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

In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 206 posts

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#151

Post by jimbokun »

run4yourlives wrote: post #138
BrandonM wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted you, but I found myself wondering why you have a 30km commute. You mention that you would be more humanly fulfilled if you spent more time with your kids; why are you fine with wasting an hour commuting every day? I've been paying more attention lately to perceived requirements. So often we assume that we have to continue living or working where we currently are, and that we have to build our lives around t…

why you have a 30km commute. Because, if you understand Vancouver, you realize that if you want a house, and don't have millions, you need to live in the burbs. It's just too damn expensive here. That said, I see it as an issue to be corrected, however that takes time. Sorry, but I'm not raising a family of 4 in a condo, based on the experience of raising a family of 3 in a condo.

Pittsburgh has lots of cheap houses in an urban environment. I walk to work most days, but considering getting a bike to save time.

So, anyone looking to raise a family in nice sized house while still living in a city, should consider Pittsburgh. You can also Google previous HN discussions of the tech/startup scene in Pittsburgh.

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#152

Post by sliverstorm »

akgerber wrote: post #134
sliverstorm wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That happens most often when you are on a road you really don't belong on. Are you familiar with Highway 9? (for those who don't know, twisty steep 2-lane mountain road, very popular with bicyclists who ride in the middle of the lane and later complain about all the cars) Though they love it to death, that road was not built for cyclists, and it's far too expensive to expand it to give the cyclists their own lane.

Except those bicyclists pay taxes too, and have the exact same legal right to use the road. Riding in the "middle" of the road is a necessary technique to prevent being passed danngerously closely. Neither of those things justifies being assaulted. As a side note, it appears that SR-9 near Silicon Valley existed long before automobiles, and thus was not built for automobiles either. It was probably "built for" horse…

That is true, but whether their actions are 100% legal or not, the road is not designed to properly accommodate both cars and cyclists. Thus they piss of drivers, and hence the frustration towards cyclists, which is what I was explaining.

Of course they don't deserve to be assaulted, I never said that they did. I personally try to treat them as kindly as possible.

For reference, I say 'no business being on' because they know they will be putting themselves in a compromised position, legal or not. They can shake their fist at drivers and such, but they know it is unsafe going in. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea.

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#153

Post by dylanz »

Luc wrote: post #150
dylanz wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luc, can you describe your wife's employers bicycle policy? I'm trying to set one up at my company as well, and haven't found the ideal plan yet. Suggestions welcome!

I don't have access to the exact agreement at the moment. My wife's employer, funnily enough, is a petroleum company. I think the bike policies of the company are those set out by Collective Bargaining Agreement (negotiations between employer and employee organisations) for the whole petroleum sector, but I can't find a good English language article. Colruyt, a supermarket company in Belgium, is well known as having…

This is fantastic. Thanks for the detailed response Luc!

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#154

Post by jacquesm »

sliverstorm wrote: post #152
akgerber wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except those bicyclists pay taxes too, and have the exact same legal right to use the road. Riding in the "middle" of the road is a necessary technique to prevent being passed danngerously closely. Neither of those things justifies being assaulted. As a side note, it appears that SR-9 near Silicon Valley existed long before automobiles, and thus was not built for automobiles either. It was probably "built for" horse…

That is true, but whether their actions are 100% legal or not, the road is not designed to properly accommodate both cars and cyclists. Thus they piss of drivers, and hence the frustration towards cyclists, which is what I was explaining. Of course they don't deserve to be assaulted, I never said that they did. I personally try to treat them as kindly as possible. For reference, I say 'no business being on' because t…

> Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea.

I think that goes for the whole fixed-gear story as well, even where it's legal it isn't very smart. As a bicyclist you're already vulnerable enough, no point in adding more factors to increase that vulnerability.

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#155

Post by jacquesm »

oostevo wrote: post #109
monos wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, > and that I am some sort of evil person for having one. I am not saying you are a bad person, but giving a car to everyone - like we do right now - is a terrible idea. I'm hoping for legislation that will ban private persons from buying cars. No one (...) needs half a ton of metal and 70PS to move his 70kg ass.

