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

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#401

Post by willis936 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

baumy wrote: post #396

willis936 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The benefits of lower barrier to entry aren’t worth the increased, unnecessary risks. Every study I've ever seen contradicts your statement here. You are all over this thread making strong, sweeping claims about bike safety and your only supporting data point seems to be "KE = 1/2mv^2". But there are entire cities in Europe where biking with no helmet is the norm, lots of people do it every day, and serious acciden…

Firstly, I am not making sweeping claims. I am making a very narrow, specific common sense claim. I have not seen a single paper that refutes the safety benefits of a rider wearing a helmet. Helmets reduce brain injuries. Does this need a citation?

Secondly, there are a lot more than two factors at play to make the "cyclists killed per billion of km of bicycle travel" number. Culturally bikes need to be accepted. I don't see how helmets preclude cultural adoption.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#402

Post by brnt » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

Freak_NL wrote: post #391

brnt wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Thankfully, using a smartphone while riding a bicycle is now illegal in the Netherlands (since this summer), but it will take a long time for people to stop regarding using their smartphone whatever they are doing as normal.

Is it illegal on a national level? I see people do it here in Amsterdam still on a daily basis.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#403

Post by efa » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

glangdale wrote: post #91

glangdale wrote: post #46

I'm curious as to what planet you'd have to be living on to think that if we have billions of dollars to spare on huge transport infrastructure projects that aren't cars, that it should go to bikes and not public transport + walkability. I'm guessing it's a special magic planet with startlingly good weather year-round, without disabled people, where everyone gets to age into spry Euro-oldsters. Not wanting to kick of…

I appear to have kicked off a frenzy of folks eurosplaining to me that they personally ride in deep snow, howling gales, and see no reason that people in hot climates (including hot humid climates with near 100% humidity, or extreme heat events) can't cycle everywhere at all times. Also they will all be happily cycling when they are 80 just like Grandpa Josef and Great-grandma Helga, etc. Congrats, but the statistics…

Yep. There is a small demographic that would even attempt to cycle. And hell no, I'm not riding my bike 20 miles when it's 98 degrees in south Texas. I can't think of anyone I know who'd do that. My typical day: drop my kid off at school (he goes early so can't take the bus), drive to work, pick up groceries on the way home, and then take a bunch of kids to soccer practice. No way a bike works for any of that. I love bikes (and no cars) for downtown areas. But if you live in the suburbs they are just for exercise/hobby for most people.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#404

Post by brnt » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #375

brnt wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, acceleration may be non-linear (bikes accelerate 0-10 faster than anything else, which is why sometimes in NL bikes may wait in front of cars before stoplights[1]). Top-speed and weight are also important factors in whether or not it would be smart to mix. However, this results in a matrix of separated lanes that is impractical ;) Finding a good compromise (such as [1]) I think is a better idea. Lowering car sp…

> bikes accelerate 0-10 faster than anything else As a cyclist, I don't believe this claim for a second. When a car starts moving at the same time as me, it's faster than me from the start. Which makes sense, it has more horse power per unit mass. Often I do start moving first, because I think I'm less likely to get right hooked if I do so. But that's a result of paying attention and having my for on the "accelerator…

Well, it is certainly my personal experience, and the infra design I linked seems to take advantage of it. But, perhaps I am spoiled by more careful car traffic, because it's quite rare that cars would speed into an intersection because they're by default liable in accidents with cyclists, who may enter the intersection with various accelerations. Also, a bike mechanic once blamed my chain wearing out too fast on me accelerating like a crazy motorist.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#405

Post by freddie_mercury » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

anyzen wrote: post #181

sunstone wrote: post #174

While it sounds preposterous right now this problem will soon solve itself with already built "bike lanes". And bicycles are not the solution. The solution, as this article touches on, is light weight electric transport using the existing road structure. There's a strong indication of this future in the fact that last year the Dutch bought more electric bikes than normal bikes in total. And they paid twice as much fo…

Even electric bikes are not the solution, at least not in many parts of the world. What happens when it rains / snows? I don't know what the solution is though, maybe small electric cars, self driven, as part of public transportation service?

> Even electric bikes are not the solution, at least not in many parts of the world. What happens when it rains / snows?

What happens when it rains?

As someone who lives in the developing world, I'm always a bit taken aback when people seem to be so unaware of the lived experience of the billions of people outside of America & Europe. This isn't some hypothetical scenario that we don't know how it plays out. It is the lived experience of hundreds of millions of people who get by just fine.

I live in a city in Southeast Asia where every day over 6 million people commute on two wheeled vehicles. We have monsoons, so 6 months of the year are the rainy season.

What happens when it rains? We don't need to make theories. We just look at the real world in places where people can't afford cars and have to deal with rain. They get by just fine.

