Rethinking Streets for Bikes • Hacker News Board

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#141

Post by pmontra » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 6:31 PM UTC

acomjean wrote: post #117

ndnxhs wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ebikes whip up hills with ease that lower power cars struggle on. The main limiting factor is they are limited to 25km/h by motor power but even that isn't too bad.

I have a 250watt ebike. I’d agree pretty powerful, I usually use it one the lowest setting which provides minimal boost, even up hills. I’m in The us and the assist cuts out at 20mph. I get that since I’m sharing the roads and paths with other bikes/joggers and cars (and the ocational electric skateboard/kick scooter). I tend to ride much faster with the ebike and can see how this added power can get me into more tro…

In my experience the danger zone when cycling on a mixed traffic bike path (pedestrians, slow bikes, etc) starts at 25 km/h, which is about the double of the speed of the casual or low range cyclist. 20 mph (32 km/h) is too fast for the other traffic. They don't expect to have so little time to react and get scared (even if the cyclist does everything and saw them since long before, they only have to keep doing what they were doing). Furthermore with a normal bike it's a waste of energy so when traffic increases I slow down because the average speed doesn't change much if I sprint between each group of pedestrians/slow bikes. I understand that with an engine you can do a lot more of stop and go but please don't scare people too much, it makes them hate all cyclists.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#142

Post by gotocake » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 1:21 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #69

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.…

The EU country with the highest rate of cycling is The Netherlands, followed by Denmark and Finland. The EU country with the lowest rate of cycling is Malta, followed by Cyprus and Spain. Finland is sparsely populated and almost entirely subarctic. Malta and Cyprus are tiny islands with year-round sunshine. You might think that bad weather and low population density are insurmountable obstacles to the widespread adop…

Well Cyprus is hot and muggy as hell in the summer, I wonder if that’s a factor? Malta is lovely and sunny, hot in the summer, and has torrential rains in fall. It’s famously hot and dry in summer, and when the rains do come they’re so brutal they tend to wash out to sea... it’s a real problem. So maybe it’s culture, or maybe it’s easy to dismiss something as “cultural” when we don’t actually understand the practical reasons on the ground.

Let’s look at the other end of the scale, Denmark. Average summer day is 68F, which is terrific for a bike ride. The average winter high is 32F, which is freezing, but not terrible. Denmark’s wettest month is June with an average of 80mm of rain, contrasted with Malta which has three drenching month’s averaging between 97mm and 108mm.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#143

Post by Doxin » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #138

crote wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: right turn on red is illegal in all examples. Like this: https://goo.gl/maps/HJnyxbs1hnJ2 https://goo.gl/maps/VatZztEiXTJ2 https://goo.gl/maps/PpSaGeChwS12 Note the advanced bike stop line. https://goo.gl/maps/zJZNRTYQ5ZL2 Note the bike-only tunnel. https://goo.gl/maps/CWLmL1DTsBs https://goo.gl/maps/dGJSZnQVfw82 https://goo.gl/maps/rvf9hP3DvV62 https://goo.gl/maps/sYNKHgEBsZk Note the two-way left turn for cyc…

All of those intersections look great. Treating bicycles and cars as totally different streams of traffic certainly works in those locations. It would be a major change in other locations in other nations. If "not grossly negligent" is the standard to which we're holding drivers, I don't really see the problem with the "X-crossing" displayed in skookumchuck's sibling comment. It's very clear that right-turning cars h…

The problem with an X-crossing like that is the angle at which the crossing happens. A driver needs to look all the way over his shoulder to see a cyclist he's about to hit. For the improved crossings you see in e.g. the netherlands the cars and cyclists cross at a 90 degree angle, meaning the driver has a much easier time spotting cyclists.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#144

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

Doxin wrote: post #143

jessaustin wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those intersections look great. Treating bicycles and cars as totally different streams of traffic certainly works in those locations. It would be a major change in other locations in other nations. If "not grossly negligent" is the standard to which we're holding drivers, I don't really see the problem with the "X-crossing" displayed in skookumchuck's sibling comment. It's very clear that right-turning cars h…

The problem with an X-crossing like that is the angle at which the crossing happens. A driver needs to look all the way over his shoulder to see a cyclist he's about to hit. For the improved crossings you see in e.g. the netherlands the cars and cyclists cross at a 90 degree angle, meaning the driver has a much easier time spotting cyclists.

Practically, if bike lanes are adjacent to the street as they are in many places, cyclists can only really expect motorists not to hit them from behind. Motorists simply are not aware of what's going on around them. If the cyclist is next to an auto, she must always be ready to react to it. In fact, "next to an auto" is a somewhat tenuous location, because you can't always jump up on the curb. Passing (usually on the left) is fine, being passed is fine, between autos is fine, because all of those allow either the driver to observe the cyclist or the cyclist to react safely to sudden changes in direction by the auto.

If I'm approaching an intersection like that pictured and I'm even with an auto, I brake and take the lane behind it. If the auto moves to the right to turn, I pass it on the left in the main lane of traffic. No matter what the auto does, I re-enter the bike lane after I clear the intersection. No one needs to pass me while in the intersection, and I want to be both visible and able to react to right-turning autos from the street I'm crossing. Faster traffic makes this impossible, but faster traffic can see you from behind and will generally discourage turns from the cross street.

There are morons who try to race around you to hook in front of you, and this type of intersection offers no protection from that, but most drivers are not that thoughtless, even if they lack general awareness. You just have to deal with that asshole. Once he gets that front bumper even with me, I'm already ducking right and braking. In some instances, I'll also be grabbing my U-lock and preparing to damage his car with it.

Like I said, completely separating the traffic seems like a great solution, but it simply will not be universal any time soon. Until then, ride defensively.

Re: Rethinking Streets for Bikes

#145

Post by r_klancer » Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #122

r_klancer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Yes, this is Beacon St in Somerville. If they had just put it on the uphill side, this wouldn't be a problem. Unless you're a pro cyclist or an e-biker, you're not going to match car speeds going uphill. There are far fewer driveways and every single side street is a 100 yard dead end due to the train tracks. Going downhill (cycle track side), I have no problem keeping up with traffic. During rush hour, I usually end…

Excellent point, I hadn't put 2 and 2 together (about which side of the street it should have been put on)