all 78 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 2 months ago (5 children)

What they're missing is the simple fact that the more people who ride bikes, the fewer parking spots you need!

I still say we should re-brand bike lanes as "Get bikes out of the way of our wonderful precious cars lanes" and then maybe they will realize that bike lanes make driving better too.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Theyre ripping out already installed bike lanes in Toronto, after their own reports indicate it wont likely help congestion. They won a court case to override the city and do it.

    I cant wait to see the stats showing more accidents and more congestion and how it was stupid pandering to the low IQ voters and big oil, and the connection the premier has to the removal people earning $$$.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    It's insane to me that a province would think it knows more than a municipality about how best to utilize its infrastructure. City administration would have a much better idea of how the bike lanes are doing and what ripping them up would do to traffic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    The problem with that logic is this is a residential area. Getting people out of cars and into cycling is great and reduces how often cars are needed. All good things, but probably not enough to eliminate the need for cars.

    When I lived downtown, I was able to walk or take the train almost everywhere. But there were always a few remaining things where I needed a car. It was great having the option to rarely use a car but I wasn’t able to get away from the need to have one. It greatly reduced how often I used a car but did not at all rescue that I needed a parking spot

    Assuming this is residential and the spots were needed, we’d be better off finding a long term storage solution for cars, an alternate location for vehicles that are needed but rarely used

    But I’ll agree with your logic if this is mostly retail

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Every house has a driveway and there's almost always one car in the driveway an one car parked in the street out front. There is some retail that relies on street parking, but when bike lanes go in, such businesses always seem to find that it leads to more people being able to get to their businesses instead of fewer. I agree having bike-able neighborhoods doesn't eliminate the need for cars. Heck I have a car that I hardly ever use and have off-street parking available so I recognize my car privilege, but it might reduce the need for two-car families. Or at least reduce the number of families so dependent on having both cars with immediate access to the street at all times that they couldn't park both cars in the driveway. There's also an elementary school along the route, a park and community center, and a little local grocery market, which would all become safely bike-able for families. It really seems like it would improve the quality of life and not be such a major inconvenience. I saw a few "We support bike lanes on Hopkins St." in yards. It sounds more to me like a vocal minority of curmudgeons gumming up the works as usual.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -17 points 2 months ago (71 children)

    Parking in Berkley is harder to find than the abundance of existing bike lanes

  • source
  • hideshow 71 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 months ago* (12 children)

    Here's a map of the bike lane network in Berkeley. Not bad but you'll notice the vast majority of streets don't have them, including some that are quite busy. And some of these existing lanes aren't really safe with the speed of traffic on them.

    https://bikeeastbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Berkeley-bike-map-2026.pdf

    What do you suppose a map of street parking would look like? Does the fact that there is no such map tell us anything?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    You know, I’m glad this is up to the residents of Berkley and not some internet warriors on Lemmy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago* (9 children)

    I'm allowed to have an opinion on it. And If you make poor, false arguments, expect pushback.

    And I'd wager good money that the residents of Berkeley are for it, which is why the council voted for it 7-2. But there are always going to be entitled children who whine about things nonetheless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    City council decisions are not a public vote. But hey, that’s like your opinion, man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Sure, but they're correlated with public opinion. If you've got polling data then feel free to share. But I'm guessing this is the best we've got.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I hate to break it to you, but most city councils give zero fucks about public opinion. See flock.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

    Sometimes. But this statement shows a very poor understanding of politics. Politicians don't just do unpopular things for fun. They do them when their political constituency demands it. And that constituency can only override political will when they have a lot of unaccountable power.

    Flock is popular with cops. That's why flock gets approved. There's no major institutional force out there pushing for bike lanes. Just grassroots advocates. If anything, you can see from this lawsuit how wealthy people are opposed to it, so it must be really popular to override that.

