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

481–490 of 561 posts

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#481

Post by alistairSH »

magduf wrote: post #464
alistairSH wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 remov…

I live in suburban DC too; this place is terrible for cycling. I pretty much only ride on the trails (usually W&OD, also Custis and Mt. Vernon) because they're safe.

Luckily, I'm far enough out (Reston) that I can hop on the W&OD to Leesburg and then bail onto slightly more rural roads. Reston itself is ok, despite the silliness with inconsistent bike lanes and sidewalks. Just have to avoid the major roads.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#482

Post by magduf »

ogre_codes wrote: post #427
magduf wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are not debating the same thing. Nobody is suggesting that riding without a helmet is as safe as riding without. The lack of helmet laws makes me safer on my bike regardless of whether I wear a helmet or not because it means fewer people are driving cars. Cars are far more likely to injure/ kill me than a solo crash, adding barriers to getting people to adopt bikes makes cycling more dangerous. The more people on…

I'm not advocating for mandatory helmet laws in that post, I'm just pointing out why you should wear a helmet on a bike, regardless of any laws. You, personally, will be safer with a helmet; it's a simple fact of physics. Sure, fewer cars means it's safer for cyclists, but you keep focusing on cars and ignoring other dangers with cycling: other cyclists, pedestrians, slippery/uneven roads, or just plain mistakes by the rider, all of which can result in a fall where your head contacts the ground.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#483

Post by magduf »

alistairSH wrote: post #481
magduf wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in suburban DC too; this place is terrible for cycling. I pretty much only ride on the trails (usually W&OD, also Custis and Mt. Vernon) because they're safe.

Luckily, I'm far enough out (Reston) that I can hop on the W&OD to Leesburg and then bail onto slightly more rural roads. Reston itself is ok, despite the silliness with inconsistent bike lanes and sidewalks. Just have to avoid the major roads.

Just watch out for armed robbers: https://www.insidenova.com/news/crime_police/bicycle-rider-r...

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#484

Post by cyborgx7 »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #477
cyborgx7 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does any of this justify the amount of people taking the car to work every day driving for upwards of 45min-1h to and back? Of course transport of goods and emergency situations need to be accounted for. Your pretending that any of what I said dismisses this is incredibly dishonest.

That should be solved. Cities have noone else to blame but themselves for poor public transportation (see California's train). It really is a waste to have people commuting like that, it's a city problem though, not a car problem. Yes, cars should be limited in your cities, and yes you need better public transportation, but that doesn't mean getting rid of cars everywhere. You need to structure around roads because y…

I'm not, you are.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#485

Post by cyborgx7 »

bluGill wrote: post #382
cyborgx7 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure that was you.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#486

Post by brnt »

ivanhoe wrote: post #351
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, it's still not like in States, but mega-markets are taking over in Europe too, at least in my corner. Cities are pedestrian friendly, but pedestrian-only zones are rare. If you can't get to the restaurant/shop by car and it's not really close to you, it's quite likely that you'll go somewhere else. People get the wrong idea because in summer when they visit it looks different, partially because of the nicer wea…

After in 1973 the first such hypermarket opened up in NL, laws were quickly enacted to prevent it from ever happening again. Precisely because it was feared cars would become necessities and city centres would be out-competed.

That single location remains to this day the only hypermarket in the Netherlands [1].

[1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weidewinkel

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#487

Post by tjr225 »

big_chungus wrote: post #428
tjr225 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a goofy argument. > What gasoline taxes are bikes paying to use the roads? Bikes can't pay taxes, neither can cars. People that own them can, and most cyclists I know also own a car. So if you're attempting to stipulate that people that ride bikes don't pay taxes on the infrastructure that they use, you're wrong- at least in my experience. In any case, bicycles cause far, far less damage - maybe even 0 d…

This is a goofy response. > bicycles cause far less damage... to the roads used by motorists This only holds true as long as bicycles are a small amount of traffic added on. It's like the SMS bands with telcos: a small bit of auxiliary slack being used for something else. If bicycles become a large part of the traffic, there will still be an impact. Even if the bikes don't tear the roads up much, elements and natural…

> The reason I don't like the whole bike thing is because it's emblematic of a culture and a vision I don't like: everyone living densely-packed into the stereotypical SF or Seattle city. This isn't often argued, but it's part of the larger "culture war." I know on which side most people on HN fall, but most people on the other side like their culture the way it is. Telling them to just import the dutch bike culture isn't a good solution, and will work just about as well as any other time people have told another group to just import their culture.

