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

281–290 of 382 posts

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

#281

Post by Retric »

Johnny555 wrote: post #240
kazinator wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bike paths used by pedestrians are "mixed use trails" that are basically for recreational use. Someone cycling with a purpose to get somewhere, and especially if they have good physical ability from doing a lot of cycling, will tend to stay away from such. Doing your regular 35-40 km/h on these is crazy, and if you can go fast, why would you use a path where you can't do that. While these trails are nice (obviously,…

Agreed -- many of the shared paths have low 10-15mph speed limits for pedestrian safety which is fine for a recreational cyclist, but for someone going to work, 20mph on the flats is doable by a reasonably fit cyclist. When there's a road next to a mixed-use path, I'll usually take the road since it's safer and easier than sharing with the pedestrian traffic.

A sub 3 mile commute at 5-10 MPH is not that bad. You don't need a shower or change of clothes etc.

So it's more about commute distance than a pure question of speed.

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

#282

Post by habosa »

screye wrote: post #28

A 2 key points about well designed bike lanes that aren't bought up enough are: 1. raised / structural separation between the road and bikes path. 2. bike paths can be used for just about anything that is not a car/motorbike or a pedestrian. Skaters, skate boarders, mopeds and bikes can all share a common separated path way. I have tried biking in Boston and it is a nightmare. Bike Lanes marked on the road are taken…

Maybe I am just not getting it, but I don't love the physical barrier in bike lanes. When there is some obstruction (trash, a pothole, etc) in the bike lane I can't get out of the way.

I like the white posts for this reason. I can still get out, but cars will likely not get in (unless they're completely out of control in which case they'd probably hop a small curb as well).

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

#283

Post by modzu »

nradov wrote: post #195
modzu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hopefully carbon fiber continues to get cheaper, because having a lighter bike really does make a difference on climbs. that said, anybody can go up a hill in a low enough gear(!), but psychologically it can still feel like a lot of work to pedal so much and go up so slowly. so part of it is learning how to ride. for that reason i agree hills are a (surmountable) barrier to entry and probably hillier places have less…

Carbon fiber only makes a marginal difference in total weight. Especially when you factor in all the extra stuff that bike commuters frequently carry (laptop, lunch, lights, lock, etc).

it is true the difference in total weight is quite marginal (maybe 1%?) but that doesn't mean the impact is equal to 1%.

there is a perceptual quality that is often neglected when calculating the differences purely in terms of physical forces.

we agree a lighter bike will only be marginally faster in terms of speed on the ground but to say a rider doesn't notice a 1% difference in their speed requires an appeal to perception not to physics. those few seconds of a commute count.

i think that's why big granny gears that could roll a tank up a hill still don't solve the problem -- they just feel too slow

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

#284

Post by unethical_ban »

Spivak wrote: post #272
village-idiot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And creating the infrastructure is wildly unpopular, because typically it involves either taking lanes away from cars, or slowing them down. The initiative to reduce car-pedestrian collisions in LA has stopped because the drivers put pressure on politicians to stop slowing traffic down. Advocates are implying (and sometimes outright saying) that a few dozen deaths a year are an acceptable price to pay for a shorter c…

> Advocates are implying (and sometimes outright saying) that a few dozen deaths a year are an acceptable price to pay for a shorter commute. Why are you implying that this is faulty reasoning? I mean traffic deaths would be virtually eliminated if the speed limit across the board was 15 mph. But I know I would rather drive 65 because the risk is worth it -- and over a large population that increase in risk turns int…

Theoretical/in-a-vacuum numbers like this always make me suspicious; it isn't as if workers would have $163m less at the end of a year any more than companies would have $163m less in accounts. That isn't how life works.

EVEN if it did - what if, as traffic were slowed and bike lanes and walking lanes were put in, commuter life improved? Society appreciated the new living space and they got healthier and spent less on fuel and cars? That new economies were enabled by new, healthier, cheaper forms of transport?

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

#285

Post by Retric »

unethical_ban wrote: post #280
oftenwrong wrote: post #94

A city that is bike-friendly is good, but a city that is walking-friendly is better. The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why should that even be necessary in day-to-day life? It is easily possible to build a neighbourhood where three generations of a family can live, work, attend school, shop, and more within walking distance. Walking is the simplest, most universal, and most natural mode of…

I live 12 miles from work. I live closer to work than 75% of my colleagues. Some live 30+ miles away. The bars and hangouts my friends visit are all over town. And for the things nearby: Would I rather spend an hour walking 5 miles to a park or restaurant, or 12 minutes with good bike lanes? In the south, you don't want to stay out long unless you're ready to sweat. 10 minutes at a casual biking pace is several miles…

That says low density than anything else.

At 25k people per km^2 you get 200 thousand people within 1 mile radius and 0.8 million people within 2 mile walking distance. That transforms most US population centers into tiny little walk-able islands.

Public transit can spread things out, but lower density is a real trade-off.

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

#286

Post by modzu »

modzu wrote: post #283
nradov wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon fiber only makes a marginal difference in total weight. Especially when you factor in all the extra stuff that bike commuters frequently carry (laptop, lunch, lights, lock, etc).

it is true the difference in total weight is quite marginal (maybe 1%?) but that doesn't mean the impact is equal to 1%. there is a perceptual quality that is often neglected when calculating the differences purely in terms of physical forces. we agree a lighter bike will only be marginally faster in terms of speed on the ground but to say a rider doesn't notice a 1% difference in their speed requires an appeal to pe…

another way to think about it is this --

you could say to someone, "don't complain about your bike -- just lose 10 lbs and you'll get to your destination faster than you would by changing your bike".

yeah ok, but like losing weight is easy (actually it is if you bike a lot, hehe).

but if you put that person on a walmart beater and compare their commute with a carbon bike, they sure as hell will report a difference, even if the clock doesn't.

the point is that we are concerned with getting people on bikes and moving their bodies, not about time trials (which ironically is where fast bikes are marketed, because the premise is that it doesn't matter for everyone else. maybe it does!)

does it matter enough to spend 10k on a carbon bike today? well that depends on your finances. but when they are cost competitive? yes, please.

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

#287

Post by modzu »

Luc wrote: post #72
modzu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hopefully carbon fiber continues to get cheaper, because having a lighter bike really does make a difference on climbs. that said, anybody can go up a hill in a low enough gear(!), but psychologically it can still feel like a lot of work to pedal so much and go up so slowly. so part of it is learning how to ride. for that reason i agree hills are a (surmountable) barrier to entry and probably hillier places have less…

30% of new bikes sold in the Netherlands are electric. In Belgium, 40%. No need for carbon frames - electric engines flatten all terrain.

but electric engines don't flatten your stomach

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

#288

Post by telchar »

mjevans wrote: post #235
telchar wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd add that a significantly under-discussed element of safe biking infrastructure is safer intersections. My city has lots of bike lanes that are sufficiently wide (and many that aren't) and no consideration all at for how a cyclist is supposed to safely traverse an intersection. My commute requires me to cross several lanes of traffic to get from the bike lane to the left turn lane on a road where cars go ~40mph -…

The best practice that I'm aware of is: * AT AN INTERSECTION * Dismount and walk the bike across the cross-walk, as a pedestrian. IMO we've engineered intersections all wrong to begin with. There shouldn't even be cross-walks there (they should be mid-block dedicated services, placed where pedestrians WANT to cross and __VERY CLEARLY__ marked as existing; not the dinky lights many cities go for (Seattle comes to mind…

I agree entirely on the crosswalks. Around here the pedestrian signal comes on at the same time as the left turn signal so that pedestrians and drivers get to fight for space on the crosswalk.

This makes crossing with the bike on the crosswalk even more inconvenient than it would otherwise be on the bike, which as the other poster pointed out, slows one down considerably. Maybe separation of level is the right answer. Bike boxes, painted areas that let cyclists cross lanes in front of stopped traffic, may work but only if the intersection is adapted for them, otherwise they're just yet more deceptive deathlures.

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

#289

Post by jbob2000 »

adrianN wrote: post #153
jbob2000 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm genuinely curious: do you wear glasses? How do you keep them from getting fogged up/iced over when riding in the winter? Don't waste your time. Pro-cyclists are the most biased and privileged people I've ever met. Just get on your bike, it's so easy! forgets that some people have bad knees . All you need is some goggles when it rains! forgets that people wear glasses . Just wait for the snow to be cleared! forg…

Some people can't drive due to medical conditions or because they're too young or too old. Should we stop building roads?

Nope, but those people can be driven by someone else. How the hell do I drive my mother to the hospital on my bike?

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

#290

Post by jandrese »

mjevans wrote: post #235
telchar wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd add that a significantly under-discussed element of safe biking infrastructure is safer intersections. My city has lots of bike lanes that are sufficiently wide (and many that aren't) and no consideration all at for how a cyclist is supposed to safely traverse an intersection. My commute requires me to cross several lanes of traffic to get from the bike lane to the left turn lane on a road where cars go ~40mph -…

The best practice that I'm aware of is: * AT AN INTERSECTION * Dismount and walk the bike across the cross-walk, as a pedestrian. IMO we've engineered intersections all wrong to begin with. There shouldn't even be cross-walks there (they should be mid-block dedicated services, placed where pedestrians WANT to cross and __VERY CLEARLY__ marked as existing; not the dinky lights many cities go for (Seattle comes to mind…

This is what I was taught when I was a kid and it's really dumb.

1. Bikes can't go on sidewalks, so you're already screwed one way or another.

2. It's a huge hassle to get off and on at every intersection.

Of course there's a problem with the bike acting like a vehicle too, even if it can keep up with traffic. Stoplight sensors don't register bikes so you end up waiting for a car to show up so it can trigger the sensor and change the light.

Post reply on HN