Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 561 posts

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#321

Post by openfuture »

brnt wrote: post #309
fennecfoxen wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> electric biking is expanding your reach a few times over. Electric bikes are motorcycles, and I don't want vehicles with the speed and acceleration characteristics of a motorcycle in my bike lane, if you please. postscript: my very concerns for my safety seem to be getting voted down a lot considering that our friend the Dutchman here has given a rather nice reply recognizing the substantive nature of this conflict

So in NL, this is tackled with a tiered classification, in which the lowest tier ( This is not ideal, as the (fast) electric bike is new, also in NL, and people will misanticipate them (which I've experienced first hand). You're right, mixing speeds is a bad idea. This will improve with better infra (wider cycling paths, bike highways) and getting used to this new vehicle. On the other hand, the problem is similar to…

It should be classified by acceleration not velocity.

Weight and velocity are also important (potential energy which could cause harm) but acceleration is the right way to sort things into lanes, there can also be an energy constraint for the lane but acceleration is about being able to anticipate the behavior of something so that you can avoid the accident in the first place.

Electric bikes can accelerate fast and the user will also not care as much about stopping (and losing hard won inertia) this could invalidate some expectation and cause an accident.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#322

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

mcv wrote: post #280
Svip wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really helps that in neither Denmark nor the Netherlands, helmets are mandatory. Unlike in say Sweden, where casual biking is having a hard time taking off. But it kind of bothers me that Danes and Dutchmen seem to be rather disinterested in one another's achievements on this front. There is a lot of lessons from both sides, that never seems to be discussed in one another's media, to the point (anecdote alert!) wh…

I think cycling is inherently more a local thing than cars. Nobody needs interstate or international bicycle paths, because nobody cycles that far. So it makes sense that the interest is more local, and maybe that's also why smaller countries like Denmark and Netherland are more successful at it. Bicycle infrastructure is primarily about towns and cities. So if you want this big push, you have to do it at the city le…

> Nobody needs interstate or international bicycle paths, because nobody cycles that far.

Yes, they do. There is a whole series of trans-Europe routes, the Eurovelo network, and some of them are downright crowded with whole families in the summer.

I do some cycling every summer in Serbia and Bulgaria and my route sometimes intersects the Eurovelo 6. It is often a crap shoot if I am going to find accommodation in the smallest towns, because the rooms might all be booked by French and Germans on a cycling holiday along the length of the Danube.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#323

Post by Tepix »

ehnto wrote: post #24
smt88 wrote: post #2

> Cars are the slowest, lowest-bandwidth forms of urban transportation. This is the kind of thing I read a lot in micromobility advocacy articles, but it seems like it can't be true. How can a bike, scooter, or moped be either faster or higher-bandwidth than a car? Also, serious question: if electric SDCs became widespread, would it still make sense to advocate things like bikes? You can't transport a family of three…

Cars are not space efficient. One person takes up the room of many scooters, bikes or mopeds. The infrastructure that supports cars also takes up incredible amounts of room. They are often slower simply because they are stuck. It is quicker for me to ride my bike 20km than to drive it in my city. So for space spent on one car to move it and park it in the city you could be moving far more people. If you move to a les…

They are also very inefficient with resources during construction and operation.

Lastly they are the most dangerous to other traffic due to their high mass and high speed.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#324

Post by stinos »

systemtest wrote: post #169
cgrealy wrote: post #3

I live in Christchurch, NZ. After a massive earthquake in 2011, I had high hopes that we might redesign the city for the next 100 years instead of the previous 50 (i.e. for people, not cars). Instead the city council built a few bike lanes and even then people lost their goddamn minds. "You're taking away parking space!" "All these bike lanes are slowing traffic" "No one wants to bike into the city" Meanwhile, cyclis…

I live in a 750 year old European city. The medieval center is 1 kilometer in diameter. They wanted to make the center accessible only for cars of residents and suppliers of stores (up to 11am for suppliers). There are four underground parking garages directly surrounding the center and the walking distance from a garage to any location is never more than 450 meter. Free wheelchairs are provided from the garages. Thi…

There's more than one similar city which had plans to drastically changed what cars are allowed to do, and when, and the story is similar: people go insane, usually shouting out claims like 'city is going to die' and 'commerce will suffer greatly' and so on (which if I'm not mistaken they do not have any proof for, also not from previous cities where the same happend), and the effect then gets axaggerated on social media.

From what I've seen what follows next is usually the same: the plans are executed, as long as you don't insist on driving your car to the store front in the middle of a medieval city, you're happy because the city became more pleasant and after all there's a ton of parkings, studies one year after execution show less severe accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, no measurable effect on commerce and less pollution. (again: this is only what I recall from having heard and read here and there, I did not research this in depth so reality might be different)

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#325

Post by willis936 »

brnt wrote: post #296
rapnie wrote: post #232

What I see a lot in this thread is people's either/or opinions. Love cars / hate bycicles or vice versa. No. It is a balancing act, where cars, bycicles and public transport co-exist, and infrastructure is developed strategically in smart ways and in a prolonged effort. When I was young in The Netherlands for the most part the cars still dominated the streets. Over time I've seen cities and road networks gradually be…

