Live data from Hacker News

Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

theconversation.com

301–310 of 764 posts

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#301
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great for the hour after the snowplow passes, but what about after that? Snow + ice on a bike is a pretty easy crash. Even a slow speed crash on a bike can break bones, unlike cars.

Snowplows don't remove all the snow usually because it would damage the road a lot, so you are left with packed snow which is fine to ride on. You can also use studs tires if you worry. I ride my bike in Sweden frequently even with a lot of snow without trouble. The only thing to worry about is when spring comes and the snow melts by day and freezes at night but on the main bicycle lanes the problem is solved by salt…

As a fellow swede I don't think your argument holds against the real argument they're not mentioning. People want to ride cars because they're lazy and they don't want to experience the elements, but since it's shameful to admit they'll come up with any other excuse to sit in their car, drink soft drinks, eat junk food and listen to the radio with perfectly controlled climate surrounding them.

I bought myself a Xiaomi scooter and wear a good jacket while listen to music through my Sony overears riding to work. I'll have to wait with the soft drink and junk food til I arrive though. I also wear a backpack to carry whatever.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spoken like someone who's never driven in a city. City streets are narrow and extremely uncomfortable to drive on as it is.

Then _don't drive in the city._ Why is this so hard to understand? Unless you're a delivery vehicle, driving in a city is just antisocial.

If you're just used to regular US cities, this is hard to grasp. Average US cities -- even bigger ones -- the public transport is slow, sparse, and unreliable; biking is uncomfortable and dangerous; and everything is so spread out that walking is mostly impractical.

When you're thinking in that context and imagine switching modes...it just sounds terrible. Because it is.

That doesn't mean the solution is everyone driving forever though: the solution is improving the infrastructure and land use to where other options ARE more viable. They should be good enough to where you don't have to convince anyone to use them; their usefulness should speak for themselves.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#303
post #150
post #35

Switching from gas to electric is something I can do all on my own. Switching from gas car to cycling is something that would require major investments from my city and developers. Both are noble goals, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. Switch to electric now, and also encourage new roads and new developments to be bike friendly, so that switching to a bike is something that will be viable in 20 or 30 y…

But it doesn't require major investments. It's really minor investments compared to other infrastructure projects. The issue is taking away even a tiny fraction of car space basically triggers some kind of political road rage.

>The issue is taking away even a tiny fraction of car space basically triggers some kind of political road rage.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. I live in what many outsiders consider a bike friendly city though in reality it's impractical and unsafe to bike most places. If you're willing to also walk/bus your bike, flout local law on bicycling in pedestrian areas, and bike on major thoroughfares without bike lanes between travel lanes and parked cars then I suppose you'll be happy. That is until you get door checked, run off the road, ticketed, or hit.

Redesigning just the main streets and their auxiliaries would require making tough choices like one way roads that you'll cause you to drive considerably further to your destination. Removing on street parking, when our city already has a parking deficit. Removing the verges where they exist to accommodate bike lanes. On the many streets without verges the options are one way traffic or no parking, mixed use lanes for truck traffic and bicycles is unsafe. I suppose the buildings on one side could be seized under eminent domain, but that just balloons the cost and time scale.

All this is too say that without widespread infrastructure, especially between cities, biking is facing an uphill climb to widespread adoption. People want to be safe on their commutes. They want their bikes and cars safe while they work and shop. Designing And building infrastructure for bikes in cities that have been maximally developed is an incredibly and wastefully expensive exercise in compromise that does little to meaningfully reduce vehicular traffic.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Try cycling through 3ft of snow or on ice... with snow-plows lumbering by. That sounds like bad infrastructure, which admittedly is the default almost everywhere.

Practically speaking, keeping 100% of the ice off of even well-used sidewalks 100% of the time all winter long isn't going to happen. All it takes is one patch of black ice and you can have a very serious bike crash. There's also a safety issue in that if you're in that kind of cold for long enough, it'll kill you, jacket or no jacket.

> Practically speaking, keeping 100% of the ice off of even well-used sidewalks 100% of the time all winter long isn't going to happen.

Again, it's a matter of infrastructure and priorities: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?t=260

> There's also a safety issue in that if you're in that kind of cold for long enough, it'll kill you, jacket or no jacket.

In any situation where being outside for the time a commute could take would kill you, roads wouldn't be safe to be driven on.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so before cars were widespread (~50 years ago) people just didn't go to work? I didn't own a car until I was 27 and when there's no other choice, you definitely can use a bike in all weathers. It sucks, but that's life. You appreciate the warmth more after weather so cold it makes your face sting. As for rural living, the article is talking about cities, so the idea is you travel to the edge of the city by car…

"Right, so before cars were widespread (~50 years ago) people just didn't go to work?" People lived a lot closer to their work then..,

Maybe people should live a lot closer to their work again

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#306
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The political cost within a democratic society is a reality and a real cost you have to contend with if you want to reshape how public roads are used. So, yes, the cost is high compared to switching cars.

The political cost is largely from losing lobbying $ from car companies (and possibly construction companies).

