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

431–440 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#431

Post by u801e »

wool_gather wrote: post #253
rayiner wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm suggesting that it's not right to inconvenience the majority (drivers), for the sake of a relatively privileged minority (folks who can afford to live within cycling distance of their jobs downtown).

Before going too far down the road with this argument, you also need to figure out how many of those drivers would use something other than a car if it were feasible . The majority is not necessarily the majority by choice in this case.

> you also need to figure out how many of those drivers would use something other than a car if it were feasible.

The one thing that debunks that argument is the fact that people aren't replacing their cars with motorcycles.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#432

Post by gregmac »

jessaustin wrote: post #426
wtetzner wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Park & ride is a fine idea, but Massachusetts needs to invest in that sort of infrastructure before it will become viable for commuters. Currently there's the commuter rail, which is hard to get to from many areas, is quite expensive, and doesn't run very frequently. It's not good enough to get people to stop driving.

If the commuter rail is not convenient they could park at the end of the T, e.g. Alewife, BC etc.

But now they need to pay for the car anyway, so you're left balancing the comparatively small cost of parking + extra gas + extra mileage against inconvenience of switching transit methods + cost of transit.

There's many other factors, too, which could influence things in either way: total time spent commuting, whether you hate crowded spaces and prefer to sit alone in your car, whether you can be productive (eg: phone call, working on laptop, doing email on phone etc) or want to be able to read.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#433

Post by u801e »

dominotw wrote: post #23
pselbert wrote: post #11

Every person I know that bikes in Chicago has been hit at least once. Fortunately none of them have been seriously injured, but it is a constant danger. There are lots of bike lanes downtown but they aren’t protected or respected. We have a long way to go to make biking a safe form of transport like it is in the Netherlands.

I personally know 3 ppl that died in chicago. Two of them were my coworkers, died in the same year. :/ Sorry but if you have kids and family you are fucking stupid to ride bikes on the street in chicago. White bikes on sidewalks are not street art. Go to lakeshore path/606 if you are dying to ride bikes. I got doored 2 yrs ago escaped only with broken wrist.

> I got doored 2 yrs ago escaped only with broken wrist.

The best way to avoid getting doored is to not ride so close to parked cars. You should maintain a distance of at least 6 feet from parked cars while riding.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#434

Post by megaremote »

bluejekyll wrote: post #108
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'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…

> 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.

And the absolutely disgusting thing about this is we can't get away from roads. Every building has roads in front, and to get anywhere you have to cross a lot of roads.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#435

Post by megaremote »

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 a lie, most people can use a bike.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#436

Post by megaremote »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #360
bluejekyll wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it ignores residential patterns I would argue that what we need to discuss more, is how do we make transit more efficient for the different residential patterns. Is driving to a parking lot, and then getting on a bike, scooter, skateboard, a more efficient option? Or transferring to a train/bus? Do we really want people driving into city centers? > Most people can't use a bike. I don't think you mean that exactly,…

Doesn't sound like you know Cambridge at all. There aren't many under capacity roads, especially when winter snow comes down. What this is going to do is make traffic slower, encourage more bikers who will ignore traffic rules and act unpredictably, and generally muck things up. Cambridge is actually probably a really great candidate for bike lanes with multiple colleges nearby, but let's not pretend this isn't going…

> bikers who will ignore traffic rules

Bikes ignoring traffic rules is a 1000x better than cars ignoring traffic rules. Since cars actually kill people. 40,000 a year in the US. Every year. But hey, you don't give a shit about that, right?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#437

Post by megaremote »

modoc wrote: post #409
JohnFen wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Wow, excuses? Ok. Yes, car driving is easier, it always will be. But how about you drivers start actually paying for what you use, the pollution you create, the roads that are paid for by taxes?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#438

Post by cheesymuffin »

techsupporter wrote: post #255
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…

> 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…

My favorite is when they're freaks about safety and try to be altruistic (ex: "where's your helmet?")...

...by slowing down, driving on your shoulder, and screaming at you.

Had someone do this at an exit to the freeway once. I had to stop and walk across.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#439

Post by kendallpark »

analog31 wrote: post #411
kendallpark wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easier to change infrastructure to be pro-cycling than it is to change the culture. I'll take mindful drivers over protected bike lanes, any day. The only protected lane in my town (Madison) is one that goes against traffic. Drivers here are generally aware and accommodating when it comes to cyclists. I feel safer biking here (snow and all) than any other city I've lived in.

Man, that lane gave me the willies, first time I rode on it. ;-) But I agree about Madison. One other thing I've noticed is that here's also much less of a car culture. For instance it seems that people are outraged if their work commute is more than 10 minutes. And you don't see as many of the giant cars, SUV's, pickup trucks, etc. One thing that may help is that a number of large employers are all concentrated near…

> One other thing I've noticed is that here's also much less of a car culture.

I think a big factor is the lack of freeways in downtown Madison (not sure if this was intentional or a byproduct of the isthmus + Capitol Square). A lot of people attribute Vancouver's success with alternative transportation to a 1960's decision against urban freeways. Without the option of a freeway, incentives and cultural attitudes are more aligned toward biking, busing, etc.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#440

Post by paulryanrogers »

noir_lord wrote: post #391
JohnFen wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's very interesting. I moved to a city (in the US) where driving a car is actually unnecessary, so I sold mine and ride a bike as my primary transportation. I am so happy to not have to deal with car ownership -- it's improved my life tremendously. Although I haven't been subjected to any abuse about it, more than once I have had people make comments about when I'll be able to buy a car, as if finances are why…

Same boat, I could go buy a car in cash tomorrow but I don’t have a drivers license. People react with incredulity when I tell them I don’t have a car. I live a 15 minute walk from the center of town and work and the UK has reasonable bus service in most towns so why would I spend thousands on a car and hundreds a month to park a vehicle I never use outside my house. I cycle for fitness and pleasure though and most c…

Do you have children? I've noticed having a family had impacted my cycling lifestyle tremendously.
Post reply on HN