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

Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#131

Post by linuxftw »

viburnum wrote: post #123
just_steve_h wrote: post #61

I've lived in Cambridge or neighboring Somerville every year but one since 1989. The cycling infrastructure is much improved and still deadly. Just yesterday, I approached an arterial Street from a side street at 6pm. Cars on the arterial were moving about 8 MPH. I dismounted my bike, and began walking across the arterial in the crosswalk. As I re-mounted on the other side and resumed riding, a white man in a mid-siz…

The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. In places where cycling dominates people only ride as fast as a quick jogger (10 mph is a 6 minute mile). The correct model for cycling isn’t space on the road, it’s an extra sidewalk with an accommodating turning radius. This is what you actually see in The Netherlands. People think of public spaces as roads and as roads as places for cars to drive and par…

Yes, this makes sense. Nobody is arguing to ride a bike 17 inches from a train (and the train can't swerve into you!), why would you want to do it with cars? Separate places for bikes and people make the most sense.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#132

Post by gugagore »

btrettel wrote: post #109
just_steve_h wrote: post #61

I've lived in Cambridge or neighboring Somerville every year but one since 1989. The cycling infrastructure is much improved and still deadly. Just yesterday, I approached an arterial Street from a side street at 6pm. Cars on the arterial were moving about 8 MPH. I dismounted my bike, and began walking across the arterial in the crosswalk. As I re-mounted on the other side and resumed riding, a white man in a mid-siz…

Examples like this are exactly why bike lanes are not the only change needed to make cycling more accessible. What stops drivers from doing any of these if there were protected bike lanes? Generally "protected" bike lines are not protected at intersections, which is where most problems occur. I live in Austin right now and I tend to avoid the protected bike lanes because drivers frequently turn across them without yi…

There's a certain burden to being vigilant and self-defensive on the road. Even if I'm not protected in intersections, a protected bike lane means that there's a lot less time I need to be worried that a car will hit me.

However, you're bringing up the point that protected bike lanes may make intersections even more dangerous for cyclists. While your reasoning makes sense, do you know if there's anything to corroborate that claim?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#133

Post by soperj »

abstractbarista wrote: post #124
just_steve_h wrote: post #61

I've lived in Cambridge or neighboring Somerville every year but one since 1989. The cycling infrastructure is much improved and still deadly. Just yesterday, I approached an arterial Street from a side street at 6pm. Cars on the arterial were moving about 8 MPH. I dismounted my bike, and began walking across the arterial in the crosswalk. As I re-mounted on the other side and resumed riding, a white man in a mid-siz…

Sounds good to me, as long as cyclists follow the same rules drivers do . Just yesterday I had a cyclist blatantly roll a stop sign on a side street, entering the main road I was on. If I was an inattentive driver I would have creamed him! He even looked to the left, saw me, and just kept rolling through!

I see car drivers roll stop signs every day, multiple times a day. Sounds like the cyclists are doing just as good of a job at following the rules.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#134

Post by dominotw »

bluejekyll wrote: post #66
dominotw wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but aren't you back on the street with no protection where there are no bike lanes( most of chicago)?

I don't know Chicago, but I do know what's happened in San Francisco over the last 20 years. It's taken a long time, but the city is finally starting to take protected bike lanes seriously, sadly much of that is in response to lives lost. When I first got here, it was just a fight for standard bike lanes. For either to happen, more people need to get on their bikes and ride. Contributing to your local bike coalition…

> If everyone follows your advice and chooses to not ride because of the danger, then nothing will change

Are you seriously suggesting some ppl risk their lives for 'change'? Sorry I really don't want to trade my life for bike lanes, there are ppl counting on me to stay alive.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#135

Post by Declanomous »

pselbert wrote: post #11

Every person I know that bikes in Chicago has been hit at least once. Fortunately none of them have been seriously injured, but it is a constant danger. There are lots of bike lanes downtown but they aren’t protected or respected. We have a long way to go to make biking a safe form of transport like it is in the Netherlands.

I've never been hit, but I also always have lights on my bike, I've completely covered my bike with retroreflective tape, and I live on the West Side.

I used to ride my bike to my job in East Lakeview every day, which was about about 9 miles each way, and the last mile of my commute was always the worst. Lincoln Park and Lakeview are full of the most entitled drivers on the planet.

I once saved a kid from getting hit by a left turning driver by picking him up just before a driver hit him. The guy was taking a left hand turn while looking at his cell phone. The mom had bent down for half a second to pick up a bottle that her kid in a stroller had dropped.

On another note, rideshare drivers are the worst drivers in the city. They are unpredictable, they have no idea where they are going, they don't have experience driving in the city, and they are always looking at their cell phones.

Chicago needs to crack down on ridesharing. I've almost been hit by rideshare drivers who aren't looking where they are going 3 times in the past month. Each time they were driving in the bike lane looking to drop someone off or pick someone up.