Maybe where you’re at. Where I’m at it’s mostly NIMBYs and small business owners.

Either way, the source is irrelevant to the fact that it is a real cost.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#307
Cycling is not only good for the environment, but for cities in general.

During the last confinement, when car traffic completely stopped, I realised that cars are the single biggest reason why living in the city can be unpleasant. People may not realise it consciously, but when they move out of the city, what they are looking for is a place with not as much cars driving around.

Cars destroy cities by making a vicious circle of making it unpleasant to live there, therefore enticing people to move to the suburbs and commute by car, which make the problem worse.

Setting up biking infrastructure fixes this, because it reduces the room for cars used by commuters, while creating room for bicycles used by people living in the city.

With less cars, you can make the city center where people work liveable. You can have offices mixed with housing and have people live close to their work place, further diminishing the need for cars.

If you think that your city can't possibly be a good place to cycle because weather / hills / etc, you are probably mistaken. Electric bikes and the appropriate clothes make biking pleasant in most places. IF there are not too many cars and infrastructure for the bicycle of course, which is probably the thing you don't have

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#308
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it doesn't require major investments. It's really minor investments compared to other infrastructure projects. The issue is taking away even a tiny fraction of car space basically triggers some kind of political road rage.

I don't know if you've ever driven in an American city, but those streets can barely fit a single lane of car traffic in some cases. Philadelphia in particular has streets so narrow that the line of parked cars along the side is enough to basically block the whole street. It's already incredibly uncomfortable to drive on those streets, so I don't get why you're so surprised that people would be angry about further in…

Most streets of that size Philadelphia do not require a bike lane. But say they tiny fraction they took of 11th which is massive...

https://www.inquirer.com/transportation/philadelphia-street-...

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#309

Well I wish cities would also make the infrastructure accessible to other muscle-powered vehicles, like skateboards, longboards, scooters, inline skates, etc. Personally I very strongly prefer longboards over bicycles for commuting (it's more fun, you can just grab and carry it, both of your hands are always free when riding, etc) however there's just so many things that are fine-ish for bikes or pedestrians, but rui…

Would you consider it to be more dangerous than riding a bike? I'm always amazed by how skaters are able to stop or "hit the breaks" where there are none.

> Would you consider it to be more dangerous than riding a bike?

Yes it is more dangerous, for the simple fact that falling on your back and slamming the back of your head on concrete is a very real and considerable danger, and its effects can be extremely severe. Skating helmets are shaped differently from bike helmets because of this one thing. It's not a common occurrence (I see people falling forward and injuring their knee or hip ~100x as often), but can be deadly.

For casual, daily commuting I wouldn't say it's more dangerous on average. I've had plenty of minor accidents while I was learning (I'd say first 12 months), mostly scraps and bruises, once a twisted ankle. If I compare it to how I was learning to cycle as a kid, it's a very similar experience ;)

The hardest part will come from learning to manage your front/back balance in addition to left/right. It's always safer to keep your weight forward, it will also keep you more stable at higher speeds.

Overall the longboarding community is extremely serious and conscious wrt safety, unlike some street skateboarders nobody will ever point a finger at you for casually wearing a helmet and/or pads, and if you'd ever try anything remotely related to freeride/downhill/sliding without adequate protection, you're likely to have your board taken away until you suit up. I believe natural selection had something to do with that.

> I'm always amazed by how skaters are able to stop or "hit the breaks" where there are none.

Where you see no brakes, I've counted 5 different methods to control your speed, all of them have their uses ;) In the order you'd learn/need them: bail, footbrake, carve, slide, airbrake, bail (again). Simply stepping off the board is most effective at sidewalk speeds, all you need is reflex and balance; you'd also learn to fall. At 20+kmh, footbraking (dragging your foot on the ground) becomes necessary as bails can hurt. Down a mild hill, carving (slaloming) will help you keep your speed down, without touching the ground (and grinding down your sole, foot burns are a thing lol).

At 30+, you almost certainly are going to need a helmet, it's also when sliding starts being effective (never EVER slide without a helmet). Airbraking is simply the opposite of tucking - instead of curling down to make your body shape more aerodynamic, you stand up and spread your arms, it can be the difference between going 30 or 60 down a hill. Lastly, if you need to crash safely at 40+, you learn how to ride out your speed on your gloves, pads, leather, etc.

Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amb-BpA4RRI

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're minor investments practically, and major investments politically. As you say, for many motorists, giving up space on even some roads to cyclists is treated like some sort of war crime. There's very much of attitude of, "we can't just have a majority of the road space -- we need nearly all of it!"

It can be a real winner politically, depending on the electoral boundaries. Roads have such limited throughput that a new bike lane might inconvenience only a few hundred people in cars, while opening up the city to thousands of people on bikes. Once politicians figure out that calculation, it can go very quickly.

Reducing lanes, when combined with other optimizations, can actually _improve_ travel time for cars. The problem is you have to actually implement the changes in order to prove this to people.
Post reply on HN