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

Rethinking Streets for Bikes

rethinkingstreets.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 145 posts

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#51

Post by shereadsthenews »

cletus wrote: post #23
jdavis703 wrote: post #4

This might sound pedanatic but I hate when transportation choices are framed as for cars or for bikes. Transportation is for people. Talking about and designing our street infrastructure as if it’s designed for machines like cars and bikes leads us to designing systems that aren’t very friendly to humans (one needs to look no further than the ever increasing incidents of deaths for people walking or riding a bike).

I'm not sure what the point of your comment is to be honest. Transportation choices are made between different modes of transportation all the time. There's no universally good option. Take NYC where light changes happen about every 45 seconds. This is necessary for pedestrians to be able to get anywhere and because the blocks are fairly narrow (in the north-south direction) in Manhattan. I've visited the Bay Area ma…

The peninsula is a car-choked hellscape however on a population-weighted basis I guess it is a little better. Many more people live in the walkable places than in the others.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#52

Post by bdamm »

pmontra wrote: post #42
syndacks wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently visited Amsterdam and was blown away by the cycling infrastructure there (I live in NYC and cycle daily). I realized, though, that unlike many American cities, Amsterdam came of age way before the automobile. The US has a fetish with cars. Therefore, it's impossible to compare the two countries' cycling infrastructures. The link you shared is so far beyond anything we have in the US; you can't simply say "…

Amsterdam has a different layout than most US cities but it became a car city much like everywhere else. They fought to change. This is what the Dutchs did https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...

Let's not ignore the fact that Amsterdam is almost completely flat.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#53

Post by fowkswe »

bdamm wrote: post #52
pmontra wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amsterdam has a different layout than most US cities but it became a car city much like everywhere else. They fought to change. This is what the Dutchs did https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...

Let's not ignore the fact that Amsterdam is almost completely flat.

So is New York City

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#54

Post by tinyhouse »

Steltek wrote: post #28
crote wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you give an example of a bike path where this happens? For context, it should end up looking not unlike https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr .

I bike commute in Boston. I avoid a 1 mile stretch of grade separated cycle track because there are so many problems with it, I don't even know where to begin. - Cars emerging from side streets don't stop at the cycle track so there's a constant T-bone risk. - Parking (the only parking lane on the road) obscures drivers' vision leading to a high right-hook risk. - The grade separation disappears at driveways and side…

Are you talking on the one on Beacon street in Somerville?

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#55

Post by ip26 »

runarberg wrote: post #31
gotocake wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance. Where I’m from (Colorado) the idea of bike-first is something we roll our eyes at, and generally rightly assume that the loudest advocates live somewhere else, don’t have families, and only go back and forth to work. That’s really not the whole country, no matter how much a minority of SV’ers want it to be.…

Cars do just fine in snowy places. I don’t see a reason why bikes shouldn’t. Just throw in the same effort that you do to keep car lanes open, and you’ll be fine. You can even put on pegged tires if the bikelanes tend to stay icy (like they do in Reykjavík), however be prepared to spend like 5x the effort when riding on pegged tires.

I bike all winter and even I'll admit two wheel vehicles are not as stable on ice & slush as three or more.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#56

Post by tinyhouse »

Steltek wrote: post #28
crote wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you give an example of a bike path where this happens? For context, it should end up looking not unlike https://goo.gl/maps/MCzsE6vg1Sr .

I bike commute in Boston. I avoid a 1 mile stretch of grade separated cycle track because there are so many problems with it, I don't even know where to begin. - Cars emerging from side streets don't stop at the cycle track so there's a constant T-bone risk. - Parking (the only parking lane on the road) obscures drivers' vision leading to a high right-hook risk. - The grade separation disappears at driveways and side…

It's still a safer alternative to a bike lane on the street with cars and parked cars on your right. You always in the danger zone of getting doored. There are areas where cars are not allowed to park next to the road bike lane which makes a huge difference when riding along driving cars. It's one less thing to worry about and it allows the cyclist to ride on the right side of the lane safely.

