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

331–340 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#331

Post by TulliusCicero »

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…

> Most people can't use a bike.

This is simply false. Most people absolutely can use a bike. Maybe not for every possible trip, but for many of them, yes. Just look at the bike rate in the Netherlands, if you don't believe me.

There are a variety of possible modes available, and they can be mixed and matched as people need and want. Driving to a suburban park and ride transit station, taking the train into the city, and then using bike share to get to your final destination, is a perfectly sensible thing.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#332

Post by TulliusCicero »

novok wrote: post #294
teddyh wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If your elderly or disabled. Although if you that level of elderly, you might not be able to use a car either, and the disabled often have motorized wheelchairs that could go as fast as bikes. For people who say 'but the disabled need cars', I want to offer some ancedata: I know a retired couple that bought a house in SF years ago because they wanted a working transit system when they can't drive cars anymore.

They said most people, and even many elderly or disabled folk can bike. I see some very old people biking around Munich. Almost never saw that in the US, almost like having better infrastructure has some kind of impact...

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#333

Post by actuator »

aeternus wrote: post #271
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…

My guess is that the driver had been yelled at by a biker in the past. I've seen bikers chew out drivers, or yell profanities many times in SF. They sometimes/usually have a good reason to do so, but that kind of behavior just breeds contempt and animosity between the two groups.

Yeah, sometimes they have. Once riding around a bike near Powell street in SF in a bike lane with 10 mph limit. A car approached me from behind. Initially it was probably at 40 mph but it slowed down as it came near me. But it was scary as hell as you have inherent assumptions when you are in a bike lane.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#334

Post by TulliusCicero »

wtetzner wrote: post #241
teddyh wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But can they bike from a train station in the city? Can they bike around the suburb they live in? Yes, they probably can.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#335

Post by gowld »

dominotw wrote: post #155
bluejekyll wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not sure thats a correct analogy. Driving a car to work is not an optional activity for most ppl. Ppl riding their bikes in the city are doing it for fun/thrill/whatever, its an optional activity for 90% of the ppl doing it. I have a theory that most of these ppl would stop doing it once the thrill/'cool factor' goes away with protected bike lanes.

Riding a bus to work is not an optional activity. People driving their cars in the city are doing it for fun/thrill/whatever.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#336

Post by TulliusCicero »

rayiner wrote: post #215
stefan_ wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the roads downtown should be inaccessible to people living downtown so suburban people can commute in on 2 ton steel boxes that they then store for the day in downtown? No, that is indeed not the most efficient use of the roads. The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport. (Bus transport is also not slowed down by cyclists, or of a…

> The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport. More efficient for who? The software developer who lives in a condo downtown, or the lady who cleans his office that drives in from the suburbs?

If you're committed to high quality public transport, it's more efficient for both.

Do you think there's a lot of cleaning ladies driving in and parking downtown in expensive major cities?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#337

Post by burlesona »

callinyouin wrote: post #235
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…

> "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…

I’m not sure how broadly this generalizes. Having lived in 7 different regions in the US I would say 4 were cycling-friendly and 3 were cycling-hostile.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#338

Post by atoav »

zymhan wrote: post #158
viburnum wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You won't find a cyclist who opposes dedicated, protected lanes that are separate from roads and sidewalks. It is almost always the car drivers who don't want to sacrifice the single lane required to make a two way, protected bike lane. Case in point, Peachtree St in Atlanta ~3 years ago. https://www.ajc.com/news/traffic/bike-lane-plan-for-peachtre... https://www.ajc.com/news/local/bike-lanes-peachtree-road-for...

Interestingly enough there has been some evidence that driving on the street is safer than using the bicycle lanes in cities that have a flawed integration of these lanes.

It all boils down to the parts where these lanes intersect with car traffic. There is no use in adding a few lanes here and there, you need to have a concept and micromanage every intersection between cars and cyclists to get something that really pays off. Often this is prevented by the unwillingness of motorists to loose space to park or drive on and this results in pseudo-solutions that are more dangerous than having all cyclists using the middle of the road.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#339

Post by TulliusCicero »

btrettel wrote: post #186
zymhan wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't find a cyclist who opposes dedicated, protected lanes that are separate from roads and sidewalks. It is almost always the car drivers who don't want to sacrifice the single lane required to make a two way, protected bike lane. Case in point, Peachtree St in Atlanta ~3 years ago. https://www.ajc.com/news/traffic/bike-lane-plan-for-peachtre... https://www.ajc.com/news/local/bike-lanes-peachtree-road-for...

> You won't find a cyclist who opposes dedicated, protected lanes that are separate from roads and sidewalks. "Vehicular cyclists" are opposed to bike lanes and are not uncommon. See elsewhere in this thread for discussion of them. I consider myself roughly 1/2 vehicular, 1/2 infrastructural. Both camps have good points.

I've seen vehicular cyclists have good points in theory, but in practice their results seem to be awful. Are there places practicing 'vehicular cycling' that have high rates of cycling and good levels of safety?

Infrastructural cyclists can point to the obvious success in the Netherlands and some other bike-friendly cities/countries, at least.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#340

Post by baron_harkonnen »

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…

I think you could arguably entirely remove non-commercial vehicles form dense cities like Boston and New York. You could build massive parking garages at the limits of the city and suburban commuter could just park and take alternate transit from there.

During peak traffic in both of these cities I've been easily able to walk as fast as traffic, forget how much faster public transit or biking would be.

If you displaced all the cars within a city, then transportation within the city would likely be faster and more efficient for everyone. City buses would be much nicer if there was virtually no traffic in the city. Biking would likewise be a more realistic option if was dramatically safer and had better infrastructure for storage.

of course that's a pipe-dream, but the obsessive car culture in the US is a nightmare so it's nice to have some contrast.

Post reply on HN