I'm paraphrasing Jay Leno who was being interviewed on a car show, so take this with the appropriate number of grains of salt, but ... I'd like to see cars go the way of the horse. Horses used to be used for transportation, everybody had one, and they were abused to a huge degree. Then cars came along, and now horses are kept just by enthusiasts who care for them a great deal and go riding for fun every once in a whi…

It sounds like Jay Leno would like people like Jay Leno to continue to be able to drive without all those other drivers.

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#156

Post by olefoo »

run4yourlives wrote: post #143
dwiel wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biking by itself is not that dangerous. Biking near cars is dangerous. If you want to drive around in a 2 ton vehicle with the power to kill, you better damn be responsible for it. Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident. If a car and a bike get in a wreck, the person driving has almost no risk of injury where the person on bike is at risk of dying or getting seriously injured, depending o…

Biking by itself is not that dangerous It is if you are a pedestrian. This is also typical of a cyclist's attitude that their vehicle is the only one that matters; impossible to do any harm - it is most certainly possible for a cyclist to cause an accident between two other vehicles that is caused by their lack of due care. (e.g. car A hits car B instead of hitting cyclist C that is running a red.) You're suggesting…

In your somewhat contrived example the cyclist could certainly be cited for reckless behavior.

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#157

Post by olefoo »

jacquesm wrote: post #74
Luc wrote: post #56

I think having the right legal framework helps a lot to get a good bicycle culture. Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance will always pay for bodily damage of the bicyclist, even if the bicyclist is at fault. Most streets where I live (in the center of Antwerp) are one-way for cars, but two-way for bicycles. And cars are limited to 30 km/h. My wife goes to work on her bicycle and ge…

Contrast that with cycling in the states where you're derided and people throw stuff at you from passing cars (beer cans seem to be a favourite projectile). In the cities it's still somewhat doable but outside it's simply impossible. No separate lanes, cars passing you within inches, risking you being clipped by a mirror.

I've biked all over the western United States, and I've never had actual beer cans thrown at me. That said I have been on the receiving end of a certain amount of aggressive driving and general idiocy but the prevalence is pretty much the same city or country.

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#158

Post by natrius »

dylanz wrote: post #153
Luc wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have access to the exact agreement at the moment. My wife's employer, funnily enough, is a petroleum company. I think the bike policies of the company are those set out by Collective Bargaining Agreement (negotiations between employer and employee organisations) for the whole petroleum sector, but I can't find a good English language article. Colruyt, a supermarket company in Belgium, is well known as having…

This is fantastic. Thanks for the detailed response Luc!

If you're in America, there are similar tax breaks available, so make sure you look into those.

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#159

Post by run4yourlives »

olefoo wrote: post #156
run4yourlives wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biking by itself is not that dangerous It is if you are a pedestrian. This is also typical of a cyclist's attitude that their vehicle is the only one that matters; impossible to do any harm - it is most certainly possible for a cyclist to cause an accident between two other vehicles that is caused by their lack of due care. (e.g. car A hits car B instead of hitting cyclist C that is running a red.) You're suggesting…

In your somewhat contrived example the cyclist could certainly be cited for reckless behavior.

but, the car drivers would pay the increased premium as if they drove their car into a wall. I have a problem with that.

Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)

#160

Post by alaithea »

run4yourlives wrote: post #143
dwiel wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biking by itself is not that dangerous. Biking near cars is dangerous. If you want to drive around in a 2 ton vehicle with the power to kill, you better damn be responsible for it. Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident. If a car and a bike get in a wreck, the person driving has almost no risk of injury where the person on bike is at risk of dying or getting seriously injured, depending o…

Biking by itself is not that dangerous It is if you are a pedestrian. This is also typical of a cyclist's attitude that their vehicle is the only one that matters; impossible to do any harm - it is most certainly possible for a cyclist to cause an accident between two other vehicles that is caused by their lack of due care. (e.g. car A hits car B instead of hitting cyclist C that is running a red.) You're suggesting…

From a legal and personal responsibility standpoint, the law is lopsided, but it may act as a deterrent to driving in the first place, thereby encouraging bike use. I think that's what the OP of this thread was trying to get at.
Post reply on HN