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

71–80 of 145 posts

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#71

Post by mises »

I appreciate a lot of the ideas of accommodating bikes, and think it's a laudable goal. But it's not practical everywhere.

As an example, I have lived in Houston in the past for some time. It is huge - I commuted roughly 20 miles each way. That's not "bikeable". And not everyone goes to the same place. Some work downtown, but not nearly as many as you'd think. The energy corridor is in an entirely separate area. Many people work in the Woodlands. Some people have jobs out in Katy. Some work in the industrial areas or near the ship channel.

And don't even get me started on the heat. Nobody wants to bike when it's 95 degrees out, even if you can shower once you reach your destination.

Many of the proposed solutions are centered around cities like New York: small metropolitan areas to which everyone commutes with at least reasonable weather and with reasonable distances. It's also very difficult to design good public transportation for such a city as I described, especially since many of the places I listed are technically different cities.

With that said, I would be interested in hearing ideas for how to solve a problem like this. I and friends of mine have debated how to solve such an issue before, and come away without an answer. If someone has an idea, let me know.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#72

Post by lpghatguy »

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…

Some of the other 101 crossings in the Bay Area (3rd Ave/101 in San Mateo, Hillsdale Blvd/101 in San Mateo at least) are lightless and are really dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#73

Post by sunstone »

One of the issues here is that it's very likely that e-bikes will start to dominate regular bikes in near future. Because of their fast acceleration they may well be more suited to the roads that cars currently dominate than to the typical "bike lane" environment. Certainly the difference between an e-bike and a regular bike is much bigger than would be expected at first glance.

Last year the Dutch bought more e-bikes than 'normal' bikes. And in terms of the euro total amount it was even much more. [1]

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/bike-country-n...

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#74

Post by cimmanom »

syndacks wrote: post #32
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…

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 "…

FWIW, NYC also came of age before the age of the automobile.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#75

Post by cimmanom »

elbows wrote: post #57
i_am_proteus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At grade bicycle lanes tend to be victims of snowplowing anyway, in my experience.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#76

Post by provolone »

Bike lanes in the US have always been in the areas where it is more dangerous to ride. The mere presence of a bike lane instead of an undecorated shoulder seems to confuse many as to what is possible or acceptable.

Riding and moving at speed with traffic will always be safer than getting boxed in.

Bike only trails are typically filled with weaving inline-skaters, people walking four abreast, and other hazards. Again, you're safer and faster when you stick to the roads.

This typifies the attitude of "there aught to be a law" held by individuals (usually those who have no intention of cycling seriously) waiting for the state to take action and spend money to solve a non-problem.

The self-starter's solution is to take action and build up your cycling skills.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#77

Post by r_klancer »

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…

I don't know if you're referring to Beacon Street in Somerville, but...

Even though I actually haven't ridden that way since they built the cycle track, I live in the neighborhood and the cycle track has looked awkward to me since they put it in. Back when I commuted home down Beacon I would bomb down the slight downhill to the Star Market at 25 or so, pretty far out into the "car" lane, because I wanted to be able to see, and have time to react to, any cars attempting to pull out of the side streets.

To the grandparent's point, the cycle track is really only compatible with laid back putt-putting. I think if you were to carry any speed at all, you'd eventually get T-boned by a car pulling out of the many poor-visibility side streets ... or you'd T-bone the car yourself ... with your face.

So if I'm out on a ride (not just going to the store or something) I think I'll avoid the expensive new cycletrack, thank you.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#78

Post by provolone »

mises wrote: post #71

I appreciate a lot of the ideas of accommodating bikes, and think it's a laudable goal. But it's not practical everywhere. As an example, I have lived in Houston in the past for some time. It is huge - I commuted roughly 20 miles each way. That's not "bikeable". And not everyone goes to the same place. Some work downtown, but not nearly as many as you'd think. The energy corridor is in an entirely separate area. Many…

The conditions you describe are bikable. A shower would be essential. Those who are willing need no special accommodations.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#79

Post by r_klancer »

tinyhouse wrote: post #56
Steltek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> some reason think they are in a race.

When you see people out on the sidewalk, most of them are walking ... some of them are jogging ... and some of them are running. I don't think the runners think they are in a race (though they may or may not be training for one.)

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#80

Post by chillwaves »

gotocake wrote: post #59
runarberg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> less safe, less reliable

Doesn't seem true where I live. Maybe you have a study to support this claim?\

> Bikes probably do make more sense if a majority of your population lives in one or two cities, otherwise it just doesn’t.

Cities in general seem to be conducive to bikes. Not sure why the whole country needs to live in just one or two cities or how that could logically follow.

Post reply on HN