Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 764 posts

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

#481

Post by kevinqiu1 »

laingc wrote: post #477

I used to live in Europe, and a bicycle was my primary mode of transport. That was when I was a single man with no children. However, I can't see how I could possibly use a bicycle for really any transport at all today. Advocates of cycling, I would be genuinely interested in how you would logistically achieve a typical weekend day in my life, which might consist of: - Transporting myself, my wife, my daughter, my do…

You get one of these: https://www.wired.com/gallery/best-electric-cargo-bikes/

On the occasions you are moving something larger than can fit in the bike you can take a cab/rent a car or truck. If you are regularly transporting things larger than the cargo bike then perhaps you need a car but I guarantee you 99% of people are not moving 300L of sand every weekend.

Also adults and people older than 10 can ride their own bikes.

Wear a cape and some rain pants: https://cleverhood.com/

The Netherlands is also notoriously rainy and windy.

The point is you can replace 90% of your trips with a bike, not that you can never have motorized transport. 90% of car trips in America definitely do not need to be in a single occupancy vehicle/only need to be because we've put everything so damn far away from everything else to accommodate cars. The latter part of the second statement does not apply if you live in a pre mid 50s city

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

#482

Post by littlethrowaway »

laingc wrote: post #477

I used to live in Europe, and a bicycle was my primary mode of transport. That was when I was a single man with no children. However, I can't see how I could possibly use a bicycle for really any transport at all today. Advocates of cycling, I would be genuinely interested in how you would logistically achieve a typical weekend day in my life, which might consist of: - Transporting myself, my wife, my daughter, my do…

Great question, and I'm looking forward to hearing the answers. Off the top of my head if you _really_ wanted to do it, then, probably both you and your partner getting an electric cargo bike and some kind of trailer [1] would be the way to go.

That said, if you're having to buy 300L of bagged sand _every week_ then no, it doesn't seem like a particularly fun time and frankly I'd stick with a car.

[1]. https://www.bikesatwork.com/bike-trailers

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

#483

Post by fouc »

laingc wrote: post #477

I used to live in Europe, and a bicycle was my primary mode of transport. That was when I was a single man with no children. However, I can't see how I could possibly use a bicycle for really any transport at all today. Advocates of cycling, I would be genuinely interested in how you would logistically achieve a typical weekend day in my life, which might consist of: - Transporting myself, my wife, my daughter, my do…

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation, you could rent a car once or twice a week for the larger tasks.

There are different types of bicycles, and different types of carriers you can attach. For example there's a cargo bike [0]. In a bicycle focused city you'd perhaps be able to borrow/rent a bicycle for specific uses.

I guess the rain can be a bit of a nuisance, but from my understanding it becomes a non-issue once you've got the proper gear for it. Plus if you were bicycling to work for example, you could have a change of clothes there.

By the way mrmoneymoustache.com has some blog posts about his primarily-bicycle lifestyle in Boulder, Colorado if that's relevant to you.

[0] http://greenlivingideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/cargo...

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

#484

Post by digital-cygnet »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #436

Switching to electric cars from ICE cars is continuing to do the wrong thing and make the wrong choices, but doing this wrong thing a bit better. It's still the same status quo, woefully terrible and unsustainable transportation model. Automobile oriented transportation doesn't scale, is a huge waste of resources, and perpetuates unsustainable, ultra expensive and resource intensive sprawling urban development patter…

In my experience, most people really do not understand how fundamentally unsuited cars are to solving urban (or dense suburban) transportation problems. Without really staring at the underlying geometry, it is hard for laypeople to understand that automobile-centric development patterns are by-and-large incapable of producing the kind of human-scale, dense, walkable areas that are (1) instinctively pleasing to be in, (2) generators of economic value, and (3) much more environmentally sustainable than the alternative.

All this being said, I find it hard to fault 'environmentalist' politicians for their embrace of the electric car: politics is "the art of the possible", and the conventional wisdom, at least in the States, does not yet recognize automobile-centrism as a key problem. There are a lot of entrenched interests in favor of the status quo - not just the traditional car lobby (auto manufacturers, suburban developers, oil companies), but the ~half of Americans who live in suburbs, hence having their lifestyle and wealth reliant on cars remaining a dominant form of transportation. If the choice is between gas cars and electric cars (as, for a mainstream politician it basically seems to be), I am at least happy we are moving towards the latter, even though neither are the right answer.

