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

171–180 of 206 posts

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

#171

Post by benJIman »

joss82 wrote: post #67
sliverstorm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to say that we should all be in cars, but I used to ride my bicycle everywhere- I ride motorcycles now, and I still get a lot of the upsides- open to the environment, a physical activity (though more mild than biking at a hard pace), and my stress levels are lower. But it has one more huge upside; back when I bicycled all the time, I'd always arrive everywhere hot and sweaty. Workplaces can install show…

1-2 hours away by bicycle is not "rather close", it's downright far. Why not find a place where you can cycle to work in 10-15 minutes? I did it and it works great. It gives you lots of free time (short commute) and money (no car ownership). So much so that I started a freelance shop on the side.

15 mins ride is barely enough to get warmed up, you might as well run to get some exercise. 10-20 miles from work is a nice distance for cycling.

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

#172

Post by benJIman »

bobbyflanders wrote: post #8

In other words, I should come into work completely drenched in sweat? In many parts of the USA, it is very humid and temperatures can easily reach 90 and above. How do you expect people to bike in such conditions? In addition, many people commute long distances to work, which may take up to an hour just by car. Bikes are great, but not very practical.

Just wear lycra. People don't wear it because of how it looks. It's fast wicking. Even in mid 30s celsius I get to work far less sweaty than taking public transport.

Most people who complain about sweat are trying to cycle in cotton. Just change when you get to work.

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

#173

Post by jodrellblank »

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…

I'm not suggesting that a car driver should not be at fault. I'm suggesting that all individuals on the road be held to the same standard.

This is a way of holding drivers to the same high standards of care and attention that cyclists have to hold for their own self interest. The same standard is not enough when the power balance is so skewed and defaults towards cars.

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

#174

Post by fortes »

alaithea wrote: post #161
fortes wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's a huge asymmetry between a car hitting a bike and vice-versa. So I'd guess it's not that the bike can't be held responsible, but that the potential downside for a biker is death, while the car would likely just suffer some dents. Whether or not that causes reckless behavior on the biker's part, I don't know. But I can imagine the argument.

I wouldn't want to get hit by a car on my bike no matter who was going to pay for it.

Clearly, but you might relax a little if you believe that drivers are more cautious due to the insurance laws.

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

#175

Post by run4yourlives »

jodrellblank wrote: post #173
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…

I'm not suggesting that a car driver should not be at fault. I'm suggesting that all individuals on the road be held to the same standard. This is a way of holding drivers to the same high standards of care and attention that cyclists have to hold for their own self interest. The same standard is not enough when the power balance is so skewed and defaults towards cars.

This is a way of holding drivers to the same high standards of care and attention that cyclists have to hold for their own self interest.

This is precisely the type of attitude I take issue with. One would think that cyclists would behave like the vulnerable vehicles they are, yet a 15 minute observation of the typical cyclist will no doubt show numerous traffic offences, inclusive of some that most motor vehicle operators would never think of committing. This is common knowledge to all who use the roads we are supposed to share.

Cyclists are no better - or worse, to be fair - when it comes obeying the rules of the road than any other participant, be they pedestrian or motor vehicle operator.

I think you actually encourage bad behaviour by removing or lessening liability for a class of road user dependent on their ease of injury. Road safety starts with personal responsibility: understanding that you are doing an inherently dangerous thing with a fast moving vehicle that could result in your death and the death of others.

Asking others to shoulder this responsibility for you because of your vehicle choice is irresponsible, and in my mind contrary to a fair and just law.

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

#176

Post by Locke1689 »

organicgrant wrote: post #16
masklinn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, I should come into work completely drenched in sweat? With enough training (build up the habit) and if you don't exert yourself too much (it's not like you have to go 20mph all the way), you shouldn't sweat too much. Add in a pair of showers on work site and you're golden. > In addition, many people commute long distances to work, which may take up to an hour just by car. That's an issue of brain-de…

If you choose to live 50+ miles from work and commute everyday...you're making a compromise for a reason (spouse, slow real estate market, etc). But likely...you're doing it wrong. I am seeing an emergence of physically aware programmers who realize sitting in a chair all day isn't an healthy environment. Biking to and from work gives some great exercise and time to clear your head. pg gets ideas in the shower. I get…

Fine but some of you biking zealots (bikees? bikees) need to realize that some people can't or don't want to ride a bike to work. The article wasn't completely about bikes, you're forgetting that there are options other than cars and bikes. The task for new developments is to build up a good system of public transportation. I think we should see that long before we see everyone biking to work.

(Btw I actually run to work.)

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

#177

Post by Locke1689 »

baxter wrote: post #35
masklinn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of Europe is far drier than the US. I don't know of any place in Europe which would be similar to Japan or Florida (consistent high heat and very high humidity during months on end in Summer), though they might very well exist.

Europe: http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Humidity.aspx?region=europ USA: http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Humidity.aspx?region=namer

Wow, that's the most I've ever seen anyone upvoted for completely inaccurate and misrepresented information. First, that's a real time view of each of the two regions. You don't think that the values may have been different during the day for Europe and the night for the US? More than that, you can't establish a viable trend from a single data point.

Even if you did have the average high summer humidity index for Europe and the US (personally, after having lived in the swamp that is Maryland & Virginia, I'd take a look at them), you still need to overlay the temperature index. 100 relative humidity in Oslo doesn't mean a whole lot when it's a balmy 21C, right?

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

#178

Post by ultrasaurus »

jimbokun wrote: post #151
run4yourlives wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither here nor there, but Vancouver is in Canada, and working somewhere that you are not a citizen is still a lot harder than it needs to be. Of course the grandparent could still consider Waterloo.

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

#179

Post by anamax »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #139
anamax wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects. That's the market speaking.

I don't think so. A "standard" project is one that complies with zoning regulations and keeps the nutty neighbors happy (which often requires concessions far beyond zoning limits). So we're not talking about market control, we're talking about government policy. Governments set zoning rules. Not markets. Just because markets are involved, doesn't mean that a phenomena is fundamentally a product of a free market.

We're only talking about govt wrt zoning.

A "non-standard project" that is seeking funding by definition meets the relevant zoning because no one borrows money to build something that zoning forbids.

When a lender says offers different terms for different zoning-legal projects, that's the market.

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

#180

Post by anamax »

pchristensen wrote: post #140
anamax wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects. That's the market speaking.

People like like Cool Town Studios ( http://www.cooltownstudios.com/ ) are trying to make financing for non-standard financings easier. But at this point it's like trying to get money for a startup pre-YC, or even pre-VC. It's a broken, overly conservative market dominated by huge scale investors that want to invest tens of millions at a time. Imagine if instead of dealing with VCs, you had to go straight to LPs and…

> It's a broken, overly conservative market dominated by huge scale investors that want to invest tens of millions at a time. Imagine if instead of dealing with VCs, you had to go straight to LPs and have them give you money for a project.

Interestingly enough, most "venture funding" is not through VCs - it's direct from "the money".

In any event, banks serve many of the same functions as VCs. Both "borrow" money from one set of people and based on agreed-upon criteria, "lend" it to others.

Post reply on HN