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

221–230 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#221

Post by CydeWeys »

antisthenes wrote: post #203
radicalbyte wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. It's way faster for me to cycle to the supermarket, the gym and the kids daycare compared to driving. It beats being lazy in a car and I'm very thankful that the infrastructure here in NL supports it.

> I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. This makes no sense. You can pedal an electric bike at least as fast if not faster than a regular bike. Some e-bikes are speed limited to cut out the assist at a certain speed, but it doesn't mean it also removes your ability to pedal hard and achieve the same speed.

The electric assist on e-Citibikes here in NYC diminishes with speed and cuts out completely at around 15 mph. Above that speed they're just a heavier normal Citibike. I know because I've enjoyed pushing these things to their limits.

There are many different types of e-bikes, and you're probably thinking of what are effective electric mopeds, with big batteries and engines and a throttle control. Those certainly go very fast. They're also not legal in many places, including here in NYC, and aren't necessarily what people mean when they're talking about e-bikes; that's usually referring to pedal-assist.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#222

Post by rayiner »

bluejekyll wrote: post #212
rayiner wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to slow down auto-traffic and encourage more non-vehicular use of the roads, while making those roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, skate boarders, etc. Is that the most efficient use of the roads? Especially in a place like Boston, where most people in the metro area don’t live in (and can’t afford to live in) the city itself. At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestri…

It depends on what you mean by efficient, I guess. I like the graphic on this article, https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/how-much-space-do-pe... It shows how many more people can efficiently use roads while on bikes than in cars. So, if we define efficiency by that measure (obviously this matters more in cities and congested areas), then yes, it's more efficient.

I see that graphic a lot, but it's not a very useful one, because it ignores residential patterns. Most people can't use a bike. So if you displace one car, you're not going to replace it with one bike, much less than 5 that would otherwise fit in the same space.

The efficiency question is: what minimizes the amount of collective time people spend getting where they need to go. Bike infrastructure might actually make that worse, slowing down the majority for the sake of a tiny minority that can use a bike to get where they're going.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#223

Post by z2 »

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…

Ignorance of rules seem to be part of the issue. Using bike lanes (in Cambridge!), I've had turning drivers honk or yell nasty things at intersections as I went straight through, not knowing they are required to yield. Drivers are trained to be forgiving to pedestrians and the crazy jay-walking that happens in Boston, but still treat bikes like aberrations.

I drive as well, and admit it felt very unnatural at first at check behind me for bikes when turning right.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#224

Post by icebraining »

rayiner wrote: post #196
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…

How many people commute by bike in Cambridge versus by car? And what’s the cost of inconveniencing all those drivers by having bikes buzzing around?

If almost all commuters are car drivers, then there won't be many bikes buzzing around inconveniencing them. And if there are enough bikes to inconvenience the drivers, then there are enough to justify investing in their own infrastructure.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#225

Post by rayiner »

bobwaycott wrote: post #220
rayiner wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Atlanta is a great example of where it makes no sense to have bike lines. I lived in Atlanta for eight years. It’s a commuter city. The only people biking are relatively privileged yuppies living in the fancy new apartments and condos that have sprung up recently. Why spend public money, and inconvenience drivers in the process, for their sake? If we’re going to use up a lane, let’s do it in a socially responsible wa…

> Why spend public money, and inconvenience drivers in the process, for their sake? Because the cyclists, too, are part of the public? It's not like that public money is solely sourced from automobile drivers. Many people I know who live and work and pay taxes in Atlanta cycle and drive, depending on where they're going. Are you really suggesting auto-drivers are more important citizens whose convenience matters more…

I'm suggesting that it's not right to inconvenience the majority (drivers), for the sake of a relatively privileged minority (folks who can afford to live within cycling distance of their jobs downtown).

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#226

Post by CydeWeys »

ben7799 wrote: post #171
CydeWeys wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key distinction is that suburbs are largely residential and composed of lower density housing, which does not describe Cambridge accurately.

Waltham is further away too and has > 100k people. It's hard to say if these cities are suburbs or not. Waltham, Newton, Cambridge, etc.. are very dense. There is a clear delineation in density with a lot of these. Usually it's whether the town/city is inside 95, but Lexington is not very dense and is inside.. I think Lexington fits the mold of suburb where as Newton & Waltham feel urban.

What about Somerville? I've been there a few times and at least the parts I was in felt more like a small city than the suburbs. Everything was well-connected with mass transit and walking seemed to be a very popular mode of transportation (which it isn't in the 'true' suburbs I've been to).

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#227

Post by madhadron »

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…

You put up separate lights, where there is a red turn arrow for the cars and a light for the bicycles, just like Europe. It's taken a couple of years for drivers to figure them out, but at this point you almost never see someone turn against them, and when you do, it's usually someone with grey hair and an out of state plate who has no idea what to do.

Another side of this puzzle is that we don't require drivers to update their education or competence on a recurring basis. If we required all drivers to update their education and demonstrate their physical fitness to drive safely every couple of years, this would all go more smoothly.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#228

Post by gknoy »

prolepunk wrote: post #150
abstractbarista wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The difference is that in the car all you do is press brake & gas, cycling requires some physical work to start up again. I know it's breaking the law, and I don't usually do it, but when I cycle on a quiet residential street, I'm going to roll a stop sign. I know it's bad, but at that point I'm going home and I feel tired.

I feel like I would be a lot more frightened of getting hit by cross traffic (with right-of-way) in the rare case where one mis-judges whether cross traffic exists. I've had enough close calls (or times when I mis-judged whether someone was going to blow a red light/stop sign) when driving a car that I feel like doing rolling stops on a bike is nearly suicidal.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#230

Post by justaguyhere »

gautamdivgi wrote: post #187
justaguyhere wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've experienced similar hostility, while just walking and minding my own business (and respecting traffic rules). For some reason, drivers get annoyed with anyone on the road that is not inside a car.

I've written about this earlier. People get seriously nasty in their cars. I've seen them honk at my 8 yr old daughter crossing the street from her school to come home.

Most people grew up with cars, in most places in the US (other than big cities like NY, where having a car is a hassle). It is not going to be easy changing their attitude towards pedestrians and cyclists. It is going to be a slow, gradual process.

In a twisted way, many millennials not being able to afford cars (or not wanting to own) might help.

Post reply on HN