Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by geoduck14 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:05 AM UTC

fvdessen wrote: post #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 viciou…

I've seen various threads promoting bicycles - and my life style is SO different that I can't conceive of using bikes and getting rid of my cars.

I drive 6 miles to church. My kids are in the minivan and can't ride bikes yet. We also have stuff with us: diapers, water cups, snacks.

My work (before WFH), is about 7 miles away. I could bike - but I take kids to day care, and they can't bike. Also, I can't wear "athletic" clothes to work, and I would still want to shower.

My wife goes shopping at garage sales where she frequently drives 25 miles. She often gets large items (ceiling fan, book shelf, art). She can't do this with a bike.

Grocery shopping could be bikeable. Get a wagon behind the bike, only shop when a spouse can watch the kids.

Spending time with friends isn't bike friendly. A 5 mile bike ride, with kids in toe, and all of their stuff won't happen.

Me, at the bar, could be on a bike.

As I look at the list, my kids REALLY stop me from switching to a bike. In addition, I still need a car occasionally (trips, fun restaurants, etc) - so I still NEED a car, I just might not use it as often.

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

#522

Post by kmonsen » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:05 AM UTC

Step 1: Remote work from home removes ~90% of car traveling without any need for a bike?

I want to have a car for when I need it (take dog to vet, kids etc), but want to not use it for daily commute.

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

#523

Post by browningstreet » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:10 AM UTC

geoduck14 wrote: post #521

fvdessen wrote: post #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 viciou…

I've seen various threads promoting bicycles - and my life style is SO different that I can't conceive of using bikes and getting rid of my cars. I drive 6 miles to church. My kids are in the minivan and can't ride bikes yet. We also have stuff with us: diapers, water cups, snacks. My work (before WFH), is about 7 miles away. I could bike - but I take kids to day care, and they can't bike. Also, I can't wear "athleti…

I lived in the Dutch suburbs and everything you say can’t be done on a bike were pretty normal there.

I think people think bikes don’t work because they’re thinking about the problem, as opposed to trying through the problem.

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

#524

Post by xputer » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:11 AM UTC

digital-cygnet wrote: post #499

fvdessen wrote: post #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 viciou…

This is something I've been musing over recently as well: cars really are responsible for much of what is unpleasant about city life. When people gripe about cities, their complaints are often around: * Noise. From where I sit, the only noises that filter into my apartment from the city are occasional laughs or shouted conversations from bargoers, loud trucks grinding gears on the avenues, or honking of desperate com…

Regarding crime. A huge factor in that is "eyes on the street." Car friendly streets massively reduce the eyes on the street for two reasons:

1. Cars travel fast and they obstruct the occupants' view in all kinds of directions. So the cars themselves don't really count as eyes on the street in the same way a pedestrian would.

2. Streets designed for cars are less pleasant to be in as a pedestrian or cyclist, so fewer people will be out on the street. You only walk on those streets if you absolutely have to be there.

Look at some YouTube videos of "open streets" in New York during covid.

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

#525

Post by glangdale » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:11 AM UTC

Public transport would like a word. The fact that public transport, which is probably way more important than either bikes or electric cars is not even mentioned in the article is wild.

Obviously it doesn't have to be either/or, but I think the largest change would be widely accessible public transit (which is also a multiplier for the effectiveness of cycling, if well-designed - you can move your bike on the train or the bus, and it takes cars off the road). And I'm happier for other people to cycle; this eases pressure on the roads, reduces pollution and noise and accidents, etc. Yay cyclists!

I also have already thoroughly (if unconvincingly) been Eurosplained at over "how age, disability, weather, kids, cargo, population density, topography, etc. etc. are all non-issues for cycling" and "how it's the one size fits all solution for everything" in terms of accessibility so would be happy to avoid rehashing all that.

