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

101–110 of 203 posts

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#101

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sliverstorm wrote: post #95
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that msellout feels (please correct), and I'm inclined to agree, that the assumption that cars are entitled on highways but cyclists are not is wrong. There is probably more benefit in having less cars and more cycles than the converse.

It rather sounds to me like he just wants all cars off the road, and I'm not sure how you could arrive at a different conclusion without applying liberal amounts of conjecture.

>he just wants all cars off the road

Personally I think he was using hyperbole; countering the suggestion that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road and questioning the assumption that the solution to cycle-auto conflict had to fall in favour of the car.

Conjecture? Indeed.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#102

Post by m0nty »

mrampton wrote: post #87

It's all too common (and easy) to lump cyclists into one group -- generally (in terms of policy and public opinion) in a way that encourages dislike. Cyclists are like any other subset of the population and it's unfair to any group to judge them based on the actions of others. That being that, I don't pretend that there aren't cyclists out there who misbehave -- I'm personally very aware of it because they're often t…

Thoughtful response :) Clearly, you're in the US? Because in GB, the situation doesn't even resemble what you describe. I've had near-misses with cars, but none of them deliberate, just careless, thoughtless, occasionally utterly incompetent. No verbal abuse, although on two occasions (for reasons still a mystery to me) motorists sounded their horns and made obscene gestures. I'm guessing they found me irresistibly sexy or something, and just had to let me know... Nobody has drawn up alongside me to tell me what they think of me or my bike-riding, and I strongly suspect I'd give them a smack in the mouth if they did.

Overall, most motorists I've encountered are happy to share the road, appreciate that I'm sticking to the rules and carry lights, etc, and there's no problem. While parts of the US are making immense progress with promoting cycling, it seems there are still places where there's a lot more to do. Still, whenever I do get any hassle from motorists, I just remind myself that fuel prices are rocketing and in a few years, they'll be cycling too.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#103

Post by graywh »

jrockway wrote: post #78
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've noticed that cars run as many stop signs as cyclists. The rule is come to a complete stop and yield to your left. Cars treat the rule as "sort of lower your speed and yield to people that haven't stopped quite as much". This is chaos. The cyclists are just doing what the other vehicles do. (Also, you can't be surprised that there are cyclists on the Lakefront Trail. If they ride on the streets, their average spe…

In the US and Canada, you generally yield to the driver on your right.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#104

Post by alexgartrell »

pyre wrote: post #93
ww520 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want car drivers to respect bikers, stop running red lights and stop signs. Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety rules, others would have less regard for your safety. The conserving momentum is just a BS excuse; stopping is for safety overall for everyone involved, not just you. A car can also run through stop sign to conserve momentum and save on gas but for overall safety sake it stops.

> Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety > rules, others would have less regard for your safety. Does that mean that I can treat people that ignore safety in cars the same way? Or does this 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over' attitude only extend to bikers?

I'd argue running red lights is stepping several feet over the line.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#105

Post by ww520 »

pyre wrote: post #93
ww520 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want car drivers to respect bikers, stop running red lights and stop signs. Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety rules, others would have less regard for your safety. The conserving momentum is just a BS excuse; stopping is for safety overall for everyone involved, not just you. A car can also run through stop sign to conserve momentum and save on gas but for overall safety sake it stops.

> Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety > rules, others would have less regard for your safety. Does that mean that I can treat people that ignore safety in cars the same way? Or does this 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over' attitude only extend to bikers?

Reckless behavior endangering others are looked on dimly, regardless it's a biker or driver.

No to the extreme exaggeration 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over.' It's more like 'if you run a red light or stop sign, I might accidentally run you over.'

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#106

Post by ww520 »

alexgartrell wrote: post #104
pyre wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety > rules, others would have less regard for your safety. Does that mean that I can treat people that ignore safety in cars the same way? Or does this 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over' attitude only extend to bikers?

I'd argue running red lights is stepping several feet over the line.

Yeah, it's more like miles over the line.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#107

Post by sjwright »

ww520 wrote: post #88
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…

If you want car drivers to respect bikers, stop running red lights and stop signs. Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety rules, others would have less regard for your safety. The conserving momentum is just a BS excuse; stopping is for safety overall for everyone involved, not just you. A car can also run through stop sign to conserve momentum and save on gas but for overall safety sake it stops.

If you think car drivers disrespect cyclists for safety reasons (e.g. running red lights) and not for inconveniencing car drivers (e.g. by momentarily slowing traffic flow in one lane) you're fucking deluded.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#108

Post by pyre »

ww520 wrote: post #105
pyre wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety > rules, others would have less regard for your safety. Does that mean that I can treat people that ignore safety in cars the same way? Or does this 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over' attitude only extend to bikers?

Reckless behavior endangering others are looked on dimly, regardless it's a biker or driver. No to the extreme exaggeration 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over.' It's more like 'if you run a red light or stop sign, I might accidentally run you over.'

It's my experience that a lot of people will get more pissed off at "someone using did " when is a bike. Maybe it's just that they've become numb to people doing dangerous things in cars because it happens so much more often?

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#109

Post by davidw »

nitrogen wrote: post #54
davidw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have a similar viewpoint here in Italy, where they don't stop for pedestrians at crosswalks. I once helped a "little old lady" cross the street, not by taking her arm, but by striding out to stop the flow of cars, who were very aggressively minimizing the time spent stopping for other users of the road.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#110

Post by tomkarlo »

marquis wrote: post #42
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…

Your arguments make sense in an environment where cycling isn't deeply inherent in a culture. I've cycled across NYC, Chicago and LA, and also Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and London, Paris and Barcelona. Amsterdam and Copenhagen are amazing: as a cyclist you feel completely respected and the sheer numbers of you give a sense of legitimacy. Your own traffic lights and true cycle lanes lead to really safe transport, and you…

It's important to note that both cycling and walking aren't "inherent" to cities or cultures. It's great to have a biking culture but it's also been repeatedly demonstrated that if you make it harder to drive (by reducing parking, using traffic calming, or using congestion charges) and easier to ride or walk (via bike lanes, mass transit, etc.), the population shifts its behavior over time, benefitting everyone.

I point this out only because saying it's cultural leads some folks to believe that if their city isn't currently bike/pedestrian friendly, it never will be. Too many cities in the US are simply heavily biased in their current setup towards cars yet everyone wonders why there's a traffic jam at rush hour.

Post reply on HN