Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths • Hacker News Board

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#191

Post by _robbywashere » Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 8:37 PM UTC

dimitrios1 wrote: post #141

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's plenty of space in the US; most roads can be half as wide and still service most cars. Plenty of space to build in a hard shoulder / fencing and a dedicated two-way bike lane. But that's only part of the problem, the amount of entitled, and selfish drivers that ignore traffic rules, lights and sometimes even roads is crazy.

In suburbia America, where bike lanes are abound and plenty of cyclists to boot, it is the cyclists that are entitled, selfish, arrogant, and ignore the traffic rules. They've recently resorted to riding 4-5 cyclists wide to take up the entire roadway. They ignore stop signs and traffic lights, trying to pass as a pedestrian whenever it is convenient, and have been responsible for many pedestrian related injuries. Fo…

Yet the worst is you are annoyed, not dead. Bicycles and cars are not the same.

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#192

Post by bobthebuilders » Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 8:40 PM UTC

dimitrios1 wrote: post #180

whoiskevin wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were able to find a few cyclists who misbehaved so we are going to justify killing them with 1 ton metal machines because we feel threatened by them?

This is the absolute least charitable interpretation of what I am saying.

Death because you are annoyed is not a good look you know. We shouldn't advocate that here.

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#193

Post by giraffe_lady » Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 8:54 PM UTC

tosser0001 wrote: post #72

mathieuh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the opposite opinion of painted-line bike paths: I'd rather they not be there at all. If they are there I feel forced to use them by drivers punishment passing me, despite the fact that the so-called bike lanes are full of glass, potholes and cars. If they aren't there I feel like I get treated with more patience when I ride in my normal road position, about 75 cm from the kerb.

I feel like I must be in a distinct minority because I personally prefer painted bike lanes over any other alternative. It's pretty rare in my own experience to have cars ignoring or being impatient with them (maybe because I like in a fairly bike-friendly city) I also don't like getting stuck behind really slow people in physically separate lanes where there's no room to pass.

My issue is that painted bike lanes are also de facto loading, waiting, and short term parking zones. The bike lane existing makes car drivers more hostile when I'm forced to enter "their" lane because of cars blocking mine.

Yes sure this is an enforcement issue I guess. Why not just build a physical barrier that doesn't require enforcement though.

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#194

Post by giraffe_lady » Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 9:04 PM UTC

ryzvonusef wrote: post #187

the real competition for bike paths will be for normal unpowered bikes and slow pedal-assist ebikes competing with fast throttle "ebikes" and electric scooters/mopeds. The fast bikes are still not fast enough and safe enough to ride with cars, but too fast for regular bike paths, so what will give?

The role those fill isn't that different from scooters, which are common in a lot of places. The traditional solution is to let them crowd the road, slowing car traffic and incentivizing using more scooters and other vehicles better able to navigate the congestion.

I am genuinely sincerely in favor of this. It's inelegant but effective. Driving a car should be more frustrating and uncomfortable than it currently is in the US. Giving slight advantages to slower, non-car road traffic can improve safety and increase the costs of driving over other options, which is long term good.

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#195

Post by jounker » Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 9:12 PM UTC

jhoelzel wrote: post #6

Here in Berlin you can easily get with the bike through the entire city. If you survive that is a different topic, but you could if you wanted! IMHO the future lies somewhere between bikes, elon musk and the city tram. What we actually need is a vehicle that fullfills all criteria in some form. For instance: getting out of your apartment and onto one of those scooters to the next subway station where you either conne…

I do bike through the city quite regularly. The city also has wonderful public transit. I’m not sure what more we actually need here, except 24/7 service on weekdays.

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#196

Post by stefan_ » Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 9:24 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #130

999900000999 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For myself cycling takes about twice as long. Assuming a peak physical condition, then driving. Taking the metro is a bit faster than cycling, I consider myself to be an okay shape. I still need to lose about 20 lb to get to where I want to be, and I still don't think I'd be up to the challenge of hopping on a bike for all my commuting needs. If you want to propose something, you have to factor in what people are wil…

Get an electric bike or scooter. The fact that the government is willing to offer thousands of dollars in subsidies for electric cars, when that amount could buy the best of the best electric bike or scooter is insane.

What are the subsidies up to now, $12,500 per car? I haven't spent that on bikes all my life, and it's been my primary transport. Paid retail for all of it, too, of course.

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#197

Post by pharmakom » Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 9:25 PM UTC

999900000999 wrote: post #63

blamazon wrote: post #9

If you live in a region where bike infrastructure is underfunded, and car infrastructure is overfunded, it’s probable that’s because cycling is viewed as a recreational activity in your area and thus undeserving of tax dollars compared to ‘essential’ car travel. If you disagree with that, (and live in a democracy) let someone know! Find out who controls the infrastructure spending in your area and call/email them.

