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

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#91

Post by avip »

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 snow iff drivers are snow-aware and have the experience. Drive in Vancouver in a snowy week. And they do have an order of magnitude more wheels.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#92

Post by Tomte »

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.

But below the sidewalk!

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#93

Post by Tomte »

closeparen wrote: post #62
twblalock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The places where people ride bikes en masse, like Amsterdam, have physical separation. Very few people want to have cars whizzing by a few feet from their elbows. If you want people to seriously consider cycling as anything other than a hobby you need physical separation of bicycles from cars. Unfortunately cycling advocacy organizations in the United States tend to be opposed to physical separation.

Drivers tend to see cyclists as intruders, and fail to give them the space and respect that they give other “legitimate” vehicles. The bike lobby exists to combat this. Things like Critical Mass rides, signage, and road paint are all about changing driver psychology and raising awareness about a cyclist’s right to occupy the travel lane. If you’re going around saying car and cycle traffic should not mix, you are its…

I'm walking, cycling and driving, with more of the first and the latter, and I fully agree that we need more bikeable cities.

But I strongly dislike Critical Mass and bike activists in general. They are hateful (especially towards pedestrians) and don't know any other topic of conversation.

And they have this attitude where incremental improvements don't count, we need to have a day X where all streets are torn up and bike utopia is built overnight.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#94

Post by usrusr »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #17
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…

Agreed - details matter a lot. For example many years ago, Camden in London put in green asphalt cycle paths - one was dangerously hilarious - you ran parallel to the main road, on a painted strip, on the side of a one way street - going against the traffic. However the new cycle "superhighways" in London are a big improvement but oddly now I find the biggest challenge is to change the attitude of the cyclists - we h…

Sorry to be the annoying guy pointlessly arguing semantics, but how can it be a "superhighway" when there are lights blocking traffic? Projects like that would be just as much of an improvement without the deceptive branding. To me, it's a sign of disrespect: give them what they want, but mock them with exaggerated naming.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#95

Post by usrusr »

csmeder wrote: post #27

Here is a moon shot idea for US cities, by 2050: 1. All car streets need to be under ground in tunnels 2. All vehicles must be 100% electric 3. Over ground traffic is limited to: walking, wheel chairs, bikes, scooters and wide load special permit vehicles. Forget Trump’s plan for going to the moon another time, can we do this instead?

Even if total troglodyting is far beyond moonshot: I applaud every investment in burying cars, because they are the only investments in car throughput that don't make driving more attractive. If you want to actually go faster and not just share the stop-and-go with even more peers, insist on the tunnel experience.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#96

Post by sveme »

TomMarius wrote: post #82
ndnxhs wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ebikes have recently become really good and they flatten all hills with ease.

Yeah but regulation in EU makes them nearly useless, it's illegal to put in >250W engine and it can only assist to human torque.

Why don‘t you just buy an e-Vespa?

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#97

Post by dbmikus »

provolone wrote: post #78
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.

Technically bikeable: yes

A long unpleasant bike ride for your daily commute: also yes

I think biking works if it's either a last mile type of thing via bike share programs combined with public transit, or if you are biking in a denser city. In NYC with lane splitting, sometimes you can be faster than cars.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#98

Post by choeger »

Is anyone catching the irony that building cities for bikes is pretty much like building cities for cars, just in a somewhat smaller scale? You need fast lanes, parking lots, bad weather handling, crossings, cross roads, etc.

Will we in 20 years have even denser cities and then try to ban the bikes?

How about fighting the trend to ever denser cities? Allow for three or four story buildings and leave it at that. Demand lots of space between buildings. Build intelligent subways. And plant some effing trees now and then.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#99

Post by crote »

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.

Make the bike lanes wide enough to allow a snowplow to pass. Additionally, plow cycle paths first and more often, as cyclists are more vulnerable to slippery road surfaces.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#100

Post by crote »

ken wrote: post #16
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…

> Add green dye to the asphalt instead of adding a layer of green paint. We've had green bike lanes here for many years. I've never noticed any of them fade. We're supposed to lay new streets for one lane, for a problem which hasn't happened yet?

Take another look at the book, every single bike lane is already seriously fading.

You're not supposed to lay new streets. First of all, you can tear up single lanes, so no need to do the whole street. Secondly, you probably should already be tearing up a significant fraction in order to provide proper separation. But most of all, there is no need to replace them: just add the green dye when you're replacing them on their regular maintenance schedule.

Post reply on HN