We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes • Hacker News Board

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#341

Post by mcv » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 12:55 PM UTC

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…

True. In fact, the previous owner of our house went on a bicycle vacation in the US where he'd cycle down route 66.

In Europe bicycle vacations are pretty common, but it's very different from a regular commute. I did have one coworker once who biked about 50 km to work, but he was very much an exception. For most people, 10 km is a reasonable maximum.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#342

Post by alistairSH » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 12:56 PM UTC

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…

Ugh. We get the same thing here in suburban DC (not the earthquakes but the outright hostility towards any changes in road infrastructure that don't involve adding lanes).

The main street in front of my neighborhood was recently repaved end-to-end (3 miles or so). Prior to that, it was 2 lanes in each direction, with a few left turn lanes. As part of the repave, they wanted to add a semi-protected bike lane (by removing one car lane in each direction). The outcry was ridiculous. This isn't a major thoroughfare, it's a moderately travelled neighborhood road. There's a small shopping center at one end and a school complex in the middle.

Long-story-short, the government add the bike lanes. EXCEPT for in front of the schools and shopping center. So, it's half mile of 4-lane cars, then 1 mile 2 cars/2 bike, then at the school it's back to 4-car for half mile, then back to 2 car/2 bike for the remainder.

And now all the non-cyclists cry "Look! Nobody uses the bike lanes!" Well, of course not. They're completely fucking useless because they come and go almost at random and don't lead anywhere.

It's infuriating.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#343

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 12:58 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #135

deanCommie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask the Dutch. How do they do it? Or do you assume they do not have young kids or grandmas? Why is it that whenever people talk about designing cities for pedestrians and bikes, someone on hackernews thinks it means eliminating all cars entirely forever. For a forum ostensibly designed for entrepreneurs, it shows a tremendous lack of imagination. Answer: * Public transportation inside cities such as buses and trams *…

The difference is that Holland is entirely flat, has an average high of 71 in the summer, and rarely if ever gets icy. The Dutch experience simply doesn't translate to most of America because of the terrain and climate. Elderly people people will die if you make them walk in the Florida summer. 7 year old children lack the leg-strength to bike up California hills. Both groups are likely to slip and crack their heads…

Lausanne is a very 3D city with a lot of elevation gains (with elevators to travel between different parts of the city!), and biking worked there just fine, even in its Boston-like Swiss winters. I saw kids biking up hills all the time.

You are right that it would suck in the humid south. There are good reasons the obesity rate spikes in those areas.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#344

Post by jamil7 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

willis936 wrote: post #339

jamil7 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I disagree. Kinetic energy increases with the square of speed. Jogging at 6 mph is simply an order of magnitude less dangerous than biking at 20 mph. This isn’t a simple footnote. You make a mistake while jogging and you scrape a knee. You make a mistake while biking and you may have your mental faculties permanently reduced and lifelong personality issues that drive loved ones away. Barrier to entry isn’t worth argu…

We're talking about a barrier to entry to casual cycling here, people commuting in work clothes are not going to be able to reach speeds of 20mph in a busy city, if they do it's up to them to decide whether or a not they should wear a helmet.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#345

Post by gwbas1c » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

I lived in Palo Alto, CA, (heart of Silicon Valley) and commuted by bike to work. (I even took my bike on the train for a few weeks.) Once I met my wife, we were able to bike to each other's homes and also bike to work.

It was great!

Then we moved in together, and because she had a dog, Palo Alto became prohibitively expensive, and we had to move a few miles away. I only used my bike three times after that. Even worse, my job then moved in the opposite direction, so I ended up with a commute that was only possible by car.

This is why I laugh at these kinds of articles. There's a lot we can do to encourage many forms of transportation, but the nature of a large world is that a car lets you drive 20 miles from point A to point B in a manner that's prohibitive by foot, bike, or train.

IMO, I think extremely large, subsidized, easy-in, easy-out parking lots on the edge of population centers makes sense. Within the population center, vehicles should only be for public transportation, deliveries, and people with physical disabilities. It's a great compromise that works for people who just can't bike 60 miles a day, or for people who live in areas where trains don't make sense.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#346

Post by bluGill » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

cyborgx7 wrote: post #340

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…

I disagree. There is no need for a "balancing act" between cars and public transport. More public transport and less cars is always an improvement.

Eventually that isn't practical though. You cannot take a pallet of anything on any sort of transit and never will, it will always be delivered on non-public systems. Your new couch has the same problem. Train tracks to your front door are easy to imagine, but the flexibility of roads (with cars and trucks on it) is a lot more cost effective.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#347

Post by brnt » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

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.

The point is to make cycling the norm. Adding items you need to wear or have (you could mandate a cycling license for instance) increases the barrier to entry and thus use. Moreover, helmets protect only for certain accidents, accidents which are some of the most uncommon.

The danger comes mostly from bad infra design and other heavier traffic (cars). Those can be addressed separately, and it turns out pretty well. Leading causes of bike-accidents are now cyclists being distracted by their phones and skipping red lights (common especially in large cities). Public awareness campaigns are addressing the former, law enforcement the latter.

You're right, strictly speaking wearing helmets is safer, and you are free to do so. But then again, 4 point safety belts in cars too (but we don't), driving slower (but we don't), not calling while driving/cycling (but we do) and so on. There's a balance between safety, practicality and getting people to their destinations, it seems helmets are simply far less impactful than other measures.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#348

Post by bluGill » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

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…

Sure there are bike vacations, and perhaps we can make them a little more popular. I'm not going to take my family on such a vacation: most of our vacations are visiting grandparents. With a car and modern freeways we can make the trip in 21 hours of driving (split over a few days - we try to visit some other uncle along the way), few people get enough continuous vacation to bike that far. If flying wasn't such a hassle I'd probably do that instead (driving is cheaper)

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#349

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

nitwit005 wrote: post #155

dcolkitt wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest counterpoint here is what about families? A mom with three young kids in tow pretty much needs a car to get around. Or elderly people? I can't really take my 90-year old grandma out to dinner if it requires her to bike her way to the restaurant. Thinking about non-car based transportation methods is great. But the reality is that large segments of society are always going to need some sort of car-based op…

There was a time before cars. People didn't just entrap their kids and mother at home. We've just made it unworkable due to redesigning things for cars. Cars only work with kids due to most people having smaller families these days. I actually think the car limitations is a reason family sizes have shrunk. Start imagining moving ten kids around.

Mini vans and Chevy suburbans are a thing, Utahns aren’t very dissuaded by that problem. I think it’s the other way around: Being carless with one kid can be ok, but you might need to start rethinking that at the second or third.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#350

Post by bluGill » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #345

I lived in Palo Alto, CA, (heart of Silicon Valley) and commuted by bike to work. (I even took my bike on the train for a few weeks.) Once I met my wife, we were able to bike to each other's homes and also bike to work. It was great! Then we moved in together, and because she had a dog, Palo Alto became prohibitively expensive, and we had to move a few miles away. I only used my bike three times after that. Even wors…

If more people used them trains and buses would be able to run much larger networks thus making the 20 mile commute via train reasonable. However until people use them the network cannot be that large.

If the transit network was that large the freeway network in cities would not be worth it, thus further biasing trips to the train. However there is no easy way to get there from here.