Live data from Hacker News

After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

nytimes.com

231–240 of 317 posts

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not ridiculous to say the urbanest area should try to set an example for other urban areas

Why muct we accomodate the needs of bikers? Why do they hold a special place? Can we instead invest in subway?

Why must we accomodate the needs of drivers? Why do they hold a special place? Can we instead invest in bike infrastructure?

So, here's my personal opinion. For the record, i live in a bike-friendly mid-sized central-european city, do own a car, walk a lot (if the bike is not an option) and use public transport - but whenever possible, i use my bike. For me it's the superior mode of transportation. It's the cheapest option after walking, healthy, fun, efficient and for 90% of my day-to-day transportation needs it's also the fastest option. The overhead of finding a parking spot (twice) is mostly nil and there are pretty much no bike traffic jams. I shop every day and carry the groceries in my backpack (upside: fresh produce every day, don't need as much storage space). Car usage is mostly limited to longer distances (i.e. visiting relatives) and transporting unwieldly stuff - i wouldn't even own one if i hadn't gotten this one for free. The same applies to pretty much all of my friends. If the infrastructure is there, they all prefer riding a bike.

That said, as a young adult (early twenties), my car was part of my male identity. All of my friends believed they were good drivers and could be promising race drivers if they wanted. That's all gone now; my car is not a status symbol anymore, but a utility. And i don't respect someone just because they drive a fast car, that usually just means they were willing to invest a bigger share of their income in that particular hobby. My previous car had 60hp and that was plenty enough for my needs. Cars never made me really happy; they meant long commutes, road rage due to other bad drivers and congestion and terrifyingly dangerous situations aplenty, even though i'm a careful driver.

So, back to the discussion. In my opinion, the biggest problems for cyclists are:

1. Infrastructure: It's not that we're unjustly taking away from the drivers to give to the cyclists - cyclists have been neglected for decades and what happens now is just that they get a little bit of what should have been theirs from the beginning. Cars take a bigger share than they deserve. There was a time where cars weren't welcome in the cities too, i took a huge marketing campaign and lobbyists to change that.

2. Infrastructure: bike lanes mostly suck, because they're crammed into existing spaces that were planned for cars and pedestrians; spaces where they just don't really fit. They're often too narrow, of disastrous quality (ever wonder why road bike cyclists without shock absorbers prefer the road even if there are bike lanes present? That's even legal around here!) and sometimes feature unnecessary stops that could have been avoided if the street had been planned with cyclists from the start.

3. Drivers: some drivers hate cyclists for no apparent reason. Luckily, this is not a huge problem here as almost everyone spends time on a bike, but the stories i have to read on reddit ... some cyclists are probably victims of carelessly attempted manslaughter (i.e. drivers throwing full cans at cyclists).

4. Storage: bike theft is a rampant problem almost anywhere (for several reasons, afaik there's no easy solution). You really shouldn't leave your bike outside overnight if it's worth anything (disregarding rust as this is a problem for cars too). But secure bike storage options are pretty rare if you don't happen to have the option of storing it in your flat.

You should try riding a bike. It's fun, it's healthy and you'll mature as automobile driver as you'll learn to get more perceptive. Don't get angry if you have to stay behind a cyclists for a couple of seconds until it's safe to overtake - you're actually losing only an neglectible amount of time. If you live in a city, try a bike commute; depending on the distance you might be faster than by car. In my case, due to traffic jams and searching for parking it'd probably have taken me three times as long to commute by car. My previous city has one of the best public transport systems in the world and still i was faster by bike).

And you should support biking, even if you drive a car: more people on bikes means less traffic, less congestion. Parking spots will probably be reduced, but there won't be as many car owners, so there's that - and you can easily fit 10 bikes on a single car parking spot. Less pollution, less noise, healthier people are probably reducing costs on public health care, but i don't know how true that'd be for the U.S. with a privatized system. Old people on e-bikes means fewer old people driving their cars at half the allowed speed.

Really

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#232
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe there are separate traffic lights for bicycles that turn green a few second earlier than the car traffic lights. This adds a lot of safety since the bikes have time to get past the first car in line. I think a lot of accidents where the car turns right and overlooks a bike in the blind spot can be prevented through this measure.

> I think a lot of accidents where the car turns right and overlooks a bike in the blind spot can be prevented through [the separate bike signal] measure. This can also be prevented by not trying to pass right turning vehicles on the right and only pass them on their left.

So, you’re on your bike, in dense traffic. Even if all of them are already indicating direction, how do you know whether you’ll be next to a car wanting to turn right by the time you reach the junction? How do you even get from the right of a row of cars to the left of it in slow moving (⇒ short distances between cars) traffic? How do you get back to the right of the cars after making a turn?

But even if that’s doable, it doesn’t apply here, where NY wants to build segregated bike lanes. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/tag/junction-design/ has plenty inspiration on how to design junctions for those, in particular https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/state-of-the-a...

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not ridiculous to say the urbanest area should try to set an example for other urban areas

Why muct we accomodate the needs of bikers? Why do they hold a special place? Can we instead invest in subway?

They're literally dying and you think the solution should be "don't bike"?

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyclists do kill pedestrians in NYC. E.g.: https://gothamist.com/news/cyclist-who-killed-woman-in-centr... Not saying it's a high probability, especially as compared to motor vehicles, but to state the opposite -- cyclists don't have a history of endangering the lives of others -- is also false. They can and do kill pedestrians.

