Policy Peanuts

*** DO NOT READ THIS YET ***

*** IT IS NOT FINISHED ***

Many people have this idea that bicycles should be separated from cars, on the roads. This is an old-fashioned car-centric idea, yet often advocated by cycling advocates. It is informed by the assumption that roads are for cars, and anything else must find its place somewhere else. This was true, specifically, in the 20th century.

The road is for bicycles and other mobilité douce. The question is, under what conditions should cars be allowed to share it?

Bikes are not a single type of traffic, like cars are. There are two kinds of cyclists, which different and conflicting needs.

1. Commuters. Confident mixing with and overtaking cars and buses. Travelling 10-30km/h.

2. Social cyclists and children. Must be isolated from fast traffic. Travelling 0-15km/h.

(1) should only go on the roads with the other fast traffic. (2) should only go on the footpath with the pedestrians. Allowing fast and slow cyclists to mix together is as dangerous as anything on our roads. Just think of the Parc Rives de Seine during summer.

But what about runners, scooters, skaters, wheelchairs, dogs, ambulances? The big criteria is speed. There is an easy rule. Anything unpowered, <1m wide and travelling <10km/h should use the footpath. Anything else should use the road.

If there is a cycle lane, then footpath: <1m & <10km, cycle lane <1m & >10km, road everything else. This is still true for the very wide cycle lanes. The extra width is used for safe overtaking at speed.

So yes, runners should not use the footpath. Mixing with dogs and bins and prams is more hassle and danger than using the road. Yes they will slow down cars. But in this, runners have precedence. From now on, the road belongs to mobilité douce. Cars are only guests.

For some roads, the rule could be relaxed. There are many streets where you would like motorbikes (any powered vehicle <1m wide) to share the bike lane, or buses (any vehicle carrying >6 people). But they must all obey 15km/h.

There favours bus passengers, who are probably in enough stress already, and motorcyclists getting through traffic, who I think should be encouraged for environmental reasons. But 10km/h is glacially slow for them. It's slower than the normal filtering they do in their lane. But it might be valuable to encourage motorcycling and get more people out of cars, those who wouldn't or couldn't take up cycling.

As usual, emergency vehicles like ambulance, gas-repair, can break every rule. In fact anybody can in an emergency. You just might have to explain that to a judge later.

So enforcing the 15km/h speed limit is crucial. This cannot be the job of police. They are not competent at it, and they have better things to do. Cameras are even worse. The solution: A tick mark is painted at 5m intervals along the bike lanes. If there is a spot where people observe dangerous use of the lane, anybody can go out and film the lane abusers, and send the film to the DPP for police. With tick marks on the road, the speed (and the licence number) can be accurately read from the video.

So if people are using the bike lane occasionally, or very considerately or in emergencies, they probably won't be prosecuted. If people are frequently abusing it enough to irk someone into going out and catching them, they will be prosecuted. This is how the law should always work. Rigid enforcement like a robot would do is worse than enforcement only when there is a complaint. Thus the enforcement becomes reasonable and sensible.

The goal is not to stop people using cars, but to provide them a better alternative. Today, people are trapped in cars by circumstance, bad town planning, bad law, or bad health. The goal is to allow as many as possible to move to better forms. Banning cars makes people's lives worse - taking away a tool they depend on. Providing alternatives like convenient bus and bike routes make their lives better. But the outcome - moving people away from cars - is the same.

Never forget the needs of the drivers. They include the pregnant, old, lazy, sick, tired, those with big cargo, doing long journeys, etc. They need to use the roads as much as anyone. But they will be slightly restricted - just enough to encourage them to switch to other transports if they can.

3. All roads are traversible, but not all routes are traversible

4. why traffic lights are a dangerous predicament.

5. Removing traffic lights helps not just cyclists but the flow of all traffic

6. Making buses and bikes faster speeds all traffic - that famous rule.

7. Speed bumps, pot holes, other damage. Bikes/wheelchairs vs SUVs.

Walkable distances. Need for amenities locally. Need for more empty retail space and jobs local to houses. Need for Hausemann-style buildings. Vacant space needed too, to keep rents down and affordable for small businesses. Vacant spaces musst be available for clubs etc.

Fast lanes. Like 2nd lane can be 30-60km/h

can always go through red lights like in Nanterre

Solve a housing shortage or a homelessness, or immigration

Gov/council organises an auction of land and buildings it wants to obtain, by category. For example it might be:

1. Green field sites zoned for housing, >10000m2

2. 10 unoccupied buildings >100m2 which are suitable for occupation, maybe without services but structurally sound.

Land owners are allowed to bid to sell these properties. The lowest prices in each category win the auction. The gov has the option to immediately buy each one (after a survey etc) at the auction price.

A land tax would help here. It encourages people to sell unused property. It also increases the price of food, which leads to less wasteful farming practices. The tax take can fund a UBI which helps people afford higher priced food. So it's beneficial on many levels.

This land will be the unused and useless property in the least populated areas. The government has a challenge to develop it for housing.

Immigrants (and citizens if they want) have the option of living on the greenfield sites in tents. A builder is hired to develop a new town on the site, under contract to hire X percent of the people living there and train them in building trades. Thus a new town gets built. The homeless will build it themselves.

Really it is mad that the homeless exist. They are idle people, who are available for work, for example in building houses for themselves. The only thing needed is organisation.

This greenfield site should probably be fenced in at first, just for the security of children in tents, or just for a feeling of security for the people in tents. The state should organise a log book of people entering and leaving. Anybody setting up a tent in a city can be bussed there immediately. Apart from that there is totally free movement in and out. This is important, because we might find a high demand from natives to live there, which would be healthy for the culture. Journalists can move in too, to check for corruption or other problems.

New people entering are given an ID card and choose a password. Once they have ID, they can get the dole or UBI (probably at a much lower rate than proper residents). This means they can buy a tent, food, clothes, etc. Who knows what else they might find crucial that the state won't think of - religious stuff, musical stuff, etc. Charitable donations are discouraged but not forbidden. The ID card should probably be like a public transport card. You top it up each day in the state services office (probably a prefab on site) and spend it by tapping and entering your password.

So any business is free to plant a tent on site and start selling the things people need, starting probably with soup and tents. The other way, with direct provision, would be chaos. There would be no way to ensure quality. The only serious way to allocate services fairly and with quality is by allocating people money and allowing businesses to compete for it in a free market.