[ although if you have some anecdotes about 80-year old Swedes riding their cargo bikes uphill both ways every day through winter and summer that you absolutely must share, go for it ]

Despite all this, I still somehow feel that emphasizing cycling more than a combination of transit+walking is hopelessly ableist and not really very practical for a lot of the urban layouts we actually have, particularly in the west. Amsterdam's population density, for example, is 10x higher than Sydney's, and it's way flatter.

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

#526

Post by TheTrotters » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:13 AM UTC

nightski wrote: post #512

digital-cygnet wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

How many people want to live in dense cities without any means of escape? It sounds miserable to me. But I live in a really small city (< 250k) and drive maybe 3-5k miles a year (mostly to our cabin in a neighboring state) and bike a LOT. It's kind of ironic I am pretty far from your utopian dense dream yet largely living it.

What do you mean “no means of escape?”

There are trains, buses, taxis, bikes, rental cars etc.

To me owning a car seems much more miserable!

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

#527

Post by xputer » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:14 AM UTC

an_opabinia wrote: post #472

fvdessen wrote: post #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 viciou…

I cycle and I agree it's a superior form of transport. > cars are the single biggest reason why living in the city can be unpleasant I'm pretty sure rent / house prices are the #1 negative people cite about cities. A relatively new phenomenon. In cities where prices have not risen as much, like Detroit, I doubt people say cars are unpleasant. Ironically cars are probably depressing prices in the city significantly. F…

Cars and parking lots take up a loooot of space in many American cities though. Space that could have been used to build housing or businesses or mixed-use instead.

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

#528

Post by gordon_freeman » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:20 AM UTC

I'd love to buy an Electric car in a heartbeat as I think a lot about climate change and would love to play my part to reduce emissions by driving an EV but so far it is not just practical and affordable for me. The EMIs are high, range anxiety is there especially we go on a lot of road trips so when it came time to buy a new car I went with Corolla Hybrid. It gives 57 MPG and costs 300/month in EMI. And it is pretty reliable so looks like I'd need to wait a few years (5-7 years at least) to buy an EV.

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

#529

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:21 AM UTC

moistbar wrote: post #225

alex_g wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads like you're someone who's never cycled in a city.

On the contrary, if you act like a car, using the same streets as the cars is quite safe in my experience. I've safely cycled with a cello on my back by simply following the rules most cyclists claim to follow but ignore: stopping at stop lights, signalling when I'm about to turn. You know, looking out for my own safety. EDIT: If following the same rules as everyone else is too much to ask, maybe you should just stay…

How can you think that every bike accident or bike death is caused by the person on the bicycle, and not the person in the 4,000 lb ram?

there will be cases of fault by all kinds of parties, but to type out something like "Well I've never died and I'm safe, so if you died you must be dangerous" is mind-numbingly shallow.

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

#530

Post by digital-cygnet » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 3:21 AM UTC

nightski wrote: post #512

digital-cygnet wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

How many people want to live in dense cities without any means of escape? It sounds miserable to me. But I live in a really small city (< 250k) and drive maybe 3-5k miles a year (mostly to our cabin in a neighboring state) and bike a LOT. It's kind of ironic I am pretty far from your utopian dense dream yet largely living it.

I'm not sure I fully follow "I am pretty far from your utopian dense dream yet largely living it", but I think there are two potential points of disagreement:

1) Living in dense cities is not for everybody, but given that large and (at least pre-covid) growing majority of people in the developed world do choose to live in cities, I think it's safe to say that there is a very sizable demand. For an example of the benefits of density, see [0].

2) I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "means of escape", but getting rid of cars of course necessitates replacing them with other modalities. If you want to go skiing does it matter to you whether you take a train or a car? Or, for further afield trips, take a train to a car rental far from the city center? (If you mean escape in a literal sense, like "evacuate in the face of a disaster", then cars are clearly not fit for purpose -- if roads can barely handle rush hour traffic, mass evacuation is a recipe for gridlock)

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-01/how-densi...