Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

bicycletimesmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 146 posts

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#121

Post by rhinoceraptor »

usrusr wrote: post #113
awjr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets into the vehicular cycling argument. If you want an inclusive cycle network that works for all the population, not just the physically fit and brave, design for those that want to cycle but feel they can't as it is too dangerous. That does not mean design a two tier infrastructure, that is kids using shared pavements and real men riding with HGVs. Take a universal approach that enables all ages and all abil…

It's indeed somewhat close to the vehicular cycling argument, but far from identical. I see a lot of cycling infrastructure that follows the philosophy of "better force them to dismount, someone might hurt themselves here" and it's really not caring of cyclists but disrespectful towards them. I fear that overuse of childproof-argument will only strengthen that mindset. "Really, you have to take that nice, scenic, ten…

Dedicated bike lanes will also have people walking in them, as well as casual cyclists riding slowly side by side. If you're a fit cyclist, you're doing 25-30 MPH so it's safer to just ride in the road.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#122

Post by the_gastropod »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #9

One of the problems with more bicycle infrastructure I see is the current regulatory environment promotes the extremes only. A nice intermediate step would be if states would make moped registration less onerous. As it stands most states require a motorcycle license ($), insurance ($) and registration ($) for anything more than a bicycle with an engine kit. If more people rode those parking would be less of an issue…

In many states, riding a moped, scooter, or motorcycle with a maximum top speed or engine displacement is legal without need for a motorcycle license, insurance, registration, etc.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#123

Post by bryanlarsen »

the_gastropod wrote: post #118
coldpie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heheh, I feel like I'm making my point poorly :) The driver is in a 3000 pound vehicle capable of accelerating from 5 MPH to 60 MPH in a couple of seconds. The biker is an unprotected human capable of traveling 10, maybe 20 MPH as an absolute maximum. My point is that these two objects cannot share traffic on a US street that is designed for cars traveling 30 MPH for more than a brief period of time. If they do share…

Maybe speed limits should be reduced to 25 MPH within cities (a la NYC).

20mph is a nice magic number for speed limits. That's the maximum speed where a collision with a pedestrian is highly unlikely to be fatal.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#124

Post by bobabooey02 »

coddingtonbear wrote: post #119
coldpie wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why does it happen, and how do you propose to solve this? Complain on the Internet? Shake your first at those damn angry drivers? Something something driver's education? I mean, this is a real problem. "Share the road" doesn't work, and complaining on the Internet isn't going to suddenly fix it.

It seems like fining and, if necessary, revoking the drivers licenses of dangerously aggressive drivers might be a simple way of solving the problem, no? Sharing public goods is be the norm in other areas of society; why not on the road?

You can't legislate away a cultural problem. See the drug wars, anti discrimination laws, and others. If we're going to be so cheap that we can't add bicycle infrastructure then we need to at least fund a public awareness campaign and possibly start teaching our kids about it.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#125

Post by Ozark »

coldpie wrote: post #61
Jacqued wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you mean drivers deliberately hitting a biker with their car are not in the wrong?

Heheh, I feel like I'm making my point poorly :) The driver is in a 3000 pound vehicle capable of accelerating from 5 MPH to 60 MPH in a couple of seconds. The biker is an unprotected human capable of traveling 10, maybe 20 MPH as an absolute maximum. My point is that these two objects cannot share traffic on a US street that is designed for cars traveling 30 MPH for more than a brief period of time. If they do share…

The only people that will make bad decisions are the aggressive angry drivers, which should be removed from the road ways for the benefit of all innocent people.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#126

Post by naravara »

coldpie wrote: post #97
nkrisc wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharing the road is dangerous with dangerous, aggressive drivers. Tailgating and bumping bikers is the fault of the driver, not an unavoidable consequence of sharing the road.

So why does it happen, and how do you propose to solve this? Complain on the Internet? Shake your first at those damn angry drivers? Something something driver's education? I mean, this is a real problem. "Share the road" doesn't work, and complaining on the Internet isn't going to suddenly fix it.

What doesn't work about it? The only thing that doesn't seem to be working is that some people feel entitled to go as fast as they can get away with all the time.

It works fine if people adjust their expectations. Cyclists in the way rarely cause real stretches of backed up traffic. Your average speed might go down slightly, big whoop.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#127

Post by naravara »

bobabooey02 wrote: post #124
coddingtonbear wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like fining and, if necessary, revoking the drivers licenses of dangerously aggressive drivers might be a simple way of solving the problem, no? Sharing public goods is be the norm in other areas of society; why not on the road?

You can't legislate away a cultural problem. See the drug wars, anti discrimination laws, and others. If we're going to be so cheap that we can't add bicycle infrastructure then we need to at least fund a public awareness campaign and possibly start teaching our kids about it.

>You can't legislate away a cultural problem.

[Lots of places beg to differ](https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/dutch-kids-have-different-r...).

You can't bully people into being good, but there are lots of nudges like education and more thoughtful design that can move culture to work better.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#128

Post by loco5niner »

Ozark wrote: post #125
coldpie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heheh, I feel like I'm making my point poorly :) The driver is in a 3000 pound vehicle capable of accelerating from 5 MPH to 60 MPH in a couple of seconds. The biker is an unprotected human capable of traveling 10, maybe 20 MPH as an absolute maximum. My point is that these two objects cannot share traffic on a US street that is designed for cars traveling 30 MPH for more than a brief period of time. If they do share…

The only people that will make bad decisions are the aggressive angry drivers, which should be removed from the road ways for the benefit of all innocent people.

Well, that's obviously not true. I've seen bicyclists.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#129

Post by dsfyu404ed »

the_gastropod wrote: post #122
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #9

One of the problems with more bicycle infrastructure I see is the current regulatory environment promotes the extremes only. A nice intermediate step would be if states would make moped registration less onerous. As it stands most states require a motorcycle license ($), insurance ($) and registration ($) for anything more than a bicycle with an engine kit. If more people rode those parking would be less of an issue…

In many states, riding a moped, scooter, or motorcycle with a maximum top speed or engine displacement is legal without need for a motorcycle license, insurance, registration, etc.

I know the septic tank of a state in which I reside specifically crafted their regulation to force anything more than a bicycle with an engine kit to confirm to motorcycle regulations and sets performance limitations that limit the utility to the same as a bike.

Mopeds (e.g a 150CC vespa) on the other hand can keep up with non-highway traffic (although their manufactures may configure them in a way that prevents this), come equipped with turn signals, lights and mirrors, can maintain speed up a hill without slowing to a crawl and are an all around massive upgrade in safety and utility over a bicycle (motorized or human powered) without taking up more parking space or having the ability to rocket down the highway.

I think it's likely the insurance lobby leaned on legislators to make it that way.

Re: Pop-up bike lanes show that demand exists

#130

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #41
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It's pretty universal that smaller crap yeild to bigger crap. Forklifts yield to service trucks. Service trucks yield to heavy equipment. Heavy equipment yields to bigger heavy equipment. Big heavy equipment yields to trains. Trains yield to ships.

Cars yield to (much smaller) pedestrians, though. Clearly this model needs some work.

Only in areas where pedestrians specifically are given the right of way (e.g. crosswalks). Outside of specific structured instances like that small yields to big.

Of course if you just ignore that you don't have the right of way and just go people will slam on their brakes for you because that's the least costly option for dealing with the situation.

It's like taking a left turn across traffic. Some people may stop and let you go if they deem it appropriate but the burden is on the you to turn when it is clear to do so, not on them to stop.

Post reply on HN