As a Dutchman who's lived in a few places abroad, the cycling 'problem' is quite simple: it needs to be the norm. No helmet, because neither do you require them for pedestrians. You can cycle in all weather, just as you would walking (a hard mental one, my non-Dutch partner can't get over the idea cycling is for sunshine). Public space design must start with safe (no sharp turns, looking at you France!) and separate…

Are you suggesting that helmet not be the norm when riding bikes? Biking is more dangerous than walking, even if you did it on an isolated trail. Is looking cooler worth the increased risk of a traumatic brain injury? I’m okay with society thinking it isn’t.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#326

Post by helen___keller »

willis936 wrote: post #325
brnt wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Dutchman who's lived in a few places abroad, the cycling 'problem' is quite simple: it needs to be the norm. No helmet, because neither do you require them for pedestrians. You can cycle in all weather, just as you would walking (a hard mental one, my non-Dutch partner can't get over the idea cycling is for sunshine). Public space design must start with safe (no sharp turns, looking at you France!) and separate…

Are you suggesting that helmet not be the norm when riding bikes? Biking is more dangerous than walking, even if you did it on an isolated trail. Is looking cooler worth the increased risk of a traumatic brain injury? I’m okay with society thinking it isn’t.

> looking cooler

I don't think it's about looking cooler, it's about barrier to entry.

It's like adding a 15 character requirement to passwords on your application and rotating them weekly. Most people will give up on your application before they even give it a try.

OPs point is that cities should make it a goal for biking to be safe regardless of if you have a helmet. I daresay biking without a helmet in Copenhagen is vastly safer than biking with a helmet in any city in the states.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#327

Post by seanmcdirmid »

gbrown wrote: post #316
mcv wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think cycling is inherently more a local thing than cars. Nobody needs interstate or international bicycle paths, because nobody cycles that far. So it makes sense that the interest is more local, and maybe that's also why smaller countries like Denmark and Netherland are more successful at it. Bicycle infrastructure is primarily about towns and cities. So if you want this big push, you have to do it at the city le…

> Nobody needs interstate or international bicycle paths, because nobody cycles that far. IMHO, this is 120% just a chicken and egg problem. Sure, nobody bikes that far to work, but if you build it people can and will travel large distances to visit just to go on bike tours. In my state, we have an annual event which attracts thousands in which people bike hundreds of miles from one side to the other. Rural highways…

You aren’t wrong from a recreational perspective. But from a practical one meant to alleviate traffic and pollution, long distance intercity biking is less viable in addressing those compared to public transit.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#328

Post by jamil7 »

willis936 wrote: post #325
brnt wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Dutchman who's lived in a few places abroad, the cycling 'problem' is quite simple: it needs to be the norm. No helmet, because neither do you require them for pedestrians. You can cycle in all weather, just as you would walking (a hard mental one, my non-Dutch partner can't get over the idea cycling is for sunshine). Public space design must start with safe (no sharp turns, looking at you France!) and separate…

Are you suggesting that helmet not be the norm when riding bikes? Biking is more dangerous than walking, even if you did it on an isolated trail. Is looking cooler worth the increased risk of a traumatic brain injury? I’m okay with society thinking it isn’t.

Downhill mountain biking or something similar maybe, casually cycling along a trail isn't really anymore likely to course traumatic brain injuries than jogging. Cars are the only reason cycling in a city is dangerous. Once you introduce helmets as a requirement you put cycling firmly into the category of some kind of risky sport, making it difficult for it to become a casual, normal thing that people do in everyday clothes, like driving a car. (I wear a helmet fwiw).

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#329

Post by Isinlor »

willis936 wrote: post #325
brnt wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Dutchman who's lived in a few places abroad, the cycling 'problem' is quite simple: it needs to be the norm. No helmet, because neither do you require them for pedestrians. You can cycle in all weather, just as you would walking (a hard mental one, my non-Dutch partner can't get over the idea cycling is for sunshine). Public space design must start with safe (no sharp turns, looking at you France!) and separate…

Are you suggesting that helmet not be the norm when riding bikes? Biking is more dangerous than walking, even if you did it on an isolated trail. Is looking cooler worth the increased risk of a traumatic brain injury? I’m okay with society thinking it isn’t.

You save more lives by making biking enjoyable and care-free. If you make biking difficult people will not bike.

Instead they will sit in a car and die from heart disease, obesity etc.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#330

Post by eemil »

swebs wrote: post #285
cgrealy wrote: post #3

I live in Christchurch, NZ. After a massive earthquake in 2011, I had high hopes that we might redesign the city for the next 100 years instead of the previous 50 (i.e. for people, not cars). Instead the city council built a few bike lanes and even then people lost their goddamn minds. "You're taking away parking space!" "All these bike lanes are slowing traffic" "No one wants to bike into the city" Meanwhile, cyclis…

>"You're taking away parking space!" "All these bike lanes are slowing traffic" Just put the bike lanes on the sidewalk instead of in the street then. That's how it's done in Finland and it seems much safer for everyone involved.

>"You're taking away parking space!" "All these bike lanes are slowing traffic"

Those points probably don't even matter. Each bicycling convert means one less parking space used, and one less car sitting in traffic.

Post reply on HN