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

381–390 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#381

Post by btrettel »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #376
btrettel wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but in practice their results seem to be awful Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion? I don't think there are rigorous scientific studies into vehicular or infrastructural cycling. If the infrastructural approach is more popular it's probably because many people seem to accept the infrastructural arguments uncritically. The vehicular camp makes excellent points that I believe have greatly improve…

> Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion? Well, for biking numbers, there are infrastructure-oriented places like the Netherlands with very high rates of biking. I'm not aware of anywhere comparable for vehicular cycling, at least in the developed world. > Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion? Places where vehicular cycling is more common like the US seem to have worse safety num…

As I said, I can't recall vehicular cyclists claiming that vehicular cycling will increase the number of cyclists. So don't judge them on that. I think increasing the number of cyclists is important, however.

Also, I don't know any place where vehicular cycling is particularly common. It seems to be enthusiastically practiced by a relatively small group of people. As I said, though, those people are the safest cyclists I know. There's no evidence that their practices are detrimental to safety best I can tell. Their practices might seem counterintuitive, but they have good reasons for what they do.

> Admittedly, to me it seems obvious that cars being separate from bikes will be safer for people on bikes than sharing the space. Just like how everyone would uncritically accept that walking on sidewalks is safer than walking in car lanes, because it just seems really obvious.

Again, what seems obvious is not necessarily true. I recommend that you look at websites like this one: http://bicyclesafe.com/

The author of that site seems to be neither in favor of pure vehicular cycling or infrastructure, though I think he's more in favor of infrastructure than I am. You can look through the most common types of crashes and see that most infrastructure does little to nothing to address those problems. And dooring, for example, is unavoidable in some infrastructure.

The infrastructure approach seems to implicitly assume that most crashes (or perhaps the most severe crashes) are due to cars rear-ending cyclists, but that's not true. The vast majority are at intersections. A lot of infrastructure I've seen amplifies the intersection risk by, for example, making cyclists less visible by placing parked cars between the main traffic lane and the bike lane. Those arrangements absolutely increase the number of conflicts at intersections. Yet people keep promoting this sort of infrastructure. (Yes, infrastructure done well can help. See other comments in this thread for more information on that.)

> you're looking at it as a personal style

No, I'm interested in my personal safety and also public policy. I'm not opposed to all bike infrastructure, just bad infrastructure, which is the vast majority of what I've seen. Given the choice between no infrastructure, bad infrastructure, and good infrastructure, my choice is good infrastructure. Most people can't tell the difference between good and bad infrastructure.

Edit: I can see from your other posts that you live in Germany. The infrastructure you see is probably biased towards good. I live in the southern US, and the infrastructure I see (if it exists) is biased towards bad. Keep this in mind.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#382

Post by JohnFen »

wozniacki wrote: post #347
outerspace wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Reducing the number of cars (and therefore traffic) on the roads will benefit everybody You seem to have a rose-tinted view of the world we live in. Have you ever had to commute in less-than-ideal conditions? Heavy snow? Sleet? Black ice? Have you ever lived in places that are not perfectly flat? or lived in places that are hot that make bicycling unfeasible? Did you have sporting gear / work gear that you had to lug…

> Have you ever had to commute in less-than-ideal conditions? Heavy snow? Sleet? Black ice?

Routinely. The only weather I have encountered that is really problematic is when it's very windy.

I would also note that the conditions you list are also the conditions under which you shouldn't even be driving.

> Have you ever lived in places that are not perfectly flat? or lived in places that are hot that make bicycling unfeasible?

I live in a very hilly area. I don't know how hot you consider "unfeasible", but we top 100 degrees pretty much every summer.

> Did you have sporting gear / work gear that you had to lug? Did you know some people have to fetch their own gear to work

Yes, I do all of that. An urban bike trailer (easily folds up to briefcase size when needed) solves those problems.

> Have you had to shop for more than a baguette or a bagel at a store? You know how cumbersome that gets for even a family of three?

Again, trailer.

> Do you have the slightest clue how much casual violence and crime happen on public transit?[1]

That's extremely dependent on where you live. Where I live, there is nearly no such problem.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#383

Post by wtetzner »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #331
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. 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,…

> 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.

And if Massachusetts had that kind of infrastructure, it would work out fine. But it doesn't, and just making a city more bike-friendly doesn't solve the problem on its own.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#384

Post by JohnFen »

amalcon wrote: post #293
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…

> Note that bicyclists and skateboarders also slow down busses, which are what lower income people use to get around. Bicyclists are substantially faster than downtown buses (due to stop frequency). It seems unlikely that they are slowing down the buses very much. Push skateboarders use the sidewalk; electric skateboarders move at the same speed as bicyclists.

Indeed. I am always faster than the bus. And, in the city, bicycling is usually faster than driving.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#385

Post by u801e »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #374
u801e wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are either actual interchanges (like how a highway/motorway interacts with a surface street), or a traffic light controlled intersection. Most protected infrastructure out there do not do either.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Most of what I've seen called "protected intersections" do include traffic lights. Are you using a different definition?

I was referring to separate traffic light phases for different approaches to the intersection. For instance this protected intersection[1] does not have separate traffic light phases for two same direction approaches. While this intersection[2] does. The first one will have turning conflicts since turning traffic and through traffic is allowed to proceed through the intersection at the same time. The second one will not.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7631767,-111.8968873,3a,75y,...

[2] https://www.google.com/maps/@37.306157,-79.97767,3a,75y,223....

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#386

Post by wtetzner »

beat wrote: post #249
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…

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.

The problem is the people who can't afford to live in Cambridge. There isn't much in the way of public transportation to get you to Cambridge.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#387

Post by wtetzner »

ocschwar wrote: post #260
rayiner wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

In Boston? The cleaning lady takes the T. No way she can afford parking downtown.

But how does she get to the T? It doesn't go very far.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#388

Post by lkbm »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #336
rayiner wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

In Austin, a significant portion of the cleaning people work evenings/nights, and I believe frequently are given the option of parking in the garage of the office building(s) they're cleaning.

It's not all, but it's a part. Of course, Austin's no NYC. I assume NYC doesn't have as many empty parking garages at night, and it definitely has better public transit.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#389

Post by t413 »

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…

> and it's why I no longer ride my bike in the city anymore

So is your response to just drive a car then? That's a most-poignant tragedy of the commons.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#390

Post by JohnFen »

u801e wrote: post #352
lostphilosopher wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They can enter the car plane from places I don't expect and didn't even realize existed That's a problem with cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. When I cycle, I will check my mirror and signal prior to changing lanes. I'll only make left turns from the left lane and right turns from the right lane. I won't pass right turning cars on the right or left turning cars on the left. >…

> That's a problem with cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Yes. As someone who bicycles as my primary transportation, I get really angry with other bicyclists who don't follow the rules. A couple of times I've even shouted "you're why drivers hate bikes!"

Here's the thing -- where I live, the police used to enforce traffic laws against bikes to the same degree as against cars. It wasn't unusual to see a bike pulled over and getting a ticket -- but the majority of bicyclists were very well behaved, and there was little animosity from drivers.

At some point, that changed and cops started ignoring bicyclists who broke traffic laws. Now, you see bad bicyclists all the time, and the level of animosity from cars is noticeably increasing.

I wish the cops would go back to the enforcing the laws.

Post reply on HN