Shameless plug: I recently attempted to visually explain the first issue (why geometry makes cars unsuited to dense transportation) on my nascent blog: https://digital-cygnet.medium.com/a-quick-visual-illustratio...

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

#485

Post by vkou »

Yes. The sustainable future of transportation is not the 5,000 lb electric car that drives one person around for 90 minutes a day, and stands idle for the other 1350.

The sustainable future of transportation is the electric bus, the electric trolley, the electric train, and the electric scooter. We need to be taking more steps towards it.

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

#486

Post by Dylan16807 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #342
occz wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be comfortable to drive around in a city. You are in a place with lots of people you can harm with your vehicle if you drive around fast, you should be driving slowly and paying close attention to your surroundings. Proper bicycle infrastructure (separated bike lanes etc.) and quality public transportation is the solution - the comfortable option should generally be to take a train/metro/bus/tram/boat.

If uncomfortable drivers were good drivers tanks and fork lifts wouldn't have seat cushions. Unless cars are different than every piece of heavy equipment and industrial machinery ever (which have been studied into oblivion because there's money at stake) comfortable drivers are safe/effective/better drivers because it reduces cognitive load allowing operators to be more attentive to second order things (mirrors, wha…

> If uncomfortable drivers were good drivers tanks and fork lifts wouldn't have seat cushions.

Wrong kind of discomfort. You want drivers to be wary and keep them thinking about navigation enough that they don't zone out.

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

#487

Post by sergeykish »

moistbar wrote: post #410
rtlfe wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say the same thing about winter in the Northeast. Then when they see how convenient and freeing it is to ride a bike, they quickly learn to deal with the weather.

If you're claiming that people will still ride their bikes to work when it's 20 F outside, you're incorrect.

Just imagine some people traveling to mountains, attaching boards to legs and having fun.

And they pay for it quite a lot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU # Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can)

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

#488

Post by wj »

dfgdghdf wrote: post #461
titzer wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1. Paint bike lanes. Step 2. Fine bastards who violate them.

Painted bike lanes do not feel safe enough to most potential cyclists so they don't lead to much modal shift.

What if they added posts? Either metal driven down into the road that a car would not go through or plastic ones that would deter a driver from running into them? I think that would provide more of a sense of physical separation.

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

#489

Post by digital-cygnet »

nine_k wrote: post #471
Tiktaalik wrote: post #436

Switching to electric cars from ICE cars is continuing to do the wrong thing and make the wrong choices, but doing this wrong thing a bit better. It's still the same status quo, woefully terrible and unsustainable transportation model. Automobile oriented transportation doesn't scale, is a huge waste of resources, and perpetuates unsustainable, ultra expensive and resource intensive sprawling urban development patter…

Taxis, small delivery vehicles, utility cars, cars and trucks for countryside use, and various trucks for city and highway use can all be electric, with all the benefits of EVs. If you want public transit be more popular, build denser cities. E.g. on Manhattan using the subway is a no-brainer, and you are rarely more than two (long) blocks from a subway station. In some more remote parts of Brooklyn, you often cannot…

There's a chicken-egg problem at play, though. We can't build denser cities because we need to build 4-lane roads and parking; we can't get rid of these roads and parking because people need cars because the city isn't dense enough yet. It's certainly solvable on the many-decade timescale by smart, consistent city and state governments, but it's going to be a gradual slog of incrementalism (e.g., see all the changes NYC has made to shift from car centrism since the 90s - gradually adding bike lanes, closing Times Square to traffic, closing 14th street to private cars, congestion pricing for taxis,...)

The distance problem with cycling is solvable (though it pains me a bit to say this as a recreational cyclist) by electric bikes and other micromobility solutions (e.g. Citroen Ami). The streets of NYC are chock full of delivery drivers and others zipping along at 25mph on cheap, quiet electric bikes with ranges of many dozens of miles. Once we have a better regulatory regime for these (so people aren't blowing so many lights and hitting so many pedestrians), I could see them being a viable alternative to cars for many-mile use cases, at least during dry/temperate weather.

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

#490

Post by uoaei »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #451
uoaei wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the wrong framing. The correct framing is, each lawful user of a roadway has equal rights to occupying space on that roadway. As a frequent city cyclist, I take the lane early and often as is my lawful right, signalling unequivocally my intention and impending action to merge into the traffic lane. Most often I use this right when avoiding someone double-parked in the bike lane, or when turning left a…

And how well will that work for 8 year olds and 80 year olds?

Cycling on roadways with motor traffic is not for everyone...
Post reply on HN