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

341–350 of 382 posts

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

#341

Post by Spivak »

village-idiot wrote: post #323
Spivak wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It’s all BS because the people who are saying “this is fine” know they’ll never face the risks personally. It’s a psychopathic way of running a community, and anyone who advocates this way is incredibly suspicious to me. Anyone that says “someone else should face high risk and cost for my convenience” is not to be trusted.

It seems weird to argue this when your average driver has a much much higher risk of death than the pedestrian even in the worst case. It's not so much drivers offloading risk to someone else but recognizing that when human life is involved our estimation of risk is blown out of proportion.

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

#342

Post by dhnsmakala »

hhmc wrote: post #196
toasterlovin wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C'mon. A car is a steel cage that has been obsessively engineered to protect it's occupants in the case of a collision.

Sure the consequences might be different, but you still have to trust the other road participants just the same.

Please think a little.

If I am concerned about my safety and I'm in a car, then I only have to trust drivers not to do egregious things like head on collision at high speeds.

If I'm on a bike, I have to trust the teenage driver not to get distracted by a text message and swerve a little bit. In a car at city speeds this would be a minor accident, on a bike it could be life threatening.

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

#344

Post by jbob2000 »

village-idiot wrote: post #326
jbob2000 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

“I might occasionally need to use a car, therefore I should use it all the time no matter the context” is a very weak argument.

"This thing has incredible utility and practicality, therefore I use it for most transportation because it allows for flexible planning - a necessity in an ever-changing world"

As opposed to a bike: "This thing has a very constrained set of operating parameters, therefore I use it occasionally when the situation fits best"

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

#345

Post by jbob2000 »

village-idiot wrote: post #87
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…

I laugh at the idea that cyclists are privileged people when your entire argument is "I want to sit in my $30k steel box, not have to prepare for changes in weather, not interact with other people, and not work". The idea that someone on a $400 bike who read a weather report and works to commute is "privileged" is ludicrous.

The privilege is around ability, not cost. No less than half of my coworkers are constantly complaining about how broken their bodies are, you expect these people to just hop on a bike and go?

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

#346

Post by u801e »

city41 wrote: post #278
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,…

I think saying they don't do anything for commuting is a bit extreme. Not all bike commuters are also serious cyclists. For many commuters, a mix use trail is far better than a road. I used to live off of a mix use trail and could ride my bike on it to work. I now have to ride on the street, and given the choice I'd take the trail any day.

For me it depends on which route is shorter and has less inconvenience. Where I live, there's a trail about 1.5 miles long that I can ride to get to work. When it was first paved, I started riding on it since it was a shorter route to work compared to taking the roads there.

After a while, they put up gates on the trail where it crossed an access road. These gates required that cyclists dismount, walk their bike around the offset bollards while crouching to go under the gate arms, cross the access road, and repeat the process when getting to the gate on the other side. After that, I just started riding on the road again.

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

#347

Post by adrianN »

jbob2000 wrote: post #289
adrianN wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If it's an emergency you call an ambulance, if it's not an emergency you take a taxi.

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

#348

Post by petre »

Johnny555 wrote: post #311
kazinator wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sub-3-mile commute is walkable.

Barely -- that's an hour long walk for most people. Given the choice between walking and biking for 3 miles, I'd bike. I used to have a 2.5 mile commute that I did by bike. I'd occasionally walk, but didn't normally want to spend that much time.

I'd use a push scooter up to 5 miles if it's convenient. One can fold it and take it on a bus or train.

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

#349

Post by [deleted] »

u801e wrote: post #333
ams6110 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those can be unsafe, but trucks almost always keep to the right lane if they can't maintain the speed limit. And long grades will often have an extra lane on the right for slow vehicles. Either way, it allows safe passing on the left, as all interstates are at least two lanes wide.

How does that differ from a city street with multiple lanes?

[deleted]

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

#350

Post by [deleted] »

NegativeLatency wrote: post #169
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…

If it's a true old school style moped (small engine/electric motor with pedals) that's probably fine, but something like a vespa or small motorcycle should be in a separate area.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN