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

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#381

Post by WhompingWindows » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:57 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #350

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.

Build it and they will come - you can't expect everyone to get out of their cars and start using public transport, then somehow use the slight increase in ridership revenue to sponsor huge infrastructure projects. Simply put: the government needs to throw down SERIOUS capital and political will to build out 20 miles of trains all around a metropolitan area.

We need to get away from the myth of single people and their small steps changing the world...we need our governments to actually invest in their own society's well-being and structure.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#382

Post by bluGill » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

cyborgx7 wrote: post #356

bluGill wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a silly thing to jump towards in the discussion, since it's not like we are anywhere close to the situation in which we have next to no private transport. In fact, we are almost at the other extreme. But if I was to indulge you, I would say that public transport doesn't mean rails. In the case of buses it also uses roads. And of course, if we were to abolish all motorized private person transport (again, no w…

I didn't jump there. The parent statement is "More public transport and less cars is always an improvement" jumped there.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#383

Post by rapnie » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

jacobparker wrote: post #370

willis936 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Great video! Demonstrates Dutch cycling culture really well. Thank you.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#384

Post by willis936 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

helen___keller wrote: post #380

willis936 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I guess I can't disagree with you on that, because ultimately I agree bikers should wear helmets and if I biked I would wear a helmet. It's just that the infrastructure to protect from cars is vastly more important. As a pedestrian who walks about 30m each way on my morning commute, it terrifies me that if a car strikes me at 31MPH I have a 50% chance of severe injury. At 42 MPH, it's a 50% chance of death ( https://…

I agree that cities should make motions to make biking more mainstream. My city has very prevalent biking and there are many dedicated paths and roads were bikers are given equal right of way. It’s great. Helmets are mandatory and no one complains. Are there some that don’t bike because of this? Probably a few, but if that is the barrier, then I don’t think they’re treating biking the right way.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#385

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:03 PM UTC

brnt wrote: post #372

chapium wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling while cycling or driving are not equivalents. A vehicle is much more massive than a bike and to use a phone while accelerating is far more negligent. The chances of a cyclist accident harming someone other than themselves while on a phone are far lower than distracted driving accident.

Sure, but 'phone-use' while cycling (thanks ;)) is the number two reason bikes cause lethal accidents for themselves or other bicycles, i.e. it's a big deal. Source (in Dutch): https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/fietsers-voor-h...

[deleted]

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#386

Post by bluGill » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

m1sta_ wrote: post #37

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…

Every cyclist frees up a car park.

But they need a bike park instead. Granted you can park 5-10 bikes in the space of a car (depending on the size of the bikes and car), but we still need to have this space.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#387

Post by JibJabDab » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:10 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…

20 mph is far, far faster than "casual biking". Most people can't maintain 20mph much less 12mph. You need to change your frame of mind to be more inclusive as it seems you're thinking of people decked out in biking shorts/jerseys with water bottles and all geared up. The context we are talking about here is not that kind of biking.

Also keep in mind, jogging can cause traumatic injuries. But I agree, biking does pose more risk as you have less control than being on your feet.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#388

Post by bluGill » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #352

greggman2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO autonomous cars are going to massively increase car usage so car issues are going to get worse not better. Maybe we won't need parking lots but if autonomous cars happen people will use them for anything and everything. No more need for couriers just pop the package/document in a car. Want to run a business out of your house? No need to delivery people just pop your product in a car. Cook for sick relative, pop t…

We could redesign the cars to be smaller and to drive more densely if they were fully autonomous and electric. Their footprint would then more closely resemble bikes. Or maybe someone will invent self driving bicycles/scooters for delivery tasks.

We could, but I don't think we will. There are a lot of fixed costs in a car, so if you need a big car for just a few % of the uses it is very hard to justify having both a small car and a big car when the big car can do both.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#389

Post by Aengeuad » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

willis936 wrote: post #354

jamil7 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then there should be an enforced speed limit for cyclers not wearing helmets. There is a delicate balance between personal freedom and the greater good. Seatbelts do not protect anyone other than the person wearing it but societies have deemed making them mandatory is a good idea. Helmets have moved into the same category and I think they should stay there. The benefits of lower barrier to entry aren’t worth the incr…

Bicycles are not motorcycles, the risk for injury is not so much with speed but instead with collisions between other (primarily motor) vehicles and the types of surfaces cycled on i.e., pavement. There's also a significant socio-economic influence on injury rates, cycling in a city like Delphi with poor road infrastructure and worse general road safety is significantly more dangerous than cycling in any Dutch city with world class cycling infrastructure.

Helmets are obviously essential for reducing serious head injuries (although they're less effective than generally advertised[0]) and parents/individuals should strongly consider using them, but legislation should be focused on improving road safety through education, community outreach, and infrastructure design long before it starts to seriously restrict personal liberty and hampering adoption of better modes of transport. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, etc, have all showed that you can have world class cycling cities without requiring helmet use.

>Seatbelts do not protect anyone other than the person wearing it but societies have deemed making them mandatory is a that good idea.

This is a dangerous misconception, unbelted rear passengers seriously increase the risk of fatal injuries for the driver and front passengers[1] and in general increase the overall amount of injuries, which should be obvious when you consider that unrestrained passengers essentially become ragdoll missiles in the event of a crash.

[0] https://sciencenordic.com/cars-and-traffic-cycling-denmark/b...

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/138037...

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#390

Post by Freak_NL » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #366

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…

> 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.

It's a matter of risk assessment. The chance of a healthy adult cycling in the Netherlands getting a head injury that would have been prevent by a helmet are so incredibly low, that making it a requirement would have a detrimental effect on the collective health of Dutch society due to slightly lower uptake in cycling.

For elderly and young children a helmet may make sense, due to the significantly higher risk of such injuries (due to reduced physical responses and inexperience). And for racing bicycles wearing a helmet is the norm.

A helmet can significantly reduce the impact of a fall, but the risk of that fall is so low that the measure becomes statistically meaningless. It is akin to always wearing a hard hat when you leave your home, because it would save you from serious brain injury if a brick fell on your head. Of course, bricks don't generally fall out of the sky, but you can never be too sure…

This doesn't mean that all safety measures are nonsense — having working lights and functioning brakes do reduce the chances of accidents. It is also tempting to compare the helmet to seatbelts in a car, but there the chance of needing them is simply much higher.

One well-researched source on the negative effects of bicycle helmets if made mandatory in the Netherlands (in Dutch): https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/fietshelmen-en-veiligheid...