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

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#101

Post by mrob »

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.

Amsterdam also has high average wind speed. Headwinds can slow you down just as much as hills, and crosswinds make it harder to control the bike. Most energy spent while cycling goes to overcoming wind resistance, and it's easy to underestimate how important it is if you don't cycle regularly.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#102

Post by crote »

choeger wrote: post #98

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. Deman…

What is ironic about it? There are already pedestrian-only zones in many cities, aren't there?

Ironically, the aim should be towards the opposite you're suggesting. By increasing the density and removing space between buildings, you are creating a city where it is more viable to use bikes or walking as your main mode of transportation. Subways are useless if your final destination isn't easily walkable from your stop. Your goal shouldn't be to create a city for cars, your goal should be to create a city where it is easy to get somewhere.

I do mostly agree with the three or four story height, though. This is the proper height to use for most suburb-style developments, higher is only really needed in the CBD.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#103

Post by ken »

ip26 wrote: post #55
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.

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

But it's easier to change to winter tires, and you never have to scrape the windows. There's pros and cons to both.

I've done many cold winters with a bicycle, and with a car, and there's no clear winner. For me it comes down to how far I'm going, what I need to carry with me, the quality of the roads and drivers, whether there's a bus route, and availability of bicycle storage versus car parking. I've never found traction to be a serious issue. If it's bad enough to avoid the bike, it's bad enough to avoid the car, too, and I'll walk or take the (chained) bus.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#104

Post by crote »

sunstone wrote: post #73

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-bike…

The difference isn't that big in The Netherlands. Legally, e-bikes are limited to 15mph, and the electric motor can only provide assistance. Faster pedelecs are classified as mopeds and are mostly not allowed on bike paths for obvious safety reasons.

In practice, I've not yet noticed this domination. Getting passed by an e-bike does happen, but it's not very common.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#105

Post by crote »

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…

You're completely right, most cities just aren't built for cycling.

The solution is probably zoning. First, create smaller zones, resulting in more diversity. Second, allow some light commercial use inside residential areas. Ideally, stores like small supermarkets should always be within a 20-minute walking distance inside towns or cities. Third, create denser plots: discourage single-story buildings, leave less space empty on the plots, and create narrower roads.

The problem is the conversion, but it's doable over a longer period of time. If the proper laws are in place, this is probably doable over a year or 50-75.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#106

Post by theclaw »

ndnxhs wrote: post #65
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…

There is one terrible issue I encounter almost every time I ride to work. In the mornings the traffic is stopped all the way to work. The stopped cars leave gaps next to the side roads so cars coning from the other direction can turn across to reach them. Because there is a wall of cars in between the bike lane and the other side of the road, neither the turning car or I can each each other so the car blindly turns a…

Seems a reasonable assumption to me. If someone is waiting to let someone else pull into a sideroad shouldn’t you wait as well? It’s dangerous to overtake on the passenger side regardless of what vehicle you’re using. You should overtake on the driver’s side so people can see you easily.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#107

Post by crote »

ndnxhs wrote: post #68
brippalcharrid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycle lanes tend to be designed for speeds below that which a cyclist of even average ability is capable (otherwise, they would tend to more closely resemble roads). Sheltered from motorised traffic, they cater to a wider age, experience and ability range, and the fact that they are typically narrower than roads exacerbates problems that arise from mixed-ability/experience users sharing same facility. Features of cyc…

Those multi use paths in my city are almost all full of people on their phones. You basically have to go at walking pace.

Or yell loudly at them. If the bike paths are obvious, people will quickly get used to them, especially if they themselves also bike on them regularly.

But multi-use paths where pedestrians mix with cyclists should be avoided at all costs.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#108

Post by icebraining »

welder wrote: post #45
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 "…

> 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...

See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY6PQAI4TZE, about the Amsterdam neighbourhood De Pijp fight for a play street without cars in 1972.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#109

Post by crote »

brippalcharrid wrote: post #25
ams6110 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that? I've seen that: dedicated, separated bike paths are unused, and cyclists continue to ride in the street with the cars.

Cycle lanes tend to be designed for speeds below that which a cyclist of even average ability is capable (otherwise, they would tend to more closely resemble roads). Sheltered from motorised traffic, they cater to a wider age, experience and ability range, and the fact that they are typically narrower than roads exacerbates problems that arise from mixed-ability/experience users sharing same facility. Features of cyc…

About the first example: something like this should only be used in a highly urbanized area, where it's impossible to bike very fast anyways. A path like this shouldn't cater to cycling above 15mph, and the speed limit for cars is probably going to be around 25mph. A path like this isn't going to be a major through-road.

About the second example: The problem is legality. First, note the setback. This already greatly improves visibility. Second, the cyclist doesn't need a 270-degree arc: due to the setback, the cyclist (with right-of-way) will be visible to the driver at a 45-degree angle. Hitting them would be gross negligence.

I agree that it's not a risk you should be willing to take. The problem is fixing the traffic laws. Cyclists (and pedestrians!) should be considered as vulnerable. In The Netherlands, the driver will almost always be considered to be at fault in car-cyclist accidents, unless gross negligence by the cyclist can be proven. Killing a cyclist can easily result in a 2- to 4-year jail sentence if the driver is at fault. "He had right-of-way, but I just didn't see him" should never be a valid defence.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#110

Post by crote »

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…

The problem is not mixing, the problem is mixing at different speeds. Bikes and cars mix perfectly fine at 20-mph speeds.

But if there are 6 lanes and cars are driving 55mph, adding a bike lake with a dash of paint just isn't enough due to the dangerous speed differences. It's like adding a sidewalk and crosswalk to an interstate: safer than nothing, but don't expect it to work well. Bikes really should not be on roads like this.

Post reply on HN