than it would be to do or have done in the US.