Plus, ride shares absolutely murder traffic. I initially started riding my bike because all the ride shares pulling over made my commute go from 20 minutes each way to 30 minutes in the mornings and 40 in the evening. Any arguments that ride shares somehow are more efficient than actual driving ignore the fact that most drivers don't pull over in the middle of a busy street for 30 seconds to 2 minutes at the beginning and end of their trip.

Edit: I should also mention that I credit disc brakes for part of the reason I've never been hit. I can stop so much faster with then than with rim brakes, partly because I can modulate braking force better, and partly because it always bites right away, rather than needing a revolution to clean road grime or water off that rim brakes sometimes need. I swapped after I almost got right hooked going under the Cortland bridge. There's always water pooled there, and I honestly thought I was going to slide under a car for a few seconds.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#136

Post by soperj »

RHSeeger wrote: post #72
ahoy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better bike infrastructure will encourage groups of people who don't currently bike to start. More protected lanes means more kids, more old folks, more women of all ages, will start cycling. And more cycling is a good thing!

There's many things that are good things. However, you need to balance them against the cost (money, space, time, whatever) required to achieve them. For some smaller roads, the cost might not be worth the benefit.

For smaller streets, just make them pedestrian & bike first.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#137

Post by amalcon »

LeonidasXIV wrote: post #119
CydeWeys wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are smaller vehicles that are used to plow just the bike lanes in some parts of the world. It probably doesn't matter so much though because the percentage of people who continue biking even in cold winter and with adverse snow conditions is quite low.

> It probably doesn't matter so much though because the percentage of people who continue biking even in cold winter and with adverse snow conditions is quite low. This is not necessarily true. Here in Copenhagen the amount of people cycling in winter is not significantly less than at other times of the year. That said, we don't have much snow, but the bike lanes are cleared before the road lanes (to incentivize not…

The problem is more that twilight is around 4:30PM from December through February, rather than the weather. Though I suppose this might be less of a worry if cycling infrastructure were safer.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#138

Post by CydeWeys »

viburnum wrote: post #123
just_steve_h wrote: post #61

I've lived in Cambridge or neighboring Somerville every year but one since 1989. The cycling infrastructure is much improved and still deadly. Just yesterday, I approached an arterial Street from a side street at 6pm. Cars on the arterial were moving about 8 MPH. I dismounted my bike, and began walking across the arterial in the crosswalk. As I re-mounted on the other side and resumed riding, a white man in a mid-siz…

The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. In places where cycling dominates people only ride as fast as a quick jogger (10 mph is a 6 minute mile). The correct model for cycling isn’t space on the road, it’s an extra sidewalk with an accommodating turning radius. This is what you actually see in The Netherlands. People think of public spaces as roads and as roads as places for cars to drive and par…

I was just in Amsterdam this past autumn. It was awesome how most streets have bike lanes that are at-grade with the sidewalk instead of at-grade with the street, and that everyone respects as being for cyclists and does not block.

You're underestimating some of the speeds involved though. People will bike at speeds that feel safe to them. There's bike lanes there that are long, straight, and that have people going much faster on them than anyone can run. Amsterdam is full of life-long cyclists; some of them go pretty fast when it's safe to do so. It was quite impressive seeing some of the people on the city-style bikes hauling ass, especially when they didn't look like you'd expect them to. I do that here in NYC too; no sense in making my commute take any longer than necessary. Although I'm generally on a road bike when doing so, not a city bike!

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#139

Post by CydeWeys »

gugagore wrote: post #132
btrettel wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples like this are exactly why bike lanes are not the only change needed to make cycling more accessible. What stops drivers from doing any of these if there were protected bike lanes? Generally "protected" bike lines are not protected at intersections, which is where most problems occur. I live in Austin right now and I tend to avoid the protected bike lanes because drivers frequently turn across them without yi…

There's a certain burden to being vigilant and self-defensive on the road. Even if I'm not protected in intersections, a protected bike lane means that there's a lot less time I need to be worried that a car will hit me. However, you're bringing up the point that protected bike lanes may make intersections even more dangerous for cyclists. While your reasoning makes sense, do you know if there's anything to corrobora…

They're not. Protected bike lanes are for sure safer than unprotected bike lanes.

If there are problems at intersections, that means that the bike lanes aren't protected enough. Amsterdam for example doesn't have these kinds of issues because their design (and especially light signaling) is better.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#140

Post by bluejekyll »

dominotw wrote: post #134
bluejekyll wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know Chicago, but I do know what's happened in San Francisco over the last 20 years. It's taken a long time, but the city is finally starting to take protected bike lanes seriously, sadly much of that is in response to lives lost. When I first got here, it was just a fight for standard bike lanes. For either to happen, more people need to get on their bikes and ride. Contributing to your local bike coalition…

> If everyone follows your advice and chooses to not ride because of the danger, then nothing will change Are you seriously suggesting some ppl risk their lives for 'change'? Sorry I really don't want to trade my life for bike lanes, there are ppl counting on me to stay alive.

No, I don't want people to risk their lives for anything. I want things to change. 40,000 people die a year in the US while driving or riding in cars, following your logic, that is also extremely risky, and so we shouldn't do it.
Post reply on HN