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

361–370 of 561 posts

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#361

Post by bluGill »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #337
ivanhoe wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1438 there was no supermarkets with huge parking lots that will lure away all your customers. It's not just that people will have to walk to you (so competition located closer will win), they will also have to carry the stuff they buy back to the car, so they'll probably not be willing to buy a lot, or anything heavier. If you're selling souvenirs or t-shirts it's not a big deal, but for people selling say wines o…

People in European city centers shop differently. They more likely don’t even have cars, the stores are smaller, they shop daily or bi-daily rather than weekly like suburbanites do. They aren’t carrying a few bottles of wine and olive oil, they have one bag, and everything is pretty fresh. You can have the same lifestyle almost in the states, just live in a downtown area. Watch out for all the cars though, and wading…

Most downtowns in the states do not have a grocery store anymore. If you only eat at restaurants (there are many fine ones around) you are fine, but forget about a home cooked meal unless you drive to the suburbs, at which point you may as well get a weeks worth of food just like everybody in the suburbs does.

Note that there are exceptions where there are stores. However before you point them out, remember that in a generalization there is specifics that are wrong. Even if there are stores, are there enough stores to cover each tiny neighborhood or do a lucky few get stores and the rest have to drive because the stores are not close enough to be useful.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#362

Post by brnt »

jamil7 wrote: post #333
brnt wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I cycled through Rotterdam recently, bikepacking to the UK. I found the scooters in the bikelanes to be massively unsettling. I've cycled all over the place and honestly found riding with the cars to be preferable, at least I'm used to being amongst them.

I agree, as do many cyclists. Recently the city of Amsterdam enacted a law that forces them out of cycling lanes [1]. Like I wrote in another post, scooters and electric bikes don't really fit the usual modes of cycling or motorized (car) traffic, and are something in between. Adding a mode to all infra is however a large undertaking, would add a fourth mode, which is why some want to lower car speed limits in order to facilitate mixing in higher speed bicycles/scooters into car traffic.

[1] https://www.amsterdam.nl/snorfiets-rijbaan/

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#363

Post by chapium »

bluGill wrote: post #346
cyborgx7 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Public logistics for consumer freight would be pretty awesome actually.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#364

Post by jamil7 »

brnt wrote: post #362
jamil7 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cycled through Rotterdam recently, bikepacking to the UK. I found the scooters in the bikelanes to be massively unsettling. I've cycled all over the place and honestly found riding with the cars to be preferable, at least I'm used to being amongst them.

I agree, as do many cyclists. Recently the city of Amsterdam enacted a law that forces them out of cycling lanes [1]. Like I wrote in another post, scooters and electric bikes don't really fit the usual modes of cycling or motorized (car) traffic, and are something in between. Adding a mode to all infra is however a large undertaking, would add a fourth mode, which is why some want to lower car speed limits in order…

Interesting! thanks for the link.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#365

Post by jakecopp »

u801e wrote: post #335
jakecopp wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So...electric motorbikes means you don't need bike lanes? Why don't we put children on motorbikes again? NHTSA: "For every mile traveled, motorcyclists have a risk of a fatal accident that is 35 times higher than a car driver." [1] In my experience, light weight electric transport mingles great with bikes, as long as they're limited to something reasonable. I can clock up pretty high speeds on a normal bike! So no -…

> we do need bike lanes because cars are too dangerous Cars only are a danger when the driver can't easily see you. A bike lane tells a cyclist to ride close to the edge of the road. That's not where most drivers focus their attention on. Bike lanes also encourage cyclists to pass traffic making a right turn on the right, make cyclists harder to see for traffic making a left turn, and can catch drivers pulling out fr…

Sorry when I say bike lane I mean separated bike lane or cycleway, with a physical curb between traffic and the bikes. This is much safer than biking on the road or on the edge.

In Sydney we have dedicated bike signals at intersections (with dedicated infrastructure) so turning is no issue.

I agree with your point that it is safer to ride with traffic in the middle of the lane rather than an unseparated bike lane - that's not infrastructure, that's paint on a road.

A good friend of mine was cycling in a painted on bike lane and got car doored by a policeman. There is no hope of the general population checking their mirrors when opening car doors if policeman can't!

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#366

Post by stronglikedan »

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…

> No helmet

While I don't think they should be required, I do think they should be worn. I've had a low-speed spill where the helmet saved my head considerably - I hit the pavement so hard my glasses were flattened out. You fall much faster, even at low speeds, and you fall much farther from a bike, than a pedestrian would fall.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#367

Post by irrational »

I feel like this person is an optimist, envisioning a future that is never going to happen. I envision a future of rapidly decreasing revenues as the boomers die off and the population size plummets, while simultaneously climate change starts to wreak havoc, resulting in city infrastructure not being maintained at all, much less being improved to the extent the author is recommending.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#368

Post by zzzcpan »

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…

> 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.

Not prohibitive to do by electric bike though.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#369

Post by 99052882514569 »

willis936 wrote: post #358
helen___keller wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Biking isn’t safe enough to not wear a helmet just because there have been changes to make biking less likely to have an accident. If putting on a helmet is too much work then physically moving yourself to your destination is wayyy too much work. That is to say, it isn’t too much work and it isn’t a barrier to entry. At the very least citizens should appreciate the danger of biking without a helmet even if they choos…

Biking isn't completely safe. Do helmets really help all that much? Very questionable[0]. Wearing a helmet, for example, promotes less safe behaviour by both cyclists and by drivers around them.

The sense of safety a helmet gives you when you cycle is mostly a false one. Lack of cycling infrastructure is a far greater danger anyway. In countries with the best cyclist safety records, no one wears or owns bike helmets, like not figuratively 'no one', but literally, no one. Can't be a very significant standalone determinant of bike safety then, can it?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Effectiveness

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#370

Post by jacobparker »

willis936 wrote: post #358
helen___keller wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Biking isn’t safe enough to not wear a helmet just because there have been changes to make biking less likely to have an accident. If putting on a helmet is too much work then physically moving yourself to your destination is wayyy too much work. That is to say, it isn’t too much work and it isn’t a barrier to entry. At the very least citizens should appreciate the danger of biking without a helmet even if they choos…

> Biking isn’t safe enough to not wear a helmet

Could you explain why you think that? That’s a pretty general statement. Are you imagining city biking here, or something more like racing in the country-side?

Some data about how this is dangerous could be convincing: https://youtu.be/Boi0XEm9-4E count the helmets.

Just to be clear, I’m not against helmets (I wear one, as is custom in my country).

Post reply on HN