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

241–250 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#241

Post by wtetzner »

teddyh wrote: post #237
rayiner wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Most people can't use a bike. Huh? What kind of people are you referring to? In my simple observation, most people can indeed use a bike. And in some countries, like Denmark, or China, it is my impression that most people do use a bike.

I think he means most people don't live close enough to the city that they could reasonably ride a bike to get where they need to go.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#242

Post by outerspace »

rayiner wrote: post #197
bluejekyll wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've experienced this same anecdote in similar situations for the past 20 years as well. There has been a long push by auto manufacturers to make anything other than cars that use the roads seen as both illegitimate and illegal. For example, see the history of Jaywalking laws: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . Starting around 1920's the auto-industry encouraged laws around the US to make crossing the stree…

> 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…

> At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestrians and cyclists actually end up being a preference for wealthier people who can afford to live downtown, versus those who need to access the city but can’t live within walking or biking distance?

Reducing the number of cars (and therefore traffic) on the roads will benefit everybody, especially if cars and bikes don't get in each other's way (such as in the case of dedicated and protected bike lanes).

> Note that bicyclists and skateboarders also slow down busses, which are what lower income people use to get around

I don't think this is true. Busy streets and traffic jams slow down buses.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#243

Post by adrianN »

asdff wrote: post #173
prolepunk wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mixing cyclists and pedestrians causes a whole set of different problems (and injuries). Some people ride slow, and some ride fast, and it's facetious to conclude that average biking speed is slow. Also as a jogger, I wouldn't every try running on a busy sidewalk somewhere downtown, but I will need to bike home in rush hour.

Much easier to bike in rush hour as well. Lane splitting lets you beat traffic, and it's of course way easier to dodge a 5mph car in a lane versus a pedestrian wandering all over the sidewalk with zero situational awareness on their phone with headphones.

Lane splitting at more than a walking speed is quite dangerous and illegal where I live.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#244

Post by paulsutter »

rayiner wrote: post #197
bluejekyll wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've experienced this same anecdote in similar situations for the past 20 years as well. There has been a long push by auto manufacturers to make anything other than cars that use the roads seen as both illegitimate and illegal. For example, see the history of Jaywalking laws: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . Starting around 1920's the auto-industry encouraged laws around the US to make crossing the stree…

> 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…

Sending distance commuters underground is the best way to minimize big deadly metal boxes on the road, and thus the best way to make pedestrian use of the streets safer, more convenient, and faster. Transportation planning should be based on minimizing door to door times.

"Without tunnels we'll be in traffic hell forever" - Elon Musk

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#245

Post by wool_gather »

ahoy wrote: post #96
wool_gather wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree mostly, except that there needs to be a usable non-bicycle alternative to cars too. I love riding, but not everybody can do it all the time, for a large variety of reasons. Reducing in-city car usage is good, but just forcing it to be even more unpleasant is not going to solve anything.

Sounds like a job for.... public transportation!

Completely agreed.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#247

Post by adrianN »

fukbezos wrote: post #147
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 simple answer is bikes and cars should never share the same infrastructure. They'll never get along with each other and the bike loses every time. It also doesn't help that bikers don't follow the laws properly. Bikers have to pay attention more than drivers, they should act like it

I don't know the statistics for the US, but here in Germany 75% of the accidents between cyclists are cars are caused by the car.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#248

Post by CydeWeys »

bretthoerner wrote: post #239
btrettel wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if the increase in the number of cyclists outweighs the problems with the intersections. I get the impression from your various comments here that you have never rode a bike in the US, so perhaps our experience differs. On my daily commute in Austin I cross I-35 via a bike lane that is sometimes semi-protected. I think many inexperienced cyclists think that this is "safe" because it's sometimes protected…

It’s sad to me that I immediately knew the crossing in Austin you were talking about and it made me shudder. Thankfully I’ve never had to use it as a cyclist. However I do live near a “protected lane” in Austin that puts both bike lanes on one side of street. All that ends up doing is ensuring drivers never check the bike lane when they turn through it. It’s awful.

It sounds to me like it's a very poorly designed intersection that isn't actually protected, then. I know some intersections like that here in NYC and yeah, they suck (one example being 2nd Ave in Manhattan through midtown at the bridge and tunnel). When there's a reasonable alternate route available I'll tend to take them.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#249

Post by beat »

rayiner wrote: post #222
bluejekyll wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Take a bike on public transportation for longer-distance routes. I don't know what sort of barbaric backwater you live in, but in my bike-friendly city, all the buses and light rail have bike racks, and bike commuters regularly use them for the longer legs.

In a super-dense city like Cambridge, it's even more true. Less need for long travel, more need for bikes in the congested center.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#250

Post by [deleted] »

adrianN wrote: post #243
asdff wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much easier to bike in rush hour as well. Lane splitting lets you beat traffic, and it's of course way easier to dodge a 5mph car in a lane versus a pedestrian wandering all over the sidewalk with zero situational awareness on their phone with headphones.

Lane splitting at more than a walking speed is quite dangerous and illegal where I live.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN