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

Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 382 posts

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#121

Post by CydeWeys »

adrianN wrote: post #96
CydeWeys wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only cold problems I have with long distance biking in cold weather are caused by poor circulation in my hands and feet. I inevitably get too warm in my core within 15 minutes of commencing biking and start unzipping my outer layer. To keep my head warm, a balaclava and helmet suffices. It's the cold hands that are the worst though; even in thick gloves they still get too cold. I might have to start trying chemic…

There are gloves with electric heaters that you can charge via micro usb.

Thanks, I should look into that. Hands getting cold is really the biggest problem for me. Those same gloves work fine for warmth when I'm walking, but it's the holding onto handlebars that restricts circulation to the point where they get too cold.

Note that this is only really a problem below -5C or so; at "merely" freezing I can manage.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#122

Post by hhmc »

dhnsmakala wrote: post #22

When you cycle, you are putting a great deal of trust into each and every car that drives by you. I'll pass.

The same argument applies to driving any vehicle. e.g. When you're driving a car and you cross a junction/intersection - you're trusting the stopped drivers to not run a red.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#124

Post by WoahNow »

brightball wrote: post #98
village-idiot wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, so that reinforces my point. Millenials aren't going to buy up those suburban homes.

Because they aren't having kids... Not because there's a problem with the homes or the locations. It's because somehow, an entire generation has grown up with the idea that the one biologically necessary act to further the survival of the species...is not a good idea. Maybe it's marketing, maybe it's the message, maybe it's the intensity of school causing people to believe that workaholism is necessary, maybe it's pr…

Or maybe people realize the raising kids is an enormous cost from both money and time. Maybe it's selfish, but myself and many of my millennial friends would rather spend their prime earning and health years doing what they want rather than what they "have to" do for kids.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#125

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

skh wrote: post #104
adrianN wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the warm clothes the same is true for cars. Snow must be cleared, you need special tires, you shouldn't drive during a blizzard. It's just that you've normalized those things when it comes to cars. When the snow is cleared you are generally fine with normal tires on bikes btw, because you can just go a little slower.

I live in Minnesota which is a cold weather state. We get lots of snow and winters last a long time. I’m not from Minnesota but have lived here for 18 years. I have never changed tires on my car. I will never bike in the winter time. Too many chances to slip in winter while biking. Pockets of ice, areas that aren’t cleared well, etc.

Studded tires make riding on slippery roads a non issue. The risk is from drivers sliding into you.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#126

Post by tsm »

brightball wrote: post #48
village-idiot wrote: post #9

Anyone who's believed that the key to sustainable futures is simply swapping out ICE for electric motors simply is being wishful at best, willfully difficult at worse. The biggest problem I have with electric cars is that they continue to encourage low density low efficiency suburbs with hours long commutes into the high density cities. This is economically unsustainable, roads are expensive, and will only get worse…

Another way to look at the problem: Locating offices unnecessarily in the middle of high-density cities creates long commutes.

As a Chicagoan, the perceived value of an office's location tends to be directly proportional to how close it is to the center of town. Downtown is well-served by both the intracity bus/train system and the unrelated intercity light rail system. Even offices a mile or two further out can be much more annoying to get to on public transportation.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#127

Post by dkhenry »

shoguning wrote: post #106
dkhenry wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think cycling advocacy is alive and well, but the gains aren't as dramatic, because now they are incremental improvements to what has already been won. You are seeing miles and miles of shared bike lanes going up all across the US. I think back in the 2000's even that infrastructure was a pie in the sky dream. The jump to the next level of infrastructure hasn't taken off yet, but you are starting to see some cities…

Bike commuting growth has stopped/reversed in most places in the US in the last couple of years: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/14/bike-commuting-growth... My worry is that there actually aren't enough people to use the bike infra to justify continued/increasing costs--or at least makes it easy to argue against. For example, there is a bike path next to a new light rail line in West LA (expo line for the curious…

DC was listed in that article as one of the places that didn't experience that trend so my anecdotal evidence is most likely biased. However I would be interested to see a similar survey done for 2017 and 2018 to see how electric bikes and scooters have changed things. I still see mostly normal bikes on my trips to work, but I have been seeing more and more e-bikes making the trip.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#128

Post by chrissnell »

village-idiot wrote: post #95
toomuchtodo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdote of one. 36, wife and two kids. Have a quarter acre of land, a pool, and a 2600 sq ft house in a Tier 2 city for ~$200k. Why would I ever choose higher density and city living? I would not pay more for a lower quality of life (and distance means little to me, as I work from home and my kids don't go to school). I happily bought my suburban home instead of living close to others in a condo or a townhouse.

Buying suburban for me would replace my 30m walking commute for a 1.5h driving commute, all for a yard I wouldn't have time to use with my commute. Not a good trade for me. I also don't have any kids and won't be having them.

How old are you? I was quite sure that I wouldn't have kids, either, but I randomly met a nice girl who lived in the (urban) apartment upstairs from me and next thing I knew, I was 38, married, and watching my son being born. It comes at you fast and unexpected and it wasn't at all the life-ruining thing that I was sure it was when I was 28. Here in my early 40s, my only regret is not doing it earlier.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#129

Post by TheTrotters »

chrissnell wrote: post #32
village-idiot wrote: post #9

Anyone who's believed that the key to sustainable futures is simply swapping out ICE for electric motors simply is being wishful at best, willfully difficult at worse. The biggest problem I have with electric cars is that they continue to encourage low density low efficiency suburbs with hours long commutes into the high density cities. This is economically unsustainable, roads are expensive, and will only get worse…

The ship sailed on low-density suburbs 60 years ago. We're past the point of return on those. Outside of San Francisco, Manhattan, and downtown Chicago, most people live in the 'burbs and that's not changing. We will be living with this housing stock for decades--if not centuries--to come. It's best to engineer around that reality, not to daydream of an Amsterdam-like utopia that will never happen for 99% of this cou…

That's a false choice. Do the right thing on the margin! Allow lots of new high-density construction. Tax cars entering city centres. Extend metro lines and allow plenty of high-density construction around each station.

Sure, you won't turn Tampa into Rotterdam overnight but those changes are important and they do add up. 50 years of these policies would give us much better, even if not perfect, cities.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#130

Post by the_gastropod »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #80
village-idiot wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You act like Millenials don't already have children, when the oldest members of that cohort are 37.

Anecdote of one. 36, wife and two kids. Have a quarter acre of land, a pool, and a 2600 sq ft house in a Tier 2 city for ~$200k. Why would I ever choose higher density and city living? I would not pay more for a lower quality of life (and distance means little to me, as I work from home and my kids don't go to school). I happily bought my suburban home instead of living close to others in a condo or a townhouse.

Yep! This is the "smart for the individual, dumb for the group" type of a dilemma. It absolutely makes sense for you to do this, individually. As a society, it's rather undesirable for people to live this way. Your lifestyle is being subsidized by (mostly poorer) people living in dense areas [1], and by the externalities we all deal with: pollution from extra driving, lawn care (leaf blowers, gas powered lawn mowers, weed wackers, etc), otherwise unnecessary infrastructure (bridges, plumbing, electric lines, roads, sewage, etc.)

It doesn't make you a bad person to be taking advantage of bad policies. But cities do need to incentivize sustainable living over unsustainable suburban sprawl.

[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/5/but-rich-people...

Post reply on HN