> "She has made highways along the Seine car-free and last year, during coronavirus lockdowns, oversaw the creation of over 100 miles of new bike paths. She plans to limit cars in 2022 in the heart of the city, along half of the Right Bank and through the Boulevard Saint Germain."
> "Parisians have heeded the call: A million people in a metropolis of 10 million are now pedaling daily. And Paris now ranks among the world’s top 10 cycling cities."
This is pretty awesome. I had no idea that Paris has become so bike-centric since I last was there (which was probably more than 6 years ago). It sounds fantastic.
Weird that the article tries to put such a negative spin on it. Of course, the people and the city need to learn how to handle this, figure out what traffic arrangements work best, enforce laws and maybe fine bikers who run red lights and ignore zebras, but it's not like Paris traffic wasn't already anarchy before.
Instead of looking at Copenhagen, perhaps they should look at Amsterdam, which is also a very bike-oriented city with a strong and old bicycle culture, but also a strong anarchistic streak and lots of cyclists who flaunt the rules. Lots of people complain about it, but most of the time it actually works fine. (I stick strictly to the rules nowadays because I want to set a good example to my children, but that was very different when I was a student.)
Such pettiness in this article. If anything all the problems listed are caused by a car-centric urban planning and not the bikes themselves. Most big european cities are slowly restricting car access to their center and that kind of change takes time.
the article generally paid the most attention to the problems the bikes cause for pedestrians. i dont find that petty at all. as a former pedesterian who loathed bikers whose is now an avid rider myself - this is a real problem.
Somehow the NYTimes managed to make a negative article about the dangers of cyclists, while the only deaths and injuries they managed to conjure up in the entire story are from a truck failing to yield and running over a family.
As a pedestrian in Paris we are not anti bikes! We think it’s a great idea but we are not going to accept bad behavior and breaking of laws that put our citizens in danger!
New things just break the law in new ways, the amount of law breaking does not change, so what you have now is the same people breaking other laws. Bicycles and pedestrians are so close to each other there is always going to be friction minimizing that does need infrastructure. In the end even if the situation in 10x worse than before the pandemic, you are still in less danger if your streets have less cars on them. Air polution from cars kills more people than accidents, and it is legal.
Bicycles are not new. The only thing new is the riders who don't understand that they're breaking traffic norms. If they behaved like the old bikers nobody would care.
How do people even find the spare fucks to give about this kind of thing?
If you can fit in the lanes and, traffic speeds and mostly meet the other traffic's expectations for how traffic is supposed to behave I don't care what you drive/ride.
Yeah, it's not the same but a bit similar: increasing amount of cars, increasing amount bicycles, both have to be dealt with, with proper infrastructure etc. Copenhagen is very advanced in that regard, in many ways, and it's great to see that those lessons can be learned elsewhere.
Proper routing for the large amount of bicycles with designated lanes for turning and waiting for traffic lights etc...
It's nought but shoddy journalism to see such an article written without due respect for Paris' bike sharing scheme Vélib, which was one of if not the first major city bike sharing scheme globally. Fast forward 20 years and China's had a billion-bike share bubble. Also no mention of French historical significance in the field of cycling, Tour de France, etc. Paris is still à l'avant.
Yeah, I felt safer in Denmark regarding traffic. Paris is a bit like Eastern Europe, except you'd think you might get run over but the drivers brake and then swear if you jay walk. In Eastern Europe you'd first get ran over and then sworn at.
urban planning in other european cities has failed massively the past 20 years. i don’t know about paris but it probably will go the same way. it has become impossible to get around and do anything productive in cities like this. large open spaces have been put in, and urban planners thought it would increase the liveability of these cities. large construction companies have made lots of money with these idiotic projects, and these spaces enabled mugging, theft, harassment, rape and other crimes at night, by certain layers of the population. the narrow streets have furthermore made it difficult for law enforcement and first responders to get to a scene. all of these just for the ego of some idiotic failed architects who joined the government urban planning offices where they can enact and force their ludicrous ego centered plans and visions onto the population, without needing any kind of approval from those who live and work there.
It seems absolutely outer worldly to want to optimize the layout of a city to prevent crime. Apart from the assumption being quite questionable that there even exists a connection. People live their lives in these things, they need to be optimize for many other factors to produce a environment enabling a the highest quality of living possible, crime is just a small factor. If one would want to present crime there would be plenty of things to do, changing street layouts might move crime a bit, but for sure won’t enable it.
> It seems absolutely outer worldly to want to optimize the layout of a city to prevent crime.
It’s ironic that we’re having this discussion around Paris, a city which was deliberately transformed to make it easier to rule. Although the fear was revolution rather the ordinary crime, under Napoleon III grand boulevards were made to allow troops to maneuver, as well as to break up neighborhoods with too strong a sense of identity. It proved rather effective and was exported all over Europe and the world.
Yes, and now we have a situation in paris where certain neighborhoods impact the safety and well being of the entire city. So maybe all this new hipster urban planning wasn't such a great idea after all.
I have seen it first hand it a major european city I lived in for more than 10 years, so I know there is a connection. Large open squares and spaces, and corners, facilitate hanging around of certain individuals. Also, I think safety and prevention of crime are very important, more important to limiting cars in a city. I'm sure you'll differ in your opinion after getting beaten up, mugged or raped. If there are no open spaces, it becomes much harder for groups of people to gather and because of that, it impedes crime.
You want cities without open spaces? That sounds very depressing to live in. And I don't see how that would reduce crime. If anything, open spaces are easier to police.
i want safety. i want to be able to walk to a restaurant at 8pm without my wife being called a filthy whore. i want to be left alone at a bus stop. i want women to be able to wear boots and short dresses and makeup without getting raped. come to europe, and live there for a while, in a major city. you’ll get what i mean.
I live in Europe. In Amsterdam. I don't get what you mean.
I mean, I get that you don't want your wife being called a filthy whore, I get that you want to be left alone at a bus stop, I get that you want women to dress however they want. I want all of those things too. I just don't see how getting rid of open spaces would accomplish any of that. Are all of these things things that can't happen on narrow streets?
if you live in Amsterdam, I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about. Unless you live outside the city in some upscale neighborhood.
Where I'm originally from, when you call the police, they don't show up. When they arrest the thugs, they're back out in a few days. Your freedom and safety are not guaranteed. In the US, my experience has been very different.
Not having open spaces will not prevent all this, but open spaces facilitate this sort of stuff.
I live in the city. In a pretty decent neighbourhood (Oostelijk Havengebied), but I still don't understand what open spaces have to do with this. We've got tons of open spaces around here, all of them very safe. Police response or lack of it has nothing to do with open spaces.
> "Parisians have heeded the call: A million people in a metropolis of 10 million are now pedaling daily. And Paris now ranks among the world’s top 10 cycling cities."
This is pretty awesome. I had no idea that Paris has become so bike-centric since I last was there (which was probably more than 6 years ago). It sounds fantastic.
Weird that the article tries to put such a negative spin on it. Of course, the people and the city need to learn how to handle this, figure out what traffic arrangements work best, enforce laws and maybe fine bikers who run red lights and ignore zebras, but it's not like Paris traffic wasn't already anarchy before.
Instead of looking at Copenhagen, perhaps they should look at Amsterdam, which is also a very bike-oriented city with a strong and old bicycle culture, but also a strong anarchistic streak and lots of cyclists who flaunt the rules. Lots of people complain about it, but most of the time it actually works fine. (I stick strictly to the rules nowadays because I want to set a good example to my children, but that was very different when I was a student.)