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

The Economics of Bike Lanes

economicsintelligence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 203 posts

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#51

Post by Jun8 »

mturmon wrote: post #48
Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

It turns out, lots of people have this very same "little thing" to get off their chest. Every discussion of urban cycling goes off on this particular tangent. It's tiresome. If you talk to people who cycle in cities, you'll find a lot of anger and rage at drivers also. These people may be eccentric, but their opinion seems based on facts as well. So consider the other side. As a further catalyst, I challenge you, as…

Note that my comment was not for drivers vs. bikers but rather bikers vs. pedestrians.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#52

Post by Jun8 »

sliverstorm wrote: post #44
equalarrow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not had a car for over 20 years. I've ridden my bike forever - to/from school since I was in grade school. Currently I live in San Francisco which has, some could say, an aggressive bike culture. Sometimes, I am one of those guys and I used to ride in the monthly Critical Mass rides. The fact of the matter is that we live in a pro-car country. California in general is a very pro-car state. The drive in diner w…

The bias in both these comments is so thick I could cut it with a knife. One can barely ride a bicycle; one wishes he didn't own a car.

Couldn't understand why you are referring to my comment as "biased", I was trying to portray how bikers are seen from the viewpoint of the non-avid-biker pedestrians. Do you think my points were wrong or made-up? If so, it would be more useful to comment on those aspects.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#53

Post by afterburner »

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #38
Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

Nearly all of what you say is true. However, you neglect to mention that it all applies to pedestrians as well, and drivers of course have their own version of each. I have observed (and swerved to avoid) many pedestrians who don't use crosswalks, ignore crossing signals (it is not OK to start walking when the "don't walk" is flashing") , and walk right in front of bicycles in a bike lane with a green light, all beca…

Exactly, a thousand times this. We don't go around wishing there were no sidewalks just because pedestrians jaywalk, do we?

When I see a cyclist run a stop sign in front of me (and I always watch for this to happen), I think to myself: "if that was a pedestrian, they wouldn't have even had to stop at all, and would have taken a lot longer to cross leaving me waiting longer... so why be annoyed?"

But perhaps I can say this more easily because I both drive and cycle in a busy downtown area.

God forbid any of these picky, sensitive, rage-filled drivers drive in a country where not even cars follow simple rules like "staying in the lane"...

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#54

Post by nitrogen »

davidw wrote: post #11
Symmetry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that for a lot of people in the US, their experience with bike commuting involves being stuck behind a bicycle on a road that doesn't have bike lanes, causing a certain amount of free-floating antipathy towards bikers.

There's nothing that causes drivers to seethe with anger like losing whole seconds of their lives to happy people cruising along on bicycles.

The unlimited point-to-point mobility provided by a car allows people to optimize their routines almost down to the second, so losing 30 seconds behind a cyclist can make the difference between being on time and being late. Though this can be disputed, I would argue that aggressively minimizing time spent in transportation (and thus maximizing time spent at work or leisure) is beneficial to the economy and society.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#55

Post by khill »

bkor wrote: post #16
Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.

Bike lanes only work if they are physically separate from the road. Otherwise, they are covered with debris swept off the main road surface, populated by double-parked delivery trucks and cars,or a random hazard of opening car doors and cyclists who are too stupid to obey the rules of the road (e.g., riding the wrong direction).

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#56

Post by randallsquared »

mturmon wrote: post #48
Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

It turns out, lots of people have this very same "little thing" to get off their chest. Every discussion of urban cycling goes off on this particular tangent. It's tiresome. If you talk to people who cycle in cities, you'll find a lot of anger and rage at drivers also. These people may be eccentric, but their opinion seems based on facts as well. So consider the other side. As a further catalyst, I challenge you, as…

Where's the outrage at these drivers?

Is there a contingent of bikers somewhere angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60? If not, what does it have to do with anything? The violations that people get upset about are those that actively endanger or inconvenience them or people like them.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#57

Post by lazerwalker »

equalarrow wrote: post #39
Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

I have not had a car for over 20 years. I've ridden my bike forever - to/from school since I was in grade school. Currently I live in San Francisco which has, some could say, an aggressive bike culture. Sometimes, I am one of those guys and I used to ride in the monthly Critical Mass rides. The fact of the matter is that we live in a pro-car country. California in general is a very pro-car state. The drive in diner w…

I think you're mistaken in dividing it up into a cars vs. bikes/pedestrians binary.

There are motorists who act completely inappropriately towards bikers, and there are bikers who act in a manner that is equally unbefitting. Both are a big problem, and the one doesn't justify the other.

Personally, as a non-car-owning biker, it really upsets me when I see fellow cyclists acting like dicks. It makes it that much harder for us to be taken seriously.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#58

Post by defen »

mturmon wrote: post #48
Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

It turns out, lots of people have this very same "little thing" to get off their chest. Every discussion of urban cycling goes off on this particular tangent. It's tiresome. If you talk to people who cycle in cities, you'll find a lot of anger and rage at drivers also. These people may be eccentric, but their opinion seems based on facts as well. So consider the other side. As a further catalyst, I challenge you, as…

My perspective - I live in San Francisco and have neither a car nor a bike, so I don't think I'm biased.

I think part of the problem is that most urban pedestrians have fully internalized the threat model of bad drivers. Look both ways before crossing the street, don't assume that the driver sees you, cars are generally found on the roads, etc. On the other hand, we haven't fully internalized the threat model of bad bikers. Sometimes they're on the sidewalk, sometimes they're blowing through stop signs alongside a stopped car (so the average pedestrian thinks it's safe because the only thing that could hit him is stopped at the intersection). So bad bikers are more noticeable (to me at least) because I've never had a close call with a bad driver while walking. But both the biker things I described were near-collisions that have happened to me.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#59

Post by msellout »

sliverstorm wrote: post #44
equalarrow wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not had a car for over 20 years. I've ridden my bike forever - to/from school since I was in grade school. Currently I live in San Francisco which has, some could say, an aggressive bike culture. Sometimes, I am one of those guys and I used to ride in the monthly Critical Mass rides. The fact of the matter is that we live in a pro-car country. California in general is a very pro-car state. The drive in diner w…

The bias in both these comments is so thick I could cut it with a knife. One can barely ride a bicycle; one wishes he didn't own a car.

You could also call it, "opinion," instead of, "bias."

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#60

Post by msellout »

randallsquared wrote: post #56
mturmon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out, lots of people have this very same "little thing" to get off their chest. Every discussion of urban cycling goes off on this particular tangent. It's tiresome. If you talk to people who cycle in cities, you'll find a lot of anger and rage at drivers also. These people may be eccentric, but their opinion seems based on facts as well. So consider the other side. As a further catalyst, I challenge you, as…

Where's the outrage at these drivers? Is there a contingent of bikers somewhere angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60? If not, what does it have to do with anything? The violations that people get upset about are those that actively endanger or inconvenience them or people like them.

I am a biker that is angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60. It's bad for gas mileage (and thus hurts me indirectly through climate change and trade deficits), it's bad for safety (and thus hurts me indirectly through costs of government service personnel and road repairs), and it promotes an attitude of automobile entitlement that hinders my safe cycling.
Post reply on HN