    But regardless, taking issue with my evidence but only offering your own feelings in return is a very weak argument. So I'd say put up or shut up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    The only evidence you’ve provided is the map. It is a great map. I’m not disputing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Why don’t you just admit you’re wildly out of touch with what the residents of Berkeley want and that lashing out at internet warriors on Lemmy is just a sad attempt to try to make it seem like you have a relevant opinion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I’m the only person in this thread paying taxes to the city of Berkeley. Mine is the only relevant opinion here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    Maybe someone should invest in building a paid parking deck if it's sucg a problem, instead of relying on public infrastructure to support inefficient transportation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 2 months ago (16 children)

    Have you been to Berkley? It’s the least car-friendly city in the Bay Area. Has great public transportation. Again, it’s a poor example for a fuck cars argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Have you been? You keep spelling it wrong lol. Public transportation there is far from perfect. And as someone that rode a bike there as my primary mode of transportation for 4.5 years (aside from walking and the occasional bus ride when the route was convenient), I can confidently say it's in definite need of some updated biking infrastructure. There were some very sketchy places to ride.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Go back and check it out. It has been updated. There’s even a map in this thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I lived there from 2017-2022. I saw some of those upgrades, and I have been back a few times. As was mentioned with that map, is that some of those bike paths still aren't exactly safe with how close you are to traffic. Many of those are just cross streets with a bicycle painted on the ground.

    Here's a map of proper bike lanes, and areas of high and low stress in the city. You can see there's still work to be done. Don't get me wrong, you can get around most places, but those high stress areas are hard to avoid sometimes.

    Here's what some of those "paths" look like from that original map posted above.

    And here is the street in question, for the proposed upgrade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    From european perspective these streets look plenty wide to me - to fit bike lanes and parking just fine.

    Maybe some of those lanes (when there is 2 lanes going to same direction) could be even made bus lanes.

    What is general speed limit in roads like these in us?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    No no, I feel like this is just signs that its working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    Exactly, the fuck cars movement already won in Berkeley. Calm the fuck down and let the residents park their cars. And STFU if you don’t drive or bike in Berkley on a regular basis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (38 children)

    Some people would take that as a hint

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 2 months ago (37 children)

    Berkley is a poor example for the fuck cars arguments

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (36 children)
  • [+] -12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (35 children)

    Sounds like you’ve never been there

    Maybe stick your commenting on Canadian topics instead of cities you’ve never visited.

    The previous comment was rude and uncalled for. I apologize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Yeah that's why I said I doubt it, not I know for a fact that's not the case. Because I don't know first hand. That's literally what the text of my comment implies and was meant to imply.

    The doubt comes from the fact that I literally can't envision any scenario at all whatsoever where prioritizing car parking anywhere for anything is actually beneficial to anyone, including car users themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I've been there and you're full of shit.

    It's better than most American cities but that's like saying it smells better than most dead fish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (30 children)

    InfoSec.pub user, you probably make 6+ figures and haven’t ridden a bike in iver a decade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (27 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    Case in point, you want to make policy that you’ve only seen one side of the story without living the other end of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    So you’re a Berkley resident, and therefore entitled to an opinion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I’ve biked and driven through berkley, and would consider myself entitled to a qualified opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago* (12 children)

    That’s not the case. I’m pro bike, pro-bike lanes. I’m pro bike lane in Berkley. But I also recognize the need for residents of Berkley to have adequate parking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    How many people who live and work throughout the area would prefer to commute via public infra vs personal. The preponderence of those lower income individuals who do make up the majority of the lower class are pushed out further when they aren’t considered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (10 children)

    I’d argue that a lot of the lower income residents need their cars/parking more to survive. Especially in a high cost of living area.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Lower income residence can’t afford cars dude. Take the local minimum wage, find an apartment that could be reasonably split up between n-roomates and then do the math on where the money goes from there. It’s expensive to be poor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    I don’t disagree with your last statement. However, “house poor” is a thing. People squeaking by on the mortgages. They don’t deserve parking near their homes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    What does their code/law say? If they don’t have on-site parking then that’s a feature and not a bug.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Say you have a two car garage, and your kid turns 18 and they need a car to get to college. You give them your old car and buy yourself an EV. They can’t park on the street they live on due to a bike lane. Is that fair to a family paying property taxes in Berkley?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)
    1. they’re well enough off that they can afford to commute to college instead of living on campus.
    2. it is fair, that’s the point of public taxes and social services. Is it fair that I have to subsidize O&G through my federal tax dollars even though I don’t own a vehicle?
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    But you don’t subsidize these bike lanes because you don’t live in Berkley.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Buddy, you can't even make a convincing argument.

    Quiet, piggie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    You’ve clearly already lost the argument when you resort to insults.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I'm still waiting for a convincing argument, and you're not providing one.

    Every time you continue to do so, you're eating away your credibility and any respect that you should be given.

    🤡👞

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Not a single post you've made on lemmy has been multi-paragraph. I don't think there's any point arguing with you because you seem like you'd enjoy a roll in the mud. I'm not sure you could string a cohesive argument together.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (3 children)