345
[image] when good infrastructure design does not just prioritize cars its a plus for everyone.
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
345 points (98.3% liked)
Fuck Cars
14478 readers
647 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At three metres it's barely wide enough to be a shared path, but to me it still doesn't look like a bike path. Without knowing the local laws it is not clear to me if cycling is allowed on that path. I looked around, there's only some signage for pedestrians, nothing indicating that it's a bike path. Maybe that's how they do it in Michigan, but I'm not convinced that it's a bike path.
I very much promise you regardless that it's a) intended as one (obviously, if you just look at the bicycle parking and the major difference from the normal sidewalk width) and b) normal here. I don't know or particularly care where you live to not understand this, but the debate over whether this is great bike infrastructure and whether it's intended bike infrastructure are different points – and trying to argue it's not intended is completely wrong.
Now here's a direct quote from page 32 of the Auburn Road Corridor Plan detailing exactly what the renovation was meant to do from the planners themselves so that I can stop talking to a brick wall:
I already edited my comment, sidewalk cycling is illegal in a lot of places, but apparently it's legal in Michigan. A lot of other comments also don't see it as bike infrastructure. Generally it is better to separate pedestrians and bicycles. I still think that cyclists are an afterthought here.
They really, really aren't compared to how things are generally in the US. I guarantee you someone had to fight tooth-and-nail to get this cycling infrastructure in there. Any gesture toward cyclists in a place like this is something someone thought long and hard about; when cyclists are an afterthought here, cyclists get nothing. It's why I knew, immediately and before reading the planning document, that this was intentional.
In a small, Midwestern city, a freshly paved, 10-foot-wide, well-separated path on both sides of a popular road with frequent access to public parking and crossings with refuge islands and curb extensions is excellent cycling infrastructure. It's all relative, and I'm sure this is mediocre compared to somewhere like The Netherlands.