Also, while your points are all valid, they also apply to pedestrians. The difference is that a cyclist needs to slow down on each side street or driveway to make sure there's no car coming and many cyclists for some reason think they are in a race.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#57

Post by elbows »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #19
crote wrote: post #6

I quickly read through this. Context: I'm Dutch and live in Utrecht, The Netherlands. This booklet has one massive flaw: it is constructed using American best-practices. At best, a couple of examples could be considered almost acceptable. Most of them were woefully inadequate and consist of little more than a blob of quickly-fading green paint in ill-considered positions. Worst of all, several examples are clearly fl…

One more: if you run a cycle lane along a road for automobiles, run it above the main road's grade, if feasible.

This works great until it snows. Then the above-grade bike lane is generally not adequately cleared, and cyclists are forced back onto the street, which is now narrower by the width of the bike lane.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#58

Post by loeg »

syndacks wrote: post #47
welder wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I realized, though, that unlike many American cities, Amsterdam came of age way before the automobile. The US has a fetish with cars. No, Amsterdam also loved cars. It was activism that turned it into a bicycle heaven. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...

Fair enough, but Amsterdam originally loved bikes. From your link: >At the start of the 20th century, bikes far outnumbered cars in Dutch cities and the bicycle was considered a respectable mode of transport for men and women. I don't believe this was ever the case in a major US city. Nonetheless, the activism bit is news for me so thanks for sharing. I'd still argue, though, that the activism is largely due to the f…

> I don't believe this was ever the case in a major US city.

This is completely inaccurate. Americans loved bikes at the start of the 20th century too. Cars didn't exist, or were unreliable, or incredibly expensive.

E.g., https://www.vox.com/2015/6/30/8861327/bike-lanes-history

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#59

Post by gotocake »

runarberg wrote: post #31
gotocake wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance. Where I’m from (Colorado) the idea of bike-first is something we roll our eyes at, and generally rightly assume that the loudest advocates live somewhere else, don’t have families, and only go back and forth to work. That’s really not the whole country, no matter how much a minority of SV’ers want it to be.…

Cars do just fine in snowy places. I don’t see a reason why bikes shouldn’t. Just throw in the same effort that you do to keep car lanes open, and you’ll be fine. You can even put on pegged tires if the bikelanes tend to stay icy (like they do in Reykjavík), however be prepared to spend like 5x the effort when riding on pegged tires.

Cars do just fine in snowy places. I don’t see a reason why bikes shouldn’t.

Stability, slippage, being exposed to freezing cold and wet, the lack of an engine assist, no heat, two fewer wheels, and did I mention cold?

Just throw in the same effort that you do to keep car lanes open, and you’ll be fine.

Open for a car and open for a bike are different. You can drive through some snow, slush and ice, but I hate biking on ice and slush. In addition to the safety factor, it a miserable experience. It’s also not unheard of for roads to get too bad for cars, never mind bikes.

All in all I’m sort of disappointed that the reaction to raising obvious drawbacks is weapons-grade denial. Trying to sell people on a less safe, less comfortable, less reliable, means of transportation by throwing infrastructure projects at it is a problem, and why so many people are sick and tired of bike evangelists. Never mind the fact that a lot of people have disabilities that prevent that kind of hard work, have families and long commutes (please don’t throw another infrastructure project at that), are too old or infirm to bike through a Colorado summer, never mind winter, and so on.

It’s really a form of quiet elitism dressed up as environmentalism and social consciousness at worst, and a lack of understanding of just how huge the US is at best. Bikes probably do make more sense if a majority of your population lives in one or two cities, otherwise it just doesn’t.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#60

Post by tinyhouse »

crote wrote: post #6

I quickly read through this. Context: I'm Dutch and live in Utrecht, The Netherlands. This booklet has one massive flaw: it is constructed using American best-practices. At best, a couple of examples could be considered almost acceptable. Most of them were woefully inadequate and consist of little more than a blob of quickly-fading green paint in ill-considered positions. Worst of all, several examples are clearly fl…

> "But most important of all: don't just add cycle paths to your main car roads. You wouldn't add a sidewalk and crosswalk to an interstate, would you? Create the main cycle routes on secondary streets, and make them unattractive for cars."

I was actually thinking about this recently. Where I bike in the Boston area many of the bike lanes are on the busiest roads where buses and trucks drive on too. I often take side streets that don't have bike lanes but fell safer. However, I don't think it's that easy to use mainly side streets, it really depends on the city street design.

Post reply on HN