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

401–410 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#401

Post by nwah1 »

mywittyname wrote: post #267
techsupporter wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. My experience as a pedestrian (I don't ride a bike on the street so I can't speak to that experience) mirrors this. More than once, I've been…

> "if you weren't so fucking poor you wouldn't have to ride the bus!" I honestly think this is a huge factor in violence against cyclists & pedestrians. Drivers think you're automatically beneath them in the societal pecking order if you're walking or biking, so they feel justified or entitled to victimize you. People do similar shit to other people who they perceive to be poor, such as homeless, maids, delivery driv…

This is likely part of it. Particularly for pedestrians. But for cyclists, I don't think that explains it.

It boils down to the fact that cyclists are unusual in most places in the US, and people are impatient and don't like dealing with things that are out of the ordinary.

But there's also just something dehumanizing about driving cars, which causes aggression. Road rage against other drivers is nearly as big of an issue as the issue of hatred towards cyclists.

Of course, even pedestrians get angry at slow walkers, but when they do so they aren't in command of multiple tons of metal that can move at high velocities.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#402

Post by JohnFen »

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…

> They make me nervous.

I understand this. I try to make sure I don't make drivers overly nervous in two main ways.

I try to adhere to the first rule of the road (applies equally to cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc.): never do anything unexpected.

The second is that, when I'm biking on the street and have to move toward the center of the road (to go around parked cars, for instance), I'll actually stop and let any cars behind me go ahead. As soon as I put my foot on the ground, cars know they have nothing to fear from me.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#403

Post by JohnFen »

noir_lord wrote: post #392
TulliusCicero wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> generally exist on a predictable well defined plane Protected bike lanes/paths mostly solves this problem. Cyclists aren't unpredictable because they want to be, it's because the system is not set up well for bikes at all. Sometimes it's actively hostile to bikes. > Space efficient? Yes and no. It is more space efficient for people whose options are bike vs car to ride a bike, but there's tons of people that doesn'…

Some roads around me are positively lethal on a bike, I sometimes jump off and walk across because it’s not worth the risk to me or anyone else, annoying but worth it.

I consider this one of the big advantages to riding a bike: I can dismount and become a pedestrian almost instantly!

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#404

Post by OJFord »

JohnFen wrote: post #402
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 make me nervous. I understand this. I try to make sure I don't make drivers overly nervous in two main ways. I try to adhere to the first rule of the road (applies equally to cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc.): never do anything unexpected. The second is that, when I'm biking on the street and have to move toward the center of the road (to go around parked cars, for instance), I'll actually stop and let any cars…

> never do anything unexpected

> I'll actually stop and let any cars behind me go ahead. As soon as I put my foot on the ground, cars know they have nothing to fear from me.

Contradiction!

Whatever's wrong with signalling, pausing to see if the driver's going to obey the highway code, or accelerate to overtake, and then moving into the road?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#405

Post by hannasanarion »

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, but there's tons of people that doesn't apply to

And those people can continue using roads. Nobody is asking for a nationwide ban of all cars. We just want to make bicycles a safe option. That means less cars on the road, which is better for everybody.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#406

Post by llukas »

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 see that graphic a lot, but it's not a very useful one, because it ignores residential patterns.

Yes parking needed for cars would be several times bigger than what cars occupy.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#407

Post by JohnFen »

OJFord wrote: post #404
JohnFen wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They make me nervous. I understand this. I try to make sure I don't make drivers overly nervous in two main ways. I try to adhere to the first rule of the road (applies equally to cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc.): never do anything unexpected. The second is that, when I'm biking on the street and have to move toward the center of the road (to go around parked cars, for instance), I'll actually stop and let any cars…

> never do anything unexpected > I'll actually stop and let any cars behind me go ahead. As soon as I put my foot on the ground, cars know they have nothing to fear from me. Contradiction! Whatever's wrong with signalling, pausing to see if the driver's going to obey the highway code, or accelerate to overtake, and then moving into the road?

I don't think it's a contradiction, really. I'm engaging in precisely the same behavior as cars do when they're parking behind another car.

What I'm not doing is coming to a stop in front of vehicles that are expecting to keep moving. And I do signal.

All that said, I did state that I try to do nothing unexpected. It's not always possible (and I also don't always know what others on the road are expecting).

> Whatever's wrong with signalling[...]

Nothing, and that's what I do if it's not possible to safely pull over and allow the cars to go by. But I also know from personal experience that drivers really hate it if they have to slow down because a bike is in front of them, so I'm trying to keep them happy.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#408

Post by cabaalis »

just_steve_h wrote: post #263
cabaalis wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you did was perfectly legal, and I assume that your state, like mine, has a law about stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk. I feel the need to ask though why the race of the man who yelled at you bears mentioning?

Why do you find it worth asking why I mentioned his race? There is certainly a strong relationship among perceived entitlement/privilege, apparent race and ethnicity, and apparent gender. I shouldn't need to explain this.

I asked because it changed the timbre of your anecdote from one of cars vs. bikes to one of race vs. race. Was this person yelling at you because you're on a bike, or because of your apparent race?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#409

Post by modoc »

JohnFen wrote: post #397
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. What? How do you figure? My observation is that most people absolutely can (and many would seriously benefit from it). Maybe not for every situation, but for the rare ones where a bike won't do, a cab will.

Winter (ice, snow, freezing winds) Rain storms People who don't want to show up to work sweaty (my work never had showers and I'm the sort of person who creates a lot of sweat (and smell) even if I'm taking it easy on a bike People who live more than X miles from where they are going People who live up/down major hills etc.....

I lived IN Boston for a while, and actually rode my bike to work during the summer (didn't own a car) and just let everyone suffer through my sweat. But I couldn't do it in the winter (yes I know some people do). Aside from the physical cold/misery, the snow and ice made many roads extremely dangerous. The last few places I've lived were in the suburbs, commuting to other suburbs (luckily I've been avoiding the worst city traffic). The distances were too great to bike (unless you like a 3+ hour commute). shrug. Its great if you live somewhere that biking works for you, but don't expect everyone everywhere can just give up their car, jump on a bike, and carry on with life...

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#410

Post by zeendo »

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.

Please don't make things up. It's detracts from the conversation.
Post reply on HN