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

141–150 of 382 posts

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

#141

Post by smileysteve »

brightball wrote: post #82
liveoneggs wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

locating them in random suburban office parks is much worse, except for those in that particular 'burb.

Is it? Because the traffic in the suburbs is usually nowhere near the level of traffic in the city. The commute time tends to be relative to the traffic density more than the distance. I drive to the same location, 15 miles away every day. Depending on the time of day and the traffic, the drive will take 15 minutes or 45 minutes. The commute problem is forcing all of those cars down those same roads at the same time.…

Lived and worked in the suburbs of Atlanta, can confirm that suburb traffic going cross town of same suburb (Alpharetta) for 5 miles could take similar time as commuting from the same location to Buckhead.

Similarly, going crosstown in Atlanta without highways is also bad.

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

#142

Post by dhnsmakala »

hhmc wrote: post #122
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.

No, not the same level of trust. Fender bender vs crippled.

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

#143

Post by miketuritzin »

CloudYeller wrote: post #5

In most cities, especially in America, there's a vicious cycle: 0) Cycling is dangerous because there are too many vehicles on the road 1) There are so many vehicles on the road because everyone knows it's dangerous to cycle 2) Go to 0 Breaking out of that loop requires building safe infrastructure for cycling, like indestructable cement dividers between bike lanes and vehicle lanes or no-vehicles-allowed-in- days

This aligns with my experience. I would bike (in SF and now NYC) but I don't because it feels too stressful and dangerous.

It annoys me how entrenched car culture is and how defensive some people get about it (and the amount of anger that is directed toward cyclists, many of whom legitimately fear for their lives on a daily basis).

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

#144

Post by smileysteve »

jbob2000 wrote: post #23

I can't afford a condo in the big cities, I'm not sure how riding a bike will change that? In fact it will probably make it worse as people move to the cities to ride their bikes, which will make real estate there even more expensive. Low density and low efficiency means low cost. Efficiency doesn't maintain itself.

In Atlanta, at least, it depends on which suburb. South in Newnan for $100k you can get a similar townhouse to that which you'd get in Alpharetta for $300k. In the city, North, it would cost $400k and south it might cost $150k.

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

#145

Post by village-idiot »

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…

Shaming people for intensely personal choices is rude. Cut it out.

Your argument basically presupposes that there’s something desirable about suburban homes, and that people not buying them is abnormal. I find this both unconvincing and historically incoherent.

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

#146

Post by crispyambulance »

brightball wrote: post #54
village-idiot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are far too certain. 70 years ago a prognosticator wouldn't be considered insane to say "the ship sailed on cities 50 years ago, Americans live in downtown and that's not changing". These things do change, often quite quickly. Personally, I think the Boomers are in for a big shock when they try to sell their homes for a "fair" price, and discover that Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes.…

> Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes I see this often. Very few people want large homes when they are either single or don't have kids. As soon as you do have kids and they start to grow to an age where they want to play outside, having space to run, play sports, be away from traffic, have their own room, etc gets a lot higher on your priority list. You can also get a suburban home without i…

There's some more nuance here than "urban-jungle" vs "suburbia".

It is totally possible to live in a walkable area with urban amenities without being inside a dense mega-city. These used to be called "street-car" suburbs-- urban nucleations that exist just outside of the central business districts of medium-to-large cities. They're sort of like cities unto themselves. They're sometimes referred to as "main-street" communities.

Lots of people live in such places and don't realize it or they've managed to give too much away for automobile infrastructure to notice that, YES, it is possible to live such that not every trip necessarily begins and ends with an automobile in a parking space. This can be done in many places _without_ moving to NYC/SF/Chicago.

How much house one needs (if any) is a lifestyle decision that can fluctuate over time. People can adapt. It starts with demanding things like "complete streets" (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-str...), walkability as a target in new developments and intelligent requirements for parking so that we don't end up with "ocean-of-asphalt" parking lots.

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

#147

Post by toasterlovin »

lykahb wrote: post #135
brightball wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes I see this often. Very few people want large homes when they are either single or don't have kids. As soon as you do have kids and they start to grow to an age where they want to play outside, having space to run, play sports, be away from traffic, have their own room, etc gets a lot higher on your priority list. You can also get a suburban home without i…

The suburbs have less air and noise pollution, which is good for the children but overall it's a dull and isolated environment. Playing alone in the backyard just because that is the only place where a child can go out of the house is quite sad. In Europe the children can go to a shared park or a playground. Strolling along a street is also safe and quite pleasant when there is little traffic. There is more space and…

We live in the suburbs. Our kids play with other kids at the local park all the time. But you're insane if you can't see the huge advantage to being able to just let the kids out into the backyard.

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

#148

Post by KozmoNau7 »

village-idiot wrote: post #91
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Either way, I walk to work. There are few better ways to commute, IMHO." The bicycle is one of those ways. It's faster and significantly more efficient.

Bicycling also requires more concentration. I regularly read a book while commuting, which is nice. Personally, my commute would be too short with a bike. I like a good 20-30 minutes between home and work to clear my head and get in/out of the zone. But that's just me.

I could never read a book while walking, at the very most I'll listen to music, but I also wouldn't do that while biking.

Personal limits of multitasking, I guess :-)

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

#149

Post by village-idiot »

clavalle wrote: post #103
notauser wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but fewer people are having children, which reduces the demand for suburban living. The suburbs also have less attraction for me as a parent. In the old days you could let your kids roam a suburb freely - now you can't. So why not live in a city? You have the same restrictions, but also a lot more distractions such as free museums.

Why can't you let your kids roam in a suburb?

There’s an increasing social pressure since the 1980s to supervise children at all times because of “stranger danger”. Parents have had the cops called on them for letting their kids play in the yard.

Nothing structural has changed about letting kids roam, but the social side has.

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

#150

Post by village-idiot »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #125
skh wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Proper biking infrastructure would reduce this risk in all weather.
Post reply on HN