Ah, well, there it is. It's hard to argue in good faith with one who assumes that all things related to cycling are a part of a culture war being waged. I'm out.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#488

Post by justin66 »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #443
justin66 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Not a particularly active topic. Combining your two sources suggests that making helmets mandatory would have a large negative effect on public health. (the downtick in injuries would be overshadowed by the reduction in biking)

I only offered one source, and the research it quotes suggests no such thing, so your comment seems a bit odd. The closest it comes to saying what you suggest, is not very close at all:

But a spokesman for the SWOV acknowledged that the protective head wear might be a hard sell in the Netherlands. ‘Helmets aren’t often worn in the Netherlands and we are aware of the arguments [that cycling could decrease if they were obligatory],’ he said.

I'm not invested in what happens in the Netherlands at all, but I wonder if a lot of people are just taking "the downtick in injuries would be overshadowed by the reduction in biking" for granted.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#489

Post by brnt »

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…

IIRC, car ownership within the ring of Amsterdam is ~10%, because it is both expensive and unnecessary.

I will grant most people I know living in Amsterdam rarely get outdoors into the green, which is why I did own a car when living inside the ring.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#490

Post by triceratops »

big_chungus wrote: post #448
triceratops wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Road damage is proportional to the 4th power of the weight of the vehicle.[1] The average bike's weight is about 1/100 that of the average car (unscientific method of searching "weight of average bike" and "weight of average car"). So you'd need approximately 100 bikes to cause the same impact as 1 car! And 100 bikes can transport 25x more people than 1 car. > everyone living densely-packed into the stereotypical SF…

> Road damage is proportional to the 4th power of the weight of the vehicle Right, which is why I also wrote this: >> Even if the bikes don't tear the roads up much, elements and natural wear make up a fair part of that. Roads degrade on their own, and the people who use them should still pay for them. I also specified that this need not be dollar-for-dollar, but it is not costless. > I don't think you need that much…

> Roads degrade on their own, and the people who use them should still pay for them

How much do roads degrade on their own vs due to usage? In dry places like California or the southwest, I can't imagine it's a lot. In places with harsh winters or heavy rain it's probably more.

But if roads are designed to maximize bike throughput rather than car throughput, they'd probably be built differently too. They wouldn't need to be as wide or support speeds as high. This would reduce maintenance costs by a bit.

> many people work across town

If towns are denser "across town" isn't as far anymore. Not to mention if driving across town is no longer as fast, people will live closer to work. In any case, on an electric bike a distance of 10 miles is trivially bikeable in under an hour, which is also the length of an average car trip.[1] Implying half of all car trips could be done on an electric bike.

> comparable convenience

Cars are convenient when there aren't many other cars around. As the number of car drivers goes up, I don't really see convenience. Traffic, pollution, fatal accidents, needing to find parking.

> What is the objection to [EVs]?

They take up just as much space on the road and cause accidents at similar rates. Particles from tires and braking are still a health hazard. EVs are awesome and we should all move to them because they're lightyears beyond ICE vehicles but I don't think they should play the exact same role.

> I'd hazard a guess that producing the energy required to move people via nuclear electricity is more efficient than producing it via consuming food.

Maybe. But I'd hazard you have to produce less energy overall because a cyclist is moving 100 times less weight than a driver. Also there are second- and third-order effects of less energy spent on road maintenance (less wear and tear) or healthcare (everyone's getting more exercise). And the cyclist has to eat anyway - biking may add maybe 500 kcal/day to their diet at the high end.

> if you'd be open to biking in, say, Texas where summer temps are easily above 100 degrees and above 110 in some places

It depends. If I'm going to work and can change and/or shower at the office sure. If I'm riding an electric bike and have to go less than 10 miles, sure.

> I have trouble seeing how you could convince people to do this; most hesitate to step outside unless necessary in such weather. How would you mitigate this?

These are all fair points. Most people value convenience. Ultimately everyone needs to decide what they want. Endless traffic, noise, pollution, sprawl, risking death (car accidents are the number one killer of children in the US) seem like a pretty high price to pay for convenience to me.

1. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-728-may-21-2012-av...

Post reply on HN