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

301–310 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#301

Post by mikepurvis »

lostphilosopher wrote: post #277
callinyouin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I hope you get hit!" This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. The average person either doesn't care or, for some misguided reason or another, actively hates bicyclists. I've been yelled at by drivers for no apparent reason so many times I've lost count. I've had so many friends hit by cars. My partner was struck by a car last fall and broke her leg in two places. She's s…

Ok, I'll say it - bicyclists tend to annoy me. Obviously, I don't shout at them, or try to hit them, or make them think I'm trying to hit them. That's nuts. That seems like a problem separate for bike/car relations. I doubt someone who behaves that way in a car gets out of it and suddenly becomes a calm and reasonable person. But here's my assessment of why bikes annoy me. Not argument that they should, just some int…

> Having a bike near me makes me worried I'm going to hit it. I don't want to live with that so I give it huge space and pay it lots of attention.

As a four season bike commuter (8km each way) and sole wage earner for my single/low-car family, I wish more drivers had this attitude. It sucks that you feel bad and see this as a hardship, but I can assure you that it's far better for the people bicycles with whom you share the road.

> If I could drive on roads that didn't have bikes I'd prefer it.

Thank goodness then for interchange access highways, a car-only environment just for you and other like-minded people. :)

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#302

Post by atoav »

lostphilosopher wrote: post #277
callinyouin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I hope you get hit!" This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. The average person either doesn't care or, for some misguided reason or another, actively hates bicyclists. I've been yelled at by drivers for no apparent reason so many times I've lost count. I've had so many friends hit by cars. My partner was struck by a car last fall and broke her leg in two places. She's s…

Ok, I'll say it - bicyclists tend to annoy me. Obviously, I don't shout at them, or try to hit them, or make them think I'm trying to hit them. That's nuts. That seems like a problem separate for bike/car relations. I doubt someone who behaves that way in a car gets out of it and suddenly becomes a calm and reasonable person. But here's my assessment of why bikes annoy me. Not argument that they should, just some int…

I am a cycle commuter since I am ~10. I grew up on the countryside and because my parents couldn't bring me to school every day and the walking distance to the next bus stop was too far I ended up taking the bike every day and it sort of became a habit. Now I live in a city where I take the bike because on my daily route it is ~10 minutes faster than the metro.

A few points: You mentioned that cyclists make you nervous, which I understand. When I drive the car, I am watching for cyclists too. But because I am cycling I know very well what to watch for – and to be honest, if some suicidal lunatic shows up in the wrong moment, there is nothing you can do except checking carefully anyways. This is a problem of the cities, where many cyclists are people without a drivers license, and they behave as such. Beeing in traffic is about communicating, and it is hard to communicate if you don't even know if there is somebody to communicate with.

So the problem is exactly where cyclists and motorists intersect. Because cyclists often cannot put themselves into a motorists mind and vice versa.

One solutions that doesn't involve educating either side is building infrastructure that makes the intersecting spaces of cyclists and motorists as controlled and perceptually simple as possible. If you ever had the chance to drive a car and a bike in Denmark or the Netherlands, you will notice how less stressful it is to move in public, because they really put thought into lifting that stress from the users of the infrastructure. This means investing into cycling infrastructure is good, as long as you see the whole thing and not just slap some bicycle lane somewhere besides a parking street. If this is done right, everybody can benefit, especially from less cognitive overload.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#303

Post by mkoryak »

r_klancer wrote: post #295
mkoryak wrote: post #233

I found a "simple trick that makes all drivers around me nice". I put a pigeon on my helmet 8 years ago[1]. Everywhere I go I see smiles. I really makes every ride fun. One of my friends recently started also doing it, so its starting to catch on. Pigeonriding transforms me from an awkward software engineer into an interesting person who people want to talk to. I have only had a handful of bad experiences[2] with dri…

OMG DID I JUST SEE YOU IN UNION SQUARE, SOMERVILLE? (Or was it your friend?) I noticed the pigeon. (File under: it's a small world, I probably shouldn't act so surprised.)

That was my friend. He bikes in cambridge every day while I moved to the burbs and only commute when biking for an hour wont make me cold/wet.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#304

Post by r_klancer »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #184
addicted wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe there is pain. All the studies in the US have shown that improving biking infrastructure immediately improves retail sales (it’s obvious why...you throw bikes in the mix, and walking is also a lot safer, and everyone who enters a retail store eventually needs to walk, so a nicer walking environment makes it better for all their customers). The complaints are likely a combination of general aversion to…

>I don’t believe there is pain. All the studies in the US have shown that improving biking infrastructure immediately improves retail sales That generalization is vague to the point of uselessness. It really depends on the nature of the business in question.