Go to almost anywhere in Asia, from India to Taiwan and everywhere in between, and you'll find hundreds of millions of people that get to work, school, hospital, and everywhere else they need to be on two wheels despite torrential rain and sweltering heat.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#406

Post by bluGill » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:53 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #381

bluGill wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Be careful, reality gets in the way.

Right now transit construction costs are out of control in the US. (Road is only slightly better). Spain is able to build subways for about 1/5th the cost of New York city. Nobody knows why - we can find people doing nothing, high wages, and more harder rock, but all these together are just a fraction of the cost difference. Until this problem is solved we are better off building roads because we can afford them.

Thus if you want to advocate for build more, you should first advocate for figuring out how to build cheaper. (whatever this means - though if you sacrifice safety I'll oppose you)

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#407

Post by maxsilver » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #68

inertiatic wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My car gets parked across the street from my apartment building. Doesn't get stolen and doesn't care about rain. My bike spent a single winter out on my balcony after we needed the space inside the apartment for baby stuff. It's now rusty in multiple spots. My previous bike, I left on the small back yard of my last apartment, locked up. It got stolen a few months after I started doing that. So again, this is not feas…

> My car gets parked across the street from my apartment building. Offtopic, but this has to end. I do not understand how it is socially acceptable to put huge pieces of your private property on the public streets. You cannot just put your washing machine on the street because you have nowhere else to put it! Why can you do that with a car?

> You cannot just put your washing machine on the street because you have nowhere else to put it!

You actually can in the US, that's legal in many places as long as it isn't kept there permanently. (I.e, you leave it on a trailer). We even put our trash bins onto the street almost every week. But that's beside the point.

> how it is socially acceptable to put huge pieces of your private property on the public streets.

Because that's what public transporation is, and the value it imparts.

We dedicated public streets to the public, because the value of public transportation is much higher than the small temporary cost of having any one person occupy it. Cars and roads are the most efficient form of public transportation ever invented so far (in terms of travel time, distance traveled, safety, and equability). That's not to imply they are perfect on any/all of these things, just better than the alternatives available today.

Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would have a beautiful light rail train at their front door, that takes them everywhere and anywhere they ever need to go. But that level of infrastructure is insanely expensive, and the cost of that expense is pushed into the housing nearby that infrastructure. Paradoxically, the act of building alternative public transportation like this prices out most of the public you tried to transport, because the value of that infrastructure gets captured in rent, which gets passed onto residents.

If you look at light rail, and say, "how can we get most of the benefits of light rail, but in a package cheap enough that most people could afford" or "what would a light rail train look like, if it could arrive at everyone's door, take them directly where they need to go, have the lowest construction cost to every possible location so as to have the lowest impact on land value and have the lowest possible detriment to housing prices" -- if you follow that line of thinking, you reinvent zero-emission EV cars and public freeways, which is why they are everywhere in the first place.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#408

Post by chrisco255 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

bkor wrote: post #235

chrisco255 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States is over 200 times larger than the Netherlands in area. Suggesting that the U.S. follow the Dutch model for transportation is completely missing the mark. It's not workable at U.S. scale. Many workers live 10, 20, even 30 miles from their jobs.

I'm not understanding why you'd not design infrastructure better? So not entirely made for one means (e.g. car). It'll always be a combination. Some parts will be able to be like the Netherlands. You're saying the US is huge, but still you want one solution for all?!? Further, it's pretty common in Netherlands to live in one big city and work in another. The Netherlands is small, so it'll usually be 10-20 miles away.

I've already said dense urban cores should have bike lanes. But let's not pretend bike travel is a practical solution for most Americans. Just look at an aerial satellite photo of Houston, TX, for example and you tell me how that's going to work out.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#409

Post by brnt » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

Freak_NL wrote: post #390

stronglikedan wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 suc…

That source even shows numbers that helmets increase the risk of injury, which I've seen presumed to be due to the perception of safety and less careful driving by other road users.

The source summarizes helmets as 'safety theater' based on what seems to be pretty well researched data.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#410

Post by sundvor » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

stinos wrote: post #277

sundvor wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confusing ebikes with motorbikes. Ebikes are restricted to 25km/h, at least in my region. You sometimes see them going faster so you know they've been modded or aren't compliant. A lot of ebike riders are going faster than their skills would suggest, i.e. no time to build up experience of safe riding. I accelerate faster than many ebikes, on my CX bike (which is vastly better than your typical Amsterda…

You sometimes see them going faster so you know they've been modded or aren't compliant. Well, except when going downhill. Or just because the cyclist puts some effort into it and rides faster, which isn't impossible at all on flats.

I want talking down hill... More the 30-35 kmh nonchalantly with zero effort kind.

The extra weight of the ebike system becomes a significant factor when trying to push past the cut off point manually. Speaking from experience with a Bionic system.