The person you are replying to didn't say it's impossible for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian, just that it doesn't happen very often. They cited a statistic, you found an anecdote to counter. The disconnect seems to be around the word history. You're taking it to mean "something that's ever occurred", where as the person above is taken it to mean "something that is a common occurrence".

No.

Again, his exact statement was: "Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of 'endangering the lives of others.'"

He's stating unequivocally that cyclists do not have -- and have never had -- a history of endangering the lives of others.

They kill people. I certainly call that endangering the lives of others.

They don't kill a lot of people. Neither do sharks -- in the US they only kill about 1 person a year. That doesn't mean sharks are not dangerous or don't have a history of endangering people.

If you or he want to make a statement about the low probability of such an event -- fine. Or compare cyclists to far more dangerous motor vehicles, also fine. But to say that cyclists don't and have never endangered pedestrians is not factually accurate.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#235
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not unlike New York City. But, how about Finland? They also ride bikes a lot more than most US cities, and Finland definitely has harsh winters. Edit: As for summers, I've regularly biked in Texas throughout the summer over many years (I've lived without a car quite a bit in Austin). The peak of the day is rough, but the usual commuting hours aren't too bad. New York has nothing on Texas summers.

I know AMS and NYC well, Finland - do people bike all winter? The snow is one thing, the icy roads and cold make it tough.

so i heard from friends, that the snow might actually a problem if you're outside a city; in some instances you'd be hard pressed to make it with a fat bike.

apart from that i guess you just have to ride carefully, but you the same applies to driving a car on icy roads.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#236

This is big time for America. If our biggest city can’t show leadership on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, we can’t expect any other city to as well. New York is really lagging behind where it should be. Despite being by far the biggest American city, it is overrun with cars. Protected bike lanes, street improvements to make crossing the street safer, and dedicated bus lanes will improve the city for all New Yorkers…

How popular is biking in New York - eg, do people bike in the winter?

CitiBike data (if it could be used as a proxy) shows about half the number of daily rides in Jan as in the summer. That’s still > 40k rides a day.

https://www.citibikenyc.com/system-data

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#237
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t do anything when cars decide to park in your bike lane anyways, and your bike lane has maybe a foot clearance to traffic in the other side. It’s also an interesting attitude, that cars are so much more important than bikes that it’s not car drivers who should check the road when opening their door, but bikers who should lose the 6 feet of street space near parked cars which is the only semi-safe place fo…

> This doesn’t do anything when cars decide to park in your bike lane anyways When there's a stopped vehicle in the lane you're in, you can simply check for traffic in the next lane and switch lanes. > your bike lane has maybe a foot clearance to traffic in the other side. You're not restricted to the bike lane if there's an obstruction. > that cars are so much more important than bikes that it’s not car drivers who…

> When there's a stopped vehicle in the lane you're in, you can simply check for traffic in the next lane and switch lanes.

> You're not restricted to the bike lane if there's an obstruction.

These comments proves my whole second point. If a car were to just park in the car lane because it felt like it, there would be outrage, tickets, and the car would get towed immediately. Nobody would say "no big deal, just change lanes". But when a biker says "I don't like using the street because it's dangerous", it's just dismissed like this.

You also ignore that bikers DO just change lanes into the street, which can be quite dangerous somewhere like New York. I don't know if you've ever ridden a bike in New York, but drivers, especially taxis, are at best ignorant of you and often antagonistic. There's a reason bike lanes exist in the first place, and it's because the car lanes are dangerous.

> It's far easier to take responsibility for your own safety than to rely on others to do it for you

Imagine somebody saying this when a car driver complains about somebody else running a red light, or cutting them off in a lane - you would get laughed out of the room. But when drivers act dangerously towards a biker it's the biker who should be taking responsibility.

When bikers do all the terrible biker things like roll through stop signs, or "act like pedestrians", or roll to the front of the line, that IS taking our own safety into our hands by doing legally dubious things that make biking much safer, yet everybody hates that as well.

> There's a reason why drivers of motor vehicles don't typically drive in the door zone.

Have you ever been in New York? Plenty of car lanes themselves are near the door zone, not to mention bike lanes themselves ARE the door zone usually.

I don't mean to be aggressive, but the endless victim blaming towards bicyclists gets really tiresome. I really wish that people who just dismiss these complaints out of hand would bike to work in NYC for just a week.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protected bike lanes implies a curb between the road and the lane. While a delivery truck could jump the curb, technically, it "curbs" a lot of that behavior.

In Chicago it's largely been implemented by placing the bike lane in between on-street parking and the sidewalk, with soft posts and paint separating the parking lane from the bike lane. I've watched people put an impressive amount of effort into delicately navigating between those posts so that they can parallel park their car next to the curb. i.e., in the bike lane.

So more signage and education is needed?

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you are replying to didn't say it's impossible for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian, just that it doesn't happen very often. They cited a statistic, you found an anecdote to counter. The disconnect seems to be around the word history. You're taking it to mean "something that's ever occurred", where as the person above is taken it to mean "something that is a common occurrence".

No. Again, his exact statement was: "Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of 'endangering the lives of others.'" He's stating unequivocally that cyclists do not have -- and have never had -- a history of endangering the lives of others. They kill people. I certainly call that endangering the lives of others. They don't kill a lot of people. Neither do sharks -- in the US t…

"A history". As I said, you are interpreting that word differently than they are. I think it's valid to interpret "a history" to mean "something that happens with some amount of frequency". I also suppose it's valid to interpret "a history" as "something that's every happened".

At the end, you write "don't and have never never endangered", which is something only you are saying.

Post reply on HN