Editor,
The article “San Mateo balancing bike lanes with auto needs” describes the need for a “delicate balance” between safety and convenience.
Editor,
The article “San Mateo balancing bike lanes with auto needs” describes the need for a “delicate balance” between safety and convenience.
A “delicate balance” is a funny way to characterize this. Almost every inch of every street is allocated to cars and only cars. Bike lanes get jammed into the door zone. Those are not bike lanes. Sharrows in the middle of the lane are not bike lanes. Balance requires taking the thumb off of the scale. We have to stop prioritizing cars if other modes are better. How do we decide which modes are better? We have to decide what goals we have, what metrics to use and evaluate which modes meet those metrics and the goals best. Cars are the worst mode of transit by almost every metric. That does not mean we need to eliminate them. That would be silly. Some trips are best taken by car. But it does mean we should stop giving them first priority to every inch of road. Cars are the most expensive, most dangerous, most polluting, climate changing, inequitable, etc., form of transit. Buses and bikes are the best at all those metrics. Prioritize buses and bikes, and all of those goals can be met. Prioritize cars and none will.
The “hilarious” thing is cars are the least efficient travel mode for throughput. Prioritizing cars makes more congestion. Prioritizing buses and bikes actually reduces congestion. The car trips that are necessary, now are safer and faster.
Giuliano Carlini
Belmont
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(6) comments
The sidewalks, as represented in the image of the article, appear to be safe for cyclists and congestion free.
But when riding a bike on a sidewalk, please be respectful of pedestrians and their safety.
"Sharing" the limited available infrastructure based on demand, now and future, is a smart mobility policy.
Let's learn to share the sidewalks smartly for bikes and pedestrians.
Hilarious that Mr. Carlini thinks cars are the least efficient travel mode. Hey Mr. Carlini, how are you going to lug 10 bags of groceries or a case of bottled water on any type of bike, or a bus? How long will it take millions to commute to their jobs, drop off kids, pick up kids, run errands, etc? Let’s stop trying to waste money to discriminate against, say millions of cars, to benefit bike riders who mostly ride for recreation. And bike riders are getting a free-ride since they contribute nothing to road and road maintenance. That being said, I wouldn’t mind seeing bike registration fees so bike riders pay their fair share.
Mainly a social engineering problem, similar to the war on smoking. Convince people that the private car is socially unacceptable. Start by taking car ads off TV. Fat chance.
And how many people are worse of by having stopped smoking?
Who here likes entering a hotel room after a smoker moved out?
Who here still misses sitting in airplanes with that little curtain that separated addicts from non-addicts?
Society shouldn't be forced to pay for every addiction out there.
Let's never forget that driving is paid for by the same "Vice Tax" we pay for all the other addictions like smoking, drinking, whoring, betting, and gambling
Will it change? Fat chance indeed.
Not with all these corrupt politicians in DC and CA
... and San Mateo Democrats clearly the worst.
Giuliano - perhaps you and the left could be great examples for us all by selling your cars, and then attending cars anonymous meetings. But I’m guessing you’re more like John Kerry, Leonardo Decaprio and the other Hollywood hypocrites who justify flying from one continent to another as a necessity? And then to justify things it by claiming they bought carbon offsets. A true green earth hugger would buy carbon offsets, and sell their planes, cars, gas ovens, air conditioners etc… and donate the proceeds to Obama’s enormous carbon footprint library.
Look at all my addicted friends and how they feel threatened by the sane and the non-addicts. Funny to watch.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.