I’m pretty sure it’s safe to assume that many of you reading this are long time viewers of the Youtube channels Not Just Bikes, Climate Town and probably Adam Something. All three of these channels have mentioned in their videos that car companies lobbied governments and pressured urban planners to create infrastructure suited for cars. So if car companies can throw money at politicians to get legislation passed that suit their needs why can’t bike companies counteract by playing at their own game? Hell, shoe companies could ‘counter-lobby’ as well. Nike, Adidas, New Balance, etc. would benefit greatly from walkable and bikeable cities. So why don’t bike companies like Trek, GT and Tern lobby governments to make cities more bikable? They could ask for subsidies so they can open official shops in city centers and with it the promise of employment. I’m pretty there are flaw this approach so I would like to know your thoughts on the matter. Thanks in advance!

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I certainly don’t. It’s just as possible for us to make the same mistakes with bike infrastructure as we did with car infrastructure. The purpose of all types of traffic should be getting people from where they are to where they want to go, but these “bike superhighways” are the same bullshit we’re fighting against with cars.

    • cinnamonTea
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Out of curiosity, what are bike-highways like where you are? The most I’ve seen are bike streets where cars need to yield to bikes, or one way streets that work for bikes both ways

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        There aren’t any bike highways near me at the moment, though some cities are starting to design bike highways the same way they made highways for cars. I want cities to thoughtfully design their bike infrastructure, instead of designing infrastructure to benefit lobbyists.

        • cinnamonTea
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s fair. I am also completely in favour of well thought out bike infrastructure solutions. Bike lanes just for the sake of bike ways with no connection to people’s lives and usage patterns will do us no favours

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Absolutely. But we also need to do thoughtful planning in rolling out our next forms of infrastructure

    • Maria Elena@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      @rockSlayer why do you assume “active travel” is only bikes? what about walkable communities? what if I like to roller skate? why can’t we collaborate in each community on how we want to get around and what the rules are?

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Why are you assuming that I don’t want mixed use travel? This conversation is specifically about bikes, and I was pointing out a specific design trend that’s appearing in cities that is antithetical to the point of reducing car travel.

        • Maria Elena@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          @rockSlayer I see later in the thread that you’ve talked about thoughtful infrastructure, which I starred. Unfortunately, that wasn’t in my notifications, which is what I replied to.