One Cambridge business that has been vocally against bike infrastructure is a pharmacy. I understand why they would be against it, because much of their clientele is elderly. There's a new parking protected bike lane in front of their business, and there are fewer parking spots than there used to be (and those that remain are bang against the "car lane" on one side and the bike lane on the other)

I fully support the law, but given that the proprietors treat us very well and know my wife by name, I haven't tried too hard to change their mind.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#305

Post by ABCLAW »

lostphilosopher wrote: post #277
callinyouin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I hope you get hit!" This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. The average person either doesn't care or, for some misguided reason or another, actively hates bicyclists. I've been yelled at by drivers for no apparent reason so many times I've lost count. I've had so many friends hit by cars. My partner was struck by a car last fall and broke her leg in two places. She's s…

Ok, I'll say it - bicyclists tend to annoy me. Obviously, I don't shout at them, or try to hit them, or make them think I'm trying to hit them. That's nuts. That seems like a problem separate for bike/car relations. I doubt someone who behaves that way in a car gets out of it and suddenly becomes a calm and reasonable person. But here's my assessment of why bikes annoy me. Not argument that they should, just some int…

>Space efficient? Yes and no. It is more space efficient for people whose options are bike vs car to ride a bike

Those people would be in cars or on busses if the infrastructure made the commute only feasible by vehicle. Bikes are denser than cars. Moving commuters to denser forms of travel increases the bandwidth of the pipes they're on. Meaning more space for you, too.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#306

Post by Chardok »

mkoryak wrote: post #233

I found a "simple trick that makes all drivers around me nice". I put a pigeon on my helmet 8 years ago[1]. Everywhere I go I see smiles. I really makes every ride fun. One of my friends recently started also doing it, so its starting to catch on. Pigeonriding transforms me from an awkward software engineer into an interesting person who people want to talk to. I have only had a handful of bad experiences[2] with dri…

I haven't needed it in the city I'm at now, but I used to wear a USA flag as a cape when riding in less biking friendly areas. It was night and day how drivers treated me.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#307

Post by mkoryak »

justtopost wrote: post #283
mkoryak wrote: post #233

I found a "simple trick that makes all drivers around me nice". I put a pigeon on my helmet 8 years ago[1]. Everywhere I go I see smiles. I really makes every ride fun. One of my friends recently started also doing it, so its starting to catch on. Pigeonriding transforms me from an awkward software engineer into an interesting person who people want to talk to. I have only had a handful of bad experiences[2] with dri…

For those less outgoing, anything that differentiates you, or stands out (from both the environment and other cyclists) seems to help. A sea of loud colors is just a din, and all spandex looks the same to a cager.

For those less outgoing, pigeonriding will probably work even better for you. You can just ignore people who try to talk to you which will make the pigeon seem much more real.

"oh that person really has no idea that bird is on their head".

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#308

Post by why-el »

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…

Biking is a very contentious issue in Cambridge. It was one of the most discussed topics during the last council elections and the split, at least how I saw it, was quite generational.

There have been a few deadly incidents as well, adding fuel to the mix.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#309

Post by btrettel »

CydeWeys wrote: post #290
btrettel wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I must have missed that in my haste. Your experience nonetheless differs from mine and from that of most US cyclists, I believe.

Most of the US doesn't have protected bike lanes, but that's what we're talking about here. I'm talking about my experience with one of the better protected bike lane setups in the US, and the advantages it grants. Come visit some time. I'll show you the bike lanes myself.

Given my experience in Austin, it's necessary to highlight the difference between a good bike lane and a bad bike lane. Politicians usually don't know the difference. In practice it seems you typically get bad bike lanes.

When you have "protected" bike lanes with no protection against turning vehicles that are constantly full of debris (e.g., the "chipseal" finishing technique they use on the roads here makes the bike lane basically gravel in many places), it's easy to see what a bad bike lane looks like.

The protected bike lanes I used in Baltimore were only better in the sense that they tended to have a smoother finish and much less debris. (Yes, the road quality in Austin is worse than Baltimore.) I still had many problems with turning drivers not checking the bike lane.

Anyhow, I might take you up on your offer sometime. :-)

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#310

Post by fooblitzky »

lostphilosopher wrote: post #277
callinyouin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I hope you get hit!" This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. The average person either doesn't care or, for some misguided reason or another, actively hates bicyclists. I've been yelled at by drivers for no apparent reason so many times I've lost count. I've had so many friends hit by cars. My partner was struck by a car last fall and broke her leg in two places. She's s…

Ok, I'll say it - bicyclists tend to annoy me. Obviously, I don't shout at them, or try to hit them, or make them think I'm trying to hit them. That's nuts. That seems like a problem separate for bike/car relations. I doubt someone who behaves that way in a car gets out of it and suddenly becomes a calm and reasonable person. But here's my assessment of why bikes annoy me. Not argument that they should, just some int…

Even though the active risks appear greater, statistically it's still safer to ride a bike than to be in a car (plenty of localized exceptions, of course).

One of the best ways to increase the safety for everyone, and to make drivers less nervous, is just to slow the cars down. Speed is a major factor in crashes, injuries, and fatalities. If the cars and bikes are traveling at similar speeds, they are able to co-operate much more in their use of the road.

Traffic calming works wonders, that's how the Netherlands for example moved from a car-centric road system similar to the USA to the bike-heaven it is today, just a slow, steady stream of infrastructure changes to slow down drivers and improve the safety of people riding bikes.

e-bikes are also changing the game when it comes to cycling longer distances. They are still far, far cheaper than owning a car. I always find it strange when economically disadvantaged people are brought up as a reason to favor cars, they are the people that can least afford them.

Post reply on HN