The Chainlink

This article and 360 video from the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-ol-bicycle-safety-ro...

got me thinking about the creation of cycling infrastructure (and resistance thereto). The author writes:

The car may still be king in Los Angeles, but its dominion isn’t as sweeping as some entitled motorists seem to think. Roughly a quarter of all Angelenos don’t drive to work. Nearly 24,000 ride a bike, while 260,000 more walk or use public transit.

Don’t we deserve the right to get to work safely?

No matter who you ask, everybody will agree that people who don't commute by car deserve to get to and from work (or school, or the store, or to the local brewpub, whatever) safely. That isn't the same thing as asking people who commute by car if they would be willing to cede some of their infrastructure to bikes, buses and light rail. One way they justify holding onto the infrastructure they have is by denying that somehow the other groups who want a piece of the pie aren't deserving. If they can convince themselves that "all bike riders break the law all the time," then it's not too much of a stretch to say "they don't deserve special infrastructure."

How long will it take for a more bike/walk/bus/train-friendly infrastructure to become a practical reality? I suspect that most of the 284,000 people the author cites as non-auto commuters fall primarily into two categories: younger adults (millennials, Gen [XYZ], whatever the label du jour is), and lower income citizens. Younger adults historically vote in lower numbers and lower income segments of the population have less political power (less lobbying muscle, fewer political connections). That means older adults still hold much of the political power necessary to effect change.

I don't think that will change overnight. It will require auto commuters to "age out" of the commuting population. No matter how hard Rahm Emanuel, Eric Garcetti, or Bill DiBlasio push for more comprehensive commuting infrastructure in their cities, it will only happen so fast. That same generational difference shows up in all sorts of cultural attitudes, from acceptance of LGBTQ rights to marijuana policy. The people who cling to the status quo have to "age out" of the affected population or die to let the new norm take hold. The main difference between commuting and other changing cultural norms is that it requires a fairly hefty expenditure on infrastructure improvements to make the attitudinal change reality, even as attitudes change.

Views: 208

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The sooner they "age out" the better. Not sure how the generation after Z will fare.

It isn't just drivers interested in keeping the status quo.  There are too many corporations making money from people buying and driving personal automobiles.  Car manufacturers, insurers, petrol corporations, lenders, car dealers, construction companies, and advertisers make billions of dollars and aren't going to let their profits be reduced.

I'm hoping those greedy money makers are the ones that "age out".

This article which crossed my bike alert feed today is (I think) relevant to this thread:

Everyone should wear helmets. So why pick on cyclists?

Tom notes that the campaign to get people to wear helmets creates a perception that cycling is dangerous, and scares people off bikes. He probably hasn’t read Tara Goddard’s new research yet, or he would note that that is entirely the point; drivers do not want bikes in their way and will do everything to make it more miserable, from helmet laws to mandatory licensing.

So a number of slights against cyclists (always break the law, don't take their own safety seriously, etc) can be interpreted as efforts to justify not providing decent bike infrastructure.

In line with all those comments from the newest most recent bike accident with motorists saying the exact same thing.

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service