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

411–420 of 561 posts

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#411

Post by magduf »

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://…

Cars are not the only reason to wear helmets. Simply falls are enough of a reason: you're not a pedestrian when you're on a bike, and you're susceptible to injuries that pedestrians simply are not, even if the bike is not moving. Standing/sitting on a mechanical contraption simply is not normal for the human body, and it's very easy to get your leg trapped in a way that you break it, or your ankle, or hit your head on a curb or the pavement. Don't forget, the roads that we cycle on are also not natural in any way, and our bodies were not evolved for them. Concrete and asphalt are hard, not like dirt, and hitting your head on it can cause severe injury or death, again even if the bike is not moving. Do people fall over on bikes? Not that often, but probably a lot more often than pedestrians do, and because of the bike getting in the way, you're more likely to hit your head on something.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#412

Post by DoreenMichele »

richthegeek wrote: post #399
DoreenMichele wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually appreciate you pointing this out. I get rather tired of smug assertions that America can just do everything like it's done in Europe or something when the landscape and population density are so very different. But I don't think that means we can't borrow any lessons at all from them. The biggest lesson we can borrow from the Dutch seems to be that they set out to intentionally make their cities more pedes…

From the reverse argument: it's really very tiring that the ultimate defense from any American on any topic ultimately boils down to American Exceptionalism. Yes you have a wide variety of population densities and climates. So does Europe. So does everywhere else in the world. It's the most boring and lazy argument to make, and it never actually answers anything. Exactly what is so different about LA compared to Pari…

What's far more tiresome to me is someone picking a completely pointless fight with some detail of some comment as if the rest of the comment did not exist.

I've lived without a car in the US for over a decade. I no longer have a driver's license. I would like to see America become more pedestrian friendly and bicycle friendly.

I don't think you accomplish that by arguing that "Well, you just do everything exactly like the Dutch!" I think that's a lazy, unhelpful and disrespectful answer that actively ignores real and meaningful differences between the literal and figurative landscapes of the two countries.

It's not good communication to say "Just do everything exactly like the Dutch." If you want real solutions in the US, you need to think in a more nuanced way about what pieces of the Dutch experience you can reasonably use in the US, taking into account real differences between the two places.

Ignoring the differences between Europe and America very often comes across as open contempt for Americans and their presumed stupidity and laziness. It's not an effective means to promote actionable ideas.

No one is likely to take advice that they are just wrong and stupid and lazy and should wholesale copy a system that works well elsewhere without bothering to examine differences between the two places and trying to make some alterations that will hopefully result in a better fit.

Based on the comment I replied to, I feel like San Diego, California could try to borrow ideas from the Netherlands without a lot of critique beforehand. But LA has vastly different weather from Paris and a very different landscape and history of development. So, no, you aren't realistically going to replicate Paris in LA.

I will also note that they have been rioting in Paris. Paris is not some perfect paradise that has figured everything out and never has any problems.

Claims of European superiority are frequently overblown.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#413

Post by magduf »

JibJabDab wrote: post #387
willis936 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pos…

>20 mph is far, far faster than "casual biking". Most people can't maintain 20mph much less 12mph.

Maybe if your country is flat as a pancake. If there's hills, then yes, people really can hit 20mph, even with casual bikes.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#414

Post by dsfyu404ed »

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…

In almost every other context in which risk of physical harm comes up the overwhelmingly dominant opinion is that forgoing any means of reducing that risk is a non-starter more or less regardless of cost. Anyone suggesting that risk and cost/benefit need to be assessed is received about as well as someone proclaiming god doesn't exist in the middle of a church circa 1500.

As a safety heretic I fully agree with you that people can make their own decisions on helmet use but why should cycling get special treatment here? On every other issue of physical safety the HN gods have ruled the other way.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#415

Post by gbrown »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #327
gbrown wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No argument there, I just think it's also worthwhile from a quality of life + tourism $ perspective.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#416

Post by big_chungus »

jnty wrote: post #249
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…

Why would you drive into the medieval centre of a city to do a large supermarket shop if you can drive to an out-of-town one already? Studies show that - particularly in Europe - most people are already walking to these shops everywhere. The 'weekly shop' is not really a thing that inner-city dwellers tend to do that often - they either rely on deliveries (cheap and efficient due to density) or smaller shops througho…

I thought the point was to allow people to drive less? Driving to a suburb and back to get to your local mega mart doesn't seem to fit that goal; rather, it seems to push it off to somewhere else.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#417

Post by criddell »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #377
eMSF wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why you shouldn't be making the decisions.

How silly of me. We should definitely organize MORE of our society around the needs of car owners. /s

We should organize society however we the people want. That means a bottom-up rather than top-down approach that will vary greatly depending on local demographics, climate, etc... All of us think we know what is needed, but the reality is different ideas need to be floated and we vote for the solution we want to see for our area.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#418

Post by francisofascii »

dcolkitt wrote: post #15
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…

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…

It is a valid point, but I think "most" traffic I see have one single occupant. Perhaps we could find a way to enforce HOV like rules to certain roads and parking spaces. And also include those with handicap stickers. If we eliminated single occupant cars and were left with mothers driving with young kids we would have a huge safety and congestion improvement.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#419

Post by aidenn0 »

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…

I live in a very mild clime, but still don't bike when it's rainy. What do you suggest gear-wise for bicycling in say 5-10C but wet? I have a 30 minute bicycle commute that I'd like to do more often. A typical waist-length jacket leaves most of my body wet, but a longer jacket is awkward to bike in. If it's over 10C, I can just wear shorts that don't absorb water, but under 10, it gets quite uncomfortable.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#420

Post by justin66 »

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…

> 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.

That's an easy thing to assert and a difficult thing to prove. I just assume the rules are the way they are because the Netherlands is a democracy and they want things that way, not because they're especially great at risk assessment (what population of people really is?).

I gather this is still a rather active topic of discussion and research in the Netherlands?

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/03/top-hat-bike-helmets-w...

Post reply on HN