Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice to see another Köln-resident here. Meet up at some point?
Everyone: write me at bodo (a) bitboxer . de . I will setup a google group and stuff for a cologne hn meetup.
Group opened:
In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
181–190 of 206 posts
Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
#18221st Century, that anybody can argue against (in this thread or elsewhere) that going by bike to work is way better, healthier, more humanly fulfilling, than by car leaves me speechless. Vote for mayors pro bike roads or ask for showers at work, there is always a solution.
Where do you live? Does it reach 95 degress F with almost 100% humidity in the summer and -50 degrees F in the winter? Does it ever snow 12 inches+ at a time? Is there every freezing rain followed by inches of snow covering it? My point is, what works in California doesn't work in Fargo or Minneapolis. Even driving a diesel automobile. They gel up bad. Same with electric cars, the temperature (hot and cold) kills bat…
Minneapolis? The #1 Bike City in the country? http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/1-bike-city-m...
Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Sorry, but doesn't anyone have an issue with this? Why is there an expectation that cyclists cannot possibly be held responsible for their actions? By this logic, if my mini hits a bus, I shouldn't be responsible, even if I ran a red light. I tend to agree wit…
I'm not seeing a huge difference between that and the state of vehicle laws in my home state (Michigan). Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does, you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency. I have a friend who actually did get a ticket for hitting a car that ran a red light. Granted, the car runnin…
> Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does [...]
That's not true. Recently, I was a passenger in a car that stopped very quickly and made a turn into a restaurant. We were hit from behind and the driver of our car received a ticket because it was an erratic, unsafe maneuver.
> you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency
It's possible to do this and still hit the car in front of you. I hit someone in front of me trying to make an illegal U-turn. I tried to avoid it but still hit them. They received a ticket.
> Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend.
I don't know the specifics but your friend probably got the ticket because it was determined by the cop after hearing both sides of the story that it was reasonable for him to see the other car coming. He may have been determined at fault in the context traffic laws but not in terms of who pays for it because Michigan is a no-fault insurance state.
I don't see how this is anything like Michigan.
Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ope…
I always find it interesting when drivers expect all bikers to follow every 'rule of the road' - meanwhile special laws grant cars the unique ability to pass a biker in otherwise no passing zones: one way single lane, double yellow, etc. Either understand that the two modes of transportation are different and deserve different laws, or don't expect special case laws for either mode.
Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often bike to work, which for me is about 26 miles each direction. I take a shower right before I leave, and when I get there I just have to rinse down and change out of my cycling jersey. The theory behind the pre-ride shower is that body odor is caused by bacteria on your skin, and showering temporarily knocks out enough of your bacteria that it won't cause significant odor during your ride. (I'm not aware of act…
> Even on our hottest days here in south Florida, one can easily bike a mile, fully dressed, without breaking a sweat. Perhaps we're different, but I break a sweat in a couple minutes simply going outside in FL this time of year. Add riding a bike and I'm drenched.
Riding somewhere on a bicycle can keep you cooler than if you were just standing or walking outside, provided you're riding at a leisurely pace on a bicycle designed for road use (and not some horrific retail store contraption with useless knobby tires). At say 14 mph on a road bike, you aren't doing enough work to heat up, yet you're moving fast enough to get a good breeze that keeps you cooler than if you were standing still.
When I'm just cycling through the town (rather than exercising), the only time I really feel the heat is when I'm stopped at a light.
Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
This is incorrect. Developers seek variances for various zoning restrictions all the time. And doing so effects financing decisions because a project that requires variances may face substantial delays.
Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'd rather move to Pittsburgh! :-P
Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
#188I get the point - and I support the development of car-free suburbs for people who want them. Streets safe for children, people saying hello instead of staring from behind closed windows, etc. Less local pollution, more friendly streets, less accidents : all pluses. 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. Further, not everywhere is sui…
> 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. Not everybody thinks about you when choosing the people they want to live with. You argue like a conservative asshole berating a bunch of hippies for choosing their own way of life. > What I'm saying : there should be no laws against this type of thing, and no laws saying you should do it. Enti…
You missed my point.
If you read my comment, I think it's a good idea. I just don't want legislation either for or against the idea. If people want to live in car-less suburbs, I support that. I don't support being forced to live in a car-less suburb, that's all.
Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you want to tell with the tale about the sidewalks? We also have some concrete sidewalks in Europe. And pouring new concrete isn't too bad. You can even re-use the old broken down concrete for some things. The trend even seems to be to make Autobahnen out of concrete. (Although that's not very relevant I guess, because Autobahnen are rarely digged up.)
> The trend even seems to be to make Autobahnen out of concrete. It's not exactly a trend, I've seen concrete autobahnen more than 15 years ago, and the early ones were concrete as well.
Yes. I should have said, people have figured out how to make good Autobahnen out of concrete.
The GDR also had streets paved with concrete---but they had tar in the gaps and sticking out of the gaps. You can imagine what a bumpy ride that was.
Re: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ope…
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.
I don't have any data to support or desupport this claim that a 'typical' cyclist will show 'numerous' traffic offenses in any given 15 minute observation. Anecdotally, today I saw a car stopped in a no-stop zone, a car pulling off a roundabout without indicating, cars pulling onto a pavement and two cyclists crossing at a crossing onto a cycle path and one cyclist pulling over to let cars past.
I take issue with this:
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
Because you are suggesting that cyclists don't care about being injured, but only whether it will cost them money or not, as if a broken leg and a week off work is fine as long as it's free.
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.
Road safety is about this - an understanding that you are involved in traffic and what you do matters. It's just that what motorists do matters more because it is amplified by their machinery.
A cyclist cuts up a car and they swerve to avoid it and hit another car. Any traffic going at a speed where a cyclist could cut them up is slow enough that the cars would crunch a bit. A car cuts up a cyclist and the cyclist swerves into something, and the cyclist gets hurt.
For the sake of their own safety, cyclists should be as careful as they can be. For the sake of avoiding causing accidents cyclists should be careful. But for the sake of protecting cyclists as a class of society, car drivers should be held to a higher standard. That doesn't say cyclists should be held to no standard, it says people whose actions are amplified should have to be more careful than people whose actions are not.