I'm fairly anti-car myself, But factor in cycling is not practical transportation for most people. It targets a certain demographic, people who have the physical ability to actually cycle. What about those who cannot, what about disabled people? Even if you are fit, anything more that 10 miles a day is difficult. I'm a massive fan of public transit, however, as an American this means I can only live in a handful of c…

Disability comes in many forms. Many disabled people cannot legally drive but can cycle. Others cannot walk easily but can use a specialised bike. And yes, some can drive but not walk or cycle. But this idea that pro-bike = anti-disabled does not hold up.

More generally, if we want to make life easier for those who can only drive, we should get the able-bodied out of their cars to ease congestion.

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#198

Post by Diesel555 » Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 10:25 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #26

blamazon wrote: post #9

If you live in a region where bike infrastructure is underfunded, and car infrastructure is overfunded, it’s probable that’s because cycling is viewed as a recreational activity in your area and thus undeserving of tax dollars compared to ‘essential’ car travel. If you disagree with that, (and live in a democracy) let someone know! Find out who controls the infrastructure spending in your area and call/email them.

>>If you disagree with that, (and live in a democracy) let someone know! You know, I'm not sure that in the current moment in time there's much correlation between living in a democracy and the efficacy of petitioning the municipality/ government/ etc.

I just think people's perception in how easily their opinion should change public policy is wrong. And I'm glad it is. They usually don't know all the nuances behind a given policy.

I see people both irritated with the lack of change in American government while also not politically active (Facebook doesn't count).

Creating policy change is challenging in a government defined by federalism and representative democracy like the United States. I agree letting someone know is likely not enough to make a big change (and it shouldn't be). But if enough people think one way and let the right people know, then they can influence change. People need to organize. A large group that agrees on a topic has influence. Elected officials will listen to them because they can move a large number of votes. The group needs a way to communicate their desires and power (ie. numbers) to elected officials. This is usually accomplished via interest groups which can lobby for their interest. I know lobbying is a dirty word, but it exists on one end of the spectrum. The spectrum exists from attending a local town hall and voicing your solo opinion (which I recommend doing!) to smaller organizations on local issues all the way to the major interest groups (Sierra Club, NAACP, NRA, AARP, etc) voicing millions of opinions.

There is a correlation, but not on the magnitude per person, work required, or time frame that most people hope for. You likely won't make a meaningful change with a single letter (I say likely because you can find counterexamples).

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#199

Post by tohmeiphun » Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 11:13 PM UTC

jimmytidey wrote: post #189

tohmeiphun wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. Having a car maximizes your opportunity, so by making it difficult and expensive to own a car and drive hurts the people who need the help the most.

It really depends on the context. Driving is often the only feasible way to get around in sparsely populated areas, or areas with extreme weather. In densely populated temperate areas, cars are often no faster than other modes of transport (although they may be more comfortable), and they impose a very high cost on others, including: fatalities and injuries associated with traffic accidents, premature deaths and redu…

I live in Boston, in the 90's it was way easier to have a car. The bike lanes have cut our two lane main roads down to one which has created a lot of traffic, a lot more than in the past. And there's much less parking due to the bikes, but also the new developments. The Mayor of Boston in the 90's wouldn't let anyone build housing unless they provided a parking space for every bedroom. The new mayor just green lit a big development that will provide no parking spaces. Having a car is your independence, not having one make you dependent on the public transportation system. It's great if you can choose not to have a car, but I don't think it's fair to prevent other people from making that choice, or making it expensive or difficult.

Also, it's much more difficult to manage a family without a car. A woman I worked with had to pick her kids every now and then. She wasn't making a lot of money and she had to pay for her own parking. It was a good job for her, so she tried to make the commute work, but it's difficult. It was difficult before, but the quality of life has gone down because people want their bicycle utopia.

I've ridden a bike in Boston since the early nineties and I don't think it's any easier or any safer. I can't tell if the bike lanes are really for bicycles or for people who want to create a hassle for people who depend on their car for their family or job.

Did this help at all?

Re: Milan confirms new cycling network linking 80% of the city to bike paths

#200

Post by jimmytidey » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 12:03 AM UTC

tohmeiphun wrote: post #199

jimmytidey wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on the context. Driving is often the only feasible way to get around in sparsely populated areas, or areas with extreme weather. In densely populated temperate areas, cars are often no faster than other modes of transport (although they may be more comfortable), and they impose a very high cost on others, including: fatalities and injuries associated with traffic accidents, premature deaths and redu…

I live in Boston, in the 90's it was way easier to have a car. The bike lanes have cut our two lane main roads down to one which has created a lot of traffic, a lot more than in the past. And there's much less parking due to the bikes, but also the new developments. The Mayor of Boston in the 90's wouldn't let anyone build housing unless they provided a parking space for every bedroom. The new mayor just green lit a…

Thanks for your reply.

Ultimately it just depends on your vision of what you'd like your city to be like.

I would like everyone to have the option of cycling or walking around their city without fear of death or hospitalisation. It doesn't seem like an extremist position - the roads are for everyone, there is no intrinsic reason to prioritise cars.

It's so frustrating that it becomes part of some car vs bike culture war.